Oxford unveils $3-billion casino, convention centre proposal for downtown Toronto

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by duff+eglin

I completely understand what you are saying but, as others have mentioned, there are reasons other than ethical or moral grounds to be cautious about a casino. I am not sure I have very good grounds, but until I have heard those reports/studies cited by Adam Vaughan gone into in-depth (which I'm sure they have been and I am just ignorant) I also have reservations. If we do get something really fantastic out of it then I could definitely support this whole heartedly. But, I think MGM needs Toronto A LOT more than Toronto needs MGM and I think we can get even more out of them and this project. Do we have the people to extract more out of them? I don't know.

That's fair, but we need to avoid knee jerk hostility to casinos. Our government is already neck deep in the gambling industry and makes millions from it. OLG is the biggest gambling organization in the country with 18,000 employees. Even our big hospitals run annual gambling operations. The only discussion that should be happening is which organization we want running the show; a big US operator or the big government operator.

It's decades too late for a discussion about gambling.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The only discussion that should be happening is which organization we want running the show; a big US operator or the big government operator.

I would prefer a franchise type arrangement. Set it up where Ontario owns the casino and pays either a 1% royalty or 10% of net-profit for use of branding, ongoing training, design, and management oversight.

An equal amount (1% of gross revenue or 10% of net-profit) should go directly to CAMH for treatment of all mental illness including gambling addictions. Losses over 10% of a persons net wealth or 10% of annual salary (greater of this amount) over a 1 year time period will be partially reimbursed provided they are admitted to CAMH for gambling addiction, take a course in statistics, and are automatically banned from all provincial casinos for a period of 10 years.

Create a frequent player club of somekind (free drinks, slightly better odds or something) in order to assist in tracking the above.

Finally, match bar hours so the casino is a night out for entertainment and not a place to live.

[duff+eglin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's fair, but we need to avoid knee jerk hostility to casinos. Our government is already neck deep in the gambling industry and makes millions from it. OLG is the biggest gambling organization in the country with 18,000 employees. Even our big hospitals run annual gambling operations. The only discussion that should be happening is which organization we want running the show; a big US operator or the big government operator.

It's decades too late for a discussion about gambling.

I guess you are right about all that. As I said, for me it's about getting the right deal. If it is going to be in such a prime location it needs to be spectacular. Maybe this is, but could it be even better? Probably. If we are going to do this I want to go whole hog and have something iconic that people are really wowed by. If we are going to do the casino thing let's make it a real destination.

Having said that...it is probably illogical and wrongheaded but if one casino is good, and well attended, wouldn't two be better? And three? And four? And more? I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with that, but not because it is immoral, I just worry about some of those reports cited earlier in the thread.

[duff+eglin]

And let's stop this Proline BS at the casinos. As soon as the game is over you get paid!

[Toronto2008]

Amsterdam, London and Paris for example each have casinos. Look how their citizens have turned into zombies stumbling over themselves to fork over all their cash. Just look how all those cities are ruined.

....not!


Grow up, Toronto.

[duff+eglin]

Originally Posted by Toronto2008

Amsterdam, London and Paris for example each have casinos. Look how their citizens have turned into zombies stumbling over themselves to fork over all their cash. Just look how all those cities are ruined.

....not!


Grow up, Toronto.

You can be dismissive if you want but I don't see how that enhances the discussion or edifies anyone. Don't you at least think there can be a possibility that there is a right way and a wrong way to get into the casino business? Just because they can or are even likely to be successful isn't it possible they could be a detriment in certain cases? If so, aren't you curious why? If it is true that they can be a detriment, at the very least understanding why could help us pick just the right location and strike just the right deal. I hope the proponents on city council take a slightly more serious and thoughtful approach than some others seem to be doing.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by duff+eglin

You can be dismissive if you want but I don't see how that enhances the discussion or edifies anyone. Don't you at least think there can be a possibility that there is a right way and a wrong way to get into the casino business? Just because they can or are even likely to be successful isn't it possible they could be a detriment in certain cases? If so, aren't you curious why? If it is true that they can be a detriment, at the very least understanding why could help us pick just the right location and strike just the right deal. I hope the proponents on city council take a slightly more serious and thoughtful approach than some others seem to be doing.

So..... why would this be the wrong way? It is down in the tourist/commercial part of downtown therefore it is not invading anyone's neighbourhood;
it is not taking a primo lakefront location. It is taking an ugly little location and replacing a convention centre that badly needs upgrading.

[Toronto2008]

Originally Posted by duff+eglin

You can be dismissive if you want but I don't see how that enhances the discussion or edifies anyone. Don't you at least think there can be a possibility that there is a right way and a wrong way to get into the casino business? Just because they can or are even likely to be successful isn't it possible they could be a detriment in certain cases? If so, aren't you curious why? If it is true that they can be a detriment, at the very least understanding why could help us pick just the right location and strike just the right deal. I hope the proponents on city council take a slightly more serious and thoughtful approach than some others seem to be doing.

There absolutely is a right and wrong way to put up a casino: Its called city building. This project gives TO residents a little bit of everything. The right way is to give back to the community (the park) and offer financial gains for the city (% of revenue + taxes). If both those are met, this should be given the green light.

I go to casinos with $50 cash in hand, no more and no less. For me it's entertaining to see if I can get lucky and win a few bucks (I never do!)....but that's it. And I like to think most people in TO are like me in that they are responsible adults capable of deciding for themselves when to say enough. Same goes with drinking and smoking, which can both be considered social ills.

Anybody that uses Niagara/AC/Vegas as a comparison has lost me. Those casinos created the destination. In Toronto this will NEVER be the case.

[Toronto2008]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

It is taking an ugly little location and replacing a convention centre that badly needs upgrading.

Yes! Front St between Simcoe and John is possibly the most soulless place in the CBD. It rejects the street worse than Richmond St. This project will reverse that. Plus, this area is no stranger to a constant stream of taxis, tour busses and tourists. 4000+ parking spaces can be built underground...and so on, and so on..

[JustinB]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

What city doesn't have a casino these day? Aside from Toronto that is.

Toronto has Woodbine, and the Woodbine just cut half their workforce

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/02...g-over-layoffs

[Marcanadian]

You can't really call Woodbine a casino though. As far as I know, it only has slots.

[Toronto2008]

Originally Posted by JustinB

Toronto has Woodbine, and the Woodbine just cut half their workforce

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/02...g-over-layoffs

Woodbine is to a casino as Rob Ford is to a competent mayor.

[waldenbg]

The moral issues of a casino should not even be discussed in the debate. First f all, our provincial government operates several casinos in the province. Second of all, a casino is coming to the GTA no matter what.

Saying we should not have a casino because they can lead to gambling problems is like saying we should not have bars because they can lead to alcohol problems.

No one is making anyone gamble anything if they don't want to. The majority of people go into a casino for entertainment and spend maybe $50 or $100 at most. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, but its more for the fun of it.

If people spend their life savings at a casino, then they need to deal with the consequences. No one is forced to spend the money.

Anyone could drive an hour to Niagara or Rama to gamble. They could gamble online, or play the lottery.

There are slots at Woodbine, and a casino at the CNE during the summer.

If we have the opportunity to get an awesome resort in our tourist area, then I say we go for it!

[Mercenary]

Why do they have to build this casino here?

Can't they make some kind of underground skywalk from the convention center to toronto islands where they can make the casino?

[Innsertnamehere]

think about what you just said there... "underground" and "skywalk" don't exactly go together lol.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by duff+eglin

I guess you are right about all that. As I said, for me it's about getting the right deal. If it is going to be in such a prime location it needs to be spectacular. Maybe this is, but could it be even better? Probably. If we are going to do this I want to go whole hog and have something iconic that people are really wowed by. If we are going to do the casino thing let's make it a real destination.

Having said that...it is probably illogical and wrongheaded but if one casino is good, and well attended, wouldn't two be better? And three? And four? And more? I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with that, but not because it is immoral, I just worry about some of those reports cited earlier in the thread.

If demand warrants a second or third casino, I wouldn't be opposed to that. This does seem to be a massive proposal in a prime location, so a vigorous approval process is mandatory. I suppose we're in for many months, perhaps years, of negotiation before anything gets nailed down. This might end up being as lengthy a process as the waterfront development process has been.

I do like what I see so far. A large park built on top of the rail tracks that will further integrate Bremner, the Skydome, aquarium, etc. with the downtown. The larger twins look like they're interested in building something architecturally interesting and the location should help all of the current tenants in the area.

Front Street West needs a big lift and a casino seems to be the perfect tonic. I'm not sure anything else could address all the issues like a casino would.

[waldenbg]

From MetroMan on UT:

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.

I'm getting excited!

[hockemap]

I think this is also a good.

[duff+eglin]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

So..... why would this be the wrong way? It is down in the tourist/commercial part of downtown therefore it is not invading anyone's neighbourhood;
it is not taking a primo lakefront location. It is taking an ugly little location and replacing a convention centre that badly needs upgrading.

Well, I am not saying it's the wrong way just that we might get even better out of this. If there are even some smaller details that could be improved
(whether number or size of parking spaces, features/size of the park, features/size of the casino, features/size of the office and residential complexes and all of the other things that go with a development of this size) then that is a positive thing, no? There are many more or less failed casinos and I just want to make sure we learn from both the good and the bad.

Letting this proposal settle could flush out something even better which might in turn improve what gets proposed here. If we wait for more/improved proposals I don't see any harm. I don't think Toronto would miss a casino and if it is good now it will still be good after an extended approval process. Likewise, if this site gets developed more piecemeal and we have some other entertainment feature, and a lot more people actually permanently living downtown, then I don't really have a problem with that.


If this is the best we can possibly do then let's do it. Do I think they can do a significant revamp and get us even more out of this, I suspect yes. I don't think their first offer will be even close to their best. I love downtown and all I care about is making it as good as it can be. As I have made clear throughout my posts I am not against casinos at all . I am against jumping on board right away and pushing them just because a casino developer/operator says this is the best they can do. Toronto will do well with one, and it will do well without one. No hurry.

[Epi]

Originally Posted by rbt

Finally, match bar hours so the casino is a night out for entertainment and not a place to live.

I'm pretty sure casinos have last call... at least I remember hearing that last time I was at Casino Niagara.