5 casino sites: which would you choose? (Chicago, Rockford: law, moving, nightlife)

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by DamenVChicago

Downtown is a terrible choice.

Reese though is perfect, because it's close enough to downtown, but not in downtown.

I agree downtown is terrible. It needs to be part of an entertainment district driving further development. The riverfront will be hot on its own with condos / offices / rentals and doesn't need a casino because the river itself is entertainment (riverwalk). Look at the model Wrigley has done in the last few years and follow same pattern with a casino. So agree with near United Center or Reese. But the Bronzeville alderman do not want it so we'll see....

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by dtcbnd03

I agree downtown is terrible. It needs to be part of an entertainment district driving further development. The riverfront will be hot on its own with condos / offices / rentals and doesn't need a casino because the river itself is entertainment (riverwalk). Look at the model Wrigley has done in the last few years and follow same pattern with a casino. So agree with near United Center or Reese. But the Bronzeville alderman do not want it so we'll see....

I sort of alluded to this before: a downtown casino makes certain sense in cities with average size downtowns and certainly in downtowns where the construction of a casino is used to generate a more active downtown.

Casinos belong in downtown Detroit and downtown Cleveland. They don't belong in downtown or midtown Manhattan or downtown Chicago.

Casinos are like ballparks in their placement. Since the start of the retro-park era in baseball at Baltimore's Camden Yards. And being downtown was a big part of what the retroparks are all about.

But in cities (regardlesss of population) where ballparks are built downtown, they aren't built in downtowns that are dense, highly active, real cores of their cities, major league.

Think of the places were there are no downtown ballparks: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston...not a one was a good site for a ballpark. And eliminating New York where two new parks were planned at the same time, both side-by-side with the existing parks they were replacing, there really is only one city above that could have put its new park downtown, but didn't. Philadelphia: the Phillies, like the Eagles, stayed on the same South Philly site where they played at Veterans Stadium.

There is only one place in the nation where a ballpark was built in a major downtown, one that meets all the criteria above: Pacific Bell (now Oracle) Park in San Francisco. And its location, a tad south of SoMa, is very much the fringe of downtown.

Other places...Houston, Denver, San Diego, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis...could easily accommodate a downtown ballpark.

If you subsitute "casino" for "ballpark", you see pretty much the same dynamics.

[edsg25]

Trib compares five sites...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-viz-chicago-casino-sites-analyzed-htmlstory.html

[KoNgFooCj]

I like Harborside. It's just off the highway near water. It's a fairly nice location and could help gentrify nearby areas and give disadvantaged folks jobs.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by TBideon

Laughable choices, even Reese. No one is going to the hood to gamble.

Hood? All the locations beside Pullman will be completely gentrified in 5 years anyway.

[OKParker]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Hood? All the locations beside Pullman will be completely gentrified in 5 years anyway.

Not that west side location. I don't care if they get the casino, its not happening. That area's industrial past will require remediation and decades of construction.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by OKParker

Not that west side location. I don't care if they get the casino, its not happening. That area's industrial past will require remediation and decades of construction.

I don't favor a west side location either, but I am lost on the implications of an "industrial past". I suppose it has a lot to do with what you consider industrial. I would look at warehouses as being part of "industrial" and areas that are loaded with warehouses, places that can be lofted, are extremely popular. The allure of them in Chicago first happened in River North with art galleries squeezed out of Michigan Avenue due to sky high rising rent. They moved a bit to the west and River North began its metamorphosis.

Aren't the areas due west of Greektown quite similar to River North? Aren't they benefitted by the "facts on the ground" that provide the inviting environment of those old structures.

You may be talking about "heavy industry" and if so, that would make sense. But isn't there far more industrial sites on the South Side than the West?

You're an Oak Parker and I can say with what I feel is a great deal of certainty: gentrification and the development that goes along with it will fill in the between the United Center/Med Center and Oak Park village limits. And it will take a lot less time than decades to happen.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I don't favor a west side location either, but I am lost on the implications of an "industrial past". I suppose it has a lot to do with what you consider industrial. I would look at warehouses as being part of "industrial" and areas that are loaded with warehouses, places that can be lofted, are extremely popular. The allure of them in Chicago first happened in River North with art galleries squeezed out of Michigan Avenue due to sky high rising rent. They moved a bit to the west and River North began its metamorphosis.

Aren't the areas due west of Greektown quite similar to River North? Aren't they benefitted by the "facts on the ground" that provide the inviting environment of those old structures.

You may be talking about "heavy industry" and if so, that would make sense. But isn't there far more industrial sites on the South Side than the West?

You're an Oak Parker and I can say with what I feel is a great deal of certainty: gentrification and the development that goes along with it will fill in the between the United Center/Med Center and Oak Park village limits. And it will take a lot less time than decades to happen.

I would agree with OK Parker, Roosevelt and Kostner is too far removed from any even remotely "gentrifying" area, and would not at all be a good place due to some of the industrial buildings nearby. Must this go anywhere on the west side, I'd say north of 290 and east of Western is an absolute must.

The thing about the west side is it goes from beautiful gentrified neighborhood on one block, to absolute gangland territory a couple blocks away, not even a place the most hardcore hipster would want to build in, let alone an upscale casino. Lawndale is a very, very rough area.

[pvande55]

The latest report says none would be lucrative enough to be built. Even right downtown. Perhaps the State will ease the tax burden and make it viable. But for a long time, Chicago gamblers will need to continue going outside the city.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by pvande55

But for a long time, Chicago gamblers will need to continue going outside the city.

Aww, too bad-- an entire mile outside of the city limits to Horseshoe. Tragic news for Chicago's gamblers.