Did you think casinos were designed off the cuff? Or that their magnificence was the result of some kind of drug-infused magical memories on the part of an architect or interior designer? Probably not, since in spite of their carefully chosen "themes," these game palaces seem to resemble one another in so many ways. Here's an article that investigates one theory behind the bright lights and loud noises intended to separate you from your cash as pleasantly as possible.
I continue my exploration of gaming law by examining casino design. I will argue that in Canada – where gaming is under the rigid monopolistic control of the Provincial Governments – that casino design may be as much of a legal question as it is a psychological and architectural issue.
When it comes to casino design, there are two models that ‘dominate’ the landscape. The model proposed by David Krane argues that casinos should be designed like ‘adult playgrounds. In this model, the comfort and ‘homely’ feeling of a casino is emphasized, as is open spaces, high ceilings, water and vegetation. In contrast, the Friedman International Standards of Casino Design focus on player counts and utilitarian features. In this model, the design and layout of the gaming machines and tables is central. Low ceilings, congested gaming equipment, short sight lines and narrow, winding aisles (that lead to isolated, intimate playing areas) are key. Ontario casinos are said to be a blend of the Krane and Friedman design principles. In this article, I explore the viability of a Canadian casino that is designed largely on the Friedman Design Principles, and suggest that many of these “international standards” or “winning principles” may not apply in Canada. And unlike George Costanza from Seinfeld, I feign no expertise in architecture (although I did have a passing interest in marine biology at one time).
Download the full text from SSRN at the link.
Comments