CHICAGO | City Casino - Page 18

left of center · #**341** Posted **Apr 23, 2021, 9:56 PM**

McCormick or vicinity of UC are probably the best bets, IMHO. Probably the closest sites to downtown where a casino could realistically be built, and best suited to anchor an entertainment district (extending existing Madison St bar district further west for the United Center plan, linking up with existing planned entertainment district by DePaul Arena on Michigan/Cermak for McCormick plan), which the city has gone on record saying they want. Both have excellent access to transit as well.

VKChaz · #**342** Posted **Apr 24, 2021, 12:49 AM**

Quote:

....Being in the center of all the action makes the most sense...If someone wants to step out of the casino and walk toward the lakefront or back on Michigan avenue to there Hotel its just so convenient and appealing.....

Casino operators arent known for encouraging people to leave until their money is spent.
I wonder if they prefer to have the hotel in the midst of other hotels or if they prefer to be somewhat removed.

chicubs111 · #**343** Posted **Apr 24, 2021, 3:11 AM**

^ you dont think People leave the casinos in Vegas and walk on the strip?...Not everyone who goes to a Casino are looking to spend every last penny there...there is alot of casual non serious gamblers looking to have a weekend away to see some shows...eat at some nice restraunts...try there luck at the Casino..I dont see the vast majority of people from out of town traveling to Chicago to strictly spend there time at a Casino all day...it will be part of there mix of "things to do" for sure possibly but Chicago has so many more other attractions that will be on tourists lists.

psxvz · #**344** Posted **Apr 24, 2021, 2:14 PM**

I don't see why McCormick east would be appealing for the city. It's out of the way, not within walking distance of any other touristy areas, and public transportation there is limited. Plus, I could see trade shows leaving the city because of it.

ardecila · #**345** Posted **Apr 24, 2021, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

McCormick or vicinity of UC are probably the best bets, IMHO. Probably the closest sites to downtown where a casino could realistically be built, and best suited to anchor an entertainment district (extending existing Madison St bar district further west for the United Center plan, linking up with existing planned entertainment district by DePaul Arena on Michigan/Cermak for McCormick plan), which the city has gone on record saying they want. Both have excellent access to transit as well.

United Center would be very tough due to the 500' separation at churches and schools. There's some land to the south around Ogden that might work, but the ownership is very fragmented (Rush, Teamsters, private parking operators, etc) and the land has never been marketed for sale/redevelopment. It would be tough to get control of enough contiguous sites if you had a few years, let alone doing it before August when the proposals are due.

Rush's portion of the old Malcolm X College site might be large enough, and is under single control, but I don't know if Rush is willing to give it up. Also I dunno if the new Malcolm X counts as a "school" which would make the whole map even tighter.

Randomguy34 · #**346** Posted **Apr 24, 2021, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Lakeside Center has a problem - nowhere to put a hotel tower, and it would be hard to retrofit for hotel too. Plus McPier would have to agree to surrender it, which they won't do unless the city pays for the floor area to be replaced further inland.

Simple, just build One Central and problem solved. Anyone have $20 billion lying around?

Tom In Chicago · #**347** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 3:16 PM**

McCormick Place is the right choice because it keeps the casino away from other areas of the city. . . if you can sequester a casino in an area like MP you basically keep people there spending their money at that place. . . I've said this before, you don't want casino people stumbling out of a casino onto Michigan Avenue with a look of desperation on their face and a cigarette hanging from their mouth - it's just not a good look for the city. . . also it's just down the street from Chinatown. . .

. . .

west-town-brad · #**348** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 3:32 PM**

this is a tax revenue play but also a way to shore up our highly lucrative convention industry.

depending on which list you look at, the top city for conventions is Vegas followed by Orlando and then Chicago.

therefore, the casino goes in the vicinity of McCormick.

ardecila · #**349** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 3:52 PM**

One casino will not suddenly turn our city into the endless tourism/entertainment playground that is Vegas or Orlando. MCP succeeds because Chicago offers the best combination of large floor space and plentiful air connections. That's the value proposition, a casino is a sideshow at best for the convention business.

Given the fiscal challenges in our city, the casino should be sited to maximize revenue, full stop. I believe that means integration with McCormick Place is a secondary concern. IMO the revenue-maximizing location is closer to the heart of downtown, in an urban highrise format, and open to the city where walk-in traffic is high.

I'd honestly choose the Macerich parcel behind the Wrigley Building. A hotel tower is not out of place there and it is smack between Michigan Ave and the River North nightlife district. Plenty of existing hotels already pumping tourists into the area, including conventioneers staying at the Sheraton, Hyatt Regency or Swissotel. The multi-level streets allow for efficient loading and parking without compromising the urban integration. Nordstrom and North Bridge provide plenty of shopping for visitors to pump their casino winnings back into the city.

Any of these other locations on the downtown fringes may be well-designed, assuming the city demands that, but I think they will still end up as islands like the casinos in other Rust Belt cities. Not enough synergy with surroundings.

bnk · #**350** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleyfox

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...IResponses.pdf

“According to the 4 casino operator respondents, the minimum acreage for an urban casino is:
• 10 acres but such a small site would cause bifurcation of casino floor and amenities (multiple levels); to
avoid bifurcation of the casino floor and amenities, need for 20-30 acres;
• 15 acres (to accommodate 350,000 sq. ft. footprint);
• 14-20 acres; or
• 12-25 acres.
One real estate developer suggests minimum acreage of 5-10 acres.
Another real estate developer suggests the minimum acreage could be as low as 5-6 acres (allowing 40,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. baseline) and build vertically (7-9 stories). This respondent notes, however, that development costs will increase as the site size is smaller. This respondent assumes parking will be on land adjacent to the casino site.
The respondent proposing a location outside of downtown Chicago offers a site of 100 Acres”

Quoting an older post. Not sure you can squeeze this east of Michigan Ave.
It will need a larger footprint.

I'm still leaning for the Tribune site on the west bank of the northern branch of the Chicago river.
Although I do see the rationale at the McCormik Place....

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/1/...p-palmer-house

Handicapping the contenders for a Chicago casino

Operators and developers want a roomy downtown site, so are there any that fit the bill?

By David Roeder Jan 18, 2021, 5:30am CST

...

The Chicago Tribune’s Freedom Center printing plant at 777 W. Chicago Ave. encompasses 30 acres. Two developers who responded to the city, James Letchinger of JDL and Matt Garrison of R2, used the same word to describe it to me: “Interesting.” Access could be improved. You could use part of it for a temporary casino while the permanent attraction is built next to it.

...

VKChaz · #**351** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111

^ you dont think People leave the casinos in Vegas and walk on the strip?...Not everyone who goes to a Casino are looking to spend every last penny there...there is alot of casual non serious gamblers looking to have a weekend away to see some shows...eat at some nice restraunts...try there luck at the Casino..I dont see the vast majority of people from out of town traveling to Chicago to strictly spend there time at a Casino all day...it will be part of there mix of "things to do" for sure possibly but Chicago has so many more other attractions that will be on tourists lists.

Vegas is an entirely different animal. Even so, casinos do what they can to keep people. Obviously, people will leave. The point is that telling an operator that there are lots of things for their guests to leave and do across the street isn't a selling point. But that doesn't mean it won't be the case.

nomarandlee · #**352** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

One casino will not suddenly turn our city into the endless tourism/entertainment playground that is Vegas or Orlando. MCP succeeds because Chicago offers the best combination of large floor space and plentiful air connections. That's the value proposition, a casino is a sideshow at best for the convention business.

Given the fiscal challenges in our city, the casino should be sited to maximize revenue, full stop. I believe that means integration with McCormick Place is a secondary concern. IMO the revenue-maximizing location is closer to the heart of downtown, in an urban highrise format, and open to the city where walk-in traffic is high.

I'd honestly choose the Macerich parcel behind the Wrigley Building. A hotel tower is not out of place there and it is smack between Michigan Ave and the River North nightlife district. Plenty of existing hotels already pumping tourists into the area, including conventioneers staying at the Sheraton, Hyatt Regency or Swissotel. The multi-level streets allow for efficient loading and parking without compromising the urban integration. Nordstrom and North Bridge provide plenty of shopping for visitors to pump their casino winnings back into the city.

Any of these other locations on the downtown fringes may be well-designed, assuming the city demands that, but I think they will still end up as islands like the casinos in other Rust Belt cities. Not enough synergy with surroundings.

As good as those aspects are for a future site I really hope they don't put it there. It would take away much of what is intriguing and magnificent about that site (pedestrian through access, outdoor common plaza areas. A casino would no doubt love to maximize its visible footprint and would completely dominate the site, intentionally so.

Whatever goes there I am hoping for something very slender (and perhaps tall) that is about integrating all the sites near it rather than dominating it.

Tom In Chicago · #**353** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

I'm still leaning for the Tribune site on the west bank of the northern branch of the Chicago river. Although I do see the rationale at the McCormik Place...

I don't think anyone is seriously looking at the Tribune site. . . there's no hotels anywhere near there. . . no conventioneers anywhere near there. . . and I'm ok with Cermak shuttling busses between MP and Chinatown. . . Halsted Street? Not so much. . .

. . .

Tom In Chicago · #**354** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'd honestly choose the Macerich parcel behind the Wrigley Building. A hotel tower is not out of place there and it is smack between Michigan Ave and the River North nightlife district. Plenty of existing hotels already pumping tourists into the area, including conventioneers staying at the Sheraton, Hyatt Regency or Swissotel. The multi-level streets allow for efficient loading and parking without compromising the urban integration. Nordstrom and North Bridge provide plenty of shopping for visitors to pump their casino winnings back into the city.

This site is too close to Michigan Ave. Unless this "casino" is some sort of "resort destination" facility that can be built into a mixed use building with retail/restaurants/hotel and even apartments/condos in some mega structure, I'm not really seeing it. . . and the busses from Chinatown would clog downtown streets. . .

. . .

Kenmore · #**355** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 7:12 PM**

thompson center or bust

tjp · #**356** Posted **Apr 26, 2021, 8:32 PM**

I'm confused.. what's the importance to it being accessible from Chinatown?

Halsted & Villagio · #**357** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 12:57 AM**

- Double Post -

Halsted & Villagio · #**358** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjp

I'm confused.. what's the importance to it being accessible from Chinatown?

It’s too bad that you are confused. However, it’s pretty simple really - neighborhoods and communities being cutoff from other neighborhoods and communities is not good for the ‘whole’ of Chicago.

One of Chicago’s greatest sins and quite possibly the one thing holding it back from being the best city in America (if not the world) is segregation - intense, unadulterated segregation - which leads to discontent/unhappiness and - consequently - increased crime. New York, for example, along with incentivized private enterprise, did the heavy lifting and transformed Harlem/Brooklyn/The Bronx and other long overlooked, crime ridden areas - increasing overall happiness of ALL of its citizens - which reduced crime. While at it, those changes elevated the reputation and perception of NY around the world - making it the “it” place that it is today - leading to growth in just about all areas of that city.

Chicago can get there - progress is slowly being made with respect to reducing segregation but it must continue - again, for ALL of its citizens. EVERYONE benefits from a less segregated and less crime ridden Chicago. Long disenfranchised communities need to know that they are not being treated any different than citizens in other communities of Chicago - they need to know that they are not being left out and overlooked.

China Town has been cut off for far too long. Where possible, we must take a page from NY and cure that problem. We all benefit from being able to walk from China Town to areas just south of downtown and ultimately downtown itself.

If a casino can somehow be incorporated with China Town included and not cut off, so much the better.

the urban politician · #**359** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 1:22 AM**

Chinatown is not a disenfranchised, crime ridden community. Chinatown is a thriving community—really thriving. It doesn’t need a casino, and I’m pretty sure that they aren’t asking for one.

And connecting it further to the downtown economy threatens to destroy its very soul. Look what happened to Washington DC’s Chinatown, and other gentrified Chinatowns in the US

tjp · #**360** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

It’s too bad that you are confused. However, it’s pretty simple really - neighborhoods and communities being cutoff from other neighborhoods and communities is not good for the ‘whole’ of Chicago.

I agree! I was just confused because some of the posts made it sound like it was especially important that it be accessible from Chinatown, specifically. I wondered if there was some connection that I'm unaware of...