CHICAGO | City Casino

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I feel like the city always promotes the water taxi in proposals like this, but I have literally never heard of anyone using it.

It feels both more expensive and less convenient than basically any other transit option. So you would just be doing it for the experience of being on a boat. But then it competes against things that are actually designed for that experience, like the architecture cruise.

Is there some use case that I am missing?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper than an architecture cruise though. Architecture cruises are a good $40 per person, while you can get an all day water taxi pass for just $10. As someone who doesn't own a boat or know a friend who has one, they're a great way to see the city from the water. Definitely not useful for transportation, but for budget tourist options, they're perfect. I'd think having a water taxi stop here would be very useful, I know I'd use it.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I feel like the city always promotes the water taxi in proposals like this, but I have literally never heard of anyone using it.

It feels both more expensive and less convenient than basically any other transit option. So you would just be doing it for the experience of being on a boat. But then it competes against things that are actually designed for that experience, like the architecture cruise.

Is there some use case that I am missing?

The museum campus to Navy Pier water taxi makes sense IMO, if you're going between the two.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I feel like the city always promotes the water taxi in proposals like this, but I have literally never heard of anyone using it.

It feels both more expensive and less convenient than basically any other transit option. So you would just be doing it for the experience of being on a boat. But then it competes against things that are actually designed for that experience, like the architecture cruise.

Is there some use case that I am missing?

My girlfriend would use it from time to time back when she had to take the Metra for her commute. Her office is in River North, so on nice days she would make the quick walk to the river and then get dropped off right at the train station. Agreed it's too expensive to make sense for daily use, but it's a nice alternative if you have a specific itinerary and can afford it. The bus during pre-COVID rush hour was a crapshoot.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

It's a hell of a lot cheaper than an architecture cruise though. Architecture cruises are a good $40 per person, while you can get an all day water taxi pass for just $10. As someone who doesn't own a boat or know a friend who has one, they're a great way to see the city from the water. Definitely not useful for transportation, but for budget tourist options, they're perfect. I'd think having a water taxi stop here would be very useful, I know I'd use it.

For some of us they work quite nicely for transportation - there is a stop just across the street from my office. Will make my hike over to the BMO site much easier. Several of my co-workers are regular riders - we get a free pass from the building.

They also offer some spectacular angles ....

[Barrelfish]

Well that was quick. I stand corrected!

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by Linear

I have to agree with Bonsai Tree! It is way cheaper when compared to the architecture cruise. I mean, 40 bucks vs 10 bucks, it is kind of obvious 30 bucks difference is kind of a great argument.

Except you don't get the level of expertise / full experience as you would with a BVic arch. cruise!

[Randomguy34]

Casino RFP is out: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/chicago-casino/home/rfp.html

The City expects RFP respondents to submit proposals for an integrated casino resort with a hotel, restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues. The City also expects that the casino development will create living wage jobs with competitive benefits for Chicago residents, create opportunities for Chicago-based businesses, provide community amenities, and support tourism, including through partnerships with existing entertainment and cultural venues.

The Chicago opportunity includes:

- The development and operation of a permanent casino-anchored resort complex that enhances the urban fabric of its surrounding neighborhood;
- The development and operation of a temporary casino that provides — and ancillary functions while the permanent resort complex is designed and constructed; and
- An optional lease and license agreement to operate electronic — machines at the City’s O’Hare and Midway International Airports.

The City looks forward to finding an applicant who will propose a project that will represent the best of Chicago’s entertainment destinations, architecture and design, sustainability and resiliency, art and culture and public safety. To download the RFP and the RFP Supplement, please use the link below.

Proposed Casino in the City of Chicago – Request for Proposals & Supplement

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Casino RFP is out: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/chicago-casino/home/rfp.html

Thanks for that. That is going to be a long read. It is 86 pages long.

[ardecila]

^ This is good. On almost every page of the document they reinforce that they are looking for an urban-friendly casino, and even the graphic design of the RFP reflects the professionalism and polish that the city will demand from proposers.

I don't know how the city could send a stronger message that the usual windowless suburban-style casino complex will not be acceptable.

We'll see what the proposers come back with... they mention that the public presentations will be revealed in September.


I dunno why, but for some reason I have a hunch we might see a design from BIG as one of the proposals. That's not a hint, it just feels right somehow...

[left of center]

Any language in the RFP on potential sites the city may be considering?

[ardecila]

No but apparently the site can’t be within 500’ of schools or houses of worship, so that might take out some obvious sites (e.g. Thompson Center might be too close to Chicago Temple, United Center would be tough due to multiple churches and schools, etc).

[marothisu]

Chicago Tribune printing site is still perfect.

[Sky88]

So given the complexity of this project and the fact that the city requires a casino resort with a hotel, restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues and that the project will represent the best of Chicago's entertainment destinations, architecture and design, and which requires a large space, where do you think the new casino could arise?

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by Sky88

So given the complexity of this project and the fact that the city requires a casino resort with a hotel, restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues and that the project will represent the best of Chicago's entertainment destinations, architecture and design, and which requires a large space, where do you think the new casino could arise?

Realistically, this rules out a pretty huge chunk of the city. The North Side doesn't have that much land for a resort. Northwest siders are going to reject anything taller than 4 stories. South Siders have expressed multiple times they do not want a casino. The Southeast Side has a lot of land, but too far from downtown and too close to Indiana casinos.

This pretty much leaves downtown, the West and Southwest side. Megadevelopments are the only parcels with enough land to host a resort in downtown. The West Side has great transportation access and enough sites. The Southwest Side has several abandoned industrial sites that could be rehabbed and converted into a resort.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Realistically, this rules out a pretty huge chunk of the city. The North Side doesn't have that much land for a resort. Northwest siders are going to reject anything taller than 4 stories. South Siders have expressed multiple times they do not want a casino. The Southeast Side has a lot of land, but too far from downtown and too close to Indiana casinos.

This pretty much leaves downtown, the West and Southwest side. Megadevelopments are the only parcels with enough land to host a resort in downtown. The West Side has great transportation access and enough sites. The Southwest Side has several abandoned industrial sites that could be rehabbed and converted into a resort.

Pretty much only downtown vicinity...nobody is gonna go to the west side or southwest side for a entertainment/Casino Venue. It just doesn't fit and will not be pulling in any downtown crowds.

[marothisu]

Tribune Publiahing site..

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Pretty much only downtown vicinity...nobody is gonna go to the west side or southwest side for a entertainment/Casino Venue. It just doesn't fit and will not be pulling in any downtown crowds.

Depends how far... I think a location at the UC would be fine, for example.

[Tom In Chicago]

The correct answer is McCormick Place Lakeside Center East. . .

. . .

[ardecila]

Lakeside Center has a problem - nowhere to put a hotel tower, and it would be hard to retrofit for hotel too. Plus McPier would have to agree to surrender it, which they won't do unless the city pays for the floor area to be replaced further inland.

Tribune Publishing has another slight problem in that there is a church across Halsted, City Church. But they could probably solve this problem with creative site planning, it only rules out buildings near the Halsted/Chicago intersection. TBH it's probably better to put the casino near the south end of the site - right next to the Ohio feeder ramp, closer to the Blue Line, short walk or Uber down Grand to other bar/entertainment areas. They could even ask IDOT for offramps directly into their parking garage.

The 78 is a good site, no red flags. The South Loop doesn't have a huge bar/entertainment scene, but that could be an advantage for keeping people spending money on the premises. And it would be well-suited for luring sports fans on game days (admittedly only a handful of days a year, but more now that the Fire have moved).

Thompson Center actually could be a possibility, looks like it's just outside the 500' radius of Chicago Temple.

Old Post Office is too understated, and historically protected. Nobody would know there's a casino in there.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Depends how far... I think a location at the UC would be fine, for example.

Ehh...I just don't understand why a developer wouldn't want it as close or in downtown as possible...the major difference that this casino would have from any in the US is the appeal of being dead center in downtown Chicago..no other casinos/entertainment complex in the US have anything like that located in a major Urban cultural center like downtown Chicago... Being in the center of all the action makes the most sense...If someone wants to step out of the casino and walk toward the lakefront or back on Michigan avenue to there Hotel its just so convenient and appealing.. perhaps the entertainment portion of the complex can have a theatre element which can add to the loop theatre district if they were to choose the Thompson center location... The Old post office would of been really great from a structural standpoint of a Casino and location