CHICAGO | City Casino

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

This whole "understated" thing that has somehow seeped in the thought patterns of many Chicagoans has no root in the history of a city whose motto has historically been, "make no little plans". Understated is one thing... lacking vision/not being innovative, daring and bold is quite another thing.

We did not build the Sears Tower thinking we should be understated. We did not create the first skyscraper in history by thinking how can we conform to the norms of others. We did not beat out New York for the Worlds Fair in 1893 and get the reputation of being "the Windy City" for the wind that blows here, but because we had cojones and brashness of thought, words and vision. And New York, for all of its flaws, has continued to push the envelope and I give them credit for that - they miss on some, and hit on others -- but at at-least they try.

Ayayay. Let’s come back to reality here.

Are we forgetting that Daniel Burnham WAS the aesthetic conservative and traditionalist of his era? The 1893 World’s Fair was in the architectural sense the triumph of the restrained over the dynamic and avant garde.

“I can see,” Wright remembered Burnham telling him, “all America constructed along the lines of the Fair, in noble dignified classic style. . . . The Fair should have shown you that Sullivan and Richardson are well enough in their way, but their way won’t prevail—architecture is going the other way.”

Our current casino situation is much more similar to the UIC campus development than anything else - where adventurous design can also break a project if not matched by fundamentals.

Also some other “big plans” that could have been catastrophic if time and freedom hadn’t sorted everything out. There is great risk in putting all the eggs into one giant institutional basket.

Why would a casino have significantly more street life than the existing McCormick Place? You can’t really force an area to become a hopping authentic entertainment destination.

[Bonsai Tree]

^^ You're comparing apples to oranges here. It is not the 1950s anymore. The downtown area has hundreds of thousands of residents, dozens of apartment buildings under construction, etc. There aren't thousands of people leaving the city en-masse like in the late 50s. Sure, I agree that big plans aren't always a good thing, but all of these are private developments. If a developer wants to put money into a cool-looking (but possibly unprofitable) observation tower, then by all means why not. It's not gonna destroy the urban fabric because there is literally nothing there now. Basically holds true for all the sites too.

[TR Devlin]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

I don't understand how a giant patio(s) is clearly better than the others in a city notorious for long cold grey winters? I think presentation, which was very polished and well done, has swayed opinion. And that tower is the hook for some. To even use the word Eifel Tower in the same sentence as this stick figure Tower is completely disingenuous by the developer and shows you what his motives are. It would be a joke that would take Chicago's reputation for architecture down a notch or three. It screams "Look at me!" in a city that is already established with great architecture. Why doesn't 78 just put a Six Flags there and get it over with. The casino in this city should be understated but classy. Very classy. This is clown shoes, imo. Chicago is not Vegas. Nor should it ever try to be. A lot of folks are thinkin Vegas when they would be better off thinking Monte Carlo. Elegance and class. Not garish design tricks. A casino in the city is a nice addition of entertainment to a great cultural city. Not a main attraction. "Just go over there and play nice". It could end up being a huge missed opportunity to class this city higher.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

One thing I find especially disgusting is Related’s saying this will be an “entertainment district”. It will NOT be an entertainment district. It will be an island casino that appeals to people who drive to the casino, park in an attached garage and when their money runs out, they go back to their car and drive home. They never set foot in the surrounding neighborhood. People who talk about this being an “entertainment district” are either very naïve/gullible or work for Related.

A casino at the 78 site will have little appeal to wealthy out-of-towners and will do very little to increase tourism. To appeal to these people, a casino should be “understated but classy. Very classy.” And it should be in an area that’s already a tourist-rich entertainment district.

I know I’m repeating myself, but IMO, the best sites are
1. the Thompson Center or
2. River North, east of LaSalle.

But unfortunately that’s not where we’re headed.

[k1052]

Hopefully Related designs that tower with a little more care not to become another suicide magnet almost intentionally designed to traumatize visitors and employees alike.

[skysoar]

We should remember that the observation tower at the 78 would operate more as an attraction, and not the attraction, as the Casino itself would serve that purpose. Much like the Ferris Wheel at Navy Pier functions as an add on attraction to that very venue that is very popular to locals and tourist alike. I know that may not be the perfect comparison as the Observation Tower is a lot more imposing , but nevertheless it adds to the overall appeal of the Casino experience, moreso than the other proposals. We should also remember we see many tourist that visit Chicago to sightsee the skyscrapers, including many Asians, and this 78 Casino proposal would add to it, ironically being close to Chinatown.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

Hopefully Related designs that tower with a little more care not to become another suicide magnet almost intentionally designed to traumatize visitors and employees alike.

I don't think Vessel is any more of a suicide magnet than other famous structures. 4 suicides in 3 years is hardly an epidemic; that's what you'd expect for a major bridge or something, and Related has taken action to address the issue. But somehow we don't see an outcry from left-wing politicians and activists when the suicides occur on a public structure like a bridge or national park.

[generallogan]

Originally Posted by k1052

Hopefully Related designs that tower with a little more care not to become another suicide magnet almost intentionally designed to traumatize visitors and employees alike.

Interesting. I do wonder if this ever came up in the development meetings when they discussed adding an observation tower (with what looks like outdoor space) to the proposal. "Sir, do you think we should make it convenient for people to easily make even more bad decisions after losing too much money at our casino?". That's one reason they lock and/or don't allow the windows to open too widely in Vegas hotels (see Park MGM, Paris, Bally's, Excalibur, Aria for examples).

Again, the big/bold Burnham-esque plan for the next 30/40/100 years would be to create a casino in an area with ample land to expand when, inevitably, the state legislature decides to grant more licenses to the city, whether in 10 or 20 years from now. In fact, the small plan is to shoehorn a casino/entertainment district into an area with little to no access (Roosevelt or Wells/Wentworth).

The draw is supposed to be Midwest tourists from the surrounding states who are likely going to drive for a long weekend or a night in the city (if you are from the burbs). That requires parking and easy access from the highways (ie exit ramps directly from I55 or LSD into parking lots.) See Universal Florida for how they manage the crush of cars from the highways onto long lead ramps and then directly into their parking lots.

I'd go so far as to say you don't want to make it convenient for Chicagoans to take public transportation to a casino. You want to make it easy for NON-Chicagoans to lose their money in a casino, not average everyday folks trying to get to/from work.

Discuss.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think Vessel is any more of a suicide magnet than other famous structures. 4 suicides in 3 years is hardly an epidemic; that's what you'd expect for a major bridge or something, and Related has taken action to address the issue. But somehow we don't see an outcry from left-wing politicians and activists when the suicides occur on a public structure like a bridge or national park.

Somebody going splat into a plaza full of people in Midtown is a slightly more visible problem than say somebody jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is of course made worse by the sheer vanity which built it in the first place then declined to make more aggressive changes to prevent incidents.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by generallogan

The draw is supposed to be Midwest tourists from the surrounding states who are likely going to drive for a long weekend or a night in the city (if you are from the burbs). That requires parking and easy access from the highways (ie exit ramps directly from I55 or LSD into parking lots.) See Universal Florida for how they manage the crush of cars from the highways onto long lead ramps and then directly into their parking lots.

I'd go so far as to say you don't want to make it convenient for Chicagoans to take public transportation to a casino. You want to make it easy for NON-Chicagoans to lose their money in a casino, not average everyday folks trying to get to/from work.

Discuss.

I mostly just think it’s a waste of the 78 location to just give up and put a casino there.

The proposal right now is interesting, but it’s not “Wow, Number 1 destination so I’ll go out of my way to get a picture” architecture. The original plan for the 78 will no doubt have shopping and dining and riverfront patios as the neighborhood gets built out, so what does the casino bring to the table?

There’s also a risk of the casino grounds becoming dead space because gamblers usually aren’t interested in strolling around, and it’s not the most convenient area for casual tourists (who are not around in large numbers for half the year when it’s cold.)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

There’s also a risk of the casino grounds becoming dead space because gamblers usually aren’t interested in strolling around, and it’s not the most convenient area for casual tourists (who are not around in large numbers for half the year when it’s cold.)

You've obviously never been to the Las Vegas Strip, or probably didn't look around much or had a much difference experience than most people. Tons of people walk between shops, restaurants, clubs, and casinos along the strip because there's actually stuff to do from one casino/mall/etc complex to the other. While the strip is a few miles long, people have no issues walking around and they made it easy to do so. People there have no problems walking from their hotel/casino to a clothing store elsewhere even for 15 minutes. They usually don't get in their car and drive it.

Sorry but it's pretty shortsighted to think that someone who is going to the casino might never want to walk to a restaurant nearby outside of the casino complex. If you give people a reason to actually want to walk around, they will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsKlptwmmvs

[pilsenarch]

^I've probably been to Las Vegas probably many more times than you have...

ONE casino does not a Las Vegas make...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^I've probably been to Las Vegas probably many more times than you have...

This is not something to be proud of...

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

You've obviously never been to the Las Vegas Strip, or probably didn't look around much or had a much difference experience than most people. Tons of people walk between shops, restaurants, clubs, and casinos along the strip because there's actually stuff to do from one casino/mall/etc complex to the other. While the strip is a few miles long, people have no issues walking around and they made it easy to do so. People there have no problems walking from their hotel/casino to a clothing store elsewhere even for 15 minutes. They usually don't get in their car and drive it.

Sorry but it's pretty shortsighted to think that someone who is going to the casino might never want to walk to a restaurant nearby outside of the casino complex. If you give people a reason to actually want to walk around, they will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsKlptwmmvs

The entire appeal of Las Vegas is the 4+ miles of extravagant tourist trap resort architecture and attractions. There are tens of thousands of tourists staying directly on the strip at any one time.

The 78 has a pleasant stroll of rail yards to the West, the walled off Dearborn Park to the East, the unremarkable shopping of the Roosevelt Collection to the North, and a real hike to Chinatown to the South. The closest large hotels are in the South Loop or McCormick Place

Not to mention the 78 is a very small area once a casino occupies most of the space.

[Randomguy34]

A reminder y'all that Related Midwest is building 10,000 units for The 78. With average South Loop household size of 1.8, that's a density of about 186,000 ppsm. Add in all the office workers, students, and tourists to the daytime population and this will easily be one of the densest places in the city. This is not a low-density, isolated development like Dearborn Park. There will be an abundance of retail and public spaces, especially along the river.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

A reminder y'all that Related Midwest is building 10,000 units for The 78. With average South Loop household size of 1.8, that's a density of about 186,000 ppsm. Add in all the office workers, students, and tourists to the daytime population and this will easily be one of the densest places in the city. This is not a low-density, isolated development like Dearborn Park. There will be an abundance of retail and public spaces, especially along the river.

I think you're missing the point. This casino is taking the place of a huge chunk of The 78's original program. That means a lot fewer residential units (maybe 40-50% less), fewer office buildings, and a smaller, less self-sufficient neighborhood. Probably less new infrastructure too. If you like the original vision for the The 78, then this is a huge downsizing.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think you're missing the point. This casino is taking the place of a huge chunk of The 78's original program. That means a lot fewer residential units (maybe 40-50% less), fewer office buildings, and a smaller, less self-sufficient neighborhood. Probably less new infrastructure too. If you like the original vision for the The 78, then this is a huge downsizing.

Is it though? Related hasn't mentioned as much, and we can see from the new site plan that the crescent park is no more - replaced by a much smaller square park. I'd think that if anything it's the office space that is mostly being sacrificed here, not residential units. Office was always a long shot at this site anyway...

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Is it though? Related hasn't mentioned as much, and we can see from the new site plan that the crescent park is no more - replaced by a much smaller square park. I'd think that if anything it's the office space that is mostly being sacrificed here, not residential units. Office was always a long shot at this site anyway...

It’s a lot of both residential and office that got put on the chopping block.






Rough area that has been eliminated.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

It’s a lot of both residential and office that got put on the chopping block.

How do you know? The graphics you posted say nothing of density, height, or are really anything more than rough placeholders. The northern towers from the original plan were all to be office (Gateway Towers and Riverfront Innovation Office).. so that's not any loss of residential units. The fact of the matter is that even Related doesn't know at this point... but they have approvals to go up to 10,000 residential units or whatever it was. I don't even see how they fit 10,000 residential units in their previous site plan.. even if every building was all residential.

[pilsenarch]

DPI was introduced to the 78 as an academic, incubator, business synergy space, if you will, to attract additional office space... all that is gone now in the new entertainment district... there is definitely no businesses, much less office space left to lease in the new entertainment district to fuse with the DPI... and, please, no one, young or not, wants to live next door to a casino at this location... no one...

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This is not something to be proud of...

and.... "one casino does not a Las Vegas make"