HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which Chicago casino proposal is your favorite?
Ballys at Tribune 24 18.05%
Ballys at McCormick 7 5.26%
Hard Rock at One Central 7 5.26%
Rivers at The 78 75 56.39%
Rivers at McCormick 20 15.04%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1061  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 8:09 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,719
From Crain's regarding River District & One Central opposition

Quote:
For instance, Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, whose ward adjoins the proposed Bally’s site on the Tribune printing plant property at Chicago Avenue and Halsted Street, said in his latest constituent newsletter that neighboring residents “are clearly opposed” to locating a casino there and that he has “serious concerns” about it. “My constituents are not enthused,” he said in a follow-up email. “I listen very carefully to my constituents.”

Similar comments came earlier from Ald. Brian Hopkins, 2nd, whose ward also adjoins the property and who says he is worried about traffic congestion.

But Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th, whose ward includes the land, said he’s “open-minded” about the possibility. “I think the community’s split,” Burnett said. “A lot of older people like casinos. But you have to think of everything.” Burnett added that he believes traffic problems on the site are solvable.
....
Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, whose ward is immediately to the east of The 78, said the emails she’s received from constituents “are generally opposed” to selecting it for a casino.

Dowell’s ward also flanks the location of the third finalist, on property near 18th Street that would be part of the One Central development on air rights west of Solider Field. Dowell said she’s also received some letters opposing it, but “not as many” as with The 78.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...d-casino-sites
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1062  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 9:03 PM
thegoatman thegoatman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
From Crain's regarding River District & One Central opposition


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...d-casino-sites
Burnett is the only alderman keeping an open mind concerning a casino. Not surprised.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1063  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 9:42 PM
twister244 twister244 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegoatman View Post
Burnett is the only alderman keeping an open mind concerning a casino. Not surprised.
Weren't all of these guys consulted before any of these bids even were solicited? If there are aldermen that are going to be super against a casino in their backyard, then why would they city accept a bid for that location?

Or am I just that naive to Chicago politics still?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1064  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 10:47 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,804
I'd be in favor of building a casino at all three locations just to spite the Alderman.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1065  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 10:47 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
Weren't all of these guys consulted before any of these bids even were solicited? If there are aldermen that are going to be super against a casino in their backyard, then why would they city accept a bid for that location?

Or am I just that naive to Chicago politics still?
Most projects are subject to aldermanic prerogative, but that only works if the 49 other aldermen vote with the one alderman that has the project in his/her ward.

On very important projects, the mayor can/will often steamroll the local alderman if a deal can't be reached. Rahm did this for the Wrigley Field renovation after Ald. Tunney opposed it. The mayor can wield considerable leverage over individual alderman on individual votes. The casino bidders probably expect that the mayor will personally push through whichever casino bid is selected.

For the casino, I think the council generally agrees that the casino is a good thing for the city overall, and they understand it has to end up in somebody's ward. That means one alderman, and one community, is gonna have to suck it up and deal with it. Definitely think Bally's Tribune is the one to beat now with Burnett in favor. Hopkins and Reilly will probably be "no" votes but the other 47 aldermen will fall in line with both the mayor and the local alderman supporting the casino.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1066  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 11:42 PM
Mr. Chicago Mr. Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 12
Thumbs up Goose Island

Mr. Chicago here,
I am new to this but I am the biggest fan of Chicago. To make my contribution to this great city may I suggest putting the casino on Goose Island by the barge turn-around. Goose Island is an eyesore in need of a rebuild. Also the island is close to the Kennedy. PERFECT LOCATION. Move those factories to the south side along Halstead, provide jobs for people who really need them.
As a river city Chicago has the potential to be up there with the greats. Think about it: Venice, Amsterdam, St. Petersburgh, Chicago. Sounds silly? I think
old Dan Burnham would approve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1067  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2022, 11:48 PM
twister244 twister244 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago View Post
Mr. Chicago here,
I am new to this but I am the biggest fan of Chicago. To make my contribution to this great city may I suggest putting the casino on Goose Island by the barge turn-around. Goose Island is an eyesore in need of a rebuild. Also the island is close to the Kennedy. PERFECT LOCATION. Move those factories to the south side along Halstead, provide jobs for people who really need them.
As a river city Chicago has the potential to be up there with the greats. Think about it: Venice, Amsterdam, St. Petersburgh, Chicago. Sounds silly? I think
old Dan Burnham would approve.
As cool as that may be, the bids are in, and the three proposals is what we have....... Unlikely anything significantly changes moving forward.

I was originally really into 78, but Tribune has slowly warmed up to me. I think having the casino at the Tribune site will help muscle up the river corridor to connect downtown and LY.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1068  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 12:21 AM
galleyfox galleyfox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago View Post
Mr. Chicago here,
I am new to this but I am the biggest fan of Chicago. To make my contribution to this great city may I suggest putting the casino on Goose Island by the barge turn-around. Goose Island is an eyesore in need of a rebuild. Also the island is close to the Kennedy. PERFECT LOCATION. Move those factories to the south side along Halstead, provide jobs for people who really need them.
As a river city Chicago has the potential to be up there with the greats. Think about it: Venice, Amsterdam, St. Petersburgh, Chicago. Sounds silly? I think
old Dan Burnham would approve.
You’re referring to Halsted Point? That land is already accounted for. And the Onni group is definitely the real deal as far as developers go.

The Chicago Tribune site is simply for sale right now by an owner who wants to cash out quickly.



Quote:
Next steps for the development include the formal filing of the Planned Development application and the eventual hearing by the Chicago Plan Commission, zoning committee, and Chicago City Council. Greyhound is leasing the site through January 2022, with demolition beginning directly afterwards. Phase 1 will commence immediately and last between 24 and 30 months. Delivery schedule for the subsequent phases is contingent on market demands.
https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/04/onn...se-island.html

Morton Salt a little further up the river also wants to create an entertainment venue.


https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/01...arly-approval/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1069  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 12:22 AM
thegoatman thegoatman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 446
Goose Island would actually be a fantastic casino location. Good idea Mr. Chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1070  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 4:37 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
I'm trying to find site plans for the proposals. The city's casino site just has the executive summaries with flashy renderings, and my searches of this thread have so far been ineffective.

Has anyone found the full proposals online somewhere?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1071  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 5:43 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I'm trying to find site plans for the proposals. The city's casino site just has the executive summaries with flashy renderings, and my searches of this thread have so far been ineffective.

Has anyone found the full proposals online somewhere?

I don’t know if they are as detailed as you’d like, but the city evaluation report has some basic site plans.
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...port_FINAL.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1072  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 5:50 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 612











Last edited by galleyfox; Apr 5, 2022 at 6:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1073  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 6:46 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
^Thanks very much.

Interesting to see Rivers 78 showing the "gateway walk" coming in from Clark & Roosevelt (ramping down from the Roosevelt sidewalk level of +30?)

Not sure what to make of Hard Rock One Central showing a "transit station" on the CN ramp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1074  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 7:22 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Not sure what to make of Hard Rock One Central showing a "transit station" on the CN ramp.
Definitely take it with a grain of salt, but their proposal is to create a spur that connects to the CTA and also to allow BNSF trains to use their station as a terminus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1075  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 11:02 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,719
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1076  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2022, 11:38 PM
Mr. Chicago Mr. Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 12
Question

Mr. Chicago here.
A casino can be considered an economic heartbeat for a neighborhood.
Hence my idea of placing the casino on the north end of Goose Island by the small lake below North Ave Bridge. The idea was to pick up the Cabrini area.
I see the options for the location of the casino. Question-are they really inviting places for a casino? Will a casino not clash with the theme of the area? Casinos are usually associated with a resort, hence I placed it on an imaginary rebuilt Goose Island . I submit for your consideration this idea,(and this a serious idea)---the Northerly Island Resort and Casino. Imagine the tax revenue and the rental income from a casino on city land. This casino then can be another heartbeat for the city.
(A personal note-I have cousins in Chicago whom I see every year. I live by NYC therefore I am not up on every detail in Chicago. I am still the biggest fan of Chicago and ,therefore, Mr. Chicago)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1077  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2022, 12:31 AM
galleyfox galleyfox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Chicago View Post

Hence my idea of placing the casino on the north end of Goose Island by the small lake below North Ave Bridge. The idea was to pick up the Cabrini area.
The Bally’s location is a lot closer to the remaining Cabrini townhomes than North Ave. It’s right across the bridge.

The main problem is Goose Island is that the companies that own land there are very difficult to move (and there are a few that are essential research facilities). It would take a years in court to evict them

That building on the Northern tip? That’s the Mars-Wrigley Global HQ.

The warehouses and lots on the NE side… Waste Management transfer point and MxD manufacturing research facility.

Warehouse on the center East Bank … FedEx shipping center.

Quote:
I see the options for the location of the casino. Question-are they really inviting places for a casino? Will a casino not clash with the theme of the area?
You mean the existing options?

Bally’s is a short walk from Hubbard street with many bars and night clubs. Known for its drunken escapades.

Hard Rock is next to Soldier Field and McCormick Place. Not much in the area to clash with.

Rivers 78 has been an empty lot for the past century.


Quote:
I submit for your consideration this idea,(and this a serious idea)---the Northerly Island Resort and Casino. Imagine the tax revenue and the rental income from a casino on city land.l
This is 100% impossible. The Chicago Lakefront is protected by Public Trust Doctrine, which is just about the harshest law imaginable. Basically, after voiding the Illinois Central Railroad lease to the lakefront, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the city of Chicago could never use the land for private use or profit ever again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illi...n_of_the_Court
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1078  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2022, 1:12 AM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,894
If Reilly really wants to appease the River North NIMBY brigade, he should keep his powder dry and use his clout to oppose a temporary casino going into the old Medinah Temple. Bally's Tribune has a temporary site ready to go at 700 Chicago, but if another casino proposal wins the city may consider putting temp gaming at Medinah. I have a feeling it's going to piss off far more of his constituents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1079  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2022, 3:04 AM
twister244 twister244 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
I haven't listened in on any other presentations, so not sure how this one compares to the others. But..... my observations:
1 - They are leaning hard into "equity" and serving the under-privileged. Not sure if that was in the other presentations for the other bids.
2 - When the topic of the Bears was brought up, the response was "I can't comment on Solider Field or the Bears". That was it, nothing more. Not sure if that was them dodging the question because they know of more, or dodging because they are tying to keep themselves apart from OC.
3 - They really distanced themselves from OC. They are basically saying - "Hey - We can build this damn thing regardless of whatever happens with OC.
4 - They made a very weak argument for the whole "transit" integration. The talked about Metra..... a bus... and that was it. They made it sound like they are closer to CTA than the other two bids, which is not true.

Overall, a weak proposal in my opinion. But.... They do have experience with this stuff, so maybe they are hitting the right buttons that resignate with people that are not like those who frequent this forum.

Just my 2 cents.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1080  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2022, 3:40 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,972
Went to the Hard Rock/One Central proposal tonight and I was fairly impressed with it.

-A roughly $1.7 project
-They're looking for no city or state monies
-They're talking 50% MBE and 50% developer entity
-6800 to 19000 jobs construction and operation
-They're ready to write a $400M check (I guess for the overbuild), but they say funding/financing wouldn't be an issue.
-Would probably take about 30 months to build
-I asked the HR guy how tall the hotel would be and he didn't have specifics, but maybe about 35 stories/450'??

They keep saying this is "separate" from One Central though it's still One Central's land and airspace. I asked if separate PD's were going to submitted and that's hasn't been determined.

There was some NIMBYism, but I'll say the moderator was pretty awesome and spanked down people when needed.


Speaking of One Central, Bob Dunn in the presentation said they're willing/discussing/planing to scale back OC. After the meeting I asked how much of a reduction and he said about 20%.

So we're still taking maybe about 15M sq ft of planned density, which I can live with.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.