Jump to content

Headwaters Resort & Casino (Proposed)


Norf Native

Recommended Posts

While this article has a pretty negative bend there are some valid points to it. Chief among them, we really should get more information on EXACTLY what the casino entails. We should have seen more detailed designs and renderings of the entire site by now. I really don’t understand the need for such secrecy, especially considering that the one in Portsmouth looks like an overgrown Walmart. Who are the really competing against? They’re basically the only game in town.

https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/columns/vp-ed-column-smith-0708-20200708-7ioy5oygybcl7lsgfaxpyzrnye-story.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I still believe this is a terrible site/location for a "resort" development. Seems the view from the tower will be an industrial/working riverfront, not what most people want to see from their resort I imagine. Not trying to be negative but I just don't see this project being successful for myriad of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

I still believe this is a terrible site/location for a "resort" development. Seems the view from the tower will be an industrial/working riverfront, not what most people want to see from their resort I imagine. Not trying to be negative but I just don't see this project being successful for myriad of reasons.

It will be the highest class resort for hundreds of miles around. If it's not successful here, it won't be successful anywhere in the region. One thing that will guarantee absolute failure though is not building it at all. Sometimes you have to take risks, and that aversion to risk and overall conservatism towards development has held our region back for quite some time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zeppelin14 said:

The view from the room doesn't matter after the first 5 minutes. I've been to Las Vegas 7 or 8 times and when you first get into your room, you look out the window for the first 5 minutes then the rest of your trip, you don't. This really is a non-issue.

Come to think of it, that's actually a good way to put it. My view one year was of an office park and the airport in the distance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, vdogg said:

It will be the highest class resort for hundreds of miles around. If it's not successful here, it won't be successful anywhere in the region. One thing that will guarantee absolute failure though is not building it at all. Sometimes you have to take risks, and that aversion to risk and overall conservatism towards development has held our region back for quite some time.

I'm all for the developers building it and having the fortitude to take the risk. I merely question the chosen site. I have worked in urban planning for a quarter of a century and this site location baffles me considering the current development/land uses in the immediate area. Perhaps they are considering the re-development/refurbishment of the riverfront area as happening in the near future (I forget the name of that project).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best views from this location will be the Norfolk Skyline and waterfront view, with casinos, the location is typically the least important thing to make it work. I would even say a location like this would be a benefit to the casino because people are less likely to leave the casino while they are there since the primary focus would be spending money within the facility over visiting the city. Granted this doesn't mean the city won't see people wandering out and sightseeing as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

I'm all for the developers building it and having the fortitude to take the risk. I merely question the chosen site. I have worked in urban planning for a quarter of a century and this site location baffles me considering the current development/land uses in the immediate area. Perhaps they are considering the re-development/refurbishment of the riverfront area as happening in the near future (I forget the name of that project).

Train station is there, as is the ballpark, future African Art Museum (maybe) plus the future redevelopment you mentioned that is on the boards. I think the train station is the main draw, easy day trip, and casinos like captive audiences. When I went to Vegas, the area around some casinos away from the main strip was quite desolate ( in both the literal and figurative sense), but they still seemed to be successful and have plenty of customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah  with a little imagination the location seems perfect for a development looking for access to downtown Norfolk, close to interstate, train station, light rail, ball park, ERT,  ferry to portsmouth too. I mean it's as multimodal as it gets in Hampton Roads. That's why I think the location is very underrated and could be developed into a number of things besides a casino. But there's plenty of land around the ball park and that side of the highway that's still undeveloped. It also all will be close to the St. Paul's redevelopment

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

“I have nothing against casinos, but I do have a problem with the complete lack of transparency that has characterized everything about the Pamunkey deal from day one,” wrote Alan Smith, a downtown Norfolk resident, in an opinion piece published in The Virginian-Pilot in early July.

Not entirely sure what it is he needs to know that has not been made public. I've often found that these "transparency" concerns are really just from people who don't want a casino to begin with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vdogg said:

“I have nothing against casinos, but I do have a problem with the complete lack of transparency that has characterized everything about the Pamunkey deal from day one,” wrote Alan Smith, a downtown Norfolk resident, in an opinion piece published in The Virginian-Pilot in early July.

Not entirely sure what it is he needs to know that has not been made public. I've often found that these "transparency" concerns are really just from people who don't want a casino to begin with...

Either don't want a casino or haven't been paying attention. I'm a casual news watcher/website reader, and I feel the city has been upfront about things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, vdogg said:

“I have nothing against casinos, but I do have a problem with the complete lack of transparency that has characterized everything about the Pamunkey deal from day one,” wrote Alan Smith, a downtown Norfolk resident, in an opinion piece published in The Virginian-Pilot in early July.

Not entirely sure what it is he needs to know that has not been made public. I've often found that these "transparency" concerns are really just from people who don't want a casino to begin with...

"I have nothing against casinos, but I have a problem against casinos." 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

“Glass said the group is receiving some communication help from Red Banyan, a Washington D.C. based P.R. firm that reached out to members of the group over the summer. Glass said the Informed Norfolk has not hired the consulting firm or paid them for any services. 

“We are able to ask them questions about communications,” Glass said, explaining she initially declined their help as she didn’t and still doesn’t know who they are being paid by.

“Hi … I can’t name my client, unfortunately,” said Asher Levine, a managing director with Red Banyan following at 10 On Your Side inquiry”

Hmm... Let’s bet on this one, lol. Who are the mysterious backers?

1)MGM

2)Cordish

3)Rosie’s

4)Portsmouth Casino.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/group-opposed-to-norfolk-casino-deal-to-hold-press-conference-thursday-new-information-to-be-released/

"Thursday, State Sen. Lynnwood Lewis, (D-Accomac) and Del. Jay Jones (D-Norfolk) sent a letter to the chairman of the state board of elections asking for an investigation into the committee in order to find out who is funding the DC-based PR firm — Red Banyan — that has assisted the group with communication. The PR firm has not been paid by the committee.

“It is our understanding that undisclosed “straw donors” contributions are illegal under Virginia law,” the lawmakers said.

Glass said they are following all the financial report disclosures. Legally, they are not required to file one until Oct. 15.

While rumors have swirled that Rush Street Gaming — the developer hoping to build a casino a little more than 6 miles away — is funding the opposition. A spokesperson said that is not true.

“Rush Street Gaming has no relationship with Red Banyan PR,” said Jack Horner, with Hornercom  public relations. “We’re exclusively focused on making Rivers Casino Portsmouth a destination of choice.”"

Guess we can scratch number 4 off the list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So it looks like Cordish is behind the No Casino group, because they want their own casino. They have a deal with the DC-based PR firm.

I'm so sick of this...wouldn't be surprised if they're only pulling this stunt because Waterside is underwhelming, even before the pandemic.

https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-casino-opposition-funding-20201007-5ypzx3v4rfbqjea3swgtelwppu-story.html

Edited by BFG
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Norfolk should have put out an RFP or something....if that’s even possible for a casino. Because I’d like to know who has the best proposal to be honest with you. Let the chips fall where they may regardless of the name on the door. 

Quite frankly, the way the City and Cordish have behaved in their interactions, one wonders truly why or how they ever decided to work together in the first place? It’s not a good relationship.  And this revelation will only make it worse.  Apparently it must be so bad that Cordish  really doesn’t care about the fall-out.  Obviously, they’re frustrated with this partnership, specifically related to their inability to get their condo tower built to date, among other issues, including not being allowed to propose their own casino.  
I wonder if in their research on their deal for Waterside they concluded that they would need another component like a casino or a condo tower to make things work?  And if so did they convey that to the City and what did the City say in reaponse? I’m not assigning blame because I don’t know all the details.

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me wishes Cordish had waited a couple years instead of trying to force a glorified food court. Louise Lucas has been trying for a casino for years; eventually something would've worked in her favor, but I also get not sitting on a vacant building for three or four years.

Like you, I don't know all the details, but the city put out a survey close to 10 years ago, and got about 3,000 responses. IIRC, an overwhelming majority said do something different with Waterside. And yet, here we are. Anyone know if any of the other Cordish "Live!" properties in KC or B-More are like Norfolk's, or do they offer more?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.