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

If the hosting fee is no more than $20 million, (as per the Premier today) I'd tell them to get lost. Why would the city take on public discontent and the increased costs of policing and transit requirements when the potential benefit is so small?
 
TonyV said:
You may have me in mind. I've already posted that I'd whore out if casino hosting yielded us much $$$ for transit construction. But I am expensive, I say it should be much more than that 100M figure, so call me a pricey whore. Now, back to principals. I am totally against OLG coming in here an taking massive money out of our jurisdiction and not giving back anything especially with extreme needs in transit updating.

Obviously I have no moral stance against gambling.
Click to expand...

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular....I have seen several people who if you parse/combine their posts come across as "anti-casino" then express the opinion that if the hosting fee was large enough they would/could tolerate a casino.

Sorry if you thought I was targeting you with my thought(s).
 
TOareaFan said:
It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular....I have seen several people who if you parse/combine their posts come across as "anti-casino" then express the opinion that if the hosting fee was large enough they would/could tolerate a casino.

Sorry if you thought I was targeting you with my thought(s).
Click to expand...

That's ok, I enjoyed rising to it. I was really only having a laugh, and flattering myself a tad. My sentiments are true, though -- I am getting fed up with the Ontario fleece job, and this casino stuff would just be more of the same. If some border suburb wants this stuff, let 'em have it.
 
TonyV said:
That's ok, I enjoyed rising to it. I was really only having a laugh, and flattering myself a tad. My sentiments are true, though -- I am getting fed up with the Ontario fleece job, and this casino stuff would just be more of the same. If some border suburb wants this stuff, let 'em have it.
Click to expand...

I've said a few times that (IMO) the correct "decision tree" for Toronto on this is 1) is the city willing to host a casino {this discussion would be free of any monetary influence at all ...just a "do we want this property use anywhere in the city}.....if the answer is no...close the discussion inform the province....if the answer is "yes" tell the province that and that the city will now get back to them after #2 and $3 are answered.....

........2) What locations would we be willing to host a casino........


......3) What are the city's terms (in regards to design/managment/hosting fees).

Communicate that to the Province and see where it goes.

Mixing up Yes/no...location....hosting fees into one decision is just a recipe for an unclear (and ultimately revisited) decision.
 
TOareafan:

Actually no. The proponents are not operating on a decision tree when it comes to their sales job in the first place - they are selling their scheme and lobbying for support on the basis of what benefits it would offer right off the start. I found that there are absolutely no reasons why the citizens and the city should not call them on it and demand some upfront, concrete information as to just what those expected benefits are. All the humming and ha-ing tells plenty.

AoD
 
Last edited:
From the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...for-convention-centre-casino/article11099987/

This bit is interesting:

The letter from the head of the Entertainment District Residents Association says the proposal offers a welcome alternative to more condo buildings.

“The residents of the Entertainment District have been overwhelmed by condo developments that add nothing to the area and only put a strain on services and infrastructure,” says the letter from Mike Yen, executive director of the residents group. It goes on to say that Oxford’s proposal provides some solutions by building office space and “badly needed” apartments, as well as dealing with local traffic congestion.
Click to expand...

Not that I am against their support, but it is somewhat ironic - those living in condos that "add nothing to do the area" are now complaining about additional condos that "add nothing to the area" that somehow wrecked their area. So are they implying that they bought nothing to the area, or they saying that only they, and they alone can bring something to the area?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
From the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...for-convention-centre-casino/article11099987/

This bit is interesting:



Not that I am against their support, but it is somewhat ironic - those living in condos that "add nothing to do the area" are now complaining about additional condos that "add nothing to the area" that somehow wrecked their area. So are they implying that they bought nothing to the area, or they saying that only they, and they alone can bring something to the area?

AoD
Click to expand...

Don't take anything serious from Mike Yen. He created this association to serve only his political whims (ran against the local Councillor last election).
Here is his reasoning from his own website, which obviously makes no sense at all if you support Oxford's proposal: ​

"Our neighbourhood is rapidly changing due to an enormous amount of construction developments…but at what cost? With blackouts becoming more common and government services stretched to the limit, can our infrastructure sustain this level of development? Our roads are blocked, traffic is insane and public transit is insufficient. Our favourite restaurants & entertainment venues are being torn down along with the heritage buildings that they occupy. Despite opposition from the community our local city councillor continues to side with developers and vote in favour of massive condo construction proposals that threaten the very existence of the Entertainment District. It is crucial that our community bond together to ensure that we are not ignored."

He obviously has no idea how planning works in this City with the OMB. ​
​
 
Nor does he know much about banding together.

42
 
I can't count the number of times I've hear this oft-repeated threat of "increasing blackouts" across the city due to the burden of new condo construction. Does anyone have any stats that can back that up or is it just, what I suspected is, fear-mongering?

No doubt electrical infrastructure needs updating but these claims seem ridiculous.
 
The question is, what will Oxford do with this property without the casino component (as it seems doubtful that we will get a downtown casino).
 
alklay said:
The question is, what will Oxford do with this property without the casino component (as it seems doubtful that we will get a downtown casino).
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's fairly profitable as is, so I don't think they're too worries. In addition, they likely have alternate (less elaborate/less immediate) plans just in case.
 
Big Daddy said:
If the hosting fee is no more than $20 million, (as per the Premier today) I'd tell them to get lost. Why would the city take on public discontent and the increased costs of policing and transit requirements when the potential benefit is so small?
Click to expand...

First of all public discontent should be paired with public content. The assumption that the public don't want a casino is a giant leap. I don't gamble at all, but would definitely visit many times just as I did with the downtown casino in Halifax when living there. The Halifax experience was largely positive. It added another layer of entertainment, boosted the cruise line industry, increased business for downtown bars/restaurants/shops, added some glitz to the downtown core, and regardless of what people say about casinos they are heaps of fun whether you partake or not.

Increased transit and policing requirements? That's just part of growing into a bigger city. More people bring more demands placed upon it. If you're against more demands placed upon the city, one should halt all condo projects as well.

Lastly, I support the casino purely on principle. I have no interest in living in a nanny state or having someone dictate to me their strict religious or moral code. Presbyterian Toronto the Good supposedly died a long time ago, and good riddance. Small benefit? A casino provides tons of benefits in lots of areas. Gambling is part of the modern world despite many people wanting to pretend it doesn't exist. Shoving it in Woodbine won't change that. All it will do is rob our downtown of all the things I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
First of all public discontent should be paired with public content. The assumption that the public don't want a casino is a giant leap. I don't gamble at all, but would definitely visit many times just as I did with the downtown casino in Halifax when living there. The Halifax experience was largely positive. It added another layer of entertainment, boosted the cruise line industry, increased business for downtown bars/restaurants/shops, added some glitz to the downtown core, and regardless of what people say about casinos they are heaps of fun whether you partake or not.

Increased transit and policing requirements? That's just part of growing into a bigger city. More people bring more demands placed upon it. If you're against more demands placed upon the city, one should halt all condo projects as well.

Lastly, I support the casino purely on principle. I have no interest in living in a nanny state or having someone dictate to me their strict religious or moral code. Presbyterian Toronto the Good supposedly died a long time ago, and good riddance. Small benefit? A casino provides tons of benefits in lots of areas. Gambling is part of the modern world despite many people wanting to pretend it doesn't exist. Shoving it in Woodbine won't change that. All it will do is rob our downtown of all the things I mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Well said!

I think it needs to be stressed that a casino is coming to the GTA whether some of us like it or not. The question is, will we let the benefits go to the boonies (Vaughn and the like), or allow the casino to bolster downtown's place as a regional centre? I'll take the latter.
 
If it doesn't come to downtown or the Exhibition grounds, Toronto will handily survive - even thrive. Too, I expect that the convention centre expansion will happen regardless, but perhaps on a slower timetable, with less flash in the way of exciting proposals.

Any casino complex going into the GTA suburbs will be smaller than a proposal for the core. I don't see the big players really angling for the same scale of project. They've hinted as much, repeatedly. The big draw is putting it in where it's closest to the city's biggest transportation hubs, to where there would be maximum cachet, maximum prestige.

Looks like Toronto's councillors are going to vote it down. In any case, it looks like it could be a real squeaker of a vote. If it fails for the pro-casino side, I expect the players will indeed look elsewhere in the GTA; whatever does eventually get built will still be a relatively large and impressive project but it just won't be as massive a deal as a downtown development.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top