P&L is a top 5 KC destination

[kucer]

I'd prefer to keep the casinos out of downtown. Most people going to casinos want to gamble or eat buffets and not experience downtown. They get their check, go to the casino, lose their arse and go home. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Having Lyndaa from Indepence roll into a DT casino in her ill-fitting sweatpants while chainsmoking is not added value to DT. Yes, I generalize much.

[earthling]

Would think a downtown casino would cater to existing downtown visitors (especially convention people) while the other casinos would cater to the rest who aren't interested in downtown. A downtown casino could end up with its own type of customer base.

But maybe the downtown residents should be polled for their position before pursuing one.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

There is also such a thing as a casino that's not a garish Vegas-style monstrosity.

Yes we know.... KC already has 4 casinos exactly as the "thing" you described (Nascar/Marlboro/Buffets).

"NASCAR/Marlboro/buffets" is pretty close to "chintzy/garish/Vegas-style/monstrosity" in my book.

Have you ever been to a casino pretty much anywhere outside the United States?—You know, the sort of casino whose only theme is "casino", not "riverboat" or "Egyptian mausoleum" or "mythical underwater city"? A casino that is just a casino, not a shopping mall, food court, or volcanic-mud spa?

I'm suddenly reminded of the convenience store/casinos in Oklahoma. one place a casino is across the street from another casino and next door to a third casino. all from the same tribe too

[flyingember]

Which of the successful new casinos are you saying KC's casinos are "close to?"

Argosy in Riverside

the design of the hotel side is actually extremely interesting and if the same idea had been put into a mid rise it would fit into downtown more than some things that have been built

[pash]

.

[HalcyonKC]

I'm not a fan of casinos, but this proves what I've been saying for almost 2 decades.
Downtown needs a vegas-style casino hotel complex in the North loop, foot of Grand or SE downtown - perhaps on Grand south of Truman.
There's plenty of huge parcels there
Preferably MO would change it's law and allow downtown KC, STL and SPR to put casinos anywhere they want (in downtown only).

Isle of Debris is not downtown.
It does not attract people downtown.

I'm talking about a real casino/hotel complex like Vegas.
Downtown hotels would immediately see more revenue.
Imagine all of the attractions people could see when visiting that are within walking distance (Crossroads, Crown Center, Union Station, P&L, Conv. Ctr)

I'm sorry, but I really think your 2 decade-old opinion probably missed its window of opportunity and is about 10 years out of date at this point. Casinos happen when an area has reached rock bottom, nobody lives there, and there is simply nothing to lose by letting a casino be built. The political perception is that they are risky, make bad neighbors, make an area look cheap / garish, and draw crime. Vegas became the gambling mecca that it is today as a result of decisions made decades ago when it was an empty quarter desperate for an economic engine. The St. Louis casino you referenced in another thread was also built when very few people lived in downtown St. Louis--which is still true today.

Downtown KC now has a strong and growing residential base. I think most of the effort over the next few years will go into solidifying residential. Eventually, that growth will chip away at some of the large vacant parking lot tracts. A casino idea would be shot down pretty quickly. From your perspective it might be NIMBY-ism, but that is what would happen, unless you could find a unique tract of land that is pretty disconnected from existing residential. The north loop definitely wouldn't work at this point since it is surrounded by condo's and apartments.

[HalcyonKC]

I couldn't disagree more with this. What you said is the exact opposite of reality.
Where is the precedent for what you are claiming?
In KC every single casino was built where there was nothing as they are on river's edge.
They had to be built right up against a river because of the law.
In KC the river front areas are all old industrial areas because the river floods.
These areas hadn't "reached rock bottom", they were simply industrial zones and had been that for decades. Economically, these industrial areas weren't going in any direction.
The casinos weren't built here to "bring back" these areas, these areas were the only place the casinos could be build.

The whole point of riverboat casinos was firstly to limit the areas where it would be legal--it could almost certainly not be near a school or residential--and in fact the casino itself was supposed to be a riverboat so it could move away from the shore and do its (presumably sinful) business on the privacy of the water. I think you are giving short shrift to what ultimately boils down to strong nimbyism. If there hadn't been a NIMBY factor, the legal fiction of riverboat casinos wouldn't have been necessary, we would just have legal, normal, regular casinos like Las Vegas. Secondly it was an effort to try to bring tourism and development back to riverfronts, which had become ugly and industrial, and in many of those areas the existing industry was no longer even particularly vibrant.[/quote]

Lumiere Place in STL - your dead wrong again.
Lumiere Place was opened at the end of 2007 when Washington Ave had already come back to life with hundreds of new lofts. It's only 3 blocks from Washington Ave, the most populated street in downtown STL. The casino has had no negative impact on Washington Ave or any other residential.

Lumiere Place is neither garish nor cheap looking.
It's a superb attraction that gives downtown STL one more amenity that many downtowns (like KC) do not have.

I don't find it aesthetically attractive--I think the color-shifting light element that arcs over the top of the building takes it firmly into garish and tacky--but that is a matter of personal taste. It is not something I would want across the street from my home, although I might think it looked cool from afar if I was just passing through an unfamiliar city.

The north loop has huge swaths of vacant blocks where a dense casino/hotel could be built.
Nearby residential has nothing to do with whether a casino can be built, I don't know where some of you are getting that idea. Yes, there are some people that wouldn't want to live near a casino and just as many that might want to. It's a wash.

The north loop has lots of vacant blocks, but I can think of lots of cool things to put there that would actually meld well with the surrounding neighbors before I would ever consider a casino. The north loop is where people successfully blocked the demolition of the Cosby Hotel, and it's also where we're seeing the backlash against putting in a Jimmy John's with a drivethrough--and those are relatively minor things compared to the idea of filling up several blocks with a casino. The people down here have a definite idea of what's "cool" and what's not. Turning old vacant and underutilized buildings into lofts, opening small restaurants and cafe's, kitschy shops and creative businesses--all of that will fly. A casino simply will not. The only place I can picture right now where you might not have the NIMBY backlash would be the West Bottoms. Even if (say) you had an area with 50% opposed and 50% supportive, the opposition would carry the day because they tend to be vocal, that's just how nimbyism works. So the time to site something controversial is before it fills up with people, not after. Downtown has 19,000 residents and adds 1000 per year. I suppose if one's point of view is that NIMBY isn't a factor for a casino, then the number of residents wouldn't matter. But if it is a factor (as I believe), then your opposition becomes that much stronger as each year clicks by.

[missingkc]

The zoo hopes to pass the 1 million visitor mark in 2015.

[Demosthenes]

Downtown definitely doesn't need a casino anymore, as someone else mentioned we are not at rock bottom and doing fine without one. That being said, It would be a big draw (probably bringing in over a million people per year) and downtown could always use more of these. Downtown will only be truly vibrant once we have a critical mass of uses, and variety is definitely important here.

A few of you keep bringing up the fact that downtown is becoming a residential neighborhood. While it is so awesome that our residential population is increasing and it is pretty easy to develop more apartments, this is not 100% ideal. We mustn't allow downtown to become a one-dimensional place. We need a mix of EVERYTHING. The only reason it's becoming so heavily residential right now is because it is hot to live downtown and not so much to work downtown.

We can't block future office, government, entertainment, etc. uses because residents oppose it. It CANNOT become a NIMBY district. Downtown is the one part of town where every sort of person, every sort of business should be allowed to locate. It is the place where a million different things clash though. The land of juxtaposition. For this reason, I see no problem having a casino locate downtown. Even if it is built right next to apartments. You chose to live downtown, so the lights, noise, excitement should probably be what moves you. Isn't that why you want to live downtown?

My opinion is that we should not block what goes in our buildings downtown. If you have a problem with the business or whatever, so be it. Other people may not have a problem with it. So deal with it.

My opinion is that the only thing that needs planning is the built form itself. As long as the built form functions correctly, downtown will be a success. We should be open to all people, as long as everything is built in a walkable, mixed-use manner. So in this situation, as long as the casino is built in a good manner this should be a big win for downtown. Parking hidden, restaurants and lounges, hotel above. Building doesn't take up too much of a footprint and addresses the street all the way around. Ooohh! I think that would work quite nicely!

If only we could get this law to be changed...

[mgh7676]

I'm not going to get into the argument about a casino downtown, mainly because I don't think it would or could ever happen, but it seems to me that a well designed/urban casino in West Bottoms could really spur some development down there (and still follow the "river rule"). If the streetcar ever went down 12th street, it could be a huge draw.

[FangKC]

The only scenario I can see where Missouri would change the law about casinos needing to be near the river is if there was a catastrophic flood that took out the ones along the river--mostly Ameristar and Argosy. They are the most vulnerable. I think that Harrah's and Isle of Capri are high enough above the river they would probably not be affected. Harrah's could be severely affected, but I think Isle of Capri is safe.

The loss of tax revenue from several casinos at the same time might cause the Missouri Legislature to reconsider the law stating casinos need to be on a riverfront.

Ameristar is on the bend in the river and is only as safe as the levee near it. It's in Kansas City, Missouri, so it would be the most likely to move somewhere else in KCMO if management decided the river bottom was not safe. I doubt that Riverside or North Kansas City would ever give up their casinos if they were ruined by flooding. If the law was changed, they could just move further way from the river within those municipalities.

Otherwise, I don't ever see a casino in downtown. Casinos require a lot of acreage, so I doubt they would want to try and exist downtown--mostly because of finding places to build parking. In any case, if one moved closer to downtown, they would probably pick a site near Berkley Riverfront Park to have the room to build facilities. That area is higher than where they are now. They would need a fairly large site.

I don't see one in the West Bottoms--especially if they were flooded out of their former location. People forget because we haven't had a major flood in the West Bottoms for awhile. However, if there were a flood large enough to take out any of the casinos, it would be very likely that the West Bottoms would be flooded as well. The flood wall is really useless and vulnerable if there is a flood that large. Even if it doesn't come from the Missouri, there are still problems with Turkey Creek flooding during a major rise on the Missouri and Kansas rivers, and the pumping facilities not being able to keep up. Even a small amount of water can affect utilities, or access, and shut down the casino.

It wasn't that long ago that the Corps of Engineers worried about upstream dams failing one after another in a massive flood event, and none of them could say what would happen in that situation. There was speculation that a wall of water would move down the Missouri from bluff to bluff and take out many of the levees. Those along tight bends are especially vulnerable because of having water against them for long periods--becoming saturated and even water swells bubbling up on the other side of them or under them because they exist on porous soil. In that case, the land under the levees of the West Bottoms would simply disappear from sinkholes. Then there is always the problems of streams that drain into the Missouri being backed up and the water in them having nowhere to go.

For this reason, I can never see a casino choosing to rebuild in the West Bottoms.

The biggest obstacle to a downtown casino is creating enough parking for one--and that would mean a lot of garage parking. Let's say the location would be in the North Loop. A large casino with neighboring parking garages would most likely create a lot of dead blocks. It's very hard to design a casino to have a positive effect on the street. They are usually built with few entrances, and little or no retail facing the street. They are walled-off complexes and would create a similar effect as Bartle Hall. There is also the difficulty of assembling adjoining parcels.

If a casino was ever built downtown, I would imagine these locations would be likely:

Berkley Riverfront Park (assuming the Port Authority would scrap a lot of residential housing and retail to create space for one). One could possibly be built in Columbus Park along East 3rd Street (NE Industrial Trafficway) south of the railroad tracks.

The Paseo West/Jazz Hill neighborhood bounded by I-70, I-35, Paseo, and Independence Avenue. It's near downtown and has a lot of parcels that don't have buildings on them, and is currently industrial land mostly.

The Jazz District. The parcels of land south of E. 18th Street between Troost and Paseo.

East Crossroads. The parcels south of E. 18th Street between Harrison and McGee.

The East Yards parcel near Union Station between Main Street and Grand Boulevard next to Washington Square Park. It would be a tight squeeze. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield building would likely be demolished and additional parking garages would probably need to be built nearby and not adjacent.

The parcels around E. 27th and McGee Trafficway.

All of these locations could be reached by visitors if streetcar lines were extended to the casino.

However, one advantage of having a casino downtown, inside the loop, is that one could afford to construct a large convention hotel without city subsidies.

[Demosthenes]

I don't see any reason why a casino and hotel couldn't be built on one single block downtown. Maybe a garage on an adjacent block to cut cost of an underground garage, though underground parking would be ideal. Obviously it would have a different layout than a suburban casino, but it could work. Space shouldn't be too big an issue because you can always build up. It doesn't have to be another Bartle Hall if designed well. You could have restaurants next to the lobby, and the casino floor would be on the second floor or whatever.

[Demosthenes]

The large parking lot at 8th and Wyandotte would be plenty big in my eyes. You might even be able to squeeze an above ground garage on that block with it, though it would probably be tight and would still be worth putting it under ground. You could always put a garage at 7th and Wyandotte, and that wouldn't suck too bad since it backs up to the interstate.

For all you concerned with gambling being near residences, I think this location would be ideal. It's in the middle of the loop, yet feels pretty far away from anything substantial. Would be a good way to fill this black hole.

[FangKC]

I would rather see the hole filled up with apartment buildings and street retail spaces.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Dream on about a downtown casino.

[Demosthenes]

I would rather see the hole filled up with apartment buildings and street retail spaces.

Of course this would be nice as well. Apartments and retail are always welcome.

[Demosthenes]

Dream on about a downtown casino.

You know what? I think I will.

[KCPowercat]

Dream on about a downtown casino.

this city went to crap on the shoulders of those who didn't dream......so we now dream and are repairing decades of failure by our older generations.

Crazy thing is, our dreams are becoming reality.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Downtown casino a reality and not a dream. When?