News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 480     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 587     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 2.1K     1 

OLG Toronto/GTA casino proposal (where to put it?)

taal said:
Right, I wasn't arguing a casino wouldn't be good for Markham at all (though I think you're brushing off the scoia-economic impacts, there are negatives here ...) ! I was just saying you too preternaturally thinking Toronto does not want it downtown. You mentioned this, because it is Toronto, everything makes the media. That's not the case in Markham, I can all but guarantee you at least one councilor in Markham will not approve of a casino, now it probably won't make a difference.

That stat you quoted about renting is the case for every city in North America and means very little. While Toronto residents don't own as much property downtown, the city and many other organizations do, so if a casino were to increase values in Markham the same would take place in Toronto, which directly effects the citizens as it effects how much the city can take in.


Lastly, a casino in Markham can potentially help the property values, its not going to help the values in the rest of Markham (which is large), so a blanket statement that it benefits everyone is a bit silly just because many own.
Click to expand...

Maybe Toronto wants a casino or maybe they don't....Maybe Toronto wants it at OP, maybe Woodbine, maybe CNE, maybe somewhere else downtown....maybe they have to do studies to determine which location and social costs vs. financial benefits...then maybe they have to figure out what the hell they are going to do about their transporation infrastructure to enable it to support a casino...then maybe they will have to convince all the upset local businesses who feel that a casino will take business away from them...then maybe they have to convince all the people who feel a casino will lead to the social downfall of the city....then maybe they have to figure out how to get council to work together...then maybe the have a referendum....then maybe they put together a business plan to present to OLG......By the time all that happens it'll be 2017 and the casino will already be built.
MY POINT, is that Toronto's got too many issues it has to figure out first. In my opinon, they are not ready for a casino right now. However Markham is ready and able now!
If Toronto wants to go through the necessary motions, then they can figure out if they want the next casino that the OLG decides to build in the GTA, after they build this one.

In regards to your response to my housing tenure argument.......sure the property value in Toronto will increase as well, but by how much? You are mistaken my friend in assuming that the marginal increase in property value will be the same in Toronto as the marginal increase will be in Markham. Toronto's housing prices are currently way higher than they are in Markham. There is way more room for a huge increase in Markham.

The people of Markham are not concerned with the social-collapes of the Town, they are concerned about property value. You made the point that the City and organizations own the property in Toronto, well that's not the same as having individual families who can vote own the property. Corporations cannot vote.

Here is another little stat for you from 2006 census.....
"The vast majority of social housing units in the GTA are in Toronto. York Region has just more than 6,000 of the GTA’s 119,141 units"

In regards to your last point....sure, the casino in Downtown Markham will not have an impact on property values everywhere in Markham. However Markham residents will know that having a healthy, lively downtown area in their town will be beneficial for the entire Markham economy and property values as a whole.

We in Markham know a good bet when we see one.......
 
Last edited:
Calling a 6 billion dollar MGM mega-resort a "casino" is really misleading... Been to the MGM Grand in Vegas many times... Resorts like these are amazing... The restaurants are world-class ( Tom Colicchio's chop house was superb) and the year round Cirque de Soleil shows that play in MGM controlled resorts are spectacular... This would be an unbelievable addition to TO's waterfront, IMO...
 
This announcement certainly changes my perspective on things. A 2 to 6 billion dollar investment in our core is a lot to pass up. This could get us our LRT out to the portlands and fill the funding gap so that Waterfront Toronto could move on the original plan for re-naturalizing the Don rather than the disappointing result of the recent public consultations. The Star is now reporting that the Casino could be as little as 5% of the floor space of this resort ( http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhal...o-resort-won-t-work-at-woodbine-mgm-says?bn=1 ). If they're willing to work with Waterfront Toronto to ensure that as much of the resort as possible is both open to the public and acceptable for a waterfront location, I might have to change my vote.
 
ttk:

Actually I still prefer the Ex/Ontario Place - there can be so much synergy with what's already in the area: National Trade Centre/Allstream Centre/Better Living Centre for the exhibtion/trade show component; Ricoh Colesium/BMO Field for sports related events; Molson Amphitheatre for concerts, Cinesphere for IMAX...plus the site already has excellent highway, GO and TTC access. Besides, like it or hate it, the area - given its' existing land uses and surrounding constraints will be exceedingly difficult to urbanize in the proper manner.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
ttk:

Actually I still prefer the Ex/Ontario Place - there can be so much synergy with what's already in the area: National Trade Centre/Allstream Centre/Better Living Centre for the exhibtion/trade show component; Ricoh Colesium/BMO Field for sports related events; Molson Ampihtheatre for shows, Cinesphere for IMAX...plus the site already has excellent highway, plus GO and TTC access. Plus like it or hate it, the area - given its' existing land uses and surrounding constraints will be exceedingly difficult to urbanize in the proper manner.

AoD
Click to expand...

My personal thoughts on the matter are that the portlands are still largely undefined and if done right, this proposal could still fit into the existing WT vision for that area. OP and the Ex on the other hand already have defined usage. With more convention space in the portlands, some of the existing convention space at the Ex could be removed and OP and the Ex could be merged and turned into a year round family resort/parkland/amusement park...something that could be as attractive to families as the MGM proposal would be to the gamblers and younger adult entertainment seekers.
 
Last edited:
ttk77 said:
the portlands are still largely undefined and if done right, this proposal could still fit into the existing WT vision for that area.
Click to expand...

The portlands offer a large opportunity for parkland, and nobody wants a part near a casino complex. In addition, the portlands are more awkward to access, and I presume would be more difficult to add in high-capacity transit. If we must have a casino (and I really don't think we do), the Ex/Ontario Place would be a far better location.
 
sixrings:

Not a good idea - considering the jobs at Bombardier is of fairly high quality, and besides, why would a resort casino operator want to locate there? For its' cachet?

ttk:

My personal thoughts on the matter are that the portlands are still largely undefined and if done right, this proposal could still fit into the existing WT vision for that area. OP and the Ex on the other hand already have defined usage. With more convention space in the portlands, some of the existing convention space at the Ex could be removed and OP and the Ex could be merged and turned into a year round family resort/parkland/amusement park...something that could be as attractive to families as the MGM proposal would be to the gamblers and younger adult entertainment seekers.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Portlands are several fold - non-existent infrastructure for one, and given the potential space for additional developments, there will be pressure to skew them towards resort-related uses (think that lifestyle mall nonsense), which is an undesirable outcome. As to the Ex - nobody will be removing the convention space, in fact I think the plan is to expand the NTC.

What I do wish is a complete rethink of the landscape plan for Ex/OP - what's available there right now is so unbelievably crude.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Tulse said:
The portlands offer a large opportunity for parkland, and nobody wants a part near a casino complex. In addition, the portlands are more awkward to access, and I presume would be more difficult to add in high-capacity transit. If we must have a casino (and I really don't think we do), the Ex/Ontario Place would be a far better location.
Click to expand...

The portlands are huge, and the WT plan for the area is mixed use with commercial areas, residential areas and large areas for parkland. I'm not suggesting putting the casino in one of the residential areas or sacrificing any of the planned park land. As I said, I would be in favour if it could be made to fit into the original WT plan for the area. I do not want to see this area turned into a Doug Ford fantasy land.
 
well i thought it would fix a couple things... first if bombardier was not there it would eliminate the height limitations of north york. so essentially the areas around yorkdale wilson downsview could all grow up. nycc could grow west as well as north. I also thought that downsview park is more of a community situated around gaming, sports and entertainment. A casino could be another addition to that area. As well if bombarider was gone the park could be expanded. maybe again a move of woodbine? anyways i thought it was centrally located and connected to transit. For a long time i have suggested bombardier and woodbine to switch sites. This just helps that thinking.
 
Either way I think Toronto should push for this ...

We have areas downtown, be it the Ex / Ontario Place / the Portlands ... that will likely not be urbanized on the typical scale we like in terms of built form i.e. Queen / ... so in these areas its okay to set aside land for purely entertainment purposes.

At the end of the day this will just add to the list of attractions in Toronto and not really take away from anything ... there's enough land in the downtown core to build those proper / working neighborhoods.


It would be a loss to Toronto if this were to go to the some other location in the GTA. In the sense this could help complete an area or creating a district for 'entertainment', I agree there are other issues at play but I don't think we need a referendum or to ask people who live in the area. Really today no one lives around Ontario place or the portlands so it isn't something that should be up for discussion less the moral aspect.
 
I haven't read any of this thread but I wanted to add my two cents as someone who lived in a place where a casino was built.

Despite my user name, I actually grew up in Point Edward, Ontario next door to Sarnia. When I was in high school in the late 90's, a charity casino was built in Point Edward. I don't know if you know anything about Point Edward but its population is about 2100 and right beside Sarnia, which has about 70,000 people.

I remember all sorts of people saying it was cause terrible problems for the area but quite the opposite happened. Tour groups from across Southern Ontario and Eastern Michigan began showing up and coupling a casino trip with other activities in the area. A couple new, large restaurants opened up to accommodate 50+ people arriving at once. Marinas in the area offered deals to park your boat for the weekend and get special deals at the casino.

I worked for the Point Edward Public Works Dept. as a summer student for years and we had all sorts of brand new, high end trucks and equipment. I don't know if it was from the casino or additional government grants but extra summer students were hired as the years went on. Roads were repaved, a couple traffic lights were installed, new firetrucks were purchased, every municipal building got a renovation, new street furniture was installed, new equipment in playground was installed... the list goes on and on.

I know the area is a tiny fraction of the size of Toronto but I have seen a casino help out a struggling area. I'm not familiar with how Niagara Falls or Windsor were impacted by having a casino as I haven't spent much time in either of those cities... I only know what I saw happen first hand to my hometown.

I'm all for a casino in Toronto as long as it's somewhat removed to the rest of the city.... the future Port Lands development, Ontario Place or The Ex would be ideal. I think it's important to keep it in this area as it's close to other tourist attractions. I could see a lot of American tourists coming here for a weekend via car to see a baseball game and take the kids to the Ripley Aquarium or do a bit gambling. If you're ever around Union Station in the summer during a baseball game, you'll already see a lot of American tourists in baseball jerseys. Why not give them one more reason to continue visiting here?
 
If one of these big casino giants came to Toronto perhaps they could make an offer to the Toronto Star that they couldn't refuse, buy up their building and lot in behind and presto - huge site for a casino/hotel/entertainment venue. That would make it an easy to find walkable location for tourists & visitors, highway and PATH access, height would be no issue as they are on the north side of Queen's Quay and it's on the waterfront. Part of the deal (if I had my way) is that the Yonge & Queen's Quay side would have to be animated and all parking must be below grade.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top