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

[MUfan12]

We have a lot of current and proposed development and renovations in the downtown area that have nothing to do with the fact that we have (or might not have) the Bucks.  Here's a sample:
-Continued Pabst Brewery redevelopment (including Frederick Lofts - new building)
-Northwestern Mutual tower
-Kimpton hotel in the Third Ward
-Dohmen office space
-Blue Cross Blue Shield renovation (office to apartments)
-Posner building upper floors renovation to apartments
-River House development (apartments)
-North End Phase III (apartments)
-Walkers Landing (apartments)
-Avenir Apartments
-Mackie Building renovation and new development (mixed use)
-700 E Michigan renovation (apartments)
-833 E Michigan (Irgens office tower)
-Couture residential tower (40+ story proposed)
-700 E Kilbourn (35+ story proposed residential)
-Mandel tower on Prospect (20+ story proposed residential)
-Rumored JCI 50+ story office tower on Michigan

Milwaukee's chugging along and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.

While true, this surge in development makes it easier to see how, if done correctly, the proposed district could succeed. With the buildings on N. Water alone, there will be 500+ new apartments going up, a built in residential base a mile from the arena district.

Those citing what happened with the BC miss this fact. The amount of people living downtown is way higher than it was in 1988. Do this thing right, and it could be big.

[mu03eng]

You have a thing for Headband's wife?

I don't not have a thing for Headband's wife....that I know of

[mu03eng]

-Continued Pabst Brewery redevelopment (including Frederick Lofts - new building)
-Northwestern Mutual tower
-Kimpton hotel in the Third Ward
-Dohmen office space
-Blue Cross Blue Shield renovation (office to apartments)
-Posner building upper floors renovation to apartments
-River House development (apartments)
-North End Phase III (apartments)
-Walkers Landing (apartments)
-Avenir Apartments
-Mackie Building renovation and new development (mixed use)
-700 E Michigan renovation (apartments)
-833 E Michigan (Irgens office tower)
-Couture residential tower (40+ story proposed)
-700 E Kilbourn (35+ story proposed residential)
-Mandel tower on Prospect (20+ story proposed residential)
-Rumored JCI 50+ story office tower on Michigan

Milwaukee's chugging along and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.

So if the Bucks aren't here, there isn't any possibility these projects are less valuable or worse not done?

Don't discount the physiological impact that a major negative like the Bucks leaving subconsciously decreasing the interest in doing these types of projects or of residents moving into the area.

Lastly, I've said it before, like 27 pages ago, but the amount of corporate inter-connectivity that goes on with the Bucks as a central cog of fundraising and community engagement is significant.  Companies like Harley, Associated Bank, JCI, Rockwell Automation, NML...they are all incestuous with the fundraising...pull the Bucks out and some of that non-accounted for funding for the city goes away. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

120 jobs lost?  Bucks as a $100m revenue company, lost?  PIKERS!

Try 1,200 jobs and $2 BILLION lost.  Today's front page:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/assurant-considering-sale-of-milwaukee-based-assurant-health-b99490422z1-301614251.html

Maybe we'd have a State/County/City bailout to keep them here if those 1200 knew how to dribble and entertain.

.. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we would do that.  The market (and perhaps lack of industry acumen) has spoken, and Assurant needs to shuffle off.   

The point .. cities and states lose whales like this.  If that whale happens to be a sports team, pols run around with their hair on fire, meanwhile another business 10x the size and negative impact is closing its doors.

But but but that would be corporate welfare if we did this.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

The studies everybody talks about are when its 100% funded. do any of the studies show when its 40% funded but the Government?    Also has anybody done a study on a city in a Med size market that has lost 1 of the Big 3 teams and how it effects the City? (it needs to be in the Big Revenue sports era) Losing the browns set downtown Cleveland back.  Seattle is a much bigger city and has 2 other major sports brands.  Also the bucks rev is going to go up 30% in the next 2 years which means player's salaries are going to jump 15% in 2 years.  

Bottom line is Milwaukee downtown will become a dump with no possibility of development if the bucks leave.  You will not get major Rev generating concerts etc.  The bradley center will start losing 10-15 million per year when you factor Renovations, Cost and Revenues.

So for 200 million you keep a company that generates 200 million in Rev and has 100 million in salary and will also get 15-20 other major events each year using the stadium.  That alone pays for it self and you are not losing 15 million at the Bradley center.  And that is if no redevelopment happens any redevelopment would be gravy on the top.   Name me one city that would not jump at the chance to have a NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL team move to them if they only had to come up with 40% of the stadium cost?

don't look at it as a cost for them to stay what would you pay for a team to come?  Most cities pay 100% MKE is only having to pay 40%.  

Milwaukee will not become a dump.  Total hyperbole

[hashtagspecialdelivery]

I'm trying to be honest. I don't have all of the answers. I don't bring up counterpoints to be annoying. I bring them up because I think they get missed or buried when people say: "Oh, but it's good for the community!"

You want my hot sports take? Fine.

This is my visceral reaction to this whole thing:

The Bucks can f-ing leave. Bye.

The NBA business model apparently requires that the public give them A LOT of money just so they will do business here. We can call it an "investment", but the reality is, it's a f-ing gift. It's not even corporate welfare. It's just a gift. Here. Take this. Please stay.

If the Bucks need more money, raise ticket prices.

Furthermore, if this "investment opportunity" was so great, there would be investors lining up to get in on it. We wouldn't need state money. Hasn't really happened. Why? Because it's a losing proposition. There are numerous studies out there that illustrate that public funded arenas rarely (if ever) make the economic impact that politicians and everybody claims. Is Milwaukee the magical market that's going to make it work? Not likely.

If the goal is a healthy and vibrant downtown community, then we have to look at all of the tactics. AND, we need to be prepared to take a hit for the long-term good. Let them walk. It'll hurt. But, we'll be better in the long run. We can't fall in love with a specific tactic, and miss the big picture. Bad idea.

For the record, I live, work and pay income and property taxes in Milwaukee.

AND

GET OFF MY LAWN.

A perfect example of the narrow-minded and ignorant thinking that permeates much* of metro Milwaukee.

This post seems to lack a fundamental understanding of how business works in the 21st Century.  "Corporate welfare."  As if that's a bad thing?  Corporations are the lifeblood cities and states.  Cities and States are in competition with one another to land businesses.  Why?  Duh.  Jobs and tax revenues.  Yet then we have some who want to paint corporations/business as the enemy??  We have people who complain about wages and the outsourcing of jobs overseas?  Yea, it sure would be nice if America were the only country in the world and we weren't living in a global economy where competition didn't exist.  But guess what?  That isn't the case.

Sports are BIG BUSINESS, and as a result, progressive cities/states without professional sports teams ARE WILLING TO FUND UPWARDS OF 80-90% OF ARENA COSTS TO RECRUIT SPORTS TEAMS TO THEIR CITIES. Why?  They view sports teams as an asset to their community, adding another amenity, jobs, a source of civic pride when team is good, keeping their name in the news.  Wonder if MKE's trolley car project will make mention on ESPN 82 nights per year, or ever assemble 20,000 people in downtown Milwaukee 41 nights per year to ride that amazing trolley?

Point is tax dollars get spent on incredibly DUMB things frequently, yet when you have an opportunity to retain an asset as a city, that absolutely generates jobs, income tax dollars, sales tax dollars at a high rate - you don't let it walk to another city that has a shred of common sense and vision.

[MU111]

So if the Bucks aren't here, there isn't any possibility these projects are less valuable or worse not done?

Don't discount the physiological impact that a major negative like the Bucks leaving subconsciously decreasing the interest in doing these types of projects or of residents moving into the area.

Lastly, I've said it before, like 27 pages ago, but the amount of corporate inter-connectivity that goes on with the Bucks as a central cog of fundraising and community engagement is significant.  Companies like Harley, Associated Bank, JCI, Rockwell Automation, NML...they are all incestuous with the fundraising...pull the Bucks out and some of that non-accounted for funding for the city goes away. 

I think most or all would still get done.  I will concede, however, that there would certainly be a huge negative psychological impact if we lost the team.  Something that we probably all agree on is that the loss of the Bucks would also be a big bummer for Marquette, as has been discussed.  The proposed sports medicine collaboration would never happen, we wouldn't be able to sell recruits on the fact that we share arena with NBA players, we'd be wondering if the BC would still get money for O&M, etc, etc.

[GGGG]

A perfect example of the narrow-minded and ignorant thinking that permeates much* of metro Milwaukee.

This post seems to lack a fundamental understanding of how business works in the 21st Century.  "Corporate welfare."  As if that's a bad thing?  Corporations are the lifeblood cities and states.  Cities and States are in competition with one another to land businesses.  Why?  Duh.  Jobs and tax revenues.  Yet then we have some who want to paint corporations/business as the enemy??  We have people who complain about wages and the outsourcing of jobs overseas?  Yea, it sure would be nice if America were the only country in the world and we weren't living in a global economy where competition didn't exist.  But guess what?  That isn't the case.

Sports are BIG BUSINESS, and as a result, progressive cities/states without professional sports teams ARE WILLING TO FUND UPWARDS OF 80-90% OF ARENA COSTS TO RECRUIT SPORTS TEAMS TO THEIR CITIES. Why?  They view sports teams as an asset to their community, adding another amenity, jobs, a source of civic pride when team is good, keeping their name in the news.  Wonder if MKE's trolley car project will make mention on ESPN 82 nights per year, or ever assemble 20,000 people in downtown Milwaukee 41 nights per year to ride that amazing trolley?

Point is tax dollars get spent on incredibly DUMB things frequently, yet when you have an opportunity to retain an asset as a city, that absolutely generates jobs, income tax dollars, sales tax dollars at a high rate - you don't let it walk to another city that has a shred of common sense and vision.

You are way over estimating the value that an NBA franchise has to a city.  Really is OKC better off because of the Thunder?  Is Seattle worse off?

Look, I want the Bucks and I want the new arena.  But let's not fall into the trap that Milwaukee somehow fundamentally changes if they leave.

[NWarsh]

Is Seattle worse off?  No.  But Seattle is not the best example because they are nothing like Milwaukee.  Seattle has arguably the most educated city in the US (we can all agree Milwaukee is not in that ballpark), they have multiple billionaires, major corporations and 4 other professional sports teams there.  So yes, without the Sonics Seattle has not fallen off much at all economically because they have too many smart people to let it fall off.  But even with all that said, they are still desperate to get a team back, so much so that an ownership group was willing to spend over a billion dollars to get the Clippers and move them up there.  That billion was just to buy the team, not including a new arena and redevelopment of a stadium district.  If they do not add significant value why would Seattle be that desperate to get a team back in Seattle?  Why would billionaires who have made a ton of money by not making stupid monetary moves be so desperate?  You can try and quantify and argue over if they come out in the red or black on a deal, but at the end of the day the true value of the team cannot be measured it is much more qualitative.  This is especially true in the case of a city like Milwaukee.  Milwaukee finally seems to be getting some momentum behind it with a number of extraordinary restaurants and redevelopment happening and people for the first time in a long time are starting to show some pride in being from Milwaukee.  People from outside Milwaukee are starting to take notice of that as well as many article have been written about the city in major publications throughout the country.  The loss of the Bucks changes that.  Outside perception goes back to, yeah, it is Milwaukee of course they would not be able to keep their team, that place is an iron belt ****hole of a town.  The redevelopment momentum would almost certainly come to a halt* and Milwaukee has a completely different feel.  Yes, Milwaukee would eventually recover from it and the city will not disappear, but it also never reaches its full potential.

*edit - come to a halt is probably a bit strong, but there would be a significant loss of momentum for the city.

[GGGG]

Is Seattle worse off?  No.  But Seattle is not the best example because they are nothing like Milwaukee.  Seattle has arguably the most educated city in the US (we can all agree Milwaukee is not in that ballpark), they have multiple billionaires, major corporations and 4 other professional sports teams there.  So yes, without the Sonics Seattle has not fallen off much at all economically because they have too many smart people to let it fall off.  But even with all that said, they are still desperate to get a team back, so much so that an ownership group was willing to spend over a billion dollars to get the Clippers and move them up there.  That billion was just to buy the team, not including a new arena and redevelopment of a stadium district.  If they do not add significant value why would Seattle be that desperate to get a team back in Seattle?  Why would billionaires who have made a ton of money by not making stupid monetary moves be so desperate?  You can try and quantify and argue over if they come out in the red or black on a deal, but at the end of the day the true value of the team cannot be measured it is much more qualitative.  This is especially true in the case of a city like Milwaukee.  Milwaukee finally seems to be getting some momentum behind it with a number of extraordinary restaurants and redevelopment happening and people for the first time in a long time are starting to show some pride in being from Milwaukee.  People from outside Milwaukee are starting to take notice of that as well as many article have been written about the city in major publications throughout the country.  The loss of the Bucks changes that.  Outside perception goes back to, yeah, it is Milwaukee of course they would not be able to keep their team, that place is an iron belt ****hole of a town.  The redevelopment momentum would almost certainly come to a halt* and Milwaukee has a completely different feel.  Yes, Milwaukee would eventually recover from it and the city will not disappear, but it also never reaches its full potential.

*edit - come to a halt is probably a bit strong, but there would be a significant loss of momentum for the city.

I think you are way overstating the downside scenario.

[Groin_pull]

Is Seattle worse off?  No.  But Seattle is not the best example because they are nothing like Milwaukee.  Seattle has arguably the most educated city in the US (we can all agree Milwaukee is not in that ballpark), they have multiple billionaires, major corporations and 4 other professional sports teams there.  So yes, without the Sonics Seattle has not fallen off much at all economically because they have too many smart people to let it fall off.  But even with all that said, they are still desperate to get a team back, so much so that an ownership group was willing to spend over a billion dollars to get the Clippers and move them up there.  That billion was just to buy the team, not including a new arena and redevelopment of a stadium district.  If they do not add significant value why would Seattle be that desperate to get a team back in Seattle?  Why would billionaires who have made a ton of money by not making stupid monetary moves be so desperate?  You can try and quantify and argue over if they come out in the red or black on a deal, but at the end of the day the true value of the team cannot be measured it is much more qualitative.  This is especially true in the case of a city like Milwaukee.  Milwaukee finally seems to be getting some momentum behind it with a number of extraordinary restaurants and redevelopment happening and people for the first time in a long time are starting to show some pride in being from Milwaukee.  People from outside Milwaukee are starting to take notice of that as well as many article have been written about the city in major publications throughout the country.  The loss of the Bucks changes that.  Outside perception goes back to, yeah, it is Milwaukee of course they would not be able to keep their team, that place is an iron belt ****hole of a town.  The redevelopment momentum would almost certainly come to a halt* and Milwaukee has a completely different feel.  Yes, Milwaukee would eventually recover from it and the city will not disappear, but it also never reaches its full potential.

*edit - come to a halt is probably a bit strong, but there would be a significant loss of momentum for the city.

And yes, Seattle absolutely misses its Sonics. That's why they've been chasing any team that is rumored to be on the market. They were doing cartwheels when it appeared the Kings were coming from Sacramento.

True, Milwaukee wouldn't fall off the map if the Bucks left, but it would give the city one less thing to sell. Plenty of my tax dollars go to pay for things I don't directly use. I have no kids, yet pay for education. I don't have a car, yet pay for bridges and roads, etc. It's nice that I can directly benefit from my tax money. I would visit a new arena many, many times as a sports fan and a concert goer.

[hairy worthen]

I think you are way overstating the downside scenario.

No he is understating it

[NWarsh]

And you are grossly understating the downside

Please also answer my question of why billionaires and a city as successful economically as Seattle has been without the Sonics be going to such great lengths to get another NBA team?

[GGGG]

And you are grossly understating the downside

Please also answer my question of why billionaires and a city as successful economically as Seattle has been without the Sonics be going to such great lengths to get another NBA team?

Because they want one.  Just like I want the Bucks.  Sure they will use the same list of reasons that you use, but that's just window dressing.

[mu_hilltopper]

You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.

Disagree that they are apples and oranges.  Different kind of apples, sure.   They are both for-profit businesses that have a certain value to Milwaukee.  Yes, one is heavy in "social pride" value, the other has 20x times the economic value.    Yet one of them gets all the attention, because, holy crap, those guys can dribble a basketball and go .500 (and usually worse) and we need to save our city's image!

The other is a 1 day story, ho hum, we lost a multi-billion dollar business and 1200 very solid jobs.  No bailout, the market is doing what the market does.  

I would argue that both entities should play under the same rules.  If the Bucks want to be more profitable, there's nothing stopping them from doing it themselves, nor nothing stopping them from failing, as they've been doing for about 14 seasons.

[NWarsh]

Because they want one.  Just like I want the Bucks.  Sure they will use the same list of reasons that you use, but that's just window dressing.

Got it, so they are spending a billion dollars just to get a team because they want one.  They did not do any research of risks/returns (both qualitative and quantitative) and decide that the returns outweigh the risks and that it would be a good investment.  Makes perfect sense....

[GGGG]

Got it, so they are spending a billion dollars just to get a team because they want one.  They did not do any research of risks/returns (both qualitative and quantitative) and decide that the returns outweigh the risks and that it would be a good investment.  Makes perfect sense....

Oh I agree that there are benefits (both tangible and intangible) to having professional sports in a city.  I just think those benefits are usually overstated.  Like you did.

For instance, I think a lot of the redevelopment would continue pretty much like it has.  The lack of 41 NBA games downtown isn't going to change that.

[Spotcheck Billy]

And you are grossly understating the downside

Please also answer my question of why billionaires and a city as successful economically as Seattle has been without the Sonics be going to such great lengths to get another NBA team?

more disposable income among potential owners i.e. he who dies with the most toys wins

[hairy worthen]

Disagree that they are apples and oranges.  Different kind of apples, sure.   They are both for-profit businesses that have a certain value to Milwaukee.  Yes, one is heavy in "social pride" value, the other has 20x times the economic value.    Yet one of them gets all the attention, because, holy crap, those guys can dribble a basketball and go .500 (and usually worse) and we need to save our city's image!

The other is a 1 day story, ho hum, we lost a multi-billion dollar business and 1200 very solid jobs.  No bailout, the market is doing what the market does.  

I would argue that both entities should play under the same rules.  If the Bucks want to be more profitable, there's nothing stopping them from doing it themselves, nor nothing stopping them from failing, as they've been doing for about 14 seasons.

Topper,

The distinction you use between economic value and civic pride value is huge. Pretty sure ½ million people aren’t coming in to watch employees of Assurant work. Civic pride is an intangible that is difficult to measure. Milwaukee has an inferiority complex as it is.  Getting a team to come to Milwaukee would be nearly impossible; it would be much easier to keep the one we have.
 
The Bucks have and will do their share of winning, that shouldn’t matter. What matters is should we invest in something that gives identity and pride to the city and state? I am for investing in the arts, parks, clean streets, all that stuff as well. Those are the things that make a city livable as is having a NBA team.  I am not saying that Milwaukee would go to hell in a hand basket if it lost the Bucks, but it would be a hit. Think outside only economic reasons.

[mu_hilltopper]

Topper,

The distinction you use between economic value and civic pride value is huge. Pretty sure ½ million people aren’t coming in to watch employees of Assurant work. Civic pride is an intangible that is difficult to measure. Milwaukee has an inferiority complex as it is.  Getting a team to come to Milwaukee would be nearly impossible; it would be much easier to keep the one we have.
 
The Bucks have and will do their share of winning, that shouldn’t matter. What matters is should we invest in something that gives identity and pride to the city and state? I am for investing in the arts, parks, clean streets, all that stuff as well. Those are the things that make a city livable as is having a NBA team.  I am not saying that Milwaukee would go to hell in a hand basket if it lost the Bucks, but it would be a hit. Think outside only economic reasons.

We don't disagree much.  Civic pride is great, except the wallet isn't infinite.   Saying that means there's debate about exactly how much civic pride we should purchase, how much we can afford.  Had the Bucks contributed $0, we'd tell them to take a hike.

And you raise an excellent point about investing in the arts, parks, clean streets.   This means the Bucks don't automatically take the #1 position for funding.  We need to prioritize.  Guess what?  All that other stuff?  It's barely scraping by.  The parks are $100m in arrears for maintenance.  Not to mention dozens of school playgrounds that are dilapidated.   

Public policy is about making choices and prioritizing funding.  Right now, the Bucks have a sexy project that's sucking up all the oxygen, and we shouldn't stand for that. 

No doubt, the Bucks stadium will get done.  And the stuff you mentioned, arts, parks, clean streets .. will crumble on by, like they usually do.  Too bad they're not sexy.  Too bad Assurant isn't sexy, or we'd be running around with our hair on fire trying to save a multi-billion dollar 1200 job business.

.. These guys should bring down the house:  http://www.fairplaywi.org/

"If public funds are used to build a new Bucks arena, then at least $150-$250 million of these funds must be used to improve Milwaukee County public athletic facilities and recreational spaces."

[Litehouse]

It's a shame Assurant might close, but I'm not sure what local government can do to make their business more viable.  It's not an issue of inadequate infrastructure, and there isn't another city that's offering them a ton of incentives to move.  Their business model just doesn't work anymore in the current market, so they probably aren't the best comparison.

[kmwtrucks]

http://okc.biz/2014/09/08/cover-story-sports-bring-big-money-to-okc-and-local-business/

In other words, what came first, city development or the teams?

Evans is the executive director of the Steven C. Agee Economic Research and Policy Institute at Oklahoma City University (OCU). He is working on a study of the Thunder’s impact on OKC’s economy. However, the study is several months away from being completed.

“What we do know is that the two [city development and sports teams] tend to run hand-in-hand, and there does seem to be some evidence that given the city’s stage of development, sporting events and franchises do seem to foster some economic development,” Evans said.

[kmwtrucks]

Also people that argue against public money were is the money going to come to cover loses at up keep at the bradley center when its only being used by MU 17 times a year and the low paying rent admirals?  You are giving up 45 bucks games plus Playoff games.   between loses and renovations it has to come up to at least 10 million a year.  so in 20 years we will have spent 200 million to not keep the bucks.  Without regard to any revenue or sub revenue the bucks generate.   I guess if I was going to spend 200 million would it make more sense to do it on a new stadium and keep the bucks or spend it on keeping the bradley center open for another 20 years without the bucks?  BTW in 20 years the bradley center will be a dump and this time i'm not using Hyperbole. 

[🏀]

Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?

Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?

[NWarsh]

Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?

Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?

+1000000