19
Apr
2005
As a longtime Rock Island resident, I followed the ongoing saga of Davenport's proposed relocation of the Rhythm City Casino gaming complex with an attitude of bemused detachment. Having recently moved to Davenport, I've found the issue to be of more immediate interest. I was somewhat surprised at the general tone of the letter on the topic (titled "Think Positive") submitted by Donald Decker, former officer of the Riverboat Development Authority, which ran in the April 6 issue of the Reader.
I'm no big fan of the current gaming development. A visitor to the Quad Cities, driving down River Drive after dark and glancing south at the garish display of klieg lights and neon, might be led to believe that either (a) it's a maximum security prison, (b) the mother ship from Close Encounters of the Third Kind just landed, or (c) the circus is in town.
I find it rather unsettling that Mr. Decker has joined the chorus of other relocation backers, repeating the mantra: "We only have two choices. There is no other choice." This is a classic example of The Big Lie. Keep shoving it down their throats long enough and they'll eventually swallow it.
What about the vast and greatly under-utilized tract of land west of the Centennial Bridge? It would be closer to and more visible from a thoroughfare that carries far more traffic than the Arsenal Bridge. Or the riverfront area east of the Arsenal Bridge, where I understand the industries are to be moved out to make way for more aesthetic development? Why would Mr. Decker have us believe that these obvious alternatives are nonexistent?
And what about the sky bridge, specifically designed to take folks from downtown and deposit them right at the casino's front door? It's not even completed yet, and now they want to move the boat several hundred yards upstream! Perhaps it should have been designed on wheels, like the jetway boarding ramps at the airport. Then, every time the casino decided to move, we could just roll the thing around to meet them.
I read that upon completion of the new hotel, Isle of Capri intends to give the existing Blackhawk Hotel to the city. Uh huh. And then what the hell are we going to do with it? The building is old, expensive to maintain, and could hardly be energy efficient. I cannot imagine an "adaptive re-use" of the structure as anything other than a hotel, and yet the recent closure of the Clarion a few blocks away would indicate there is presently no need in the area for additional hotel rooms. Does Davenport really need another decaying, empty building? If not, what will it cost Davenport taxpayers to demolish this "gift"? Has the city given any thought to what it will do with the resulting empty lot? And do we really need another empty lot?
I worked on the Mississippi River for more than 15 years, and was consistently amazed by the number of foreign tourists lined up along the lock walls. They didn't come halfway around the world to play blackjack or slot machines. They came to view the river. Mr. Decker writes that the city treats the hotel project as if it were "full of vile unknown evils." The proposed hotel will simply screw up Davenport's most valuable natural resource - our view of the river. That's not an unknown evil. That's an inescapable fact.
A few weeks back, a visitor wrote to the Reader to compliment us on our riverfront, and to express amazement that we would consider building, in her words, "a wall" between the city and the river. Over the past several decades, every time a major flood crest rolled down the Mississippi, Davenport has been subjected to destruction on an almost biblical scale. It could be avoided by the construction of a levee system, and yet the city has intentionally chosen not to install flood protection. Davenport has decided that it's worth the inevitable flood damage to preserve its scenic riverfront. So why are we now discussing building what is so accurately described as "a wall" along the river? And make no mistake. For the casino and its guests, it will be a hotel with a really nice view. For the rest of us walking, riding, or driving past, it will simply be a wall.
How big a wall? I recently realized that every architectural rendition I've seen of the new hotel has consisted of aerial views. Yet very few of us are going to see the building from the air. We're going to be viewing it from ground level.
I envision tourists who come to do something other than gamble returning home and saying, "Oh yeah, Davenport. That's the place with the huge casino complex. And I think there might be a river there, too." Is this Mr. Decker's vision of "a modern, progressive city"?
Mr. Decker admonishes us to "think positive." Okay. After careful consideration of the subject, I'm positive I don't want the scenic vistas of our riverfront despoiled by the erection of a huge monolith whose only purpose is to enhance the profit margin of an international corporation.
I'm no big fan of the current gaming development. A visitor to the Quad Cities, driving down River Drive after dark and glancing south at the garish display of klieg lights and neon, might be led to believe that either (a) it's a maximum security prison, (b) the mother ship from Close Encounters of the Third Kind just landed, or (c) the circus is in town.
I find it rather unsettling that Mr. Decker has joined the chorus of other relocation backers, repeating the mantra: "We only have two choices. There is no other choice." This is a classic example of The Big Lie. Keep shoving it down their throats long enough and they'll eventually swallow it.
What about the vast and greatly under-utilized tract of land west of the Centennial Bridge? It would be closer to and more visible from a thoroughfare that carries far more traffic than the Arsenal Bridge. Or the riverfront area east of the Arsenal Bridge, where I understand the industries are to be moved out to make way for more aesthetic development? Why would Mr. Decker have us believe that these obvious alternatives are nonexistent?
And what about the sky bridge, specifically designed to take folks from downtown and deposit them right at the casino's front door? It's not even completed yet, and now they want to move the boat several hundred yards upstream! Perhaps it should have been designed on wheels, like the jetway boarding ramps at the airport. Then, every time the casino decided to move, we could just roll the thing around to meet them.
I read that upon completion of the new hotel, Isle of Capri intends to give the existing Blackhawk Hotel to the city. Uh huh. And then what the hell are we going to do with it? The building is old, expensive to maintain, and could hardly be energy efficient. I cannot imagine an "adaptive re-use" of the structure as anything other than a hotel, and yet the recent closure of the Clarion a few blocks away would indicate there is presently no need in the area for additional hotel rooms. Does Davenport really need another decaying, empty building? If not, what will it cost Davenport taxpayers to demolish this "gift"? Has the city given any thought to what it will do with the resulting empty lot? And do we really need another empty lot?
I worked on the Mississippi River for more than 15 years, and was consistently amazed by the number of foreign tourists lined up along the lock walls. They didn't come halfway around the world to play blackjack or slot machines. They came to view the river. Mr. Decker writes that the city treats the hotel project as if it were "full of vile unknown evils." The proposed hotel will simply screw up Davenport's most valuable natural resource - our view of the river. That's not an unknown evil. That's an inescapable fact.
A few weeks back, a visitor wrote to the Reader to compliment us on our riverfront, and to express amazement that we would consider building, in her words, "a wall" between the city and the river. Over the past several decades, every time a major flood crest rolled down the Mississippi, Davenport has been subjected to destruction on an almost biblical scale. It could be avoided by the construction of a levee system, and yet the city has intentionally chosen not to install flood protection. Davenport has decided that it's worth the inevitable flood damage to preserve its scenic riverfront. So why are we now discussing building what is so accurately described as "a wall" along the river? And make no mistake. For the casino and its guests, it will be a hotel with a really nice view. For the rest of us walking, riding, or driving past, it will simply be a wall.
How big a wall? I recently realized that every architectural rendition I've seen of the new hotel has consisted of aerial views. Yet very few of us are going to see the building from the air. We're going to be viewing it from ground level.
I envision tourists who come to do something other than gamble returning home and saying, "Oh yeah, Davenport. That's the place with the huge casino complex. And I think there might be a river there, too." Is this Mr. Decker's vision of "a modern, progressive city"?
Mr. Decker admonishes us to "think positive." Okay. After careful consideration of the subject, I'm positive I don't want the scenic vistas of our riverfront despoiled by the erection of a huge monolith whose only purpose is to enhance the profit margin of an international corporation.
