CHICAGO | City Casino

[CaptainJilliams]

Thanks for the info BVictor, I'm curious to hear more from the other 2 proposals now. I feel like Hardrock is the least controversial from a local NIMBY standpoint, so I'm wondering if we will get more vocal oppositions at the next meetings.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by CaptainJilliams

Thanks for the info BVictor, I'm curious to hear more from the other 2 proposals now. I feel like Hardrock is the least controversial from a local NIMBY standpoint, so I'm wondering if we will get more vocal oppositions at the next meetings.

Oh there was plenty of opposition at the Hard Rock meeting.... Just not sure how it will compare in magnitude to the other two proposals. However, much of the criticism was unrelated to the casino, and more of social justice banter towards the city in general.

To me, the Hard Rock just feels.... isolated. There's no water activation (from what I can tell). Again, it's not any closer to any CTA line than the other proposals. It doesn't feel like it will integrate into the neighborhood in any way, including the proposed OC. The thing they have going for them is inertia with respect to getting projects like this off the ground. And maybe, at the end of the day, that's what the city cares most about.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^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.

I think the "gateway walk" would enter the casino on the 2nd floor where the gaming is, so no need to ramp down. The ground floor (at the level of Wells) would be restaurants, convention space, back-of-house.

As a 60608 resident, I'm going to The 78 meeting. I don't really support that proposal compared to Tribune, but I'm not throwing my lot in with the NIMBYs either so I'm just gonna be there as an observer.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^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?)

I think the plan for the "gateway walk" is to stay at the Roosevelt sidewalk level until it crosses upper LaSalle, then it deposits you at the front door of the casino where the transition to grade happens inside...

[nomarandlee]

My takeaway from all 3 is I can't believe what passes for a "neighbor" in all these cases. The definition of neighbor and neighborhood has really been stretched. All three are relatively isolated from any semblance of a real neighborhood.

In all three cases, the proposals are hemmed in by either a river, railroad tracks, major arterial corridors, proximity to highways, and yet to be built rental towers hundreds of feet away. All these proposals are near as "off the grid" as one could be while still staying in the confines of an integrated segment of the city and downtown.

If we take the very most liberal definition of "neighbor" available" one would have to clear cut a mile out radius for this sucker to be built. I guess that would make the Southworks site ideal but even then "neighbors" to the West living right up against any such proposal would claim infringement.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by ardecila

As a 60608 resident, I'm going to The 78 meeting. I don't really support that proposal compared to Tribune, but I'm not throwing my lot in with the NIMBYs either so I'm just gonna be there as an observer.

Not only did I miss your comment before I repeated it, but I also thought it might be worth repeating that I am also a 60608 resident and plan on attending as well... also agree with Tribune support...

[Chi-Sky21]

Hard Rock kinda has neighbors, those apt/condo buildings right there will get to see all the people at the hardrock pool across the street.

[ardecila]

If anyone at the Tribune meeting tonight uses the phrase, "residential neighborhood" I'm gonna flip.


wikimapia

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If anyone at the Tribune meeting tonight uses the phrase, "residential neighborhood" I'm gonna flip.

You know they will.

[Randomguy34]

Bally's Livestream: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...rame/live.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If anyone at the Tribune meeting tonight uses the phrase, "residential neighborhood" I'm gonna flip.

I'm a few minutes behind live on the livestream, but someone did use it LOL There's a little residential in the area, but yeah...

[Ricochet48]

Think about the BIRDS, oh lawd (if anything I would be more concerned about trash in the river killing the mutant fish).

On a serious note, it looks sick but would attract to many thugs in the surrounding area and decrease property value. The casino will be safe inside, but the quiet streets (and very rich families) around Kingsbury will be like State and Grand next to me, yikes. Also the traffic increase will be minimal especially compared to what's approved that other RE builders would max out.

I want a Chicago casino because of taxes and for my own entertainment (outside of gambling), but the McCormick site makes the most sense logistically, followed by the 78 (which has the best architecture), while Tribune is a distant 3rd overall in terms of feasibility.

EDIT: RE mentioning residential. Of course they will. That very specific area is not, but directly across the river (likely with a bridge) is the 'quiet' old person/family section of RN.

[BVictor1]

Went to the Bally's proposal tonight.

-1,000,000 sq ft project

-25% minority participation

-25% community investment program

-Best location for revenue potential?? Create an Entertainment District

-Planned Development 1426 approved in 2018 for about 8.5M sq ft of space. This would drop to about 6.5M over-all.

-Temp casino location at 700 W. Chicago with 500 slots, 25 gaming tables and 2-3 food and beverage venues

-Permanent facility 70,000 sq ft entertainment venue and 20,00 sf of exhibition space

-Temp facility about $7,000,000 with permanent facility costing about $1.7 billion

-3 years of construction

-SCB are the architects/LEED certification

-Sub area C is about 10 acres using 1/3 of the PD

-2,100 feet of contiguous riverwalk, parks, water taxi

-37 story hotel (about 440')

-Two floors of underground parking w/about 3000 spaces

-Alderman Burnett was in attendance



I made a few comments... Of course someone said this was a residential area. I stated it was mixed-use area and that Prairie Concrete has been across the street longer than anyone in the room had been alive. I said the current PD allowed for office/residential/hotel and that's MIXED-USE. I also said if they were reducing density by 2M Sw Ft, that it should be office and not the residential. The PD was approved for 4100 residential and 20% (820) would be "affordable". I said I don't think the alderman wants to lose a potential 820 units.

Some complained about the pedestrian bridge at Erie and I hate to delve into history and remind them that there was a street bridge at that location until 1971.

[Ricochet48]

I had not heard about a bridge there ever, but was very surprised when the developers didn't know that.

Your question was the best imo and not the typical NIMBYisms.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I made a few comments... Of course someone said this was a residential area. I stated it was mixed-use area and that Prairie Concrete has been across the street longer than anyone in the room had been alive. I said the current PD allowed for office/residential/hotel and that's MIXED-USE. I also said if they were reducing density by 2M Sw Ft, that it should be office and not the residential. The PD was approved for 4100 residential and 20% (820) would be "affordable". I said I don't think the alderman wants to lose a potential 820 units.

Some complained about the pedestrian bridge at Erie and I hate to delve into history and remind them that there was a street bridge at that location until 1971.

I was watching on livestream (a little delayed). Your question/comments was the best I heard. Everyone else's was fear and NIMBY based.

[twister244]

Overall - I liked the Bally's presentation much more than Hard Rock's

1 - The actually discussed how the casino will integrate with the local neighborhoods. The spent time discussing changes to local streetlight configurations, etc. They went into more detail than Hard Rock did.

2 - They really highlight integration with the environment, and along the river. They discussed how the project will look compared to other buildings that may (or may not) get built in this area.

3 - They actually appear to have a plan to incorporate local restaurants. Hard Rock did not.

4 - While several people clapped during critical questions, there was a surprising applause during a comment praising the development and how it will add to the neighborhood.

BVictor1 did a great job highlighting how a bridge existed until 1971... and is not actually a good thing here. Thanks for doing that BVictor1!

For me, Bally's definitely outperformed here against Hard Rock. But..... As I said last night:
1 - Hard Rock has the experience and capital
2 - They can get a project up and out quickly, which ultimately is what the city cares about most.

But.... Hard Rock really distanced themselves from the surrounding neighborhood, and One Central. The Bally's group really embraced the local neighborhood.

Side note - I Really liked the little trick they played with traffic increase.
"Well yeah... there will be more increase with a casino versus a printing building. But.... look at what would be if we don't get chosen!" They are basically saying that this area is going to get built out with density regardless of Bally's being chosen or not.

[marothisu]

I actually do think Bally's did a good job answering most questions. They at least *appear* to want to work with the community to make it work and not downgrade their quality of life. It's actually positive to see. I do think the head of the restaurant association had a good callout basically urging them to work with restaurateurs from many other neighborhoods that are typically less represented (i.e. Washington Park and Chatham).

Some of the residents had valid concerns IF Bally's was making a Vegas style casino. But they stated many times that's not what they want to do. Seems like some nearby residents weren't really listening.

I think the main valid concern IMO is traffic. Seems like they have a plan to decrease it but it will still definitely be an issue there. Definitely a good political style deflecrion of "if the casino doesnt get built here then eventually something with even more traffic will."

I'm not really bought into this notion about **violent**crime coming there because there will be some people with money now hanging out there. There are numerous restaurants, lounges , etc in town that attract money and its known. But does crime follow with it? Not really on a big basis. Also, everyone knows that casinos win out in the long run. At the end of the day, someone looking to rob someone coming out of a casino probably has a better chance of finding someone who just lost all their cash than a random person on the street in another part of town. Let's be honest on that one. A lot of people who go to casinos aren't high rollers. They spend $40 or $100 at most on some games, maybe have a few drinks and stuff to eat then call it quits. Why is this any different with the high rollers vs. the same people being visible at restaurants in Gold Coast driving around their Lambos, Ferrari, etc. I mean its obvious they hang out there but are they all being robbed? Well, not to my knowledge right now. It would be interesting to see how crime increases with the opening of a large office of workers who are very well paid on that same note. Is there a fear that violent crime is going to increase now around OPO with the introduction of thousands of 6 figure earning individuals?

Bigger concern is non violent crimes from desperate gamblers really. There's many studies about crime around casinos but most are actually not conclusive. I think its a valid fear, however. But acting as if a casino brings crime because of an increase of people with money but magically a new office with 3000 workers coming daily who make 6 figures doesn't....a bit strange to me.

[west-town-brad]

as currently built, it is not unusual for this neighborhood to see driveby high speed shoot outs between rival gangs.... in the middle of the day.

and the casino is going to bring "Crime"?

[thegoatman]

That's because they still have those Cabrini rowhouses standing nearby. Bulldoze that whole area and upzone it. Those rowhouses look ugly and dated anyway

[WestTowner]

Seems like a solid plan. Of the 3 proposals, the only alderman who is in favor of the casino in their ward is Burnett (wonder why ). Curious how much power he actually has. Clearly a fight with neighbors in any of the locations. Will he be able to get this thing done with the two other neighboring alders opposing?