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
     
     
  #1381  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 1:51 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post

The bridge being taken away was a comment from the chairman Soo Kim. He seems mostly like a reasonable person and a few times he made some funny remarks to some people like "I'm not really sure you know what a casino truly is. It is what you make it out to be." He made a short comment about the bridge like "pretty sure we got rid of it.." but nobody from his team actually jumped in to verify it. He does say he's a man of his word though so it might actually be dead only because he said it's dead.

I would not be that surprised if the bridge is cancelled for now. There were a lot of governmental hoops to jump through for an add-on.

Quote:
MWRD, IEPA, IDNR, Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard approvals for the pedestrian bridge (casino opening is not contingent on the pedestrian bridge completion)

It’s a bit similar to the Hard Rock proposal saying that they planned to open in 2025, and the city evaluation responding with the legalese version of “LOLOLOLOL.”

Quote:
Hard Rock Chicago expects the temporary casino to open in Q2 2023 and the permanent casino to open in Q3 2025. This timeline assumes the foundation deck below the casino • (which includes limited railroad track work and the foundational work for the casino project) and building the casino can all be completed within three years. The City believes this timeline • may be aggressive, given complexities associated with structural work adjacent to live railroad tracks and the significant governmental approvals as noted below.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1382  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 2:03 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klippenstein View Post
I think that bridge made a lot of sense.
Boo. I live in River North and I am pro-bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1383  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 4:47 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 345
Yeah I mean wtf... do these people not want it to be easier for them to walk to the WL or the grocery store? People suck yet people make cities so...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1384  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 5:13 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
Yeah I mean wtf... do these people not want it to be easier for them to walk to the WL or the grocery store? People suck yet people make cities so...
Correct. The residential enclave in River North west of Orleans is full of idiot schizos. They complained about wanting a grocery store for years and when Onni proposed a small format grocer at the base of the Hudson the same group threw a shit-fit over traffic. To keep them happy the developer subdivided the space into a Starbucks and some crossfit gyms or whatever. No groceries for you. Sucks to suck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1385  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 5:47 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
Yeah I mean wtf... do these people not want it to be easier for them to walk to the WL or the grocery store? People suck yet people make cities so...
May not be enough over there today so they are not thinking of their convenience. But put some good amenities west of the river and they will be begging for something other than having to navigate Grand or Chicago bridges. One positive is if casino-goers are routed down Chicago, the street does have some commercial space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1386  
Old Posted May 13, 2022, 5:54 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
You reap what you sow. If the neighborhood doesn't want a separate pedestrian bridge, then we need to fight for a protected bike lane on Chicago Ave after they rebuild it. Keep Chicago at only 2 lanes wide for all I care. River North a-holes can continue to live with the bottleneck.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1387  
Old Posted May 14, 2022, 3:51 AM
gandalf612 gandalf612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
You reap what you sow. If the neighborhood doesn't want a separate pedestrian bridge, then we need to fight for a protected bike lane on Chicago Ave after they rebuild it. Keep Chicago at only 2 lanes wide for all I care. River North a-holes can continue to live with the bottleneck.
Yes please I'd go to as many meetings as was required to make it happen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1388  
Old Posted May 14, 2022, 9:58 PM
streetline streetline is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 220
It's infuriating if the River North nimbys have really managed to kill the pedestrian bridge. I'm close to the site as well, and if I could have seen it developed with the previous denser non-casino proposal I'd have preferred that, but to me the bridge is easily the most positive and forward thinking part of this proposal, and throwing it away out of fear casino goers would use it is such an absurdly short sighted position to take.

That area has river west on one side, river north on the other, an industrial void in between that's about to get redeveloped, and almost half a mile between walkable routes between the two at Grand and Chicago Avenues. A pedestrian bridge there, where the Erie bridge used to be, could well be the catalyst for making the mostly residential development proposed there walkable to downtown/transit/groceries/etc, and mitigating the future residents' need for cars. It could not just improve but help define the character of the neighborhood for decades to come. And the developers were going to pay for it!

I just hope that, if it's true that the bridge isn't happening, the city holds out for other pedestrian or bicycle or transit improvements of equal value at Bally's expense (perhaps a bigger nicer park and river walk, with under-bridge connectors included at Chicago and Ohio and good transitions from street to river level, or maybe something nice on the transitway ROW).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1389  
Old Posted May 15, 2022, 4:02 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,803
My expectation is that the pedestrian bridge is just the first of many walk-backs to come. Bally's has no other interests in Chicagoland that could be used to gain leverage over them fulfilling promises... unlike say... Related.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1390  
Old Posted May 15, 2022, 2:23 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
My expectation is that the pedestrian bridge is just the first of many walk-backs to come. Bally's has no other interests in Chicagoland that could be used to gain leverage over them fulfilling promises... unlike say... Related.
In some cases, neighbors (NIMBYs) can actually extract more from developers (like bridges). It is a little troubling that in this case the neighbors actually want less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1391  
Old Posted May 15, 2022, 2:56 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
My expectation is that the pedestrian bridge is just the first of many walk-backs to come. Bally's has no other interests in Chicagoland that could be used to gain leverage over them fulfilling promises... unlike say... Related.
As we discussed on previous pages, Related was already trying to walk back some of the best urban design features of The 78 (smaller park, leaving the Metra tracks un-capped, etc).

Bally's at least is going into a mixed-use development in a part of the city with a very strong real estate market. The city can push for the full build-out of parks and elevated streets just like they did at Lakeshore East. If it's too much to chew all at once, it can be phased. It's not that the city doesn't have leverage in these cases, it's that they're afraid to use it usually.

But Maurice Cox doesn't seem to have those reservations as the head of DPD. He's already threatened to tank the housing project at Western/Leland because he thinks it has too much parking, and that's very small-potatoes compared to the Ballys/River District. I don't think he will hesitate to use his influence to hold Bally's to their end of the deal, unless the mayor specifically orders him to let them slide.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1392  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 12:28 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
Yesterday I remembered that Chicago Avenue doesn't have an actual bridge at the moment; it has had a temporary Bailey bridge in place since 2018. So presumably there will be at least a year, if not two, whenever CDOT finally gets construction under way, with no way to reach the casino site from the east! The old Montgomery Ward buildings on both sides of the east approach mean they can't put a temporary bridge just off to the side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1393  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 4:20 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
Yes, the bridge work would occur while the casino is under construction. This is the stated reason why they couldn’t put the temporary casino in the Tribune building north of Chicago Ave, which was the original plan.

I’m not sure the city is any closer to funding the permanent bridge replacement at Chicago, but supposedly Bally’s is ready to cut a $40M check the day City Council passes the PD and the operating agreement. Maybe part of that $40M can close the gap to fund the new bridge.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1394  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 3:14 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I’m not sure the city is any closer to funding the permanent bridge replacement at Chicago, but supposedly Bally’s is ready to cut a $40M check the day City Council passes the PD and the operating agreement. Maybe part of that $40M can close the gap to fund the new bridge.
shocking to think we are short on cash when the city just got $1.9 Billion in largely unrestricted COVID funds from the federal government
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1395  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 12:15 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,971
Bally's Chicago agreement by AnnRWeiler on Scribd

HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AND BALLY’S CHICAGO OPERATING COMPANY, LLC


https://www.scribd.com/document/5745...ent#from_embed
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1396  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 1:14 PM
BruceP BruceP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
shocking to think we are short on cash when the city just got $1.9 Billion in largely unrestricted COVID funds from the federal government
You do realize that money will go to cover lost revenues and increased spending owing to COVID, don't you? And that only amounts to about $700 a person. Chicago IS a big city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1397  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 1:29 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceP View Post
You do realize that money will go to cover lost revenues and increased spending owing to COVID, don't you? And that only amounts to about $700 a person. Chicago IS a big city.
that was the plan, yes

but the city and state (not just IL but all around the country) did not lose any tax revenue. in fact revenues are way up.

that's why you see the silly programs like $15 million in free gas cards and the $500/month guaranteed income program

Chicago IS a big city with lots of wasted spending
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1398  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 2:04 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
that was the plan, yes

but the city and state (not just IL but all around the country) did not lose any tax revenue. in fact revenues are way up.

that's why you see the silly programs like $15 million in free gas cards and the $500/month guaranteed income program

Chicago IS a big city with lots of wasted spending
Those were proverbial pennies to get the alderman to approve spending the real money on deficits.

There was about a $750 million deficit last year that the Covid funds backfilled, and $385 million more for this year, and a few hundred million for next year. On top of increased expenses for police, maintenance, etc.

Just $30 million went to the guaranteed income thing.

There wasn’t a realistic pool of money to do much else with in the city (that could also get enough votes for larger deficit spending).

The state surplus might have come from capital gains so hardly reliable and no guarantee that they’ll be in good shape if the stock market continues having its issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1399  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 2:19 PM
moorhosj1 moorhosj1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
but the city and state (not just IL but all around the country) did not lose any tax revenue. in fact revenues are way up.
This information is not correct. The state absolutely lost tax revenue in 2020 compared to 2019 and 2022 revenue is up from 2019.

From 2021:
Quote:
The pandemic’s hit to the state’s budget remains significant. The loss to the state’s general funds was $868 million from major revenue sources, the study concluded based on the analysis of state tax receipts. Across all state funds, the loss was $1.44 billion.
From 2022:
Quote:
Personal income tax receipts in April, still the state’s largest tax-paying month, hit $5.440 billion, up 99.9% from the $2.721 billion collected in April 2021.

Corporate income tax growth was also peppy, soaring 63.5%, up from $1.13 billion a year ago to $1.847 billion now.

For the year to date—Illinois’ fiscal year ends June 30—individual income tax receipts are up $3.91 billion, or 18.8%, and corporate income taxes are up $1.973 billion, or 56.5%.
__________________
**Insert Political Quip**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1400  
Old Posted May 22, 2022, 11:55 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj1 View Post
This information is not correct. The state absolutely lost tax revenue in 2020 compared to 2019 and 2022 revenue is up from 2019.

From 2021:


From 2022:
Uhhh… all of those figures alone add up to a pretty nice picture, and then add the covid funds on top…. Which is why reporters use the term “gusher” to describe the situation.
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 1:30 AM.

     

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