At yesterday's press conference, in addition to the Governor and Mayor:

State folks: Dwight Evans, Keller,O'Brien,Jewell Williams, and Fumo was acknowledged
Council: Bill Green, Darrell Clarke
plenty of investors

So I am all for making the Gallery better, but not for making the current Gallery or its environs about attracting a "different class of people" which is the stealth racist vibe I'm catching underneath the justifications for moving Foxwoods to the area.

Wait -- are the casinos bringing in dangerous criminal bank-robbing gamblers or elitist / golf-shirt wearing mall-gentrifiers? Or is it all of the above?

Or the racist vibe is so stealth that nobody is actually saying those things, unless you have a statement to point to with a name behind it.

I am all about accusations of racism, but let's just see who is saying stealthy or unstealthy racist things before painting no one in particular with that brush.

For example, this is necessarily anonymous, but on the trolley today I heard two overarching sentiments, both of which surprised me:

1) "Why put the casino on Market? It's already too crowded over there. Where are people going to park?"

2) "Putting the casino in with the Gallery is just going to be another way to part black people from their money."

I heard versions from this last statement in a curmudgeonly tone from an older black man and in a decidedly racist tone from a middle-aged white guy.

For my part, I believe it is possible -- threading-the-needle possible, but possible -- to create a new district on Market Street including Casinos and a redesigned gallery mall that could serve tourists, nearby residents, and neighborhood/suburban commuters equally well, something more like the Magnificent Mile in Chicago or (to shoot a little less grandly) like the 40th Street corridor in University City, with shopping, a movie theater, restaurants, etc., not unlike the complex that Croce, Trump, et al were proposing to build on the Budd site in Allegheny/East Falls.

You would absolutely have to begin running regional rail more frequently and later into and out of that site, you would need greater police presence, you would need all sorts of additional resources and stakeholder buy-ins. It's a process that would take a lot of time; the sort of time that, if this had been a publically debated bill with a transparent siting process and all of the other goodies, might have been productive.

Since I'm skeptical of anything resembling this utopian vision of Market East, I'm skeptical of the project. However, I do not think that in and of itself, it is an idea totally without merit.

A simple test to see if the casino plan is really an inclusive economic development plan for the corridor or at the very least an indication of good faith to Chinatown and Wash West/Gayborhood.
http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/foxwoods_gallery_process_still_stinks...
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

Are they crazy?

This is Philadelphia: we’ve been chasing away commercial development, high-end retail, Center City entertainment venues, and jobs for more than 50 years!

Why would we give up on a good thing now?

By all means, demand an explanation from the Governor -- pronto!

Putting a rooftop casino on Market Street would be like building a hotel there, or one of those tacky Hard Rock Cafes! Yuck! Who wants to cater to tourists?

Not us!

And if they put a live arts theater or a department store or a movie theater at the street level, you might have all that damned foot traffic to contend with!

Who needs that in a major commercial corridor of the city? Not us!

Ok, ok…tone-mocking aside, you raise really good points, Ray, and in arguing with you and Helen, I realize I'm tussling with two of the very best activists in the city, not just because your activism has been so effective, which it has, but because you guys have helped the city so much.

I'll add at the outset that a suburban box-store style casino -- which is what all of the American gaming cities except New Orleans ended up with -- has no business on East Market Street. I sympathize with anyone who simply points to the failures in Detroit and other places and says "I don't want that in Philadelphia." If whatever is proposed does not work at the street level, does not at least try to encourage more and better commercial development of East Market Street, then I would not support its being built. Period.

But...and, here's where I think I have an honest disagreement with you, I think more and better commercial development of East Market Street is an appropriate goal for the city in 2008.

Attracting more high-end retail and entertainment venues to that commercial corridor, that street, on those blocks, is good for the city and, in general, a good goal for the mayor to pursue. I don't know if a rooftop casino can help with that -- and if its built like most casinos, it probably can't -- but as Inga Saffron wrote three years ago (and Gee, I hope she hasn't changed her mind in the interim) in New Orleans a downtown casino, near its Convention Center and close to public transportation, works; it creates foot traffic -- more than half of its patrons arrive by foot and public transportation (it doesn't even have a parking lot!) -- and it exists beside other entertainment venues and commercial enterprises, and yes beside neighborhoods where people live.

East Market Street is already a major commercial corridor with Macy's at one end and Ross at the other. It has -- albeit briefly -- supported as many as four large multi-story department stores and The Gallery mall at the same time (Wanamaker's, Gimbels, Strawbridge & Clothier, and Lit Brothers in the 1970s) while co-existing with its residential neighbors, Chinatown included. Before that, it hosted late night live art venues, including the Earle Theater.

That's just nostalgia, and indeed the eventual failure of those enterprises should give us pause before we plan other commercial and entertainment projects at the same location. But thanks to the Convention Center -- which is being expanded, let's not forget, and will host even more people in the future than it hosts now -- that corridor still represents the unique nexus of tourists, existing retail, and public transportation. And because it's the hub of so much public transportation, thousands of city workers -- many of whom live outside the city -- pass by East Market Street every day. Those are people who could spend money at a restaurant or a department store or a theater or a bar before going home. In past decades, similar workers did just that on East Market. And thanks to the energy crisis, the current trend is for more city workers to commute by public transportation, so East Market street may see even more city workers passing through it in the future.

And let's not disregard East Market Street's central location in the whole scheme of Philadelphia's economic, commercial and tourist life, girded by City Hall (no mean employer itself) and Broad Street to the west and the historical district to the east. If you are going to place a major commercial corridor in Philadelphia, you could argue that East Market Street is the best place to put it.

Ok, answering Ray, point by point:

Bad economic development policy. Casinos have proven in Atlantic City and all across the country to cost as much in revenue for the host city as they generate.

1) This is important: The mayor is of the opinion that Philadelphia cannot stop the state from forcing two casinos upon us, we can only fight to keep the state from forcing the sites of those two casinos upon us. The vast majority of state and city legislators agree with him on this. Because the state has already budgeted tax revenue from two Philadelphia casinos, there likely is nothing that could motivate the state legislature and the governor to change their minds, to change the laws, and lower projected expenditures, and to just let Philadelphia off the hook, especially when casinos have already opened in some legislators' districts.

So your first argument, while worthy, is just probably won't hold water with the people who hold the bucket.

2) So what to do you do in an electoral democracy when your best option has been taken away?
(Meaning: what do we do if we can't stop the casinos?)

The next best thing.

In this case, I'd argue, you look for the best urban casino and imitate it. Unless, there are alternatives that I'm not aware of (and I'm always open to them), the New Orleans Harrah's, that Saffron describes as America's only downtown casino, is the best model for an urban casino, the only one that, some argue, actually does conform to good economic development policy, one that has not, in practice, retarded growth around it.

And if not there, where?

Pragmatism, I always say, is the moral way to practice politics. If you can't come up with a plan that will actually work to stop two casinos from being built, then you should come up with the best places for them to go, the best places, that is, that you can actually negotiate for them to go.

Is the best place the airport? Maybe. But I can imagine that the airport might have been a much harder sell to the investors, perhaps impossible. It's basically in the suburbs, and those investors thought they were getting a casino in the biggest city in the state. I know it's wrong that they have so much power over this process, but they do; the Gaming Commission gave it to them.

Your position, it seems to me, ends up being all-or-nothing, with the possible biggest loser the Delaware. You're saying "fight the casinos, not the sites," all the way, but if you lose that fight...well, Foxwoods goes up on the Southern Delaware and SugarHouse goes up on Northern Delaware.

I don't support that.

Ok, next:

Stealth racism. Meanwhile you have the Gallery. The easiest mall to access for people without a car. And guess who many of those people are? Black.

It's a stealth -ism, I agree, just probably not the one you name, I think.

It's class-ism, I think, Ray: the desire to get East Market Street to cater to more middle class and rich people, now that Boyd's has moved.

I know from my conversation with the mayor (which I seem to be milking for all it's worth), that he wants Center City to host more high-end retail, the kind that it lost decades ago to the suburbs, most of which used to reside right there, on East Market Street. I remember his saying that city residents should not have to go to Cherry Hill or King of Prussia to do their Christmas shopping.

I agree. I think in order for cities to play the best role they can in society, they have to save large appropriate swaths in their downtowns for thriving commercial life. Department stores. Restaurants. Bars with music. Tourist traps, even. Places where rich people can go to drop a lot of money, maybe eat lunch or dinner, and catch a movie or a show.

That's good for the economy, good for tax revenue, makes the city more attractive to those middle class and rich people, so that they might come back again and spend more money, maybe even move here. That means more money for DHS, for school books, for Health Centers.

I think it's fair for the city to say: "Given its unique advantages, and history of co-existing with its local neighborhoods, we are going to claim East Market Street as a commercial corridor and work to make it thrive as one."

But to do that at The Gallery or anywhere on East Market today, might mean displacing some of the lower-end retail stores that currently exist there. I'm really glad you brought them up. Whatever happens, should this proposal become an actual project, the city should help any businesses that would be affected relocate if they need to.

I know it's class-ist to want to replace low-end retail with high-end retail, and it's ugly, the way market economies when you really think about them are ugly; but until with live in the Socialist state we're probably never going to live in, we have to face economic realities. Philly could use more high-end retail. East Market Street is a good place for it.

Would a rooftop casino hurt or help this pursuit? If it's a box, probably no. If it replaced the mall's blank blocks with stores or a movie theater or a live arts venue at the street level, then maybe yes.

Finally:

Neighborhood killing. And then you got your non-stealth racism: um, as Helen points out below, Chinatown is a neighborhood. And frankly one more densely packed than the one near the old Foxwoods site. WTF?

Good, er, question. The main reason a downtown casino at the Gallery site cannot be a car-sucking box store -- which the planned Delaware River Foxwoods would be, by the way -- is because it is a Greyhound bus terminal and Reading Terminal Market away from Chinatown, an actual neighborhood.

This is the part that has to be studied by professionals, vetted by the community, and negotiated with most sensitivity. I don't know if it can work. I can come up with several reasons why it is more likely to work at The Gallery than the Delaware River site, but in the end, some honest people have to sit down and consider the effects, share them with Chinatown residents and see if the project will actually hurt the neighborhood, if it can help it in any way, and whether any harm can be mitigated.

One of the biggest problems with casinos is the automobile traffic that they cause. One of the best reasons for considering an East Market Street site, is again the example of the downtown New Orleans Harrah's, where fewer than half of the patrons arrive by car. As Helen points out, the public transportation options to that Harrah's are fewer than those available to commuters to The Gallery. Perhaps Foxwoods might even be negotiated into subsidizing extra SEPTA service, say for example to get the El to run 24-7. But that's just an idea. However, if we in Philadelphia are getting two casinos, placing them by the most public transportation and existing foot traffic -- particularly the most tourist foot traffic, so that the likelihood of leading to addiction is reduced -- that makes sense.

Obviously, increased police presence would be essential, particularly at night, as would routing conventioneers to The Gallery site without their entering Chinatown; those are just the tip of the iceberg of issues that such a project needs to address.

I'd point out, however, that because the Gallery site is and has been a high traffic commercial area for many decades, and has at times thrived as such, the issues that a casino would raise for that site, and for the surrounding area, are issues that likely have arisen before when there was commercial development on and around East Market Street. What, after all, was The Gallery Mall when it was attracting more suburban shoppers, than a car-sucking box? What is the Convention Center?

Yet the area, those blocks on those streets, and the surrounding areas including Chinatown and Jewelers Row, have survived the biggest conventions, have survived East Market when it had four big department stores and a mall. Does that mean they'd survive a rooftop casino on top of The Gallery? I don't know. I think it suggests they'd be more likely to survive, and perhaps reap benefits from, a rooftop casino, than a residential neighborhood -- that's never been near high traffic commercial development -- would survive, or reap benefits from, a box store casino. And, yes,there's no current Penn Praxis plan to build residential homes at The Gallery site.

I'd guess -- and again this is just me guessing -- that many city planners, if asked, might suggest for The Gallery site more, um, more high-end commercial development.

They would not start with a rooftop casino, I'd guess also. The trick to that is getting whatever is under it, on the street level, to be better at fostering street life than The Gallery. I think it's an opportunity, and I've thought that since 2005. I respect your disagreeing.

Hi Ray, by the way.

.

I know what you're saying, I think. My first reaction is...and oh I know this will go over REAL well...is that the studies that are no doubt coming should include the impact of what one and two casino/s would have on the corridor and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Because one way of preventing Foxwoods from becoming the 400-pound gorilla is to give it competition. The city controls the 1100 block of Market Street on the south side through the Girard Trust. Re-siting SugarHouse there, or plopping it atop the as-yet-unbuilt Convention Center extension could be explored.

And vetoed, I'd add, if studies show they'd have a horrible effect on Chinatown or anywhere else.

Putting both casinos within walking distance of the Convention Center, the hotels that service them, and each other could certainly have overall traffic-reducing advantages for the city, and might lead to the possibility of creating a new entertainment district if, say, one offered a movie theater and the other offered a live arts theater.

The question of whether American casinos can be designed to do anything other than just suck people in, and keep them in, is the big one; but by attaching Foxwoods to The Gallery, to stores that could be redesigned to face the street (my big issue, if you haven't noticed), some shoppers presumably could walk in, shop, then leave. Walk is the key. If you don't have to tip the valet and get in your car and drive to leave a casino, if it's easier to leave, then a casino's ability to trap you and keep you once you've entered seems to me diminished. Tricky design questions for the street though. The idea of the Disney Hole parking lot remaining a parking lot at the behest of Foxwoods, is not a happy one. If the streets could bare it, better to just put SugarHouse there. Or Target. Or a re-sited Ikea. Or some mixed-use combination.

I sure don't know how it all could be planned, but if it ever gets to that stage, they'd better be more above-board and inclusive every step of the way.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet. We still have a surface parking lot- by far the worst use of precious CC real estate- where the supposed Disney Quest complex was supposed to go at 8th + Market (where Gimbels used to be, I believe). To heck w/putting the casino on top of the Gallery- put it in the Disney Hole.

This accomplishes two worthwhile goals. First, it replaces a surface lot w/a (hopefully) more productive building. Second, it moves the casino across a very major street from Chinatown. Surely, nobody claims that the south side of Market St. is Chinatown; this may defuse some opposition.

Thoughts?
-Z

I'm not asking "what sinister implications does 'high-end' have?" but a much more basic question.

Really, Center City already has a high-end retail district: Walnut Street west of Broad, home of Tiffany, Brooks Brothers, Le Bec Fin, Design Within Reach, etc., spilling a little bit to Chestnut and Locust streets and just east of the Avenue.

What CC arguably needs more of is middlebrow retail: Apple, Target, a department store to replace Strawbridge's, that works as a destination for people around the city, that provides recognizable and useful shopping for tourists, and that better serves the neighborhood.

And that's really what Market East has always provided. Folks don't come to the Gallery for dirt-cheap retail. Most neighborhoods have some kind of dirt cheap retail. What they don't have is access to chain stores. They have shoe shops but not Foot Locker, clothes stores but not Old Navy, and nowhere to get new eyeglasses or a crib for your baby. You go to the Gallery to buy back-to-school clothes, when you want and are willing to pay full price.

So I guess what I'm arguing for is not a wholesale transformation but a thorough expansion of that middlebrow retail zone. I refuse to be nostalgic for the whole range of crappy stores, mostly actually just south and just north of Market, that largely exist to rip people off. But that's not all Market East is, and it's certainly not all it can and should be.

Sam, I'm very hurt reading your comments now. You never told me before that you believe it's okay to place casinos in someone's unwanted neighborhood.

You're basing your decision, far as I can tell, on a politically expedient read of the situation. You're not doing it the way the city -- much less progressives -- ought to do it, which is with community input and basing decisions on rationale planning principles (such as the 1,500-foot buffer).

You said that the new proposal should be "vetoed, I'd add, if studies show they'd have a horrible effect on Chinatown or anywhere else." I'm not sure why you trust studies over community wisdom -- long-time well-respected leaders like Helen Gym -- but you'll soon get those studies. The reason for the buffer is because casinos are shown to have horrible effects on neighborhoods in the vicinity.

You say: "Put it there, because we must put it somewhere."

I say: Don't put it places it's harmful. Uphold the concept of a buffer zone between it and neighborhoods. One block is not a buffer zone. It isn't for SugarHouse in Fishtown-Northern Libs, it wasn't for Foxwoods at Delaware/Reed, and it sure isn't here either.

Ergo, this site does not work.

See how easy it is when you operate on principles?

I'll emphasize the reason casinos don't belong in neighborhoods is their nasty habit of increasing crime, they are incompatible with local businesses (they are a massive competing machine), their increased traffic patterns along residential streets (and this notion people will just take SEPTA to the casino is a whopper), and so on.