When I hear mention of a casino anchoring an entertainment district the idea of a casino being located somewhere near the Uptown Entertainment District comes to mind.

Something like this could also be the key to fully restoring the Uptown Theater for the casino to use as an entertainment venue? Just a wild thought.

I could see it working, but I think this casino will be more geared towards a downtown destination for tourists, suburbanites, and maybe some locals as the city tries to get the most tax $$. Been mentioned here previously but the Hippodrome in London should be a good template, maybe with a hotel tower component.

If additional (smaller) casinos open in the future, I'd hope they're more geared towards neighborhood entertainment... Uptown, Chinatown/the 78, UC lots would be good contenders.

whatever location is easiest to drain the pockets of the 58 million tourists who visit Chicago every year

loop/mccormick place vicinity

Ah yes, Uptown, because you totally want to locate a huge gambling facility next to the largest concentration of social services in the region...

This casino will be as close to downtown as possible. Probably within the rectangle of LSD, North, Damen, I-55. Anything outside of that is too poorly-sited for tourists.

The urban design will probably suck. Just get used to it. None of the casinos recently erected in Philly, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cincy, or St Louis have been anything more than giant windowless boxes with a parking garage and huge porte cocheres. Cleveland (Jacks) and Detroit Greektown are interesting counterexamples but neither of them is really super profitable.

It would be interesting to get an Asian themed casino near Chinatown, especially if one of the big Asian operators wanted to open here (Genting, Galaxy, Crown, etc).

could backfire, but also could add a ton of dependable jobs in the area, which is seemingly the largest concentration of concert venues in the region... I imagine a good amount of foot traffic before and after those events. Could help break up the entry lines and post-show red line crowding!

Stick it on the Macerich owned site the North Bridge expansion was conceived of going on. Downtown doesn't need more retail and they could design it to bridge across Illinois for an expansion if Nordstrom ever relocated or reduced space. Build giant hotel/apartment towers on top of it.

I think McCormick is a decent secondary site but River North is probably where you want this.

Lightfood saying the casino will anchor an entertainment complex is not the same as saying it will anchor an entertainment district. A complex where guests can stay until all their money is spent was pretty much a given. And the windowless box mentioned is probably the most likely scenario

How big of a parcel for land do you think they need? The parcels of land at 2240 and 2302-32 S Wabash are for sale from the same owner. They're across the street from one another and currently industrial lots. Total land is nearly 1.85 acres - 1 parcel is 1.14 acres while the other is 0.83 acres.

This site is right around the corner from the McCormick Center Green Line stop, near McCormick Place, near the up and coming Motor Row area, near Chinatown, near Wintrust Arena, etc. Also just a few blocks north of that proposed E Sports Arena.

Depending on how much land they need, this is a pretty good spot. I'm sure those townhomes across the street would raise hell though.

https://cawleychicago.com/availabili...Id=546687-sale


There's also a 1.55 acre parcel of land for sale along the river at 1050 N Kingsbury, a little south of Division off of Halsted. This is about a mile from the proposed and future entertainment area that was the Morton Salt plant. Also about a mile to Clark/Division red line, and near the expressway. Not as good of a location as the other one, but still not bad.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/1050...o-IL/17327427/

The operators and developers that responded to the city's RFI said they needed 10 to 25 acres in order to run. Even if several parcels were stitched together, there aren't many sites in the central area that can accommodate that much space. The River District has previously expressed interest in hosting a temporary or permanent casino on its 37 acre site

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/8/8/...strict-tribune

Yeah that's pretty big. I wonder if some operators will propose something more vertical too. River District area you linked to though could work I guess...

I doubt anyone will put this out in the "middle of nowhere" (relatively). My guess is it'll be close/close-ish to downtown.

A readers comment from that link from 2019 I found compelling.

BTW what happened to Curbed ? There hasn't been a new story in a year.

EDIT I found out



https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/curbed-la-closing/

While some Curbed content from L.A. and San Francisco is expected to continue being produced, local editions of the site in Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit have now been fully closed. Curbed sites in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Seattle, and Washington D.C. were sunset in December 2019.

I honestly want to know who told the city they need 25 acres because that is just nuts. Rivers out in Des Plaines has about an acre of gaming space in I think an under 4 acre total floor area structure.

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...IResponses.pdf

“According to the 4 casino operator respondents, the minimum acreage for an urban casino is:
• 10 acres but such a small site would cause bifurcation of casino floor and amenities (multiple levels); to
avoid bifurcation of the casino floor and amenities, need for 20-30 acres;
• 15 acres (to accommodate 350,000 sq. ft. footprint);
• 14-20 acres; or
• 12-25 acres.
One real estate developer suggests minimum acreage of 5-10 acres.
Another real estate developer suggests the minimum acreage could be as low as 5-6 acres (allowing 40,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. baseline) and build vertically (7-9 stories). This respondent notes, however, that development costs will increase as the site size is smaller. This respondent assumes parking will be on land adjacent to the casino site.
The respondent proposing a location outside of downtown Chicago offers a site of 100 Acres”

My guess is that they're dealing with casino operators and developers who might be used to more sprawl casinos that are in 1 floor for the actual gambling/entertainment portion. It'll be interesting to see what operators they get now with some of the other news. Even at 10 acres you can have a pretty big complex.

MGM Macau - ~10 acres
Cosmopolitan Las Vegas: 8.5 acres
MGM Las Vegas: 6.6 acres
Sands Macau: ~6 acres
Casino Lisboa (Lisbon, Portugal - without a hotel tower): ~2.6 acres
Alitra Macau: < 2 acres

etc

It would actually be cool to get a casino operator who has operated in Macau for the first one in Chicago.

My vote would either go for something like that South Loop site or the River District. I think for the more "wow" factor the river would be better. Literally right on the river and they could do a lot with that. Plus it's not far from the Blue Line, the expressway, etc. Some of the hotel rooms in a tower would have really great views of the skyline too. My vote would probably go for that in all honesty.

oof

This kind of thing sounds good, but from what I have read - like this linked article - this isn't usually what happens outside places like Vegas
https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...y-money-106709

This is a challenge:

seeking a site that optimizes revenue while not cannibalizing surrounding businesses (or possibly even having a positive development impact), retains money from those who currently travel across the border without taking money from those who cannot afford it or sucking in too many dollars that would otherwise be spent elsewhere in the community, accessible to those who most need jobs, and somehow attracting more than the normal share of out-of-towners.

^ Interesting. In that case, if its going to be mostly people within a 50 mile radius, lets make it as easy as possible for suburbanites to get in (even better, NW Indiana residents). That would be money from outside the city (and outside the state) coming into the city's treasury. This would mean that it would need proximity to highways.
Keeping it near downtown for the occasional tourist/business traveler doesn't hurt either. That basically narrows the locations down to somewhere near 90/95, 290, or 55.

Something along Goose Island/Lincoln Yards might not work due to community pushback/NIMBYism. Traffic is already a nightmare up there as is.

90/94 through the West Loop is already congested and there is not a lot of developable space either.

290 could work if you go west enough, past Ashland? Near the UC? But then you start getting a bit far from the traditional tourist zones. The plus side is it could force the CTA to finally open a Madison Pink Line stop? lol

90/94 south of the Circle would be a great option, there are large blocks to the east of the highway between Harrison and 18th, and one of those sites could be converted into a casino/entertainment area that would easily tie in with the rest of the city. Since the area is mostly commercial/industrial as it is, there would be limited NIMBY complaints.

55 is probably too far south, and even if we wanted to located it near McCormick Place, it would be best not to situate it on its southern extreme, instead placing it north of the convention center, in between it and the South Loop for closer proximity to downtown. That could work if there was direct access from LSD, but not sure if you could find a site large enough in that area.

Build it on all the lots around United Center if they are gonna demand that much space...

Uh.... what? My parents have an acre yard and when I was a kid I mowed it with a push mower. When you drive past it it takes about 1.5s going 35pmh.

When I'm in Vegas going into the Ventian or something I'll text a friend, "I'm right outside. I'll be able to walk to where you are in 15 or 20 minutes." A big casino is the size of a small mall. And no serious casino splits up the major attractions onto a second floor.

I like the idea of a UC Casino more and more. One thing I think any operator would want would be a guarantee from the Bulls/Blackhawks to stay at the UC for another +20 years so as to guarantee UC foot traffic after games. Maybe an operator could go in on helping upgrades to the UC (or paying in part for a new UC on the UC lots as part of an integrated complex). It could be a beneficial symbolic partnership. You do have poor neighborhoods nearby but you also would be getting a ready-made catchment of 20k well-heeled sports and concert fans over 100 times per year looking to stay out after games/shows.

It's close to the expressway, not too far from all the major downtown tourist zones, and yes if a Pink Line stop were to ever get built it could be integrated into the casino and be easy to get to.