back to Niagara Falls Reporter archive
We could find out within the next few weeks whether a Seneca Nations-run casino will become a reality.
Or, even if the Seneca referendum expected by Feb. 28, according to President Cyrus M. Schindler, does pass, there's always the chance that State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver will find a way to drag the process out again.
Either way, the issue isn't going away. There's too much money to be made by too many people even before the slots start filling up. Whether the path to legalized gambling in Niagara Falls winds up as a short trip with the Senecas or a more circuitous route to a state-sanctioned casino should the current deal die on the table, we're headed in that direction.
The biggest question, and one that's received remarkably little attention -- where will the casino go? What passes for conventional wisdom puts gambling's temporary home in the Niagara Falls Convention and Civic Center during construction of a permanent casino on the grounds of the late, unlamented Splash Park.
At first glance, it makes sense -- the area represents the heart of downtown and nobody wants to look at those decaying waterslides any longer than absolutely necessary.
But is it the best choice?
For all the jokes and insults inspired by the enormous edifice, events ranging from dog shows to Christian youth conferences to monster truck exhibitions bring people to Niagara Falls every year -- 350,000, according to Aramark Venue Management, the building's operator. It may not do as much business as the local tourism industry, or anybody else, would like. But plopping a casino in the midst of it would kill what commerce it already generates.
And the whole point of a casino, from a civic standpoint, is attracting people and their dollars. Not just one at a time, but by the hundreds and thousands. Those numbers are easier to achieve if they include conventions, trade shows and the like. Putting a casino in the Convention Center would kill that market, minimizing the impact of having one in the first place.
If not in the Convention Center, then where? There's certainly no shortage of vacant buildings or empty land in the downtown area, but not all sites were created equal.
First, let's eliminate the existing hotels. Even the largest ballroom has nowhere near the 100,000 square feet of space needed to properly house a casino.
Then there's the thought of building from scratch. That's only feasible if it can be built very quickly (if the revenue estimates of $350 million per year are anywhere near accurate, you're talking about $1 million lost per day that the doors don't open). The only option quick enough would be a Sprung structure -- a stressed membrane building made up of aluminum-arched ribs connected by modular panels.
Such a structure would be quick and temporary. It could go wherever there's enough nearby existing parking (at least 2,000 cars worth) or empty space to pave. It would also look like an enormous tent, regardless of how much you tried to dress it up.
Churches, schools and municipalities all over the country have used such structures to meet space needs without the cost of full-blown construction -- a Sprung building costs roughly one-fifth as much to erect as a traditional facility, or less. But they're also less durable, no small matter considering the occasional gale-force winds and odd ice storm it would have to endure.
Given the problems of aesthetics and durability, let's cross that one off the list, too.
That leaves a number of large existing buildings dotting downtown. Here's a look at the primary contenders, starting at the Rainbow Bridge and moving east (we'll ignore who owns or holds the development rights to each property -- whoever controls any potential site will have to be dealt with when the time comes):
RAINBOW CENTRE: It has a lot of space and adjacent parking. And buildings don't come much emptier. But the problems more than overcome its selling points.
One of the many reasons for its failure as a mall was that too few people knew it WAS a mall, thanks to its inside-out architecture. The prohibitive cost of reversing that dynamic represents one huge strike.
A bigger minus -- the location. Putting what would be downtown's second-biggest attraction right next to the primary draw makes absolutely no sense. And it's not only bordered by the Niagara Reservation State Park to the west, the Niagara River isn't far to the south.
If the ultimate goal is to spur development around a casino, you don't put one where there's limited room to build or grow
FALLS STREET STATION: It shares the Rainbow Centre's largest drawback -- it's too close to the falls. It also has a tenant -- Teletech. Or at least what's left of it. Despite its massive layoffs, the company still holds a valid lease.
THE TURTLE: Too small (67,000 square feet) and no parking, each a fatal factor in and of itself. And other than the building's owner, Niagara Falls Redevelopment, no one knows just how much decay years of vacancy have wrought.
FALLS STREET FAIRE: While it would be nice to fill one of the cavities created by Urban Renewal (and it has 120,000 square feet of floor space), it's been empty for more than a decade. One downtown developer said it needs extensive roof and electrical work, making it untenable as a temporary casino. Also, though there is no shortage of parking ramps in the area, there are too few spaces adjacent to the building.
NABISCO: Seldom, if ever, mentioned in casino speculation, the recently vacated complex at the corner of John B. Daly Boulevard and Buffalo Avenue has more than a little bit going for it. Not the manufacturing facility itself, but the warehouse running parallel to Buffalo Avenue. It's huge -- 175,000 square feet, with uniformly high ceilings. In use since its construction in 1975, it had to be structurally sound to keep crackers and cereal dry.
As far as aesthetics, it's not much to look at now. But the warehouse also represents the closest thing to a blank canvas of any of the contenders.
The others would require demolition and construction unless you wanted it to look like a makeshift casino. The warehouse's simplicity could be easily and (more significantly) quickly augmented in any number of ways, inside and out.
Given the amount of available space on the property and vacant land surrounding it, parking wouldn't be an issue, either.
It's the farthest from the falls of any of the possibilities mentioned above, which could be a good thing.
A casino sited there would give downtown two development anchors, with infinite possibilities in between.
The other two large buildings on the Nabisco property could be converted into the lodging, dining and recreation facilities that are part of any realistic casino plan. And the Convention Center could remain open, with the added lure of a casino likely to draw many more conventions and trade shows.
Developers could also consider investing not just downtown, but on the East Side and along Buffalo Avenue, benefiting both old and new businesses.
Ultimately, the choice will be made by Seneca leaders and state officials, assuming that they can work out their other differences. While making the biggest decision in the city's modern history, they and we would be best served by considering all the options.
You only get one shot at something like this, so it had best be a good one.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | February 12 2002 |