St. Louis is the sixth biggest casino market in the United States. Is it doing enough to advertise its strength in this sector? Is it something that St. Louisans should be proud or ashamed of? I'm not sure. I'm very pro-tourism, I'm just not sure if gamblers are the kind of tourists St. Louis wants/needs.
$1 billion casino markets in the U.S. by revenue:
Las Vegas Strip $6.1b
Atlantic City $3.3b
Chicagoland $1.9b
Detroit $1.4b
Connecticut $1.3b
St. Louis $1.1b
Philadelphia $1.1b
^ I'd be interested to see the breakdown of tourist dollars versus local. I'd venture that the vast majority comes from the metro area. Those dollars would have been spent elsewhere if not at a casino, so it's hard to see this as a positive.
^ I agree. In fact I bet that really only Vegas and Atlantic city would have a majority of tourist dollars coming from casino revenue.
I don't really see St. Louis as a tourist destination for its gambling. The problem being that our casinos are all over the place. Downtown, St. Charles, Alton, South City/County. We would need a "strip" like Vegas or Atlantic City to really be able to promote it.
The new casino in Cape G. is set to open.... it will be interesting to see how well it does. I doubt there will be any measurable dip in Saint Louis area figures, but who knows, maybe there are tons of folks coming up from SEMO than we didn't know.
^I'm not sure Atlantic City should even qualify. Other than the boardwalk that city is completely dead.
^^There's been a casino (I think it's called Casino Aztar?) in Caruthersville for a number of years, so that has probably been the gambling location of choice for SEMO residents. I imagine they will see a big dip, and perhaps the RiverCity in Lemay to a much lesser extent.
Good point that most of those $1.1 billion dollars are probably coming from locals. Too bad. Although I could see the casinos being something of a regional draw, and bringing people in from Rolla, Vandalia, Effingham, Springfield, Hannibal, Etc... who might not otherwise come in to the St. Louis metro to spend/lose their dollars. Again, I'm not sure if it's really a good thing. Driving 2 hours to lose money and then driving 2 hours back doesn't sound all that good for anyone involved.
^ It will be interesting to see how big of a market Philly becomes. It is a very new market and already taking business from Atlantic City. Take in the fact that you can zip down to Philly on NEC/Amtrak or Jersey Turnpike from New York metro area just as quick or quicker than Atlantic City. I certainly see Philly and to some extent Connitecut getting bigger at the expense of Atlantic City.
I have a tough time seeing St. Louis market casino getting significantly bigger let alone become a destination spot for gamblers. However, I think they have to do a lot better job of at least marketing the fact that you can spend the weekend in St. Louis and have a decent gambling option. Nor do I know if they really emphasize that entertainment option when pursuing conventions.
New Orleans has done a much better job leveraging its gambling as an entertainment option, Harrah's being one more option for a city that can you a good time on a long weekend. Getting rid of at least the raised portion of I70 would also help in long run - Harrah's is any easy walk to Bourbon Street and convention center and surrounded by hotels. Lacledes Landing wouldn't be much different for Pinnacle if I70 becomes a blvd
I'd personally like to see the casinos leave. They smack of pure desperation. While they may generate tax revenue, I believe they do it at the expense of the region, in the forms of peoples' savings, gambling problems, police and crime issues, etc. Tourism is no better really, in the sense that it isn't about making the area better for those of us in it. I'd prefer to see the city with a much stronger industrial base, more local residents with a strong commitment to the city and region, and lots of quality neighborhood businesses any day. After that, then you do tourism. And always tell the casinos to go to hell.
While they may generate tax revenue, I believe they do it at the expense of the region, in the forms of peoples' savings, gambling problems, police and crime issues, etc.
No, people do it at the expense of themselves. Its a vice just like drinking or smoking cigarettes.
^ agreed. I see Lumier Casino as a local business no different than th Cigar Bar on Washingon and 10th. I go to the Casino once maybe twice a year. Visit the Four Seasons Spa a lot more than that.
Now I do have a problem if we are giving incentives for MORE casinos because I agree that it would not add incremental tax revenue to ur region.
zink wrote:^ agreed. I see Lumier Casino as a local business no different than th Cigar Bar on Washingon and 10th. I go to the Casino once maybe twice a year. Visit the Four Seasons Spa a lot more than that.
Now I do have a problem if we are giving incentives for MORE casinos because I agree that it would not add incremental tax revenue to ur region.
So when we went from zero casinos to one, we got incremental tax revenue, or from one to two, two to three, three to four, or four to five...
But only now is it true that adding another casino would be a net wash in revenue?
I actually agree that we wouldn't get any benefit, but I've also thought that from the beginning, since the vote that basically paved the way for land-based, uh, riverboats.
^Haha. Thanks for pointing out the whole riverboat, boat-in-a-moat swindle. What a ridiculous piece of legislation that is. It would be cool if there were actual riverboats that had to go on cruises (which I think the original law stipulated).
bprop wrote:But only now is it true that adding another casino would be a net wash in revenue?
I think this is the case. There is good reason to believe that St. Louis is about a $1b to $1.1b gambling market. If another casino were built within the metro area it might add a little revenue, but mostly would just spread the revenue thinner and cannibalize other casino's business. There are casinos Northwest (Ameristar & Harrahs), Northeast (Alton Belle), East (Casino Queen), South (RiverCity), and Central (Lumiere). In any other directions there aren't the requisite rivers (Mississippi & Missouri) to allow for one. I guess if we are stuck with them it's best to have the biggest nicest casinos that offer the most ancillary amenities (hotels, spas, restaurants, bars, shops, etc...) than small struggling gambling halls that bring little else to the community (ie the now defunct President's Casino).
Like them or not, Casinos feed a vice that makes money for the City.
A-B does the same thing.
So do the micro-breweries.
Gambling, though, makes the most money for MO schools, to which the school districts' budgets have become dependent.
Everyone has their vices. Some like cards, some like beer, some like girls, some like Lotto. I personally love my cigarettes and caffeine, with maybe an occasional pint or night out at the boats. It's hard to call one out without calling out all the others...
Focus: The question of how big a draw STL Casinos are to tourism is all about execution.
Absolutely, tourists come to STL to gamble; that's why they're almost all built with giant hotels and huge parking garages (coming soon to River City). I know of many out-of-towners who travel to STL for the gambling, from RVs heading here full of Southerners and Great Plains residents ready to gamble somewhere other than Vegas, to the single greatest basketball star to ever play the pro game, "His Airness #23" Michael Jordan, who often plays in STL and I've heard even meets up other NBA greats to play here (spotting Oakley at the Westin, etc.). Yeah, no kidding.
That said, we don't have a gambling district per se. Instead, we have casinos all over the Metro Area, including Downtown, South City/Lemay, Maryland Heights, Saint Charles, Alton, and East STL (where the casino tax revenues are 100% crucial to the City's survival). The only time they're relatively proximate to each other, it's because they're in different political jurisdictions (Lumiere & Casino Queen, and Ameristar & Harrah's/Hollywood), and you have to cross not just a border but a river to get from one to the other.
Such separation between venues compels each casino to seek out its own individual market bases, rather than having a strip where 2 or 3 casinos are along the same street. Doing that would make STL have an actual "Casino District", and through them building a collective sustainable mass of direct tourism. The creation of such a "District" would be a great marketing campaign which could be used all over the US to draw in new tourists that would prefer a real City with ball teams rather than just Disney in the Desert.
All one has to do is think of Tunica, MS, where a cluster of casinos in direct proximity to each other (and golf courses, too) has created a hub for tourism in the middle of a Mississippi flood plain that's too hot & sticky for even the mosquitos.
Want a quick shot-in-the-arm for East STL?
Open the land directly north of the Dr. King Bridge to multiple high-end casino developments targeted for tourists.
What I really want: A true gambling excursion river boat, traveling between STL & NOLA, with gambling the whole time. And yes, I'm thinking of the movie Maverick. Now, one can gamble on cruiseliners in international waters; could it ever be possible to have a gambling boat that travels across state lines?
I disagree. The problem with a Casino is that the profits leave the local economy to Las Vegas where Pinnacle is Headquartered. The profits that Stanleys Cigar Bar receives is funneled back through the local economy in the purchase of goods and services. Only 13% of revenue is circulated back through the local economy by a national retailer as opposed to 52% for an independent local business.
Casinos are like a vacuum cleaner when it comes to economic development
gone corporate wrote:All one has to do is think of Tunica, MS
Exactly. St. Louis shouldn't be anything like Tunica.
I think a casino district is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is that there is a higher end casino that draws people in with fancy restaurants, spas, and amenities, a lower end casino with lower buy-ins and cheaper drinks, and then super-low end casinos with .99 cent beers, $5 steak dinners, $1 black jack tables, and generally seedy, sad and disgusting conditions. See Reno or Atlantic City for examples. This same dynamic happens in Vegas, but on a much bigger scale.
innov8ion wrote:Lake Tahoe might not be too bad -- but just because it seems super freaking beautiful out there.
yeah, definitely. everyone else at this conference who has gone to lake tahoe has raved about it. hopefully i'll be going tomorrow. but it's about an hour's drive, and i'm just talking about Reno proper.
Wabash wrote:
I think a casino district is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is that there is a higher end casino that draws people in with fancy restaurants, spas, and amenities, a lower end casino with lower buy-ins and cheaper drinks, and then super-low end casinos with .99 cent beers, $5 steak dinners, $1 black jack tables, and generally seedy, sad and disgusting conditions. See Reno or Atlantic City for examples. This same dynamic happens in Vegas, but on a much bigger scale.
Um...we already have that. Have you been to the Queen or the President before it was removed. It doesn't if they're all together or all far apart, the market is going to dictate the quality of the industry.
I for one think it would be a great idea, especially the one of putting a district on the East Side north of the MLK. A great way to pump money into East St. Louis and hopefully give it some growth.
It seems as thought there's two against camps on this issue (and certainly some people who are in both camps): Those who don't think it brings in all that much money to the metro and, as such, isn't worth it, and those who think a casino industry is somehow beneath us. The former is a fair issue on which to debate. The second, to me, is just silly. We're a struggling metro in, what most of people consider, "flyover country" -- I'll take revenue and tourism dollars where ever I can get it.
gone corporate wrote:^Largely agree, but what if it was local? What of the revenues to Isle of Capri (HQ in Creve Coeur)?
Then it would be a slightly different story. Just because its large corporation doesnt change the "local" ingredient if they are based here. It would be more beneficial to support a local casino company than an out of town casino company.
