Yes perhaps but the report outlines in detail 8-10 U.S. based casinos that followed the politically easiest approach directly into financial failure and resulting in very few jobs and tax revenue.

Did you read the same report I did? It takes pains to note that even the "urban failure" casinos still contributed plenty of jobs and tax revenue to local governments, and also notes that urban regeneration is not always the top priority of local officials. When casinos do fail, it's usually because of competition.

I was not aware of the Cleveland Horseshoe casino (now JACK Casino) before reading that report... I didn't think of old department stores as potential casino sites, but they do have the huge floorplates, tall ceilings and sit smack-dab in central business districts. Macy's is the obvious choice given that they're downsizing the store, but they're already committed the upper floors to office space.

I wonder if the Leiter II building would work (aka former Robert Morris College)? RMC got kicked out so it's vacant right now. It's right on Congress (easy highway access), there is a big adjacent empty site on Wabash for a parking garage or hotel expansion, and it's next to multiple transit lines. It's about a 60,000sf floorplate, so just 2 levels of that building used as a gaming floor would put it up with the big boys in Vegas. There are other dining/entertainment/hotel options within easy walking distance, but not right next door. There's also the option to expand on the Pritzker Park site across State.

Thompson Center is another possibility as many have noted, but it's such a weird building I don't see a lot of casino operators signing onto that. At least with Leiter, there is a successful precedent with the Cleveland casino.

IMO, the area in Chicago that best fits the description in the paragraph above is the area bounded roughly by Randolph, LaSalle, Oak St and Fairbanks/Columbus. A couple possible sites for a casino come to mind, including the block bounded by Wabash, Illinois, Hubbard and Rush, but I think the best site would be the Thompson Center. Because it’s a great building that’s begging to be restored and repurposed.

Helmut Jahn has a couple proposals to do this, none of which include a casino. Here’s a link to his latest, which includes retail, offices, a hotel and apartments. It's fairly detailed; for example, showing the floor plan for 55 hotel rooms on the 14th floor. The office space is shown on floors three thru eight, which I think is enough space for a casino.

Ardecila:
The Leiter’s an interesting idea. Another opportunity to repurpose a large old building (I remember when it was Sears) and much better than an “island model” development. But still, the area around Leiter is not as tourist-attractive as the North Loop and River North.

I have identified some areas that I have highlighted with colors, such as possible places to build the casino. :)

http://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...08&oe=5EFF700C

In the Blue area there would be room for a large casino plus a 2,000 ft observatory tower.

The Red and Yellow areas could only are the places for the casino, while the Green area could be built the 2,000 ft observatory tower with restaurants and observation points for tourists. :tup:

This looks really cool. Attach his proposed super tall addition and its golden. Just for the love of God, update the color scheme.

Why does it have to be one giant casino? If we are talking about integrating into some zone why not break it up and have one operator with several small casinos in buildings that fit well within the context of the zone?

I'm not a gambler and I think people who go to casinos are just throwing their money away for a very fleeting experience, but there's something alluring about a larger casino. The bigger, the grander, the more prestigious it feels and gives the sense that one is more likely to win big. The smaller public gambling establishments are, the more shady they feel. Just my opinions.

My take after reading the report is that planners should really look for a sweet spot where the casino operator can still make some money with on-site dining and entertainment, but other offerings in the neighborhood provide visitors with options. Not a full island, but kind of a hybrid. That's how the Vegas strip works, after all - people can hop from casino to casino, or they can stay on one casino's premises the entire time. Having the choice makes the casino appealing to the widest variety of visitors.

If you put a casino in River North on, say, the Fort Dearborn post office site, why would you ever eat inside the casino when you're surrounded by amazing restaurants? Why would you stay at the casino when the area already is chock-full of hotels at every price level and style? That was, as the report noted, the issue with the New Orleans Harrah's casino for the first few years, where the operator was not allowed to provide dining, lodging or entertainment... the casino really needs to offer more than just gambling to meet the financial goals of the operators and the city/state. If you put the casino in an area where the operator can't realistically compete on these things, it's just the same as banning them from providing it.

It's a shame the Chicago casino wasn't getting off the ground 3-4 years ago, they could have really jumped on the food hall trend before Time Out, Wells Street, etc. I still think there's room for innovation there if you could find a way to do small plates (under $5) and encourage people to sample.

I would be surprised if this casino is located anywhere other than the most inappropriate location that pisses off everyone involved -- residents, city officials, gamblers, employees, etc...

My only experience with a downtown casino is the Harris in New Orleans. It's perfectly located between downtown and the French Quarter. It just adds to the fun of the city. A night on the town for residents and visors alike could involve a dinner in the warehouse district, a few rounds of slots or blackjack at the casino, and a nightcap at a bar in the Quarter. All within walking distance of each other. The casino has the effect of adding to the fabric of the experience and not an island onto itself.

Any other city with a casino within its borders always is on the fringe of the city, accessible by car only, or in a shady part of town that no one feels safe to venture around. If there is going to be a casino, why not integrate it into a neighborhood and have it as part of the nightlife attraction.

Wow - I somehow missed your post when I made mine. This is exactly how I feel too.

Seems to me the most logical area for a Chicago casino would be in the McCormick Place Convention Center area.That vicinity already has a convention center, an arena , new hotels and access to major highways and LSD. Also this location is not far from the Museum district, the lakefront and Soldier Field. I admit that the area lacks quality restaurants but with the presence of a casino and the traffic it would bring that would probably be rectified. Another hidden plus for this area is that it is pretty much confined to commercial use and would have minimal effect on the residential community.

^It would be great if it went in the vacant base of the Trump Tower.

This is IMO by far the most logical choice for all the reasons above. Also sports + casino should go together well, especially if there is sports betting on site which there will be.

Fairly close to Guaranteed Rate Field and Chinatown too, so that's a solid bonus

There is nowhere near enough space in there and its massively chopped up by enormous collums that you obviously can't move...

Any casino needs a huge open main floor like the bottom of Thomson Center or McCormick Place East.

Yeah, those storefronts are tiny

McCormick Place Convention Center area

http://www.mccormickplace.com/wp-con...3593066201.jpg

Yes, the McCormick Place Convention Center area could be a good position. The casino could also be located above McCormick Place East or beyond it.

Instead the four blocks close to McCormick Place Convention Center (Motor Row district, etc.) could be the ideal place for new hotels, restaurants and shops.

Finally, a large hotel and the 2,000 ft observatory tower could be built on the South Parking area. ;)

Out of curiosity - you seem to be a big fan of a 2000 ft observation tower. Why?

Because I like the idea of a 2,000ft tower that can finally change the city skyline. In addition, the tower and casino would attract many tourists. It would become the new symbol of the city. Who would not like to have lunch and enjoy at the same time a breathtaking panorama of the city and the lake from a height of 1,600ft?:)
Also consider that such a tower would cost much less than a skyscraper of the same size. The construction of a large casino could represent a good possibility to finally build a 2,000 ft tower, which otherwise the builders or the city would hardly want to build.;)

If we are wish-listing, I vote for a 1600ft tower, but it needs to be in the heart of the Loop. Anything taller than Sears is going to look ridiculous that far south (McCormick). Thompson is the perfect spot for one aesthetically and for a casino.

My $.02