HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 7:44 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,392
Cool CHICAGO | City Casino

Looks like the city is opting to throw billions in tax revenue away by locating the casino far from where anyone will want to go. Genius.


Quote:
Here are the five sites Lori Lightfoot wants to study for the city casino

The city of Chicago today released a list of five sites it wants to get a close financial look at as the possible location for the city’s new casino—the first real indication of where Mayor Lori Lightfoot may be headed on the highly competitive and potentially controversial issue.

The five all are in outlying South and West Side neighborhoods and each has been previously considered for a prospective casino or other major development. None is in or near downtown, though one is relatively close to the McCormick Place convention complex, and four of the five sites are publicly owned.

On the list: the former Michael Reese Hospital complex at 31st Street and Cottage Grove Avenue, the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th Street and the lake; property that now is a publicly owned Harborside golf course at 111th Street and the Bishop Ford Expressway; former industrial property on a 23-acre North Lawndale site at Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue, and 19 vacant acres owned by the Chicago Housing Authority at Pershing Road and State Street.

...
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...dy-city-casino

I expected better, Lori.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 7:46 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
^ Seriously, so poorly thought out.

I'm already calling it WAY short on revenue projections.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 7:56 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Looks like the city is opting to throw billions in tax revenue away by locating the casino far from where anyone will want to go. Genius.




https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...dy-city-casino

I expected better, Lori.
"Let's bring the sin to the most vulnerable areas. Also people will love exiting with huge cash winnings into the clean and safe streets of North Lawndale!"


But seriously, would love for it to be North Lawndale, more money for me...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 8:00 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 818
Cool CHICAGO | City Casino

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot

Did anyone see the list of 5 sites for the Chicago casino? They are all in southside or westside neighborhoods other than Michael Reese site. I thought the idea was to put it where tourists go, to get money from tourists? These looks like far flung and impoverished locations. I don't think it's a good thing to plop a giant casino into an impoverished neighborhood, that's not going to help anything. It should be next to McCormick to get the money from conventioneers and tourists downtown. I don't think tourists are going to trek to Lawndale or 111th. I sure wouldn't want to go all the way south to 111th, although I might go if it was downtown.

Here are the five sites:

Harborside at 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway in Pullman
the former Michael Reese hospital at 31st and Cottage Grove in Bronzeville
Pershing Road and State Street in Bronzeville
Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue in Lawndale
the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th and Lake Shore Drive in South Chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 8:08 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot

Did anyone see the list of 5 sites for the Chicago casino? They are all in southside or westside neighborhoods other than Michael Reese site. I thought the idea was to put it where tourists go, to get money from tourists? These looks like far flung and impoverished locations. I don't think it's a good thing to plop a giant casino into an impoverished neighborhood, that's not going to help anything. It should be next to McCormick to get the money from conventioneers and tourists downtown. I don't think tourists are going to trek to Lawndale or 111th. I sure wouldn't want to go all the way south to 111th, although I might go if it was downtown.

Here are the five sites:

Harborside at 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway in Pullman
the former Michael Reese hospital at 31st and Cottage Grove in Bronzeville
Pershing Road and State Street in Bronzeville
Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue in Lawndale
the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th and Lake Shore Drive in South Chicago
And then they'll be wondering why it's a boondoggle in 20 years. I'd imagine a lot of pressure on the Mayor's office to propose locations outside the city center because people complain about not enough economic opportunities. Ironically, it'll do far more damage than good to those areas if they get the casino... stupid

I agree that it should be McCormick, and the choice really shouldn't even be close.
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 8:13 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,392
Here's my casino suggestion. It benefits from there being few NIMBYs in the vicinity and is close-ish proximity to downtown and all rail terminals. I call it The 79.



In the plan but not shown above: New stadium for Chicago Fire.

When do the eminent domain proceedings start?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 8:50 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 303
^Great spot for a casino- walking distance of Union Station. Same with the Chicago Fire stadium. #noBrainer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 8:57 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,500
wow to the casino sites.. Roosevelt and kostner??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 9:10 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,826
I like the State/Pershing site, actually. It's close to a Green Line stop at Indiana and several bus lines, so workers will have easy transit access from the South or West Sides. It's close enough to Guaranteed Rate to maybe use their parking facilities, and it could potentially tie into the abandoned Kenwood rail line as an elevated trail like the 606.

Of course, i'd prefer a site that was actually ON the Guaranteed Rate parking lots. I don't know why that was ruled out... lots of potential synergies between the White Sox and a casino operator to create an entertainment district that the Sox currently lack.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 9:39 PM
Freefall Freefall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot

Did anyone see the list of 5 sites for the Chicago casino? They are all in southside or westside neighborhoods other than Michael Reese site. I thought the idea was to put it where tourists go, to get money from tourists? These looks like far flung and impoverished locations. I don't think it's a good thing to plop a giant casino into an impoverished neighborhood, that's not going to help anything. It should be next to McCormick to get the money from conventioneers and tourists downtown. I don't think tourists are going to trek to Lawndale or 111th. I sure wouldn't want to go all the way south to 111th, although I might go if it was downtown.

Here are the five sites:

Harborside at 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway in Pullman
the former Michael Reese hospital at 31st and Cottage Grove in Bronzeville
Pershing Road and State Street in Bronzeville
Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue in Lawndale
the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th and Lake Shore Drive in South Chicago
These sites are awful. If they're gonna trek all the way down there, they may as just keep going to Hammond, where the tax structure is significantly lower (lower taxes on the casino = less vig for the customer). The only way a high-tax Chicago casino can compete is with a much better location, i.e. downtown or near downtown. Of those five, the most plausible is the Michael Reese location, and the residents (and alderman) have made it explicitly clear they don't want a casino there.

Last edited by Freefall; Jul 17, 2019 at 10:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 9:41 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Looks like the city is opting to throw billions in tax revenue away by locating the casino far from where anyone will want to go. Genius.




https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...dy-city-casino

I expected better, Lori.
What a fuck up seriously. Is she that daft?

Quote:
Nonetheless, the list is consistent with Lightfoot’s stated position during her campaign that the facility would best be located not downtown or too close to the city’s convention center but in areas that are economically struggling and close enough to existing Indiana casinos to pull Illinoisans and their money back on this side of the border.
Quote:
Economically, the question is how well any of the South or West Side locations would do in drawing visitors to areas that now are either isolated or in some cases suffer from high crime rates. Some industry experts have argued that, just as a matter of money, tourists and other visitors are far more likely to visit a downtown location than one in a distant part of the city.
I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.



https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti


The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino

To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot.


By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT



It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.




The best place in Chicago to put a casino?

Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district.

The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location.

I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities.

It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.



With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again?

Lesser sites

Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side.

In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street.

The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap.

But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero.

An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants.

A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access.

Why not Navy Pier?

A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by.

So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue.

Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville.

Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking




Big Jim might be a smart bet

So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block.

You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center.

Two conclusions:

•The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling.

•Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out.
__________________
facebook

Last edited by bnk; Jul 17, 2019 at 9:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 9:41 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by maru2501 View Post
wow to the casino sites.. Roosevelt and kostner??
The Crains article said that others will be considered, but that Lightfoot campaigned on keeping it out of downtown. I expect that the revenue projections will show that Michael Reese is by far the most profitable due to McCormick attendance and parking availability. Would probably draw from the Museum Campus too. Though State and Pershing is interesting. White Sox games could lead right into a casino evening. And with the Bronzeville and Chinatown already sort-of booming, and IIT close by, I could see the casino anchoring enough economic activity to move the needle on a near South Side resurgence.

As long as a Casino can be walked into from the sidewalk, isn't surround by surface parking and doesn't require entering in through a parking garage or a Bellagio-style 300 yard setback, I'll be happy. And I'd like there to be a sorts book.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 10:06 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,209
I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.


Quote:
Freefall


Why are they trying to stick poor people with this? Revenue should come tourists, not draining underprivileged areas.

Posted on Jul 17, 2019 | 1:57 PM

thesaltymarine

Literally lol to any of these sites. Wouldn’t you want to maximize revenue by sticking it somewhere where tourism could participate and affluent people would want to go? If the whole point of generating income to fund pensions is the casino, they are really missing the mark here. I understand trying to lift up communities but no one is going to want to take the electric line to Harborside or the train to Lawndale. Guess Rivers has nothing to worry about.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot





https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti


The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino

To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot.


By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT



It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.




The best place in Chicago to put a casino?

Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district.

The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location.

I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities.

It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.



With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again?

Lesser sites

Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side.

In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street.

The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap.

But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero.

An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants.

A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access.

Why not Navy Pier?

A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by.

So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue.

Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville.

Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking




Big Jim might be a smart bet

So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block.

You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center.

Two conclusions:

•The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling.

•Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out.










see also


why-lightfoot-should-go-all-downtown-casino

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...owntown-casino
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 10:21 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,283
it looks like lightfoot is poised to drop the ball on this.

you put a casino where we can suck the money out of the wallets of lonely business travelers/convention goers, which chicago receives by the millions every year.

putting this out in lawndale, pullman, or US steel site means we miss out on all of that. micheal reese or state/pershing might get us some of that action, but will still leave billions of dollars of out-of-town tourist money on the table.

dumb.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 10:29 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
Ald. King (4th) has said she doesn't want it at the Michael Reese site, and Ald. Dowell (3rd) has said she doesn't want it at State & Pershing.

You don't put a casino where you need the jobs; you put it where there are suckers who can easily be fleeced. That means downtown.

Much as I want Thompson Center saved, I think it's too large and is really bad optics (nearly bankrupt state desperately converts office building to casino). The about-to-be-vacant Medinah Temple would be an interesting possibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 12:22 AM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 818
I really like how New Orleans has a casino downtown. It's easily walkable by tourists, and I wasn't planning on going there to gamble but when I saw it nearby I thought why not.

That's why it needs to be downtown or in the south loop at least. It's a huge mistake to locate it where the jobs are needed, the workers can easily take the red line to the casino from the southside.

It would be perfect for the Motor Row entertainment district! Or next to the Sox stadium as was mentioned.

Chicago needs a glamorous casino that can synergize with existing entertainment and dining downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 12:36 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
it looks like lightfoot is poised to drop the ball on this.

you put a casino where we can suck the money out of the wallets of lonely business travelers/convention goers, which chicago receives by the millions every year.

putting this out in lawndale, pullman, or US steel site means we miss out on all of that. micheal reese or state/pershing might get us some of that action, but will still leave billions of dollars of out-of-town tourist money on the table.

dumb.
I see no reason why the Michael Reese site wouldn't be a great one, especially with its proximity to McComick. Even State/Pershing could work out, but it really depends on the specific site plan. But I do agree, the other sites are horrifically, terribly bad.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 1:31 AM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 82
Everybody is jumping the gun here.

These aren't the only finalists. The city casino is going to be privately owned, and the private operator, after consultation with the analysts and reviewing their study, will have a major say in the site decision. The study that will be released on Aug. 12 has to see whether the casino under the current terms is even economically viable at all, much less where it will go.

This is political theater to show the South and West sides that the city made every possible effort to move jobs closer to them. Also to see whether these neighborhoods even want a casino at all if they were to be chosen, or if they'll try to fight it.

It may very well be that Illinois residents going to Indiana are a more reliable source of revenue than conventioners. Or that rent and parking make a Downtown casino uncompetitive among other issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 2:00 AM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
The Crains article said that others will be considered, but that Lightfoot campaigned on keeping it out of downtown. I expect that the revenue projections will show that Michael Reese is by far the most profitable due to McCormick attendance and parking availability. Would probably draw from the Museum Campus too. Though State and Pershing is interesting. White Sox games could lead right into a casino evening. And with the Bronzeville and Chinatown already sort-of booming, and IIT close by, I could see the casino anchoring enough economic activity to move the needle on a near South Side resurgence.

As long as a Casino can be walked into from the sidewalk, isn't surround by surface parking and doesn't require entering in through a parking garage or a Bellagio-style 300 yard setback, I'll be happy. And I'd like there to be a sorts book.
This. I think Lori obviously sees the casino as a driver of economic resurgence... not a detractor. And with that in mind, the thought becomes one of which areas can benefit most by the casino. At least that appears to be her thought on it judging by the preliminary site selections. And really, when you get down to it, as much as I would like to see havens of vice as far away from vulnerable areas as possible, the flip side of it is that it could spur employment within those areas and help boost local businesses/restaurants in those areas. It’s a bit if a Hail Mary no doubt, but it could be exactly what’s needed to inject new life in those long neglected areas.

It’s a gamble... but not a gamble without a purpose. Time will tell whether it will pay off or not. No pun intended.

That said, I still think it’s early. We could very well see an entirely new site emerge as the favorite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 5:11 AM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,111
Of the listed sites only Michael Reese is even close to being a decent location for the casino. No tourist is going to almost any of those neighborhoods. And the idea that jobs have to be in a neighborhood to help lower income people (or any potential employee) is simply not true. There aren't good jobs in my neighborhood and most everyone is doing fine.

Lightfoot has been a pretty big disappointment to me so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:05 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.