The Vancouver Business Thread

[officedweller]

I'll bet regulations prevented the doors on the BC Place concourse from being entrances.

[SpongeG]

yea.

Does it even have signs? There is really nothing fancy about the entrance and no flashy sign anywhere on it, unless I have missed them.

[officedweller]

No, it's like an emergency exit.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Anybody who's actually been to the Sands in Singapore - even just the mall - would be able to confirm that we're nowhere close to being ready for our own. Damn thing could swallow all of Robson and Metrotown and still have room left over.



Again, $20 million of profit against $170 million of revenue. Construction debt aside, that's a profit margin of almost twelve percent. Maybe a bigger casino would've outstripped the higher construction and operating costs, maybe it wouldn't, but what they have right now definitely works.

But again, you can't just push the construction debt aside. It doesn't work that way. I go back to the home analogy. Is your household a success if you can't pay your mortgage as long you can pay your cable and hydro bill?? Of course not. This is no different. When successful Casino projects are undertaken, their activity don't just cover operations, but operations AND debt servicing. And its not a case of maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. When it comes to casino properties, the more you offer, the more money you make (especially in a situation like Vancouver where you would be running unopposed in the downtown market)

And finally, the market will decide what we can and can't do and what we are and are not "ready for." We don't need any artificial limits put on us. And if one of the largest, most successful casino operators on planet earth wanted to open up shop here back when our population was almost half of what it is today, I tend to trust his judgement over people with zero experience in this industry (such as governments of all stripes).

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

No, it's like an emergency exit.

I mean the casino itself, I don't think I've seen any signage for it from the outside. They have like little plaque type signs with arrows but nothing that shouts hey we are a casino.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And finally, the market will decide what we can and can't do and what we are and are not "ready for." We don't need any artificial limits put on us. And if one of the largest, most successful casino operators on planet earth wanted to open up shop here back when our population was almost half of what it is today, I tend to trust his judgement over people with zero experience in this industry (such as governments of all stripes).

The Parq owner/operators went into this project with full awareness of all "limitations" placed on them and built what they wanted and thought would work. The macro-economy has been on fire the entire time.

Maybe some of the interest rate hikes have hit them? Sounds like poor planning to me. They have nobody to blame but themselves. If they based a business plan on the continuation of extensive money laundering, well... oops.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The Parq owner/operators went into this project with full awareness of all "limitations" placed on them and built what they wanted and thought would work. The macro-economy has been on fire the entire time.

Maybe some of the interest rate hikes have hit them? Sounds like poor planning to me. They have nobody to blame but themselves. If they based a business plan on the continuation of extensive money laundering, well... oops.

Ya no doubt they did go into the venture knowing its limitations, no question. Its just that there were "other" factors at play here that didn't help matters at all. Both the City & Province did there part to ensure this project was not all that it could be. Again, we don't need arbitrary limits for these things that seem to be rooted in nothing more than some select people's personal tastes.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I mean the casino itself, I don't think I've seen any signage for it from the outside. They have like little plaque type signs with arrows but nothing that shouts hey we are a casino.

Maybe City of Vancouver sign restrictions?
Even the hotels don't have signage at the top.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

But again, you can't just push the construction debt aside. It doesn't work that way. I go back to the home analogy. Is your household a success if you can't pay your mortgage as long you can pay your cable and hydro bill?? Of course not. This is no different. When successful Casino projects are undertaken, their activity don't just cover operations, but operations AND debt servicing. And its not a case of maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. When it comes to casino properties, the more you offer, the more money you make (especially in a situation like Vancouver where you would be running unopposed in the downtown market)

Article says they're bringing in an investor to help with debt payments. It's hardly the end of the world for Parq.

The bigger you build, the larger the construction and operating costs are. Hence the maybes - assuming that the increased profit will eclipse increased expenses/debt (especially without a business case) is wishful thinking. There's no reason they couldn't have taken some stuff out and added a theatre in the existing building, but they opted not to.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And finally, the market will decide what we can and can't do and what we are and are not "ready for." We don't need any artificial limits put on us. And if one of the largest, most successful casino operators on planet earth wanted to open up shop here back when our population was almost half of what it is today, I tend to trust his judgement over people with zero experience in this industry (such as governments of all stripes).

The free market also decided that we were "ready" to redevelop Oakridge into a ten-tower complex selling at a million per bedroom; that isn't panning out now with the housing bubble deflating. In the words of three famous Canadians, "big money make mistakes."

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Article says they're bringing in an investor to help with debt payments. It's hardly the end of the world for Parq.

The bigger you build, the larger the construction and operating costs are. Hence the maybes - assuming that the increased profit will eclipse increased expenses/debt (especially without a business case) is wishful thinking. There's no reason they couldn't have taken some stuff out and added a theatre in the existing building, but they opted not to.



The free market also decided that we were "ready" to redevelop Oakridge into a ten-tower complex selling at a million per bedroom; that isn't panning out now with the housing bubble deflating. In the words of three famous Canadians, "big money make mistakes."

Its not the end of the world. Nobody is saying it is, however they likely wouldn't be looking for additional "investors" if they weren't constrained by "outside" forces.

And yes, the bigger the project, the higher the construction costs. This is not news. However, when it comes to casinos, industry trends have show time and time again, that bigger is better. Examples of this concept can literally be found all over the planet. The Oakridge development does not have a casino in it when last I checked. That's an apples to donuts comparison. Bridges and certain types of stadiums also have large construction costs and can be a risky venture. Casino properties are completely different.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nobody forced them to take on huge debt. Nobody forced them not to include a theater in their proposal.

Sometimes outsiders don't understand the local market. Tinseltown is a great example of that.

Like I said, they took a risk, but the worst part is, the City actually created this risk, or exacerbated it further.

You only seem to have Tinseltown as the ONLY example when we discuss stuff like this. Again another risk taker not factoring in how the City would not do anything and continue to enable DTES close by to be so scummy in the long term. Everyone hopes for the better, but in many instances, the City keeps letting us down. Artificial and lame barriers to greatness are so obvious that I don`t get why you keep defending the status quo. Their focus is always on the frivolous like taking down the viaducts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the Crown casino in Melbourne was amazing. It has shopping like Louis Vuttion, Prada, Burberry and GStar, Guess etc. It has a food court area with McDonalds and family options. A movie theatre, a concert venue, night clubs a light and fire show along its riverwalk, it was pretty cool to see without needing to gamble.

I must say though that the slot games were pretty awful. All the casinos in Australia the slots were just bad.

Glad you`d been there to see that. Seriously I thought ours would be somewhat similar when Parq was first mooted, knowing that businesses always learn from the best, but got disappointed with the result. So I`m not surprised they are bleeding money.

However, the Parq can always close down the casino and turn it into a mall: that would be something.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Like I said, they took a risk, but the worst part is, the City actually created this risk, or exacerbated it further.

You only seem to have Tinseltown as the ONLY example when we discuss stuff like this. Again another risk taker not factoring in how the City would not do anything and continue to enable DTES close by to be so scummy in the long term. Everyone hopes for the better, but in many instances, the City keeps letting us down. Artificial and lame barriers to greatness are so obvious that I don`t get why you keep defending the status quo. Their focus is always on the frivolous like taking down the viaducts.

Exactly. We've maintained the left wing status quo for over a decade. We got pissed off with Vision so we elected Vision with a different name.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Whats hilarious is your lacking the ability to grasp how a larger entertainment complex would do much better than a smaller facility. (there's a reason entities want these things bigger. If you do some research, you'll see that people wanted the same for this proposal also) And it wouldn't be proportionately in more financial trouble. (for the same reasons) ha ha ha.

By that logic if a neighbourhood corner store fails, then large-scale box stores should all fail too right? But they don't, do they? Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for this.

I can't find any source for the original casino proposal. Can you?

Originally Posted by Vin

Like I said, they took a risk, but the worst part is, the City actually created this risk, or exacerbated it further.

You only seem to have Tinseltown as the ONLY example when we discuss stuff like this. Again another risk taker not factoring in how the City would not do anything and continue to enable DTES close by to be so scummy in the long term. Everyone hopes for the better, but in many instances, the City keeps letting us down. Artificial and lame barriers to greatness are so obvious that I don`t get why you keep defending the status quo. Their focus is always on the frivolous like taking down the viaducts.

Tinseltown was made on the assumption the area would rapidly gentrify, which was unlikely even if the city's efforts to gentrify the DTES worked, considering how entrenched it is. Political promises should always be taken with a grain of salt. Tough luck. People, including developers, make mistakes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

And yes, the bigger the project, the higher the construction costs. This is not news. However, when it comes to casinos, industry trends have show time and time again, that bigger is better. Examples of this concept can literally be found all over the planet. The Oakridge development does not have a casino in it when last I checked. That's an apples to donuts comparison. Bridges and certain types of stadiums also have large construction costs and can be a risky venture. Casino properties are completely different.

Not always the case (don't even get me started on Trump's). Blame regulations, blame millennials, blame whoever - casinos fail all the time, no matter how big, and as much as I dislike Robertson and friends, putting all of it on City Council is unfair.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not always the case (don't even get me started on Trump's). Blame regulations, blame millennials, blame whoever - casinos fail all the time, no matter how big, and as much as I dislike Robertson and friends, putting all of it on City Council is unfair.

I'm not opposed to helping out local businesses though. Better that we waive some property taxes on the municipal side or allow them the extra machines they asked for but we rejected previously than they just fail. The political sentiment of the day is not their fault and it seems like a double whammy to jack up their property taxes while putting a ton of regulation on them.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not always the case (don't even get me started on Trump's). Blame regulations, blame millennials, blame whoever - casinos fail all the time, no matter how big, and as much as I dislike Robertson and friends, putting all of it on City Council is unfair.

They don't fail all the time. There are literally casinos all over the planet and only a small handful don't make it. So its failure rate is minuscule to almost non-existent. Proably a top three least risky business on planet earth. The Imperial Pacific International opened without a proper hotel (theres that problem of not building out to your fullest potetnial again ) and undertook the risky proposition of giving out credit markers to players without any guarantee of return. Even then they turned a profit of over $500 million the previous year (and that's for a casino in the middle of nowhere). And they too only targeted high rollers without catering to the general masses (again, as pointed out before a big no-no for long term stability). As for Atlantic City its not just Trump's but the entire City that is suffering. They overdeveloped, too quickly trying to outdue Vegas and things just went sideways on the whole city,quickly. Not saying the city is totally to blame (they had plenty of help from the Provincial government too).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by misher

I'm not opposed to helping out local businesses though. Better that we waive some property taxes on the municipal side or allow them the extra machines they asked for but we rejected previously than they just fail. The political sentiment of the day is not their fault and it seems like a double whammy to jack up their property taxes while putting a ton of regulation on them.

Exactly. They stepped in and toned down the original proposal to reduce the number of gaming stations for no (good) reason. They also wouldn't allow the expanded casino to be built on civic controlled land. There was a previous proposal to place the casino on the False Creek Flats, but the city put up so many roadblocks that it died in short order.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I can't find any source for the original casino proposal. Can you?




Tinseltown was made on the assumption the area would rapidly gentrify, which was unlikely even if the city's efforts to gentrify the DTES worked, considering how entrenched it is. Political promises should always be taken with a grain of salt. Tough luck. People, including developers, make mistakes.

Which "original proposal" are you speaking of? Cause there have been several.

First off, people on here keep talking about Tinseltown failing but its important for all you to realize it was a self inflicted wound. The owner of the property had offers to make the mall successful, but shunned all offers because he ONLY wanted high end fashion brand stores on his property. Costco, and Walmart were entities that approached about being an anchor tenants, but were turned away (along with a number of other stores). You cant' exactly count that as a fail. It failed because the owner was an eccentric overseas billionaire.

[misher]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Which "original proposal" are you speaking of? Cause there have been several.

First off, people on here keep talking about Tinseltown failing but its important for all you to realize it was a self inflicted wound. The owner of the property had offers to make the mall successful, but shunned all offers because he ONLY wanted high end fashion brand stores on his property. Costco, and Walmart were entities that approached about being an anchor tenants, but were turned away (along with a number of other stores). You cant' exactly count that as a fail. It failed because the owner was an eccentric overseas billionaire.

Well the idea is, which is true, that you bring down the brand of your mall by bringing in bad tenants. Thats why many buildings market themselves as "medical" buildings. Grocery stores are great anchor tenants, but also pay low rent per a sqft and many high end stores won't go near them. Tinseltown was trying to make itself a high end location and failed, likely because its on the wrong end of town. Thats why many buildings won't allow weed stores, laundromats, chinese restaurants, etc inside them. A lot of commercial stratas require the space's use to be approved.