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

[mu03eng]

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

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

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

I'd love to see that as well....but I'm not holding my breath simply because I have no faith in the city to be that organized.  Additionally, I don't that the GP is that intelligent to understand the need for this information and I don't think anyone will provide it for that reason even if they thought about it.

I'm doing my own internal analysis and based on what I've seen, know, and a little light assumption I've come to the conclusion this has a good shot to be successful.  But I 100% admit that is a questionable at best way to look at it, but I don't see any alternatives.

[brandx]

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

So the difference between then and now is:

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

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

Doesn't meant it will work though.

I think this is the key.

I tend to agree with Ammo for the most part, but the difference here could be the high rollers with connections to get the ball rolling.

The problem with that, of course, is that we still have the old industrial city mentality. I do a lot of driving around the country and, marvel at how modern many of the downtown areas have become compared to Milwaukee. But these cities made the commitments to be modern cites that Milwaukee has not made.

And it is also important in a worldly sense as the economy goes global. Having a "name" that is recognized immediately has to help when dealing with executives of foreign countries. And having an NBA team is one of the quickest ways to recognition since basketball is no longer just an American game. The NBA and its cities are recognized around the globe.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'd love to see that as well....but I'm not holding my breath simply because I have no faith in the city to be that organized.  Additionally, I don't that the GP is that intelligent to understand the need for this information and I don't think anyone will provide it for that reason even if they thought about it.

I'm doing my own internal analysis and based on what I've seen, know, and a little light assumption I've come to the conclusion this has a good shot to be successful.  But I 100% admit that is a questionable at best way to look at it, but I don't see any alternatives.

Ya, and re-reading some of this, you have answered why this development could work... I guess my issue is could that new development work with the existing BC, or do we really have to spend $3-500m in tax dollars to get that development moving? I know why the Bucks want a new building. But, other than getting 41 nights of NBA every year, I don't see how a new arena helps the city that much.

To put it another way: if the arena was such a boom for the city, the city planners and politicians should have been calling the Bucks and volunteering to build a new arena as a way to build up that part of the city, no?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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

So the difference between then and now is:

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

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

Doesn't meant it will work though.

Agree 100%. I guess what I really want is somebody who is sponsoring the public funds to stand up there and say this. Tell everybody that the BC didn't really work, and why this one WILL work.

[Litehouse]

For all the great things about the BC, it was very poorly positioned to spur surrounding economic development.  It's surrounded by MATC to the west, the Arena/Theatre to the south, and the JS building to the SE.  The land to the north was blocked by the Park East freeway until 2003, so that wasn't available for development either during the late 90's or early 2000's period that was mentioned.  The park east has been vacant now for the past 10 years, but that's also about the same amount of time the new arena debate has been going on, so nobody was going invest that much money until the arena issue was sorted out.  Plus, there are significant obstacles to developing that land, from environmental remediation issues to minority-owned contractor requirements, that also made it difficult for investment.  Throw in the fact it's next to a housing project, borders a rough neighborhood, and is far from the downtown core, and I can understand why no one has been pouring a lot of money into it.

I would argue that the BC did spur development in the area to the east.  Most of the bars/restaurants on 3rd are new within the past 10 years.  From what I can recall, only Maders and Buck Bradleys were there pre-BC.  I'd also say the growth of Water St. bars was also in large part due to the BC.  Throw in the Aloft and Moderne and that's a decent amount of development when the arena debate has been active and the future of the Bucks has been in doubt.

So far, Milwaukee has blown it's opportunity to use both the Bradley Center and Miller Park to spur additional development.  I think a different location for the new arena would serve this purpose better, but I guess we'll see how it turns out eventually.  I'm just saying the BC shouldn't necessarily be used as an example of why surrounding development wouldn't happen, because they screwed it up from the beginning with the location.

[source?]

I'm calling it .. In 20 years?  That development will only be slightly more valuable than Grand Avenue is today.

The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.

[Litehouse]

The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.

$250 million in money that they would lose anyway if the Bucks left.

[mu_hilltopper]

The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.

Let's not fool ourselves .. the "$1b development" is just a theory. Phase 1 is building the arena.    Years later, *maybe* more development occurs, that adds up to $500m more.   Each of those new developments is going to need to make sense -- and one can bet, each development will come with a hand-out to the state/city for more funds.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

For all the great things about the BC, it was very poorly positioned to spur surrounding economic development.  It's surrounded by MATC to the west, the Arena/Theatre to the south, and the JS building to the SE.  The land to the north was blocked by the Park East freeway until 2003, so that wasn't available for development either during the late 90's or early 2000's period that was mentioned.  The park east has been vacant now for the past 10 years, but that's also about the same amount of time the new arena debate has been going on, so nobody was going invest that much money until the arena issue was sorted out.  Plus, there are significant obstacles to developing that land, from environmental remediation issues to minority-owned contractor requirements, that also made it difficult for investment.  Throw in the fact it's next to a housing project, borders a rough neighborhood, and is far from the downtown core, and I can understand why no one has been pouring a lot of money into it.

I would argue that the BC did spur development in the area to the east.  Most of the bars/restaurants on 3rd are new within the past 10 years.  From what I can recall, only Maders and Buck Bradleys were there pre-BC.  I'd also say the growth of Water St. bars was also in large part due to the BC.  Throw in the Aloft and Moderne and that's a decent amount of development when the arena debate has been active and the future of the Bucks has been in doubt.

So far, Milwaukee has blown it's opportunity to use both the Bradley Center and Miller Park to spur additional development.  I think a different location for the new arena would serve this purpose better, but I guess we'll see how it turns out eventually.  I'm just saying the BC shouldn't necessarily be used as an example of why surrounding development wouldn't happen, because they screwed it up from the beginning with the location.

You make a good case, but again, if the real estate near the arena was worth so much:
- The Moderne would have been built in 1995. It wasn't. There wasn't any demand for that property.
- 3rd street would be full of drinking institutions that have been in business for 25+ years and never go out of business. (hint: it's not)
- The Pabst would have been converted to a hotel and bars the day after it closed. It took almost 20 years.  
- "Legends" (the bar right across the street) would have never gone out of business (at least 3 different places have failed there).

I'm not saying that the BC has NO value. We can see the value on Water St and on 3rd street. But, it's also not creating a huge demand. If I want to open a bar near the BC, I could easily do it. If I want to open a bar near Wrigley? Well, I better have deep pockets.

But, should the city spend $300M to get 12-15 bars? Is that a good value?

[MU111]

The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.

It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thinking in which they want us to partake.  "Hey, your legislature hasn't approved funding yet, but take a look now. You will not only get a $500 million arena out of the deal, but you will get $500 million more in ancillary development.  We don't have any blueprints, a materials list, or construction estimates that show whether we actually need $500 million total, but look at the pretty new renderings and the promise of additional development.  Can we have money now?"  I realize that probably sounds pretty pessimistic, but as Ammo more or less outlined, additional development will occur if the market demands it, not because of a new arena.  For examples, see all of the apartment developments under construction or proposed from downtown all the way toward North Avenue.  There is currently a lot going on.

I just think that we haven't, to this point, still received any solid justification for the price tag of the development.  Does it need to be $500 million?  Can we get away with less?  Have we looked at comparable arenas or are we going for $500 million just because it is currently on the higher end for new NBA arenas (see Golden State)?  Do we even really need to build anew in the first place?  Etc, etc.

[zrjones13]

One place that they can see a lot of growth is in the concert industry.  Many top artists skip the bradley center partly because it lacks amenities.  Here is a good article http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/2013-was-great-for-the-live-music-business-except-the-bradley-center-b99273045z1-260674781.html.  According to the article a new arena could increase the number of headliners from 3 to 15 thats an extra 200,000 people visiting the bradley and spending money.  

[source?]

Let's not fool ourselves .. the "$1b development" is just a theory. Phase 1 is building the arena.    Years later, *maybe* more development occurs, that adds up to $500m more.   Each of those new developments is going to need to make sense -- and one can bet, each development will come with a hand-out to the state/city for more funds.

Fair enough. I'll lay out my reasons for supporting the arena, regardless of whether the additional investment occurs.

1. If the arena and development doesn't happen, the state loses income tax from 13+ millionaires. Take that out to X number of years and you lose a significant revenue stream.

2. We aren't talking new arena or some other development. If there is no new arena, then that lot goes unused. We become the main group responsible for the upkeep of an aging arena that will require $100 million in repairs/updates over the next 10 years anyway.

3. We are not the same city we were in 1988. Downtown is much safer now. The area is desirable now whereas it was not  in the 90s/80s. People want to be in the city, this is a period of urban renewal. That's why there is so much new housing being built immediately adjacent to the downtown. Younger people view living in the city as more responsible than commuting from the suburbs. Biking, walking, public transit are increasingly viewed as necessary for a sustainable society. This is the trend country-wide. A vibrant downtown is necessary to attract these kinds of people, otherwise they go to Cincinnati, or Oklahoma, or any other city investing in themselves.

4. The Bucks will be better due to new revenue sharing agreements in the NBA. The small market owners are finally getting their way. Socialism is alive and well in pro sports.

5. Downtown businesses make 40% of their revenue on those game nights. We can argue all day about whether this entertainment money goes somewhere else in Milwaukee, but that's no more concrete of a premise than the $1 billion potential investment. What we know is that money is being spent now, downtown, at local businesses.

6. Milwaukee needs a large arena. The Bucks walk and we taxpayers pay 100% of the costs in 20 years.

7. The arena is being built, it is getting some public funding. It is happening. Being negative about it helps nothing.

Typing between meetings. Sorry for any errors.

[Marquette_g]

I wouldn't argue that just because it is "new" it is better, but the foresight of looking beyond the arena is much better.  When people say 20 years for the BC they actually mean 30 years (broke ground in 86, opened in 88).  That is a long time and a much different urban planning environment.  The Mid 80s were in the hey day of suburb mania and people leaving the city.  As has been pointed out, we are now at a time of urban growth.  That alone doesn't make this all work, but I don't know that just because the 1986 BC didn't spur development, doesn't mean a 2018 HD arena can't help in changing the city.

[source?]

I just think that we haven't, to this point, still received any solid justification for the price tag of the development.  Does it need to be $500 million?  Can we get away with less?  Have we looked at comparable arenas or are we going for $500 million just because it is currently on the higher end for new NBA arenas (see Golden State)?  Do we even really need to build anew in the first place?  Etc, etc.

This is the kind of thinking that will see Milwaukee left behind the market. Can we do the bare minimum? Sure. But if that's the attitude the city wants to adopt then we will lose the competition for young professionals. It is a competitive market place.

A new arena, or upgrades/renovations to the BC in excess of $100 million, will be necessary in the next 10-20 years. We can do it with the Bucks now or we can do it on our own then.

[Marquette_g]

I just think that we haven't, to this point, still received any solid justification for the price tag of the development.  Does it need to be $500 million?  Can we get away with less?  Have we looked at comparable arenas or are we going for $500 million just because it is currently on the higher end for new NBA arenas (see Golden State)?  Do we even really need to build anew in the first place?  Etc, etc.

Yes we need a new arena for the following reasons:

1. The Bucks will leave without one, this is part of the agreement with the NBA

2. Without the Bucks and their money, where does MU play?  Not the BC unless they have $100 Million

3. The cost of the new Sacramento arena is $477 Million as well.  That is what it costs for a new arena.

This is the kind of thinking that will see Milwaukee left behind the market. Can we do the bare minimum? Sure. But if that's the attitude the city wants to adopt then we will lose the competition for young professionals. It is a competitive market place.

A new arena, or upgrades/renovations to the BC in excess of $100 million, will be necessary in the next 10-20 years. We can do it with the Bucks now or we can do it on our own then.

Very well put.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I wouldn't argue that just because it is "new" it is better, but the foresight of looking beyond the arena is much better.  When people say 20 years for the BC they actually mean 30 years (broke ground in 86, opened in 88).  That is a long time and a much different urban planning environment.  The Mid 80s were in the hey day of suburb mania and people leaving the city.  As has been pointed out, we are now at a time of urban growth.  That alone doesn't make this all work, but I don't know that just because the 1986 BC didn't spur development, doesn't mean a 2018 HD arena can't help in changing the city.

I think "era" is a legitimate point. It's simply not 1988 anymore, and that makes a difference.  

But, I'll ask: If real estate near the arena is so valuable because it's 2015, not 1988, why hasn't it already been gobbled up by businesses and/or speculators? Why has the bar IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET out of business for years?

AND, if we believe that Milwaukee is experiencing some urban renewal already, do we need to spend another $300M to get more development, or can we just wait 5 more years and let the private market figure it out?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

One place that they can see a lot of growth is in the concert industry.  Many top artists skip the bradley center partly because it lacks amenities.  Here is a good article http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/2013-was-great-for-the-live-music-business-except-the-bradley-center-b99273045z1-260674781.html.  According to the article a new arena could increase the number of headliners from 3 to 15 thats an extra 200,000 people visiting the bradley and spending money.  

Key paragraph from that article:

"If they build it, will the superstar acts that tend to skip over the Milwaukee market — Justin Timberlake, Madonna, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jay Z, Eminem, Arcade Fire, Roger Waters and more — actually come?

Live music experts tell the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel there likely would be a "honeymoon period," although what happens once the romance fades remains a big question."

[Marquette_g]

I think those are fair questions.  

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. The bar across the street is owned by the city I believe, and they have some odd rules.  Now that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have been able to make money there, but I don't believe it is quite as simple as just opening up.

2.  I think you'll start to see land get gobbled up, but wasn't part of the hold-up not knowing where the arena was going?  Also, the specific land in question would have needed to get bought from the city who had always ear-marked this land for the new arena I believe.

3. On your last point, it is probably fair.  That is why the first part of this is the arena, which we do need to get started or lose the team.  I think the $1 billion plan is best case scenario and doesn't all need groundbreaking on day 1.

[warriorchick]

Why has the bar IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET out of business for years?

Because it sucked.  And there a half-dozen much cooler places surrounding it.  It was always a generic bar in a generic building.  There was literally no reason to go there.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This is the kind of thinking that will see Milwaukee left behind the market. Can we do the bare minimum? Sure. But if that's the attitude the city wants to adopt then we will lose the competition for young professionals. It is a competitive market place.

A new arena, or upgrades/renovations to the BC in excess of $100 million, will be necessary in the next 10-20 years. We can do it with the Bucks now or we can do it on our own then.

Right, but I bet if you give me $350M dollars, I can attract and retain more young professionals than an NBA franchise can.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Because it sucked.  And there a half-dozen much cooler places surrounding it.  It was always a generic bar in a generic building.  There was literally no reason to go there.

Right, but if NBA teams and a Milwaukee urban arena is are such economic driver, then the place across the street should be printing money.

They tried several different types of bars and restaurants in that place, and they could never make it work.

To put it another way: What so special about the Cubby Bear? Not much... but that place makes money. A LOT OF MONEY.

[warriorchick]

Right, but if NBA teams and a Milwaukee urban arena is are such economic driver, then the place across the street should be printing money.

They tried several different types of bars and restaurants in that place, and they could never make it work.

To put it another way: What so special about the Cubby Bear? Not much... but that place makes money. A LOT OF MONEY.

There are plenty of bars within a block of the BC that make money.  But not that one.  Why would I go to a bar that looks like the generic cocktail lounge at a sad Ramada when I could go someplace cool like Turner Hall or Buck Bradley's?

[source?]

You are not looking at what Milwaukee loses if they don't build it. You can't just look at what is added, you have to factor in what is lost by doing nothing. Wait 5 years and the Bucks are gone. We then have to pay for an arena/development/repairs/etc ourselves. Please read the posts, I don't want to repeat myself 20 more times.

Long story short, the arena is being built. The state is contributing. Foregone conclusion. No point in acting like it is still being debated.

[source?]

I think "era" is a legitimate point. It's simply not 1988 anymore, and that makes a difference.  

But, I'll ask: If real estate near the arena is so valuable because it's 2015, not 1988, why hasn't it already been gobbled up by businesses and/or speculators? Why has the bar IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET out of business for years?

AND, if we believe that Milwaukee is experiencing some urban renewal already, do we need to spend another $300M to get more development, or can we just wait 5 more years and let the private market figure it out?

Our urban renewal is lagging far behind cities that are taking action. See Cincinnati, Seattle, etc.

[source?]

Right, but I bet if you give me $350M dollars, I can attract and retain more young professionals than an NBA franchise can.

Ok. Put together a business plan and send it to the state. The fact is we care about amenities. We care about public transit, about bike lanes, about having things to do. Look at the cities that are getting more of us. You will see a pattern of investment.