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

[source?]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

[jsglow]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

Going back to what I've said for 35 years.  Every Milwaukeean should be forced to live somewhere else for at least a year so they can know how freakin' good they've got it.

[GGGG]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

LOL.

Right.  Because the alternative to spending this amount of money on a new arena is "doing nothing."  Look, people are rightfully questioning the economic benefit of spending this amount of money.  They are rightfully skeptical of the economic projections, because they have been shown in other cities to be unrealistic.

My feeling is that if this goes through, it will end up as a nice area of town.  I also think it will not generate enough of a market as projected, and you will see some closures either along Water Street or in the Third Ward.

But I have long believed that paying to keep the Bucks isn't just an economic issue.  If the citizens of the City, County and State want an NBA team, this is what has to happen.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.

You can make this claim about anything and everything.  It's all about choices.  How vital is it to have a new stadium vs FILL IN BLANK.  The pie isn't endless in money.  That's what this is about.

I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying the idea that stadiums  pay for themselves and infuse all this extra money, isn't something that is conclusive and many experts say flat out doesn't happen at all. 

Also, I do find it sad that these buildings become throw away items in such a short amount of time.  Wasteful....expensive and wasteful. 

[brewcity77]

Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing...

Totally tongue in cheek, but this is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Long term, it will cost $50M for the state to keep the Bucks and get a new downtown Milwaukee entertainment complex. That's pretty cheap.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone will find a better way to spend $50M that will create as many jobs in terms of construction and long-term in terms of employment, attract at least 13 young millionaires and bonus tax money equivalent to what will be gained annually on the jock tax, and give our largest city such a potentially attractive, growth oriented area.

Will it all come up seashells and balloons? Probably not. But there really are only two options here:

1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.

2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.

That's it. There is no option 3, there is no option 4, there are no other viable choices on the table. Either stick with the crappy, decaying downtown area that has withered for decades and dies north of the BC or attempt to rebuild the area while keeping a pro franchise and the incumbent tax revenue and hopefully attracting businesses and residents to the downtown area.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Poor billionaire owner. I'd feel like slapping him. Don't like the risk, sell the team. Don't want the risk, don't buy the team. No one wants to buy, move the team. It's not absurd, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and he thinks they should fund their stadiums? Stadiums only bring value when the team is competitive, and when the team is competitive the arena doesn't matter.

Ziggy Wilf whined about the same thing here in MN. As predicted by most everyone, he'll have his investment back in 3-5 years. Seat licensing, naming rights, increased income, and yes, value of the team. Meanwhile, this ridiculous gaming tax they came up with is creating about 10% of it's predicted income. They play 10 home games a year.

His point wasn't asking for pity, but educating people who wrongly thing valuations somehow mean cash flows or revenue.  It does not.  Similar to how many people look at the NCAA and they go "wow, took in $900 million"....that doesn't mean profit, as those dollars are immediately turned around and go to scholarships, etc, back to the schools.   I think his frustration was the fundamental misundertanding by many citizens who probably never took a business or economics class in their life.

[GGGG]

Totally tongue in cheek, but this is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Long term, it will cost $50M for the state to keep the Bucks and get a new downtown Milwaukee entertainment complex. That's pretty cheap.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone will find a better way to spend $50M that will create as many jobs in terms of construction and long-term in terms of employment, attract at least 13 young millionaires and bonus tax money equivalent to what will be gained annually on the jock tax, and give our largest city such a potentially attractive, growth oriented area.

Will it all come up seashells and balloons? Probably not. But there really are only two options here:

1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.

2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.

That's it. There is no option 3, there is no option 4, there are no other viable choices on the table. Either stick with the crappy, decaying downtown area that has withered for decades and dies north of the BC or attempt to rebuild the area while keeping a pro franchise and the incumbent tax revenue and hopefully attracting businesses and residents to the downtown area.

Yep.  This is where I am.  And while I don't think #2 will live up to the hype, IMO its a better alternative than #1.  

In my previous house, my wife and I spent a lot of money to upgrade our kitchen.  It was real nice.  My wife kept saying "we will get this back when we sell it."  I kept insisting this wasn't the case saying "even if we get 50-75% back, I am all for it because we get to have a much nicer kitchen."

We probably got about 80% of it back.  The 20% was a small price to pay.  That is pretty much how I feel about this.

[mu03eng]

Totally tongue in cheek, but this is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Long term, it will cost $50M for the state to keep the Bucks and get a new downtown Milwaukee entertainment complex. That's pretty cheap.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone will find a better way to spend $50M that will create as many jobs in terms of construction and long-term in terms of employment, attract at least 13 young millionaires and bonus tax money equivalent to what will be gained annually on the jock tax, and give our largest city such a potentially attractive, growth oriented area.

Will it all come up seashells and balloons? Probably not. But there really are only two options here:

1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.

2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.

That's it. There is no option 3, there is no option 4, there are no other viable choices on the table. Either stick with the crappy, decaying downtown area that has withered for decades and dies north of the BC or attempt to rebuild the area while keeping a pro franchise and the incumbent tax revenue and hopefully attracting businesses and residents to the downtown area.

I think this is largely correct, and jsglow said it was well, when you boil it down to even the worst possible scenario of build new or not.....it actually is cheaper to keep the Bucks and build new then it is to let them go.  We're not even taking into account civic pride or a sense of investment in the city here.

Now having said that, what keeps me from 100% latching on is the city itself....I'm getting really tired of all the gum flapping out of the mayor's office without any concrete plan on how to actually contribute.  If he can find $70-80 mil to fund his 3 mile trolly to nowhere he damn well better find some good funding mechanisms to contribute significantly to a new arena.

[mu03eng]

Yep.  This is where I am.  And while I don't think #2 will live up to the hype, IMO its a better alternative than #1.  

In my previous house, my wife and I spent a lot of money to upgrade our kitchen.  It was real nice.  My wife kept saying "we will get this back when we sell it."  I kept insisting this wasn't the case saying "even if we get 50-75% back, I am all for it because we get to have a much nicer kitchen."

We probably got about 80% of it back.  The 20% was a small price to pay.  That is pretty much how I feel about this.

+1 million, I think this is a tremendous analogy (and not just because we're remodeling our kitchen this summer and have had the same arguments)

[ChicosBailBonds]

The new Golden State Warriors arena that their owner talked about yesterday....amazingly beatiful.

100% privately financed.  Taking on all the risk.  That is also what this is about in my opinion.  Heisenberg has it correct.

http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf

[source?]

You can make this claim about anything and everything.  It's all about choices.  How vital is it to have a new stadium vs FILL IN BLANK.  The pie isn't endless in money.  That's what this is about.

I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying the idea that stadiums  pay for themselves and infuse all this extra money, isn't something that is conclusive and many experts say flat out doesn't happen at all. 

Also, I do find it sad that these buildings become throw away items in such a short amount of time.  Wasteful....expensive and wasteful. 

You are intentionally ignoring the entirety of the thread up to this point. Including pages you posted on. 1.2 million people come to the BC every year. 631,000 come for the Bucks. That's a big deal. We have no other venue that attracts that many people, or can accommodate that many. It is no one's fault that the BC is breaking down. It doesn't mean we are treating it as a throw away item, it is a fact that it is structurally unsound and needs updates. If you have a time machine to go back to 1986 we can fi those problems right now. Otherwise...

[brewcity77]

Yep.  This is where I am.  And while I don't think #2 will live up to the hype, IMO its a better alternative than #1.  

In my previous house, my wife and I spent a lot of money to upgrade our kitchen.  It was real nice.  My wife kept saying "we will get this back when we sell it."  I kept insisting this wasn't the case saying "even if we get 50-75% back, I am all for it because we get to have a much nicer kitchen."

We probably got about 80% of it back.  The 20% was a small price to pay.  That is pretty much how I feel about this.

Completely true. Will the lavish drawings of downtown be the reality we see in 2 years? Probably not. But it will amount in a new arena for a relatively low state-funded cost (compared to the BC renovations needed) and a few surrounding amenities (beer garden, viewing area for large scale events, etc) that will at least make downtown more attractive. That's worth spending $50M on.

If we end up with new businesses added, a younger crowd moving into downtown, that's just icing on the cake.

[MUMonster03]

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

Good question. Marquette has always been weird about alcohol on campus. I have heard, but not sure if it is true, that basically every bar on campus that has shut down that Marquette holds the liquor license. Hence why no new bars have opened. I imagine if they hold these licenses they could easily transfer one to the Al and serve beer during games.

Also, I don't know how many people the women's team even draws anymore. I know when the Al first opened going to games there was free. I'm sure if the team became decent again more would be interested but its tough when you put up an identical 4-14 conference record and we see what that did for men's attendance.

[GGGG]

The new Golden State Warriors arena that their owner talked about yesterday....amazingly beatiful.

100% privately financed.  Taking on all the risk.  That is also what this is about in my opinion.  Heisenberg has it correct.

http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf

This is awesome.  I agree that this should be the model.  But the Bucks owners aren't going to do this.  They have options that will be personally cheaper and less risky than financing it all themselves.  Striving for the ideal is awesome, but that isn't the world we are playing in.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are intentionally ignoring the entirety of the thread up to this point. Including pages you posted on. 1.2 million people come to the BC every year. 631,000 come for the Bucks. That's a big deal. We have no other venue that attracts that many people, or can accommodate that many. It is no one's fault that the BC is breaking down. It doesn't mean we are treating it as a throw away item, it is a fact that it is structurally unsound and needs updates. If you have a time machine to go back to 1986 we can fi those problems right now. Otherwise...

I'm not ignoring it, I find the comment that it is structurally unsound and "breaking down" to be hyperbolic. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

The Bradley Center was outdated at the tender age of about 20 years. It was mentioned in 1 of the JS articles that the proposed surrounding development of the new arena will take 10-12 years to be reality. At that point are we at the half-life of the new arena already and with no open spaces in the area to build the new arena the Bucks will need in 2037?

Back in the 80's the Bucks let MKE know that sports complexes had evolved and luxury boxes were a revenue necessity thus the BC was built. Now we have learned that arena design philosophy has again evolved and the BC is uncompetitive financially. You know future arena evolution will make the new arena untenable at some point but where will they be able to build the Bucks 4th arena? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is awesome.  I agree that this should be the model.  But the Bucks owners aren't going to do this.  They have options that will be personally cheaper and less risky than financing it all themselves.  Striving for the ideal is awesome, but that isn't the world we are playing in.

Completely agree, but also the source of many frustrations by people.  They know a city like Milwaukee is so desperate to remain "big time" that they will do anything they can to keep a team.  That's the unfortunate part, but as you say that is the world we are playing in. 

[MUMonster03]

The Bradley Center was outdated at the tender age of about 20 years. It was mentioned in 1 of the JS articles that the proposed surrounding development of the new arena will take 10-12 years to be reality. At that point are we at the half-life of the new arena already and with no open spaces in the area to build the new arena the Bucks will need in 2037?

Back in the 80's the Bucks let MKE know that sports complexes had evolved and luxury boxes were a revenue necessity thus the BC was built. Now we have learned that arena design philosophy has again evolved and the BC is uncompetitive financially. You know future arena evolution will make the new arena untenable at some point but where will they be able to build the Bucks 4th arena? 

The Bradley Center was just poorly planned from the get go. Two NBA arenas opened in 1988. The Bradley Center and The Palace of Auburn Hills. Now the Bradley Center is outdated and needs to be replaced. While the Palace was built with future improvements in mind that would keep it operational for a much longer period of time. They have progressively done over $100M in upgrades to it since its opening and the only talk of replacement is to get the Pistons back into Detroit to try and help the downtown area since it already has the Lions and Tigers with new stadiums.

[source?]

I'm not ignoring it, I find the comment that it is structurally unsound and "breaking down" to be hyperbolic. 

That's your opinion. The current operators/city have said as much. You should PM me with the details of the study you did on the BC. I'd be interested in your results. Conversely, if you haven't done a detailed study of the arena I think I'll go with the opinion of those more involved. If you are looking at my house to buy it, and I tell you there are leaky pipes, are you really in a position to argue with me?

As an aside, are you now admitting, in light of the numbers, that Milwaukee does need a larger venue than the 10,000 seat Panther arena? Because that's what it feels like you're saying here.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's your opinion. The current operators/city have said as much. You should PM me with the details of the study you did on the BC. I'd be interested in your results. Conversely, if you haven't done a detailed study of the arena I think I'll go with the opinion of those more involved. If you are looking at my house to buy it, and I tell you there are leaky pipes, are you really in a position to argue with me?

As an aside, are you now admitting, in light of the numbers, that Milwaukee does need a larger venue than the 10,000 seat Panther arena? Because that's what it feels like you're saying here.

Please share with all of us that the BC is breaking down and structurally unsound.  I suspect the general public should know this for safety concerns.  You would do everyone a great service by pointing out those details. I'm sure claiming that it is, or "could be down the road" doesn't impact or inject fear into the equation to build a new stadium, even if it isn't true /sarc.

If I'm looking to buy your house, I have an inspector to come in before I buy it to find out what is truly wrong with it, I don't take your word for anything as the seller.

We have a 19,000 seat arena that works.  Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but stop with the idea that this is some major economic boon for the city....there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs with everything. 

[source?]

Please share with all of us that the BC is breaking down and structurally unsound.  I suspect the general public should know this for safety concerns.  You would do everyone a great service by pointing out those details. I'm sure claiming that it is, or "could be down the road" doesn't impact or inject fear into the equation to build a new stadium, even if it isn't true /sarc.

If I'm looking to buy your house, I have an inspector to come in before I buy it to find out what is truly wrong with it, I don't take your word for anything as the seller.

We have a 19,000 seat arena that works.  Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but stop with the idea that this is some major economic boon for the city....there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs with everything. 

Cursory google search that could have easily been performed by you reveals:

http://www.biztimes.com/article/20131125/MAGAZINE03/311219982/0/magazine02

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41937182.html

I've shown you mine. Your turn.

[source?]

And did anyone seriously miss the fact that there have been games delayed due to the roof leaking?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Cursory google search that could have easily been performed by you reveals:

http://www.biztimes.com/article/20131125/MAGAZINE03/311219982/0/magazine02

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41937182.html

I've shown you mine. Your turn.

Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound.  Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements.  That's how this works.

Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today.  They are wants, not needs.  They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.

I should reach out to Costello. Been a long time since I spoke to him.  Would be good to catch up.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And did anyone seriously miss the fact that there have been games delayed due to the roof leaking?

Which has happened with brand new stadiums under 2 years old as well.  TEAR IT DOWN!

http://therealsingapore.com/content/brand-new-billion-dollar-national-stadium-undergo-works-fix-leaking-roof-issues

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/marlins-roof-has-holes-to-fix/

[source?]

We have a 19,000 seat arena that works.  Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but stop with the idea that this is some major economic boon for the city....there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs with everything. 

Never been my position. My position is that it is better to build with the Bucks than without. My position has been consistent and based on the facts available. Yours is based on opinion and vague, possibly analogous studies from completely different cities with entirely different situations and goals.