CHICAGO | City Casino - Page 59

galleyfox · #**1161** Posted **Apr 21, 2022, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago

Mr. Chicago here,
Again may I suggest Goose Island? It is waiting for just this kind of development. What alderman would object to this project there on the island?

As I said before, most of the property on Goose Island is owned by those who already have plans.

Case in point

Quote:

Mars Wrigley to build $40 million R&D hub on Goose Island
The new building will expand the candy maker's existing innovation center on the island. Construction is set to begin this summer and be finished by summer 2023

.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/cons...b-goose-island

The casino opposition is just the kabuki dance of alders who already know it’s going to be approved by committee.

Mr. Chicago · #**1162** Posted **Apr 21, 2022, 6:30 PM**

Mr. Chicago here,
Yes, I understand the land on Goose Island is already spoken for; however,
why not offer TIF money to buy out some of the properties with the proviso
that these businesses move down to Halsted and the 40s, fill-up that industrial area, give jobs to people who really need them? Everybody gains and everybody will be satisfied. By the way. the buy-outs will be on a voluntary basis.

galleyfox · #**1163** Posted **Apr 21, 2022, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago

Mr. Chicago here,
Yes, I understand the land on Goose Island is already spoken for; however,
why not offer TIF money to buy out some of the properties with the proviso
that these businesses move down to Halsted and the 40s, fill-up that industrial area, give jobs to people who really need them? Everybody gains and everybody will be satisfied. By the way. the buy-outs will be on a voluntary basis.

Because the companies on Goose Island do not want cheap land. They want fast and convenient access to the North side and have paid fortunes for it.

Waste Management does not want to cart garbage all the way to the South side every time a route is completed.

Prologis paid almost $100 million for the warehouse on 930 W Evergreen. A little TIF money is not going to move the needle.

And it’s a bad deal for the city to pay billions for Goose Island land when private companies will develop available land right across the river at minimal cost to the city. The benefits aren’t going to dramatically increase because the casino has moved 1000 ft.

west-town-brad · #**1164** Posted **Apr 21, 2022, 9:11 PM**

just pick the proposal that forecasts the most tax $$$

make this process stop

Randomguy34 · #**1165** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 12:59 AM**

Traffic studies are up for each of the proposals: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/site...c-studies.html

As ardecila previously mentioned, the Metra tracks running through the 78 will become an open pit instead of being elevated as originally planned. This pretty much walls off most of the site from Clark St

thegoatman · #**1166** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Traffic studies are up for each of the proposals: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/site...c-studies.html

As ardecila previously mentioned, the Metra tracks running through the 78 will become an open pit instead of being elevated as originally planned. This pretty much walls off most of the site from Clark St

good or bad?

Handro · #**1167** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 1:12 PM**

I'm sold on Bally's vs the 78. Bally's fits the best of the three as integrating into the urban landscape. The 78 proposal creates another McCormick-type campus and changes much about what Related pitched about the development to get it passed (with TIF money...) It's unfortunate that the casino Bally's is proposing is much more "Rosemont" than world class (like Rivers).

r18tdi · #**1168** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Traffic studies are up for each of the proposals: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/site...c-studies.html

As ardecila previously mentioned, the Metra tracks running through the 78 will become an open pit instead of being elevated as originally planned. This pretty much walls off most of the site from Clark St

I though the plan was always to sink the Metra tracks but deck over them?

ChiPlanner · #**1169** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

I though the plan was always to sink the Metra tracks but deck over them?

It was to elevate them (as they're already on an embankment) and have buildings sort of go around them.

jpIllInoIs · #**1170** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

I though the plan was always to sink the Metra tracks but deck over them?

The entire 78 project is far less appealing without the realignment and trenching of the rail row. If they leave the tracks parallel with Clark street there is no way to ever integrate this entire 78 parcel into the rest of the city street grid. The Clark street side will become the back side of the project with all of the podiums presenting blank walls to Clark. There will be no incentive to orient to the Clark side since the rail row will be a barrier.

ithakas · #**1171** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

The entire 78 project is far less appealing without the realignment and trenching of the rail row. If they leave the tracks parallel with Clark street there is no way to ever integrate this entire 78 parcel into the rest of the city street grid. The Clark street side will become the back side of the project with all of the podiums presenting blank walls to Clark. There will be no incentive to orient to the Clark side since the rail row will be a barrier.

The city also desperately needs to remake this stretch of Clark Street, which is kind of a liminal space between the Loop and the highways south where people tend to drive extra aggressively after being freed from the gridlock of the Loop.

Clark/Polk has a lot more foot traffic than it did 5-10 years ago, but it's also where all the traffic from the Loop, Printers Row and west from Polk filter into this liminal stretch of Clark, and it feels terrible trying to walk through it. I don't think a Wells-Wentworth Connector alone can resolve issues the neighborhood is facing without Clark Street integration. Even without the 78 these issues are coming to the fore.

ardecila · #**1172** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

The entire 78 project is far less appealing without the realignment and trenching of the rail row. If they leave the tracks parallel with Clark street there is no way to ever integrate this entire 78 parcel into the rest of the city street grid. The Clark street side will become the back side of the project with all of the podiums presenting blank walls to Clark. There will be no incentive to orient to the Clark side since the rail row will be a barrier.

They're still proposing to realign the tracks, but they will not deck over them. They have to realign the tracks to create development sites along Clark St., otherwise all traffic has to come and go via Wells-Wentworth which can't handle the entire traffic of a highrise neighborhood. Previously, those highrises along Clark St would have had a front door facing west overlooking the park, kinda like the park in Lakeshore East. Garage entrances, loading docks and dropoff zones would be along Clark on a lower level.

In the current plan, the Clark St buildings will only be accessed from Clark St (vehicles and pedestrian entrances). The tracks will have the backside of parking podiums along both sides, so they will be "trenched" in a way, very similar to the existing "canyon" between Target and Roosevelt Collection.

I assume they took the track decking out because of the cost of ventilation. Or maybe Metra just flat-out refused.

r18tdi · #**1173** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

If they leave the tracks parallel with Clark street there is no way to ever integrate this entire 78 parcel into the rest of the city street grid. The Clark street side will become the back side of the project with all of the podiums presenting blank walls to Clark.

That's probably what the neighbors actually prefer: two walled-off fortresses with an auto sewer down the middle.

Randomguy34 · #**1174** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 4:27 PM**

Also, the traffic studies show 78 casino proposal will reduce the amount of units from 10,000 to 4,500. (page 28 of the PDF): https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...ffic-Study.pdf

Busy Bee · #**1175** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

That's probably what the neighbors actually prefer: two walled-off fortresses with an auto sewer down the middle.

I have a cousin that lives in Dearborn Pk and this is closer to the truth than I care to admit.

ardecila · #**1176** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Also, the traffic studies show 78 casino proposal will reduce the amount of units from 10,000 to 4,500. (page 28 of the PDF): https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...ffic-Study.pdf

Ding ding! Now we have confirmation.

Ugh, I hope the 78 casino proposal dies a quick death. Their casino plan is actually exciting in a vacuum, but not when you consider what else they could do with the land to genuinely build a new Chicago neighborhood.

jpIllInoIs · #**1177** Posted **Apr 22, 2022, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Ding ding! Now we have confirmation.

Ugh, I hope the 78 casino proposal dies a quick death. Their casino plan is actually exciting in a vacuum, but not when you consider what else they could do with the land to genuinely build a new Chicago neighborhood.

I've always been against the 78 casino and now more than ever. The decking over of the Wells/Wentworth roadway was a deal breaker for me and now a massive reduction in resident units in what should be a premier living environment. kill it now. Tribune is the only one left standing that makes any sense.

Mr. Chicago · #**1178** Posted **Apr 23, 2022, 5:11 PM**

Mr. Chicago here,
How about light rail to relieve the traffic in the casino area of the 78?
Light rail is unobtrusive, easy to build, environmentally friendly and adds to the sense of urbanism . Light rail works well in Boston and the Jersey City - Hoboken line. Someone suggest this at a meeting.

Randomguy34 · #**1179** Posted **Apr 23, 2022, 8:16 PM**

Anyone here have light rail money?

Busy Bee · #**1180** Posted **Apr 23, 2022, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago

Mr. Chicago here,
How about light rail to relieve the traffic in the casino area of the 78?
Light rail is unobtrusive, easy to build, environmentally friendly and adds to the sense of urbanism . Light rail works well in Boston and the Jersey City - Hoboken line. Someone suggest this at a meeting.

Those are lines of substantial length that collect and distribute riders along the route from farther flung residential areas to the CBD. In other words they are useful. What you seem to be suggesting is a downtown streetcar circulator, which for the most part have no historical precedent and have a fairly disappointing track record in the US due to their limited utility. They wanted to build a downtown circulator back in the 90s, but it never went anywhere. It's an open question whether it would be more successful in a place like Chicago.