The Vancouver Business Thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

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).

Parq has a hotel... and it caters to people from all walks of life... and it's downtown right next to a stadium... and it still can't pay its construction debt. They could have a complex twice as big, with two theatres, and they'd still have debt problems, and you'd still blame City Hall and Victoria. If anybody's screwing the pooch, it's Parq themselves.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Parq has a hotel... and it caters to people from all walks of life... and it's downtown right next to a stadium... and it still can't pay its construction debt. They could have a complex twice as big, with two theatres, and they'd still have debt problems, and you'd still blame City Hall and Victoria. If anybody's screwing the pooch, it's Parq themselves.

Property taxes on commercial rising faster than inflation, tax increases, and new regulations ontop of the old within the last two years have nothing to do with it?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Parq has a hotel... and it caters to people from all walks of life... and it's downtown right next to a stadium... and it still can't pay its construction debt. They could have a complex twice as big, with two theatres, and they'd still have debt problems, and you'd still blame City Hall and Victoria. If anybody's screwing the pooch, it's Parq themselves.

If it doesn't have theatres, a mall, or a larger resort type destination hotel, then no, it doesn't cater to everyone, or perhaps it would be better to look at how it differentiates itself from other type of facilities in the surrounding are. Does it offer enough to lure people from suburban casinos? tourists? shoppers? (that one is easy, it doesnt) live event attendees (barely). Etc etc.

And yes, they did plenty to screw themselves over. However, you can't say they would still have the debt if they built bigger. That is unknown. What is known, is that the city put up roadblocks to prevent that from happening. Why? What are they afraid of? Leave it truly open and lets see what they come up with. If they (Parq) comes up with a plan and it fails, its 100% on them. BUT, if you put on stifling restrictions on a proposal, then you played a role in its demise. If you see someone treading water and you decide to throw an anchor their way, are they then solely responsible when they sink? (Even if it was them who tried to swim with it?) Of Course not. Same principal applies here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

If it doesn't have theatres, a mall, or a larger resort type destination hotel, then no, it doesn't cater to everyone, or perhaps it would be better to look at how it differentiates itself from other type of facilities in the surrounding are. Does it offer enough to lure people from suburban casinos? tourists? shoppers? (that one is easy, it doesnt) live event attendees (barely). Etc etc.

And yes, they did plenty to screw themselves over. However, you can't say they would still have the debt if they built bigger. That is unknown. What is known, is that the city put up roadblocks to prevent that from happening. Why? What are they afraid of? Leave it truly open and lets see what they come up with. If they (Parq) comes up with a plan and it fails, its 100% on them. BUT, if you put on stifling restrictions on a proposal, then you played a role in its demise. If you see someone treading water and you decide to throw an anchor their way, are they then solely responsible when they sink? (Even if it was them who tried to swim with it?) Of Course not. Same principal applies here.

You said "only targeted high rollers without catering to the general masses" - I know several blue collars that frequent Parq, and they've never felt unwelcome. I really don't see the point of trying to compete with the stadiums or the future entertainment district next door for shoppers and/or eventgoers.

Which roadblocks? Parq picked the lot. Their original proposal was only 2,000 square metres larger and AFAIK didn't come with a theatre either.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

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




(2)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.

(1) It's there: you just need to dig harder.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...g-casino-in-downtown-core/article558052/

Vancouver council has delivered a sharp rebuke to the province's lottery corporation by killing a proposed big new casino in the downtown core – and instituting a moratorium on any new gambling until the B.C. Lottery Corporation does a better job dealing with problem gambling and money laundering.

The unanimous vote to deny the casino expansion prompted exhilaration from the group of fierce opponents who coalesced two months ago. But it stunned and disappointed people from the casino company, the lottery corporation and the B.C. Pavilion Corp., for whom the casino's lease payments for the land next to BC Place was supposed to help pay for $563-million in renovations.

Representatives from all three said they were "disappointed" but had nothing else to say for the moment.

However, Tourism Minister Pat Bell issued a conciliatory statement, saying the province's "renewed government" was going to take a "fresh look at options to develop this property." He said he has directed PavCo to work with the city to make sure any future decision aligns with what the city wants.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson led the way on the casino rejection.

"Enabling the largest casino in Western Canada in our downtown doesn't fit with Vancouver's global brand as the world's most livable city, the green capital, and hotbed for innovation from clean and digital technology to resource management," he said.

His motion came after seven days of public hearings and hundreds of public speeches and e-mails opposing the $500-million proposal.

Non-Partisan Association Councillor Suzanne Anton said she would have been prepared to approve a smaller expansion, and she worried aloud about what the city might be losing by rejecting the complex.

But none of the other councillors had similar qualms. They said they were convinced by several factors: opposition from the arts community; experiences of places like Macau, which lost its sense of identity as gambling overtook the city; and their own sense that people in Vancouver didn't like the idea of the city's future being decided in Victoria.

"It was a complete contradiction for what people want in the heart of Vancouver," said Councillor Geoff Meggs, who delivered the strongest criticism of the province's decision making about the city "behind closed doors."

(2) It was a half-hearted gentrification initiative, and then the City caved to the so-called "affordable housing" NGO advocacy groups supporting the mess that already exists there, claiming that further gentrification would send the poor packing. I think now it's a terrible mix: businesses and local residents must be putting on a brave face by what is happening there everyday. And then the City caved again to the Chinatown anti-development groups. You are right that developers should not trust Vancouver politicians, and that's why more are moving elsewhere to build. They learn from their mistakes.

[Vin]

Oh by the way, the Vegas company that initially owned Parq already let go of this property (no confidence in this city I suppose):

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/parq-vancouver-casino-sold-paragon-gaming-pbc-group-february-2019

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) It's there: you just need to dig harder.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...g-casino-in-downtown-core/article558052/

Vancouver council has delivered a sharp rebuke to the province's lottery corporation by killing a proposed big new casino in the downtown core – and instituting a moratorium on any new gambling until the B.C. Lottery Corporation does a better job dealing with problem gambling and money laundering.

The unanimous vote to deny the casino expansion prompted exhilaration from the group of fierce opponents who coalesced two months ago. But it stunned and disappointed people from the casino company, the lottery corporation and the B.C. Pavilion Corp., for whom the casino's lease payments for the land next to BC Place was supposed to help pay for $563-million in renovations.

Representatives from all three said they were "disappointed" but had nothing else to say for the moment.

However, Tourism Minister Pat Bell issued a conciliatory statement, saying the province's "renewed government" was going to take a "fresh look at options to develop this property." He said he has directed PavCo to work with the city to make sure any future decision aligns with what the city wants.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson led the way on the casino rejection.

"Enabling the largest casino in Western Canada in our downtown doesn't fit with Vancouver's global brand as the world's most livable city, the green capital, and hotbed for innovation from clean and digital technology to resource management," he said.

His motion came after seven days of public hearings and hundreds of public speeches and e-mails opposing the $500-million proposal.

Non-Partisan Association Councillor Suzanne Anton said she would have been prepared to approve a smaller expansion, and she worried aloud about what the city might be losing by rejecting the complex.

But none of the other councillors had similar qualms. They said they were convinced by several factors: opposition from the arts community; experiences of places like Macau, which lost its sense of identity as gambling overtook the city; and their own sense that people in Vancouver didn't like the idea of the city's future being decided in Victoria.

"It was a complete contradiction for what people want in the heart of Vancouver," said Councillor Geoff Meggs, who delivered the strongest criticism of the province's decision making about the city "behind closed doors."

(2) It was a half-hearted gentrification initiative, and then the City caved to the so-called "affordable housing" NGO advocacy groups supporting the mess that already exists there, claiming that further gentrification would send the poor packing. I think now it's a terrible mix: businesses and local residents must be putting on a brave face by what is happening there everyday. And then the City caved again to the Chinatown anti-development groups. You are right that developers should not trust Vancouver politicians, and that's why more are moving elsewhere to build. They learn from their mistakes.

How prescient they were in 2011! The money laundering problem turned out to be far greater than anyone would have believed (well, except maybe the BC Liberals).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You said "only targeted high rollers without catering to the general masses" - I know several blue collars that frequent Parq, and they've never felt unwelcome. I really don't see the point of trying to compete with the stadiums or the future entertainment district next door for shoppers and/or eventgoers.

Which roadblocks? Parq picked the lot. Their original proposal was only 2,000 square metres larger and AFAIK didn't come with a theatre either.

Umm, i wasn't speaking of the Parq, I was speaking of the The Imperial Pacific International only catering to high rollers. Thats an important distinction.

If you don't see a point in competing with stadiums or a future "entertainment district" (what entertainment district?.... its a joke and will now never be a proper one) that's fair enough, but casino operators around the world see a point in it and do just that.

No, they didn't pick the lot. Look into the history. It was a choice of one. They wouldn't let them develop a larger scale casino anywhere else. Thanks for the article link. It displays EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The civic government was against even what exists now, but that land is under provincial jurisdiction, so they could do jack about it really. So they did the next best thing and didn't allow them to fully realize the scope of the project they originally envisioned (again through backroom negotiations with the province). The article also mentions how the province got involved too, albeit they weren't against the casino, but rather wanted it on their land. Great for them, bad for almost everyone else. Paragon (the original operating company) saw an opportunity for great opportunity to build a casino
on a cheap, "friendly" location (through one of the worst cases of conflict of interest Ive ever seen, that of course barely got covered by local media).

Here is the link that Vin posted.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...g-casino-in-downtown-core/article558052/

It speaks to the items I mention. Using that or the article you posted, count hoe many times the words Vancouver/Robertson comes up with other words like: rejected, voted down, rebuke, moratorium, denied, etc etc. Make it into a drinking game. It would be a quick way to get plastered. Wonder where I got the crazy notion of the city being involved in this calamity? LoL

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How prescient they were in 2011! The money laundering problem turned out to be far greater than anyone would have believed (well, except maybe the BC Liberals).

Money laundering has been relatively stable for over a decade. Didn’t you read the same report? You saw the articles about it happening under the NDP right?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Umm, i wasn't speaking of the Parq, I was speaking of the The Imperial Pacific International only catering to high rollers. Thats an important distinction.

If you don't see a point in competing with stadiums or a future "entertainment district" (what entertainment district?.... its a joke and will now never be a proper one) that's fair enough, but casino operators around the world see a point in it and do just that.

No, they didn't pick the lot. Look into the history. It was a choice of one. They wouldn't let them develop a larger scale casino anywhere else. Thanks for the article link. It displays EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The civic government was against even what exists now, but that land is under provincial jurisdiction, so they could do jack about it really. So they did the next best thing and didn't allow them to fully realize the scope of the project they originally envisioned (again through backroom negotiations with the province). The article also mentions how the province got involved too, albeit they weren't against the casino, but rather wanted it on their land. Great for them, bad for almost everyone else. Paragon (the original operating company) saw an opportunity for great opportunity to build a casino
on a cheap, "friendly" location (through one of the worst cases of conflict of interest Ive ever seen, that of course barely got covered by local media).

Here is the link that Vin posted.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...g-casino-in-downtown-core/article558052/

It speaks to the items I mention. Using that or the article you posted, count hoe many times the words Vancouver/Robertson comes up with other words like: rejected, voted down, rebuke, moratorium, denied, etc etc. Make it into a drinking game. It would be a quick way to get plastered. Wonder where I got the crazy notion of the city being involved in this calamity? LoL

"And they too..." without a previous example sounds like "Imperial Pacific (like Parq) only targeted high rollers." Mistakes on both ends, my bad.

BC Place is literally right down the block, and Rogers is a five-minute walk. NEFC is going to start any year now. I know of exactly one casino literally right next door to a stadium and a shopping district, and that one's still under construction; it stands to reason that if Parq had shopping and performance outlets, it and the other two would be constantly poaching off each other - specialization allows for a steady flow of cross-traffic instead.

They had a choice of building or not building. Here's a map of Vancouver in 2010. The EasyPark north of BC Place had already been granted to the Art Gallery, and Concord was holding firmly onto its property along the seawall - even with City Council's approval, the province-owned land was literally the biggest they could hope for. Again, I'm no fan of Vision, but neither they, nor the province, nor the UDP, nor anybody except the architects had any say whatsoever in the building or its layout - that's on Parq. Even after taking all those shots (I count about fifteen to twenty), the most one can accuse the government of is cockblocking it for a couple of years.

Back to the article I posted. The original design called for 74,000 square metres of floorspace; Parq as completed has 72,000. That's a difference of 2,000 sqm, or one NHL rink. If you're going to tell me that said rink would've made enough to pay off the construction debt that the other 72,000 couldn't, then I'm going to tell you to pull the other one.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"And they too..." without a previous example sounds like "Imperial Pacific (like Parq) only targeted high rollers." Mistakes on both ends, my bad.

BC Place is literally right down the block, and Rogers is a five-minute walk. NEFC is going to start any year now. I know of exactly one casino literally right next door to a stadium and a shopping district, and that one's still under construction; it stands to reason that if Parq had shopping and performance outlets, it and the other two would be constantly poaching off each other - specialization allows for a steady flow of cross-traffic instead.

They had a choice of building or not building. Here's a map of Vancouver in 2010. The EasyPark north of BC Place had already been granted to the Art Gallery, and Concord was holding firmly onto its property along the seawall - even with City Council's approval, the province-owned land was literally the biggest they could hope for. Again, I'm no fan of Vision, but neither they, nor the province, nor the UDP, nor anybody except the architects had any say whatsoever in the building or its layout - that's on Parq. Even after taking all those shots (I count about fifteen to twenty), the most one can accuse the government of is cockblocking it for a couple of years.

Back to the article I posted. The original design called for 74,000 square metres of floorspace; Parq as completed has 72,000. That's a difference of 2,000 sqm, or one NHL rink. If you're going to tell me that said rink would've made enough to pay off the construction debt that the other 72,000 couldn't, then I'm going to tell you to pull the other one.

No worries. I don’t think I worded that sentence regarding the Imperial very well either.

Regarding having a casino right by a large sports and entertainment venue I can come up with 2 right off the top of my head.

Again, other casino operators wanted to build on other sites (in particular the false creek flats), but were denied. Concord wanted no part of any casino development. Plus there are other sites but again they had no hope in hell of getting approved. Enter the province. Vancouver still against any further casino development but the province chips and and they revise the application allowing everyone to save face.
When you speak of the difference of a couple hockey rinks remember that’s AFTER the current site was already agreed upon. And Paragon tried squeezing in extra gaming stations to make up the extra revenue. Again the current site wasn’t there choice; it was either that or nothing. No expended complex would ever be approved.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Regarding having a casino right by a large sports and entertainment venue I can come up with 2 right off the top of my head.

Again, other casino operators wanted to build on other sites (in particular the false creek flats), but were denied. Concord wanted no part of any casino development. Plus there are other sites but again they had no hope in hell of getting approved. Enter the province. Vancouver still against any further casino development but the province chips and and they revise the application allowing everyone to save face.
When you speak of the difference of a couple hockey rinks remember that’s AFTER the current site was already agreed upon. And Paragon tried squeezing in extra gaming stations to make up the extra revenue. Again the current site wasn’t there choice; it was either that or nothing. No expended complex would ever be approved.

Fair enough. However, I'd have to ask which ones have shops and theatres of their own; if both the casino and district have retail/entertainment, wouldn't they just steal customers from each other?

The closest I can find for downtown Vancouver is one pitch by Jack Poole and Steve Wynn, 1994, night next to Canada Place. AFAIK the Flats weren't for sale (and too far from downtown) and BC Place was always the intended site.
I did find what you were talking about; even with another 900 machines and 75 tables though, they'd still be screwed against $100M of annual debt ($30M quarterly minus $20M profit). The average slot earns just over $200/day, and they're the breadwinners.

Doesn't really matter, because Parq's just managed to get lower interest rates. All's well.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How prescient they were in 2011! The money laundering problem turned out to be far greater than anyone would have believed (well, except maybe the BC Liberals).

You should'nt be cherry-picking. Vision still allowed the casino at the end, after snipping their size to the current one. I don't see the lingering money laundering issue addressed, do you?

It's all about wanting to continue being a backwater rather than anything to do with a fight agianst crime and corruption.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough. However, I'd have to ask which ones have shops and theatres of their own; if both the casino and district have retail/entertainment, wouldn't they just steal customers from each other?

The closest I can find for downtown Vancouver is one pitch by Jack Poole and Steve Wynn, 1994, night next to Canada Place. AFAIK the Flats weren't for sale (and too far from downtown) and BC Place was always the intended site.
I did find what you were talking about; even with another 900 machines and 75 tables though, they'd still be screwed against $100M of annual debt ($30M quarterly minus $20M profit). The average slot earns just over $200/day, and they're the breadwinners.

Doesn't really matter, because Parq's just managed to get lower interest rates. All's well.

Do the math, they won't be screwed like they are now.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Do the math, they won't be screwed like they are now.

You can do it yourself. $220/machine x 900 extra machines x 365 days = -$27,730,000 every year. That's assuming no additional costs or debt resulting from an expansion.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You can do it yourself. $220/machine x 900 extra machines x 365 days = -$27,730,000 every year. That's assuming no additional costs or debt resulting from an expansion.

Maybe you should try again with the calculation? And you conveniently dropped the extra 75 tables that you mentioned.

(Won't be a lot of additional costs: at most minimal as the floor space was designed to accommodate a lot of slots and extra tables)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Maybe you should try again with the calculation? And you conveniently dropped the extra 75 tables that you mentioned.

(Won't be a lot of additional costs: at most minimal as the floor space was designed to accommodate a lot of slots and extra tables)

What's your math? Whatever it is, there's going to be a whole lot more than just one person laughing at it.

Whatever the revenue per table is, it's not very significant - almost all gaming revenue comes from slots.

[fredinno]

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.

The waterfront/Plaza of Nations proposal.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

If it doesn't have theatres, a mall, or a larger resort type destination hotel, then no, it doesn't cater to everyone, or perhaps it would be better to look at how it differentiates itself from other type of facilities in the surrounding are. Does it offer enough to lure people from suburban casinos? tourists? shoppers? (that one is easy, it doesnt) live event attendees (barely). Etc etc.

And yes, they did plenty to screw themselves over. However, you can't say they would still have the debt if they built bigger. That is unknown. What is known, is that the city put up roadblocks to prevent that from happening. Why? What are they afraid of? Leave it truly open and lets see what they come up with. If they (Parq) comes up with a plan and it fails, its 100% on them. BUT, if you put on stifling restrictions on a proposal, then you played a role in its demise. If you see someone treading water and you decide to throw an anchor their way, are they then solely responsible when they sink? (Even if it was them who tried to swim with it?) Of Course not. Same principal applies here.

So every failed condo project is Vancouver's fault now for its regulations. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) It's there: you just need to dig harder.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...g-casino-in-downtown-core/article558052/

Vancouver council has delivered a sharp rebuke to the province's lottery corporation by killing a proposed big new casino in the downtown core – and instituting a moratorium on any new gambling until the B.C. Lottery Corporation does a better job dealing with problem gambling and money laundering.

The unanimous vote to deny the casino expansion prompted exhilaration from the group of fierce opponents who coalesced two months ago. But it stunned and disappointed people from the casino company, the lottery corporation and the B.C. Pavilion Corp., for whom the casino's lease payments for the land next to BC Place was supposed to help pay for $563-million in renovations.

Representatives from all three said they were "disappointed" but had nothing else to say for the moment.

However, Tourism Minister Pat Bell issued a conciliatory statement, saying the province's "renewed government" was going to take a "fresh look at options to develop this property." He said he has directed PavCo to work with the city to make sure any future decision aligns with what the city wants.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson led the way on the casino rejection.

"Enabling the largest casino in Western Canada in our downtown doesn't fit with Vancouver's global brand as the world's most livable city, the green capital, and hotbed for innovation from clean and digital technology to resource management," he said.

His motion came after seven days of public hearings and hundreds of public speeches and e-mails opposing the $500-million proposal.

Non-Partisan Association Councillor Suzanne Anton said she would have been prepared to approve a smaller expansion, and she worried aloud about what the city might be losing by rejecting the complex.

But none of the other councillors had similar qualms. They said they were convinced by several factors: opposition from the arts community; experiences of places like Macau, which lost its sense of identity as gambling overtook the city; and their own sense that people in Vancouver didn't like the idea of the city's future being decided in Victoria.

"It was a complete contradiction for what people want in the heart of Vancouver," said Councillor Geoff Meggs, who delivered the strongest criticism of the province's decision making about the city "behind closed doors."

(2) It was a half-hearted gentrification initiative, and then the City caved to the so-called "affordable housing" NGO advocacy groups supporting the mess that already exists there, claiming that further gentrification would send the poor packing. I think now it's a terrible mix: businesses and local residents must be putting on a brave face by what is happening there everyday. And then the City caved again to the Chinatown anti-development groups. You are right that developers should not trust Vancouver politicians, and that's why more are moving elsewhere to build. They learn from their mistakes.

The fact they genuinely expected the DTES to become Gastown 2.0 overnight is their fault. Even with a major concerted effort to gentrify the area, it still would have taken time- lots of time. People still think Whalley's a haven of homeless and crime.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"And they too..." without a previous example sounds like "Imperial Pacific (like Parq) only targeted high rollers." Mistakes on both ends, my bad.

BC Place is literally right down the block, and Rogers is a five-minute walk. NEFC is going to start any year now. I know of exactly one casino literally right next door to a stadium and a shopping district, and that one's still under construction; it stands to reason that if Parq had shopping and performance outlets, it and the other two would be constantly poaching off each other - specialization allows for a steady flow of cross-traffic instead.

They had a choice of building or not building. Here's a map of Vancouver in 2010. The EasyPark north of BC Place had already been granted to the Art Gallery, and Concord was holding firmly onto its property along the seawall - even with City Council's approval, the province-owned land was literally the biggest they could hope for. Again, I'm no fan of Vision, but neither they, nor the province, nor the UDP, nor anybody except the architects had any say whatsoever in the building or its layout - that's on Parq. Even after taking all those shots (I count about fifteen to twenty), the most one can accuse the government of is cockblocking it for a couple of years.

Back to the article I posted. The original design called for 74,000 square metres of floorspace; Parq as completed has 72,000. That's a difference of 2,000 sqm, or one NHL rink. If you're going to tell me that said rink would've made enough to pay off the construction debt that the other 72,000 couldn't, then I'm going to tell you to pull the other one.

They couldn't build on the Canadian Metropolitan Properties site on the Plaza of Nations?

Also, the province in this case had the final word (it was on Pavco's land). The Casino was still built to close to its original size, even though the number of slot machines and tables were reduced.

Of course, that's assuming they're allowed to, I guess. Concord might try to sue again like what happened when the city decided to sell some of its Pacific Place to other developers, along with Canadian Metropolitan Properties themselves over co-development disputes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They couldn't build on the Canadian Metropolitan Properties site on the Plaza of Nations?

Also, the province in this case had the final word (it was on Pavco's land). The Casino was still built to close to its original size, even though the number of slot machines and tables were reduced.

Of course, that's assuming they're allowed to, I guess. Concord might try to sue again like what happened when the city decided to sell some of its Pacific Place to other developers, along with Canadian Metropolitan Properties themselves over co-development disputes.

The same Plaza of Nations they were relocating the casino from? The only empty space there was the parking lot, and that isn't much bigger than the BC Place site.

The Edgewater more or less was built to its original size. It's the additional space that got nixed by the City.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The waterfront/Plaza of Nations proposal.


So every failed condo project is Vancouver's fault now for its regulations. Brilliant.

How in the blue helll did you come up with that conclusion?