New Stadium Imminent?

[Wojo'sMojo]

No doubt that pro sports bring more civic pride. Pro sports franchises are definitely good for a city.

However, they are clearly a private entity, and there is nothing really "wrong" with the current free facilities. The owners just want to make more profit.

If the city is going to hand out grants to private businesses, I'd like to see it in something that has some good potential for a big return years from now. Incubation of tech jobs seems like a good place to start. Freshwater science is interesting because it takes advantage of Milwaukee's most unique natural feature, and can't be easily replicated.

Give me a great economy with lots of well payed careers, and I'll show you a market that can support a NBA team.

I don't know that giving the Bucks a building is going to create a great economy and/or a market that can truly support a NBA franchise.

It's simply rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Fix the hole in the ship, then we'll worry about the deck chairs.

Milwaukee needs careers, not just "jobs".

Was building Miller Park rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This situation is eerily similar to County Stadium and Bud Selig. Once they replaced the owner and got a new stadium look how much better the Brewers have become. They are now looked up to by other small market club and their popularity is through the roof in the state of Wisconsin right now. The same thing could happen with the new Bucks owners and a new stadium. The people of Wisconsin will support a quality product. Unfortunately Herb has been a very mediocre owner, which has led to disinterest amongst the casual basketball fans in WI. With the right people in place it can be restored.

[dgies9156]

There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:

1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.

2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.

3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!

4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.

5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.

If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.

Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.   

[ThatDude]

There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:

1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.

2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.

3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!

4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.

5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.

If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.

Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.   

Brilliant post! Thanks

[ThatDude]

There has to be answers to the following questions to make a new arena work:

1) What's the demand? The Bucks can't fill the Bradley Center and its doubtful there is demand for double the number of luxury suites. Milwaukee just does not have the corporate headquarters and large regional operations to support that level of demand. Folks, this aint Chicago, or even Minneapolis.

2) If Milwaukee and Wisconsin spend $200 million to $300 million on a new arena, what public priorities do not get funded? Do roads not get repaired; policemen and firemen not get raises; do schools not get a little bit extra; or, maybe, the tax for the new arena might be the straw that breaks the camel's back on the new business that wants to locate in Wisconsin. By itself, the public funding for the arena is nothing. But it's part of a load that's increasing the burden of taxpayers during a post-industrial age where Wisconsin is still trying to find its way.

3) Lets say the state builds this thing. It likely will be financed with 25-year or 30-year bonds. At the maturity of the bonds, lets suppose someone in Seattle, New York, San Francisco or some other city has built the newest and most fabulous arena imaginable. Who is to say we will not be having this debate again in 2038 to 2040? If you had asked someone in 1986 whether we would be debating a new arena in 2013, they'd think you were nuts!

4) Will the departure of the Bucks have an impact on the quality of life in Milwaukee? We have basketball -- and pretty good basketball -- in Marquette. But like the Brewers, the symphony, Summerfest, improved restaurants, and ballet, the Bucks are part of the ambiance that makes Milwaukee attractive to professionals. Without the Bucks, can companies attract people to Milwaukee at the same rate as say, Nashville, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City etc.

5) How much private investment will be sucked out of the community. There's an attractive and thriving restaurant community near the arena. Private investors, entrepreneurs and others have built businesses nearby. Now, a publicly funded arena with new dining and entertainment options that's publicly subsidized steps up and competes? Huh, that's hardly fair! Or reasonable.

If I'm cynical about this, it's because I live in Illinois. We bought our second-tier baseball team a shiny new stadium south of downtown Chicago. We took a decidedly mediocre football team and built it a $600 million, way-over-budget stadium in about the worst place you could put it in the city. We finally got some backbone and said no to the Cubs, who are duking it out with the neighbors over an enhancement of Wrigley Field.

Given our history and the model of the Bradley Center, it's only 15 years until the Bears start screaming for a new stadium. After all, they have the smallest stadium in the NFL.   

My gut says a new arena wont get built.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Question though. What happens to MU if the Bucks do move? Do they just play at the BC until the end of time? Plus you also have to consider the Admirals arent going anywhere either.

[Fullodds]

Get ready for the 2018 Seattle (Star)Bucks.   MU better get in front on a stadium solution for MU hoops.  The NBA has the right to buy the Bucks in 2018 for $575M. if sold to Seattle the NBA could get considerably more for the franchise.  Stability is good for the NBA but money talks.

[Skitch]

I think that having Seattle hanging over the head of local fanbases is even more valuable to the NBA than actually moving a franchise there.

I personally think that the arena eventually gets built, but if somehow it isn't is there any chance The Pottawatomie would kick in to get something built in the Valley Fields area?  Is that something that would even be possible or that Marquette would want to be connected to?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's be honest. Milwaukee is not going to draw many conventions, no matter what time of year.

Agree

[Sunbelt15]

Get ready for the 2018 Seattle (Star)Bucks.   MU better get in front on a stadium solution for MU hoops.  The NBA has the right to buy the Bucks in 2018 for $575M. if sold to Seattle the NBA could get considerably more for the franchise.  Stability is good for the NBA but money talks.

+1

[Anti-Dentite]

My gut says a new arena wont get built.

Your gut is wrong. Under the gun is how things get done in government. My gut says they get it done and piss off a bunch of people in the process which will be totally forgotten by the time it opens except for the bitter few.

[ThatDude]

Your gut is wrong. Under the gun is how things get done in government. My gut says they get it done and piss off a bunch of people in the process which will be totally forgotten by the time it opens except for the bitter few.

I hope you're right

[Anti-Dentite]

I hope you're right

Me too, for selfish MU reasons.

[Litehouse]

Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU?  I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage.  Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans.  We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC.  It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams.  I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.

[Anti-Dentite]

Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU?  I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage.  Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans.  We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC.  It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams.  I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.

MU would still be playing at the arena if the Bucks weren't here. Simple as that.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Was building Miller Park rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This situation is eerily similar to County Stadium and Bud Selig. Once they replaced the owner and got a new stadium look how much better the Brewers have become. They are now looked up to by other small market club and their popularity is through the roof in the state of Wisconsin right now. The same thing could happen with the new Bucks owners and a new stadium. The people of Wisconsin will support a quality product. Unfortunately Herb has been a very mediocre owner, which has led to disinterest amongst the casual basketball fans in WI. With the right people in place it can be restored.

Miller Park and a new Bucks arena aren't exactly apples to apples. For the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of Miller Park either, but it's much easier for me to make a case for a baseball stadium than a new Bucks Arena. 

#1 County Stadium was 50 years old and falling apart. There was a specific NEED for a new stadium. In another 23 years, when the BC is 50 years old, I'd probably be more interested in building something new for the Bucks. I assume the Brewers will get 40-50 years use out of Miller park. That's like 80-100 million people through the turnstyles. That's a good amount of use.

#2 The Bucks have a building that functions fine. They just want MORE revenue. That's it. Also, even if you build the Bucks a new arena, odds are they will be back again in 25 years asking for a a major renovation or another new building. The business model is broken, and it's dependent upon public subsidization. That's not going to stop. In 25 years, the Bucks will draw a max of around 20million before they ask for something new.

#3 The Brewers were TERRIBLE when they moved into Miller Park. Miller Park didn't magically make them good. The franchise finally drafted well, got a little lucky, and a lot of really good prospects came up around the same time. Now, Miller Park and the current ownership has certainly helped them STAY competitive by giving the Brewers some financial flexibility, but Miller Park wasn't a magic bullet. They sucked for years, and people were pissed at the time. We all forget about it now because of the success, but go back to 2003 and ask people what they thought.

#4 What is a realistic scenario if the Bucks do get a new arena? Do we expect them to compete for titles? Is making the playoffs good enough? What would average attendance have to be to make it "worth it"?

#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.

I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

My question on this is what is the market for conventions to Milwaukee even if the space was there?  Cleveland, if I recall, has some big convention space due to the Space X center or whatever they call it.  I'd be curious if people are beating down their doors to have a convention there.  With the weather, etc, I guess I never saw Milwaukee on the top of my list for a convention and I love Milwaukee.  Not sure the average Joe gets real excited about it.

Clevelanbd actually hosts some large conventions.  There's Fabtech, a big manufacturing show, and from my short stint in the rubber processing world the big show is Rubber Expo which is also in Cleveland.  (Rubber Expo actually rotated years with Pittsburgh.)

[PBRme]

Why do people necessarily think the Bucks leaving is bad for MU?  I think we would have an increase in fans as the best bball option in town, and we would get better local media coverage.  Right now, they're probably our main competition for entertainment dollars from local casual fans.  We would get better dates for scheduling at the BC.  It's already a better venue than all but a handfull of other college teams.  I could see it being a problem in another 20-30 years when the BC really does need to be replaced though.

And we would be able to schedule a lot more weekend games at convenient times for the TV networks

[mu_hilltopper]

I think this movement is interesting:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/common-ground-demands-better-school-facilities-or-no-support-for-arena-b99240726z1-254102011.html

http://www.commongroundwi.org/fair-play/

I mean .. imagine if their incredibly valid point gets legs.

NNaaaaaaaaaah.  Who am I kidding?

[hairy worthen]

#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.

I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.

This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.

However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc.  Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.

I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.

Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that.  Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time.  Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.

[humanlung]

Miller Park and a new Bucks arena aren't exactly apples to apples. For the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of Miller Park either, but it's much easier for me to make a case for a baseball stadium than a new Bucks Arena. 

#1 County Stadium was 50 years old and falling apart. There was a specific NEED for a new stadium. In another 23 years, when the BC is 50 years old, I'd probably be more interested in building something new for the Bucks. I assume the Brewers will get 40-50 years use out of Miller park. That's like 80-100 million people through the turnstyles. That's a good amount of use.

#2 The Bucks have a building that functions fine. They just want MORE revenue. That's it. Also, even if you build the Bucks a new arena, odds are they will be back again in 25 years asking for a a major renovation or another new building. The business model is broken, and it's dependent upon public subsidization. That's not going to stop. In 25 years, the Bucks will draw a max of around 20million before they ask for something new.

#3 The Brewers were TERRIBLE when they moved into Miller Park. Miller Park didn't magically make them good. The franchise finally drafted well, got a little lucky, and a lot of really good prospects came up around the same time. Now, Miller Park and the current ownership has certainly helped them STAY competitive by giving the Brewers some financial flexibility, but Miller Park wasn't a magic bullet. They sucked for years, and people were pissed at the time. We all forget about it now because of the success, but go back to 2003 and ask people what they thought.

#4 What is a realistic scenario if the Bucks do get a new arena? Do we expect them to compete for titles? Is making the playoffs good enough? What would average attendance have to be to make it "worth it"?

#5 My deck chair analogy is really just about money being moved around vs money being "created". Certainly the Bucks help bring money downtown. That's good. However, there are several studies that illustrate that "growth" from new stadiums isn't necessarily "growth", but rather just moving $ from someplace else.

I would never say NO PUBLIC FUNDING, because that is ham-fisted and stupid. But, I'm also not going to hand $300million to the Bucks so we can be back in the same position in another 25 years. We need a better plan than that.

1) Obsolescence has sped up in the last 50 years.  Even more so in the last 20.  Still have your same phone from 5 years ago?

2) You are right.  They want more revenue so they can compete with all of the franchises in the NBA that have venues that generate revenue and profit that make it possible for the owners to invest in the franchise.  This is called competition.  If you can't compete, you go away.  See:  Circuit City, Linens and Things, American TV, etc...

3) This is related to #2.  The Bucks are terrible now just like the Brewers were.  The Brewers got a new stadium and, lo and behold, attendance goes up as excitement around the park brings people out.  With extra $$$ flowing in, ownership is able to upgrade aspects of the organization that were lacking pre-Miller Park (like the scouting department and the minor league organizations -this comes from someone who was there, by the way).  These investments pay off in a few years and the Brewers no longer suck and, in fact, they are able to compete from time to time.  

4) Who knows but if the Brewers can make the playoffs once in a while in a sport where there is no real salary cap then it is within the realm of possibility that the Bucks can compete at the highest level if they are smart and invest in the organization like the Brewers did (because of the $$$ from Miller Park) in a sport with a salary cap.

5) True.  But what is the cost when you REMOVE a franchise from a city?  Is that a neutral event?  I don't think it is.

One more thing to your post...I agree that 25 years is a fairly short time period in the grand scheme of things.  We have to remember, though, that the BC was NOT built for the Bucks.  It was built because the Pettit's wanted to bring an NHL franchise to Milwaukee back in the 1980s.  Unfortunately, when the NHL expanded the expansion fee was so over the top that it was impossible to do (if I recall correctly).  This is why the sight lines and layout of the BC is so crappy for basketball.  It's also why the "upgrade" option isn't really do-able, trying to turn a hockey arena into a state of the art basketball facility simply cannot be done - the bone structure isn't right.  My GUESS is that an arena that is built with a "basketball first" mentality would have a useful life of longer than 25 years.    

[warriorchick]

MU would still be playing at the arena if the Bucks weren't here. Simple as that.

I'm not so sure that would be true.  Don't forget that the BC was donated to the city by the owners of the Milwaukee Admirals.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not so sure that would be true.  Don't forget that the BC was donated to the city by the owners of the Milwaukee Admirals.

Hw may have meant MECCA

[Groin_pull]

My gut says a new arena wont get built.

Your gut is right.

[warriorchick]

Hw may have meant MECCA

That is what I thought as well.  My point is, the BC was not built for the Bucks. So why would MU be playing in MECCA if the Bucks weren't here?

[hairy worthen]

That is what I thought as well.  My point is, the BC was not built for the Bucks. So why would MU be playing in MECCA if the Bucks weren't here?

The bucks were the biggest reason for the bc. Yes the petits wanted a hockey team and that was part of the equation but they weren't building the BC only for the admirals and a possible nhl team.  I don't think the petits put up every penny for the BC either.