helen-lovejoy.jpg
 
cruzin4u said:
And who's fault is that? Oh, right... it's the casino's fault because they are forcing people to go and gamble.
Click to expand...

This discounts the carefully tuned subliminal messaging in advertising used to convince the public that casinos are a destination places, not money pits.

Yes, you can ignore them, but if everyone could, corporations wouldn't be spending billions in advertising every year.
 
you canat force people to gamble thats just silly to say that. if you cant afford to spend money to gamble then dont gamble. will power goes along way. but ita time toronto gets a casino and it be a nice one. more things to do in toronto are needed for sure. other the just shopping and theaters. some of us dont care to see the shows or shop till we are broke.
 
At any rate, it's clear that both this project and the Gehry project are huge PR sales pitches. Oxford on the one hand down-plays the casino portion by saying it's only blank percent of a larger mega project, and on the other hand they say that this project will not go ahead without the casino. This is incongruent. If this sales pitch was being made to me I would point-blank call Oxford's bluff. They want to re-develop the site anyways one day. The city should decide to allow casinos or not without the slightest consideration of this project.

My guess as to what is really going on in the back room: Oxford wants the casino as part of their re-development scheme for the site. The province wants the casino open as fast as possible. The obstacle is the city. Step one: pass a law to avoid having a public referendum on opening casinos. Checkmark. Step two: bedazzle councillors with a showy multi-phase development project knowing full well that only the temporary casino portion will be built in this development cycle. Hire star-architect for said purpose. Succeed in persuading enough councillors to vote for casino proposal. Retro-fit North Convention hall into "temporary" casino facility. Operate said "temporary" facility for the next 10 years. Re-develop the rest of the site as market conditions permit.
 
^^I don't understand this. Casino operators are not going to come to town without a casino. It is the casino operator's $2-6 billion that will bankroll not just the casino, but also the hotel, theatre/entertainment, the 1,000,000 sq. ft of retail, and the park. Maybe the rest of it, for that matter, but without the casino this development becomes at best an expanded convention centre, some condos and more office, but no particular incentive to build any of that now.

I'm not saying that's a reason to allow a casino if otherwise it makes good sense to keep it out. I see both arguments. But it is silly to think that Oxford is bluffing.
 
Man I can't wait to see how this turns out. In all my years I've never seen so much controversy and differing opinions over one project. If I had to guess, I'd say the city will realize what a cash cow it could be, regardless of its implications, and approve the convention centre site, with height cut backs on all four towers of course, just a guess, what do you think will happen (no, not what you want, what you think)..........
 
Interesting article in the Star - Oxford has a lot of chutzpah for promising a park over the railway corridor without having any control over that, and tying that in with their plan, and only if a casino is permitted.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...l-promises-a-park-built-on-air-it-doesn-t-own

Adam Vaughan is correct about how difficult it would be to get CN/CP to give up their air rights, given the red tape, Metrolinx's demands for clearances, and money demanded from CN just for the City Place pedestrian bridge.
 
Wait a minute, isnt Metrolinx owned by the province which is the same party that want the casino built in Toronto:confused:
...i say, they will donate the air-rights if they have to
 
Casinos aren't the problem, our dependence on blaming our problems on government is. If you believe closing a casino will solve gambling problems,then I suppose then we should close all the liquor stores and prevent any new ones from opening because some people are alcoholics? At what point do we decide that an individual is responsible for their actions and behaviors and stop trying to make government "fix" all our problems? Not every one who attends a casino is a bad person or a problem gambler.
 
Last edited:
Of all the possible locations suggested I think this is by far the best. Easy transit access (GO, subway and streetcar), easy Gardiner access once the Simcoe off-ramp is built, and has been stated, it's in an area that has many tourist attractions and amenities. While I doubt that MGM is likely to open the casino without the additional hotel and retail space, I think the bait-and-switch is still a concern. If Oxford wants to make the rest of the development conditional on the casino can the city not make the casino conditional on the rest of the development? ie: The project only goes ahead if all components are executed at the same time, and if it fails to execute then the casino loses it's right to operate.
 
Completely agree. I am concerned they will pull a city's lace and cheap out on the park. It must go through as originally planned, along with the office space if they wish to continue with the casino.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top