Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
^ I think that’s the mix up.
A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.
But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.
Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.
Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.
|
Yeah, sorry I didn't mean it would save a struggling neighborhood. The casino is going to have its own drinks, food, etc so really not going to spur any new commercial/retail around it. I meant to say more like this - if they put it where Michael Reese was for example, I wouldn't doubt if there was some new development in that immediate area for housing. I'm not talking about tons of it, just a little. That type of thing. Rivers Casino employs over 1000 people - I'm sure you could build 50 new units nearby for some people who want to live close to work. Maybe not though - definitely not retail/commercial new development though unless they have plans to open up like 10 new entertainment venues next to it in a new entertainment district.
Anyway, I think you got my point. And I think the place for this would be within reach of downtown. Honestly Michael Reese type of area or Motor Row/McCormick works the best. It will be just one more thing for tourists and locals to do, but in no way is it going to be why 99% of them come to the city in the first place. It's possible it could sway some tourists on the fence about visiting in the direction of actually visiting the city though - some.
I think of this kind of like what I remember from the casinos I went to in Singapore. Actually they might be the only 2 in the entire city but anyway - one is on Sentosa Island (artificial tourist island) and the other is in Marina Bay Sands. Both nice - the one in Marina Bay Sands is really nice. Nobody is going to Singapore to only gamble (there's Macau for that in SE/South Asia) but it's just one more thing to do for tourists/locals. These places were always full when I went and neither is in the direct center of the city, but they're also right around hotels (Marina Bay Sands of course is a hotel and Sentosa Island has multiple hotels) and easy to get to via public transit. Sentosa is a bit different as there are other attractions there like Universal Studios, a water park, madame tussauds, an aquarium, beaches, etc.
I am hoping that a casino in Chicago will sway more upscale looking and in operation. The last thing the city needs is a dingy casino. But if they can do one with a bit of class and keep it up well, then it would be a lot better. I think McCormick Place or Michael Reese would be a good location for a casino. Make sure the public transit can take you between the casino as well as Soldier Field, Museum Campus and the Loop, and that it has easy access to the lake. Catch a show downtown, then catch a train/bus and go to the casino not far away. Some people would definitely do that.
I think of this like any other tourist attraction in most cities in the US. The majority of people on your average visit are not going for just one attraction to places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. They're going for multiple reasons, to see multiple things. Having a nice casino accessible to your average tourist is just another plus for some percentage of them.