urbanSTL

I was in the Burger Bar on Friday and then got a tour of Sleek. I think it's important to note that the place still isn't fully functional, and that the Four Seasons just opened about 10 days ago. I bet their (casino) numbers soar in the next couple of months.

Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this, but why does St. Louis have so many casinos? Don't they just contribute to the false perception that St. Louis is a dangerous city?

Is Vegas or Monte Carlo considered dangerous?

I hear it usually takes a at least a year to get the kinks out and build loyal clientele.

brody wrote:Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this, but why does St. Louis have so many casinos? Don't they just contribute to the false perception that St. Louis is a dangerous city?

When I worked with a group of citizens that (unsuccessfully) tried to bring a casino to Cape Girardeau over a decade ago, the statistics we had then showed that Atlantic City, for example, had no more crime than Springfield, Illinois. I'm guessing those statistics haven't changed much.



And we all know how dangerous Springfield can be!



Don't get me wrong, because I know what you're saying about the false perception that St. Louis is dangerous, but I don't believe casinos really have much to do with it. (Just my humble opinion, of course.) I guess it depends on whom you ask.

Okay. So casinos don't bring actual crime. But in a city with a perceived crime issue, the first things visitors see when entering the city from the east are the Arch and the casino boats.



It's an image thing. Maybe they aren't as bad as some people portray them, but there aren't many people who want to live near one.

I don't think people think crime when they see Lumiere. That's actually the very last thing I think.

Casinos don't scream crime to me. They scream "activity!" which is important in the city.

brody wrote:


It's an image thing. Maybe they aren't as bad as some people portray them, but there aren't many people who want to live near one.

Location, location, location. Vegas is building tons of condo/hotels with $2-5 million condos in buildings on the strip.

I don't think I'd want to have an apartment right next to the President (or Queen/Harrah's/Ameristar) for multiple reasons, none of the first 5 reasons being that it's a casino. Looking at Pinnacle's "plans" for future phases of Lumiere Place, I would imagine residential units in those buildings will get a serious looking at by thousands of potential buyers/renters. Living next to a brewery doesn't sound like a good idea, either, but it works in Soulard (twice if you count Lemp) and Maplewood.

When I hear 'urban casinos', I don't think crime. I think: low-class, unsophisticated, poor rural and inner-city people and blue-haired old ladies, spending their welfare and social security checks, which is a crime, but not the violent sort. I also expect an area that, with the exception of New Orleans, probably has little else to offer in terms of culture or entertainment.

jlblues wrote:When I hear 'urban casinos', I don't think crime. I think: low-class, unsophisticated, poor rural and inner-city people and blue-haired old ladies, spending their welfare and social security checks, which is a crime, but not the violent sort.

And they're notably absent in all of the slick Lumiere Place advertising. I can't imagine why.



Seriously, I think Lumiere Place can only help the perception of Laclede's Landing (and therefore downtown in general). And the early numbers don't concern me at all. Like TB1000 said, I think they're doing quite well after just a couple of months when compared to area casinos that have been around for years. HoteLumiere is up and running, and the Four Seasons will be open before too long, and that can only help.

ThreeOneFour wrote:And they're notably absent in all of the slick Lumiere Place advertising. I can't imagine why.

You don't think low-class, unsophisticated, poor rural and inner-city people and blue-haired old ladies are "beau-tee-ful, beau-tee-ful, beau-tee-ful?"

DeBaliviere wrote:

ThreeOneFour wrote:And they're notably absent in all of the slick Lumiere Place advertising. I can't imagine why.

You don't think low-class, unsophisticated, poor rural and inner-city people and blue-haired old ladies are "beau-tee-ful, beau-tee-ful, beau-tee-ful?"

Only when they put in their teeth.

STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:Casinos don't scream crime to me. They scream "activity!" which is important in the city.

It's a shame that a city like st. louis needs 5 casinos to stay active.



In all honesty, I don't think it does. With the exception of the recent lumiere, I don't see casinos as an attraction to potential St. Louisans. Certainly there is a place for such institutions in a city, but it shouldn't be at the heart.

^And rural southern Illinois people that are too afraid to come into 'The City'.

jlblues wrote:^And rural southern Illinois people that are too afraid to come into 'The City'.

The older I get the more I realize how many people like that there are. I work with a few. One guy won't leave our building during the day. Another won't drive on the highways at night. And these are relatively young people I'm talking about.

A lot of people around this kind of have to go to St. Louis occasionally. The hospitals here are crap, so if you're having a major surgery you go either to St. Louis or Cape. Most people around here travel to St. Louis at least once a year for a Cardinal game (even though it's a three-hour trip). Usually a school group will go to a game. When my sis was in high school the band went to a Blues game. But a lot of people still have the idea that St. Louis is dangerous, but they usually have reason to, especially considering downtown wasn't especially nice in the 80s, a time a lot of them remember.



We're going to a Cardinal game May 31st. We've also been to a game this year, as well as the Fanfest and a Ram's game (we made a weekend out of it), and we go at least once a year for doctor's visits.



My sis and bro-in-law are going to a Tuesday Blues game this month as well.

STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:But a lot of people still have the idea that St. Louis is dangerous, but they usually have reason to, especially considering downtown wasn't especially nice in the 80s, a time a lot of them remember.

I guess when you grow up in an area that hasn't changed in your lifetime, it is difficult to imagine change in other places with which you are much less familiar. FWIW, 'downtown' - depending on your definition of that word - has never experienced much crime. Of course there have been a handful of incidents that the media blows out of any proportion, but downtown (the area with the tall buildings and sports stadiums) has always been safer than most of the city - even in the '80s.

Most people I know from this area perceive it as dangerous, probably because for a long time all they really saw of it was abandonment and decay, which in most people's minds breeds violence. And I guess when a school group goes up there and gets their van broken into it's kind of a culture shock. Sure, they should've parked in a garage, but that gives them a perception, albeit a false one, about the city or the downtown area.



But basically anything would be dangerous in a town that hasn't had a murder in 3 years. The last one was a guy who shot his stepfather. There are a lot of drugs in the woods around here, though.



I guess when you grow up in a small town and a relatively sheltered area any big city looks dangerous. Poplar Bluff is pretty dangerous in some parts, but people mostly go there for shopping. They don't typically venture into the more rundown areas.

DeBaliviere wrote:

jlblues wrote:^And rural southern Illinois people that are too afraid to come into 'The City'.

The older I get the more I realize how many people like that there are. I work with a few. One guy won't leave our building during the day. Another won't drive on the highways at night. And these are relatively young people I'm talking about.

Wow, scared to drive on a highway at night? WEIRD

brody wrote:It's a shame that a city like st. louis needs 5 casinos to stay active.

It's a shame that our casinos are spread out all over the place. It would have been sweet to cluster them in a "Casino District" somewhere near downtown. Then we'd really have something to market to the rest of the country.

Framer wrote:

brody wrote:It's a shame that a city like st. louis needs 5 casinos to stay active.

It's a shame that our casinos are spread out all over the place. It would have been sweet to cluster them in a "Casino District" somewhere near downtown. Then we'd really have something to market to the rest of the country.

I say we market the crap out of our "gentleman's club district" we've put together on the east side around I-64 & Illinois 111 (Kingshighway)

^

I was talking with a coworker from Amsterdam about two month ago, and told him I live in St. Louis. The first thing that came out of his mouth was, "O! do you go to the 'EAST' side a lot."



Nope, not that arch, but the east side came up first. I asked him how did he know. He said everyone knows about the East side.



Then again.. this is coming from someone from Amsterdam.