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

Hipster Duck, I couldn't have said it better myself. Decking over the rails is the main thing I look forward to in this proposal, so without it it's not the same.
 
Hipster Duck said:
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.
Click to expand...


We have not really seen whether or not the decked over park east of John street will be built regardless of the casino. My understanding is that the planned expansion of the Convention centre will make use of the new space over the rails, (and the casino would be over them west of John), so it may still be part of the package regardless. If the park east of John is still included without the casino, I will say no to the casino, but if we only get the supertalls without the rail decking, I would possibly start evaluating the possibilities of allowing a casino.
 
The people in the city that want to gamble have a plethora of methods to do so. They can hop on a bus and go to Rama or Niagara Falls. People have this idea that a casino downtown is going to spawn a whole new breed of gamblers that will line up for hours to spend money they don't have. There is no data anywhere that indicates this is the case. There is a finite amount of money for gamblers, and those who don't. Why do people think fanatic gamblers will have an endless amount of money to play with. Gamblers will find a way, and a casino downtown will only save them a trip on the bus. A ridiculous argument by the opponents.
 
bmiller said:
The people in the city that want to gamble have a plethora of methods to do so. They can hop on a bus and go to Rama or Niagara Falls. People have this idea that a casino downtown is going to spawn a whole new breed of gamblers that will line up for hours to spend money they don't have.
Click to expand...

Plus, nowadays, gambling is theoretically all present with internet gambling websites. We're all only a few clicks and a credit card number away from totally unregulated gambling.

The numbers seem quite murky, but more and more problem gamblers are probably shifting towards the instant gratification and privacy of online gambling.
 
Yup, all the mental health professionals and researchers are clearly idiots. If only they were as enlightened as yourself.

Hipster Duck,

I genuinely believe that building this casino where proposed and in the shape in which it is being proposed will lead to crime and loss of lives that wouldn't otherwise occur. This on top of bringing next to no financial benefits. In the OLG thread I show that in gambling has been linked to increases in crime and social ills over and over again. This is not a consequence of gambling itself, but rather of the way in which certain casinos - such as the one here proposed - are organised and regulated. I am willing to bet that, just like in most major casinos, a very large chunk of the profit will come from new problem gambling.

Right now the part of Toronto where the casino is proposed is according to police data one of the safest neighbourhoods in Canada. Cityplace South of the railway tracks is one of the few places in Toronto where next to no robberies or murders have been reported in years! And next to no one living there wants to deal with a casino. This is people who loved and supported the idea of aquariums, breweries, restaurants, and who have generally not opposed high rises or large amounts of subsidised housing. There is a risk that the casino will ruin this community, and this risk is not worth taking when the proposed benefits are so measly.

If we really want to cover the railway line, there are ways to do that which do not involve the casino. If it really was a priority for the city and the province, we could get it done. One thing is for sure, it won't be paid for by tourists.
 
I wonder if Oxford has explored alternative entertainment options to create some other sort of draw if the casino falls through. Like a small theatre, or a series of clubs, or an indoor multi-sport facility, or a water park, or some package of all of the above. There's no reason they couldn't include some other features to compensate for the loss of a gaming facility but still retain the concept of an entertainment destination. It might even be a more effective draw than a casino, given that as it stands Toronto's major draws tend to be family-friendly type stuff anyway
 
RC8 said:
If we really want to cover the railway line, there are ways to do that which do not involve the casino. One thing is for sure, it won't be paid for by tourists
Click to expand...

Yeah, it will be paid by people like you and me.... and everyone else that lives in Toronto
....and you are OK with that, right:eek:
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, it will be paid by people like you and me.... and everyone else that lives in Toronto
....and you are OK with that, right:eek:
Click to expand...

Absolutely. So far as it's done in a non-exploitative way.

The park as things stand is a bone that rich corporations and the province are throwing the city in exchange of a means to extract lots of resources from Toronto's economy. There's no reason why we can't come up with our own means of reinvesting resources so that we keep the park and we keep our resources.

As I've said before, I am not even opposed to a casino if it's run and regulated by people who actually give a damn about Torontonians' economy and well-being.
 
For the record, nobody said that decking over the rail corridor was contingent on a casino. In fact, even with a casino it was "just an idea" that Oxford hadn't even discussed with the stakeholders. However, this is the one and only opportunity for those air rights to mean anything. When this project gets going (with or without the casino), you can bet that the holders of the air rights will be looking to cash out and Oxford will be looking to better connect the two divided properties.

In my opinion, and without input from my sources, the Eastern segment (MTCC, Foster towers, shopping mall East rail corridor) will all proceed more or less as proposed. The Western block will need to be rethought. But if you think that Oxford is risking the insane amount of money involved at this site by hedging all their bets on the tiny chance that both City Council will approve a casino at all and then that their site would be chosen, you're terribly naïve. There's a Plan B through Z and one of them will be executed soon because Oxford isn't going to sit on this for a decade.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that a casino at the CNE grounds would include it's own convention centre. Ths would certainly take away any upside to rebuilding or expanding the existing convention centre and in fact may well make it possible tha it is replaced with other uses. I think the CC belongs downtown along with all the restaurants and hotels that will benefit each other. Moving all that nightlife to another location makes no sense for Toronto and adds only to the bottom line of the Casino operator and the OLC. Toronto needs to look out for its own interest and make sure they casino favours it's best interests.
 
RC8 said:
Yup, all the mental health professionals and researchers are clearly idiots. If only they were as enlightened as yourself.

Hipster Duck,

I genuinely believe that building this casino where proposed and in the shape in which it is being proposed will lead to crime and loss of lives that wouldn't otherwise occur. This on top of bringing next to no financial benefits. In the OLG thread I show that in gambling has been linked to increases in crime and social ills over and over again. This is not a consequence of gambling itself, but rather of the way in which certain casinos - such as the one here proposed - are organised and regulated. I am willing to bet that, just like in most major casinos, a very large chunk of the profit will come from new problem gambling.

Right now the part of Toronto where the casino is proposed is according to police data one of the safest neighbourhoods in Canada. Cityplace South of the railway tracks is one of the few places in Toronto where next to no robberies or murders have been reported in years! And next to no one living there wants to deal with a casino. This is people who loved and supported the idea of aquariums, breweries, restaurants, and who have generally not opposed high rises or large amounts of subsidised housing. There is a risk that the casino will ruin this community, and this risk is not worth taking when the proposed benefits are so measly.

If we really want to cover the railway line, there are ways to do that which do not involve the casino. If it really was a priority for the city and the province, we could get it done. One thing is for sure, it won't be paid for by tourists.
Click to expand...

So what is it specifically about this proposal that will lead to crime and loss of life? Which downtown casinos around the world have created those problems and which ones haven't? And more importantly, why? What does this casino have in common with the former and the latter? That's what's missing from this debate.
 
It's only a casino, not a reprise of Caligula. Cities build casinos, people work and play there, and life goes on. There won't be dead bodies to clean every morning, the empire won't fall. All the paranoia will fade away after a while. Of course when the city turns it down, non of this will matter.
 
I found the doom and gloom moral scenarios rather funny - it isn't like we don't have underground gambling palours. If one is predisposed to gambling, there are already a plethora of methods of get their fix in the city - and casino is probably one of the most regulated form of access in comparison to all the other methods.

That said, I wouldn't want the city to have more than one casino; I see it more as an amenity, not a serious source of revenue - much less one to get addicted to.

AoD
 
Y'know, the problem with calling Toronto babyish is that it sounds petulant, immature and - surprise! - babyish.

Moreover, a lesson in basic logic might be necessary. A lower Euro crime rate does and the presence of casinos in major Euro cities does not mean they are one and the same thing, or that one is the direct result of the other.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top