HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


View Poll Results: Which Chicago casino proposal is your favorite?
Ballys at Tribune 28 18.67%
Ballys at McCormick 8 5.33%
Hard Rock at One Central 11 7.33%
Rivers at The 78 82 54.67%
Rivers at McCormick 21 14.00%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 1:16 AM
RockfordSoxFan's Avatar
RockfordSoxFan RockfordSoxFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 110
I'm one of the 11 that voted for Tribune site. i still stand by that proposal.
__________________
Chicago Blackhawks, Stanley Cup Champs 2010, 2013, 2015.
Chicago White Sox, World Series Champs 2005.
Chicago Bulls, World Champs 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998.
Chicago Bears, Super Bowl Champs 1985.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 2:24 PM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Ultimately, I suspect it'll go the Hard Rock Chicago, because based on the report alone, it may have the 2nd largest annual economic impact ($185 million), but it will support the highest number of jobs, over 19,000.
Agree. Additionally the 78 is the lowest/smallest by several measures, even more extremely so if the observation deck were not to be built.

And the 78 has the latest completion dates in both temporary and permanent, especially for the temporary portion by a full year (page 8 Table 2).

IMO I don't think the 78 will be picked, and I think it's really One Central vs Tribune site. Ultimately I think the Hard Rock will be chosen as well.

I'm not a fan of the Tribune proposal so I suppose I'd prefer One Central.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 2:31 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is offline
Rust Belt Motherland
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker View Post
IMO I don't think the 78 will be picked, and I think it's really One Central vs Tribune site. Ultimately I think the Hard Rock will be chosen as well.
Ok, I hear your argument against the 78 site, but what about Tribune? You’re just assuming that the grand possibility of keeping the Bears will overwhelm the senses of the mayor? Or that there’s a back room deal?

It’s not really my favorite design, but I just voted for Tribune after holding off my vote because I think it’s the safest bet. I think the city doesn’t want to take any chances with this and ONE Central is the long shot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 2:41 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,442
Does anyone really expect the city to pick the best proposal? I certainly don't. This is a political process, not a design competition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 2:49 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klippenstein View Post
Why can’t Blommer Chocolate just use the upper tracks and abandon the lower tracks?
Good question. I think they use both. Looks like the lower track is used for tanker cars carrying milk, and the upper track is used for cars carrying sugar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
^ Bally's said they'll develop the portion of the transitway that runs through their site. It'll be for bus & bike use only

Page 17: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...port_FINAL.pdf
I read that too. The language is confusing. There is an existing PD covering the site that includes certain commitments; Bally's would take over that PD and they would be on the hook for those commitments even if they change the allowed uses to permit a casino. But the PD doesn't require them to build the transitway, they just need to leave space for it to be built in the future.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 3:56 PM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klippenstein View Post
Ok, I hear your argument against the 78 site, but what about Tribune? You’re just assuming that the grand possibility of keeping the Bears will overwhelm the senses of the mayor? Or that there’s a back room deal?

It’s not really my favorite design, but I just voted for Tribune after holding off my vote because I think it’s the safest bet. I think the city doesn’t want to take any chances with this and ONE Central is the long shot.
I was mostly going by sentinel's logic with the very high job creation (and didn't even consider the Bears thing) - which breaks down into Hard Rock having 50% more long term operating jobs and almost double phase one Bally's construction jobs. The Rivers McCormick and Bally's McCormick which were apparently nixed were on the low end of economic impact and jobs as well so I feel like this indicates their priorities around that.

Additionally Bally's at Tribune is broken down into two 'Phases' so there is some uncertainty around that while Hard Rock seems to be one big commitment.

Also Hard Rock shows two quarters earlier permanent completion which would mean like an extra $90M for the city if that happens (but there's a footnote where the plan commission doesn't believe that's realistic )

Who knows where all these numbers come from, but this is just how I view the situation.

Last edited by rivernorthlurker; Mar 24, 2022 at 4:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 5:23 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 969
do these projections/commitments have any teeth in them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 6:14 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Does anyone really expect the city to pick the best proposal? I certainly don't. This is a political process, not a design competition.
for this reason I see the most pro-development alderman being the winner, which means the tribune site will win. (burnett's ward)

already the aldercreatures covering the south side options are complaining for more oversight, which could slow and or straight up kill any casino development in their wards even after being granted the license
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 7:45 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,213
One Central cannot win, that whole project smells like corporate welfare. As soon as they would be awarded the license they will begin talking about Infrastructure needs. Is access over the Rail Row required? Has anyone talked to CN? And then the whole "Shops of Rosemont" DSLSD light treatment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 7:51 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Originally I was the most for the Tribune site until I saw The 78. The more I read and re-read, the more I am equally for the Tribune site. As Chicago sheds it's very industrial past and goes towards the future, I find this just as important. These parts of the city near the expressway are weird in an industrial way. Especially as these companies move elsewhere. This is a prime location. Traffic concerns apart from this, I might be becoming more pro Tribune site now.

The 78 is going to happen regardless of this casino or not. But the Tribune site may lay dormant for another decade if the casino does not go there. It might be more attractive to actually not have a casino at the 78 TBH because of DPI. A high pct of residents are against it so thr alderman may side with them anyway.

The city will go with what makes the most economic sense which might be the Tribune site. Only way I see Hard Rock happening is if there's a legit deal struck with the Bears to keep them in the city. Otherwise I think the Tribune site will be chosen.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 8:19 PM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Originally I was the most for the Tribune site until I saw The 78. The more I read and re-read, the more I am equally for the Tribune site. As Chicago sheds it's very industrial past and goes towards the future, I find this just as important. These parts of the city near the expressway are weird in an industrial way. Especially as these companies move elsewhere. This is a prime location. Traffic concerns apart from this, I might be becoming more pro Tribune site now.

The 78 is going to happen regardless of this casino or not. But the Tribune site may lay dormant for another decade if the casino does not go there. It might be more attractive to actually not have a casino at the 78 TBH because of DPI. A high pct of residents are against it so thr alderman may side with them anyway.

The city will go with what makes the most economic sense which might be the Tribune site. Only way I see Hard Rock happening is if there's a legit deal struck with the Bears to keep them in the city. Otherwise I think the Tribune site will be chosen.
From the commission document

Quote:
Further explanation of the proposed construction costs
is needed from Hard Rock Chicago. The Hard Rock Chicago
proposal is to build the casino in a phase I of the “Entertainment
District” of the broader ONE Central development. The original
RFP submission estimated the total cost of the casino
construction was $1.7 billion and an additional estimated
$550 million civic build. The $550 million is Landmark’s
estimates of the phase I costs of the $3.8 billion civic build
for the total One Central development. The City does not have
enough information to determine the reasonableness of this
$550 million estimate. As a part of the City’s evaluation
process, Hard Rock Chicago communicated that it found
cost savings which now allows it to fold these civic build
costs into the same $1.7 billion in construction costs.
Quote:
At this point, no City public investment for infrastructure has
been asked for or committed toward this project. However, the
ONE Central project has been actively seeking $3.8 billion in
financing from the State through a P3 agreement repaid through
state sales tax revenues subordinate to the State’s Build Illinois
bonds. As noted earlier, Hard Rock Chicago would commit
that the estimated $550 million of the $3.8 billion will be built
regardless of the status of the P3 agreement.
This doesn’t
preclude Landmark from continuing to seek the P3
agreement and state funding for the project.
Quote:
Hard Rock Chicago would secure a completion guarantee for
its lenders and agrees to fund its equity upfront when the
financing closes.
Sounds pretty enticing (too good to be true?) if Hard Rock is just gonna foot a half a billion dollars for the first part of the One Central Development. How true this is in practice might be a different story probably based on factors I don't totally understand.

I am the same feeling the 78 will happen regardless. The Tribune Site is too juicy too that it will happen regardless, yes in 5 to 10 years maybe (the casino isn't suppose to open until 2026 anyway). The One Central Development is very much in doubt. If this is a catalyst for that to happen, then I'm for it.

Additionally living close to the Tribune Site, I sort of think it's a bit of a disaster access wise. The Ontario and Ohio ramps are nightmares basically every day of the week at rush hour already. There's not direct access from the highway and you'll have to do a bit of driving around some ultra congested streets on weekends. Additionally I'm not a fan of a casino being plopped so close to low income housing on Chicago between Larabee and Hudson. I suppose it will create jobs but it just feels a bit icky to introduce gambling to a low income area like that.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but lake access would be pretty sweet with the Hard Rock. I can imagine day cruise all the way from Indiana to Wisconsin that take you to the casino and back, not to mention Navy Pier as well. Though I suppose that's still possible with the Tribune Site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 8:34 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,372
^ I've been dooming the past couple months about One Central being the city's pick. If it's true they have private capital to fund the civic build, then hopefully that'll kill the chance of them getting billions of public tax dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 8:42 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 969
sorry to say but if one central is the pick, don't expect to ever seen this thing get built

a temporary casino location will be created but nothing more...

it's too complicated, too many private parties involved, too many interrelated governmental bodies, too much political will required across multiple administrations at the state and city level, its like the worst investment proposal you could imagine

the tribune site is simple and easy in comparison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 9:22 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 10:29 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
For those wanting to sign up for the town halls...

Bally's
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-chi...s-303051764987
I might go to the Bally's townhall just to be inside the Tribune printing facility before its eventual demolition
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 10:33 PM
lakeshoredrive lakeshoredrive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Thanks for sharing this. I think I will attend the Rivers 78 town hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 4:41 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
sorry to say but if one central is the pick, don't expect to ever seen this thing get built

a temporary casino location will be created but nothing more...

it's too complicated, too many private parties involved, too many interrelated governmental bodies, too much political will required across multiple administrations at the state and city level, its like the worst investment proposal you could imagine

the tribune site is simple and easy in comparison
Agreed that the Tribune site is simpler, but I think they can pull off Hard Rock. Bob Dunn very clearly owns the air rights over both Metra and CN railroads. These were sold by Illinois Central in the 1970s and any developer wishing to build there has had a clear path to do so. Making the numbers work is the hard part, which is why Dunn is asking for billions in taxpayer money to build the deck.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 6:55 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,387
Well, I'm not sure how much of those air rights can actually be used without first redoing Weldon Yard to allow supporting columns.

As I study the site, it occurs to me that any structure built east of the original railroad tracks—and there'd have to be some, perhaps 25 percent of the site area—will be subject to the same Public Trust Land challenge that doomed the Lucas Museum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 7:17 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,286
Friends of the railyards are gonna be all over that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2022, 12:08 AM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,442
Today's 42nd Ward newsletter:
Quote:
Alderman Reilly has heard from many constituents regarding the proposed Tribune Publishing location, as it is very close to the 42nd Ward boundary and would directly impact many residents. Alderman Reilly takes constituent input very seriously and knows neighborhood residents are clearly opposed to the Tribune proposal. The Alderman has already communicated his serious concerns about the Tribune proposal to members of the Lightfoot Administration and will reiterate those concerns when the Special City Council Casino Committee is convened next month.
Translation: Brendan has heard from his chums at RNRA and they speak for the entire ward.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.