A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?

[Coleman]

When will it end????????

April 21, 2040 2030

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.

FIFY

[🏀]

When will it end????????

When the Milwaukee NBA franchise has a viable basketball stadium.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

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.

And this..
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2013/06/27/two-thirds-of-school-recreational-facilities-are-inadequate/


Now .. true, these two projects don't have a ROI (although a new stadium likely doesn't either.) .. But if (prior to Bucks Mania) you drew up a list of 10 things Milwaukee needs, prioritizing for need .. a new stadium would not make the list. 

Milwaukee has a crap-ton of problems that need fixing.

[4everwarriors]

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.

Crean sucks

[warriorchick]

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.

I agree with you to a point, but Milwaukee has done a decent job of maintaining the Arena, er U.S. Cellular, for the past 30 years, even though the BC exists.  The city would tear that down as a cost-saving measure before they would defer maintenance on the BC.

[GGGG]

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.

This is really a great example.  The county park system for years was considered a model for how to create parkland in an urban environment.  And it has been struggling for years.  I would argue that the parks are much more important to the quality of life in Milwaukee than an NBA franchise.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

THIS.

I'm not necessarily against a new arena, but it needs to be part of a overall vision that is going to help the city.

Saying: "Holy sh*t, the Bucks might leave, we need a new arena!" is shortsighted.

I live in Milwaukee. I work in Milwaukee. I pay taxes. I want to hear the plan. I know how a new arena helps the ownership. I want to hear about how it's going to help the city.

[Benny B]

Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.

For how long?  MPS estimates losing $38M in federal grant money and $4M in state in fiscal 2014.  A $200M infusion today basically buys you the status quo for 4-5 more years.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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 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?

[GGGG]

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. 

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

Agree and disagree.  The parks have elements inside them that are in disrepair, but if you want to have a picnic, you need grass and a table, of which we likely have.  Maybe the sidewalk is cracked and the bathroom is crap, but you can have your picnic.

On the other hand .. if the litmus test is quality of life / utilization .. a new arena used for 80 days a year for people forking over $30-100 bucks for a few hours of entertainment .. versus 50+ parks that thousands use weekly nearly year-round -- No contest.

[NersEllenson]

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?

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.

Out of curiousity Guns - what type of work do you do?  I'm going to have to guess something that involves lots of analysis?  You definitely take a very measured approach in everything..which is good in many cases - yet at some point there is paralysis by analysis - and action needs to be taken.

Most people simply recognize that having pro sports teams in a city gives it nice visibility, and a prestige to an extent - as well as a central source/rallying point for people to come together behind.  There are few things more fun seeing people come together behind a team the way fans and even very, very casual fans do - when a team is achieving at a high level.  Cities take on a heightened sense of energy/fun when teams playing well.  Civic pride.

[NersEllenson]

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. 

Sultan - No offense, but in your proposed scenario above - I can tell you spending $10M a year to attract business, isn't going to be anything but a waste of money.  That aint going to attract jack.  Cities...and more importantly states need to set business friendly tax legislation to attract businesses.  States are in competition with each other - just the same as businesses that compete.  That states that offer businesses the best environment for success, will always be the states that are most economically healthy - and in turn its citizens best off.  Look no further than Texas.  Texas has many of the same "challenges" that California, New York and even Illinois have - lots of first generation immigrants - yet Texas has been able to sustain a thriving economy and quite the opposite of the other Big 3 populous states.  There is a reason why - and no, it isn't Oil and Gas...as some on one side of the aisle want to use as the excuse as to why their states are in debt up to their eyeballs, while Texas and its citizens thrive.

[Benny B]

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. 

Well... Milwaukee does have tens of thousands of people living in the poor areas of the city who only want to work part-time, menial jobs a couple days a week for a few hours at a time.  Seems like the consistent thing for the City of Milwaukee to do would be to band-aid the issue (build an arena and keep those jobs) rather than fix the underlying problem.

[GGGG]

Ners, no one disputes your last paragraph.  The question is how much is a worthy investment for such civic pride, and can civic pride be achieved through better investment elsewhere.  There are a number of cities that have made very poor decisions when it comes to investing in sports arenas, and I just don't want Milwaukee to be another one of those.  Louisville's YUM Center is a disaster.  Ditto the Sprint Center in Kansas City.  

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

I stand corrected. Clearly, they are underutilized.

[Ari Gold]

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. 

THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO SPEND $200M ON A NEW ARENA.
And it's certainly not like city officials are handing a check to the new owners saying "Go to town" and if the new arena doesn't come through they'll just get the money back to spend on something else

Also. and already covered: $10m/year is a laughably insignificant amount to "attract employers", which seriously. explain how you used $10m to do that...

 
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.

There was zero civic pride in the Brewers when ground was broke on Miller Park in 1996. zero winning records between 1992 and 2005. They bring pride now. The new Bucks ownership could learn a lot from how the Brewers revamped themselves with new ownership.

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. .

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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. .

Yes and no on the Par 3's.

Certainly there is some desirable real estate (lakefront), but I'm not sure "business parks" would really be applicable for Lake Park or Warnimont. I'm not sure on the others. Haven't spent much time there.

If we really want to get radical, go down to Grant Park and see all of the property down there (picnic space and golf course). Now, that property does get used quite a bit by city residents, but if the city wanted to make some cash, you could sell that off to a top notch golf course developer. They could build Whistling Straits 7 miles south of downtown. Imagine the real estate bump for South Mil/Cudahy.

*Please note: This assumes there is profit left in golf, a developer who will pay big $ for the property, and somebody at the city/county that has the vision to pull something like this off.
 

[muwarrior69]

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

[Groin_pull]

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.

It also wouldn't hurt if these same communities placed a priority on education.

[MU111]

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

Good find.  I don't really agree that it's an apples to oranges comparison though, as I think there are parallels.  The takeaway for me was this:

"The vision had called for hotels, retail, residential and office buildings on the blocks immediately surrounding the arena. There was be a new public park and pedestrian overpass, linking Penn Station to the arena and the Ironbound neighborhood. What stands today are acres upon acres of surface parking lots and no park, no enclosed walkway and no towering office or residential buildings."

I, like various others on here, don't believe that a new arena will do anything economically for the City (that's another topic of debate from this post).  However, the above quote is an urban design cautionary note for how we plan to progress with ours.  That is, the City can't simply plop the new arena wherever it wants in the central business district and expect the immediately surrounding blocks to have a surge in other development.  It's one thing to create an arena master plan with hotels, restaurants, shopping, and parks.  It's another to actually have those realized.

I guess what I'm arguing is that City leaders have to realize that an arena is not going to regenerate downtown on its own.  Mayor Barrett wants the arena as close to Wisconsin Avenue as possible, but that's not suddenly going to revitalize the western portion of that street.  What will is more amenities (e.g., Target), and more people living in that area.  The problem is that the residential units often don't come before those amenities, and the amenities don't come without the projected market support.  It's kind of like the chicken and the egg.

[tower912]

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.   

[GGGG]

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.   

Where is your hometown?

[tower912]

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/05/01/key-principles-of-sports-anchored-developments/

Nice picture, isn't it?  Van Andel arena is the cornerstone and first domino of a downtown revitalization.   Grand Rapids reputation as a beer city can be traced back to the arena and the initial impact it had on the downtown area.   I don't think for a second that this a panacea, a template that can be used anywhere.   I just reject the notion that it works nowhere.