[GenerationW]

A 2000 room resort with convention space alone would be a great engine for future development. A huge entertainment complex is a great engine for future development also. The fact that only 5% of this will be a casino does not give u s a reason to pass on this opportunity.

Your "5%" casino clearly would drive whatever else might be built along with it, not the other way around. Downplaying the casino aspect won't get you anywhere.

And here we go. The good old "Toronto council wants to destroy our city argument"....

With a competition and many designs, I think that we will get something good. I also think our city government actually wants whats best for Toronto, even if they do not always make the best choices.

My point was that a pro-casino Council could approve a terrible design (even with a competition), or limit the scope and only approve a small casino.

Where have you been? That's the WHOLE , ENTIRE point of this.

I want to see it in writing. Show me a mission statement. Cool is arguing that economic development is a pretty large selling point of his 5% casino, in which case, again, I would pass.

If a casino is built in Toronto, it would be packed every day! Port Perry, Brantford, probably Rama too would cease to exist.

Seems like a strong argument against a Toronto casino if it would kill existing casinos in the area. Why would the OLG be willing to make such a sacrifice?

 

[coolcanadian]

My Responses are in bold.

Your "5%" casino clearly would drive whatever else might be built along with it, not the other way around. Downplaying the casino aspect won't get you anywhere.

I have already commented on this exact "issue". I find this comment very stupid. Saying the casino is only 5% of the development doesn't "downplay" it... It's true. We really should not care what would drive what. So what if the casino makes more money than the shops, restaurants, shows, etc... How does that matter at all? We would still be getting a 95% hotel/entertainment-complex. Those who do not gamble would have just as much -- if not more -- use of it. It shouldn't matter at all if the casino part is the economic driver that keeps the rest of it alive. Even if you do not like a casino, hotel and convention space, restaurants, and more entertainment options is a good thing. And so what if the rest of it does bad? This is a private company.

My point was that a pro-casino Council could approve a terrible design (even with a competition), or limit the scope and only approve a small casino.

That's a funny comment to make. When multiple companies all want a to build billion dollar project, and only one of them can, they will all try their best to make it as amazing and magnificent as possible. The city is not going to pick the ugliest design. That does not make any sense. It's not like we are the ones building it and spending the money. Its a private company. The city wants the nicest project built. Why do you think council wants to ruin our city?

I want to see it in writing. Show me a mission statement. Cool is arguing that economic development is a pretty large selling point of his 5% casino, in which case, again, I would pass.

Do you really not think a 2000 room hotel and huge convention space, as well as thousands of jobs, provides economic development? 5% casino is a huge factor, because it shows how much more we are getting than just a casino.

Seems like a strong argument against a Toronto casino if it would kill existing casinos in the area. Why would the OLG be willing to make such a sacrifice?


Seems like a pretty soft argument. Why should Toronto limit itself because smaller towns might have to close their casinos? First of all, you seem anti-casino, so the thought of 4 closing to make way for one should excite you. Even if you are just talking about jobs, the project in Toronto will probably hire more people than all three casinos mentioned combined. Huge conventions and tourists will also contribute to the economy. We cannot stop building in our city because other towns will get mad. OLG would make the sacrifice because a Toronto casino would obviously do better than one so far away. Even 3 far away. They are not clueless. They wan't to build one in Toronto (GTA), and they know that the others will probably suffer.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

coolcanadian:

When multiple companies all want a to build billion dollar project, and only one of them can, they will all try their best to make it as amazing and magnificent as possible. The city is not going to pick the ugliest design. That does not make any sense. It's not like we are the ones building it and spending the money. Its a private company. The city wants the nicest project built. Why do you think council wants to ruin our city?

You are equating a large budget to architectural excellence, which is NOT something that's guaranteed. I am fairly sure a good chunk of the architecturally sub-par, urbanistically bankrupt projects in say LV also have multi-billion dollar costs attached to them. And I hate to bring it to you - the city does not have much of a lever when it comes to the architectural design of the project.

Do you really not think a 2000 room hotel and huge convention space, as well as thousands of jobs, provides economic development? 5% casino is a huge factor, because it shows how much more we are getting than just a casino.

Not to say that there aren't economic benefits necessarily - but I think you are overstating the impact when you ignore the quality of the jobs a casino/hotel provides, for example. This particular service sector isn't particularly well known for quality employment.

AoD

 

[coolcanadian]

You are equating a large budget to architectural excellence, which is NOT something that's guaranteed. I am fairly sure a good chunk of the architecturally sub-par, urbanistically bankrupt projects in say LV also have multi-billion dollar costs attached to them. And I hate to bring it to you - the city does not have much of a lever when it comes to the architectural design of the project.
AoD

Here we go again, comparing to Las Vegas. You cannot compare a project in Toronto to something in Vegas. LV is completely different. The only things you can fairly compare this too are projects like the Melbourne Crown and Marina Bay Sands. Las Vegas is completely different than anything we would see in Toronto. The economic state in vegas is very different than Toronto's. The design style in Vegas is different. The kind of proposals are different.

Aslo, it is very probably that a billion dollar project that many companies are interested in is going to have an impressive design. There have already been comments by MGM that about the skyline, transit, and the city around the project. They are not planning on putting a Las Vegas resort in Toronto. It would be something completely different.

There will probably be a competition, and it is likely the designs will be impressive. Do you think the Crown has bad architecture? What about Marina Bay Sands? You can compare this to those because they are both on the waterfront in the downtown of a non "casino/resort city", just like Toronto.

Not to say that there aren't economic benefits necessarily - but I think you are overstating the impact when you ignore the quality of the jobs a casino/hotel provides, for example. This particular service sector isn't particularly well known for quality employment.

I disagree. What is wrong with working in a hotel, restaurant, or theatre? Even a casino. Many of these people love their jobs, and I think you are wrong by saying they are low quality.

Figures from Crown Melbourne:

- State’s largest single-site, private sector employer with over 6,500 employees, over 3,300 contractors and over $350 Million annual payroll

- Extensive training facilities with Crown College with over 10,000 employees trained in the past 13 years

- Support for local businesses, with over $125 Million in annual expenditure with suppliers of goods and services

- Induction of over 25,000 new employees in the past 13 years

- 21% of employees have worked at Crown for over 10 years

- 75 apprentices

- 3,342 traineeships

Even if the jobs were only part time, they are still jobs. Something we need in this day and age.

Also, if the jobs are so bad why do some people here say we should keep the smaller ones open because of jobs and use that as a reason too not build this?


I would like to show the members of the forum this video.

[video=youtube;_IZIkiuYAy0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZIkiuYAy0[/video]

I do not show you this video to be just another "glitzy" photograph. I would like to start out by saying the Marina Bay Sands is much more of an entertainment complex than just a casino. Similar to what we could be getting. A facility with 5% casino is similar to this. 95% entertainment complex. It really doesn't matter if the casino is the driver of money.

When you finish watching the video, think about this: What do you remember most? Is the image of a casino branded into your mind? When I finish watching it, the casino seems like just another feature. Just like what we would see here. Think about everything we are getting. It is not at all just a casino! It's an entire complex.

It was built at 5.7 Billion dollars. Thats within our range. Marina bay Sands has 2500 hotel rooms. Similar to us.

There is so much more than just a casino resort.

There is a convention-exhibition centre, impressive shopping complex, an iconic ArtScience museum, two large theatres, seven “celebrity chef” restaurants, two floating Crystal Pavilions, an ice skating rink, and an atrium casino with 500 tables and 1,600 slot machines.

Now, compare that too Fallsview Casino. Fallsview has over 3000 slot machines and over 100 tables. Montreal Casino has 3200 slot machines, over 115 gaming tables.

So, why would two "small" Canadian casinos have less slots than the huge Marina Bay Sands, and even the Crown Casino? Well, perhaps it's because those places are actually entertainment complexes rather than casinos mainly. See how only 5% of a complex does not mean the entire complex is bad?

The complex is topped by a 340m-long SkyPark with a capacity of 3,900 people and a 150m swimming pool.

See how much more this is than a casino? And it is very likely we will see something like this in Toronto. The company that made Marina Bay is also considering Toronto. Also, with only 5% of it a casino, this is the kind of thing we will see. Everything it gets negatively compared to is nothing like what we will be getting. Vegas resorts cannot be compared to a city integrated hotel. And there is nothing else in canada even similar to this.

A photo (not meant to be shiny or fake) that could be used in comparison to what type of thing we could see would be this:

Look at the entire complex. The waterfront. This would be nothing like a small little casino.



The best comparisons I can think of are Marina Bay Sands and Crown Melbourne. Both billion dollar projects, both on the waterfront, both near the CBD, both entire entertainment-complexes, both in real Cities (not tourist cities) and both pretty well designed.

The problem is, they are both pretty successful, provide jobs, and attract tourists. They are good examples. How can a casino be good? Casinos are terrible. We must compare this to failed projects in Vegas, or casinos like Rama or in AC or Detroit... Honestly people!! This can be something to be proud of! Yes, not every billion dollar project has an amazing design, but more do than don't. I think odds are this will.

 

[Dan416]

coolcanadian, I have no problem at all with building a casino in Toronto (or failing that, in Mississauga), but reading through these pages, I find your postings of endless pictures...unhelpful.

I think you should take your own advice and just wait it out until there's some announcement or competition or whatever. Something that we can actually judge the merits of.

For instance, we can judge the merits of Toronto waterfront or Mississauga waterfront or Markham locations, since those are the ones shortlisted.

I certainly wouldn't call it a "done deal". But the wheels are in motion, and the best thing to do would be to ensure that if we build a casino, that it's done right.

 

[coolcanadian]

coolcanadian, I have no problem at all with building a casino in Toronto (or failing that, in Mississauga), but reading through these pages, I find your postings of endless pictures...unhelpful.

I think you should take your own advice and just wait it out until there's some announcement or competition or whatever. Something that we can actually judge the merits of.

For instance, we can judge the merits of Toronto waterfront or Mississauga waterfront or Markham locations, since those are the ones shortlisted.

I certainly wouldn't call it a "done deal". But the wheels are in motion, and the best thing to do would be to ensure that if we build a casino, that it's done right.

That is fair, but I find the posts by other members that say "just because its a billion dollar project doesn't mean it will look nice" and "casinos ruin the public realm" because there are many examples where that is not true. In fact, the Marina Bay Sands is one of the examples that the OLG is looking at closely. I think it is appropriate to show photos of something that might have similarities to our casino.

I understand that "not every billion dollar project has a great design", but do you truly believe that a project in which 4 companies are fighting over, with a cost of over 2 billion, and along our waterfront, will have a bad design? I find that hard to believe. They are not building a billion dollar power plant! Its a hotel! Its an entertainment complex! All the examples that are comparable seem to have good designs.

I find it kind of ironic that the same people who say

When they say 2-6 billion dollars, it means 2. What can we really get with 2 billion? It won't be nice.

But then, when the MGM says it will be around $5 billion

Just because something is 5 billion dollars, doesn't mean its nice.

In a way, that is true, but odds are it will be nice. Marina Bay Sands kind of thing is likely to be one of the sources of inspiration. Look at the video above, and see how much more this will be than just a casino.

It's not like I'm taking a guess and saying that there might be more than just a casino. 95% of it will not be a casino!! If we were to take the 5 billion, 95% of it would be $4 750 000 000!! So we are getting a 4 billion dollar entertainment complex and a $250 000 000 casino (although the funds probably will not be distributed like that).

Marina Bay Sands is very likely to be the king of thing that we see.

Rod Phillips, the CEO of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., and Paul Godfrey, its chairman, appear to be on the right track. Such a development would not work if it is tawdry or grim or both. Mr. Godfrey hopes for an “integrated,” high-quality facility on the shore of Lake Ontario, near the major downtown hotels, in which a casino would only be one element, accompanied by good restaurants and theatres – rather like the Marina Bay Sands complex in Singapore. In principle, such a project is quite desirable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

coolcanadian:

That is fair, but I find the posts by other members that say "just because its a billion dollar project doesn't mean it will look nice" and "casinos ruin the public realm" because there are many examples where that is not true. In fact, the Marina Bay Sands is one of the examples that the OLG is looking at closely. I think it is appropriate to show photos of something that might have similarities to our casino.

No offense to you, but we know what Marina Sands look like already - you have posted umpteen pics of it, and if we wanted details, we can google it. You are quite frankly behaving in a manner that is borderine spamming. And for the record, I didn't say a casino will by default ruin the public realm - but I think we should exercise caution when there is nothing solid about the pre-proposal "budget", much less anything about the design.

Many of these people love their jobs, and I think you are wrong by saying they are low quality.

Whether they love their job or not is a very different notion than the economic characteristics of jobs in the hotel/service sector. Ranting off a bunch of figures (2010) from the media release of the Crown Casino - which you haven't even bothered to cite/source (http://www.crownltd.com.au/Assets/F...Crown_Entertainment_Complex_Facts_Figures.pdf) tells me nothing about that issue.

It was built at 5.7 Billion dollars. Thats within our range. Marina bay Sands has 2500 hotel rooms. Similar to us.

Marina Bay is an $8B project (2009 figures) as per Wiki, not 5.7.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Cool Canadian has officially moved me into the NO camp with his photos. They make me recoil. I really don't want crap like that in the Port Lands. The fact that casino proponents think this is helpful to the cause really flummoxes me.

 

[coolcanadian]

We cannot realistically comment on this without seeing the proposal and design of what we will get. Every place is different. OLG has said they are looking at Marina Bay Sands for inspiration. This is not at all just a casino. You cannot say yes or no before seeing something.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

We cannot realistically comment on this without seeing the proposal and design of what we will get. Every place is different. OLG has said they are looking at Marina Bay Sands for inspiration. This is not at all just a casino. You cannot say yes or no before seeing something.

Then stop posting the photos. 'Cause that thing walks like a casion and quacks like a casino.

 

[adma]

Actually, it isn't even a unilateral matter of "casino" here. In fact, the word "casino" is a distraction--though I'm presuming that due to coolcanadian's beneath-legal-age youth, he hasn't really grasped the full implications of casinos, gaming, etc. To him, it's still akin to the face value of happy winners pursuing their dreams in Lotto Max commercials.

But even if the casinos weren't part of the equation, it is grotesque to think that these "entertainment complexes", however superficially snazzy in their architecture and presentation, are an ideal thing for Toronto.

Thus, metaphorically speaking, this remains a matter of coolcanadian saying "when I grow up, I want to marry a Victoria's Secret model"--and posting picture after picture of Victoria's Secret models to make his point. And then when we tell him that, uh, that's not how you go about things in pursuing love and marriage, he keeps posting them: "aren't they swell? how can anyone refuse them?"

 

[coolcanadian]

Actually, it isn't even a unilateral matter of "casino" here. In fact, the word "casino" is a distraction--though I'm presuming that due to coolcanadian's beneath-legal-age youth, he hasn't really grasped the full implications of casinos, gaming, etc. To him, it's still akin to the face value of happy winners pursuing their dreams in Lotto Max commercials.

But even if the casinos weren't part of the equation, it is grotesque to think that these "entertainment complexes", however superficially snazzy in their architecture and presentation, are an ideal thing for Toronto.

Thus, metaphorically speaking, this remains a matter of coolcanadian saying "when I grow up, I want to marry a Victoria's Secret model"--and posting picture after picture of Victoria's Secret models to make his point. And then when we tell him that, uh, that's not how you go about things in pursuing love and marriage, he keeps posting them: "aren't they swell? how can anyone refuse them?"

You are so wrong. An entertainment complex like this would attract tourists, provide jobs, and help or economy. In fact, I think it is just what Toronto needs to attract people. All of our established neighbourhoods will still be intact. It will give people more of a reason to come, and then they will stay to explore our whole city. It's better than more condos going up. The economic impact could be more beneficial than any other project in the city.

I am not saying every attraction in our city needs to be like this. However, if it is something that a lot of the population will enjoy, if it provides many jobs, if it attracts many people, if it gives the city a lot of money, if it gives people another reason to come, if it's a nice addition to the skyline, if it's a good waterfront feature.. then why not build it? It could even help smaller local businesses.

The Crown in Melbourne provides support for local businesses, with over $125 Million in annual expenditure with suppliers of goods and services.

I am not saying every thing in Toronto needs to be a big entertainment complex. But having something like this would be beneficial to our city. The problems associated with gambling should not be such a factor when deciding on if this should be built or not, as there is a casino at the CNE, various casinos outside the GTA, and one to be built within the GTA if not downtown Toronto.

The negative effects will be stronger if something is just a casinos (built in the GTA) rather than an entertainment complex (downtown). It is stupid to pass up this opportunity.

I don't understand the big deal from the negative point if view? If you hate casinos, well Toronto already has one during the summer, there are many less than 2 hours away, and the GTA is getting one no matter what.

If you hate entertainment complexes that are high end and many people will enjoy, along with a huge amount of jobs and income, and tourists.. well that seems foolish

 

[adma]

If you hate entertainment complexes that are high end and many people will enjoy, along with a huge amount of jobs and income, and tourists.. well that seems foolish

The problem is this: what you're constantly framing as "high end" and "world class" is, more often than not, the kind of overloaded kitsch and schlock which Donald Trump is commonly ridiculed for. And--big freaking deal if it's something "many people enjoy". It's garbage.

And as far as what "many people will enjoy"--well, Toronto already has a decent-enough layer of sporting events, Mirvish musicals, etc, to satisfy that demo without overkill or self-prostitution.

Finally--what kinds of tourists really need a massive-entertainment-complex array as a crutch? All in all, it leads me to wonder what your own family travel habits are like--sounds to me like you'd be in a disoriented plastic bubble beyond "potboiler" cruise-shippy tourist attractions.

If you want "high end", aim at the people who'd opt for Vienna over Cancun. Don't aim at the people who'd opt for the most "high end" resort in Cancun.

 

[coolcanadian]

The problem is this: what you're constantly framing as "high end" and "world class" is, more often than not, the kind of overloaded kitsch and schlock which Donald Trump is commonly ridiculed for. And--big freaking deal if it's something "many people enjoy". It's garbage.

And as far as what "many people will enjoy"--well, Toronto already has a decent-enough layer of sporting events, Mirvish musicals, etc, to satisfy that demo without overkill or self-prostitution.

Finally--what kinds of tourists really need a massive-entertainment-complex array as a crutch? All in all, it leads me to wonder what your own family travel habits are like--sounds to me like you'd be in a disoriented plastic bubble beyond "potboiler" cruise-shippy tourist attractions.

If you want "high end", aim at the people who'd opt for Vienna over Cancun. Don't aim at the people who'd opt for the most "high end" resort in Cancun.

I have to disagree with you again.

We have Mirvish musicals, but this wouldn't be a place for musicals. It would probably get a permanent kind of Cirque Du Soleil show -- something that is very enjoyable, and something we do not have. Look at Cirque Iris, or Ka, etc. They are spectacular.

We have sporting events... This would not be for sports.

We have convention space... but more convention space, attached to a huge hotel, would bring even more events to Toronto.

Yes, we have "decent-enough" attractions, as you say, but what is wrong with expanding what we have? I for one, along with pretty much everyone I know, would greatly enjoy going to the complex. Seeing whatever shows they have on, shopping, etc.

The hotel would be another addition to our 5-star list, but would probably much more affordable than the other 5 star hotels because its part of the casino complex.

Even the fact that we will have a real casino, as opposed to the temporary one at the Ex, shouldn't be a bad thing.

The amount of jobs this would provide, and the amount of money it would bring in, would be unprecedented. I think it is almost selfish to say we don't need something because it is "cruise-shippy". This isn't even about a casino anymore. The new question is: do we want an entertainment complex that even people who do not gamble will enjoy, and will employ thousands, or not?

Are you suggesting that all Toronto needs is museums and science centres? First of all, a museum-type thing could easily be included with this. Look at Marina Bay Sands, one of our confirmed sources of inspiration. It has a huge, great museum.

Is more shopping bad? Are high-end restaurants bad (and yes, restaurants can be high-end).

I think any unemployed person would have no problem working here. We cannot stop economic development because, in your opinion, we do not need this.

Are shopping malls bad? What about Wonderland? Adding something like this to our list of attractions does not mean that we can't have Vienna-like attractions as well. It just means that we will have more of a variety.

If many people would enjoy these attractions, and we don't have them in our city, then what is the problem with building them?

It's not like we're building a brothel. This would be a place to shop, eat, play, stay, and just have fun.

Even the fact that you are comparing this to a Cancun thing, as opposed to Vienna, is pretty weird. First of all, it is almost a matter of opinion. Many people would rather goto Cancun than Vienna. Many people would rather goto Vienna. They are different. But saying Cancun is bad is wrong. Its opinion! What kind of vacation do YOU want? Millions of people enjoy Cancun very much. In building something like this, we are appealing to all types of tourists. Vienna tourists could explore other parts of the city. Even come here for a day and see the museum. Whatever.

But it is very foolish to say no to this because of your reason that it is too cruise-shippy. It is a type of attraction that Toronto does not have. Even without counting tourists, the amount of jobs it would provide would be great! I am excited to see what is done.

adma, I feel like your against he Olympics or Expo also, because they are big and attract a lot of people.

There is nothing wrong with going on a European vacation, in fact I love Europe. But I also loved Disney World and Vegas. They are all completely different. One is not necessarily better than the other.

 

[PinkLucy]

It's not like we're building a brothel. This would be a place to shop, eat, play, stay, and just have fun.

I don't know, that could describe a brothel too.