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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

do these projections/commitments have any teeth in them?

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

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.

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

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.

^ 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.

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

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

I might go to the Bally's townhall just to be inside the Tribune printing facility before its eventual demolition

Thanks for sharing this. I think I will attend the Rivers 78 town hall.

Agreed that the Tribune site is simpler, but I think they can pull off Hard Rock. Bob Dunn very clearly owns the air rights over both Metra and CN railroads. These were sold by Illinois Central in the 1970s and any developer wishing to build there has had a clear path to do so. Making the numbers work is the hard part, which is why Dunn is asking for billions in taxpayer money to build the deck.

Well, I'm not sure how much of those air rights can actually be used without first redoing Weldon Yard to allow supporting columns.

As I study the site, it occurs to me that any structure built east of the original railroad tracks—and there'd have to be some, perhaps 25 percent of the site area—will be subject to the same Public Trust Land challenge that doomed the Lucas Museum.

Friends of the railyards are gonna be all over that!

Today's 42nd Ward newsletter: Translation: Brendan has heard from his chums at RNRA and they speak for the entire ward.