Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The model for the placement of a Chicago casino (which I haven’t seen mentioned here yet) should really be New Orleans: it’s in the center of town, near the convention and tourist areas, and is fairly upscale. The comparisons to East St. Louis and other locales are quite ridiculous: those places were bad neighborhoods long before they had casinos. Casinos aren’t going to turn a bad neighborhood into a good neighborhood, but by the same token, they’re not going to turn a good neighborhood into a bad neighborhood as long as it’s kept upscale.
Regardless, the entire goal of a Chicago casino should be to maximize tax revenue (preferably from tourists instead of residents). Period. It should not be positioned as an economic redevelopment project for a neighborhood or a political chit or anything other than a tax revenue generator. This means that this casino *has* to be in close proximity to downtown. Locations such as the US Steel site make absolutely no sense at all. This needs to be a casino that is very easy for a critical mass of tourists to get to or else it will turn into a “locals” casino (which is where the moral complaints of casinos taking money from communities as opposed to contributing to them come into play).
On that note, I’m actually most intrigued by the site near Guaranteed Rate Field. I like how the Michael Reese site is positioned well for convention attendees, but my concern is that it seems like a place that is perceived to be easily accessible to us as Chicagoans but isn’t really that accessible to the average tourist in reality due to the lack of a nearby El stop. I agree with a previous poster that a Metra connection simply isn’t the same as an El connection.
I hadn’t thought of a Guaranteed Rate Field area site for a casino before it was reported as an option, but it makes some sense there. It has both CTA and Metra connections along with existing parking areas that can be utilized. Tourists are at least acclimated to heading to that area (albeit not to the same extent as Wrigleyville). To the extent that a casino can actually spur some restaurant and bar development (which, to be sure, we can’t necessarily count on), it could improve the game day experience around Guaranteed Rate Field a lot and create a more vibrant tourist district for the city that has been underwhelming for literally over 100 years (especially compared to what’s on the North Side). That also addresses the apparent fear of a casino coming directly onto the turf of other downtown tourist attractions or that a casino being too close to McCormick Place would be a net negative. (I don’t really agree with that fear, but it seems to exist.) So, I like the Guaranteed Rate Field area as the best option out of the 5 reported proposed sites, but will otherwise submit to whichever location maximizes tax revenue for the city. This casino is coming, so forget about the debates about whether it’s a good thing or bad thing and focus on what will make the most tax revenue (and once again preferably from tourists instead of locals) possible.
The model for the placement of a Chicago casino (which I haven’t seen mentioned here yet) should really be New Orleans: it’s in the center of town, near the convention and tourist areas, and is fairly upscale. The comparisons to East St. Louis and other locales are quite ridiculous: those places were bad neighborhoods long before they had casinos. Casinos aren’t going to turn a bad neighborhood into a good neighborhood, but by the same token, they’re not going to turn a good neighborhood into a bad neighborhood as long as it’s kept upscale.
Regardless, the entire goal of a Chicago casino should be to maximize tax revenue (preferably from tourists instead of residents). Period. It should not be positioned as an economic redevelopment project for a neighborhood or a political chit or anything other than a tax revenue generator. This means that this casino *has* to be in close proximity to downtown. Locations such as the US Steel site make absolutely no sense at all. This needs to be a casino that is very easy for a critical mass of tourists to get to or else it will turn into a “locals” casino (which is where the moral complaints of casinos taking money from communities as opposed to contributing to them come into play).
The only complaint about Reese seems to be no L access. I would argue L access opens the place too much up to being a locals casino than anything else.
The whole goal of this project is meant to "shoot for the stars", not to build another casino like Horseshoe. We need it to be a world class casino, upscale, with upscale amenities, and I just don't think that would fit the theme of the location by Sox park, and especially anywhere else that Lightfoot proposed.
On that note, I’m actually most intrigued by the site near Guaranteed Rate Field. I like how the Michael Reese site is positioned well for convention attendees, but my concern is that it seems like a place that is perceived to be easily accessible to us as Chicagoans but isn’t really that accessible to the average tourist in reality due to the lack of a nearby El stop. I agree with a previous poster that a Metra connection simply isn’t the same as an El connection.
I hadn’t thought of a Guaranteed Rate Field area site for a casino before it was reported as an option, but it makes some sense there. It has both CTA and Metra connections along with existing parking areas that can be utilized. Tourists are at least acclimated to heading to that area (albeit not to the same extent as Wrigleyville). To the extent that a casino can actually spur some restaurant and bar development (which, to be sure, we can’t necessarily count on), it could improve the game day experience around Guaranteed Rate Field a lot and create a more vibrant tourist district for the city that has been underwhelming for literally over 100 years (especially compared to what’s on the North Side). That also addresses the apparent fear of a casino coming directly onto the turf of other downtown tourist attractions or that a casino being too close to McCormick Place would be a net negative. (I don’t really agree with that fear, but it seems to exist.) So, I like the Guaranteed Rate Field area as the best option out of the 5 reported proposed sites, but will otherwise submit to whichever location maximizes tax revenue for the city. This casino is coming, so forget about the debates about whether it’s a good thing or bad thing and focus on what will make the most tax revenue (and once again preferably from tourists instead of locals) possible.
Again though, "upscale" tourists are unlikely to use the L to travel to the south side. I think a shuttle bus from airports, taxis/limos are more likely going to be how they get to the casino. And yes, Reese can't really get any better with the convention center literally right there, considering most convention goers are likely from different parts of the region, country, and world.
The problem I have with the site near GRF is that, while it does have good public transit access, it's not connected at all to Downtown. It's in a fully separate neighborhood, which BTW isn't that pretty; especially to the south. On top of that, there's not really an iconic view of either the lake or downtown. It also isn't the right location for an "upscale" development of any kind; this area is mostly full of AH, college students, and across the freeway, a mostly working class city neighborhood. You add in the fact that the Sox could possibly be leaving for the South Loop once their lease at GRF expires, and you'd have a casino, in an iffy neighborhood, and a university just to the north, with no other pulls to the neighborhood. Not to mention, it's further away from downtown than Reese.
The only complaint about Reese seems to be the lack of L access. I would argue having L access actually increases the odds of turning it into a locals casino rather than a tourist casino.
Last edited by CCrest182; 07-22-2019 at 05:59 PM..
The model for the placement of a Chicago casino (which I haven’t seen mentioned here yet) should really be New Orleans: it’s in the center of town, near the convention and tourist areas, and is fairly upscale. The comparisons to East St. Louis and other locales are quite ridiculous: those places were bad neighborhoods long before they had casinos. Casinos aren’t going to turn a bad neighborhood into a good neighborhood, but by the same token, they’re not going to turn a good neighborhood into a bad neighborhood as long as it’s kept upscale.
Regardless, the entire goal of a Chicago casino should be to maximize tax revenue (preferably from tourists instead of residents). Period. It should not be positioned as an economic redevelopment project for a neighborhood or a political chit or anything other than a tax revenue generator. This means that this casino *has* to be in close proximity to downtown. Locations such as the US Steel site make absolutely no sense at all. This needs to be a casino that is very easy for a critical mass of tourists to get to or else it will turn into a “locals” casino (which is where the moral complaints of casinos taking money from communities as opposed to contributing to them come into play).
On that note, I’m actually most intrigued by the site near Guaranteed Rate Field. I like how the Michael Reese site is positioned well for convention attendees, but my concern is that it seems like a place that is perceived to be easily accessible to us as Chicagoans but isn’t really that accessible to the average tourist in reality due to the lack of a nearby El stop. I agree with a previous poster that a Metra connection simply isn’t the same as an El connection.
I hadn’t thought of a Guaranteed Rate Field area site for a casino before it was reported as an option, but it makes some sense there. It has both CTA and Metra connections along with existing parking areas that can be utilized. Tourists are at least acclimated to heading to that area (albeit not to the same extent as Wrigleyville). To the extent that a casino can actually spur some restaurant and bar development (which, to be sure, we can’t necessarily count on), it could improve the game day experience around Guaranteed Rate Field a lot and create a more vibrant tourist district for the city that has been underwhelming for literally over 100 years (especially compared to what’s on the North Side). That also addresses the apparent fear of a casino coming directly onto the turf of other downtown tourist attractions or that a casino being too close to McCormick Place would be a net negative. (I don’t really agree with that fear, but it seems to exist.) So, I like the Guaranteed Rate Field area as the best option out of the 5 reported proposed sites, but will otherwise submit to whichever location maximizes tax revenue for the city. This casino is coming, so forget about the debates about whether it’s a good thing or bad thing and focus on what will make the most tax revenue (and once again preferably from tourists instead of locals) possible.
Agreed that putting it as a locals casino is a bad ploy. Disagree with Michael Reese not being accessible as it can be part of the casino package to make it accessible and has a relatively easy path there.
You add in the fact that the Sox could possibly be leaving for the South Loop once their lease at GRF expires, and you'd have a casino, in an iffy neighborhood, and a university just to the north, with no other pulls to the neighborhood. Not to mention, it's further away from downtown than Reese.
The only complaint about Reese seems to be the lack of L access. I would argue having L access actually increases the odds of turning it into a locals casino rather than a tourist casino.
The Sox will never leave 35th for the South Loop. You can't fit a stadium and parking lots anywhere in the south loop and the Sox will never give up parking revenue (see Brewers in Milwaukee). They'll do what the Yankees did and build a new park in the existing parking lot...then when finished tear down the old stadium and turn that into parking. Remember, Wrigleyville wasn't that great of a neighborhood back in the day either but north and east of Sox field is definitely turning around. So it should either go near Sox or the Bulls stadium. Imagine all the high rollers leaving West Loop / Fulton Market and all the business / tourists that go there for work / dinner and simply hopping on an El to get to UC area. Imagine all the fans that want to gamble on games and watch in a casino at the sportsbook. Imagine the UC parking lots being turned into a huge developmont of a casino, parking garages, restaurants, bars and shops for year round entertainment...
L access allows BOTH / MORE tourists and locals to access the casino thereby increasing tax revenue. I understand we want the focus to be on tourists but to choke off locals from going is not smart at all.
The Sox will never leave 35th for the South Loop. You can't fit a stadium and parking lots anywhere in the south loop and the Sox will never give up parking revenue (see Brewers in Milwaukee). They'll do what the Yankees did and build a new park in the existing parking lot...then when finished tear down the old stadium and turn that into parking. Remember, Wrigleyville wasn't that great of a neighborhood back in the day either but north and east of Sox field is definitely turning around. So it should either go near Sox or the Bulls stadium. Imagine all the high rollers leaving West Loop / Fulton Market and all the business / tourists that go there for work / dinner and simply hopping on an El to get to UC area. Imagine all the fans that want to gamble on games and watch in a casino at the sportsbook. Imagine the UC parking lots being turned into a huge developmont of a casino, parking garages, restaurants, bars and shops for year round entertainment...
L access allows BOTH / MORE tourists and locals to access the casino thereby increasing tax revenue. I understand we want the focus to be on tourists but to choke off locals from going is not smart at all.
Yeah, I was just saying it's a possibility they move out of Bridgeport.... and it is. They definitely can get parking along the lakefront, especially if something happens where the parking of Soldier Field can be combined with Sox park. There's simply way too much parking around Sox park right now, more than is needed. You'd think a World Series game is being played there every game with all the lots. The reason they haven't done anything with the land where old Comiskey was, is because they're not even sure if they'll be in the same part of the city in 15-20 years, so investing in something so big with the idea the Sox will still be at that location is incredibly risky.
Again, this isn't really about locals and even fans of sporting events (because most fans are locals). The point of the casino is to attract wealthy tourists to spend money on gambling, food, parties, clubs, and hotel/resort room stays. It's not about providing something for Sox, Cubs, Bulls, whatever fans to do after the game. Increasing out of town revenue/tax dollar is the ultimate goal, and like I said I don't see a location better to maximize that out of town revenue than at the Reese location.
Actually, choking off locals is the whole point of even doing this whole thing. Locals already go to Indiana, Rivers, Harrahs, or Hollywood for their gambling. This is SOLELY being built to be a WORLD CLASS CASINO, that is several steps above the rest in the area, and even the country. Making it a locals casino is exactly what the opponents of this thing are against, because it tends to "keep broke residents broke", and that is definitely true.
The city doesn't get richer by local money getting recycled back into the local economy. It gets richer from out of town investment and revenue. It's simply true that you'll maximize out of town revenue more with a world class location (along the lake, closer to downtown, and connected to a massive convention center) than a location in a small neighborhood that can only boast an L station and a sports venue nearby.
Last edited by CCrest182; 07-22-2019 at 08:56 PM..
Yes, it will infuse new blood - tourist blood from the crime. Not exactly what you're expecting.
Somehow they manage to keep the blood where it belongs (in the very much alive bodies of tourists and conventioneers....with it still delightfully flowing) at McCormick Place on the north end of the Stevenson Expy...I doubt it would be a stretch of the imagination that we couldn't achieve such a feat on the south side of the Stevenson Expy. The area dubbed "McCormick Square" to repackage it into a special district with the convention halls, arena, hotels, Motor Row (and a tad to west, Chinatown) could include a Reese site casino. And if we can get to package Chinatown and the casino with the McCormick Square attractions, we can also package Prairie Avenue with it as well.
Gee, I actually can remember a time when it was dangerous to go south of Congress Street. Then south of Roosevelt Road. Then south of Cermak. Do you see any pattern here, bob?
Seems to me if things redevelop south from downtown and north from Hyde Park, at some point in time, the two developments will meet right along the Metra tracks. We can actually nail a golden spike into the very spot to commemorate no more lakefront trackage from Howard Street to South Shore. Who knows, we could name it "Promontory Point North"
Yeah, I was just saying it's a possibility they move out of Bridgeport.... and it is. They definitely can get parking along the lakefront, especially if something happens where the parking of Soldier Field can be combined with Sox park. There's simply way too much parking around Sox park right now, more than is needed. You'd think a World Series game is being played there every game with all the lots. The reason they haven't done anything with the land where old Comiskey was, is because they're not even sure if they'll be in the same part of the city in 15-20 years, so investing in something so big with the idea the Sox will still be at that location is incredibly risky.
Again, this isn't really about locals and even fans of sporting events (because most fans are locals). The point of the casino is to attract wealthy tourists to spend money on gambling, food, parties, clubs, and hotel/resort room stays. It's not about providing something for Sox, Cubs, Bulls, whatever fans to do after the game. Increasing out of town revenue/tax dollar is the ultimate goal, and like I said I don't see a location better to maximize that out of town revenue than at the Reese location.
Actually, choking off locals is the whole point of even doing this whole thing. Locals already go to Indiana, Rivers, Harrahs, or Hollywood for their gambling. This is SOLELY being built to be a WORLD CLASS CASINO, that is several steps above the rest in the area, and even the country. Making it a locals casino is exactly what the opponents of this thing are against, because it tends to "keep broke residents broke", and that is definitely true.
The city doesn't get richer by local money getting recycled back into the local economy. It gets richer from out of town investment and revenue. It's simply true that you'll maximize out of town revenue more with a world class location (along the lake, closer to downtown, and connected to a massive convention center) than a location in a small neighborhood that can only boast an L station and a sports venue nearby.
"Locals already go to Indiana, Rivers, Harrahs, or Hollywood for their gambling." And locals already are going even further...up to Pottawatomi...which is sort of "downtown edge" for Milwaukee as the Reese site is to Chicago.
The garage at Pottawatomi appears some 50/50 WI/IL split. Pottawatomi may be the biggest casino in the midwest (I guess only Detroit has one that could exceed it)....with a tall hotel addition which they are now adding on to.
And as you noted about parking, Pottawatomi easily accommodates free parking; the Reese site could, too. Unlike the heart of downtown where a garage for a casino would be exceedingly expensive and open to so many non-gamers who use it for Loop parking (that would happen no matter what type of validation system you put in place). Not so for Reese: if you parked there, you're there for gambling. Period. Unless, I suppose, you are some architectural nut wanting to see exactly what are the differences between Prairie Shoes and Lake Meadows.
If I were king of Chicago I'd add a few floors put it near the top of Wolf Point south (salesforce tower) and make it very nice and upscale with great views of downtown and the lake
Casinos bring poverty, crime, corruption, and a horrible street experience... why add that to an already impoverished and blighted community? They sure as heck aren't going to hire people from the community that they are putting it in, and guess what, casino jobs SUCK anyway and pay jack squat.
Downtown Detroit was nothing until casinos landed there and stimulated development there. Casinos have had positive ripple effects throughout the area they are located economically. Why wouldn't they hire people from the community if they apply there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
