Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

Big Daddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fortunately these things tend to self-regulate... i.e. when government oversteps its bounds society pushes back. Prohibition is a pretty good case study for this.

Ontario makes for an odd case though. We don't have the strength of conviction to actually ban the things we don't like (smoking, gambling, drinking) - because our government likes the tax revenue too much - and so we get saddled with these somewhat arbitrary and ponderous regulations that make little sense to anybody and do nothing but limit the choices of the majority of reasonable people... and this is the fundamental problem with government regulating itself, profiting from the very thing it is 'ethically' against. It's a load of bshite, quite frankly. Either allow gambling or not - and if you don't it will only go underground and across the border anyway - but let a private company operate it so that our government can regulate it effectively!
 
The slots facilities have info available. The larger ones have on site staff. There is also a self identification program -- if you sign up and then go to any facility in Ontario, you will be escorted off the premises and probably also charged with trespassing.
 
I don't gamble and will never do, but judging from the proposal itself and suppose all can be accomplished, the pros probably overweigh the cons by 9 to 1.

Opening a casino might have its negative consequences, but so does bars, night clubs, or even a LCBO. Many are overly exggerating it here. If people want to take some risks, who are we to say "it should be forbidden"? If people want to go let them; you and I still won't no matter how close it is.

King and John is an ideal site for it: easily accessible, with plenty of stuff to see around, and current condition demands an overhaul as well. I don't get the "I am not against casinos, but just not downtown" kind of argument. If you put a casino in the middle of nowhere, doesn't it hurt the purpose of building it (and attracting customers)? Downtown is the ONLY suitable location for a casino. It is just like you don't open a fancy night club at Finch/Dufferin.
 
ShonTron said:
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.
Click to expand...

What Adam Vaughan fails to mention is that the city would not actually be involved in this negotiation. And thank god for that because I can't see Oxford going into any negotiation with CN with the asinine attitude of "we own you NIL".
Only to find out later that "NIL" is actually 512.5 grand! LOL
Basically, its only difficult when the city is involved and they don't want to pay for something. :rolleyes:

I think Oxfords point with this proposal is that they are willing to pay for such a structure - something the city/province have been very reluctant to pursue themselves. Presumably they will also be the ones footing the bill for the air rights, if any. And that they think this can be done. I would like to believe that they "did the research", but that remains to be seen. But its premature(and self-serving) for Vaughan to suggest they aren't aware of the issues involved.

CN/CP will pay ball very easily if money is thrown their way - if required. Metrolinx will demand that any construction does not shut down any tracks(save for the few I mentioned before) at least not for more than a weekend. And considering some of the magnificent structures built around the world today, I don't think a 140ft span will be that difficult(relatively) to construct.

Automation Gallery said:
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
Click to expand...

Well Metrolinx owns the air rights up to 8.2m/27ft. The minimal clearance for this kind of structure (from the top of the rail) would be 22ft as set out by Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/standards-tce05-233.htm#diagram_1). However that's for non-electrified lines. In GO transits recent electrification study the recommended clearance was 7400m, with an absolute minimum of 6900mm/22.6ft for underpasses (Spadina is actually only 6700mm). So, after including the height of the rail from the ground the structure, topsoil and all, has to span a 140ft length and be less than 4ft thick for them to not exceed Metrolinx air rights.
 
Last edited:
I am not a gambler. I might go to Niagara once a year, but from my limited experience the vast majority of casino patrons look upon it as entertainment. They go with their 100 bucks or so and don't really expect to return with it. I don't see much difference between that and spending a 100 bucks on a play or a concert or a meal. There's no guarantee that the play, etc. will be any good, so are you gambling your money there too? Why should the responsible gamblers have their entertainment curtailed because of a the few addicts?

A private company is offering billions in investment and employment, let's get on board.
 
If you want to gamble, just attend a church, a mosque, a temple or any other organized religious "place of worship." No difference.
 
Carjack said:
I am not a gambler. I might go to Niagara once a year, but from my limited experience the vast majority of casino patrons look upon it as entertainment. They go with their 100 bucks or so and don't really expect to return with it. I don't see much difference between that and spending a 100 bucks on a play or a concert or a meal. There's no guarantee that the play, etc. will be any good, so are you gambling your money there too? Why should the responsible gamblers have their entertainment curtailed because of a the few addicts?

A private company is offering billions in investment and employment, let's get on board.
Click to expand...

Good points. When people buy clothes or cars they obviously cannot afford we lightly dismiss it as 'shopaholic' but dont intefere. But the mentality is just as irresponsible. I say again - if we reject the casino we should reject the programs it funds. No hypocracy here.
 
everyday people gamble thier money away taking chances as Carjack said. a casino is no different from buying clothing that dosent fit when you get in home. or trying new foods at a resturant for the first time, or buying a brand of booze you havent tried. life is a gamble. get over the casinos to come into toronto as they are going to be there one day or another. its a matter of time. everyone just needs to know thoer limits and only take what they can afford to waste. i play 20-40 and thats it i never expect to win. if i do. bonus. but its fun to try.
 
I was just outside the CN Tower and there are a couple of tour busses. And it hit me...the casino would not only be a draw but to tourists as well. There are frequently busses carrying people from out of town, US and other countries, notably China. I can see the casino be another draw to these people. They would spend an hour or so inside with the slots or what not. And for those with children, the kids can visit the aquarium.

I was originally opposed to a casino downtown but the scope of the proposal is making me rethink. I now think it can be a positive thing if it is done right and of an appropriate size.
 
I have real issues with the comparisions of Toronto to Atlantic City that many of these oppenents are making, as the two cities are apples and oranges.
 
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.

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.

Both Foster towers are mixed use, not one for each condo and office. Offices below, condos on top. Entrances via a corridor linking Front St to the rail corridor park.

Each segment would fund the next one. The casino starts the funding dominoes so none of this happens without it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top