Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle
|
What a fuck up seriously. Is she that daft?
Quote:
|
Nonetheless, the list is consistent with Lightfoot’s stated position during her campaign that the facility would best be located not downtown or too close to the city’s convention center but in areas that are economically struggling and close enough to existing Indiana casinos to pull Illinoisans and their money back on this side of the border.
|
Quote:
|
Economically, the question is how well any of the South or West Side locations would do in drawing visitors to areas that now are either isolated or in some cases suffer from high crime rates. Some industry experts have argued that, just as a matter of money, tourists and other visitors are far more likely to visit a downtown location than one in a distant part of the city.
|
I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti
The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino
To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot.
By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT
It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.
The best place in Chicago to put a casino?
Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district.
The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location.
I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities.
It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.
With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again?
Lesser sites
Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side.
In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field,
the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street.
The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap.
But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero.
An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants.
A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access.
Why not Navy Pier?
A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by.
So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue.
Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville.
Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking
…
Big Jim might be a smart bet
So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block.
You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center.
Two conclusions:
•The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling.
•Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out.