CHICAGO | City Casino

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

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.

Of course they’re all rough placeholders, but towers are towers, and there’s only so much room for them. This is a superior location for skyscrapers, both residential and office. If a casino occupies the land then the potential is lost.

My argument is that a casino is not highest and best use of this land.

[Bonsai Tree]

^^ You could argue that for literally any of the other sites.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

^^ You could argue that for literally any of the other sites.

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

Well considering it's east of Lakeshore Drive - park space. As I'm sure the inevitable lawsuits will argue at least.

[generallogan]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

Does anyone know if the reuse of McCormick Place as the casino is contingent on Dunn getting Billions from the state?

I just saw a commercial on TV urging residents to oppose the state subsidies for Dunn. I didn't realize that at the end of 20 years, the state only owns the transportation center, yet the tax subsidies are for the entire amount of the cost of covering the area currently with exposed railroad tracks. Basically taxpayers are paying for private developers to build the foundation/base/parking lots for developer-owned future buildings along LSD.

Is there any way there can be a proposal that reuses McCormick Place but builds the hotels over the truck yards south of McCormick along with a proper "Entertainment" district there? That keeps the casino away from the neighborhood while still creating jobs and the nightlife district. Wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

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.

That's besides the point. The point is that they made the strip "walkable" and people do it, because they have a reason to so so. They don't just stay in their hotel casino complex usually. Tons of people walk the strip.

Whether it's a tourist trap or not is completely besides the point. People walk the strip because they have a reason to. They were given a reason to and aided by actual sidewalks and even escalators connecting everything.

[Briguy]

They should just move DPI to Fulton market where all the tech is anyways. Synergy like Kendall square

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

Right. All this talk about big plans and whatnot over a low-rise casino!

None of the designs are so revolutionary as to drive worldwide admiration or generate substantially more attendance or revenue, and none so flawed that they’re an automatic rejection.

But there are certainly sites that should have higher aspirations than a casino.

The 78

Pros -River, CTA, new road infrastructure,TIF funding, close to downtown, large site

Duh, should be a great high-rise neighborhood

Tribune

Synergy with existing River North entertainment district, but transportation is gridlocked

Marshalling Yards

Lakefront with metra access, community does not want a casino

One Central

Great location but obscenely expensive project that needs public funding

Lakeside East

It’s grass or a casino.

[pilsenarch]

marothisue, so, dude, you need to stop comparing this tiny little non-existent '78' neighborhood in chicago with the entire city of LAS VEGAS... seriously? do I really need to elaborate?

[twister244]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

But does McCormick necessarily have to be a casino? It could easily be a number of other things. Why not demo it and do something else with the land? There are a number of ideas one could come up with.

I also don't know if I agree with this idea that McCormick is somehow a better location for a casino in the city. It's technically more out of the way if you are driving into the city from the burbs (with the far S/SE burbs being the exception) compared to 78. If you are coming in from the West, Northwest, or North you will have to go through downtown to get to LSD to get there. The 78 location is much closer to 90/94, with a slight nudge away from 55.

For anyone that lives in the city that wants to get to either of these locations, the 78 site is the obvious winner if you aren't driving. The McCormick site is right on the water, but it's not close enough to CTA lines for people to justify using transit to get there. There will be a whole new stop dedicated to just the 78 site.

Further, the 78 site has much more river activation, and seems more geared towards a broader group of people. The McCormick proposal looks like it's designed to attract a narrow group of gamblers where they just want to go there, gamble, and leave. It's not easy walking distance to much of anything besides the rest of convention complex. Plus, I'm not aware of an activated water front with this proposal.

I can see why some gravitate to the McCormick proposal, but it just doesn't do it for me, even after reading all of these arguments.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by twister244

But does McCormick necessarily have to be a casino? It could easily be a number of other things. Why not demo it and do something else with the land? There are a number of ideas one could come up with.

Demolish Lakeside Center, and it’ll be a grass lawn forever. Public Trust Doctrine means anybody who tries to build on the lakefront will be stuck in federal court for decades only to be denied.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Demolish Lakeside Center, and it’ll be a grass lawn forever. Public Trust Doctrine means anybody who tries to build on the lakefront will be stuck in federal court for decades only to be denied.

Or make it into a cool park of some kind.... Not saying someone would have to develop something on it, but we did that with Meigs Field.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

marothisue, so, dude, you need to stop comparing this tiny little non-existent '78' neighborhood in chicago with the entire city of LAS VEGAS... seriously? do I really need to elaborate?

You are entirely missing the point, actually. The point is that if options around/near/walking distance to a casino are there and the environment is conducive to an easy walk between these things..there will be people will walk and actuallygo between these things. Las Vegas is an example of a place with huge casinos with people still walking between them becaude there's an actual reason to.. I could have picked examples from other cities outside of the US.

People need to get beyond this notion that if you put a casino in or near an urban core, people will just drive there and never leave the premises even if there's interesting things within walking distance. The reason why you think this is the case is because 99% of casinos in the country are built like this where people have no choice to stay put in the compound. Most casinos are put in the middle of nowhere or somewhere in a city that's far flung.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

People need to get beyond this notion that if you put a casino in or near an urban core, people will just drive there and never leave the premises even if there's interesting things within walking distance. The reason why you think this is the case is because 99% of casinos in the country are built like this where people have no choice to stay put in the compound. Most casinos are put in the middle of nowhere or somewhere in a city that's far flung.

That's kinda how I feel about McCormick - It's not well integrated into anything, besides the convention complex.

If you want an example of a casino in a city center that is located near things, the Harrah's in New Orleans would be a closer example. I don't have any data on the casino in terms of how people frequent other things while gambling there, but I have stopped by while visiting since it would be on my walk sometimes to the convention center.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

not with Rivers McCormick... what could possibly be a better use?

I was thinking about that last night. It theoretically may be big enough to host two museums at once?

I would love to see the MCA demolished and see them move from Streeterville (and see that fugly building demolished) and make a revamped continuous park space between The Looking Glass Theatre and the lakefront. I think the Eastside building would be a befitting building for the MCA to be located in.

Also perhaps an auto/transit museum?

[generallogan]

I just re-read the proposals and Rivers at McCormick is hands down the best choice. Reuse the existing structure, save money on both ends (reduced construction costs/reduced ongoing maintenance/less demo) and make money mostly from tourists/suburbanites while providing lots of jobs (relatively quickly) located south of the loop. I'm sure they can throw in an observation tower if that will make everyone happy.

Save the 78 to lure researchers, scientists, and build a true live/work/play neighborhood over a 20 year period.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

You are entirely missing the point, actually. The point is that if options around/near/walking distance to a casino are there and the environment is conducive to an easy walk between these things..there will be people will walk and actuallygo between these things. Las Vegas is an example of a place with huge casinos with people still walking between them becaude there's an actual reason to.. I could have picked examples from other cities outside of the US.

People need to get beyond this notion that if you put a casino in or near an urban core, people will just drive there and never leave the premises even if there's interesting things within walking distance. The reason why you think this is the case is because 99% of casinos in the country are built like this where people have no choice to stay put in the compound. Most casinos are put in the middle of nowhere or somewhere in a city that's far flung.

The 78 is not an easy walk for the vast majority of tourists who are staying in hotels in the Loop, River North, and McCormick Place. Most would take a taxi. A few would board the CTA. The walks to and from the casino and the nearby stations are not the most pleasant. It is also not an easy walk for people leaving the office in the Loop.

The single on-site 300-key hotel will not move the needle much. There are few dense neighborhoods nearby for locals to support the street-facing venues at the proposed casino when the seasonal tourist crowds dissipate, so most of the action will retreat inside for much of the year.

Not to mention the 78 neighborhood does not exist yet and probably will not exist for many years, possibly decades. Nobody’s going to be walking circles around the casino.

[generallogan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The 78 is not an easy walk for the vast majority of tourists who are staying in hotels in the Loop, River North, and McCormick Place. Most would take a taxi. A few would board the CTA. The walks to and from the casino and the nearby stations are not the most pleasant. It is also not an easy walk for people leaving the office in the Loop.

The single on-site 300-key hotel will not move the needle much. There are few dense neighborhoods nearby for locals to support the street-facing venues at the proposed casino when the seasonal tourist crowds dissipate, so most of the action will retreat inside for much of the year.

Not to mention the 78 neighborhood does not exist yet and probably will not exist for many years, possibly decades. Nobody’s going to be walking circles around the casino.

This. I don't picture throngs of tourists walking to and from the loop or the red line December 15 through March 15. All will uber. Many, many, MANY ubers. If you're gonna uber, uber on LSD to McCormick.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The 78 is not an easy walk for the vast majority of tourists who are staying in hotels in the Loop, River North, and McCormick Place. Most would take a taxi. A few would board the CTA. The walks to and from the casino and the nearby stations are not the most pleasant. It is also not an easy walk for people leaving the office in the Loop.

The single on-site 300-key hotel will not move the needle much. There are few dense neighborhoods nearby for locals to support the street-facing venues at the proposed casino when the seasonal tourist crowds dissipate, so most of the action will retreat inside for much of the year.

Not to mention the 78 neighborhood does not exist yet and probably will not exist for many years, possibly decades. Nobody’s going to be walking circles around the casino.

But all of these arguments can be applied, to a larger degree, to the McCormick site. It's even further from CTA. It's further from River North and the Loop. The ONLY thing within a reasonable walking distance from McCormick is the rest of the convention center complex......

If you think McCormick is a good site location because it has an existing structure and the space at 78 should be reserved for more residential/office to keep it as a true neighborhood, fine. But to suggest that McCormick should be chosen simply because it's a better location based on what is laid out in your post doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by twister244

But all of these arguments can be applied, to a larger degree, to the McCormick site. It's even further from CTA. It's further from River North and the Loop. The ONLY thing within a reasonable walking distance from McCormick is the rest of the convention center complex......

If you think McCormick is a good site location because it has an existing structure and the space at 78 should be reserved for more residential/office to keep it as a true neighborhood, fine. But to suggest that McCormick should be chosen simply because it's a better location based on what is laid out in your post doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Took some of the words out of my mouth. The proposed site for this is near Roosevelt and really not that far from actually urbanity (a handful of minutes walk). Who said anything about walking to tourist attractions either? People are full of straw men. This is about an entertainment area and the fact that it's not far from other restaurants. The walk to Chinatown from there is also a piece of cake and not that long. I am a new resident not too far away from this (going to buy a place in another area soon though) and don't understand how people think this has less ability to unite the urban fabric than something like the Marshalling Yards or McCormick (a gigantic suburban-esque convention center). Truly a head scratcher there.

None of the lakefront sites are walkable to much of anything. Absolutely boring. Uninspiring.