CHICAGO | City Casino

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

marothisue, so, dude, you need to stop comparing this tiny little non-existent '78' neighborhood in chicago with the entire city of LAS VEGAS... seriously? do I really need to elaborate?

The Strip is in Paradise, NV so...


But also you're doing the opposite extreme you're accusing him of. You're equating the strip to the entire city when it is not. And with the Red Line station the theater district and State St. shopping are a 10 minute train ride away, and Michigan Ave. is another 10. Yes there's nothing at the 78 now, but stop pretending like they're building this in Northlake

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by generallogan

I just re-read the proposals and Rivers at McCormick is hands down the best choice. Reuse the existing structure, save money on both ends (reduced construction costs/reduced ongoing maintenance/less demo) and make money mostly from tourists/suburbanites while providing lots of jobs (relatively quickly) located south of the loop. I'm sure they can throw in an observation tower if that will make everyone happy.

Save the 78 to lure researchers, scientists, and build a true live/work/play neighborhood over a 20 year period.

"save money on both ends" should not be part of the conversation IMO. In case you're not aware the city is not paying to build this thing, it is all private developer $

[generallogan]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

"save money on both ends" should not be part of the conversation IMO. In case you're not aware the city is not paying to build this thing, it is all private developer $

The state of IL MPEA will have to figure out how to maintain McCormick, so finding a deep pocket developer with casino plans kills two birds.

Money is always a part of the conversation.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by generallogan

I just re-read the proposals and Rivers at McCormick is hands down the best choice. Reuse the existing structure, save money on both ends (reduced construction costs/reduced ongoing maintenance/less demo) and make money mostly from tourists/suburbanites while providing lots of jobs (relatively quickly) located south of the loop. I'm sure they can throw in an observation tower if that will make everyone happy.

Save the 78 to lure researchers, scientists, and build a true live/work/play neighborhood over a 20 year period.

Everything you said works against it. First of all the lakefront location is isolated. Secondly, why should Chicago go the conservative route with this? Nothing about that lakeside location screams world class, its literally just reusing a convention center building. And this is being built with private money so all that financial stuff doesnt really matter. The 78 is far better.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by twister244

But all of these arguments can be applied, to a larger degree, to the McCormick site. It's even further from CTA. It's further from River North and the Loop. The ONLY thing within a reasonable walking distance from McCormick is the rest of the convention center complex......

If you think McCormick is a good site location because it has an existing structure and the space at 78 should be reserved for more residential/office to keep it as a true neighborhood, fine. But to suggest that McCormick should be chosen simply because it's a better location based on what is laid out in your post doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The simple answer is that Chicago tourists in general don’t walk outside the Loop or River North. And they rarely take CTA either. Even going to Lincoln Park or Museum Campus is like pulling teeth.

So parking amenities and tour buses become much more important if space in the Loop can’t be reasonably obtained.

Not to mention, suburban residents are a huge potential clientele and they’re certainly not relying on CTA but arriving in a vehicle.

I used to work in the taxi industry, so this chart of Uber travel patterns is a good approximation of where tourists travel around. Most of the casino operators are mindful of these patterns, and it would be foolish to expect any single project to dramatically alter the favored entertainment areas.

You also have the issue that the city wants the money to come from non-Chicagoans.



https://jd3707.medium.com/mapping-on...o-85cc2f10dd80

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

The Strip is in Paradise, NV so...


But also you're doing the opposite extreme you're accusing him of. You're equating the strip to the entire city when it is not. And with the Red Line station the theater district and State St. shopping are a 10 minute train ride away, and Michigan Ave. is another 10. Yes there's nothing at the 78 now, but stop pretending like they're building this in Northlake

Yes, it is appropriate to compare the experience of Vegas to the entire city since the entire city is basically built up around it to support it...

Sure, people are walking year round from casino to restaurant to casino to wax museum to casino, etc. but that's exactly the point some of us are trying to make... that will never exist in Chicago... never (thank the gods)

In any of these locations, the casino will only ever be a destination, not a 'district'...

So let's stop worrying about public transportation (except for the workers) and instead focus on rideshare/bus parking/public parking...

And, as far as criticism of the Lakeside Center being old and boring, I would have to agree that Rivers didn't do itself any favors with the renderings of that location... having said that, there are many interventions that could make this magnificent all glass building with that massive space frame roof overlooking one of the most impressive bodies of water in any city a must-see destination experience...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

marothisue, so, dude, you need to stop comparing this tiny little non-existent '78' neighborhood in chicago with the entire city of LAS VEGAS... seriously? do I really need to elaborate?

The 78 will dwarf the Vegas skyline on its own with this proposal soooo...

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The simple answer is that Chicago tourists in general don’t walk outside the Loop or River North. And they rarely take CTA either. Even going to Lincoln Park or Museum Campus is like pulling teeth.

Wrigley Field, MSI, Lincoln Park Zoo, and the 606 are some of the most visited tourist attractions in the city. All much farther from the Loop than the 78. Based on my trip to Christkindlmarket yesterday, tourists will even spend time outside in December.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The 78 will dwarf the Vegas skyline on its own with this proposal soooo...

I just realized that the observation tower attached to the 78 casino plan could potentially be the tallest observation tower in the nation.

The current tallest observation tower in the US is LV's stratosphere tower, which is 1,150' tall to the tip-top of the Big Shot amusement park ride at the top of the tower.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The simple answer is that Chicago tourists in general don’t walk outside the Loop or River North. And they rarely take CTA either. Even going to Lincoln Park or Museum Campus is like pulling teeth.

Again, you are making an argument then for the 78 site here. McCormick is just as far as the museum campus, if not further. It's further from the loop/RN than 78 is.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

So parking amenities and tour buses become much more important if space in the Loop can’t be reasonably obtained.

That's a challenge for any of the five bids since none of them are in the loop. I don't know what the parking situation is with the 78 proposal, but the McCormick doesn't stand out compared to others with respect to parking.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Not to mention, suburban residents are a huge potential clientele and they’re certainly not relying on CTA but arriving in a vehicle.

Again, another argument for 78.... It's closer to 90/94 and would take less time to get to if you are coming in from the West or North. The only route McCormick has a leg up on is LSD, but that doesn't connect easily with the rest of the suburban metro.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I used to work in the taxi industry, so this chart of Uber travel patterns is a good approximation of where tourists travel around. Most of the casino operators are mindful of these patterns, and it would be foolish to expect any single project to dramatically alter the favored entertainment areas.

In the link you posted, the top spots are all closer to the 78 side, which would substantiate your claim that people tend to stick closer to downtown/North. In one sentence you are making a claim that you need to pull teeth to get tourists outside the Loop/RN area, then in the same post, you are claiming that Uber travel patterns suggest this location corresponds to where tourists are going.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

You also have the issue that the city wants the money to come from non-Chicagoans.

Again, 78 is closer to the loop, closer to CTA, closer to 90/94......

I get you want the McCormick site chosen, and I don't think it's the worst location. I actually feel like the Tribune site is the worst. But let's be realistic, the 78 site seems to rise above the others in terms of connectivity and integration into an actual planned neighborhood.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Wrigley Field, MSI, Lincoln Park Zoo, and the 606 are some of the most visited tourist attractions in the city. All much farther from the Loop than the 78. Based on my trip to Christkindlmarket yesterday, tourists will even spend time outside in December.

Even going to Lincoln Park or Museum Campus by walking or transit. That was implied. Very very steep dropoff beyond those two points. The mode share shifts dramatically to driving after that. (Sports games and concerts sometimes the exception due to heavy traffic congestion)

Tourists will of course spend time outside in December…close to their hotels near the major Loop attractions.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by twister244

I get you want the McCormick site chosen, and I don't think it's the worst location. I actually feel like the Tribune site is the worst. But let's be realistic, the 78 site seems to rise above the others in terms of connectivity and integration into an actual planned neighborhood.

I don’t care about the McCormick Site. Raze the building to ground. It could be the Tribune or One Central for all I care.

But I’m marveling that so many are gung ho on using this great transit accessible site at the 78 that could be a future Lakeshore East or better for an insular casino that most people will drive to.

We’re considering the tourism equivalent of a suburban town center mall here because of some moderately flashy architecture?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/21/39...700625e234.jpg

We’re quibbling about 5 minutes driving time between the 78 and McCormick Place, when the 78 should not be a driving destination at all.

Also, I don’t know where you’re looking on the map, but it’s showing River North and McCormick Place as consistent top 10 Uber destinations throughout much of the day.

So areas that have established hotel and tourist transportation infrastructure.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Tourists will of course spend time outside in December…close to their hotels near the major Loop attractions.

The Christkindlmarket in Wrigleyville has been packed since it opened.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

But I’m marveling that so many are gung ho on using this great transit accessible site at the 78 that could be a future Lakeshore East or better for an insular casino that most people will drive to

I mean, there's still a ton of 78 site to fill. The casino site plan I've seen looks good because it seems to have a lot more stuff in it than the original plan for the full build-out:



Parks are nice, but in my opinion a nice river walk in this area serves the need for public space adequately.

I'm humble in the face of uncertainty. If Related thinks that this is a good way to get the 78 developments rolling and add a bunch of commercial space, offices and residential to all this vast acreage, I'm not going to second guess them. They seem to know what they are doing when it comes to forecasting usage scenarios.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

The Christkindlmarket in Wrigleyville has been packed since it opened.

Thousands of city residents visit the Wrigleyville Christkindlmarkt and live nearby, and it’s very close and familiar for North suburban residents driving to the city. Again, it’s a bigger driving than transit destination for non-Chicagoans

But a Christkindlmarkt is a fairly small, seasonal, outdoor attraction.

Despite the outdoor crowds at the Christkindlmarkt, the hotels, restaurants and bars catering to visitors are starting to become very sparse compared to the Summer months. (Even in non-pandemic years)

[Klippenstein]

Of course, Lakeshore East is great in terms of residential density, but it is pretty secluded and not very lively in terms of its commercial offerings. If having a casino here creates a more lively and connected district in an already disconnected part of the South Loop it seems like it might be a boon to future commercial development in the area. I also like how the new plan seems to be less like Lakeshore East in that it’s more crowded, messy and urban with smaller scattered parks and buildings conforming more to the grid.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Of course, Lakeshore East is great in terms of residential density, but it is pretty secluded and not very lively in terms of its commercial offerings. If having a casino here creates a more lively and connected district in an already disconnected part of the South Loop it seems like it might be a boon to future commercial development in the area. I also like how the new plan seems to be less like Lakeshore East in that it’s more crowded, messy and urban with smaller scattered parks and buildings conforming more to the grid.

Agreed, and it's why I prefer the 78 plan. Again, the McCormick site will be just a standalone casino. It's not placed in a way that will facilitate any sort of integration with nearby neighborhoods. People will go there, gamble, then leave. If that's your preference for a casino in the city, then I can see why you gravitate towards it. I prefer something more integrated. The Hard Rock proposal seems DOA, unless the Bears pass a Hail Mary to integrate a new stadium into the plan. I don't like the Tribune site given the lack of space and location. The Bally's Yards plan looks nice, but we have already discussed how it will probably have to deal with a fight from neighbors.

[Briguy]

Originally Posted by twister244

Agreed, and it's why I prefer the 78 plan. Again, the McCormick site will be just a standalone casino. It's not placed in a way that will facilitate any sort of integration with nearby neighborhoods. People will go there, gamble, then leave. If that's your preference for a casino in the city, then I can see why you gravitate towards it. I prefer something more integrated. The Hard Rock proposal seems DOA, unless the Bears pass a Hail Mary to integrate a new stadium into the plan. I don't like the Tribune site given the lack of space and location. The Bally's Yards plan looks nice, but we have already discussed how it will probably have to deal with a fight from neighbors.

Tbh the trib site should be the new lakeshore east. with Fulton market booming that’s exactly where people will want to be if it wasn’t so desolate currently. Physically that location is unbeatable. WL has plenty of retail so this space make s a lot of sense for office/housing.

[Steely Dan]

^ it's not up to the city.

Casino licenses in Illinois are doled out by the state, and they're only offering one to Chicago, so.......

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by ChiRy

If a 78 casino leads to the rail yard being capped and developed, and the big box retail is pushed out, that would be great.

Can't believe so much of Chicago's waterfront is underutilized. Agree, the city needs to pull a Hudson Yards and just cap all those tracks. MASSIVE waste of prime real estate. Oh and while we're at it, go ahead and cap all those tracks by Grant Park and close down Columbus ave to car traffic and you have the world's best front yard.