CHICAGO | City Casino

[Steely Dan]

I'm always a sucker for expressed structure!

But I don't fully understand how the truss is supposed to work here, with diagonal bracing only on the north/south faces of the obs tower.

My eyes want to see diagonal braces on the east/west faces too. Otherwise, it starts to look like a potential house of cards.


Anyway, it's still by far one of the best designs for an obs tower I've ever seen anywhere in the world. They very often look silly/tacky ("saucer on a stick"), but this one I actively like.

[TR Devlin]

I'm sorry but I don't see how anybody can think that any of these sites are the best place for a casino. Here’s five reasons a casino at the Thompson Center or in River North would be better than any of these locations.

1. The annual adjusted gross revenue of a casino at the Thompson Center or in River North would be at least $250 million greater than the annual gross revenue of a casino at One Central, McCormick Place or the 78 site. Assuming a 40% tax rate on AGR, this means an additional $100 million per year for the state and city. These numbers come from a report prepared by Union Gaming Analytics for the Illinois Gaming Board. See below for more.

2. More income means more jobs. More jobs is a good thing.

3. Architecturally, the Thompson Center is far more impressive than any of the renderings I’ve seen in this thread. It's one of the best buildings built in Chicago in the past 40 years and I think it would make a great and very unique casino.

4. A casino at the Thompson Center or in River North would contribute to a lively street scene. Restaurants, stores and other entertainment venues would all benefit – including the high end stores on Michigan Ave. The model for this is London’s West End where casinos are one option among many in a premier entertainment district.

Compare this to a casino at One Central, McCormick Place or the 78. These locations would attract customers who drive to the casino, park in an attached garage and never set foot in the surrounding neighborhood.

5. The hospitality industry in Chicago supports a Thompson Center or River North location.


The following is from the Union Gaming Report:

Incremental AGR from more tourist-centric location

In order to achieve optimal adjusted gross receipts (AGR) and tax receipts, the casino should be located in a tourist-centric location that also enjoys, if possible, decent access to the local population. Such a facility could likely generate more than $350 million in incremental AGR relative to the highest performing of the five sites at approximately $806 million in AGR.

The incremental AGR that could be generated at a casino in a more tourist-centric location would be driven by two primary categories of customer. The first is represented by persons staying at a hotel in close proximity to the casino and who, as part of their trip to Chicago, would spend some amount of time in the casino. This cohort could contribute more than $150 million in AGR, although on a net basis likely closer to $100 million after adjusting for a lower AGR contribution from area residents who might find it harder to reach a casino in a more tourist-centric location. The second category is represented by persons actually staying at the casino hotel itself, which might have well more than the baseline of 500 rooms. The addition of incremental hotel rooms would allow a casino to host more higher value gaming customers, which in turn would drive higher AGR. While the amount of hotel-driven AGR could vary widely based on the number and quality of rooms available, we estimate there could be an incremental $250+ million in AGR as a result. Combining these two categories, a casino in a more tourist-centric location could yield $350+ million in incremental AGR relative to the highest grossing of the five sites.

The impact of tourism (why a casino needs to be located in already tourist-friendly areas if tourist visitors are desired)

Only a centrally located casino that is in close proximity to high-quality hotels and other notable tourist attractions will be able to meaningfully penetrate the robust tourism trends the City of Chicago already enjoys. Put another way, tourists generally will not patronize a casino in an area that is inconvenient relative to where they are staying or perceived as unsafe, nor will tourists be eager to book a room at a casino’s hotel if there are no other easily accessed attractions nearby. For these reasons and more we would not expect a material number of tourists to patronize any of the five sites analyzed herein. Instead, these sites will primarily draw patrons from persons living within close proximity.

In addition, it is important to note the proliferation of casinos on a nationwide basis. As such, it is increasingly difficult to attract out-of-market visitors to a casino as it is no longer a unique proposition. Most customers will simply patronize a casino in their home market unless a casino is of very high quality, in close proximity to other attractions, and is in an attractive location. Unfortunately, none of the five sites analyzed herein fully meet the last two considerations of being in close proximity to other attractions and having an attractive location.

The five sites that Union Gaming looked at were:

1. Harborside Illinois Port Authority Golf Course (111th St. and Bishop Ford Freeway)
2. Former Michael Reese Hospital (31st St. and Cottage Grove Ave.)
3. Pershing Road and State St. (former Robert Taylor Homes)
4. Roosevelt Rd. and Kostner Ave.
5. Former U.S. Steel Plant (80th St. and Lake Shore Dr.)

Of these five, the highest performing site was Michael Reese where they estimated a casino would have $806 million of revenue per year. Then they said that a casino in a more tourist centric location (which I’m assuming is River North) could yield an additional $350+ million per year.

Finally, I assumed that McCormick Place and the 78 sites are slightly better than Michael Reese and increased the gross revenue from these sites to $900 million per year. Which reduces the gross revenue benefit of a River North casino to $250 million per year.

There's a lot of money at stake here and any due diligence review would have the city go back to Union Gaming and ask them for their thoughts on these five new sites.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by TR Devlin

I'm sorry but I don't see how anybody can think that any of these sites are the best place for a casino. Here’s five reasons a casino at the Thompson Center or in River North would be better than any of these locations.

———

There's a lot of money at stake here and any due diligence review would have the city go back to Union Gaming and ask them for their thoughts on these five new sites.

It doesn’t matter what we think or what the city thinks beyond the 5 proposed sites, because we’re not paying for the casino.

There were no proposals for the Thompson Center so clearly not a single casino operator or developer in the world thought it was profitable or worthwhile.

I don’t see the point of another general report from a consultant, when 4 out of 5 proposals are in the same general vicinity. The most valuable information regarding traffic, access, commercial activity and community support is in the city’s possession.

The casino’s business prowess and marketing will make a far bigger difference for profits than whether the casino is 500 feet North, East, or South of McCormick.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by generallogan

The idea for the casino is to bring gamblers from the suburbs and outside of the city. Easy access to these customers should be the #1 priority. Gamblers with wads of money to or hopefully from the casino should not/will not be boarding the red line to take a leisurely train ride home.

Security has to the a huge priority for a casino, and most of the time that is provided by the physical distance it takes to get there. Most new casinos are built blocks off the strip in Vegas, not with their casino immediately facing the strip. Or park car, walk walk walk, then casino. That whole inward facing thing serves a security aspect as well as a no daylight goal.

Roosevelt is already bumper to bumper from the highway most of the day. Wells wentworth is too narrow for the amount of new traffic from the north or south approaching the site.

The only site that can realistically provide security, easy highway access, robust parking, and room for future experience (there will be more casinos in Chicago's future if this is a success) is the truckyards south of Mccormick. Sophia King will come around.

Are you sure that's the entire stated idea for this casino? It's supposed to bring in the most revenue, and the only way it can do that is with an entertainment district. Putting it on the truckyards not only does a disservice to that neighborhood but will also doom the casino to mediocrity. The old way of designing casinos along highways is not going to result in the revenue the city wants. They need to think holistically. The RFP does that, and I suggest you read it.

[Fvn]

Originally Posted by TR Devlin

I'm sorry but I don't see how anybody can think that any of these sites are the best place for a casino. Here’s five reasons a casino at the Thompson Center or in River North would be better than any of these locations.

Are we sure about this? If one of the intended purposes is to bring people in from the surrounding regions ('Burbs, Indiana, SW Michigan, etc) then the loop would be one of the worst spots for accessibility and thus the number of cars would probably kill the street scene. I'm not one of those people who think we should remove cars from all streets but I also don't think increasing the amount of them helps encourage street life. The reality is, a large casino in Chicago is going to attract customers who drive no matter where it ultimately goes and the Loop already struggles with traffic just being a business center.

The 78 has close proximity to other attractions while also being an attractive location by itself.

While the ramps at Roosevelt would struggle for sure (fixable), it wouldn't be nearly as bad a whatever the hell would end up going on in the loop. A casino at The 78 might actually contribute more because it wouldn't add to the Loops traffic and it is just close enough to Grant Park/museums and transit to where people would naturally venture out into other parts of the city. The reason why people don't set foot into casino neighborhoods is that it's either inconvenient, or the neighborhood is nonexistent, if anything, casinos are designed to keep people inside of them. Chicago is interesting, Vegas and Atlantic City aren't (hot take?).

If you want people to be encouraged to go into the surrounding neighborhoods then you're gonna have to talk to the casino operator; that's also why contracts exist. Want people to go contribute to the surrounding neighborhoods? Maybe the casino should have limited food or shopping options. If the gamblers have to leave the casino to shop or eat then, there you go there's more benefit to the neighborhood.

Naturally, a casino will attract two main types of crowds; gamblers, and touring gamblers (tourists). Out of the two, tourists are the ones who are more likely to go out into the rest of the city because unlike a place like Atlantic City or Vegas, there is actually interesting non-gambling stuff to do such as Navy Pier or the Magnificant Mile. Now, would a casino in the Loop make it easier to do these? Possibly, but with properly upgraded transit, it would work and also actually benefit the rest of the city as well. An upgraded Red Line and better Bus rapid transit on Michigan Ave would solve other problems as well.

I'm not even going to start on how terrible the Thompson Center (renovated) would be as a casino. What's your hotel solution? 17 floors of gambling? Can you currently park ~3000 cars on-site?

TLDR: there's a reason none of the serious proposals are for the Thompson Center.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CrazyCres

How can I create a poll to discover which proposal is the most popular?

A great idea, so I've now made a poll and attached it to this thread.

Place your vote now!

[Randomguy34]

The current results of our poll confirms alleged suspicions from insiders

As city officials dig into the five competing proposals for a new Chicago casino, they will walk into a squall of numbers and promises.
....
On that basis, some insiders believe the casino competition boils down to Neil Bluhm versus Neil Bluhm.
....
“I think everybody sees this as Neil Bluhm’s game to lose. Lakeside Center is probably the city’s lowest-risk choice,” said a developer with no direct interest in the casino outcome. He said Bluhm’s partner at The 78, Related Midwest, “has a lot of power in this market.” The company is part of a New York firm whose chairman, Stephen Ross, “has been working the phones here,” the developer said.
....
One source said City Hall is intrigued by the two Bally’s proposals. But some see the Freedom Center site as too distant from downtown to draw a lot of people. “The traffic on Halsted is a disaster already at rush hour,” a developer said.

And its plan for the truck marshaling yard would make the casino a neighbor of the redevelopment at the old Michael Reese Hospital property. Nearby residents and Ald. Sophia King (4th) have firmly opposed a casino.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11/21/...no-developers-who-has-best-bid-lightfoot

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The current results of our poll confirms alleged suspicions from insiders


https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11/21/...no-developers-who-has-best-bid-lightfoot

Soooo it'll either be the 78 or Lakeside?

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The 78 casino plan is not growing on me the way I hoped. For one, it craps all over the city's investment in Wells-Wentworth. That was supposed to be a grand boulevard, but this decks over it like it was Lower Wacker or something. Buildings should not deck over major streets, and when it's unavoidable to do this then the connection should be a narrow glass skybridge like the ones at Northwestern or Rush hospitals. This whole thing is just a typical casino turd in deconstructivist clothing. Terrible urban design despite a few gestures like the riverfront plaza.

I had such high hopes that The 78 could be our version of a European ecodistrict, a mix of highrises and midrises with strong public space/green space, livability, and transit access. This casino shows that Related doesn't really care about any of that.

I'm gonna stick with my first pick and go with the Tribune site, especially if Bally's picks up the tab for a new footbridge at Erie. That's also a hulk, but at least it's no worse than the hulk that's already there (Tribune plant) and can offer synergies to an existing neighborhood.

Wow Adecila, good catch. I am totally against a deck over Wells/Wentworth. My vote went for LC.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The 78 casino plan is not growing on me the way I hoped. For one, it craps all over the city's investment in Wells-Wentworth. That was supposed to be a grand boulevard, but this decks over it like it was Lower Wacker or something. Buildings should not deck over major streets, and when it's unavoidable to do this then the connection should be a narrow glass skybridge like the ones at Northwestern or Rush hospitals. This whole thing is just a typical casino turd in deconstructivist clothing. Terrible urban design despite a few gestures like the riverfront plaza.

Are there any images of the street design? If it felt like the continuation of the boulevard but with a something akin to a grand archway, that isn't the same as walking or driving on lower Michigan

[Steely Dan]

Well, with 30 votes cast thus far, this forum certainly has a clear favorite.

[lakeshoredrive]

I was at Navy Pier and I was looking south towards where the 78 would be and I realized that the Observation Tower would have a nice presence in the skyline from Navy Pier's perspective!

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well, with 30 votes cast thus far, this forum certainly has a clear favorite.

34 votes now, 88.24%

Someone send this to the mayors office.


That's called a landslide in some circles.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Are there any images of the street design? If it felt like the continuation of the boulevard but with a something akin to a grand archway, that isn't the same as walking or driving on lower Michigan

Not of the street design, no. This image shows the 1st floor plaza space under the casino floor along the river, which is a flat-ceilinged space that looks like the underside of every crappy 70s convention center. Wells-Wentworth is hidden behind the cute European flower stalls.
https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/file...t%2010.57.45%20AM%202.jpeg?itok=rWtGF2-p

More charitably, given the involvement of Related, I think maybe they're trying to evoke some of the plaza spaces along the High Line where it passes through buildings. That article above confirmed my suspicions that Stephen Ross is personally involved with this. But even in NY they did not allow Hudson Yards to span over 10th Avenue, and where they created a new street (Hudson Blvd) they were careful to align the buildings along it and respect the urban axis.

I agree there is maybe some kind of architectural design for the casino that would be more respectful of Wells-Wentworth, but it would have to be pretty damn good. You need a very good reason to violate the urban norms that every other developer respects. This is lightyears away from that.

[pilsenarch]

^couldn't agree more...

The 78 casino also appears to totally obliterate the master planned 'crescent' park...

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

The 78 casino also appears to totally obliterate the master planned 'crescent' park...

No, it just decks over the park. It's very urban. It's fine.

[nomarandlee]

The only one that I totally soured on is the Tribune site. The more I think about it the more I agree that funneling casino traffic on Halsted is just a non-starter. Not to mention Lincoln Yards traffic will also be funneling through N/S in the next ten years near the site and you have LP bottlenecks becoming obscene. If the city did make that transit line happen that runs through the Tribune site happen then that would help, but even then I just think it is too much traffic for the area.

I am also near 99% closed on the One Central proposal as well. Obviously, the state transit subsidy is not going to happen. The renderings also look awkward. It would seem that the casino would completely straddle the whole area between LSD/IC tracks while not incorporating any true pedestrian promenade from what I can decipher. It just seems a slightly better version of the ill-planned larger concept that One Central is.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

The only one that I totally soured on is the Tribune site. The more I think about it the more I agree that funneling casino traffic on Halsted is just a non-starter. Not to mention Lincoln Yards traffic will also be funneling through N/S in the next ten years near the site and you have LP bottle grids becoming obscene.

The only way I can see the Trib site working is if they somehow built dedicated on and off ramps from the Ohio/Ontario bridge. There's just no other way to get all suburb drivers in and out of the site, especially with LY and Halsted Pointe on the way.

[Gedung Tinngi]

Well...each other proposals is...certainly less than ideal.

Wishing they could take the 78 proposal and flip it to the west bank of the river.
It would be fantastic to build over the Amtrak rail yard - long an eye-sore.

Do to that rail yard what Millennium Park did by covering up the tracks in the park - reclaim that area into the fabric of the city.

You could even build a direct highway extension above the train lines behind Pacific Gardens and the UPS site going right into the either Canal or the casino parking lot.
Would solve some traffic flow/access issues the current 78 proposal fails to address.

The casino, park, and hotel would also have far better views of the skyline.

Yes, I know this will not happen, but it would be a nice dream.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

The only one that I totally soured on is the Tribune site. The more I think about it the more I agree that funneling casino traffic on Halsted is just a non-starter. Not to mention Lincoln Yards traffic will also be funneling through N/S in the next ten years near the site and you have LP bottlenecks becoming obscene. If the city did make that transit line happen that runs through the Tribune site happen then that would help, but even then I just think it is too much traffic for the area.

I think they could add ramps off the Ohio Feeder fairly easily to address traffic, the same way Brendan Kelleher added ramps off LSD for the Chicago Spire. Zooming out a bit, Lincoln Yards will also build a N-S Halsted alternative when they build the Dominick bridge.

Also, if we're gonna draw a line in the sand and say the traffic is too bad, then that also rules out any kind of mixed-use development on the Tribune site as well. The site is really very close to the Blue Line and the city has a good plan to build a transitway as well. Why are we letting traffic be the deciding factor here when there are clearly alternatives? Anybody who sits in traffic on Halsted is an idiot when CTA already provides plenty of alternatives and will provide even more in the future.