MA Casino Developments

SeamusMcFly said:
I would assume the small hotel is a tester to see how many people want to stay, and to comp high rollers.
Click to expand...

Possibly. There are three off-field "airport hotels" (a Courtyard Marriott, a Hampton Inn, and a Comfort Inn) within a mile of the site.

The idea behind a "frequency facility" is to build it small, in an urban area to take advantage (in every sense) of the local population. The resort-like aspects of this proposal (small, slick looking hotel and landscaping) are the sizzle, not the horsemeat. Wow the locals and take their treasure.

SeamusMcFly said:
I would hope this actually helps the racing flourish as opposed to go away. Adds some class, and sets it apart from other casinos.
Click to expand...

The legislation requires that a portion of the profits generated by the casinos will shore up the collapsing thoroughbred industry. But consider: a horse costs thousands a year to care for. A slot machine costs between $8-$12 thousand, and generates thousands every week. After a few years of the "racino" model in Iowa, the casino owners petitioned the state to get rid of racing entirely. Why cut into profits?

DominusNovus said:
Question: What are the rows of rectangular buildings NE of the track? Would those be an option for locating the Casino? It could be effectively adjacent to the Beachmont stop, and have a nice pretty skyway to connect the station to the Casino.
Click to expand...

Those are horse stables.

DominusNovus said:
Other than the very neighborhood in which this Casino is proposed to be built, doesn't the Boston rail system woefully underserve the poorer sections of the metro-area? The Orange line has a couple of 'poor area' stops, and the Red line has the Ashmont branch. Other than the Blue line, everything else generally connects the nicer parts of Boston.
Click to expand...

Am I to infer from your post that I live in an undesirable neighborhood? Orient Heights isn't Weston or Chestnut Hill, but it compares favorably with parts of Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Somerville, and even Cambridge. It's a working class neighborhood, convenient to employment centers in Boston.
 
I had been think (apparrently illogically) the plan should be to bulldoze the whole track and locate the casino at the T stop. Seriously, I have been to Belmont, Pimlico and Churchill and the track is worthless.
 
gyro said:
That is in Revere and they want to keep it all in Boston where the rubber stamp is waiting.
Click to expand...

Aha, thats a pretty good (if maddening) reason. Do we know what those buildings are, anyway?

Also, I still say there should be a skyway connecting the station to the hotel. Skyways rule.
 
I answered your question above: those buildings are horse stables.

Care to answer my question?
 
Beton Brut said:
I answered your question above: those buildings are horse stables.

Care to answer my question?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that. Glad to hear they're part of the same complex, so that perhaps something could be done there, if the politics can be surmounted. What are the odds of the politics being surmounted? Other than the lines on the map, it seems a much better fit for the casino; closer to the beach, closer to the parkway, further from the giant tanks, doesn't eat up parking space.

Also adjacent to two lots that seem to be fairly under-utilized: what looks to be a Shaw's across the parkway, and small collection of 2-3 small stores (between the parkway and winthrop ave), with a giant parking lot next to it (guessing thats also part of Suffolk Downs).

As to your question, I never said anything about undesirability; just that East Boston and Revere tend to be poorer areas. Like you said, its a working-class neighborhood. My point was that there's a lot of working-class neighborhood that are underserved the T and, conversely, the 'nicer' parts of the region are very well served (which would be a plus, of sorts, for such a development). I was not trying to speak ill of that area, either specifically or in general; I happen to like Revere a lot, and admittedly have little experience with Orient Heights in particular. I apologize if you thought I meant to cause offense.
 
Anyone have thoughts on how liquor licensing would work for the casino? Given that, to be competitive, "world class" casinos often need 24 hour service, will this garner a special dispensation or change in city/state legislation?
 
Liquor licenses will likely be 8 AM - 2 AM at Suffolk Downs. The municipalities have no jurisdiction over the licenses.
 
Beton Brut said:
Liquor licenses will likely be 8 AM - 2 AM at Suffolk Downs. The municipalities have no jurisdiction over the licenses.
Click to expand...

That might have an impact on the bums hanging out and playing all night...
 
I don't know if this has been proposed yet, but discussion in another thread prompted me to consider this:

Why not build the casino on top of Camp Edwards? Hell, take over that entire Reservation for
a) Casino Development
b) Southside Connector
c) Cape Cod Commuter Rail(?)
d) Otis Air Base, ready for conversion as a small field to land VIPs

Now you've got a destination casino on the waterfront that brings infrastructure development on multiple modes with it, opens the door to further development (e.g. Cape Cod Commuter Rail), is in a location already somewhat insulated from the host town in such a way that local impact is reduced, and instead of having to go through Boston, you just have to go through Bourne.
 
DominusNovus said:
I happen to like Revere a lot, and admittedly have little experience with Orient Heights in particular. I apologize if you thought I meant to cause offense.
Click to expand...

Cause offense to Beton? This guy grew up across from one of the worst streets in the state. (Shirley Ave)

I'm not really sure if Beton even has feelings.

As for the topic of Revere, I think it has calm down over the last 20-30 years but is becoming very run down.

On a positive note
Revere Beach is 100 times better than the 80's-90's.
East Boston is defintely upcoming over the next decade.

The main two reasons I'm against the casino.
#1 Traffic in this area could not handle this type of development without a billion dollar taxpayers overhaul.
#2 The politicans should have let the citizens of Mass vote for the casino bill.
 
Beton Brut said:
“Industry people talk about the categories of Indian gaming, riverboats and land-based casinos, but it really boils down to being either destination resorts or frequency markets. Atlantic City is a frequency market and we attract frequency customers. These customers come 40 to 50 times a year (in 2011 at Parx it’s 200 times - Les) and stay four hours to 1.2 days. On the other hand, Las Vegas and Lake Tahoe are destination resorts, whose customers stay four to six days. Consequently, both kinds of customers have totally different spending habits. In Vegas, for example, they spend more money on food and will spend $100 on a show ticket without blinking an eye. In Atlantic City, people don’t like to spend $10 to see a show. They expect it to be free. They’ll play $150 to $200 in a four-hour period and they’re gone. In Vegas, it might take four days to get that same money from a customer. There are few similarities between destination resorts and frequency markets.”​
Click to expand...



I think this would be a bit of both. Sure it will try to get repeat customers from the Greater Boston Region, as would any company. And to that if your going 40 times a year, your either a good card player making your money, or your a degenerate and this is the medium you choose to use. But I also think it's a destination casino in the sense that Boston is a destination and this is one of the attractions you could see while in town. Also having a race track adds to the destination aspect of it. Comparing this race track casino to one in Iowa isn't that great of a comparison, b/c no one visits Iowa as a destination, only locals. Boston already has a strong tourist market and this could most certainly be one of many destinations a visitor would like to see while here.
 
DominusNovus said:
Question: What are the rows of rectangular buildings NE of the track? Would those be an option for locating the Casino? It could be effectively adjacent to the Beachmont stop, and have a nice pretty skyway to connect the station to the Casino.
Click to expand...

That is the suffolk downs Paddock, or the stables. Probably not located there for a cost reason, ie if you build on the location they have put forth they dont have to rebuild all the paddocks.
 
Shepard said:
Anyone have thoughts on how liquor licensing would work for the casino? Given that, to be competitive, "world class" casinos often need 24 hour service, will this garner a special dispensation or change in city/state legislation?
Click to expand...

At Foxwoods they do last call at 1AM. All drinks must be gone by 2AM. I assume Mohegan is the same.
 
Beton Brut said:
Are you of the opinion that Massachusetts, a state with a rich history of political patronage and corruption, can do this "right?" And, in a few years, when it turns into a fiscal shit-show, who cleans it up? The casinos, or the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

This is my greatest reservation and why I don't think there should be any casinos in this state. Unfortunately, we are going to have four of them. Whether you are able to prevent an East Boston location won't change this basic truth. With that in mind, I'm open to the concept of a casino at Suffolk, but only if I am convinced it's the best location. So far, I haven't been convinced.
 
At first I thought Suffolk would make the most sense, but after reading this thread over the last few days I have to agree - it does not make any sense whatsoever.

It does seem like the one that is the easiest sell to the general public ("Gambling has taken place here for decades", etc) but, it does not mix in with the neighborhood at all and does nothing to improve or revitalize the immediate area.

I'd have to agree with Riff - Seaport makes the most sense. Put it out near the Marine Industrial Park along the water.. Imagine water taxies directly to it from every area of the city.

Conventioners, tourists, people looking to entertain clients, those with disposable income will eat it up.. and this area is already exploding with this demographic. Suffolk Downs is not and it is quite out of the way for the majority of this crowd.
 
ParkerChris said:
At first I thought Suffolk would make the most sense, but after reading this thread over the last few days I have to agree - it does not make any sense whatsoever.

It does seem like the one that is the easiest sell to the general public ("Gambling has taken place here for decades", etc) but, it does not mix in with the neighborhood at all and does nothing to improve or revitalize the immediate area.

I'd have to agree with Riff - Seaport makes the most sense. Put it out near the Marine Industrial Park along the water.. Imagine water taxies directly to it from every area of the city.

Conventioners, tourists, people looking to entertain clients, those with disposable income will eat it up.. and this area is already exploding with this demographic. Suffolk Downs is not and it is quite out of the way for the majority of this crowd.
Click to expand...

I agree a million percent. The seaport District is the ONLY location that makes sense. Suffolk downs only makes sense if you are interested in bailing out a failing racetrack. Everything else about it is illogical. The mayor would never allow it, it doesnt fit in with his vision. This is yet another reason this small-minded mayor needs to go.
 
Beton Brut, out of curiosity, would you and your comrades support the casino at the Seaport?
 
gyro said:
I agree a million percent. The seaport District is the ONLY location that makes sense. Suffolk downs only makes sense if you are interested in bailing out a failing racetrack. Everything else about it is illogical. The mayor would never allow it, it doesnt fit in with his vision. This is yet another reason this small-minded mayor needs to go.
Click to expand...

In addition, the BCEC is dying for more hotels to be built in the area. What could spur hotel growth better than a resort casino?
 
why does everyone keep saying the Seaport when that is not a realistic option due to land acquisition costs alone? A casino the size that we are talking about here will need a considerable amount of land and land in the Seaport isn't exactly cheap these days. The Seaport might be the best location but is it even a realistic option from a cost perspective? I have serious doubts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top