|
Post by BBFran on Oct 13, 2014 11:03:49 GMT -6
Great to see the headline story in the JS today recognizing that UWM has a major stake in what's happening downtown. Interim Chancellor Mone made our position clear and it sounds like he is not backing away from the conversation.
There is a perfectly good location available for the new arena already -- immediately north of the Bradley Center. Build it there (if it gets built at all), then tear down the BC and there's a great spot for fill-in development between the new arena and the Wisconsin Center/Panther Arena on the current site of the BC. There is utterly no compelling reason for the Panther Arena to get sacrificed.
|
|
|
Post by tyrunner0097 on Oct 13, 2014 11:43:57 GMT -6
The best way to get people to shut up about tearing the Arena down with the BC?
Tell them that they will now have to pay for two arenas, because that's what would have to happen.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Oct 13, 2014 12:19:31 GMT -6
The elephant trying to hide in the corner of the room on this issue is the JS. Jimmy has reported on this also. They are sitting on an old building designed largely to be a printing and distribution center, neither of which happens at that location any more. With the reorganization of the company you could easily imagine that they would love to offload that building. They could literally move their editorial and business offices to almost any modern office space. It's all computers and workstations now.
The block the JS building occupies is not by itself big enough for a massive new arena. But if you tear down the Panther Arena and cross 4th Street, there's room. So whenever you read a JS story or editorial about where the new arena should be located, keep in mind that they have a very powerful economic interest that may be directly opposed to UWM's interest.
|
|
|
Post by tyrunner0097 on Oct 13, 2014 14:46:56 GMT -6
It doesn't help either that the Bucks' owners are staying mum on what site they're thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Oct 13, 2014 16:40:45 GMT -6
I think they're thinking something ostentatious. I think they're thinking of the Grand Avenue's west end.
|
|
|
Post by GoPanthers33 on Oct 13, 2014 17:28:29 GMT -6
Glad to see the Chancellor step up.
For some reason I have been greeted rather harshly on this topic when I try to bring up the Panthers.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Bruce on Oct 21, 2014 14:50:24 GMT -6
I say give Mone the job full-time. About time we have a leader with backbone around here!
Here's what no one wants to talk about: Uihlien and these other characters keep talking about developing downtown west of the river. It has been proven over about 100 years that a project such as the new Bucks arena is not going to spur development west of Old World 3rd. St. It's just a proven fact.
The Milwaukee Auditorium (now Milwaukee Theatre has been there since 1909. Our arena since 1950. The old MECCA convention center, and now the Wisconsin Center. The City of Milwaukee buffaloed Jane and Lloyd Petit into building the Bradley Center where it is with the same idea. It is well documented the Petits didn't want to build it there.
I highly doubt that Lasry and Edens will repeat the same mistake. That's why they are mum on the preferred site. I hope the Grand Avenue is the ultimate site, because it kills a white elephant while bringing life to Wisconsin Ave.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Oct 21, 2014 23:02:46 GMT -6
The proposed Grand Avenue site has the same problem Jimmy has pointed out for the Arena/JS site. Even if you razed the Boston Store building and closed 4th street, it's still too narrow from north to south.
Build the new palace north of the BC on THE ONLY VACANT LAND IN THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN AREA BIG ENOUGH FOR SUCH A PROJECT. It will be IMMENSELY less expensive than tearing down working buildings and doing the necessary site prep on those lots, and it will open up the PE and the neighborhood north of McKinley to development.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Bruce on Oct 22, 2014 10:14:45 GMT -6
Meanwhile, continuing to dump millions a year in corporate welfare into a mall that no one wants to shop at. The Grand Avenue is on the auction block, practically as we speak. It can be bought for pennies on the dollar. Just because a site is vacant, doesn't make it the right site.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Oct 22, 2014 10:27:54 GMT -6
I agree that the Grand Avenue Mall is underutilized and obsolete. That economic fact can't change the physical fact that the site is too small for anything bigger than the BC.
|
|
|
Post by The Green Gull on Oct 22, 2014 18:51:56 GMT -6
The footprint of the Bradley Center without its two glass atriums would certainly fit in the 4th & Wisconsin Ave. site including the Boston Store at Grand Avenue Mall as well as closing 4th Ave for the block. I think the Bradley center is a good measuring stick as the size of the Bradley Center is not it's issue or the amount of seats that it has. The main issue with the Bradley Center is it's revenue generating capabilities. I've included photos below which depict this scenario. In the below photo: - The orange box denotes the Bradley Center minus the glass atriums.
- The red box denotes the 4th & Wisconsin Avenue site which includes a surface parking lot and a parking structure as well as the Boston Store and by closing 4th St. through the block.
I simply copied the Bradley center minus the atriums and rotated it by 90 degrees and located it at this proposed site. The black box in the second photo illustrates space for a possible main entrance and atrium to the new arena. The white space in the proposed arena site denotes open space.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Oct 22, 2014 19:31:50 GMT -6
I appreciate the work you have done here but I believe you would find that the physical footprint of newer NBA arenas is in fact materially larger than the BC's. Even if it wasn't, your own photoshop shows that placing an arena in that site would take up the entirety of the space on three sides -- an absolute no-no in modern urban megastructure design. There has to be open space.
But there's another issue I didn't even mention because the site's inadequate size alone makes putting an arena at the west end of the GA so unlikely -- the subsurface. There has been litigation going on for years about the water table conditions underneath the Boston Store. Could modern engineering overcome this if a new arena was built there? Sure -- but the added expense would very likely be extremely significant. And what would the public get for that added expense? Nothing. It's a totally invisible cost that adds nothing in the way of amenities.
The proper site for a new arena if it must be built is the vacant land north of the BC. There is simply no sensible, economical alternative in downtown Milwaukee.
|
|
|
Post by DunneDeal on Oct 23, 2014 5:04:39 GMT -6
The back rooms and halls of the BC are tiny, small and way out dated. The size/footprint of any new arena needs to be bigger.
If you've ever seen the Bucks locker room, you'd laugh at how small it is.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Bruce on Oct 23, 2014 18:20:42 GMT -6
Well, the work of Green Gull has opened my eyes, along with today's sale of the Grand Avenue to an out-of-state group for 16.5 million after a bidding war. Looks like more tax money will be wasted on the mall.
Using the width standard we are talking about, it doesn't appear the Panther Arena/Theatre site would work either. So that does leave the Park East as viable in that neighborhood. Regardless, the BC needs to go under any circumstance. No one is going to pony up the $100+ million in capital improvements to bring it up to non-NBA standards, unless of course, it is given to Marquette if the Bucks leave...
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Oct 26, 2014 10:23:07 GMT -6
The BC footprint is not what it would be. The new arena would be 50% larger than the BC.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using proboards
|
|