AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 12641
April 10th, 2017 at 1:20:47 PM permalink
Quote: FatGeezus

There was one restroom for the men in the casino. It had one urinal and one toilet. There was one restroom for the women in the casino. According to my wife it had two toilet stalls. Often there was a line to get in.

There were additional toilets for patrons but they were not in the casino. They were located on the same floor but outside the casino.

I guess "in the casino" is what I was confused about. The restroom I used was the one that had the long entrance that looked more like a club entrance than a restroom. I considered that to be in the casino. I thought it was near the players club, but I could have been mistaken. It was certainly on the same floor as the casino.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
ECoaster
ECoaster
Joined: Apr 21, 2014
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 91
April 10th, 2017 at 3:02:13 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

The restroom I used was the one that had the long entrance that looked more like a club entrance than a restroom. I considered that to be in the casino.



Me too.... and that entrance was most certainly right off the casino floor.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 60
  • Posts: 3141
Thanks for this post from:
PokerGrinder
April 10th, 2017 at 4:55:38 PM permalink
Revel's biggest problem was mismanagement, not design. The management turned off so many players with its snooty attitude on opening. You had Borgata black cardholders and Caesar's diamond cardholders told they can't even get mid-week comped rooms in the giant hotel because "we just don't give out rooms without substantial play." Well how did they expect to get that substantial play if AC's biggest gamblers weren't even given rooms to try the place out?

The design of the casino and hotel is gorgeous, but it does have problems. The biggest problem is that it took forever to get to the casino floor from the hotel. I guess they figured that once you're in the hotel, they already had you. But what they didn't realize is that this was such an inconvenience to some that these customers would avoid booking rooms at Revel simply due to the walk.

This could be easily corrected by putting an elevator to the casino level closer to the rooms.

The second design problem is that the boardwalk-side entrance had a giant wall and the ugly valet parking area between the boardwalk and the Revel entrance. That needs to be changed by removing the wall and moving the valet.

Despite what the other poster says, there is no lack of bathrooms on the casino level and even if there were, that's trivial to fix.
dave12038457
dave12038457
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 260
April 15th, 2017 at 3:53:36 AM permalink
HardRock among others looked at Revel.
HardRock is spending something close to 400 million to reincarnate/rebrand the Taj over the course of 1 1/2 years. They most certainly could have bought Revel for far less then their investment in the Taj property.
Revel is essentially a turnkey operation after licensing and staffing are done. Yet HardRock balked at buying Revel. Nobody doubts that it is a gorgeous property.
But gorgeous doesn't mean profitable in the casino industry.
There is a limited amount of gaming revenue to share amongst existing casinos. The re-opening of The Taj has knocked the feet out from under the hopes of re-opening Revel anytime soon. The pie isn't getting any bigger, only sliced in different ways...
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 162
  • Posts: 9621
April 16th, 2017 at 11:28:07 AM permalink
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of their biggest problems was the no smoking policy. Not so much that it was no smoking indoors, but that they did not have easy access to outdoor smoking areas.

No matter where you were, you had to walk a mile to get outdoors and far enough away from the property to smoke.

But the stupidest example was this: Near the hotel lobby was an area about 30' x 100' oval, which was an open air area but fully within the confines of the building. At one and it was a small bar, and the other end has a small stage area, plenty of seating and a couple fire pits.

In other words, it was designed as a smoking lounge, except it was no smoking. How screwed up is that?

By the way, I don't smoke. Never have.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 60
  • Posts: 3141
April 16th, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of their biggest problems was the no smoking policy. Not so much that it was no smoking indoors, but that they did not have easy access to outdoor smoking areas.

No matter where you were, you had to walk a mile to get outdoors and far enough away from the property to smoke.

But the stupidest example was this: Near the hotel lobby was an area about 30' x 100' oval, which was an open air area but fully within the confines of the building. At one and it was a small bar, and the other end has a small stage area, plenty of seating and a couple fire pits.

In other words, it was designed as a smoking lounge, except it was no smoking. How screwed up is that?

By the way, I don't smoke. Never have.



why should smokers have any expectation of smoking indoors, ever?

the problem wasn't that smokers had to make longs walks; it was that everyone had to make longs walks to get anywhere at that place.

ever been to the poker room? it was like finding a hidden cave at the top of a mountain.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 1177
April 16th, 2017 at 2:44:48 PM permalink
I agree that smoking indoors outside of your own private residence should be a thing of the past everywhere, however I agree with DJTB that if you're designing it as a non smoking property, you should have easy access to outdoor smoking if you don't want to exclude a decent portion of your gambling population.

It's really a matter of time though I believe, seems most jurisdictions that have legalized gambling within the last five years or so on non native land don't allow indoor smoking. (OH, MD?, NY, etc.) They seem to be doing well enough that the argument that making casinos go non smoking will hurt business doesn't really hold water, assuming a level playing field.

Small easily accessible outdoor smoking gambling areas are available at harrahs NO and HS Balt I believe, something like that or the smoking lounges that are in airports, that are comparable to the pathetic "non smoking gaming areas" available in some casinos.
sodawater
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
  • Threads: 60
  • Posts: 3141
April 16th, 2017 at 5:22:02 PM permalink
MGM National Harbor in MD is non-smoking property-wide (you can't even smoke outside) and most weekend they have to stop letting in new customers because they are full to capacity.
Mission146
Administrator
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 104
  • Posts: 9318
April 19th, 2017 at 7:55:57 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

why should smokers have any expectation of smoking indoors, ever?



When you're a smoker and gambler in a market that consists entirely of casinos (besides Revel) that allow smoking, I would say.

The problem with Revel, ultimately, was that it failed to have revenues that exceeded its operating costs, much less operating costs plus debt load. There's more than one reason for that, but most of the reasons involve decisions that alienated or annoyed the existing AC customer base in an effort to create a market that did not exist and would not exist.

One of the decisions that alienated gamblers was having an entirely non-smoking casino in a market in which gamblers could smoke at all other locations. It's true that the long distance to get anywhere TO SMOKE didn't help, but you could make sure the gamblers are within 200 feet of somewhere where they could go out and smoke at all times and some of them still wouldn't be having that as compared to lighting up at the machine or the table.

It has also been mentioned that casinos, 'Do fine,' in markets in which everyone is on equal footing by being Legislated to be non-smoking. While that may be true, certainly some revenue is lost by way of not allowing smoking indoors because, if not, why would so many casinos choose to do it? Why would literally almost every casino in which it is allowed choose to allow it?

I think Revel could have survived as it opened in Las Vegas, I really think you have enough people in and out of the city for whom a 100% non-smoking property would be a big enough draw. Also, I do think that there is a market with whom the attitude of Kevin DeSanctis would have resonated, people keen on enjoying a, 'Better than you,' feel, but not enough of such a market in AC. Las Vegas, maybe, just by virtue of the fact that so many more people go to Las Vegas...though it would be even more difficult for Revel to try to position itself as THE elite property given how many truly impressive ones are already in Vegas.
Vultures can't be choosers.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 1177
April 19th, 2017 at 9:48:48 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

. While that may be true, certainly some revenue is lost by way of not allowing smoking indoors because, if not, why would so many casinos choose to do it? Why would literally almost every casino in which it is allowed choose to allow it?
.



This logic is based on the fallacy that casinos are run by rational people making rational decisions. They, by in large, are not.

  • Jump to: