News   May 28, 2024
Core Architects Wins a Trio of Awards for 210 Bloor West
 1.2K     1 
News   May 28, 2024
Quayside Resubmission Refines Block 3 and 4 Tower Plans
 1.7K     0 
News   May 28, 2024
News Roundup for May 28, 2024
 568     0 

OLG Toronto/GTA casino proposal (where to put it?)

Also, it seems Crown seems to come up a lot: Victorian only legalised gambling in the early-mid 90s - you used to only be able to legally play two-up on ANZAC day (April 25th) or had to go to interstate if you wanted to gamble.

Large Casinos - in your (RC8) earlier post - pale in significance of the local "pokie" (slot machine) joints that are now everywhere (and have been everywhere interstate for eons) - they're generally in outer suburbs/low socio-economic suburbs and they're where you'll find the majority of your problem gamblers.

When the Vic government legalised gambling (They were cash poor), the only Casino license went to Crown (exclusivity is now up I think and the only serious proposal for a 2nd is up in Mildura, 7 hours from Melbourne up in the north west corner of the state on the Murray River) and it was originally placed in the World Trade Centre building on the north bank of the River... the Crown that everyone refers to is - yes - a large-arse casino but a lot more than just a haven for problem gamblers.
 
A statement from Premier Wynne yesterday:

"The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) is in the midst of exploring additional opportunities for casinos in Ontario. Some news stories today are suggesting that Toronto is going to get a special deal with regard to hosting fees.

In light of these stories, I would like to reiterate the new Ontario government's expectations as to what will happen with casino expansion.

First off, there will be no special deal for Toronto in connection with any proposed casino development. The approach OLG is taking in Toronto with regard to hosting fees will be the same as the approach being used in other parts of Ontario. The hosting fee for Toronto would reflect the size and scale that global gaming companies have confirmed is possible in the city. If the same capital investment and job potential are possible elsewhere, the same hosting fees would be generated.

While a lot of attention has been focused on Toronto, OLG is intent on expanding casino opportunities to a number of regions in Ontario. The underserved markets of North Bay, Kenora, Collingwood-Wasaga Beach and Belleville-Quinte are currently being considered for development.

My government will ensure that all regions of the province will benefit from OLG modernization."
Click to expand...
 
TonyV said:
Here is the article to which I referred above, from the Globe and Mail, March 6, 2013.

Diamond is a guy who cares about land uses, benefits to our city, and social impact. A stark contrast against those who just want a new bauble to point to as they drive by, whether or not a positive addition our city.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/jack-diamond-slams-casino-plan/article9390838/

"Jack Diamond Slams Casino Plan"

One of the country’s most prominent architects says a massive Toronto casino does not make sense from a real-estate perspective and would have crushing social impacts.

Jack Diamond, principal with Diamond and Schmitt Architects, met with The Globe and Mail’s editorial board Wednesday. Mr. Diamond, whose work includes Toronto’s Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told the board he is vehemently opposed to a large gaming complex in the city.

“The Exhibition grounds belong to the city of Toronto and the public,” he said, referring to one of the potential casino sites. “The fact that we’re not using it well is the excuse, currently. But once it’s gone, it’s gone. That is a public good that we should retain.”

Mr. Diamond was joined Wednesday by Maureen Lynett, co-founder of No Casino Toronto, and Sandy Garossino, co-founder of Vancouver Not Vegas, which in 2011 led the charge against a $500-million casino in downtown Vancouver.

Mr. Diamond, who is a member of the Order of Ontario and an Officer of the Order of Canada, said people who are problem gamblers tend to be at the bottom of the income scale. The money they would use on food, rent and clothes is instead handed over to casinos.

He said he is not opposed to the existing casino at Woodbine, but is against a new Toronto gaming facility because of its accessibility. “If you make high accessibility [gaming] in a central urban area, the impact of the casino will be far greater than having it at Woodbine,” he said.

The casino issue will go before Mayor Rob Ford’s executive committee later this month, with a full council vote expected in April. The mayor has expressed his support for the casino, arguing it will bring in millions in revenue and thousands of jobs.

Mr. Diamond questioned the revenue projections, which have ranged anywhere from $18-million to $106-million to $168-million.

The Port Lands site is also being considered for a casino and Mr. Diamond said that, too, would be a mistake. “I see that as an extraordinary future for this city. I mean, it’s a Venice on our city core boundary,” he said, referring to the area’s canals and its proposed redevelopment as a mixed-use residential site and parkland on the waterfront.

Ms. Lynett said No Casino Toronto has come a long way since she co-founded the group in June. The group has said a casino would increase crime and traffic gridlock. Ms. Lynett said the casino opposition is growing stronger and people no longer say to her, “Who are you?”
Click to expand...

So he's basically against making gambling accessible to the masses and didn't have anything to say about the Oxford proposal. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason why the Oxford proposal is a bad idea. Not one single concrete argument from anyone thus far.

Traffic/congestion: that's a Toronto issue, not a casino issue
Gambling addiction: sorry, but 98% shouldn't have to go without because 2% can't control themselves
Bad for local business: don't see that either; if anything they will benefit

Toronto needs to get its head examined if they pass this one up. A multi-billion dollar investment, a major boost to our tourism industry, a re-vitalization of a dead downtown street, decking over the rail tracks, a new downtown park, jobs, significant revenue for the government every year, quality architecture that we haven't seen in our city for decades, and even the added bonus of providing our city with a little more sparkle/glamour or whatever you want to call it. Cities rarely get opportunities handed to them like this.

Then again maybe Presbyterian Toronto the Good is still alive and kicking. There's always Bingo at the Rotary Club and we can revel in the magnificence of this:

2599.jpg
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Toronto needs to get its head examined if they pass this one up. A multi-billion dollar investment, a major boost to our tourism industry, a re-vitalization of a dead downtown street, decking over the rail tracks, a new downtown park, jobs, significant revenue for the government every year, quality architecture that we haven't seen in our city for decades, and even the added bonus of providing our city with a little more sparkle/glamour or whatever you want to call it. Cities rarely get opportunities handed to them like this.
Click to expand...

I agree and well said isaidso... +1
 
No need to confirm this for anyone who read my previous posts but isaidso has nailed my position.
In my opinion the actual benefits outweigh the potential costs.
 
isaidso:

As someone who is mildly pro, we have to keep in mind that a) Toronto doesn't necessarily say where the casino will go, when approved and b) that Oxford will carry forward their commitments. I'd rather see a legal framework that would highlight exactly what the city will be getting before signing on the dotted line. Right now we don't even know what the council approval would translate into.

AoD
 
jaycola said:
No need to confirm this for anyone who read my previous posts but isaidso has nailed my position.
In my opinion the actual benefits outweigh the potential costs.
Click to expand...
At this point, everything is potential, nothing is actual.
 
isaidso said:
Toronto needs to get its head examined if they pass this one up. A multi-billion dollar investment, a major boost to our tourism industry, a re-vitalization of a dead downtown street, decking over the rail tracks, a new downtown park, jobs, significant revenue for the government every year, quality architecture that we haven't seen in our city for decades, and even the added bonus of providing our city with a little more sparkle/glamour or whatever you want to call it. Cities rarely get opportunities handed to them like this.
Click to expand...

OK, I get you want a casino. But, given the fact that these guys are supposed to be re-developing this site anyway, why are the towers/decking/park/architecture specifically attached to the casino? Why is it that casino proponents keep making this an either/or. Give us our casino or we'll shoot ourselves in the head by not redeveloping... I don't see it.

Maybe the pro-casino crowd is just getting frustrated, but lines like "Toronto needs to get its head examined" make me want to ask what's behind the curtain?
 
RRR/Lenser:

I see Oxford's interest in having a casino less about the casino itself but more about preempting a project at the Ex that would draw away the MTCC clients and reducing the value of the property they've acquired.

AoD
 
jett said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

But why/how would it be the BEST, of all possible solutions? Make an argument, not just an assertion.

@people who think people shouldn't "go without" gambling just because some people get addicted to it - You've gone without gambling in Toronto for ages. Life went on, you found other ways to entertain yourselves. You can carry on doing that. It's not a hardship.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
RRR/Lenser:

I see Oxford's interest in having a casino less about the casino itself but more about preempting a project at the Ex that would draw away the MTCC clients and reducing the value of the property they've acquired.

AoD
Click to expand...

AoD: Perhaps so, but isn't the value of the land Oxford's sitting on pretty stellar to begin with? Considering its location relative to the core it's already a pretty prime chunk of earth. Even if a casino complex went ahead at the Ex the potential for Oxford to do some serious office and/or residential towers remains. Location, location, location.
 
isaidso said:
So he's basically against making gambling accessible to the masses and didn't have anything to say about the Oxford proposal. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason why the Oxford proposal is a bad idea. Not one single concrete argument from anyone thus far.

Traffic/congestion: that's a Toronto issue, not a casino issue
Gambling addiction: sorry, but 98% shouldn't have to go without because 2% can't control themselves
Bad for local business: don't see that either; if anything they will benefit
Click to expand...

That guy against it because maybe he didn't or is not getting the contract to build it?

And agree with what you said. Why don't they ban alcohol, when there are alcoholic out there? Gambling addict is just lame excuse for not having one. It's the same shit same shit every time Toronto builds SOMETHING, always protests here and there. No wonder Toronto is not progressive enough, too much "consulting", "reviewing", "voting", "more assessment" etc. Wasting so much time. No wonder Toronto doesn't get much thing done.
 
Lenser:

AoD: Perhaps so, but isn't the value of the land Oxford's sitting on pretty stellar to begin with? Considering its location relative to the core it's already a pretty prime chunk of earth. Even if a casino complex went ahead at the Ex the potential for Oxford to do some serious office and/or residential towers remains. Location, location, location.
Click to expand...

Of course, but the MTCC part of the business will be negatively affected, plus the synergistic effect it provides to any office and residential development. Oxford is taking a very, very low key approach and basically it isn't the end of their world on record.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top