ave_spadina
Senior Member
The Queen Elizabeth building would be a pretty big architectural loss, especially considering our rapidly dwindling stock of mid-century buildings.
- Thread starter Traynor
- Start date
The Queen Elizabeth building would be a pretty big architectural loss, especially considering our rapidly dwindling stock of mid-century buildings.
blacktrojan3921
New Member
They should try to improve the design, when you compare it to Oxford Place's casino, this one looks like it was made on a economy budget.
I do hope that this plan goes through though.
I do hope that this plan goes through though.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
funny enough this apparently has half a billion more budgeted than the oxford proposal. (don't know were the hell they plan to sink 3 billion in this though, I don't see much)
adma
Superstar
Essentially, what you have here is the "palatable" sequel to both Woodbine Live! and the Fords' portlands scheme.
Note that I quoted "palatable".
Note that I quoted "palatable".
fedplanner
Active Member
I don't know what some people see in this development. It's a suburban mall and casino, which are both heavy trip generators, in a area with poor transit connectivity. At best, the proposal does little to integrate the development with the rest of the city, and over 12,000 parking spots are planned to accommodate demand. The Oxford proposal calls for 3,000 underground parking spaces to accommodate demand from the casino as well as several million sq ft of office, hotel, retail, residential, and convention space; transit plays play a much bigger role.
I hope this proposal further energizes the anti-casino movement. As much as I love the Oxford proposal, it's disgusting to think this development also has the potential to be built. Plus I'm confident that Oxford would still develop the MTCC site even if the casino component is killed.
DtTO
Active Member
Not sure how anyone can support this over the Oxford proposal on an urban forum...
Thanos is correct: neither the Food building nor the Queen Elizabeth Building would be lost if this (pretty awful) plan were to be built.
42
A GO Train line (which is a priority to be electrified too), 2 streetcar lines, and one of the busiest bus routes in the city is poor service?
I don't get this. One of the biggest objections to the Oxford proposal is that it's not suitable for the area, despite it's attempt to integrate with the rest of the city. Now we have a proposal that tries to 'cordon' itself off from the rest of the city, and it's slammed for not integrating. Which is it???
Assuming a casino is going to get built, either the city goes with an urban proposal and accepts the fact that it may not jive perfectly with some of its neighbours, or it goes with a more suburban proposal that cordons itself off from surrounding uses that it may not jive with. You can't have it both ways. You're not going to see an urban proposal that is on its own little island (figuratively speaking), because an urban proposal involves density, which in Toronto involves either condos or office towers. Neither of which would work well at the Ex at this point. Maybe if the Ex were significantly re-imagined it would, but at this point, no.
Personally, I like the idea of the Ex location better, although I may not like some of the specifics of this proposal in particular. I like the idea of creating a 24-hour entertainment destination for a wide variety of events and attractions, all in a place that is relatively secluded from incompatible uses. It's easily accessible by both transit and by car, and it's easy to create a 'bubble' around it to keep everything inside and stop it from spilling over into surrounding areas. Geography and built form pretty much guarantees that.
If this does get built, I can definitely see myself spending the occasional Saturday night there. Go out for dinner with some friends, go see a show (Cirque du Soleil was mentioned as a potential permanent tenant), hit the blackjack tables afterwards for a bit, and then maybe finish up with a couple pints. Sounds like a nice night out to me.
Last edited:
The increase probably has to do with the parking provisions here. 10 to 12 thousand underground spots? That means going somewhat deep, and when you go deep the costs go way up, up to around $75,000 per spot. 12,000 spots at that price could mean a parking garage alone running at up to $900 million.
Yeouch.
42
Maybe they can build a stretch of subway tunnel there while they're at it. Who knows, may come in handy some day. Presumably if you're building a parking garage that deep, it would be a pretty big hole. Building a small tunnel while you're already digging would a) save a lot of time and money later, and b) would only increase the possibility of a subway being built out to there in the future, which would in turn increase their land values. Run the tunnel along the north side of the pit with knock-out walls at both ends.
The City, if the vote is to go with a casino, will not get to pick the location of the casino. The Province, or at least the OLG, has said it wants a yes or no, not a conditional yes. The City of Kingston told the Province that yes, it would accept a casino, conditional upon it not being in their downtown. The OLG told Kingston, thanks for the yes, the casino is going downtown.
If Toronto City Council says yes to a casino, the OLG will pick where in town it goes and who will operate it.
42
Ryan_T
Senior Member
I really hope they don't pick this project. The Oxford proposal was so much more interesting.
Just like the current Ex, there's always the streetcar to get there, but I almost never go to the Ex because of that very reason. It's an awful long streetcar ride.
Just like the current Ex, there's always the streetcar to get there, but I almost never go to the Ex because of that very reason. It's an awful long streetcar ride.
That is a bit of a pickle then. Hopefully Council can at least specify a preference, and hope that OLG respects that. If it's choosing between 2 good options, I'd hope that OLG would pick the one that Council preferred.
But the more and more I think about it, the more I think that Council (or OLG, or whoever the approval authority is) adding a condition that as part of construction a roughed-in subway tunnel as well as a roughed in subway station must be part of the Site Plan. Casinos are one of the few projects where the approval authority really has the developer by the balls, and can actually impose a condition like that. It would save a tremendous amount of money and headaches later. Plus, the station could be designed to be fully integrated with the complex, as opposed to tacked on later.
jaycola
Active Member
I can join the chorus (of those not vehemently opposed to any casino for Toronto) in stating my preference for the Oxford proposal on architecture design. For the greatest benefit to the Convention and Trade Show business, the MTCC site may have an edge too due to it's central location and access to the subway and adjacent hotels.
The Exhibition site should, as Gweed123 points out, mollify those who fear the effect on the surrounding neighbourhoods as it is quite isolated. For those concerned about this proposal not being urban enough, this location will never become an urban zone unless existing buildings are replaced with residential projects, destroying what ever remains of the Exhibition.
This location could be the spark for the creation of a hugely successful year round tourist destination with the re-purposing and renovation of the existing structures. Many of these buildings could see permanent tenants take up residence drawing on the casino for a new vibrancy in the area. The remaking of Ontario place, improvements to the Molson Amphitheatre and a host of new opportunities could open us as a result.
For those claiming the traffic will be unmanageable, the Exhibition runs every year at this site and somehow 100,000 people make it to this site daily by either car or transit without too much trouble. I don't think most casino patrons will be traveling to the site at 8:30 am when traffic through this area is peak. People won't come to this site on-masse, they will trickle in and out throughout the day spreading the effect on traffic.
A casino will be built in the GTA whether here, at MTCC or in the suburbs. Since the social costs will be there regardless which site is chosen, we should do what we can to ensure that the project in as successful as possible by picking a location that maximize the draw for tourists and convention business thus getting maximum return for the city.
The Exhibition site should, as Gweed123 points out, mollify those who fear the effect on the surrounding neighbourhoods as it is quite isolated. For those concerned about this proposal not being urban enough, this location will never become an urban zone unless existing buildings are replaced with residential projects, destroying what ever remains of the Exhibition.
This location could be the spark for the creation of a hugely successful year round tourist destination with the re-purposing and renovation of the existing structures. Many of these buildings could see permanent tenants take up residence drawing on the casino for a new vibrancy in the area. The remaking of Ontario place, improvements to the Molson Amphitheatre and a host of new opportunities could open us as a result.
For those claiming the traffic will be unmanageable, the Exhibition runs every year at this site and somehow 100,000 people make it to this site daily by either car or transit without too much trouble. I don't think most casino patrons will be traveling to the site at 8:30 am when traffic through this area is peak. People won't come to this site on-masse, they will trickle in and out throughout the day spreading the effect on traffic.
A casino will be built in the GTA whether here, at MTCC or in the suburbs. Since the social costs will be there regardless which site is chosen, we should do what we can to ensure that the project in as successful as possible by picking a location that maximize the draw for tourists and convention business thus getting maximum return for the city.
sixrings
Senior Member
How much parking do you need for a baseball or NFL stadium? NFL only has 8 home games. In theory couldnt the Parking thats for the Casinos be used for a NFL team on those rare game days?