If anyone at the Tribune meeting tonight uses the phrase, "residential neighborhood" I'm gonna flip.

http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/05/13/74_big.jpg
wikimapia

You know they will.

Bally's Livestream: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...rame/live.html

I'm a few minutes behind live on the livestream, but someone did use it LOL There's a little residential in the area, but yeah...

Think about the BIRDS, oh lawd (if anything I would be more concerned about trash in the river killing the mutant fish).

On a serious note, it looks sick but would attract to many thugs in the surrounding area and decrease property value. The casino will be safe inside, but the quiet streets (and very rich families) around Kingsbury will be like State and Grand next to me, yikes. Also the traffic increase will be minimal especially compared to what's approved that other RE builders would max out.

I want a Chicago casino because of taxes and for my own entertainment (outside of gambling), but the McCormick site makes the most sense logistically, followed by the 78 (which has the best architecture), while Tribune is a distant 3rd overall in terms of feasibility.

EDIT: RE mentioning residential. Of course they will. That very specific area is not, but directly across the river (likely with a bridge) is the 'quiet' old person/family section of RN.

Went to the Bally's proposal tonight.

-1,000,000 sq ft project

-25% minority participation

-25% community investment program

-Best location for revenue potential?? Create an Entertainment District

-Planned Development 1426 approved in 2018 for about 8.5M sq ft of space. This would drop to about 6.5M over-all.

-Temp casino location at 700 W. Chicago with 500 slots, 25 gaming tables and 2-3 food and beverage venues

-Permanent facility 70,000 sq ft entertainment venue and 20,00 sf of exhibition space

-Temp facility about $7,000,000 with permanent facility costing about $1.7 billion

-3 years of construction

-SCB are the architects/LEED certification

-Sub area C is about 10 acres using 1/3 of the PD

-2,100 feet of contiguous riverwalk, parks, water taxi

-37 story hotel (about 440')

-Two floors of underground parking w/about 3000 spaces

-Alderman Burnett was in attendance



I made a few comments... Of course someone said this was a residential area. I stated it was mixed-use area and that Prairie Concrete has been across the street longer than anyone in the room had been alive. I said the current PD allowed for office/residential/hotel and that's MIXED-USE. I also said if they were reducing density by 2M Sw Ft, that it should be office and not the residential. The PD was approved for 4100 residential and 20% (820) would be "affordable". I said I don't think the alderman wants to lose a potential 820 units.

Some complained about the pedestrian bridge at Erie and I hate to delve into history and remind them that there was a street bridge at that location until 1971.

I had not heard about a bridge there ever, but was very surprised when the developers didn't know that.

Your question was the best imo and not the typical NIMBYisms.

I was watching on livestream (a little delayed). Your question/comments was the best I heard. Everyone else's was fear and NIMBY based.

Overall - I liked the Bally's presentation much more than Hard Rock's

1 - The actually discussed how the casino will integrate with the local neighborhoods. The spent time discussing changes to local streetlight configurations, etc. They went into more detail than Hard Rock did.

2 - They really highlight integration with the environment, and along the river. They discussed how the project will look compared to other buildings that may (or may not) get built in this area.

3 - They actually appear to have a plan to incorporate local restaurants. Hard Rock did not.

4 - While several people clapped during critical questions, there was a surprising applause during a comment praising the development and how it will add to the neighborhood.

BVictor1 did a great job highlighting how a bridge existed until 1971... and is not actually a good thing here. Thanks for doing that BVictor1!

For me, Bally's definitely outperformed here against Hard Rock. But..... As I said last night:
1 - Hard Rock has the experience and capital
2 - They can get a project up and out quickly, which ultimately is what the city cares about most.

But.... Hard Rock really distanced themselves from the surrounding neighborhood, and One Central. The Bally's group really embraced the local neighborhood.

Side note - I Really liked the little trick they played with traffic increase.
"Well yeah... there will be more increase with a casino versus a printing building. But.... look at what would be if we don't get chosen!" They are basically saying that this area is going to get built out with density regardless of Bally's being chosen or not.

I actually do think Bally's did a good job answering most questions. They at least *appear* to want to work with the community to make it work and not downgrade their quality of life. It's actually positive to see. I do think the head of the restaurant association had a good callout basically urging them to work with restaurateurs from many other neighborhoods that are typically less represented (i.e. Washington Park and Chatham).

Some of the residents had valid concerns IF Bally's was making a Vegas style casino. But they stated many times that's not what they want to do. Seems like some nearby residents weren't really listening.

I think the main valid concern IMO is traffic. Seems like they have a plan to decrease it but it will still definitely be an issue there. Definitely a good political style deflecrion of "if the casino doesnt get built here then eventually something with even more traffic will."

I'm not really bought into this notion about **violent**crime coming there because there will be some people with money now hanging out there. There are numerous restaurants, lounges , etc in town that attract money and its known. But does crime follow with it? Not really on a big basis. Also, everyone knows that casinos win out in the long run. At the end of the day, someone looking to rob someone coming out of a casino probably has a better chance of finding someone who just lost all their cash than a random person on the street in another part of town. Let's be honest on that one. A lot of people who go to casinos aren't high rollers. They spend $40 or $100 at most on some games, maybe have a few drinks and stuff to eat then call it quits. Why is this any different with the high rollers vs. the same people being visible at restaurants in Gold Coast driving around their Lambos, Ferrari, etc. I mean its obvious they hang out there but are they all being robbed? Well, not to my knowledge right now. It would be interesting to see how crime increases with the opening of a large office of workers who are very well paid on that same note. Is there a fear that violent crime is going to increase now around OPO with the introduction of thousands of 6 figure earning individuals?

Bigger concern is non violent crimes from desperate gamblers really. There's many studies about crime around casinos but most are actually not conclusive. I think its a valid fear, however. But acting as if a casino brings crime because of an increase of people with money but magically a new office with 3000 workers coming daily who make 6 figures doesn't....a bit strange to me.

as currently built, it is not unusual for this neighborhood to see driveby high speed shoot outs between rival gangs.... in the middle of the day.

and the casino is going to bring "Crime"?

That's because they still have those Cabrini rowhouses standing nearby. Bulldoze that whole area and upzone it. Those rowhouses look ugly and dated anyway

Seems like a solid plan. Of the 3 proposals, the only alderman who is in favor of the casino in their ward is Burnett (wonder why :haha:). Curious how much power he actually has. Clearly a fight with neighbors in any of the locations. Will he be able to get this thing done with the two other neighboring alders opposing?

I would think that the 78 would have the best chance of being chosen now. With the alderman Lopez who represents the 78 area now running for Mayoral office this next election, Mayor Lightfoot should have no fear of losing his ward, as he no doubt will win it anyway. It would be just like Lightfoot to make this type of move. Alderman Lopez has already said himself that the fix is in for the 78 casino proposal, i believe that it is the 78 casino proposals to lose.

Can't the casinos solve the robbery problem easily by giving people their winnings thru Venmo or Zelle? In 2022 there's no reason people should be walking away from a casino with $100s or $1000s in cash, unless they really really want to.

Ray Lopez is running for Mayor. Byron Sigcho-Lopez is the alderman representing The 78. Byron didn't even use "Lopez" until he ran for alderman, he just went by Byron Sigcho. When he decided to run for alderman, he decided to hyphenate and take his mother's last name because it's more familiar to Mexicans (Sigcho is Peruvian).

Absolutely yes. None of the other alders have a dog in the fight. There are 50 alders in the city and only 3 of them have an opinion about this particular site. The other 47 will vote based on how they feel about casinos in general.

I'm a little worried that Bally's may get rid of the pedestrian bridge to appease River North NIMBYs. That would be a real shame, since the casino would be a huge boost to restaurants east of the river but only if there is convenient access. I think DPD is really pushing hard for the bridge, though. I'm glad we have Maurice Cox at the helm of DPD but ultimately it's the electeds who will decide.

Still my favorite Alderman.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/04...y-supports-it/

Only saying half in jest but maybe it could be a draw bridge. So that after hours, from say 11pm-6am it could be "drawn up" so stragglers (if that is the worry) can't wander over into the neighborhood. If after a few years the casino seems non-threatening maybe the neighbors would acquiesce or see the utility in keeping it down permanently anyway.

Yes, I suppose it could be. That would be unfortunate, because (depending on the urban design here) it would make a good E-W bike route to avoid dangers on Chicago Ave and connect to the busy bike lanes on Milwaukee via Erie.

Drawbridges tend to be pretty costly, I think that would probably require city $$$ which is a non-starter with the neighbors opposed. A fixed bridge is maybe 1/2-1/3 the cost.

Looking forward to the 78 meeting today! I will be there. Anyone else going?