CHICAGO | City Casino
Looks like the city is opting to throw billions in tax revenue away by locating the casino far from where anyone will want to go. Genius.
Quote:
I expected better, Lori. |
^ Seriously, so poorly thought out.
I'm already calling it WAY short on revenue projections. |
Quote:
But seriously, would love for it to be North Lawndale, more money for me... |
CHICAGO | City Casino
https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot
Did anyone see the list of 5 sites for the Chicago casino? They are all in southside or westside neighborhoods other than Michael Reese site. I thought the idea was to put it where tourists go, to get money from tourists? These looks like far flung and impoverished locations. I don't think it's a good thing to plop a giant casino into an impoverished neighborhood, that's not going to help anything. It should be next to McCormick to get the money from conventioneers and tourists downtown. I don't think tourists are going to trek to Lawndale or 111th. I sure wouldn't want to go all the way south to 111th, although I might go if it was downtown. Here are the five sites: Harborside at 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway in Pullman the former Michael Reese hospital at 31st and Cottage Grove in Bronzeville Pershing Road and State Street in Bronzeville Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue in Lawndale the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th and Lake Shore Drive in South Chicago |
Quote:
I agree that it should be McCormick, and the choice really shouldn't even be close. |
Here's my casino suggestion. It benefits from there being few NIMBYs in the vicinity and is close-ish proximity to downtown and all rail terminals. I call it The 79.
https://i.imgur.com/DBhUjOl.png In the plan but not shown above: New stadium for Chicago Fire. When do the eminent domain proceedings start? |
^Great spot for a casino- walking distance of Union Station. Same with the Chicago Fire stadium. #noBrainer
|
wow to the casino sites.. Roosevelt and kostner??
|
I like the State/Pershing site, actually. It's close to a Green Line stop at Indiana and several bus lines, so workers will have easy transit access from the South or West Sides. It's close enough to Guaranteed Rate to maybe use their parking facilities, and it could potentially tie into the abandoned Kenwood rail line as an elevated trail like the 606.
Of course, i'd prefer a site that was actually ON the Guaranteed Rate parking lots. I don't know why that was ruled out... lots of potential synergies between the White Sox and a casino operator to create an entertainment district that the Sox currently lack. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot. By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas. The best place in Chicago to put a casino? Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district. The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location. I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities. It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas. With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again? Lesser sites Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side. In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street. The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap. But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero. An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants. A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access. Why not Navy Pier? A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by. So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue. Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville. Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking … Big Jim might be a smart bet So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block. You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center. Two conclusions: •The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling. •Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out. |
Quote:
As long as a Casino can be walked into from the sidewalk, isn't surround by surface parking and doesn't require entering in through a parking garage or a Bellagio-style 300 yard setback, I'll be happy. And I'd like there to be a sorts book. |
I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.
Quote:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot. By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas. The best place in Chicago to put a casino? Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district. The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location. I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities. It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas. With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again? Lesser sites Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side. In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street. The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap. But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero. An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants. A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access. Why not Navy Pier? A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by. So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue. Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville. Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking … Big Jim might be a smart bet So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block. You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center. Two conclusions: •The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling. •Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out. see also why-lightfoot-should-go-all-downtown-casino https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...owntown-casino |
it looks like lightfoot is poised to drop the ball on this. :uhh:
you put a casino where we can suck the money out of the wallets of lonely business travelers/convention goers, which chicago receives by the millions every year. putting this out in lawndale, pullman, or US steel site means we miss out on all of that. micheal reese or state/pershing might get us some of that action, but will still leave billions of dollars of out-of-town tourist money on the table. dumb. |
Ald. King (4th) has said she doesn't want it at the Michael Reese site, and Ald. Dowell (3rd) has said she doesn't want it at State & Pershing.
You don't put a casino where you need the jobs; you put it where there are suckers who can easily be fleeced. That means downtown. Much as I want Thompson Center saved, I think it's too large and is really bad optics (nearly bankrupt state desperately converts office building to casino). The about-to-be-vacant Medinah Temple would be an interesting possibility. |
I really like how New Orleans has a casino downtown. It's easily walkable by tourists, and I wasn't planning on going there to gamble but when I saw it nearby I thought why not.
That's why it needs to be downtown or in the south loop at least. It's a huge mistake to locate it where the jobs are needed, the workers can easily take the red line to the casino from the southside. It would be perfect for the Motor Row entertainment district! Or next to the Sox stadium as was mentioned. Chicago needs a glamorous casino that can synergize with existing entertainment and dining downtown. |
Quote:
Aaron (Glowrock) |
Everybody is jumping the gun here.
These aren't the only finalists. The city casino is going to be privately owned, and the private operator, after consultation with the analysts and reviewing their study, will have a major say in the site decision. The study that will be released on Aug. 12 has to see whether the casino under the current terms is even economically viable at all, much less where it will go. This is political theater to show the South and West sides that the city made every possible effort to move jobs closer to them. Also to see whether these neighborhoods even want a casino at all if they were to be chosen, or if they'll try to fight it. It may very well be that Illinois residents going to Indiana are a more reliable source of revenue than conventioners. Or that rent and parking make a Downtown casino uncompetitive among other issues. |
Quote:
It’s a gamble... but not a gamble without a purpose. Time will tell whether it will pay off or not. No pun intended. That said, I still think it’s early. We could very well see an entirely new site emerge as the favorite. |
Of the listed sites only Michael Reese is even close to being a decent location for the casino. No tourist is going to almost any of those neighborhoods. And the idea that jobs have to be in a neighborhood to help lower income people (or any potential employee) is simply not true. There aren't good jobs in my neighborhood and most everyone is doing fine.
Lightfoot has been a pretty big disappointment to me so far. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 9:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.