buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
294
The thing fits so nicely. A mid-range hotel like a Marrriot, Hilton or whatever would be guaranteed to succeed being connected to the convention centre and casino. The casino would also benefit from wayward conventioneers. The convention centre itself has no competitors. All they need is one anchor tenant for the offices. All this energy would probably put the condos over the top.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,252
. A mid-range hotel like a Marrriot, Hilton or whatever would be guaranteed to succeed being connected to the convention centre and casino. .

Huh, i dont know about that......wouldnt the hotel component be branded by MGM, Sands, or who ever is running the casino.:confused:
 

Toronto - West

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I am opposed to having a casino in Toronto. That being said, if the next provincial premier was willing to direct 50-75% of the casino's profits to fund Toronto subway expansion (within the city), my opposition would be significantly muted.
 

dlam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
I am opposed to having a casino in Toronto. That being said, if the next provincial premier was willing to direct 50-75% of the casino's profits to fund Toronto subway expansion (within the city), my opposition would be significantly muted.

+1

My mind would change too.

On another note, they are selling us the park over the tracks, but it seems like it's going to be tough to get done. Can we make them secure/build the park before they build the casino
 

dlam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
The thing fits so nicely. A mid-range hotel like a Marrriot, Hilton or whatever would be guaranteed to succeed being connected to the convention centre and casino.

I would like to see W Hotel, that would be nice
 

Xray_Crystal_Junkie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
5
The build order would be:

1) Casino complex + hotel towers.

...

7) Centre rail deck and landscaping.

Each segment would fund the next one. The casino starts the funding dominoes so none of this happens without it.

Ok I was really high on this project until reading this and am now incredibly skeptical. So let them build a casino first and they will later promise to build all the good stuff later? I hope that would be specified in a contract somewhere with specific dates and significant financial penalties for not meeting all the obligations. I ignored the bait-and-switch talk from previous posters because I was confident Oxford wouldn't risk their reputation like that, and now I'm not so sure.

I can hear it now: "Due to unforeseeable engineering challenges it is not possible to build as designed. Funds will instead be directed towards other community benefits including the renovation of _______ park" ... which is no where near the site in question.

Hope I'm wrong.
 

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,776
Reaction score
310
Ok I was really high on this project until reading this and am now incredibly skeptical. So let them build a casino first and they will later promise to build all the good stuff later? I hope that would be specified in a contract somewhere with specific dates and significant financial penalties for not meeting all the obligations. I ignored the bait-and-switch talk from previous posters because I was confident Oxford wouldn't risk their reputation like that, and now I'm not so sure.

I can hear it now: "Due to unforeseeable engineering challenges it is not possible to build as designed. Funds will instead be directed towards other community benefits including the renovation of _______ park" ... which is no where near the site in question.

Hope I'm wrong.


I quite agree - we must be very strict with Oxford otherwise we could get screwed. I would tell them the park must be part of phase one or they can get lost.
 

Hipster Duck

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
8
I am opposed to having a casino in Toronto. That being said, if the next provincial premier was willing to direct 50-75% of the casino's profits to fund Toronto subway expansion (within the city), my opposition would be significantly muted.

If 50-75% of the casino's profits funded the DRL, I'd purposely go to the casino to lose.
 

GenerationW

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
2,497
Reaction score
113
I'm neutral on a Toronto casino, but -- never mind the profits -- I'd welcome a string of casino developments if we could get the developers to actually fund a DRL, in part if not in full.
 

Bogtrotter

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
486
The components that interest me most, primarily the park element and Sir Norman buildings, seem to be low on the totem pole if this building order is correct. Makes me a little more skeptical about the whole thing, especially when it hinges entirely on the success of a casino.
 

Conrad Black

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
71
City:
Toronto
Oxford is hardly a fly by night operator that needs a casino to make this project a go. They can still make money from the rest of it. They own the convention centre and surrounding land already after all. And the city can certainly mandate that the park is built at the same time the rest is.
 

Register123

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
387
Reaction score
2
Oxford is hardly a fly by night operator that needs a casino to make this project a go. They can still make money from the rest of it. They own the convention centre and surrounding land already after all. And the city can certainly mandate that the park is built at the same time the rest is.

Or the city should tell Oxford to gamble and build the casino last and just bet on it being a success. After all they want the citizens of Toronto to be gamblers so let them also be gamblers and put their money where their mouth is - Build the convention centre, the park, the office towers and then and only then the casino and hotels betting that the casino will make money in the future. Seems fair to me.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
7
A little more info: There will be nothing but a park on the span over the tracks for the most part. The only occupied building over the tracks would be on the Eastern edge which has room for a conventional pillar supported building. this would link the North and South Convention centre as a continuous building. The South Convention centre (not part of this project) would be rebuilt. The image shown in this project's rendering is just a place holder.

Also confirmed to be a place holder is the entire casino complex, including the hotel towers. Whoever runs the casino would design and build it according to their specifications. The Foster towers are still a work in progress but the twin tower facet design is the direction they're taking.

Great information again from MetroMan! Yikes, though...this is a bit strange. Two towers will be designed by Norman Foster, but the other two will be some sort of MGM Vegas-style confection? Then again, Vegas isn't what it used to be: they've hired Frank Gehry to design some buildings.

The build order would be:

1) Casino complex + hotel towers.

2) Retail on the western block of the MTTC.

3) Rail corridor deck from BlueJays Way to a bit east of John. CN Tower and SkyDome would presumably redo their landscaping to connect to the deck at this point.

4) New convention centre with decking on the eastern edge over the rail corridor.

5) Foster twin towers.

6) Centre block redone with retail facing Front St and the new rail corridor park.

7) Centre rail deck and landscaping.

Each segment would fund the next one. The casino starts the funding dominoes so none of this happens without it.

Part of the reason the casino is built first on the western portion of the lands is that those buildings are a lot easier to remove without direct replacement than the Convention Centre. I can see the anxiety about the centre portion of the deck being built, but it would certainly make the site much more awkward and less marketable, so short of an Oxford bankruptcy (pretty unlikely) I can't see them failing to complete the project. The retail and other southern access points to the complex can't be used until the rail deck is complete.

Instead of presenting a problem as Vaughan claims, I think the pedestrian bridge actually made it easier to get this deck built since it set a precedent for the cost of CN's air rights and that CN would allow this kind of development in them. It should simply be a matter of working out a deal between Oxford and CN, and I'm sure that Oxford has already budgeted the need to throw CN a few million.

Here's a thought: where will all the workers in the RBC building be going? To the new RBC building near Waterpark Place? To another new building?
 

Top