I highlighted "iconic and fantastic", because that is a problem with your manner of posting. And I bring up McMansions because that's also a problem with your manner of posting. You write like a McMansion is designed. And as a consequence, just as a McMansion get only tackier the more it's embellished with overscaled detail, the more you bring up this "iconic and fantastic", the more you turn us off this so-called "iconic and fantastic". And the way you're so utterly fixated upon these resort-like attractions, well...it seems to me that in your family travels, there's little of substance beyond such "family attractions". It isn't just that you go to them; it's like you absolutely need them, otherwise you're lost in the woods--maybe even more particularly your parents than yourself, if they're the sort who are absolutely incompetent or disinterested in any form of travel that goes beyond lounging on the beach or taking the brats to some mega-attraction. It's almost like what one would expect in a kid growing up in a McMansion family that "doesn't know better".
So...let's sober down here. And let's take the most "integrated" (and perhaps most potentially Toronto-compatible) case here: Melbourne. And I'd argue: yeah, fine and dandy. But in the end, Melbourne didn't necessarily need that kind of crutch to be an attractive tourist destination. It's an embellishment, not a game-changing be-all and end-all a la Bilbao Guggenheim. If it didn't happen, Melbourne wouldn't be all that worse off...
You seem to get angry whenever I use the word Iconic. I say that because it will likely have a bold design that is not found anywhere else.
Look at Marina Bay Sands. It has been said several times that OLG has looked at this for inspiration for a Toronto complex. I would say it's an iconic feature of Singapore. It's instantly recognizable, and very cool.
The Crown casino actually revitalized the entire area. But yes, it's true, Melbourne did not
need it. Nor did Toronto
need the tallest tower in the world. But the Crown attracts millions of people to Melbourne, provides a great amount of jobs, and is a positive addition to Melbourne's waterfront.
I have already said Toronto does not
need this, but it would be a nice addition, and I feel we should not give up the opportunity. Exactly as you say, the casino does not define Melbourne. Nor would a casino define Toronto. It would just be another feature of our wonderful city.
Would Toronto be any worse off without this? No. But would we be better off with it? I think so. It would provide jobs, attract tourists, enhance the waterfront.
Go check out the slots facilities. Work with the Responsible Gaming Council. Work with addictions counsellors. You won't find a lot of their clients (and potential clients) accessing underground poker, but you will find them buying Nevada tickets and spending countless hours at slot machines because the facilities we currently have make it more accessible. And of course there are a lot of people who have fun gambling and spend $20 here or there, but there are also a lot who can't control their spending. I've just spent too much time watching those folks lately, and I find it sad that our government is involved in wrapping it all up in a pretty package and marketing it the way they do. But hey, I found Vegas one of the most depressing places I've ever been. To me all the glitz and glam is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. I've never been a fan of slot facilities or casinos, and I've never seen anything in all the year's we've have them in Ontario to change my mind. But hey, I know I'm in the minority.
And CoolCanadian, are you related to Councillor Grimes? You sound exactly like some soundbites I heard this morning.
Not related. I understand a lot of people have gambling addictions, but a lot don't. I disagree that Vegas is one of the most depressing places. You compared this to OLG Slots, which it cannot be compared to. Look at images of the casino in Marina Bay Sands.
Building this will not necessarily make more addictions. But even if it did, that's a bad argument because it would be just as bad, if not worse, as a casino elsewhere in the GTA. However, in the GTA it would only be a casino, would not provide nearly as many jobs, would not attract tourists.
A downtown entertainment complex would actually be better for those with addictions, because there would me many attractions and distractions. One might gamble, but there is a lot more for one to do, so he or she might not gamble as much. Compared to a gaming-only facility where, once your there, all you can do is gamble.
If a casino, with whatever negative consequences it brings with it, is being built within the greater Toronto area, why should we not take advantage of it and create an entertainment complex that is a major tourist attraction, rather than just a room for people to gamble.
Those who have addictions will find a way to gamble no matter what. Why should those who do not have addictions not be able to just have a fun night out?
By the way, NYC does have a casino. However, it is
just a casino. Ironically enough, Resorts World NYC is not a resort complex, just a casino.
