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

tiffer24 said:
This is starting to not make sense--your hysteria over gambling has gone on for pages and has developed into an irrational argument. Maybe you have some personal issues with gambling or know someone who has a problem, but please do not assume that everyone else is incapable of making their own adult decisions about how to live their life.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I'll reply to RC8's silliness in regards to the casino in a different thread as asked but I will say this (as it pertains to the buildings and not the casino per se). Oxford will not build what is shown on these renderings without a casino. That isn't opinion, hearsay or logical leaps. It is straight from someone that has more knowledge of their inner workings than I would suspect everyone else here.

The Hudson yards are going ahead because Oxford is part of the GP and doesn't have to put much skin in the game. This is nearly the same scale (well not really, hudson yards is much bigger, but this is closer than most anything else out there). Oxford owns MTCC itself. It doesn't want to put $2-3bln into a project like this even if it takes on some other partners like AIMco or CPPIB. The expensive park over the rails will be gone, the supertalls will be gone. They will re-do the convention centre space, put in a new hotel (or one 4-5 star and one 3+ star) and will put in as much retail as they can get away with. The RBC buildings will stay and this will be a nice but unspectacular project designed to do what pension funds do. Make money.
 
fedplanner said:
Can the ongoing debate about casinos be moved to the Toronto issues thread.

This thread should be specific to the development of Oxford Place, which will likely proceed in some form sans a casino component. The current discussion is so off topic. Surely I'm not the only one that doesn't want to read about LCBO.

A friendly request.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saying what a lot of us are thinking. Lets move on.
 
tiffer24 said:
This is starting to not make sense--your hysteria over gambling has gone on for pages and has developed into an irrational argument. Maybe you have some personal issues with gambling or know someone who has a problem, but please do not assume that everyone else is incapable of making their own adult decisions about how to live their life.
Click to expand...

Sadly, he isn't the only advocate of a nanny state. In fact, he's more or less just echoing city hall's mentality. I can't see a casino being built in Toronto under the current leadership, so I just hope all those clowns get voted out once people start seeing all the benefits go to Vaughn or wherever, and we end up keeping the current MTCC as is.
 
DtTo: I think you overstate and oversimplify the case. The electorate is concerned with a variety of issues, the casino being but one among many. Public transit is a huge one, for example. Taxation, schools, properly managed growth... the list goes on.

For a lot of folks, casino/no casino is simply not a burning issue; it barely shows up on their political radar. A lot of sound and fury signifying sweet zip.

There's lots of important stuff facing council. Its effectiveness just doesn't hinge on a single issue.
 
RC8 said:
It's very hard to ignore non-logical arguments, though - when they are repeated over and over again.

I can't wait 'til the casino is struck down by council so that we can focus on the features of this project that can be a great asset to this community! But while councillors are making up their minds, it's important to tackle the sort of opinions that encourage our councillors to vote against city-building.

See the guy above who asks "where are the stats that there is a disproportionate amount of problem gamblers here?", even though a simple google search would enlighten him. He then asks "why are problem gamblers more important than problem drinkers?" even though no one has suggested that, and problem drinkers are irrelevant to this discussion.

Casino proposing non-logic says:

1.It's not the end of the world, and since I don't live next to it, we must embrace it.
2.We NEED it to pay for things that would in all likeliness pay for themselves anyway... but still!
3.It's immoral to let people die and be abused by the alcohol industry and not by the casino industry. Either we abuse everyone, or no one!
4.Downtown residents are not residents like, you know... the ones where I live.
5.Downtown neighbourhoods are not like, you know... the one where I live.
6.We is gettin' soopertaaallz! And I'm getting a new destination within driving distance :cool:
7.Who would raise kids in the city anyway?
8.Smaller casinos more responsibly administered and tightly regulated than the one proposed in Toronto haven't been that bad for other cities. Bigger casinos more similar to the one proposed in Toronto, often run by the same people, where crime is notorious... is anecdotal evidence championed by the left wing media.
9. The government should stay out of our bedrooms... and impose a giant gambling monopoly upon an unwilling neighbourhood.
10. We can subsidise the 'burbs with a casino, and increased crime in productive downtown neighbourhoods that subsidise the 'burbs anyway is just a small price to pay.

I will stop arguing now. I will simply refer back to this post in this thread, and direct people to the OLG thread in Toronto Issues.
Click to expand...


Is there any point at all to any of this claptrap?

AoD and I have presented to you very coherently why downtown is a 'better' option for a casino than other communities, and yet you dismiss this offhand as 'non-logical'.


RC8 said:
I drink regularly and gamble occasionally...
Click to expand...



In the end though your posture that 'gambling is fine and I enjoy it myself from time to time as long as it's in some other community that I can drive to in the burbs' makes absolutely no sense from any perspective other than your own self-interest... which is all the more galling given the enormous development potential of this massive project, of which a casino is just one relatively small contained part. Such a shame!
 
Tewder:

I don't think it is "better" per se, more that the fears are overstated. That said, I personally support a (read: singular) casino as a one off - not as a general expansion of gambling establishments in the city. Think of it as an additional amenity vs. gambling as a (Vegas, Macau) way of life differentiation.

Anyways, please direct general postings on the casino to the thread in the Toronto Section, this thread should be reserved for Oxford Place only and it's OT as is.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
DtTo: I think you overstate and oversimplify the case. The electorate is concerned with a variety of issues, the casino being but one among many. Public transit is a huge one, for example. Taxation, schools, properly managed growth... the list goes on.

For a lot of folks, casino/no casino is simply not a burning issue; it barely shows up on their political radar. A lot of sound and fury signifying sweet zip.

There's lots of important stuff facing council. Its effectiveness just doesn't hinge on a single issue.
Click to expand...

Well said. I really am happy we live in a state that takes care of their people well. Looking out for others over oneself, like a mother would her children is not a bad thing ever. Further, there are many very negative effects that casinos bring such as a net loss to jobs overall in most areas they are introduced, and THAT has been very well documented by many studies. Its called job subsitution. Not sure why we would want to look past the negatives, simply for our own pure joy of reducing the provincial debt for the govt, when most economists will tell you the ebb and flow of the market allows for periods of debt during recessions, and tighter spending during boom times. But ya, lets just ignore the facts, cause we want to believe casinos are little saviours. It's a stupid move, and if the majority doesn't want it, I'd say the majority is quite sensible and has looked at the facts instead of what is most exciting. The city will be just fine without a casino, and may be worse off with one. A gamble we should not take.
 
Last edited:
tiffer24 said:
This is starting to not make sense--your hysteria over gambling has gone on for pages and has developed into an irrational argument. Maybe you have some personal issues with gambling or know someone who has a problem, but please do not assume that everyone else is incapable of making their own adult decisions about how to live their life.
Click to expand...

+2
 
If a casino is built outside of downtown, they will build their own convention centre, further weakening the downtown CC. then we will have two mediocre convention Centres - or worse, Xfird will give up on a CC and build more condos. A casino outside of dwntown will also build its own hotels, well apart from the existing hotels downtown, further weakening their position. The same holds true for restaurants and bars. If there is going to be a casino in Tronto, it NEEDS to be dwntown and the Oxford proposal would be the best option period.
 
Thanks, I got it, but it bears mentioning here because if the impact on the Oxford development and the developments around it.

Frankly it has more place here than the endless debate over the moral discussion of permitting a casino at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top