CHICAGO | City Casino

[Randomguy34]

Tonight's townhall will be livestreamed here: chicago.gov/live

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Tonight's townhall will be livestreamed here: chicago.gov/live

When does it start?

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by marothisu

When does it start?

7pm-9pm

Edit:
Presentation portion over, they're now moving to Q&A. Not much new info so far, apparently Bally's was originally based in Chicago before rebranding as a casino company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bally_Manufacturing

[marothisu]

I listened to almost all of it. A few questions:

1) Did the borders of River North change magically to include River West?

2) Why is the RNRA putting out statements as if they have "jurisdiction " over this area?

3) Why do people keep referring to this area as a "residential neighborhood"? It is a mixed use area with Industrial, Office, Residential, Commercial, and Retail. I am pretty sure residential is not the leading use in that area.

[Randomguy34]

I'm just as confused as you. Sad to hear the pedestrian bridge over the river was cut

There were good questions in the beginning from South Side and Cabrini-Green organizations around ensuring Black workers are included in the construction of the site, since trade unions in the city have had a history of excluding them. Other folks asked about how Bally's will address problem gambling. Some members of the Tribune and Nexstar Media were present and spoke in favor of the casino.

Most of the questions in the second half were though were from condo owners going wild over traffic, property values, and crime. There was one weird restaurant NIMBY who complained that better paying restaurant jobs are stealing workers from his business....

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

There was one weird restaurant NIMBY who complained that better paying restaurant jobs are stealing workers from his business....

how dare his employees leave for better pay (and likely a less shitty boss...)!

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I'm just as confused as you. Sad to hear the pedestrian bridge over the river was cut

I bet Bally's was happy to cut it since it would come at their expense and they can cut the cost while say they are doing what the community wants. This is really sad. I think that bridge made a lot of sense.

I didn't watch much of the presentation. Did they say explicitly that they were cutting it? Did they say why?

[thegoatman]

Wowww wtf the bridge was cut?? that was like the best part along with the riverwalk SMH.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I'm just as confused as you. Sad to hear the pedestrian bridge over the river was cut

There were good questions in the beginning from South Side and Cabrini-Green organizations around ensuring Black workers are included in the construction of the site, since trade unions in the city have had a history of excluding them. Other folks asked about how Bally's will address problem gambling. Some members of the Tribune and Nexstar Media were present and spoke in favor of the casino.

Most of the questions in the second half were though were from condo owners going wild over traffic, property values, and crime. There was one weird restaurant NIMBY who complained that better paying restaurant jobs are stealing workers from his business....

Agree. The beginning points and questions were pretty good. Mainly about keeping Bally's accountable to actually hiring minorities for everything from the construction to the jobs once it's up and running. And making sure they know the history of various labor in the city. But then it was mostly people from across the river essentially claiming this area as their own and only a few residents who live right nearby.

It seemed as if a handful of people commented and showed that they had just learned of the casino process like a month ago and then charged at the city that they weren't at all transparent. The CFO for the city (I think) laid out everything that's happened on the process back I believe 3 years.

Another guy "did his research" about Ballys and claimed that because the company as we know them today is only a few years old then they must be bluffing. He didn't do full research on what it was before Bally's as far as the gaming portion.

The restaurant guy owns The Whale, The Vig, etc. He basically said he likes Ballys and casinos but not in his back yard! Then he told them he's having trouble finding people to fill some of his jobs. He asked how does Bally's coming in make it any easier for smaller local business like him to operate. And I quote he said "we don't need more jobs in this city!" (Lol...wtf?). I almost wanted to shout at him thru my computer and ask if he's seen the unemployment rates of part of the south and west sides and whether he's tried to hire some of the thousands of unemployed people there currently looking for jobs.


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.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

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.

That doesn't sound like a definitive Yes on the bridge being taken out. I would wait for actual verification in the plans before jumping to any conclusions.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

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.

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.”

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.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I think that bridge made a lot of sense.

Boo. I live in River North and I am pro-bridge.

[BrinChi]

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...

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

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.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

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.

[ardecila]

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.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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

[streetline]

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).

[Kngkyle]

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.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

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.