MA Casino Developments

that brings up a important issue...transportation

do you approve and design for car heavy traffic, foot traffic, public transportation?

for the boondock casinos you are clearly looking at a foxwoods model so all these alarmist urbay decay scenerios prob wont pan out...
but for the blue collar suburb and Boston posibilities this could be vital to building a specific type of product...

does anyone have knowledge of these casino logisitics in general?
 
Lurker said:
Lynn and Revere might as well have been hit with an atomic bomb. Wonderland and Suffolk Downs were bad enough as it was. Now every professional welfare recipient, low level drug dealer, and petty thief is going to be flocking there to play slots with ill gotten money in the hopes of one big score. The asshole politicians aren't thinking the Riviera, Foxwoods or Vegas, they are just thinking about the kickbacks, and we are going to wind up with a bunch of Atlantic Cities dragging struggling communities further into the gutter.
Click to expand...

JohnAKeith said:
You're being too kind to our elected officials. They're not even smart enough to be thinking about money. They are simply walking in lockstep with the Speaker of the House. Of course, they all voted against similar bills when DiMasi was Speaker because he was against it, now they're all for it because DeLeo is for it.

So disgusting it makes me puke.
Click to expand...

If Whighlander can't pull a positive spin for the Casino debate we could be looking at a TRIFECTA
 
Hey, let's first do away with Powerball etc. and be pure about it.

Pennsylvania state revenues from casino gambling were $1.3 billion in 2010, the highest of any state. Indiana garnered $875 million. West Virginia $375 million. Connecticut didn't make the top ten.

Instead of depending on more tax revenue from new casinos, horse tracks, harness tracks, dog tracks, Massachusetts ought to raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, to discourage their use.

And tax the hell out of Internet use above a certain gigabyte threshold, that thing is more addictive than any opiate. 2.4 million people waiting breathlessly by the hour for the latest tweet from #85. Ridiculous.
 
Mohegan Sun reports steep revenue drop in August
By Associated Press
Thursday, September 15, 2011 - Added 44 minutes ago

UNCASVILLE, Conn. — The Mohegan Sun says slot revenue plunged 10.6 percent in August as the remnants of Hurricane Irene kept customers home.

The Indian-run casino said Thursday that revenue was $59.9 million, down from $67 million in August 2010.

It was the steepest drop in months. Revenue at the southeastern Connecticut casino dropped between 3 percent and 6 percent in the past few months due to weak consumer spending and increased competition in the Northeast.

Jeffrey Hartmann, president and chief executive officer, said the casino lost business during the last week of August as customers without power stayed home. He said the drop in revenue was comparable to January, when slot revenue fell nearly 12 percent because of back-to-back snow storms.

Hartmann said the sour economy and weak consumer spending also continue
to cut into revenue.
Click to expand...

Wonder what the Revenue drop will be when Mass builds 3 casinos?

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1366104
 
Lurker and John get it for the sick joke that it is...

My thoughts on casino gambling are well documented, here, and here...

And my elected officials here...
 
I haven't moved, nor do I intend to. I just invested about two years net earnings in my home. I like where I live.
 
I don't want a casino in the seaport. That's the exact opposite way we should be going development wise. Casino's have giant parking lots and require lots of car oriented infrastructure. I don't trust a single developer to do it right.
 
To all saying casino in the Seaport: I agree. But Peter Meade literally facepalmed after he told a crowd at the BPL about how someone suggested a casino in the Seaport. He said it would be massive waste of Seaport space.
 
I agree that there many, many minuses to building casinos in the state, especially in an urban area. An urban casino could completely destroy whatever neighborhood it is built in, causing an increase in crime, decrease property values, create some serious traffic issues... so on.

There are some pluses also. The state is desperately in need of revenue and jobs, even the unskilled jobs a casino would create. There will always be bartenders, security jobs, waitresses, cooks, low level management personnel, cleaning people till the end of time. Whatever jobs they would create there is someone who needs and-or wants it. period - fact.

What this now comes down to is that it is going to happen no matter what. The goal, now, should be to minimize the damage and maximize the benefit to the state, the citizens of the state and residents of the areas where these will be built.

I would suggest tons of provisions : Jobs to residents first, money for programs (job training, scholarships, so on....) in the affected areas. They should certainly contribute to any roadwork needed and be encouraged to link to the T (may as well make some money for the broke T as well). Seriously, lets get as much out of the developers and owners we can. Again, its going to happen no matter what make some money.

In my opinion, 4 seems a little much, a max of three one being a slot parlor seems enough.

so.........


Crazy flighty idea: Convert Commonwealth Pier into Bostons downtown casino and link to Waterside Place as it was originally proposed and link to the Convention Center as originally proposed. Having a convention center with easy access to a shopping destination and casino would be an incredible draw for conventioneers and tourists alike. A boon to the hotel industry, restaurants and so on......

Minimize parking as much as possible to encourage use of the T and private transportation companies. Yes, the silver line will need to be upgraded to handle the volume. Maybe this could spur that.

In a nutshell it will happen and the state and city should have it benefit its citizens and minimize its impact as much as possible.

thx
 
Er, before anyone thinks about putting a casino in downtown Boston, might want to query the thousands of residents who are against it. No sense discussing it, it isn't in the cards.

EDIT: Other places are probably better.
 
chillax guy

I'm not interested in "shitting up" the state nor do I believe my "crazy flighty idea" <<< read!! could actually happen. I'm sure Menino, the residents and businesses would never have it.

btw:

not in your backyard? hmmm... makes one think..
 
Casinos cast shadows and are a threat to what little open space remains in the city. What's more, this is Boston, we really don't need to be the next Las Vegas Blvd. for goodness sake!
 
The Seaport remains a blank slate with stunning potential for a network of streets and buildings celebrating Boston Harbor in one way or another.

That potential is not best spent on (another) massive box without windows.

As for other locations, I think casinos are fixed to be predatory and a drain on civic resources. The payoff, if any, typically is redirected away from the immediate area.

That said, adults are adults. Maybe people should be allowed to do what they want, even if it means throwing money out the window in the hopes of something better.
 
TheRifleman said:
If Whighlander can't pull a positive spin for the Casino debate we could be looking at a TRIFECTA
Click to expand...

OK -- I'm game:

1) Casinos belive it or not have the same demographic as most adult entertainment think Bowling Alleys, Bars, Sporting Events

They are as a matter of fact sophisticated entertainment venus -- especially a csino whose developer is required to lay $500 M on construction and outfitting of a first class hotel resort

2) it's not going to degrade Boston to place a casino in the Hub -- I suggest that it be down next to the Convention and expo center -- a 2,000 room hotel and casino would be a nice HQ hotel for the center -- think the Marina Bay Sands complex in Singapore (hotel, shopping, casio, conferene center) which hosted the Global Engineering Education Symposium last October (Profs, Deans, Gov't Leaders, Companies all involved in higher education from arround the world)

picture.php

view of model of complex located in the lobby of Tower 1 of the 3 Tower hotel -- Buidiing with casino, shopping (think Gucci, Cartier, ... ), Convention Center in the foreground is located across the street -- with underground connection and underground terminal for buses


3) I'd rather see a Casino developer build a 2,000 room hotel than have the citizens of the Commonpoor subsidize its construction -- see the report of the committee considering the expansion of the BCEC

back a few development cycles ago -- when the orginal BCEC was still a pipe dream -- Steve Wynn of Las Vegas offered to build the Convention Center and Hotel for Zero, Zip, Nada if he could buid a Seaport District Casino

4) If our citizen are to gamble as sanctioned by the Commonpoor by all manner of lottery and keno -- why not let them have slots and table games

5) if the site is convenient to Boston -- then a fair fraction of the people gambing will be from the pool of the 12,000,000 annual visitors to Boston - from around New England (e.g. Yankee Dental, US and International) -- especially with the immediate proximity to Logan

OK -- your serve!
 
Last edited:
philip said:
Having a convention center with easy access to a shopping destination and casino would be an incredible draw for conventioneers and tourists alike. A boon to the hotel industry, restaurants and so on......
thx
Click to expand...

Niagra Falls (canada) does this extremely well. It doesn't seem to have much, if any surface parking, is connected to a pretty upscale mall, and didn't feel all that slummy, nor did it appear to bring down the surrounding area.

I think the waterfront would be perfect for a resort casino because
1) there is plenty of open space on which to build, and it would be a boon for the surrounding area
2) as already mentioned, it would be a draw for conventions and conventioneers. Someone also made a good point on uhub that tourists could also be grabbed on their way to and from the cruise terminal.
3) This is key in my opinion: as a completely undeveloped wasteland, future development can be controlled to discourage or completely eliminate the typical crapiness that usually starts to happen around casinos.

The argument that a resort casino on the waterfront would be a waste of space is asinine. A waste of space is to have an area directly accessible to rapid transit (which connects directly to South Station and Logan all in one shot), an interstate highway, three high capacity surface streets and within walking distance to the central business district of the capital of new england house seagulls, parking lots, and a tent for concerts.

Yes, things are slowly being built there but without some kind of landmark (and the convention center alone aint it) this will never be any kind of a destination. At least there will be a real draw to the area that doesn't exist now with a steady stream of tourists coming with the express intent to spend money.

Unlike Atlantic City, which is now and was before the casinos a dump, and the rural casinos, Boston is in and of itself a draw. Just like Niagra Falls, while people will go there to gamble, they will also probably go outside to see some stuff. With any luck it will start attracting more developers to the area and maybe we will finally see something get built. Sure it might be hotels, generic shopping, and other touristy crap, but it would be one hell of a lot better than whats there now.



As for Suffolk Downs / Wonderland, while I agree it seems like a natural fit at first (it did to me), it would most likely wind up becoming a pit. It's not accessible to any interstates, the commuter rail doesn't currently stop there (or connect to any other cities even if it did), and all the roads are over capacity already. Not to mention the area is teetering on the edge just as Atlantic City was. I would love to see wonderland make a grand return with a boardwalk, hotels, and a resort, but a casino wont do it.



Regarding FR/NB, it would be a good location to compete with Foxwoods, as well as grab people from Providence, the cape, and the two cities themselves. Make it a stipulation they have to pay for the T's boondoggle of a commuter rail extension as mitigation, maybe have the casino itself be the train station. Hell, put it in Fall River and make them extend the line all the way to Newport.

Western Mass near Stockbridge would be my choice for a rural casino. You could grab a ton of people from Albany who otherwise aren't going to make the drive, Pittsfield, and Springfield. Make a special exit off the Pike for the casino that charges a modest fee in addition to the regular toll that goes directly into a fund for infrastructure improvements for those west of Springfield.

The slot parlor should go in an already established upscale area (I'm thinking something like Newburyport or the like). In my opinion they are the dirtiest form of gambling. They are addictive, need no skill whatsoever to operate, and (I think) reap the highest profits for the owners. Quite frankly I'm upset this is even allowed, if anything I think that to have gambling it should be required that there be not just table games in addition to slots, but a hotel and entertainment. Anything to keep zombies from throwing their hard earned money into a machine that does no more then eat it at a predefined rate. This is why I think that perhaps if it was in a really nice area there would be less chance for addicts to constantly stream in. However, I fear it was added with the intent to go directly into Suffolk Downs or Wonderland, similar to the "Raceino" they put in at the track in Monticello, NY
 
Last edited:
I vote for the casino in the Seaport District. (not that I get a vote obviously) If you put it there, it will atrract tourists and conventioners. If you put it at Suffolk Downs, it'll attract the people who currently sit in corner stores playing Keno.
 
^ Agree with Davem and Goose.

I think it's ethically appropriate for casinos to more-than-subtly message - whether via architecture, amenities, or location - that if you can't afford to be here, i.e. if you can't afford to lose, then you probably don't belong. I realize that this my be a "classist" argument, but if you think about it, casino gambling is actually the most out-of-reach luxury good of all - and it should be thought of and treated as such.

To my point about architecture, amenities and location, go to LV and witness the difference in clientele between the Wynn and Circus Circus. My strong feeling is that a Wynn somewhere in Boston would have far fewer negative externalities than a Circus Circus. Again, is this classist? I think it's just logical. And to the point on location in particular, a Wynn will not sprout on Suffolk Downs. A Gucci location will not open there. Celebrity chefs will not open there. Suffolk Downs, as said above, will attract the Keno crowd, many of whom are content getting by on slurpees and king size Mars bars (ok, now I think I've veered into actual classism!)

Put it in the Seaport, mandate a certain architecture - open, street activating, minimal parking (or valet only), and glittering with exclusivity. It will attract conventioneers. It will anchor the area. And Keno players would more likely stick to Keno. To my original point, architecture amenities and location will indicate who the intended clientele will be, and that in large part will determine whether we will see a net positive or net negative to the city.
 
We already have gambling for the masses in the form of lottery and keno. It isn't classest to target another market segment any more than it would be to suggest that a Target shouldn't open because it won't attract the Neiman Marcus crowd. Ultimately, what determines who goes there is more operational in my opinion. $5 dollar tables will attract a certain element, $100 tables will attract a different element. Which will make the most money for the operator? I'm guessing in a restricted supply market (unlike LV, for example), the best way to make money will be going after the richer gambler.
 
Shepard said:
^ Agree with Davem and Goose.

I think it's ethically appropriate for casinos to more-than-subtly message - whether via architecture, amenities, or location - that if you can't afford to be here, i.e. if you can't afford to lose, then you probably don't belong. I realize that this my be a "classist" argument, but if you think about it, casino gambling is actually the most out-of-reach luxury good of all - and it should be thought of and treated as such.

Put it in the Seaport, mandate a certain architecture - open, street activating, minimal parking (or valet only), and glittering with exclusivity. It will attract conventioneers. It will anchor the area. And Keno players would more likely stick to Keno. To my original point, architecture amenities and location will indicate who the intended clientele will be, and that in large part will determine whether we will see a net positive or net negative to the city.
Click to expand...

I think the Seaport / Innovation District is ideal -- mostly because the BCEC needs a lot more local hotel rooms and that the BCEc Expansion Report is pointing to subsidies for the hotels as well as any BCEC multi-purpose room and exhibt floor expansion

If you put $500 M (minmum madated by the House Legislation) into a big hotel / casino complex -- with a big Ballroom & high end shopping & restaurant courtyard and such with gerbil tube connections to the BCEC -- you've gone a long way to getting most of what the BCEC Expansion Report recommends (1 to 2 1000 room-scale HQ hotels conected to the BCEC) without spending quite so much of the cash of the taxpayers and further benefiting the taxpayers by syphoning some cash from the pool of the BCEC attendees from Topeka, Paris, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top