Quote:
Originally Posted by TR Devlin
The Leiter’s an interesting idea. Another opportunity to repurpose a large old building (I remember when it was Sears) and much better than an “island model” development. But still, the area around Leiter is not as tourist-attractive as the North Loop and River North.
|
My take after reading the report is that planners should really look for a sweet spot where the casino operator can still make
some money with on-site dining and entertainment, but other offerings in the neighborhood provide visitors with options. Not a full island, but kind of a hybrid. That's how the Vegas strip works, after all - people can hop from casino to casino, or they can stay on one casino's premises the entire time. Having the choice makes the casino appealing to the widest variety of visitors.
If you put a casino in River North on, say, the Fort Dearborn post office site, why would you ever eat inside the casino when you're surrounded by amazing restaurants? Why would you stay at the casino when the area already is chock-full of hotels at every price level and style? That was, as the report noted, the issue with the New Orleans Harrah's casino for the first few years, where the operator was not allowed to provide dining, lodging or entertainment... the casino really needs to offer more than just gambling to meet the financial goals of the operators and the city/state. If you put the casino in an area where the operator can't realistically compete on these things, it's just the same as banning them from providing it.
It's a shame the Chicago casino wasn't getting off the ground 3-4 years ago, they could have really jumped on the food hall trend before Time Out, Wells Street, etc. I still think there's room for innovation there if you could find a way to do small plates (under $5) and encourage people to sample.