CHICAGO | City Casino

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

I guess I can kinda see why one might be concerned about crime if proper steps aren't taken. But I go back to my point I made several days ago - If you are this concerned with crime, then you probably shouldn't be living in the city in the first place.

You are kind of arguing with yourself at this point. If you can’t understand why a gigantic gambling facility, open 24/7, with thousands of drunk people coming and going all night, and the added security layers wouldn’t be peoples first choice for a neighbor; I’m not sure what else to say. There aren’t many 24 hour entertainment centers in Chicago, none at this scale.

I live in the city and my neighbors complain when a loud car drives by. I know that walking my son to school would be a lot different experience if there was an active casino on the way.

You understand how the city’s only casino is very different than an L station, right?

[Handro]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

You are kind of arguing with yourself at this point. If you can’t understand why a gigantic gambling facility, open 24/7, with thousands of drunk people coming and going all night, and the added security layers wouldn’t be peoples first choice for a neighbor; I’m not sure what else to say. There aren’t many 24 hour entertainment centers in Chicago, none at this scale.

I live in the city and my neighbors complain when a loud car drives by. I know that walking my son to school would be a lot different experience if there was an active casino on the way.

You understand how the city’s only casino is very different than an L station, right?

You're both right. If they were planning on building the casino in Portage Park, for example, that's one thing. Just because it's "the city" doesn't mean a casino would be completely out of place and overpowering to the neighborhood's quality of life.

On the flip side, the casino at the 78 is not that. The absolute closest corner of the subdivision that is Dearborn Park is almost half a mile away, and behind a sound barrier/heavy infrastructure... not to mention the future development at the 78 that will further separate them from the potential casino site. It's ironic that the residents there have done everything possible to isolate themselves from the downtown neighborhood around them but still want veto power over what can be built in the CBD of the third largest city in the US.

If their back door was fronting the casino site, that's one thing. But come on: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671744,...TCuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Handro

It's ironic that the residents there have done everything possible to isolate themselves from the downtown neighborhood around them but still want veto power over what can be built in the CBD of the third largest city in the US.

If their back door was fronting the casino site, that's one thing. But come on: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671744,...TCuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

You are correct. To be clear, I wasn't supporting the Dearborn Park folks, as they don't have much leg to stand on.

I was explaining how, I believe, it is possible for a reasonable person to not want a casino near their home. This is reinforced by the fact that almost no casinos are near residential areas. The counterpoint that not wanting to live near a casino means they should leave the city, is just silly gate-keeping.

[ardecila]

Lightfoot indicated today that 2 of the proposals are likely to be cut very soon. I'm guessing Bally's McCormick and Hard Rock?

Bally's McCormick is "in the backyard" of Bronzeville the same way The 78 is "in the backyard" of Dearborn Park, i.e. not really at all, but this plan doesn't seem to be supported by anyone - not McPier, not the Bronzeville community, not the alderman. With no champions, seems like this one is easy to cut. The cost of building a platform over the truck yards also makes this plan questionable, financially.

Hard Rock is opposed by the Prairie District folks, and McPier is upset that Hard Rock wants to use their facility for the temporary casino. Seems like the McPier issue can maybe be worked out, but the proposal also means - by default - approving One Central, and I think Lightfoot will want to punt on that for now given all the complicated approvals, state transit funding, etc tied up in it. But who knows, with the Bears in flux maybe there is a Big Deal to be struck linking the casino, Bears, and One Central/Bob Dunn. So many moving parts to juggle though.

I thought Rivers McCormick was doomed, but the FOTP endorsement is big, and it doesn't seem to offend the South Loop residents or the alderman. It does solve the issue of what to do with Lakeside Center. The FOTP endorsement seems to suggest that open-space advocates have given up on calling for demolition of Lakeside Center for open space, and they see a big opportunity for the casino to fund improvements over the status quo.

Legally there is a risk to this plan, which is the same public-trust doctrine that doomed Lucas Museum... FOTP won't be the ones filing a challenge, but anyone who doesn't want the casino could come out of the woodwork and file suit. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the fact that the building already exists, and the fact that the proposal would add public benefits above and beyond what McPier has provided as a convention center, make this a net positive for the public. The benefit to me as a Chicagoan of having a convention center in my city is about the same benefit as having a casino - both stimulate economic activity and put money directly in the city coffers. The only difference is that Rivers would be openly turning a profit, while McPier is just enriching a bunch of connected politicos and vendors.

Bally's Tribune is still my favorite of the bunch, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion about it (either for or against). Some people seem to assume there is a traffic problem, but if that's the only issue then there is probably an engineering solution that won't break the bank. If Chicago Spire was able to get ramps off LSD, then Bally's should be able to get ramps off the Ohio Feeder.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Handro

You're both right. If they were planning on building the casino in Portage Park, for example, that's one thing. Just because it's "the city" doesn't mean a casino would be completely out of place and overpowering to the neighborhood's quality of life.

On the flip side, the casino at the 78 is not that. The absolute closest corner of the subdivision that is Dearborn Park is almost half a mile away, and behind a sound barrier/heavy infrastructure... not to mention the future development at the 78 that will further separate them from the potential casino site. It's ironic that the residents there have done everything possible to isolate themselves from the downtown neighborhood around them but still want veto power over what can be built in the CBD of the third largest city in the US.

If their back door was fronting the casino site, that's one thing. But come on: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671744,...TCuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Exactly. This.

Again, it just comes across as hyperbole to me. I live in Logan Square in the triangle bounded by Fullerton, Western, and Milwaukee. A very nice quaint residential area, but pretty damn close to the Kennedy. Yet that's not stopping people from continuing to move in and build new homes. The stuff that happens along the Kennedy is far far worse than anything that you will see at a casino with solid security, part of a mixed use development on the river.

I always say this - If you don't want something like this being built near you, don't buy a place near large open lots of land.......

There are plenty of neighborhoods in the city where you are guaranteed to never have a massive thing like this go up near you anytime soon. Buy a place down there? You take a risk.

Just a little perspective.....

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Lightfoot indicated today that 2 of the proposals are likely to be cut very soon. I'm guessing Bally's McCormick and Hard Rock?

One of the Bally’s and one of the Rivers proposals are out, I’m guessing. Get rid of the spare proposals, and still leave three companies in the running.

McPier just didn’t seem enthused about dealing with a the main casino directly on their property, so Bally’s McCormick and Rivers McCormick seem the easiest to cut on principle.

[Chi-Sky21]

honestly i like the site but McPier and Casino are two words that should NEVER go together.

[thegoatman]

Tribune site or 78 please lightfoot

[marothisu]

My personal opinion is that all of the sites technically suck for various reasons, but some suck less than others.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by marothisu

My personal opinion is that all of the sites technically suck for various reasons, but some suck less than others.

Ha yes, glad someone said this. This is the eventual conclusion I came to as well.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

honestly i like the site but McPier and Casino are two words that should NEVER go together.

McPier is an awful agency. Loaded with corruption and totally unaccountable to anyone.

The problem with these kind of authorities is that their continued existence and growth is treated as a valid goal in itself. But maybe the city shouldn't keep chasing the convention business like we have been doing for decades. Maybe the civic focus and resources should be spent on other priorities. That's a legitimate position for the city, but the existence of McPier means we are stuck on autopilot, and we keep spending billions putting up enormous buildings that are empty 90% of the time.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Legally there is a risk to [Lakeside], which is the same public-trust doctrine that doomed Lucas Museum...

Exactly, and I don't see how they can get around it. The 1958 decision allowed the Public Trust land under McCormick Place to be used for "fair and exposition" purposes. Particularly after the dramatic expansion of that doctrine in the 1970s, it's hard to see how a court could possibly approve the lease or license of the property to a private gambling casino—no matter how high the tax rate imposed by the city.

[Handro]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opinion/...are-mediocre-lightfoot-should-start-over

Originally Posted by Kimbal Goluska, retired urban planner, former partner at Skidmore Owings & Merrill and former principal at the Chicago Consultants Studio.

Mayor, throw out these five casino bids and start over again


In 1992, Chicago had the three largest, publicly traded gaming companies and the Pritzker family (Hyatt Hotels) together promising to invest a total of $2 billion (about $4 billion today) of private funds in downtown...

...[now]the city has only been able to attract three mid-tier gaming operators lacking national and international prestige offering up five poorly conceived site proposals from which to choose.
...

Here is a way forward to achieve something of which all of Chicago can be proud...

First, reject all five current proposals on two important criteria: 1) none have a world-class gaming company as casino operator, which seriously limits the potential for both revenue and collateral economic development, and 2) all of the sites present significant adverse impacts to the vitality of downtown since they would necessarily suck business and life out of existing theater, entertainment, retail and lodging venues downtown...

Next, a business/civic leadership group or consortium of groups should partner with the city and prepare a new strategy to rewrite and reissue the request for proposals in order to successfully attract top-tier, world-class gaming groups who can bring broader economic development to Chicago...

Then, this leadership team should help the mayor and governor recast the Chicago gaming license as something much more important and precious than the Rockford, Waukegan or Southtown licenses, which it truly is and deserves to be treated as such...

He goes on to make a strong case for the Thompson Center as the best location for a casino.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Handro

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opinion/...are-mediocre-lightfoot-should-start-over



He goes on to make a strong case for the Thompson Center as the best location for a casino.

Is there enough space in the TC to black out the sun? https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249335


Ever been to a casino in Vegas that has natural light in them?

They could 100% sunblock the window and fix the cooling requirements in the summer.

That said I'm not sure what the long terms plan for the TC.
I'd like to hear some grandiose plans that could happen sans tearing it down and starting from new.

If Block 34 ever realized its high speed link to Ohare like they wanted with one of the richest man I'n the world and could not get the Boring co to do any real work... What are the plans for that Block?

Does anyone know if it can be added on new floors?

What about a total Union station rehab as it was envisioned? Would there be enough sq ft to pull this off at that location? https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/9/12/178...evelopment-hotel-apartments-office-tower

It was purposely to be expanded vertically someday in the future anyway.

Merchandize Mart?, Massive floorplates in a highly visible area but could only be rented space that goes against full ownership.


To Me the 78 is still the best location.

[Mr Downtown]

Kim Goluska has some bona fides on this subject, as he's worked on various Chicago casino projects over the last 30 years.

I'll repeat my longtime contention that they should open a temporary casino right away in the vacant Medinah Temple, while they're converting the Thompson Center to a casino with hotel rooms on the upper floors.

I don't think having daylight for circulation spaces is a dealbreaker; it's just the way the building type evolved most places. New fritted glass all around could keep everything inside, except the center skylight, at a modest light level in the daytime, and modern lighting could maintain that level round the clock. Nor does everything have to be in one big room. Various specialized gambling areas for table games could be in no-natural-light areas away from windows.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Handro

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opinion/...are-mediocre-lightfoot-should-start-over



He goes on to make a strong case for the Thompson Center as the best location for a casino.

This is a case of “Stop trying to make the Thompson Center Casino a thing.”

First of all the land is just about a 1/5 of the size at best that MGM, Wynn, etc. prefer. The serious city plans of recent years suggested Pullman and the Port District as a reasonable more location for a casino, but reports showed the Southern location was too far to be profitable.

A Chicago casino is a riskier venture than in 1992 because of hefty gambling taxes at 40% and the 2009 video gaming law allowing gambling in every convenience store. So most of the profit has to come from hotel/entertainment/dining/retail (Modern mega-resort casinos already only get about half their profit from gambling itself.) which makes relying on existing venues a no-go.

There’s no fancy non-profit shenanigans or whatever that can get around that.

https://www.investopedia.com/how-mgm-resorts-makes-money-5204529

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by bnk

s
Ever been to a casino in Vegas that has natural light in them?

The Rivers McCormick proposal has a ton of natural light too, so perhaps the no-windows-in-casinos standard is changing.

[west-town-brad]

A Chicago casino is a riskier venture than in 1992 because of hefty gambling taxes at 40% and the 2009 video gaming law allowing gambling in every convenience store. So most of the profit has to come from hotel/entertainment/dining/retail (Modern mega-resort casinos already only get about half their profit from gambling itself.) which makes relying on existing venues a no-go.

also add the high saturation of casinos across the US now vs. in 1992

and the advent of internet gambling and online sports betting

this is why the projects presented are kind of "eh"

if the mayor wants to avoid an uncompleted white elephant project, which she has stated many times, best to pick the cheapest proposal that can start the fastest, which would be lakeside center.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

[Thompson Center] land is just about a 1/5 of the size at best that MGM, Wynn, etc. prefer.

Yeah, what they'd build at lowest cost in Bokchito, Okla., or Tunica, Miss., or Gary is not really relevant, if you show them they're within a mile of six million existing annual hotel-nights; within 500 feet of four Broadway touring company venues; with six rapid transit lines stopping within the building. Target's facilities team would prefer 30 acres next to an interstate. But their most profitable stores per square foot are places like Clark & Roosevelt—where the customers are.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, what they'd build at lowest cost in Bokchito, Okla., or Tunica, Miss., or Gary is not really relevant, if you show them they're within a mile of six million existing annual hotel-nights; within 500 feet of four Broadway touring company venues; with six rapid transit lines stopping within the building. Target's facilities team would prefer 30 acres next to an interstate. But their most profitable stores per square foot are places like Clark & Roosevelt—where the customers are.

Agreed, the question of size I think is moot. The Thompson Center could accommodate the same amount of gaming square footage as a Vegas casino, plus has space for a massive, supertall tower (as Jahn himself proposed a handful of years ago) for a state-of-the-art hotel/resort if a gaming company so desired. This wouldn't be a massive complex built in the dessert, it would be a hyper-urban casino with a different draw and space considerations.

The more I think about it the more insane it is that the state actually owned the Thompson Center and wanted to sell it at the same time this RFP went out for a beautiful, urban casino.