5 casino sites: which would you choose? (Chicago, East St. Louis: lease, university, taxis)

[MSchemist80]

Tourists wouldn't come to Chicago to gamble at casinos. They would go to Vegas, flights there are much cheaper, taxes are cheaper, hotels are cheaper, there are far more choices. People are not going to ride the L to crappy areas of the city to gamble, they will take the skyway and go to Horseshoe in Indiana or Rivers in Des Plaines.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Tourists wouldn't come to Chicago to gamble at casinos. They would go to Vegas,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

People are not going to ride the L to crappy areas of the city to gamble, they will take the skyway and go to Horseshoe in Indiana or Rivers in Des Plaines.

I think the argument is that, if all else is equal, and people didn't have to go as far (though I realize Hammond and Des Plaines are already very close) they would stay and spend their gambling money in the city rather than the inner burbs. I personally don't want it to happen, but I do get that part of the argument.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

Pretty much the only areas of Reno that suck are the areas around the casinos and around the airport. The rest is freaking gorgeous.

Like I said, I haven't been there, so I'll take your word for it. In that case, I'll change my statement from "with the exception of Vegas" to "with the exception of Navada" to be inclusive of Reno. My point still stands that most casinos in the US are not in "nice areas."

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

I get your point about not wanting to ruin downtown's reputation, but again the area around Reese is not glamorous at all, and not downtown, so it wouldn't really do any harm. I feel like you think casinos do more damage than they really do. I don't think a single casino will single-handedly ruin one of the greatest cities in the world.

Well, we are at least in agreement that IF Chicago is going to build a casino in the city, it shouldn't be downtown.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Essentially, Chicago needs to make a casino of the resort type—something more akin to this in Singapore which is also not in downtown, but leverages tourists to Singapore pretty well:

Okay, I haven't been to Reno, but I've been to Singapore. A few thoughts:

1) While I'm not ready to lump Chicago in with places like East St. Louis, Hammond, or Atlantic City, at the other end of the economic spectrum I'll be the first to acknowledge that Chicago is also not in the same category as Singapore. Singapore is WAY more of a global destination (and not because of the casino) with a ton of global corporate capital flowing through it.

2) Marina Bay Sands is known more an iconic building and massive hotel that just happens to have a casino in it. I don't see Chicago pulling off anything on that scale. I imagine Chicago having something more like what you see in Hammond, Michigan City, or New Buffalo (except newer and nicer, at least at first) that detracts from the downtown and skyline rather than adds to it.

3) I'm not sure what part of Singapore you consider to be "downtown," but if you don't consider Marina Bay Sands to be part of it, then at the most it is a mile away, across the bay.

4) Singapore doesn't have a Vegas to compete with for gambling tourism. In fact, there's really nothing in East Asia to compare with Vegas, with the arguable exception of Macau, which is not as nice or fun.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by dtcbnd03

The casino 100% needs to be within 2-3 blocks of an El stop. No one uses the Metra to get around the city limits. I'm all for thinking big and making it a resort on the lake but given how painful it is to get to Soldier Field unless you have an El extension built from Roosevelt with stops at Soldier, McCormick Place and the Reese site...then the Reese location will be a failure. It has to be easy for both tourists and local Chicagoans to get to.

I agree with some others here, no, it doesn't need to have an L stop nearby. I don't think upscale people using this casino will be using public transit anyways, they're way more likely to be using a shuttle, calling in an Uber/Lyft, taxi, or limo. And if they do desire to use public transit, again, Metra electric is right there.

No, it doesn't have to be easy for local Chicagoans to get to, that's not why this is being built. It's SOLELY to attract tourist dollars, and that is it. If cutting L access off means less locals, then that would be a success, quite honestly.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by dtcbnd03

The casino 100% needs to be within 2-3 blocks of an El stop. No one uses the Metra to get around the city limits. I'm all for thinking big and making it a resort on the lake but given how painful it is to get to Soldier Field unless you have an El extension built from Roosevelt with stops at Soldier, McCormick Place and the Reese site...then the Reese location will be a failure. It has to be easy for both tourists and local Chicagoans to get to.

I think you mean it needs to be next to rapid transit. Metra Electric has an easy pathway to be converted to such.

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Tourists wouldn't come to Chicago to gamble at casinos. They would go to Vegas, flights there are much cheaper, taxes are cheaper, hotels are cheaper, there are far more choices. People are not going to ride the L to crappy areas of the city to gamble, they will take the skyway and go to Horseshoe in Indiana or Rivers in Des Plaines.

The thing with tourists coming to Chicago to gamble is that they would be doing that and many other things as well.

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Okay, I haven't been to Reno, but I've been to Singapore. A few thoughts:

1) While I'm not ready to lump Chicago in with places like East St. Louis, Hammond, or Atlantic City, at the other end of the economic spectrum I'll be the first to acknowledge that Chicago is also not in the same category as Singapore. Singapore is WAY more of a global destination (and not because of the casino) with a ton of global corporate capital flowing through it.

2) Marina Bay Sands is known more an iconic building and massive hotel that just happens to have a casino in it. I don't see Chicago pulling off anything on that scale. I imagine Chicago having something more like what you see in Hammond, Michigan City, or New Buffalo (except newer and nicer, at least at first) that detracts from the downtown and skyline rather than adds to it.

3) I'm not sure what part of Singapore you consider to be "downtown," but if you don't consider Marina Bay Sands to be part of it, then at the most it is a mile away, across the bay.

4) Singapore doesn't have a Vegas to compete with for gambling tourism. In fact, there's really nothing in East Asia to compare with Vegas, with the arguable exception of Macau, which is not as nice or fun.

Chicago is far closer to Singapore in stature and attraction than it is to East St. Louis, Hammond, or Atlantic City and can be built up to be more of a global destination. It's also okay if there's a larger mix of domestic well-heeled tourists, because after all, the US is a far larger country than Singapore is.

Yea, I'm not sure if Chicago can pull off something large and iconic like Marina Bay Sands especially when it comes to potentially community opposition or aldermanic privileges. If they can't get their **** together enough to make an iconic structure for this to attract more well-heeled clientele, then I don't think it should be done at all. If they can do it though, then it's pretty likely that it'll be a successful major attraction.

Marina Bay Sands is just outside of downtown and not really downtown proper. The Michael Reese site is a bit further out from the Loop by comparison, but fairly close. I still don't think a casino should be right in downtown.

Macau might not be to your preferences, but it draws something like eight times the revenue that Las Vegas does. I guess everyone has their preferences, but if you go by that, then there is nothing in North America that compares to Macau.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Macau might not be to your preferences, but it draws something like eight times the revenue that Las Vegas does. I guess everyone has their preferences, but if you go by that, then there is nothing in North America that compares to Macau.

Yes, I'm well aware that Macau is a prime choice for Chinese money-laundering. That's not the same thing as being a top tourist destination. "I guess everyone has their preferences." Haha. Puh-lease. There's no way you've been to Macau if you are making that statement without tongue firmly planted in cheek.

We agree that Chicago shouldn't put a casino downtown, I just think you chose a weird example to make that case. Marina Bay Sands is closer to Singapore's center than parts of the South and West Loops are to Chicagos. Whatever. We also seem to agree that there's no way Chicago is going pull off anything like that, anyway, so this is moot.

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Tourists wouldn't come to Chicago to gamble at casinos. They would go to Vegas, flights there are much cheaper, taxes are cheaper, hotels are cheaper, there are far more choices. People are not going to ride the L to crappy areas of the city to gamble, they will take the skyway and go to Horseshoe in Indiana or Rivers in Des Plaines.

I only go to Horseshoe because there isn't a casino in Chicago. The Chicago casino will cut into Horseshoe's business big time. I never go to Rivers cause it's waaaay too crowded all the time. Can never get on a table there and the minimum tables are $25+.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Yes, I'm well aware that Macau is a prime choice for Chinese money-laundering. That's not the same thing as being a top tourist destination. "I guess everyone has their preferences." Haha. Puh-lease. There's no way you've been to Macau if you are making that statement without tongue firmly planted in cheek.

We agree that Chicago shouldn't put a casino downtown, I just think you chose a weird example to make that case. Marina Bay Sands is closer to Singapore's center than parts of the South and West Loops are to Chicagos. Whatever. We also seem to agree that there's no way Chicago is going pull off anything like that, anyway, so this is moot.

I thought we were talking about gaming revenue here. Macau has massive gaming revenues that dwarf anywhere else, mostly due to Chinese, but also a lot of East and Southeast Asia in general. Now does that mean I actually like Macau? Eh, it's okay.

I think it's possible for Chicago to pull something off like that--it's just be very difficult. Singapore is the better example, because Singapore is a major business travel destination which is not reliant on gaming, but makes use of it anyhow for additional revenue. It does not have a major gaming area the way Macau and Las Vegas do, but rather single all-encapsulated resort casinos (of which it has two).