Richmond Resort & Casino

[Wahoo 07]

I am not a fan of casinos.  However, if Richmond is going to allow them -- do it right.  Don't fumble on the one yard line.  Looking at the Pamunkey chief's comments, this process seems typical of Richmond.  This is a big decision.  I don't have a dog in this fight (Cordish is my preference because it appears to be the most likely to succeed).   Which ever proposal wins is going to be around for at least two decades.   It needs to be given the best possible chance to succeed.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Wahoo 07

[DowntownCoruscant]

Agreed on all fronts, Wahoo 07. I do not want a casino in the city for several reasons, but it seems it’s gonna happen. So do it right.

[wrldcoupe4]

So what is the "right" way to do it? Sitting by itself, or in the middle of everything? Casinos are not all good or all bad, certainly a fair bit of both, so which scenario has the most benefit or detriment? I don't envy the City trying to figure that part out. I'm skeptical a Richmond casino becomes some kind of economic development driver wherever it goes (the type this board is looking for anyways), but agree sitting alone south of the river somewhere doesn't have a wow factor.

[whw53]

the right way to do it would have been to  let multiple users move forward with their different proposals in their different urban contexts and let popular volition and market competition hash it out for us. State should have let us pick 2 or 3 or more as opposed to a single 1 - Danville,Bristol which were also handed a single operator are many times smaller in population than us. I would love to see an established operator and the new entrant (UrbanOne) move forward, but if we only get one i don't want the only casino experience to back fire due to inexperience.

Edited March 25, 2021 by whw53

[Icetera]

9 minutes ago, whw53 said:

Danville,Bristol which were also handed a single operator are many times smaller in population than us.

Keep in mind those two are along state borders and the idea is to draw from elsewhere rather than the immediate area.  Richmond actually has the worst location among the four as the others are closer to NC/TN population centers and DC area has their own.

[Hike]

It all boils down to one thing  when it comes to these types of projects, I want them to add to the skyline or the density of the already existing urban core. I guess the one by Altria can work for that purpose or in Scott's Addition but the one at the Chippenham/Powhite site will never or rarely be seen, at least by me, and therefore, I don't want that one.  It may very well be this location though,  Brent114 mentioned these things are often destinations and don't need the other near by amenities, once guests are there, that's all they want you to have,  so this one certainly fits that and the 100 million.  

Edited March 26, 2021 by Hike

[whw53]

@Icetera Could be but 6 proposals says something. I worry we've punted to the city government to  sift through all this and somehow pick the winner of a market we don't know much about yet or really shouldn't expect the city to know much tbh. There's no room to fail now in which a a multi operator market could have taken. Curious as too how this would've played out if the terms were different - say we were gonna pick 2 - how would that have affected the number of applicants and the scale of their projects knowing they were not going to be in a single operator market?

Edited March 25, 2021 by whw53

[wrldcoupe4]

The thought of multiple casinos in Richmond doesn't excite me to be honest.

[DowntownCoruscant]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

So what is the "right" way to do it? Sitting by itself, or in the middle of everything? Casinos are not all good or all bad, certainly a fair bit of both, so which scenario has the most benefit or detriment? I don't envy the City trying to figure that part out. I'm skeptical a Richmond casino becomes some kind of economic development driver wherever it goes (the type this board is looking for anyways), but agree sitting alone south of the river somewhere doesn't have a wow factor.

Transparency, for one.

[Icetera]

1 minute ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

The thought of multiple casinos in Richmond doesn't excite me to be honest.

Same, actually.   Generally I support a free market approach but as long as states can decide whether to allow Casinos or not and then further restrict to only a few specific localities that approach cannot work.  While this process is not ideal at least it forces one quality proposal (or at least should) rather than a flood of low-quality developments where most would become eyesores in the near future upon failure.  At least we are allowing competitive proposals rather than having a clear decision prior to the legislation even passing like the other 3 cities.

[Icetera]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

So what is the "right" way to do it? Sitting by itself, or in the middle of everything? Casinos are not all good or all bad, certainly a fair bit of both, so which scenario has the most benefit or detriment? I don't envy the City trying to figure that part out. I'm skeptical a Richmond casino becomes some kind of economic development driver wherever it goes (the type this board is looking for anyways), but agree sitting alone south of the river somewhere doesn't have a wow factor.

While the City's primary goal is to generate revenue, I believe the "right" way is to have a multi-purpose destination rather than just a low-quality gaming venue (as can be seen all over the Mid-West or Rosie's).  If the resort can draw in patrons from outside the city proper or even outside the metro then that ensures a revenue stream not reliant on the backs of residents and local businesses (*cough cough* Meals Tax *cough*).  With a quality hotel and a resort that draws outside visitors we can also ensure hotel tax revenue.  Even if these visitors never leave the resort we collect Meals Tax revenue (which we know those "temporary" increases will never vanish regardless).  The far second goal of the city is to be a development driver.  The only proposals that I see as having had any likely-hood of becoming a catalyst were the original Pamunkey site and Wind Creek.   Cordish may have either little effect or simply speed up the already existing momentum of Scott's Addition into the Diamond area.  The other two are too isolated in respect to the city and more likely to generate growth in the cheaper county immediately next door (but this also forces half of any negative effects to be forced upon Chesterfield residents).

If the complex also serves as an entertainment venue then it becomes an amenity to both the city residents, county-dwellers, and visitors.  While the  casino floor is the true anchor of the development, it becomes secondary to the majority of area residents.  At this point is where we really need to think about location as well as overall implementation.  Accessibility of the site would determine how many of the residents (inclusive versus exclusive) benefit and if those patrons will be secluded to on property bars/restaurants before and after events or have access to local businesses as well.  Either way, the City gets tax revenue and this would not be much different than other entertainment and cultural venues (arenas, theaters, museums, etc.).   Either it can be integrated into an existing area, causing some more traffic but also allowing for more critical mass for transit (and more uses in a given area, therefore, less need to drive regardless), or it can be isolated, relocating traffic elsewhere but also ensuring more vehicular traffic generated.  While isolation can seemingly limit the immediate range of negative effects it also can create large underpopulated areas that allow for crimes to flourish, unlike areas with high activity.  With an integrated complex there is potential for the surrounding area to piggyback on the resort's facilities, such as lodging and parking, creating both an economic and environmental efficiency.

[Brent114]

So I’m checking out the new Live Philadelphia and I’ve got to say it’s pretty atrocious. As I suspected it creates the illusion that it’s adding to the urban fabric by making it look like it is multiple buildings with direct access to the street/sidewalk.  It’s not though.  You enter  the property and all of the restaurants/ bars/ music venues open into the development, not onto the street.  You’re  trapped and expected to spend all of your time and money inside the development. 
 

The Cordish plan is the most dishonest of the bunch.  They are pretty much building the same experience as  Bally’s and Urban One but are creating the illusion that it is a part of the community.  In reality, it is an island in the community.  A dead zone where only fire exits and fake windows line the sidewalks. 
 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Brent114

[Icetera]

8 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

So I’m checking out the new Live Philadelphia and I’ve got to say it’s pretty atrocious. As I suspected it creates the illusion that it’s adding to the urban fabric by making it look like it is multiple buildings with direct access to the street/sidewalk.  It’s not though.  You enter  the property and all of the restaurants/ bars/ music venues open into the development, not onto the street.  You’re  trapped and expected to spend all of your time and money inside the development. 
 

The Cordish plan is the most dishonest of the bunch.  They are pretty much building the same experience as  Bally’s and Urban One but are creating the illusion that it is a part of the community.  In reality, it is an island in the community.  A dead zone where only fire exits and fake windows line the sidewalks. 
 

 

Both the Philly and the "Pittsburgh" sites (it is deep in the suburbs) look rather pathetic (though at least the Philly site is a blank canvas with some potential).  They seem to do a better job when integrating into existing areas such as Baltimore, Louisville, and Kansas City with focus on event venues.  Unfortunately, their experiences in Virginia (Riverside on the James and Norfolk's Waterside) are not particularly great but both were also developed prior to either city really turning around.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

The far second goal of the city is to be a development driver.  The only proposals that I see as having had any likely-hood of becoming a catalyst were the original Pamunkey site and Wind Creek.   Cordish may have either little effect or simply speed up the already existing momentum of Scott's Addition into the Diamond area.  The other two are too isolated in respect to the city and more likely to generate growth in the cheaper county immediately next door (but this also forces half of any negative effects to be forced upon Chesterfield residents).

 

Icetera, I agree with you100% on this point.  You hit the nail on the head.

In thinking about a casino from this perspective, I had ranked what I saw as the best options as:

1.) - Pamunkey (clear cut winner)

2.) - Wind Creek (an excellent second choice - would be a good selection from this perspective)

3.) - Cordish (and a distant third because while I actually like the design, I'm not sold on it being in Scott's Addition as in SOUTH of the Acca yards. I would have preferred a different location north of the bridge.

4 through 6 - take your pick - I don't like any of them.

I really would like to know how/why Pamunkey and Wind Creek got jettisoned so early. From a development standpoint, these two likely would have catalyzed the immediate areas around them - and were far enough away from the core of the hot development in Manchester so as not to have the same potential pitfalls that the Cordish project presents in Scott's Addition.

I'm not thrilled with the City's decision-making process and certainly not with their results.

Edited March 25, 2021 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

Why was the Pamunkey the clear cut winner in your opinion?

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Why was the Pamunkey the clear cut winner in your opinion?

Biggest plus was location. I'll freely admit, I don't dig into all the nuts and bolts of the financials - how well it would be managed, how likely to succeed, etc., It just seems that the proximity to I-95 (and by extension I-64 - a signature hotel tower that would landmark the casino's location, it's proximity to downtown and even Manchester without being directly IN either of those districts - all together add up to a good location in my opinion. Again, folks can quote me chapter and verse about financials - I don't have the patience to dig through all those numbers, or to pass judgment on now properly a given casino might be managed. Folks smarter than me who follow those things more closely can make educated judgments. 

Simply put, (quoting the old adage) "location, location, location."

[wrldcoupe4]

Thanks. I just think it’s interesting given it’s location is immediately next to the UrbanOne location but didn’t make your top 3. I’m still surprised no one offered a site downtown. I’m with you on the numbers/operator. In any event I think I’ll tune in next week to the city meetings to learn more about the 3 finalists.  So far seeing pros and cons in all of them. 

[Wahoo 07]

Thinking more about why the Pamunkey proposal was denied -- perhaps the City was thinking (or hoping) that the Pamunkeys would follow the federal route.  That way, Richmond would get a second casino.  If the City chose the Pamunkey proposal, there wouldn't be this opportunity.  

Just my $.02

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, Wahoo 07 said:

Thinking more about why the Pamunkey proposal was denied -- perhaps the City was thinking (or hoping) that the Pamunkeys would follow the federal route.  That way, Richmond would get a second casino.  If the City chose the Pamunkey proposal, there wouldn't be this opportunity.  

Just my $.02

I kind of think they were thinking the same thing.  It's not that the city was denying the Pamunkey plan...it's just that the Pamunkey has a way to build a casino even if it is denied via referendum.  At least this way, Richmond could possibly end up with two casinos...although taxes wouldn't be able to be collected on the Pamunkey casino if they go the "long" way via Federal permission because the land on which the casino would sit would convert into an Indian Reservation (the state/city can't collect taxes on anything sitting on that land).  The only "positive" the city would get out of the casino from the Pamunkey built the long way would be tourist draw in the hopes that tourists visiting the casino would also visit and spend money in other parts of Richmond.

[RVAnouveau]

58 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I kind of think they were thinking the same thing.  It's not that the city was denying the Pamunkey plan...it's just that the Pamunkey has a way to build a casino even if it is denied via referendum.  At least this way, Richmond could possibly end up with two casinos...although taxes wouldn't be able to be collected on the Pamunkey casino if they go the "long" way via Federal permission because the land on which the casino would sit would convert into an Indian Reservation (the state/city can't collect taxes on anything sitting on that land).  The only "positive" the city would get out of the casino from the Pamunkey built the long way would be tourist draw in the hopes that tourists visiting the casino would also visit and spend money in other parts of Richmond.

And if that's the case, those southside sites might be better overall. In a scenario with more than one casino or if the GA loosens things up more, I'd imagine it would be ideal to confine them to a particular area/district. You can do that in south Richmond, but not so much with Scott's Addition in play. After taking a closer look at the Cordish proposal and having lived/experienced their Philly development, I'm really concerned about what impact a casino would have on SA, which has grown organically into its own thing. Will people still want to live next door to an urban casino? Would tech businesses still want to be located in a district with a casino right there? Maybe, but I'm having second thoughts. I have no doubt that a casino there would be successful, but how would it change the nature of SA? I would probably take Bally's in their alternative location (probably the same location chosen by Wind Creek) over the SA location.

[I miss RVA]

The thought crossed my mind as well -- maybe a backdoor way to bring two casinos to the city. If, in fact, the Pamunkey do go the long/Federal route and get a casino built there, what location then makes the most sense of the remaining three? TBH, of the three remaining, the only one I really like is Cordish, and even then I'm not 100% comfortable with a location south of the Acca yards. I'd much prefer they build north of the bridge and all Bow Tie and the old locomotive buildings to re-blossom organically. 

If the Pamunkey are able to (eventually) build on the 5000 Commerce Road space, does it make sense then to go with Urban One and have two casinos clustered together (a "mini-Atlantic City kind of thing)? Or is it better to have Cordish all the way on the other side of town? Either way, I absolutely put the Chippenham & Powhite option dead last. It's out in the middle of bum-swizzle nowhere off of a commuter freeway and an inner beltway type highway. Great if you live over in Southside or in the southwest suburbs. But what about catching all that north south (and east-west) traffic from the interstates? 

Coupe: in answering your question why I picked Pamunkey over Urban One despite their proximity: the big (27 story?) hotel tower would absolutely landmark the location of the casino. Anyone traveling north-south on I-95 would see it. It would almost be 'free advertising' - and no doubt the location alone, landmarked by a large building, would draw patrons. I'm not sold on Urban One's design - and I used to work at the PM USA operations center (worked there for 10 years back in the 1990s) - I'm just not all in on it. Plus the videos posted didn't sway me much, tbh.

Idk why, but I'm fearing one of the two Southside proposals will get the nod - and I don't really like either of them.

[Icetera]

13 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

a signature hotel tower that would landmark the casino's location, it's proximity to downtown and even Manchester without being directly IN either of those districts - all together add up to a good location in my opinion. 

I believe you are thinking of Pamunkey's original proposed location, of which Wind Creek used.  The newer Pamunkey proposal was adjacent to I-95 on the Chesterfield border.  Urban One is just a block further West.  Pamunkey would have likely been far superior in quality to its neighbor and also had visibility where Urban One seems to be failing to capitalize on such.  The only thing traffic passing through would see is an Urban One sign somewhere and then the Phillip Morris cigarette.

2 hours ago, Wahoo 07 said:

Thinking more about why the Pamunkey proposal was denied -- perhaps the City was thinking (or hoping) that the Pamunkeys would follow the federal route.  That way, Richmond would get a second casino.  If the City chose the Pamunkey proposal, there wouldn't be this opportunity.  

Just my $.02

I suspect it was because of the lower investment figures presented as well as the lack of advertised amenities such as an event venue.  All things that probably could have been negotiated rather than eliminating outright.  WWhile it was not my favorite proposal, I do believe they would have had the best cultural experience as the resort would also likely highlight their tribe and they are the only true local operator.

[I miss RVA]

Just now, Icetera said:

I believe you are thinking of Pamunkey's original proposed location, of which Wind Creek used.  The newer Pamunkey proposal was adjacent to I-95 on the Chesterfield border.  Urban One is just a block further West.  Pamunkey would have likely been far superior in quality to its neighbor and also had visibility where Urban One seems to be failing to capitalize on such.  The only thing traffic passing through would see is an Urban One sign somewhere and then the Phillip Morris cigarette.

You're right - I was actually thinking of their original location, tbh. However, even the more southerly location offers a lot of pluses - positioning a landmark 27-story hotel right off of I-95 would be a calling card travelers would see for MILES in each direction. Even with the newer location, I still placed the Pamunkey proposal at the top of my list - and Wind Creek second. The lack of any real visible landmark other than a sign for Urban One - and then the PM cigarette pole actually scares me. I worked in the ops center there for a decade - and there's NOTHING around there except a lot of industrial stuff and things related to Deepwater Terminal. At least with the Pamunkey proposal, it's DIRECTLY off of I-95 (as opposed to off of Route 1) and that landmark hotel would be its own advertising.

[Icetera]

13 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

If the Pamunkey are able to (eventually) build on the 5000 Commerce Road space, does it make sense then to go with Urban One and have two casinos clustered together (a "mini-Atlantic City kind of thing)?

If going the federal route, I highly doubt they would pick 5000 Commerce Road.  I suspect they went with it in hopes that addressing the pushback from the other site would boost them as a proposal option.  Since they had the land closer to Manchester already under contract and it is easier to develop with room to expand, I would bet they would use that originally preferred location.  Given that, the clustering would never happen.

Also, as far as taxes, the Federal route still requires them to make a compact with the State.  This compact would likely have a deal involving tax payments, regulation, etc so the federal route could still result in tax collection (though likely not property).

[wrldcoupe4]

16 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

You're right - I was actually thinking of their original location, tbh. However, even the more southerly location offers a lot of pluses - positioning a landmark 27-story hotel right off of I-95 would be a calling card travelers would see for MILES in each direction. Even with the newer location, I still placed the Pamunkey proposal at the top of my list - and Wind Creek second. The lack of any real visible landmark other than a sign for Urban One - and then the PM cigarette pole actually scares me. I worked in the ops center there for a decade - and there's NOTHING around there except a lot of industrial stuff and things related to Deepwater Terminal. At least with the Pamunkey proposal, it's DIRECTLY off of I-95 (as opposed to off of Route 1) and that landmark hotel would be its own advertising.

Thanks got it. Is the Urban One project on Rt 1? I thought it was at the old Ops center which is on Commerce. I was thinking they were both basically on Commerce across from one another, which is why I was confused about the location location location  I agree being on Route 1 wouldn't be attractive at all.