5 casino sites: which would you choose? (Chicago, Oak Brook: amusement park, theater, restaurant)
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.
Honestly, if it won't be high end and world class, why even bother with a casino in the first place? That's my opinion.
I like how you think "high end and world class" (whatever tf that means) is some separate category of casino that rich people will flock to in order to take up gambling and regular people with gambling problems will somehow stay away from. What kind of fantasy land are you expecting? Might want to temper those expectations a bit and look at real life examples of casinos in the US rather than thinking Chicago is going to magically become Singapore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCrest182
f it is, like you said, the poor residents will be all over it.
Like *I* said?! You're the one who keeps disparaging poor people. All I'm saying is people with gambling problems, regardless of their SES or whether they are locals or tourists, are going to find casinos, regardless of how "high class" you think the casino is. Michael Jordan was well-known for having a gambling problem and having his own private room (ooh, "high class"!) at a casino in NW Indiana. He's not what you would call a "poor person," but still managed to gamble away money he couldn't really afford to lose.
Last edited by SkylarkPhotoBooth; 07-24-2019 at 08:05 AM..
You are correct. Locals will, and should come to the casino; especially those that can afford to lose some money gambling. However, building the casino in locations that cater to/benefit locals is not what the city should do. Building by a CTA stop, what this person is claiming would be the right thing to do, would almost certainly be catering to locals, IMO. The Reese location is perfect for out of towners, and wouldn't be impossible to get to for locals either, considering people can always drive to the place, or take Metra Electric.
When it comes to locations for this place, I think tourists should be first in mind, with locals second. Tourists want the view of the lake and skyline, not to travel to some isolated neighborhood on the west or south side.
Also, the goal isn't to add new tourists necessarily. It's to maximize tourist dollars. A high end casino would only be a benefit.
I think it is unusual for a person to bring up so many, many points here and finding I agree with each and everyone of them.
Tourisrts/out-of-towners should be the targeted group for any casino. Outside money coming in makes the most sense. Inside money results in few advantages and carries a real downside. Having that gambling available drains money from the pockets of those who can least afford it and since a casino, this casino, is a joint project of the state and the city, the cost of financially related problems could easily serve as a drain or the city and/or state's finances rather than increasing them.
Even for those living in Chicago or Chicagoland, there are limitations in how many will go there. And obviously the Chicago casino would have virtually no effect on how much money comes into the area wide casinos by locals; it merely redistributes it.
I've harped on the notion of the ideal spot for a Chicago casino, based on this city's dynamics, would be on the fringe of the downtown area. It gives the casino IMHO two advantages:
• Downtown areas are a draw; Chicago's may well be the highest draw from any US city (if you think I've made an omission here, I did not: Manhattan is different. Unlike any other city, it has two robust CBD's in Midtown and downtown and neither due to the unique nature of New York are central draws because the surrounding parts of Manhattan carry the same sense of being in it all as the other two. The lower 2/3 of Manhattan does not need or have centrality since the entire stretch is "central"). Chicago's core has the greatest draw of any.
So having the casino downtown at such a spot would be the best way to maximize the amount of Chgo and metropolitan money coming in to the place. Why? There is the draw of coming to the center, to a night on the town that actually is in the town. The Reese location makes this by far the most possible to occur:
(1) If the casino were out in the middle of nowhere, like the west side or near Sox Park, why should suburbanites even consider it. The experience won't be all that special...why not just to Rivers of to the river boats, etc.
(2) If the casino was placed, say, in the Thompson Center, it causes a nightmare being that it would be too expensive to park at (or even find a parking space since there would be no way to keep non-gaming patrons from using it) and it creates a traffic nightmare in the Loop. Reese can give away free parking and the crowding around it is not exceptional even with adjacent McCormick Place which hardly relies heavily on cars.
For tourists and conventioneers, our main target, Reese offers proximity and access from downtown with both Metra and CTA able to deliver for the site.
One last point: let's look at other midwestern cities that have downtown or downtown edge casinos. I'd like to offer up the two best examples here:
Detroit (Detroit can stand in here for St. Louis, Cleveland, and the like): Detroit can easily have a downtown casino in ways that Chicago cannot. Its downtown (even with its comeback...and that comeback is real) has neither the draw of downtown Chicago or its congestion. Detroit casinos were obviously designed to be a money maker in and of themselves. But they were also designed to give DT DT a shot in the arm. Not so, of course, for Chicago. So in Detroit, you can park and not run up a fortune like in Chicago
Milwaukee: I would consider the core of Milwaukee, its greater downtown area, to easily be healthier than StL, Det, Cle. Milwaukee didn't have to put its casino smack int he middle of downtown. Milwaukee carried out a move akin to the Reese site for Chicago. Pottawatomi is on the finger areas of downtown, parking is free. Pottawatomi in many ways should be the model for Chicago's endeavor.
I like how you think "high end and world class" (whatever tf that means) is some separate category of casino that rich people will flock to in order to take up gambling and regular people with gambling problems will somehow stay away from. What kind of fantasy land are you expecting? Might want to temper those expectations a bit and look at real life examples of casinos in the US rather than thinking Chicago is going to magically become Singapore.
Like *I* said?! You're the one who keeps disparaging poor people. All I'm saying is people with gambling problems, regardless of their SES or whether they are locals or tourists, are going to find casinos, regardless of how "high class" you think the casino is. Michael Jordan was well-known for having a gambling problem and having his own private room (ooh, "high class"!) at a casino in NW Indiana. He's not what you would call a "poor person," but still managed to gamble away money he couldn't really afford to lose.
LOL. Did you seriously just try to claim I should be concerned about celebrities like Michael Jordan losing money at a casino??? That's rich. If a rich multi-millionaire gambles away thousands at this place, that's the whole point this place is being built, so that would be a success, not a problem.
Let's get back to the original point. So your argument is we should put the casino in an isolated, non-world class neighborhood because you don't think this will be a world class casino, but another Rivers? Even if this is, like you say, just another casino, what is wrong with the Reese location at all? Why not at least TRY to make this an attractive location that appeals to rich people more???
Your argument in general reeks on NIMBYism. The casino is happening, and it's been repeatedly said that this will be the biggest casino in Illinois, possibly among the biggest in the nation. Making this place expensive and upscale is what will drive locals with gambling problems who can't afford to lose money away, which, let's remember, IS a good thing. I could care less if Michael Jordan or Kim Kardashian loses a fortune at the place.
You haven't really made a compelling argument at all here, outside of "hahaha, Chicago will never build anything grand". Like an upscale restaurant, this place NEEDS to attract upscale clientele, not your run of the mill person.
Because you don't seem to realize that upscale casinos exist, check out this link
I think it is unusual for a person to bring up so many, many points here and finding I agree with each and everyone of them.
Tourisrts/out-of-towners should be the targeted group for any casino. Outside money coming in makes the most sense. Inside money results in few advantages and carries a real downside. Having that gambling available drains money from the pockets of those who can least afford it and since a casino, this casino, is a joint project of the state and the city, the cost of financially related problems could easily serve as a drain or the city and/or state's finances rather than increasing them.
Even for those living in Chicago or Chicagoland, there are limitations in how many will go there. And obviously the Chicago casino would have virtually no effect on how much money comes into the area wide casinos by locals; it merely redistributes it.
I've harped on the notion of the ideal spot for a Chicago casino, based on this city's dynamics, would be on the fringe of the downtown area. It gives the casino IMHO two advantages:
• Downtown areas are a draw; Chicago's may well be the highest draw from any US city (if you think I've made an omission here, I did not: Manhattan is different. Unlike any other city, it has two robust CBD's in Midtown and downtown and neither due to the unique nature of New York are central draws because the surrounding parts of Manhattan carry the same sense of being in it all as the other two. The lower 2/3 of Manhattan does not need or have centrality since the entire stretch is "central"). Chicago's core has the greatest draw of any.
So having the casino downtown at such a spot would be the best way to maximize the amount of Chgo and metropolitan money coming in to the place. Why? There is the draw of coming to the center, to a night on the town that actually is in the town. The Reese location makes this by far the most possible to occur:
(1) If the casino were out in the middle of nowhere, like the west side or near Sox Park, why should suburbanites even consider it. The experience won't be all that special...why not just to Rivers of to the river boats, etc.
(2) If the casino was placed, say, in the Thompson Center, it causes a nightmare being that it would be too expensive to park at (or even find a parking space since there would be no way to keep non-gaming patrons from using it) and it creates a traffic nightmare in the Loop. Reese can give away free parking and the crowding around it is not exceptional even with adjacent McCormick Place which hardly relies heavily on cars.
For tourists and conventioneers, our main target, Reese offers proximity and access from downtown with both Metra and CTA able to deliver for the site.
One last point: let's look at other midwestern cities that have downtown or downtown edge casinos. I'd like to offer up the two best examples here:
Detroit (Detroit can stand in here for St. Louis, Cleveland, and the like): Detroit can easily have a downtown casino in ways that Chicago cannot. Its downtown (even with its comeback...and that comeback is real) has neither the draw of downtown Chicago or its congestion. Detroit casinos were obviously designed to be a money maker in and of themselves. But they were also designed to give DT DT a shot in the arm. Not so, of course, for Chicago. So in Detroit, you can park and not run up a fortune like in Chicago
Milwaukee: I would consider the core of Milwaukee, its greater downtown area, to easily be healthier than StL, Det, Cle. Milwaukee didn't have to put its casino smack int he middle of downtown. Milwaukee carried out a move akin to the Reese site for Chicago. Pottawatomi is on the finger areas of downtown, parking is free. Pottawatomi in many ways should be the model for Chicago's endeavor.
Build the damn thing on the Reese site.
Likewise, I can't disagree with anything you said either!
I especially agree with your point that this needs to distinguish itself from the rest in the region; putting it along the lake shore and near downtown is the BEST way to do that. I.E., Reese location is golden for this. Metra access, easy to get to, convention center connection and building in the gentrifying area of Douglass/Bronzeville is only going to be additional sprinkles/cherries on top. It's hard to give credit to the city, but I do have to give credit for recommending this location. Of course, we'll see what's selected.
But wait, I guess Skylark thinks it should go on the west side, because it will just be another casino, and who cares about world class and pleasing tourists, right?
Likewise, I can't disagree with anything you said either!
I especially agree with your point that this needs to distinguish itself from the rest in the region; putting it along the lake shore and near downtown is the BEST way to do that. I.E., Reese location is golden for this. Metra access, easy to get to, convention center connection and building in the gentrifying area of Douglass/Bronzeville is only going to be additional sprinkles/cherries on top. It's hard to give credit to the city, but I do have to give credit for recommending this location. Of course, we'll see what's selected.
But wait, I guess Skylark thinks it should go on the west side, because it will just be another casino, and who cares about world class and pleasing tourists, right?
Right. And while I blame the Lucas fiasco on Lucas as much as I do on anyone and how disenguous and how HQ2 like in his Chi-SF-LA lottery, insisting on waterfront sites neither Chi or Sf could offer up, finally setting for the shores of the Colliseum where the Lions played on the turf, but the gladiators fought each other on an inland sea
Still, I can see how Lucas would not want a nowheres ille location and the Burnham Park site that was claimed to be on the lakefront, but wasn’t every since Northerly Island was built
LOL. Did you seriously just try to claim I should be concerned about celebrities like Michael Jordan losing money at a casino???
No. Don't be obtuse. It was an example to illustrate that the sad gambling addicts who populate casinos come from all socioeconomic statuses, or classes to use your terminology. I don't care whether they are "high class" or "low class." This isn't about not wanting "poor people" downtown (which seems to be your POV, speaking of NIMBYism!), it's about not wanting a casino downtown. People who want to gamble, rich or poor, will go to where the casinos are. Leave downtown for people who enjoy downtown for what it is.
Last edited by SkylarkPhotoBooth; 07-24-2019 at 11:16 PM..
No. Don't be obtuse. It was an example to illustrate that the sad gambling addicts who populate casinos come from all socioeconomic statuses, or classes to use your terminology. I don't care whether they are "high class" or "low class." This isn't about not wanting "poor people" downtown (which seems to be your POV, speaking of NIMBYism!), it's about not wanting a casino downtown. People who want to gamble, rich or poor, will go to where the casinos are. Leave downtown for people who enjoy downtown for what it is.
I agree, completely. Casinos are a plague on society--why not build something more constructive? I can't imagine a casino on Michigan Avenue--what a cancerous blight on a pleasant shopping street. And not to mention all the undesirable side effects of gambling--(organized) crime, prostitution, alcoholism/drug abuse, insolvency, homelessness, etc..
I agree, completely. Casinos are a plague on society--why not build something more constructive? I can't imagine a casino on Michigan Avenue--what a cancerous blight on a pleasant shopping street. And not to mention all the undesirable side effects of gambling--(organized) crime, prostitution, alcoholism/drug abuse, insolvency, homelessness, etc..
This is like saying that all bars are bad for neighborhoods because they can lead to all of the negative items that you’ve mentioned, as well.
Anyone that has been to Las Vegas can see the difference between an upscale place like the Bellagio or Wynn versus the downscale locals casinos off the Strip. The upscale places can attract top notch restaurants, A-list entertainers, and resident shows such as Cirque du Soleil that contribute revenue to the local economy far beyond casino dollars. Any Chicago casino should be aspiring to play in that upscale market that attracts a critical mass of outside tourist dollars. Otherwise, we’re defeating the purpose of the casino, which is to create the maximum amount of tax revenue possible.
Note that tourists will also buy “up” beyond what their income levels might predict to upscale venues, but rarely buy down to places that target income levels below them. That’s part of why the only retail locations that are still doing well despite Internet competition are all very upscale (such as Michigan Avenue and Oak Brook Center) while middle to lower middle class shopping districts and centers are getting hammered. Upper class venues can attract middle class visitors, but the reverse doesn’t work.
At the same time, no one here is suggesting that a casino should be placed on Michigan Avenue. However, there are certainly locations that are *reasonably* located in the proximity of downtown that can maximize tax revenue. The Michael Reese and Guaranteed Rate Field sites at least have a reasonable nexus to attract tourists. The outlying sites definitely aren’t reasonable to tourists.
The bottom line is that this casino is getting built. The absolute worst thing that could happen is for the city to build it in the wrong location and/or be too downscale and have it underperform and/or not attract tourists (as opposed to locals).
This is like saying that all bars are bad for neighborhoods because they can lead to all of the negative items that you’ve mentioned, as well.
Anyone that has been to Las Vegas can see the difference between an upscale place like the Bellagio or Wynn versus the downscale locals casinos off the Strip. The upscale places can attract top notch restaurants, A-list entertainers, and resident shows such as Cirque du Soleil that contribute revenue to the local economy far beyond casino dollars. Any Chicago casino should be aspiring to play in that upscale market that attracts a critical mass of outside tourist dollars. Otherwise, we’re defeating the purpose of the casino, which is to create the maximum amount of tax revenue possible.
Note that tourists will also buy “up” beyond what their income levels might predict to upscale venues, but rarely buy down to places that target income levels below them. That’s part of why the only retail locations that are still doing well despite Internet competition are all very upscale (such as Michigan Avenue and Oak Brook Center) while middle to lower middle class shopping districts and centers are getting hammered. Upper class venues can attract middle class visitors, but the reverse doesn’t work.
At the same time, no one here is suggesting that a casino should be placed on Michigan Avenue. However, there are certainly locations that are *reasonably* located in the proximity of downtown that can maximize tax revenue. The Michael Reese and Guaranteed Rate Field sites at least have a reasonable nexus to attract tourists. The outlying sites definitely aren’t reasonable to tourists.
The bottom line is that this casino is getting built. The absolute worst thing that could happen is for the city to build it in the wrong location and/or be too downscale and have it underperform and/or not attract tourists (as opposed to locals).
Frank the tank FTW!
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.
