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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I agree we have Summerfest which was actually the inspiration for "my idea/statement".  I agree depending on how you do it you can get some redundancy and might just move revenue.  However Summerfest has a specific audience:  music fans for two weeks and ethnic festivals on weekends.  Great, lets not do those things.  But what it it's a beer garden/sports bar but outdoors.  How awesome would it be on a nice week night to go watch the NBA playoffs in an outdoor venue and have some beers.  Or may World Cup or the Olympics are on and its nice weather....why sit inside and watch it?  And ya know if I'm going to spend time around that area cause it's cool and fun I should probably live near there so I can stumble home.

I agree with your innovation stuff.....but let's innovate within the scope of things we know are successful.

Yep, and I think the beer garden could be cool. My only point was they could be doing the same kind of stuff at Summerfest right now, but they don't. That's either because they haven't figured it out, or because there isn't a demand. Either way, I'm not sure my tax dollars are what needs to be used to figure it out (shakes fist).

But, to your point, Summerfest is already booked with a great deal of events, and it's not centrally located, so you're not going to get people just "stopping in".

A centrally located outdoor space could be pretty cool. Could also maybe re-start a spring time event like "Riversplash", which can help draw some people to spend some money downtown.

[Pakuni]

Yep. Real innovation mostly comes with private dollars.

Not many politicians are willing to get that creative and take a risk.
 

You've made a number of good points in this thread, but this I have to disagree with.
Lots and lots of real innovation comes with public dollars.
Public money essentially created the Internet and GPS systems.
Many significant medical/pharmaceutical advancements are the result of public funding.
The algorithm which was the backbone of Google's founding was created with federal dollars.
Research into green technology gets massive public support.
All around the world innovative infrastructure projects are in the works funding by public dollars.
Here are some examples:
https://www.kpmg.com/Africa/en/Documents/Infrastructure-100-world-cities-2012.pdf

This is not to say that the private sector doesn't fund innovation as well, but public money always has, and likely always will, play a crucial role in the development of new technologies and better ways of doing things.

[mu03eng]

Yep, and I think the beer garden could be cool. My only point was they could be doing the same kind of stuff at Summerfest right now, but they don't. That's either because they haven't figured it out, or because there isn't a demand. Either way, I'm not sure my tax dollars are what needs to be used to figure it out (shakes fist).

But, to your point, Summerfest is already booked with a great deal of events, and it's not centrally located, so you're not going to get people just "stopping in".

A centrally located outdoor space could be pretty cool. Could also maybe re-start a spring time event like "Riversplash", which can help draw some people to spend some money downtown.

Yep, you're picking up what I'm putting down 

[jsglow]

Wow.  I missed a lot.  

[MDMU04]

What strikes me as being a bit off about the entire deal is the cost of the arena.  Take a look at the United Center as a comparison.

The United Center was built as a 50-50 JV between the Bulls and the Blackhawks. The project was funded through 20% private equity by the JV partners up front, with financing on the remaining 80%.  The City of Chicago paid for construction of the supporting infrastructure.  The initial construction cost in 1991 dollars was estimated to be $160MM.  By the time the project was complete in 1994, it cost $175MM.  In 2015 dollars, this is somewhere just south of $300MM.

The United Center is enormous.  It holds up to 6,000 more people for basketball games than the proposed Milwaukee arena.  It is also home to two tenants that sell out the building for a combined 82 nights per year, plus almost annual postseason dates for both teams.  It generates a lot of revenue because it has a lot of dates booked every year for as long as the two sports teams exist.

The construction financing costs were covered by the upfront commitment of money to lease the 216 luxury boxes in the UC. This brought in up to $18MM per year for the first 5 years that the building was open (1994 dollars).

I understand that the plans for the new Bucks arena look to be quite a bit more architecturally impressive than the United Center.  But why does it cost more than $200MM more to build a building that will be far smaller in scale, have far fewer luxury boxes, seat less than 6,000 fewer people, and have half of the committed revenue producing tenants?

The KFC Yum! Center in Louisville appears to be a comparable (though larger seating capacity) building to what the new Bucks arena is intended to be.  Even that cost less than $300MM to build in 2015 dollars.

Am I missing something here?  It seems like I am since it appears to be a fairly obvious question.

[brewcity77]

A centrally located outdoor space could be pretty cool. Could also maybe re-start a spring time event like "Riversplash", which can help draw some people to spend some money downtown.

I loved Riversplash. Obviously I must have been in the minority, but that was a fun event. Remember seeing Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels there.

I think an outdoor sporting beer garden would have huge potential, and would draw a slightly different crowd than we have anywhere now. A few events that it could highlight:
.

• March: Weather permitting, NCAA viewing parties. Likely be especially big for local teams.
  
• April-May: Bucks playoff road games, FA Cup, UEFA Champions League
  
• June-July: World Cup, UEFA Cup, Gold Cup, Summer Olympics, NBA Finals
  
• August-September: Brewers road games, start of NFL season
  
• October: MLB Playoffs, NFL games

.
It could even be opened in colder months for special events, weather permitting. Unseasonably warm February? How about the Super Bowl out there? I know other cities have done this already, so it isn't a completely new idea, but it's something that doesn't exist here and if you've been to Brady Street or Highbury for the World Cup, or any of the hundreds of bars in the city for NCAA games or playoff games, you know the demand is there.

This is just one thing that could help draw people downtown even when there isn't a major event going on. Would it draw away from some other things? Sure, but it would also bring in a lot of traffic that would otherwise be sitting at home doing nothing.

[brewcity77]

And as far as doing it at Summerfest...they really couldn't do the stuff I listed there. Why? Because there are things going on there every weekend. Summerfest, German Fest, Irish Fest, Festa, Polish Fest, not to mention all the other ethnic festivals that go on down there. There's also no large, centrally located screen on the grounds that is designed for this type of event. You could put it up in the Ampitheater, but again, there's already stuff going on down there.

This would be something very different than Summerfest and would attract a different crowd. Yes, there's always some overlap, but you could easily see Summerfest have an average attendance day during the World Cup and have a few thousand more people downtown watching a game with minimal overlap.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You've made a number of good points in this thread, but this I have to disagree with.
Lots and lots of real innovation comes with public dollars.
Public money essentially created the Internet and GPS systems.
Many significant medical/pharmaceutical advancements are the result of public funding.
The algorithm which was the backbone of Google's founding was created with federal dollars.
Research into green technology gets massive public support.
All around the world innovative infrastructure projects are in the works funding by public dollars.
Here are some examples:
https://www.kpmg.com/Africa/en/Documents/Infrastructure-100-world-cities-2012.pdf

This is not to say that the private sector doesn't fund innovation as well, but public money always has, and likely always will, play a crucial role in the development of new technologies and better ways of doing things.

You right. Also, NASA was public funding.

I guess I'm just looking at the modern political landscape, and taxpayers (including me) are rarely signing off on "This will be great 50 years from now". We want results. 75 years ago, mass transit was likely considered a basic civil cost (like bridges, or tunnels), now it's politically polarizing.

I just can't imagine anybody in city government trying to do anything that innovative or radical. They just aren't going to take the risk. The opposition will use it to try to bury them.

[mu03eng]

I loved Riversplash. Obviously I must have been in the minority, but that was a fun event. Remember seeing Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels there.

I think an outdoor sporting beer garden would have huge potential, and would draw a slightly different crowd than we have anywhere now. A few events that it could highlight:
.

• March: Weather permitting, NCAA viewing parties. Likely be especially big for local teams.
  
• April-May: Bucks playoff road games, FA Cup, UEFA Champions League
  
• June-July: World Cup, UEFA Cup, Gold Cup, Summer Olympics, NBA Finals
  
• August-September: Brewers road games, start of NFL season
  
• October: MLB Playoffs, NFL games

.
It could even be opened in colder months for special events, weather permitting. Unseasonably warm February? How about the Super Bowl out there? I know other cities have done this already, so it isn't a completely new idea, but it's something that doesn't exist here and if you've been to Brady Street or Highbury for the World Cup, or any of the hundreds of bars in the city for NCAA games or playoff games, you know the demand is there.

This is just one thing that could help draw people downtown even when there isn't a major event going on. Would it draw away from some other things? Sure, but it would also bring in a lot of traffic that would otherwise be sitting at home doing nothing.

I think Riversplash was very popular but a couple of years of bad behavior gave it a bad rep and forced it to close down.  Side note, my girlfriend at the time(now wife) was there when the shooting went down and was nearly tramped by a police horse...good times.

Anywho, Brew your vision is my vision.  Another thing I could consider adding here as part of the complex....a Top Golf driving range.

http://topgolf.com/us/

If you guys have never been, they are a blast and there is a ton of demand, especially on the weekends.  If planners did this smartly the could do a shared outdoor beer garden/sport venue with a Top Golf and have some prevision for bad weather days (indoor electronic range and a small standard sports bar).

There is really no driving range within 15-20 miles of downtown.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I wonder how much the Bucks' owners are seeing an investment opportunity around the stadium.  Are their Park East corridor renderings "Well, build this stadium and hopefully someone else builds the rest of this crap" or are they taking a large scale approach with a plan to personally invest?  What have they said to local pols behind closed doors?  They're billionaires and would have the means to build up around the stadium.  Is it too much to ask to sweeten the pot on the stadium deal and help mitigate their risk? Plus, the city would build a relationship with the billionaires, and could use that relationship to encourage further investment in downtown.  The combination of these billionaires and the trend back towards urban living is much different than the situation 30 years ago.  Apartments, condos, mixed use living & retail space, grocery, entertainment venues...there is a real opportunity.  These outsider billionaires might have a vision that Milwaukee government lacks and the ability to execute it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

And as far as doing it at Summerfest...they really couldn't do the stuff I listed there. Why? Because there are things going on there every weekend. Summerfest, German Fest, Irish Fest, Festa, Polish Fest, not to mention all the other ethnic festivals that go on down there. There's also no large, centrally located screen on the grounds that is designed for this type of event. You could put it up in the Ampitheater, but again, there's already stuff going on down there.

This would be something very different than Summerfest and would attract a different crowd. Yes, there's always some overlap, but you could easily see Summerfest have an average attendance day during the World Cup and have a few thousand more people downtown watching a game with minimal overlap.

From a micro level, I totally see it. I get it.

From a macro level, you're telling me we have a large scale outdoor park with food and alcohol already available, and now we need to build another one because we can't put up a new screen at the existing one (summerfest)? Yes, there are events there a lot, but it's not like they are there EVERY weekend. I drive over the bridge almost everyday. I see the grounds empty 9 out of 10 times.

Again, I'm probably just being a d*ck, but these are the kinds of tough question I want everybody involved to answer. A new beer garden is a good idea, but is it actually fundamentally different than what we already have? And could we just convert what is already there to be multi-purpose?

A new arena will be fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?
A new beer garden is fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?

The devil is in the details I suppose...

[mu03eng]

From a micro level, I totally see it. I get it.

From a macro level, you're telling me we have a large scale outdoor park with food and alcohol already available, and now we need to build another one because we can't put up a new screen at the existing one (summerfest)? Yes, there are events there a lot, but it's not like they are there EVERY weekend. I drive over the bridge almost everyday. I see the grounds empty 9 out of 10 times.

Again, I'm probably just being a d*ck, but these are the kinds of tough question I want everybody involved to answer. A new beer garden is a good idea, but is it actually fundamentally different than what we already have? And could we just convert what is already there to be multi-purpose?

A new arena will be fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?
A new beer garden is fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?

The devil is in the details I suppose...

Two notes:

The difference between Summerfest and Brew's proposal is that Summerfest is a large scale, non-electronic venue that due to location is a "planned" destination.  Brew's proposal is much more impromptu and works regardless of day of the week.  Also Summerfest's calendar seems pretty full

http://milwaukeeworldfestival.com/calendar-of-events

The second note is that Summerfest and the proposal don't have to be fundamentally different, as long as demand is large enough two venues could be easily supported.  In this case with the Brewcity destination there is some differentiation from Summerfest and enough demand to support the two venues with some overlap.  Look at Jazz in the Park and whatever the classical music thing is on Wednesdays....very similar but enough demand to support both.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Two notes:

The difference between Summerfest and Brew's proposal is that Summerfest is a large scale, non-electronic venue that due to location is a "planned" destination.  Brew's proposal is much more impromptu and works regardless of day of the week.  Also Summerfest's calendar seems pretty full

http://milwaukeeworldfestival.com/calendar-of-events

The second note is that Summerfest and the proposal don't have to be fundamentally different, as long as demand is large enough two venues could be easily supported.  In this case with the Brewcity destination there is some differentiation from Summerfest and enough demand to support the two venues with some overlap.  Look at Jazz in the Park and whatever the classical music thing is on Wednesdays....very similar but enough demand to support both.

Bingo. See, now that's the kind of stuff I want the planners to say.

I think the ideas are attractive, I just want to see the details. I don't want to fall for "ooooh, Shiny!"

(I also don't want to fall for the banana in the tailpipe)

[brewcity77]

Yes, there are events there a lot, but it's not like they are there EVERY weekend. I drive over the bridge almost everyday. I see the grounds empty 9 out of 10 times.

During the summer, they are pretty much every weekend.
.

• Pride Fest: First weekend in June
  
• Polish Fest: Second weekend in June
  
• Summerfest: Last weekend in June & First weekend in July[/b]
  
• Festa Italiana: Second weekend in July
  
• German Fest: Third weekend in July
  
• Irish Fest: Second weekend in August
  
• Mexican Fiesta: Third weekend in August
  
• Pet Fest: Fourth weekend in August
  
• Indian Summer: Second weekend in September

.
So what does that leave? The last weekend in July, unless Warped Tour is coming through. Both Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends, though Harley Fest would dominate Labor Day every five years.

The proposal would basically be to renovate the Summerfest grounds in hopes of using the screen for what, March Madness, the first rounds of the NBA playoffs, the MLB playoffs, and football when the weather permits? No one would support that. Whether you are there or not, the Maier Festival Grounds are open for business virtually every weekend from June through mid-September, and I've worked at virtually every festival and see how often requests from the grounds come out for additional personnel on those weekends. It might not be rocking every Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon, but on the weekends in summer, it's always got something going on.

EDIT: mu03eng said it better than I did. This would be different from the crowd Summerfest attracts, and would be viable on a daily basis, whereas trying to put something like this at Summerfest would clash with events on virtually every summer weekend.

[mu03eng]

Since I was thinking about it, I threw this together real fast.

Editor's note:  I am not a city planner or in anyway qualified to do these types of plans, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express within the last 4 years.

[brewcity77]

I like it, mu03eng.

Also, one more possible source of funding, though I'm sure he'll expect to get some revenue out of his investment:

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2015/04/attanasio-says-he-s-ready-to-help-on-new.html?ana=fbk

Could be nice to find a way to get some Brewers related stuff going on there, though. Miller Park is really kind of isolated out there. Would be nice to start bringing the city together more, and having a baseball presence would add to the downtown environment.

[Litehouse]

Since I was thinking about it, I threw this together real fast.

Editor's note:  I am not a city planner or in anyway qualified to do these types of plans, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express within the last 4 years.

The new Bucks practice facility is slated to be in there somewhere too, possibly in your triangular parking area to the west.

[mu03eng]

The new Bucks practice facility is slated to be in there somewhere too, possibly in your triangular parking area to the west.

Yep, that's right...I forgot about the practice facility.  It could also go in the space created when the BC is demolished.  That space makes sense for a practice facility, parking lot and may be something else.

You could also swap the entertainment complex and put that on the BC site and the parking/practice facility where I have the entertainment site but I don't think that's as strong a layout as it wouldn't spur development north of McKinley as well.

[MUfan12]

You could also swap the entertainment complex and put that on the BC site and the parking/practice facility where I have the entertainment site but I don't think that's as strong a layout as it wouldn't spur development north of McKinley as well.

The "TBD" area is where they hope to put the plaza/entertainment area, built over Fourth Street.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos I think everyone realizes there is a good chance the new stadium won't spur new economic growth.  Based on a study I read only 14% of new pro stadiums create new economic growth.  So it's a very low chance, but I still think for the benefit of things I care about we need a new arena.  The state of Wisconsin is going to be paid back, and there will be some economic impact just from the construction project of building the arena.  

I disagree, I think many people are locked in that it will provide growth, which is an unfortunate expectation. 

I don't disagree with you about being paid back, but people need to stop sugar coating it.  It's a choice, someone \ something is benefited and something else isn't.  This is real world, not the land of pixie dust and green shamrocks (not saying you fit this, but others do....as if the money tree in the backyard not only exists, but it is in full harvest 24/7/365).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Whats the point?  If we don't have a new arena, the Bucks are leaving and the state is on the hook for keeping the BC viable and they lose the revenue stream.  This is a known.

Do we want to risk the known happening on the chance that the credits and debits work out to slightly negative if we build a stadium?  I'm probably restating Brew's point but far less eloquently....we know what we've got now and that it won't work long term, and we know that if we spend a little now we've got a good shot at least neutral in net, potentially home run if we do it right.

The Bucks owners are idiots in this whole process then.  If that's the known, they shouldn't be putting $1 toward this if the city and state are going to fall all over themselves to pay for it.  MU should pay not one single penny either.  These teams play this game and the cities are so worried their penis size is getting smaller they'll do anything to keep the team.  St. Louis trying to do that now with the Rams.  Why are the Bucks owners even willing to put any money in this other than "good will"?  How far does good will go in a few years if the team still sucks, etc?  It will be evaporated.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Absolutely crazy to hear people are in favor of losing the Bucks.  NBA puts teams of a global stage.  It is probably the most followed sport in China.  When I was in China, every tour guide knew the names of the Buck players.

The financial contributions can't be ignored.  $7 million in state tax revenue and growing.  Hotel revenue taxes, restaurant activity, many jobs, the Bucks headquarters and staff, the joint venture with Marquette, a hub for development and more jobs, keeping Milwaukee as a big league city, ....  Make every economic argument you will, but the prestige associated with a major league city can't be disputed.  It puts us on the map for our brand, prospective employers, headquarters, conventions and relocation potentials.

I have been associated with a number of non-profits in Milwaukee and the contributions from the Milwaukee Bucks in both financial and other support has been substantial.  

It is just a shame that some folks who don't care about professional basketball have short sighted vision.  We funded County Stadium, the new stadium, the arena, the auditorium and countless other amenities.  I'm not a big NBA fan but I cherish the fact that they are in Milwaukee.

It's not that simple.  70% of people don't give a damn about sports AT ALL.  You have to factor that in.  You also have to factor in the resources of the owners....here in California stadiums are 100% financed typically by the teams as the public will not support higher taxes in an already very high tax state.  Yet the stadiums miraculously keep getting built out here.  It also comes down to choices...if you do X, you can't do Y.  Y might be really important, a lot more important even than a basketball team.  It may not, that's part of the debate.

Over the years cities like Seattle, New Orleans, Cincinnati, San Diego, Cleveland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Buffalo, Kansas City, Vancouver, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, etc, etc have lost NBA or NHL or NFL teams.  It happens. Sure, it sucks for fans of those teams, but it also didn't kill those cities and in most cases there was a reason why they left...those cities didn't support them.  The Bucks are what in attendance?  27th or 28th?  Last year I think they were dead last.  Shiny new building will help for a season or two, but at the end of the day people have to support the team, too.  That's part of the grand bargain.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think that actually makes a difference. When you have to make something profitable, it's changes the amount of skin in the game.

Absolutely!!!

[mu03eng]

The Bucks owners are idiots in this whole process then.  If that's the known, they shouldn't be putting $1 toward this if the city and state are going to fall all over themselves to pay for it.  MU should pay not one single penny either.  These teams play this game and the cities are so worried their penis size is getting smaller they'll do anything to keep the team.  St. Louis trying to do that now with the Rams.  Why are the Bucks owners even willing to put any money in this other than "good will"?  How far does good will go in a few years if the team still sucks, etc?  It will be evaporated.

The current owners lose the franchise if the stadium is not built in Milwaukee when the NBA "buys" it back from.  If that happens, then the team is moving and the valuation potentially changes plus the location changes.

The owners have calculated its cheaper for them to fork over money to help with a stadium than it is to have to re-win the franchise on the open market.  Plus if the team moves it is likely to Seattle, not sure these NYC-based owners want to do the commute if they can even land the team at that point.

Care to retract your idiot statement?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You've made a number of good points in this thread, but this I have to disagree with.
Lots and lots of real innovation comes with public dollars.
Public money essentially created the Internet and GPS systems.
Many significant medical/pharmaceutical advancements are the result of public funding.
The algorithm which was the backbone of Google's founding was created with federal dollars.
Research into green technology gets massive public support.
All around the world innovative infrastructure projects are in the works funding by public dollars.
Here are some examples:
https://www.kpmg.com/Africa/en/Documents/Infrastructure-100-world-cities-2012.pdf

This is not to say that the private sector doesn't fund innovation as well, but public money always has, and likely always will, play a crucial role in the development of new technologies and better ways of doing things.

Lots of real innovation does come from public dollars, it just comes very inefficiently and at much greater cost, but you are correct that it comes through sheer brute force, volume of dollars, etc.