News   Jun 21, 2024
Extending Sheppard Line 4… The Better Way
 4.4K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
Tenblock to Transform Tower-in-the-Park into Vibrant Urban Community
 1.7K     3 
News   Jun 21, 2024
Vaughan, QuadReal Shake Hands on Performing and Cultural Arts Centre
 1.9K     1 

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

neubilder said:
Where are you getting this from?

I've studied Olmstead at length and have never come across anything to suggest anything bigoted about his thinking or his approach. On the contrary, He saw parks as a democratizing and civilizing agent in cities. On slavery, he saw the practice as "morally odious" and was an anti slavery activist.

Here is a passage from Wikipedia:
"The design of Central Park embodies Olmsted's social consciousness and commitment to egalitarian ideals. Influenced by Downing and his own observations regarding social class in England, China and the American South, Olmsted believed that the common green space must always be equally accessible to all citizens. This principle is now fundamental to the idea of a "public park", but was not assumed as necessary then. Olmsted's tenure as park commissioner in New York was a long struggle to preserve that idea."

Am I reading the pasteurized versions of history books? I sincerely hope you are mistaken.
**I found some original texts and quotations by Olmstead himself, and I have to conclude that to call Olmstead a bigot is false.
Click to expand...

Well, from his own writing, he was a bit of a bigot, but off the top of my head I only know of his opinion on blacks (and it was also an opinion that was held by many Americans in the mid-1800s, so it's not like it's anything well beyond the norm of his time). Take the paragraph starting with: "The subjection of the negros of the South..." as an example. I also wouldn't say there's anything wrong with Olmsted's planning perspective. Certainly there isn't enough negative there to outweigh his contributions.
 
neubilder said:
What would Frederick Law Olmsted do with a site like this? That is the question that needs to be asked for a site as scarce and prominent as this.
Click to expand...

Priobably about the same as what Chapman & Oxley did propose but was never built. It's not too late to start!

Capture.jpg


The Electric Tower looks ready-made to house a casino.

Whatever they do it's better than all those damn parking lots. And I don't buy the argumet about option value. This is a recipe for doing nothing forever.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.jpg
    Capture.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 263
k10ery said:
I'd have a rejoinder for you but I seem to have ended up on the same side as Mr. A. Gallery. I need to go bathe in some CBC radio to wash off the guilt by association.
Click to expand...

Very wise.
I just don't think that because it is currently underutilized as a parking lot that the city should jump at the first proposal to develop the site. Once a casino goes down there it's a slippery slope.
Toronto has so little open space. To make a mess of this site when it has so much potential to become a public amenity, like a park, and a beautiful gateway to the city, is a shame.
 
neubilder said:
Where are you getting this from?

I've studied Olmstead at length and have never come across anything to suggest anything bigoted about his thinking or his approach. On the contrary, He saw parks as a democratizing and civilizing agent in cities. On slavery, he saw the practice as "morally odious" and was an anti slavery activist.

Here is a passage from Wikipedia:
"The design of Central Park embodies Olmsted's social consciousness and commitment to egalitarian ideals. Influenced by Downing and his own observations regarding social class in England, China and the American South, Olmsted believed that the common green space must always be equally accessible to all citizens. This principle is now fundamental to the idea of a "public park", but was not assumed as necessary then. Olmsted's tenure as park commissioner in New York was a long struggle to preserve that idea."

Am I reading the pasteurized versions of history books? I sincerely hope you are mistaken.
**I found some original texts and quotations by Olmstead himself, and I have to conclude that to call Olmstead a bigot is false.
Click to expand...

Further to my PM, I should state publicly that I am not an expert on Olmsted and was just making a flippant reply to an off-topic post. My impression of Olmsted's bigotry is based on a documentary I once saw in which Olmsted was credited with being both a progressive (in terms of the design of and goals for the park) and anti-Irish (in terms of ordinances he imposed on the use of the park that had a deliterious effect on the ability of Irish labourers to make use of the park). Apologies for flippancy and potential incorrectness.
 
Gamblers are degenerate losers. But I'll happily take their money if it means better services / lower property taxes. I agree the Portlands area would be good.
 
freshcutgrass said:
No...it was about control. Gambling was seen as a "controlled substance" like booze, that needed to be run by traditionally conservative Ontario social reforming.

That's the strange thing about conservatives...they have completely changed. They used to be about social reforming, but have made a complete change of face and are now in favour of anything as long as it has the appearance of saving them from paying taxes.

And that is the problem with the conservative-thinking mind....no matter what they think, they are always wrong.
Click to expand...

Though how strictly "conservative" an impulse was that? After all, Toronto's champion of dry-Junction temperance, Bill Temple, was a CCFer...
 
MadMax said:
Our evolution as a city requires that the we get a casino...it's a natural progression and we should embrace it, not run from it. We've gotten our museum, our parks and beaches, ritzy hotels, condos, aquarium and now casino. Every major city evolves at its own pace...its just taken Toronto a little longer than most to get there. Toronto can handle one casino folks...if London can handle 25 of them, then its no big deal. There are recreational gamblers and there are de-generates that gamble. Always has and always will be...doesn't matter where you put the casino. There are probaly more underground gambling dens in Toronto in the world that are of no economic benefit to the city or province whatsoever. Regulating it here would make a big difference.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There are no casinos in the three biggest cities of the Unites States - L.A., Chicago, New York. But I guess we're better than them right? We're more like Las Vegas or Atlantic City than those three insignificant cities.
 
We're not generating new revenue here but rather diverting it away from Niagara Falls, ON or Rama, ON.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's worse than that. It won't just poach gambling revenue from other cities, but it will poach revenue from every other place in Toronto where people spend their discretionary money....both locals and tourists alike. And a casino gives back to the city the least amount for the revenue it generates.

It doesn't matter how big and fancy any new Toronto casino is...it will NEVER make Toronto a gambling destination...so it will not generate any new "gambling tourists", it will just divert any money they spend in one from every other place the city's economy would be better served by. And this is before any of the social ills are factored in.

Gamblers are degenerate losers. But I'll happily take their money if it means better services / lower property taxes.
Click to expand...

Except this fantasy of lower taxes isn't going to happen (and never has). All you will end up with is even more "degenerate losers". Happy now?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top