CHICAGO | City Casino

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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

Yeah, I heard some inside info last week that Related pushed for something Metra didn't think was practical or desirable from their operational standpoint. I just assumed it was probably a ventilation or clearance thing.

I don't think any change to the Metra RI track elevation was ever anticipated. They're on the ground now; they'll stay on the ground. Or maybe the plan anticipated that they could be dropped a couple of feet below ground level in places, and that was what Metra finally said no to. I'll try to draw out my source (there's none more highly placed) if we talk again soon.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, I heard some inside info last week that Related pushed for something Metra didn't think was practical or desirable from their operational standpoint. I just assumed it was probably a ventilation or clearance thing.

I don't think any change to the Metra RI track elevation was ever anticipated. They're on the ground now; they'll stay on the ground. Or maybe the plan anticipated that they could be dropped a couple of feet below ground level in places, and that was what Metra finally said no to. I'll try to draw out my source (there's none more highly placed) if we talk again soon.

Unfortunate that this will end up being something like a train alleyway. Though feels destined that this and the development to its north will end up disappointing. Would be interesting to know if the development would be designed in a way to add a pedestrian deck at a later time.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, I heard some inside info last week that Related pushed for something Metra didn't think was practical or desirable from their operational standpoint. I just assumed it was probably a ventilation or clearance thing.

I don't think any change to the Metra RI track elevation was ever anticipated. They're on the ground now; they'll stay on the ground. Or maybe the plan anticipated that they could be dropped a couple of feet below ground level in places, and that was what Metra finally said no to. I'll try to draw out my source (there's none more highly placed) if we talk again soon.

Well, a trench is not necessarily a bad thing if it's designed and articulated properly. We have a good example right here in Chicago with Metra Electric/IC thru Grant Park. You would need a unified aesthetic treatment for the walls of the trench, and pedestrian bridges across the trench every block or so (maybe each new highrise provides its own bridge, like what K2 and 354 N Union did).

I would also argue you need a pedestrian esplanade along the east side of the trench to mirror LaSalle St on the west. Make sure there is a double row of trees along both sides of the trench as well to absorb sound, boston ivy on the walls would be nice as well.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, a trench is not necessarily a bad thing if it's designed and articulated properly. We have a good example right here in Chicago with Metra Electric/IC thru Grant Park.

I'm surprised that you think that the trench through Grant Park is a model of successful design. They certainly have put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still an unsightly (and wide) gash through Chicago's premier park. I think of all the recreational/artistic possibilities that could be added to the park if this were capped

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I'm surprised that you think that the trench through Grant Park is a model of successful design. They certainly have put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still an unsightly (and wide) gash through Chicago's premier park. I think of all the recreational/artistic possibilities that could be added to the park if this were capped

Arguing if above, below (trench), or at grade rail is best is a little ridiculous. None are going to be optimal, especially if the above grade would involve an embankment.

That said I will actually agree with ardecila. The UPN line on the north shore is tree-lined, low noise, and easily bridged. There is also at least the potentiality of possibility decking over a trench at least.

Grant Park is a whole other animal. It is a major gash through Chicago's front yard, is not tree-lined, and breaks up the continuity of the park.

[Chi-Sky21]

I have always wondered that maybe the city prefers that trench there, it makes sectioning off Grant park MUCH easier for functions. But for the 78, I think it is as usual very short sighted not to get it right and realign and trench those tracks, or at least lower them a bit and cover most of it.

[west-town-brad]

didn't grant park + millennium park develop over time around the existing train lines?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

The UPN line on the north shore is tree-lined, low noise, and easily bridged.

the vast majority of the UP-N line runs at-grade or up on an embankment through the northside/evanston (and a handful of other spots to allow for "dug-out" street underpasses).

it's only trenched through winnetka, for roughly 2 out of its 51.6 miles of ROW, with 7 street bridges and 2 ped bridges (one at the winnetka stop, and one at hubbard woods).

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

didn't grant park + millennium park develop over time around the existing train lines?

Just a bit

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, a trench is not necessarily a bad thing if it's designed and articulated properly. We have a good example right here in Chicago with Metra Electric/IC thru Grant Park. You would need a unified aesthetic treatment for the walls of the trench, and pedestrian bridges across the trench every block or so (maybe each new highrise provides its own bridge, like what K2 and 354 N Union did).

I would also argue you need a pedestrian esplanade along the east side of the trench to mirror LaSalle St on the west. Make sure there is a double row of trees along both sides of the trench as well to absorb sound, boston ivy on the walls would be nice as well.

Will there be room to do much design? If it is like the stretch along Roosevelt Collection, there wasn't space left for much:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8687.../data=!3m1!1e3

Aesthetics aside (too many podium walls moreso than the tracks), I think it is a missed opportunity to create a more cohesive site plan and better use of space. But a few pedestrian crossings would help.

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Will there be room to do much design? If it is like the stretch along Roosevelt Collection, there wasn't space left for much:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8687.../data=!3m1!1e3

Aesthetics aside, I think it is a missed opportunity to create a more cohesive site plan and better use of space. But a few pedestrian crossings would help.

South Loop deserves better. C- urban planning. Not a disaster like the clybourn/elston area by the river/goose island, but something felt off about that whole area.

[west-town-brad]

Developers are looking to put a casino in times square.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/times-s...d=hp_lead_pos8

[Randomguy34]

^ Solution: build the Chicago casino in NYC

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Arguing if above, below (trench), or at grade rail is best is a little ridiculous. None are going to be optimal, especially if the above grade would involve an embankment.

That said I will actually agree with ardecila. The UPN line on the north shore is tree-lined, low noise, and easily bridged. There is also at least the potentiality of possibility decking over a trench at least.

Grant Park is a whole other animal. It is a major gash through Chicago's front yard, is not tree-lined, and breaks up the continuity of the park.

OK, but the Metra trench in Grant Park has, well, parkland on both sides. If the trench instead runs between mixed use buildings, it's not much of barrier so long as there are frequent bridges. Lots of things you can do with the landscape and urban design.

Paris example:
https://goo.gl/maps/La2FMuNKbZNtrZTj8

Vienna example:
https://goo.gl/maps/ZAKFaueSDFhw2qP87
https://goo.gl/maps/vJJ7gHhxvSCFQdqP7

Brooklyn (Newkirk Plaza):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6338...m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

[r18tdi]

Really interesting stuff from Brendan Reilly on the Crain's podcast. He even considers a scenario where Lightfoot's committee selects the final site and it fails to pass a majority vote by the city council. To quote the host, "Oof."

https://a-d-q-a-with-a-d-quig.simple...brendan-reilly

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Really interesting stuff from Brendan Reilly on the Crain's podcast. He even considers a scenario where Lightfoot's committee selects the final site and it fails to pass a majority vote by the city council. To quote the host, "Oof."

https://a-d-q-a-with-a-d-quig.simple...brendan-reilly

in ye olden days of the Chicago city council, or in the current days of the Olympic committee, mysterious cash stuffed envelops would be showing up in every aldermen's mailbox to push this vote through

[thegoatman]

Alderman Brian Hopkins has come out and said he supports the 78 Rivers Casino and think its best for the city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlUYAckq25Q&t=316s

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Really interesting stuff from Brendan Reilly on the Crain's podcast. He even considers a scenario where Lightfoot's committee selects the final site and it fails to pass a majority vote by the city council. To quote the host, "Oof."

https://a-d-q-a-with-a-d-quig.simple...brendan-reilly

IF this is gonna happen (highly unlikely), it would happen regardless of which site is chosen, either because a majority of aldermen have soured on the idea of a casino, or because they want to stick it to Lightfoot.

Aldermen really, really don't care about projects in other wards besides their own, unless it has spillover effects in their ward or it sets a bad precedent.

I think it's possible the progressives might come out against a casino for the usual reasons (preying on low income folks, etc) but even if the entire progressive caucus votes against, that's only 18 votes. Maybe the aldermen of the host ward will vote against, and two adjacent wards. That's 21 votes against, and 39 votes in favor - still an easy win.

[bnk]

Nothing new but some pics in the link


https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...kl7e-list.html

Chicago casino finalists: What to know about the bids, from the locations to the possible roadblocks

Chicago Tribune

Apr 28, 2022 at 9:43 am



Chicago is one step closer to a potential big revenue boost and achieving a goal that has eluded local mayors for decades: its first casino.

Still, the project will have to clear major hurdles as Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s administration sorts through the proposals — which have been whittled down from five to three — and picks a winner.

The three remaining bids advanced by the city may represent the path of least resistance for a Chicago casino. But none has landed without some objections or concerns, which the city may have to confront before it narrows the group down to a single favored plan, which officials said will be by early summer. It would still need to win state approval.

...

Lightfoot plans to select the operator and location of a Chicago casino in “early 2022,” officials said.

Here’s what you need to know about the whole process, from the bids to their locations.

Chicago casino bidders down to 3 finalists: River West, South Loop and next to Soldier Field

...


The city, which is banking on a casino to generate $200 million in annual tax revenue to plug its public pension funding holes, plans to submit its choice to the Illinois Gaming Board for approval in time to include upfront payments from the winning bidder in the 2023 fiscal budget this fall, said Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, chairman of the the Special Committee on the Chicago Casino.

...


Rivers 78 plans to launch temporary casino in old-school riverboat at South Loop site

Rendering of Rivers Casino at The 78, a 62-acre South Loop mixed-use development site

The riverboat, which holds about 1,000 gaming positions, could be up and running within six months of approval, providing a temporary “mini-Rivers” casino on the river while the permanent facility is built, Tim Drehkoff, the new CEO of Rush Street Gaming, said during a community engagement meeting April 7.


...

Bally’s plans to use a former Tribune Publishing warehouse once earmarked for a residential and office development as its temporary casino while the Freedom Center is demolished and the permanent facility is built.

That was perhaps the biggest takeaway as Bally’s met with hundreds of skeptical River West neighbors inside the vacant 120,000-square-foot building on April 6 to pitch a proposed $1.74 billion casino, hotel and entertainment complex that would supplant the nearby Freedom Center printing plant, if approved as the Chicago casino.



Chicago casino finalists meet the neighbors, prepared for changes. Bally’s has already tweaked its minority investor plan.

...

The effort to win over neighbors and the mayor’s office before the city’s anticipated early summer decision to forward a proposal to the Illinois Gaming Board for final approval has already led to some changes.



Rendering for the proposed Rivers Chicago McCormick

But with three of the five proposals planning to use the McCormick Place campus, there may be a wild card in the works. McCormick Place has yet to strike a deal with the city or the developers, and is something less than all in on repurposing any of its convention center facilities as a casino.



City officials are sifting through the bids, including one from Hard Rock International that would set the gambling emporium in a massive mixed-use project, One Central, which developers hope to build over train tracks west of Soldier Field. City Hall staff members are tasked with recommending to the mayor which casino plan she should present to aldermen for approval.

...

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Really interesting stuff from Brendan Reilly on the Crain's podcast. He even considers a scenario where Lightfoot's committee selects the final site and it fails to pass a majority vote by the city council. To quote the host, "Oof."

https://a-d-q-a-with-a-d-quig.simple...brendan-reilly

the most interesting aspect of this conversation in my mind was turning LaSalle Street in the loop into mixed use residential, with TIF support.