The Pros And Cons Of All 5 Chicago Casino Proposals

On Thursday, Chicago game bidders announced their plans to the city’s residents. City officials may then decide which program they want to choose.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed her expectation to announce a winner in the first quarter of 2022. Both Rush Street Gaming and Bally’s have submitted two bids each, while Hard Rock has put forward one proposal.

The process for the Chicago game method is finally progressing. After the city has chosen a bid, the winner is required to submit an application to the Illinois Gaming Board (IGB).

After thoroughly viewing all the presentations and meticulously inspecting the plan details, here are the pros and cons of each bet.

Chicago Rivers McCormick

Pros

• The proposal for the Chicago Rivers McCormick would be the fastest to market. Instead of constructing a new building, the existing McCormick Place Lakeside Center would be repurposed. According to presenters, the casino could be operational within a year of receiving approval from the IGB.
• Rush Street Gaming, being a partial owner of Rivers Casino Des Plaines, the most frequented casino in Illinois, has a proven record of successfully managing casinos.
• In the Chicagoland region, Rivers is a renowned company.
• Perspective of the lake view.
• This plan might utilize the existing space instead of building a structure from scratch, potentially causing less disruption to the area.

Cons

This is the least expensive proposition, costing$ 1.3 billion. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it does raise the question of whether any value will be given up for future Chicago game patrons.
• Some individuals could deem the site as unsatisfactory. It doesn’t offer convenient public transit options and is situated near Soldier Field, which could contribute to traffic congestion. However, the traffic at this location is dependent on the time of day.
• Despite objections from some in the mainstream industry opposing the blackjack, the proposal suggests enhancements to the local Arie Crown Theater.

Rivers 78

Pros

• The Chicago Sun-Times describes the site for Rivers 78 Casino as the “most accessible”, situated between the South Loop and Chinatown.
• This area is served by numerous Chicago bus and coach routes.
• It would be adjacent to the Chicago River.
• Unlike One Central, another proposed mega-development and casino site, the construction on the 78″ development side has received approval.
• Relationships on Rush Street, such as those with Rivers McCormick, are beneficial. Rivers is a renowned entertainment company in Illinois.
• Rivers has operated various successful games in cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
• The observation deck would be 1,000 feet high.

Cons

It might be at odds with Gov. Plans for an Illinois University tech research center in a related field are made by JB Pritzker & rsquo.
• Some Chicagoans may react negatively to it, given its proximity to residential areas.
• Unlike other Rush Street ideas, this strategy may take longer than a month to develop.

Bally & rsquo, a publishing house of the Chicago Tribune

Pros

• Bally’s has pledged that a Chicago casino will function as the company’s “flagship property” and the centerpiece of its casino portfolio.
• The game declined payment. Unlike Rush Street in Rivers, Des Plaines, and Hard Rock in Rockford and Gary, Indiana, there are conflicting interests in the vicinity.
• Bally’s, a burgeoning US brand, owns several regional sports networks. Moreover, it has made substantial investments in the sports betting market.
• Given its location on the near north side of Chicago, the casino would be accessible from all areas of the city.
• River panoramas.
• The plan includes a feature of a Chicago sporting museum.
• Bally’s pledges to provide the city with an initial payment of $25 million upon selection.

Cons

Phase 1 costs$ 1 billion, and Phase 2 could cost up to$ 600 million, so this plan has several phases. This was particularly mentioned by Rivers McCormick in its presentation.
• Rivers is a more well-known name than Bally & rsquo, s in Illinois.
• It would be located in an area that is wealthier than those proposed by some competitors. Considering what already exists, how much would it increase?

McCormick Place, Bally & rsquo

Pros

• Bally & rsquo’s has pledged that a Chicago casino will serve as its “flagship property” and the centerpiece of its casino portfolio.
• Unlike Rush Street (Rivers Des Plaines) and Hard Rock (Rockford Gary), Bally’s has no nearby competition.
• This US product is growing due to its numerous regional sports networks and significant investment in the sports betting industry.
• The game might feature several amenities specific to Chicago, like an Illinois sports museum.
• If selected, Bally guarantees the city an upfront payment of $50 million.

Cons

• Also, it has several development phases, which raises questions about the timeline.
• This request has been significantly opposed by some individuals, including Ald. Fourth Sophia King from the neighborhood who is strongly against it.
• CTA and Metra are not as visible compared to some other proposals.

One Central Hard Rock

Pros

If One Central is constructed, it will have a system of different transportation companies, such as CTA, Metra, and Amtrak. There would therefore be a wide range of public transportation options.
• Hard Rock, a globally recognized company, has been working intimately with the IGB for its Rockford project.
• Considering the nature of the project, it would stimulate significant economic development in the area, thereby making its presence strongly felt.

Cons

One Central does not yet exist, and in order to be a fact, it needs$ 6.5 billion in state funding.
• The office of Gov. Pritzker has not openly expressed support for One Central.
• Considering the lack of approval, the current state of infrastructure, and the area in question, building the casino could potentially take a significant amount of time, even if One Central eventually becomes a reality.
• Mayor Lightfoot’s office aims to select a winner in early 2022, but the timeline appears unfeasible because the state supports One Central.
• Moreover, travel companies have not expressed public support for One Central.