Schenectady County

Rivers Casino meeting pushed back a week

The city Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on July 22 to review and vote on the site p

Rivers Casino site

The city Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on July 22 to review and vote on the site plan for the Rivers Casino and Resort at Mohawk Harbor.

The Planning Commission was originally scheduled to discuss new designs for the casino during its regularly scheduled meeting on July 15, but the review of the casino plan was pushed back a week.

The agenda for the July 15 meeting has not yet been released.

The commission looked at a preliminary site plan for the casino at its last meeting on June 17. After the meeting, Rush Street officials planned to tweak the design and unveil final renderings at the next meeting when seeking site plan approval.

Rush Street Gaming of Chicago was met with a host of negative comments from the public about its switch in the casino design from modern to more traditional.

The last renderings released to the public featured a brown brick building with steel plates and red signage. The casino also has an 80-foot-tall pylon sign at the site’s entrance by Erie Boulevard and Nott Street, near Front Street.

During the July 22 meeting at 6:30 p.m. in Room 110 at City Hall, Rush Street’s design team will unveil tweaked designs of the casino after getting feedback from the commissioners and the public.

It is unclear when the operator will submit the updated plans to the city ahead of the Planning Commission meeting.

The $330 million casino will be built on the old Alco site, renamed Mohawk Harbor, and house 1,150 slot machines and 66 table games. The building will be about 150,000 square feet with an adjacent 150-room hotel and five-story parking garage.

Rush Street is still waiting to receive a casino license from the state Gaming Commission, which is expected by the end of the year. Once Rush has the license in hand, the casino would be built within 16 months.

Categories: Business, News

Leave a Reply