archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Outside Of Boston Metro > Greater New England

Greater New England All things architectural or urban in Greater New England, beyond the boundaries of Boston Metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-11-2012, 10:22 AM   #1
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,529
Casino for Springfield?

A very large casino has been proposed here. Here's the article.

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012...v7J/story.html
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:44 AM   #2
cden4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,036
Re: Casino for Springfield?

This is the first I've heard of the Penn proposal, but I have heard a lot about the MGM one. The MGM one honestly sounds pretty awesome. They want to create a whole entertainment district along Main St. They would integrate a revitalized Union Station and the Mass Mutual Center into their plans and would run trolley-like buses to connect the entertainment district to other downtown attractions and transportation hubs. The MGM proposal is really outward-facing and hopes to create an environment where local businesses will thrive rather than the traditional inward facing "go into the casino and never leave until you're ready to go home" approach.
cden4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:47 AM   #3
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

I hope it at least remains on the table for a while simply for the alliteration. "Penn in partnership with Peter Picknelly, operator of Peter Pan..."

I'm not sure what this will do for putting pedestrians on the streets of central Springfield though. They don't have an exact location for the proposal in the article, so I don't know how close or connected to downtown it would be. Even if it was very connected, my concern would be that it would do nothing to alleviate a dismal downtown area as far as the pedestrian experience goes. The city needs more small businesses in the core.

I spent a night in Springfield (at the Sheraton) this past spring and had mixed feelings. For starters, it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. In fact, there's a lot of good architecture and Main St. (as are some of the intersecting streets) is a REALLY good urban street. However, there's very little to engage a pedestrian along that stretch after business hours. The area around Worthington/Main St. isn't bad, but it dies down pretty quickly. After you head up Worthington for about a block, it gets a little bit shady (though again, not as bad as people make it out to be). I don't see a casino doing much to improve this situation.

*edit* just read Cden's write up on MGM's proposal. That's the type of urban casino I could support. New Bedford's proposal (the KG Urban Enterprises one) had that type of integration as well.
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 01:33 PM   #4
Patrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 3,280
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Although a plan that actually connects to other downtown amenities would be nice, when one realizes that it's always the raunchiest of places where casinos are proposed, it begins to be something not worth broadcasting. That's a list most places don't want to make, because it says a lot about what the developer thinks about the community. More often than not, these communities have segments that are worth caring about and with potential to turn around, but when a developer proposes a casino (which is sort of like what land use attorneys call a LULU, or locally undesirable land use because everyone visits them but no one wants to live near one) they take advantage of a disengaged electorate and a tax hungry municipal legislature to build these things. It doesn't mean all casinos are bad, just that more often than not they are proposed in pits. This raises the question of whether there begins to build a stigma for places that actually have a casino.....anyone who realizes the aforementioned pattern or trend will automatically assume if there is a casino in a place, it's a pit. That's my take on it. Better to 'sneak' a gambling element into a larger mixed use project than to propose a "casino" labeled as such.
__________________
I like urbanism, big and small, near and far.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 02:02 PM   #5
statler
Moderator
 
statler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Approaching a City
Posts: 7,437
Re: Casino for Springfield?

We are discussing this in the other casino thread and a question has come up.



Does anyone know if the Paramount sign in this render actually exists? It's a dead copy of the Boston sign and the 2009 Google street view shows a different blade sign.
statler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 02:12 PM   #6
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Although a plan that actually connects to other downtown amenities would be nice, when one realizes that it's always the raunchiest of places where casinos are proposed, it begins to be something not worth broadcasting. That's a list most places don't want to make, because it says a lot about what the developer thinks about the community. More often than not, these communities have segments that are worth caring about and with potential to turn around, but when a developer proposes a casino (which is sort of like what land use attorneys call a LULU, or locally undesirable land use because everyone visits them but no one wants to live near one) they take advantage of a disengaged electorate and a tax hungry municipal legislature to build these things. It doesn't mean all casinos are bad, just that more often than not they are proposed in pits. This raises the question of whether there begins to build a stigma for places that actually have a casino.....anyone who realizes the aforementioned pattern or trend will automatically assume if there is a casino in a place, it's a pit. That's my take on it. Better to 'sneak' a gambling element into a larger mixed use project than to propose a "casino" labeled as such.
^I don't know if I agree with that. There are certainly examples of casinos being proposed in depressed communities (Springfield, New Bedford, Bethlehem PA, etc) but I don't think it's necessarily a rule (or even a trend).

Many casinos are proposed in rural areas which I would hardly describe as pits. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are perfect examples. If these developers were targeting "pits," Waterbury, Bridgeport or even Hartford would be more ideal. More locally for you, Oxford was the chosen location. Rumford, Lewiston and Skowhegan are more urban (to a degree in the cases of Rumford and Skowhegan), run-down communities with a disengaged electorate. There are dozens of casinos out west in nice communities (Lake Tahoe, for example) or out in beautiful areas (I passed a few in the hills en route to Yosemite) in the country. These places are make it evident that Casinos don't necessarily only sprout up in "pits."

Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are the two biggest casinos in the U.S. Their location has more to do with being sandwiched in between the NY and Boston metro areas than being located in "raunchy" areas. Tahoe casinos are there because it's a tourist Hotspot. People also really enjoy living in that area. The rural casinos scattered around the country are typically established as resorts or sprout up on existing tribal land. Twin River in RI is in a nice section of suburban Lincoln and evolved around a dog track (like many casinos do), not because it's a bad area.

Urban casinos are a mixed bag. There are plenty of urban casinos in nice areas. You have major casinos in Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Wilmington DE, Kansas City, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Newport RI even has a small one (Newport Grand). None of those cities are raunchy or pits. In the case of New Orleans and St. Louis, those casinos are right downtown.

I have zero doubt that places like Springfield or New Bedford are chosen by developers because the process of breaking ground may be simpler due to the local economic woes. However, I hardly make the leap to associating casinos with "raunchy." Even Boston has a handful of casino proposals on the table right now (one involving the race track and another closer to downtown in the seaport district).
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 02:15 PM   #7
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by statler View Post
We are discussing this in the other casino thread and a question has come up.


Does anyone know if the Paramount sign in this render actually exists? It's a dead copy of the Boston sign and the 2009 Google street view shows a different blade sign.
I think the Hippodrome Marquee is still up (at least as of June). It's a copy.
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:22 PM   #8
Patrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 3,280
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrfox View Post
^I don't know if I agree with that. There are certainly examples of casinos being proposed in depressed communities (Springfield, New Bedford, Bethlehem PA, etc) but I don't think it's necessarily a rule (or even a trend).

Many casinos are proposed in rural areas which I would hardly describe as pits. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are perfect examples. If these developers were targeting "pits," Waterbury, Bridgeport or even Hartford would be more ideal. More locally for you, Oxford was the chosen location. Rumford, Lewiston and Skowhegan are more urban (to a degree in the cases of Rumford and Skowhegan), run-down communities with a disengaged electorate. There are dozens of casinos out west in nice communities (Lake Tahoe, for example) or out in beautiful areas (I passed a few in the hills en route to Yosemite) in the country. These places are make it evident that Casinos don't necessarily only sprout up in "pits."

Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are the two biggest casinos in the U.S. Their location has more to do with being sandwiched in between the NY and Boston metro areas than being located in "raunchy" areas. Tahoe casinos are there because it's a tourist Hotspot. People also really enjoy living in that area. The rural casinos scattered around the country are typically established as resorts or sprout up on existing tribal land. Twin River in RI is in a nice section of suburban Lincoln and evolved around a dog track (like many casinos do), not because it's a bad area.

Urban casinos are a mixed bag. There are plenty of urban casinos in nice areas. You have major casinos in Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Wilmington DE, Kansas City, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Newport RI even has a small one (Newport Grand). None of those cities are raunchy or pits. In the case of New Orleans and St. Louis, those casinos are right downtown.

I have zero doubt that places like Springfield or New Bedford are chosen by developers because the process of breaking ground may be simpler due to the local economic woes. However, I hardly make the leap to associating casinos with "raunchy." Even Boston has a handful of casino proposals on the table right now (one involving the race track and another closer to downtown in the seaport district).
Fair enough, but it seems like every proposal I've heard of recently has been in a pit. Lewiston, Biddeford, etc. Wasn't there one in East Boston recently, and New Bedford also? I think it may have more to do with the economic woes, like you said, but to me that often equates with 'pit.' Out west, municipalities are much larger in land area--I wonder if the casinos you referenced are in the rural areas of those places, or in their character-based downtowns? I guess the point is that, regardless of where they show up, it hardly ever seems to be in a place people really care about. Whether that's because it's a pit or rural or, in the case of the Seaport, no one else is really around (at least that was the case until recently), I don't know. I do know that casinos don't appear, from my point of view, to be proposed in places that are really successful already.
__________________
I like urbanism, big and small, near and far.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:25 PM   #9
Ron Newman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA
Posts: 8,399
Send a message via AIM to Ron Newman
Re: Casino for Springfield?

I wouldn't call downtown New Bedford a 'pit'. Maybe that was appropriate 15 years ago, but not today.
Ron Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 11:30 PM   #10
Patrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 3,280
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Newman View Post
I wouldn't call downtown New Bedford a 'pit'. Maybe that was appropriate 15 years ago, but not today.
But you're an optimist. Buses aren't just for poor people, either. Stigma is often stronger, it seems, than objectivity.
__________________
I like urbanism, big and small, near and far.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:05 AM   #11
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Fair enough, but it seems like every proposal I've heard of recently has been in a pit. Lewiston, Biddeford, etc. Wasn't there one in East Boston recently, and New Bedford also? I think it may have more to do with the economic woes, like you said, but to me that often equates with 'pit.' Out west, municipalities are much larger in land area--I wonder if the casinos you referenced are in the rural areas of those places, or in their character-based downtowns? I guess the point is that, regardless of where they show up, it hardly ever seems to be in a place people really care about. Whether that's because it's a pit or rural or, in the case of the Seaport, no one else is really around (at least that was the case until recently), I don't know. I do know that casinos don't appear, from my point of view, to be proposed in places that are really successful already.
Instead of getting into a debate about what makes a place a "pit" or not, I'll just say that we likely have different definitions of what makes a place a "pit."

As far as Casinos go, I really don't think stigma has anything to do with it. Again, I think it's simply jobs. If you have an area where people live and jobs are scarce, a casino proposal is ideal. The reason? Because it promises to employ local residents and inject tax dollars into the local economy. That's why you see many proposals in cities and towns that are struggling economically.

Rural/urban has little to do with it. Most of the rural communities where casinos are being built have a lack of employment opportunities around them as well (See: Oxford, ME). Many communities outside of a metro area struggle with jobs because they lack employment centers. This is the story in Maine which is one of the most rural states on the East Coast. There are dozens of towns well outside of Portland or Bangor that are far from being "pits" (they're just the opposite in many cases- charming tourist towns), but struggle with putting people to work. This is the case all over the country. Many of these towns (and it's the case for many of the rural casinos out west) build casinos because it puts their local residents to work when work is scarce. The casino near Yosemite was in a small town on one of the few major routes to the national park. There was almost nothing there save for some homes and the casino. Without a doubt, the casino was built with two things in mind: putting locals to work and collecting revenue from tourists that were otherwise just passing through. The area was rural and beautiful. The complete opposite of "pit" in anyone's definition.

The same logic holds true. New Bedford doesn't have a proposed casino because New Bedford's a pit. New Bedford has a casino proposal because it's a city of 95,000 people with unemployment of near 10% that's located on a major tourist highway (I-195 which brings everyone from RI, CT, NJ, NY and points south to Cape Cod) as well as being 25 minutes from Providence and 50 minutes from Boston. People in New Bedford need work and the city needs the tax revenue. The same logic applies in the rural areas and even the bigger tourist areas like Lake Tahoe. You have a lot of people and not as many jobs. The casino becomes an attractive option.

Most of the rural casinos I've seen out west don't have "character based downtowns" at all. Most of them have very little in the way of a town or city center. The casinos are usually located on primary routes and are set back and isolated. In Tahoe, they have a lot of resort casinos. Similar to what exists in Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (a little smaller than those places). In Tahoe, they tend to be right near most of the residential areas and close to the tourist spots (the ski areas and the lake).

Harrah's in New Orleans and the Casino in St. Louis are the two urban casinos in downtown areas that stand out the most to me. Both in great areas in the city center (abutting the French Quarter and the River in the case of New Orleans). They're the antithesis of "pit." Whether they do much to generate activity in the downtown areas on their own remains to be seen. I don't have a snapshot of either place before the casino so I don't know.

I'm not necessarily "pro" casinos but I don't associate them with being in pits or raunchy areas. I don't know many people who do either. I would, however, agree that areas struggling economically tend to be the places developers target. But I think there's a big gap between economically stuggling and "pit."
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:13 AM   #12
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
But you're an optimist. Buses aren't just for poor people, either. Stigma is often stronger, it seems, than objectivity.
New Bedford has a mountain of issues, but a nice downtown area isn't one of them. You don't need to be an optimist to appreciate it. Even the biggest pessimist would say it's nice. Just about anyone that visits downtown New Bedford would have a hard time calling it a "pit." 13 blocks of it are a national historic park. It has cobblestone streets, shops, galleries, restaurants and museums. Cruise ships stop there all summer long. It's far closer to being one of the nicer downtowns in New England than it is to being one of the worst.
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:21 AM   #13
Patrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 3,280
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrfox View Post
Instead of getting into a debate about what makes a place a "pit" or not, I'll just say that we likely have different definitions of what makes a place a "pit."

As far as Casinos go, I really don't think stigma has anything to do with it. Again, I think it's simply jobs. If you have an area where people live and jobs are scarce, a casino proposal is ideal. The reason? Because it promises to employ local residents and inject tax dollars into the local economy. That's why you see many proposals in cities and towns that are struggling economically.

Rural/urban has little to do with it. Most of the rural communities where casinos are being built have a lack of employment opportunities around them as well (See: Oxford, ME). Many communities outside of a metro area struggle with jobs because they lack employment centers. This is the story in Maine which is one of the most rural states on the East Coast. There are dozens of towns well outside of Portland or Bangor that are far from being "pits" (they're just the opposite in many cases- charming tourist towns), but struggle with putting people to work. This is the case all over the country. Many of these towns (and it's the case for many of the rural casinos out west) build casinos because it puts their local residents to work when work is scarce. The casino near Yosemite was in a small town on one of the few major routes to the national park. There was almost nothing there save for some homes and the casino. Without a doubt, the casino was built with two things in mind: putting locals to work and collecting revenue from tourists that were otherwise just passing through. The area was rural and beautiful. The complete opposite of "pit" in anyone's definition.

The same logic holds true. New Bedford doesn't have a proposed casino because New Bedford's a pit. New Bedford has a casino proposal because it's a city of 95,000 people with unemployment of near 10% that's located on a major tourist highway (I-195 which brings everyone from RI, CT, NJ, NY and points south to Cape Cod) as well as being 25 minutes from Providence and 50 minutes from Boston. People in New Bedford need work and the city needs the tax revenue. The same logic applies in the rural areas and even the bigger tourist areas like Lake Tahoe. You have a lot of people and not as many jobs. The casino becomes an attractive option.

Most of the rural casinos I've seen out west don't have "character based downtowns" at all. Most of them have very little in the way of a town or city center. The casinos are usually located on primary routes and are set back and isolated. In Tahoe, they have a lot of resort casinos. Similar to what exists in Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (a little smaller than those places). In Tahoe, they tend to be right near most of the residential areas and close to the tourist spots (the ski areas and the lake).

Harrah's in New Orleans and the Casino in St. Louis are the two urban casinos in downtown areas that stand out the most to me. Both in great areas in the city center (abutting the French Quarter and the River in the case of New Orleans). They're the antithesis of "pit." Whether they do much to generate activity in the downtown areas on their own remains to be seen. I don't have a snapshot of either place before the casino so I don't know.

I'm not necessarily "pro" casinos but I don't associate them with being in pits or raunchy areas. I don't know many people who do either. I would, however, agree that areas struggling economically tend to be the places developers target. But I think there's a big gap between economically stuggling and "pit."
I think we agree to a greater extent than you realize. Without debating "pit," the point is that in both rural areas and "pits" however defined, it is fair to say that these are places people don't particularly care about. Whether that's because the population is transient and therefore not inclined to become politically engaged (as in pits or, as you called New Beford, "depressed") or because there simply isn't enough of an immediately local population around the proposed site to make a stink about it at the polls, because the broader community doesn't have to see the thing but can still benefit from it (rural areas), it doesn't matter. The point is that I've never really seen a casino proposed in a place people truly care about. I don't mean a community, but a "place" within that community. Therefore, I think that if you can draw that conclusion, at least in the urban proposals it equates with stigma. In rural areas, one might just say "that town needs jobs." But in an urban location, unless it's a vegas or something which bills itself as an entertainment destination, I think the stigma is stronger. I think you're kidding yourself if you disagree, but feel free to. I know you're an optimist, which is great and encouraging and more places need more optimists, but casinos as a rule, based solely on my perception, and I'm not holding myself out to be a casino expert, just a regular person, tend to be proposed in pits when they are proposed in the urban variety. That doesn't mean there are not exceptions, but all they do is prove the rule. Maybe it's different out west, I don't know. If we could drum up a list of urban casino locations existing or proposed in New England and poll the audience as to whether those places are pits or not, I think the results might contradict with your argument. Maybe not.
__________________
I like urbanism, big and small, near and far.
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 10:13 AM   #14
Portlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Where else?
Posts: 438
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Though I will drop down to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun on occasion and am by no means anti casino, I am not sure how supportive I would be if one was proposed for downtown Portland. I am still stunned at the popularity and success of some of these facilities that continue to flourish throughout the country. Obviously the developers and gaming experts feel that Springfield can be profitable to even consider investing there, but I am surprised due to the close proximity of the above mentioned resorts. As far as urban casino complexes go, I think that Shreveport/Bossier City has done an amazing job of developing a gaming district on the Red River and it appears that both cities have benefited from the decision. Springfield is similar in size to Shreveport and the city leaders could probably learn a lot if they examine Shreveport's lessons learned/pros and cons.
Portlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:13 AM   #15
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
I think we agree to a greater extent than you realize. Without debating "pit," the point is that in both rural areas and "pits" however defined, it is fair to say that these are places people don't particularly care about. Whether that's because the population is transient and therefore not inclined to become politically engaged (as in pits or, as you called New Beford, "depressed") or because there simply isn't enough of an immediately local population around the proposed site to make a stink about it at the polls, because the broader community doesn't have to see the thing but can still benefit from it (rural areas), it doesn't matter. The point is that I've never really seen a casino proposed in a place people truly care about. I don't mean a community, but a "place" within that community. Therefore, I think that if you can draw that conclusion, at least in the urban proposals it equates with stigma. In rural areas, one might just say "that town needs jobs." But in an urban location, unless it's a vegas or something which bills itself as an entertainment destination, I think the stigma is stronger. I think you're kidding yourself if you disagree, but feel free to. I know you're an optimist, which is great and encouraging and more places need more optimists, but casinos as a rule, based solely on my perception, and I'm not holding myself out to be a casino expert, just a regular person, tend to be proposed in pits when they are proposed in the urban variety. That doesn't mean there are not exceptions, but all they do is prove the rule. Maybe it's different out west, I don't know. If we could drum up a list of urban casino locations existing or proposed in New England and poll the audience as to whether those places are pits or not, I think the results might contradict with your argument. Maybe not.
Where we agree is that casinos tend to locate in areas in need of economic boosts. I think where we differ is that I don't think all urban areas that are economically troubled are "pits." You may not either, but that's the impression I got from reading your replies. It just seems your take is that if a city isn't a beacon of prosperity, then it must be a pit. There is no middle ground.

I'll use New Bedford again. There are rough and ugly parts of town. The downtown area isn't one of them. The reason the proposal is on the table isn't because the local community isn't engaged or that people don't care about it. It's quite the opposite. Downtown New Bedford has one of the most active and supportive communities you'll find anywhere. You'd also be surprised at the tourism business central NB does. The reason a casino is on the table is because the citywide unemployment rate is around 10% and the casino promises to bring jobs and tax revenue. In addition to a employee base, the casino operators like the idea of a seaside casino resort. There aren't too many places outside of urban areas that would welcome a big resort casino to their waterfront. That's it. It's also worth mentioning that the casino proposal is hardly unopposed. Many people feel that it will draw visitors away from the small businesses downtown.

As far as stigma goes, you're probably right. There are lots of people who would write entire cities like Springfield or New Bedford off as pits. Frankly, I don't care. Having grown up around some of these so-called pits, and lived near others (Biddeford), the people who do the name calling tend to shy away from cities in general. They're the people who live in Scarborough and tell the kids to roll up the windows when driving through Bayside and not to make eye contact with any pedestrians. They're the suburbanites and rural dwellers who have no idea what they're talking about. The people like you, me and others on this forum who are invested in our urban areas know better.

That's not to say that every city is good. I think Fall River (the city I grew up closest to) is a pit. There are redeeming qualities (good waterfront, ethnic food, etc), but overall it's a pit in my opinion. I would call Lawrence MA, Lewiston ME, Holyoke MA, Brockton MA, Bridgeport CT, etc. pits too. That's not to say that I don't think those places have no redeeming qualities. Hell, I root for them to improve. But as of right now, they're pits. I put Lowell, Manchester (though I'd say Manch. is further along than the other two) and New Bedford in similar categories. Recovering cities. They have a lot of redeeming qualities and have been improving for some time. They're quite a ways from rock bottom in spite of some obvious flaws. Still, I personally put very little stock in the "stigma" of a place I've never been to and I always consider the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portlander View Post
Though I will drop down to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun on occasion and am by no means anti casino, I am not sure how supportive I would be if one was proposed for downtown Portland. I am still stunned at the popularity and success of some of these facilities that continue to flourish throughout the country. Obviously the developers and gaming experts feel that Springfield can be profitable to even consider investing there, but I am surprised due to the close proximity of the above mentioned resorts. As far as urban casino complexes go, I think that Shreveport/Bossier City has done an amazing job of developing a gaming district on the Red River and it appears that both cities have benefited from the decision. Springfield is similar in size to Shreveport and the city leaders could probably learn a lot if they examine Shreveport's lessons learned/pros and cons.
I admit, I've never been to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun although I have friends who go almost weekly. Casinos in general have no appeal to me (though I would go see a show at one). I've been to Twin River in RI and Harrah's in New Orleans. The Former was for a comedy show and a family dinner and the latter was just to walk through.

If I were still in Portland, I probably wouldn't support one. Portland doesn't have the economic troubles that places like Springfield and New Bedford do. Portland also draws a great crowd of tourists and part of the appeal is that seaside charm. I think a casino would throw that off. OOB may be a more appropriate location. Possibly even a resort style casino in an old mill in Biddeford or even Lewiston. But Portland is fine without one. New Bedford will be fine without one too (still torn on whether or not I'd support it). Springfield doesn't have the colonial seaport appeal that NB or Portland do, nor does it have a working waterfront. It may need a bit more of a spark to reinvigorate the downtown area. Whether a casino will provide that spark is a big debate. I don't know anything about Shreveport's casino so I'll take your word for it.
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 01:54 PM   #16
Portlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Where else?
Posts: 438
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Lrfox, well said and I agree with you thoughts concerning OOB as a great place to entertain a casino. My only concern would be the seasonal impact that turns the strip area into a ghost town for 6 months (conservative estimate) out of the year. Do you have any information on the casino possibility for New Bedford? Checked the NB thread and could not find anything and I also agree that New Bedford would be a perfect fit for that type of a venue, but like you, not sure if I would want it in my hometown? When I head for the Connecticut casinos it is normally for concerts also but I will always give the poker tables some money each visit as a parting gift. My girlfriend and I visited New Orleans back in March and did visit Harrah's property and found it to be fairly nice as far as casinos go, great location, full of cigarette smoke and surprisingly quiet for such a busy city.
Portlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 02:22 PM   #17
Semass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 645
Re: Casino for Springfield?

The New Bedford proposal is in limbo for now. Mass law permits only 3 licenses and one is guaranteed for a Tribe. The Wamanoag tribe is pursuing the South East license and planning to put their casino in Taunton. A private developer for a New Bedford waterfront site is suing the state saying that the Tribal set aside is illegal and that they should be able to compete with thier proposal for the old power plant. The Tribal site is dependent on approval from the Department of the Interior and acceptance of the Taunton land into trust. By the way, this is not guaranteed based on the Rhode Island "Carcieri Decision"
Semass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 02:29 PM   #18
Lrfox
Senior Member
 
Lrfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,200
Re: Casino for Springfield?

I'd go so far as to say NB is all but dead. The Wampanoag proposal takes precedence in the region. Semass gets to the point about the legal case, but it doesn't look like the Wompanoag casino is going to be dropped. Here's a link to the developers website and their proposal for NB. The slideshow is worth a look. I'm torn on it. One one hand, I like the idea of the casino renovating an older property and drawing traffic into the city (and adding a LOT more hotel rooms). On the other hand, I get nervous that it really will detract from the downtown businesses (though they say they won't).

I'm like you. The only time I've considered going to Foxwoods it was for a concert. But even when I go to Twin River, I drop $10 on slots just for the hell of it. Broke even once. Harrah's isn't bad. Cigarette smoke seems to be the trend in these casinos and I can't stand it. What got me with Harrah's is how dark it was.

*edit*
Things that the slideshow doesn't show:
1) The small space between the casino site and the national park is now a hotel and conference center with a waterfront restaurant across the street.
2) Route 18 is nearing the completion of its conversion from highway to surface boulevard. I saw it a few weeks ago and it's looking great (better than what the renderings in the slideshow display).
Lrfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 02:53 PM   #19
Portlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Where else?
Posts: 438
Re: Casino for Springfield?

Thanks for the update guys and I must say that I was impressed with the drawings and it is sad that it may not move forward. Guess I would have to change my thinking if a project of that magnitude was proposed for the Portland waterfront. The taller building appears to be around 28 floors and with the other structure would have been a game changer for the NB skyline. Props to the reuse of the power station and like Portland, it is cool to see a port city with some actual finger piers! At least you got a new hotel and conference center in that part of town which is a short walk to center city. Good luck.
Portlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2017, 04:03 PM   #20
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,728
Re: Casino for Springfield?

This website contains some recent construction picture of the MGM casino going up in Springfield, MA

http://www.masslive.com/mgm_springfi...no_update.html
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MA Casino Developments TheRifleman Development Projects 2271 09-14-2016 10:29 AM
Springfield Commuter Rail/Shuttle BostonUrbEx Design a Better Boston 6 11-09-2010 02:36 AM
Milford Casino BostonYoureMyHome Development Projects 6 07-01-2010 03:51 PM
Springfield Commuter Rail Waldorf Greater New England 8 04-10-2010 12:55 PM
Springfield (MA) Nightlife Lrfox General 12 08-13-2008 07:47 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.