Chicago is blessed with such a favorable position not only among US cities, but other global cities, as well.

It is essential to keep that edge going. Staying a great city is hard work and the competition is fierce.

Chicago cannot afford to let the following lag. Here are some things that I feel are necessary to build:

• O'Hare expansion and/or Peotone construction: hopefully both. O'Hare wil always be the metro area's main airport due to its location. Peotone construction would do wonders for the south suburban economy and bring it more in line with the rest of Chicagoland

• Casino: one quality casino is perfectly consistent with the city's most succesful efforts to make downtown a draw. As I stated on another thread, the casino would enhance tourism and conventions with little effect on the poor and minorities (who already have sufficient outlets to gamble in the area already)

• Circle line: a necessary link in making rapid transit work even better in the city. It will spur development along its line, increase the size of the downtown area, and will give Chicagoans more Manhattan type of transportation options. It will make the greater downtown area even more attractive to those who do not want to drive.

• Light rail: this one shouldn't have died. The Streterville area desperately needs rapid transit and Michigan Avenue needs to be connected to the Metra stations west of the river. This would be an integral piece in integrating downtown transit.

• Development of the south lakefront. Rebuilding is underway. Much of the redevelopment between McCormick Place and Jackson Park will do even more to spur quality developments in South Side lakefront communities.

Are there other projects that others see as essential?

I'm against a casino. I don't want a casino in the Loop. What is a casino going to do? Money, fine, but we can get money other ways. Pah. If you're going to make a casino, at least don't put it in our precious Loop. Put it someplace that already is kind of cheesy, like the Magnificent Mile.

I'm going to add my own do-gooder, bleeding-heart liberal goals:

- continued restructuring of the city's public housing system and fostering of mixed-income communities

- efforts to hold down gentrification--obviously some isn't a bad thing, but if it gets to the point where people can't afford to live in the city--and a lot of people are at that point--it's not doing us any good

- real improvement of the city's public schools. That's one way to ensure middle class families will be attracted to the city. Frankly, I don't know enough about Renaissance 2020 to make any kind of judgement about whether it's a good program.

And of course my inner architecture geek goals:

- quality, forward-thinking architecture! Tear down every building built in the last five years north of the river! Replace them with something good!

Good inputs oshkeoto... but, putting the casino on the Mile (or even Navy Pier, for example) does nothing to enhance those areas economically. The casino will simply give out what people put into it. Whereas, if you located it in an area that struggles to draw people at night and on the weekends (such as the loop), you get so much more bang for your buck. For every dollar that people spend gambling, they'll also spend a dollar at a Loop restaurant or retail outlet. Whereas those dollars are going to already get spent on Michigan Avenue to begin with. Does that make sense?

"Does that make sense?"

Yeah, sure it does, but I still think we could do that with something else. And even if we can't--I don't know. I'm being an old fudge, but I am not happy at all at the prospect of a casino in the Loop.

Pah.

What would you suggest to regenerate interest in the Loop then? Millenium Park is a start, but it really doesn't deter people from walking away from Michigan Ave. I just moved to the South Loop and find it a fairly boring place to be after 5 PM. I know its a corporate center, but something so beautiful architechturally as the Loop needs to be showcased.

the casino would enhance tourism and conventions with little effect on the poor and minorities (who already have sufficient outlets to gamble in the area already)

Can i just ask: what the f*ck are you trying to say? That somehow only the poor and minorities (who are apparently interchangeable by your juxtaposition) go to gamble or go towards a vice, a vice that is inherently self-destructive by the implied preconditions?

Can i just ask: what the f*ck are you trying to say? That somehow only the poor and minorities (who are apparently interchangeable by your juxtaposition) go to gamble or go towards a vice, a vice that is inherently self-destructive by the implied preconditions?

Hardly. And I'm sorry if you thought that was anywhere remotely what I mean. If I phrased it incorrectly, I apoligize since my intent was the opposite.

There is a big fear that urban casinos have a totally negative effect on people of low income; minorities are a significant part of this group. It is a major social issue that affects the placement of casinos. Due to the sad plight of people in low income groups where $ is short, gambling has often been a source to look for making it big. And there by the grace of God go the rest of us who could easily be in such a position.

My point was that people who are so described already have close-by casinos in the Chicago area and a downtown one would be more geared to both tourism and the convention trade. My feeling is that one downtown casino would not produce many social problems.

Simulcra, if you have read what I have posted on this board before (and I'm sure you have), you would know that I am extremely concerned about social issues. I have innumerable times stated that I lament that our cities have turned their backs on the poor and how insidious racism is a problem in them, as well. It is obvious that so much of the reason minorities are often in lower income groups is racism itself.

I regret that my phrasing did not convey the point that I was trying to make. But we all throw out the words and they are interpreted in different ways by whomever reads them. Knowing that fact, for me, makes me want to give other posters the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with you asking me to explain what I meant here (in fact, I'm glad you did, if clarity was needed). I just don't think I deserved a what the f*ck are you trying to say.

Can i just ask: what the f*ck are you trying to say? That somehow only the poor and minorities (who are apparently interchangeable by your juxtaposition) go to gamble or go towards a vice, a vice that is inherently self-destructive by the implied preconditions?

I asked the same thing but apparently my post was deleted.

Hardly. And I'm sorry if you thought that was anywhere remotely what I mean. If I phrased it incorrectly, I apoligize since my intent was the opposite.

There is a big fear that urban casinos have a totally negative effect on people of low income; minorities are a significant part of this group. It is a major social issue that affects the placement of casinos. Due to the sad plight of people in low income groups where $ is short, gambling has often been a source to look for making it big. And there by the grace of God go the rest of us who could easily be in such a position.

My point was that people who are so described already have close-by casinos in the Chicago area and a downtown one would be more geared to both tourism and the convention trade. My feeling is that one downtown casino would not produce many social problems.

Simulcra, if you have read what I have posted on this board before (and I'm sure you have), you would know that I am extremely concerned about social issues. I have innumerable times stated that I lament that our cities have turned their backs on the poor and how insidious racism is a problem in them, as well. It is obvious that so much of the reason minorities are often in lower income groups is racism itself.

I regret that my phrasing did not convey the point that I was trying to make. But we all throw out the words and they are interpreted in different ways by whomever reads them. Knowing that fact, for me, makes me want to give other posters the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with you asking me to explain what I meant here (in fact, I'm glad you did, if clarity was needed). I just don't think I deserved a what the f*ck are you trying to say.

I think Simulcra's reaction was justified. I was highly offended by your post.

I regret that my phrasing did not convey the point that I was trying to make. But we all throw out the words and they are interpreted in different ways by whomever reads them. Knowing that fact, for me, makes me want to give other posters the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with you asking me to explain what I meant here (in fact, I'm glad you did, if clarity was needed). I just don't think I deserved a what the f*ck are you trying to say.

Alright, well, I'm glad you cleared it up. But my reaction was highly justified for the same reason why you say that you don't you deserved it. This was the first time I had seen such a juxtaposition, and the fact that none of your other posts ever revealed any similar sentiments led me to fear that this was an opinion that was just the norm and taken for granted as a priori knowledge. That is far more frightening (that potentially such categorical labelling/branding/racism is ingrained as a truth), and seeing it once here and once elsewhere both by you led to a far more outraged outburst this time. (This was the second time I saw you mention it, the first time my response was much more contained.)

But I highly recommend you reread that line. I honestly don't understand how anyone could not think would not be offended by the quick passing mention/juxtaposition given. to me, it was akin to saying something like "legalising marjiuana would have many benefits with little impact on the homeless and the blacks."

I think that a casino would be ok, if it is done in a classy manner. We don't have to have a faux representation like Las Vegas does. If it's done in a classy way, I feel that it could be very successful.

Simulcra,

Rather than jump on anyone who comes here and expresses what was intended as concern for those at greatest risk for negative fallouts from legalized gambling, perhaps you should do some research into the topic. You'll quickly see that minorities are indeed more likely to engage in a self-deprecating degree of gambling.

We can discuss the underlying causes that precipitate this problem if you like (and if we do, I think you'll see that I'm a fairly progressive, open-minded person). But if you are going to decry people who are stating plain-truth, then I fear that that is a dead-ended proposition.

Compulsive gambling IS a greater problem for minorities and the poor. If you weren't so close-minded to that very possibility, you could go do some research and see that not ALL minorities are so adversly affected. But instead you are too busy lashing out at phantom attacks. People of many races, creeds, and ethos gamble for fun and relaxation. For most people it's a recreational activity. For some it is not. The facts bear out the argument that compulsive gambling remains a larger problem for a) minorities b) the poor c) alcoholics.

Does this mean that there are more minorities with problems gambling than caucasions? Almost certainly not. What it does mean is that minorities suffer from a disproportionate number of problem gamblers and that as such, the negative effects on the communities as a whole are far greater than they are for caucasians.

Such close-mindedness on your part is very dangerous. Question the underlying causes if you will, but don't deny the reality. That will only hamper the progress of society.

^Oh lordy, not this.

Simulcra,

Rather than jump on anyone who comes here and expresses what was intended as concern for those at greatest risk for negative fallouts from legalized gambling, perhaps you should do some research into the topic. You'll quickly see that minorities are indeed more likely to engage in a self-deprecating degree of gambling.

We can discuss the underlying causes that precipitate this problem if you like (and if we do, I think you'll see that I'm a fairly progressive, open-minded person). But if you are going to decry people who are stating plain-truth, then I fear that that is a dead-ended proposition.

Compulsive gambling IS a greater problem for minorities and the poor. If you weren't so close-minded to that very possibility, you could go do some research and see that not ALL minorities are so adversly affected. But instead you are too busy lashing out at phantom attacks. People of many races, creeds, and ethos gamble for fun and relaxation. For most people it's a recreational activity. For some it is not. The facts bear out the argument that compulsive gambling remains a larger problem for a) minorities b) the poor c) alcoholics.

Does this mean that there are more minorities with problems gambling than caucasions? Almost certainly not. What it does mean is that minorities suffer from a disproportionate number of problem gamblers and that as such, the negative effects on the communities as a whole are far greater than they are for caucasians.

Such close-mindedness on your part is very dangerous. Question the underlying causes if you will, but don't deny the reality. That will only hamper the progress of society.

Look, if it's a minority problem why to you give a damn? Take your pseudo-intellectualism and shove it.

Was there a light rail proposal not too long ago for Chicago?

Look, if it's a minority problem why to you give a damn? Take your pseudo-intellectualism and shove it.

That's an absurd statement and taken at its maxim it means that any issue that originates within the caucasian community but which negatively affects any neighboring minorities should be ignored by those minorities.

Problems suffered by a significant portion of a significant constituency of the city are, or at least ought to be, of importance to every member of the City. If X building goes in and Y people may suffer more than they benefit from the building's addition then that possibility needs to be discussed. In weighing the plusses and minuses, we need also to determine the veracity of the suggestion that Y people may suffer.

I live in our city. I work in our city. It is my home and will be for the rest of my life. If an issue detrimentally affects Chicago, I give it consideration. And if close-minded individuals such as yourself cry foul every time a problem is exposed that perhaps strikes too close to home, I feel that you do the city (or at the very least a forum that should perpetuate forward thinking and forward city planning) a considerable disservice.

I won't address your "pseudo" claims other than to point out the absurdity of a poster who refers to others as "weak-minded" growing upset when I submit a posting that encourages the free-exchange of ideas and the acceptance of a serious problem.

I apologize to everyone else who feels caught up in the flames and I feel perhaps I should just abide by the advice offered by others here to simply ignore Dampyre. He truly is close-minded.

I apologize to everyone else who feels caught up in the flames
Thank you and shut up.

qrwerty... has Damp hijacked your account? That doesn't sound like anything else I've ever heard you say.

Tired of the race arguments. It is the same over and over again it just goes in circles, it is the same thing decade after decade. I have lived in this city for two years and one thing I like about it is that, at least in my world, I never hear bitching about race, sexual orientation, immigrants, etc. except here on SSC, unlike just about everywhere else I have lived.

Boy, I don't know if I'd call it essential, but having visited San Antonio recently and spending some time on their Riverwalk, I'd say that the construction of a solid riverwalk extending along Wacker Drive would be absolutely awesome.

Now...I'm not saying it needs to be the equivalent of San Antonio's. Obviously they have the advantage of much milder winters and an outdoor bar/grille can stay open season long. But something well landscaped, with great pathways, outdoor art, restaurants, the Vietnam War Memorial, elevators up to Wacker Drive, and concealing of as much of the lower Wackers as possible would be an absolutely stunning addition to one of Chicago's most important areas.

Trump Tower, Waterview Tower, Worldclass River Walk, Vietnam War Memorial, all leading up to the Lasalle Canyon? Now that WOULD BE awesome.

You said it! Who do you know who could influence and push a plan like this?

Alright, well, I'm glad you cleared it up. But my reaction was highly justified for the same reason why you say that you don't you deserved it. This was the first time I had seen such a juxtaposition, and the fact that none of your other posts ever revealed any similar sentiments led me to fear that this was an opinion that was just the norm and taken for granted as a priori knowledge. That is far more frightening (that potentially such categorical labelling/branding/racism is ingrained as a truth), and seeing it once here and once elsewhere both by you led to a far more outraged outburst this time. (This was the second time I saw you mention it, the first time my response was much more contained.)

But I highly recommend you reread that line. I honestly don't understand how anyone could not think would not be offended by the quick passing mention/juxtaposition given. to me, it was akin to saying something like "legalising marjiuana would have many benefits with little impact on the homeless and the blacks."

The line was a very bad choice, made early in the morning with little thought. It came after reading another thread that discussed the negative social implications that come with urban casinos. These were, in fact, the same issues that have always been raised on the issue of a Chicago casino.

Now here is another generalization and overstatement on the topic: IMHO a good percent of the issues that minorities and/or poor face in cities like Chicago are often caused by well-off whites. We still remain a society where racism is unfortunately part of the mix and the disparity between rich and poor has become obscene. And unfortunately for people who are struggling to make it in this world find gambling a draw. Any of us could be in that position.

Hope this clarifies, and I am sorry if I offended, particularly in light of the fact that I was inarticulately trying to support a counter point of view than the way that came off.

Boy, I don't know if I'd call it essential, but having visited San Antonio recently and spending some time on their Riverwalk, I'd say that the construction of a solid riverwalk extending along Wacker Drive would be absolutely awesome.

Now...I'm not saying it needs to be the equivalent of San Antonio's. Obviously they have the advantage of much milder winters and an outdoor bar/grille can stay open season long. But something well landscaped, with great pathways, outdoor art, restaurants, the Vietnam War Memorial, elevators up to Wacker Drive, and concealing of as much of the lower Wackers as possible would be an absolutely stunning addition to one of Chicago's most important areas.

Trump Tower, Waterview Tower, Worldclass River Walk, Vietnam War Memorial, all leading up to the Lasalle Canyon? Now that WOULD BE awesome.

Could you imagine how such a riverwalk could be augmented by a full river taxi system. Right now, there are few river stops (Adams, Madison, Michigan); if there was an extended system going south to Chinatown and north up to Goose Island, that would really enhance the use of an extended riverwalk.

@bob: I made a much fuller argument in the block 37 mention of the casinos. please read.

Well, if they would just finish the damn riverwalk that they've already started... I think we'd all be pleased. There are elevators at select locations (well, at least the one that I can think of at Wabash) and lots of great planters sitting empty.

At any rate, why would you want to hide lower-Wacker? Most people that I have exposed our underground network to are simply blown away... I think it should be cherished and exposed, not hidden from view.

Even though in earlier posts I agreed that Chicago must fight to stay on top, I must admit that it is starting to enjoy the "spoils" of its hard work. Chicago has become infused with so much business, beauty, and culture that it acts like a huge magnet, drawing people and activity towards it without too much effort

However, the only reason Chicago must continue to work hard is two things:

1) Automobiles
2) The Sun-Belt

Those two go hand-in-hand, as we all know...

But Chicago can only stay on top by playing the game the way it always has. Stay urban, stay beautiful, and make BIG power plays!!!

As we all know... Daniel Burnham said it best: make no small plans. Big ideas and big follow-through has always made Chicago what it is, and that fact will never change.