MA Casino Developments

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.

Note because of the immediate proximity to Logan -- "real high rollers" might decend on a Seaport / Innovation District casino -- particularly if they can sneak in / out to a private area without being watched by the Hoi polloi
 
I'd hate to see Suffolk only get the slots if they are going to be one of the 4 sites. That to me is a waste. Most convention attendees are not interested in slots. They want table games and the entertainment/dining options that come with any full scale casino. Just slots at Suffolk would = an urban Twin River. Perhaps more successful than Twin River given its prominent location close to Boston but equally depressing in terms of clientele. Any casino in Boston, should there be one at all, should be the nicest in the state and offer the all the amenities. I enjoy the occasional night out gambling usually about 3-5 nights a year and I would not set foot in a Suffolk Downs casino if it only offered slots.
 
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.

Exactly. This.
 
Exactly. This.

With the new relevations from the PO about the lack of need to build in the Seaport / Innovation District -- the table is set for a big roll:

1) Casino Bill to be complete and signed by December
2) PO to hold hearings in Jan / Feb on plans
3) BCEC Expansion Report puts in place some deadlines for preparing for the BCEC Expansion including acquiring land for the HQ Hotel(s) -- within 12 months

I'll guess that this time 2012 we'll be looking at rendierings for a $500 - $700 M 2000 room Hotel / Cassino in the Seaport / Innovation District with construction already underway on Zwei Rivieras del Norte a la Suffolk
 
Surely those extolling the prospects of a casino for Boston's Seaport, and designating the neighborhood as Boston's "convention district", would jump at the chance at living in Atlantic City, Orlando or Las Vegas, right?
 
I don't necessarily object to legalizing gambling. This bill doesn't do that. It keeps gambling illegal in all but 3-4 designated places, thus concentrating these otherwise-illegal activities in a select few spots. This is the same sort of thinking that created the Combat Zone. If you let these sorts of activities exist freely they simply become a part of life, but if you keep them corralled in a few small areas those areas become theme parks of depravity. Cities are no places for theme parks, IMO.
 
Surely those extolling the prospects of a casino for Boston's Seaport, and designating the neighborhood as Boston's "convention district", would jump at the chance at living in Atlantic City, Orlando or Las Vegas, right?


I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.
 
I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.

First off......If the Seaport was even considered for a casino license there really should be an investigation in the Mayor and his cronies.
First off the city of Boston shutdowns at 1PM.
To even consider a casino in the Mayor's Innovation District would be completely offbase. Since the Mayor's innovation district has such a hefty tax on the Taxpayers. Instead of Biff's Casino in Back to the Future II
We would have MAYOR MORON MENINO Casino in the Seaport District

Would the Seaport work as a destination spot with the casino. Probably since Massachusetts has the most degenerates on the planet. The Seaport would probably attract an upperclass demographic without a doubt.

But Mass being Mass the degenerates would end up ruling the area overtime.

The more and more I think about the casinos, I think they should just let the Indians have their day in the sun with Foxwoods and Mohegan.

Bobby DeLeo is one strange and shady guy. Watching him on TV gives me the creeps and the casino package lights up his eyes. I can't imagine the deal he has with the investors.

Find out who the majority owners Suffolk and Wonderland tracks, the majority investors in Fan Pier and that is who is controlling the puppets in the house on BEACON HILL.
 
Last edited:
We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino.

By that logic, a proposal for ANYTHING would be better than what we have now, so it should be supported.

As far as I can tell, here is the measure of the potential of the Seaport land:

http://140.241.251.212/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=3

A mixed-use, highly dense neighborhood with a wide array of uses, plus civic uses (school, cultural, etc.).
 
I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.


Well said

See my earlier post about World Class cities with casino hotels which enhance rather than detract

BUT I do have one criticism -- Jame Bond (Sean Conery, the real one, not some recent pretender) gambles in Montecarlo -- the game is Bacarat of course, the girls are leggy blonds, and the martinis are shaken not stirrred
 
Alright. I have worked on a number of casions in the past including the MBS that you showed earlier.

You mention building a 2,000 room hotel and high scale casino, and then throw out $500m.

For a comparison. The Marina Bay Sands complex ( which is admittedly huge, on the order of 6,000,000 sf of development) cost anywhere from 3-5 billion with much cheaper labor than we have here.
The Palazzo in Vegas (2,000 rooms) was budgeted at about $1b, and ran up to approximately $2b when all was said and done.
The Sand's project in Bethlehem, PA was an approximately $900m job that only included a 300 room hotel to begin with.
All of these included massive shopping components as well.

The only reason I don't support this in the Seaport, is because it cannot possibly be done right down there. Not even due to incompetence, but because it physically cannot be done right.

2,000 rooms with a max buildable height of around 300' would take up too much space coupled with a large casino floor, and associated shopping, restaurants, etc. The parking would be subterranean, and the area is (or will be) well served by public transit and other means to mitigate horrible traffic.... MBS and the major high end casinos in Vegas are 500-600 feet tall. We can't do that, so yes it would kill the area due to sheer spacial requirements. Casinos and convention centers go together like peas and carrots, Vegas teaches us this, but a similar (or bigger) footprint next to the BCEC would be most terrible.
 
Alright. I have worked on a number of casions in the past including the MBS that you showed earlier.

You mention building a 2,000 room hotel and high scale casino, and then throw out $500m.

For a comparison. The Marina Bay Sands complex ( which is admittedly huge, on the order of 6,000,000 sf of development) cost anywhere from 3-5 billion with much cheaper labor than we have here.
The Palazzo in Vegas (2,000 rooms) was budgeted at about $1b, and ran up to approximately $2b when all was said and done.
The Sand's project in Bethlehem, PA was an approximately $900m job that only included a 300 room hotel to begin with.
All of these included massive shopping components as well.

The only reason I don't support this in the Seaport, is because it cannot possibly be done right down there. Not even due to incompetence, but because it physically cannot be done right.

2,000 rooms with a max buildable height of around 300' would take up too much space coupled with a large casino floor, and associated shopping, restaurants, etc. The parking would be subterranean, and the area is (or will be) well served by public transit and other means to mitigate horrible traffic.... MBS and the major high end casinos in Vegas are 500-600 feet tall. We can't do that, so yes it would kill the area due to sheer spacial requirements. Casinos and convention centers go together like peas and carrots, Vegas teaches us this, but a similar (or bigger) footprint next to the BCEC would be most terrible.


MBS that I was refering to earlier is the Marina Bay Sands designed by Moshe Safte in Singapore -- I was not suggesting that the complex was a precise model of the BCEC hotel / casino -- my reasons for mentioning the Singapore MBS:

1) Singapore is un-argualbly a World Class Citystate which shares with Boston metro (City-state) a focus on high tech / biotech / education / finance -- aka the Knowledge Economy (KE) -- hence the MBS was not going into a hole in the planet such as Atlantic City or Las Vegas

2) last October I was a participant in an international conference held in the Singapore MBS conference center across the street from the hotel and sharing the same building with the casino -- so I got to do some exploring and photographing

3) the MBS was / is built in a former port / warehouse district -- much like the Seaport Innovation District -- and sill quite isolated transportation-wise though they are building two new rapid transit stations in the area

of course there are many differences in the type of government, climate, cost of materials, cost of labor, attiude toward towering development, location relative to the runways. etc., between the two city-states -- comparable in population.

Then there are the specific Singaporean facts that you can nearly litterally eat-off of public sidewalks and streets and can be caned for overstaying your visa -- all of which are utterly foreign concepts in the HUB

But incorporating the commons and differences -- the MBS Singapore is relevant to the discussion

finally the $500 M was just a ballpark figure as was the 2000 rooms --the BCEC Expansion Report has some much more detailed numbers -- although the report never considers that a casino might be involved
 
MBS that I was refering to earlier is the Marina Bay Sands designed by Moshe Safte in Singapore -- I was not suggesting that the complex was a precise model of the BCEC hotel / casino -- my reasons for mentioning the Singapore MBS: If it could be that would be great. 3 Hancock towers with a massive 2 acre sky park, with attached convention space.... pretty frikken sweet and one of the most "exciting" projects I have been a part of.


3) the MBS was / is built in a former port / warehouse district -- much like the Seaport Innovation District -- and sill quite isolated transportation-wise though they are building two new rapid transit stations in the area


finally the $500 M was just a ballpark figure as was the 2000 rooms --the BCEC Expansion Report has some much more detailed numbers -- although the report never considers that a casino might be involved

Actually I think the land is even more similar to the Seaport than that. They are both "reclaimed" man made land as I understand it. Singapore is also one of the busiest ports in the world, with tons of product coming and going. An aerial of the port is amazing just for the ships.

Another key to the MBS success is the undeniable love for gambling that the asian community has. Of course we have large Asian communities here as well.

I was hoping to help clarify a bit on the price. Your guesstimate on rooms is a good one. Both large casino/resorts I mention above have roughly 2,000 rooms. The 500 million dollar price tag, I just wanted to point out as being very low, especially in Boston.

Was the skating rink on the lowest level open when you were there? Also, have they finished the museum?
 
I don't know whyyyy anyone would be against a strip club. Esp. in Fall River. It will employ people and bring in taxes. And it's not as if people can gamble 24 hours a day at any casino built nearby.

Oliver's Restaurant, the Fall River bar and grill at the center of a fight between its owner and the city over plans to turn it into Fall River's first strip club, is under new ownership -- and its owner was one of the loudest critics of the strip club idea, the Herald News reports.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b...?s=newsletter&ed=2011-09-22&ana=e_boston_blog
 
Casino opponent blasts `cozy relationship’ between state officials and gaming industry
10/26/2011 11:58 AM
By Todd Wallack , Globe Staff


A prominent casino opponent sharply criticized the “cozy relationship” between state officials and the gaming industry following a report in The Globe today that Governor Deval Patrick’s top economic development aide bought stock in two Las Vegas gaming companies last year.

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, said “the cozy relationship between our elected and appointed officials, casino bosses, and their hired guns is deeply troubling, and today’s Boston Globe expose just peels back another layer of this rotten onion.”

“The more we learn about the insider dealing that shrouds this entire issue, the more red flags it should wave for all of us, including legislators and the Governor,” Harshbarger said.

The Globe reported today that Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, held more than $17,000 stock last year in Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Wynn Resorts Ltd., both of which have expressed interest in building casinos in Massachusetts.

Bialecki said the stocks were bought by a financial advisor in August 2010 without his knowledge. When he later learned of the purchases, Bialecki said, he did not think the holdings posed a problem because he didn’t pick the stocks ; they accounted for only a small percentage of his portfolio; and he doesn’t expect to award any of the casino licenses. Bialecki sold the stocks last week after the Globe questioned him about the investments.

The House and Senate have approved legislation to allow casinos in the state, but must still agree on a compromise bill to send to Patrick for final approval.


http://www.boston.com/Boston/busine...iqKU0iPGw6NRPtXsexKL/index.html?p1=News_links
 
Shoulda bought his LVSC stocks in 2008 when they were worth 4 bucks....
 
I don't necessarily object to legalizing gambling. This bill doesn't do that. It keeps gambling illegal in all but 3-4 designated places, thus concentrating these otherwise-illegal activities in a select few spots. This is the same sort of thinking that created the Combat Zone. If you let these sorts of activities exist freely they simply become a part of life, but if you keep them corralled in a few small areas those areas become theme parks of depravity. Cities are no places for theme parks, IMO.

The yellow tent is where you go for the H
 

Back
Top