Editorial: A temporary casino. Outdoor music venues by the Chicago River. Aldermen are rightly steamed.

There is a growing sense in Chicago that major changes to the city’s landscape are being rushed through by the Lightfoot administration with little in the way of consultation and a whole lot in the way of surprise. No wonder a growing number of aldermen are ticked off.

Take, for example, the temporary casino headed to the Medinah Temple, the historic former home of the Bloomingdale’s home store in the River North neighborhood. That development was announced on the day when most of the attention went to the selection of the Tribune printing plant site for the permanent Bally’s casino. Up until that point, the expectation was that the temporary gambling emporium also was headed to the River West site, located in a former Tribune warehouse building north of Chicago Avenue.

Surprise! It was the Medinah Temple, 600 N. Wabash Ave., all along.

And if the Medinah decision has been accompanied by clear plans for traffic, parking and security, all very reasonable concerns of the neighbors, we’ve not yet heard them.

It’s also worth noting that the temporary casino will soak up demand while a casino in Chicago remains a novelty. For at least three years, depending on construction delays. By the end of that window, Chicagoans may well have decided they don’t want to lose their shirts at the slots on an ordinary night and cooled off their attendance. But you can wager with impunity that a new casino will be hot at first.

No wonder the local alderman, Brendan Reilly, 42nd, called the whole idea “horrible.” And, of course, the city is carving out an exception so its temporary casino can serve booze. What could possibly go wrong?

Just a matter of days later, a similar occurrence took place that looks set to radically transform the Chicago River, a precious waterway that, in its reaches to the north and west of downtown, is associated with nature, plantings, kayaks and quiet forms of recreation. That’s all about to change.

On May 18, the City Council’s License Committee approved the Lightfoot administration’s rushed request for an “outdoor entertainment venue liquor license” to allow for concerts this summer at the site of the Morton Salt building, located at 1357 N. Elston Ave., alongside the Chicago River.

Now our memories can be fuzzy, but we’d swear that when we saw the rendering for the redevelopment of the iconic building last winter — the one that passed City Council — there was no pictured “outdoor entertainment venue” of any scale. It was to be an indoor operation. But that takes time and the venue no doubt wants to start bringing in revenue this summer.

Here again, aldermen like Michele Smith, 43rd, and Reilly were upset, as was the group known as the Friends of the Chicago River. Their annoyance was amplified by their realization that what the committee was being asked to approve also would work nicely for the new Bally’s Casino, just northwest of the Morton Salt site. Plans appear to call for an indoor entertainment venue as part of the casino development, but, hey, good to have that license on hand just in case something changes there, too.

As Smith and Reilly clearly saw it, the legislation permitted and encouraged two huge new outdoor entertainment venues, with booze, located in close proximity and both along the Chicago River. All competing with existing music venues like, for example, the still-unrestored Uptown Theatre, which the city long ago committed to restoring.

Actually, Smith and Reilly were probably worried about yet more outdoor venues sprouting up as part of Lincoln Yards, billed as a place where young professionals will want to buy a condo and live the slick urban life.

Sure, you could argue that entertainment and partying along the Chicago River will be an asset to the city, even beautifying what has been an industrial area. Neither the Tribune site nor the Morton Salt environs have been beautiful country parks, filled with natural experiences. And if you can walk, say, from Michigan Avenue all the way along the Chicago River up to the casino site and even beyond, or take a water taxi, that might be a summertime draw for both tourists and residents.

Still, where was the debate about the future of how this city wants to use the Chicago River?

The lively boat- and bar-friendly downtown riverfront, a favorite and successful project of former Mayor Rahm Emanuel is one thing. Including the river far to the north is another.

“We are now trumpeting the Chicago River as a new entertainment corridor,” Smith said.

She’s right. And the License Committee was not the place where that should have been first debated or where the people’s elected representatives got to say their piece. There should have been an opportunity for substantial public comment. These are huge projects that will change the face of an important chunk of the city. And if people flock to one place, they tend to abandon another.

The Friends of the Chicago River has been around since 1979, trying to protect the waterway as a natural resource. On its blog, the group argues that the new casino has to be sensitive to its location. “We will push for the final design to prioritize nature-focused improvements to the river’s edge,” the group writes, “including substantial neighborhood-scale public parks directly along the river with dense landscaped edges, microhabitats throughout the site, site planning with nature-based stormwater solutions, and protections for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Up until now the city generally has embraced those same goals for that section of the river. It’s hard to see how the new “outdoor entertainment venue liquor license” serves those ends. If your idea of the future of the Chicago River is a peaceful family nature walk, good luck.

Sure, people differ on how they want to spend their riverside hours. But, clearly, these are major changes.

Where is the speech from the mayor outlining the philosophy? Where is the open debate? Who are the architects and urban planners with an eye on the whole? Where is the balancing of the needs of all Chicagoans, including kids?

We’re not mollified by the word “temporary” any more than Reilly or Smith. Temporary has a Chicago way of becoming permanent.

Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.