Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244
But what does that have to do with the alleged issue? If the temporary casino isn't bringing in the expected foot traffic, that's more a function of macro economic conditions than the site selected for the main casino.... Right?
|
Perhaps, so yes, its all-academic now and we want the project to succeed, but I just believe the 78 site with its tourist components, especially the observation tower would have brought more foot traffic. Macroeconomics is a problem, but it doesn't seem to be slowing down Chicago tourism that is reporting record revenues, hotels, conventions, and 50 million tourist visiting last year, and rising in 2023, per Choose Chicago. I believe the 78 casino with closer proximity to the convention center would've benefitted greatly. But the choice has been made and we have to hope for the best now with City Casino.