Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC

[Marquette_g]

I like that kind of thinking, but won't Milwaukee attract these people anyways? Are the Bucks and a new arena really part of driving that movement?

Couldn't you have said the same thing about Cincinnati.  Their new riverfront development seems to have been a success of mixed use space with retail, bars, and residential all surrounding the new baseball stadium.  They aren't perfect analogies, as no two cities are exactly the same, but the idea of new stadium district revitalizing a downtown has worked.

I would also contend that there has been a lack of willingness to change the current Bradley Center area over the last 5-10 years because everyone knew that a new stadium had to be built, and without knowing the location, why invest money in an area that may become obsolete.

[mu03eng]

I like that kind of thinking, but won't Milwaukee attract these people anyways? Are the Bucks and a new arena really part of driving that movement?

Correct, the trend is to Milwaukee, but the question is where.  Brewer's Hill is already developed, north Water St is getting developed.  That means potentially the MLK corridor north of Manpower and south of Reservoir could be developed, creating a Boomer community.  Based on what I see, no empirical evidence, I don't think there is really a boomer community destination yet in Milwaukee.

Third Ward is more of the 20-30 somethings, East side is college kids and hipsters, Lakefront is the quite wealthy.  This new area could be the right niche for the middle-upper class boomers looking to relocate downtown.  Lot of speculation on my part, but if we had a city planning organization worth a crap they could definitely make it work.

[mu03eng]

I would also contend that there has been a lack of willingness to change the current Bradley Center area over the last 5-10 years because everyone knew that a new stadium had to be built, and without knowing the location, why invest money in an area that may become obsolete.

I agree with this part.....I think there was a lot of "well it's going away and may or may not be replaced" thinking that was involved in investment decisions.  One of the reasons I don't think anyone bit at the Park East corridor previously....expensive to develop and tied to a stadium area we have no idea if it will be viable in the next 5-10 years

[WarriorPride68]

Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"


That is not scoop approved

[Marquette_g]

Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"


That is not scoop approved

+1

[brewcity77]

Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"


That is not scoop approved

I don't think you'll have to worry about that, but of course when we get first round games, they'll be here every time while we get shipped to Omaha.

[jsglow]

Correct, the trend is to Milwaukee, but the question is where.  Brewer's Hill is already developed, north Water St is getting developed.  That means potentially the MLK corridor north of Manpower and south of Reservoir could be developed, creating a Boomer community.  Based on what I see, no empirical evidence, I don't think there is really a boomer community destination yet in Milwaukee.

Third Ward is more of the 20-30 somethings, East side is college kids and hipsters, Lakefront is the quite wealthy.  This new area could be the right niche for the middle-upper class boomers looking to relocate downtown.  Lot of speculation on my part, but if we had a city planning organization worth a crap they could definitely make it work.

Cool.  Chick and I finish up this paying for college bull crap and we're IN!

[dgies9156]

Cool.  Chick and I finish up this paying for college bull crap and we're IN!

You guys and us as well. We're already thinking about the Lakefront/East Side once our kids are out of college.

Don't see us living next door to Bucksland Arena though. My wife would divorce me as I'd stop going to Florida.

[mu-rara]

Forgive me if I'm just being a wet blanket...

We have had a multipurpose arena in the same neighborhood for the past 20+ years.

The areas to the north (ace hardware, some warehouses), west (Pabst development), and even the bar across the street (Legends) have all been either underutilized or unutilized all together since the day the BC opened.

Why would putting a new arena in the same neighborhood suddenly make long-term, meaningful growth in these areas possible? If the answer is simply "NEW!", then they should scrap this plan immediately and send everybody packing.

Franklyn Gimbel?

It seems this whole process was driven by his desire to keep the Arena and Auditorium in place.  The optimal locations were never really considered.

[jficke13]

I fully expect the arena to get built along with the practice facility and a parking garage or two. After that, I hope other stuff gets done but I doubt it will. Hope I'm wrong though.

[warriorchick]

Cool.  Chick and I finish up this paying for college bull crap and we're IN!

Have we discussed this?

[damuts222]

Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"


That is not scoop approved

And will never happen.  No final four will be in a 17,000 capacity stadium, there all played in football stadiums.  More butts in the seats equals more NCAA mulla.

[warriorchick]

And will never happen.  No final four will be in a 17,000 capacity stadium, there all played in football stadiums.  More butts in the seats equals more NCAA mulla.

I guess they were hoping Badger fans would be dumb enough to fall for that and support the project.

[MUMonster03]

No. Why base future attendance predictions on this one, admittedly down, season? Over the past decade Marquette has some of the best attendance in all of college sports.

Plus you can't drink beers at an on-campus facility.....Just sayin'.

Actually you can. Alcohol sales are actually based on the Conference and then it is up to the school. Both Xavier and Cincinnati sell beer at their on campus arenas.

[warriorchick]

Actually you can. Alcohol sales are actually based on the Conference and then it is up to the school. Both Xavier and Cincinnati sell beer at their on campus arenas.

Then why the hell aren't we selling beer in The Al?  They want attendance for women's games to improve; there you go.

[4everwarriors]

Wasn't Too Tan Tommy gonna donate? Maybe he's waitin' for the new MU basketball arena, hey?

[brewcity77]

And will never happen.  No final four will be in a 17,000 capacity stadium, there all played in football stadiums.  More butts in the seats equals more NCAA mulla.

Agreed, but a regional goal is a real possibility.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I agree with this part.....I think there was a lot of "well it's going away and may or may not be replaced" thinking that was involved in investment decisions.  One of the reasons I don't think anyone bit at the Park East corridor previously....expensive to develop and tied to a stadium area we have no idea if it will be viable in the next 5-10 years

I respectfully disagree.

If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:

#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.

or

#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all. 

If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.

Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.

From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?

[Stretchdeltsig]

It's a shame that Seligman blundered so much.  Not building Miller Park downtown, like the Bucks, where people can walk to and from restaurants and hotels may be his biggest blunder.  Instead fans have to fight the freeway traffic and out of town fans leave the area after the games.  Seligman was certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[4everwarriors]

On the contrare. Buddy wanted Miller Park exactly wear it is for financial reasons specific to his ball club. By placin' it in essentially in no man's land, he had an exclusive and captive audience to feed the Brewers revenue stream as it relates to concession and parkin' revenues. The stadium wasn't gonna get done if the site was downtown. Selig didn't give a chit 'bout revitalizin' downtown Milwaukee.

[mu_hilltopper]

I respectfully disagree.

If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:

#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.

or

#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all. 

If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.

Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.

From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?

All of this.  +999.

The one caveat is .. on-court performance.  The Bucks have been sub-mediocre forever.    If the Bucks improve to a team people really want to watch, things could turn around.    If they continue to miss the playoffs, or never get out of the first round .. this development is a total bust.

[MU111]

I respectfully disagree.

If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:

#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.

or

#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all. 

If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.

Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.

From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?

Bingo.

[mu03eng]

I respectfully disagree.

If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:

#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.

or

#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all. 

If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.

Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.

From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement 

First, make no mistake, I'm not forming the hypothesis "build it and they will come enmass".  However, there is a possibility, if all things are accounted for, that this could be the corner stone of a development.

There are multiple things that go into economic development success, I would put forth you need the following things to happen together to have a significant revitalization:
-Momentum (multiple projects in an area to sustain and boost development...sum is better than the parts by themselves)
-Demographic trends in your favor
-Civic planning and coordination
-Correct expenses for what you are trying to do (I argue Park East never developed because the mitigation costs associated with developing the land made development as part of the BC cost prohibitive)
-Luck

As you point out with Tosa and Bay View, they are experiencing growth without a stadium...I'd argue they have all of the above going for them in those instances.  That doesn't mean a stadium couldn't be part of all of that.

In short, I don't think the stadium guarantees success ever, but in this particular instance I believe there is a convergence that gives it a good shot, as part of a grand plan, to be very successful.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement 

First, make no mistake, I'm not forming the hypothesis "build it and they will come enmass".  However, there is a possibility, if all things are accounted for, that this could be the corner stone of a development.

There are multiple things that go into economic development success, I would put forth you need the following things to happen together to have a significant revitalization:
-Momentum (multiple projects in an area to sustain and boost development...sum is better than the parts by themselves)
-Demographic trends in your favor
-Civic planning and coordination
-Correct expenses for what you are trying to do (I argue Park East never developed because the mitigation costs associated with developing the land made development as part of the BC cost prohibitive)
-Luck

As you point out with Tosa and Bay View, they are experiencing growth without a stadium...I'd argue they have all of the above going for them in those instances.  That doesn't mean a stadium couldn't be part of all of that.

In short, I don't think the stadium guarantees success ever, but in this particular instance I believe there is a convergence that gives it a good shot, as part of a grand plan, to be very successful.

In general, I agree. I just need somebody who is getting paid to do this stuff to detail out for me why this arena is going to be a far better economic driver than the BC has been.

To make an analogy: If I chose to billboards for a client that get mediocre results, I can't go back and recommend the same thing 5 years later and just say "Yes, but it's NEW!". I need to detail out what went wrong the first time, and why it's going to work this time.

There are no guarantees, but I need some transparency and legit rationale from the planners. Right now, I just have "It's NEW!!!". Great. Doesn't mean it will work... or that we couldn't see more benefits for city planning and growth by investing 500m elsewhere. 

[jficke13]

In general, I agree. I just need somebody who is getting paid to do this stuff to detail out for me why this arena is going to be a far better economic driver than the BC has been.

To make an analogy: If I chose to billboards for a client that get mediocre results, I can't go back and recommend the same thing 5 years later and just say "Yes, but it's NEW!". I need to detail out what went wrong the first time, and why it's going to work this time.

There are no guarantees, but I need some transparency and legit rationale from the planners. Right now, I just have "It's NEW!!!". Great. Doesn't mean it will work... or that we couldn't see more benefits for city planning and growth by investing 500m elsewhere. 

I wasn't there when the BC was being built so I don't really know this but, when they built the BC did they have a bunch of real estate executives and developers putting forth a cohesive urban plan like this? That could be the difference between then and now.

So the difference between then and now is:

When the BC was built they said: "Look it's NEW!"

When the Harley Davidson Arena is getting built they're saying: "Look it's new and we have this comprehensive vision of other projects we're supporting to try to get this area redeveloped."

Doesn't meant it will work though.