New B.C. Place casino proposal resurrects Vancouver Not Vegas critics

A proposal to double the size of a relocated Edgewater Casino is up for review.

Poll

Should the B.C. Place casino floor be larger than the Edgewater Casino's?

Yes 37%
37 votes
No 57%
57 votes
Maybe 6%
6 votes

Photos

The city’s development-permit board next Monday (December 16) will take a peek at plans by casino owner Paragon Holdings, a company based in Las Vegas.

Currently at the Plaza of Nations (750 Pacific Boulevard), Edgewater is moving across the street and west to a one-hectare site near B.C. Place.

Council approved the area rezoning for a hotel, entertainment, and gambling complex, including the relocated Edgewater, in a unanimous vote on April 19, 2011. But with that same vote, council rejected Paragon’s bid to increase the casino’s permitted 600 slot machines to 1,500 and gambling tables from 75 to 150.

Council enacted the rezoning bylaw on November 29, 2011, and its terms are cited in Paragon’s new application for a bigger casino that would have only the original 600 slot machines and 75 gaming tables.

According to Paragon’s design rationale, the zoning bylaw provides that the total floor area for gambling activity should not exceed 10,600 square metres, or approximately 114,000 square feet.

“The Applicant proposes a gaming floor area of approximately 72,000 square feet which it believes is the minimum effective area to adequately merchandise the relocated 600 slot machines and 75 table games in a purpose built, high quality, and exclusive gaming experience,” the document states.

The paper notes that the existing Edgewater Casino has a gambling-floor area of about 36,697 square feet.

It also points out that the current casino building was not specifically built for gambling and “both the main floor and the mezzanine are irregularly shaped and not capable at any one time of offering the full complement of 600 slot machines and 75 table games”.

“The resulting presentation is substandard: a ‘slot house’ casino with extensive rows of densely packed slot machines and table games,” the document explains. “This type of casino offering is more typically found in truck stops or industrial areas, and is not the type of gaming experience the Applicant wants to present in downtown Vancouver.”

Coun. Kerry Jang indicated that the development does not need council’s approval.

“It’s because two years ago we set the bylaw that the development-permit board is working by,” Jang told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview.

The Vision Vancouver councillor also emphasized that there is no casino expansion.

“Two years ago, when we dealt with the casino, we said no expansion,” Jang said. “And we limited the floor space; we limited the number of games and types of games. And I know that the staff have looked at the plans for the current application to make sure that there’s no future growth of the floor space.”

A citizen-based group that fought Paragon’s first application has come back to life. The Vancouver Not Vegas coalition has started a campaign to have the company’s new application referred back to council for review.

The coalition is also calling for a comprehensive harm-reduction strategy in light of the report last October by provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall indicating that more should be done to battle gambling addiction in B.C.

The new casino will be built on land owned by the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, a provincial Crown entity.

Sandy Garossino of the Vancouver Not Vegas coalition noted that a bigger location opens up an opportunity for the casino to later ask for more slot machines and gaming tables.

“Vancouverites were looking for a permanent solution in 2011, and we are still looking for a permanent solution,” Garossino told the Straight by phone.

Paragon is proposing a mixed-use building that includes two hotel towers of 15 and 25 storeys. A public notice released by city hall in October notes that the building will also feature restaurant, gym, and spa uses. The building will have a total floor area of 695,812 square feet, and there will be five levels of underground parking for 1,200 cars.

Comments (17) Add New Comment
DavidH
Vancouver can never be Vegas. To be like Vegas, Vancouver would need dramatically better weather, a thoughtful city government, a pervasive sense of fun and adventure, and a complete absence of clenched-butt NIMBYs who are horrified at being exposed to sins of the mind and flesh.

Fortunately, Vancouver is geographically close to Vegas. So, a dirt-cheap flight and hotel package guarantees that money will be spent where it is wanted ... by adults, few of whom have an addiction to anything, least of all to gambling.

Yep, this is "Vancouver Not Vegas" all right. Pity.
28
27
Rating: +1
RUK
I hate gambling, but I like the idea that criminals have to pass through the CCTVs to launder their money, and also this gives them something to do instead of race their cars up and down Kingsway. This is also a massive tax-grab and we need that.

Overall I like it.
29
16
Rating: +13
Bob Shiska
I called it! When Vision Vancouver went off about not turning Vancouver into Vegas, I said wait, the "kickback price tag is too low". I knew 100 % without a doubt it would be built.
I worked on those trashcan buildings in the Olympic Village and just kept shaking my head because they had a ton of migrant workers doing jobs that should have been done by qualified trades people. none of them spoke English and when anybody tried to tell them something; they just nodded and said yes. I read the front page of one of our local papers this morning and there's been no heat to some of the units for over a month now.
The rich are actually screwing each other now. Pitiful!
18
14
Rating: +4
I like it but
I think it should be built in Point Grey.
34
9
Rating: +25
RealityCheck
The first sentence of the article is disingenuous. The casino itself is the same size as the current one at the Edgewater. What's added is more meeting, hotel and commercial space.

This is exactly the type of fiction this nimby group has been peddling from the start. Their goal isn't to stop the "expansion" of the Edgewater. Their goal is to close it all together.
25
19
Rating: +6
James G
I was previously ambivalent but generally opposed to Casino expansion. Now, I mostly see benefits. Too many people need work. This isn't ideal as job creation but better than the 'nothing' so clear upon the horizon. As for gambling addiction, in the age of endless lotteries and online gambling - opposing expansion shuts the barn door on that remaining horse long after the entire herd has fled.
16
18
Rating: -2
Meathead
No casino? Screw that! I'm going to build my own casino with blackjack! And hookers! You know what... just forget the casino.
12
10
Rating: +2
Fenton
So what else is new, the NIMBYists want to kill off $500 million in investment and the revitalization of a dismal little corner of downtown. No Fun City here we go again. site10a.com/useful-reading
14
18
Rating: -4
Anthony Soprano
It was already approved back in 2011 for the existing machines and tables; there is nothing to go for council review regarding the casino relocation without expansion.

The members from the anti gambling coalitions should really find some employment to better serve their time.

You cannot due anything to stop this relocation without expansion PERIOD; end of story!

For all you against this you should really get a life and pick up a new hobby!!
10
18
Rating: -8
Ervin
Reading here... The city approved 114,000 sf but the Casino says it needs 72,000 sf...... So what is the Casino bitching about, they already have double what they say they "need"..... Something is wrong with those two paragraphs
6
8
Rating: -2
Martin Dunphy
Ervin:

Nope, nothing wrong with the facts in those paragraphs.
Might I suggest you read between the lines?
6
10
Rating: -4
Alan Layton
Those who are complaining about Nimbyism probably don't live anywhere near the proposed casino. But just wait until something that they don't like is built in their neighbourhood and they'll be up in arms.

I've always been opposed to any casino built in Vancouver. If other municipalities/cities want to build them then they can go ahead but I oppose them in Vancouver - and would tear down the existing ones if given the chance. I understand that it will mean more money in the coffers but elected leaders should be forced to do something creative to increase job creation instead of just taking the easy route. I guess our big problem is that smart, creative people rarely run for office these days.
6
15
Rating: -9
RealtyCheck
The casino already exists in the neighbourhood.
4
11
Rating: -7
Alan Layton
RealtyCheck - I believe everybody knows that. The discussion is about allowing a new casino to be built, in it's place, that would encourage expansion in the future.
5
15
Rating: -10
Charles Campbell
Not to dismiss the gambling issue here, but there's another one. Is anyone concerned that this is the ugliest building I've seen proposed in this city in living memory? (Well, maybe the Eaton's building was that ugly.) And it's located at what's become the key entry point to downtown Vancouver.
6
10
Rating: -4
Martin Dunphy
Not to mention, Charles, that its profile is scooped to afford a lovely view of the current ugliest structure in Vancouver: the crown roast (or upended dead spider) that is B.C. Place.
4
6
Rating: -2
RUK
Perhaps the designers will make it look like a cock and balls from above, on Google Earth. That would make it even better.
3
8
Rating: -5
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.