Arena construction — not just plans — linked to Bucks leaseUnfortunately , there is a lot of small thinking in Milwaukee. This new arena should be a no brainer. I believe it is not necessary, but the NBA makes the rules and the franchises have to go along with them. All the downtown locations are great for us. The n 4th and W. Wisconsin would be fantastic.
By Don Walker
Sept. 6, 2014
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/arena-construction--not-just-plans--linked-to-bucks-lease-b99346176z1-274230051.html
(http://media.jrn.com/images/660*459/b99346176z.1_20140906210250_000_gmj7oo7e.1-0.jpg)
Under terms of the Bucks sale, construction of an arena to replace the BMO Harris Bradley Center must be underway by Oct. 1, 2017 — or the NBA will step in.
The National Basketball Association has Milwaukee Bucks owners Marc Lasry and Wes Edens on the clock.
Under terms of Herb Kohl's $550 million sale of the team to Lasry and Edens, groundbreaking and construction of a new arena are linked to the expiration of the Bucks' current lease at the BMO Harris Bradley Center, according to a source familiar with the deal. The lease expires Oct. 1, 2017.
That's a more compact — and firm — timetable than had been understood in the immediate wake of the sale, when it was reported that plans for an arena had to be in place by November 2017.
If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.
Neither the Bucks nor the NBA would comment. When Kohl sold the team last spring, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Kohl had put in place provisions to ensure the team stays put.
"The date is in the provision as part of the sale agreement," the source said. "It's written as such. When you get to the point where (a new arena) is not going to happen, (moving) will have to be discussed at that point."
There is no shortage of cities waiting to become one of 30 with an NBA franchise: Las Vegas, Kansas City, Louisville and Seattle have been mentioned as suitors, even new markets in Canada. And there seems to be no shortage of wealthy people willing to secure a franchise; Steve Ballmer paid $2 billion for the Los Angeles Clippers.
"Marc and Wes have no intention of moving the team whatsoever," said the source. "But they understand that a new arena is a significant necessity for the ongoing success of the franchise, which is to have a state-of-the-art facility that rivals their counterparts."
'Weak-sister' franchise
As with other professional sports leagues, there is a constant push to keep team facilities up to date. In Milwaukee, the NBA regards the BMO Harris Bradley Center as deficient: There are too few premium seats, the square footage is a fraction of today's NBA arenas, and there are too few revenue-generating amenities.
There is another reason that the NBA wants up-to-date facilities in Milwaukee.
"They don't want a weak-sister franchise," said another source who has experience in the sale and valuation of professional sports teams. "And it affects the value of other teams."
The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings. It also happens to be the third-smallest arena behind those in San Francisco and Sacramento.
"That's not a good place to be," said the source familiar with the purchase agreement.
Both the Warriors and the Kings are on track to build new arenas. The new Golden State Warriors arena, with an estimated cost of $500 million, will be built near the San Francisco Bay Bridge and is expected to be ready for the 2018-'19 season; the Sacramento arena, with an estimated cost of $477 million, is expected to be ready in 2016.
The San Francisco arena is largely privately funded. The Sacramento arena carries a public subsidy estimated at $255 million.
Developing model
A Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce panel has been working to develop a financing model for a new arena, expected to cost between $400 million and $500 million. The MMAC group is working with the Hammes Co., a developer that has a sports development business.
At the same time, Edens, who Lasry said last week is currently running the franchise as its managing partner, has an arena development team in place. At some point, according to Ted Kellner, a new Bucks investor who is chairing the MMAC panel, the two groups will get together and form a plan.
Whatever plan surfaces likely will have to wait until after the November elections and when the state Legislature returns in late January, says Timothy Sheehy, MMAC's president.
Sheehy said he was not privy to the terms of the purchase agreement, but said he believed the NBA is serious about a deadline for a new arena. So does Mayor Tom Barrett.
"But I view this less as a deadline and more as a starting line for a catalytic development downtown spurred by the need for a new arena," Sheehy said. "That's our focus."
Putting a team on notice to build a new arena or face the possibility of moving is not new. The effort to build a new arena in Sacramento dates to 1996, when then-Kings owner Jim Thomas proposed a new arena to replace the Arco Arena.
Brewers implied threat
The implied threat of moving a team is also not new in Milwaukee. In 1996, before a stadium financing package to build Miller Park was reached, then-Milwaukee Brewers president Bud Selig, who simultaneously held the position of interim baseball commissioner, had publicly said the Brewers could move.
In April 1996, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson said Selig had never said anything about moving the team to him personally, but angrily noted he would back away from any deal if a threat was made.
Would Milwaukee be given such leeway if the expected political and community debate and discussion take years rather than months?
"It's on a case-by-case basis," the source familiar with the sale said.
Barrett said that, in anticipation of the 2017 deadline, city officials are studying several sites that could be the new home for the Bucks and other tenants, including the Milwaukee Admirals, the Marquette University men's basketball team, and other entertainment.
A number of sites are under consideration. Barrett has said he would like to see an arena as close to W. Wisconsin Ave. as possible. A lot at N. 4th and W. Wisconsin Ave. is available, but city officials and others knowledgeable about that site say it would be a tight fit even with the acquisition of additional property.
Others have suggested tearing down the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Panther Arena, the new name for the old Milwaukee Arena. That building, the annex just west of the arena, and the Milwaukee Theatre would accommodate a new arena.
But Franklyn Gimbel, the longtime chairman of the Wisconsin Center District, said he opposes tearing down the buildings. UWM just signed a 10-year partnership with the Wisconsin Center District board to use the arena for its men's basketball team, although the school can opt out of the deal should the arena be designated for the new arena site.
A site just north of the BMO Harris Bradley Center, between N. 4th and N. 6th streets and adjoining W. Juneau Ave., also is under consideration. BMO Harris Bradley Center officials say the site is just big enough for an NBA-style arena.
Both Edens and Lasry, as well as Sheehy, have said some form of public financing will be needed to raise enough money to build the arena. How much the public will be asked to contribute and in what form — a sales tax, a tax incremental financing arrangement or, perhaps, diverting the income tax paid by NBA players and front-office personnel to pay off debt service — has not been determined.
What makes Milwaukee's case different is the $100 million Edens and Lasry have committed to a new arena. In addition, former senator Herb Kohl has committed another $100 million. And there is anticipation that additional private investment will be found.
But there is pushback, too. County boards in Ozaukee, Waukesha and Racine counties, still chafing over the 0.1% Miller Park stadium sales tax, have gone on record against any public taxation for a new arena or expanded convention center.
If I had to place a bet, I would bet the farm on it not happening in 2017.
From the story above ....
If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.
The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.
More sloppy reporting.
First off, Madison Square Garden is also older.
Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988).
So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.
From the story above ....
If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.
The question then becomes if they do move is what does Marquette do? I think we would be fine with a 14,000 to 15,000 seat arena but where do we build it and how do we get it financed. Not sure how much a city would kick in even if they made it dual purpose for the Admirals since we are a private institution.
We could stay in the Bradley Center for a while but without a NBA team putting money into the place it could quickly just become a larger version of the arena and look outdated and old very quickly.
The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.Not sure age is the most relevant thing here (per above posts).... The Palace is absolutely beautiful, and been kept up-to-date with pretty regular renovations and additions the past 10 or so years.
More sloppy reporting.
First off, Madison Square Garden is also older.
Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988).
So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.
I'm sure MU would prefer to not be involved in the investment but we could put some money in. How much would it be worth MU per year to have a new stadium that would be around for 30 years? 1Mil per year? It would be extra revenue for us as well with more luxury and lower level seating. It would help our Bball team which helps Fund raising and Gets us tons of Free Press and adverting. in the last 10-12 years we have had the best run for basketball since the 70's and the schools national rating has gone up with that. The oldest I could find said in 2003 we rose to 91 per MU's annual report where now we have been in the 70's the last 3-4 years. 15 spots is a pretty solid jump in 8-10 years for a private school when most were probably moving down. MU would be hurt in a major way if a new stadium is not built. both athletically, financially, and academically.
Unfortunately , there is a lot of small thinking in Milwaukee. This new arena should be a no brainer. I believe it is not necessary, but the NBA makes the rules and the franchises have to go along with them. All the downtown locations are great for us. The n 4th and W. Wisconsin would be fantastic.
Marquette could get in the act by allowing them to build the new stadium at Valley Fields. In exchange the city condemns an equivalent sized plot of land directly north of campus and we recreate our athletic fields there. Of course there would be a political out cry but I think it could get done if some of the housing was recreated around the new stadium.
If the Bucks play in a new, larger arena full of amenities and premium-price seats, are there enough corporate partners and fans who would pay the premium prices and come close to filling a 20,000-seat arena?
It's a serious question, because I no longer live anywhere near Milwaukee and am wondering how this would fly.
The photo caption states that construction must be underway by October 1, 2017. Later in the article, it states that if the arena is not ready for play in three years, the NBA can buy back the team.
If construction is started as late as October 2017, there is no way an arena could be completed in one year from a brownfield construction site without substantial additional cost to expedite schedule. It's just not feasible.
A more realistic timeline would be to have construction started some time in 2016 for a November 2018 opening date. At this point, the land hasn't even been purchased and it's almost 2015. The likelihood of purchasing the land, getting necessary permits, securing financing for construction from a private source - let alone public - in that short a time is slim.
This is a mechanism for the NBA to purchase and relocate the Bucks, not to have a new arena built. This is actually a fairly brilliant move by the new owners. The risk that they assumed for taking on the slim probability of having a new arena built from scratch in three years is a $25MM return on their investment, while the NBA assumes all the downside.
Brilliant move? Call me greedy, but when I'm investing $550 million, I'm looking for at least a 2% per year return.
It's all about risk management. The NBA assumes the risk of buying the franchise back and operating it while trying to sell it. The worst exposure to risk is that the new owner faces is they make $25MM should the deal fall through.
Yes, I would call that pretty brilliant.
The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.
More sloppy reporting.
First off, Madison Square Garden is also older.
Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988).
So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.
No reason it would have to be 20k. The new arena in the Bay Area is going to be smaller but just do it right. I am thinking that is the way Milwaukee would head.
I would think smaller would be better, too. The article made it a point to say BC is one of the smallest arenas, however, so that made me think they might want to do bigger.
When the Bucks were doing fairly well on the court and BC was newer, did they draw well?
When the Bucks were doing fairly well on the court and BC was newer, did they draw well?
but when the NBA buys the Bucks the team is guaranteed top lottery picks
If there is is risk involved in running the Bucks in the interim that just makes the $25 million return that much more questionable. Do these guys have $550 million of their own hanging around to invest or did they finance a chunk? Financing costs can kill a return, especially when there is a (pretty low) ceiling on how much they can make when selling.
First why do you guys not want to play in a new arena? I think that'd be a huge advantage to MU. Young kids care about tradition sure but I'd wager they'd be a heck of a lot more impressed with a brand new shiny arena. Also if we built our own wouldn't we be unable to drink beer at games per NCAA rules? I'm sorry but if that's the case I'd rather play on a court in miller park if we have to.
Even if MU had the funds, it faces several big issues with an on campus venue:Just wondering, where in the hell would the funding for a new MU arena even come from. Would the school cough up 200 mill for a decent 14k seat arena?
#1 Real estate
#2 Can they get enough events to keep the building busy(rent) and maintained($)?
#3 City infrastructure. Milwaukee isn't just going to reroute a bunch of streets and on-ramps for nothing
#4 Opportunity cost (MU could use that money elsewhere)
Now, those aren't insurmountable issues, but they are significant, and will have to be considered before we even get into details like parking, capacity, luxury amenities, corp. partnerships, etc.
MU's best bet is to continue to rent/lease a facility from the city.
Just wondering, where in the hell would the funding for a new MU arena even come from. Would the school cough up 200 mill for a decent 14k seat arena?
Considering that Cintas (Xavier) was built for under $50M about 13 years ago and the Sears Centre in Hoffman Estates was built for just over $60M about eight years ago, even with inflation MU could build an on-campus arena for around $80-90M. Sure, it wouldn't have The Ralph's amenities, but as long as the seating was good, the floor was lit and the beer is cold, who cares whether or not the walls are embedded with gold leaf.Id like to think that a school like MU which has much better tradition and fans,would want to have an arena a few steps above Cintas(not that its a bad arena).
Where does the funding come from? Donors. If ever a new arena became a necessity for MU (i.e. the Bucks are gone and the BC is crumbling), I firmly believe MU could raise the first 15-20% amongst a handful of MU's largest donors without breaking a sweat. Considering the last 30-35% of any fundraising campaign rarely rolls in until that segment of donors/alumni can see bulldozers and cranes, the biggest question is whether MU can/would put shovels in the ground at only 65% of a $100M goal.
Id like to think that a school like MU which has much better tradition and fans,would want to have an arena a few steps above Cintas(not that its a bad arena).
Why would would want to build the a crappy bear bones stadium when we can rent one that would be state of the Art that is 1/2 mile off Campus? That is what recruits want? How often do the recruits and players talk about the AL? Was it the same breath as the old gym? if you want to be a top 25 team a nice state of the Art Venue would only help.
It's all about risk management. The NBA assumes the risk of buying the franchise back and operating it while trying to sell it. The worst exposure to risk is that the new owner faces is they make $25MM should the deal fall through.
Yes, I would call that pretty brilliant.
I'm having a hard time reading your post. But billionaires don't become billionaires by accepting 2% returns. Silly post.
MU's Lovell endorses new arena, wants more detail on financesA brand new arena certainly impacts recruiting, maybe mu throws a couple dimes around towards the arena.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/274544211.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/274544211.html)
"Lovell said a part of recruiting top-flight student athletes to the men's basketball program includes the lure of being able to play in a NBA arena. He said recruits often were given tours of the BMO Harris Bradley Center to impress upon them that they would be playing in the same building as members of the Milwaukee Bucks."
Not much new here, but I think this is one of the first times that Marquette has gone on record about a new arena.
Lovell stated that Marquette would be more than willing to make a financial commitment to a new arena. How much money would we be able to realistically contribute? 50 million?
I'd argue that putting up another arena out of fear is small thinking.
If a new arena is part of a bigger growth strategy for Milwaukee, then I'm listening.
If a new arena is just a strategy to keep a pro-basketball team, then it's stupid. Let them leave. The city can get far more bang for it's buck elsewhere.
Lovell stated that Marquette would be more than willing to make a financial commitment to a new arena. How much money would we be able to realistically contribute? 50 million?
MU to buy the BC for $50m to call their own but to be deposited for a new NBA arena. All rights retained and free access rights. Take that deal? Yes!
Like how can it get more bang for its buck elsewhere? It's this kind of small minded thinking that hampers cities all over the country. What can Milwaukee spend $200 million on that will generate its name in the news nationally, and to an extent globally....at least 82 times per year....year after year after year.
I mean Jesus, Kansas City is trying to lure an NBA team. Oklahoma City is suddenly a lot more known/talked about/recognized since the Thunder got to OKC - and it has energized that city, and given it a rallying point as a community to get behind. Just as MKE does when the Bucks have been good and the Brewers have been good. Sports is the only common denominator in society that largely brings people together regardless of age, religion, race, income level, and even gender.
But, MKE can just let go of an asset other cities clamor for...and revert into a Des Moines or Omaha.
Like how can it get more bang for its buck elsewhere? It's this kind of small minded thinking that hampers cities all over the country. What can Milwaukee spend $200 million on that will generate its name in the news nationally, and to an extent globally....at least 82 times per year....year after year after year.
I mean Jesus, Kansas City is trying to lure an NBA team. Oklahoma City is suddenly a lot more known/talked about/recognized since the Thunder got to OKC - and it has energized that city, and given it a rallying point as a community to get behind. Just as MKE does when the Bucks have been good and the Brewers have been good. Sports is the only common denominator in society that largely brings people together regardless of age, religion, race, income level, and even gender.
But, MKE can just let go of an asset other cities clamor for...and revert into a Des Moines or Omaha.
Have you ever been to Des Moines and Omaha? Both of them are very nice, high quality cities that are (IMO) much nicer than OKC. There is absolutely no doubt that professional sports adds to the quality of life to a city, but that has to be balanced against the costs involved. And economically, it has been shown repeatedly to not have the payback people assume it will.
Really, are cities like Cincinnati, Kansas City, San Diego and Seattle any different today than they would have been if they had hung on to their NBA teams? All four of them have other sports franchises and a pretty high standard of living. Dropping that kind of cash on a new arena out of fear of losing a team isn't a smart idea IMO.
And regardless, Milwaukee has the Brewers.
I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.I agree with the above. Also it enhances our basketball standing at MU because we are so closely linked to the Bucks by proximity and shared facility.
When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee. Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year. Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.
I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return? A trolley system? Light rail? ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)
Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc. It just makes for a better and more vibrant city. Period.
I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.
When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee. Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year. Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.
I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return? A trolley system? Light rail? ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)
Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc. It just makes for a better and more vibrant city. Period.
I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.
When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee. Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year. Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.
I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return? A trolley system? Light rail? ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)
Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc. It just makes for a better and more vibrant city. Period.
When your endowment is 400 mil., ya ain't spendin' 50 of it on an antiquated, obsolete, rundown, concrete, POS, aina?
I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.
When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee. Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year. Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.
I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return? A trolley system? Light rail? ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)
Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc. It just makes for a better and more vibrant city. Period.
There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises. If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine. But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear. If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city. However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.
There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises. If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine. But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear. If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city. However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.
I think comparing an nba stadium to a baseball stadium when baseball attendence has been hugely dropping is a poor comparison. Personally I disagree with you. I think a tremendous amount of bar money (particularly on old world third) comes from bucks fans. The hotels make good money when they play the bulls. I'm sure there's also an effect for the casino. A stadium like that is easily responsible for a few thousand jobs between engineers, janitors, concession stands, security, etc. I know there's plenty of cities that are fine without a team but many of those don't quite have the winters we do so it's easier to make outdoor events during winter, have a football team smack dab in the city to actually pump money in there, or have other tourist attractions (see space needle in Seattle) MKE is a great city but we all went to MU or lived around it or around Chicago to figure that out the rest of the country doesn't know that so we need all the help we can get. I mean heck I only just found out Omaha wasn't a bunch of farms
Sorry, your geographical ignorance notwithstanding, economic study after economic study has shown that building arenas and stadiums for professional sports teams does not have an economic payback.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92368114/Stadium-Bonds
"Unfortunately, independent academic research studies consistently conclude that new stadiums and arenas have no measurable effect on the level of real income or employment in the metropolitan areas in which they are located. Feasibility studies for professional sports facilities often fail to account for the substitution effect. Individuals generally maintain a consistent level of entertainment spending so money spent on sporting events typically comes at the expense of cash spent in restaurants, on travel, and at movie theaters."
The quote comes from a paper titled "The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development" which was written in 2000 and cites studies dated between 1990 and 1999.
In other words, your "independent academic research" is 15-25 years out of date.
Well I'm sure if it is inaccurate you could provide something counter to it right?
Regardless, here is one from 2011 that says the same thing.
http://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/10/Johnson-Article-Spring-2011.pdf
- As far as ways to invest 200million? I'm not a city planner, so I can't pretend to know everything. But, I will say that I'm not sure that's it's good for Milwaukee to copy other cities. NBA arena and restaurants. Great. Never seen that before.
Maybe the 200-500mil could be used for something more innovative? Maybe Milwaukee could leverage more of it's natural resources (ie Lake Michigan, forestry, mining, agriculture, etc.) to differentiate it from other cities and drive the economy with something that can't simply be taken away (like a NBA franchise). Invest in something that can benefit the city and its residents long term, not just something that gets people to pay $9 for a beer and $20 for parking. Think big picture.
This part is so, so wrong.
Anyone paying attention would know that right now there is ~$300m of private money ready for a new arena.
The legislative leaders have consistently said they didn't want the arena to have public funding. They've since come around to say "limited" financing, some sort of TIF will be likely. The city is not going to
It's not like the city will get a check for this alleged "$200-500m" earmarked for an arena. if a new arena isn't built that money goes back to the investors, not the city is not going to strangle itself with debt. in fact the new owners have gone out of their way to ensure the city/county/state would don that. They've been more proactive in aiding new arena financing that a boat load of owners.
Also Milwaukee doesn't really have any natural resources besides the lake, which is already developing independently with the Water Council and is doing a great job differentiating itself from other cities. There are like 2 farms in Milwaukee and all mining is done up in the Northern part of the state, sand is big in North Central.
If you want to think big picture, look to the couture, the new Northwestern Mutual building and all that corporate development. An arena can be part of this. Having the Bucks and that arena can aid in making Milwaukee a desirable place for business.
There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises. If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine. But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear. If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city. However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.
I see your point - An NBA franchise is NOT in any way tied to having a high standard of living for a city. There are very nice cities all over the country that don't have NBA teams - Austin, TX comes to mind. San Diego. Those cities also have a ton of appeal, draw and pull as it is without professional sports teams.I think the League buyback clause ensures that the arena will get built here. These guys know they have something good and will raise the money. My sense is they will raise the money in the bond market, and they may get some some form of limited government guarantees to support the bond issue. There is a new TV contract coming up and that will make the numbers work.
I agree that if Milwaukee loses the Bucks, it won't have much impact on the future of the city - it will survive and people will not flee in mass exodus. Having said that however, the city won't be considered big league, will rarely ever be heard of in the news, it will lose a fun civic asset and team that can unite the city.
My point is that I don't know what MKE could spend 200-300 million on that could provide a similar set of benefits. MKE was a whisker away from losing the Brewers - think if they left? And now people being indifferent or saying, let the Bucks go too? Kids growing up in the State of Wisconsin would now have a pro football team to root for, and that's it. Families from central and northern WI no longer would make trips to MKE for Brewers games, Bucks games, etc., and not spend money in MKE.
It is really, really short-sighted thinking to let a pro sports franchise walk from a city over 200-300 million. If franchises weren't of value, you wouldn't have other cities such as KC, Vegas, Seattle, clamoring over getting a team. Ever since Seattle let the Sonics go, they've been trying to get a team back. People don't know what they have till its gone. I'd imagine MKE went through withdrawals when the Braves left - and were ecstatic when the Brewers came back to town.
MKE needs to get some kind of progressive thinking.
At the end of the day I think we will end up with an NHL franchise as part of all of this.
At the end of the day I think we will end up with an NHL franchise as part of all of this.
The NHL did recently say it plans on expanding.
It is really, really short-sighted thinking to let a pro sports franchise walk from a city over 200-300 million. If franchises weren't of value, you wouldn't have other cities such as KC, Vegas, Seattle, clamoring over getting a team. Ever since Seattle let the Sonics go, they've been trying to get a team back. People don't know what they have till its gone. I'd imagine MKE went through withdrawals when the Braves left - and were ecstatic when the Brewers came back to town.
MKE needs to get some kind of progressive thinking.
Whether or not Milwaukee needs a new stadium, it is clear to me that Marquette does not need one.
- It is already playing in a better facility than at least 90% of D1 schools. If you include convenience to campus, it's probably 95%.
- A new arena's impact on recruiting or attendance will be minimal at best. Feel free to dispute this with hard facts, though. Rupp Arena is a POS, yet Kentucky seems to have no problem attracting both top athletes and fans.
- There are at least a half-dozen facilities on campus that are in greater need of replacement than our basketball stadium.
Barring a business plan that proves that it makes sense for the university from an economic standpoint (putting money up front in exchange for free use of the facility for 20 years, for example), I don't see how anyone who truly believes in the overall mission of the University could support MU spending money on this.
The whole arena size argument is just dumb. The size of the BC is just fine. Look at the percent-of-capacity of NBA games vs. the NHL. There are a lot of NBA teams turning out sub-85% capacity. Nothing close to the NHL numbers (10 teams under 85% NBA vs. 5 NHL).
Now, the people of Milwaukee...excuse me, the people of surrounding counties like uber-conservative Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington counties are being ridiculously shortsighted if they don't vote for a new arena. These counties and people fail to realize that the value of their own property is affected by the anchor city around it...which is Milwaukee. Being a two-sport town is a big deal, and being a three is even bigger (I'm sorry, but Milwaukee gets a little bit of Packers credit).
A new arena keeps an NBA team here and lets Milwaukee be one of only 30 teams known globally for their hoops team. Better awareness of the city means more money, income, businesses, standard of living, and opportunities not afforded to non-sports team cities. The Bucks leave, it's not just a lost "losing basketball team". It's a hole in the wall of downtown and tons of lost jobs on 100+ days a year.
No way I'd trade the Bucks for an NHL franchise. That does absolutely nothing for me. NHL is still an afterthought for most sports fans.
It's just a personal opinion. I can still watch high quality basketball in the city if the Bucks leave. It might even send a few more fans our way. It gets rid of the whole controversy over a new stadium, still provides 41 home dates a year to draw fans downtown and support local restaurants/bars, no overlap with the Brewers.
Once again, just my opinion, but I wouldn't mind the tradeoff (I'd rather the Bucks didn't leave, but if an NHL franchise replaced them it would lessen the blow).
Is the irony of an NHL team coming to Milwaukee as a result of the Bucks leaving town because they couldn't survive in the BC not lost on anyone?no
Is the irony of an NHL team coming to Milwaukee as a result of the Bucks leaving town because they couldn't survive in the BC not lost on anyone?
I'd argue that building a new arena out of fear is short sighted.
If they can get the right mix of private and public funding, and they can use a new arena in a 50 year city development vision, then great, build away.
If this is a "gun-to-the-head" scenario, then building a new arena without a long term urban development plan is short sighted and a giant waste.
Our research showed that, in addition to Quebec City and a second Toronto franchise, the Canadian cities of Kingston, Halifax and perhaps even Moncton, Sherbrooke or Sudbury could each reasonably hope to support a team. From the standpoint of fan avidity, all were more attractive markets than Seattle — not to mention Las Vegas, which was sandwiched between Milwaukee and Kansas City, Missouri, as the least hockey-mad of the potential expansion sites we examined. Each of those seven Canadian municipalities also contained more NHL fans than five current NHL cities: Phoenix; Columbus, Ohio; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Miami and Nashville.
$200 million in private money has already been pledged for the project. I wouldn't be surprised if the Milwaukee business community would come up with another $50 million given that down payment by Herb and the new owners. That's not a "gun to the head" scenario.I believe the business community has already come up with $83m in minority ownership. that'll all go towards a new stadium, might be as high as $300m. Consider how much could come from naming rights and corporate sponsorships, and some contributions from Marquette. It was once remarked to me from some folks deeply involved in the new arena process that "Marquette could build its own on campus arena in a heartbeat if the bucks deal fell through". If that is the case, Marquette could equally come up with the cash to contribute to a new Bucks arena if the finances worked out for the university.
$200 million in private money has already been pledged for the project. I wouldn't be surprised if the Milwaukee business community would come up with another $50 million given that down payment by Herb and the new owners. That's not a "gun to the head" scenario.
Miami, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay and Phoenix (among others, I'm sure) all recently got worse deals than that in terms of percentage of the stadium project that is publicly financed. There are plenty of ways to finance a stadium irresponsibly, and I want to see this played out for Milwaukee, but starting with 40% of the project financed privately makes things so much easier.
Let's say private investors put up 300mil, and they want the city cover the rest (200mil). It's a fair deal, right?
Unless the city has a large scale vision of how that arena (and that 200mil) are going to help urban development in the long run, it's still probably not the right decision.
I know how a new arena will help the new owners. It's unclear (at this point), how a new arena helps the taxpayers.
Let's say private investors put up 300mil, and they want the city cover the rest (200mil). It's a fair deal, right?
Unless the city has a large scale vision of how that arena (and that 200mil) are going to help urban development in the long run, it's still probably not the right decision.
I know how a new arena will help the new owners. It's unclear (at this point), how a new arena helps the taxpayers.
Whether or not Milwaukee needs a new stadium, it is clear to me that Marquette does not need one.
- It is already playing in a better facility than at least 90% of D1 schools. If you include convenience to campus, it's probably 95%.
- A new arena's impact on recruiting or attendance will be minimal at best. Feel free to dispute this with hard facts, though. Rupp Arena is a POS, yet Kentucky seems to have no problem attracting both top athletes and fans.
- There are at least a half-dozen facilities on campus that are in greater need of replacement than our basketball stadium.
Barring a business plan that proves that it makes sense for the university from an economic standpoint (putting money up front in exchange for free use of the facility for 20 years, for example), I don't see how anyone who truly believes in the overall mission of the University could support MU spending money on this.
Can you please for once in your posting history make a definitive statement about what you suggest is the solution? Let's hear your thoughts on how the city could spend $200M in a better way, that would bring better value long term?
Can you please for once in your posting history make a definitive statement about what you suggest is the solution? Let's hear your thoughts on how the city could spend $200M in a better way, that would bring better value long term?
Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.
Let me preface this by saying I live in Milwaukee, have literally 0 interest in watching the Bucks, hate the idea of paying more taxes, but am more than happy to pay more taxes specifically to build a new NBA arena simply because I think it would be good for MU basketball.
That being said, I'll give one thing that could arguably be better to spend $200m on than an NBA arena: Nothing. Sometimes the money you don't spend is better than the money you do. I think that a great deal of the anti-arena sentiment is couched in the fact that its one of Deadspin's pet-hatreds. However, in all of the articles I've read over there just savaging arena construction, never have I heard the argument: "If only they spent that money on X." It's always: "They won't get their money's worth/rich people don't need public subsidies for their sports teams."
When will it end????????
April 21,20402030
Milwaukee -- In yet another bold move by the Milwaukee Bucks, the Pottowattamie Nation, the team's ownership, today decried the obsolete conditions of the Klements Arena and announced that the team needs a new arena to remain competitive.
"It;s not a question of if anymore," a spokesman for the Pottowattamies said in a press conference this morning. "We need the new arena if we are to generate the cash flow necessary for the team to prosper in today's environment."
The NBA backed the Tribe in a statement issued from its Nashville headquarters. "The Klements Arena was built in 2017 and is hopelessly inadequate for an NBA team. It's a basketball arena. As new facilities in Dallas, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and Nashville have shown, our fans are looking for a multi-dimensional entertainment experience, of which our basketball franchises are a major part. Milwaukee's facility just doesn't cut it."
Klements Arena, which acquired its name in a rights battle won by the global sausage empire started in Milwaukee, was completed in 2018 amid much controversy. The Bucks were negotiating with King County and the City of Seattle to move the franchise to the then-newly opened Gates Arena when a late night compromise by the Wisconsin legislature and the Milwaukee Common Council saved the team and built Klements Arena.
The Arena has been home to both the Bucks and Marquette University since. Since the Arena opened, Marquette has won five national titles and never failed to make the NCAA Tournament.
Current estimates are that the arena would cost $5 billion. Proposed site locations include the south side of Wisconsin Avenue between the Milwaukee River and N. 6th Street, a site in the former Industrial Valley between the Tribe's existing entertainment complex and its other major holding -- the Milwaukee Brewers -- and the former Pabst Farm in Oconomowoc, which has been fallow since a broken development in the early 2000s.
Rumors have indicated that if the Tribe is not successful in getting state financing for a new arena, the Bucks would move to either Jackson, MS, or Reno, NV. Both communities have proposed a new stadium that meets NBA requirements.
When will it end????????
When will it end????????
April 21, 2040
Milwaukee -- In yet another bold move by the Milwaukee Bucks, the Pottowattamie Nation, the team's ownership, today decried the obsolete conditions of the Klements Arena and announced that the team needs a new arena to remain competitive.
When will it end????????
April 21, 2040
Milwaukee -- In yet another bold move by the Milwaukee Bucks, the Pottowattamie Nation, the team's ownership, today decried the obsolete conditions of the Klements Arena and announced that the team needs a new arena to remain competitive.
"It;s not a question of if anymore," a spokesman for the Pottowattamies said in a press conference this morning. "We need the new arena if we are to generate the cash flow necessary for the team to prosper in today's environment."
The NBA backed the Tribe in a statement issued from its Nashville headquarters. "The Klements Arena was built in 2017 and is hopelessly inadequate for an NBA team. It's a basketball arena. As new facilities in Dallas, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and Nashville have shown, our fans are looking for a multi-dimensional entertainment experience, of which our basketball franchises are a major part. Milwaukee's facility just doesn't cut it."
Klements Arena, which acquired its name in a rights battle won by the global sausage empire started in Milwaukee, was completed in 2018 amid much controversy. The Bucks were negotiating with King County and the City of Seattle to move the franchise to the then-newly opened Gates Arena when a late night compromise by the Wisconsin legislature and the Milwaukee Common Council saved the team and built Klements Arena.
The Arena has been home to both the Bucks and Marquette University since. Since the Arena opened, Marquette has won five national titles and never failed to make the NCAA Tournament.
Current estimates are that the arena would cost $5 billion. Proposed site locations include the south side of Wisconsin Avenue between the Milwaukee River and N. 6th Street, a site in the former Industrial Valley between the Tribe's existing entertainment complex and its other major holding -- the Milwaukee Brewers -- and the former Pabst Farm in Oconomowoc, which has been fallow since a broken development in the early 2000s.
Rumors have indicated that if the Tribe is not successful in getting state financing for a new arena, the Bucks would move to either Jackson, MS, or Reno, NV. Both communities have proposed a new stadium that meets NBA requirements.
The BC is awesome for MU right now and they have a great agreement. That said, 5 years from now will MU still like the BC when they are the lone major tenant making updates to the arena and it no longer had lure of being considered a nba arena. The BC will become outdated and unprofitable very quickly without the bucks. I honestly think it will become a city money pit in that case and may be torn down.
Awesome sauce.
Also .. $200m? Fits this need well:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/80633172.html
Milwaukee County should consider selling parkland, adding more private ventures in parks and replacing some park facilities with lower-cost buildings, as potential solutions to a deferred maintenance backlog of at least $200 million, an audit report says.
"Parks infrastructure will continue to deteriorate unless steps are taken to address the backlog of needed maintenance," says the report by County Auditor Jerome Heer.
Not only that, but you are spending $200 million (plus interest because it would be bonded) for 41 nights per year. Outside of the Bucks, the BC works for every other one of its tenants. MU, the Admirals, tours of various sorts, etc.
Furthermore I don't think it is terribly "progressive" to build an arena simply because the team might leave.
Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.
Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.
LOL - That would take a hell of a lot more than $200 million. And furthermore the problem that plagues Milwaukee and other cities and its school systems are the impoverished inner-city neighborhoods/broken families. The best thing that can happen in MKE and other cities is an improved economy, focused on friendly business tax policy, to spur economic growth and job activity - while reducing public funding/support programs to where they don't exceed minimum wage...and minimum wage should be increased in general - to where there is strong motivation for a person to seek out a job, versus remaining on public assistance.
Poverty is the Number 1 problem that plagues our cities and educational system - as poverty is the root cause of so many of the problems that plague inner-city households/family structure. People need a sense of hope, of belonging, and jobs provided this. It should also be noted that the arena hires a lot of minorities, some of whom I'd imagine may live in the inner city. Wish I had the numbers on how many people work at the B.C on game day from parking, to ushers, to janitors, to concessions, to box office, etc. But, that alone is providing solid jobs to citizens of MKE.
Improving the city parks?? Please. MKE could let go of half of its parks (that generate little economic impact) and people's quality of life wouldn't drop in any way, shape or form. Parks are generally vastly underutilized as it is.
Improving the city parks?? Please. MKE could let go of half of its parks (that generate little economic impact) and people's quality of life wouldn't drop in any way, shape or form. Parks are generally vastly underutilized as it is.
I realize that the school system issues are big, and complex.
But, you pressed me for a simple answer to a simple question. I gave you one.
The truth is, (as I have repeated over and over), public funding, TIFs, subsidies, etc. aren't necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be part of a large scale plan that benefits the city and it's residents.
I know a new stadium helps the ownership, show me how it helps the city.
Also, is there a study that shows the Milwaukee parks are underutilized?
If the city is going to spend $200 million for the sake of employment, there are a hell of a lot better ways to do it than providing part time and menial full time jobs in a sports arena.
You could use that money over the next 20 years to attract all sorts of employers to the area that are going to have a better impact job wise than building a basketball arena.
If the city is going to spend $200 million for the sake of employment, there are a hell of a lot better ways to do it than providing part time and menial full time jobs in a sports arena.
You could use that money over the next 20 years to attract all sorts of employers to the area that are going to have a better impact job wise than building a basketball arena.
LOL - A study to show the parks are underutilized - Yea, just what MKE needs - to waste more money on "studies." Do a simple drive by of the parks - I never recall seeing the parks packed with people while I was in MKE. Those by the lakefront, of course, naturally had lots of traffic - but random parks in the middle of the city?? Usually barren. And a park feels a lot more fun when there are more people recreating within it - kind of like a bar - nobody in a bar...no energy/no appeal. People are drawn to people/crowds to an extent.
If the city is going to spend $200 million for the sake of employment, there are a hell of a lot better ways to do it than providing part time and menial full time jobs in a sports arena.
You could use that money over the next 20 years to attract all sorts of employers to the area that are going to have a better impact job wise than building a basketball arena.
Furthermore I would argue that the Brewers bring a great deal of pride to Milwaukee, which means the marginal increase in pride that the Bucks bring is even less worthy of significant investment.
LOL - A study to show the parks are underutilized - Yea, just what MKE needs - to waste more money on "studies." Do a simple drive by of the parks - I never recall seeing the parks packed with people while I was in MKE. Those by the lakefront, of course, naturally had lots of traffic - but random parks in the middle of the city?? Usually barren. And a park feels a lot more fun when there are more people recreating within it - kind of like a bar - nobody in a bar...no energy/no appeal. People are drawn to people/crowds to an extent.
Hat tip to Abele for improving some parks with Beer Gardens, the real drain on the parks system is the par 3 golf courses. There are 6 of those and they should be done away with. Making those business parks would improve economic conditions in milwaukee. .
LOL - That would take a hell of a lot more than $200 million. And furthermore the problem that plagues Milwaukee and other cities and its school systems are the impoverished inner-city neighborhoods/broken families. The best thing that can happen in MKE and other cities is an improved economy, focused on friendly business tax policy, to spur economic growth and job activity - while reducing public funding/support programs to where they don't exceed minimum wage...and minimum wage should be increased in general - to where there is strong motivation for a person to seek out a job, versus remaining on public assistance.
Poverty is the Number 1 problem that plagues our cities and educational system - as poverty is the root cause of so many of the problems that plague inner-city households/family structure. People need a sense of hope, of belonging, and jobs provided this. It should also be noted that the arena hires a lot of minorities, some of whom I'd imagine may live in the inner city. Wish I had the numbers on how many people work at the B.C on game day from parking, to ushers, to janitors, to concessions, to box office, etc. But, that alone is providing solid jobs to citizens of MKE.
Improving the city parks?? Please. MKE could let go of half of its parks (that generate little economic impact) and people's quality of life wouldn't drop in any way, shape or form. Parks are generally vastly underutilized as it is.
I know Milwaukee is not Newark. Here is an article about the Prudential Center and it's impact on the City. The comparison is more like apples to oranges as the Rock has to compete with MSG and the Barclay Center but it does raise some considerations about a new arena for any city.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/prudential_center_yet_to_deliv.html
Do not discount the notion that a downtown arena can't completely change the dynamic of a downtown. It has in my town. 20 years ago, you could shoot off a cannon or an uzi at 5:01 on a weekday or anytime over the weekend and not hit anyone or anything downtown. A new arena was built downtown. Currently, downtown is a dynamic hub of activity. I recognize that this is a micro, not macro example. I realize that 'New-arena-for-a-crappy-team-in-Milwaukee' is a very strong dynamic. Building a new arena to replace an old does not have the same impact. But in the right situation, with the right vision, it can have an impact.
Improving schools, unfortunately has little to do with the schools themselves. Why do catholic schools do as good or a better job with less? Look at the parents who care and are involved. This comes from someone I know who studied this very issue. The difference. Parental involvement. It trumps the other factors including poverty. Of course, an impoverished parent may be less likely to be involved for a host of reasons, but an involved parent is where society needs to start. The schools, to many, are supposed to be the answer and solve societies ills. It doesn't work that way. Can we force parental involvement? Not sure, but the schools probably are not the place to start enforcement.
The other thing that I don't think people always grasp is that if you put a new BC in a different part of the city, and tie it into apartments and all sorts of development, is that it will simply draw people out of a different part of the metropolitan area. Putting 300 apartments downtown is great, but you don't a net gain of 300 renters that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Putting restaurants near the arena is nice, but people aren't going to eat out more because of them.
So yes while a new downtown arena can be nice for downtown, you have to understand that it doesn't create economic activity that wouldn't have taken place otherwise. But one argument could be that a healthy downtown, at the expense of say Wauwatosa...or Brookfield...or the Third Ward, is a net gain for the metropolitan area as a whole.
So yes while a new downtown arena can be nice for downtown, you have to understand that it doesn't create economic activity that wouldn't have taken place otherwise.
I agree that it's a bit like rearranging the deck chairs, but big picture, right now we have suburbs continuing to expand and grow.
IF you could get some population density back into the city, you could theoretically slow down some of the outer ring growth.
Also, population density is good for entertainment areas. The eastside is more dense than ever, and it shows with tons of new dining and entertainment options.
Lastly, Milwaukee seems to do pretty well attracting people under 30 to live in the city. An important next step is figuring out how to retain those people. There are good housing options and neighborhoods (eastside, bay view, 3rd ward, Brewer's Hill, etc.), but as soon as people hit 30+, they are heading out to find lower taxes and better schools. Shorewood, Whitefish Bay & Tosa are where people live if they want to be close to the city but still have a family. Gotta change that, somehow.
I think resident retention could be an interesting concept.
So yes while a new downtown arena can be nice for downtown, you have to understand that it doesn't create economic activity that wouldn't have taken place otherwise.
I agree that it's a bit like rearranging the deck chairs, but big picture, right now we have suburbs continuing to expand and grow.
IF you could get some population density back into the city, you could theoretically slow down some of the outer ring growth.
Also, population density is good for entertainment areas. The eastside is more dense than ever, and it shows with tons of new dining and entertainment options.
Lastly, Milwaukee seems to do pretty well attracting people under 30 to live in the city. An important next step is figuring out how to retain those people. There are good housing options and neighborhoods (eastside, bay view, 3rd ward, Brewer's Hill, etc.), but as soon as people hit 30+, they are heading out to find lower taxes and better schools. Shorewood, Whitefish Bay & Tosa are where people live if they want to be close to the city but still have a family. Gotta change that, somehow.
I think resident retention could be an interesting concept.
I'm under 30, live on the Eastside in one of those shiny new buildings on Kennilworth near Ma Fischer's. Last Friday at about 3 a.m. I awoke to some thug emptying a clip somewhere within a block or two of my apartment.
It's not hard to see why people leave Milwaukee and head to Tosa or any of the other near-suburbs.
It's so boring out here in the burbs. There's nothing but conservative white people and crappy white-bread restaurants/bars, it's horrible. We're moving back downtown.
Marquette's campus felt infinitely safer. I didn't realize that the Eastside was the equivalent of Detroit.
Enjoy the gunfire.
In the past month I've called 911 twice. Once for the shooting I mentioned already. The other for a full-fledged drunken brawl of dozens of (I think) UWM students outside my apartment (it was their move-in day). Today my apartment building emailed us that someone broke into the garage and stole people's bikes.
Marquette's campus felt infinitely safer. I didn't realize that the Eastside was the equivalent of Detroit.
So yes while a new downtown arena can be nice for downtown, you have to understand that it doesn't create economic activity that wouldn't have taken place otherwise. But one argument could be that a healthy downtown, at the expense of say Wauwatosa...or Brookfield...or the Third Ward, is a net gain for the metropolitan area as a whole.
East side is waaaay safer than downtown. I got jumped by 3 guys at 10:30 in the morning while walking down Wisconsin Ave. Anywhere you live in a city is going to have crime. BTW, I don't know how much experience you have with firearms, but I've heard people set off firecrackers and other fireworks fairly often over here (I live right by UWM). They have slightly different sounds. Not saying you're wrong, but it is uncommon for a shooting to happen on the east side."way" may be a bit of an over-exaggeration.
Drunk college kids is a minor inconvenience. Don't involve yourself and you won't usually have a problem.
It's so boring out here in the burbs. There's nothing but conservative white people and crappy white-bread restaurants/bars, it's horrible. We're moving back downtown.
It's too bad there wasn't some way to transport oneself downtown and back to enjoy these bars and restaurants, without dealing with the downsides of a major city. It's too bad no one has invited a motorized horseless carriage or some other such nonsense.
For me the drunk driving would be the main hurdle.
"way" may be a bit of an over-exaggeration.
http://fox6now.com/2014/09/10/rash-of-robberies-on-milwaukees-east-side-suspects-sought/
It's too bad there wasn't some way to transport oneself downtown and back to enjoy these bars and restaurants, without dealing with the downsides of a major city. It's too bad no one has invited a motorized horseless carriage or some other such nonsense.
Maybe if they'd build a train...
Not necessarily 100% accurate. If I go to a Bucks game, it's not necessarily in lieu of going to the Marcus or the zoo. Basketball interests me so on a night when I might otherwise stay in, grab a netflix/redbox, and MAYBE spend $5 on a sub I'm instead spending $20 on a ticket (nosebleeds, still in college), $15 on parking, and $40 at the bars afterwards. Frankly, if I don't spend that money there it's going into my savings (probably the wiser choice anyway, but that's a different topic).
East side is waaaay safer than downtown. I got jumped by 3 guys at 10:30 in the morning while walking down Wisconsin Ave. Anywhere you live in a city is going to have crime. BTW, I don't know how much experience you have with firearms, but I've heard people set off firecrackers and other fireworks fairly often over here (I live right by UWM). They have slightly different sounds. Not saying you're wrong, but it is uncommon for a shooting to happen on the east side.
Drunk college kids is a minor inconvenience. Don't involve yourself and you won't usually have a problem.
I have enough experience with firearms to be able to tell the difference (worked at a gun club/firing range for a few years in highschool and early college). I wouldn't bet a kidney, but I'm 99.9% sure it was a semi-automatic handgun with a small caliber round. That, coupled with the things that I heard the people involved saying through my window make me supremely confident that it was gunfire, but the lack of screaming suggests nobody was hit.
I guess maybe I've let myself get sidetracked but my point is this: There are very good reasons *not* to live downtown or the Eastside. Crime is one of those reasons.
Count me as skeptical that a stadium development with residential property associated with it will be a success.
Also, heard on the radio yesterday that the new plan is to "tear down the Boston Store, put the new stadium there, and attach it to the Grand Ave." Anyone else hearing this?
Here's a similar example for you from Hartford, CT unfolding right now. The owner of AA New Britain Rock Cats (Twins affiliate) planned to move to Massachusetts somewhere, however very quietly along the way the city of Hartford secretly negotiated with him to build a downtown AA Baseball stadium in an area called Downtown North that Hartford has been trying to redevelop for 30 years. (And to keep them in state.) They announced a "$60mil stadium only" with hopes that redevelopment would follow. Residents went bonkers with many of the arguments I've read in this thread so the city put the DoNo redevelopment out for bid for the entire area so that private money could enter into the development right from the beginning.
They got three interesting submissions with the one chosen one that includes:
* the new stadium
* movement of the Thomas Hooker Brewery downtown including a beer garden overlooking the field
* a Little League Field
* a downtown grocery store (two grocery stores committed however that shakes out as the city has been trying for 25years to bring just one downtown)
* 300 apartments next to the stadium
The argument being made now is without the stadium none of this other development will happen. They're still working out the final details but it sounds like it's going to happen.
that's a real shame ... the Rock Cats (and MiLB baseball) has been very successful in New Britain for decades. Stinks they'll lose the team despite consistently good attendance, community involvement and a solid facility.
Also, heard on the radio yesterday that the new plan is to "tear down the Boston Store, put the new stadium there, and attach it to the Grand Ave." Anyone else hearing this?
Here's the article in case you're interested (with conceptual sketches):
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/zilber-floats-idea-for-new-arena-on-w-wisconsin-ave-b99350191z1-275025161.html
It's certainly an interesting idea, but three of the four concepts would tear down the Boston Store Lofts building (owned by Wispark). It would still be a small site for an arena, even if this were done. I photoshopped the Bobcats' arena onto an aerial of the site, to get a better idea, and will try to share when I get it online.
Here's the article in case you're interested (with conceptual sketches):This would be a big plus for MU. Very close to being on campus.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/zilber-floats-idea-for-new-arena-on-w-wisconsin-ave-b99350191z1-275025161.html
It's certainly an interesting idea, but three of the four concepts would tear down the Boston Store Lofts building (owned by Wispark). It would still be a small site for an arena, even if this were done. I photoshopped the Bobcats' arena onto an aerial of the site, to get a better idea, and will try to share when I get it online.
That would be extremely interesting because the Bon-Ton HQ is in that building. That comprises Boston Store, Bergner's, Carson's, Herberger's and Younkers. I thought they owned that building, too.
Interesting concept.
Could create a cool entertainment district/option indoors and Grand Ave for pre and post game.
However, I'd really be interested in how they would backfill the old neighborhood. Nothing around the BC is irreplaceable, but taking it out of there would create a hole in the middle of the city. Need something down there to keep activity and $ up, otherwise they are just going to create a no mans land, which will create some problems.
I'd love to see a good stadium engineering firm like HNTB or AECOM take on this challenge.
How about a park?
Nobody uses parks. ::)
Truthfully, it's right in the middle of the city, and it would be large empty property. I guess sky's the limit.
Soccer stadium? (MLS, MU and UWM could use it, right?)
Theme park?
Urban farm?
Driving range?
Go-kart track?
I honestly have no idea. I guess it would be a big opportunity to do something innovative, so I think it could be a good idea to move the basketball arena over to Wisco. ave if they have a big idea for the space that it vacates.
Nobody uses parks. ::)
Truthfully, it's right in the middle of the city, and it would be large empty property. I guess sky's the limit.
Soccer stadium? (MLS, MU and UWM could use it, right?)
Ideally, you'd like to attach that 'new' open area with the Pabst recovery project as well.
I'm actually giddy about this Grand Avenue idea. Park, drink a lot, eat some food, go to the game, drink until my eye bleeds, get a room at the Courtyard, wake up, puke and then get in my car and go home. All without going outside in Winter? Sign me up.
Ideally, you'd like to attach that 'new' open area with the Pabst recovery project as well.
I'm actually giddy about this Grand Avenue idea. Park, drink a lot, eat some food, go to the game, drink until my eye bleeds, get a room at the Courtyard, wake up, puke and then get in my car and go home. All without going outside in Winter? Sign me up.
Nobody uses parks. ::)
Truthfully, it's right in the middle of the city, and it would be large empty property. I guess sky's the limit.
Soccer stadium? (MLS, MU and UWM could use it, right?)
Theme park?
Urban farm?
Driving range?
Go-kart track?
I honestly have no idea. I guess it would be a big opportunity to do something innovative, so I think it could be a good idea to move the basketball arena over to Wisco. ave if they have a big idea for the space that it vacates.
Condos.
Office buildings.
Expansion of MATC and/or MSOE.
Target.
Well, in theory, it would be cool to be more aggressive/unique.
Retail/offices/condos are good if there is a significant demand, but maybe they could do something really unique with that amount of space (BC&Park East). It's not everyday that a property that size becomes available inside of a major city.
I'd hope that there is a good long-term, big vision idea out there.
Worlds biggest indoor waterpark? (just a random idea)
Well, in theory, it would be cool to be more aggressive/unique.
Retail/offices/condos are good if there is a significant demand, but maybe they could do something really unique with that amount of space (BC&Park East). It's not everyday that a property that size becomes available inside of a major city.
I'd hope that there is a good long-term, big vision idea out there.
Worlds biggest indoor waterpark? (just a random idea)
The Park East has been vacant since what? Norquist? That is a big plot of land that has been avaialble inside of a major city for a long long time and nobody has done squat with it.*
*Except one time I think some parking scofflaws sold parking on it illegally during a concert and disappeared into the night once the show started. Everyone got ticketed. Most revenue the land has ever generated.
The firm I would want designing the new arena would be Populous (formerly HOK sports). HOK designed the Bradley Center, so they know that area of the city and I still think putting a new arena north of the Bradley Center is the best option for many reasons. Populous designed the Amway Center in Orland0\o which was built for about the same amount as the projected new arena. The Amway Center was 870,000 square feet.
http://populous.com/expertise/
The site north of the Bradley Center would give some leeway as far as how to position the building, especially if you eliminate Juneau between 4th and 6th. Angle it from northeast to southwest so the front atrium could face towards the Milwaukee skyline to the southeast. Restaurants, pro shop on the 4th Street side.
- Do the Bucks move their headquarters and if they do, is it in the arena itself or would they build it across 6th Street in the hillside to the north of the Juneau roundabout. Parking for staff and players in the Bucks building at the street level with the offices and training facilities above the parking level and a secure/private skywalk to the arena.
- A new parking ramp just to the north of the current MATC parking ramp.
- If people aren't opposed to skywalks and want a tie in to the convention center, you could continue the existing skywalk across from the Hyatt and run it south and then go across the street and continue it between the Milwaukee Theatre and MECCA above the one story connector. Then skirt the Bradley Center's southwest edge and go between the Bradley Center and the MATC parking ramp until it gets to the new arena. Accessible, heated and it could tie most everything together between Wisconsin Avenue and the new arena. Kind of a pie in the sky idea, but it's something.
*Except one time I think some parking scofflaws sold parking on it illegally during a concert and disappeared into the night once the show started. Everyone got ticketed. Most revenue the land has ever generated.
Journal/Sentinel Building.
It would open onto Pere Marquette Park and the river.
The owners are real estate savvy.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/bucks-owners-hope-to-pick-site-for-new-arena-by-years-end-b99352988z1-275347641.htmlNo. Out....of....the....question.
From the article:
"Other possibilities include land currently occupied by the headquarters of Journal Communications, 333 W. State St. Journal Communications, which publishes the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, occupies a square block between N. Old World Third St., and N. 4th St., and W. State St., and W. Kilbourn Ave.
While the Journal Communications building may not be big enough for an arena, sources say it would be ideal if the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena, formerly known as the U.S. Cellular Arena, is demolished, creating even more open land. Franklyn Gimbel of the Wisconsin Center District board, which owns and operates the UWM Arena, is opposed to demolishing the 64-year-old structure."
These owners are all about real estate. My guess is they want to develop that side of the Milwaukee River.
You're not wrong, but maybe that just illustrates that arenas aren't the economic boom they are purported to be. Which brings us back to square one: How valuable are the Bucks anyways?What are you talking about? What city is not an arena not a boon in? You are crazy.
It's taken 20 years for something to happen with the Pabst, and the Park East lot has sat vacant for a long time. Maybe a new arena isn't really the answer we are looking for.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2eq6fxv.jpg)
Current BC footprint in that location.
What are you talking about? What city is not an arena not a boon in? You are crazy.
If there is a city of such then they just lack vision and common sense on what to put around it.
That is why the Bucks have something going for them because you have guys from New York who have vision and can come up with something that can work.
They were supposed to use the land across from the Hilton Hotel and expand the Convention Center [which they never should have built in the first place] and expand the Hyatt Regency 25 years ago when I worked there and did nothing...
What should have happened is they should have kept the old Covention Ctr until right now and the New Bucks Arena should have gone right in that spot they are wasting.
No one has vision here.
What should have happened is they should have kept the old Covention Ctr until right now and the New Bucks Arena should have gone right in that spot they are wasting.They should just tear down the convention center/MECCA/Theatre and do it right. New arena on Wisconsin and a convention center connecting the new arena to the BC. Convention centers are just big rectangular boxes and easy to build.
I'm not really even sure where to start here. Arenas typically are not economic boons on their own unless they have solid, comprehensive development plans that goes along with. A new arena could certainly revitalize whatever area of downtown it is placed. However, I would ask why the area surrounding the Bradley Center is such a dead zone if arenas are supposed to automatically encourage development.
The problem isn't typically a lack of vision, its a lack of a proper market. Developers could have all kinds of grand plans, but if the market isn't going to support their developments, what can be done? It is still very hard to get financing for new buildings in this economic climate.
I agree that the current spot for the Milwaukee Center is not ideal, but the old MECCA convention center would be over 40 years old today if it had not been torn down. Milwaukee can't even keep up with other cities with a 200,000+ square foot Wisconsin Center. The old convention center was only 130,000.
Again, I don't think it's a lack of vision that is the problem. I'll be interested to see what site is selected, but I think it's going to be the land immediately north of the BC. That requires the least demolition and has the most surrounding open land for development.
The problem with the BC is that it was a poor location for development to begin with. The main demand for development would have been between the arena and downtown, but the MECCA/Theatre and the Journal-Sentinel building blocked all of that off and created a barrier. MATC blocks everything to the west, and nobody wants to go any further north.
The lack of vision present in Milwaukee is evidenced by choosing to put Miller Park in parking lot of old County Stadium and not downtown.
Virtually every new basketball arena, baseball stadium and football stadium (other than Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX) has been built in downtown areas in the last 20 years.
Should have put Miller Park in the vacant lot right across from the bars on Water Street. Can't imagine how nice of experience it could have been sitting in upper deck at stadium placed there being able to look out over downtown MKE and also get views of Lake Michigan.
Blah blah blah about the whole tailgating thing - there could have been a dedicated tailgating lot downtwon, where fans could have been charged a premium to park in/use - But, taligating wouldn't be such a necessity as it was at County Stadium (since there is and was absolutely ZERO eating options around County Stadium/Miller Park.
The restaurants downtown would have been a hell of a lot more impacted by placing Miller Park there, than in a vacant lot in the middle of nowhere. People tailgating spend their money at a grocery store for their tailgate food, and not at the bars and restaurants they otherwise would if they were in a downtown stadium location. That is just 1 reason why and how an arena/stadium placed in the right place can impact economic growth.
The lack of vision present in Milwaukee is evidenced by choosing to put Miller Park in parking lot of old County Stadium and not downtown.
Virtually every new basketball arena, baseball stadium and football stadium (other than Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX) has been built in downtown areas in the last 20 years.
Should have put Miller Park in the vacant lot right across from the bars on Water Street. Can't imagine how nice of experience it could have been sitting in upper deck at stadium placed there being able to look out over downtown MKE and also get views of Lake Michigan.
Blah blah blah about the whole tailgating thing - there could have been a dedicated tailgating lot downtwon, where fans could have been charged a premium to park in/use - But, taligating wouldn't be such a necessity as it was at County Stadium (since there is and was absolutely ZERO eating options around County Stadium/Miller Park.
The restaurants downtown would have been a hell of a lot more impacted by placing Miller Park there, than in a vacant lot in the middle of nowhere. People tailgating spend their money at a grocery store for their tailgate food, and not at the bars and restaurants they otherwise would if they were in a downtown stadium location. That is just 1 reason why and how an arena/stadium placed in the right place can impact economic growth.
So what does that mean for a new NBA arena in Milwaukee?
Blah blah blah about the whole tailgating thing - there could have been a dedicated tailgating lot downtwon, where fans could have been charged a premium to park in/use - But, taligating wouldn't be such a necessity as it was at County Stadium (since there is and was absolutely ZERO eating options around County Stadium/Miller Park.
Says the guy who doesn't live here. The Brewers are 8th in attendance right now, ahead of the following teams that have new downtown stadiums. Philly, Colorado, Baltimore, Cincy, DC, Pittsburgh, Minny, Cleveland, Seattle.
Plus, downtown was never a viable option. It was either where it was, or the team would have bolted.
Says the guy who doesn't live here.
It shows how ass backwards MKE "vision" has been in the past - just as it continues to be at present, considering as a city it is potentially going to let a pro sports franchise walk over not being willing to kick in $200M, while private money kicks in $400M or ~66% of money necessary to build an arena.
Had MKE put the Brewers stadium downtown, it then could have served as a natural place for a new basketball arena to be placed next to (at some point down the road) Perhaps if the city had vision 15 years ago and realized at some point the Bradley Center would likely need to be replaced, they could have envisioned a scenario where at one point both stadiums are next to each other and parking lots would benefit both - Basketball season from Nov-May, Baseball picking up from April-October....lots of synergy by both, and now you have 122 nights of entertainment in downtown MKE instead of just 41. LIkely would have spurred more young professionals to want to live downtown, more incidental attendance would have occurred at downtown Brewers stadium from all of the population density around downtown as it is.
I'm still waiting for you to share your vision as to what scenario you would want to see offered up by the city for it to make sense for it to invest the $200M you just can't seem to wrap your head around at present as to how that would be a worthwhile investment.
BTW - What kind of work do you do?
I don't disagree about a lack of vision and planning in Milwaukee. A downtown ballpark would have been interesting.
Truthfully, I'm glad the ballpark is where it is though. I think it's somewhat unique to have a stadium that IS NOT downtown, and I think the tailgating is a big cultural draw for people. But, tailgating doesn't generate the revenue that bars and restaurants would. I can see both sides of the coin. I don't have an reports or studies to argue it either way.
As far as my plan for 200million? I have no idea. MY POINT, is that arenas might not be the big economic driver that we are led to believe, and I'm not really interested in handing out 200million without a significant payback on the back end.
We're told that an arena is a huge economic win for the city, right? Well, the BC has plenty of undeveloped property surrounding it. If the Buck and an arena are such huge economic drivers, shouldn't that property all be developed by now? It's been 25 years.
The lack of vision present in Milwaukee is evidenced by choosing to put Miller Park in parking lot of old County Stadium and not downtown.
Virtually every new basketball arena, baseball stadium and football stadium (other than Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX) has been built in downtown areas in the last 20 years.
Should have put Miller Park in the vacant lot right across from the bars on Water Street. Can't imagine how nice of experience it could have been sitting in upper deck at stadium placed there being able to look out over downtown MKE and also get views of Lake Michigan.
Blah blah blah about the whole tailgating thing - there could have been a dedicated tailgating lot downtwon, where fans could have been charged a premium to park in/use - But, taligating wouldn't be such a necessity as it was at County Stadium (since there is and was absolutely ZERO eating options around County Stadium/Miller Park.
The restaurants downtown would have been a hell of a lot more impacted by placing Miller Park there, than in a vacant lot in the middle of nowhere. People tailgating spend their money at a grocery store for their tailgate food, and not at the bars and restaurants they otherwise would if they were in a downtown stadium location. That is just 1 reason why and how an arena/stadium placed in the right place can impact economic growth.
its alot of money thats for sure but I think As MU fans, MU basketball would be hurt without an NBA team here. I think we can all agree on this?
Also as one smaller point. The area is tremendously developed realtive to what it would look like if the arenas did not exist. I may be wrong but I dont think Goolsbies, Bucks, or any of the other restaurants would be there or have the business they do. Additionally having been in many of the hotels before and after NBA and collge games theybenefit tremndously as well.
More to your point, I beleive of the areas directly north of the stadium not being as developed, it is my own personal opinion that alot of that has to do with the design of the stadium. the majority of the people are funnelled in and out on the east and south sides of the stadium. getting into and out of the the nortwest corner of the stadium is next to impossible and current design makes it next to impossible for anyone to go to a restaurant/bar on the northwest corner of the stadium (if they existed) to then get into the stadium pre game or out post game on foot
First of all, we can't all agree that MU would be hurt (at least in a material way) without an NBA team here. In a sense, they would be helped, as Marquette would be the only source of quality hoops in Milwaukee. People who go to a couple of Bucks games a year simply because they like basketball might switch to Marquette.
Also, regarding the pedestrian traffic pattern deterring development to the north, look at that Google Earth view again. Almost all of the parking (structures, lots, and off-street), is North and West of the BC. People go over to 3rd street because that's where the bars and restaurants are. If some good places opened up Northwest of the BC, people would go there. It wouldn't be out of anyone's way unless you are taking the bus home.
its alot of money thats for sure but I think As MU fans, MU basketball would be hurt without an NBA team here. I think we can all agree on this?
Also as one smaller point. The area is tremendously developed realtive to what it would look like if the arenas did not exist. I may be wrong but I dont think Goolsbies, Bucks, or any of the other restaurants would be there or have the business they do. Additionally having been in many of the hotels before and after NBA and collge games theybenefit tremndously as well.
More to your point, I beleive of the areas directly north of the stadium not being as developed, it is my own personal opinion that alot of that has to do with the design of the stadium. the majority of the people are funnelled in and out on the east and south sides of the stadium. getting into and out of the the nortwest corner of the stadium is next to impossible and current design makes it next to impossible for anyone to go to a restaurant/bar on the northwest corner of the stadium (if they existed) to then get into the stadium pre game or out post game on foot
u do understand that without a pro franchise we would still be playing in the old gym correct? or some glorified version of the Al.
And don't forget the BC was built with Hockey money.
Wrong-o Kimosabe.
The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.
Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.
By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.
Wrong-o Kimosabe.
The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.
Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.
By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.
Wrong-o Kimosabe.
The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.
Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.
By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.
You're right, and to be fair, the BC and the Bucks certainly help 3rd st., water st., and some hotel traffic. No doubt in my mind.I don't think you can limit it to the Bucks games (which probably averages 45 games {playoffs and preseasons}). Add in concerts, etc. that we wouldn't get without an updated arena. The Bradley Center drew about 1.5 million to 167 different events in 2011. I think $200M may be on the high-end. Going rate of a stadium is $450M. $200M pitched in by owners, $75M for naming rights, add in whatever MU or private investors pay.
But, my overall point is, people act like a new arena is some sort of magic economic bullet, and I'm just not sure that it is.
A dozen bars and some hotel traffic 41 nights per year isn't exactly a 200million dollar impact on the economy. Most of the people employed by the BC are part time. Nice part-time jobs, but again, I'm not sure those type of jobs are really what we want from this size investment.
I don't think you can limit it to the Bucks games (which probably averages 45 games {playoffs and preseasons}). Add in concerts, etc. that we wouldn't get without an updated arena. The Bradley Center drew about 1.5 million to 167 different events in 2011. I think $200M may be on the high-end. Going rate of a stadium is $450M. $200M pitched in by owners, $75M for naming rights, add in whatever MU or private investors pay.
God Nickleback is awful. I hope for Milwaukee's sake an arena-full of people aren't willing to give them money to see a concert.
If it's subsidizing the arena's cost to Marquette's benefit, bring 'em on. I hope they sell out a week's worth of shows.
Certainly there are more than just Bucks events, but right now, they are really the ones demanding a new arena. I think the Globetrotters, Admirals, MU and Celine Dione can all still live with the BC.
I'd question the whole "won't get concerts" scenario.
The reality is, if Nickleback can sell out on a Wed. in Milwaukee, they will consider including it on their tour. I'm not sure how much a shiny new arena changes that. Is there a case study or industry average?
Also, did BMO really pay $75million for naming rights? I didn't realize that was the going rate. Nice.
The BC not drawing concerts was one of the concerns brought up by Marotta. Not sure what the details were. I remember him talking about it and saying they are missing out on big name concerts because the BC is inadequate. Not that they couldn't sell the concerts out, but that the concert organizers did not want to come to the BC. Too lazy to look it up.
The BC not drawing concerts was one of the concerns brought up by Marotta. Not sure what the details were. I remember him talking about it and saying they are missing out on big name concerts because the BC is an inadequate. Not that they couldn't sell the concerts out, but that the concert organizers did not want to come to the BC. Too lazy to look it up.
Ya, so maybe I'm an idiot, but I'd challenge Marc on that and ask for what he's specifically referring to.
I've worked with some musicians, tour managers and record labels in my career. While a musician may not like a city, or a venue, they like their money. If they could sell tickets at the north pole, they'd play there.
Now, maybe a new arena would help sell some tickets, so in theory, you'd get Nickleback for 6 nights instead of just 4, but you get the idea. I don't know if the BC is a showstopper/barrier. I'd need more specifics.
IIRC there was a push to score one of the NHL expansion franchises of the era, but with increased demand for NHL teams, the NHL upped the buy-in and priced out the prospective ownership group in Milwaukee. That left the BC which is clearly built to be a hockey arena with only a minor league hockey team to be its tenant.
If hockey were not a player in the construction of the BC, its design would be different.
B. S. ? maybe, but that's what he said
I looked it up. Specifically he was referring to the concert and entertainment acts needing certain monetary guarantees. The Bradley Center does not have the amenities and luxury seating to guaranty the money the acts demand up front.
B. S. ? maybe, but that's what he said
I looked it up. Specifically he was referring to the concert and entertainment acts needing certain monetary guarantees. The Bradley Center does not have the amenities and luxury seating to guaranty the money the acts demand up front.
B. S. ? maybe, but that's what he said
The loss of the Bucks would also make it harder for the BMO Harris Bradley Center to attract top concerts. The concert industry has become much more competitive than in the Bradley Center's early years, Marotta and Costello said. Previously, artists paid a fee to lease the facility and then kept whatever revenue the concert made. Today, top artists typically demand a revenue guarantee to perform at a venue. Thus the venue takes the risk that the event will generate enough revenue to meet the artists' guarantee and to cover the facility's cost of operations.
The same amenities that the Bucks need to generate more revenue are also needed to generate more revenue for concerts or other events that the Bradley Center competes for with other Midwest venues, Marotta said. And the Bradley Center needs the operating revenue generated by Bucks games to give it the financial security to take risks on providing revenue guarantees to book big name concerts.
I guess I could avoid the condescending comments if I added more detail. I meant 75m/25yrs. The naming rights for the new BMO Harris deal (plus gate sponsors) is for 3 mil a year. (18 mil over 6) That is for a crappy stadium that they still has the name Bradley in it and that people recognize as the Bradley center despite the new name. I would say that the going rate is around 75 mil to 100 mil for 25 years for a Milwaukee stadium based on recent deals. (4/year for amway and 10/yr for Barclays) Nice?
Also, did BMO really pay $75million for naming rights? I didn't realize that was the going rate. Nice.
You're right, and to be fair, the BC and the Bucks certainly help 3rd st., water st., and some hotel traffic. No doubt in my mind.
But, my overall point is, people act like a new arena is some sort of magic economic bullet, and I'm just not sure that it is.
A dozen bars and some hotel traffic 41 nights per year isn't exactly a 200million dollar impact on the economy. Most of the people employed by the BC are part time. Nice part-time jobs, but again, I'm not sure those type of jobs are really what we want from this size investment.
The players pay tons in taxes and property taxes, but I don't think many (if any) live in the city, so I don't think we can count much on that.
I'm not against the idea of a new arena, I just need somebody to clearly explain how it's going to help the city, and even explain why it's going to help more than the BC has. BC 2.0 isn't going to cut it.
Moving the arena to Grand Ave is actually an interesting idea, but then they need to illustrate what is going back into the current BC's neighborhood to help it grow. Otherwise, they are just moving around the deck chairs, and that's not growth, that's redistribution that will get sold to us as "growth".
Don't think anyone is suggesting building a new arena is a magic bullet. I think what most on the side of wanting to build another arena are saying is that there will be a BIG VOID.
A team leaves a city and it leaves a hole in the city - economically, absolutely, but also from the standpoint of pride. Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community. As for that money being spent elsewhere? I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.
Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community. As for that money being spent elsewhere? I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.
Don't think anyone is suggesting building a new arena is a magic bullet. I think what most on the side of wanting to build another arena are saying is that there will be a BIG VOID left in the community if MKE loses a pro sports franchise. That void will be both economically as well as one less civic amenity the community can rally behind (of course when the Bucks are winning.) You belittle the 41 nights per year of spend that takes place at 12 bars and some hotels - yet what does that translate into over 20 years? What alternative use of $200M could generate a similar economic return? We all know the businesses around Cleveland's arena took a HUGE hit when LeBron left.
You have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have built arenas with tax dollars in the HOPES of luring an NBA team - MKE has a team and seems willing to let the team walk. Didn't MKE narrowly avoid the Brewers leaving too 15 years ago? Hell as I recall even the debate for the Packers to get some tax dollar funding for their improvements only won something like 52 to 48?
A team leaves a city and it leaves a hole in the city - economically, absolutely, but also from the standpoint of pride. Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community. As for that money being spent elsewhere? I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.
I guess I could avoid the condescending comments if I added more detail. I meant 75m/25yrs. The naming rights for the new BMO Harris deal (plus gate sponsors) is for 3 mil a year. (18 mil over 6) That is for a crappy stadium that they still has the name Bradley in it and that people recognize as the Bradley center despite the new name. I would say that the going rate is around 75 mil to 100 mil for 25 years for a Milwaukee stadium based on recent deals. (4/year for amway and 10/yr for Barclays) Nice?
I just question if the stadium will be kept up to date if the bucks leave. The bucks have paid for most of the improvements in the past. I think there is a decent chance the stadium won't be capable of producing high end concerts.
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?
If not have the owners considered attempting to gather money through sponsorship, IE BMO, Harley, NML...
Seems to me that the cart if being placed before the horse. The city should be approaching this from the other direction. Lets not attempt to get public financing and then ask the owners. Lets ask the owners first. See where they stand. I thought Kohl sold the team with provisions for keeping it in Milwaukee. I can not believe he wouldn't have had a clause in case public financing fell through.
I know I wouldn't want to be the politician right now that takes the lead on this public financing. Because it wont pass a referendum. The only chance is the politicians go around the public.
IMO public financing should be the LAST resort, yet its the first.
Incidentally I have no idea why it HAS to be downtown. Especially if they are going to tax the 5 county area again. Not saying it should be out in the suburbs. But how about some middle ground. Maybe out near the casino or Miller park area.
Ding, ding, ding. But why would they pay for the entire thing themselves when they can get the public to pay most of the cost by having the NBA help threaten to move the team if we don't?
Ding, ding, ding. But why would they pay for the entire thing themselves when they can get the public to pay most of the cost by having the NBA help threaten to move the team if we don't?
I totally agree, but seems to me a motivated journalist could get a good discussion going on this. Rather than the puff that's out there right now that only discusses public financing. Turn the table on these cats.
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?
If not have the owners considered attempting to gather money through sponsorship, IE BMO, Harley, NML...
Seems to me that the cart if being placed before the horse. The city should be approaching this from the other direction. Lets not attempt to get public financing and then ask the owners. Lets ask the owners first. See where they stand. I thought Kohl sold the team with provisions for keeping it in Milwaukee. I can not believe he wouldn't have had a clause in case public financing fell through.
I know I wouldn't want to be the politician right now that takes the lead on this public financing. Because it wont pass a referendum. The only chance is the politicians go around the public.
IMO public financing should be the LAST resort, yet its the first.
Incidentally I have no idea why it HAS to be downtown. Especially if they are going to tax the 5 county area again. Not saying it should be out in the suburbs. But how about some middle ground. Maybe out near the casino or Miller park area.
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?
A couple of thoughts on this:
1) I have no dog in this hunt, so in the end, I'm not terribly concerned about the consequences. I live an hour from Milwaukee in NE Illinois and we have enough of our own problems, thank you very much. Our state spent somewhere between $200 million and $400 million more than it needed to on a publicly financed football stadium to preserve a crumbling war memorial and to build a toilet seat inside some Greek columns -- so who are we to judge!
2) The only way I could imagine that a privately financed stadium works is if the Bradley Center and the old Milwaukee Arena are torn down. I don't see that as necessarily an automatic in this debate. The Arena, which has not hosted the Bucks or Marquette since 1986, is still standing and I wonder whether the Convention Center District would be open to removing the Arena-Auditorium for an asset they did not control or potentially benefit from. Both sites have to go to ensure the new facility has no competition.
3) The model for a privately financed stadium is Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles condemned the land in Chavez Ravine for the stadium and improvements. Walter O'Malley, the then-owner of the Dodgers, financed the stadium's construction and operated it. One of the big contributors to the eventual success of the Dodgers was Union Oil Company of California's sponsorship, which repaid a financial commitment that company made to the Dodgers. Union Oil sponsored Dodger broadcasts and was the only advertising in Dodger Stadium for years.
4) For a privately financed stadium to work, the owners would require a significant commitment from Marquette regarding use of the stadium and, probably, a commitment from the Admirals and the UWM Panthers as well. I also think the number of concerts would have to rise exponentially. I'm no expert in stadium economics, but I suspect that only Marquette and the concerts could benefit from the incremental amenities and capacity with the new arena.
5) I don't know what to think of the possibility of losing the Bucks. I do know that when the Milwaukee Braves left town in 1965 for Atlanta, it left a huge hole in the hearts of baseball fans in Southeast Wisconsin. The ugliness surrounding the Braves' move south, the bitterness both before and after the team left, really didn't subside until a good part of the generation that was huge Braves fans basically died. The Brewers did a lot to fill the hole, but the lingering animosity toward major league baseball lasted for a long time. I suspect the Bucks have been so bad for so long that the animosity won't be as severe but who knows? Unlike major league baseball, if the Bucks leave, the NBA is NEVER coming back.
I don't think having the Bucks, MU, UWM and Admirals under the same roof would work for scheduling.
Leave the Arena, knock the BC down.
There is no doubt in my mind that a private stadium CAN be financed by almost any owner in the NBA. The problem is, they just don't want to, and to this point, most don't have to.
Cities will finance and build arenas and stadiums and give the teams all of the, parking, concessions, etc.
Why would any owner pay for it themselves when there are markets out there that will pay for them? It's happened across all pro sports.
Why would the Wilf's pay for a new Vikings Stadium when they can get the State of MN to do it for them? Way less risk, way less $ up front, and they still get to reap all of the benefits.
The Bucks ownership isn't going to build without public funds. Won't happen. They will want a good amount of public $. That's how it works.
I think you just answered your own debate and consternation over the topic...with regard to why Milwaukee should do it. If there wasn't value in pro sports teams in markets, cities wouldn't spend the money to retain the teams. Period. And as mentioned you have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have invested heavily in an arena with tax dollars in the HOPES of landing a team.
MKE would seemingly be ass backwards if it let the Bucks walk, due to not being willing to kick in some funding. Have to spend money, to make money. You'd think MKE would have learned its lesson with the Braves..and how bent people were when they left. Hell MKE damn near let the Brewers walk...imagine if that had happened? YOu are now looking at a city with as much cache or national mention as Des Moines or Omaha.
I think you just answered your own debate and consternation over the topic...with regard to why Milwaukee should do it. If there wasn't value in pro sports teams in markets, cities wouldn't spend the money to retain the teams. Period. And as mentioned you have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have invested heavily in an arena with tax dollars in the HOPES of landing a team.
MKE would seemingly be ass backwards if it let the Bucks walk, due to not being willing to kick in some funding. Have to spend money, to make money. You'd think MKE would have learned its lesson with the Braves..and how bent people were when they left. Hell MKE damn near let the Brewers walk...imagine if that had happened? YOu are now looking at a city with as much cache or national mention as Des Moines or Omaha.
Right, and are there established case studies showing how successful those publicly financed investments have been? Has it created real growth or simply redistribution? Is civic pride at an all time high? Did the arena do what they thought it would?
What about OKC? What will that look like without Durant & Westbrook? Is it sustainable, or did they just get lucky? Are other markets able to sustain high attendance and economic growth? Memphis?
I'll put it this way:
As a Milwaukee tax payer, I don't want important decisions and large scale investments being made simply "because (insert city) does it". Not good enough.
It has to be correct for this market, both short and long term. That's all I'm interested in. Case studies are great, but it can't be as simple as "Louisville did it, and if we don't, we'll be Des Moines!".
A 200million dollar investment in the Bucks might be a good decision, but I have yet to see anybody from the Bucks lay out a specific case illustrating how the city benefits from a new arena. A lot of vague generalities, like "civic pride", "economic growth", or "lack of concerts".
You want my tax money? show me how it's going to work.
We'll see what ownership presents. If they make a good case, then it'll probably get done. If they say "We need it, or we'll move", I have a feeling they are gone.
You should make similar demands on how your tax monies are otherwise being spent. I believe trolley cars are being "invested" into. Some have argued money for Parks that need upgrades. Here's a question? How do parks generate any economic benefit to a city? Yes, they need to be mowed for 5 months of the year 1 time per week...but what else? There are plenty of social service programs that handout money with zero return on investment.
I do understand your point, that a case being made such as - this city did it, or that city did it - doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight. The biggest statement in my view is that cities are in competition with each other, just as are states in competition with each other, just as countries are in competition with each other. You have economic development councils in pea sized town, trying to attract businesses, all the way up to major metropolitan areas having economic development councils. And, when there are about 7 cities just ready to snatch up and compete for an NBA franchise, it tells me there is at minimum perceived value in having an NBA team.
As for OKC - when did people ever even hear about OKC prior to the Thunder being located there? OKC was known basically for the McVeigh Federal building bombing. Teams have up and down years/periods - yet when a team is playing at a high level, the exposure that team gets for its city is incredible. How do you quantify this value? What can Milwaukee do to be mentioned on a national sports cast (with some of the highest ratings of all programming) 82 nights per year, in the way of mere Bucks highlights?
This article is pretty relevant. It talks about the Red Wings new 450 million dollar stadium that is being built in Detroit. The stadium is half city funded and then half private.
http://www.examiner.com/article/sports-stadiums-prove-more-lucrative-for-franchise-owners-than-cities
I'm actually very excited for this to open in 2017. The stadium will obviously be fantastic, but I think the neighborhood that's being built around it is going to be a game changer for the city.
The big Difference is Ilitch had all the power in the deal. In MKE you have Owners that cannot move the team to other locations or they lose the team that they purchased at a discount. They also have KOHLS 100 mil that probably goes back to him if the place is not built, and MU has already said we would Kick in money that I assume we would get back over time. If the city needs to come up with only 100-150 mil to get it done and passes on it and loses out on all the revenue involed with the team that would seem short sighted.
his old retail chain is nothing of the company he led back in the 70s
Kohl's (The store) is bigger than it ever has been.
He has plenty of legacy. Anyone who served in the US Senate, has an arena named after him, and the 2nd biggest department store chain in the country has plenty of legacy.
But, of course he doesn't want the Bucks to leave MKE. it is certainly PART of his legacy.
Uihlein suggested that all existing sports venues downtown be demolished. In addition, he suggested that developers "recognize the ceremonial power of Kilbourn Ave., and build on the original home of the Bucks." That would be the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena, originally known as the Milwaukee Arena and opened in 1953.
Uihlein said all construction costs — no one has forwarded an estimate — should come from the private sector, while operating costs should be supported by the current tax structure under the control of the Wisconsin Center District.
Uihlein said the taxes collected by the Wisconsin Center District — a food and beverage tax, two hotel taxes and a car rental tax — provided enough money to run the convention center, the UWM arena and Milwaukee Theatre.
"The Wisconsin Center District must relinquish the benefit of this tax to the new entity," Uihlein said.
Jane Pettit's son calls for demolition of Bradley Center for new arenaSomeone is coming out with a plan that actually makes a lot of sense. Hopefully it gains some traction.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/jane-pettits-son-calls-for-demolition-of-bradley-center-for-new-arena-b99358424z1-276952511.html
Someone is coming out with a plan that actually makes a lot of sense. Hopefully it gains some traction.
Kohl's (The store) is bigger than it ever has been.
Anyone who has... the 2nd biggest department store chain in the country has plenty of legacy.
Kohl's (The store) is bigger than it ever has been.
He has plenty of legacy. Anyone who served in the US Senate, has an arena named after him, and the 2nd biggest department store chain in the country has plenty of legacy.
But, of course he doesn't want the Bucks to leave MKE. it is certainly PART of his legacy.
Wasn't Herb much more involved in the Kohl's grocery stores that no longer exist?
Jane Pettit's son calls for demolition of Bradley Center for new arenaA very sensible approach. Can be done in stages. The operating dollars from the existing tax structure can make it work.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/jane-pettits-son-calls-for-demolition-of-bradley-center-for-new-arena-b99358424z1-276952511.html
A very sensible approach. Can be done in stages. The operating dollars from the existing tax structure can make it work.
That's like saying Ronald Wayne's legacy is the iPhone.
(Go ahead, Google "Ronald Wayne".... I'll wait.)
Agreed. Gimbel and the WI Center District need to get out of the way for the good of the city.
Well, here's a shocker.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/gimbel-calls-new-arena-proposal-unworkable-b99359051z1-277076421.html
Well, here's a shocker.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/gimbel-calls-new-arena-proposal-unworkable-b99359051z1-277076421.html
When you think about it, Herb has no family, his old retail chain is nothing of the company he led back in the 70s, and he was never a hay maker in the Senate... his legacy is the Bucks, period. If they move away, so goes his legacy, no? After everything he's accomplished, I don't think that all he wants to remain of his memory ten years from now is a hole named after him in Madison.
We went to the Milwaukee Theater last week during Open Doors Milwaukee (which is awesome..)
I've been there for events, but wow, that is a fantastic building, great venue. Largest theater in Wisconsin.
Seems like tearing that down would be a travesty.
I do have a question for this new proposal...
If they are tearing down both the BC and the MECCA/Cell/Panther Arena to make way for the new arena, where do the Bucks and MU play during construction?
We went to the Milwaukee Theater last week during Open Doors Milwaukee (which is awesome..)It's too bad it has to go, but the location makes to much sense for a much higher use building not to take it down.
I've been there for events, but wow, that is a fantastic building, great venue. Largest theater in Wisconsin.
Seems like tearing that down would be a travesty.
We went to the Milwaukee Theater last week during Open Doors Milwaukee (which is awesome..)
I've been there for events, but wow, that is a fantastic building, great venue. Largest theater in Wisconsin.
Seems like tearing that down would be a travesty.
We went to the Milwaukee Theater last week during Open Doors Milwaukee (which is awesome..)
I've been there for events, but wow, that is a fantastic building, great venue. Largest theater in Wisconsin.
Seems like tearing that down would be a travesty.
The place is really nice, but the travesty was putting all that money into the Theatre in the first place. The place is only used a few times per year, and there were already plenty of other competing theater options that weren't publicly funded, like the Riverside, PAC, Pabst, Rep, etc.
I wish there was a way they could keep the BC around so the Admirals could stay there. Then the new facility could focus on basketball without having to compromise for hockey.
Unfortunately, anything that is going to have the backing of multiple parties (including the taxpayers) is going to have to be multipurpose. And multipurpose arenas suck when it comes to basketball.
The place is really nice, but the travesty was putting all that money into the Theatre in the first place. The place is only used a few times per year, and there were already plenty of other competing theater options that weren't publicly funded, like the Riverside, PAC, Pabst, Rep, etc.
I was thinking the same thing until I checked their schedule and realized the traveling Broadway shows run there too. Although there wasn't a single event in September there are 5 in October and the Lion King is there everyday from 11/11 til 12/7.
Maybe they could save the MKE Theater but tear down the Arena and BC and still have enough room if they build on State St.
That's why I want to see a real long-term plan and vision.
I'd like to keep the theater because of it's historic elements and value, but that needs to be evaluated against the long term urban plan.
If they can keep the theater, then that's awesome. If they have a great long-term plan and the theater has to go, then I guess it'll have to go. But, the vision/plan is the important factor. Don't just tear down a theater to plop in a new arena that will need to be replaced in 25 years. This needs to be a long term infrastructure solution (think 50 years ahead), that has some flexibility to evolve.
Kohl Center is a great arena for both basketball and hockey. Bradley Center was simply built a decade too early and there have been all sorts of better examples of how to build multi-purpose arenas since then.
Agree wholeheartedly. Isn't it wild though that these old structures that may have to go to make way for new, modern arenas, are 100+ years old? And we think looking 50 years into the future is bold. I realize buildings like the Milwaukee Theater will have to constantly be updated, it's just a shame that building a great new facility while preserving Milwaukee's historic buildings probably won't both happen.
Let's clarify. You are talking only about the flexibility and site lines at the Kohl Center for both sports and not talking about the arena itself. I am not impressed with a lot of the Kohl Center outside of the flexibility aspect.
That's just the thing though. We shouldn't be tearing down historic structures when there is a perfect plot of land just north of the Bradley Center that would only require the demolition of two very small, non-historic maintenance structures. Milwaukee has done a much better job than most cities of comparable size of preserving its history in the downtown core. It would be a shame to start to move in the wrong direction.
That's just the thing though. We shouldn't be tearing down historic structures when there is a perfect plot of land just north of the Bradley Center that would only require the demolition of two very small, non-historic maintenance structures. Milwaukee has done a much better job than most cities of comparable size of preserving its history in the downtown core. It would be a shame to start to move in the wrong direction.
But, just plopping down a shiny new building is not an long term urban re-development plan. Look at what we have now. If we're being honest, the BC is a failure in that aspect. There isn't significant development, and it's out of date in under 30 years.
A new arena needs to be apart of a bigger vision.
OR
Just revamp the BC and see if you can incentivize some more growth north and west of the arena (Park East, Pabst, etc.).
If a new arena is built I bet that the NBA will host the All Star game there and Milwaukee will put in a bid to get the Final Four or maybe even the Sweet 16 & Elite 8 rather than the first weekend of the tournament.
I know that's only 2 weekends, but that would be good for the city.
Let's clarify. You are talking only about the flexibility and site lines at the Kohl Center for both sports and not talking about the arena itself. I am not impressed with a lot of the Kohl Center outside of the flexibility aspect.
The more I look into the new arena, the more I think it should be placed north of the Bradley Center and be the design focal point as you enter the north part of downtown. There is open space and more flexibility than anywhere else right now and IMHO, it's still close enough to be part of the convention center, especially if you continue the skywalk system. Hire Populous and let them make it something that jumpstarts the downtown.
Frank Gimbel is probably the most responsible for the mess that is downtown Milwaukee and how hamstrung city planning is generally.....I want to know where he keeps the pictures on all these officials.
Cost is the factor there...dirty little secret(pun intended) is the amount remediation that will be required to get that land up and viable for use for an arena is very significant.
I've heard this as well.
My friend works in soil sciences said that the Park East site is an environmental and soil structure mess.
Lots of removal/abatement of existing soil and new base soil/gravel would need to be trucked in.
It's not impossible, but it's a big job.
Is that just the case for the area where the highway stood, or does that also include the land between 4th and 6th from Highland to Juneau? I'm assuming it includes that land, as the Ambrosia Chocolate Factory used to be on 6th and Juneau, but I wasn't sure.
I don't know specifics... it just came up while we were drinking at happy hour.
I'll paraphrase:
"Building a stadium on that site (park east or near park east) isn't that easy. The soil in that area (low and relatively near the river) is traditionally crappy for large structures, and there is going to be a significant amount of environmental abatement required."
He's in the industry, so he knows what he's talking about, but I know he has not done worked on that specific site. He's simply speculating on what he knows and has heard.
Obviously they figured out how to build the BC and other large structures downtown, so it's possible to build, but keep in mind that it might not be as simple as "build on that empty lot!"
The folks I talked to are different than yours it seems, but everything you are saying is correct. Basically they will have to truck everything out of the open area between 6th and just short of Aloft, do environmental remediation, then truck in "good" dirt to build on. They also might have to do a lot of shoring up in that area as well because of the old waterways to the river in that area.
Apparently, they found a bunch of legacy issues(think 1800s) when they deconstructed the freeway, and they could bury it if it was empty (clearly the cheaper option) but if someone builds on it, it would have to be taken care of. Another shinning part of the lasting Norquist legacy
Ya, yours sounds more official that mine. :-)... but looks like we are getting to the same place.
It's not impossible to build on that site, and eventually, SOMETHING is going to have to happen (can't be a bare lot forever).
But, it's not an insignificant challenge, and there are likely to be some setbacks with $ and time.
Absolutely. And what I posted should be the answer to the question when someone asks "How come they haven't built on the Park East site?". City had a chance to take care of it at the time and chose not to, and now I believe costs would be even higher and as far as I've heard the city is unwilling to "help" with the costs.
Hint: this was part of the reason a major headquarters building did not move to downtown from a place that rhymes with Fenomonee Malls
Its too bad that deal didn't work out.
I have no insider info. on the dealings with Milwaukee, but I know a lot of employees, and they wanted to stay up in MF.
I always thought they were just flirting with Milwaukee to get a better deal in MF.
That's definitely their side of things. MKE pushed really hard(not creatively, which was their undoing) but just couldn't come up with an irresistible package. And their was definitely a difference between what the employees wanted and what management wants.
I learned something new because I also assumed they were just holding out for a better deal from the Falls. Anyway, this is the site that I was asking about earlier. The Park East didn't run above this area, so I'm wondering if there would be soil problems here, as well. Sorry if you guys already answered this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PrplpZM.png)
I was told from a DOT official that a 50,000 cubic yard estimate is realistic from the discoveries made when the corridor was removed and the McKinley Interchange was reconstructed.
Can it be done, yes. Is it easy? Eh. Is it expensive? Yes. For standard common excavation on a project this size, $5/CY is a decent budget. For contamination excavation, start at $25/CY and go up.
Titan,
Since you seem to know this industry I'd be interested in your opinion on this:
$25/CY x 50,000 = $1.25 million. If the facility is $400 million (I'm rounding down, which should make the remediation cost look worse), then the remediation cost would add what? .3% to the total cost? Is that the kind of additional expense that would cause a project manager to change sites or kill a project over?
Titan,
Since you seem to know this industry I'd be interested in your opinion on this:
$25/CY x 50,000 = $1.25 million. If the facility is $400 million (I'm rounding down, which should make the remediation cost look worse), then the remediation cost would add what? .3% to the total cost? Is that the kind of additional expense that would cause a project manager to change sites or kill a project over?
lawwarrior,
Benny B nailed it on the head. It's time consuming. The entire site would need to be remediated prior to any progress taking place. If you're planning on building this thing in stages, you'll still have to get the entire footprint cleaned before it can be certified for further development. You're talking May 2015 through July/August 2015 to get the site ready. That's just moving dirt, no foundation work, utility installation/moves, etc.
Even though it's a minimal amount of dollars in the grand scheme, it's still something that could be saved. Razing the JS building would cost less than $100,000 likely. That cost would not kill the project, but here's also cost to bring clean fill material back on the site. Currently, there's a shortage of that in SE Wisconsin, however there is a Interchange project near the Zoo that is generating lots of material. You're probably looking at $2 million to $2.5 million total.
(Not Titan, stole his name for this Ellenson mumbo-jumbo.)
I didn't consider the time issue. That makes perfect sense. At some point if Milwaukee wants it to become something other than desolation they might have to consider preemptively remediating the site.
Also, this is the 1st time the Ellenson name thing has bugged me. Thanks for the input unknown temporary internet name person.
I've got some experience with what the City of Racine has done. They end up buying contaminated sites for $1, bid out contracts to clean them up and get them ready for development. It's worked out well for them, not sure why the Park East can't be done in the same manner. I'm not sure who even owns the property (DOT or the City).
I've got some experience with what the City of Racine has done. They end up buying contaminated sites for $1, bid out contracts to clean them up and get them ready for development. It's worked out well for them, not sure why the Park East can't be done in the same manner. I'm not sure who even owns the property (DOT or the City).
I couldn't work Ellenson in 'PTM' at all, so I went with a tribute to a fallen poster.
Hmm, didn't realize Titan had left us. I guess it's hard to keep track among the hijacked threads and vendettas... maybe that explains why...
Yeah, he took a hiatus and went to work for Dodds.
I kind of hope they use this angle to get the county involved. Have the tax be more downtown district focused where part of the tax covers county land getting cleaned up and sold with profits going back to the county. I know it is just shuffling money but it makes it sound better than a stadium tax. The bucks get there arena in the journal building and the land north of the current BC becomes open for development. In two years, the BC would then be torn down and you suddenly have a very valuable piece of land in between the hottest buildings in town. This will spur the economy more than just an isolated stadium sitting on park east.
That seems like a perfect opportunity for some good old fashioned graft/kickbacks to connected insiders. Wow, the city of Milwaukee is even bad at being corrupt.
Oops, we just heard from the Chicago crowd.
Graft and corruption in construction and public works projects? Who would have thought it?
C'mon, you can't hold Milwaukee to Chicago and Illinois standards. That's like taking a House Little Leaguer and comparing him or her to Barry Bonds.
well how good are they really? Blago and Jesse Jackson Jr. both just got caught.
If you think that's the extent of corruption in Illinois, I have a tollway between Wisconsin and Indiana I can sell you on the cheap.
Half the Chicago City Council gets indicted over an extended period of time. Our Speaker of the House is a shakedown artist where more campaign money than God. Need I go on?
Please do - I love this stuff!
Mike Madigan does not approve of further discussion related to this topic. Nothing to see here, please move along.
Agreed. I'd drop the subject if I were you...unless you want a call from our Attorney General. What's her name again? Oh, yeah....Lisa Madigan.
In the mafia, legend goes that you have to be a full-blooded Italian (or Sicilian, I forget which) in order to be a made man. I suppose they figured it to be a loyalty thing, i.e. a half-blooded Italian might be more inclined to betray his family.Vote for Alicia Florrick, pure as the wind driven snow.
Fun fact... Lisa Madigan was adopted. Drawing the mafia parallel (which in this case is apropos analogy with Mike Madigan)... if the evidence was strong, some believe that Lisa, although she would recuse herself from the case, would vigorously cooperate with any indictment and prosecution of her father on state charges. Not that anyone I've spoken to thinks that she'd throw her dad under the bus, but her ability to seek higher office in Illinois (and beyond) is, counter-intuitively, being hindered by her father's role as speaker.
Agreed. I'd drop the subject if I were you...unless you want a call from our Attorney General. What's her name again? Oh, yeah....Lisa Madigan.
Vote for Alicia Florrick, pure as the wind driven snow.
Keefe is her husband's biggest fan, so she's got that going for her.