Author Topic: Cincinnati: Pendleton: Horseshoe Casino (Read 144580 times)

LesterLyles · « **Reply #105 on:** September 24, 2009, 01:40:30 PM »

Quote from: oakiehigh on September 24, 2009, 06:00:35 AM

Cincy needs to focus on priorities! A new arena is not even close to being on that radar yet. We may be the only ones even talking about this. Unfortunately, USBank isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The ideas on here are great, but I don't see BC waiting around for another decade until there is some pent up demand for a new state of the art arena while we have Cintas, The Shoe, USBank, and a rarely used gorgeous Cincy Gardens in Bond Hill.

An interesting model would be to look at Kansas City. They built a brand new arena w/o any Pro teams playing there. I am curious if it makes money or not (I will follow up on this). I mentioned this idea in passing once to a Cincinnatian and he said the city is too scarred by the Paul Brown fiasco to build an arena. While certainly understandable, the big difference is the city would reap the benefits and see the profits. This could include NCAA tournament games, major concerts, pehaps a deal w/ the Blue Jackets to host 5 games a year.. Trust me, US Bank Arena is not attracting any halfway decent events whatsoever. The city needs a new arena.

LesterLyles · « **Reply #106 on:** September 24, 2009, 01:47:14 PM »

The link includes details on the Sprint Center in KC. $275 MM price tag in 2007. You see the list of of concerts they have hosted there...not happening at US Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Center

edale · « **Reply #107 on:** September 24, 2009, 02:34:47 PM »

Actually, Cincy has had almost all of those same concerts in the past year or two, with many of them being at US Bank. My parents saw Elton John and Billy Joel there, as well the Eagles, and in 07 I saw the Red Hot Chili Peppers, so I don't think it's doing too terribly.

JC · « **Reply #108 on:** September 24, 2009, 04:11:53 PM »

5/3 Arena is a tricky situation and I'm interested to see what they'll finally come up with as a solution. From what I remember, Mike Thomas has said he isn't too keen on building an arena off-campus, or at least not very far. That said, there really isn't any room to put a separate arena (BK and the football team won the corner spot for their practice fields by performing)? US Bank could be used while a new arena is under construction and if the team is decent again they wouldn't have too much trouble selling out US Bank - it's only 1 or 2,000 more seats than 5/3rd, right? I might be in favor of a larger arena that stands out over all of our smaller ones in the area but another losing team.

Casinos- is there a certain demographic that casinos appeal to the most? I personally don't know a lot of younger people that gamble much and wonder where the trend is going. I personally barely gamble (b/c I lose all of my money?) and the few casinos I've been to in the last couple years seem to be full of the older crowd (emotionless at the slot machines). Just a thought.

jmecklenborg · « **Reply #109 on:** September 24, 2009, 04:37:20 PM »

>Casinos- is there a certain demographic that casinos appeal to the most?

Suckers.

cincySAL · « **Reply #110 on:** September 25, 2009, 02:46:57 AM »

Quote from: jmecklenborg on September 24, 2009, 04:37:20 PM

>Casinos- is there a certain demographic that casinos appeal to the most?

Suckers.

unless they are playing poker: no house.

jmecklenborg · « **Reply #111 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:20:10 AM »

Poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance. That's why poker tournaments are legal and there is a a poker-only casino in Los Angeles.

jdm00 · « **Reply #112 on:** September 26, 2009, 04:22:37 PM »

Quote from: JC on September 24, 2009, 04:11:53 PM

US Bank could be used while a new arena is under construction and if the team is decent again they wouldn't have too much trouble selling out US Bank - it's only 1 or 2,000 more seats than 5/3rd, right?

Based on the last couple of years, they'd certainly have trouble selling out US Bank arena. The Bearcats have not been close to selling out home games on a regular basis recently.

City Blights · « **Reply #113 on:** September 28, 2009, 05:29:49 AM »

Quote from: jmecklenborg on September 24, 2009, 05:57:23 AM

It's been discussed repeatedly on sports sites -- we don't have the demographics to support a third pro sports team. There is only so much discretionary income in a given area that can be spent on sports and entertainment and we're borderline. Suddenly you're diluting the pool for luxury boxes for the Reds and Bengals and if it's NBA hurting local college basketball. Plus county taxpayers are on the hook for yet another sports facility.

Winning brings fans. It is incredibly easy to make the playoffs in the NBA, ask Cleveland. You limit yourself when you feel that every reason why something can't happen is justified and not worth challenging. Isn't this the streetcar debate that everyone is in favor of? I highly doubt Cincinnati is too small for a pro basketball team especially considering the love for hoops here. And don't give me the college-pro thing because that's preposterous. This city needs to be more well-rounded if it wants to be what it thinks it can be, and that's a bonafide cosmopolitan arena that directly competes with Chicago. What does Chicago have on Cincinnati? The Bulls, the L and the cleanliness.

TheHemroid · « **Reply #114 on:** November 03, 2009, 04:11:46 PM »

Well everyone. Issue 3 passed which means Ohio is getting it's well-deserved casinos. So, in light of this fantastic progression, I think this particular thread will be seeing MUCH more life in the coming year. You'll have to pardon my sudden rush of excitement but I think you all can back me up;)

oakiehigh · « **Reply #115 on:** November 03, 2009, 04:16:37 PM »

Love it!!

Michael L. Redmond · « **Reply #116 on:** November 03, 2009, 04:23:59 PM »

Quote

So, in light of this fantastic progression, I think this particular thread will be seeing MUCH more life in the coming year

The Main Street Thread and Cincinnati Nightlife both are going to be kicking into high gear. NEON'S is already preparing.

edale · « **Reply #117 on:** November 03, 2009, 05:13:46 PM »

I'm glad the casino issue passed, and I voted for it, but do you think that the casino might actually hurt some of the existing businesses in Downtown and OTR?

oakiehigh · « **Reply #118 on:** November 03, 2009, 05:15:13 PM »

OTR will never be the same after tonight. And I believe and mean that in a good way!!!

TheHemroid · « **Reply #119 on:** November 03, 2009, 05:56:09 PM »

Edale, existing businesses will definitely be affected but in a GOOD way. That entire area is pretty much dormant with the exception of the Greyhound station(which actually should see a significant boom in ridership) Oakie you're right, OTR will never be the same and hopefully this will spark development in those disgusting looking lots across the street from Vinyl. Yuk. So much could happen right there. This is a great time everyone! stuff is truly shanging around here for the better.

jmecklenborg · « **Reply #120 on:** November 03, 2009, 06:37:54 PM »

I expect the greyhound station to be relocated somewhere else instead of being incorporated into the design.

TheHemroid · « **Reply #121 on:** November 03, 2009, 06:38:40 PM »

One more interesting tidbit is that the president of Penn Gaming, David Wilmott, predicted all four casinos in Ohio would be built within 2 years. What do you all think?

ColDayMan · « **Reply #122 on:** November 04, 2009, 12:26:07 AM »

Quote from: edale on November 03, 2009, 05:13:46 PM

I'm glad the casino issue passed, and I voted for it, but do you think that the casino might actually hurt some of the existing businesses in Downtown and OTR?

Heck no. Look at Detroit for a case example on an urban casino and the impact of it bringing people into downtown. Even if a couple of people step outside the casino, it's bringing more into the downtown area and potentially could "stay" at an OTR bar or whatnot.

dmbfanatpsu · « **Reply #123 on:** November 04, 2009, 12:30:20 AM »

So excuse my ignorance, but is Broadway commons the determined location for where the casino is going to be built? Or are there other possible locations being considered as well?

cincySAL · « **Reply #124 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:05:12 AM »

Quote from: ColDayMan on November 04, 2009, 12:26:07 AM

Quote from: edale on November 03, 2009, 05:13:46 PM
I'm glad the casino issue passed, and I voted for it, but do you think that the casino might actually hurt some of the existing businesses in Downtown and OTR?

Heck no. Look at Detroit for a case example on an urban casino and the impact of it bringing people into downtown. Even if a couple of people step outside the casino, it's bringing more into the downtown area and potentially could "stay" at an OTR bar or whatnot.

What about people that would have gone to FS, Rock Bottom, etc. but now go to the Casino? You would think that would hurt the downtown business owners.

Also, wasn't a group that opposed Issue 3 made up of local downtown business owners? I could be making that up but I thought I heard that.

Jimmy_James · « **Reply #125 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:09:50 AM »

^Sure, you'll have some of that. But chances are that this will be offset by people from out of town or the suburbs who otherwise wouldn't go downtown at all. Some of the casino traffic should spill over into hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. Also, people don't go to Fountain Square to gamble, so those that are only interested in drinking or a nice meal will still go to Fountain Square.

cincySAL · « **Reply #126 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:14:05 AM »

Of course people don't go to FS to gamble, there isn't gambling there. But people will now choose between going to FS for some fun, or going to the casino for some fun.

Haven't there been independent studies showing that there isn't a net gain with a casino? People drive in, park in the mega parking lot, gamble their money away, and drive back home.

bfwissel · « **Reply #127 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:15:05 AM »

It looks like our law firm's free parking benefit at Broadway Commons will be going bye-bye. Not that I had to use it

diaspora · « **Reply #128 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:20:26 AM »

^how will the casino affect traffic and parking in this area? is it going to require changes to 71 or the surrounding streets?

Jimmy_James · « **Reply #129 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:33:21 AM »

Quote from: cincySAL on November 04, 2009, 01:14:05 AM

Of course people don't go to FS to gamble, there isn't gambling there. But people will now choose between going to FS for some fun, or going to the casino for some fun.

Yeah. So if I'm going out to have a few drinks and wasn't planning on gambling, why would I choose to go to a casino over FS? This seems a bit like saying that the Reds are drawing people away from FS, because people choose between going to FS for some fun, or going to a Reds game for some fun. What's the difference?

cincySAL · « **Reply #130 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:36:46 AM »

Quote from: Jimmy_James on November 04, 2009, 01:33:21 AM

Quote from: cincySAL on November 04, 2009, 01:14:05 AM
Of course people don't go to FS to gamble, there isn't gambling there. But people will now choose between going to FS for some fun, or going to the casino for some fun.

Yeah. So if I'm going out to have a few drinks and wasn't planning on gambling, why would I choose to go to a casino over FS? This seems a bit like saying that the Reds are drawing people away from FS, because people choose between going to FS for some fun, or going to a Reds game for some fun. What's the difference?

The difference is people going to the Reds game go to FS before hand and afterwards, otherwise they wouldn't go to FS at all...That is the whole value of a sports franchise. When people go to the casino, do they go to restaurants, bars, etc before/after they go to the Casino? If yes, then it may be a good idea (ignoring the crime aspect). If no, there is the huge difference between the Reds and a casino.

Sherman Cahal · « **Reply #131 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:37:46 AM »

Work on casino design, rules to start quickly
No temporary casinos likely before 2012 openings
By Alexander Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 4, 2009

With Ohio voters approving four casinos across the state – including one in downtown Cincinnati – lawmakers now have six months to enact a regulations that will govern how they are run.

Ohio becomes the 13th state to permit full-blown casinos after voters were promised 34,000 new jobs amid recession and more than $650 million in annual tax revenue. Neither of those promises can happen until regulations are hammered out and licenses issued to casino operators.

ColDayMan · « **Reply #132 on:** November 04, 2009, 01:59:41 AM »

Quote from: cincySAL on November 04, 2009, 01:05:12 AM

Quote from: ColDayMan on November 04, 2009, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: edale on November 03, 2009, 05:13:46 PM
I'm glad the casino issue passed, and I voted for it, but do you think that the casino might actually hurt some of the existing businesses in Downtown and OTR?

Heck no. Look at Detroit for a case example on an urban casino and the impact of it bringing people into downtown. Even if a couple of people step outside the casino, it's bringing more into the downtown area and potentially could "stay" at an OTR bar or whatnot.

What about people that would have gone to FS, Rock Bottom, etc. but now go to the Casino? You would think that would hurt the downtown business owners.

Also, wasn't a group that opposed Issue 3 made up of local downtown business owners? I could be making that up but I thought I heard that.

I highly doubt the folks going to the casino are going just "ditch" Fountain Square. It isn't coincidental that Campus Martius in Detroit became a thriving public square when the MGM and Greektown casinos were finished due to "free parking." And last time I checked, the Boardwalk in Atlantic City is still used, regardless of the casinos. Cincinnati will be just fine. The casino is simply another option to bring people back into the Basin. Families can use the Square; others can use the casino; I can use the buffet

.

Michael L. Redmond · « **Reply #133 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:09:28 AM »

Quote

Also, wasn't a group that opposed Issue 3 made up of local downtown business owners?

I never heard of them, but I was part of a group of owners that supported it.

Quote

The casino is simply another option to bring people back into the Basin.

That is absolutely correct. People venue hop with a casino just as they do with any other entertainment venue and this is just one more venue to hop to and from. Plus, think of the workers. They will eat somewhere, drink somewhere, sleep somewhere and now Cincy has the opportunity to fill the needs of a few thousand more people. Certainly a few thousand more than the parking lot provided at Broadway Commons.

DanB · « **Reply #134 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:12:49 AM »

At any time in Lawrenceburg, you can see different types of people. You can identify people who are there after the reds games, both from Cincy or from outside the area. On weekends, you can see the kids who are there on "date night" for a few hours. Other times you can see the regulars, who really aren't doing much else.

People will continue to do other things! For the most part, they will not live at the casino.

dmerkow · « **Reply #135 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:12:56 AM »

I'd say the Reds might be the biggest winner in this. The team is so reliant on fans from a couple hours out, esp. Western Ohio, Kentucky, and W.V.. This will provide a great addition to the weekend trip for some of those fans, since KY still doesn't have casinos and Western Ohio doesn't have them either.

cincySAL · « **Reply #136 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:25:40 AM »

Good, I hope you guys are right. I'm skeptical as I know people that have been born and raised in Lawrenceburg and they don't like casino's and the riffraff it brings. But it was voted on and now I have to suck it up. And I guess while I'm at it I may as well play a few hands of poker.

Are there the same urban design boards and all that stuff that went into the design of the Banks buildings? Or is the casino going to be allowed to build whatever cookie cutter they want?

Rabbit Hash · « **Reply #137 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:31:20 AM »

I know it has been discussed but is there an on-site hotel planned for BC with the casino?

Also, the traffic issue: For four wheelers getting out seems like it will be alot easier than getting in. Liberty Street and Reading Road will provide easy access to 71/75 out. Getting in...hmmm...

thomasbw · « **Reply #138 on:** November 04, 2009, 02:44:24 AM »

Quote from: dmerkow on November 04, 2009, 02:12:56 AM

I'd say the Reds might be the biggest winner in this. The team is so reliant on fans from a couple hours out, esp. Western Ohio, Kentucky, and W.V.. This will provide a great addition to the weekend trip for some of those fans, since KY still doesn't have casinos and Western Ohio doesn't have them either.

Come in from out of town. Park once. Ride the streetcar to the Reds game, the Banks, the Casino. Sounds like a fun weekend.

Sherman Cahal · « **Reply #139 on:** November 04, 2009, 03:05:59 AM »

Quote from: Rabbit Hash on November 04, 2009, 02:31:20 AM

I know it has been discussed but is there an on-site hotel planned for BC with the casino?

No

News:

Author Topic: Cincinnati: Pendleton: Horseshoe Casino (Read 144580 times)