Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, vdogg said:

That’s a very nice rendering.... for Richmond’s casino. It’s also an updated rendering from the one originally proposed for Richmond. How is it possible that they’ve released new renderings for the Richmond casino, which is years away from construction, and we’ve seen nothing, when we’re breaking ground in the spring?

 

E874BABA-5377-46EF-B83A-2DF2CB6D0C93.jpeg

Looks to be in the 30-story range (estimating about 5 floors for the base).

This proposal likely won't win. Total project cost is about half of the 3 others that were proposed and doesn't seem to include an entertainment venue space. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's official...they don't have enough signatures. https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-norfolk-casino-petition-deadline-20191024-llbxc2gzvfai7jkvzfdnt6umgy-story.html

This is the fourth image which was originally posted along with the other three. I am fairly sure that having another proposed casino being located just across the River in Portsmouth could not h

they Norfolked it up 

Posted Images

4 hours ago, vaceltic said:

This proposal likely won't win. Total project cost is about half of the 3 others that were proposed and doesn't seem to include an entertainment venue space. 

I suspect there is still a lot of information missing on this one, though the price point is concerning compared to the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted in because it's an article by Wavy, it mentions Waterside, and it's a pitch by Cordish. The commentors on Facebook had a lot of different opinions to include that they wish Cordish could have done this to Waterside in the first place so it does have relevance to this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I want to mutter "typical Norfolk", I give them benefit of the doubt here. I doubt Cordish's casino gets approved in 2017, and I dunno if Norfolk wants to sit on an empty Waterside for another three or four years. But I do think that would've been a great location, esp. if they build a tower on the old annex space.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BFG said:

As much as I want to mutter "typical Norfolk", I give them benefit of the doubt here. I doubt Cordish's casino gets approved in 2017, and I dunno if Norfolk wants to sit on an empty Waterside for another three or four years. But I do think that would've been a great location, esp. if they build a tower on the old annex space.

Not all of the Cordish "Live!" projects appear to contain gaming.  If you look at Louisville, Kansas City, and Baltimore Inner Harbor, they are just large entertainment centers.  I could certainly imagine something like the Louisville project with a Granby St. pedestrian extension to Waterside Dr. between the WTC and Customs House.  Granted, Louisville and KC are more isolated without competition from the Beach.

https://www.cordish.com/portfolio

fsl_exterior_master_1920x1080.ashx

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

No new details, but the fact that they're considering a shuttle between the casinos is encouraging. If only Portsmouth had the fourth thought to keep their casino on the river, there could have been a river goat going between them.

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/double-play/

"Although the casinos will be less than 10 miles apart, local leaders believe the region can support both venues. “I think people would love to experience both casinos,” says Stephens, who has encouraged Norfolk and Portsmouth to offer transportation between the resorts. “If someone is considering coming to Virginia Beach for a vacation and can take a short drive to go to the casinos, they may attract them to come here, as opposed to going to other places that don’t have casinos.”

 

Chalk adds that each complex offers visitors a different experience. “What we don’t want is a proliferation of gaming machines,” he says. “Norfolk and Portsmouth want resort-style casinos that will bring new people to the region. They can work in concert.”"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Some minor casino news.

https://www.casinobeats.com/2021/03/19/pamunkey-indian-tribe-hires-rodney-ferguson-as-norfolk-casino-lead/

"Rodney Ferguson has been recruited by the Pamunkey Indian Tribal Gaming Authority to serve in a senior leadership position for the Norfolk Resort & Casino.

 

Bringing over 30 years of commercial and Native gaming and resort experience, Ferguson has been named as the executive vice president of gaming and resort operations and will take up the position on Monday 12 April.

 

“The tribe and the gaming authority could not be more excited to welcome Rodney to our team,” commented Tim Langston, chairman of the Pamunkey Indian Tribal Gaming Authority."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, vdogg said:

Richmond cut the Pamunkey Casino from consideration. Let's see if we can get back up to 750!

I wonder what their reasoning was behind this decision. It could indeed be a good sign for the Norfolk Casino development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NFKjeff said:

I wonder what their reasoning was behind this decision. It could indeed be a good sign for the Norfolk Casino development.

The Pamunkey proposal was half the investment of all other proposals. They never stood a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, vdogg said:

The Pamunkey proposal was half the investment of all other proposals. They never stood a chance.

I just hope that they reinvest that into the Norfolk one. Pump it up to be a bigger project than whatever richmond will cook up, and looking at the projects that did make it through, I honestly don't think that'd be too difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

7 hours ago, NFKjeff said:

Probably at the State of the City Address on Thursday.

One would hope. Been hearing an awful lot about the Portsmouth Casino, been hearing a ton about the Richmond Casino, been hearing nothing about this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit disappointing to have the shorter building, but all in all I'd say it's fine. Height in that area is less of a concern for me, and it looks like it's at least a well planned out building with quality materials. Much better than what they were trying to feed us with the new renders of the Gateway Tower. I think it fits the area pretty well and if the casino is helping fund the pedestrian improvements between the river and stadium then that's even better.  The infinity pool overlooking the stadium is a nice touch too. I will say it looks a bit blander than the other design, which I think had a very striking design, but all in all I think it looks fine.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why were the renderings for Richmond so tall and yet we get this crap? I knew this would happen. Bait and switch yet again. I hope this doesn't get past design review. At this point I think we should give Cordish another chance. So tired of this happening.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm Cordish I would have been sending in an unsolicited proposal the minute I saw this trash. We have a lot of wiggle room in the contract, and can change the preferred operator if we need to. So glad we didn't go the federal route.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
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.