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

Hipster Duck said:
That's not obvious at all. Where's your evidence that affluent young urban professionals are the target market for this casino? And even if they were, how is this group the most vulnerable? Yuppies are considered to be at the absolute top of the socioeconomic pyramid, being well-educated, affluent, young (thus healthy) and with no dependents.
Click to expand...

They are not the most vulnerable group - those were 2 different statements.

Canadian stats show that low-income households spend a percentage of their total wages up to 4 times greater than high-income households, and that physical availability of casinos and slot machines play an important part on whether people gamble or not. I don't think the OLG are targeting poor people, I bet they genuinely do want to milk the wealthier demographics of downtown Toronto. I just also think they will inevitably create an army of new low-income problem gamblers like virtually every other large casino has done in urban areas when looking to increase its profit-making capabilities.

The thing is, Yuppies currently spend most of their money in Toronto supporting local businesses. If the casino is successful in making them part with a higher proportion of their wages - that's going to provincial and american corporate coffers and we'll never see that money again. Likewise, a lot of the lower-income people who would inevitably be sucked in would have otherwise be contributing to the local economy instead.

I have no problem with gambling at all, I just think that the socio-financial risks of implementing a casino as proposed here far outweigh the monetary benefits being bandied out. We will be signing a contract for an operation that won't be run in our interest and that will be completely out of our control. Toronto deserves much more than that.
 
MetroMan said:
I've been avoiding this thread because a close friend of mine is involved and I don't want to accidentally disclose anything confidential. What I can do is gather a lot of what is publicly available and summarize it for the benefit of this thread: the MTCC has to be revitalized for competitive reasons. The Front Street side is a massive loss of potential commercial revenue. It has to be redeveloped. The towers at Front/Simcoe alone finance this part of the proposal. The casino itself serves to finance the rest of the project. Take what you will from that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like to me that the casino will be approved. If Front Street is having a massive loss of potential commercial revenue, City Council would be crazy not to approve something that would bring commercial revitalization of this level to the area and bring forth great revenue the city desperately needs.
 
To argue that there is a casino an hour away and therefore we should build one downtown, and such will not create more problem gamblers and social ills, is being blind to all the studies and evidence. What we don't have, is any evidence, from any major or minor city in North America, that a casino is in any way beneficial to the immediate surrounding area and communities. And you just have to go to Atlantic City, Windsor or Detroit to see it first hand. So I am not quite sure why anyone (except the casino industry) is touting "benefits".

What would be great, would be decent and modern convention facilities that would attract visitors who would in turn take in the city and its attractions, hotels and restaurants during their stay. What we do not need are decent and modern convention facilities that heavily discourages visitors from venturing outside the building (in addition to sucking money from non-visitors).
 
blacktrojan3921 said:
Sounds like to me that the casino will be approved. If Front Street is having a massive loss of potential commercial revenue, City Council would be crazy not to approve something that would bring commercial revitalization of this level to the area and bring forth great revenue the city desperately needs.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty obvious from MetroMan's recent post, and his (IIRC) earlier one about how Oxford could go ahead with/without the casino but probably scaled back in the latter case, that Oxford is fully prepared to redevelop MTCC either way, building the two(?) office/condo towers on the east side and a new MTCC North with significant Front St retail component. The deck over the rails will probably be (mostly) gone, though I guess it's unclear yet (publicly) how MTCC South will be redeveloped and reconnected to the North.

I don't think this would be all that bad of an outcome.
 
alklay said:
To argue that there is a casino an hour away and therefore we should build one downtown, and such will not create more problem gamblers and social ills, is being blind to all the studies and evidence.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence. As you yourself say we only have the examples of places like Windsor or Detroit, which were pretty dire cases to start with, casino or no.

... and we are getting a casino, right? One for the GTA that may be just as accessible to vulnerable people in Toronto as a downtown location. Yet 'Downtown' is the deal breaker for you?? Personally I'd rather have it here, in a tourist zone that is buffered from any traditional neighbourhoods.

At the end of the day the anti-casino sentiment is basically just nimbyism.
 
Tewder said:
There is no evidence. As you yourself say we only have the examples of places like Windsor or Detroit, which were pretty dire cases to start with, casino or no.

... and we are getting a casino, right? One for the GTA that may be just as accessible to vulnerable people in Toronto as a downtown location. Yet 'Downtown' is the deal breaker for you?? Personally I'd rather have it here, in a tourist zone that is buffered from any traditional neighbourhoods.

At the end of the day the anti-casino sentiment is basically just nimbyism.
Click to expand...

Honestly Tewder it sounds like you would want a downtown casino even if the hosting fee was ZERO. It seems you just want a casino to add to the entertainment options of Toronto. Also some of your arguments to why you think people are against Casinos seem to me to be simply wrong. You blame the Presbyterian Toronto the Good for stopping the casino. I work in a food bank and am a pastor. I'm not naïve to think that somehow the church can stop all gambling. It happens online and at every convenience store. Like many, it wouldn't bother me, or at least not as much if we were getting one with the right price attached. In no ways does that mean I am an advocate for it, nor does it mean that I feel its my Gods given duty to be the fun police. However it seems you are willing to have one no matter what, no matter where and no matter what the cost.
 
Tewder said:
... and we are getting a casino, right? One for the GTA that may be just as accessible to vulnerable people in Toronto as a downtown location. Yet 'Downtown' is the deal breaker for you?? Personally I'd rather have it here, in a tourist zone that is buffered from any traditional neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it. The argument is not about being pro or anti casino. We're getting one either way, and it should definitely be in downtown.
 
It appears City council is going to turn it down based on the number of committed votes. It will be built someplace but not downtown. All the disagreements and arguments are moot at this point.
 
bmiller is right. There will be no casino so it doesn't matter.

Also, if you want a more relevant comparison please check out Philadelphia's experience with casinos because they opened 3 new casinos in the last 5 years or so (2 in the suburbs 1 downtown). There experience has been that it has been lucrative to the State, if not particularly the city itself, and that there has been no measurable increase in crime or other strains on social services. The real damage the casinos do is to nearby gaming locations. Nearby Atlantic city has been devastated because why go to Atlantic city to gamble if you can go the Philadelphia instead? You can check out the commentary on this issue on a recent addition of TVO's the Agenda.

In other words, if you buy Philadelphia's experience as a direct comparison (which I think it is) the pundits on this issue are all wrong. Casino's don't impact local communities like they are saying, and yet they aren't cash cows for the city either. But we should already know this because there is already a casino in every Major Canadian city outside Southern Ontario.
 
The casino we are talking about here would be the largest one in the country wouldn't it? Vancouver's is pretty small and they blocked its expansion. Montreal's is far from where anyone lives. Philadelphia's casino is 'downtown' like ours would be if we put it in The Portlands - surrounded by parking lots and industrial sites and well out of the way of most neighbourhoods. Also, we are nothing like Philadelphia, they have sky high crime and poverty rates whereas we don't.

Technically we already have slot machines in Toronto - at old Woodbine and new Woodbine - and we cope. But unlike those examples, the proposed casino would be gigantic and exist within a 5 minute walk of one of the densest neighbourhoods in the continent AND Toronto's financial district! If we put it there, it goes wrong, and we want to pull the plug... we can't.

If the OLG were content with a Markham casino, they wouldn't have ruled out Woodbine as they have. Let's say no to a downtown casino and see what they come up with next.
 
RC8 said:
The casino we are talking about here would be the largest one in the country wouldn't it? Vancouver's is pretty small and they blocked its expansion. Montreal's is far from where anyone lives. Philadelphia's casino is 'downtown' like ours would be if we put it in The Portlands - surrounded by parking lots and industrial sites and well out of the way of most neighbourhoods. Also, we are nothing like Philadelphia, they have sky high crime and poverty rates whereas we don't.

Technically we already have slot machines in Toronto - at old Woodbine and new Woodbine - and we cope. But unlike those examples, the proposed casino would be gigantic and exist within a 5 minute walk of one of the densest neighbourhoods in the continent AND Toronto's financial district! If we put it there, it goes wrong, and we want to pull the plug... we can't.

If the OLG were content with a Markham casino, they wouldn't have ruled out Woodbine as they have. Let's say no to a downtown casino and see what they come up with next.
Click to expand...
In all these posts I see about a casino downtown being bad or dangerous, it's never articulated why. There are casinos in downtown cores all over the world - I'm really not seeing the issue here. The casino operators want to be downtown for the same reasons that hotels, museums, and aquariums want to be downtown - that's where the customers and tourists are. Your last sentence makes as much sense as saying "Let's say no to a downtown opera house and see what they come up with next".
 
TrickyRicky said:
In other words, if you buy Philadelphia's experience as a direct comparison (which I think it is) the pundits on this issue are all wrong. Casino's don't impact local communities like they are saying, and yet they aren't cash cows for the city either. But we should already know this because there is already a casino in every Major Canadian city outside Southern Ontario.
Click to expand...

This seems believable. For some reasons casinos are such a polarizing topic that both sides see fit to hugely overstate their case. It doesnt seem believable that the City could reap huge profits off of a casino, nor does it seem likely that a casino will create a socio-economic blackhole from which none will escape.

Downtown casinos are very common and rarely seem to have huge externalities (positive or negative...). Even just limiting our gaze to the worst case cities (Detroit, Atlantic City...), hardly any of their decline could be attributed to the casinos themselves.

Some people will go, some people wont. The world will continue. I am not sure why people wasting money rolling dice at a casino is a huge moral catastrophe whereas people racking up credit card debt at Yorkdale or spending 200$ on a night out at a club is perfectly normal.

This conversation is what happens when Helen Lovejoy-ism clashes with Mayor Quimby-ism.
 
It'd be repetitive to articulate why in every single post. The data is out there if you want to look it up. Opera houses don't have virtually any negative repercussions of the sort a casino would.

Here's some of the well-known risks and problems with a downtown casino:

1) Most casino revenues come from problem gamblers, there's no indication this one would be different, and only lobbyists suggest otherwise.

2) Poor people are disproportionately affected by casinos in terms of the share of their income they commit. Only lobbyists downplay this.

3) Distance to gambling facilities is one of the main determining factors of whether people (especially but not at all limited to those vulnerable to gambling addiction) gamble frequently or not.

4) Crime rates in and around casinos have often (though not always) sky-rocketed. This is a significant risk since it is being proposed in one of North America's densest residential neighbourhoods. The casino is proposed a 5 minute walk from the school soon to be built at Cityplace, and a 5 minute walk from tens of thousands of people's doorsteps.

5) Since they likely bring cash or valuables, most casino-goers drive, and are unlikely to take public transit - thus contributing to congestion, pollution, and gridlock in the residential neighbourhood where this is proposed. If you've been down there, you'd see the area is already more congested and polluted than virtually any other Toronto neighbourhood.

6) Paul Godfrey says he wouldn't want a casino in his neighbourhood, but he wants to build one in another residential neighbourhood. Cityplace resident's association, in a very transparent process, opposed the casino 150-1.

7) The money produced by this casino as proposed would primarily suck money out of Toronto's economy and send it directly to the province and to the coffers of american multinational corporations. The hosting fees being bandied out would bring the municipality a very small amount of resources.

8) Downtown businesses run by local entrepreneurs will have to compete with subsidised restaurants in order to survive. If people in condo-land get hooked by the casino, that is money that would have otherwise ended up in the local economy and that instead will go to subsidise unproductive parts of Ontario and rich american corporations. All serious calculations suggest that a very significant chunk of the revenue for the casino will come from locals... probably more than we'll get back with the ridiculous hosting fee that's being offered to us!

9) Downtown is a major financial hub, and many important businessmen and other developers have come out to announce that they will stop investing in downtown offices if there is a mega casino complex there. They don't want their employees, associates, and clients blowing their money away in an environment that is meticulously designed to get them to do just that.

10) Virtually all experts agree that a casino is unnecessary to revitalise the lands in questions, and that the lands may become just as productive but without any of the negative ramifications if a casino is turned down.

In Las Vegas, where casinos are genuinely geared towards tourists and not locals, the most desirable lands are those directly around the international airport. You could even walk to casino strip from the airport if you'd like. Woodbine is brilliantly located if they want to cater to tourists who will be flying in, but they overlook it because it's not really fly-in international tourists that these corporations are after. Let's face it, very few tourists would fly to Toronto for a casino weekend alone. There are other ways to increase our tourist appeal while retaining most investment within the local economy.
 
Anybody know if city hall is planning on banning poor people from buying Alcohol in the future? It seems like the logical step forward after banning the casino. In fact, they should take it a step further and ban poor people from anything above the first/second step in the pyramid

2mmaich.png

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
 
diminutive said:
This seems believable. For some reasons casinos are such a polarizing topic that both sides see fit to hugely overstate their case. It doesnt seem believable that the City could reap huge profits off of a casino, nor does it seem likely that a casino will create a socio-economic blackhole from which none will escape.

Downtown casinos are very common and rarely seem to have huge externalities (positive or negative...). Even just limiting our gaze to the worst case cities (Detroit, Atlantic City...), hardly any of their decline could be attributed to the casinos themselves.

Some people will go, some people wont. The world will continue. I am not sure why people wasting money rolling dice at a casino is a huge moral catastrophe whereas people racking up credit card debt at Yorkdale or spending 200$ on a night out at a club is perfectly normal.

This conversation is what happens when Helen Lovejoy-ism clashes with Mayor Quimby-ism.
Click to expand...

Yup. Let me try to summarize and then weigh the arguments for- and against a casino, as presented so far in this thread from credible sources.

A. The evidence suggests that introducing casinos do not add significantly to increased social problems

B. The evidence suggests that introducing casinos does not add significantly to the creation of jobs and revenues for communities, either

C. If no casino is built, the MTCC renovations and the construction of the Norman Foster supertalls will proceed (ie. the supertall office towers finance the rehabilitation of MTCC)

D. If a casino is built, however, the public park over the rail corridor becomes possible

E. The casino is a gargantuan, block-spanning edifice that may not be conducive to fostering the micro-scaled urbanity that we (or at least I) tend to prefer

F. The existing area, as it is, is dominated by gargantuan, block-spanning edifices that have not fostered any micro-scaled urbanity in the area to date.

So:

A cancels B, E cancels F. Condition C placates supertall fans in the event that no casino is built.

My favourite component is the addition of a public park over the rail corridor. I really like that feature, actually. D is only possible if the casino is built.

So, my final verdict in this is: build the casino.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top