News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

Yes there will be problems. I just don't like the cavalier attitude of "oh we'll, there will be problems. We might as well make money from it". Life doesn't always boil down to dollars and cents

First of all, not everyone who gambles is addicted. Many people casually enjoy it. The fact that the effects of a casino will be felt throughout the GTA means it doesn't really matter where it goes from that perspective.

We have the option to either provide thousands of jobs, create something iconic, attract tourists, and add another great designation to our city OR put a boring casino-only facility somewhere else in the GTA that will just contribute negatively in that there will likely be a very small positive impact.

95% of this project has no social problems attached to this. Why let a multi-billion dollar entertainment complex goto waste because 5% of it contains a casino?

this isn't boiling down to dollar and cents.. its saying lets make the most of it
 
Last edited:
You're a big fan of Disney. That is done without a casino. Plenty of entertainment venues are done without casinos. And I believe the 5% thing has already been debunked.
 
You're a big fan of Disney. That is done without a casino. Plenty of entertainment venues are done without casinos. And I believe the 5% thing has already been debunked.

I used Disney in my example, I wouldn't say I'm a big fan. I see no problem with a huge entertainment complex that contains casino. It is evident that we will probably never see an entertainment complex of this scope without a casino attached.

I know your opinion on the 5% thing, but I strongly disagree with it. Just because the casino is the major drive for the complex does not mean we don't need it. That is so weird to say. It should not matter what makes the most money in the complex. The fact is, the casino will only be 5% of the complex, and teh rest will be an entertainment complex! It should not matter if 95% of the profits come from the casino. That does not make the rest of teh complex any worse. Once again, I will ask you to look at Marina Bay Sands. It would NEVER have been built without the casino component, but look at what it is! Its a huge place that families can enjoy, and that is the type of thing they want to build here.

They do not want to build a casino. They want to build an integrated resort, which is much more. It will not be done without a casino, but so what? It is by far better than just having a casino in some suburb. take something that isn't that good (a casino) and let it be part of something great!



It's like this:

Downtown Toronto
Suburb
Attract tourists and locals​
Only attract locals​
Enjoyed by the entire family​
Only enjoyed by people who gamble​
Provide thousands of jobs, and thousands more indirectly​
Provide far less jobs, very little multiplier effect​
Iconic design​
Just a casino... nuff said​
Provide hotel space, attract conventions​
Little hotel space, if any. No conventions​
Provide countless other activities in addition to the casino​
Only provide a casino, maybe a small even space.​



Why would we build in some suburb if the social effects will be the same downtown, and building downtown means we would also provide jobs, attract tourists, and have more entertainment options for the entire family.
 
Last edited:
I do live in Toronto, and adma, I would like to ask you to stop trying to insult me. Being an asshole will not help get your point across. You are implying that if we do not build a casino, Toronto will be turned into a European city with museums, and we will attract more sophisticated tourists. Any judgement call is not opinion, but someones artistic tastes are. I'm not saying Thomas Kinkade's prices are equal to a line of modern art, or anything like that. I'm not saying that just because many people like modern art, it means that it is better. Look at how many people like Justin Bieber, even though the Beatles are better. However, if so many people like Justin Bieber, is it bad to have a Bieber concert in Toronto? If so many people like modern art, is it bad to build a modern art gallery in Toronto? Just because people like other type of art does not mean we cannot also have some of Thomas Kinkade's work in our city. It just means certain people enjoy certain things. Honestly, stop saying things about what my family is like, where I live, etc. It is off topic and just rude.

I am not saying Disney World is better than Europe. However, I am saying there are a lot of people who would enjoy a trip to Disney just as much as a trip to Europe. That does not mean that Europe is bad, and having one does not mean you cannot have the other. DisneyWorld Paris!! LOL its has both.

In conclusion, my point is, if we build an entertainment complex in Toronto that attracts many people, it does not mean we cannot build a Thomas Kinkade art gallery or a museum. If millions of people would enjoy this facility, why not build it? It means we will have more for people to do, it does not mean that nobody will come to our museums. In fact, it could even include a museum, i.e. Marina Bay Sands.

Sure--why not build it. But to treat it as a beneficial "must have" for the city simply because of said "millions of people"...

Look: you have to remember something. The way you've been pitching this casino/entertainment complex biz throughout this thread, you've been consistently undermining your own argument through your purple prose. You're talking about "high end" and "world class" in a tone akin to those who love to speak of their "taste and sophistication" because they have the biggest Thomas Kinkade collection in town That's not good. That's grotesque.

Then again, maybe that's the 15-year-old talking. Because when I think of stuff like this in Forest Hill

3350692219_6acc30c2e2_z.jpg


it seems like a 15-year-old's immature idea of "class" and "sophistication". Maybe that's the thing about merchants in McMansion teardowns: they're in an eternal state of 15-year-old...

And somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if coolcanadian's parents would build and live in such a thing.
 
Sure--why not build it. But to treat it as a beneficial "must have" for the city simply because of said "millions of people"...

Look: you have to remember something. The way you've been pitching this casino/entertainment complex biz throughout this thread, you've been consistently undermining your own argument through your purple prose. You're talking about "high end" and "world class" in a tone akin to those who love to speak of their "taste and sophistication" because they have the biggest Thomas Kinkade collection in town That's not good. That's grotesque.

Then again, maybe that's the 15-year-old talking. Because when I think of stuff like this in Forest Hill

3350692219_6acc30c2e2_z.jpg


it seems like a 15-year-old's immature idea of "class" and "sophistication". Maybe that's the thing about merchants in McMansion teardowns: they're in an eternal state of 15-year-old...

And somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if coolcanadian's parents would build and live in such a thing.

Again with your stupid attacks on me. Stop being an asshole. Honestly.

Are you so dumb that you cannot understand a hotel can be nice, a restaurant can be nice, shows can be nice. All of this Would be in the complex, and building this does not mean we cannot have other kinds of things.

You seem to think its better to stick the casino out in some suburb that would only provide negative effects.

If built in the suburb, the casino would only have negative effects. It would only be used by citizens, only gamblers. Downtown it would be a destination that everyone could enjoy, provide many jobs, and attract tourists.
 
Again with your stupid attacks on me. Stop being an asshole. Honestly.

Are you so dumb that you cannot understand a hotel can be nice, a restaurant can be nice, shows can be nice. All of this Would be in the complex, and building this does not mean we cannot have other kinds of things.

You seem to think its better to stick the casino out in some suburb that would only provide negative effects.

If built in the suburb, the casino would only have negative effects. It would only be used by citizens, only gamblers. Downtown it would be a destination that everyone could enjoy, provide many jobs, and attract tourists.

Sure, it can be nice. But there are a whole slew of other ways create "destinations that everyone could enjoy, provide many jobs, and attract tourists"--that are less inherently T.A.C.K.Y. And there's nothing like the kinds of big casino-type "entertainment destinations" to even render the so-called "nice" inherently tacky.

And maybe a point with the posted image is this: Toronto needs your kind of "entertainment attraction" like a hole in the head, just like Forest Hill needs those kinds of McMansion teardowns like a hole in the head. Even if "millions of people" might find that architecture pleasing, or even preferable (in aesthetics, at least) to this

3617016404_c3194a851b.jpg


And let that "taste of millions" speak for (or rather, against) itself.
 
Sure, it can be nice. But there are a whole slew of other ways create "destinations that everyone could enjoy, provide many jobs, and attract tourists"--that are less inherently T.A.C.K.Y. And there's nothing like the kinds of big casino-type "entertainment destinations" to even render the so-called "nice" inherently tacky.

And maybe a point with the posted image is this: Toronto needs your kind of "entertainment attraction" like a hole in the head, just like Forest Hill needs those kinds of McMansion teardowns like a hole in the head. Even if "millions of people" might find that architecture pleasing, or even preferable (in aesthetics, at least) to this

3617016404_c3194a851b.jpg


And let that "taste of millions" speak for (or rather, against) itself.

I disagree. I think that this could become an iconic place for Toronto. Does everyone of your posts have to bring up McMansions?

Also, you seem to think every resort is T.A.C.K.Y which is also not true. Maybe you should stop complaining until we see a render, and then I can say I told you so because it will very likely be iconic and fantastic.
 
I disagree. I think that this could become an iconic place for Toronto. Does everyone of your posts have to bring up McMansions?

Also, you seem to think every resort is T.A.C.K.Y which is also not true. Maybe you should stop complaining until we see a render, and then I can say I told you so because it will very likely be iconic and fantastic.

I highlighted "iconic and fantastic", because that is a problem with your manner of posting. And I bring up McMansions because that's also a problem with your manner of posting. You write like a McMansion is designed. And as a consequence, just as a McMansion get only tackier the more it's embellished with overscaled detail, the more you bring up this "iconic and fantastic", the more you turn us off this so-called "iconic and fantastic". And the way you're so utterly fixated upon these resort-like attractions, well...it seems to me that in your family travels, there's little of substance beyond such "family attractions". It isn't just that you go to them; it's like you absolutely need them, otherwise you're lost in the woods--maybe even more particularly your parents than yourself, if they're the sort who are absolutely incompetent or disinterested in any form of travel that goes beyond lounging on the beach or taking the brats to some mega-attraction. It's almost like what one would expect in a kid growing up in a McMansion family that "doesn't know better".

So...let's sober down here. And let's take the most "integrated" (and perhaps most potentially Toronto-compatible) case here: Melbourne. And I'd argue: yeah, fine and dandy. But in the end, Melbourne didn't necessarily need that kind of crutch to be an attractive tourist destination. It's an embellishment, not a game-changing be-all and end-all a la Bilbao Guggenheim. If it didn't happen, Melbourne wouldn't be all that worse off...
 
CoolCanadian, when I talk about the human cost, I'm not talking about crime, I'm talking about addictions, people gambling away their life savings and homes, and more. All of that bears an economic as well as a social cost. And it's a real problem.

And what you fail to comprehend is that even without a casino nearby people still have access to gamble their life away. Not having a casino will not keep this problem away. In fact, you're driving it underground which is even worse. Do you even have the slightest idea how many underground poker rooms exist in Toronto or any other large city?
 
By your logic, we should also promote smoking. Hey, it's bad for you but it makes money so let's support it.

By your logic we should go back to the prohibition era.

While we're at it Pinklucy, should we also shutdown the TSX? Afterall, it's nothing more then a "legit" poker table.
 
Last edited:
And what you fail to comprehend is that even without a casino nearby people still have access to gamble their life away. Not having a casino will not keep this problem away. In fact, you're driving it underground which is even worse. Do you even have the slightest idea how many underground poker rooms exist in Toronto or any other large city?
Go check out the slots facilities. Work with the Responsible Gaming Council. Work with addictions counsellors. You won't find a lot of their clients (and potential clients) accessing underground poker, but you will find them buying Nevada tickets and spending countless hours at slot machines because the facilities we currently have make it more accessible. And of course there are a lot of people who have fun gambling and spend $20 here or there, but there are also a lot who can't control their spending. I've just spent too much time watching those folks lately, and I find it sad that our government is involved in wrapping it all up in a pretty package and marketing it the way they do. But hey, I found Vegas one of the most depressing places I've ever been. To me all the glitz and glam is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. I've never been a fan of slot facilities or casinos, and I've never seen anything in all the year's we've have them in Ontario to change my mind. But hey, I know I'm in the minority.

And CoolCanadian, are you related to Councillor Grimes? You sound exactly like some soundbites I heard this morning.
 
I highlighted "iconic and fantastic", because that is a problem with your manner of posting. And I bring up McMansions because that's also a problem with your manner of posting. You write like a McMansion is designed. And as a consequence, just as a McMansion get only tackier the more it's embellished with overscaled detail, the more you bring up this "iconic and fantastic", the more you turn us off this so-called "iconic and fantastic". And the way you're so utterly fixated upon these resort-like attractions, well...it seems to me that in your family travels, there's little of substance beyond such "family attractions". It isn't just that you go to them; it's like you absolutely need them, otherwise you're lost in the woods--maybe even more particularly your parents than yourself, if they're the sort who are absolutely incompetent or disinterested in any form of travel that goes beyond lounging on the beach or taking the brats to some mega-attraction. It's almost like what one would expect in a kid growing up in a McMansion family that "doesn't know better".

So...let's sober down here. And let's take the most "integrated" (and perhaps most potentially Toronto-compatible) case here: Melbourne. And I'd argue: yeah, fine and dandy. But in the end, Melbourne didn't necessarily need that kind of crutch to be an attractive tourist destination. It's an embellishment, not a game-changing be-all and end-all a la Bilbao Guggenheim. If it didn't happen, Melbourne wouldn't be all that worse off...

You seem to get angry whenever I use the word Iconic. I say that because it will likely have a bold design that is not found anywhere else.

Look at Marina Bay Sands. It has been said several times that OLG has looked at this for inspiration for a Toronto complex. I would say it's an iconic feature of Singapore. It's instantly recognizable, and very cool.

The Crown casino actually revitalized the entire area. But yes, it's true, Melbourne did not need it. Nor did Toronto need the tallest tower in the world. But the Crown attracts millions of people to Melbourne, provides a great amount of jobs, and is a positive addition to Melbourne's waterfront.

I have already said Toronto does not need this, but it would be a nice addition, and I feel we should not give up the opportunity. Exactly as you say, the casino does not define Melbourne. Nor would a casino define Toronto. It would just be another feature of our wonderful city.

Would Toronto be any worse off without this? No. But would we be better off with it? I think so. It would provide jobs, attract tourists, enhance the waterfront.

Go check out the slots facilities. Work with the Responsible Gaming Council. Work with addictions counsellors. You won't find a lot of their clients (and potential clients) accessing underground poker, but you will find them buying Nevada tickets and spending countless hours at slot machines because the facilities we currently have make it more accessible. And of course there are a lot of people who have fun gambling and spend $20 here or there, but there are also a lot who can't control their spending. I've just spent too much time watching those folks lately, and I find it sad that our government is involved in wrapping it all up in a pretty package and marketing it the way they do. But hey, I found Vegas one of the most depressing places I've ever been. To me all the glitz and glam is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. I've never been a fan of slot facilities or casinos, and I've never seen anything in all the year's we've have them in Ontario to change my mind. But hey, I know I'm in the minority.

And CoolCanadian, are you related to Councillor Grimes? You sound exactly like some soundbites I heard this morning.

Not related. I understand a lot of people have gambling addictions, but a lot don't. I disagree that Vegas is one of the most depressing places. You compared this to OLG Slots, which it cannot be compared to. Look at images of the casino in Marina Bay Sands.

Building this will not necessarily make more addictions. But even if it did, that's a bad argument because it would be just as bad, if not worse, as a casino elsewhere in the GTA. However, in the GTA it would only be a casino, would not provide nearly as many jobs, would not attract tourists.

A downtown entertainment complex would actually be better for those with addictions, because there would me many attractions and distractions. One might gamble, but there is a lot more for one to do, so he or she might not gamble as much. Compared to a gaming-only facility where, once your there, all you can do is gamble.

If a casino, with whatever negative consequences it brings with it, is being built within the greater Toronto area, why should we not take advantage of it and create an entertainment complex that is a major tourist attraction, rather than just a room for people to gamble.

Those who have addictions will find a way to gamble no matter what. Why should those who do not have addictions not be able to just have a fun night out?



By the way, NYC does have a casino. However, it is just a casino. Ironically enough, Resorts World NYC is not a resort complex, just a casino.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've been warned not to use oversized fonts. Last warning.

A downtown entertainment complex would actually be better for those with addictions, because there would me many attractions and distractions. One might gamble, but there is a lot more for one to do, so he or she might not gamble as much. Compared to a gaming-only facility where, once your there, all you can do is gamble.

That's laughably naive. It's analogous to presenting a junkie with a buffet along with heroin and expecting him/her to OD on food instead.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Sure--why not build it. But to treat it as a beneficial "must have" for the city simply because of said "millions of people"...

Look: you have to remember something. The way you've been pitching this casino/entertainment complex biz throughout this thread, you've been consistently undermining your own argument through your purple prose. You're talking about "high end" and "world class" in a tone akin to those who love to speak of their "taste and sophistication" because they have the biggest Thomas Kinkade collection in town That's not good. That's grotesque.

Then again, maybe that's the 15-year-old talking. Because when I think of stuff like this in Forest Hill

3350692219_6acc30c2e2_z.jpg


it seems like a 15-year-old's immature idea of "class" and "sophistication". Maybe that's the thing about merchants in McMansion teardowns: they're in an eternal state of 15-year-old...

And somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if coolcanadian's parents would build and live in such a thing.

I love old houses. My house is a orginal 1920. Our house is two floors but there are a few bungalos in our neighbourhood that are ripped down to build a "McMansion". Of course they cant fit in perfectly but honestly I am surprised how nicely they turn out. Also the attitude that the people who want to live in mcmansions are tacky people and they should want to live in the classy original houses doesnt make sense to me. From Dufferin to Allen on Eglinton there are a ton of bungalos and there is no line up to move into them. Instead most people want the suburbs or right downtown in a condo (BTW most ppl here would agree Torontos condos are not the standard of architecture in Toronto). The people who do buy are divided into two groups. People who keep the houses as is and the people who who build up or "mcmansion" style. Anyways my point is that when so many people are building "mcmansions" or trying to live in them I cant consider it tacky, rather it has become pop culture. Your argument is that you are one of the few with good taste. Others would argue you are part of the few with bad taste. This mcmansion you posted would be welcomed by most torontonians as their home.
 
I love old houses. My house is a orginal 1920. Our house is two floors but there are a few bungalos in our neighbourhood that are ripped down to build a "McMansion". Of course they cant fit in perfectly but honestly I am surprised how nicely they turn out. Also the attitude that the people who want to live in mcmansions are tacky people and they should want to live in the classy original houses doesnt make sense to me. From Dufferin to Allen on Eglinton there are a ton of bungalos and there is no line up to move into them. Instead most people want the suburbs or right downtown in a condo (BTW most ppl here would agree Torontos condos are not the standard of architecture in Toronto). The people who do buy are divided into two groups. People who keep the houses as is and the people who who build up or "mcmansion" style. Anyways my point is that when so many people are building "mcmansions" or trying to live in them I cant consider it tacky, rather it has become pop culture. Your argument is that you are one of the few with good taste. Others would argue you are part of the few with bad taste. This mcmansion you posted would be welcomed by most torontonians as their home.

Exactly! What makes your taste better than others, adma? I know many people who would love to live in the house that you pictured. Just a some people prefer older homes, some people like these new ones. Are they all wrong? I think not. The reason they build these homes is because they like them, and it still is a nice house.
 

Back
Top