Wynn Proposes Fishtown Casino

jbette01's picture

oh. my. god.

Caps's picture

Here we go again.

[Wynn] said he has an option for the parcel of land controlled by builder James Anderson on North Beach Street, just north of Penn Treaty Park. Today, he added, Wynn Resorts will present the Nutter administration with a local impact report.

austen's picture

Now this is ridiculous.

Kuishimbo's picture

Sounds like a "Wynn win" situation!

/Sunglasses on

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAA!

That's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

ronchito's picture

The Wynn Encore in Macau

jbette01's picture

Wait, am I reading this correctly? Blatstein already submitted plans for the same site or different site?

"The deadline for filing a casino application with the state is Nov. 15. Two other contenders already have come forward with plans, including local developer Bart Blatstein and a partnership including the company behind Parx Casino and the Cordish Cos. of Baltimore."

Susquehanna's picture

how quickly did he bail on the south philly one? a few weeks?

ronchito's picture

jbette01 wrote:
Wait, am I reading this correctly? Blatstein already submitted plans for the same site or different site?

"The deadline for filing a casino application with the state is Nov. 15. Two other contenders already have come forward with plans, including local developer Bart Blatstein and a partnership including the company behind Parx Casino and the Cordish Cos. of Baltimore."

I think that means proposals for the casino license, not the same site. (but I could be wrong)

Caps's picture

Blatstein's is for the old Inquirer / Daily News building at Broad and Callowhill.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-03/news/34930460_1_sugarhouse-bart-blatstein-casino-plan

jbette01's picture

ronchito wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Wait, am I reading this correctly? Blatstein already submitted plans for the same site or different site?

"The deadline for filing a casino application with the state is Nov. 15. Two other contenders already have come forward with plans, including local developer Bart Blatstein and a partnership including the company behind Parx Casino and the Cordish Cos. of Baltimore."

I think that means proposals for the casino license, not the same site. (but I could be wrong)

Okay, that makes sense. I was gonna say, doesn't he have his eyeballs on North Broad?

Kuishimbo's picture

"It's such a perfect site," Wynn said. "It allows for the kind of growth and the creation of a destination resort that these local casinos haven't done before."

So is it Columbia Ave or Marlborough Street that is preventing Sugarhouse from growing into a destination resort? I blame Johnny Hots! Their delicious sandwiches may have prevented 95 from collapsing. But they are preventing Sugarhouse from reaching their potential.

That's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

roma258's picture

Not this again. Bring back the reality show... I'll take that over another casino fiasco 10 times out of 10.

Kenzo's picture

roma258 wrote:
Not this again. Bring back the reality show... I'll take that over another casino fiasco 10 times out of 10.

Same here. I would rather see a Fishtown family make an ___ out of themselves rather than revisit the casino drama from 7 years ago.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

bonzombiekitty's picture

Oh dear god. Maybe the Mayans were right.

Kenzo's picture

Ok now everyone calm down. North Beach Street is precisely where the Great Fishtown Tire Lot is. And this proposal includes a full-service resort, not the slots box like Sugarhouse. Plus: hotel tower.

And maybe this time we can get an Arctic Splash-themed restaurant.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

LST's picture

Just what the riverfront needs, more casinos! NOT.

It's all so beautiful.

Leo's picture

Philly.com Commenter wrote:
I wonder what "coder" has to say about this...?
— StartSnitchin

bozoloper's picture

Leo wrote:
Philly.com Commenter wrote:
I wonder what "coder" has to say about this...?
— StartSnitchin

hahaha, i was just looking at that.

gotta get up and be somebody.

Lauraska's picture

LST wrote:
Just what the riverfront needs, more casinos! NOT.

I know I'm going to get tarred and feathered for this, but I actually wonder if that's precisely what the riverfront needs. Ignoring the moral/religious arguments against the gambling industry, what other city has seen successful casino-related tourism trade by having just ONE casino on the edge of town? New Orleans has a couple casinos thrown right into the middle of a tourist-y area and they seem to do well and have minimal impact. Las Vegas is Las Vegas, but there are multiple casinos there. I guess what I'm saying is that if we have to have one, we should have more like two or three, together, with OTHER development of the water front interspersed between and around them.

Okay, commence your attacks now.

This is my passive aggressive signature. Yeah it's about you.

Chris in Kenzington's picture

It's in the middle of nowhere and wouldn't impact a soul in Orca or FNA land, so whatever. let him build it and bring in some tax revenue. the city's got to get $ from somewhere.

bonzombiekitty's picture

Is this the proposal that somebody warned was coming down the line and was going to cause quite a ruckus?

Ted's picture

If we have to have another casino in Philadelphia. Please, just put it on East Markeet St. Didn't they have a plan to put it where the Gallery is now or somewhere in that vicinity? Perfect spot, not much there now, close to the Covention Center, and nowhere near Fishtown/Kenso/Richmond/No Libs.

Children are awful dogs are not

roma258's picture

This pretty much summarizes how I feel right now (warning potty language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkktKSjCHgo

TLP's picture

This is far from an ideal proposal, but I have no idea what's ever going to get built back there so long as Anderson owns the whole area.

Neilpuck's picture

Ain't gonna happen. For some reason, Blatstein's proposal has put it into everyone's head that the second license is in play again. Wynn's plan is the third one to surface in the last couple of weeks.

Kenzo's picture

bonzombiekitty wrote:
Is this the proposal that somebody warned was coming down the line and was going to cause quite a ruckus?

No... it's not that.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

jbette01's picture

Neilpuck wrote:
Ain't gonna happen. For some reason, Blatstein's proposal has put it into everyone's head that the second license is in play again. Wynn's plan is the third one to surface in the last couple of weeks.

That's because there is one more license. Blatstein and Wynn will be fighting for it. http://planphilly.com/those-seeking-philadelphias-remaining-casino-license-face-city-deadline-thursday

2014 york's picture

The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

Neilpuck's picture

2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

cjphilly's picture

Actually there are three in the running. Another group has proposed a casino down by the stadiums as well.

jbette01's picture

Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

Kuishimbo's picture

Chris in Kenzington wrote:
It's in the middle of nowhere and wouldn't impact a soul in Orca or FNA land, so whatever. let him build it and bring in some tax revenue. the city's got to get $ from somewhere.

FWUT (Fishtowners Who U-Turn) will raise quite a stink about this.

That's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

2014 york's picture

jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

roma258's picture

2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

Kenzo's picture

roma258 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

If you want to send your pleas for help to Jannie Blackwell, who would be your Councilwoman, go right ahead.

We will uncontrollably laugh in your general direction.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

dan

I don't even have it in me to oppose another one.
Let's welcome them and get as much freaking money from them as we can.
Forget caring about anyone but ourselves.

This is not a signature.

2014 york's picture

Aaaaaaaand, Since when has Philly ever followed through on a plan? How many plans have there been for Penns Landing? It's a pipe dream that the "Master Plan" will ever happen. Money will always win out. Cities that have implemented large scale plans (Baltimore, NYC, Norfolk etc...) have had financing and developers in place to make them happen within a short time frame. Philly has lot's of dreamers without resources. Where are the development proposals for out waterfront? Everything that get's floated is met with people who have a different vision. Buy the land and build what you want there. I bet there would be NIMBY's complaining about your plan as well.

Kenzo's picture

Soul Man wrote:
I don't even have it in me to oppose another one.
Let's welcome them and get as much freaking money from them as we can.
Forget caring about anyone but ourselves.

Amen.

I bet you if we embrace it and demand that it be built now; it will never happen. Kinda like how JBs wanted those bike corrals and protest from mysterious place wound up in the lap of a Councilman and voila--no more bike corral.

Like the half-decade wait for Bubba's BBQ. Everyone fake getting excited, y'all.

LET'S BUILD THIS THING!!!! NOW NOW NOW.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

ronchito's picture

Don't know why everyone's getting so up in arms -- the building's been there for years:

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/nakedcity/Wynn-Fishtown-.html

creased's picture

Sorry, didn't want to post that....

TLP's picture

(edited out for creased)

Kenzo's picture

Steve's casino is going to be so loaded with awesome, Sugarhouse folds and gets boarded up until it gets converted to a community center that shall be annexed by ORCA. ORCA meetings will be taking place at the back bar past the Pai Gow Poker tables.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

TLP's picture

Kenzo wrote:
Steve's casino is going to be so loaded with awesome, Sugarhouse folds and gets boarded up until it gets converted to a community center that shall be annexed by ORCA. ORCA meetings will be taking place at the back bar past the Pai Gow Poker tables.

Sugarhouse is in FNA - You'll have to fight us for it.

Kenzo's picture

TLP wrote:
Kenzo wrote:
Steve's casino is going to be so loaded with awesome, Sugarhouse folds and gets boarded up until it gets converted to a community center that shall be annexed by ORCA. ORCA meetings will be taking place at the back bar past the Pai Gow Poker tables.

Sugarhouse is in FNA - You'll have to fight us for it.

See that's not happening because the divestiture which Steve will make happen will ensure that ORCA gets the deed to the land and improvements. And of COURSE a billboard on the property with "FNA SUX" spray painted on it will be considered an accessory use.

Besides we're a non profit and non profits can do whatever they want. Just look at Norris Square Civic Association.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

austen's picture

Kenzo wrote:
And of COURSE a billboard on the property with "FNA SUX" spray painted on it will be considered an accessory use.

Watch it, Kenseux. ;-)

Kenzo's picture

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

Pennypack's picture

I am still waiting for the development of Penn's Landing.

Pennypack's picture

Sugarhouse is just a big room full of slots for the local fools to throw their money away and then take the bus home. Now we will have another one on Broad st. Which means that sugarhouse will probably be empty.

oldcomer55's picture

It's in the middle of nowhere and wouldn't impact a soul in Orca or FNA land, so whatever. let him build it and bring in some tax revenue. the city's got to get $ from somewhere.

In the middle of nowhere, are you LOVE kidding me?!?!?!?....how the hell do you propose getting to this proposed utopia..oh yea going thru our middle of somewhere!!!

oldcomer55's picture

Kenzo wrote:
roma258 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

If you want to send your pleas for help to Jannie Blackwell, who would be your Councilwoman, go right ahead.

We will uncontrollably laugh in your general direction.

thanks for the guidance...for future reference, its ok to say "even though I consider myself a real estate and property expert, and this is not my area, i have nothing to offer"...maybe sticking to putting your nose in other peoples' business and defending the zoning code (when it fits your purposes) is your forte

Kenzo's picture

oldcomer55 wrote:
Kenzo wrote:
roma258 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

If you want to send your pleas for help to Jannie Blackwell, who would be your Councilwoman, go right ahead.

We will uncontrollably laugh in your general direction.

thanks for the guidance...for future reference, its ok to say "even though I consider myself a real estate and property expert, and this is not my area, i have nothing to offer"...maybe sticking to putting your nose in other peoples' business and defending the zoning code (when it fits your purposes) is your forte

Oh let's hear it. How about you tell us your real agenda for the group. Come on, let's hear it.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

oldcomer55's picture

Soul Man wrote:
I don't even have it in me to oppose another one.
Let's welcome them and get as much freaking money from them as we can.
Forget caring about anyone but ourselves.

spoken like a true man of the lord...ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!.....Im the servant of Jesus but I think we should bleed these bustards for every nickle we can....TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!..

oldcomer55's picture

Kenzo wrote:
oldcomer55 wrote:
Kenzo wrote:
roma258 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

If you want to send your pleas for help to Jannie Blackwell, who would be your Councilwoman, go right ahead.

We will uncontrollably laugh in your general direction.

thanks for the guidance...for future reference, its ok to say "even though I consider myself a real estate and property expert, and this is not my area, i have nothing to offer"...maybe sticking to putting your nose in other peoples' business and defending the zoning code (when it fits your purposes) is your forte

Oh let's hear it. How about you tell us your real agenda for the group. Come on, let's hear it.

At this point I have no "agenda", me nor the group fit the definition of having an agenda (although i may be wrong about that)...however...many of us, including me, do have a huge stake in this. It affects where we grew up, where our parents live, where we live, where our children and grandchildren live...so I do have a HUGE stake in this. You asking me for an opinion (knee jerk agenda) on this with minimal information at best is just another example of your grandiosity, sometimes it just is not necessary (although sometimes your input is very useful) therefore, I will reserve my judgement on the project until there are actual facts and legitimate projections on the effect this would have on the area.....THIS IS TRULY MY REAL AGENDA...thanks for your time

oldcomer55's picture

Pennypack wrote:
Sugarhouse is just a big room full of slots for the local fools to throw their money away and then take the bus home. Now we will have another one on Broad st. Which means that sugarhouse will probably be empty.

Umm genius....why would locals have to take a bus home?????

2014 york's picture

Are the trolls trolling the trolls?

Kenzo's picture

oldcomer55 wrote:
Soul Man wrote:
I don't even have it in me to oppose another one.
Let's welcome them and get as much freaking money from them as we can.
Forget caring about anyone but ourselves.

spoken like a true man of the lord...ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!.....Im the servant of Jesus but I think we should bleed these bustards for every nickle we can....TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!..

So I guess this person didn't pick up on the conversation earlier today about sarcasm.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

oldcomer55's picture

Umm, not a troll, buddy, just a person voicing his opinion.....just because i don't comment on fishtown.us everyday does not make me a "troll" whatever the hell that is

oldcomer55's picture

That is your answer????, ignoring my reply to you and commenting on an inoccuous comment i made to someone else....like I said, you do good things but you need to realize when you are not significant and have nothing to offer to the issue at hand

oldcomer55's picture

I'm not sure if a casino or any development would be good at that location right now. I personally am not a golfer but maybe a 9 hole golf course and the ammeneties that come with that may be a good way to go in that area. I am referring to he area from Penn Treaty Park and the area north, I understand much of that land is contaminated from years of railroad use and would be difficult fro residential development. It seems like a good location, a golf course with the stuff that comes with it would work on the waterfront

Kenzo's picture

Poof... I'm not going to repeat my strategy on here--I already gave it away on that other thread.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

2014 york's picture

I'm sure that land has a hefty price tag on it and, as oldcomer mentioned, it's contaminated. Add cleanup and construction costs then you have out priced typical residential construction unless it's high end gated communities (YUCK). It will never be a park so just get that out of your head. What we are left with is High Rise condos or something like Wynns proposal. The housing options IMO are far less attractive than a venue that would, most likely, have numerous entertainment options...other than gambling.

Side Note: One of the last proposal for High Rise condos was the land adjacent to PTP. I think I recall the developer making concessions to have public facilities (bathrooms) for the park and access to the river. I kept thinking that asking for such amenities was crossing the line. I'm sure it didn't stop the development, it was the economic downturn, but I can see why developers may not want to deal with pleasing everyone to make a profit. Similar demands were made when Trump wanted to build on that narrow pier. Why do we make it so difficult to build on this land that we don't own?

I've been to the Slots Barn once, out of curiosity. I have three friends who work there so that's a plus (Real JOBS). Most of the patrons are from China Town, North Philly and the suburbs. It has not had the negative effects that so many predicted. Traffic and parking have not been a problem and won't be if another is built. 95 construction will be mostly completed about the same time this proposal would. We also have a really nice buffer between this land and residential areas. If the only argument is the Master Plan then it's a weak one. I don't hear that many people screaming about the proposed construction adjacent to the B F Bridge and it does not fit the plan either. If it boils down to your dislike of casinos, zip it, there will be another one built in philly so the impact is the same and your argument is simply NIMBY. One could argue,using your logic, that Blatstiens proposal is far worse.

Golf Course? Image the green fees.

FPDA's picture

I hate to say it, but an ultra-tight, super-dog-legged urban links course with the river winds would be simply amazing. I have no idea whether the area is large enough, but that would be unique in the US (maybe the world). The juxtaposition between nature and urbanity would be gorgeous, and the course itself would be stunningly difficult. Never going to happen, but I love the idea!

Kenzo's picture

Yeah I lived in San Antonio when a PGA Golf Course was proposed. It did not go down well. But the monied classes pushed to get one built anyway, and then boom--they're the first ones screaming when the Edwards Underground Acquifer has an emergency and Bexar County and the City of San Antonio has to send out law enforcement to tell them to stop watering the grass---the wells are getting too low so people are running low on safe drinking water.

We already have a golf course up in Juniata--does anybody around here drive up there and use it?

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

2014 york's picture

FPDA wrote:
I hate to say it, but an ultra-tight, super-dog-legged urban links course with the river winds would be simply amazing. I have no idea whether the area is large enough, but that would be unique in the US (maybe the world). The juxtaposition between nature and urbanity would be gorgeous, and the course itself would be stunningly difficult. Never going to happen, but I love the idea!

Big enough for 18 holes, a casino, hotel and a few High Rise condos. Plus you could turn the old power plant in to a Museum. There is a serious amount of vacant or underused land between PTP and the Tioga terminal.

Kenzo's picture

2014 york wrote:
FPDA wrote:
I hate to say it, but an ultra-tight, super-dog-legged urban links course with the river winds would be simply amazing. I have no idea whether the area is large enough, but that would be unique in the US (maybe the world). The juxtaposition between nature and urbanity would be gorgeous, and the course itself would be stunningly difficult. Never going to happen, but I love the idea!

Big enough for 18 holes, a casino, hotel and a few High Rise condos. Plus you could turn the old power plant in to a Museum. There is a serious amount of vacant or underused land between PTP and the Tioga terminal.

The first 60 yards' from the water's edge is flood prone unless you grade it up 2 more feet. In the area covered by ORCA which is totally blank where the kids go drinking with the red solo cups---it's way bigger than Lincoln Financial there. Impractical to turn that whole thing into a park. They've been working on building a park with trails behind CFCF up in Holmesburg for years as an extension to Pennypack Park and they have about a fraction of the same space to work with.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

FPDA's picture

Kenzo wrote:
2014 york wrote:
FPDA wrote:
I hate to say it, but an ultra-tight, super-dog-legged urban links course with the river winds would be simply amazing. I have no idea whether the area is large enough, but that would be unique in the US (maybe the world). The juxtaposition between nature and urbanity would be gorgeous, and the course itself would be stunningly difficult. Never going to happen, but I love the idea!

Big enough for 18 holes, a casino, hotel and a few High Rise condos. Plus you could turn the old power plant in to a Museum. There is a serious amount of vacant or underused land between PTP and the Tioga terminal.

The first 60 yards' from the water's edge is flood prone unless you grade it up 2 more feet. In the area covered by ORCA which is totally blank where the kids go drinking with the red solo cups---it's way bigger than Lincoln Financial there. Impractical to turn that whole thing into a park. They've been working on building a park with trails behind CFCF up in Holmesburg for years as an extension to Pennypack Park and they have about a fraction of the same space to work with.

Fishtown Links.....I can see it now....

Kenzo's picture

Maybe a PGA golf course plus the events arena showing all the awesome PPV boxing specials that come to town because nothing Wynn builds is less than excellent. On top of that a gold-glassed hotel tower that looks like runny stool and the casino part.

And way more jobs. That pay more than Sugarhouse.

In fact you know what---screw the Cramp shipyard---move it a bit further north so that it isn't technically in Fishtown at all but entirely within ORCA, and we'll sign a special CBA between Wynn and ORCA.

Screw You Fishtown Special Services District. Yeah I kinda like the sound of that.

Oh and lifetime parking for all residents---a valet shuttle so you can park in Steve's garage and be shuttled directly to your rowhome or to the corner bar of your choice. No service past York Street.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

dan

oldcomer55 wrote:
Soul Man wrote:
I don't even have it in me to oppose another one.
Let's welcome them and get as much freaking money from them as we can.
Forget caring about anyone but ourselves.

spoken like a true man of the lord...ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!.....Im the servant of Jesus but I think we should bleed these bustards for every nickle we can....TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!..

It's a proposal. A fairly modest one.

This is not a signature.

Coder's picture

Oh well. If it wasn't for the SH, Mr. Samschick would not be interested in doing what he's doing, and I haven't seen too many negative comments about that. Oh, and the cabs...love the influx of cabs.
Other than that, its way too early in the game to be getting all bent out of shape about it. Haven't you guys been here before? You should know better. In five years we might have a concrete answer.

jbette01's picture

Food for thought: I am all about jobs and revenue. Go Team. Good for the city. (Not withstanding my objection to the social ills, bc this is coming whether I like it or not)

But newsflash: The city is going to get jobs and revenue from this casino license whether it goes in Fishtown or not. You are telling me North Broad isn't better? South Philly at the stadiums, which coincidentally already has a better transit infrastructure, isn't better?

And sorry, but there is not a ton of hard evidence that the casino employs a substantial amount of local persons. They did what they had to do - give locals the first shot - but ultimately the most fit persons got jobs, aka people from around the city.

2014 york's picture

Any of the proposed locations have their merits and disadvantages. I concede that I can't make an argument that the Fishtown location is better. I do think that Wynn would build a better casino based on his experience.

It would be interesting to know how many locals do work at Sugarhouse. I didn't mean to imply that it was that significant but it has brought more than the previously empty lot. What would you propose that would employ more locals? Housing may bring a few temp jobs. Retail would add more but that would most likely be Big Box which tends to kill local businesses (probably a net loss).

We have a proposal that has some potential of realistically being built. I'm not suggesting you should like it but you have not made a sound argument in opposing it. I believe Sugarhouse would have been much better without the opposition. If Wynn's proposal is accepted then we should work towards making it the best it can be and any money given to the community should be used more wisely than that received from Sugarhouse. I suggest a large scale facade improvement program for Girard Ave. It's never too early to plan ahead.

jbette01's picture

2014 york wrote:
Any of the proposed locations have their merits and disadvantages. I concede that I can't make an argument that the Fishtown location is better. I do think that Wynn would build a better casino based on his experience.

It would be interesting to know how many locals do work at Sugarhouse. I didn't mean to imply that it was that significant but it has brought more than the previously empty lot. What would you propose that would employ more locals? Housing may bring a few temp jobs. Retail would add more but that would most likely be Big Box which tends to kill local businesses (probably a net loss).

We have a proposal that has some potential of realistically being built. I'm not suggesting you should like it but you have not made a sound argument in opposing it. I believe Sugarhouse would have been much better without the opposition. If Wynn's proposal is accepted then we should work towards making it the best it can be and any money given to the community should be used more wisely than that received from Sugarhouse. I suggest a large scale facade improvement program for Girard Ave. It's never too early to plan ahead.

I don't know that there is a silver bullet when it comes to creating jobs for people in the neighborhood. It would be interesting to research economic policy to see if there is some methodology, but something tells me with increasing population density it becomes increasingly impossible.

I am surprised that you don't think I have a sound argument. An argument can be sound even though you disagree with it. But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Anyway, I should state again my opinions are my own and not that of the FNA.

2014 york's picture

jbette01 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
Any of the proposed locations have their merits and disadvantages. I concede that I can't make an argument that the Fishtown location is better. I do think that Wynn would build a better casino based on his experience.

It would be interesting to know how many locals do work at Sugarhouse. I didn't mean to imply that it was that significant but it has brought more than the previously empty lot. What would you propose that would employ more locals? Housing may bring a few temp jobs. Retail would add more but that would most likely be Big Box which tends to kill local businesses (probably a net loss).

We have a proposal that has some potential of realistically being built. I'm not suggesting you should like it but you have not made a sound argument in opposing it. I believe Sugarhouse would have been much better without the opposition. If Wynn's proposal is accepted then we should work towards making it the best it can be and any money given to the community should be used more wisely than that received from Sugarhouse. I suggest a large scale facade improvement program for Girard Ave. It's never too early to plan ahead.

I don't know that there is a silver bullet when it comes to creating jobs for people in the neighborhood. It would be interesting to research economic policy to see if there is some methodology, but something tells me with increasing population density it becomes increasingly impossible.

I am surprised that you don't think I have a sound argument. An argument can be sound even though you disagree with it. But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Anyway, I should state again my opinions are my own and not that of the FNA.

I should choose my words better. I respect what you have to say. I won't be upset if this proposal fails. The thread started with too much drama against it and I thought it was overblown rhetoric.
We don't have any say in where the next casino will be built. If it's Fishtown then we may as well embrace it to our benefit.

Kenzo's picture

Well like I said 10 years ago... you had your chance to get rid of casinos in Philly by getting rid of Vincent Fumo, but at the time so many Philadelphians were more than content to suck his _____ and look the other way when he architected the 2:00AM Gaming Act into existence.

And he rammed it through Harrisburg for his best bud: Ed Rendell.

But everyone mindlessly voted for both of them, including most everyone who was screaming against casinos including everybody in the River Wards.

So, what do you expect?

Let's hope we get the Wynn casino. I don't think the Bob Brady casino will turn out to be better than what Sugarhouse built (Sugarhouse's chief local partner is none other than Richard Sprauge, THE attorney to the stars in Philadelphia, and Johnny Doc's lawyer).

Wynn doesn't have close ties to anything in Philadelphia and is an outsider, which is why the odds of him winning are pretty low. Blattstein has the most urban design and already contributes to City Council pols. So either we're getting Bart's casino, or Bob Brady's City-owned casino... but by some miracle, Wynn might get his.

All up to the Gaming board now.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

Cageunmoon's picture

Steve Wynn is a class act and a really nice person to boot. A Wynn casino can be nothing short of elegance added to the waterfront and will make SugarHouse look like the that house on the block where the drunk lives that never cares for his property.

"Your present circumstances don't determine where you can go; they merely determine where you start."
-Nido Qubein

ronchito's picture

Cageunmoon wrote:
Steve Wynn is a class act and a really nice person to boot. A Wynn casino can be nothing short of elegance added to the waterfront and will make SugarHouse look like the that house on the block where the drunk lives that never cares for his property.

SugarHouse already looks like that.

Pennypack's picture

Lauraska wrote:
LST wrote:
Just what the riverfront needs, more casinos! NOT.

I know I'm going to get tarred and feathered for this, but I actually wonder if that's precisely what the riverfront needs. Ignoring the moral/religious arguments against the gambling industry, what other city has seen successful casino-related tourism trade by having just ONE casino on the edge of town? New Orleans has a couple casinos thrown right into the middle of a tourist-y area and they seem to do well and have minimal impact. Las Vegas is Las Vegas, but there are multiple casinos there. I guess what I'm saying is that if we have to have one, we should have more like two or three, together, with OTHER development of the water front interspersed between and around them.

Okay, commence your attacks now.

We had a chance to become a destination city years ago with a baseball stadium in center city and they shot it down. What makes anybody think that these people are any smarter. Nobody wants a casino in their neighborhood.

Pennypack's picture

jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

I think that DRPA,MBP,FBIC,WBOB, and the WCRP are in for the long run with regards to the master plan put forth by PATCO. I also think an indoor water park and roller skating rink are included.

Pennypack's picture

Kenzo wrote:
oldcomer55 wrote:
Kenzo wrote:
roma258 wrote:
2014 york wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Neilpuck wrote:
2014 york wrote:
The impact of Sugarhouse has been minimal on Fishtown. Some may even argue that it has been beneficial. A second casino would create a much larger draw for both but probably wouldn't be noticed much in the surrounding area. I really do not understand the instant NIMBY reaction from most of you. Your fears when Sugarhouse was proposed have not materialized. Sure there have been a few issues but none of the doom and gloom. Besides, MORE BANNERS

The other issue is that, to my knowledge, SH isn't performing as expected whether that's due to it's scaled back first phase, or that they overestimated their draw. I can't see that adding another casino down here would increase the take for either of them.

This.

1) We spent - I mean we, as in our tax dollars -- spent millions of dollars creating a waterfront master plan. If I recall correctly, the parcel in question inlcudes museums, community open space and mixed use industrial/office. The experts in urban planning created it with input from the whole city. From what I can tell, this proposal is not compatible with the master plan, but we will have to see with PCPC, CDAG and DRWC say. I could be wrong.

2) Personally, I don't want to see the *only park with waterfront access on the Delaware* sandwiched between two casinos.

3) This in combination with Samchick's proposal is very big. Many of you haven't seen it, but it goes *all the way up* to Penn Treaty and includes a humungous hotel. It is easy to say it won't affect us as things are today, but things may not be as they are today for very long.

If that's a knee jerk response, I guess I'll own it. But I don't think I'm all No for the sake of No.

** I should specifically state, these are my opinions. They are not the opinions of FNA. Totally different animal.

You make a number of good points but I'm not opposed to a gaming/entertainment district and I'm sure Fishtown can twist some arms to get a large sum of money for improvements to PTP. The amount of available land on our waterfront is staggering. Probably larger than Fishtown itself. I seriously doubt a few acres for a casino will have a tremendous impact on the Master Plan and I'm sure a casino would give residents an enormous increase in waterfront access. Personally I'd like to see a large amusement park North of this proposed casino. Make the entire area an entertainment district.

Aaaand here we go again. Eff this I'm moving to Canada (West Philly).

If you want to send your pleas for help to Jannie Blackwell, who would be your Councilwoman, go right ahead.

We will uncontrollably laugh in your general direction.

thanks for the guidance...for future reference, its ok to say "even though I consider myself a real estate and property expert, and this is not my area, i have nothing to offer"...maybe sticking to putting your nose in other peoples' business and defending the zoning code (when it fits your purposes) is your forte

Oh let's hear it. How about you tell us your real agenda for the group. Come on, let's hear it.

Lets get behind this plan and squeeze every penny we can out of them.

Pennypack's picture

2014 york wrote:
I'm sure that land has a hefty price tag on it and, as oldcomer mentioned, it's contaminated. Add cleanup and construction costs then you have out priced typical residential construction unless it's high end gated communities (YUCK). It will never be a park so just get that out of your head. What we are left with is High Rise condos or something like Wynns proposal. The housing options IMO are far less attractive than a venue that would, most likely, have numerous entertainment options...other than gambling.

Side Note: One of the last proposal for High Rise condos was the land adjacent to PTP. I think I recall the developer making concessions to have public facilities (bathrooms) for the park and access to the river. I kept thinking that asking for such amenities was crossing the line. I'm sure it didn't stop the development, it was the economic downturn, but I can see why developers may not want to deal with pleasing everyone to make a profit. Similar demands were made when Trump wanted to build on that narrow pier. Why do we make it so difficult to build on this land that we don't own?

I've been to the Slots Barn once, out of curiosity. I have three friends who work there so that's a plus (Real JOBS). Most of the patrons are from China Town, North Philly and the suburbs. It has not had the negative effects that so many predicted. Traffic and parking have not been a problem and won't be if another is built. 95 construction will be mostly completed about the same time this proposal would. We also have a really nice buffer between this land and residential areas. If the only argument is the Master Plan then it's a weak one. I don't hear that many people screaming about the proposed construction adjacent to the B F Bridge and it does not fit the plan either. If it boils down to your dislike of casinos, zip it, there will be another one built in philly so the impact is the same and your argument is simply NIMBY. One could argue,using your logic, that Blatstiens proposal is far worse.

Golf Course? Image the green fees.

I think that a country club with 30 holes of golf and a huge indoor water park would fit into that area nicely. There will be jobs for the locals and plenty of activies for the neighborhood kids. We could have a skateboard park,roller rink,swimming pools and maybe stable some horses and open up a riding academy. All in all the area north of PTP would be perfect for this type of use. Mabe a man made beach on the river with some volleyball courts. Let's all get behind this plan and present it to the CPAM,ABT,KYW and the board of directors. Pronto!

austen's picture

Pennypack wrote:
Let's all get behind this plan and present it to the CPAM,ABT,KYW and the board of directors. Pronto!

What do those acronyms stand for? KYW - the news station?

Kenzo's picture

Dunno. All I know is I want the Wynn casino because I know it's just gonna be super awesome. Not like that fake French crap Blattstein proposed for the Inquirer building or that City casino that Brady proposed where the progressive jackpot is a DROP payment.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.