MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Warrior of Law on October 30, 2014, 09:38:40 PM
-
From onmilwaukee.com (Journal building immediately east of the UWMPanther arena)
http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/bucksjournalcommunications.html
Seems to make a lot of sense, and certainly not harmful to MU considering they've been playing in the same neighborhood for several generations.
-
build it
-
Still too early to tell. Negotiations aren't done and the site seems pretty small. I think there is push to get rid of Gimbel and year down uwm arena. If either of those don't happen, they could look at the site on wisconsin as plan b.
-
I think I'll make a $300 million donation toward the project.
MU82 Arena. I like how that sounds!
-
(http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee245/joewiesner1/Capture_zpsf3c320ab.png)
All in favor, but that's not much space.
-
Not in favor of that location, especially if Goolsby's is laid to rest. Lots of alums meet there prior to Warrior games. The Major's been around for a long time. Good food, good staff, good times. Just my opinion.
-
And in another 25 years when the new arena is "obsolete" and the Bucks new owners explain how they can't possibly keep the team in Milwaukee without a new arena, they can complete the set with another new arena on the NE corner of that intersection.
I'm a big sports fan, but it always bugged me a little bit to see the Bradley Center and the MECCA right across the street from each other. Seemed wasteful some how. Seeing another one right there will make it worse. I'm not saying it's not needed, it's just the "optics" of it.
-
(http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee245/joewiesner1/Capture_zpsf3c320ab.png)
All in favor, but that's not much space.
One of the plans is to have the lower bowl seats underground. Something that they are doing for the Kings new arena.
-
Does the plan involve the demolition of the BC? Two arenas seems more than sufficient for Milwaukee.
-
Does the plan involve the demolition of the BC? Two arenas seems more than sufficient for Milwaukee.
Was wondering that myself.
"Visit Milwaukee! See our fleet of basketball arenas!"
-
The drawings I have seen would include the site currently occupied by the Arena too with the elimination of 4th street. An alternative would be shifting the project one block west to include both the Arena and the Milwaukee Theater. These were posted in JS over the weekend when 5 sites were highlighted.
-
Not in favor of that location, especially if Goolsby's is laid to rest. Lots of alums meet there prior to Warrior games. The Major's been around for a long time. Good food, good staff, good times. Just my opinion.
Goolsby's just took over operation of the restaurant at Turner Hall, I guess that now makes sense if this is the new arena location.
-
I wonder if they could keep the BC, tear down the MECCA, and build some type of entertainment complex interconnecting the new Arena, BC, Theatre, and convention center on the site of the MECCA. Put skywalks between all of them. It would be nice to keep the BC for hockey and other events like monster truck shows and the circus so the new arena can focus on basketball.
-
Goolsby's just took over operation of the restaurant at Turner Hall, I guess that now makes sense if this is the new arena location.
That is true. Personally never been in Turner Hall.
-
UWM fans promising a fight if the arena site is part of it. Always good for a laugh.
-
if they took their arena and kept the BC couldn't they just play there?
-
if they took their arena and kept the BC couldn't they just play there?
UWM playing in the BC would be an embarassment. They would never even fill the lower bowl. At least in their current arena, they can sort of fill it on their big games.
Plus, I'm sure they want to keep the arena where they have naming rights.
-
We could always let UWM rent the Al for their games.
I don't see any point of tearing down the 25 yr old BC while keeping the smaller 65 yr old MECCA. At least with the BC its still a great place for the Admirals and is bigger to accommodate a wider variety of events. If an entertainment hub could be built on the site of the MECCA connecting it to the BC, Theatre, convention center and new arena, I think it would be a huge success. They could do an indoor version of the Power & Light area in KC, with restaurants/bars/retail around the outside with an open common area in the middle, and people could use it when attending events at all four facilities.
-
If, in fact, the JS building is the choice, and the space is not large enough (my guess is that they did their homework), then the best best is to expand north of State Street.
-
One of the plans is to have the lower bowl seats underground. Something that they are doing for the Kings new arena.
Putting the floor lower doesn't change how much space they need side-to-side.
-
Haven't been on in awhile, so maybe this question has been answered. So, is there a guarantee that MU would get to play in the new stadium? Has anyone wrote about that or made comments about that possibility? A quick glance makes it seem that its some foregone conclusion that MU would be along for the ride.
-
Putting the floor lower doesn't change how much space they need side-to-side.
It actually would, if they started deep enough underground.
-
Guys, There's nothing in the plan that I'm aware of that artificially limits the new facility to the JS building footprint. As I indicated, last Sunday the paper outlined the 5 locations that were being considered. Two of those overlapped the existing Arena, one stretching west across the Theater, the other stretching east across the JS building site. Two others were further north of the existing BC and one was the Grand Ave. site. All were 'double' blocks.
-
It actually would, if they started deep enough underground.
Just curious, but how so? Because they wouldn't need as much support structure around the outside? I'd think they still want a lot of room on the sides for concourses and other "amenities".
-
UWM fans promising a fight if the arena site is part of it. Always good for a laugh.
Yeah, all three of them.
-
I suppose it doesn't even limit the to the location of the JS building, it just means Edens/Lasry want that land. If they decide to build on the existing BC site or just north, or build across the Arena/Theatre land, the JS building is still valuable real estate they might want for other development.
-
And in another 25 years when the new arena is "obsolete" and the Bucks new owners explain how they can't possibly keep the team in Milwaukee without a new arena, they can complete the set with another new arena on the NE corner of that intersection.
I'm a big sports fan, but it always bugged me a little bit to see the Bradley Center and the MECCA right across the street from each other. Seemed wasteful some how. Seeing another one right there will make it worse. I'm not saying it's not needed, it's just the "optics" of it.
I got a nice chuckle out of that one.
-
That is true. Personally never been in Turner Hall.
It's been a long time since I was in Turner Hall, but I thought it was a great space, better than Goolsby's.
-
One of the plans is to have the lower bowl seats underground. Something that they are doing for the Kings new arena.
Everyone seems to overlook a crucial part of this operation.
Bradley Center Bat -- Are you willing to relocate?
-
I'm a big sports fan, but it always bugged me a little bit to see the Bradley Center and the MECCA right across the street from each other. Seemed wasteful some how. Seeing another one right there will make it worse. I'm not saying it's not needed, it's just the "optics" of it.
I assume the BC will be torn down and same with the Arena is the owners have there way. They could really clean up that site.
-
We could always let UWM rent the Al for their games.
I don't see any point of tearing down the 25 yr old BC while keeping the smaller 65 yr old MECCA. At least with the BC its still a great place for the Admirals and is bigger to accommodate a wider variety of events. If an entertainment hub could be built on the site of the MECCA connecting it to the BC, Theatre, convention center and new arena, I think it would be a huge success. They could do an indoor version of the Power & Light area in KC, with restaurants/bars/retail around the outside with an open common area in the middle, and people could use it when attending events at all four facilities.
Panther Arena is in good shape. The BC still would need $100 million to just fix the roof, walls that have water coming through and the boiler room.
-
I assume the BC will be torn down and same with the Arena is the owners have there way. They could really clean up that site.
Clean it up for what though?
There is already a large empty parcel in the area, and an underutilized warehouse space (Ace Hardware).
I'm on board with urban development, but they need to do a good job planning out what they want. So far, there isn't huge demand for property in that part of the city. New arena helps, but it's probably not "magic".
I'm not against a new arena, but if "cleaning it up" is part of the benefits, then we need to talk about what gets put in.
(this is directed at you personally, just a general statement/caution).
-
Maybe build the whole thing underground. The "Deep Arena" project. Has a nice Milwaukee ring to it.
-
get rid of the hole in one island at summerfest and build it there
-
Panther Arena is in good shape. The BC still would need $100 million to just fix the roof, walls that have water coming through and the boiler room.
That $100M is way over-inflated, intended to draw up support for a new arena. The article with quotes from Marotta supporting that number is very questionable and really doesn't add up to $100M. I realize UWM fans like the arena and want to keep it, I would too if I were them, but it's on a prime piece of real estate that is being under utilized and could be put to better use for the city.
-
That $100M is way over-inflated, intended to draw up support for a new arena. The article with quotes from Marotta supporting that number is very questionable and really doesn't add up to $100M. I realize UWM fans like the arena and want to keep it, I would too if I were them, but it's on a prime piece of real estate that is being under utilized and could be put to better use for the city.
You made very good points on all. Hard to disagree, but UWM needs to fight for what helps there needs as well. Plus, it odd to me that the state just spent $5 million for $4,000 new seats and 2 side videoboards and a jumbo scoreboard to just rip down.
-
That $100M is way over-inflated, intended to draw up support for a new arena. The article with quotes from Marotta supporting that number is very questionable and really doesn't add up to $100M. I realize UWM fans like the arena and want to keep it, I would too if I were them, but it's on a prime piece of real estate that is being under utilized and could be put to better use for the city.
Yes and no.
There is an empty lot about 2.5 blocks away.
Hard to call Panther Arena prime real estate when you look at the rest of the neighborhood.
Politicians and city planners really need to be challenged on this whole deal. They are all going to use fluffy words and big numbers to justify everything, but we also need to look at the reality of that neighborhood. There hasn't been a lot of demand for property or growth since 1988. That's 25 years.
-
Clean it up for what though?
There is already a large empty parcel in the area, and an underutilized warehouse space (Ace Hardware).
I'm on board with urban development, but they need to do a good job planning out what they want. So far, there isn't huge demand for property in that part of the city. New arena helps, but it's probably not "magic".
I'm not against a new arena, but if "cleaning it up" is part of the benefits, then we need to talk about what gets put in.
(this is directed at you personally, just a general statement/caution).
They should just put in a park/ nice public space that is unique, lots of cities have been doing these types of things lately. Looks nice, people like it, uses the space etc.
-
They should just put in a park/ nice public space that is unique, lots of cities have been doing these types of things lately. Looks nice, people like it, uses the space etc.
When MU tore down Haggerty's they just put grass on the lot while the figure out what to do with the land.
A big lawn > Park East gravel pit.
-
They should just put in a park/ nice public space that is unique, lots of cities have been doing these types of things lately. Looks nice, people like it, uses the space etc.
That's how I feel. There isn't any tax revenue from this land so might as well make it look nice. A few million dollars tacked on to the arena could really spruce that area up. No idea how practical this is, but some massive reflecting pools for the summer that are turned into ice skating rings with fire pits in the winter could liven up that are and really make it family friendly.
-
I'm sorry, I hate to sound like johnny conservative, but that's a waste, and the city shouldn't put a dime towards it.
If the Bucks want/need a new arena, and it can be incorporated into a large scale city planning initiative, then I think it's a good idea. Let's get going!
If the city planning idea is simply: "Tear down old arenas, Build a new arena and new parks", then it's a waste and they should just let the Bucks move away.
I'm all for city beautification, but not at the cost of tearing down a functional arena and partially funding a new arena. That's a losing bet.
Milwaukee needs to think harder. If they want to clear out land and try to attract some new biz, that's not unreasonable, but I would need to see why this new property is going to be in such high demand, because that area hasn't ever had high demand.
-
I'm sorry, I hate to sound like johnny conservative, but that's a waste, and the city shouldn't put a dime towards it.
If the Bucks want/need a new arena, and it can be incorporated into a large scale city planning initiative, then I think it's a good idea. Let's get going!
If the city planning idea is simply: "Tear down old arenas, Build a new arena and new parks", then it's a waste and they should just let the Bucks move away.
I'm all for city beautification, but not at the cost of tearing down a functional arena and partially funding a new arena. That's a losing bet.
Milwaukee needs to think harder. If they want to clear out land and try to attract some new biz, that's not unreasonable, but I would need to see why this new property is going to be in such high demand, because that area hasn't ever had high demand.
I think it is a losing bet either way. The Bradley Center will be as empty as the Arena in a few years if the Bucks leave. They are the ones that are paying for all the updates to keep the arena nice. MU hardly pays anything, so I'm pretty sure the arena will be losing money and unable to attract top acts as it continues to become outdated.
-
I think it is a losing bet either way. The Bradley Center will be as empty as the Arena in a few years if the Bucks leave. They are the ones that are paying for all the updates to keep the arena nice. MU hardly pays anything, so I'm pretty sure the arena will be losing money and unable to attract top acts as it continues to become outdated.
Ya know, this gets presented as fact, but I'm just not sure it's true.
Acts play at Wrigley Field, which is a dump, and everything is temporarily set up. Why do they do it? Because it makes a lot of $$$$.
If (insert band) thinks they can sell out a show in Milwaukee, they will play there. I don't think it's more complex than that.
-
I'm sorry, I hate to sound like johnny conservative, but that's a waste, and the city shouldn't put a dime towards it.
If the Bucks want/need a new arena, and it can be incorporated into a large scale city planning initiative, then I think it's a good idea. Let's get going!
If the city planning idea is simply: "Tear down old arenas, Build a new arena and new parks", then it's a waste and they should just let the Bucks move away.
I'm all for city beautification, but not at the cost of tearing down a functional arena and partially funding a new arena. That's a losing bet.
Milwaukee needs to think harder. If they want to clear out land and try to attract some new biz, that's not unreasonable, but I would need to see why this new property is going to be in such high demand, because that area hasn't ever had high demand.
The alternative plan of "do absolutely nothing with the vacant Park East land" is clearly superior to laying down some temporary sod.
-
Well, "they" built the Bradley Center in way too little space. That explains as to the why the seating is so "steep" with so little leg room. When they built the Bradley the had to spend a lot of time pile driving I-beams to support the buildings weight in the area that was once a marsh. Building next to a river??
Clearly more space that just the now semi empty Journal-Sentinel Building would be needed..