Suburban Updates - All Other Metro Vancouver Municipalities

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well people in Vancouver are always crying about variety, so i think it is good we have more casino space. We also need more night clubs, 24 hour restaurants, amusement park facilities, festivals, etc... The idea of variety means that you will not like everything that is available personally, but what you dislike someone else enjoys.

I'm not saying I am completely opposed to it (I play poker quite often at one of them), but looking back 10 years to how much opposition there was to the small GCC's installing slot machines to where we are today is a little crazy.

We are at a point where some municiplaities are almost relying on casino revenues, which is not a position we should be in. Granted the revenues do fund certain programs and facilites, but when you look at the location of Cascades for instance, which is in a low income area, it should give some pause for thought.

[Metro-One]

That is kind of an odd comment. (Not vanlaws, the one before) I agree Vancouver is awesome and we have lots to do here, but there is nothing wrong with adding a few more things. I enjoy going to the Casino every once in a while, and i enjoy having a nice Casino to go to locally. I also enjoy going to the PNE, and i hope to god that if they plan on taking down play-land they better have a plan in place of building a new, larger, more centrally located amusement park in its place. It is nice to have variety. Some days a walk in the forest is great, others going to the casino, others again going to an amusement park or a night club or a good asian restaurant. Vancouver does not need to be another city, but the best way to keep people here is to have the variety available.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

I'm surprised at how small this is (not that that's a bad thing) - smaller than Cascades in Langley, which feels tiny when you are in it.

Boulevard - 80k sf
River Rock -70k sf
Starlight - 70k sf
Cascades - 50k sf
Villa - 40k sf
Edgewater - 30k sf

It's kinda sad to see how "addicted" to casino revenues the municipalities have become. I remember ten years ago when just the thought of slot machines didn’t go over well generally - now we have approx 340k sf of gaming space within 45 min drive of downtown. To put that in perspective - the casino at the MGM Grand in Vegas, which is the largest in Vegas, is approx 170k sf.

The description at the PCL website said the casino floor is 120,000 sq ft.

[SpongeG]

it looks pretty big from the road

the old one has something like 450 slot machines and its not too cramped and in a much smaller space

i think the table game areas will be a lot better they really cramped as they are in the old facility

should be interesting to see it inside soon

[officedweller]

The existing casino is 40,000 sq ft and the new casino is over 100,000 sq ft according to the Gateway casinos website:

http://www.gatewaycasinos.com/casinos/villa.html

[SpongeG]

yah they were said it would be tripling in size

I go to the old casino a little too much

[hollywoodnorth]

so we have over 400,000 ft of casino gaming space! and is Riverrock not adding some gaming space in the current expansion project.....

[SpongeG]

i don't think so

just a hotel expansion with street front retail

I don't know if they are allowed to spread their casino out of the one zone or area its in i think the gaming area has to be contained so to speak

breaking it up might not be allowed

even though it is on a few levels now

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The existing casino is 40,000 sq ft and the new casino is over 100,000 sq ft according to the Gateway casinos website:

http://www.gatewaycasinos.com/casinos/villa.html

ahhhh - thanks! I have a bad habit of only reading halfway down!

It just didnt make sense.


Re: Riverrock expansion - I dont believe there are any plans to expand gaming space. The new hotel and parkade are across the street and will be linked by a skybridge. They have actually cut some of the poker room out upstairs to make way for a new concierge checkin.

Who knows, maybe there will have some space in the new building, but I dont think they can expand the old space as the casino take up the whole west side of the first two floors of the building. I believe Cascades is expanding though.

[SpongeG]

cascades is adding conference facilities isn't it?

i think its a tough process to get more gaming approval - isn't it provincially controlled?

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

cascades is adding conference facilities isn't it?

i think its a tough process to get more gaming approval - isn't it provincially controlled?

I think they are adding some conference facilities to the space they have upstairs, but at a minimum, they are also expanding the poker room.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

so we have over 400,000 ft of casino gaming space! and is Riverrock not adding some gaming space in the current expansion project.....

Yeah like others have said the new expansion will not contain any new gaming space, just a new parkade with hotel floors on top of that. There will also be a bridge linking the skytrain station to the new building which will then be linked to the existing river rock by another bridge.

[SpongeG]

will the hotel etc open sooner than the Canada line? or is it expected to open after it?

[Metro-One]

You said "skytrain"

[Smooth]

I'm not sure if there was a specific thread discussing this tower. If there was I couldn't find it.

I hope the developer sticks it to the city with this one by just building to what's currently allowed and doesn't bother trying to offer any additional community benefits. The city is going to get burned pretty bad if they continue to develop the reputation that they aren't open to offering density bonuses because of a few NIMBYs.

No extra height for Extra Foods
3 councillors alter vote; tower's bylaws fail 4-3

Stephanie Mosley
North Shore News

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

In a surprising turn of events Monday night, City of North Vancouver council failed to adopt the bylaws to redevelop the Extra Foods site at 17th Street and Lonsdale Avenue.

Couns. Bob Heywood, Bob Fearnley and Barbara Perrault all reversed votes originally cast in favour of the redevelopment at a Sept. 8 council meeting.

The proposal will be sent back to city staff for further consultation.

The councillors listed community outcry over the project's height, traffic safety and amendments to the official community plan as reasons for reconsideration.

"I certainly want the project to go ahead, but I think we are doing it in this situation without the consent of the community," said Heywood.

The redevelopment, which passed second and third reading of its bylaws 6-1 following the Sept. 8 public hearing, called for rezoning that would result in roughly 200,000 square feet of residential development including a 240-foot (73-metre) highrise -- 60 feet above the current official community plan limit. The plan also outlined the replacement of the existing 25,000-sq.-ft. grocery store with one nearly double its size as well as right in, right out parking access from Lonsdale Avenue.

A public plaza area and the inclusion of between 12 and 13 units of non-market housing, in exchange for extra density and height, were also part of the proposal.

"When an issue is this contentious, I think it's important that we stand back and use the tool that we have -- and that is reconsideration," said Perrault, adding that she doesn't want to see the project lost, but built within the OCP.

"Those six extra floors will not be housing for people who are down and out, they will be housing for people who can well afford expensive condos and only 12 families will be provided housing," she told council.

At the core of the discussion, however, was a disagreement over details of a confidential or "in camera" meeting about the project.

All three councillors who amended their votes said they now want to see money made available by the project put into the city's affordable housing fund and the tower brought back down six storeys.

Fearnley and Perrault referred to the city's sale (at an undisclosed amount) of an adjacent laneway as one revenue source, while Heywood referenced a $5-million payment that he said was once on the table.

"If the building was dropped to the level of the OCP and the city was to gain $5 million, which I believe was the proposal that was up before us at one stage of the game, that $5 million dollars would go a lot farther to build affordable housing," Heywood said.

However, Couns. Craig Keating and Sam Schechter refuted claims that the city was going to get any money without the additional height.

"If this thing comes in at 180 feet that is there in the OCP, there is no extra money, there is no contribution to the city," Keating said. "The question was whether or not those six storeys and the contribution should be in the form of direct cash or those units built in. That was the option.

"I cannot understand (why) people who have been on council this long . . . cannot understand the basic economics of this situation," he said, adding that two community surveys in a row have indicated that affordable housing is the number 1 issue in the city.

Schecter agreed. In an interview with the North Shore News Tuesday, Schechter said council decided at the in camera meeting that it was going to hear the applicant's proposal that included affordable housing units, rather than a proposal where the developer would contribute roughly $5 million to the city's affordable housing fund. Both were proposed as options to council in exchange for rezoning to increase height and density.

"If we vote with the OCP, there is no housing benefit, not for the affordable housing fund, not in cash, not in units, it's just gone. That is a tragedy," Schechter said.

Sylvia Yung, vice-president of communications for developer Anthem Properties, said Heywood's claims over a possible payment to the affordable housing fund without an increase in density must have been a "misunderstanding."

She said that the company does not have to provide any public benefit if the building comes within the OCP height because the development would not require any rezoning to be approved by council.

"It is an unfortunate turn of events, but if that's what city council wants we have to abide by it," she said of Monday night's decision.

Despite Keating and Schechter's comments, Heywood, Fearnley and Perrault were not persuaded.

"People said they wanted the food store, not the six extra floors," said Fearnley. "You still have to respect what the people of the City of North Vancouver want."

The amendments to the bylaw were defeated in a 4-3 vote. The three councillors joined Coun. Pam Bookham in opposition to the bylaw amendments.

Mayor Darrell Mussatto said the decision was "a big loss for the city."

"It is not easy trying to provide affordable housing units for people, and the city was trying to look at different tools," he said. "We have a fundamental responsibility to house people first. I'm very disappointed."

Council also voted 4-3 to direct the project back to city staff for further consultation, including re-examining the building's height and parking access.

Richard White, director of community development, told council that the city could lose out on the affordable housing element of the project.

"I think it's accurate to say that there will be less affordable housing, less money to the city if the reduced height building is built," he said, adding he believed a reduction in tower height would still be acceptable to the applicant.

Anthem Properties' Yung said the company still desires to see the project go ahead but will wait and see "if the numbers work" after meeting with city staff.

"We are very disappointed because we were looking at providing a community benefit in the name of affordable housing," she said.

[fever]

Yeah. It's good they'll reconsider the parking access I guess. There really should be a guideline laying out what's acceptable or, even better, a less political process (like Vancouver's) that would reduce uncertainty for the developer while funding amenities. This looks like a case of bad timing for the developer given the upcoming election.

An aside... (Maybe the NDP-affiliated councillors are organized well enough in the City that they don't need to pander to the NIMBY vote. I don't know. I've always found the seemingly more cozy relationship between NDP-affiliated councillors and developers strange, even moreso because the provincial Liberals are mostly former developers. I don't know what to make of it)

[red-paladin]

The local newspapers reported that a tower with 37 floors was approved for glen street in coquitlam near coquitlam centre. Whether it gets built or not is another story I guess.

[hollywoodnorth]

B.C.'s biggest casino to get even bigger
By Matthew Hoekstra - Richmond Review - June 06, 2008




River Rock Casino Resort, Western Canada’s biggest gambling facility, is about to get even bigger.

Parent company Great Canadian Casino Corp. hopes to add another 37,800 square feet of gaming, restaurant and office space to the north side of its River Road casino compound.

That’s on top of a massive expansion approved by Richmond council last year, which allows the company to build a five-storey, 192-room hotel above a seven-storey parkade.

That 1,200-space parkade, the second for the casino, scheduled to be finished by sometime next year, will serve Canada Line users by day, and casino patrons by night.

A city staff report that reveals details of the latest expansion also hints of another future phase of casino resort expansion on the horizon.

Great Canadian spokesperson Howard Blank was short on details and refused to comment on expansion plans.

“I’m not going to be speaking to anything until we formally go before council,” he said Thursday.

City spokesperson Kim Decker said Great Canadian is proposing a two-storey expansion that will include a new gaming area and space for offices and food service. The proposed addition would be linked to Canada Line’s future Bridgeport station, parkade and hotel by a “sky bridge,” according to a staff report.

The proposal doesn’t require rezoning. The city’s development permit panel will hear Great Canadian’s application next Wednesday.

In its 2006 annual report, Great Canadian’s chairman Ross McLeod pointed to a bright future for business thanks to the coming rapid transit line.

“River Rock has already established itself as a major player in Vancouver’s entertainment landscape, and we expect the completion of the Canada Line will only further its success.”

Great Canadian will build the $33-million parkade, with a $4.5 million contribution from Translink. In exchange, the casino operator gets title to the parkade and nets an extra two-and-a-half acres of land for “potential future opportunities.”

River Rock is Great Canadian’s largest property in Canada, earning city council’s approval to rename a portion of Garden CIty Road to Great Canadian Way in 2004.

Last year, the company expected competition for the public’s gambling dollars with the opening of a new 100,000-square-foot casino in Queensborough, on the edge of Richmond. But so far, the impact has been minimal at best.

The casino returned $12.8 million in gaming revenue to the City of Richmond last year—up $650,000 from the previous year.

Bill Chu, of the Multicultural Coalition Against Gambling Expansion group, compared the casino to “a cancer” when it was relocated—and expanded—from Bridgepoint. Chu said now that cancer is growing.

“The city council in Richmond seems to be so for this sort of thing that I think it’s missing the mark of being responsible for the citizens first.”

Chu attributed a rise in social problems and even the scheduled closure of Bridgeport’s RONA big box store to the casino.

“When would you ever see something like that closing down? The economy is being sucked dry by this monster out there.”

Barbara Tinson, chair of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, said River Rock is a legitimate business that has brought millions of dollars of new revenue to the city.

And despite it being largely a destination location, Tinson believes local businesses have benefited, since the facility attracts people to Lulu Island.

“It might make people want to stay in Richmond, so from a tourism perspective, it is a good thing, because it’s definitely an attraction.”








Find this article at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_.../19601854.html

[SpongeG]

that casino in new west kind sucks - its been busy though when i have been (only twice) but its just boring - at least at river rock you can walk around outside and see non-casino things

[osirisboy]

so how big is the actual casino portion at river rock? 37000 sqft seems kind of a small expansion.