[C.]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

Wow - I somehow missed your post when I made mine. This is exactly how I feel too.