Green Bay Development News [Archive] - Page 12

Kramerica

January 19th, 2009, 07:15 AM

I recently got a hold of the new 2030 Connections Plan. Interesting things on here ! Did you see that they are trying to make Hwy 141 into Hwy 54 as a freeway? Midterm 2014-2019: Construct additional lanes at select locations and convert to freeway from WIS 54 to US 141 if supported by environmental document
I think that the US 141 should be US 41; it is a misprint.

WisDOT did a study a few years ago on STH 172 from US 41 to STH 54 and on STH 54 from US 41 to Seymour. Unfortunately the study website is no longer up, but from my memory I think the conclusion was to turn STH 172 into a high-speed (45 mph) arterial from US 41 to STH 54. I think that is a mistake. We need to preserve the corridors feeding into the Green Bay loop to facilitate high-speed freeway intercity travel. That includes STH 172 IMO. STH 54 (Mason St) from Oneida to US 41 should be a local arterial, while STH 172/54 serve long-distance trips to Stevens Point.

If we allow STH 172/54 to build up like STH 29 west of US 41 did, then we'll be faced with expensive reconstruction in the future like we're faced with now on STHH 29. We don't need to build the STH 172/54 freeway right now, but PRESERVE the land and restrict the development so that when it becomes neccesary, it is just a matter of building the highway and not also displacing homes and businesses.

Also, it shows the passenger rail line coming from the Fox Valley and it looks like the train station may just be where the downtown bus station is on University.
I wouldn't put too much stock in where they put the little train station symbol on that map. Remember, the 2030 Connections Plan is BROAD outline of what transportation should/could be in 2030. This is an ideas/goals document, not a detailed document (the Environmental Impact Statement) that would be needed before actual construction begins. The EIS will study a wide range of possibilities for station location. The important thing about this plan is the inclusion of a Green Bay train station.

titletown

January 19th, 2009, 07:28 AM

I was reading that wrong. It may not be a misprint because they will eventually expand 172 from the Oneida Reservation to possibly I-43. That is what they are doing next month is doing work before the 41 expansion and redecking the 172 bridge and putting in exit lanes. It makes sense now. Here I thought it was a freeway conversion to downtown on Velp (hwy 141) to Mason, hwy 54. It gets to be so confusing with these old hwys that run through the city, because they zigzag all over the place. Velp is so rundown in that area it wouldn't matter to make it into a freeway.

High Speed Rail phases in the plan:

Phase I: Milwaukee to Madison
Phase II: Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Minneapolis
Phase III: Milwaukee-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay

Geography Teacher

January 19th, 2009, 06:23 PM

If I'm reading that document correctly, this is what might be in store for Highway 172:

By 2019 Highway 172 would be a freeway -- not a "high-speed arterial" -- from its western terminus at Highway 54 in Oneida to US 141 (or US 41 if it's a misprint / either way it would be a freeway for its entire length).

By 2030, the 41/172 interchange would be reconstructed (probably to eliminate the two ramps with tight curves at 30 mph speed limits).

By 2030, the 172/57 interchange would be reconstructed. I was just thinking yesterday about how much land is used for that interchange since it includes ramps for both Riverside and Webster. I'm not sure if you could really free up that much room, or that any open space would be useful since there's a maximum security prison right there...

By 2030, the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge over the Fox River would be reconstructed with "urban accommodations" for bicycles and pedestrians. :banana:

I'm excited about that last one, even though it might take 20 years if it's actually approved. The 172 bridge, while a vitally important east-west link, is the only river crossing between downtown Green Bay and De Pere -- a straight-line distance of five miles! There can't be too many other urban areas with five miles of near-disconnect like that. People say that the east-west isolation in the city is overblown, but consider that lack of easy access.

A humongous amount of local traffic must therefore use the bridge even though it is part of the freeway system. While that will never change unless another expensive street-level bridge with a drawbridge is built (or unless my next paragraph makes sense), adding access for bikes and walkers would be cool. We would finally have a connection between east and west side bike routes; the popular Fox River Trail runs right under the bridge.

I wonder if they could rebuild the bridge with 2-4 "local" lanes of traffic that connect to Riverside on the east and Ashland on the west, with the traffic kept separate from the freeway traffic. This would be a complex bridge with 6-8 lanes of freeway traffic, 2-4 lanes of local traffic, and bicycle/pedestrian lanes, but it would greatly improve transportation in central Brown County!

mgk920

January 19th, 2009, 07:10 PM

In regards to WI 172, I also believe that the Oneidas themselves very much want WI 54 to bypass their 'village' area by the county line (and *MAY* be willing to throw in some some of their own money to help make it happen).

I would:
-Build a bypass freeway just north of the Oneida 'village' feeding into WI 54 to the west and WI 172 to the east with interchanges at County 'E'/Mason St (these two surface roads would be 'tweaked' to feed into each other) and at County 'J'. This part has the potential to be an engineering showcase at a reasonable cost.

-Upgrade WI 172 to full freeway from there eastward to US 41 with interchanges at County 'GE', the airport entrance and Packerland Dr.

-Designate and preserve ROW for major WI 54 upgrades from there westward to US 10 at Waupaca.

-Reroute WI 54 to replace WI 172 in its entirety, continuing WI 54 north on I-43 to the 'University' interchange and back to its current route. Mason St 'inward' from this freeway would become County 'E'. (Could such an upgraded WI 172 also become 'I-543'?)

For many years now, I have considered those ideas to be 'no brainers'.

Mike

Tower Park

January 19th, 2009, 10:16 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/images.jpg

I know it’s all conceptual right now. But I never thought of the possibility of a future Amtrak station in Green Bay being located at or by the Greyhound Lines bus terminal off Main Street. There are or were railroad tracks that pass by there on Cedar Street next to the BelGioioso Cheese warehouse. It certainly would make great sense to connect Amtrak with Green Bay’s intercity bus terminal. And I’m sure all that, in turn, would be integrated with Green Bay Metro and taxi service.

I had always assumed any Green Bay Amtrak station likely would be located downtown west of the Fox, perhaps near the Titletown Brewing Co., along the Canadian National tracks there. As things exist now, to get to the Greyhound terminal area, passenger trains would need, I believe, to continue north of Titletown, cross the Fox River north of the Nitschke Bridge, and then proceed east over the East River behind Streu’s Pharmacy to the Greyhound terminal vicinity - all of which would add time to the Amtrak route.

Perhaps a better way, and one that would save time if it’s feasible, would be to move the Greyhound depot to the west side of the river downtown and consolidate it with the new Amtrak station. Or instead of the Amtrak station being located in the Greyhound depot area off Main, it could, as previously mentioned, be located in the Green Bay Metro terminal vicinity on University. The same railroad tracks that run by Greyhound run near the Metro station as well. Interesting to think about.

GBSurveyor

January 19th, 2009, 11:25 PM

Kramerica

January 20th, 2009, 05:24 AM

titletown

January 20th, 2009, 07:22 PM

Also anyone know the status of all the traffic cams going up along the freeway? I was looking at the DOT site but didn't see any mention. Will there be public access or just internal access?

The images from 7 traffic cameras will be available in time for construction on this website.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/driving-cond.htm

Beargb

January 21st, 2009, 03:05 AM

Good news for Downtown De Pere... Butterfly Books has found a buyer!

"Dear Wonderful Butterfly Books Readers -

I am thrilled to announce that Amy and Patrick Vandenplas have purchased Butterfly Books and will continue the tradition of bringing excellent children's literature to our community!

Butterfly Books will be open under my ownership through Saturday, January 24 still offering 30% off books; 40% off webkinz, games, music, stuffed animals, etc.

Amy takes over Monday, January 26th. The store will be closed for restocking Jan. 2l - 30. A Grand Opening is planned for Saturday, January 31st.

Patrick and Amy grew up in the Green Bay area. They have 4 children, ages 19 to 6 years. They are very excited to be able to keep Butterfly Books in the DePere community and meet everyone.

Barbara Wilson"

Puant

January 21st, 2009, 05:23 AM

At this point in the planning cycle I hope that A downtown station would be consideredat at all. The travel time to get downtown with all the additional street crossings would have to be a major concearn. The way the current traffic patterns are set up would suggest a station in Ashwaubenon near STH 172. There is a great need to create a central transportaion hub incorporating rail, car and bus. I think the decision to move the transit hub out of downtown and onto University was made in haste and not very well thought out. I understand the need to improve the service center and open up the riverfront for development was more pressing then creating a more functional transit hub, but maybe if the 2 tiered hub system had been implemented at that time everyone would be better served.

I share your concern, although my even more immediate concern is that a passenger train comes to GB at all.

I do think there is enough space to accomodate the station on the west side of the river near Broadway, there's enough space for parking cars, bringing in busses, etc. It is unfortunate that the new bus station is not nearby, as it obviously needs to be incoporated. If a two-hub system is built, the 2nd bus hub would be in Ashwaubenon somewhere, I think... if that happens it may be likely that the train station ends up over there.

Ideally, the heavy rail train station gets put in near Broadway, and the light streetcar trolley system is built around that and ties into the bus system and the rest of the city. Remember Kramerica and Danillo proposed soemthing like this (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105417852065100541309.00045e7ad1026e5963a0c&z=14)several pages back? In my dream world that's what I hope happens--it'd be a nice combination of systems and it would serve the city residents, businesses, downtown core, and overall city very well, (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=29811824&postcount=2645) particularly if phase 2 of the trolley system linked in the stadium area and places like Bay Beach.

By the way, I posted a related blog post today (http://packerland.blogspot.com/2008/01/resurgence-of-trolley.html)... It's a little rough because good writing requires more time than I've had lately, but even as is I think you'll get the main points.

GBSurveyor

January 21st, 2009, 02:15 PM

The images from 7 traffic cameras will be available in time for construction on this website.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/driving-cond.htm
Thanks for the update. Will be nice to see the status of Tower Drive before going to work.

hckystr42

January 22nd, 2009, 02:38 AM

When I was home last weekend I saw that several of the "For Lease" signs in the Cherry St. Ramp had been removed. Is there construction going on in several of the units now or have these signs just fallen down?

Also, a random question, but the building located off of 172 at 480 Pilgrim Way, next to Fratello's. Does anyone know how much the construction of that building cost? Thanks.

jerkylips999

January 22nd, 2009, 08:39 AM

hckystr42

January 23rd, 2009, 03:12 PM

Office Building

titletown

January 24th, 2009, 07:22 AM

Office Building

Probably $4 or $5 mil. Now days it may be slightly less.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DE1438F932A3575AC0A967958260

Tower Park

January 26th, 2009, 02:56 AM

I believe a committee of the Green Bay City Council will discuss the plans for Military Avenue reconstruction Monday night, January 26. Could be wrong (hope I am), but my uninformed guess is the roundabouts option will be opposed. . . . The Green Bay Bullfrogs have their annual winter dinner program next week. IF any stadium announcement would come, maybe it would come at that event IF there’s any announcement to make. The team owner will make a presentation and a new field manager will be unveiled . . . The Press-Gazette had an article last week confirming the story FIRST REVEALED on this forum that Butterfly Books in downtown De Pere will remain open.

Tower Park

January 26th, 2009, 03:22 AM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/AUSTINLOGO.jpg

Talk about the rise and fall. Last spring, Austin Straubel airport was doing its best ever. It had a record number of airlines (seven), a record number of direct destinations (ten) and record passenger levels, continuing a trend of healthy growth at the airport for the last half-dozen years.

Then, with the rise in oil prices, the slowing economy and a public feud with one airline, the bottom fell out this summer and fall. Three airlines left (Delta, Continental & Allegiant), service to five cities was dropped and passenger levels plummeted. One of the airlines (Allegiant) moved to Appleton, and now Appleton has service to four – soon to be five - cities not served from Green Bay - Cincinnati, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Orlando, with Denver to be added in March. December passenger loads show the Outagamie County airport now coming close to surpassing Austin Straubel as the state’s third largest airport.

To be fair, Outagamie County will lose an airline this year when Delta and Northwest carry out their merger, meaning Appleton will have four airlines to Green Bay’s four. And there’s at least talk of restoring service from Austin Straubel to Atlanta. But if you’re a competitive hometown boy like me, yikes!

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009901230542

Area airports see dip in passengers in 2008
Austin Straubel enjoyed gains in first half of year before second-half decline

BY ED LOWE • GANNETT WISCONSIN MEDIA • JANUARY 23, 2009

GREENVILLE — Both commercial airports in Northeastern Wisconsin weathered passenger traffic declines in 2008.

Austin Straubel International Airport in Ashwaubenon started the year looking like it might overwhelm Outagamie County Regional Airport in Greenville. But after it saw three of its seven airlines depart within a month in late summer, its passenger traffic slowed significantly.

Outagamie County Regional, the smaller of the two, struggled to avert a nosedive in passenger traffic for most of the year, but finished on an upbeat note.

Austin Straubel, the state's third largest after airports in Milwaukee and Madison, did a better job of holding its own during the year as a whole. Its tally of paid passenger volume was down 6 percent from 2007.

By comparison, the Fox Cities airport, the state's fourth busiest, saw its passenger traffic slide 10.3 percent from 2007, down 30,000. It boarded 259,000 paying passengers in 2008 — its lowest annual total since 2003.

Yet, it registered a 7.7 percent year-to-year gain in passenger traffic during December, breaking a yearlong string of monthly declines, as Austin Straubel's traffic fell far and fast.

The Green Bay-area airport saw its paid passenger boardings fall by 27,000 in 2008, to 424,000, compared to the year before. Its boardings during the last quarter alone were down 28,000 from the same period a year earlier, off 24.4 percent.

Austin Straubel, however, flies almost 165,000 more people a year than Outagamie County Regional Airport.

Outagamie County Airport Director Marty Lenss credited Allegiant Air's arrival for helping the airport escape the pattern of sharply reduced passenger traffic it saw in the first half of 2008. The move came at the expense of the Austin Straubel, where Allegiant, a low-cost carrier connecting smaller markets to vacation destinations, had operated for three years.

Allegiant brought twice-a-week direct flights from the Fox Cities to Las Vegas in August. It added twice-a-week service to Orlando in November.

"We were able to stabilize things in the last third of the year with the positive announcements by Allegiant, and with United's new service to Denver" beginning March 2, Lenss said.

Also of note was Delta's decision to end its Green Bay operations in September while maintaining operations in Appleton.

"Those are business decisions by the airlines that airport directors aren't necessarily privy to," Lenss said, referring to Delta's choice to leave Austin Straubel, at least temporarily. "In all honesty, I have not had specific conversations about (Delta's) decision."

Delta's recent acquisition of Northwest ensures it will play a large role at both airports this year. Northwest was the largest passenger service provider at both airports in 2008.

Allegiant was the first of three airlines to leave the Green Bay market in a one-month span ending in early September. Continental left less than six months after it established service at Austin Straubel.

The annual decline in passenger traffic at Austin Straubel reflected a reversal of its gains through the first half of 2008, when its boardings were up 9.4 percent compared with the first half of 2007.

Austin Straubel Airport Director Tom Miller did not respond to three messages left by Gannett Wisconsin Media at his office this week requesting interviews.

Nationally, passenger traffic dropped sharply in summer in response to airline fare increases and service cuts brought about by soaring fuel prices. Fares would drop later with the price of fuel, but by then passengers had slashed discretionary spending in the face of a full-fledged economic crisis.

Nationally, airline traffic was down 2.6 percent year-over-year through October, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

— Ed Lowe writes for The Post-Crescent of Appleton.

Navarino Rezdnt

January 26th, 2009, 06:08 AM

I believe a committee of the Green Bay City Council will discuss the plans for Military Avenue reconstruction Monday night, January 26. Could be wrong (hope I am), but my uninformed guess is the roundabouts option will be opposed. . . .

Yes, the meeting will be at 6 pm in the council chambers on second floor of city hall. I've been told that the responses to the poll by the city show more people against the roundabout plan than for it. Whichever plan you favor, please take the time to attend the meeting and comment. I'm sure many of the respondents formed their opinion based on emotion and personal preference and not how the community as a whole is benefited by increases in safety and commerce. Not too many naysayers are likely to voice their opinion at the meeting so maybe if there are sufficient people at the meeting in favor of the roundabout plan it may sway local leaders.

ifyoubuildit

January 27th, 2009, 12:24 AM

I know most of the talk regarding a new baseball stadium has been the Brownfield site (Mason Street/Broadway) and no doubt that is a great location but would there be the same support if in fact other sites became possible as well..??

Other options, opinions welcome....

1. Port Plaza Mall site: Check out these other downtown ballparks.

Memphis Redbirds: http://www.ballparkreviews.com/memphis/memphis.htm
Toledo Mudhens: http://www.ballparkreviews.com/toledo/53tol.htm
Greenville Drive: http://www.ballparkreviews.com/gville/westend.htm

All of these are bigger than what Green Bay would need which makes the mall site a perfect location for a 3000-4000 seat stadium..!! The mall site is large enough and has all the infrastructure around it...parking, retail, restaurants. What a way to finally put the mall situation behind us and move forward. When the mall prospered it brought folks from the entire region to downtown. What else besides a baseball stadium could do the same moving forward..??

2. Larsen Green site: This site is closer to downtown and ties in better with the existing retail etc in the Broadway district vs Brownfield. Could tie in well with existing Leicht Park and with Larsen being in infancy stages maybe a concept of a Ballpark Village or Plaza would generate more excitement and generate more interest from other developers.

3. Lambeau Field area: Where else other than Green Bay can you build a baseball stadium in the shadows of Lambeau Field..?? There's a reason most of the retail and entertainment has been built in that part of town. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the baseball stadium to be a part of that area as well..??

hckystr42

January 27th, 2009, 12:36 AM

I just worry that if they built on the mall site that they will add several surface parking lots, even though the ramps are there and that will take away from the urban feel that we are trying to create downtown.

ifyoubuildit

January 27th, 2009, 12:41 AM

According to reports there is parking for over 6000 cars in downtown Green Bay. There should be plenty of existing parking to support the needs of a downtown ballpark. :banana:

Night Rider

January 27th, 2009, 02:11 AM

I think it there is a big chance it would be a big mistake. How many games are played in Green Bay each year? Maybe 30 games a year? So for the remaining 335 nights a year the stadium is empty. I can't think of one business that would want to build on the premise that 30 nights a year we have a glut load of people. I have attended the bullfrogs games & enjoy them. I just think tossing a stadium in the old mall site isn't going to have the desired impact. There is no guarantee that after a stadium is built that the team doesn't fold or move on. I'm not trying to put rain on your parade. Just my initial reaction.
And what about the street grid allignment? Isn't that out the window with a stadium?

ifyoubuildit

January 27th, 2009, 03:32 AM

Great point but regardless where the ballpark would be built the stadium would have to be a multi-use facility. High school and college games in the spring. Bullfrogs, legion and local adult league games over the summer. High school football in the fall. High school and college soccer. Concerts in the warmer months. Special events like sno-cross races, ice skating, outdoor hockey. Possibly move Terror-On-The-Fox to the stadium, and the list goes on and on. Make a run at the High School baseball tournament and maybe the DIII World Series. At the downtown location the park could be built to accommodate small retail shops and possibly build it in conjunction with the Hagemeister Park sports bar. The restaurant could overlook the ballpark.

Would the masses want the street grid more than a ballpark..?? I don't think so..!!

A ballpark like this would assure that a high level of baseball (Bullfrogs, Minor League or professional Independent) remains a staple of this community for generations to come. The reality is the Bullfrogs are quickly outgrowing Joannes and if in fact this community wants them to stay a new facility needs to be built.

:okay:

Puant

January 27th, 2009, 04:31 AM

Well, I guess for me, part of baseball is the atmosphere surrounding it. I really like the game of baseball but as an event it's even more attractive to me if the stadium is in a unique and interesting setting.

A stadium may fit onto the mall site, but it would be crammed inbetween parking ramps. I can't really picture myself going to a game where I'm sandwiched in and amongst a bunch of ugly boring parking ramps. I just can't really picture that. By contrast, of course the brownfield site would overlook the water, boats, and a broader overview of the better parts of the skyline.

The street grid in and of itself is not what excites me, but the idea of what it could help facilitate does interest me a great deal. The street grid would also allow for more connections throughout the downtown (right now, consider how the Convention Center & hotels are rather cut off from the rest of the downtown by the mall). Greater connectivity is key. I fear a stadium here would not only continue to hinder these connections but also be a "dead space" through most of the year (as others have pointed out). A street grid if done properly could support a lot of businesses, residential buildings, and other cultural amenities that if done well could be active nearly 24/7 year-round. That's what you want in the downtown core. Now I understand it's going to be tough to make that happen but I think that we should aim for that as the 'hightest and best use' of the mall site.

As for the Lambeau Field area for the baseball stadium...doesn't excite me nearly as much as the waterfront does just from the standpoint of atmosphere. I've eyeballed some of the vacant lots near Lambeau Field and tried to picture a stadium there, but I think to myself, "eh, whatever, maybe if the cooler waterfront location weren't available I'd be OK with it but not when there's a better option"

After weighing so many options, looking at available space, I keep coming back to the brownfield as the coolest, and best overall when considering so many different siting options. Plus it's available, isn't it?

Let's talk about why NOT the brownfield?

P.S. I think I posted this (http://picasaweb.google.com/gBayPacker/BaseballStadiumFitOnOtherProposedSitesDowntown#5272076139828376274)before? This is one of an album (http://picasaweb.google.com/gBayPacker/BaseballStadiumFitOnOtherProposedSitesDowntown#). of sites.

Jschmuck

January 27th, 2009, 06:14 AM

Yea, i have to agree with the brownfield site. Green Bay's CBD is too small to sacrifice to a stadium, it needs all the space it can keep for office/hotel/residential.

The brownfield is prime land, offering riverfront setting with a neat/pleasing view, its "ready to go," spur development in that area, not only auto traffic would be able to access the stadium-boat traffic can access as well.

I read the article today in the PG as well as the chat transcript; i just can't get over how much ignorance there is. Wisdot provided videos about roundabouts (videos PLURAL) to help with LEARNIN us. The questions asked about roundabouts can be asked with the stop sign/light intersections as well. Also, its almost like some of the people don't understand simple english words, i.e; roundabouts create less severe accidents...And what some people thought this meant was; roundabouts create MORE sideswipe accidents??. no NO no NO NO! Its like the people opposed to the roundabouts did not do any RESEARCH before criticizing them, such as simply CLICKING "play" on the DOT roundabout video(s) provided on EVERY PG article about Military AVE. And what is to stop the same people from simply typing in "roundabouts" in yahoo or google etc...extremely frustrating

ifyoubuildit

January 27th, 2009, 04:38 PM

I love the Brownfield site as well. A couple of issues arise: 1. Parking, 2. Coal dust.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 27th, 2009, 04:44 PM

Well, as long as we don't see continued stupidity to buy into reconstructing Military as 6 full lanes, much like it is today. Apparently the mindset that people prefer to drive up to a business that is surroudned by a concrete jungle with no aesthetics has worked so well for Military, why not continue it. It makes no sense. 4 lanes with larger capacity intersections is a good compromise. If that gets us streetscaping, landscaping, better lights, etc - it will be worth.

I 2nd no stadium on the mall site. Again, we have a property right now that is dead 365 days a year in the middle of downtown, we don't need to replacve that with one that is dead for 300 days a year. There needs to be activity 24/7 in this area. If the downtown was already so strong and busy, then maybe this could be a cool idea. Especially having a condo in a high rise tower overlooking the field when a game is going on. However, reality is - we don't have that... I would vote for the brownfield site...

Tower Park

January 27th, 2009, 04:48 PM

The bad news: the City Council’s Improvement & Services Committee voted 2-1 last night to oppose roundabouts on Military. The good news: they agreed to reduce the number of lanes from six to four, allowing for landscaping and other improvements. The recommendation now goes to the full City Council. We’ll see if the four-lane option sticks, or if there’s an effort to increase that to six. The roundabouts were doomed, it seems to me, when the city underestimated opposition and failed to get support for the idea from businesses along the street and certain aldermen.

HermosaBeachBoy

January 27th, 2009, 05:49 PM

Micoley & Co and Vetter Denk holding open house for the WaterMark (business/residential condo's). 5PM - 8PM Thursday Jan 29, 2009.

Visit Unit #405 Riverfront Loft Condo's on Cherry St. Park in Cherry Ramp or Adams St Parking lot.

www.watermarkgb.com (920-617-9110)

Chad Micoley (920-617-9110)

ifyoubuildit

January 27th, 2009, 05:51 PM

Night Rider

January 27th, 2009, 06:58 PM

HermosaBeachBoy

January 27th, 2009, 07:31 PM

Have they been updating you much on the progress? Have they sold more then one unit?

Any update on the childrens museum?

I know and hear nothing about the childrens museum and doubt that the WaterMark project is going to take off with all the gloom, doom and belt-tightening going on.

I will stop by on Thursday evening to lend moral support, boost morale and see if anyone shows up that is interested in either commercial or residential.

I'm in it for the long haul and figure that someday somehow the Big Ugly Building and the Great Big Hole have got to be addressed in some way.

I just like the idea of someday coming out of the elevator onto the City Deck and being able to walk (or wheelchair) "the grid" and access the Fox River Trail wtihout getting hit by a car!

Puant

January 28th, 2009, 12:57 AM

I love the Brownfield site as well. A couple of issues arise: 1. Parking, 2. Coal dust.

As for parking--Let's analyze this:

I realize Joannes is getting too small but let's use this as a comparison:

Within an easy walk (within about 300 yards) I see two parking lots near the existing Joannes ballfield. The one on the south side at the end of Kurtz Ave is about 1 acre in size (maybe holds 100 cars). The other main parking lot to the north is about 2 acres in size, holds perhaps 200 cars at best. Then there's some on-street parking on Walnut & Baird St. Not much else, I'll say there's perhaps just over 300 parking spots near the current baseball stadium.

Now let's look at the potential parking within 300 yards of Brownfield site:

Immediately west adjacent to the stadium, there is about 2 acres for parking. I'd estimate that's about 250 parking stalls right up next to the stadium, great for tailgating, deliveries, busses, etc. Then on the other side of teh boat slip there is another 4 or 5 acres of vacant land currently owned by the city redevelopment authority. I wouldn't want to see this ALL surface parking but whatever businesses locate there could use the parking during the day and then in the evenings these parking lots could be used for baseball. If needed, and if a safe crossing can be made, on the other side of the RR tracks there is several more acres of potential parking.

So I see several times as much parking available within 300 yards of the brownfield than what is currently available at Joannes. Even cooler--If some of the fans could be dropped off by boats or water taxis from across the river!

(here's a rendering (http://picasaweb.google.com/gBayPacker/Brownfield#5266806922187733762)that shows some of the parking...this was one of my early incomplete rough renderings so please forgive the ugliness, it was more to scale stuff in to see how it wold fit more than about aethetics..)...this one (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oLqGIA0xNfE/SUSCXUOiGwI/AAAAAAAAEpI/v_j5rzOBnwk/s1600-h/brownfield+Stadium_Skyline3_PHOTOSHOPPED.jpg) has a little more aethetics but doesn't show the potential parking as well, I didn't take the time to really scale in and render every parking spot).

If the coal piles ever move, that would not only solve the dust problem but also open up more parking near the stadium, an easy walk underneath Mason St bridge. I vision a sports complex of soccer fields and stuff going in on the coal pile site. Soccer's goona get even more popular in America in the next couple of decades. Could GB even get a minor league soccer stadium adjacent to the ballpark? Awesome idea if you ask me.

As for the coal dust right now, I know Reiss has tried to mitigate the problem with the big sprayers. I do recognize that the dust is a problem but I don't think it's a show-stopper.

Sorry to ramble on about this, but I feel like I need to get this information out there. The challenges of the brownfield site are there, but if the hurdles can be overcome then the rewards are much greater, in my opinion. So as much as I want to stop blathering about this, I'm not ready to give up yet!!

Jschmuck

January 28th, 2009, 01:48 AM

As mentioned above, one good thing came from the meeting about Military Ave, the high chance of it being reduced to 4 lanes...And that leaves me to say, i dont know about anyone else, but i honestly believe that makes Military Ave a perfect route for a vintage streetcar with more than enough ROW, which would help with the proposed revitalization. I think it could go from the Lambeau Field area west a little, along Lombardi, then north on Military to maybe a little past Dousman intersection.

Puant

January 28th, 2009, 02:05 AM

Unfortunately a trolley will be seen as wasteful pork spending, we'd be laughed out of town for proposing it. Nobody around here can fathom getting around any way except by car. If it can't be parked in front of, it might as well not exist. If you can't drive your car on it, don't build it. If it has to be shared with someone else, forget it. If it ain't a personal private possession, it's socialism. We've taken this car stuff waaay too far as a society. I don't blame anyone for owning and driving a car, as I do too, but let's remember it's not the ONLY way to get around.
Afor the conservatives out there, let's remember that cars are ultimately the most COSTLY form of transportation that has ever existed...not only expensive individually but as a society, nation, and planet...in so many ways. I've said it before, but our current 'status quo / conservatism' in America today is completely backwards and turned on its head. The lines of thinking out there are not "conservative" at all when thought through. I know that not all conservatives think the same way, I don't want to generalize, but more cars, more roads, more parking, drill baby drill and all of that does appear to be the status quo.

Night Rider

January 28th, 2009, 12:25 PM

Afor the conservatives out there, let's remember that cars are ultimately the most COSTLY form of transportation that has ever existed...not only expensive individually but as a society, nation, and planet...in so many ways. I've said it before, but our current 'status quo / conservatism' in America today is completely backwards and turned on its head. The lines of thinking out there are not "conservative" at all when thought through. I know that not all conservatives think the same way, I don't want to generalize, but more cars, more roads, more parking, drill baby drill and all of that does appear to be the status quo.

America is great, we can have these debates & not be executed for freely speaking. Green Bay, like many other cities, has invited & paid for a criminal population to infiltrate our downtown causing the flight of working families to the burbs. As the problems get further out, the people flee further away. So 1st they send families away, then ideally these families are supposed to line up behind some mass transit system to go to work? Green Bay isn't a big enough city to support a large trolley transit system. It's not like we have mega throngs of people coming downtown to work. People work all over the county and there just is no way to have a transit system that can cover everywhere. The bus system is available & that is about the best we can expect. I just can't stand when people like Al Gore (the king of doom & gloom) is using 12 times the amount of electricity as a average household, but he has to get on his high horse and tell us how to live. Flying around in private jets. It's not just him of course. I'm happy driving a big SUV to keep my family safe. I am not going to walk 20 minutes to the bus stop, jump on 3 different buses, in order to grab a bite to eat. It's after 4am, so I apologize for being all over the board. And for the record..blah, blah, blah...I see the need to invest in conservation measures & alternate fuels. But we have to be reasonable. If being "conservative" is completely backwards & upside down, then I'll gladly wear those hats. Drill, baby, Drill!

Tower Park

January 28th, 2009, 07:01 PM

Environmentally wise and efficient use of responsible energy, baby, environmentally wise and efficient use of responsible energy! Does that fit on a bumper sticker?

Say what you want but Al Gore saw climate change and global warming caused or greatly accelerated by human activity coming 25 years ago when most others didn’t. Some are still in denial, although they’re a declining resource. And Gore has justifiably won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Be it issues like global warming, evolution or Terri Schiavo, one of the great disservices of modern-day conservatives in this country has been the politicization of science. At its heart, climate change is a scientific issue, not a political issue. I’ll trust the overwhelming consensus judgment of scientists any day over the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay or George Bush.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/323181_joel11.html

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBnTPfuc7d4U&refer=us

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602037.html?hpid=topnews

Night Rider

January 28th, 2009, 08:35 PM

Say what you want but Al Gore saw climate change and global warming caused or greatly accelerated by human activity coming 25 years ago when most others didn’t. Some are still in denial, although they’re a declining resource. And Gore has justifiably won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Be it issues like global warming, evolution or Terri Schiavo, one of the great disservices of modern-day conservatives in this country has been the politicization of science. At its heart, climate change is a scientific issue, not a political issue. I’ll trust the overwhelming consensus judgment of scientists any day over the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay or George Bush.

I had a long response typed up, but for the sake of keeping the forum from taking a worse turn I'll let it go. If Green Bay had some developement to talk about we wouldn't have to debate other things.

Geography Teacher

January 28th, 2009, 09:39 PM

So 1st they send families away, then ideally these families are supposed to line up behind some mass transit system to go to work? Green Bay isn't a big enough city to support a large trolley transit system. It's not like we have mega throngs of people coming downtown to work. People work all over the county and there just is no way to have a transit system that can cover everywhere.

1) The hope is that a large percentage of urban professionals will live downtown so that people can take a local trolley loop, walk, or bike to work.

2) Even if we are encouraging more people to drive or take the bus in and out of downtown each day, it can still make sense if we are creating a vibrant, creative environment each day. Cities have long thrived because they are places where ideas are formed, shared, debated, and put into action. The idea for an award-winning ad campaign or for a new company with hundreds of local employees could be hatched in the morning at the Daily Buzz or during a lunchtime stroll on the City Deck.

3) I could not find statistics (although I seem to recall seeing them), but at least anecdotally downtown workers seem to enjoy their location. APAC leaders, for one, have claimed that the vast majority of their employees prefer to work downtown. So hopefully we're not forcing people to do something that they really don't see value in.

Morse

January 29th, 2009, 01:52 AM

It sure is nice to see some discussion on here as of late. It was way to quiet for a stretch. Just a couple of thoughts:

1.) I did like the roundabouts, but have to agree with others (Jschmuck, Tower & GB 4 Life) that the four lane option is a good compromise. Anytime that you can minimize a 'sea of asphalt' is a good thing. The city now has an opportunity to make this thoroughfare more attractive and inviting and add green space. Does anyone know of any other possible enhancements that may be done in conjunction with this project? How about some decorative/historic lighting, or a couple of bronze statues/monuments in the boulevards to pay homage to the military and help dress up the area.

2.) As far as a new ball park for the Bullfrogs, I am with everyone else on the Brownfield site. Puant said it best, this has the 'coolness' factor to it. This is something different and vastly unique compared to any other team in the league and can be an anchor for the 'urban village' that Broadway has the potential to be and is becoming. I really not am fond of the idea of the Lambeau area. In one sense, if/when (hopefully) the Ash. Boulevard project gets going, this will be another venue in the sports entertainment district, but the Bullfrogs can set themselves apart in the urban setting of Broadway and be a larger piece of that puzzle. I would rather see the Lombardi area developed into more residential (nice, brick, warehouse style lofts, apartments), offices, etc. If I had to choose an alternative, it would be Larsen Green and that could hep develop Leicht Park more and still offer River views, the walk across the river for a night cap and so forth.

3.) Has anyone heard any potential development news as of late? I had caught wind that there was to be a proposal on Site 4 in January. I don't feel it would be right to share everything that I had heard since it has not been made public, but for the sake of generating excitement, the architecture style was to have European elements to it and be a 'signature' building. I really hope that this will still be proposed, but I worry since it is the end of January with no anouncement and we know of delays around here.

4.) Speaking of transit hubs, here is one that La Crosse is building downtown.

http://gormanusa.com/portfolio/grandriver.htm

This is a sharp building and I wish Green Bay could have something similar. The Gorman Company is building this mixed use/infill project. There is a tab where you can write and tell them why they should come to your city. Yes, I may be a downtown nerd (and I am okay with this:lol:), but I took the time to write these cats about Green Bay and the potential there. Maybe I am being way naive, but from an outsiders perspective, I feel that these are the types of things that I can do to contribute or get the message out there, build enthusiasm and am more than happy and excited to do them. I thought that I had heard once that they were interested in Broadway, but couldn't qualify for some state credits or something of that nature.

4.) This is from the Press Gazette today. It sounds like some of the city council are trying to implement a plan to limit bars downtown. I read through a lot of the reader comments and found them pretty discouraging (again, you have to take some of these people with a grain of salt). However, if there is a silver lining, the majority WANT downtown to improve and change now. You only live once, and people want to be able to enjoy a revitalized downtown, rather than having to keep waiting on 'plans' or visions. But then again, no one ever said that this would be easy.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090128/GPG0101/901280719/1207/GPG01

Puant

January 29th, 2009, 04:50 AM

America is great, we can have these debates & not be executed for freely speaking.

I fear I may be executed someday after Ms Palin becomes President in 2013.:nuts:

Green Bay, like many other cities, has invited & paid for a criminal population to infiltrate our downtown causing the flight of working families to the burbs.

I think that's an overly simplistic reason for why families moved out to the burbs. Besides, the last I checked, the jail is way out on the fringe near UWGB.

... then ideally these families are supposed to line up behind some mass transit system to go to work? Green Bay isn't a big enough city to support a large trolley transit system.

I wish you'd support your opinion with some facts to back it up. Let me provide some facts: Green Bay had a trolley system between the late 1800's - 1930s which was wildly popular, and enabled a very dense and vibrant downtown. And that was when GB was a much smaller city. After about 1940 the city felt the busses were a better option. What happened? People generally disliked the busses and the downtown started to fall apart. Over the years, after the trolleys went away, it became predominently parking lots. Not to say this was the only reason but it's part of it.

To say Green Bay isn't big enough for a trolley. What would the downtown trolley circulator cost. Maybe $10 million or so? One single parking ramp costs twice that. I think the Cherry St ramp cost $20 million. ANd it's quite ugly. And it doesn't even bring people to the door of their destination, people still generally have to walk 2 or more blocks to get to work or whatever. Plus people generally dislike parking in mega ramps like this. So the trolley, by contrast, could have been build for half the cost, and would have allowed for a more "distributed" parking system where people could park on the fringe of downtown and then easily jump on the trolley to be dropped off right in front of the door of whatever destination in the downtown.

Furthermore, I also came with some real facts to suppor tthe idea when I analyzed that over 13,000 people lived within easy reach of the Kramerica/Danillo trolley loop, easily enough to support the idea, especially when you consider that many more people work in the downtown and could drive in to the periphery parking, jump on the trolley circulator and get to work easily.

It's really the only way we're going to suppor that dense, vibrant downtown that we all wish for. Just think about it.

If Green Bay is "too small" for a $10 million trolley serving tens of thousand of people every day, by the same token, isn't Green Bay "too small" to justify spending many times that ( $hundreds of $millions) on an expanded freeway system? Why do we need an Interstate 43 for such a small town? Much less another widenened interstate 41 at the cost of $500 million or whatever?

It's not like we have mega throngs of people coming downtown to work. People work all over the county and there just is no way to have a transit system that can cover everywhere. The bus system is available & that is about the best we can expect.

I think we can do better. People generally dislike busses for whatever reason, but tend to like trolleys. We do have thousands that work downtown. We can and should expect more than the bus system. The bus system will continue to be part of the picture but its' not going to provide teh same sense of history, uniqueness, interest, coolness, publicity, or use that a trolley system would.

If being "conservative" is completely backwards & upside down, then I'll gladly wear those hats. Drill, baby, Drill!

Didn't mean to get you so excited, I probably shouldn't have stirred this pot like I did. I understand everyone has different perspectives on these matters. I just wish some of these perspectives would be explained better, and supported with hard facts and logical reasoning more often.

P.S.

Morse-
Thanks for the info, good post. That transit center in LaCrosse makes me jealous. I love Green Bay but as far as Wisconsin cities go, cities like LaCrosse might have a lot more going for them.

Roundabouts. I can't believe these damn things are such a contentious topic. WTF????

Morse

January 30th, 2009, 12:23 AM

I know and hear nothing about the childrens museum and doubt that the WaterMark project is going to take off with all the gloom, doom and belt-tightening going on.

I will stop by on Thursday evening to lend moral support, boost morale and see if anyone shows up that is interested in either commercial or residential.

I'm in it for the long haul and figure that someday somehow the Big Ugly Building and the Great Big Hole have got to be addressed in some way.

I just like the idea of someday coming out of the elevator onto the City Deck and being able to walk (or wheelchair) "the grid" and access the Fox River Trail wtihout getting hit by a car!

Hermosa-Would you mind dialing us in on anything of substance? Be sure to tell Vetter to keep the balconies on this building as they are in the renders!:banana:

Night Rider

January 30th, 2009, 12:50 AM

I fear I may be executed someday after Ms Palin becomes President in 2013.:nuts:

Considering Obama only received 53% of the vote, you weren't that far off in getting Palin elected. If obama got treated the same way as Palin things might be completely different. But besides the illegal vote gathering of the fringe groups, obama got elected fairly. So it is what it is. Palin never held a fundraiser at a terrorist's house. She didn't have a minister of 20 years who made offensive racial comments & spoke against America. She's not perfect, of course.

I think that's an overly simplistic reason for why families moved out to the burbs. Besides, the last I checked, the jail is way out on the fringe near UWGB.

It's the people that aren't in jail, they live near downtown. The location of the jail doesn't matter. Yes it was simplistic, but people are sick of thugs breaking into cars, bad school & houses being turned to rental units. There are many good people that live in the area, but when they move out or die off, many are getting turned into slum places. I hope it turns around eventually. Don't see it happening in the near future

I wish you'd support your opinion with some facts to back it up. Let me provide some facts: Green Bay had a trolley system between the late 1800's - 1930s which was wildly popular, and enabled a very dense and vibrant downtown. And that was when GB was a much smaller city. After about 1940 the city felt the busses were a better option. What happened? People generally disliked the busses and the downtown started to fall apart. Over the years, after the trolleys went away, it became predominently parking lots. Not to say this was the only reason but it's part of it.

You have obviously put a lot more effort & are more knowledgeable. I'm not going to argue with you. I just don't think you can compare the 1800's to present times. Did they have a competing bus route back then? You really think bus ridership level will remain the same with a trolley in use? Do we cut bus routes after ridership levels fall? I personally would love to jump on a trolley & feel the wind thru my ever thining hair. If Marinette wanted to spend 30 million on a trolley, would you support that? How about Luxemburg? My point is that at some level cities are just to small to spend that large amount of tax money on what is basically a risky pork project. Oh, that's right, it's called stimulous projects now. Putting lipstick on a pork project doesn't turn it into a stimulous project.

Furthermore, I also came with some real facts to suppor tthe idea when I analyzed that over 13,000 people lived within easy reach of the Kramerica/Danillo trolley loop, easily enough to support the idea, especially when you consider that many more people work in the downtown and could drive in to the periphery parking, jump on the trolley circulator and get to work easily.

I am impressed with the effort you all put into the loop. My questions would be. Of the 13,000 people, what percentage work downtown? Or for that matter, how many don't work at all? Of the 13,000 people that live near it & work downtown, how many will give up the car to ride it? To make it even minimally subsidized, it's going to be a fairly expensive trip.

It's really the only way we're going to suppor that dense, vibrant downtown that we all wish for. Just think about it. I wish the same!

If Green Bay is "too small" for a $10 million trolley serving tens of thousand of people every day, by the same token, isn't Green Bay "too small" to justify spending many times that ( $hundreds of $millions) on an expanded freeway system? Why do we need an Interstate 43 for such a small town? Much less another widenened interstate 41 at the cost of $500 million or whatever?

I agree, if they are spending 500 million, that's a ton of money. I have seen the traffic jams and know that at least that is something that will be a public safety issue & be used. Talk about a drag on the businesses. You think they will build in a city where traffic backed up all the time? Maybe if Doyle wouldn't have raided the transportation funds to pay off the teachers union, we could build the roadways & the rail systems.

I think we can do better. People generally dislike busses for whatever reason, but tend to like trolleys. We do have thousands that work downtown. We can and should expect more than the bus system. The bus system will continue to be part of the picture but its' not going to provide teh same sense of history, uniqueness, interest, coolness, publicity, or use that a trolley system would..

I believe in smaller gov't & less intrusion. I don't know that it's the gov't function to build projects with "coolness". If there is such a demand, maybe the private industry can team up with the gov't and run it.

Didn't mean to get you so excited, I probably shouldn't have stirred this pot like I did. I understand everyone has different perspectives on these matters. I just wish some of these perspectives would be explained better, and supported with hard facts and logical reasoning more often.

When you toss a entire group (conservatives) under the bus with comments, I guess I feel a need to respond. Apparently of the 47% of the population that voted for the conservative candidate, none of them are on this board.

hckystr42

January 30th, 2009, 02:50 AM

Night Rider don't worry I am part of the right wing conspiracy as well and you are quickly becoming my favorite poster on this blog. haha

Im surprised Obama won't fund our trolley system. It would create jobs.

Alright, enough political talk in here. Morse, is there anything you can tell us about this potential site 4 proposal? How tall is it? Who is the developer? etc?

Puant

January 30th, 2009, 03:31 AM

You have obviously put a lot more effort & are more knowledgeable. I'm not going to argue with you. I just don't think you can compare the 1800's to present times. Did they have a competing bus route back then? You really think bus ridership level will remain the same with a trolley in use? Do we cut bus routes after ridership levels fall? .

I think the bus system would continue to have a role in the rest of the metro. I'm only interested in a downtown trolley as a circulator loop, with perhaps a spur to the stadium district. I don't think this really competes with the bus system, in some ways it complements it

I believe in smaller gov't & less intrusion. I don't know that it's the gov't function to build projects with "coolness". If there is such a demand, maybe the private industry can team up with the gov't and run it. ..

Gov't has a role in certain areas. As for the "coolness" factor, if it doesn't have a certain amount of attractiveness then people won't use it. It has to be convenient and attractive or else it won't work. And I agree that it would be great if private industry could team up. If the past is any precedent, WPS used to run the trolley system in Green Bay.

When you toss a entire group (conservatives) under the bus with comments, I guess I feel a need to respond. Apparently of the 47% of the population that voted for the conservative candidate, none of them are on this board.

Yeah I probably should not have done that, although I quickly modified my original comment and said someting about not generalizing like that.

I personally have voted for Republicans in the past, I still have some "conservative" ideals on some topics. Going back to my original point, I think "conservatives" ought to be more concerned with "conserving" and thrifty living, saving money, etc. I think things like mass transit should be more of a conservative ideal, because it represents spending less in the big picture. But for some reason that's what is turned on its head. Instead our "status quo" is all about burning through as many resources as wrecklessly as possible. Well sorry for going all political on this thread, I'm done. I'd love to talk about something else. I'd love to hear more aobut the "site 4" proposal, or anything else that's going on.

GBSurveyor

January 30th, 2009, 06:07 AM

So whats the dealio with the watermark?? Anyone go to the open house?

GBSurveyor

January 30th, 2009, 06:23 AM

I agree, if they are spending 500 million, that's a ton of money. I have seen the traffic jams and know that at least that is something that will be a public safety issue & be used. Talk about a drag on the businesses. You think they will build in a city where traffic backed up all the time? Maybe if Doyle wouldn't have raided the transportation funds to pay off the teachers union, we could build the roadways & the rail systems.
One point I don't get- you seem to conclude that a business will not move to areas with traffic issues? How does a city like LA or Denver or New York or Washington DC or any other city with congestion happen to have so many businesses?

The other problem I have is when people blame the teachers union. Whatever you seem to think these people are not high paid, my wife is a teacher, and I can vouch for her that she would be struggling on her own.

But again we all have our own opinions.

notconservative

January 30th, 2009, 08:13 AM

It's the people that aren't in jail, they live near downtown. The location of the jail doesn't matter. Yes it was simplistic, but people are sick of thugs breaking into cars, bad school & houses being turned to rental units. There are many good people that live in the area, but when they move out or die off, many are getting turned into slum places. I hope it turns around eventually. Don't see it happening in the near future

It's the people that aren't in jail, they live near downtown. Oops, you graciously omitted words in that sentence. Let me fix it for you, as everyone already knows what you were thinking. It's the minorities that aren't in jail, they all live near downtown and none live near my home in Ashwaubenon.

Night Rider

January 30th, 2009, 05:48 PM

One point I don't get- you seem to conclude that a business will not move to areas with traffic issues? How does a city like LA or Denver or New York or Washington DC or any other city with congestion happen to have so many businesses?

The other problem I have is when people blame the teachers union. Whatever you seem to think these people are not high paid, my wife is a teacher, and I can vouch for her that she would be struggling on her own.

But again we all have our own opinions.

Good points. I guess when you have millions of people living close by as customers & as a large employee base, a company can put up with traffic. That's just my guess. Maybe a business wouldn't mind traffic problems?!

I don't blame the teachers union. Heck, they are playing it perfectly & they hit the jackpot this year. I do have a issue with the way the politicians handle it. I don't think money should be raided from one fund to pay another. If they have to much money in the transportation fund, lower the gas tax. Teachers (most of them) deserve raises & I'm not against that happening. I should have made it more clear.
If the teachers union would stay neutral during the campaigns maybe it wouldn't be a issue either. Aren't they active in fund raising & advertising? It just has the smell factor like a payoff when organizations are that active.

HermosaBeachBoy

January 30th, 2009, 05:59 PM

Hermosa-Would you mind dialing us in on anything of substance? Be sure to tell Vetter to keep the balconies on this building as they are in the renders!

I spoke with Vetter and put in my 2 cents regarding the balconies and he said "of course there are going to be balconies, got to have balconies". Maybe I "misheard" last time I was taking the tour.......there was wine and cheese and crackers, etc. ..and a little model and lots of very nice brochures...........lots of nice realestateagents and a couple of architects and quite few looky-loos. There was lots of positive talking, bad economy and all, but I didn't see any checkbooks come out (in public anyway). I wished them all good luck but I'm not holding my breath or getting all exited that something is going to happen soon. When you think of how long the Big Ugly Building and the Great Big Hole have been around....it gets pretty discouraging........and there are still condo's available in the Riverfront Lofts and many many more condo's available at the Riverside Place (other side of Walnut bridge).

I was watching for the "glassy eyed" stare of SkyScraperCity followers but never noticed any!

Night Rider

January 30th, 2009, 06:00 PM

Oops, you graciously omitted words in that sentence. Let me fix it for you, as everyone already knows what you were thinking.

How nice and typical. People can't have a honest conversation & someone has to toss out the racist card. Nice job to create a profile to come in here and do that on your 1st post. I have neighbors and friends who are minorities, but they aren't criminals. Just look at the crime stats by location and a very large % of crimes are happening in neighborhoods near downtown. It's all mapped out, check it out.

HermosaBeachBoy

January 30th, 2009, 06:03 PM

Night Rider

January 30th, 2009, 06:21 PM

So whats the dealio with the watermark?? Anyone go to the open house

Did you get any sense from them on a time frame, on how long till they start or how long until they give up? Thanks for the ongoing updates.
We'll all meet at your place for a home-warming party ! :) :righton:

Tower Park

January 30th, 2009, 06:42 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/port_of_green_bay.jpg

In case you missed it.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090127/GPG03/901270565/-1/archive

Decrease in Green Bay port's cargo seen as symptom of suffering economy

BY NATHAN PHELPS • NPHELPS@GREENBAYPRESSGAZETTE.COM • JANUARY 27, 2009

Port of Green Bay Manager Dean Haen looks back at a dip in port tonnages starting in 2007 as a sign the economy was starting to soften.

Tonnages, a leading indicator of the economy, continued to decline last year, according to year-end figures released by the port, and Haen said he doesn't expect much recovery in total tonnages until 2010.

"I was hoping that 2007 would have been our new plateau, and we would have been taking off from there," he said. "When I see that drop in 2007, now I look at it and say, 'OK, we're going down and 2008 is going to be worse.' We're always about a year ahead."

Last year, the port handled 2.2 million metric tons of cargo, about 5 percent less than 2007's total of 2.32 million tons, according to figures from the port.

Likewise, the port saw 174 vessel arrivals last year compared with 182 in 2007.

Products moving through the port include cement, coal, limestone, pig iron, forest products and fuel oil.

Haen uses cement and a massive pile of coal near Georgia Pacific's Broadway mill as examples why he thinks there may be further declines in tonnages next year.

"We don't have a lot of homebuilding. We've got Wisconsin 172 that is going to get done and some other projects … so I have a feeling cement is going to be down further," Haen said. "I really think (2009) is going to be tough. Being a realist, I don't think you're going to see port tonnage take off until 2010."

Haen said tonnages last year trailed 2007 in the early part of the season, caught up to 2007 by late summer and then trailed off dramatically late in the year.

"We had some salt vessels we could have continued to get in, but the severity of the winter shut us down," he said. "And the mines just couldn't produce enough because everyone on the lakes needed salt."

Those salt shipments helped boost the amount of international cargo coming into the port in 2008 about 19 percent from 2007. Salts shipments were up about 13 percent last year, and it's likely additional salt will be needed in the wake of what is shaping up as a messy winter.

The Port of Green Bay isn't alone in slowed traffic.

Numbers from the Port of Duluth-Superior put 2008's total of waterborne commerce at 45.6 million short tons, down about 2.2 million tons from 2007. The number of vessel arrivals also contracted from 1,235 in 2007 to 1,126 last year.

Over the last two months, the Lake Carrier's Association monthly reports for shipment of products like iron ore and stone have indicated a drastic decline, indicating a slowdown in heavy manufacturing and construction.

Haen said this area's economy tends to be a little more immune to the boons and busts of the national economy.

"As a result, the port stays relatively stable with commodities coming in," he said. "We do fare better during poor times than places that are in higher-technology or durable goods, things made out of steel — car production and appliance manufacturing."

HermosaBeachBoy

January 30th, 2009, 06:48 PM

Did you get any sense from them on a time frame, on how long till they start or how long until they give up? Thanks for the ongoing updates.
We'll all meet at your place for a home-warming party ! :) :righton:

"They" remain insisting all should come together this year :tiasd:..........and I don't believe there is anyway other way out but to put some package together someday somehow. Who else would want the Big Ugly Building and the Great Big Hole challenge! That's it!... we should turn it all into a game show....WAIT it is already a game show.......in fact I would love to park an AIRSTREAM on top of the Big Ugly Building and watch it all go down.

Tower Park

January 30th, 2009, 07:29 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/OldeMainEvite2post.jpg

I used to live for many years along the East River near downtown. Trails there would be terrific! But I think the city and Olde Main Street will need good support from property owners and residents along the river first before a connecting trail happens. Would like to see a map some day of possible routes along the East connecting up the two rivers and their trails.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090130/GPG03/90130019/1247

www.oldemainstreetgb.com

www.oldemainstreetgb.com/newsletter_images/streetwisejune07.pdf

Olde Main Street District may connect trails

BY RICHARD RYMAN • RRYMAN@GREENBAYPRESSGAZETTE.COM • JANUARY 30, 2009

The repaving of Main Street behind it, the Olde Main Street District is looking at connecting the Fox River and East River trails within the district.

Crystal Osman, program manager for Downtown Green Bay Inc. and Olde Main Street Inc., said the project is in the information-gathering stage.

“The Main Street district is kind of the missing link between the trails,” Osman said Thursday after the Olde Main Street annual meeting at the Art Garage, 1409 Main St.

Osman said completing the trail through the district would be a catalyst for economic development and better connect the district with neighborhoods.

“We also want to do as much shoreline restoration and erosion control as we can,” she said.

Steve Grenier, an engineer with the city public works department, said the last elements of the Main Street repaving project will be completed this spring, including installation of new street lights, which could begin within weeks. The street was repaved in the fall of 2008, but work was halted by delayed delivery of new street lights and early snowfall.

Jeff Mirkes, executive director of Downtown Green Bay and Olde Main Street, talked about the growing art presence in the district, which holds Gallery Nights throughout the year.

“We want Downtown and Olde Main and On Broadway to be the districts that attract the creative class,” he said.

Mirkes reported nine businesses located to the district in 2009.

Olde Main Street had a $69,200 budget in 2008. The district is funded by Business Improvement District assessments, donations and Community Development Block Grants.

Executive committee members for 2009 are Bob Simpson of Net Sonic, president; Tom Denee of NeighborWorks Green Bay, past president; John Macco of Macco Financial Group, first vice president; Patrick Beimborn of Los Banditos, second vice president; Paul Kosmoski of Kos Management, secretary/treasurer, and John Hopfensperger of Direct Development, member-at-large.

The organization’s annual awards and their recipients were:

-- Spirit of Main Street Award to Larry London of Big Tomatoes restaurant, 1244 Main St.

-- Contributor Award to Jim Wochinske of Pomp’s Tire Service, 1123 Cedar St.

-- President’s Award to Patrick Beimborn of Los Banditos restaurant, 1258 Main St.

Nativist

January 30th, 2009, 10:24 PM

When I lived along W. Walnut, I was privy to an enormous quantity of crime (on a daily basis). Based on my informal surveys from my back balcony (from which I could observe two separate drug selling operations) buyers were split down the middle, white and black. The police were well aware of what was happening. I still don't understand why they never stopped it. Most of what I saw stemmed from alcoholism and drug abuse: things like domestic violence, etc.

The situation will continue until the area is deemed desirable enough for landlords to have incentive to renovate the homes and sell them or raise the rents. A little gentrification is called for, hopefully not so much that it will price younger people from the neighborhoods. For now, the slumlords are just running their buildings like extractive enterprises, taking what they can and putting as little in to them as possible.

Danillo

January 31st, 2009, 01:17 AM

I'm just going to throw a couple of cents in about the trolley idea/ transit... and I'm going to steer totally clear of this conservative/liberal debate!

First, if it's a tracked trolley, there's no way anything of use get built for $10 million. If you're doing really really well you might get a mile for that. Now, a system with trolley like buses and covered stations with off-trolley ticketing could probably accomplish 95% of the goals at much lower cost.

Regarding the issue of there being 13,000 people living close to the conceptual line, and wondering how many work downtown, its a somewhat irrelevant question. Development doesn't pattern itself perfectly ahead of time so as to allow transit systems to be effective, it follows transportation options. It would be like asking in the 50's, "why build freeways extending out from our cities when nobody is living in the suburbs," well, that would have been true, but why would anyone want to live in the suburbs when there were poor connections back to the city?

Likewise, there is currently no advantage to living near downtown and working near downtown as compared to living in the 'burbs and working downtown. Now, if some form of effective transit came to the area, there would be an advantage to living near downtown and working downtown. The key components are that A) there are fairly compact neighborhoods capable of housing over 13,000 people within a usable distance of the line (more if you eventually expand lines into other near-downtown neighborhoods), B) there are over 10,000 jobs downtown (and more if a line ever connected to the industrial park between the river and Webster), and C) there are a great deal of services/entertainment options also included within the area. Now, with a lack of transit there's just no advantageous way to use all of these features, but if you add effective transit, it is highly likely that people will take advantage of that connection between living and working within the trolley's range.

Finally, the near-downtown neighborhoods aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be. They have gotten worse, and could continue to get worse if we don't do things to bring investment into them, but this is not the south side of Chicago or anything.

Morse

January 31st, 2009, 01:23 AM

So whats the dealio with the watermark?? Anyone go to the open house

I spoke with Vetter and put in my 2 cents regarding the balconies and he said "of course there are going to be balconies, got to have balconies". Maybe I "misheard" last time I was taking the tour.......there was wine and cheese and crackers, etc. ..and a little model and lots of very nice brochures...........lots of nice realestateagents and a couple of architects and quite few looky-loos. There was lots of positive talking, bad economy and all, but I didn't see any checkbooks come out (in public anyway). I wished them all good luck but I'm not holding my breath or getting all exited that something is going to happen soon. When you think of how long the Big Ugly Building and the Great Big Hole have been around....it gets pretty discouraging........and there are still condo's available in the Riverfront Lofts and many many more condo's available at the Riverside Place (other side of Walnut bridge).

I was watching for the "glassy eyed" stare of SkyScraperCity followers but never noticed any!

So, I am going to be that guy:

1.) How did the model look? Obviously comparing a model to real life is out of the question, unless of course, you are Derek Zoolander :lol:. A better way to phrase this would be did the 'pieces of the puzzle' fit together collectively to be appealing?

2.) Was there any talk of other tenants or offers to purchase? I hope you are still not flying solo!

3.) Any mention of financing? Gordon Renn and his backers weren't there by chance, were they?

4.) I am happy to hear that the balconies are still in play. Any mention of changes in design, specs, or anything of that nature? Will the light still be at the top of the water tower (that is cool!)?

5.) Who were the architects? HGA?

Though you keep referring to this building as ugly (I know what you mean-ugly as in not a finished product), I really do like it and am happy that it is staying. Like it or not, this is tenured structure downtown and if done correctly, can be a pretty sharp and unique building. I did hear Vetter say once that they will focus on the raw simplicity-exposed steel and brick, which will in essence, be the architecture.

Thanks Hermosa!

Jschmuck

January 31st, 2009, 01:43 AM

(jschmuck enters, picks up and moves some debris, steps on broken glass, pats dust off of clothes...all while thinking, 'close one' about the quick debate)

My/others idea of a trolley - preferably a track trolley, is not just for commuting. A tracked trolley would enhance development, possibly make existing households more desireable areas to live, and the tracked trolley makes people feel more sure of where the trolley will end up. With all that in mind i use the Kenosha trolley as an example, and that trolley is being studied for expansion.
One line that i mentioned before along Military, would connect the businesses along Military AND the residential areas behind those businesses, then connect that to the Lambeau Field area, and during NFL season you got riders that could possiblye do pre/post game shopping eating by being connected to the business along Military. This particular route could also enhance parking for game days in that people could park on one end of the line, hop the trolley to the game. I would even take this idea further and extend the trolley from Lambeau to Oneida street to the Baypark Mall. Why? because one side of Oneida is retail/business and the other is residential.

Puant

January 31st, 2009, 04:12 AM

First, if it's a tracked trolley, there's no way anything of use get built for $10 million. If you're doing really really well you might get a mile for that. .

I think streetcar tracks & a trolley system is astonishingly inexpensive, based on research I've done so far. Look at Kenosha's 2-mile loop (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_ken_2005-01.htm), which cost only $5 million. My original GB DT loop (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=44.514242~-88.016163&style=r&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=15772838&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&cid=874AB43A781C13F7!210&encType=1)was only about 2 miles. I realize the bridge crossings might create additional cost, plus there's abour 8 years worth of inflation (or is it deflation now?) anyway I based my $10 million off of the Kenosha trolley, I simply doubled the cost of the Kenosha trolley just to ballbark it.

Now, a system with trolley like buses and covered stations with off-trolley ticketing could probably accomplish 95% of the goals at much lower cost

People recognize trolley-like buses for what they are: Fake, overly-expensive busses. They're still loud & smelly and have basically the same stigma as busses.

I realize trolleys are just a pipe dream, yet, I do believe they're possibly the best option to support the dense downtown we all want. .... the reality is, though, in Green Bay, this has almost no chance of happening. To most people trolleys are laughable, it'll never happen in this town.

It does seem that many of you are desperately hoping to see this thread take a new and more realistic direction, to focus on development of buildings & places that facilitate more vibrancy, more people, etc. I wish for the same thing, but I don't see much else happening as we enter the Great Depression II.

So I go back to transportation, which is essentially de-facto land use policy.

Unless we get infrastructure like passenger rail, tied into streetcar circulator trolleys and the like I don't think we stand much of a chance of getting that dense downtown urban core that we all wish for. Without convenient, Attractive transit, we end up with too much parking dead space. "infrastructure" is where money will be spent in the next few years, I can't help but advocate for things like trolleys and trains...authentic, attractive, relatively inexpensive ways of moving lots of people. But perhaps I need to take a step back and listen to alternative viewpoints.

...Jschmuck, I was entertained by your first sentence in your last entry...Sorry buddy! I'll take the blame for the side-track.

Navarino Rezdnt

January 31st, 2009, 05:18 AM

With all the talk about near-downtown neighborhoods I did a rough analysis of the police calls listed on the city’s website. I did a simple search of E. Walnut because it runs right through Navarino. This January the number of calls on Walnut was 114. I put together a list of the calls according to Incident type, (the numbers don’t add up to 114 because I left some out.) Please keep in mind that this is just one street, but the one with the most trouble. I feel that this street definitely qualifies as a good example of one that’s in need of gentrification. Alcohol is a bigger problem than what shows up in the data and it can be seen in springtime, after the snow melts. The side streets are littered with busted booze bottles and other empty alcohol containers.

But we try to make the neighborhood a positive place too, there’s an ice skating party in Whitney Park Sat the 31st. Skaters get a free hot chocolate from Attic Books & Coffee from 11 am to 1 pm. So dig out those old skates and bring the kids for some family fun. There will be a limited number of skates available to those that don’t have any.

# of Calls and Incident Type;
43 Traffic and Auto Related
12 Disturbances
8 Assists
5 Suspicious Person or Situation or Vehicle
4 Theft
4 911 Hang-up or Assist
4 Welfare Check
4 Drugs
3 Animal Calls
3 Court Call
2 Warrant (one to East H.S.)
2 Medical/EMS
2 Fraud
1 Juvenile
1 Harassment
1 Damage to Property
1 Miscellaneous

titletown

January 31st, 2009, 06:55 PM

http://www.511wi.gov/Web/map.aspx?region=northeast

Kramerica

February 1st, 2009, 04:46 AM

Apparently of the 47% of the population that voted for the conservative candidate, none of them are on this board.
Nah, there's at least a few, including myself. But I just don't have the time to get into political debates usually.

Green Bay Sponge

February 1st, 2009, 05:18 AM

About that Main Street project, I'm looking forward to the end result.

GBSurveyor

February 1st, 2009, 08:50 AM

Today was a good day, I was lucky enough to burn some cheap gas and pay some tolls (I-pass of course) on a trip down to Illinois. While in the fabulous little town of Geneva, I hoped on the metra for a quick ride to Wheaton via the Union Pacific West Line and then back. I tell you for $5 that is cheap entertainment. I had no destination, just some spare time. On the way back. I stopped in Kenosha to check out the Metra station and the street car system, the ghostliness of Kenosha reminded me of Green Bay.

I know the cost of the trolley line was mentioned a few posts back but I stumbled across a reference and thought someone might find it interesting.

lightrailnow.org (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_ken_2005-01.htm)

Puant

February 1st, 2009, 05:22 PM

On the way back. I stopped in Kenosha to check out the Metra station and the street car system, the ghostliness of Kenosha reminded me of Green Bay.

lightrailnow.org (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_ken_2005-01.htm)

I've been wanting to check out the Kenosha trolley in person. Looking at the aerial (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=r2y3tx7pg1hc&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7231975&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1), it looks like it runs through some pretty vast wide open places along the waterfront. I can't imagine that's a very popular ride in the winter...unless you're polarbearing or something.

Green Bay Sponge

February 2nd, 2009, 04:13 AM

Check out my new blog on retail history. Click Here (http://shopkofan.blogspot.com/).

Tower Park

February 2nd, 2009, 05:32 PM

FYI. As you may know, the Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel in Ashwaubenon is closing, but construction continues on the new aloft hotel in Ashwaubenon and a new AmericInn in Bellevue….Reconstruction for six months of westbound Highway 172 between Webster and 41 begins today. Eastbound will be done next year. I wonder if the reconstruction will include more exiting room off 172 westbound for Oneida St. Right now, during Packer games, the Christmas shopping season and rush hour, traffic sometimes backs up at the Oneida St. exit onto the far right lane of 172, to a crawl or a stop, sometimes all the way back to the middle of the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge.

Night Rider

February 2nd, 2009, 07:01 PM

MattGiguere

February 2nd, 2009, 07:22 PM

HermosaBeachBoy

February 2nd, 2009, 07:30 PM

So, I am going to be that guy:

1.) How did the model look? Obviously comparing a model to real life is out of the question, unless of course, you are Derek Zoolander :lol:. A better way to phrase this would be did the 'pieces of the puzzle' fit together collectively to be appealing?

2.) Was there any talk of other tenants or offers to purchase? I hope you are still not flying solo!

3.) Any mention of financing? Gordon Renn and his backers weren't there by chance, were they?

4.) I am happy to hear that the balconies are still in play. Any mention of changes in design, specs, or anything of that nature? Will the light still be at the top of the water tower (that is cool!)?

5.) Who were the architects? HGA?

Though you keep referring to this building as ugly (I know what you mean-ugly as in not a finished product), I really do like it and am happy that it is staying. Like it or not, this is tenured structure downtown and if done correctly, can be a pretty sharp and unique building. I did hear Vetter say once that they will focus on the raw simplicity-exposed steel and brick, which will in essence, be the architecture.

Thanks Hermosa!

1.) I was referring to a scale model of the waterfront (Walnut - Main; East Shore) on the table. I forgot that the unit we toured (which is on sale for $195,000.00 - Riverfront Lofts) is also referred to as a model. This "model" in the Riverfront Loft Building is more or less similar to the planned (standard) units at the WaterMark however, WaterMark units will be 150sqft smaller.

The decor was modern-not my style. The WaterMark units are going to be based on "basic box- 850sqftapprox walls, ceiling, floor, plumbing" @ $150,000.00, buyer decides interior-all upcharges.

2.) I do believe I'm still solo at this point. Residential and/or commercial taken into account.:ohno:

3.) No clue about financing. I've got mine (I hope).

4.) Regarding balconies; I want one!

5.) No clue about the architects.

"Big Ugly Building": It's amazing what a new coat of paint and some shrubs will do!

Geography Teacher

February 2nd, 2009, 09:34 PM

I wonder if the reconstruction will include more exiting room off 172 westbound for Oneida St. Right now, during Packer games, the Christmas shopping season and rush hour, traffic sometimes backs up at the Oneida St. exit onto the far right lane of 172, to a crawl or a stop, sometimes all the way back to the middle of the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge.

As you pass underneath 172 on Ashland Avenue, you can see that they are extending the support columns to the north. This must mean that they are widening the bridge at this point. The only logical explanation for this construction is that they are in fact elongating the exit lane.

I agree that it is badly needed.

Tower Park

February 2nd, 2009, 10:08 PM

So whats the dealio with the watermark?? Anyone go to the open house?

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/downtown.jpg

Photo courtesy Packerland Annals at packerland.blogspot.com

With the exception of government projects like CityDeck and restoring the street grid — and perhaps something from the Bullfrogs — my bleacher-seat’s guess is we’re not going to see any movement on any major downtown Green Bay development projects for at least the next year or two. Astor Place, WaterMark, Hagemeister Park Restaurant, the Children’s Museum and redevelopment plans for the former mall site are all stalled, I think. One or more of those projects conceivably could die. Grand Union already did. Or downsizing may be required.

The banking system in this country is frozen up; most people don’t realize how perilously close it has come to collapse. The federal bank rescue plan deserves much criticism, but the bailout money we’ve seen — including that received now by five banks operating in Brown County — may well have prevented that collapse from happening. In addition to passage of the stimulus package, next up may be at least temporary nationalization of some banks, some federal mechanism to handle bad loans, and/or more money for banks, with better oversight and strings attached. Like it or not, it’s Uncle Sam to the rescue. The private sector is seriously stuck.

We could be back to the future. In the 1960s, Green Bay razed block after block downtown for urban renewal without having new development ready to go. The land stood vacant for years and became the butt of jokes. We now face the prospect, seems to me, of the former Younkers site on Washington St. remaining vacant for some time. And if the city tears down the mall with federal stimulus money to restore the grid street system, would any new buildings be ready to go in the mall’s place? Or would the blocks occupied by the mall stand vacant? CityDeck on its north end could be overshadowed by the gutted hulk of the remaining Younkers building. Urban sculpture. We’ll see what happens.

Tower Park

February 2nd, 2009, 10:36 PM

Dueling guest columns today on roundabouts by a Green Bay alderman and a County Board supervisor.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090202/GPG0706/902020537/1269/GPG06

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090202/GPG0706/902020533/1269/GPG06

titletown

February 3rd, 2009, 04:21 AM

"Seeking well qualified candidates for managing operator/partner for new upscale bar and grill coming late spring '09. Only serious and well qualified candidates need apply."
~Craigslist

Anyone have any info on a new "upscale bar and grill" coming to Green Bay anytime soon?

I had a customer a few months a go tell me she is opening up a bar/restaurant near downtown. I don't remember where. I do hear a lot of stuff, but I cannot say until it is made public (let's just say these entrepreneurs go on this site too). We may hear a proposal on the lot next to the Meyer Theatre in the near future. Stay tuned...

Downtown Bar Moratorium

What do you guys think of the moratorium of bars downtown? I honestly do not like their approach. I understand some of the trouble bars need to go, but to me it is asinine to think that because of the number of calls downtown when there are more people downtown. I think the "entertainment district" will then get worse because of this and move out of downtown all together. Someone said in the GBPG "Let's just raise the taxes and kick out the few businesses that are still left downtown." That statement is partially correct, although downtown has several other businesses as us positive forumers know. They should do a moratorium on the number of ghetto rentals "near" downtown that have higher then normal crime. :mad2:

Kramerica

February 3rd, 2009, 04:39 AM

Reconstruction for six months of westbound Highway 172 between Webster and 41 begins today. Eastbound will be done next year. I wonder if the reconstruction will include more exiting room off 172 westbound for Oneida St. Right now, during Packer games, the Christmas shopping season and rush hour, traffic sometimes backs up at the Oneida St. exit onto the far right lane of 172, to a crawl or a stop, sometimes all the way back to the middle of the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge.

Yes, they will be adding an auxiliary lane for both east- and west-bound exits to Oneida/Ashland (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/wis172construction/index.htm). It doesn't say exactly where the new lanes will begin, but I'm guessing on the WB it will begin at the Webster on-ramp and on the EB it will begin at the US 41 interchange.

Geography Teacher

February 3rd, 2009, 06:08 AM

Yes, they will be adding an auxiliary lane for both east- and west-bound exits to Oneida/Ashland (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/wis172construction/index.htm). It doesn't say exactly where the new lanes will begin, but I'm guessing on the WB it will begin at the Webster on-ramp and on the EB it will begin at the US 41 interchange.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an auxiliary lane beginning at the Webster on-ramp mean that a whole extra lane would have to be added to the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge over the Fox River? And wouldn't that be difficult/super-costly? My guess is that they will begin the auxiliary lane as soon as 172 WB completes the crossing of the Fox River.

With the exception of government projects like CityDeck and restoring the street grid — and perhaps something from the Bullfrogs — my bleacher-seat’s guess is we’re not going to see any movement on any major downtown Green Bay development projects for at least the next year or two.

I've been suggesting this for the past year. Once we begin to repair this recession, I think we'll see an explosion of changes downtown. It will be exciting, but for now we have to wait it out.

In the meantime, how 'bout them Phoenix?

Morse

February 3rd, 2009, 06:44 AM

Titletown-I know where you are coming from with not making a lot of mention about a proposal until it is made public (I had mentioned some chatter with regards to Site 4, but have not made more comments since it has not been made public). To be hypocritical :), would you be able to say if it will just be a dinner theatre type building in the existing building (I am assuming you are talking about the Daily Planet?) or will this building be larger, something along the lines of the Grand Union?

GBSurveyor

February 3rd, 2009, 06:48 AM

I had a customer a few months a go tell me she is opening up a bar/restaurant near downtown. I don't remember where. I do hear a lot of stuff, but I cannot say until it is made public (let's just say these entrepreneurs go on this site too). We may hear a proposal on the lot next to the Meyer Theatre in the near future. Stay tuned...

Downtown Bar Moratorium

What do you guys think of the moratorium of bars downtown? I honestly do not like their approach. I understand some of the trouble bars need to go, but to me it is asinine to think that because of the number of calls downtown when there are more people downtown. I think the "entertainment district" will then get worse because of this and move out of downtown all together. Someone said in the GBPG "Let's just raise the taxes and kick out the few businesses that are still left downtown." That statement is partially correct, although downtown has several other businesses as us positive forumers know. They should do a moratorium on the number of ghetto rentals "near" downtown that have higher then normal crime. :mad2:

I think this whole idea is complete shit. I agree, I think that we need to punish the owner who can't control their property, be it a rental property or a tavern. Why prohibit anyone from trying to make something happen? What the city needs to do, and maybe I am alone here, is to make a stand and pass a city wide smoking ban, that sends a message that, hey we are progressive and not just reactive. I used to feel like the owners should be able to make their own decisions, however, I have changed my mind based on the simple fact that too few are electing to go smoke free and its hurting the majority that do not smoke. smoke=backwards thats how I see it...

I've been suggesting this for the past year. Once we begin to repair this recession, I think we'll see an explosion of changes downtown. It will be exciting, but for now we have to wait it out.

In the meantime, how 'bout them Phoenix?

The Resch was rocking...the only thing that could have been better was the bitter cold walk back to the car

titletown

February 3rd, 2009, 06:33 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an auxiliary lane beginning at the Webster on-ramp mean that a whole extra lane would have to be added to the Allouez-Ashwaubenon Bridge over the Fox River? And wouldn't that be difficult/super-costly? My guess is that they will begin the auxiliary lane as soon as 172 WB completes the crossing of the Fox River.

Yes they will expand the 172 bridge and then put up lights as well.

Danillo

February 3rd, 2009, 06:56 PM

Dueling guest columns today on roundabouts by a Green Bay alderman and a County Board supervisor.

I like how for the most part, Ald. Theisen list FACTS. Then the opposition comes back with, essentially, "you can name all the facts you want but roundabouts won't work on this street because we say so and we're smart, even if we have no facts to back up anything we say." Then there's this:

"If the city can build a $12 million boardwalk to attract people to downtown, it can afford to put in six lanes on Military for about half the cost."

Huh? Setting aside the difference in the funding mechanisms involved, etc., that's like saying: "If Brown County can spend $150 million to fix up Lambeau Field, then we can make 41, 43, and 172 into 10 lane highways." What does A have to do with B???

What do you guys think of the moratorium of bars downtown?

Horrrrrible idea. It's basically the City Council saying: "we can't do our job and tell the difference between good bars and bad bars." There's a reason liquor licenses are issued. If a license holder is running a problem establishment, they have proven themselves irresponsible and deserved to have their license revoked. That's the Council's and P&W's job. With this ordinance if a bar closes, it essentially becomes a dead site because of the investment that would be needed to reconstruct it. This is just a terrible idea. It will solve nothing, but it will create problems. Just seems unfathomably stupid to me.

In the meantime, how 'bout them Phoenix?

That was AWESOME!

Night Rider

February 3rd, 2009, 10:40 PM

What do you guys think of the moratorium of bars downtown?

I guess I'm the only one thinking it might be a good idea. It's easy to say to just get rid of the bar that causes the most problems, but I don't think most of the problems are happening in the bars. Patrons go from bar to bar, and by the last one they are primed and ready to go. Most of the fights and damage to property happens once they leave the bars.

One way to cut back on the fights and damage is to just reduce the number of intoxicated persons. The less bars, the less drunk people I guess is the thinking.

Just because a bar wants to close, doesn't mean the license is lost. I think they have an opportunity to sell the business with the liquor license. If a license is lost to bad behavior, they are out of luck my guess is. This could actually cause the people with the licenses to have the value of their business go up.

Even if this is put in place I don't see the city sticking to their guns if some big business was going to plunk a chunk of money. The city doesn't seem to stick to the guns with getting rid of problem bars.

If the city wanted to add 10 more bars downtown, would there be support also? Probably not, I guess there has to be line drawn in the sand at some point.

jerkylips999

February 3rd, 2009, 11:00 PM

I guess I'm the only one thinking it might be a good idea. It's easy to say to just get rid of the bar that causes the most problems, but I don't think most of the problems are happening in the bars. Patrons go from bar to bar, and by the last one they are primed and ready to go. Most of the fights and damage to property happens once they leave the bars.

One way to cut back on the fights and damage is to just reduce the number of intoxicated persons. The less bars, the less drunk people I guess is the thinking.

Just because a bar wants to close, doesn't mean the license is lost. I think they have an opportunity to sell the business with the liquor license. If a license is lost to bad behavior, they are out of luck my guess is. This could actually cause the people with the licenses to have the value of their business go up.

Even if this is put in place I don't see the city sticking to their guns if some big business was going to plunk a chunk of money. The city doesn't seem to stick to the guns with getting rid of problem bars.

If the city wanted to add 10 more bars downtown, would there be support also? Probably not, I guess there has to be line drawn in the sand at some point.

If less bars are better than more, then why limit it to 15? Why not 10 or 5 or none? This stinks of an end-around to get rid of the bars they want to get rid of. Let's be realistic--how are things going to improve by randomly eliminating 4 of 19 bars? Most of the people that go out downtown on the weekends are going to continue to go out downtown on the weekends--that just means more people in each bar, which to me, will make things worse not better.

Years ago I had a supervisor who HATED conflict. Absolutely the wrong job for her. Every time there was an issue with a person in the team not performing, instead of addressing it with that person, the entire team got a memo saying, "we've had some issues with ..............". Of course the only thing it accomplished was to piss off the people that WEREN'T doing anything wrong. I see this bar thing as exactly the same thing. Address the problems where they exist, don't drag everyone else down with them.

Danillo

February 4th, 2009, 12:51 AM

One way to cut back on the fights and damage is to just reduce the number of intoxicated persons. The less bars, the less drunk people I guess is the thinking.

It will be interesting to see if this happens. I suppose to some degree it will. For me, if I'm going out, the question comes down to Green Bay or Appleton. Reducing 4 bars in either place won't really change my decision. Others may differ.

Just because a bar wants to close, doesn't mean the license is lost. I think they have an opportunity to sell the business with the liquor license.

I'm not sure how this works... I think the new owner would have to have the license transferred to them, and I don't know how this ordinance would effect transfers of existing licenses. At any rate, the problem comes when a place closes, and then someone wants to re-open it, or something at the same location. I remember when Washington Sq. Pub closed, then someone came along and wanted to open Foxie's (I think that's the name) in the same place, they had to go though all sorts of grief. But that location is a bar, it would cost the owner of the property a huge some of money to make it anything else, and this new ordinance would prevent him from re-opening the site in such a case, even if the new business owner was reputable and had experience running non-problem bars.

Let's be realistic--how are things going to improve by randomly eliminating 4 of 19 bars?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where meaning, probably not, but to be clear all 19 existing bars would be grandfathered in, so the number would get reduced to 15 after the first four close. That's where, as you say, the randomness comes in. Four places could close, and they could end up being four non-problem places. Then what? Depending on the site's involved, they may end up sitting vacant waiting for someone to come up with a quarter million dollars or whatever to convert the bar into a non-bar.

Really, I just think this whole thing is silly. It comes across as a plan by the council to appear to be doing something, without having to go through the much more difficult process of making problem establishments reform or close. It's using a hatchet where a scalpel is needed. This "problem" has much more to do with perception than reality to begin with anyway.

Jschmuck

February 4th, 2009, 12:54 AM

^^ Good point jerkylips - less bars means more packed bars...Some might say good for business, but look at that situation deeper and see that people dont want to go to a packed bar, so thats BAD for business. Then there is the safety situation, max legal capacities could be infringed upon. Sometimes when a city needs to address a problem, i wish that city would send someone out to a different city approximately the same size somewhere in the nation and gather information on how to tackle issues - lol

Danillo - exactly right if GB wants to revitalize a corridor, what better way to change it, make it better, make it UNIQUE. But some citizens dont want that obviously. SO this Military Ave thing will be NOTHING to the fault of those that want 6-lanes and stop/go lights. well at least there will be landscaping, but my point is the POTENTIAL will be lost.

now for some personal bad news (save worst for last), my dad learned today that his place of business will PROBABLY be closing between now and September. A couple positions will move to Chattanooga, TN.

OliverDP

February 4th, 2009, 12:58 AM

I hate the bar idea. It needs to be addressed at the individual establishments. I am assuming this ordinance is coming around because there is currently a problem today. How does this ordinance improve the situation in the next week, month or year? What if all 19 bars stay open for the next 5 years. Sadly, it is the same type of approach we usually see around here.

titletown

February 4th, 2009, 05:55 AM

Green Bay area traffic cams are now up and running (not yet on 511 website). The other 2 cams near the Leo Frigo bridge will be up at a later time.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/travel/greenbay/cameras.htm

Video traffic cams

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/99999999/WIS080401/301170025

I spoke to a guy I know with the DOT about why the Claude-Allouez bridge doesn't have cams and he said they are present, just not for public viewing. You guys wouldn't believe some of the high-tech Homeland Security cams (under water thermals) at our bridges, pretty cool.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 4th, 2009, 03:47 PM

Thank you City of Green Bay City Council. The Military Avenue decision, although difficult does show that standing pat and not embracing change is not to be expected anymore.

Military will never have as much traffic as Oneida Street in Ashwaubenon. And the moronic property owners such as Roger Vanderleest and his puppet alderman Johnny "Five" Vanderleest, the Cuene Family, and Ed Martin (who could give two cares less than his city) who think it is - actually makes it scary that these people have been that successful. The amount of property able to be developed or redeveloped would fit in approximately less than half of the amount of property devoted to commercial in and around Bay Park Square. I guess if they make poor businesses choices they can blame it on the roundabouts instead of looking for a way to capitalize on this great oppurtunity.:banana::cheers::lol::nuts:

Danillo

February 4th, 2009, 05:39 PM

HermosaBeachBoy

February 4th, 2009, 09:10 PM

mgk920

February 4th, 2009, 09:10 PM

Wow.

The council voted in favor of the roundabouts. I actually had not much preference one way or the other about the roundabouts vote. I like them better, and feel they will move traffic better, but I do think the local businesses should have some input, and they seemed against it (even if their reasons for being so were silly). So while I thought keeping it six lanes would be terrible, I would have been okay with 4 lanes and signals or four lanes and roundabouts. But, that was a gutsy decision by the council, so good on 'em for that. My guess is once they are built people will really like them.

Then, they referred the bars ordinance back to committee, which I also didn't think they'd do. So another good decision there.

:cheers:
See:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090204/GPG0101/902040727/1207/GPG01

I agree, a nice bit of statesmanship. Roundabouts are simply a new thing in North America and will be increasingly popular as people here get used to them - they can be centerpieces and yes, they WORK!

And with WisDOT planning 24(!) roundabouts in connection with the pending US 41 and WI 29 freeway upgrade work, this Military Ave work will be a perfect extension of that.

Mike

mgk920

February 4th, 2009, 10:43 PM

See:
http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/MilitaryAve/Downloads/Roundabout.pdf

For the approved plan.

Enjoy!

:cheers1:

Mike

Nativist

February 4th, 2009, 10:44 PM

From kavarna.com: "We are pleased to announce the name and concept behind our forthcoming, new venture: Parisi's Delicatessen (http://parisisdeli.com/), an Italian delicatessen which will be intimately connected to the future Kavarna location, which will be announced slightly more officially in the near future."

Tower Park

February 4th, 2009, 10:48 PM

If you can be stunned by a City Council vote, I’m stunned. It was 7-5 in favor of the four-lane option with roundabouts. You can bet there’s an intense behind-the-scenes effort under way right now to change minds and have the Council reconsider. Hope those who voted in favor remain strong. And the mayor too. Congratulations! :applause:

Jschmuck

February 4th, 2009, 11:37 PM

WOW (about Military Ave)!! i had heart a heart attack earlier when i saw this, thats why didnt post earlier lol j/king. Congratulations! good news

Bay2Bay

February 5th, 2009, 03:20 AM

I really cannot understand the fear people have about roundabouts. Living in San Francisco, I have no need for a car so I don't have one. When I visit the GreenBay - De Pere area it is about the only time I ever drive and I have had absolutely no problem with the roundabouts in De Pere, including the two lane circle at the east end of the Claude Allouez bridge.

As to businesses being hurt by roundabouts, check out Dickenson Road. It seems that all of the businesses along that stretch of De Pere and Ledgeview have increased and thrived over the years with the roundabouts.

This being the first roundabout project in the city of GreenBay I imagine there must be a fear of the unknown for the business community. And with these rough economic times I think that is understandable

araman0

February 5th, 2009, 03:35 AM

See:
http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/MilitaryAve/Downloads/Roundabout.pdf

For the approved plan.

Enjoy!

:cheers1:

Mike

6 Roundabouts on a single stretch of road! I will have to make a special trip up to GB just to see this when it is done.

Well done GB!

Night Rider

February 5th, 2009, 03:52 AM

It would have been interesting if it was a tie vote for the roundabouts & the mayor had to choose sides. Lucky for him he stayed out of it. The mayor cast the deciding vote on putting the downtown bar issue back to committee, siding with the business owners. Look forward to the roundabouts being done, however, the construction phase will be tough on the local businesses.

araman0

February 5th, 2009, 03:55 AM

When does construction start?

Night Rider

February 5th, 2009, 07:20 AM

When does construction start?

Fall 2010 I believe.

Night Rider

February 5th, 2009, 03:23 PM

Some Green Bay leaders don't like a plan to create six roundabouts on Military Avenue, but they do not have many options to stop it.

"I've been reviewing the options available," Alderman John Vander Leest said Wednesday. "I'm not going to discuss those options. But I've been encouraging people who feel strongly to make their concerns know to Mayor Schmitt, so he can veto it."

At the end of a marathon session that started Tuesday night and went into the early morning hours, the City Council voted 7-5 to redesign a 1.5-mile stretch of Military Avenue with a series of six roundabouts.

Guy Zima, Steve Deneys, Andy Nicholson, Tom De Wane and Vander Leest cast the dissenting votes. Chris Wery, Tom Weber, Celestine Jeffreys, Dan Piton, Amy Kocha, Tony Theisen and Jerry Wiezbiskie voted for the roundabouts.

The council considered six- and a four-lane design options, both with signaled intersections, and a four-lane option with six roundabouts. The road is scheduled for major reconstruction in 2010.

The city's Improvement & Services Committee last week voted 2-1 for the four-lane option with signal lights. Wiezbieskie, the dissenting voter on that committee, favored the roundabouts. Kocha and Jeffreys voted for the signal lights at committee level, but both voted for the roundabouts Tuesday.

"My initial vote reflected what I thought the businesses wanted, in terms of a compromise between the roundabouts and the six lanes," Kocha said. "As the week went on, the more information I got, I really had to do a balancing act with regard to what was best for the city in terms of safety, the cost involved — we're saving $1.5 million from the six-lane option, for example — and what's best environmentally.

"I also realized roundabouts are coming. They'll be all around us. I truly believe people are going to get used to them. I think it's important to look to the future and do what is best for the city in the long term."

Jeffreys couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment.

Zima said council members who oppose the roundabouts may still muster the votes against bonding for the project.

That may be a challenge because Green Bay can borrow with a simple majority vote by the council. That means one of the seven who voted for the roundabouts would have to change sides.

Another option for continuing the fight against the roundabouts is to come up with signatures on a petition demanding that the issue be put up for a binding referendum, Zima said.

That, too, could prove challenging.

City Clerk Chad Weininger said the petition would need 5,130 signatures, and would need to be turned in by Feb. 12 to get it on the April 7 ballot.

"If they started (today), that would be over 700 signatures a day," Weininger said. "And realistically, they should get more than 5,130, because some are bound to be not eligible or from outside the Green Bay city limits or something like that."

If none of the options work, opponents will have to accept defeat and do what they can to make the roundabouts work, Deneys said.

"We'll just have to educate the public as much as possible in how to drive and cross roundabouts safely," he said.

Kramerica

February 5th, 2009, 03:44 PM

"We'll just have to educate the public as much as possible in how to drive and cross roundabouts safely," he said.

I love how education is the last resort of the opponents. "Geez, we've done everything we can to obstruct progress. I guess we'll just have to make the general public more informed. If we have to. But I'd rather they just stay being sheeple."

Night Rider

February 5th, 2009, 05:24 PM

Tower Park

February 5th, 2009, 05:51 PM

I thought someone posted here a few pages back that s/he had seen the mayor on television in December supporting the roundabouts. I'd be stunned (again) if he came out now in opposition or tried to somehow back away from the Council's decision, even though undoubtedly he's catching heat. He needs to be smart and stand firm. I wonder what the Pancake Place thing is about, unless that's being set up by the opposition. In the PG post by Night Rider, I thought Ald. Kocha said it best.

Danillo

February 5th, 2009, 06:38 PM

Jschmuck

February 5th, 2009, 06:53 PM

Yea the city needs to stay strong here. I wish the people against the roundabouts would do some research on them, view the many videos presented about roundabouts by WISDOT, city, and PG. Instead they give out a knee-jerk reaction and even ask questions that HAVE been answered.

In the meantime, here is a website about wisconsin highways; state, US, interstate routes, i frequent...one neat section is the Milwaukee Freeways section, check it out;

http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/

Tower Park

February 5th, 2009, 07:08 PM

The Press-Gazette today editorially supported sending the proposal to limit the number of downtown bars back to committee.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090205/GPG0602/902050610/1269/GPG06

:cheers:

Geography Teacher

February 5th, 2009, 08:09 PM

Sounds like there may some type of press conference at the pancake place today. The mayor has spoke out against the roundabouts on military. & the alderman are going to put out a full court press on the mayor for the veto. I'm sure squiggy will fall to the pressure.

Squiggy!! :lol:

And was it on this board that I heard Guy Zima referred to as the Hamburglar? :lol:

Y'all make my day.

Tower Park

February 5th, 2009, 09:13 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/bilde-2.jpghttp://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/18_1988_6976.jpg

Brown County United Way is moving into the former Farmers Exchange Bank building at 1245 Main St. across from Big Tomatoes restaurant. In recent years it had housed a Du Bois Formal Wear. The building can be seen above left in the Press-Gazette photo by Matt Robinson.

There are actually two former Farmers Exchange Bank buildings on Main. An older one is located across the street, kitty-corner from the United Way one, at 1250 Main. It’s next to Los Banditos restaurant and houses Techtronics satellite equipment and systems and possibly upstairs apartments. The older building can be seen, I believe, in the historic photo of Main Street above, behind the trolley. Photo courtesy Packerland Annals.

The United Way building appears to date to the 1920s or ‘30s. It’s had some unfortunate window and entrance alterations but is attractive and in good shape. The older bank building across the street appears to date to the late 1800s or early 1900s, has its windows shaded or boarded up, and has an exterior in some disrepair. Both are two-story brick buildings. And both are still standing, a good thing in Green Bay!

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090205/GPG03/902050626/1247

www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/mayors_past/mayor_hall_o.html

United Way moving closer to those it serves
New quarters to cut overhead, increase visibility

BY RICHARD RYMAN • RRYMAN@GREENBAYPRESSGAZETTE.COM • FEBRUARY 5, 2009

Brown County United Way will move to a higher-profile, easier-to-access home on Main Street in downtown Green Bay in March.

The agency is leasing the former Du Bois Formal Wear building at 1245 Main St. Brown County United Way currently is tucked away in hard-to-find offices on the campus of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay in Allouez.

"We'll be closer to the population we serve and the agencies we serve," said Gregg Hetue, president and chief executive officer of Brown County United Way. "A lot of people have never known where United Way is."

Hetue said the agency has $102,000 of the $160,000 in cash and in-kind donations it needs to complete renovation of the building. The new quarters will reduce the agency's overhead by $1,000 to $1,500 a month.

"That's a big bonus for us," he said.

The agency signed a five-year lease for the building with a five-year option for renewal. Hetue said because United Way is leasing rather than buying the building, it remains on the property tax rolls.

Jeff Mirkes, executive director of Downtown Green Bay Inc. and Olde Main Street Inc., said United Way is showing confidence in the commitment by Olde Main Street and the city to make the district attractive to business.

"We believe it will be a significant catalyst to bring community leaders into the Main Street district," he said.

Mirkes also said it is good to see someone moving into the attractive former bank building.

"It's a building with a lot of character. It just took a certain amount of time for the right tenant to come along," he said.

The building is owned by Darrell Griegs, who also contributed $10,000 to the project. Jim Wochinske of Pomp's Tire Service donated $20,000 and Smet construction is managing the rebuild for free, an estimated $30,000 in-kind donation.

Other businesses and individuals have pledged smaller amounts of money, discounts or in-kind donations.

Hetue said he's seeking a lot of smaller donors to complete the project.

"We understand this is an economically difficult year, but everyone understands the importance of United Way not putting program dollars into this," he said.

At 5,500 square feet, the building is about 1,000 square feet larger than is available at the diocese.

"And it will be more effectively used," Adam Hardy, United Way communications manager, said of the former orphanage they now occupy.

Fortunately, for everyone involved, Hetue said, the diocese was ready to reclaim the space at the same time he was looking to move. Tammy Basten, director of facilities and property, said the diocese is consolidating into three buildings from four to cut expenses.

The new location includes exclusive parking spaces across the street and multiple entrances.

"We should be able to handle all meetings internally, too," Hetue said.

They hope to start the build-out this week and move in by mid-March, Hetue said.

The agency has 12 full-time staff members, though it grows to about 20 during periods when it has loaned executives and interns.

The 2-1-1 call center, which refers people in need to agencies that can help them, will be in the former bank's vault.

The new location will allow United Way to provide 2-1-1 information to walk-ins as well, something virtually impossible at its present site.

There is also room enough to rent space to other agencies. Hardy said the building could be an incubator for nonprofit startups.

Puant

February 5th, 2009, 11:42 PM

I think the roundabouts have become an apt metaphor for transit issues in general. Anything new and different, even if demonstrably useful, is frowned upon essentially just for being new and different. Whether is roundabouts, light rail, regional rail, etc., etc., you always hear things like "sure, that new thing work great in -- insert city here, usually someplace like Denver or Portland -- but we are different and these new ideas can't possibly work here even though I can't come up with a good reason why not.

It's frustrating.

I share your exact frustration!

What can be done about this? I wish some of our voices and our perspectives could be more widely discussed in the community. Most of the press coverage (and reader responses on the PG) revolve around the negative naysayer viewpoints.

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/bilde-2.jpg

Brown County United Way is moving into the former Farmers Exchange Bank building at 1245 Main St. across from Big Tomatoes restaurant. .

That is AWESOME news!! :banana: I've eyeballed that building a lot and thought to myself what a shame to see it sitting there vacant and lifeless. I'm happy to see these places like this coming back to life. It's positive news that I've been hoping to hear. . I'm also glad to see the P-G covered it this well, and that there weren't any negative nellies posting comments on the PG about this (at least not yet).

Morse

February 5th, 2009, 11:55 PM

So what are everyone's opinion on the roundabouts? Do you think that Mayor Schmitt will cave and veto this, or will we actually be able to do something unique and progressive for once? If he does not veto this vote, can anything else be really done? Gosh, this better stick!

jerkylips999

February 6th, 2009, 12:36 AM

Green Bay Native

February 6th, 2009, 03:39 AM

Yes, they will be adding an auxiliary lane for both east- and west-bound exits to Oneida/Ashland (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/wis172construction/index.htm). It doesn't say exactly where the new lanes will begin, but I'm guessing on the WB it will begin at the Webster on-ramp and on the EB it will begin at the US 41 interchange.

As my name says, I am a GB native and was reading up on the site for about a month now. I am a civil engineer living in the south because of work. Caught a glimpse of it while looking for something else. Got some interesting info so I kept checking in and registered a couple days ago, and got the OK to post today. Did this to reply to this item.

According to this: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/wis172construction/docs/map-tc2.pdf , the westbound auxiliary lane will start just after (west) of the Ashwaubenon-Allouez bridge.

Green Bay Native

February 6th, 2009, 03:53 AM

I think the roundabouts have become an apt metaphor for transit issues in general. Anything new and different, even if demonstrably useful, is frowned upon essentially just for being new and different. Whether is roundabouts, light rail, regional rail, etc., etc., you always hear things like "sure, that new thing work great in -- insert city here, usually someplace like Denver or Portland -- but we are different and these new ideas can't possibly work here even though I can't come up with a good reason why not.

It's frustrating.

My recollection is that GB is a rather staid community and is reluctant to change. Many innovative things are met with skepticism, an example being the state office building on Jefferson and Cherry built in 1983. The architecture with the skewed face on Cherry had a lot of strange comments I encountered at that time.

As an civil engineer, I can see that the roundabouts are a safer alternative to a copy of what is out there now, but many people are not used to roundabouts and thus scared of them and unwilling to see that they actually work. This goes with the attitude that if the existing intersections are currently working (even though they have deficiencies) they why change it?

Puant

February 6th, 2009, 04:10 AM

My recollection is that GB is a rather staid community and is reluctant to change. Many innovative things are met with skepticism, an example being the state office building on Jefferson and Cherry built in 1983. The architecture with the skewed face on Cherry had a lot of strange comments I encountered at that time.

First off, Green Bay Native welcome! Glad to have another perspective here.

As for that State office building. I don't know exactly what was said about it when it was built (I wasn't living here then) but I'm not fond of that building. SUpposedly there is some energy efficiency built-in and that's cool, but the building is butt ugly and worse, seems to be deteriorating at 10x the rate of most buildings. For me, it's not that it was "new & innovative"...I don't have a problem with "new & innovative" but it has got to make sense in other ways. Roundabouts make sense to me, but the state office building does not, to me anyway....

Morse

February 6th, 2009, 04:45 AM

Mayor Schmitt responds:

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=9797385

I do like the roundabouts and wouldn't be upset with the four lane option with lights, but please, gol' darn it the heck (breaking out the Rube Baker) don't even consider the six lanes again! I will need to post some pics, but doing a little digging on roundabouts in other cities have shown some really cool landscaping and artwork, sculptures and statues in them. Maybe a bronze statue of soldier(s) paying tribute to the military. Anyone have any idea if lighting will be updated (I am assuming so)? Some historic lighting would be sweet as well.

A second welcome from here as well, Green Bay Native! For some reason, mention of the state building got me thinking about some other buildings downtown and ultimately, the Nicolet Bank Building. Does anyone happen to know if this was constructed in a way that would allow for future expansion? Obviously, this would have to be done vertically (which I have in mind), but could this building support another four floors to make it more prominent? When the CityDeck takes off, there could be even more demand for offices on the fox (I thought that I read in the DT survey that office occupancy is 100% along the river). While this is not a bad looking building, and I do like it, could this change be made along with possibly reconfiguring the first floor (possibly some large, urban windows, entry on the fox side) to coincide with the CityDeck. Random thought.

hckystr42

February 6th, 2009, 04:54 AM

Navarino Rezdnt

February 6th, 2009, 05:18 AM

I think the roundabouts are the correct decision. I'm going to take credit for changing Amy Kocha's vote because Monday evening I called and left a message on her answering machine explaining my viewpoint that the opposition has nothing to support their view other than irrational, emotional opinion.

So YES! my alder listened to a constituent. Of course I don't know how many other people tried to change her mind from one week to the next, but I'll take some credit.

I'll am also one of the people that avoids Military now because of the current environment. I'll be more comfortable driving Military when the roundabouts are in.

Great News about the United Way move to Main St. & Kavarna's plans to stay on Broadway.

Night Rider

February 6th, 2009, 05:23 AM

Squiggy is going to come up with a compromise by next week. I really don't know how you can compromise with roundabouts & stoplights. I would guess you need the random traffic flow to make roundabouts work there best. You can't have floods of traffic coming from a stop light and entering a roundabout & then stopping again at the next stop light. I hope he just gathers a backbone & picks one or the other.

I did contact my alderman, but he was already a supporter.

Tower Park

February 6th, 2009, 05:28 AM

As I read it, looks to me like the mayor is going to propose four lanes with traffic lights as an alternative. Don’t do it! Your offer may not be taken in the spirit it’s made but used to delay and obfuscate the issue. And it could mean more messy Council proceedings. The Council gave you, the city’s planning department, the department of public works and your consultants its support. Stick with it!

www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local_wluk_greenbay_military_roundabouts_200902051420_rev1

Jschmuck

February 6th, 2009, 05:44 AM

First, wilkommen zu GB development Green Bay Native

"Most cities that are successful don't have roundabouts," said Alderman Guy Zima.

HUH? how does he know? Besides, the point is roundabouts are S-a-f-e-r, dont have a constant electricity bill as compared to stop/go lights, keep traffic moving - thus are "greener." Looks like Guy Zima didn't do any research and/or view the many videos provided by WISDOT about roundabouts just the OTHERS that don't like roundabouts. Behold the power of....smilies? :llama: does this fit best?

Tower Park

February 6th, 2009, 06:03 AM

So much for London, Paris and Rome. Here's a roundabout in Glens Falls, NY.

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/033_331.jpg

Jschmuck

February 6th, 2009, 06:07 AM

^^ Ive been there, i had to pick up a 53 ft trailer...It was a busy city, very clean and pleasant looking...i guess those are signs of an UNsucessful city huh?

Green Bay Sponge

February 6th, 2009, 06:11 AM

I think the roundabouts will be an improvement, if you already know how to use them. When I take my driving exam one day, I will learn how to use them. You just have to get used to the roundabouts, to figure out how they work.

This diagram shows how roundabouts work:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/NonUK_Roundabout_8_Cars.gif

Tower Park

February 6th, 2009, 06:40 AM

Sponge: As usual, good work.

Green Bay Sponge

February 6th, 2009, 06:46 AM

Sponge: As usual, good work.

I found the roundabout diagram on Wikipedia.

MattGiguere

February 6th, 2009, 08:16 AM

Maybe this could be a compromise. :ohno:

http://www.seanyboy.co.uk/images/roundabout.jpg

Green Bay Sponge

February 6th, 2009, 09:18 AM

Maybe this could be a compromise. :ohno:

http://www.seanyboy.co.uk/images/roundabout.jpg

A magic roundabout?! You can't be serious! :bash:

Puant

February 6th, 2009, 05:22 PM

I believe that Kavara's is opening a '30's style Italian Deli (Parisi's) in the Jones Motor Co. Building. Maybe the inside will be split between Kavarna's and Parisi's or something like that. That's what I heard anyway, or that's what I thought I heard anyway.

From kavarna.com: "We are pleased to announce the name and concept behind our forthcoming, new venture: Parisi's Delicatessen (http://parisisdeli.com/), an Italian delicatessen which will be intimately connected to the future Kavarna location, which will be announced slightly more officially in the near future."

More great news! I almost missed this with all of the roundabout brewhaha.

THis might be a small building, but given that it's at the 'epicenter' of the Broadway district, has really unique architecture, and will be occupied by a quality business make this a big deal in my opinion.

Keep us posted on the progress and timeline.

Navarino Rezdnt

February 6th, 2009, 06:37 PM

Geography Teacher

February 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM

For some reason, mention of the state building got me thinking about some other buildings downtown and ultimately, the Nicolet Bank Building. Does anyone happen to know if this was constructed in a way that would allow for future expansion? Obviously, this would have to be done vertically (which I have in mind), but could this building support another four floors to make it more prominent? When the CityDeck takes off, there could be even more demand for offices on the fox (I thought that I read in the DT survey that office occupancy is 100% along the river). While this is not a bad looking building, and I do like it, could this change be made along with possibly reconfiguring the first floor (possibly some large, urban windows, entry on the fox side) to coincide with the CityDeck. Random thought.

I don't know about the specifics with Nicolet Bank, but I recall a discussion about building upward a year or more ago. In general, it's just not done. I believe a couple of forum members came up with examples in other cities, but it seems that even in big metros this is not a popular, cost-effective means of construction (and most buildings aren't even structurally able to handle it).

The dental building across Main Street from the Hotel Sierra/Regency Center was built to support additional floors, as many people criticized the idea of putting a one-story building on such a prime piece of real estate downtown. Of course, I highly doubt that will ever happen; no one has suggested otherwise since it was built.

So I wouldn't get your hopes up. Besides, some have said that shorter buildings are appropriate along the river so that the taller buildings that will eventually be built to the east will have views of the river and vice versa.

Nativist

February 6th, 2009, 08:10 PM

I doubt that the Nicolet building was, with that finicky mansard-style tower. The plan for the children's museum (should it ever be constructed) was built with an eye towards future, vertical expansion.

Edit: Sorry, that should be 'designed,' not 'built.'

Tower Park

February 6th, 2009, 09:46 PM

I don’t want to make too much of this roundabout thing. It’s not like we’re talking war and peace. But I’ll pontificate here on the topic. My apologies.

Given he’s an elected politician, no doubt Mayor Schmitt is considering the politics of roundabouts. I don’t see the issue, though, as make or break for the mayor.

1. Although the mayor lost some credibility with his handling of the nativity scene issue, if I’m not mistaken, he won re-election last time around with something like 60% or more of the vote. A very healthy showing. He’s got a good base of support there.

2. The next mayoral election is not until April 2011, the year after the roundabouts would be installed. Plenty of time for the issue to cool and people to see the world doesn’t end once roundabouts are built.

3. If the mayor decides to run for re-election, at this point his most likely opponent would seem to be Ald. Chris Wery. But Wery actually — and surprisingly — voted to support the roundabouts. Afterward, Wery appeared on television to repeat his support, saying he had done much homework on the issue and thought this was best for the city. Other potential opponents like Zima or Vander Leest or Chad Fradette don’t and never will have majority appeal outside their districts, in my opinion.

4. The Guy Zima noise machine is loud and mean, but it doesn’t necessarily represent consensus opinion among voters in Green Bay. (The opponents clearly have been trolling for support.) You can beat the Zimas and the Vander Leests and the Fradettes if you’re smart, constructive, forceful and persistent.

5. Some business perhaps would leave Military because of the roundabouts. Or it might leave anyway because, unfortunately, it couldn’t survive during the long haul of construction and, at least for now, a down economy. But, I think, other and more diverse businesses and developers in time could move to Military because of the more attractive retail environment roundabouts could encourage. As proponents have said, this is a major opportunity to do a real and effective makeover for the long-neglected street.

Having said this, I’m not optimistic. If he wanted, I think this roundabout issue could be a seminal moment for Schmitt and his career as mayor. For his and the city’s good. The toughest part was getting the Council’s support, and he got it.

P.S. It would be nice if the City Council members who voted for the roundabouts would hold their own press conference with the mayor and show their unity of support.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090206/GPG0101/902060616/1207/GPG01

Green Bay 4 Life

February 6th, 2009, 10:04 PM

Monthly update on the Astor Place and River Center projects.

We'll see what comes out of this...

Communication from January 15, 2009, of the Common Council by Ald. Wery for an update on certain items submitted by him over six months ago.

1) Request by 2nd developer to submit plan for the Flatley Park site.

2) Create a plan for a recycling/salvage operation for the mall should it be torn down. This would produce a revenue stream to offset demolition costs and reduce TIF requests. The Larsen site cut its demolition costs in half using this process.

3) Explanation as to why this council person’s requests are not handled at committee but instead thrown in the trash bin by being “referred to staff?”

Oh that Alderman (Council President Wery). He's HILARIOUS... More than likely they need staff research to form a recommendation based on that reserach so the Comittee has something solid to make a recommendation on. Rather than just throwing something together for the sake of getting his name in the paper.

I really do like the word for word agenda item of Number 3...:lol:

Morse

February 6th, 2009, 11:57 PM

So Mayor Schmitt is gonna let us know next week what his decision will be. Now's the time to let him know how you feel about the issue. I already sent him my e-mail with my thoughts.

E-Mail: Mayor Jim Schmitt (jimsc@ci.green-bay.wi.us)

Don't forget to include your Green Bay address for verification purposes.

I wrote as well. To use an old analogy, "what is popular isn't always right and what is right isn't always popular." I hope that we stay firm on this. It is time to be more progressive.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 7th, 2009, 02:20 AM

Green Bay Native

February 7th, 2009, 02:26 AM

Green Bay Native- If you don't mind me asking who do you work for and would they be hiring? I am a civil engineering major at Platteville graduating this May and am still looking for a job, hopefully in the Green Bay area.

I am in a small company. Unfortunately, they are in tough times here too and are cutting back, so they are not hiring. Gool luck in finding something and leave no stone unturned - you on't know what will strike gold.

BTW, I went to Platteville too. :cheers1:

Kramerica

February 7th, 2009, 05:38 AM

Green Bay Sponge - That is a horrible diagram of a roundabout. It should be banned from use. No wonder people are afraid of roundabouts. But it isn't your fault that Wikipedia has crap for a diagram. Here's what's wrong with that diagram:
1. Three lanes incoming on each leg. That's not representative at all of roundabouts in the U.S., the vast majority of which are one or two lane.
2. No splitter islands. That's a key feature of the modern roundabout, serving to direct traffic and be a refuge for pedestrians. The diagram as shown makes it look easy to go the wrong way in the roundabout, which isn't the case at all in a well-designed roundabout.
3. Worst of all, no lane lines in the circulator. That diagram looks like a free-for-all, no wonder people are afraid of this new intersection. All multi-lane roundabouts have lane lines that show you where to go. Most newer ones feature a "spiral" so that you're guided into the proper lane for exiting even if you started on the inside (left) lane.

Here's a link (http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/fdm/11-26-035.pdf) to a document with some good diagrams. (Page 11)

Tower Park - Great post about the politics of this issue. Excellent.

hckystr42 and Green Bay Native - I also graduated from UWP, in Mechanical Engineering. That's such a great school, I loved it there.

Navarino Rezdnt

February 7th, 2009, 09:56 AM

I e-mailed the Mayor in support of the roundabouts as well. The more I watch the news, the less I see them actually becoming a reality. I wonder if the same argument is being raised versus the WDOT on the roundabouts that will be in Green Bay associated with the US HWY 41 reconstruction project.:ohno:

I would imagine that there are no democratic processes associated with the US 41 Upgrade. No informational or subcommittee meetings or votes cast. It's just a fact that the state DOT finds them to be a safe and cost saving option and that's the one a bureaucrat in Madison picks, so that's what we get.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 7th, 2009, 04:26 PM

Kramerica

February 8th, 2009, 03:55 AM

I would imagine that there are no democratic processes associated with the US 41 Upgrade. No informational or subcommittee meetings or votes cast. It's just a fact that the state DOT finds them to be a safe and cost saving option and that's the one a bureaucrat in Madison picks, so that's what we get.

So you're against safe and less expensive? Is that such a bad reason to pick a certain alternative? Or would we rather have less safe and more expensive, but the public will be "comfortable" with it?

These "bureaucrats" in Madison are career engineers. I'm not going to doubt their wisdom about traffic capacity. I'd put a lot more stock in what they say about traffic movement rather than business owners or politicians.

No democratic process (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/us41expansion/brown-public.htm)? Please. There is ample opportunity for the public and elected officials to talk to WisDOT. Look at many major projects from beginning of the study to the end. Usually the end project is scaled down and more friendly than it began, due to public input.

Totally understood and agree. I'm just thinking of the argument that roundabouts do not work in high traffic areas. If 41 is supposed to continue to get more and more traffic then I also assume that the interchanges will also be very busy as well.

Where is the information about roundabouts not working in high traffic areas?

Navarino Rezdnt

February 8th, 2009, 07:08 AM

So you're against safe and less expensive?

Hey Buddy. Relax, you mistook what I wrote. I'm for roundabouts. Hold on, I just got home from work, join me and crack open a cool one :cheers: That's better.

I've always been for the roundabout option. Now that I've re-read what I wrote I guess it does come off as a bit negative. I guess there just didn't seem to be any publicity, good or bad, about the roundabouts for the 41 upgrade.

I think that right after improved safety, environmentally-friendly is right there for positives. With the possibility of having full scale production of true alternative fuel cars likely being maybe a decade out, the low-emission roundabout wins big during the time of converting from fossil fuels to an alternative.

Green Bay Sponge

February 8th, 2009, 12:23 PM

The construction on Military Avenue will be done in segments, just like George Street was in DePere. Am I right?

gbmphillips

February 8th, 2009, 02:24 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

February 8th, 2009, 06:57 PM

Where is the information about roundabouts not working in high traffic areas?

Exactly. Apparently VanderLeest, Zima, Dewane, Nicholson, and the others think that there is.

Puant

February 8th, 2009, 07:29 PM

Exactly. Apparently VanderLeest, Zima, Dewane, Nicholson, and the others think that there is.

People "fear" the DePere roundabout, but does anyone complain about the traffic not flowing fast enough there?

No in fact the biggest argument is that traffic moves TOO Fast through the roundabout!! ( and that's why people fear it: they think the cars move too fast through it!).

It's a circular argument for the roundabout opposition (pun intended).

I remember sitting on that bridge in DePere waiting & waiting for the old light. Now, pesonally I prefer single-lane roundabouts over that multi-lane one. But at least traffic moves along and you're not idling at the stoplight waiting & waiting.

mgk920

February 8th, 2009, 07:48 PM

I know a while ago there was talk about renaming of Hwy 41 here. Saw this in todays PG

When U.S. 41 is reclassified as an interstate highway, some area leaders hope it will be renamed Interstate 55.

On Monday the Howard Village Board will look at a resolution supporting the reclassification to I-55, which runs from New Orleans to the south side of Chicago, connecting through Memphis, Tenn., and St. Louis.

"I-55 would give us tremendous lift in terms of economic development," said the Howard village administrator, Joshua Smith, who drafted the resolution. "It's really an additional economic development tool for the Green Bay area."

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090208/GPG0101/902080755/1978
The problem with the number '55' is in Chicago - I-55 (the Stevenson Expressway) ends at Lake Shore Drive, NOT at the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94), and it connects between the two with only single-lane ramps. Not a smooth, logical connection.

All of existing 'WI 55', running from the east shore of Lake Winnebago to the Michigan state line in the far northwoods, including an intersection with US 41 in Kaukauna, would also have to be renumbered.

IMHO, the best possible number for it is '57'. I-57 ends with a direct feed connection with the Dan Ryan in Chicago, allowing for a logical northward number extension. As for 'WI 57', I would move US 41 to replace it between Milwaukee and Green Bay and give it one or more completely new numbers northeast of Green Bay into Door County ('WI 543' and even perhaps a short 'I-543'?).

A number other than '41' would allow for a potential future extension away from US 41 in Michigan (ie, to follow US 2 to I-75 near Saint Ignace, MI - a VERY BUSY two-lane highway), should it ever be found to be a good idea, too.

An odd number like '57' would also give I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee a proper 'north-south' route number and allow for other potential future route number tweakings.

Mike

Bay2Bay

February 8th, 2009, 07:59 PM

Jschmuck

February 8th, 2009, 09:00 PM

Change to I-55; problem - Illinois would have to spend money to install signage along the new route. The 55 end at Lake Shore Drive is not that big of a problem and can be renamed into a spur of somesort, or it can even be unnamed and left as very long ramps "to Lake Shore Drive. Also, 55 doesn't fit between 39 and 43.
Solutions - Wisconsin highway 55 can be renamed 255. Or, even though Wisconsin does not like to have multiple highways of the same number, there is a Wisconsin highway 39 and interstate 39.

Change to I-57; problem - Illinois would have to spend money to install signage along the new route. Wisconsin highway 57 is again another duplicated number. Also, 57 doesn't fit between 39 and 43.
What makes I-55 and I-57 a possibility though is that the mile markers for US-41 begin at the Wisconsin-Illinois state line, thus so would 55 and 57.

Change to I-threedigitroute; problem - US-41 mile markers begin at Wisconsin-Illinois state line, thus the NEW I-threedigit route would have to begin down there as well which would be pointless, or US-41 would have to be re-milemarked.

Change to I-41; problem - not really any major problem. other than what to do with US-41 since as mentioned before Wisconsin doesn't like to duplicate numbered highways. But since it would be the same physical road, I don't see it as a problem.
Benefits - minimal upgrades in terms of signage/ no mile marker changes. Fits between the 39 and 43 numbering.

side note - there is this highway (US-78) that goes from Memphis, TN to Birmingham, AL that will be labeled as I-22 in about 5 years. And that route has signage along it that say "Future I-22."

FYI - Cabela's Billboards closer in the Milwaukee area refer to its location as "I-41/I-45."

MJinOshkosh

February 8th, 2009, 09:10 PM

The problem with the number '55' is in Chicago - I-55 (the Stevenson Expressway) ends at Lake Shore Drive, NOT at the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94), and it connects between the two with only single-lane ramps. Not a smooth, logical connection.

All of existing 'WI 55', running from the east shore of Lake Winnebago to the Michigan state line in the far northwoods, including an intersection with US 41 in Kaukauna, would also have to be renumbered.

IMHO, the best possible number for it is '57'. I-57 ends with a direct feed connection with the Dan Ryan in Chicago, allowing for a logical northward number extension. As for 'WI 57', I would move US 41 to replace it between Milwaukee and Green Bay and give it one or more completely new numbers northeast of Green Bay into Door County ('WI 543' and even perhaps a short 'I-543'?).

A number other than '41' would allow for a potential future extension away from US 41 in Michigan (ie, to follow US 2 to I-75 near Saint Ignace, MI - a VERY BUSY two-lane highway), should it ever be found to be a good idea, too.

An odd number like '57' would also give I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee a proper 'north-south' route number and allow for other potential future route number tweakings.

Mike

The I-55 extension you refered to as the Stevenson expy to Lakeshore drive could also be refered to as a spur into a city and changed. It would have to be agreed to by the state of Illinois to a 3 digit interstate like an I-155 or an I-555 or so to do so.

MJinOshkosh

February 8th, 2009, 09:22 PM

^^^

The other problem with I-55 to Wisconsin would be sequence of the north/south numbering in place throughout the interstate system. Wisconsin would probably have to reroute I 43 to where US 41 goes through now. And this proposed I-55 would follow up through where I-43 splits from I-94 at the Marquette interchange a go up through the lakeshore where I-43 currently runs between Milwaukee to Green Bay. Again you would have the State of Illinois having to agree to the re-route.

Puant

February 8th, 2009, 09:34 PM

If just 1-mile part of I-55 (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=41.846995,-87.628241&spn=0.04156,0.085659&z=14)in Chicago east of I-90/94 had the I-55 designation removed, then I-55 could continue north along I-90/94. So then the Dan Ryan would be I-90/94/55 for a while, until first I-90 branched off about 10 miles to the north, then it would be I-94/55 to Milwaukee where the US 41 could be renamed I-55.

It's "only" 1 mile but WHERE it happens to be...not going to be an easy change, there will be a gazillion tons of heavy political and business pressure coming out of downtown Chicago to leave it as is, I suspect. They're not going to care that some hicks up in HOward or Ashwaubenon passed some resolutions.

What's the reason for making 41 an interstate again? Seems the best option might be to just leave it be "US 41".

Puant

February 8th, 2009, 09:46 PM

^^
Funny you should mention I-57. When I was a boy and they were still planning I-43, the number of I-43 was supposed to be I-57. Opposition to that number arose at that time because it paralleled WI-57 between Milwaukee and GreenBay and people were worried about the confusion that could cause. So they changed what was to be I-57 to I-43.

WI-57 was going to BE the interstate. It was going to bypass Sheboygan and run through Plymouth instead. That's why 57 is 4-lanes through Sheboygan County, because they had already gotten started on the interstate improvments before that the problems were worked out..

I'm not sure if the Interstate would have angled toward Manitowoc then or if the interstate would have gone through Chilton along the 57 corridor to Green Bay.

I heard the problems with the 57 route were two-fold: ONe was that too many larger cities would have been bypassed (namely Sheboygan and perhaps Manitowoc) but there were also some environmental impact concerns with the 57 corridor. For these reasons they moved teh whole thing to the east, that's why we have I-43 where it is. I'm not totally sure of all of the details, maybe mgk920 knows more.

mgk920

February 8th, 2009, 10:05 PM

WI-57 was going to BE the interstate. It was going to bypass Sheboygan and run through Plymouth instead. That's why 57 is 4-lanes through Sheboygan County, because they had already gotten started on the interstate improvments before that the problems were worked out..

I'm not sure if the Interstate would have angled toward Manitowoc then or if the interstate would have gone through Chilton along the 57 corridor to Green Bay.

I heard the problems with the 57 route were two-fold: ONe was that too many larger cities would have been bypassed (namely Sheboygan and perhaps Manitowoc) but there were also some environmental impact concerns with the 57 corridor. For these reasons they moved teh whole thing to the east, that's why we have I-43 where it is. I'm not totally sure of all of the details, maybe mgk920 knows more.
I'm not sure on the details, either (me thinks that politics had more to do with it), but it was likely to go by way of Chilton - note that there is a paved public trail on the west side of WI 57 between New Holstein and Kiel. Even though there is corn growing on both sides of it (at least during warm weather), it required zero land acquisition on the part of the state to build as it was already public ROW - it sits on what would have been the southbound side of the never-built I-57. The farmers rent the land from WisDOT.

See:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.933815~-88.062029&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=33320930&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

One of the reasons why I do support the '57' number over '55' for US 41 is that there is a lot less of WI 57 to renumber than there is of WI 55. I'd like to see US 41 moved to replace WI 57 from the I-43 split at Port Washington to the Green Bay area and current WI 57 is, IMHO, worthy of carrying a 'US' route number. The '41' number, if that would be used for the I-route, gets 'messy' in metro Milwaukee, too.

Also, unlike some others in the road enthusiast world, I am not 'AR' about the sanctity of the I-route numbering grid and a logical extension of a route number, even if such extension would otherwise violate that sanctity, is PERFECTLY OK with me. There is a SEVERE shortage of available 'odd' 2-digit route numbers in the eastern USA and a large surplus of unused ones in the west and AASHTO may someday have to use a 'low' 2di number in the east.

Mike

MJinOshkosh

February 8th, 2009, 11:12 PM

I don't have a problem of either I55 or I57 going up to Wisconsin. The problem resides in Illinois. I think mgk920 is on the right track as far as moving US 41 over to where WI 57 is currenty running. The State of Wisconsin, to my thinking should re-route I43 through the westside of Milwaukee up through the Fox Valley then up to Green Bay. Then have the higher numbered Interstate (either I55 or I57) follow the lakeshore up to Green Bay. But in the end some of this is contingent on Illinois agreement to extend the numbers up further north.

Jschmuck

February 9th, 2009, 12:40 AM

The problem with renaming 41 with a name OTHER than I-41 will be more costly with changing all the mile markers, not just for US41, but for the other highways that would be changed. Changing US41 to I-41 looks to be the easiest AND cheapest.

Green Bay Native

February 9th, 2009, 03:25 AM

One of the reasons why I do support the '57' number over '55' for US 41 is that there is a lot less of WI 57 to renumber than there is of WI 55. I'd like to see US 41 moved to replace WI 57 from the I-43 split at Port Washington to the Green Bay area and current WI 57 is, IMHO, worthy of carrying a 'US' route number. The '41' number, if that would be used for the I-route, gets 'messy' in metro Milwaukee, too.

Also, unlike some others in the road enthusiast world, I am not 'AR' about the sanctity of the I-route numbering grid and a logical extension of a route number, even if such extension would otherwise violate that sanctity, is PERFECTLY OK with me. There is a SEVERE shortage of available 'odd' 2-digit route numbers in the eastern USA and a large surplus of unused ones in the west and AASHTO may someday have to use a 'low' 2di number in the east.

Mike
For the first quoted paragraph, another bit of history with the I-43/WI-57 interchange by Port Washington was that it was supposed to be a 3-level interchange with the Stadium North freeway, thus the reason the I-43 southbound bridge over WI-57 is so high because there was supposed to be another bridge underneath it for the Stadium North freeway. But the Staduim North freeway was never built except for a short portion north of I-94 in Milwaukee that currently carries US-41 north of Miller Park.

For the other paragraph, there is a new freeway being planned from Savannah, Georgia and Knoxville, Tennessee, and the current plan is to name it I-3, which would throw a number meant for the west coast over to the east coast. http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-003.html

Morse

February 9th, 2009, 05:07 AM

Wow. Alderman Weber asks the council to reconsider the motion :ohno:. If this does go back to square one, does this mean Military will probably end up with the stupid six lanes and stay status quo? Lets hope that that if the roundabouts are not voted for, the compromise will be the four lanes with lights. That is probably wishful thinking at this point too (I apologize for the sarcasm as I am a little irritated right now). I at least hope the opponents will have organized thoughts and facts as to why these wouldn't be good and not 'we don't like change' end of story. I don't want to hear Guy Zima say that he is concerned that he will get duped again. It is so important that the city gets this right with something that everyone will be happy with or can live with. Sure if you have a repaved six lane road, it is new, but what changes? They need to get this right and I hope people (namely Mayor Schmitt and the city council will do this if there is another vote). Thoughts?

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=9809471

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local_wluk_greenbay_roundabout_plan_hits_bump_200902081846_rev1

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090208/GPG0101/90208061/1978

Kramerica

February 9th, 2009, 05:29 AM

Hey Buddy. Relax, you mistook what I wrote. I'm for roundabouts. Hold on, I just got home from work, join me and crack open a cool one :cheers: That's better.

I've always been for the roundabout option. Now that I've re-read what I wrote I guess it does come off as a bit negative. I guess there just didn't seem to be any publicity, good or bad, about the roundabouts for the 41 upgrade.

I think that right after improved safety, environmentally-friendly is right there for positives. With the possibility of having full scale production of true alternative fuel cars likely being maybe a decade out, the low-emission roundabout wins big during the time of converting from fossil fuels to an alternative.

Sorry about that. I did misread you a bit.

The big difference between US 41 and Military Ave is that a single elected government body is not in charge of the US 41 project like Military Ave. In most cities, the city council usually votes on a specific plan for each major city road reconstruction, and thus lends itself well to micromanagement, politicians screwing things up, and general mayhem. Whereas at the state level, the legislature has delegated highway authority to WisDOT except in exceptional circumstances. So, the US 41 project and its details have never been subject to a single up/down vote of elected officials to proceed.

About enviromentally friendly: I don't see how alternative fuel vehicles relate at all to building roundabouts. It is irrelevant, since we should be choosing the most efficient intersections regardless of the fuel source of cars. Does it matter if we're saving petroleum, electricity, natural gas, or fusion power? Energy is energy.

mgk920

February 9th, 2009, 08:08 AM

Tower Park

February 9th, 2009, 07:14 PM

"I'm not going to veto it.” — Jim Schmitt, Friday, 2/6/2009, talking about the City Council’s decision on Military Avenue roundabouts.

Mayor Schmitt changed his mind from last week about not vetoing the Council’s decision approving the Military Avenue roundabout plan, according to the Press-Gazette. Sometime since Friday or over the weekend, he threatened a veto, the paper indicates. So one of the Council members who voted for the roundabouts — Ald. Tom Weber — is now asking for reconsideration. Meaning the Council will reopen the Military Avenue debate at its meeting this week or next. "We'll basically be back to square one," said Weber. "We'll start with discussion, then open it up for a public hearing. The whole nine yards."

People are saying they won’t necessarily change their votes. But, of course, the vote will change. Roundabouts are out. And it’ll be either four or quite possibly six lanes.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090209/GPG0101/902090562/1978

P.S. This is an elaboration of Morse’s earlier post today, which I just saw.

Tower Park

February 9th, 2009, 07:43 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/webflyer.gif

This from the latest Kavarna eNewsletter.

This time last year we were planning to move Kavarna across the river into the River Center [now called WaterMark]. Well, that didn't work out. The good news is that we have found a way to stay on Broadway, expand, and open a second place. The idea came to us very suddenly this past Fall: every vegetarian coffeehouse should have its own delicatessen.

Parisi's will specialize in local & imported cheeses, olives, antipasti, sandwiches, salads, local & imported pasture-raised meats, fresh pasta, and other wonderful things. The most important ingredient at Parisi's will be the calendar, with an emphasis on seasonal ingredients and traditional holiday foods.

Night Rider

February 9th, 2009, 10:02 PM

Squiggy said he will vote against the roundabouts if he is forced to make the deciding vote. So all they need is one alderman to change his/her mind & it's over. People had the time to voice their opinion at other meetings, I don't see anything this will accomplish by opening it up all over again.

nowpc2

February 10th, 2009, 12:40 AM

Recently I found a site called Stimulus Watch that has a list of spending projects in the current stimulus bill.

Here is the breakdown of projects for Green Bay:

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Green%20Bay/WI

There is a feature to comment on and vote on each project (critical or not). It seems that every project listed for Green Bay had many more votes for being non critical, however the sample size is very small and votes may not be local and have an understanding of the local impact of some of these projects.

Thoughts?

Night Rider

February 10th, 2009, 01:04 AM

I pasted the info from the link----

The total cost of all the projects submitted by Green Bay is $98,111,000

Description City State Jobs Cost Program Type Vote Ratio
Military Avenue Reconstruction from Langlade to Dousman Green Bay WI 100 $13,000,000 Streets/Roads -
Recreational Trail Connection Green Bay WI 50 $3,800,000 Streets/Roads -
Mason Street: Erie to Grandview Green Bay WI 30 $1,600,000 Streets/Roads -
Lombardi Avenue Enhancement Green Bay WI 20 $1,000,000 Streets/Roads -
Pavement Resurfacing and Repairs Green Bay WI 12 $650,000 Streets/Roads -
Green Bay Developed Areas Stormwater Management Retrofits: Phase II Green Bay WI 100 $2,700,000 Water -
Baird Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Green Bay WI 50 $1,400,000 Water
The Woods Stormwater Detention Pond Green Bay WI 20 $400,000 Water -
Brown County Central Library Restoration Green Bay WI 150 $10,000,000 CDBG -
Expand KI Center Convention Space Green Bay WI 150 $10,000,000 CDBG -
Parking Ramp Construction Green Bay WI 150 $10,000,000 CDBG -
Build out Agrilink Site Green Bay WI 100 $9,000,000 CDBG
Webster Avenue Reconstruction from Radisson to East River Green Bay WI 120 $5,800,000 CDBG -
Neighborhood Block Redevelopment/Enhancement Green Bay WI 30 $5,000,000 CDBG -
Children's Museum of Green Bay Green Bay WI 25 $3,500,000 CDBG -
CityDeck Phase II Urban Parkway Construction Green Bay WI 60 $3,500,000 CDBG -
Downtown Mall Site Demolition and Infrastructure Development Green Bay WI 20 $2,800,000 CDBG -
Construction of Federal Courthouse Green Bay WI 50 $2,500,000 CDBG -
City Hall Energy Efficiency Upgrades Green Bay WI 35 $311,000 Energy -
EECBG Green building incentives Green Bay WI 28 $225,000 Energy -
EECBG Coordinator Green Bay WI 3 $75,000 Energy -
Safety Repairs at Mason Manor public housing for seniors Green Bay WI 5 $100,000 Housing -
Police Department Public Safety Initiatives Green Bay WI 0 $10,000,000 Public Safety -
Forensic/Disaster Recovery Truck Green Bay WI 0 $240,000 Public Safety -
Community Service Interns Program expansion Green Bay WI 12 $180,000 Public Safety
Regional Training Facility Green Bay WI 1 $90,000 Public Safety -
Police Evidence Drying Room Green Bay WI 5 $40,000 Public Safety
Purchase 8 new buses Green Bay WI 6 $200,000 Transit -

The number after the "WI" signifies the number of jobs it will supposedly create.

ifyoubuildit

February 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM

Night Rider

February 10th, 2009, 03:24 AM

Word is the Frogs are concentrating on the Greenfield Site (Mason/Broadway) and Larsen Green and I can't imagine the Village of Ashwaubenon won't want to try and lure the Frogs away from downtown and closer to their entertainment district. Talk is as soon as 2011 and no later than 2012 which is when their lease at Joannes expires. The excitement and buzz this is going to create will be awesome..!! Green Bay so needs this..!!:applause:

You continue to crack me up as you promote your cause. I hope you succeed & your stadium is built. If progress goes as normal, a 2012 time line in real terms mean 2022. The Ashwaubenon comment was a nice touch. BEST OF LUCK.

Night Rider

February 10th, 2009, 03:52 AM

I noticed the list didn't include any funding for any type of rail system. Only money for evil roads, buses & infrastructure. I added up the jobs that would "be created" & it came to about 1232 jobs for about $100 million.

A little scenario...Say for example the economy was good, & Uncle Sam found $100 million dollars it had to blow. Also for my scenario there is no unemployment. Uncle Sam sent a request to our little mayor and said draft me a list of projects you need or want done because we have money to blow. My guess is the list would be almost identical to the current one. What I'm getting at is most of these projects don't create many long term jobs. These are all just pet projects or infrastructure projects that are on the "to do" list by the city anyway. I could agree that a few projects on the list could spur development & help the economy. It just makes me sick thinking future generations will be stuck paying things like a detention pond....10 million to restore a library!? THATS CRAZY

Jschmuck

February 10th, 2009, 04:15 AM

Night Rider - the point of the projects is that there will also be indirect job creation through machine, material productions, transportation of materials and machines and fuels, etc. Also, these projects would be developed ANYWAYS, and thus the future generations would be paying for them ANYWAYS. Lastly, its better to do this now than later cause later everything will be MORE expensive later...

Your addition to 1200 some jobs is direct creation, like I said, there will be indirect job creation as well so 1200 is not the correct total.

Also, debt has become a fact of life, just like death and taxes....I dont like it, you dont like it, but we and the future just have to deal with it. yes it sucks, so does a lot of other stuff.

ima get a bottle of Leinenkugel to help a wisconsin company :cheers:

magnusmopeds

February 10th, 2009, 04:20 AM

I have been following this thread for some time now and have finally decided to post. The following comments are based on recent topics and maybe a few things I felt like talking about.
1.Roundabouts - carrying capacity, construction cost, maintenance cost, aesthetics, emissions, pedestrian safety, vehicular safety, and green space all point to yes for roundabouts. The only way I would be okay with council voting against roundabouts is if they replace that plan with a 2-car lane/1-trolley track plan...and that just isn't about to happen...but think about, with a trolley running right down the median. Could be the first phase of a city wide trolley system (1. Military 2. Lombardi 3. Velp 4. Ashland 5. Walnut 6. Monroe 7. Main 8. Mason 9. University 10. Danz)...Just a thought.
2.Stadium – YES YES YES!!! I will sell body parts to make this happen on the Greenfield Site. What could I get for limb or two? Probably not much in this economy...
3.Confetti's – If I have any money left from selling body parts I will donate it to the first competent individual that wants to renovate this place into what it should be...a live music venue.
4.Ramp – I am excited that the ramp is built out and even more excited to see who takes the first spot. It is not the most elegant piece of architecture in DT GB, but it would make a great home for a number of things...which brings me to my next point.
5.Grocery Store – I would love to see the ramp be the home to a new grocery store. This, to me, is the next big step for DT GB. I understand that grocery stores have hesitated to take a serious look at DT GB because the demographics and the median income is lower than thought needed to be successful. Personally, I believe they have failed to consider the thousands of employees working in DT everyday...some of these people are bound to use this grocery store. As far as what kind of grocery store (Supervalu, Copps, Festival, Whole foods, Trader Joes, food cooperative), I don't really care...you guys can fight that one out. Maybe we could talk the guys at the Red Owl over on 9th into expanding into DT (I love that place).

I apologize if I have repeated what others have already pointed out. Please forgive me...

Jschmuck

February 10th, 2009, 04:26 AM

wilkommen Magnus....

YOU STOLE MY MILITARY AVE TROLLEY IDEA!!!! oh well, lol...it is a good idea though right? the ROW is there and them some.

agree DT GB does need a grocery store. I just recently purchased a condo DT, havent closed yet...but i will still have to jump in my car to purchase necessities.

sr22ger

February 10th, 2009, 05:16 AM

People "fear" the DePere roundabout, but does anyone complain about the traffic not flowing fast enough there?

No in fact the biggest argument is that traffic moves TOO Fast through the roundabout!! ( and that's why people fear it: they think the cars move too fast through it!).

A 45 year old lady (sorry for being stereotypical) driving her Denali has no clue how little space it takes to get into the roundabout and causes backups when she doesn't pull into the roundabout when she should.

Then you have the other crowd who doesn't give a crap or doesn't know what they should do and just pulls out or turns left from the right lane or right from the left lane. How anyone cannot read the signs both above them and below them as to where they can and cannot go amazes me.

Funny story, I was driving my wife's car the other day and pulled up to the roundabout entrance from the north side of broadway going south in the right lane. An anonymous 49 year old lady who works at a business across the bridge, pulled up to my left. We get an opening and basically enter about the same time. Little did I know that she was going right across the bridge from the left lane. This was at noon by the way, not during the peak traffic times.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to avoid her completely causing $1700 damage to the car. She decided to keep going across the bridge and I finally got her to stop up by Shakers bar on the west side of De Pere. A little pissed off, I asked her why she thought she could turn right from the left lane, reminding her that she wouldn't be doing that at a four way stop or light controlled intersection.

Her first statement was that I was supposed to yield to vehicles coming from the left! After I mentioned that the left rule only applied to vehicles already in the roundabout, she then stated that she thought I had to go right. The best part is when the police officer shows up and she starts barking at him when he tells her she is at fault!!! The officer volunteered to bring her back to the accident scene and show her the signage. :)

I remember sitting on that bridge in DePere waiting & waiting for the old light. Now, pesonally I prefer single-lane roundabouts over that multi-lane one. But at least traffic moves along and you're not idling at the stoplight waiting & waiting.

Tell that to the poor commuters backed up until the shell station going north or the poor guy who watches people cut in front of that car that leaves a 5 car length gap between himself and the car in front of him over and over again while they are stuck 3/4's of the way across the bridge going east at 5pm. Maybe the overcautious guy is exaggerated, but the backups I speak of are not.

I've come to the conclusion that 2 lane roundabouts do not work unless all four sides have nearly an equal amount of traffic. De Pere's does not, and it's not even close. This causes huuuuugggeee backups which are as long, if not longer than they were before the new bridge.

Now whether or not they will work on Military isn't for me to answer, but anyone who has to deal with the De Pere bridge roundabout during their commute understands that it doesn't work there. Maybe if there is more even traffic flow on Military they will be just fine.

I'm just imagining the chaos and backups at the Mason and Military intersection right now.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm actually all for single lane roundabouts as well.

jerkylips999

February 10th, 2009, 06:31 AM

I had an interesting conversation with my dad this weekend about roundabouts.

He says to me, "so what do YOU think about all those roundabouts on military?" He lives on the east side so he never drives over there. I start into my speech about how I think they're good, there's no reason except fear & lack of knowledge that people are opposing them....blah blah blah. I'm bracing for a fight when I say, "so what do YOU think of them?"

To my surprise (he'll be 70 next month so I just assumed he was one of the angry old men like you see on tv lately...), he says that he likes them...except for one thing. Apparently the new-ish roundabout at allouez ave & libal has a lot of tall plantings in the middle. He said that because people come through fairly quickly, when you can't see across to see oncoming traffic, you can pull out & all of a sudden there's a car right behind you. Probably a valid point, & it makes me wonder if there is anything along those lines that the city/village/etc. can do to make them more palatable for the people that are opposed.

Or am I just drunk again?

Night Rider

February 10th, 2009, 03:04 PM

From the GB Press Gazette:
Commuter buses connecting Green Bay and Appleton's downtowns could be running as soon as next year.

Transit officials in both communities have discussed the plan, which they think would help reduce employees' gas costs and reassure business owners that they won't lose workers because of fuel costs.

"We're very interested and thrilled that they (Green Bay officials) are interested," said Deborah Wetter, general manager of Valley Transit in Appleton. "Our assumption is that we have people going in both directions. That's what makes it really interesting."The keys are securing funding and making sure there are enough riders for the service.

Brown County Planning Commission principal planner Cole Runge and Wetter said grant applications will be sent to the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program and the federal Job Access & Reverse Commute program for money to help cover the cost of the system. The grant deadline is Oct. 15.

The proposal by the Brown County Planning Department estimates that the bus commuter system would cost $240,000 a year for just the Brown County involvement, with as much as 80 percent coming from the grants and the rest from either the riders or their employers. No local tax money would be used, Runge said.

No user fees have been determined at this time.

Cost estimates for Outagamie County's participation in the commuter bus program haven't been completed, Wetter said.

"It's still in the fairly early stages," Wetter said. "It's something we'll be doing fairly soon but we have other pressing issues first."

The plan calls for 16 daily trips, eight from Green Bay and eight from Appleton, using U.S. 41 with stops at the park-and-ride sites near Ballard Road in Grand Chute, on Brown County F near Mid-Vallee Golf Course, and Brown County G in De Pere. Buses would run at peak travel times in the morning and late afternoon.

The buses would help travelers connect to other buses from the downtowns.

Brown County planner Lisa Conard said once grant funding is secured, employers in Green Bay and Appleton would be asked to estimate the number of employees who would use it, noting that businesses could be eligible for tax credits.

Jennifer Niemi, benefits manager for Integrys, parent company for Wisconsin Public Service Corp., which employs about 1,000 in downtown Green Bay, said the commuter proposal might find a receptive audience at the company.

"We did a quick survey of employees to ask if they were interested and we had several who said they would be interested in learning more," Niemi said. "Some would like not having the hassle (of driving). So there is interest."

Officials at Schreiber Foods and Humana also were briefed on the possible commuter service.

"There are ways you can use that time productively," Wetter said. "There's not a lot you can do while you're driving."

But there are details to be worked out, if the funding is provided.

"We'd have to have some way of having a guaranteed ride home if somebody had a problem," Wetter said. "There could be an emergency in the middle of the day and you'd have to have the ability to get home if kids got sick. It would dissuade people from taking the bus if they got stranded."

The proposal covers that contingency, Conard said.

"We might contract with a private provider who would drive someone home if the need arises," Conard said, adding that bus riders wouldn't have to commit to riding five days a week.

hckystr42

February 10th, 2009, 05:09 PM

Welcome Magnus. I agree that Confetti's would be an excellent live music venue. You could have a stage set up were the dance floor is and there are already plenty of tables and other seating as well as places for people to dance and enjoy the music. Fox Harbor is a great live music venue in the summer when you can sit outside on the patio, but it would be nice to have a place were you could enjoy music year round.

I think I may have asked this question before, but the 10 million for a parking ramp? Is that for a new ramp on the mall site once it is demolished? Also, is the main street ramp going away along with the mall site?

Nativist

February 10th, 2009, 05:56 PM

Nativist

February 10th, 2009, 06:07 PM

And Confetti's, that's the old City Center Theater right? The one that used to be the Vic. For more recent transplants to town, it was a live music venue in the early 90's. I saw many wonderful rock shows there back in the day. Mostly punk rock: Fugazi, Soul Asylum (before "Runaway Train"), Wild Kingdom (great SKA band from Milwaukee, later became Citizen King), whenever a band was too big for the Concert Cafe on Main Street, the local promoter would book it in the City Center. The local music scene (at least as far as this kind of music went) has really declined since Rich Winker moved out of town. Rich was an amazing promoter. One of my favorite shows that he put together was Red Hot Chili Peppers at the Riverside Ballroom on their Mother's Milk tour.

jerkylips999

February 10th, 2009, 06:45 PM

I am staggered by the news of a Appleton-Green Bay bus route. If it takes off that would evidence a tested need for light rail. I cannot wait to try it. I only hope that the cost is perceived as reasonable.

I'm struggling to decide whether this is a good or bad thing. I agree that, on paper, it would be a perfect measuring stick for light rail. What I'm afraid of is the potential politicizing of it. I could see it turning into "we already have a bus system, why should we spend more money on light rail?" It seems like this could accelerate the progress of light rail, but I could see it actually slowing it down...

Nativist

February 10th, 2009, 07:52 PM

I'm hoping for, "See how successful the bus route is? Light rail would be much more economical in the long run." But then, I can never figure out why people are against the things that I'm for, which probably means I'm naive.

Danillo

February 10th, 2009, 08:29 PM

Recently I found a site called Stimulus Watch that has a list of spending projects in the current stimulus bill.

I don't think this is a list of things in the bill, but instead a list of requests for the bill. Good link nonetheless.

Word is the Frogs are concentrating on the Greenfield Site (Mason/Broadway) and Larsen Green and I can't imagine the Village of Ashwaubenon won't want to try and lure the Frogs away from downtown and closer to their entertainment district. Talk is as soon as 2011 and no later than 2012 which is when their lease at Joannes expires. The excitement and buzz this is going to create will be awesome..!! Green Bay so needs this..!!:applause:

Nice sales pitch. I, too, especially enjoyed the "better watch out for Ashwaubenon" portion. Well done. Honestly, I still think from an urban planning point of view Joannes is an almost ideal location.

I noticed the list didn't include any funding for any type of rail system. Only money for evil roads, buses & infrastructure. I added up the jobs that would "be created" & it came to about 1232 jobs for about $100 million.

...These are all just pet projects or infrastructure projects that are on the "to do" list by the city anyway. I could agree that a few projects on the list could spur development & help the economy. It just makes me sick thinking future generations will be stuck paying things like a detention pond....10 million to restore a library!? THATS CRAZY

Well, the library's pretty important. I don't know if it's a good item for this bill or not, as I don't know off hand what that $10 million will buy. In general, I think the stimulus should be spent on things that A) create jobs, B) require a minimum of future investment to keep up, C) help solve some other problem, and D) leave a durable legacy. Not that all four of those things can necessarily happen all at once. But take something like making buildings more energy efficient, even if it fails as a stimulus, it still reduces energy consumption and future government spending on energy, so it can't be a total waste. Same could be said for modernizing an older, existing school. It would create jobs to do that, but even if the economy doesn't turn around the school has still been made better. Road/rail projects, so long as they don't induce poor development patterns in the future, fit this too.

I would love to see the ramp be the home to a new grocery store.

I agree that a grocery would be nice (though there is Save-A-Lot), but I'm not sure the entire available space in the ramp is enough for one.

Tell that to the poor commuters backed up until the shell station going north or the poor guy who watches people cut in front of that car that leaves a 5 car length gap between himself and the car in front of him over and over again while they are stuck 3/4's of the way across the bridge going east at 5pm. Maybe the overcautious guy is exaggerated, but the backups I speak of are not.

I've been through there many times during rush hour coming from the south. A couple things to remember. First, that bridge intersection moved a block south, which also mover the congestion a block south. Second, there's a signal, what, 200 yards south of the roundabout? Grouping a signal and a roundabout that close together is not good form, and makes the backups worse than they need to be. Finally, I remember the situation there being even worse before the roundabout was there, and my guess is that a signal at the current intersection would be even worse still. Just because a roundabout has a backup does not mean that things are worst than they'd be without the roundabout, or that the roundabout has failed. I prefer it there.

Commuter buses connecting Green Bay and Appleton's downtowns could be running as soon as next year.

I could see it turning into "we already have a bus system, why should we spend more money on light rail?"

I'm hoping for, "See how successful the bus route is? Light rail would be much more economical in the long run."

I'd hope it would turn out like Nativist suggests, but I have a feeling it will be "proof" that public transit in that corridor can't work, for those who oppose public transit. As for me, I'll give it a try for sure.

And finally, a photo I took on Sunday, for those how don't get to see the work being done very often:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/cd1.jpg

Tower Park

February 10th, 2009, 08:58 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/200px-GB_Metro_logo.png

Here’s a second article in today’s Press-Gazette about Green Bay Metro. It mentions the possibility of opening a transit center in Ashwaubenon in addition to the one downtown, forming a Regional Transit Authority, expanding routes in Howard and Ashwaubenon and taking over paratransit.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090210/GPG0101/902100522/1207/GPG01

Fuel costs drain bus system budget
Regional route would help fund Green Bay Metro

BY TONY WALTER • TWALTER@GREENBAYPRESSGAZETTE.COM • FEBRUARY 10, 2009

Faced with the possible loss of more than a half-million dollars of federal aid for the Green Bay Metro bus system next year, the Brown County Planning Commission wants to start a regional transit group to help recoup that money.

"The transit is financially strapped at this point," said the county's principal planner, Cole Runge, who oversaw production of the 2009-2013 Transit Development Plan for the Green Bay Metro System. "This is a framework for expansion and we're not going to settle for the way it is."

A Regional Transit Authority would expand the income base by collecting fees from other municipalities because it would expand bus services to more areas of the county.

In addition to the Regional Transit Authority, the plan includes the possibility of a second bus hub in Ashwaubenon, the expansion of routes in the village of Howard, and the possible takeover of the paratransit program.

The paratransit program is contracted to private companies to transport people with disabilities. But the proposal indicates money could be saved if Green Bay Metro took over partial operation of the program.

The Green Bay Metro system operates out of a single hub at 901 University Ave.

The rising fuel costs are responsible for the system's financial problems, Runge said. Ridership has remained consistent, he said.

The state Legislature would have to create the regional group, and it would be autonomous with taxing and borrowing authority. It would require a minimum of two municipalities.

A hub in Ashwaubenon would help develop new bus routes and provide better bus service in the community, Runge said.

"The village thinks it makes sense," he said. "It would be an ideal location (along the proposed Ashwaubenon Development District). At this point, it's conceptual. The next step is to study it in more detail as Ashwaubenon's plans evolve."

After the public hearing, the Green Bay Transit Commission will review the development plan.

Tower Park

February 10th, 2009, 09:31 PM

Tonight, 6:30 pm, Howard Village Hall. Howard Community Development Authority public hearing on redevelopment plan for the Highway 29 corridor area west of Taylor Street and 41. The plan would take effect with the huge reconstruction of the 41/29 interchange in the upcoming 41 upgrade project. www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090210/GPG0101/902100532/1207/GPG01

Monday, 7 p.m., Green Bay City Hall. City Council discusses Military Avenue again. The city has its own webpage on the Military Avenue project: www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/MilitaryAve/index.html The Press-Gazette today editorially supports the reconsideration. The paper says hard data should trump emotion in the discussions and is supportive of roundabouts. But by reopening the debate, emotion will win out. www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090210/GPG0602/902100524/1269/GPG06

Wednesday, February 18, 5:30 p.m., Green Bay Transit Center. Public hearing on a draft 2009-13 Transit Development Plan for Green Bay Metro.

Tower Park

February 10th, 2009, 09:44 PM

The latest update. The Green Bay Plan Commission sends a draft ordinance back to staff for more work.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090210/GPG0101/902100537/1207/GPG01

MattGiguere

February 10th, 2009, 10:06 PM

Let’s say that you had $50,000,000 to spend on projects in Green Bay. What project or projects would you help to move along and why? How would you allocate your fortune? In other words, in your opinion what should be the ‘priority list’ for the currently proposed projects?
This could be anything included in the stimulus proposal, riverfront development projects, our skyscraper fantasies, etc.
What I’m interested to find out is what we think is to be determined priority and what is not. What should be viewed as short term and long term?

Night Rider

February 10th, 2009, 10:07 PM

The latest update. The Green Bay Plan Commission sends a draft ordinance back to staff for more work.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090210/GPG0101/902100537/1207/GPG01

I wish they (city council members) would put 1/4 of the effort in dealing with the current slumlords renting out places everywhere else in the city. Once they figure out to clean up the existing problem with rentals they can give advice on these "party house" rentals that currently create very few, if any, problems in the neighborhood they are in.

I see Vander-Beast filed a million dollar federal lawsuit against the city. Shouldn't he step down as a alderman? What a moron!

Tower Park

February 10th, 2009, 10:49 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/images-1.jpg

One more post. Sorry. The Allouez-Bellevue Press newspaper announces in a page-one article in its new February issue that Walmart plans to break ground this spring on a project to enlarge and renovate its Main Street store. Illustrations accompanying the story show a quite handsome store, with earth-tone colors, varied exterior masonry construction, arched and semi-arched rooflines and facades, decorative canopies and new signage. If you can believe this, the renovated store almost looks like Barnes & Noble in Ashwaubenon. From the article (which is not online):

“Indeed the store is a change from the original prison gray walls of the existing store. The new plans call for brighter earth tone colors and much, much more green area.” (Gotta love the “prison gray” description.) Says a Village of Bellevue official, “As you can see there isn’t just one big, huge parking lot.”

The Main Street store property straddles the Green Bay/Bellevue border. As I recall, Walmart had planned last year to build another east Green Bay store, I think in the Humboldt Road vicinity. But it changed plans with the economy, as I remember, and decided in the alternative, it seems, to enlarge and renovate its Main Street store instead. The article says the store will be enlarged from 116,000 square feet to 154,000 square feet.

Nativist

February 10th, 2009, 11:24 PM

I'm not a big fan of WalMart, but I guess I can get behind something that makes it slightly less ugly.

Tower Park

February 11th, 2009, 12:41 AM

avissers

February 11th, 2009, 02:35 AM

I’m not a fan of Walmart either. It’s killed off or damaged many a downtown (among other issues I have with the company). But, as we like to say, in a society obsessed with supersizing, it is what it is.

To its credit, Walmart in 2005 did launch a major plan company-wide for sustainability and “going green.” Maybe the Green Bay store renovations fit with those plans, in both appearance and operation. On paper, the renovated store and its site plan certainly look like a big improvement from the other Walmarts in this market.

www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/02/02/new-wal-mart-ceo

Staff from both the City of Green Bay and the Village of Bellevue worked very hard along with Wal-Mart reps to bring this site up to standards that we have in both municipal zoning codes of today. It isn't perfect and had some opposition, but it is a huge improvement over what is currently there. There are a number of things that will be "green" in the renovated store, however a significant portion of the store will be utilized, so a number of things will not be able to be incorporated. Issues such as a significant amount of additional landscaping will be added in the parking lot (huge improvement), better lighting and advanced technolgy to combat criminal acts, more defined pedestrian features (such as sidewalks, defined bus shelter, benches, and bike racks) and the elevations are probably the best looking in this area. I think both communities will welcome these changes and hope that the thought of continued investment in this area (as was promised when this store was built in 1992) will follow this renovation and expansion. In this economy (like Wal-Mart or not) continued investment in our communities is key (retaining/adding jobs and no vacant building as they move down the street are points of interest).

Still keeping fingers crossed for a vibrant downtown and a strong metro area that we can all be proud of.

Danillo

February 11th, 2009, 02:58 AM

Hey! An AVissers sighting!

Let’s say that you had $50,000,000 to spend on projects in Green Bay. What project or projects would you help to move along and why? How would you allocate your fortune? In other words, in your opinion what should be the ‘priority list’ for the currently proposed projects?
This could be anything included in the stimulus proposal, riverfront development projects, our skyscraper fantasies, etc.
What I’m interested to find out is what we think is to be determined priority and what is not. What should be viewed as short term and long term?

I could give a whole long thesis on this, but I won't. The short answer is I'd invest. For that kind of money, you could have made Astor Place happen, you could have made River Center (and the good version of River Center at that!) happen, you could have made the Grand Union happen. Maybe not all at once, but with that sort of cash one would be able to be like Dudley was in Wausau, and turn a profit in the process.

hckystr42

February 11th, 2009, 05:10 AM

Maybe not all at once, but with that sort of cash one would be able to be like Dudley was in Wausau, and turn a profit in the process.

Is there anyone in GB with that kind of cash. Schneider? Any others?

Nativist

February 11th, 2009, 06:55 AM

Are the Lutseys still around?

Tower Park

February 11th, 2009, 07:11 PM

Staff from both the City of Green Bay and the Village of Bellevue worked very hard along with Wal-Mart reps to bring this site up to standards that we have in both municipal zoning codes of today. It isn't perfect and had some opposition, but it is a huge improvement over what is currently there. There are a number of things that will be "green" in the renovated store, however a significant portion of the store will be utilized, so a number of things will not be able to be incorporated. Issues such as a significant amount of additional landscaping will be added in the parking lot (huge improvement), better lighting and advanced technolgy to combat criminal acts, more defined pedestrian features (such as sidewalks, defined bus shelter, benches, and bike racks) and the elevations are probably the best looking in this area. I think both communities will welcome these changes and hope that the thought of continued investment in this area (as was promised when this store was built in 1992) will follow this renovation and expansion. In this economy (like Wal-Mart or not) continued investment in our communities is key (retaining/adding jobs and no vacant building as they move down the street are points of interest).

Still keeping fingers crossed for a vibrant downtown and a strong metro area that we can all be proud of.

Nice post and nice going. Thanks for the interesting background information.

Geography Teacher

February 11th, 2009, 07:37 PM

Financing 'close' for downtown development
Green Bay officials assert commitment to waterfront projects
By Nathan Phelps • nphelps@greenbaypressgazette.com • February 11, 2009

Developer John Vetter said he continues to work on securing financing and hopes to start work on a portion of planned downtown development this spring.

Vetter met with Green Bay's Redevelopment Authority Tuesday afternoon in a 30-minute closed session.

Part of Vetter Denk's waterfront development, under the name WaterMark, is expected to combine retail, commercial and residential space along the Fox River.

The first phase of the project is focused on the Children's Museum and Hagermeister Park Restaurant.

"We're working on phase one financing," Vetter said after leaving the meeting. "It's going well, we're getting very close.

"The real encouraging news is we have a commitment from (the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority) on a portion of the project to help with the financing," he said.

Vetter added they are "close" to financing agreements with a couple banks.

"We're still planning for a spring construction start," Vetter said.

About 25,000 of 35,000 square feet of available retail space has been sold, he said.

City officials said they are committed to the project, which is getting under way in a challenging financial market.

"We're looking at our options regarding financing this project that my administration, the RDA and the City Council are committed to," Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt said, after leaving the meeting. "We've focused our energies on the WaterMark, which includes the Children's Museum, Hagermeister … retail and parking.

"It's a matter of getting the right financing," he said. "We're getting close."

Great News!!! If it was 2005... :wallbash:

Every downtown article or WBAY story has sounded exactly the same for a couple of years now. "We're getting close... we have some of the financing... we've sold some of the space..."

Tower Park

February 11th, 2009, 09:01 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/10642127.jpghttp://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/bilde-3.jpg

The City of De Pere has received a $35,000 grant to study options for preserving the former locktender’s house on Government Island on the Fox River downtown. Possibilities could include turning the building into a maritime museum or a bed-and-breakfast. Next year De Pere plans to build a walkway, an observation/fishing pier and, it seems, a pedestrian bridge on the island to connect with nearby Voyageur Park.

The locktender’s house was built in 1912 (or 1936, depending on differing sources of information) next to the De Pere Lock and is on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the De Pere Lock and Dam Historic District. It’s been vacant for decades and is now owned by the state. The De Pere Lock is one of 17 locks originally built on the lower Fox in the 1800s for commercial boats navigating between Green Bay and Lake Winnebago. The lock today is operated during the summer boating season by the Fox River Navigational System Authority. Several locks and lock sites on the lower Fox have been restored and repaired in recent years.

Above photo at left by “crevier” and above photo at right by Evan Siegle of the Press-Gazette.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090211/GPG0101/902110658/1207/GPG01

www.cornerstonepreservation.com/appleton.html

www.wisgov.state.wi.us/appointments_detail.asp?boardid=49

Night Rider

February 12th, 2009, 12:58 AM

Every downtown article or WBAY story has sounded exactly the same for a couple of years now. "We're getting close... we have some of the financing... we've sold some of the space..."

Your exactly right, if the standards were the same for a CEO of a private company & a public mayor, things would be different. A CEO would be fired for making repeated false statements over & over & over..... A Mayor can just make excuses & blame others.

hejzehole

February 12th, 2009, 01:05 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGFN_pxbeJ0

Night Rider

February 12th, 2009, 01:10 AM

Don't waste your time on the youtube video above. Just some spammer who went into a bunch of forums to post his boring video.

IndyYeah

February 12th, 2009, 03:10 AM

Brett retired again... You think it will last?

jerkylips999

February 12th, 2009, 08:11 AM

Brett retired again... You think it will last?

yes, because he sucked so bad this year. I think that his going to the jets was more about proving ted thompson wrong than it was his well-documented "love of the game". In the end, despite all of the detractors, he proved that ted made the correct decision.

Tower Park

February 12th, 2009, 10:16 PM

Interesting article on JSonline about Milwaukee population projections through 2035.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/37416959.html

The report that JSonline uses for the estimates is from state demographer David Egan-Robertson and his report is about other areas of the state as well. Brown County is expected to have an increase of 40% in its population (90,387 more people) between 2000 and 2035, page 21 in the report. Below is a link to the pdf report.

http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docview.asp?locid=9&docid=2108

Thanks for the post. Looking over the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s recent “Wisconsin Population 2035” report you cite, Green Bay’s population is projected to grow from 103,000 in 2000 to 119,000 in 2030. Brown County’s population is anticipated to grow from 227,000 in 2000 to 317,000 in 2035.

The report expects Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha and Appleton to be Wisconsin’s largest cities by 2030, with Appleton replacing Racine as the fifth largest. Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown and Outagamie would be the largest counties by 2035, with Outagamie replacing Racine County as the fifth largest.

Among the ten projected fastest growing counties in terms of percentage growth are Calumet, which is increasingly becoming suburban Appleton, and Oconto, which is increasingly becoming far suburban Green Bay (at least in the south — it's a tall county).

(For some reason, the DOA report projects county populations to 2035 but city populations only to 2030.)

Tower Park

February 13th, 2009, 01:13 AM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/attractions_main.jpg

You know, the WaterMark project perhaps could be closer to construction — finally — than once thought. The reason? The federal stimulus bill.

If you look at the recent posts by nowpc2 and Night Rider, included among Green Bay’s requests for stimulus funding is $3.5 million for the Children’s Museum. The nonprofit Children’s Museum and the adjoining Hagemeister Park Restaurant make up phase I of WaterMark. Developer John Vetter has indicated he hopes construction on phase I can begin this spring and he’s working on shoring up financing. I know, I know he’s said similar things before. But I wouldn't be surprised if Vetter Denk right now were furiously working on architectural plans for the Children’s Museum (and the restaurant), so the project could be shovel-ready to go if stimulus money comes through. Just thinkin’.

There are many other projects included in Green Bay’s stimulus request that haven't been publicly identified before. I know this is just a wish list. But perhaps here in Green Bay we’re in for a few surprises in upcoming weeks and months after the stimulus legislation gets its final approval from Congress and is signed into law within the next three or four days.

www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Green%20Bay/WI

Puant

February 13th, 2009, 01:56 AM

But I wouldn't be surprised if Vetter Denk right now were furiously working on architectural plans for the Children’s Museum ...

I hate to be "that guy" again but....here goes:

WHAT architecture??? It's a PARKING RAMP that they'll stick a children's museum into the ground level of it. Not much "design" that I can see...Slap up the prefab concret slabs for the ramp....

If we can get a "bailout" I wish we could bail out of these plans and get something better. This is an important corner right in the downtown, and this thing will not be "prized" by anyone from a looks standpoint. Now granted, I WANT a Children's Museum more than anyone...But a parking ramp museum? No.

jerkylips999

February 13th, 2009, 02:20 AM

I hate to be "that guy" again but....here goes:

WHAT architecture??? It's a PARKING RAMP that they'll stick a children's museum into the ground level of it. Not much "design" that I can see...Slap up the prefab concret slabs for the ramp....

If we can get a "bailout" I wish we could bail out of these plans and get something better. This is an important corner right in the downtown, and this thing will not be "prized" by anyone from a looks standpoint. Now granted, I WANT a Children's Museum more than anyone...But a parking ramp museum? No.

not to mention, the children's museum has been in the works for how many years? they didn't have a building design yet?

mgk920

February 13th, 2009, 03:39 AM

Thanks for the post. Looking over the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s recent “Wisconsin Population 2035” report you cite, Green Bay’s population is projected to grow from 103,000 in 2000 to 119,000 in 2030. Brown County’s population is anticipated to grow from 227,000 in 2000 to 317,000 in 2035.

The report expects Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha and Appleton to be Wisconsin’s largest cities by 2030, with Appleton replacing Racine as the fifth largest. Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown and Outagamie would be the largest counties by 2035, with Outagamie replacing Racine County as the fifth largest.

Among the ten projected fastest growing counties in terms of percentage growth are Calumet, which is increasingly becoming suburban Appleton, and Oconto, which is increasingly becoming far suburban Green Bay (at least in the south — it's a tall county).

(For some reason, the DOA report projects county populations to 2035 but city populations only to 2030.)
Keep in mind that, from what I can tell, these municipal rank projections are assuming constant borders and that at least here in the Appleton area, the potential does exist for some major changes within the next couple of decades. For example, if Grand Chute Township (now about 25K) were to merge with Appleton (now about 72K, projected to be about 84K in 2030), that alone would likely push Appleton's 2030 projection to about 120-125K, making it the third most populous city in the state. It would already be fourth at about 97K (Y2K USCensus) if the two munis were one city.

Mike

araman0

February 13th, 2009, 04:12 AM

Puant

February 13th, 2009, 05:04 AM

I'd also like to mention that I was contacted by Channel 5 about the "brownfield of dreams" stadium idea. I declined to do any sort of interview for them, but I think news of some sort will break shortly...

Night Rider

February 13th, 2009, 05:20 AM

Why no interview? What better way to promote the cause?!! Or are you tied up filming the Geico commercials?

Puant

February 13th, 2009, 05:32 AM

They wanted me to take KITT off of the renders, you know, because Knight Rider was an NBC show, they refused to show it on CBS. I said NO WAY, KITT STAYS

mgk920

February 13th, 2009, 05:38 AM

^^ Has there been any talk (outside this forum) of that merger actually happening? I know GC already uses other Appleton resources such as schools and fire, but does that mean a merger is more likely?
I cannot see things stopping should the pending city-township police merger be completed. The township has also sent feelers to the city in recent years regarding shared or merged fire services and they already buy water, transit and some public works services (ie, traffic signal maintenance) from the city.

The township has been doing some heavy soul-searching in recent years because they are no longer the quaint, rural tax island area that they were years ago and their urban service needs and responsibilities are real, growing and are costing them real money - and these are all services that the city already provides within its own borders.

Mike

Tower Park

February 13th, 2009, 05:34 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/annexa_preble.jpg

Keep in mind that, from what I can tell, these municipal rank projections are assuming constant borders and that at least here in the Appleton area, the potential does exist for some major changes within the next couple of decades. For example, if Grand Chute Township (now about 25K) were to merge with Appleton (now about 72K, projected to be about 84K in 2030), that alone would likely push Appleton's 2030 projection to about 120-125K, making it the third most populous city in the state. It would already be fourth at about 97K (Y2K USCensus) if the two munis were one city.

Mike

Seems to me if Grand Chute did merge with Appleton at some point in the future, it would be bucking a state trend. By and large, I think, suburban communities are not consolidating with the bigger central cities in Wisconsin any more. It has to do with things like taxes and community pride and identity. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The last time something like this happened in Green Bay were the 1950s and 1960s, when Preble and much of Hobart consolidated with the city. (See City of Green Bay map above.) The annexations more than doubled the physical size of Green Bay and kicked up its population, if memory serves, by more than 15,000. As late as the 1970s, there were discussions and local newspaper articles about the possibility of Allouez also consolidating with the city.

But those days are over. I'm guessing the most we’ll see around here now is a border adjustment or realignment from time to time, but no wholesale annexations or consolidations of communities with Green Bay. (The Town of Scott on the city's northeast border perhaps could be an exception to the rule.)

Maybe, though, Grand Chute eventually will turn out differently, since it already uses some and apparently is expanding its use of Appleton’s services. You’re right, a consolidation of those two municipalities could in time propel Appleton past Green Bay as Wisconsin’s third largest city.

www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/mayors_past/mayor_denissen_o.html

Green Bay Sponge

February 15th, 2009, 12:31 AM

They wanted me to take KITT off of the renders, you know, because Knight Rider was an NBC show, they refused to show it on CBS. I said NO WAY, KITT STAYS

Why didn't you just have it shown on NBC26 instead?

Night Rider

February 15th, 2009, 01:32 AM

Why didn't you just have it shown on NBC26 instead?

Puant...Talked with Kitt & he gave you the go ahead to talk to any station. He's not miffed being yanked out of the "brownfield of dreams" design. :)

mgk920

February 15th, 2009, 06:36 AM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/annexa_preble.jpg

Seems to me if Grand Chute did merge with Appleton at some point in the future, it would be bucking a state trend. By and large, I think, suburban communities are not consolidating with the bigger central cities in Wisconsin any more. It has to do with things like taxes and community pride and identity. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The last time something like this happened in Green Bay were the 1950s and 1960s, when Preble and much of Hobart consolidated with the city. (See City of Green Bay map above.) The annexations more than doubled the physical size of Green Bay and kicked up its population, if memory serves, by more than 15,000. As late as the 1970s, there were discussions and local newspaper articles about the possibility of Allouez also consolidating with the city.

But those days are over. I'm guessing the most we’ll see around here now is a border adjustment or realignment from time to time, but no wholesale annexations or consolidations of communities with Green Bay. (The Town of Scott on the city's northeast border perhaps could be an exception to the rule.)

Maybe, though, Grand Chute eventually will turn out differently, since it already uses some and apparently is expanding its use of Appleton’s services. You’re right, a consolidation of those two municipalities could in time propel Appleton past Green Bay as Wisconsin’s third largest city.

www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/mayors_past/mayor_denissen_o.html
There are two townships in the Madison area that have boundary agreements with the City of Madison that have them incrementally joining the city in their entirety over the next decade or so, both were approved during the late 1990s. They are Madison and Blooming Grove Townships. The UW Arboretum passed into the city from Madison Township about ten years or so ago as part of that pact.

Mike

Tower Park

February 16th, 2009, 10:27 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/basemap.jpg

FYI. Here's a map of Madison's borders. Makes Green Bay look clean by comparison.

araman0

February 17th, 2009, 12:28 AM

FYI. Here's a map of Madison's borders. Makes Green Bay look clean by comparison.

Thanks for the picture Tower. Where did you get that from?

Tower Park

February 17th, 2009, 01:22 AM

gis.ci.madison.wi.us/MADMAPS/GISHome.html

mgk920

February 17th, 2009, 07:07 AM

^^
How old is that map of Madison? Most of what was Madison Township on that map is now in the City of Madison while Nine Springs Park, shown in Madison in that map was transferred to suburban Fitchburg a few years back as part of a boundary agreement land swap.

The newest map that I know of is the very good street map that the city has produced and distributed in paper form for many years, now available at:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/engineering/documents/StreetMaps/Madison_StreetMap.pdf
or an easier to read version at:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/engineering/documents/Madison_Map.pdf
They were last updated just over a year ago.

Mike

Night Rider

February 17th, 2009, 01:05 PM

Looks like the roundabouts are still a go. They even brought in a out of state attorney (who is blind) and basically threatened to sue the city if they went ahead with the plan. I really have no respect for these hired guns that go all over the country looking for a fight. If he has a issue with his hometown & he files a suit, fine. Just don't come to our city, or our state, and tell us what to do! His opinion is appreciated, but the threat of a lawsuit rubs the wrong way!!!!

jerkylips999

February 17th, 2009, 04:51 PM

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090217/GPG03/902170474

They've been talking about expanding the KI Center for a couple years now, maybe this will push it into action!!

On this topic, at one point it was mentioned that they could add a 2nd floor to the KI Center. We were talking about the feasibility of building up vs. out at Nicolet Bank, so it makes me wonder if that's really an option for the KI? If the problem is that they have events that are too big for the current facilities, I don't really see how building something separate from the KI center would help. If I'm at a convention, I don't want to go to one building for some events & then go outside/across the street/etc. to another event.

this is really off the cuff, but I wonder if there would be any consideration for leveling coaches corner & building onto the current KI center (would eliminate that street) & connect to both Hotel Sierra AND Holiday Inn?

GBSurveyor

February 17th, 2009, 08:28 PM

I was wondering if anyone wanted to switch subjects and maybe talk about what we like about this area? I can hardly read the P-G, I truthfully think that almost everyone that comments is a moron. I know that even here we tend to disagree about the roundabouts, I really like them but am concearned about the pedestrian. I think that the number one traffic complaint I have is sitting at a red light, there should never be anytime where no one is moving. I drive E. Mason all the time and cannot stand how the traffic lights are setup. I pretty much think that the lights are set up just to piss me off. I know that they are not but sometime I get that feeling. Well I am compaining, another thing that drives me nuts is all the talk of the majority of the people support 6 lanes and traffic lights. Are you kidding me, that is the worst setup I can think of, oh wait I think that the corner of Lombardi and Military may be the worst, in any case, maybe if there were some destinations on Military more people will travel there? I think If I ever went to the west side I might go to the Starbucks, but there really isn't anything there that the younger crowd wants, maybe if it was still 1960. I dont know.

Tower Park

February 17th, 2009, 08:45 PM

Make sure your sound is on. www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mHPmNKRE

Chicagoenvy

February 18th, 2009, 12:50 AM

jerkylips999

February 18th, 2009, 05:39 PM

Is the KI being too small a result of the city being cheap and conservative?

Couldn't they blow the mall up and use all of that land for the KI and run an elevated plaza over Main St to connect with the original structure?

The KI is a wonderful thing yet,once again we have a case of 1 step forward 2 steps back with this city.

No foresight as to how things are going to work together.

Oh,lets just stick that there and we'll deal with space issues in 12 years when we get to it.

http://i42.tinypic.com/25hpwl1.png

Interesting you say that because it reminded me of something similiar that I saw in Louisville this year. They have a huge convention center that takes up multiple city blocks. The 2nd level spans the street, so that the street is covered for the entire block. Something like that WOULD work with the KI Center, except that I believe the plan is to keep the existing ramp, & that's where it would need to cross the street...

titletown

February 18th, 2009, 06:15 PM

Can they build this Kroc Center?? My God how long does it fricken take. I have been waiting for years to see this built. The Salvation Army is something else...

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090218/GPG0101/902180670/1206/GPG01

Tower Park

February 18th, 2009, 06:31 PM

Some updated information on the Military Avenue roundabouts:

1. The mayor says the deadline has passed for him to veto the City Council's original vote supporting roundabouts.
2. The mayor says he does not have the legal authority to veto Monday night’s reconsideration vote, which (surprising to me) reaffirmed the original vote.
3. Opponents say they’ll force a referendum vote to block bonding of $10 million to finance the city’s portion of the Military Avenue project.
4. Opponents say they have 30 days from the publication by the city of a “notice of intent to borrow” to gather signatures for the referendum. They say they would need about 3,500 signatures of city residents to force a referendum.
5. Opponents want the mayor to request the bonding now so the issue could go to referendum this year instead of next year and not delay any Military Avenue construction.
6. The mayor says a delay could jeopardize $2.4 million in federal funding for the project.
7. The mayor says he hasn’t decided what to do
8. In an earlier on-line version of its story on Monday night’s Council vote reaffirming roundabouts, the Press-Gazette quoted the mayor as saying that “the council did its homework….I’m going to respect your decision.” But in today’s paper, the Press-Gazette paraphrases the mayor as saying “the possibility of a referendum means the entire issue hasn’t been resolved.”

The Press-Gazette editorially today says the Council has made its decision and the city should move forward. Referring to the Michigan attorney who spoke against the roundabouts at Monday’s meeting and implied legal action, the editorial says, “It's ironic that the same core of aldermen who oppose the roundabouts were in the middle of the City Hall nativity scene debate, where they were offended that an out-of-town group would stick its nose into our city's affairs and threaten a lawsuit.”

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090218/GPG0101/902180667/1207/GPG01

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090218/GPG0602/902180668/1269/GPG06

Night Rider

February 18th, 2009, 07:15 PM

Night Rider

February 18th, 2009, 07:30 PM

Some updated information on the Military Avenue roundabouts:

1. The mayor says the deadline has passed for him to veto the City Council's original vote supporting roundabouts.
2. The mayor says he does not have the legal authority to veto Monday night’s reconsideration vote, which (surprising to me) reaffirmed the original vote.
3. Opponents say they’ll force a referendum vote to block bonding of $10 million to finance the city’s portion of the Military Avenue project.
4. Opponents say they have 30 days from the publication by the city of a “notice of intent to borrow” to gather signatures for the referendum. They say they would need about 3,500 signatures of city residents to force a referendum.
5. Opponents want the mayor to request the bonding now so the issue could go to referendum this year instead of next year and not delay any Military Avenue construction.
6. The mayor says a delay could jeopardize $2.4 million in federal funding for the project.
7. The mayor says he hasn’t decided what to do
8. In an earlier on-line version of its story on Monday night’s Council vote reaffirming roundabouts, the Press-Gazette quoted the mayor as saying that “the council did its homework….I’m going to respect your decision.” But in today’s paper, the Press-Gazette paraphrases the mayor as saying “the possibility of a referendum means the entire issue hasn’t been resolved.”

Wouldn't it be nice if the mayor had the kahunas to take a stand and quit riding both sides of the fence.

http://public-domain.zorger.com/more-nonsense/cartoon-bucket-on-head-sitting-on-the-fence-undecided.gif

Tower Park

February 18th, 2009, 08:20 PM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/bilde-4.jpghttp://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/DSCN1048.jpghttp://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/1.jpg

One of the half-dozen premier downtown churches is highlighted by the PG: St. Francis Xavier Cathedral (Catholic), home church of the Diocese of Green Bay. Built 1876-79, consecrated 1881, towers with five bells completed 1904. Reportedly made with one million red bricks. Stone cut from the Duck Creek Quarry. Front entrance appears altered from the original. Modeled after a Munich church. Style is Romanesque Revival. Stained-glass windows. Masses there said in German until World War I. Open to the public. Has its own museum, I believe, in a contemporary addition on its north side. Photo above left by Warren Gerds, Press-Gazette. Photo above center courtesy Packerland Annals at packerland.blogspot.com. Photo above right courtesy Brown County Historical Society.

www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090218/GPG04/902180709/1907/GPG05

Tower Park

February 18th, 2009, 08:28 PM

http://public-domain.zorger.com/more-nonsense/cartoon-bucket-on-head-sitting-on-the-fence-undecided.gif

Great image.

Nativist

February 18th, 2009, 10:32 PM

Night Rider

February 18th, 2009, 10:50 PM

You guys should really look into it before you start criticizing the SA about the Kroc center, especially Night Rider. Don't be an a$$hole. They've been chomping at the bit to break ground for well over a year now, but have been held up by the DNR.

I made a general comment about the process taking awhile. It was more of a joke/play on words. I have no clue what the delay is & I really don't care that much. If it's the DNR then shame on them for dragging their feet. Now someone from the DNR can post a comment that I should do more research saying it's another agency holding it up. If you're upset about the "stimulus" comment, give me a break.

Nativist

February 18th, 2009, 11:43 PM

We are talking about some seriously well-motivated people who have been held at a stand still for over a year by endless site reviews and environmental impact studies, and you're just poking fun at them with obscenities and suggesting that they're lined up for public money. If you don't know anything about the situation, and don't care to, then why err on the side of mean-spirited jokes?

Tower Park

February 19th, 2009, 05:00 AM

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/goetscha/center.jpg

I hadn’t heard before that DNR review was holding up the Kroc center. I thought the delay had to do with fund-raising falling short, to the point that the Salvation Army had decided essentially to eliminate the ice-center part of the facility. With the latest donation, though, the ice center may be back in the works, eventually. The Kroc center strikes me as a huge facility and quite an undertaking for the local Salvation Army. The architecture looks plain, but it's a great addition to the neighborhood for east-side youth.

Nativist

February 19th, 2009, 05:29 PM

The Kroc center is a pretty unusual situation. Joan Kroc (who had been married to the man behind McDonald's) left a legacy of several hundred million dollars. Some of this money was made available in the form of grants meant for the construction of community centers. Majors Bob and Ruth Fay (the local SA leaders) applied for this grant and were selected out of many hundreds to receive 30 million dollars for this construction. I don't know about problems with fundraising, I imagine that either their budget came in over a little over 30 million, or the delays had cost them money so that they could no longer do what they had had in mind. The additional 10 million from the Kroc Foundation should put them back on track.

Now, I don't have a religious bone in my body, but I've come to know the Fays pretty well, and I believe they are entitled to respect because they deserve it. They are some of the kindest, most compassionate people I've ever met; they make a tremendous difference in this community. The Kroc center is going to be amazing, with or without an ice rink, and it's a shame that it's taken this long. No one is more frustrated than Bob and Ruth. It should be up and running by now.

I think that Joan Kroc also left several hundred million for NPR too. It's funny to think that the bulk of the McDonalds fortune ended up going to SA community centers and NPR.

Night Rider

February 20th, 2009, 08:17 PM

I see squiggy was on the news in Washington. He was talking about how all these projects are shovel ready and he had no funding for, he will now be able to start. He didn't elaborate on the specific projects. Maybe he'll pay for the roundabouts & avoid the possible referendum on bonding. :nuts:

Badgers77

February 21st, 2009, 08:48 PM

I just realized Green Bay has more "development posts" than any other thread currently on this board. Is Green Bay booming?

Jschmuck

February 21st, 2009, 08:59 PM

:grouphug:Mentally its booming, mentally...

Fillmore

February 21st, 2009, 09:42 PM

GBSurveyor

February 21st, 2009, 10:40 PM

I just realized Green Bay has more "development posts" than any other thread currently on this board. Is Green Bay booming?

To answer your question- I think that Green Bay just lacks all the qualities of most cities and it is so bad here there are just a ton of people who really want shit to change, but we all seem to know that Green Bay may never change, thats the way it has always been, so even though we may have a ton of posts it not really all about the actual realization of buiding, rather then the desire to see stuff happen. If that makes any sense.:cheers:

GBSurveyor

February 21st, 2009, 10:47 PM

Hey Guys,
Does anyone have the latest pics of dt GB, specifically the boardwalk and WM developments? I'm thinking about purchasing a unit at WM, but am unsure whether or not it will ever take off, like Astor Place.

Just think back to 2000, if you were in the area, it hasn't changed that much...

Most of the boardwalk work to this point has been below grade structural work and WM well nothing has happened there, maybe now that the stimulus has been passed some money may trickle down to build the children's museum and or the demolition of the mall.

Oh and another important development is the possible moratorium on Bars downtown. Now that is progress

Badgers77

February 21st, 2009, 11:18 PM

To answer your question- I think that Green Bay just lacks all the qualities of most cities and it is so bad here there are just a ton of people who really want shit to change, but we all seem to know that Green Bay may never change, thats the way it has always been, so even though we may have a ton of posts it not really all about the actual realization of buiding, rather then the desire to see stuff happen. If that makes any sense.:cheers:

Except to a degree the Madison thread, I definitely know what you mean. It's a Wisconsin thing.

And sooner or later it will change.

araman0

February 22nd, 2009, 06:13 AM

To answer your question- I think that Green Bay just lacks all the qualities of most cities and it is so bad here there are just a ton of people who really want shit to change, but we all seem to know that Green Bay may never change, thats the way it has always been, so even though we may have a ton of posts it not really all about the actual realization of buiding, rather then the desire to see stuff happen. If that makes any sense.:cheers:

I've always thought that downtown Green Bay has done very well for itself over the past few years. Sometimes it’s tough to live in a city and reflect on all the change since you see the city every day. But from what I've seen, downtown Green Bay has changed dramatically since 2004, and that change will only continue after the economy picks up.

Puant

February 22nd, 2009, 07:42 AM

I just realized Green Bay has more "development posts" than any other thread currently on this board. Is Green Bay booming?

No but I see so much potential.

2 things keep me interested:

*Downtown GB's former glory and what's still present (some remnants and a good 'framework')

*the interest and pent-up demand for a decent downtown.

DTGB could very well be a cool place again, someday, if we can organize ourselves and do this right.

Night Rider

February 22nd, 2009, 09:53 PM

Puant, here is one of your posting from a prior thread dated March of 2006.

Here's to hoping that by the time THIS thread is retired:
Astor Place is built
The riverfront boardwalk is complete
Site 4 has a tower as tall or taller than Astor Place
The mall has been transformed into something useful
River Center is complete and vibrant
I can get a friggin cup of decent coffee on the east side of the river
There are more decent places to eat drink and be merry

Maybe something big will also be happening in the stadium area. What ever happened to those buildings they planned for Bart Starr Drive / Reggie White Way, etc?

We are still debating the same stuff we were debating three years ago. The thread you posted in was retired. I guess the last two things (not including the stadium comments) you wished for you could argue has happened. But those two weren't really anything big. You guys have been arguing the same thing year after year, & overall, things aren't really happening. The things that are happening are taking place at a blistering slow pace. But in three more years you all (& maybe me) will be here still begging & hoping for some progress.

What are the chances a building will be built on site 4 & astor place lot in the next three years? I'm not holding my breath!