|
|
Post by PantherU on Sept 29, 2011 20:55:41 GMT -6
|
|
Rawls
Junior
Everyone's Entitled To My Opinion
|
Post by Rawls on Sept 29, 2011 21:56:03 GMT -6
Looks sweet. No need to move soccer though. I really hope they don't. Use the St Mary's space as a courtyard. Also a little concerned about it being near North. I was really hoping it'd be on-campus. Still, this would be the best place to watch a basketball game in town. Getting excited.
|
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Sept 29, 2011 22:28:20 GMT -6
That is very cool. However and wherever the arena ultimately gets built, we really do need it to be iconic. As the home of the only school of Architecture in the state, that should be the guiding principle for every new building associated with the University.
|
|
|
|
Post by tyrunner0097 on Sept 30, 2011 0:34:47 GMT -6
I side with Fran...have the school of Architecture get things working (and maybe give Jimmy final approval). Otherwise, this looks like it could really help build more Panther pride.
I do hope the arena works, because me, being a bit more of a traditionalist fan, would like to be able to walk into the new arena and get the same feeling of familiarity that I do with the Cell/Arena when I go in there nowadays.
Oh, and the Cambridge Gardens name is catchy...
|
|
|
|
Post by uwmplanner on Sept 30, 2011 8:53:59 GMT -6
I've always thought that site would be a good compromise for those who complain there isn't enough bars close to campus for pregame activities. Your not quite on campus but the University has started increase there presence on North Ave with the Riverview Dorms, Cambridge Commons and the Kennilworth building. Only potential problem is cost. Building on campus you already have the real estate and this site would cost you.
|
|
|
|
Post by DunneDeal on Sept 30, 2011 10:14:22 GMT -6
I think North Ave works just fine for me. I think that since your are so close to food and drinks it works.
The cool thing would be to park in the structure and walk down the block for food before a game and walk back before tip off, I know many of us have done that when attending Loyola games in the past.
Also, I do like the name Cambridge Gardens...even if we sell the naming rights..I hope we keep the Gardens part.
I know in the past we said Harley-Davidson Gardens, or Rockwell Gardens or Miller Gardens...
|
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Sept 30, 2011 14:52:19 GMT -6
Oh, and the Cambridge Gardens name is catchy... It would be called Cambridge Gardens for about 30 seconds. A couple of things: A) A North Avenue location would eliminate that whole thing about not having a go-to sports bar. B) If this were actually built in a preexisting structure it would be huge. Development near the Milwaukee River is exceedingly difficult and incredibly harmful to the federally protected wetland environment, and to get a stadium in that corridor without damaging the ecosystem would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Pantherholic on Sept 30, 2011 17:25:59 GMT -6
I really like the Cambridge Gardens name. One question, how congested would traffic be before/after games?
|
|
|
|
Post by DunneDeal on Sept 30, 2011 17:46:11 GMT -6
I was thinking about this..if this was to happen..it needs to happen along with new roads around the area. That intersection where the Commons, the former La Piazza and the tattoo shop and Judges is weird and always congested.
|
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Oct 1, 2011 0:19:16 GMT -6
First of all, thanks for taking an interest in my Thesis work. It is much appreciated. Attached is a site plan of my project (see the bottom of the page). Now I'm not nearly as willing to write a novel on the D-board unlike others I know  but here's a little explanation behind my project... Project Description: A building’s life span can easily exceed that of their current tenants and we can look for new life in these structures. This thesis project addresses a projected future use by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the largest privately owned parcel on the upper-eastside of Milwaukee, currently inhabited by the Wisconsin Paper Board Company. Taking cues from the recent University master plan, this project will demonstrate how the site and building can reconnect with the city fabric while being sensitive to its ecological surroundings. In addition, an estranged student populous can become more connected to the University and to their surrounding neighbors through shared use recreation spaces, University outreach, and sport; including a new home for Panther Baseball, Soccer, Volleyball and Basketball. 1) Basically it's more cost effective and environmentally friendly to reuse buildings as opposed to tearing them down. Especially an old industrial building, built to withstand large floor loads. This makes the factory incredibly enticing to use for this project. 2) University expansion is seen as "Bettering the Community" unlike the other resident University in town, UWM has worked with the surrounding neighborhoods/architecture to better the city. Instead of tearing down iconic buildings/public spaces in our area, we rehabilitate them. My project keeps historical ties to the Eastside while making them more useful, and in turn more relevant, for the future. 2.2) To that end, how can you bring people to a site that they haven't been allowed to use for over 75 years? Incorporate community/regional functions into it. This is the only piece Jimmy left out of my project, Community Outreach. University Sports is the most publicly accessible branch of a University and by building in a park, with river access, you get more traffic on site from the nearby neighborhoods, and eventually the rest of the region. 3) While I don't want to see Englemann Stadium demolished by any means, I feel that it is an unfortunate inevitability. Therefore, it's better to plan the best possible recreation of its current atmosphere possible, ie. my design. 4) Two sports I did not go into detail with is baseball and hypothetically football. Both facilities would be towards the north so they could share functions with the High School (ie. bettering the Community). The baseball stadium is at the north end of my site plan and the football stadium could be in riverside park. This was by far my largest challenge. The site does not reside within the 100 year floodplain so it would not achieve a "wetland" status. This is good for our cause, but it's close proximity to the river poses other challenges. Water runoff, Industrial Brownfield status, and protecting the river's "viewscape" were the most important factors I had to address in this design project. I like Cambridge Gardens too. The first part is simple the Street name is incorporated, but it also has a certain pedigree associated with it. Secondly, Gardens comes from the historical, American association with old basketball gyms; in addition to my desire for this to be an extension of a public park. Traffic. I made an assumption that people would arrive via cars, walking, and public/University transit. Using approximately the same patterns of parking that exist downtown, a combination of street parking and various lots. Three lots located on site, the rest using existing structures and surface lots. I agree it is weird and a tough choice as to who you're going to guarantee the right of way. Personally I'd choose the pedestrian, but it's a tough case to make when there's nothing else there. Hence, why the University needs to buy the land! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by repoman on Oct 31, 2011 13:45:24 GMT -6
That is very cool. However and wherever the arena ultimately gets built, we really do need it to be iconic. As the home of the only school of Architecture in the state, that should be the guiding principle for every new building associated with the University. Lets not forget that we let Architecture students design the School of Architecture and Urban Planning building and that place isn't designed very well at all |
|
|
|
Post by repoman on Oct 31, 2011 13:57:39 GMT -6
I really like the site plan layout. I like how you have preserved all of the views of the river along the entire length of the development and how there are several points of pedestrian access to the river. Parking is really the only issue I see with this site (how many spaces are you proposing?).
People sometimes look at browfields as a bad thing but it does open up the door to millions of dollars in grant money for demolition, cleanup, and redevelopment.
|
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Oct 31, 2011 19:18:30 GMT -6
Much appreciated repoman. Parking is really the only issue I see with this site (how many spaces are you proposing?). -Parking- I used a formula to determine how much parking I needed, then subtracted for existing University and street parking. Typically, outdoor stadiums plan to house 15-30% of the stadium's capacity in parking; indoor arenas about 7-20%, depending. Say your arena holds 10,000 people, has good access to transportation and a dense population you could figure you need to support 10% of those seats with parking, about 1,000 spaces. The Bradley Center/US Cell are about 7%, Miller Park is around 33%. The Kohl Center is around 5% and Camp Randall comes in at a whopping .7%. The U has about 4700 parking spaces between campus locations and Upark lots, we can use existing shuttles and charge folks half the price to park further away. Plus figuring about 800 spaces on the street within a half mile radius; I used the 10% model. So my arena's capacity is 7839, using the 10% model I need to supply around 783 spaces. Surface lots: 259 Structure 1 (3rd&4th floors of existing factory bldg): 150 Structure 2 (under the plaza, I didn't fully design this garage): 381 Totals of 790 new parking spaces. If you add a 2nd underground level to the plaza parking garage you increase the total by 300. The reason I went with 1 underground level was to keep some costs in check. When you construct subterranean parking you have to figure it costs $10K per space to build. Naturally, both the decks are hidden from view in the site plan I sent to Jimmy. You can see the factory garage in the soccer pitch renderings; the steel ivy trellises mask the garage floors. People sometimes look at brownfields as a bad thing but it does open up the door to millions of dollars in grant money for demolition, cleanup, and redevelopment. I couldn't agree more. Lets not forget that we let Architecture students design the School of Architecture and Urban Planning building and that place isn't designed very well at all The world renowned firm Holabird & Root from Chicago designed SARUP. www.holabird.com/projects/index.asp?id=30Hey it was the early 90s and postmodernism was en vogue. I think we can agree that said stylistic movement should be forgotten... |
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Oct 31, 2011 19:37:58 GMT -6
Millions in brownfiield cleanup funds? From where? Would an athletic development qualify for cleanup funds under EPA or HUD which are geared towards redeveloping to promote economic development?
|
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Oct 31, 2011 22:10:36 GMT -6
HUD does not disperse funding for brownfield cleanups, they work solely in the housing market. Their main job is to determine if your new building project includes a certain # units for lower income groups, etc; but only if you're applying for HUD financing.
The EPA isn't necessarily geared towards economic development per se, but they can help with funding if you're working in a brownfield, there are other agencies you can use too. States often chip in for redevelopment also.
Since a development like this would probably go through the UWM Real Estate Foundation which is a separate entity it could work out that way. But that's a legal question I can't really answer.
Revitalizing a brownfield, especially one on a river would give us a big head start on getting a high LEED certification.
|
|
but here's a little explanation behind my project...