BC Place: Stadium Refurbishment | Completed

[whatnext]

Then you should also stop pretending that the opponents are anything more than NIMBYs.

What nonsense.

As far as I know, Peter Ladner doesn't live in the casino's backyard, but then perhaps you know better? What's remarkable about the opposition to the casino is that brings together Left, Right, rich and poor.

And now its come out that the BC Association for Charitable Gaming and the Alliance for Arts & Culture have been subjected to veiled threats of further funding cuts from "unamed persons in the provincial government" if they continue to oppose the casino. Similarly, the BC Persons With Aids Society unexpectedly had $50k chopped from their gaming grants for the first time after they opposed the casino.
http://www.allianceforarts.com/blog/non-profits-call-clark-replace-rich-coleman

As others have said said, follow the money. There's some powerful interests trying to push this thing through.

[officedweller]

It's a general (business or otherwise) principle that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

That's why the NDP panders to the unions and the Liberals to the corporate interests.

It's really sign of the "entitlement" problem when a group (whoever they are) with its hand out engages in a backlash. If they weren't blacklisted before, they'll certainly be now, and then do they think they'll ever get off of it? Maybe if the government changes, but they're pissing off multiple levels of government. And I also read in the newspaper that social housing projects are also dependent on gaming revenue - so if the casino is blocked, social housing projects dependent on those revenues for funding will also die.

[jlousa]

I agree completely with the above OD post ( a couple up now). Why do people care if Paragon fails, taxpayers would not be on the hook for anything as we aren't the ones financing the buildings, they would be along with their hotel partners.

Also I can understand that some people think there's a conflict of interest in Paragon winning the bid, but the fact is they were the only Casino that submitted a bid. Had Sands or another big name player placed a competitive bid they would've won instead. The government can't obligate companies to submit bids. The truth is the bigger names probably knew this was going to be a hard sell and didn't care to go through the hassle leaving only a small player to take the chance.

[whatnext]

It's a general (business or otherwise) principle that you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

That's why the NDP panders to the unions and the Liberals to the corporate interests.

It's really sign of the "entitlement" problem when a group (whoever they are) with its hand out engages in a backlash. If they weren't blacklisted before, they'll certainly be now, and then do they think they'll ever get off of it? Maybe if the government changes, but they're pissing off multiple levels of government. And I also read in the newspaper that social housing projects are also dependent on gaming revenue - so if the casino is blocked, social housing projects dependent on those revenues for funding will also die.

Their position is that the government has steadily eroded and consistently reneged on the original funding formula. I guess they can only hold their nose for so long, before realizing the whole pile of s#!t stinks.

[Porfiry]

What nonsense.

As far as I know, Peter Ladner doesn't live in the casino's backyard, but then perhaps you know better?

Ladner has no problem with people gambling ("I recognize that some people want to gamble, and I'm not here to deny them that opportunity."), he just wants them to go outside the city limits. Textbook NIMBY.

[mezzanine]

if paragon fails, CoV will not only get less gaming revenue for its programs, but if we cannot find a commercial tenant for the land, we will get less from residential taxes vs commercial taxes.

like it or not, gaming revenue nowadays is general revenue for provincial and local govt. if this proposal doesn't go thru, our ability to extend existing programs will be more limited, unless we decide to raise taxes.

this is from the georgia straight. i have a feeling that other muni's are eating vancouver's lunch...

Coquitlam’s Boulevard Casino, which has over 1,000 slot machines and 60 gambling tables, puts about $9 million a year in the city’s coffers, the mayor said.

“That pays for a lot of services in Coquitlam,” Stewart said. “Here I am, not particularly a gambling advocate, and yet if there are going to be casinos and some communities are going to get the revenue, then I do want Coquitlam to get its share of those revenues.

http://www.straight.com/article-377486/vancouver/politicos-fear-casino-impact

[EastVanMark]

Also I can understand that some people think there's a conflict of interest in Paragon winning the bid, but the fact is they were the only Casino that submitted a bid. Had Sands or another big name player placed a competitive bid they would've won instead. The government can't obligate companies to submit bids. The truth is the bigger names probably knew this was going to be a hard sell and didn't care to go through the hassle leaving only a small player to take the chance.

They were the only ones who submitted a bid because they were the only ones who had a realistic chance to secure the bid. Nobody else had a hope in hell of securing a license for the site other than Paragon. The truth is Paragon had been looking for a place to relocate since they purchased the casino and were unable to get a long term commitment from Concord Pacific. The chance of another casino being able to obtain a licence for the BC Place site next to Paragon's own casino was zero. Yes, the government can't obligate companies to submit bids, but they sure can stack the deck in favor of which bid they would like to see win. The City of Vancouver does this all the time with liquor licences. So let me get this straight, a guy like Steve Wynn was interested in opening a casino here in the mid 90's but now all of a sudden nobody is interested? Ya right.

[whatnext]

if paragon fails, CoV will not only get less gaming revenue for its programs, but if we cannot find a commercial tenant for the land, we will get less from residential taxes vs commercial taxes.

like it or not, gaming revenue nowadays is general revenue for provincial and local govt. if this proposal doesn't go thru, our ability to extend existing programs will be more limited, unless we decide to raise taxes.

this is from the georgia straight. i have a feeling that other muni's are eating vancouver's lunch...


http://www.straight.com/article-377486/vancouver/politicos-fear-casino-impact

There's only a limited amount of suckers in Metro Vancouver. They're just cannibalizing each others'. The notion that it will attract tourists is laughable.

[logan5]

There's only a limited amount of suckers in Metro Vancouver. They're just cannibalizing each others'. The notion that it will attract tourists is laughable.

There are two hotels attached to the casino. How could it not attract tourists?

[Metro-One]

:previous:Not to mention it will be beside the two largest sports facilities in the metro (seems to me a lot of out of towner's do come to them!). Seems like a good match to me!

I think a lot of nay sayers here are simply basing the bias on their own emotional dislike of gambling and nothing else. Essentially it is almost a religious style reaction where they feel they need to control the free choice of others against what they consider a "perversion." It reminds me of talking to an A.A. member about alcohol / drinking.

Yes, there are those who seem to have little self control and there are help programs set up for such people (anyone here who has actually been inside any casino in metro-Van know that there are gambling addiction help advertisements everywhere), but for the other 99% who know their limit and enjoy going out with friends for a night to the casino, where one can also get a few drinks, a live show and some food, well we enjoy being able to make that choice for ourselves and it seems bizarre that one would not be able to do so downtown in the heart of our metros entertainment zone.

[SpongeG]

maybe not tourists from paris or new york but tourists from nanaimo, kelowna etc. i know people who come down from BC for concerts at the river rock they love it

[Nutterbug]

:previous:Not to mention it will be beside the two largest sports facilities in the metro (seems to me a lot of out of towner's do come to them!). Seems like a good match to me!

I think a lot of nay sayers here are simply basing the bias on their own emotional dislike of gambling and nothing else. Essentially it is almost a religious style reaction where they feel they need to control the free choice of others against what they consider a "perversion." It reminds me of talking to an A.A. member about alcohol / drinking.

Yes, there are those who seem to have little self control and there are help programs set up for such people (anyone here who has actually been inside any casino in metro-Van know that there are gambling addiction help advertisements everywhere), but for the other 99% who know their limit and enjoy going out with friends for a night to the casino, where one can also get a few drinks, a live show and some food, well we enjoy being able to make that choice for ourselves and it seems bizarre that one would not be able to do so downtown in the heart of our metros entertainment zone.

And it should be left to private enterprise to make these "sinful" or potentially unhealthy and destructive activities available (a la alcohol and tobacco) and promote them, not government.

Then again, the government NEEDS the money, so its casino business may arguably be considered the "lesser of the evils". But one should continue to ponder and question a system in which government, which is supposed to help the people, would have to push this kind of activity to collect revenue, and the people in charge in it.

[whatnext]

There are two hotels attached to the casino. How could it not attract tourists?

And the Pan Pacific is attached to the convention centre. Do you make the same assumption that everyone staying there is going to a convention?

There are now so many casinos, and there is nothing in the worldwide scheme of things that makes this one special. Why would you think people are going to visit just to make a trip to it? Someone mentioned people coming from the Interior for shows at the River Rock theatre...so just build a new theatre then.

[whatnext]

Why do i find that the Nanny State and the NIMBY mentality are merging here and becoming a monster?

If anything this project to me demonstrates true urban mix use that one finds overseas. Here we have high density residential towers beside major sporting facilities, retail, office, transportation (viaducts and skytrain) and now potentially a major entertainment facility (the casino). Fantastic! But uh oh, here we go again...

Vancouver has been living essentially in a fantasy form of mix use where there are residential towers lining quiet streets with some basic amenities thrown into the mix. The city is now finally taking the next step into true mix use, and I really hope the NIMBYS don't win this one. You live in an urban core beside an area zoned to be a major entertainment district, major casinos happen to be such facilities that fit perfectly in such areas!

If anywhere in metro vancouver is suitable for a flagship casino it is here.

How can you say Vancouver "has been living in a fantasy form" if that is indeed the form that has been built? Its not a fantasy and apparently it works well for those who live there and they are unwilling to have it changed.

Perhaps someone should dump a mega-casino next to your home in Maple Ridge. You'd be all for that?

[Hourglass]

:previous:

From what I can see, this is more of a destination casino than the Edgewater site, hence I believe it will attract tourists. That certainly is the case for the casino in Sydney's Darling Harbour or the new integrated resort in Singapore (or similar casinos in Cape Town, Budapest, etc etc).

I'm not pro or against, but the situation does seem similar to Singapore on a smaller scale. The two casinos there contributed 0.1% of GDP in the first 12 months of operation. That's big money for everyone. While the downtown casino won't have anywhere as much impact due to it's smaller size, it's a financial boon that the City should think twice about before turning down. And I can think of worse places to have as a next-door neighbor.

[Fairbanks]

People who purhase condo's in and or around the downtown core, id: False Creek and weren't or aren't smart enough think ahead of time that it IS the downtown core, the entertainment district, home to two stadiums and any number of hotels and theatres deserve what they got or get or will get.

People don't travel from other parts of the world to visit Surrey Abbotsford or Mission they come to visit Vancouver because that's where everything of interest is located.

If you bought a condo in the core and are now pissed because there is a needle exchange or a homeless shelter or a big brand new casino in your neighborhood you get what you deserve for being so nieve. Perhaps you should list it for sale and someone who understands what living downtown is all about will buy it.

Don't buy, then bitch thinking you can stop the rest of the world from turning.

[Fairbanks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=664kNd0vWXQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxWntYCOfQU&feature=related

[whatnext]

:previous:Gee, imagine, whatever did they come to Vancouver for in the 120 years we existed before we got a casino? :rolleyes:

And the rest of your post reads like its from someone who erroneously believes all of Manhattan is a "downtown" area.

[Fairbanks]

:previous:Gee, imagine, whatever did they come to Vancouver for in the 120 years we existed before we got a casino? :rolleyes:

And the rest of your post reads like its from someone who erroneously believes all of Manhattan is a "downtown" area.

If you think that downtown stops at Yaletown then you are fooling yourself...what do you think is happening? Downtown is expanding.
Oh and you could gamble in Vancouver as far back as 120 yrs. In smoke-filled backrooms and alleys. But back then it was punishable with a jail sentence...because it was illegal. My God how upset you would have been to be living downtown in the 20's. You think it's bad now.

[Fairbanks]

Vancouver was, is and always will be a "port city" with a mild climate. It will always have a homelessness problem because they will keep come from the east to get warm. Illegal immigration, prostitution, gambling, drug use were all far more prevelent back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The gold rush played a big part. If you think heroin, cocaine, marijuana and hookers are relatively new practices then you need to do more research. You can add bathtub gin and other illegal distilleries to the mix as well.

[dreambrother808]

I will never understand what is so upsetting about people exercising their right to spend leisure time in whatever way they see fit. You don't like gambling? You don't believe in it? THEN DON'T GAMBLE. Thinking that you also have the right to dictate what others do, as if they are children and you, their omniscient grandmother, is beyond me.

[whatnext]

:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then? After all, it doesn't hurt you, and if people want to spend their leisure time in any way they see fit...

[Fairbanks]

I will never understand what is so upsetting about people exercising their right to spend leisure time in whatever way they see fit. You don't like gambling? You don't believe in it? THEN DON'T GAMBLE. Thinking that you also have the right to dictate what others do, as if they are children and you, their omniscient grandmother, is beyond me.

Well said Bro808! I am so sick of people telling us how we can and cannot spend our hard earned, HIGHLY TAXED incomes.

[SFUVancouver]

:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then? After all, it doesn't hurt you, and if people want to spend their leisure time in any way they see fit...

Well I think there would be very few Johns who would be interested in doing it with a sex worker in public, plus we have plenty of public decency laws already on the books to stop that in its tracks. But as for sex work being legal? I'm entirely in favour. It's going to happen anyway so let's bring it out of the shadows, legalize it, tax it, and make it safe for the sex workers and Johns alike. But that's just my opinion.

[Metro-One]

:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then? After all, it doesn't hurt you, and if people want to spend their leisure time in any way they see fit...

I am 100% in favour of making prostitution legal for all the same reasons SFUVancouver listed above. The same way having gambling legal is sanctioned areas (a casino) stops people from gambling in the streets / back alleys ;)

Oh and by the way, they are building a casino in Maple Ridge (they just started clearing the land this week) and I am happy about that. The best part is Maple Ridge is actually smart enough to be building it in our downtown core :tup:

[logan5]

And the Pan Pacific is attached to the convention centre. Do you make the same assumption that everyone staying there is going to a convention?


If there is an event happening, then yes, there will be people from the hotel attending.

While I respect each persons opposition to the casino, if you ignore certain facts, distort truths, or exaggerate things, your argument loses credibility.

[Fairbanks]

[QUOTE=whatnext;5197994]:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then?

No one said anything of the sort, "Whatnext" and that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about the further development of the lands around BC Place consisting of a destination casino and TWO hotels connected to BC Place.

Low income housing IS being built just look here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=182022


Homeless shelters are being improved and expanded, drug programs, needle exchange centres are in place, as are medical marijuana outlets, the Missing Women's Task Force, the Pickton trial costs and the prison to house him all paid for with our hard earned HIGHLY TAXED incomes. That's why we pay taxes...to help pay for these programs and many others. But WE can't pay for everything with OUR incomes so lotteries and other forms of legalized gambling go a long way to complimenting these programs and others, like arts and education for example.

If you want to spout off at us then first you need to get involved and help find a solution for troubling issues rather than bitching and squawking at those of us who are already contributing what we can and if we choose to spend what's left of our hard earned, HIGHLY TAXED incomes for entertainment at casinos, opera, symphony, soccer, football, hockey or whatever, then sobeit. All of which I might add are located in the downtown core along with all the tourists and all the big hotels.

You neglected to mention Horserace gambling which has been at Hastings Park since 1892...that's, "eighteen hundred and ninety two" so you don't misread the year. With this exception all of the major entertainment facilities are located downtown.

There are plenty of family oriented things to do or things that don't have a certain age restriction to participate. People who don't believe in or support gambling can enjoy such attractions as Scienceworld, harbour tours, sailing, Stanley Park, the Museum/ Planetarium, the Art Gallery, skating at Robson Square, walking the seawall, plus all the events I mentioned earlier, hell even Skytrain is entertaining. Get on Canada Line and go to the airport to watch the planes land and take off. By the way...everything above is financed by hard earned HIGHLY TAXED incomes.

Some of us want a resort Casino/Hotel/Entertainment complex, not only for our enjoyment but because it will employ 2000 people after it opens not to mention all the construction jobs it will create immediately. Don't forget all that income will be hard earned and HIGHLY TAXED as well.

[delboy]

:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then? After all, it doesn't hurt you, and if people want to spend their leisure time in any way they see fit...

So in other words, prohibition does not work. I've been around a while and can still remember the illegal casinos in Vancouver, and the so called 'social clubs' where poker was illegally played until casinos started offering texas hold em (Lumbermans was one of them)...same with the booze cans, although they have largely vanished now, from what I know.

People will resort to creative measures to feed their vices. May as well make it legal, taxed and regulated. Same could be said for prostitution and dope.

Some of the comments I have been following from the NIMBYS have been laughable. One father 'feared' his son having to walk near a casino and how it would influence him????? peter Ladner (don't get me started) talked about criminals walking in with large bags of money to launder????

[delboy]

[QUOTE=whatnext;5197994]:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then?

No one said anything of the sort, "Whatnext" and that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about the further development of the lands around BC Place consisting of a destination casino and TWO hotels connected to BC Place.

Low income housing IS being built just look here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=182022


Homeless shelters are being improved and expanded, drug programs, needle exchange centres are in place, as are medical marijuana outlets, the Missing Women's Task Force, the Pickton trial costs and the prison to house him all paid for with our hard earned HIGHLY TAXED incomes. That's why we pay taxes...to help pay for these programs and many others. But WE can't pay for everything with OUR incomes so lotteries and other forms of legalized gambling go a long way to complimenting these programs and others, like arts and education for example.

If you want to spout off at us then first you need to get involved and help find a solution for troubling issues rather than bitching and squawking at those of us who are already contributing what we can and if we choose to spend what's left of our hard earned, HIGHLY TAXED incomes for entertainment at casinos, opera, symphony, soccer, football, hockey or whatever, then sobeit. All of which I might add are located in the downtown core along with all the tourists and all the big hotels.

You neglected to mention Horserace gambling which has been at Hastings Park since 1892...that's, "eighteen hundred and ninety two" so you don't misread the year. With this exception all of the major entertainment facilities are located downtown.

There are plenty of family oriented things to do or things that don't have a certain age restriction to participate. People who don't believe in or support gambling can enjoy such attractions as Scienceworld, harbour tours, sailing, Stanley Park, the Museum/ Planetarium, the Art Gallery, skating at Robson Square, walking the seawall, plus all the events I mentioned earlier, hell even Skytrain is entertaining. Get on Canada Line and go to the airport to watch the planes land and take off. By the way...everything above is financed by hard earned HIGHLY TAXED incomes.

Some of us want a resort Casino/Hotel/Entertainment complex, not only for our enjoyment but because it will employ 2000 people after it opens not to mention all the construction jobs it will create immediately. Don't forget all that income will be hard earned and HIGHLY TAXED as well.

Well said, and it may surprise some that the greatest gaming revenues are from the sale of lottery tickets and scratch and win cards, which many also abuse. Then what of Bingo revenues? For 2007 and 2008 there was a staggering $155,855,000 spent in Bingo halls in BC (which outnumber casinos), and a further 50 million from horse tracks....why are casinos targeted? which are easily the most regulated, with self banning programs etc.



If one views the opening and promotion of such venues as contributing to the decline of society's morals, what about bars and clubs (not to mention gov't run liqour stores)...are they not the same thing, what about the dangers associated with drinking and driving...how about sales of cigarettes?

i personally don't like gambling, so i don't do it. I don't care for smoking either so don't do that either. i do like a wee tipple on occasion though:cheers:

[Fairbanks]

And as I asked the NIMBY's earlier..."Should we stop building shopping malls because some people have an addiction to shopping?"

I live 5 minutes away from a Casino here in Victoria and can count on one hand the number of times I have been inside since it opened. I really only do it when family or friends visit and wanna go. BTW the last time I was there I pulled the arm of a slot machine four times and won $600.00.

Last year we went to RiverRock to see a concert. We stayed the night and went to the Casino for something to eat and to lose a few bucks. We checked out the next morning and left the building.

I am sure we will do the same when this new one opens in False Creek.

Ironically it's not us they NIMBY's are worried about ruining the neighbourhood...it's all the people who need the programs and services we support with our tax dollars.

[SpongeG]

And the Pan Pacific is attached to the convention centre. Do you make the same assumption that everyone staying there is going to a convention?

There are now so many casinos, and there is nothing in the worldwide scheme of things that makes this one special. Why would you think people are going to visit just to make a trip to it? Someone mentioned people coming from the Interior for shows at the River Rock theatre...so just build a new theatre then.

thats because these concerts are part of the casino circuit - they are the only places you can see sheena easton, dionne warwick or petula clark

[delboy]

thats because these concerts are part of the casino circuit - they are the only places you can see sheena easton, dionne warwick or petula clark

and UB40! they were my favourite group growing up and seeing them at Red Robinson was the thrill of a life time:notacrook:

[mezzanine]

I would covet Bill Cosby's past appearance at the RR for vancouver.

Although IIRC, the paragon proposal does not include a show theatre. correct me if i'm wrong....

[Nutterbug]

Well I think there would be very few Johns who would be interested in doing it with a sex worker in public, plus we have plenty of public decency laws already on the books to stop that in its tracks. But as for sex work being legal? I'm entirely in favour. It's going to happen anyway so let's bring it out of the shadows, legalize it, tax it, and make it safe for the sex workers and Johns alike. But that's just my opinion.

Don't forget government sanctioned brothels with hookers on their payroll, and TV ads aired in prime time inviting the public to come and buy their services.

[whatnext]

[QUOTE=whatnext;5197994]:previous:So you're in favour of hookers being able to turn tricks in public then?

No one said anything of the sort, "Whatnext" and that is not what this thread is about..

It has everything to do with what this thread is about. DB said "I will never understand what is so upsetting about people exercising their right to spend leisure time in whatever way they see fit. You don't like gambling? You don't believe in it? THEN DON'T GAMBLE. Thinking that you also have the right to dictate what others do, as if they are children and you, their omniscient grandmother, is beyond me."

So as you sip your chardonnay and eat your brie in your downtown condo, would you not object to a hooker giving a BJ to some john in the alley below you? Of course you would, but nobody's being hurt, the john is spending his leisure time in a "way he sees fit" and best of all, jobs are being created! What's the difference?

Given your outrage about taxes (odd from somebody claiming the sky is falling if Stephen Harper win a majority) consider this: gambling is a proven regressive tax on those who can least afford it.

...It's all legal, so what's the big deal? Here's the scandal: In 1999, the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Commission found that 80 percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year.

More remarkably, players with annual incomes of less than $10,000 spent almost three times as much on gambling -- in aggregate, real dollars -- as those with incomes of more than $50,000. With the aggressive encouragement of state governments, US gamblers -- most of them scraping by on limited incomes -- had to lose $84 billion last year in casinos and lotteries for the states to raise $24 billion in new revenues.... (bold mine)

http://www.alternet.org/rights/51365/

[SpongeG]

well i didn't think people like you existed people who actually care about their fellow human beings

anyway blowjobs in alleyways happens already legalizing may clean that activity up

[quobobo]

gambling is a proven regressive tax on those who can least afford it.

Odd that you consider a voluntary transaction to be a tax.

[logan5]

It has everything to do with what this thread is about. DB said "I will never understand what is so upsetting about people exercising their right to spend leisure time in whatever way they see fit. You don't like gambling? You don't believe in it? THEN DON'T GAMBLE. Thinking that you also have the right to dictate what others do, as if they are children and you, their omniscient grandmother, is beyond me."

So as you sip your chardonnay and eat your brie in your downtown condo, would you not object to a hooker giving a BJ to some john in the alley below you? Of course you would, but nobody's being hurt, the john is spending his leisure time in a "way he sees fit" and best of all, jobs are being created! What's the difference?

Given your outrage about taxes (odd from somebody claiming the sky is falling if Stephen Harper win a majority) consider this: gambling is a proven regressive tax on those who can least afford it.

...It's all legal, so what's the big deal? Here's the scandal: In 1999, the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Commission found that 80 percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year.

More remarkably, players with annual incomes of less than $10,000 spent almost three times as much on gambling -- in aggregate, real dollars -- as those with incomes of more than $50,000. With the aggressive encouragement of state governments, US gamblers -- most of them scraping by on limited incomes -- had to lose $84 billion last year in casinos and lotteries for the states to raise $24 billion in new revenues.... (bold mine)

http://www.alternet.org/rights/51365/

See post #3026

Now you've resorted to twisting peoples words. You sound a bit like a religious fundamentalist, or maybe you just like to stoke the fire. In any event, your arguments have no objectivity whatsoever.

[whatnext]

See post #3026

Now you've resorted to twisting peoples words. You sound a bit like a religious fundamentalist, or maybe you just like to stoke the fire. In any event, your arguments have no objectivity whatsoever.

And how are yours objective? You pile onto people objecting to the casino:
-Charging that they're all NIMBY's even though many do not live next to the site.
-Ignore the very real fact that organized crime can easily launder money though BC casinos (http://www.globaltvbc.com/world/BCLC+only+provincial+gambling+body+fined/3309328/story.html)
-Ignore the fact that gambling addiction has led to capital crime here (http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/news/117432983.html).
-Dismiss the fact that government run gambling preys on those who can least afford it. (http://www.saneok.org/files/Socio-Economics/Gambling%20and%20the%20Poor.pdf)

Yep, you're the objective one alright. :rolleyes:

[Vancouver_Highrise]

^^

Wow.. you guys are being pretty ridiculous. It's a casino... not an atomic bomb that is about to rip apart Vancouver... :sly:

anyways... Was someone able to get a picture of the new glass on BC Place?

[jlousa]

People who purhase condo's in and or around the downtown core, id: False Creek and weren't or aren't smart enough think ahead of time that it IS the downtown core, the entertainment district, home to two stadiums and any number of hotels and theatres deserve what they got or get or will get.

People don't travel from other parts of the world to visit Surrey Abbotsford or Mission they come to visit Vancouver because that's where everything of interest is located.

If you bought a condo in the core and are now pissed because there is a needle exchange or a homeless shelter or a big brand new casino in your neighborhood you get what you deserve for being so nieve. Perhaps you should list it for sale and someone who understands what living downtown is all about will buy it.

Don't buy, then bitch thinking you can stop the rest of the world from turning.

I support the Casino application, but the above logic is so faulty it's not even worth getting into.

[Denscity]

Can't someone start a gambling thread so we can keep that crap out of this stadium thread?

[Nutterbug]

So as you sip your chardonnay and eat your brie in your downtown condo, would you not object to a hooker giving a BJ to some john in the alley below you? Of course you would, but nobody's being hurt, the john is spending his leisure time in a "way he sees fit" and best of all, jobs are being created! What's the difference?
I could care less if they were doing it in the closed confines of the guy's own apartment or a brothel.

I would care if the government is sanctioning the activity.

Given your outrage about taxes (odd from somebody claiming the sky is falling if Stephen Harper win a majority) consider this: gambling is a proven regressive tax on those who can least afford it.
I'm not out to protect grown adults from themselves and their own decisions. But it's not the appropriate role of government to dangle the carrot of gambling in front of them.

If people are so for freedom to choose, how about letting private enterprise enter the casino and gambling market?

[Spork]

Can't someone start a gambling thread so we can keep that crap out of this stadium thread?

Agreed.

Filler filler filler.

[SpongeG]

I could care less if they were doing it in the closed confines of the guy's own apartment or a brothel.

I would care if the government is sanctioning the activity.


I'm not out to protect grown adults from themselves and their own decisions. But it's not the appropriate role of government to dangle the carrot of gambling in front of them.

If people are so for freedom to choose, how about letting private enterprise enter the casino and gambling market?

private enterprise runs and owns the casinos - the government just regulates them

[delboy]

And how are yours objective? You pile onto people objecting to the casino:
-Charging that they're all NIMBY's even though many do not live next to the site.
-Ignore the very real fact that organized crime can easily launder money though BC casinos (http://www.globaltvbc.com/world/BCLC+only+provincial+gambling+body+fined/3309328/story.html)
-Ignore the fact that gambling addiction has led to capital crime here (http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/news/117432983.html).
-Dismiss the fact that government run gambling preys on those who can least afford it. (http://www.saneok.org/files/Socio-Economics/Gambling%20and%20the%20Poor.pdf)

Yep, you're the objective one alright. :rolleyes:

you grab a couple of headlines and spin them to support your view. No one is suggesting that gambling is without issues, as your links clearly show, but the same can be said of many other social ills. How many die each year from smoking, how about alcohol abuse, drinking and driving, bar fights, etc

We are advocating freedom of will absent the government policing our morals. I personally don't like casinos and accept that some are weak willed and have no personal control. If it weren't legal casinos, it would be something else, but one should be responsible for themselves. And as noted, if one desires to take a stand on goverment involvement in societal ills, why stop at casinos?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/08/bc-cecil-shooting-vancouver.html

http://www.theprovince.com/life/Police+call+West+parents+teens+over+binge+drinking+Facebook+site/4063966/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/03/29/junk-food-addiction-brain.html

i am sure if one digs deep enough examples of murders relating to just about anything can be found.

[Nutterbug]

private enterprise runs and owns the casinos - the government just regulates them

It's the BCLC (a branch of government) that puts on the ads telling people to go to the casinos, as well as promoting their lotteries and internet gambling site.

That would be like the BCLDB putting on ads to encourage the public to drink, drink and drink up.

[Fairbanks]

Don't forget government sanctioned brothels with hookers on their payroll, and TV ads aired in prime time inviting the public to come and buy their services.

Nutterbug - Do you know how utterly ridiculous this sounds? Did you read it back to yourself before you posted it?

I am now curious as to your age in terms of actual life experience, knowlege and level of maturity.

And I agree about a thread for Gambling -Pros and Cons.

[Fairbanks]

On second thought - As long as this discussion pertains to whether there will be a casino/hotel resort added to BC Place or not...I think this discussion should stay here as long as we can keep it on that topic.

Discussion is good.

[SpongeG]

It's the BCLC (a branch of government) that puts on the ads telling people to go to the casinos, as well as promoting their lotteries and internet gambling site.

That would be like the BCLDB putting on ads to encourage the public to drink, drink and drink up.

thats been forever though - they push lotto 649 and lotto max and no one whines about that

[Nutterbug]

Nutterbug - Do you know how utterly ridiculous this sounds? Did you read it back to yourself before you posted it?

I am now curious as to your age in terms of actual life experience, knowlege and level of maturity.

Why do you think it sounds so ridiculous? That would be the most direct analogy with the gambling and casinos arrangement that we have now, if we were to apply the same approach to the sex trade.

Trust me. I've been around for a while. Yeah, my sarcastic and facetious approach may hint otherwise.

[SpongeG]

it can't be any worse than it is now - the back of newspapers is nothing but sex ads

when i was in london last time, all the phone booths had sex ads in them - we don't have that here

[SpongeG]

anyway - the people are "against" the casino but they also seem to be against the hotel and towers planned for the site as well - why is that? what do they want there?

[dleung]

^^Cuz they look fugly. I'd prefer a cluster of 10-storey commercial/retail midrises with walkable gallerias in between, than... more towers.

[nova9]

^^Cuz they look fugly. I'd prefer a cluster of 10-storey commercial/retail midrises with walkable gallerias in between, than... more towers.

I would actually like that too. We need more office space anyways.

[Zassk]

To me, it is all about whatever will recuperate the cost of the new stadium roof, to keep that off of the taxpayers' books. It is not about the city needing office space. It is not about the ratio of gambling addiction to casino floor size. And it is not about selfish residents who want the last condo tower built to be the one they live in.

[navazan]

It's the BCLC (a branch of government) that puts on the ads telling people to go to the casinos, as well as promoting their lotteries and internet gambling site.

That would be like the BCLDB putting on ads to encourage the public to drink, drink and drink up.
its like this. ive never been drunk, regardless of any alcohol ads im subjected to. on the other hand, i love gambling. and id love it regardless of any level of advertising. adults COULD and should be capable of making their own decisions. the stupid people who are so easily swayed by ADS are the ones who deserve to lose their money/get in alcohol induced troubles. :banana:

[navazan]

the casino is a great idea, and yeah ^^ itll hopefully help pay off the cost of the new roof.

[SpikePhanta]

Can we stop people from saying that the goverment is paying for the new Casino?
The challenge for British Columbia’s premier-in-waiting came from Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary Grade 12 student Michelle Hemelspeck, as well as more than 100 people Sunday at Holland Park concerned over the fate of funding for the Surrey school district.

“If you have money build a new casino and a new roof for B.C. Place why don’t you have money for school?” asked Hemelspeck.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2011/03/13/17601671.html

[Nutterbug]

its like this. ive never been drunk, regardless of any alcohol ads im subjected to. on the other hand, i love gambling. and id love it regardless of any level of advertising. adults COULD and should be capable of making their own decisions. the stupid people who are so easily swayed by ADS are the ones who deserve to lose their money/get in alcohol induced troubles. :banana:

Well, there would be a problem if one of them were to crash their car into you, wouldn't there? Or if people had to declare bankruptcy, go on welfare, steal, enter rehab or whatever.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not out suggesting we ought to nanny adults to protect them from themselves and going down the wrong path. But government willfully promoting and swaying people towards said destructive activities is a bit wrong, no?

[Fairbanks]

I am also in favour of guests being served cocktails while on the Casino floor like they are in the states. If you can drink at hockey, football, baseball and soccer games and bars and restaurants then why not in the casinos.

Again, I don't need a nanny to govern myself accordingly. The vast majority of us don't need to be nannied either.

For the few imbeciles who can't control themselves then they should stay home.

Nutterbug says the government should stay out of the casino business and I agree because if I want to drink while I am gambling then I should be allowed to.

Don't you agree Nutterbug? If you want the government to stay out of the casino business then they should stay all the way out.

Smart, responsible, civilized, law-abiding and grown up adults (the operative term here is "grown up") should be allowed to consume liquor while gambling.
Especially if I am a guest in the hotel.

[logan5]

Well, there would be a problem if one of them were to crash their car into you, wouldn't there? Or if people had to declare bankruptcy, go on welfare, steal, enter rehab or whatever.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not out suggesting we ought to nanny adults to protect them from themselves and going down the wrong path. But government willfully promoting and swaying people towards said destructive activities is a bit wrong, no?

I think there are a few out there who would like to see a Christian version of Sharia Law.

[Fairbanks]

I think there are a few out there who would like to see a Christian version of Sharia Law.

No kidding.

[SpikePhanta]

Bringing Cromwell back, YEAH!

[SpongeG]

I am also in favour of guests being served cocktails while on the Casino floor like they are in the states. If you can drink at hockey, football, baseball and soccer games and bars and restaurants then why not in the casinos.

Again, I don't need a nanny to govern myself accordingly. The vast majority of us don't need to be nannied either.

For the few imbeciles who can't control themselves then they should stay home.

Nutterbug says the government should stay out of the casino business and I agree because if I want to drink while I am gambling then I should be allowed to.

Don't you agree Nutterbug? If you want the government to stay out of the casino business then they should stay all the way out.

Smart, responsible, civilized, law-abiding and grown up adults (the operative term here is "grown up") should be allowed to consume liquor while gambling.
Especially if I am a guest in the hotel.

you can drink on the floor in the casino anywhere, you can get served at your table or slot machine and walk around with your drink in hand - the burnaby seems to make its bars central and the main draw

[Yume-sama]

Can we stop people from saying that the goverment is paying for the new Casino?

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2011/03/13/17601671.html

No. Pretty much the whole premise of the flawed petition against the casino is that the government should spend money on the arts and social housing and not be building casinos. Even though the government is not building casinos, the petition is worded in such a way that could be confusing. When it asks "Are you in favour of the BC Government allowing a casino at BC Place"

It is largely helped by peoples ignorance. Really. Just read any of the comments on the petition page, most of which say "No casino! Yes social housing!" or something of the sort.

I have no doubt it is intentionally done this way, either.

[Fairbanks]

you can drink on the floor in the casino anywhere, you can get served at your table or slot machine and walk around with your drink in hand - the burnaby seems to make its bars central and the main draw

See, that's how long it has been since I was in a casino in BC. The last one was 3 months ago at View Royal in Victoria and at that time you still could not drink alcohol on the floor of the casino anywhere. There was a bar but it was "red-lined".

So is that true of all casinos in BC now? I left a message with BCLDB licensing help desk to see if that is true of all casinos in BC or just ones with resort licenses such as RiverRock.

[Yume-sama]

Ever since I've known about the Edgewater you could be served alcohol wherever. I'm assuming they aren't considered a resort...

[Fairbanks]

See, that's how long it has been since I was in a casino in BC. The last one was 3 months ago at View Royal in Victoria and at that time you still could not drink alcohol on the floor of the casino anywhere. There was a bar but it was "red-lined".

So is that true of all casinos in BC now? I left a message with BCLDB licensing help desk to see if that is true of all casinos in BC or just ones with resort licenses such as RiverRock.

I have been checking individual casino websites and from what I can tell it seems to be at the discretion of the establishment itself. View Royal Casino in Victoria which just underwent a substantial reno and is preparing to add a theatre venue currently does not permit alcohol on the gaming floor.

[Fairbanks]

Apparently it is the discretion of the city, or municipality...go figure. Naniamo allows it but the town of View Royal outside Victoria does not. VR is the only casino in the capital region.

[SpikePhanta]

No. Pretty much the whole premise of the flawed petition against the casino is that the government should spend money on the arts and social housing and not be building casinos. Even though the government is not building casinos, the petition is worded in such a way that could be confusing. When it asks "Are you in favour of the BC Government allowing a casino at BC Place"

It is largely helped by peoples ignorance. Really. Just read any of the comments on the petition page, most of which say "No casino! Yes social housing!" or something of the sort.

I have no doubt it is intentionally done this way, either.

You would think they know that the taxes brought in from casinos goes towards the arts and social housing....

[SpongeG]

casinos that i have been to where you can drink - coquitlam - boulevard, richmond - riverrock, burnaby - grand villa, new west - starlight, vancouver - edgewater

i can't remember about langley surrey or the vancouver horse track - i am guessing they are yes but the casino at the vancouver race track is usually pretty dead when i have been

[MistyMountainHop]

So… how about that stadium, eh?

[Conrad]

Instead of a casino, they should build another public market - a nice one with restaurants and shops. It would serve the needs of area residents as well as attract tourists. Merchants would do especially well during games and events. Wouldn't that have broader appeal and be more beneficial to the community than a soul-sucking casino? Isn't that area sterile enough?

[SpongeG]

if they do or don't there will be a casino somewhere in downtown vancouver

and in the video posted just back - the guy mentions the shops, food places and a theatre - does he mean a movie theatre? or a performance theatre?

[jlousa]

The problem is a public market wouldn't be able to pay 6+Million/yr in land leases. We have to remember Pavco's goal is to maximize revenues on this deal. The alternative is taxpayers funding the roof which we know they don't have the appetite to do.

[ckkelley]

The problem is a public market wouldn't be able to pay 6+Million/yr in land leases. We have to remember Pavco's goal is to maximize revenues on this deal. The alternative is taxpayers funding the roof which we know they don't have the appetite to do.

..and especially after the substantial shortfall of the Olympic Village. If city council doesn't approve the casino it could have an impact on the upcoming civic election.

[whatnext]

..and especially after the substantial shortfall of the Olympic Village. If city council doesn't approve the casino it could have an impact on the upcoming civic election.

If city council does approve the casino it will have an impact on the upcoming civic election.

[Yume-sama]

The problem with a democracy is the people who are posting the absurd completely ignorant of the facts comments on the petition page could very well end up deciding the next election :P

Though it's also likely a great majority of them are just hyperventilating to be in the opposition of the current administration...

It would make the most sense, as I refuse to believe the *majority* of the cities residents are such ninny-ing busy bodies.

[scooterm2010]

So… how about that stadium, eh?

Speaking of the stadium, the last of the permanent cables has been installed, I believe on Friday, and according to the BC Place website, there are less than 200 days to go until the first sporting event.

[Jebby]

Speaking of the stadium, the last of the permanent cables has been installed, I believe on Friday, and according to the BC Place website, there are less than 200 days to go until the first sporting event.

So when will roof construction begin? Has any perimeter glass been installed yet?

[SFUVancouver]

So when will roof construction begin? Has any perimeter glass been installed yet?

Replaced glass is visible on the east side of the stadium and can be glimpsed from SkyTrains pulling into and departing Stadium-Chinatown station. Looks okay. Way better than what it is replacing.

[agrant]

So when will roof construction begin? Has any perimeter glass been installed yet?You mean the fabric? I think someone said the roofing material will be going up in May. Not sure what else there is to do in preparation for that. I'm also wondering when those big translucent panels are going to be installed.

[SpongeG]

If city council does approve the casino it will have an impact on the upcoming civic election.

i doubt it people don't vote here we will be lucky to see 50% voter turn out

[EastVanMark]

i doubt it people don't vote here we will be lucky to see 50% voter turn out

If the choices in candidates will be the similar to what they have been recently, you will sadly be proven correct.:(

Like last time, when it was hard to tell the 2 candidates apart. Both were loonies.

Most of the time, a Vancouver election comes down to a choice of what will hurt the least, not who will do the best job.

[Built Form]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/P1020257.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/P1020256.jpg
All pics by Built Form

Here's a shot from sunday showing the new glass installation. Much better.

[SpongeG]

wow much better thx for the pics

[steve61]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/P1020257.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/P1020256.jpg
All pics by Built Form

Here's a shot from sunday showing the new glass installation. Much better.

Looks great! I'm a bit confused though. Assuming all of the glass in that shot is new (as opposed to the usual bronze), why does the shade in the middle section appear to be a bright blue as opposed to the darker green on the right and left?

[bardak]

Looks great! I'm a bit confused though. Assuming all of the glass in that shot is new (as opposed to the usual bronze), why does the shade in the middle section appear to be a bright blue as opposed to the darker green on the right and left?

I would assume that is it just a protective plastic film that has not been removed yet.

[steve61]

I would assume that is it just a protective plastic film that has not been removed yet.

Thanks. I probably should have figured that out. :redface:

[osirisboy]

looks good. one thing I noticed that seems a bit off is the windows in the left section, the left row of glass appears to be a single pane as apposed to the rest of the rows that have 3 panes of glass. Is there a reason for this?

[officedweller]

Thanks for posting!

**********

Interesting observation on the glass panes.

One other difference is that the two columns in the middle of the shot appear to have been reinforced/widened
(the column meets the glass below the first horizontal mullion), whereas the leftmost column does not appear to
have been (column meets the glass above the first horizontal mullion).

*********

Regarding the roof panels/fabric going in, does anyone know if the fixed/non-movable part of the roof will have
steel arches like the one that being built in Warsaw, Poland? If so, it'll be quite a while longer until the fabric goes in.
Probably yes, as they seem to form the gutters/channels for roof drainage.

Posted by Pawel19-87 at SSC:

http://m.onet.pl/_m/d00354082b08b2639253898f3eb4057e,20,1.jpg

http://m.onet.pl/_m/99f7c5646fe2986b80723aea379de9ad,20,1.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=552599&page=54

[Zassk]

I don't see how our roof can possibly have rigid "ribs" like that, considering that ours retracts to a central point, unlike the one in the picture.

[officedweller]

The Warsaw one will also retract to the middle - see the first page of its thread.
The "ribs" are only on the fixed section of roof.

[BCPhil]

I think there are a few out there who would like to see a Christian version of Sharia Law.

We tried that, it was called the Temperance movement and lead to prohibition. It failed miserably.

=================

Which brings up a point. If the casino at is a bad moral decision, based on the fear of crime it will commit, then is liquor inside BC place equally wrong?

If we are concerned about the casino at BC place contributing to crime, what about bars on Granville Street. Yes, money gets laundered inside casinos, but more money gets laundered in bars, many of which are owned and fronts for organized crime. People are shot and stabbed and punched inside and outside bars frequently. Should we close them all down, board up Granville Street to curb organized crime and prevent murders?

If you were a betting man, which would you bet on? Do you think the casino at BC place would cause more police incidents, or the patrons inside BC place itself, or on Granville street? I would even go as far as saying you can pick any single bar on Granville Street, and the cops will be called to it more frequently than the future Casino.

[Locked In]

Sorry OD - your prediction for the name is out apparently. From Frances Bula's article in the Globe (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-place-renovation-going-ahead-regardless-of-proposed-casinos-fate/article1943540/) today about stadium finances:

(Mr. Buckley squashed rumours that the stadium might be named Budweiser. The rumours have been circulating since the beer company, whose crown-like logo looks like the new BC Place roof to some, announced a sponsorship deal with the B.C. Lions. “It will not be called Budweiser Stadium,” he said.)

[cjohnny4]

I've had a number of questions about upcoming steps in the construction of the roof on BC Place. I suppose most of them will soon be answered by observation of the construction site. Here goes:

1. When will the central supporting tower come down? I would guess that the roof will have to be put into tension fairly soon; we can see that the rib sections on the Warsaw stadium are being installed after the central tower has been removed. These rib arches will have to be installed before the teflon fabric is installed as well, so the ribs seem to be the next major step.

2. When will the glass/plastic (?) panels at the base of the masts be installed? Before or after the roof is put into tension? I would guess after-tension; any movement of the masts during the tension process (albeit small)could warp the panels.

3. How will the central tower be removed? Seeing that happen ought to be interesting.

4. The masts seems to have become discoloured with rust from the platforms and burns from the welding process. I'm assuming those will be painted over at some point.

5. I'm concerned about how much the cables will clutter up the roof opening. Sure, we may have clear, blue sky to look at, but we will be viewing it through a mass of thick cables coming together at the central video screen. I know that is unavoidable, but will it be annoying? Will the stadium feel like a giant prison?

Just some food for thought...

[officedweller]

If you look back in the Warsaw stadium thread, it never had a central tower like BC Place does, so the staging may be different. That could be because of that giant pole in the middle of the Warsaw stadium's cables.

The panels below the tension ring will be plastic - the same material as the Water Cube in Beijing. The array of masts is INTENDED to flex and sway in the wind (to reduce torque/moment/stresses on the stadium structure below), so the panels below the tension ring must also flex.

Sorry OD - your prediction for the name is out apparently. From Frances Bula's article in the Globe (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-place-renovation-going-ahead-regardless-of-proposed-casinos-fate/article1943540/) today about stadium finances:

Yeah, I figuered as much when just the beer sponsorship was announced. But they'll probably still get to use the stadium "crown" in their advertising.

[nobase2010]

lIGetEI4wHM
HJP0IRcruQk
ujo02NjOqOc

[Fairbanks]

194 days until first event....