MA Casino Developments

The Springfield casino includes elements that excite this urbanista: It has true urban streetscapes and it is integrated into the city fabric. And especially thoughtful is this, from the project's website, that tells me they are serious about revitalizing Springfield, and not just constructing a self-contained megastructure:

"You will see that we are proposing something very different than what we do at most of our resorts. There will be no indoor entertainment arena. Why do that when Springfield already has the MassMutual Center, Symphony Hall and so many other entertainment facilities? Instead, our plan calls for bringing the world-class entertainment that MGM Resorts is well known for to these facilities."

The tower wasn't important. In fact, it seems misguided to construct a tower when there is an abundance of underutilized land nearby that could be activated with dense, mixed use development at a scale similar to the traditional downtown blocks.
 
The Springfield casino includes elements that excite this urbanista: It has true urban streetscapes and it is integrated into the city fabric. And especially thoughtful is this, from the project's website, that tells me they are serious about revitalizing Springfield, and not just constructing a self-contained megastructure:

"You will see that we are proposing something very different than what we do at most of our resorts. There will be no indoor entertainment arena. Why do that when Springfield already has the MassMutual Center, Symphony Hall and so many other entertainment facilities? Instead, our plan calls for bringing the world-class entertainment that MGM Resorts is well known for to these facilities."

The tower wasn't important. In fact, it seems misguided to construct a tower when there is an abundance of underutilized land nearby that could be activated with dense, mixed use development at a scale similar to the traditional downtown blocks.
+100
 
The Springfield casino includes elements that excite this urbanista: It has true urban streetscapes and it is integrated into the city fabric. And especially thoughtful is this, from the project's website, that tells me they are serious about revitalizing Springfield, and not just constructing a self-contained megastructure:

"You will see that we are proposing something very different than what we do at most of our resorts. There will be no indoor entertainment arena. Why do that when Springfield already has the MassMutual Center, Symphony Hall and so many other entertainment facilities? Instead, our plan calls for bringing the world-class entertainment that MGM Resorts is well known for to these facilities."

The tower wasn't important. In fact, it seems misguided to construct a tower when there is an abundance of underutilized land nearby that could be activated with dense, mixed use development at a scale similar to the traditional downtown blocks.

All that revitalization won't mean anything if there is no attraction for visitors beyond the local area. It will be a short lived 5 to 10 year boom followed by a 30+ year bust as hundreds millions dollars per year are sucked out of the local economy and exported out of state with no reinvestment of that capital back into the local economy.

I too was excited by the urban city block approach, but that doesn't mean you can dispense with a nice hotel. It doesn't matter if it is a tower with 25 floors, but it should be a heck of a lot more appealing than this.
 
Last edited:
All that revitalization won't mean anything if there is no attraction for visitors beyond the local area. It will be a short lived ten year boom and 30 year bust as hundreds millions dollars per year are sucked out of the local economy and exported out of state.


I too was excited by the urban city block approach, but that doesn't mean you can dispense with a nice hotel. It doesn't matter if it is a tower with 25 floors, but it should be a heck of a lot more appealing than this.

The hotel component stays just with a more pedestrian scaled building. There are also three more than serviceable, currently underutilized hotels within walking distance. The Sheraton and Marriott are both a couple of blocks down the street and there is a Hilton Garden Inn right near the HoF. There are a bunch more within a 10 minute drive of the Casino. There's no dearth of places to stay when visiting. If demand is there, they can build a high-rise hotel then. These people are in the business of making money and they know a hell of a lot more about casino development than you or I.
 
There are three more than serviceable, currently underutilized hotels within walking distance. The Sheraton and Marriott are both a couple of blocks down the street and there is a Hilton Garden Inn right near the HoF. There are a bunch more within a 10 minute drive of the Casino. There's no dearth of places to stay when visiting. If demand is there, they can build a high-rise hotel then. These people are in the business of making money and they know a hell of a lot more about casino development than you or I.


They are being granted a monopoly on gambling in Western Massachusetts and it is in the public interest to hold them to the commitments they made.

They clearly are positioning this for the local market only and a reduced one at that. The public interest in limiting this to one license was to create something that would be more than that.

Significantly reducing the size of the parking garage indicates they are significantly reducing the investment in this facility. Yes I get it. Probably as a result of Connecticut moving forward with casinos in Northwest Connecticut that would undercut the Springfield casino.

All I am saying is that the state should just forget about this sole license business if this is the result. The whole point of the monopoly licensing scheme was so this wouldn't be the result. So let's just open up the market and let hotels, bars, whatever put in some table games.

The casino law is a failure.
 
Stupid question but for me an important one:

MA has no happy hour and does not allow discounted drinks so that also applies to he free drink delivery at casinos when you're playing...does that mean none of these casinos will have to waitresses delivering drinks? That's a huge part of the "Vegas" experience in my opinion.

Also Gov Baker recently said he has no plans to allow happy hour.
 
Stupid question but for me an important one:

MA has no happy hour and does not allow discounted drinks so that also applies to he free drink delivery at casinos when you're playing...does that mean none of these casinos will have to waitresses delivering drinks? That's a huge part of the "Vegas" experience in my opinion.

Also Gov Baker recently said he has no plans to allow happy hour.

There's a provision in the casino legislation that allows free drinks to be distributed on the gaming floors.
 
Related note but the cap on liquor licenses is again a hot topic. Column by Somerville Mayor Curtatone: http://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/61754#more-61754

Most people know that Somerville has become a dining hotspot for everything from tiny taquerias to nationally renowned gourmet restaurants. What’s less well known is that successful local restaurants do more than expand our dining options—they help revitalize and stabilize our neighborhoods. Busy cafes and dinner spots mean more people are on the streets, other businesses benefit from that foot traffic, and opportunities for street crime decrease—new jobs and new tax revenues follow as well. In short, when restaurants thrive, our neighborhoods thrive. But this local economic engine is threatened by Beacon Hill’s antiquated liquor license cap.

Our ability to award liquor licenses is a powerful economic tool, helping improve the likelihood of success for restaurant owners while sparking neighborhood vitality and creating jobs. But we’re running low on licenses—just at the time that significant commercial development is both underway and in the planning phases. We’re running short because Massachusetts still has a Victorian-era cap in place that keeps control on Beacon Hill over the number of licenses in each community. Instead of giving control to the cities and towns that know their communities best as most states do, in Massachusetts we’re hamstrung by a 1900s law that was essentially designed to keep Irish immigrants from drinking. It’s clearly time for an update, but in the meantime, we still have to ask the state Legislature whenever we need licenses. So last week, I testified on Beacon Hill in support of our petition to the state for more licenses.

The economic data make the case. Restaurants are an important part of our economy today: 2,800 people in Somerville work in the hospitality industry, which is more than 6 percent of our total workforce—and a number that has risen by 24 percent since 2011—with approximately $137 million in annual sales. At the same time, since 2011 Somerville’s unemployment rate has dropped from 5.2 percent to 3.7 percent. Our growing restaurant industry has played a part in that. Meanwhile, since Assembly Row opened, Somerville’s meals tax revenue has risen 33 percent, and is projected to rise another 11 percent in fiscal 2016, providing critical revenue that helps us fund education, public safety, and the infrastructure investments our community needs.

Local jobs, increased tax revenue to fund the services we all rely on, and a boost to neighborhoods and surrounding businesses—these are the benefits that come from having a thriving restaurant industry in our community. But opening and maintaining a successful restaurant is no easy task, especially if the owner cannot obtain a license to serve beer, wine or cocktails. With a license, a restaurant can mark up the price on alcoholic beverages to subsidize its food offerings, reducing the owner’s risk. Without it, a restaurant operates on a razor-thin operating margin, all while competing with other restaurants that can already serve alcoholic beverages.

The price of becoming a dining destination though is increasing because we are almost out of City licenses. We have just five city-wide liquor licenses left and no beer and wine licenses. Meanwhile, local entrepreneurs are waiting in line for them, be they long-time mom and pop eateries looking to expand their business or newcomers seeking to fill open spots at Assembly Row or elsewhere. The City has targeted areas in need of an economic boost, such as East Somerville, and we’ve been able to assist small, locally-owned and immigrant-owned restaurants such as Aguacarte Verde, Some’ting Nice and Oliveira’s obtain their licenses helping to secure their success. But without more City-owned licenses, which cost $5,000 if awarded, other hard-working and aspirational local entrepreneurs will have to try and find a private-owned license on the market, at exorbitant costs of $200,000 or more—a financial hurdle many can’t overcome.

Available liquor licenses were vital in making the first stages of Assembly Row successful, creating a sense of place and vitality that led to considerable growth in the near-term and even greater growth in the future. Assembly Square had 12 licenses designated specifically for that area, and 11 have been awarded so far, even though only the first phase of Assembly Row is open. On the near horizon, the Partners HealthCare building will have approximately 50,000 square feet of first floor restaurant and retail space, while Block 6 is under construction and Block 5 is fully approved, representing another 60,000 square feet of ground floor space that could be filled in part by restaurants. And with plans being drafted for Union Square and Boynton Yards, the expectation of new mixed-use districts in Brickbottom and Inner Belt, and growth in other commercial districts around future Green Line Extension stations, the need for licenses will only grow.

Boston was recently granted approval for 75 new licenses. Somerville’s success shows that we deserve the ability to grant more licenses as well. The licenses are integral to our growing economic vibrancy, increased employment, more revenue for our City and the state, and to our long-range planning process. It’s also a commitment to support local businesses and local economies. The antiquated cap has got to go. In the meantime, the state needs to support our planning and our growth by approving our petition for more licenses.
 
Related note but the cap on liquor licenses is again a hot topic. Column by Somerville Mayor Curtatone: http://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/61754#more-61754

He is spot on. It is ridiculous and antiquated. But what he doesn't address is the resistance from current liquor license holders, some of whom paid exorbitant amounts for their license in locals where they are in short supply. Unfortunately, I think it would be that group who would put up the biggest stink against change to protect their investment.
 
He is spot on. It is ridiculous and antiquated. But what he doesn't address is the resistance from current liquor license holders, some of whom paid exorbitant amounts for their license in locals where they are in short supply. Unfortunately, I think it would be that group who would put up the biggest stink against change to protect their investment.

If the new licences accompany new growth, then the hit to existing owners won't be so bad. It's not like he is talking about flooding the market with new licences, he wants to make targeted investments in growth areas.
 
There's a provision in the casino legislation that allows free drinks to be distributed on the gaming floors.

That's a necessary thing to have if you want to attract people to play table games. I am going to guess this provision does not apply to Plainridge? I went there last weekend to check the place out and the waitresses were all carrying around Coke, coffee, juice, etc. For people who don't like to play the table games such as myself, I like how at Foxwoods you can sit at the video poker bar and put in some money and get free drinks as you play.
 
If the new licences accompany new growth, then the hit to existing owners won't be so bad. It's not like he is talking about flooding the market with new licences, he wants to make targeted investments in growth areas.

That's a terrible idea. There's easily demand for twice as many liquor licenses than there are currently. In fact there is absolutely no reason for there to be a cap on liquor licenses. The license should simply be a test to see if the establishment is able to legally and safely serve alcohol.

I have no sympathy for people who bought liquor licenses at a high price. Any investment has a risk. Should the citizens of Boston suffer because a few rich restaurant groups' investments might not pay off?

More liquor licenses would increase restaurant quantity and diversity. It would lower the barrier to entry and increases returns on investment, making new restaurants much more enticing to lenders. It might even lower food prices, since more restaurants will be able to pad profits with drinks. Overall removing the cap on liquor licenses is a huge win for anyone who eats out in Boston.
 
The hotel component stays just with a more pedestrian scaled building. There are also three more than serviceable, currently underutilized hotels within walking distance. The Sheraton and Marriott are both a couple of blocks down the street and there is a Hilton Garden Inn right near the HoF. There are a bunch more within a 10 minute drive of the Casino. There's no dearth of places to stay when visiting. If demand is there, they can build a high-rise hotel then. These people are in the business of making money and they know a hell of a lot more about casino development than you or I.

And if you want cheaper places to stay pretty much the whole of I-91 between Springfield and Hartford is lined with business travel-oriented hotels thanks to Bradley being positioned at the midpoint and the huge glut of office parks. Hartford Line commuter rail + the robust number of airport shuttles expected to connect at the relocated Windsor Locks station means you don't even have to be in the same state to be car-free and less than 30 minutes from the front door. I could see this casino being very popular with business travelers who want to kill time for a few hours before their flight home after a long day at the Windsor satellite office of whatever firm they're visiting, or for an out-of-towner Aetna rep coming in for a training seminar at Hartford HQ. An audience Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun certainly can't serve because it takes a day trip or half-day trip to stage a visit down there.

It is, after all, a conjoined metro area. From the inside looking out the state line practically does not exist, so to put a value judgment on it looking from Boston to the west you need to don some corrective lenses and pretty much picture South Hadley down to Berlin, CT as the 'proverbal Route 128' boundaries of that blended region. That's attractive for MA because two-thirds of the patronage of this place is going to be schlepping off CT taxpayers who right now today aren't spending nearly that degree on this side of the state line. And who could literally zoom in on short-notice to let off steam on a Thursday night after work as if it were just another area bar, then get home to sleep at a normal time. The fact that the transit situation is going to start getting pretty damn good on this whole corridor by the time this place and its surrounding redev opens means the coattails extend far beyond downtown and what walk-up crowds you can draw from downtown.

Like...here's a fun corporate day out for some marketing execs trapped inside Day Hill office park for a soul-crushing week long sales meeting: break early on the last day of the meetings to shoot up to Six Flags in Agawam for some sort of rah-rah team-building thing. Then up to the casino for a night of entertainment. Anybody who has to jet off early has Bradley right there. Office shuttle bus 2 miles goes to Windsor station. Six Flags would have a shuttle bus from Enfield/Thompsonville 2 stops up...it's exactly 4 miles away. Then Springfield. Anyone who needs to get to bail out early for Bradley stops at Windsor Locks and picks up that shuttle. It'll be 32 trains per day by 2020...more after that. You could totally do that car-free and not have it take more than a half-hour between any one point. There's a LOT of fertile ground to mine even projecting outside of downtown that doesn't require a rental car if the cities and this connecting appendage of 91 stick to the script they're currently outlining re: sustainability and navigability.


For that reason I'm a little more bullish on Springfield being a right fit for a casino than any of the other sites. Including to some degree Everett. And honestly think they should just revoke the South Coast license altogether and stick with just 2 because Twin River, Plainville parlor, and the Taunton tribe pretty much saturate the I-95 catchment area enough where one more would be a detriment.
 
And if you want cheaper places to stay pretty much the whole of I-91 between Springfield and Hartford is lined with business travel-oriented hotels thanks to Bradley being positioned at the midpoint and the huge glut of office parks.

Some people will need a more upscale place to stay. Mohegan Sun, situated in the middle of nowhere, but with very nice rooms and nice views overlooking the water... $499 to $599 to start.
 
I have no sympathy for people who bought liquor licenses at a high price. Any investment has a risk.

I recall having a conversation about how a new liquor license in Boston would cost well over a million dollars. And it was made entirely unclear if that meant paying an existing license owner or for the bribes and kick backs necessary to procure a new license, because the actual cost of a liquor license is not that. I asked where the money went ... business owners just write some checks to middlemen and they make it happen... *shrug*.

The liquor license racket has a VERY corrupting influence on local government. Artificially constrained supply, combined with a large market with high margins and pretty much arbitrary decisions about who gets liquor licenses and which places get shaken down for enhanced enforcement create the perfect combination of corrupting influences.
 
I recall having a conversation about how a new liquor license in Boston would cost well over a million dollars. And it was made entirely unclear if that meant paying an existing license owner or for the bribes and kick backs necessary to procure a new license, because the actual cost of a liquor license is not that. I asked where the money went ... business owners just write some checks to middlemen and they make it happen... *shrug*.

The liquor license racket has a VERY corrupting influence on local government. Artificially constrained supply, combined with a large market with high margins and pretty much arbitrary decisions about who gets liquor licenses and which places get shaken down for enhanced enforcement create the perfect combination of corrupting influences.

Yeah definitely. It's another palm to grease when opening up a new restaurant. Which makes it that much more difficult for a small time/mom&pop restaurant to open up.

From what I understand, the liquor license is considered an asset, and if the restaurant fails the owners can sell the liquor license to recoup some costs. They get to keep all the appreciation in value of the liquor license, which implies they should bear the risk of the price falling as well.

The only thing the city has to do with existing liquor licenses is deciding who gets to buy it from the belly-up restaurant.
 
Some people will need a more upscale place to stay. Mohegan Sun, situated in the middle of nowhere, but with very nice rooms and nice views overlooking the water... $499 to $599 to start.

So? And the large % of people who aren't 'some people'?

Covering the spread of options without isolating their access ends up serving a pretty diverse audience. I'm not sure what your point is in cherry-picking only one constituency out of several to pigeonhole the potential audience. The business traveler-oriented Courtyard Inns and whatnot that hug every I-91 exit up in office park land within 20 minutes of the airport have exploded in number the last 10 years for a reason. Somebodies are using them in large numbers. Enough somebodies that there's clearly a market for a sliding scale of lodging from luxury to business-class to budget.

They're all in range of this coming entertainment destination, and all can reliably get there car-free in less than an hour--and, more importantly, get back in less than hour for fitting a little leisure into a busy schedule--if this convergence of office + airport shuttles and Hartford Line service levels coalesces like the planners are envisioning it will. This is the start of framing it as a true metro area and not just a downtown where practical roaming range for a visitor is only as far as you can walk.
 
So? And the large % of people who aren't 'some people'?

Covering the spread of options without isolating their access ends up serving a pretty diverse audience. I'm not sure what your point is in cherry-picking only one constituency out of several to pigeonhole the potential audience. The business traveler-oriented Courtyard Inns and whatnot that hug every I-91 exit up in office park land within 20 minutes of the airport have exploded in number the last 10 years for a reason. Somebodies are using them in large numbers. Enough somebodies that there's clearly a market for a sliding scale of lodging from luxury to business-class to budget.

They're all in range of this coming entertainment destination, and all can reliably get there car-free in less than an hour--and, more importantly, get back in less than hour for fitting a little leisure into a busy schedule--if this convergence of office + airport shuttles and Hartford Line service levels coalesces like the planners are envisioning it will. This is the start of framing it as a true metro area and not just a downtown where practical roaming range for a visitor is only as far as you can walk.

Urban downtown areas, especially entertainment and shopping districts, are all about walk-ability. Most or all of those other hotel options are not walkable. The most successful casinos are either destinations unto themselves or part of a walkable area with other attractions, entertainment, food and drink options. Sure there are other hotel options around all the successful casinos, but they are always second rate cheaper options for when you can't afford to stay at the main casino hotel.

If there was another hotel not operated by MGM opening up across the street or within walking distance I would not be so concerned. But even then part of the casino experience is the comp or the ability to stay in a nice room during your visit and a casino without a nice attractive hotel is not a "full casino". What MGM is proposing appears to be a bare bones hotel which is a check box on the casino license and not serious.

For all of those 200,000+ visitors to the Basketball Hall of Fame you want it to be obvious where the best place to stay is and then maybe, just maybe they will gamble a bit while they are here. There is a difference between gambling downstairs and taking a cab to another hotel to gamble. Having a hotel that is THE place to stay in Springfield is different than having a hotel because you are checking off a requirement of your license.

Every year when those famous NBA players are in town to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, you want them staying with their entourage in the penthouse. Throwing a big party, gambling the night away. Not heading back to their private jet 30 minutes after the ceremony.

Springfield will never and should never become a "metro area". That would be pointless urban sprawl. Springfield is a compact regional city. You want an urban downtown area and entertainment district that is walkable. The plans had up until now accomplished that. But now without a decent hotel option the plan has lost a key piece and falls way short.
 
Maybe Springfield, as a city, doesn't want an enormous hotel that doesn't fit in. Maybe they don't want a 20 story high penthouse for NBA stars to party. If the MGM hotel is a success, I'm sure planning will be given to extend it or build a new one near by. Either way, it's a small city and the casino shouldn't dominate. It seems to me that this, more cautious approach, makes sense. I guess we're going round in circles here tho.
 
Maybe Springfield, as a city, doesn't want an enormous hotel that doesn't fit in. Maybe they don't want a 20 story high penthouse for NBA stars to party. If the MGM hotel is a success, I'm sure planning will be given to extend it or build a new one near by. Either way, it's a small city and the casino shouldn't dominate. It seems to me that this, more cautious approach, makes sense. I guess we're going round in circles here tho.

This design change wasn't driven by the city of Springfield. It is being driven by the prospect of competition from new casinos across the state line in Connecticut and MGM's desire to reduce capital investment and therefore reduce risk. The original plan was approved by voters. The original plan was what won the competitive bid for the license.
 

Back
Top