[nfitz]

I think, for the most part, the suburbian stadium phenom was an American thing.

That's not really comparable to Canadian cities though. Urban planning is virtually non-existent in the USA - particularly in rural areas just outside cities, which result in the most bizarre things you could believe happening. You see the daftest subdivisions there, surrounded on 4-sides by fields for miles.

 

[TOareaFan]

That's not really comparable to Canadian cities though. Urban planning is virtually non-existent in the USA - particularly in rural areas just outside cities, which result in the most bizarre things you could believe happening. You see the daftest subdivisions there, surrounded on 4-sides by fields for miles.

Yep....I believe we are agreeing on this one!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-to-port-lands-as-casino-site/article4648493/

AoD

 

[diminutive]

I think, for the most part, the suburbian stadium phenom was an American thing.

Not necessarily...

 

[canmark]

Toronto Star: Casino lobbyists face scrutiny under bylaw that prohibits‘improper’ relationships with politicians

The city’s lobbyist registrar has concerns that two prominent casino lobbyists may have violated bylaws governing their conduct in the hours before Councillor Ana Bailao was charged with impaired driving.

The two lobbyists from Sussex Strategy Group have been hired by MGM to sell the idea of a Toronto casino to councillors. If found guilty, Jamie Besner and Kim Wright could each face up to a $25,000 fine. It is unclear if any violations actually occurred, and Besner and Wright both deny any wrongdoing.

At issue is whether sections of the bylaw were broken that, one, prohibit lobbying at a charity event and, two, restrict “improper” relationships with councillors.

 

[nfitz]

Not necessarily...

If only the huge suburban stadiums in the States were so well served by transit.

Here's a photo of the U-Bahn station for the stadium:

It's only about 10-km to the centre of Munich, and a quick ride, trains every 10-minutes. The Toronto equivalent would be putting our stadium at Lawrence, and travelling from Union.

 

[TOareaFan]

Something to keep in mind is that between the 60s and 80s, most major league stadiums were constructed in the suburbs with lots of parking and ample freeway access. In the mid 1980s, this began to change towards building stadiums in city centres with ample transit access. The Skydome was one of the first in this new wave.

I think, for the most part, the suburbian stadium phenom was an American thing.

Not necessarily...

Sorry, in the context of the discussion I thought that a) I was responding about Canadian/North American arenas and/or b) those built between 1960 and 1980.....Allianz did not (in my mind) fit that discussion.

Not to stray too far off topic but there is a bit of a counter trend in Europe to moving stadiums further out. This is very obvious in some of the smaller UK markets (sorry to followers of other leagues but that is where I watch most of my footy...but I think it is happening to varying degrees across Europe). There are very clear factors in this move that affect these decisions (and they affect each one in different degrees).

a) the old stadia that the clubs have called home for decades were built within the communities before the game went "global" and each team drew their fans/support from easy walking/busing/training distance. They are often "land-locked" amongst the community and very short of land for things like expansion (even smaller stadia seating wise by today's standards take up a bigger footprint than the old British style stadiums) and parking.

b) the land that these stadiums has greater value (often) for another purpose. Ask any property appraiser and the first thing that they have to establish in an assignment is the concept of highest and best use.

c) the society has changed. Like it or not, even over there in transit loving Europe, more people like to drive these days than when these clubs were established/founded/grew.

So what the Brits are seeing is clubs selling their old stadium sites, taking the money and building "better" stadiums elsewhere and "elsewhere" sometimes means more "outskirty" areas that have a combination of roads/parking/transit.

Small club example....St. Mirren in Scotland...... they moved here in 1894 http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.852778,-4.428611&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=55.852778,-4.428611 and had a record attendance of 47k....by the turn of this century...the club was a financial mess and was able to sell this site to supermarket chain for enough money to a) clear all of their debt and b) build this/here http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.850556,-4.443889&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=55.850556,-4.443889 still in the town...but on the edge of it rather than the centre of it.

In Britain, this is a formula that has been repeated over and over again (Bolton, Derby, etc) and other clubs continue to look at it (Everton, Aberdeen, Hearts {for fun, look at Tynecastle and you will redefine "landlocked stadium" in your mind for ever} ).

Not sure how much/any of that was a factor in the location of the Allianz Arena but that (and everything I have written in response) is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation we were having

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Report(s) from the Nov 5 Exec Committee:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.EX24.1

AoD

 

[MetroMan]

This is all that needs to be said:

Strategic Considerations

A key issue for Council, as well as residents and businesses, to consider is that the OLG Modernizing Lottery and Gaming initiative identifies two zones (C1 and C2) within the GTA and both zones will have a casino. The City must weigh the importance of being in a position to manage the various impacts noted in this report.

If a casino is located in the C1 zone but outside Toronto, as is possible through the OLG process, the City would have less ability to shape the development proposal and would not participate in any revenue sharing. In addition, a casino located outside Toronto (i.e. in Mississauga, Markham or Richmond Hill) would divert $150 million to $224 million of gaming revenue away from Woodbine. This would impact local jobs and reduce revenue to the City. Toronto residents and businesses would however still be subject to broader impacts associated with problem gambling, increased traffic and competition for discretionary entertainment expenditures given that many Toronto residents would travel to a casino in a neighbouring municipality.

The report is pretty positive towards building the casino in Toronto. I hope councillors agree. This is an opportunity that only comes around once in several decades and giving it to Markham or Mississauga will mean that we get all the alleged negative social impacts but none of the financial, tourism and infrastructure benefits.

 

[TOperson]

This is all that needs to be said:



The report is pretty positive towards building the casino in Toronto. I hope councillors agree. This is an opportunity that only comes around once in several decades and giving it to Markham or Mississauga will mean that we get all the alleged negative social impacts but none of the financial, tourism and infrastructure benefits.

Interesting that you used the word "alleged" re: negative social impacts but not re: financial, tourism and infrastructure benefits. The excerpt doesn't say any of the impacts are "alleged".

 

[Hanlansboy]

Interesting that you used the word "alleged" re: negative social impacts but not re: financial, tourism and infrastructure benefits. The excerpt doesn't say any of the impacts are "alleged".

Far be it by me to speak for a total stranger, but I would imagine that an improvement to our finances, tourism and infrastructure is a given. Don't really care what anyone else says, you don't need a Ph.D in economics to know, for certain, that a casino impact our city, for the better. There are so many nay sayers that discourage it, yet the very same crowd complains, constantly, that the city needs a new source of revenue. I use logic, not "maybe" or "what if". The facts are undeniable and inevitable, should we pass the opportunity to another near by town, they will receive the financial gains while we struggle for money. I'm not saying it's a miracle cure to our financial woes, but it would be a huge loss to us. To argue that a casino will draw "the wrong crowd" and that it will turn people into gambleaholics is completely fictitious and illogical. seriously, Define "wrong crowd"....in business, any crowd is the right crowd, provided they are spending their money here. If they choose to gamble to a point of addiction that's their problem, not the governments. I've said this many times to seemingly deaf ears, the state is not, and should not, be responsible for our addictions, that's completely absurd! I dont blame the city or province because I'm a tobacco addict, yet the government makes millions off the sale of them, same goes for alcohol, its destroyed thousands of lives, and kills many, why is there no one protesting these two with the same gusto they use to fight the casion if they are so worried about addiction?

Seems those against it will use the most illogical arguments to support their unfounded claims, they're acting like cave people crawling our of the forrest primeval, seeing the moon for the first time, not understanding what it really is, and throwing rocks at it. I'm sure I'm ruffling more then a few feathers here, but, give me one completely logical reason to turn down this exceptional offer, making no mention of the evils of gambling (save it for church), and I'll listen, until such time, provided they can find a way to improve public access and parking, I'll fully support it, frankly, I'm sick of hearing it. If you are indeed against it, then I hope you don't complain when the city emposes highway tolls, increased taxes, and initiates the glorious return of the vehicle registration tax, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. And to those who think prostitution, drugs, gang violence will arise from a casino, wake up to reality, it's been in this city as long as its been founded, a casino will not change that, welcome to the real world, let the illogical arguments begin!

 

[TOperson]

Far be it by me to speak for a total stranger, but I would imagine that an improvement to our finances, tourism and infrastructure is a given. Don't really care what anyone else says, you don't need a Ph.D in economics to know, for certain, that a casino impact our city, for the better. There are so many nay sayers that discourage it, yet the very same crowd complains, constantly, that the city needs a new source of revenue. I use logic, not "maybe" or "what if". The facts are undeniable and inevitable, should we pass the opportunity to another near by town, they will receive the financial gains while we struggle for money. I'm not saying it's a miracle cure to our financial woes, but it would be a huge loss to us. To argue that a casino will draw "the wrong crowd" and that it will turn people into gambleaholics is completely fictitious and illogical. seriously, Define "wrong crowd"....in business, any crowd is the right crowd, provided they are spending their money here. If they choose to gamble to a point of addiction that's their problem, not the governments. I've said this many times to seemingly deaf ears, the state is not, and should not, be responsible for our addictions, that's completely absurd! I dont blame the city or province because I'm a tobacco addict, yet the government makes millions off the sale of them, same goes for alcohol, its destroyed thousands of lives, and kills many, why is there no one protesting these two with the same gusto they use to fight the casion if they are so worried about addiction?

Seems those against it will use the most illogical arguments to support their unfounded claims, they're acting like cave people crawling our of the forrest primeval, seeing the moon for the first time, not understanding what it really is, and throwing rocks at it. I'm sure I'm ruffling more then a few feathers here, but, give me one completely logical reason to turn down this exceptional offer, making no mention of the evils of gambling (save it for church), and I'll listen, until such time, provided they can find a way to improve public access and parking, I'll fully support it, frankly, I'm sick of hearing it. If you are indeed against it, then I hope you don't complain when the city emposes highway tolls, increased taxes, and initiates the glorious return of the vehicle registration tax, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. And to those who think prostitution, drugs, gang violence will arise from a casino, wake up to reality, it's been in this city as long as its been founded, a casino will not change that, welcome to the real world, let the illogical arguments begin!

So basically, your opinion is logical and any contrary opinion is illogical, despite your not providing any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

Gambling addictions impose costs on the taxpayer and society in general. Once someone has pissed away their retirement fund, they need social assistance. Once they've stolen from their employer, they must be charged, tried, imprisoned, etc - all at public cost. And they probably won't be able to get a decent job afterwards, so they end up on social assistance. The list goes on and on and on.

You think that isn't already happening in Ontario? You want more of it?

 

[MetroMan]

I followed some of the news reports today and the consistent theme is that Toronto has jobs and economic benefits to gain. The social impacts were mentioned but downplayed. I have a feeling Torontonians are going to get on side with this. Exhibition Place was said to be the preferred location which doesn't bode well for Oxford Place and decking the rail corridor.

 

[Hanlansboy]

So basically, your opinion is logical and any contrary opinion is illogical, despite your not providing any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

When I went to Melbourne, Australia for the first time in 1996, I saw billboards and other ads for gambling addiction hotlines, counselling, etc. I had never seen such a thing before. And neither had Victorians (as in, people living in the Australian state of Victoria) until a couple years earlier, because Victoria had not allowed gambling in the state. Once they did, they had all the same addiction problems as New South Wales, which had had gambling for much longer. Victorians who opposed the introduction of gambling pointed to the NSW example, but were ignored, and now they have been proven right. Gambling addiction is a HUGE problem in NSW and Victoria and digging themselves out of that hole will be very difficult, because the state governments are addicted to gambling too.

Gambling addictions impose costs on the taxpayer and society in general. Once someone has pissed away their retirement fund, they need social assistance. Once they've stolen from their employer, they must be charged, tried, imprisoned, etc - all at public cost. And they probably won't be able to get a decent job afterwards, so they end up on social assistance. The list goes on and on and on.

You think that isn't already happening in Ontario? You want more of it?

Yeah....what part of my argument didn't you understand? the state is not responsible for people's stupidity, it's a very simple concept to grasp, or would you rather our taxes be hiked sky high to pay for the idiots who literally bet their house? Your argument precludes the possibility of a well run, profitable, responsible casino, beyond that, who really cares? To be brutally frank, if you're stupid enough to become an addict, you'd better be prepared for the consequences that come along with it. It's still no reason not to build one, do owners not open their bar for fear of their patrons becoming alcoholics? No, so why should we be so paranoid to build a casino for fear of a small group of people with more money than brains might have addiction issues???

 

[Hanlansboy]

So basically, your opinion is logical and any contrary opinion is illogical, despite your not providing any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

When I went to Melbourne, Australia for the first time in 1996, I saw billboards and other ads for gambling addiction hotlines, counselling, etc. I had never seen such a thing before. And neither had Victorians (as in, people living in the Australian state of Victoria) until a couple years earlier, because Victoria had not allowed gambling in the state. Once they did, they had all the same addiction problems as New South Wales, which had had gambling for much longer. Victorians who opposed the introduction of gambling pointed to the NSW example, but were ignored, and now they have been proven right. Gambling addiction is a HUGE problem in NSW and Victoria and digging themselves out of that hole will be very difficult, because the state governments are addicted to gambling too.

Gambling addictions impose costs on the taxpayer and society in general. Once someone has pissed away their retirement fund, they need social assistance. Once they've stolen from their employer, they must be charged, tried, imprisoned, etc - all at public cost. And they probably won't be able to get a decent job afterwards, so they end up on social assistance. The list goes on and on and on.

You think that isn't already happening in Ontario? You want more of it?

Yeah....what part of my argument didn't you understand? the state is not responsible for people's stupidity, it's a very simple concept to grasp, or would you rather our taxes be hiked sky high to pay for the idiots who literally bet their house? Your argument precludes the possibility of a well run, profitable, responsible casino, beyond that, who really cares? To be brutally frank, if you're stupid enough to become an addict, you'd better be prepared for the consequences that come along with it. It's still no reason not to build one, do owners not open their bar for fear of their patrons becoming alcoholics? No, so why should we be so paranoid to build a casino for fear of a small group of people with more money than brains might have addiction issues???

As for these leeches sucking dry our social assistance after they've blew all their money, we need to change our laws to reflect our modern reality. Our system is overly generous, it's time to revamp it. This is an entirely different topic, but relevant to my point. If people knew they'd be on the street with no free handouts, perhaps they'd think twice before destroying their pensions and savings. If not, then screw them, why should we pay for these leeches on society? You want to ruin your life? That's your decision, just don't expect a free bailout. Cold hearted? No, practical? Yes! Our system has need an overhaul for decades, and wastes millions a year on these irresponsible fools. I love my dads theory on it, work, or starve! So, with all that said, a casino is a terrific idea, those that abuse it? They need to be aware they will loose all social assistance, and we need to change the laws to reflect that. It's time our society stopped being such a push over, grew a pair, and stopped the free ride to these gutter rats!