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.
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).
When visiting Chicago, I usually go to restaurants, ball games ( Cubs, Sox , Blackhawks, etc) museums and comedy shows (Second City). Sorry, but I'll pass on casinos. If you want to fleece tourists, there are much better causes to "contribute" to, and to raise money from..
When visiting Chicago, I usually go to restaurants, ball games ( Cubs, Sox , Blackhawks, etc) museums and comedy shows (Second City). Sorry, but I'll pass on casinos. If you want to fleece tourists, there are much better causes to "contribute" to, and to raise money from..
The casino is already in motion. I'm failing to see why some here think it's still up for debate whether or not the casino will be a thing. It has already been confirmed that it will be built. The question here isn't whether or not it will come to reality, but where it will be located.
Casinos have proven all around the country, as well as in the Chicago area to be a success when generating revenue for the city/region/state. Like someone else said, it's not the time for Chicago to cry morality anymore. The pension crisis needs to be fixed, and a damn good way to generate big amounts of money towards that is building a world class, large, and high end casino. And you may not go to casinos, but the high amounts of tourists that go to Indiana and Rivers to gamble proves that there are tons of people who do. Taking a massive bite out of those out of city casinos is a good way for the city to gain money that would otherwise go to other cities in the area; especially one that stands out above all others in the area.
That said, I also think there are more ways the city can make money. I think an amusement park on the U.S. Steel site along the lake would be a great way to do that. However, a casino seems much more realistic than that.
I would also add, I'm in agreement with you that this should NOT be built in downtown, like Michigan avenue. As I've said in several of my posts on this thread, the Reese location is near perfect, if not the perfect location for this thing.
Last edited by CCrest182; 07-25-2019 at 03:05 PM..
When visiting Chicago, I usually go to restaurants, ball games ( Cubs, Sox , Blackhawks, etc) museums and comedy shows (Second City). Sorry, but I'll pass on casinos. If you want to fleece tourists, there are much better causes to "contribute" to, and to raise money from..
you make a good point. However, to my thinking, considering the size of Chicago that it is only going to be one casino probably makes your point a bit less important. Basing things on, say, total slots-in-all-casinos-to-city-population, Chicago is going to come up with a far, far lower number than obviously Detroit and no doubt St. Louis, Cleveland and Milwaukee.
When visiting Chicago, I usually go to restaurants, ball games ( Cubs, Sox , Blackhawks, etc) museums and comedy shows (Second City). Sorry, but I'll pass on casinos.
Exactly. I would add bars (especially neighborhood bars), theater, summer festivals, parks, and live music as part of the Chicago experience, too. If we want more tourist money, let's enhance the things that make Chicago "Chicago" so we keep the large number of tourists we already have, rather than half-ass a new paradigm of "Chicago! Now with a side of Mini Vegas!" Barf.
Exactly. I would add bars (especially neighborhood bars), theater, summer festivals, parks, and live music as part of the Chicago experience, too. If we want more tourist money, let's enhance the things that make Chicago "Chicago" so we keep the large number of tourists we already have, rather than half-ass a new paradigm of "Chicago! Now with a side of Mini Vegas!" Barf.
I agree that these are the main attractants, same as in Singapore where people go to visit Singapore for a lot of other things aside from the casino. This should not be a one-note tourism stop like Vegas and Macau are, but part of a larger package. Singapore gets its gaming revenue through just two resorts and its unlikely that those are people who came there specifically for gaming. Rather, they make it so that gaming is an additional revenue stream from people who were visiting anyhow.
That’s the whole idea of making it not a locals gaming area. The Michael Reese site with its close connection to downtown and the convention center both geographically and via transit is therefore a good option. A part of that projected casino revenue should therefore be directed towards Metra Electric to make that an easy destination for such and that’s the 16th street connector and through-running Union Station to get to O’Hare, greater overall Metra Electric frequencies, and negotiating with the South Shore Line to allow people to dismount on southbound stations within Chicago.
Exactly. I would add bars (especially neighborhood bars), theater, summer festivals, parks, and live music as part of the Chicago experience, too. If we want more tourist money, let's enhance the things that make Chicago "Chicago" so we keep the large number of tourists we already have, rather than half-ass a new paradigm of "Chicago! Now with a side of Mini Vegas!" Barf.
let's not forget: the thing that makes Chicago Chicago is it being a toddlin' town (whatever the hell that is)
Exactly. I would add bars (especially neighborhood bars), theater, summer festivals, parks, and live music as part of the Chicago experience, too. If we want more tourist money, let's enhance the things that make Chicago "Chicago" so we keep the large number of tourists we already have, rather than half-ass a new paradigm of "Chicago! Now with a side of Mini Vegas!" Barf.
Let's run with that one for awhile.
Could we, dare we, try a different approach than the Vegas bells-and-whistles that seem to have been duplicated from coast-to-coast. Vegas has reached a point where it exceeds WDW in the department of theming. Of course, it racks in a helluva lot more $ than the mouse does.
Chicago is to get one casino, right? And that casino will be (with Reese. or other) in a downtown far bigger than any downtown that currently has a casino. Reese puts it on the lakefront. The views alone will be over-the-top.
We have enough baked into this project on its one site to give Chicago its answer to what the second temple gave Jerusalem (after the money chasers were chased out, of course).
Seriously though....how about breaking the mold and giving Chicago something that (1) doesn't exist in the nation and (2) will probably never be duplicated given the rare spots where something like this could ever be done that would financially warrant such a project.
My proposal. Skip Vegas and do Monte Carlo. Not a beaux arte facsimile; I already said I viewed theming as a negative and best left in Vegas and Orlando.
So the casino I'm suggesting would be modern, a product of the ingenuity of our era, unlike the beautiful but far-too-much-backwards-looking buildings that made up an attraction down the lakefront a bit....World's Columbian Exposition.
Chicago designs a classy, "contemporary classic" type of structure. Tasteful, elegant. Casinos are not in the business of turning away business, right? Well this one would and do so by thinking out of the box. The casino (not a bad name actually....The Casino) might even require a dress code: you don't walk in with shorts with your butt crack sticking out. You dress for the place. And if there were, say, four restaurants in the building, at least three would have an even more stringent dress code.
The message is: we're exclusive. Not because exclusive is a good way to be....its because exclusiveness sells.
Do I think my concept would work? Damned right I do. Chicago's casino at Reese or anywhere in the downtown area will be far, far more expensive to build and run than any other casino in the area. By far. It has to charge for parking which is a turn off to many who wish to gamble. Its location is not conducive for those who wish to just go out and do some gambling.....far too much a hassle when you can easily go elsewhere for gaming.
So in many ways, you're already creating a high end facility different from all others (see my first paragraph). Now you've given visitors a reason to come to this unique casino. Now you've said to suburbanites that here is a great place to go for dinner downtown and then gaming at Reese.
As I said, the Chicago casino already has enough "unique" features....this one more than goes along with it; it greatly enhances it. IMHO, it should be considered.
Could we, dare we, try a different approach than the Vegas bells-and-whistles that seem to have been duplicated from coast-to-coast. Vegas has reached a point where it exceeds WDW in the department of theming. Of course, it racks in a helluva lot more $ than the mouse does.
Chicago is to get one casino, right? And that casino will be (with Reese. or other) in a downtown far bigger than any downtown that currently has a casino. Reese puts it on the lakefront. The views alone will be over-the-top.
We have enough baked into this project on its one site to give Chicago its answer to what the second temple gave Jerusalem (after the money chasers were chased out, of course).
Seriously though....how about breaking the mold and giving Chicago something that (1) doesn't exist in the nation and (2) will probably never be duplicated given the rare spots where something like this could ever be done that would financially warrant such a project.
My proposal. Skip Vegas and do Monte Carlo. Not a beaux arte facsimile; I already said I viewed theming as a negative and best left in Vegas and Orlando.
So the casino I'm suggesting would be modern, a product of the ingenuity of our era, unlike the beautiful but far-too-much-backwards-looking buildings that made up an attraction down the lakefront a bit....World's Columbian Exposition.
Chicago designs a classy, "contemporary classic" type of structure. Tasteful, elegant. Casinos are not in the business of turning away business, right? Well this one would and do so by thinking out of the box. The casino (not a bad name actually....The Casino) might even require a dress code: you don't walk in with shorts with your butt crack sticking out. You dress for the place. And if there were, say, four restaurants in the building, at least three would have an even more stringent dress code.
The message is: we're exclusive. Not because exclusive is a good way to be....its because exclusiveness sells.
Do I think my concept would work? Damned right I do. Chicago's casino at Reese or anywhere in the downtown area will be far, far more expensive to build and run than any other casino in the area. By far. It has to charge for parking which is a turn off to many who wish to gamble. Its location is not conducive for those who wish to just go out and do some gambling.....far too much a hassle when you can easily go elsewhere for gaming.
So in many ways, you're already creating a high end facility different from all others (see my first paragraph). Now you've given visitors a reason to come to this unique casino. Now you've said to suburbanites that here is a great place to go for dinner downtown and then gaming at Reese.
As I said, the Chicago casino already has enough "unique" features....this one more than goes along with it; it greatly enhances it. IMHO, it should be considered.
That's essentially Singapore's model--and it works well.
That's essentially Singapore's model--and it works well.
Repeat after me: Singapore is unlike anyplace in the U.S., and particularly unlike Chicago. Chicago is not, and will never be, Singapore. Singapore is a haven for unregulated capital, which means lots of globally wealthy people and lots of money laundering. It's also a more-or-less dictatorship/monarchy (one family has controlled the government since they gained independence from the British in the 1960s), where they have created a sterile Disneyland of a city. There is no freedom of speech. It is illegal to question or criticize the government there. It is not America. It's an interesting place to visit for many reasons, but it is beyond foolish to view it as a model for Chicago. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and orangutans. Please. Stop. Now. Be smart.
Look at which places *in the U.S.* have casinos and which ones don't. That tells you all you need to know.
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.
