SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | City Casino (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239761)

ardecila Mar 23, 2022 9:59 PM

For all the whining about traffic at the Tribune site, the traffic at The 78 might be worse. Ever tried to drive on Roosevelt between the Dan Ryan and Clark? The difference is that the traffic on Halsted and Chicago is rich people in Audis and Teslas who are screaming about their commute, and on Roosevelt it's middle-class people in Corollas and used pickups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegoatman (Post 9576053)
The 78 will have an underground red line station. If they pick the Tribune, they need to add an L station there.

I strongly suspect the Red Line stop has been quietly canceled. There's no reason for Related to spend upwards of $300M to build a subway station unless the site will be developed with millions of SF in office space like Fulton Market. But the casino is a vast blob that will swallow up most of the land where that office space would've been built, and few people are gonna ride CTA to the casino.

However, suppose they did build the Red Line station per the original plan. The 78 site is really really big. The new Red Line station would actually be further from the 78 casino than the Tribune casino is from the Blue Line at Chicago or Grand.

I agree the Tribune site needs some transit investment, so hopefully the city gets moving on the North Branch Transitway up to Lincoln Yards. Right now Union Pacific controls the rail corridor, and they won't sell it so long as Blommer Chocolate still needs shipments. So the city might need to give Blommer Chocolate some incentives to leave, after years of giving them incentives to stay. :haha:

Randomguy34 Mar 23, 2022 10:59 PM

^ Bally's said they'll develop the portion of the transitway that runs through their site. It'll be for bus & bike use only

Page 17: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...port_FINAL.pdf

Klippenstein Mar 23, 2022 11:08 PM

Why can’t Blommer Chocolate just use the upper tracks and abandon the lower tracks?

sentinel Mar 23, 2022 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9577008)
^ Bally's said they'll develop the portion of the transitway that runs through their site. It'll be for bus & bike use only

Page 17: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...port_FINAL.pdf

Ultimately, I suspect it'll go the Hard Rock Chicago, because based on the report alone, it may have the 2nd largest annual economic impact ($185 million), but it will support the highest number of jobs, over 19,000.

MAC123 Mar 23, 2022 11:28 PM

Man idk about it being used specifically for this casino, but the 78 design is amazing. I hope it gets used somewhere.

galleyfox Mar 23, 2022 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 9577017)
Ultimately, I suspect it'll go the Hard Rock Chicago, because based on the report alone, it may have the 2nd largest annual economic impact ($185 million), but it will support the highest number of jobs, over 19,000.

I feel like jobs are a marginal issue when looking at the big picture. Most are temporary construction jobs that will all conclude by 2026. Realistically, the permanent casino jobs should all be in the same ballpark of 2-3K.

Hard Rock

Construction jobs: 16,607
Casino jobs: 3,140 (2,713 FT)

Bally’s Tribune

Construction Phase I: 9,750
Construction Phase II: 2,500
Casino: 2002 (1,856 FT)

Rivers 78

Construction: 3,410-4,375
Casino: (3,425 FT)

RockfordSoxFan Mar 24, 2022 1:16 AM

I'm one of the 11 that voted for Tribune site. i still stand by that proposal.

rivernorthlurker Mar 24, 2022 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 9577017)
Ultimately, I suspect it'll go the Hard Rock Chicago, because based on the report alone, it may have the 2nd largest annual economic impact ($185 million), but it will support the highest number of jobs, over 19,000.

Agree. Additionally the 78 is the lowest/smallest by several measures, even more extremely so if the observation deck were not to be built.

And the 78 has the latest completion dates in both temporary and permanent, especially for the temporary portion by a full year (page 8 Table 2).

IMO I don't think the 78 will be picked, and I think it's really One Central vs Tribune site. Ultimately I think the Hard Rock will be chosen as well.

I'm not a fan of the Tribune proposal so I suppose I'd prefer One Central.

Klippenstein Mar 24, 2022 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker (Post 9577515)
IMO I don't think the 78 will be picked, and I think it's really One Central vs Tribune site. Ultimately I think the Hard Rock will be chosen as well.

Ok, I hear your argument against the 78 site, but what about Tribune? You’re just assuming that the grand possibility of keeping the Bears will overwhelm the senses of the mayor? Or that there’s a back room deal?

It’s not really my favorite design, but I just voted for Tribune after holding off my vote because I think it’s the safest bet. I think the city doesn’t want to take any chances with this and ONE Central is the long shot.

r18tdi Mar 24, 2022 2:41 PM

Does anyone really expect the city to pick the best proposal? I certainly don't. This is a political process, not a design competition.

ardecila Mar 24, 2022 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippenstein (Post 9577013)
Why can’t Blommer Chocolate just use the upper tracks and abandon the lower tracks?

Good question. I think they use both. Looks like the lower track is used for tanker cars carrying milk, and the upper track is used for cars carrying sugar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9577008)
^ Bally's said they'll develop the portion of the transitway that runs through their site. It'll be for bus & bike use only

Page 17: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...port_FINAL.pdf

I read that too. The language is confusing. There is an existing PD covering the site that includes certain commitments; Bally's would take over that PD and they would be on the hook for those commitments even if they change the allowed uses to permit a casino. But the PD doesn't require them to build the transitway, they just need to leave space for it to be built in the future.

rivernorthlurker Mar 24, 2022 3:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippenstein (Post 9577530)
Ok, I hear your argument against the 78 site, but what about Tribune? You’re just assuming that the grand possibility of keeping the Bears will overwhelm the senses of the mayor? Or that there’s a back room deal?

It’s not really my favorite design, but I just voted for Tribune after holding off my vote because I think it’s the safest bet. I think the city doesn’t want to take any chances with this and ONE Central is the long shot.

I was mostly going by sentinel's logic with the very high job creation (and didn't even consider the Bears thing) - which breaks down into Hard Rock having 50% more long term operating jobs and almost double phase one Bally's construction jobs. The Rivers McCormick and Bally's McCormick which were apparently nixed were on the low end of economic impact and jobs as well so I feel like this indicates their priorities around that.

Additionally Bally's at Tribune is broken down into two 'Phases' so there is some uncertainty around that while Hard Rock seems to be one big commitment.

Also Hard Rock shows two quarters earlier permanent completion which would mean like an extra $90M for the city if that happens (but there's a footnote where the plan commission doesn't believe that's realistic :))

Who knows where all these numbers come from, but this is just how I view the situation.

west-town-brad Mar 24, 2022 5:23 PM

do these projections/commitments have any teeth in them?

west-town-brad Mar 24, 2022 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 9577552)
Does anyone really expect the city to pick the best proposal? I certainly don't. This is a political process, not a design competition.

for this reason I see the most pro-development alderman being the winner, which means the tribune site will win. (burnett's ward)

already the aldercreatures covering the south side options are complaining for more oversight, which could slow and or straight up kill any casino development in their wards even after being granted the license

jpIllInoIs Mar 24, 2022 7:45 PM

One Central cannot win, that whole project smells like corporate welfare. As soon as they would be awarded the license they will begin talking about Infrastructure needs. Is access over the Rail Row required? Has anyone talked to CN? And then the whole "Shops of Rosemont" DSLSD light treatment.

marothisu Mar 24, 2022 7:51 PM

Originally I was the most for the Tribune site until I saw The 78. The more I read and re-read, the more I am equally for the Tribune site. As Chicago sheds it's very industrial past and goes towards the future, I find this just as important. These parts of the city near the expressway are weird in an industrial way. Especially as these companies move elsewhere. This is a prime location. Traffic concerns apart from this, I might be becoming more pro Tribune site now.

The 78 is going to happen regardless of this casino or not. But the Tribune site may lay dormant for another decade if the casino does not go there. It might be more attractive to actually not have a casino at the 78 TBH because of DPI. A high pct of residents are against it so thr alderman may side with them anyway.

The city will go with what makes the most economic sense which might be the Tribune site. Only way I see Hard Rock happening is if there's a legit deal struck with the Bears to keep them in the city. Otherwise I think the Tribune site will be chosen.

rivernorthlurker Mar 24, 2022 8:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9578013)
Originally I was the most for the Tribune site until I saw The 78. The more I read and re-read, the more I am equally for the Tribune site. As Chicago sheds it's very industrial past and goes towards the future, I find this just as important. These parts of the city near the expressway are weird in an industrial way. Especially as these companies move elsewhere. This is a prime location. Traffic concerns apart from this, I might be becoming more pro Tribune site now.

The 78 is going to happen regardless of this casino or not. But the Tribune site may lay dormant for another decade if the casino does not go there. It might be more attractive to actually not have a casino at the 78 TBH because of DPI. A high pct of residents are against it so thr alderman may side with them anyway.

The city will go with what makes the most economic sense which might be the Tribune site. Only way I see Hard Rock happening is if there's a legit deal struck with the Bears to keep them in the city. Otherwise I think the Tribune site will be chosen.

From the commission document

Quote:

Further explanation of the proposed construction costs
is needed from Hard Rock Chicago. The Hard Rock Chicago
proposal is to build the casino in a phase I of the “Entertainment
District” of the broader ONE Central development. The original
RFP submission estimated the total cost of the casino
construction was $1.7 billion and an additional estimated
$550 million civic build. The $550 million is Landmark’s
estimates of the phase I costs of the $3.8 billion civic build
for the total One Central development. The City does not have
enough information to determine the reasonableness of this
$550 million estimate. As a part of the City’s evaluation
process, Hard Rock Chicago communicated that it found
cost savings which now allows it to fold these civic build
costs into the same $1.7 billion in construction costs.

Quote:

At this point, no City public investment for infrastructure has
been asked for or committed toward this project. However, the
ONE Central project has been actively seeking $3.8 billion in
financing from the State through a P3 agreement repaid through
state sales tax revenues subordinate to the State’s Build Illinois
bonds. As noted earlier, Hard Rock Chicago would commit
that the estimated $550 million of the $3.8 billion will be built
regardless of the status of the P3 agreement.
This doesn’t
preclude Landmark from continuing to seek the P3
agreement and state funding for the project.
Quote:

Hard Rock Chicago would secure a completion guarantee for
its lenders and agrees to fund its equity upfront when the
financing closes.
Sounds pretty enticing (too good to be true?) if Hard Rock is just gonna foot a half a billion dollars for the first part of the One Central Development. How true this is in practice might be a different story probably based on factors I don't totally understand.

I am the same feeling the 78 will happen regardless. The Tribune Site is too juicy too that it will happen regardless, yes in 5 to 10 years maybe (the casino isn't suppose to open until 2026 anyway). The One Central Development is very much in doubt. If this is a catalyst for that to happen, then I'm for it.

Additionally living close to the Tribune Site, I sort of think it's a bit of a disaster access wise. The Ontario and Ohio ramps are nightmares basically every day of the week at rush hour already. There's not direct access from the highway and you'll have to do a bit of driving around some ultra congested streets on weekends. Additionally I'm not a fan of a casino being plopped so close to low income housing on Chicago between Larabee and Hudson. I suppose it will create jobs but it just feels a bit icky to introduce gambling to a low income area like that.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but lake access would be pretty sweet with the Hard Rock. I can imagine day cruise all the way from Indiana to Wisconsin that take you to the casino and back, not to mention Navy Pier as well. Though I suppose that's still possible with the Tribune Site.

Randomguy34 Mar 24, 2022 8:34 PM

^ I've been dooming the past couple months about One Central being the city's pick. If it's true they have private capital to fund the civic build, then hopefully that'll kill the chance of them getting billions of public tax dollars.

west-town-brad Mar 24, 2022 8:42 PM

sorry to say but if one central is the pick, don't expect to ever seen this thing get built

a temporary casino location will be created but nothing more...

it's too complicated, too many private parties involved, too many interrelated governmental bodies, too much political will required across multiple administrations at the state and city level, its like the worst investment proposal you could imagine

the tribune site is simple and easy in comparison

BVictor1 Mar 24, 2022 9:22 PM

For those wanting to sign up for the town halls...

Bally's
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-chi...s-303051764987

Hard Rock
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-chi...aff=erellivmlt

Rivers 78
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/chicago...aff=erellivmlt


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.