|
Post by Super King on Sept 25, 2014 19:39:14 GMT -6
Imagine: a big cool skywalk traversing 3rd Street lit up in neon that says BRADLEY SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT CENTER or somesuch connecting the arena to the pavilion, which could be like a Lambeau Atrium or something. That's a way better idea than anything else, and I came up with it just now. Plus people could track the progress of the new arena as they walk to and from games, like seeing Miller Park go up over the County Stadium wall.
|
|
|
Post by panther9193 on Sept 25, 2014 19:42:05 GMT -6
Unfortunately, if there's a worst way to do something, Milwaukee leaders will pick it. If this isn't the worst idea for building a new arena, it has to be close. Tear down three venues to build one. The arena is arguably the most successful building in the Wisconsin Center complex and provides a smaller venue that is desired for many teams, concerts and shows.
If everyone wants development to be created around a new arena, it needs to be built far away from this location. How many times does the city need to bang its head against a brick wall before it realizes that this area does not spur new development? The Bradley Center is built...no development anywhere nearby. The Milwaukee Auditorium gets renovated...no development anywhere nearby. The new convention center gets built...no increase in convention business and minimal development. I say minimal because the Hilton expanded its hotel when the convention center expanded. Gary Grunau promised to expand his Hyatt hotel if the convention center was built but he broke that promise. A good reason not to take anything he says seriously.
Any new arena needs to go where new development is already occurring. In this case, east of the river near the lakefront. That's what developers see as the hot spot based on the number of planned projects. Adding an arena should only encourage more development which will be needed to fund the arena. If creative ways to finance it aren't found, it's all a moot point because there is no appetite for more taxes (nor should there be). Tearing down three buildings (or four buildings if the Journal building is included) would only add significantly to the cost.
The best way to build an arena and save the UWM Panther Arena is to get the usual cast of clowns out of the planning process. Unfortunately, I fear Milwaukee will find a way to screw it up like it usually does.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Sept 25, 2014 20:20:36 GMT -6
Unfortunately, if there's a worst way to do something, Milwaukee leaders will pick it. If this isn't the worst idea for building a new arena, it has to be close. Tear down three venues to build one. The arena is arguably the most successful building in the Wisconsin Center complex and provides a smaller venue that is desired for many teams, concerts and shows. If everyone wants development to be created around a new arena, it needs to be built far away from this location. How many times does the city need to bang its head against a brick wall before it realizes that this area does not spur new development? The Bradley Center is built...no development anywhere nearby. The Milwaukee Auditorium gets renovated...no development anywhere nearby. The new convention center gets built...no increase in convention business and minimal development. I say minimal because the Hilton expanded its hotel when the convention center expanded. Gary Grunau promised to expand his Hyatt hotel if the convention center was built but he broke that promise. A good reason not to take anything he says seriously. Any new arena needs to go where new development is already occurring. In this case, east of the river near the lakefront. That's what developers see as the hot spot based on the number of planned projects. Adding an arena should only encourage more development which will be needed to fund the arena. If creative ways to finance it aren't found, it's all a moot point because there is no appetite for more taxes (nor should there be). Tearing down three buildings (or four buildings if the Journal building is included) would only add significantly to the cost. The best way to build an arena and save the UWM Panther Arena is to get the usual cast of clowns out of the planning process. Unfortunately, I fear Milwaukee will find a way to screw it up like it usually does. Boom!!!!! Light rail? No thanks. A baseball stadium to breathe life into the downtown district? We'll take a pass. The Bucks in purple and silver? I'm down! Put me down!!
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Sept 26, 2014 19:18:14 GMT -6
Link: Shots firedThought I'd get back in the writing conversation.
|
|
|
Post by uwm97 on Sept 27, 2014 14:20:51 GMT -6
My fond hope is that all this new venue talk implodes and the Bucks head for Seattle or Vegas or wherever the billionaires, the league and the players actually want them anyway. Your pathetic and small-minded "fond hope" is more of a pipe dream. Edens and Lasry have millions of dollars incentivizing them to get a new arena, and it will happen. So get over it.
|
|
|
Post by uwm97 on Sept 27, 2014 14:27:59 GMT -6
Unfortunately, if there's a worst way to do something, Milwaukee leaders will pick it. If this isn't the worst idea for building a new arena, it has to be close. If everyone wants development to be created around a new arena, it needs to be built far away from this location. How many times does the city need to bang its head against a brick wall before it realizes that this area does not spur new development? Any new arena needs to go where new development is already occurring. In this case, east of the river near the lakefront. That's what developers see as the hot spot based on the number of planned projects. Adding an arena should only encourage more development which will be needed to fund the arena. The best way to build an arena and save the UWM Panther Arena is to get the usual cast of clowns out of the planning process. Unfortunately, I fear Milwaukee will find a way to screw it up like it usually does. Easily the best post on this topic. Fortunately, I don't Edens and Lasry are dumb enough to let their investment get high jacked by the same backwards-thinking hacks who built a tiny convention center in the wrong place or a spent $40 million on a white elephant known as the Milwaukee Theater. New blood in this town has been what this city has needed for decades.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Sept 27, 2014 19:40:24 GMT -6
Three sure things: death, taxes, and 97 giving us the Sykes/Belling take on Milwaukee. Back in reality, I'm glad to report that UWM will be asking to join this conversation. We'll see where that leads.
|
|
|
Post by 73withharoldlee on Sept 28, 2014 8:55:32 GMT -6
What I would like to know is why Major Goolsby has so much clout. It is a fun bar and has benefitted greatly over the years but it is time to move on. In my humble opinion the best place for a new arena is Second and Michigan area. Close to the Public Market, easy shuttles from Water St and Brady st, next to the booming Third Ward and potential Fifth Ward, and Summerfest. The city should be promoting this site as Clybourn St becomes a boulevard connect the Lake to the Third Ward. The NBA is no longer just a winter sport, it goes on and on. The development of the Park East Corridor will be available for a tax base and river walk link or rail link to downtown entertainment. Remember the Feds would love to dismantle The Post Office, parking and hotels next to the transportation hub create even more possibility at that site. It also creates a link to gambling and Miller Park. Think of a visitor from Minnesota, Illinois, Colorodo, enjoying this wonderful area Milwaukee, taking a train from Mitchell, or driving and walking the rest of the time in a safe area. Finally, the Panthers would still have a home for now and the city could figure out how to make Kilbourn Ave a link to the above by expanding the convention center. Enough said, I hate writing long paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Sept 28, 2014 10:15:39 GMT -6
Unfortunately, if there's a worst way to do something, Milwaukee leaders will pick it. If this isn't the worst idea for building a new arena, it has to be close. Tear down three venues to build one. The arena is arguably the most successful building in the Wisconsin Center complex and provides a smaller venue that is desired for many teams, concerts and shows. If everyone wants development to be created around a new arena, it needs to be built far away from this location. How many times does the city need to bang its head against a brick wall before it realizes that this area does not spur new development? The Bradley Center is built...no development anywhere nearby. The Milwaukee Auditorium gets renovated...no development anywhere nearby. The new convention center gets built...no increase in convention business and minimal development. I say minimal because the Hilton expanded its hotel when the convention center expanded. Gary Grunau promised to expand his Hyatt hotel if the convention center was built but he broke that promise. A good reason not to take anything he says seriously. Any new arena needs to go where new development is already occurring. In this case, east of the river near the lakefront. That's what developers see as the hot spot based on the number of planned projects. Adding an arena should only encourage more development which will be needed to fund the arena. If creative ways to finance it aren't found, it's all a moot point because there is no appetite for more taxes (nor should there be). Tearing down three buildings (or four buildings if the Journal building is included) would only add significantly to the cost. The best way to build an arena and save the UWM Panther Arena is to get the usual cast of clowns out of the planning process. Unfortunately, I fear Milwaukee will find a way to screw it up like it usually does. Boom!!!!! Light rail? No thanks. A baseball stadium to breathe life into the downtown district? We'll take a pass. The Bucks in purple and silver? I'm down! Put me down!! In an interview with Bud Selig he claimed that he was weighing both downtown and County Stadium locations for the new stadium, and consulted with area leaders, such as MMAC. These leaders "advised" him to put the stadium in the County Stadium location, so that is what he choose. In an interview John Norquist stated that while he wanted the baseball stadium downtown he felt it more important to keep baseball in Milwaukee and decided not to pursue an all or nothing for a downtown stadium. In this instance you need to blame MMAC and other business leaders for not putting a baseball stadium downtown.
|
|
|
Post by uwm97 on Sept 28, 2014 15:48:33 GMT -6
Three sure things: death, taxes, and 97 giving us the Sykes/Belling take on Milwaukee. Back in reality, I'm glad to report that UWM will be asking to join this conversation. We'll see where that leads. If you knew what you were taking about - which you don't - you'd know that Sykes is not a fan of a new Bucks arena, and has been borderline obnoxious when discussing the issue. In fact, he sounds a lot like you.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Sept 28, 2014 21:04:50 GMT -6
Three sure things: death, taxes, and 97 giving us the Sykes/Belling take on Milwaukee. I thought the three sure things were death, taxes and Aaron Rodgers having the upper hand on Jay Cutler.
|
|
|
Post by gbphoenix1 on Sept 30, 2014 21:24:08 GMT -6
Based on my screen name you can see I am a GB fan but I am also huge basketball fan who lives in Milwaukee and works downtown. In addition to holding GB tickets I am a Bucks half season ticket holder in the lower bowl. That by no means makes me an expert but you have a good thread going on arena talk and I wanted to jump in.
For at least the last three years I have been telling my friends that I want the new arena to be built over the top of the old Cell and Journal Sentinel building. You can imagine I was excited when this popped up as an option. That has nothing to do with any thoughts I have towards the Panthers or the university as I think there is plenty of space in Milwaukee for you guys.
My thoughts are simple.
First I hate the idea of the new arena being built north of the BC. That is a no man's land and will take beyond the useful life of the new arena to really fill in.
Second I don't think the BC needs to be torn down. The $100 million renovation/update number seems to be over stated. That seems to be if they want to keep retro fitting the arena to be relevant. I think a maintained BC is a very good home for the things that won't be at the new arena. With dropping down tarps in the upper level the Panthers, Wave and Admirals will feel right at home. Not to mention concerts like the Black Keys felt just fine in that reduced seating environment.
Third I think the new arena needs to be closer to the central business area, the convention center and the river. I know it is only a block or so but every little bit helps, especially when the 4th street entrances get more use than 6th street does. I walk from work sometimes to games and it can be dead for a few blocks because it is disconnected right now. It should feel continuous from Wisconsin Ave or Water Street to the arena. If Old World Third and 4th street, which have light traffic, stopped being through streets you can have a huge foot print and have a natural flow to the east out of the arena into Pere Marquette or north to bars on Old World Third. Why not have Old World Third permanently be shut down to vehicles for two more blocks going North to Juneau? Just imagine a Bucks playoff game in April or May with people wandering around Old World Third like it was State Street in Madison, 16th Street in Denver or Beale Street in Memphis. Imagine the river actually being in play and a previously proposed water taxi actually having solid purpose during part of the year by dropping you off at the door of the arena or gathering area.
I think the Milwaukee Theater has a purpose and place so I like the idea of keeping it. I don't hate the idea of 4th and Wisconsin but that really is one of the worst areas in downtown and I think it needs a lot of work and private investment from business that may not happen even with the arena. I wouldn't mind having it north of the ICC in the third ward. That is close to fun areas, close to central downtown and sits on underused land. I cringe every time Frank Gimble speaks. I think he just wants to protect his position with no real vision for the future.
If you guys were playing in the BC and using the lower level only you would improve your concession stands, rest rooms and foyer on day one. You would also be picking up access to luxury boxes and VIP areas that your current arena will never have. Yeah it wouldn't be yours but I still think you could make it work and land pretty nicely until you build a place of your own near campus.
|
|
|
Post by DunneDeal on Oct 2, 2014 12:46:39 GMT -6
I have to ask, how tall are you?
I'm a bigger and taller guy and those seats in the lower bowl of the BC offer no leg room, and no comfort. That arena is horrible for basketball.
The lockers rooms in the BC are tiny, the Bucks locker room is a joke, retro fitting or even keeping that building is a joke. It should come down. The Arena on the other hand is a perfect mid-size venue that can't sell out 18,000, but could sell 5-6000 seats. Is the Arena what I want for the Panthers long term, no but who ever does.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Oct 2, 2014 14:20:27 GMT -6
The BC is a goner no matter where the new arena is built -- if it is built. The numbers will have to be goosed to a fare-thee-well to make a new arena seem economically sensible as it is. Notice that I said seem. Having another facility of the same size a block or a couple blocks away in a city this size would be madness, as it would compete for many of the same events such as concerts, shows and conventions. That would end badly for both facilities, even putting aside the enormous maintenance and upkeep expense of the BC. Just ask the folks in the exhibition community what they think of having facilities like the Auditorium (i.e. Milwaukee Theater), the PAC, the Riverside and in good weather the Marcus Amphitheater at Summerfest all competing for the same events. The show producers love it because they can get great deals. Those responsible for the infrastructure feel differently.
Conversely, the Panther Arena competes in a completely different market, for different events, than the BC or the new facility compete in. There is simply no way a mid-major team or the Wave are going to live comfortably in an arena with 20,000 seats. Why would we as an institution pay what will promise to be an enormous rent for a facility three times larger than we need, especially when we will be fourth or fifth or worse in the pecking order for schedule dates?
Uihlein clumsily dangled the idea of another facility within the BBC that impliedly would be much smaller. But for what purpose? To take the place of the MT in competing for mid-size shows, or to be the little gym down the hall for "lesser" teams? Both? I have no confidence that such a space would actually be included in the plan, and great trepidation as to its quality, attractiveness or baseline suitability for D1 basketball.
The open land north of the BC is so obviously the right spot for the BBC if it's going to be built that it hardly bears further discussion. Build it there, rip down the BC, keep the Arena. The agendas of those suggesting the Arena/MT/JS site include no consideration for Milwaukee's interests.
|
|
|
Post by gbphoenix1 on Oct 2, 2014 20:35:46 GMT -6
I think Dunne was asking me, I am just over 6'2". The BC isn't a basketball arena but I don't think the UWMPanthers arena is either. The Bucks locker room is a joke...for an NBA team. I would have a hard time believing that the Milwaukee Panthers locker room at the old cell is better though.
I am confused why having the PAC, MT, Riverside, Pabst etc. is good for competition and lowering prices but having a BC and new arena would result in the Panthers and Wave having to pay too high of a price? If anything I will grant you that the Wave, Admirals and Panthers in one building could create some schedule issues but if they are the only ones willing to pay to use the building the rental cost will reflect it...seems like basic supply and demand. I see the Golden Eagles and Bucks in the new building. I don't want the Admirals anywhere near the new building. Putting a hockey rink in is exactly why the BC sightlines aren't great for hoops.
I am really surprised by the general notion of people thinking the current BC needs to come down. The average person in Milwaukee, who is likely going to pay for the new arena in some way, doesn't even think we need a new arena let alone tear down the BC. When it comes down to it I think the people's opinion would be host primary events in the new arena and keep a usable BC for secondary events. Short of Panther fans I don't see John Q. Public wanting to keep the old MECCA when it has none of the amenities that are relevant today.
I am not trying to be rude asking this but do you guys really think putting 5000 people in the lower bowl of the BC with the top draped off is worse than playing in the UWMPanthers Arena, especially if the money is similar?
I will agree to disagree about putting it north of the current BC.
|
|