Green Bay Development News [Archive] - Page 2

Green Bay 4 Life

January 4th, 2007, 09:10 PM

Wasn't construction supposed to start like a month after the announcement?

I am still waiting for the officall groundbreaking for either River Center or Astor Place, it sure would be nice to get something started.

Has anyone head any news about the Larson Canning complex? It was talked about for a while and then it just died. I am wondering how On Broadway can actually purchase the property, isn't their income supported by the BID? or is it really the city backing the financing with some sort of loan? If anyone knows I would appreciate it.

Also since you brought up biting the dust...What ever happened to the Broadway Loft project proposed by Gorman? Has anyone heard an official announcment on whether that project is still on or has it been shelved?

Yes, the developer said construction would start soon after approvals. Again, that would be dependant on securing financing and enough sales contracts in order to go forward. That takes time in this market, as I'm sure we are all aware of based on Astor Place... The Lambeau condo's developer said they too would start at the end of the year, but as of yet only 5 units have been reserved. I don't think the projects are dead by any means or have bit the dust, it is taking more time than previously expected...

As far as the Larsen Canning Complex. There is a rezoning scheduled to be considered by the Plan Commission on the 8th of January for the property. Maybe something will come from that. The On Broadway, Inc. web site does say that the group will facilitate the development, and that the purchase of the site is contingent upon financing, which OBI is currently pursuing through the City of Green Bay. It won't happen all at one time, so as projects get announced, I'm sure there will more than likely be assistance sought from the City.

The Gorman project on Broadway near Arndt Street (south) has been shelved. They did not get approval for the state credits for housing like River Center did. Thus, the site was rezoned, but the project is basically dead.

Good News for Green Bay there is another candidate for mayor, Alderman Gary Kriescher, let's hope schmitt is a one term mayor.

It would be interesting to hear how you feel the current administration has failed and what the platform is of the challanger that you feel will be a good change for the City. Care to elaborate?

sr22ger

January 4th, 2007, 09:31 PM

It would be interesting to hear how you feel the current administration has failed and what the platform is of the challanger that you feel will be a good change for the City. Care to elaborate?

I am also curious about gbm's views on Mayor Schmitt. I view the mayor as progressive and forward thinking, and he has been a wonderful catalyst for downtown. Even if some of the proposed recent projects turn out to fail, he has none the least brought attention to the area and what needs to be done.

Hopefully gbm's gripe with mayor schmitt is on issues other than downtown and for that I cannot comment because I am not sure about his policies on taxes, police, ethics, etc.

gbmphillips

January 4th, 2007, 10:30 PM

Its really just a personal issue. He has a very arrogant air about him, I think the way he has handled downtown has been ok, but I don't think one person should have been given free reign to all of the major projects, especially now that we see the waffle that seems to becoming from that developer. But its just something about the mayors personality that makes my skin crawl, I felt that from the time he announced he was running last time and just continues today. I don't really trust him.

downtownVital.org

January 5th, 2007, 12:30 AM

^^ I like the Mayor personally, I think he's a good guy and has done a pretty good job promoting growth but keeping within a budget. At the same time, he has a very aggressive personality, and I can see where people would get a used car salesman vibe from him (no offense to car salesmen, it's just a stereotype).

I think it's healthy to have a choice in an election, so I suppose having Kriescher run is good for democracy. But Kriescher? I can't imagine how he'd be effective as Mayor. I've met him a couple of times, and he doesn't seem like a bad guy or anything, but I just can't see how he'd grow the city or effectivly work with people to implement plans. Maybe I don't know him well enough and am missing something, but honestly, he's last among GBs aldermen (alderpersons??) in terms of who I think would make a good mayor.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM

· Review and possible action on term sheet with Gorman & Company, Inc. for Larsen Enterprise Lofts.

· Request of On Broadway, Inc. to use $40,000 of CDBG allocation toward acquisition costs of Larsen Canning property.

Looks like the first redevelopment effort may take place soon on the former Larsen site…

· Review and possible action on a Memorandum of Understanding with Paul Kaczrowski for Prestige Park Phase II.

I understood from an article long ago that Phase II was supposed to be the twin condo towers…

· Update regarding mall settlement and future development.

Would be interesting to hear this one.

· Request of Wisconsin Redevelopment to purchase 901 Main Street for development of housing project.

Not sure what this is, but there is also an item listed on the PC Agenda on the City website for a rezoning to downtown land uses on this site as well. Housing project on Main???

Most items will convene in closed session, so not sure how much will come out or be publicized on these items…

Geography Teacher

January 5th, 2007, 07:02 PM

^^
I think it's healthy to have a choice in an election, so I suppose having Kriescher run is good for democracy. But Kriescher? I can't imagine how he'd be effective as Mayor. I've met him a couple of times, and he doesn't seem like a bad guy or anything, but I just can't see how he'd grow the city or effectivly work with people to implement plans. Maybe I don't know him well enough and am missing something, but honestly, he's last among GBs aldermen (alderpersons??) in terms of who I think would make a good mayor.

Here's one to watch down the road -- Alderman Chris Wery. I've known him for 20 years and he is a progressive-minded, friendly person who has great communication skills. He has been very supportive of downtown redevelopment from Day One. I don't know what his plans are, but I see him as a rising star in Green Bay politics and a Friend of Downtown.

Emerald City

January 5th, 2007, 07:21 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

January 5th, 2007, 07:58 PM

Has anyone heard any updates or plans, or seen any recent renderings of the proposed federal building for downtown that's supposed to house the new Federal Court? This was brought up quite a while ago when they decided to create a district in Green Bay, but now nothing has been said about the new site to house it.

This is still like 10 years away, if that. I know it was mentioned by the Mayor in his downtown vision segment at the last Good Morning Downtown Meeting for a Federal Square location at the NW corner of Monroe and Walnut, but that has been about it. Astor Place will long be built before we ever hear about this, imo.

GBSurveyor

January 5th, 2007, 08:26 PM

That is intersting to see the agenda of the RDA, I was wondering just yesterday the status of the Gorman Project. I think now that it seems like it is in a much better location more north and around the existing activity, being part of the Larsen Canning complex, Gorman has some pretty nice places around the state and my assumption is that they will be working with the existing canning structure on Broadway. This would be a nice project to help add some life to that area.

I also noticed the other day that the Wisconsin Job Center (the anchor behind the Juza Main St proposal) will relocate to the former AON building downtown. This will pretty much leave that entire block on Main Street vacant, except for the Macco Bld. and the strip joint.

As for the Mayor, I have no problems about Mayor Schmitt, he does come across very squirrelly, but I think he has done a OK job. I also agree that more people should run for mayor and it is great that Gary Kriescher is going to run, but I really don't see him as the person that I want to represent my city. On the other hand I also agree about Chris Wery being a great canidate, he has shown much support for the Downtown as well as representing his district.

downtownVital.org

January 5th, 2007, 09:43 PM

Here's one to watch down the road -- Alderman Chris Wery...

Among the aldermen, Wery would either be my first choice for Mayor or top two.

Has anyone heard any updates or plans, or seen any recent renderings of the proposed federal building for downtown that's supposed to house the new Federal Court?

While Jadin was mayor, the plan was to put the courthouse on some sort of fast track in congress and have it built on site 4 plus the Nicolet Bank site. Schmitt disagreed with that plan because he felt there were better uses for that site, that it was better to put something there that would generate revenue as the courthouse can go anywhere. So that set things back, and it seems Mark Green lost enthusiasm for trying to push this through congress at that point. At least that's my understanding of what happened. So now we wait.

titletown

January 6th, 2007, 02:12 AM

The Committee is aware of the courthouse needs of northeastern Wisconsin. Currently, Wisconsin's Eastern District Court has the highest ratio in the nation for individuals per authorized judge. This study was conducted by the General Accounting Office. Basically NE Wisconsin accounts for 30% of this district. Below is the 5 year budget plan....

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r3/GreenBayWI/FiscalYear2007.jpg
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r3/GreenBayWI/FiscalYear2009.jpg

Source: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/Courthouse_Project_Plan_FY05-09_R2OR-t_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

Green Bay 4 Life

January 9th, 2007, 04:48 PM

^^ Interesting. So what that is saying is construction in '09???

Anyways. From the GBPG this morning

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070109/GPG03/70109038/1978

Preliminary zoning change OK’d for former Larsen Canning site

By Richard Ryman

The Green Bay Plan Commission on Monday approved a change in zoning for the former Larsen Canning Co. site on Broadway that will advance a development plan scheduled for presentation today at the Redevelopment Authority.

The commission approved a zoning change for a portion of the 22-acre property that will have fewer restrictions than the current commercial zoning. The affected area is north of Dousman Street, south of Kellogg Street and east of Broadway.

On Broadway Inc. has pledged to buy the former food processing factory for redevelopment. The plan is to sell parcels to developers. Fully redeveloped, the entire Larsen site could be worth up to $100 million, according to Greg Larsen, president of On Broadway and great-grandson of company founder William Larsen.

On Broadway's vision includes designating the Larsen property as a creative community of artisans, studios and business anchors.

Naletta Burr, On Broadway director, said Madison-based Gorman & Co. was scheduled to discuss plans it has for the sight at today’s 1:30 p.m. RDA meeting.

Also Monday, the Plan Commission approved rezoning the 900 block of Main Street to allow potential development of a 15-unit townhouse complex.

Developer Bob Lemke said the planned $3.5 million development would consist of live-work units on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors. He said units would be about 2,000 square feet and have indoor parking.

The project is dependent, in part, on receiving Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority tax credits.

The block includes the former Gordy’s Tap building. It is across the street from Whitney Park.

The Green Bay City Council will take up both recommendations at its Jan. 16 meeting.

Cool beans. Wish I could go to the RDA. At least the GBPG is starting to focus in on the GBPC. A lot of times things happen at this meeting that are relevant to downtown, such as zoning, and you never hear about them.

Also if you haven't checked out my photo tour, look here...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=428770

GBSurveyor

January 9th, 2007, 08:31 PM

That will be an interesting meeting. That would be super cool to see some construction activity on the Larson site sooner. I am not sure about the Main Street site. It says that it is on the site of the former Gordy's Tavern... Not the nicest area. The City should facilite a transfer of the Greyhound Staion to maybe the Metro Bus Depot, that would help that site, it seems like there are always junk cars and other stuff just parked there. If that larger warehouse building isn't being used that would be a cool redevelopment project being right on the East River.

Does anyone know if the committee meetings are taped?? I have dish networks so I don't get the local cable access channel where they broadcast the council meetings. Maybe someone could suggest that they make them into an avi file or real network stream available on the website, or at minimum a streaming audio file. Then we could definitally get more out of the meeting then just reading the minutes.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 10th, 2007, 03:35 PM

Todays GBPG had these two articles...

Two downtown housing projects await tax credits

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/GPG03/701100544/1247

City approves terms to remake the former Larsen site

By Richard Ryman

Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority will have a big impact on downtown Green Bay development this year. Two projects, including a 22-acre redevelopment at the Larsen Canning Co. site, hinge on WHEDA tax credits.

The city Redevelopment Authority on Tuesday approved a term sheet with Madison developer Gorman & Co. to remake a significant portion of the former Larsen site on Broadway.

Gorman & Co. and RGH Holdings Ltd. of Oneida plan a $12 million mixed-use development that will include about 75 living spaces. They are counting on $8 million in tax credits from WHEDA and from the National Park Service's historic preservation program.

"WHEDA is very conservative when it comes to market decisions. That is going to be an issue we are going to have to face," said Mike Ash, development manager for Gorman.

The company proposed a redevelopment project last year at the former Badger Sheet Metal site on South Broadway, but it died when WHEDA selected another local project instead. WHEDA declined to approve both.

"We are hoping the same thing doesn't happen this year," Ash said.

Rob Strong, Green Bay planning director, said city officials have been talking with WHEDA representatives to better explain the local market.

A second development project, a 15-unit complex planned for the 900 block of Main Street, is also dependent on WHEDA credits, according to developer Bob Lemke.

Lemke said at a Plan Commission meeting Monday that the planned $3.5 million development would consist of live-work units on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors. He said units would be about 2,000 square feet and have indoor parking.

Strong said WHEDA has indicated that these projects, at least, would not be in competition because they are in different categories.

WHEDA will decide its appropriations in early April. Final plans for the Larsen project are due Aug. 1 and construction could start by December.

The Larsen Canning project will consist of housing, some of which would be first-floor live-work units, art spaces and public gathering spaces facing Broadway.

"There would be a substantial number of amenities there," Ash said.

Gorman & Co. has been in business 20 years and has completed 175 projects, Ash said.

"We develop for people who are looking for a little something different," he said.

Naletta Burr, director of On Broadway Inc., said they've toured other Gorman projects and liked what they saw.

"We were thrilled with what Gorman has produced in other communities," she said.

On Broadway Inc. has pledged to buy the former vegetable processing plant at North Broadway and Dousman Street. It is still arranging financing and has not yet closed the deal.

The City Council will consider zoning changes recommended at Monday's Plan Commission meeting for both projects during its meeting Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, Swanson said the city and Baylake Bank are contacting 100 developers nationwide to gauge interest in developing Washington Commons.

Baylake Bank owns the former — and now closed — shopping mall in downtown Green Bay.

Green Bay agrees to purchase K&K waterfront site along the Fox

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/GPG03/701100546/1247

By Richard Ryman

The city Redevelopment Authority on Tuesday agreed to purchase the K&K Warehouse site near Walnut and Pearl streets on the west bank of the Fox River.

The city will pay $5 million for the site if certain contingencies are met. Chief among them will be the ability to lease the space to cover cash flow.

"There are a couple of leases in there we would look to continue," said Allison Swanson, economic development director.

K&K uses the warehouse and adjoining dock primarily to import wood pulp and European lumber, and leases space to other companies.

In 2006, the K&K terminal and the Port of Green Bay received the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.'s Robert J. Lewis Pacesetter tonnage award.

Swanson said Thomas Kuber, president of K&K, approached the city about buying the property.

"This was an opportunity that was lost in the past," she said.

City Planning Director Rob Strong said the city would be unlikely to develop the property soon because of other projects already under way downtown, but the opportunity to get ownership of the property was important.

"It's a significant amount of water frontage in downtown Green Bay," Strong said.

The city also owns undeveloped land south of the K&K site stretching to Mason Street.

"Developers that looked at the greenfield site in the past looked at (the K&K) site," Swanson said.

She said the parties hope to close the deal about March 1.

City control of this property is a HUGE deal. I know some others may not feel this way. But having both sides of the river in the core downtown potentially being developed with residential, commercial, and retail I feel is key. The west side will really benefit from this some day down the line. When that will be, who knows. But this is the first and most important step.

Puant

January 10th, 2007, 04:41 PM

sr22ger

January 10th, 2007, 11:01 PM

What's up with the K&K purchase? I must have missed something. Does anyone have more details? I thought that the recent dock & warehouse improvements, river dredging, and resulting increased ship activity would keep that site in Port use for a long time. It seems as if the K&K folks are giving up on this so soon. I have mixed feelings about this. I am in favor of the shipping/port and also I understand the desire to 'clean up' that site.
I think it was one of those win win deals for both the city and K&K. I know a lot of companies prefer to lease their property versus owning it for tax/asset purposes, so I am guessing that is what K&K gets out of it. I don't particularly think Green Bay wants to force K&K to relocate, but as it stated in the article, companies have been interested in acquiring the site directly south of the warehouses but had concerns about the K&K property. Whether those concerns were for property values or just space issues for development I don't know. Also this give GB control of the site if something happened to K&K, they could better control what happens to the site.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 11th, 2007, 03:38 PM

I nearly had a heart attack when I saw this headline on the GBPG website today, then read the article... It will be interesting none the less.

Major announcement due about downtown Green Bay

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/GPG0101/70111011/1978

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt planned to make a major announcement today at 10 a.m. about a downtown event, his office reported.

He will be joined by local event organizers and sponsors at Green Bay City Hall.

Inside the Beltway

January 11th, 2007, 03:42 PM

GBPG is reporting a MAJOR announcement by the mayor at 10 am CST today regarding downtown.

My guess is that he'll announce that the proposed 10 foot tall bronze statue of Guy Zima at City Hall is about to become reality :lol:

Ok, seriously, I hope its something good.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 11th, 2007, 03:50 PM

Inside the Beltway

January 11th, 2007, 05:40 PM

I don't think it is about any development, but an event as the article references.

Ok, maybe "event" means the ground breaking for Astor...or maybe Guy is retiring from city/county politics and they are going to hold a retirement party..that would be an event!!

Geography Teacher

January 11th, 2007, 06:49 PM

I can only hope that the event consists of Guy Zima choking on stolen bratwurst (an inside joke that newcomers or out-of-towners may not get).

I also nearly had a heart attack when I saw the headline. A groundbreaking announcement sounds great.

And did anyone notice that Appleton -- not Dubai or New York City or Kuala Lumpur -- is highlighted in Skyscraper City's title bar on the top of the page today?! Anyone want to lobby for equal treatment for Green Bay?

gbgoose

January 11th, 2007, 07:23 PM

Inside the Beltway

January 11th, 2007, 07:25 PM

Looks like all the announcement was is that Festival Foods is taking over sponsorship of the 4th of July stuff downtown...wow.

I feel like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" when he finds out that his secret decoder ring is nothing more than an advertisement for Ovaltine.

exit_320

January 11th, 2007, 07:31 PM

I feel like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" when he finds out that his secret decoder ring is nothing more than an advertisement for Ovaltine. :lol: great movie

titletown

January 11th, 2007, 10:18 PM

I guess that was the "Major announcement" ...Festival taking over as the Fourth of July sponsor. Big deal....This city is a real joke when it comes to progress and calling things "major"....get the definition right. I am sorry but can we finally break ground on this Astor Place condo, I am getting a fever...

gbgoose

January 11th, 2007, 10:25 PM

I guess that was the "Major announcement" ...Festival taking over an sponsor. Big deal....This city is a real joke when it comes to progress and calling things "major"....get the definition right. I am sorry but can we finally break ground on this Astor Place condo, I am getting a fever...

Amen to that! Getting going on the River Center would be nice as well.

Is anything going to come of the proposed River Tower as I saw in some of your drawings?

Green Bay 4 Life

January 12th, 2007, 12:21 AM

From the RDA Minutes

Larsen Site Project w/ Gorman

The development would consist of purchasing a portion of the former Agrilink property located in the 300 block of North Broadway, remodeling the buildings creating a mixed-use project with at least 74 residential apartments, a minimum of 25,000 square feet of commercial/public space, and in-building parking for a minimum assessed value of $3.5 million. Total project costs (excluding the commercial portion, which would be privately owned) will be a minimum of $12,100,000. They will work with On Broadway, Inc. on the design plans. They are looking at getting historic tax credits as well as WHEDA tax credits. The development schedule was reviewed, which indicates obtaining site control by January 15, 2007, and closing on the site by November 30, 2007, assuming that the tax credits are approved in April. Construction would begin by December 15, 2007, with a 15-month construction period.

Main Street Project

This is the former Gordy’s Tap property along with three lots owned by Denis Sport Shop. Denis Sport Shop is trading for property that the City owns. The proposed 3-story development includes 15 apartments with first floor live/work units and community space. The current plan has ten 2-bedroom town homes, four 3-bedrooms, and one 2-bedroom onsite manager’s apartment.

Prestige Park Condo Buildings

P. Kaczrowski would need to acquire all of the properties within the next 12 months and he could start marketing it according to a memo of understanding between him and City. basically saying if he can put it together, the City may provide TIF Assistance.

Mall Update

A. Swanson stated that the property has been transferred to Baylake Bank. Development Associates paid $600,000 to the bank and deeded over title to the JC Penney building and the inline portion of the stores. These are two separate parcels. The inline portion is everything except the JC Penney building. The City has placed a lien on the inline portion in the amount of $2 million. The City, in conjunction with Baylake Bank, is sending out an RFP this week to about 100 developers on the inline portion of the stores. There was an offer outstanding on the JC Penney building, and that offer has been resubmitted to Baylake and they are trying to work through contingencies. If Baylake doesn’t get an acceptable offer on the inline portion they can, between June and the end of the year next year, deed it over to the City.

Brew Pub adjacent to new Cambria Suites

Regarding P. Kaczrowski’s project, R. Strong and A. Swanson met with the gentleman building the Sports Bar & Grill and he is excited about the project.

Green Bay roots

January 12th, 2007, 03:25 AM

all great information...as far as festival taking over the Celebrate America Fest, i think this is a huge announcement. just think what would have happened if they didn't step up to host this huge economic event. I'm sure Shopko was looking to get out of it anyhow with they financial blunders so i for one think this was a big, exciting announcement and thank you Festival Foods.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 16th, 2007, 03:41 PM

In today's GBPG

Green Bay reaching out for proposals to redevelop closed mall

Solicitations sent nationwide to find plan, resources

By Richard Ryman

Ideas abound for redeveloping the closed Washington Commons mall. Now Green Bay is looking for ideas with money attached.

The city and mall owner Baylake Bank sent 170 requests for proposal to developers around the country, seeking plans for reactivating the 5-acre site in the heart of downtown.

The solicitations, the last of which were to be mailed Monday, seek plans for the nonanchor building portion of the property. Allison Swanson, Green Bay economic development director, said the former J.C. Penney building is not included because Baylake Bank has a possible buyer for that property.

Swanson said some developers have contacted the city about the mall site, and the city has contacted a few developers.

Mayor Jim Schmitt will meet again with The Cordish Co. representatives during the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting next week in Washington, D.C., she said. The Cordish Co. is headquartered in Baltimore. Schmitt met with Cordish representatives last year, as well.

But, seeking to leave no capstone unturned, requests have gone out to other developers who might have an interest in a downtown project.

Swanson said 10 to 12 proposals would be a good response. There is no deadline, but she expects most will come in within 60 days.

"I think there are a lot of people who would be interested in parts (of the mall), but there needs to be one coordinating developer," Swanson said. "You want to make sure the uses are complimentary as well."

The mall is available because the bank and the city recently settled a three-way lawsuit with former property owner Development Associates. As a result of the settlement, the bank assumed ownership of the mall and the J.C. Penney building.

Opened as Port Plaza Mall in 1977, the shopping center was a going concern into the early years of this decade, with nearly 100 stores and three anchors at its peak.

As downtown malls lost their cachet — and their stores to suburban competitors — Port Plaza found less and less favor with retailers and shoppers. It was acquired and renamed Washington Commons by Development Associates in November 2001. Development Associates envisioned a mixed-use facility that moved the property away from its retail roots, but they were unable to fill the empty spaces.

In its mailing, the city leaves open just about any option for re-use of the site, except that parking garages are expected to remain intact. It also envisions a return to the street grid, which would require tearing down some of the existing building. Swanson said the street grid will be back "unless somebody has an absolutely stellar plan."

"Even with putting in the street grid, you could end up with four pretty sizeable areas," she said.

We may hear something within 60 days, but will wee see something within the next 6 years?

downtownVital.org

January 16th, 2007, 07:26 PM

"I think there are a lot of people who would be interested in parts (of the mall), but there needs to be one coordinating developer," Swanson said. "You want to make sure the uses are complimentary as well."

This is the part that worries my. My guess is that the need for one coordinating developer stems from a desire to have the whole site re-built as quickly as possible. My feeling is that if you have parties interested in various sites, they should be welcome and the city can do the coordinating of uses. What I fear is one big, single-owner development that is more a fabrication of urban development than a true city that has grown in response to market demand. Obviously, the more organic approach takes longer, but my feeling is that it leads to more sustainable results.

That said, if you get the right coordinating developer things can work out. I believe it's the Pabst site in Milwaukee that is being controlled by one developer but he is inviting in others where appropriate (perhaps if a Milwaukee forumer is reading this, he or she can provide some insight into that site). That seems like a solid way to do things.

The idea of having Cordish develop the site is one I greet with mixed emotions. On the one hand, from what I can see, their plans in Kansas City for the Power and Light District, and their work in St. Louis on the Ballpark Village seem first rate. (Any KC or StL lurkers out there??? Feel free to chime in). At the same time, from what I can see all or almost all of their developments seem to have a component called something-realting-to-that-city Live! So for Green Bay, I'd just about be willing to wager that we'd get a Titletown Live! if Cordish develops that site. My question is, when the mall was built, downtown malls were a successful model and worked across the country, and today the blank Live! model seems to be successful in many cities, but is that success sustainable or is it the mall of today?

Also, the Green Bay market is much, much different from KC or St.L. So will the Cordish model fit here? How flexible are companies like that in what they do to accomodate markets of varying sizes? If land is opened up to single developments on a smaller scale, they seem to tend to be more responsive to the actual market that exists, and if one development fails it doesn't necessarily impact the development next door. By contrast, a developer working on the whole site, especially one that is used to working in much larger markets, may try to apply a template here that doesn't fit, and that could doom the whole works. Not that the people at Cordish or any other such firm are idiots, I just don't know how they work.

Bartles53

January 17th, 2007, 04:58 AM

I would love to have the chance to see each of the proposals that are sent back to the city. I doubt that information will be laid out for the public to see but I'm sure each idea will be ultra-interesting.

I hear you on this Dan. I'm the kind of guy that would get overly excited about some grand idea/development that will initially draw everyone downtown but that's not necessarily the smart route to follow for the long term. But if someone comes in with a glitzy over-the-top idea I'll be clamoring for it ala the residents of Springfield in the oft-mentioned monorail episode.

By the way, the view of the Belling building at night from the Neville Museum parking lot is really beautiful. I actually did a double take when I first noticed it. If only the rest of the riverfront was lit up so well...

Green Bay 4 Life

January 17th, 2007, 10:43 PM

In today's GBPG

80-unit building detailed for former Agrilink site

By Paul Srubas

Details emerged Tuesday night for a proposed project involving the former Agrilink property on North Broadway.

Under questioning from the Green Bay City Council, Mike Ash, development manager for Gorman & Co., described the proposed Larsen Enterprise Lofts, consisting of nearly 80 residential units.

The project — to be done jointly by Gorman and RGH Holdings Ltd. of Oneida — is a $12 million, mixed-use development. It would require about $8 million in tax credits from Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority and the National Park Service’s historic preservation program, Ash said.

The proposal is to remodel buildings and construct a four-story addition. On Broadway Inc. plans to use the first floor for retail, office and art space, but the upper floors would mostly be for one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, Ash said.

Developers also plan a fitness center and other amenities, he said. Some underground parking would be available, but much of it also likely would be surface parking.

They also plan historic architectural treatment, both as an attraction to renters and to qualify for preservation tax credits, he said.

One-bedroom apartments likely will rent for $529 to $759; two-bedroom units would be $629 to $859; and three-bedrooms would go for $710 to $985, he said.

Alderman Guy Zima suggested those rental rates may guarantee the building would remain vacant, but Alderman Tom Weber argued that it could be targeted to a higher-end market niche. Ash said his company’s market research indicated promise.

The Council eventually gave unanimous approval to the proposal’s term sheet, which allows the company to compete for those WHEDA tax credits. If successful in winning those credits, developers will return to the Council with more information on the proposal, Ash said.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/GPG03/70117120/1978

sr22ger

January 18th, 2007, 12:38 AM

I think those prices are pretty close to spot on actually, regardless of what Zima says. Sure, maybe the percentage of units on the lower side of those ranges will need to be adjusted higher (who knows how many units will be on the lower side or vice versa), but heck, an older single bedroom loft hits $400 or more from what I remember. A brand new apartment in a walkable neighborhood for less than $550/month, thats pretty workable. I would imagine a 3 bedroom apartment on the fourth floor would be pretty nice, come with a couple parking spots, fitness center access, etc. Those are things you couldn't get renting from an older inner city complex or second story flat. I am curious to see more!

Puant

January 18th, 2007, 06:25 AM

Hello board

I hope it is a groudbreaking of some sorts. I moved to Green Bay from the Valley 4 years because I was quite frankly, more comfortable with this area.

For one, I'm excited about the potential of downtown. One question I'm curious of...has anyone ever considered the idea of putting an ampitheater downtown? If events like Bayfest and Artstreet continue downtown, having something like an ampitheater could bring some larger entertainment and could utilize both sides of the river.

:

gbgoose: Welcome! I'm curious what makes GB 'more comfortable' than the valley?

As for your amphitheater idea--I like it! I think the new Leicht Park is supposed to offer a place sort of like that--it's not an amphiteater bowl per se, but it does offer a large park area where stages can be set up for live concerts. Did you make it to any of the festivals down there this past summer?

Another idea that was floated out there (pun intended) was to put live acts :banana: on barges on the river, particularly once the boardwalk and river center are finished. I'm not sure if that's realistic...some people get uppity about that being a narrow federal navigation channel and all.....what if a ship came? I guess they do have the water show & fireworks on the 4th out there, so maybe it's not a big deal.

gbgoose

January 18th, 2007, 01:32 PM

gbgoose: Welcome! I'm curious what makes GB 'more comfortable' than the valley?

As for your amphitheater idea--I like it! I think the new Leicht Park is supposed to offer a place sort of like that--it's not an amphiteater bowl per se, but it does offer a large park area where stages can be set up for live concerts. Did you make it to any of the festivals down there this past summer?

Another idea that was floated out there (pun intended) was to put live acts :banana: on barges on the river, particularly once the boardwalk and river center are finished. I'm not sure if that's realistic...some people get uppity about that being a narrow federal navigation channel and all.....what if a ship came? I guess they do have the water show & fireworks on the 4th out there, so maybe it's not a big deal.

Personal preference between Green Bay and the Valley. I've always felt the people in the Green Bay area were more down to earth and easier to talk with in general. I grew up in one of the smaller towns in the Valley and that wasn't necessarily the case there. I'm sure most of the valley isn't that way, but the one place I felt was.

I was at Bayfest last summer and that's when I really started thinking about it. I didn't like the fact some of the stages were on the Nitschke bridge. There was enough open space on the Broadway side, around the Holiday Inn and even where Art Street happens where it could have taken place. Having an ampitheater could give a chance to attract some mid-level national acts among other things to the downtown area, hence even more people. Having something like that on the river be huge for downtown.

Inside the Beltway

January 18th, 2007, 04:35 PM

[QUOTE=sr22ger;11348336]I think those prices are pretty close to spot on actually, regardless of what Zima says.QUOTE]

That, and Guy Zima is an idiot. There should be rules against mowing lawns in your district for votes.

I think those rent prices sound reasonable (not because I live in DC and a one bedroom goes for $1,200+) but because of the type of place this sounds like it will be. I have a feeling the complex alone will attract people who can afford the rents. With a fitness facility and shops (probably artsy), younger people with disposable income, as well as older people with lots of time on their hands (and healthy retirement stashes) will be attracted. These sorts want to be where the action is (or hopefully will be).

I've been trying to stress that Green Bay needs to keep the young professionals from leaving town. That is a good way to revitalize an area.

I too an interested in seeing more...

Fillmore

January 18th, 2007, 07:37 PM

Greetings All,
Beltway, feels like it could actually snow here today. Actions speak louder than words, pardon the cliche, and Zima's ignorance is just that, his ignorance. Let him be a communistic party pooper. When people start moving in than he can kick himself. I say we don't give Zima any attention; he's like the kid in class who picks fights only to watch from the corner when the battle has begun. He's a negative nanny and doesn't know anything about what is right for Green Bay. The downtown progress will happen regardless.
I also had an idea for the mall. How about an entertainment/recreational/retail/restaurant hub; ie a water park, skating rink, skate park, movie theater all under one roof where people can not only exercise and eat, but shop and catch a movie. Entertainment has got to be the way in for downtown progress and whatever the mall turns into, it has to be a huge draw for the region. Slap a smaller Cheesecake Factory, Panera and Barnes and Noble in there and the people will come, just like Kevin Costner heard in his dreams! Or maybe I have had too much coffee today.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 18th, 2007, 09:15 PM

From WBAY TV Website

Green Bay Sets Out to Change Its Image

Green Bay is out to prove to people around the country it has more to offer than just a football team and its fans. Green Bay is working on an extreme image makeover.

The city has started work with a local design and advertising firm to boost the city image, and market it to people and businesses nationwide.

What do people think when they think "Green Bay"? Probably football, maybe cheeseheads, often cows. But Mayor Jim Schmitt says starting this year people are going to think about Green Bay in a whole new way.

"We need to sell more than just the Green Bay Packers, and that's what this is going to be all about," the mayor said.

With the help of local design firm Arketype, Green Bay is setting out to change its image from football and face-painters in Lambeau's parking lot to more education, opportunities for entrepreneurs, and an active port and waterfront.

"Not so much the strength of sports but the strength of tradition, entrepreneurialship, doing things right," Mayor Schmitt expounded.

Over the next few months, a committee will craft an image of Green Bay -- one that highlights the city as a place with space for expanding business and high-end manufacturing, a city home to one of the fastest growing tech schools in the nation and a state university, a city with a major port running through its downtown, and access to open lands and wildlife just minutes away.

You could start seeing ads featuring all of that in airline magazines and national publications.

Schmitt said, "We need to raise the average wage in our community, that's a goal we have, and that's going to come through recruiting the right businesses and the right talent here."

Of course all this will cost money -- potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to start -- and the mayor says Green Bay will look to other communities, the Oneida Tribe, and maybe even the Packers to help with the branding plan.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 18th, 2007, 09:17 PM

I also had an idea for the mall. How about an entertainment/recreational/retail/restaurant hub; ie a water park, skating rink, skate park, movie theater all under one roof where people can not only exercise and eat, but shop and catch a movie. Entertainment has got to be the way in for downtown progress and whatever the mall turns into, it has to be a huge draw for the region. Slap a smaller Cheesecake Factory, Panera and Barnes and Noble in there and the people will come, just like Kevin Costner heard in his dreams! Or maybe I have had too much coffee today.

I guess I am for one developer or "coordinator" controlling or guiding development for the mall site. At least then we know we would have complimentary proposals for all aspects of the development rather than three hotel proposals for three different development sites. Don't get me wrong, I hope there are a number of parties involved, but we need to have one vision where everyone buys in to it rather than competes against it. I am however leery about a mega-entertainment complex. Although those are aspects and land uses that shoudl be considered to be included in the site there also needs to be other aspects of downtown land uses that are the primary uses of the site such as residential, office, and retail. Those are main stay uses rather than niche uses that may lose their popularity after a while. In addition, we already see how difficult it is to reutilize space for a niche use such as a mall. A mall is basically a mall. Similar to a theatre. Hard to easily redevelop that into residential condos or something. Easily may be a poor choice of words. What I mean is that in other cities office towers are being coverted into residential condos. Designing a theatre to be a theatre use may be difficult to convert 20 years from now when we go through another cycle of change in downtowns. I am all for making downtown entertaining but as Dan said, will this be another phase that changes years from now? I guess the same could be said for the failed Pabst City development proposal in Milwaukee. Would restaurant owners and entertainment venue owners currently existing in downtown Green Bay welcome City support to drive up their competetion. We already have the restaurant owners saying there are too many restaurants in downtown. Are you kidding? People want choice, they want to ensure there livlihood of themselves not of downtown. OH well, a debate that will take center stage for a while I guess.

downtownVital.org

January 18th, 2007, 11:03 PM

I also had an idea for the mall. How about an entertainment/recreational/retail/restaurant hub; ie a water park, skating rink, skate park, movie theater all under one roof where people can not only exercise and eat, but shop and catch a movie...

Ahhh! This type of development is exactly what I fear most for the mall site. Not that there can't or shouldn't be entertainment uses on the site, but the entertainment complex "all under one roof," whether you mean that literally or figuratively, is just asking to be stuck back where we are today in thirty years.

I guess I am for one developer or "coordinator" controlling or guiding development for the mall site. At least then we know we would have complimentary proposals for all aspects of the development rather than three hotel proposals for three different development sites.

I don't think I disagree with your overall point, and having one controlling developer can work out well or not depending on what their plan is. At the same time, we have comp. plans and a planning department to keep from happening just what you suggest above. I don't think we necessarily need a developer to come in and have a vision for us.

Fillmore

January 18th, 2007, 11:17 PM

GB,
Well written. The "mall" is a tough one. Now that my caffeine kick has worn out, I think the biggest obstacle facing Green Bay is the image it receives from the Packers as being not only the smallest city in the NFL, but the land of farmers and beer drinkers. In essence, Green Bay, according to a lot of people, isn't capable of being anything else. I also believe that too many people have their pre-conceived notions of what Green Bay is even though they have never been there. Changing the image of the city is an excellent step toward progress. It's almost like city leaders have a clean slate to work with, it's who has the chalk that is the problem. New ads about the city should make no reference to the obvious, ie the Packers or Lambeau Field, and should focus more on culture, learning, recreation and commercial possibilities. On a totally different subject, I think placing lights on the Tower Drive Bridge (blue, green, purple) would help the city immensely. If you look at many major cities like Boston, NY, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Chicago, Miami etc. they all have bridges that are lit up to enhance the beauty of the water below and the city. That old girl over the bay is just waiting for someone besides the coal piles to pay attention to her. The bridge would provide an excellent background for any banner and would be seen from miles around.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 18th, 2007, 11:34 PM

On a totally different subject, I think placing lights on the Tower Drive Bridge (blue, green, purple) would help the city immensely. If you look at many major cities like Boston, NY, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Chicago, Miami etc. they all have bridges that are lit up to enhance the beauty of the water below and the city. That old girl over the bay is just waiting for someone besides the coal piles to pay attention to her. The bridge would provide an excellent background for any banner and would be seen from miles around.

I totally agree, however, being that the bridge is part of an interstate system, I happen to think that dealing with the DOT on that one would basically just take forever. I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard. Plus, before putting any more lights on any additional bridges - we should concentrate on lighting the bridges we do have every day of the week and not just on the weekends.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 19th, 2007, 09:37 PM

I don't think I disagree with your overall point, and having one controlling developer can work out well or not depending on what their plan is. At the same time, we have comp. plans and a planning department to keep from happening just what you suggest above. I don't think we necessarily need a developer to come in and have a vision for us.

True there are comp plans and a planning department to guide a vision, however, are they always 100% listened to? No.

downtownVital.org

January 19th, 2007, 09:53 PM

True there are comp plans and a planning department to guide a vision, however, are they always 100% listened to? No.

There are also no guarantees that a developer will do what's in the best interest of the city either. Either system can break down.

On another note, I was able to see an updated drawing of the north portion of River Center. It is along the lines of what is pictured below from the earlier rendering, but more thought out. In this case, God is in the details... I thought it looked relly nice. I wish I had a copy to post. It looks like it will be red brick with portions of metal cladding, and the are just some details added to the basic shape of what we saw already that made it look more polished and very handsome. I can't wait to see construction start on this! I didn't see anything regarding the main portion of the site.

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/RC3.jpg

GBSurveyor

January 20th, 2007, 06:15 PM

Hopefully here is more proof that we will see construction to beging soon on the RC project. Here is the agenda item for the IMPROVEMENT & SERVICE COMMITTEE for Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Plans sound like they are advancing along very nicely. A 6' canopy on Washington Street will be super sweet.

2. Request of River Center Lofts LLC for a right-of-way encroachment along the 300 block of Washington Street and 100 block of Admiral Flately Court for a 4” encroachment for brick exterior and a 6’ encroachment structural building canopy located more than 16’ above the right-of-way, subject to a hold harmless agreement from River Center Lofts LLC.

downtownVital.org

January 20th, 2007, 06:34 PM

^^ Yes, it should look pretty nice.

Inside the Beltway

January 22nd, 2007, 03:47 PM

Well...the Bears are headed to the Super Bowl. Hopefully all the attention will do for new development in Chicago what Super Bowl XXXI did for Green Bay...ha-ha...

Oh, and Fillmore...did you run out to the store and buy up all the milk and bread you could yesterday because of the "snow?"

Fillmore

January 22nd, 2007, 04:20 PM

Nice!!!
Yeh, I wish I grew up in Virginia, cause everytime it snows, or there's even a threat of snow, they close schools and businesses down. It's all very ridiculous, and I love watching the people drive their big SUV's like babies. No traffic this morning due to about 2 inches of snow and ice.

Any news on Astor Place groundbreaking?

Emerald City

January 22nd, 2007, 08:14 PM

Found this article while looking around for information about Gorman and Co. and thought I'd share it. http://www.wibuilder.com/wb-dec-2005/condos.html There are some very nice pics of current and future developments from a company named KeyBridge Development Group. They seem to have some very nice designs and are from WI as well.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 23rd, 2007, 03:48 PM

Any news on Astor Place groundbreaking?

No news on the ground breaking. :ohno:

I actually hate to admit it, but I think that ground breaking probably won't become a reality until fall of this year if ever. Just call it a hunch... I would love to be proven wrong though...

Fillmore

January 23rd, 2007, 04:07 PM

I want to think otherwise, but I believe you are correct. That building in Wausau looks great however...

Green Bay 4 Life

January 23rd, 2007, 04:44 PM

I know there was some discussion regarding the ice ricnk that was shown in some of the earlier River Center renderings...

At the last MNLC Meeting there was a brief discussion to if the City is looking at this as an option anymore...

E. Hoyer stated that the weather hasn’t cooperated this year for skating at Astor Park and asked if there is any possibility the city would consider a permanent outdoor skating facility. The Mayor responded that there are two possible plans for a 3-season skating rink along the riverfront on the City’s east side, and the City is talking with possible supporters, but the plans are expensive.

I know, not much... But there still seems to be discussion surrounding this.

gbgoose

January 24th, 2007, 04:58 AM

:badnews:

"I actually hate to admit it, but I think that ground breaking probably won't become a reality until fall of this year if ever. Just call it a hunch... I would love to be proven wrong though..."

Is the market that soft for Astor Place to get moving? I'm with the others in the more this thing drags on, the less confident I'm becoming in believing this will really happen.

titletown

January 24th, 2007, 05:49 AM

A picture I found taken from a plane, sorry the quality gets poor because it is zoomed in.

Downtown Green Bay

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r3/GreenBayWI/DowntownGB.jpg

Broadway District/West Green Bay
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r3/GreenBayWI/BroadwayDistrict.jpg

Green Bay
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r3/GreenBayWI/FoxRiver.jpg

Inside the Beltway

January 24th, 2007, 03:33 PM

How old are those aerials? It brings me back to when I was 5 years old...with the old Walnut Street Bridge and the First Wisconsin building had a brick facade as opposed to today's white wash look.

Also, look at all those buildings along Washington Street!

Green Bay 4 Life

January 24th, 2007, 03:54 PM

As far as Astor Place. Not sure. They set the deadline to do reservations into sales contracts back near Thanksgiving. Has anyone heard any news on it since then? I haven’t. 12 or 13 units sold isn’t going to get them to anywhere near construction. Winter is a slow time of year historically for people to purchase homes in this area. In addition, the sales page on the website has not been updated since that time. There have been so many delays with the start of the project. Summer of ’06. Then it was Fall of ’06 after the road reconstruction, now the focus has turned to the River Center project saying that should start prior to Astor Place – which itself hasn’t had any formal announcement or community publication saying “let’s get excited about this project”. Rendering may be out there, but renderings have been out there for a while for River Center and Astor and yet we wait. Vetter is only on the line for $1 million dollars (to pay the City back for the work they did preparing the site) so it isn’t like it is a whole lot to walk away. Besides those who frequent here and City employees, how many people are really still talking about Astor Place? It seems the momentum has kind of died down. That level of excitement seems to have faded. There needs to be some big push put out by Vetter saying he is committed to making this happen, or Jen Kuo (haven’t seen Astor even advertised in the paper recently) to bring this project back to the forefront. Maybe they should look at the unit layout again for the middle to upper floors. I guess I just think about all of the towers that were proposed over the years and how none of them got built. Green Bay is still waiting, and I guess I wouldn’t be all that surprised if we are still waiting on this one for a while. Again, hate to be negative, but it has been almost 2 years that this has been hanging around. If it had only been 3 months, then I may be jumping the gun a little, but when you actually start referencing a project in years that it has been hanging around… I’d like to see the developer’s agreement and see if there was a timeline that construction needed to commence or some kind of action. I would have to assume that may have expired or is getting close. I know when it comes to Green Bay it will be slow to happen and then when it does I can see a surge in the popularity – but the point is we just need some kind of action on the ground rather than on a computer or paper.

I still hope and dream - but that won't will it into reality.

Fillmore

January 24th, 2007, 11:09 PM

I bought a unit there, but now I don't see it happening. Too much stalling, not enough buyers, too lax an approach to selling... Not that I am an expert by any means. Realistic first, Optimistic second.

Puant

January 25th, 2007, 02:47 AM

As for the age of those aerials: The I-43 bridge is there, so they must have been after 1979. These photos don't exactly exude "City Beautiful", do they? Boy, do those Reiss coal piles look yucky from the air.

As for Astor...Last summer I was 98% confident that it would be built. Now, I'd give it a 50-50 chance.

Is the City still going to move ahead with the boardwalk this coming summer? Seems that boardwalk is really the horse that pulls the rest of the projects (carts). Moving the mall site along would help, too.

I know it's only a small improvement, but I went to the new Subway on Washinton today-- they really did a nice job with the interior of that old building.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 25th, 2007, 03:39 PM

This is a more recent aerial of downtown I found by Ryan Photography. It isn't that recent though as Nicolet is just under construction, Riverfront Lofts is not constructed, the Cherry Street Ramp is not constructed, and the Baylake Bank Renovation has not occurred.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r147/phatty_013/dt.jpg

downtownVital.org

January 25th, 2007, 06:07 PM

On River Center:

From what I hear, Vetter needs to take possesion of the site by the end of February (or else he'll lose his tax credits, which are funding the site). Expect abatement and demolition to begin in March. I'm 99.99% confident in River Center being built. The funding is in place to start, so there shouldn't be a financing issue.

For me, the only issue left is what the main portion will look like. If we take the north (red brick) portion, the design I saw last week is based on the drawing posted a few weeks ago, but with more depth and more interesting use of materials. It came out much better. This leads me to believe that what we saw earlier for the south portion is more of a massing model, with a flat facade drawn on that somewhat reflects how the final product will look. My guess is that what we'll see being build there will be indentifiably the current building, but made more up-to-date. I also suspect the materials used and the depth of the design will make it look far less monolithic than what we've been looking at. Now, maybe the design won't look great, maybe it will, but I have a fair bit of confidence that it will come out okay in the end.

On Astor Place:

It's tough work building an 18 story tower in Green Bay, and we shouldn't have expected that everything would be a smooth progression towards a swift completion. The money that Vetter is on the hook for is a big chunk of change. To say that Vetter-Denk will walk away from the site and just pay a million dollars, or half a million, seems very, very unlikely. That isn't a big enough operation that those aren't huge sums of money.

Remember, when the boardwalk plan was first presented, those renderings only showed like a 4 or 6 story building on the Flatley site. With the success at Riverfront Lofts, Vetter (to his credit in my mind) proposed to do the best building that he felt the market could support. The easy thing would have been to propose a 6 or 7 floor building that probably could have been built already, and us downtown supporters would probably have been thrilled to have.

The developers agreement that Vetter has with the city requires him to build on that site, but it does not require him to build Astor Place as we have seen it. Vetter is going to build there. Also, expect to see him making a renewed push to promote the project this spring.

In reality, a well designed 6-story building with the right public uses on ground level would be a huge success for the downtown. Am I saying I think what will be built there will be that small? No, I'd doubt that. Am I saying that Astor Place will be built in the form that we've come to know and love? Well, when you try to do the best building you can, the odds of not being able to reach that goal increase, so I'd not be surprised to see something be scaled down. But I do expect to see this design be given every chance it can to succeed, I do expect to see Vetter build on that site, and I feel confident that the downtown will be better off for it.

Emerald City

January 25th, 2007, 08:14 PM

Well, you have high hopes my friend, just keep hanging on to them. Seemingly, a great majority do not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation.

downtownVital.org

January 25th, 2007, 11:05 PM

^^

It's pretty easy to get impatient with this. When you want something, and don't see any progress, it gets frustrating. At the same time, stuff like this by its nature takes time. I just went back and looked at the start of Green Bay thread one, just less than two years ago. At that time, Astor Place was just being proposed... didn't even have a name yet. It took a few months beyond that to clear up issues regarding Juza's rights to the site, etc. I don't think it's super uncommon for developments to take this long to come together. At the same time, Vetter presented us with several unrealistic, as it turns out, timelines for when Astor Place would start. So that raises reasonable questions.

I guess my point is that A) there are certain financial commitments made that lead me to believe there will be action of some sort on these sites, and B) we can't become victim of our own raised expectations.

Look at this from when the boardwalk was first presented, just over 2 years ago:

http://www.geocities.com/arvissers/DowntownGreenBayEastRendering.jpg

Look at what that shows for the Astor Place and River Center sites. That building on the Astor Place site can't be more than 5 or 6 storys tall. At the time, we would all have been jumping up and down if that was built. So my point is, maybe an 18 story Astor Place will be built, but if the market won't support that and we get a well designed 6 or 8 or 10 story building, that will still be a major victory for the downtown. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Green Bay 4 Life

January 26th, 2007, 05:50 PM

^^ Although I agree with you and believe me I hope this gets done, the original photo above shows actually what was supposed to be Astor Place on Site 4. That was the original intent. Then as there was discussion to straighten the road and the ability to remove Flatley Park the tower switched to the current site to take advantage of Bay views. Plan change over time, but as far as money commitments - Vetter owes one million if he walks away from the project but has to guarantee a value of (forgive not sure of the number) of over 20+ million if he commences construction. If the market can't sustain that either A. he walks away before he starts or B. will have to scale back plans which and rework the developers agreement which will give the Council another chance at saying enough is enough. Although we are impatient, I would bet there are others with more decision making prowess that are even more impatient. The last thing a Council member wants to have happen is be sold on an idea and then as time goes by have it scaled back to something less grand that what it was. Plus the value of Astor as an 18 story building is tied directly to the TIF and how much the City will have to invest in sections of the Boardwalk.

Again, just thinking along the lines of Green Bay's historical reality. All of the buildings that were proposed for site 4 back in the day when it was twice as large and the fact that they all fell by the wayside. Now we have Nicolet Bank which is 4 stories and a left over piece that according to Vetter is not that attarctive to potential developments. Are we destined to settle for less all of the time because we just want something to happen? Or should the City strive to have the best possible project at all times for the limited amount of waterfront that we do have. I'm not saying we can be Milwaukee or Chicago - but we should stand up for wanting the best.

Emerald City

January 26th, 2007, 06:18 PM

^^ Are we destined to settle for less all of the time because we just want something to happen? Or should the City strive to have the best possible project at all times for the limited amount of waterfront that we do have. I'm not saying we can be Milwaukee or Chicago - but we should stand up for wanting the best.

Amen to that, now let's quit dragging our feet and get some steel in the air!

downtownVital.org

January 26th, 2007, 07:38 PM

...the original photo above shows actually what was supposed to be Astor Place on Site 4. That was the original intent.

This is not true. The building shown on site 4 is not Astor Place or a predecessor to Astor Place. The building shown there is a model for a signature, mixed use (as in, containing some office use) building that was and is the goal for that site. The Astor Place concept came about in addition to whatever gets built on Site 4, in response to the success in selling out Riverfront Lofts. Astor Place conceptually replaces the 4 to 6 story massing model on the north end of the boardwalk, not the 20 story massing model on the south end.

To the larger point that there needs to be a certain value created at the Flatley site, I would presume this is true, though I don't know what that value is. But that doesn't mean the building has to be on the scale presently presented, though maybe it would need to exceed 10 or 12 or 14 floors to reach that value...I just don't know.

Are we destined to settle for less all of the time because we just want something to happen? Or should the City strive to have the best possible project at all times for the limited amount of waterfront that we do have. I'm not saying we can be Milwaukee or Chicago - but we should stand up for wanting the best.

First, you make two statements that are somewhat in contradiction to each other. On the one hand you worry that these big plans never get built and are doubtful about the prospects for Astor Place because of its historical predecessors on other sites and the apparent strength of the market. On the other hand your saying that we should hold out for buildings on the scale of Astor Place becuase of the limited waterfornt space we have. So, should we be holding out for something that, unless I misread your assessment, never works and the market can't support?

I couldn't agree more about the idea of striving for the best, I disagree with your assumption of what the best is. If we went back 3 years and someone had proposed a 10 story building for that site with the same mix of public access that Astor Place has, we'd all be cheering that as great progress. So now because someone had the guts to propose an 18 story building for that site we should settle for nothing less? If the market won't support 18 stories, than the project is unfeasable and some smaller scale building becomes the best we can do. Heck, if we wait 50 years, maybe we could get a 30 story building there, I mean, you'll never get the site back, right? I think we need to define our expectations not only by what we'd like to see there, but also by the realities of what can be built there.

My point is, if the market will support some number of floors less than 18, but enough to fulfill the developer's agreement, I don''t think that should be seen as settling. The important thing isn't that it's 18 storys, it's that it's an active site that supports the boardwalk. Look, there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of big projects, becuase none of them have been completed to date. My analysis is the Vetter will build something on that site, and we'll be better off as a result.

All that said, I want to be careful not to come off too strong as we debate this. Just know that I can't resist a debate, that I see opposing views on this as valid, but that I'm just trying to explain and defend my views. :)

Green Bay 4 Life

January 26th, 2007, 07:55 PM

Actually if you go back and look at the original Vetter and Stoss plans when the downtown plan was first proposed the site where the tall building was proposed on Site 4 was dubbed River Tower. The cross section of the building indicated a mixed use of condos and office space. The site where Astor is now proposed was on the radar but was short of a sure thing based on the constraints and questionability of the time. When those constraints were alleviated, the tall structure dubbed as River Tower was moved to that site and the proposal of Astor Place came to be based on the success of Riverfront Lofts converted to mostly condos and a market place. I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, what I am saying is then site 4 was always proposed to be a signature building and at the time that was what was to become Astor because Vetter did not have an option on the Flatley site. As time progressed those things changed. Be that as it may - it really is a mute point. What is now is now.

What I mean regarding the two points is that we have seen the failues in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if the same occurs here. Maybe Vetter is the savior everyone makes hime out to be and maybe he is not. Sure he has guts to propose a building at 18 stories, but can he come through. The only project besides RF Lofts that is actually close to becoming reality is one where millions in tax credits will aid in the development of that building - not the entire River Center as has been shown. My point is let's not build something to build something. The market will not support a 30 story structure. I know that. But let's not jump the gun and say whatever is proposed is great because there was nothing there before. We have to be careful with the riverfront sites because once something is built, we will not have an oppurtunity to have something else there. It can be great because nothing was there, but can it be better than what could be there?

I hope that Astor gets built. I think 18 stories and the residential component and retail component and activation of the boardwalk is a great idea. But if it scales back and we lose the retail and then we lose 5 stories and 25 condo residences the idea of activating the riverfront starts to lose its momentum.

I do appreciate your debate. I think it is good. Two opposing views with the same goal. Just one more skeptical than the other.

downtownVital.org

January 26th, 2007, 08:47 PM

This is the last I'll say on this (this being is Astor Place is just a moved Site 4 building) becasue in a sense it's a moot point. Here's the presentation I made two years ago when the boardwalk was just being presented:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/downtownvital/html/designplanflash.htm

As was the case at that time, the site 4 building is presented as an 8 to 20 story mixed use building. Also note that straightening Wash. St. was in the drawings from the get-go. Next, here's the more recent presentation I made when River Center was presented:

http://www.downtownvital.org/html/designplanflash.htm

Astor Place is there now, the the building on site 4 is still presented as a major mixed-use building, essentially the exact same vision as before. I did both of those presentaions, but I didn't make any of that stuff up, those are both what was being presented at the time I made them. Site 4 is and was the same (though, in reality, Vetter has never presented an actual plan for that site, just concepts of scale and use). Astor Place is in addition to site 4, not in place of it. Astor Place is also different in that office use has never been proposed there, while office use has always been propsed for Site 4.

About Vetter, and I don't think you were acusing me of this, but I don't think he's a savior, and he may very well fail. I do think he's the most competent developer we've had looking at this part of our city, and I do feel that the economics are such that he'll build on the Flatley site.

To the issues of the scale of Astor Place, I couldn't agree more that the retail portion needs to stay. When I talk about not being disappionted if the building is scaled back, I am not speaking about the retail/public uses. Those are essential and I'd be against a reduction in that.

But that part isn't the problem, selling the condos is the problem. To me, the good news is that if the condo count was reduced (as an aside, it isn't at all clear that one could or couldn't simply lob off floors and make the project viable, but in the absence of any plans to reduce the scale of the building, that's essentially what I'm assuming for the sake of argument) and the public access preserved, you still gain the public benefits. The building just isn't as tall. I'd be happy with such a result.

I'm also not saying in all this that I've given up on the current proposal. I'd look for a renewed push from Vetter to publicize the project, and if the market will support the scale it will be built, and if not then something less. I remain cautiously optimistic about the current plan, but as always, development on this realtive scale in a city is tough work, and good things don't come easy.

Emerald City

January 26th, 2007, 10:03 PM

If the condo market isn't so hot why doesn't vetter just move commercial/office into the percentage of Astor that isn't selling. There's no rule saying the tower has to all be residental. There are many examples of this in larger cities. I think rentable office suites in that tower would be very desirable.

downtownVital.org

January 26th, 2007, 10:59 PM

^^ My guess is becuase they are trying to fill office space in River Center and they don't want to compete against themselves. There's a minumum of office space that they are committed to build at River Center, I think it's two floors (above the parking along Wash. St.). Even if they don't have tenants as I understand it they'll build that portion on spec. They'll know in June or so how much office will be in the building.

I think another portion of the equation is that Vetter isn't a commercial developer, and I don't think he's as comfortable in that market. Vetter-Denk, if I'm not mistaken, began as a firm mainly designing single-owner residenses (I guess I could call those by their technical name... houses). Then they grew into designing larger scale urban residential complexes, such as what they've built in the Beerline in Milwaukee. So that's their background (somethign like that), and their comfort in that is probably part of why there's a focus on making Astor Place residential.

gbmphillips

January 28th, 2007, 03:01 AM

I certainly hope they are not going to proceed with the boardwalk if Vetter ends up not going through with his end of the bargain

titletown

January 28th, 2007, 04:27 AM

Sometime this year I will be moving to the Tampa area. I just have to live in a more progressive city along with much better weather. I will continue to have hope for this city. I really can't deal with these 2 story, 4 story buildings as the real heart of the city. I have a different view with the people on here who say tall skyscrapers doesn't make a great city...what I would say is the city DOES need density first. We should have buildings at least 15 stories downtown for a metro of 300,000. Talk about amateur developers around Wisconsin. Ashwaubenon's condos sure fell thru as well....Countless proposals and they all fail. Also, you watch every city's downtown or bridge lit up during a NFL game and what does GB have? They can't even lit up a highway. Driving down 172/41/41 you would think your were driving in the country how poorly lit up this city is. To me this is a start. Make this city appealing!! They want to market Green Bay as a city that isn't all about the Packers. Green Bay will always be known for this . I do not see this changing. It is just way too blue collar, untrendy... Not all is like this in this city so I am not trying to offend anyone just stating the obvious. I would be happy with an Astor Place or a few buildings 12 stories plus, but what can you do....Wasn't there 75% of the units reserved at one time and then Vetter could not sell the top floors so he changed everything around and raised the price? I could be wrong, but I remember when there was more interest. Couldn't he have changed the reservations into sales then? Now it is too late. I am just frustrated with the whole riverfront, sorry....

Bay2Bay

January 28th, 2007, 05:37 AM

It seems like people are jumping the gun on feeling Astor Place has fallen through. Until something is stated by Vetter-Denk or the city I remain optimistic. After all, it ain't over til the fat lady sings.

Sure, Green Bay's downtown may seem lacking for a metro of 300,000; but, look at what else the metro area offers... the Weidner and the Meyer (not bad having two performing art centers for a small metro), the Resch Center, the NEW Zoo, the Railroad Museum, the GB Botanical Gardens, St. Norbert College, UWGB, NWTC, all the broadcast television stations for the 69th largest TV market, the Packers and Lambeau Field, and finally my two favorites-- which alone make Green Bay an incredibly great place to visit... Krolls and Chili Johns.

If they ever get the downtown together, that'll be gravy.

avissers

January 28th, 2007, 06:18 PM

Keep the faith...:soon:

GBSurveyor

January 28th, 2007, 10:34 PM

I believe construction it still going to happen.

Avissers just re-assured me, I just wish that everything wasn't so hush hush.

Commence the demolition...

Here is a re-post from late summer...ahh progress. I was looking for a copy of the developers agreement, but have had no luck, council approved it in December 2005 and the agreement must have been signed mid August 2006.

Look for construction to start

Green Bay, Developer Ink Final Deal for 17-Story Tower

Aug 17, 2006 06:12 PM CDT

By Jason Allen

The future of Admiral Flatley Park, a tiny green space along the Fox River in downtown Green Bay, is now officially in the hands of Milwaukee developer John Vetter.

Vetter's vision of Astor Place, 17 stories of condominiums and commercial space, can become a reality now after his firm and the city both signed off on a development agreement this week.

"Everybody's signed off on it, the ink is dry, and now we'll start the phases of construction that are going to be required," Mayor Jim Schmitt said.

Work should start within the next few weeks taking the curve out of Washington Street to make more room for the construction. It comes a couple months after both sides initially wanted work to begin.

The mayor says that time was spent working out details, like using both union and non-union contractors for the project.

The agreement gets one Vetter riverfront project underway but does nothing for another one -- rebuilding the former Younkers department storey. The city says before it sells the Younkers building it wants to be sure businesses and tenants are ready to move in.

Vetter does have one building already finished along the river, and the development agreement calls for Astor Place to be ready for tenants within about the next two years.

"We've agreed to everything, so it's now his property right now. We'll be keeping an eye on him. I'm sure he's excited about getting going," the mayor said.

Puant

January 29th, 2007, 01:22 AM

Gbmphillips:
Remember, the boardwalk is not being built just for Astor Place. Even if (or especially if) Astor does not get built, the boardwalk should go in, because it will help bring some other developer to the dowtown and specifically to the site. THe boardwalk will help the mall site and the whole area redevelop nicely.

Titletown
I wish you well in your move to Florida. We'll miss your posts!...maybe you will still post here from time to time and let us know how it's going.

I know that if it were me, I'd have mixed feelings about moving from this "lame" city. . Sure, the weather will be nicer year-round. Yes, other cities are more active & vibrant in many ways. However, I couldn't do it myself. I coudln't deal with some of the other parts--sitting in traffic for hours every day, paying way too much for housing, dealing with pricks and jerks, etc. . Again--this is my opinion--but I couldn't pack up and leave GB because it has a pretty high standard of living when it comes to raising a family, which is what I'm in the middle of doing right now. Also, you know, I like the change of seasons. It makes life interesting. Always a change-up.

As for the downtown...I've said it before: THis city is really pretty nice all around, the biggest problem it has (besides maybe crime..maybe) is that the downtown's been ruined and abandoned. But what's kind of fun is thinking about the rebirth of it. It's a clean slate, more or less. That's kind of exciting to me. Yeah, I wish these plans would move along faster. But I'm not going to give up hope. WE just need to get to the "critical mass" where enough of the downtown is redeveloping and cleaned up, then, I think, everything else will move along faster.

As for why GB doesn't have taller buildings for a metro it's size...I've been working on an article for my blog about this. The article's not quite finished, but look for it soon.

downtownVital.org

January 29th, 2007, 02:30 AM

Even if (or especially if) Astor does not get built, the boardwalk should go in, because it will help bring some other developer to the dowtown and specifically to the site.

I don't want to say the boardwalk won't be built if Astor Place isn't, because there are other projects that will contribute to it, such as River Center which will be built. But, the boardwalk follows development, it does not lead development. So until various riverfront projects come online, the corresponding sections of the boardwalk won't start.

That said, I'd like to add to the comments of urban lover and avissers in repeating that I too remain optimistic about Astor Place. As others have stated, Green Bay doesn't have buildings on this scale, and so building the first one is difficult business. Because this has seen "delays" doesn't mean there's no progress or that it won't happen.

Green Bay roots

January 30th, 2007, 02:52 AM

well here is the story for River Center and Astor Place. i was getting a little curious myself so i e-mailed John Vetter to see what he would say and this is what i got....

"Currently, the former Younkers property will be conveyed by the end of
February. This will allow for abatement and demo to begin, with
construction of the rental lofts component to follow shortly after.

Earliest estimate for Astor Place is May. Should be an n interesting
time on the waterfront in '07!"

I actually e-mailed him to tell him a name for the boardwalk that i say in omaha while at their arena for a hockey game. there was a concession stand called "Riverfront Station" and i thought that would work pretty good with the train station right across the river. anyway...here is some more news that Jeff Mirkes sent out to everyone on his mailing list about Downtown Redevelopment...

Johnson Bank announced that construction will begin in February on the 2nd level of the Johnson Bank Building at 318 S. Washington St. The second level (11,000 square feet) will be utilized for Johnson Bank's expansion and for Johnson Insurance Services. There will be approximately 40 associates moving into this space July 2007. Brian Kult, President of Johnson Bank said, "The planned expansion represents more than another building project. This represents the continued commitment of the Johnson Family, Johnson Bank and Johnson Insurance to grow in the New North and to continue to serve our associates, our clients and our community."

A significant remodeling project is underway at Camera Corner Connection Point, 529 N. Monroe St. When the store was built in 1989, Camera Corner had 32 employees and divided the store between Cameras and Computers. Today the company has 100 employees and no doubt the technology world is a bit different than it was in 1989! The training room that divided the store has been blown up and will be expanding elsewhere in the store. A Sony Media room will display 30" to 70" HD LCD TV's for home and business. Other product areas being expanded include digital signage products, Cisco business phones and the photo cafe will double in size to 11 stations. The project is expected to be completed in mid May.

The University Wisconsin Oshkosh MBA & Graduate Education Center holds it's first ever MBA classes tonight at their new Green Bay location in the Regency Office Center, 333 Main Street. The space is very impressive and will be available for corporate training and meetings during the daytime hours. Contact Don Gudmundson, MBA Director for more info- 920-424-7201.

Direct Development, Inc. is on the lookout for good quality tenants for their downtown properties. The company has established a HOTLINE and is paying $1 per square foot to anyone who provides a referral that results in a new tenant for their office, retail or restaurant space. 920-430-1480. Join their Referral Team and win $50 restaurant gift certificates drawn monthly. Send an email to rewards@directdevelopmentinc.com include your name, phone number and email address.

Experience the latest in innovative ideas for Business Communications-
Cisco IP Telephony Seminar-
Hosted by Camera Corner Connecting Point-
Feb. 14th 9-11 a.m. Lambeau Field
To register www.cccp.com or 438-0343

UWGB Downtown Third Thursday's Lecture Series-
Romantic Love in America: A brief history and exploration of the importance of love in our culture.
Thurs., Feb. 15th 11:15 to 11:55 a.m. Baylake City Center
Free and open to the public.
rsvp 465-2320 or www.uwgb.edu/downtown

"Project Vote" Forum for County Executive Candidates.
Thurs., Feb. 15th 6:30 to 8 p.m.
Library Auditorium- 515 Pine St. www.project-vote.org

YMCA Corporate Challenge Basketball Event-
Start forming your teams today!
Eight teams of 7-10 members to compete in a week long basketball tournament, March 5-8. Games 5-9 p.m. at Downtown Center. $100 per team includes t-shirt and four YMCA guest passes. Call Jamie 436-9622 or www.greenbayymca.org

Have a nice week!

Jeff Mirkes
DGBI
333 Main St. Suite 117
Green Bay, WI 54301

Puant

January 30th, 2007, 05:07 AM

gbmphillips

February 2nd, 2007, 10:34 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

February 2nd, 2007, 11:49 PM

That kind of sums up what I feel the sense of this community is. A majority do feel that we don't need to have Green Bay change, that it will continue to plow along just like it has for the next fifty years. Meanwhile our streets will continue to look outdated when compared to other cities, business will contine to flock to the burbs because that is where the population is going, no corporations or business will look downtown because nothing notable or attractive to them will be there.

When is it okay to say, I have pride in my City. I want it to stand out from the crowd, be a destination (besides the Packers), have an image, have pull, be beautiful and pleasing to drive through, have great neighborhoods and schools... I know, it costs money to do that, even small parts of it. And no one that is part of the old "good old boy" network wants to put one more nickel into anything over standard.

But at some point you gotta say we need to move forward. This isn't the 50's anymore and there have been significant advances in creating better communities. Green Bay has a long way to go, but the biggest hurdle will be getting off the starting block.

Puant

February 3rd, 2007, 12:30 AM

Titletown good luck in FLA, while you need tall buildings to live I really believe the majority of the people in this area would prefer to keep Green Bay small and simple. Lets be honest no major corp is really going to move to Green Bay. There will never be a big building boom in this city. It would be nice to have something besides smokestacks and coal piles downtown, but I really do not see a major changes to the skyline any time soon.

It's funny when I was a kid thats what I envisioned Green Bay would be, I always was intrigued when I went to Milwaukee, Chicago and other "big" cities. But now that I am a gray hair old fart, I kinda like the "city" the way it is, but a few improvments and additions would be nice.

Well, I'm a relative newcomer here so I don't understand what the majority of people prefer....

However...What I don't understand is why the people of this city seemed to show so much pride by buiding truly great buildings between about 1900-1940? Is it just me, or did the citizens of Green Bay display a lot more pride and a lot more drive to modernize back about 80 years ago than maybe they do now? Is this perception of mine accurate?

Green Bay was really small at that time, but the people of the city actually pushed the envelope back then, putting up some pretty tall buidings for the day...and very high quality, too. I mean, by anyones standards, buildings like the courthouse, HOtel Northland, the old city hall, gosh, many other buildings were top-notch in design & quality. Now, all of our capital seems to be spent on widening roads and slapping up new strip malls. There's little money left for anything else. Certainly no money left to do anything top-notch.

titletown

February 3rd, 2007, 01:49 AM

Thanks gbm!

Puant - I thought the same thing, the first half of the 20th century took much more pride the way you were describing. I would mainly blame the automobile on this one. Why? I think it has to do with how America changed right about that time. How we became a fast food nation and corporate america became the "in" and as you see alot of the older buildings were knocked down mainly in the 60's & 70's to have surface parking lots, because automobiles became much more affordable and common. In the early 1900's we had streetcars and people lived closer together. Now we have the convience of the car/truck and we can live further away from our jobs, etc. I see alot of Midwest cities where the population had dropped significantly in the past decades. There are alot of people moving to the suburbs. Now this decade it seems like we are getting our pride back and the "in" is living in downtown for some, not all.

My friends will never leave Green Bay. Nothing wrong with that, but they like the small town atmosphere. It isn't fast pace and they like that. I see it this way. There are alot of people from bigger cities who live here, because there isn't so much chaos as what they would say as they had in Milwaukee/Chicago. Also, it is much cheaper to live here. There are also a lot of people from smaller towns who moved here for jobs and they do not want to live in a city that is large like Milwaukee or Chicago.

araman0

February 3rd, 2007, 03:38 AM

However...What I don't understand is why the people of this city seemed to show so much pride by buiding truly great buildings between about 1900-1940? Is it just me, or did the citizens of Green Bay display a lot more pride and a lot more drive to modernize back about 80 years ago than maybe they do now? Is this perception of mine accurate?

I heard at one point that Green Bay was once Wisconsin's largest city, even bigger than Milwaukee and Madison. WIth this being the case, we can say that Green Bay had much more relative importance in Wisconsin in the past than it does now. In other wards, the further back we go in time, the more relative importance Green Bay has had in Wisconsin. This would explain the impressive older structures in downtown.

Bay2Bay

February 3rd, 2007, 05:05 AM

^^
These population figures are from each respective cities page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only showed Green Bay population totals for 1855-1890 and then 1990-2005. I found the population totals for 1930-1980 at http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/forms/2_chap_gbcomp.pdf. From the looks of it, you have to go back sometime before 1850 to find out when Green Bay was larger than Milwaukee or Madison. I do know Green Bay is the oldest settlement in Wisconsin, so at one time it had to be the largest!

City of Green Bay
Population by year
1855 1,644
1860 2,276
1870 4,698
1880 7,476
1890 9,069
1930 37,415
1940 46,235
1950 57,735
1960 62,888
1970 87,809
1980 94,466
1990 96,466
2000 102,313
2005 108,313

City of Milwaukee
Census
year Population
1850 20,061
1860 45,246
1870 71,440
1880 115,587
1890 204,468
1900 285,315
1910 373,857
1920 457,147
1930 578,249
1940 587,472
1950 637,392
1960 741,324
1970 717,099
1980 636,212
1990 628,088
2000 596,974

City of Madison
Population by year
1840 172
1850 1,525
1860 6,611
1870 9,176
1880 10,324
1890 13,426
1900 19,164
1910 25,531
1920 38,378
1930 57,899
1940 67,447
1950 96,056
1960 126,706
1970 171,809
1980 170,616
1990 191,262
2000 208,903
2005 221,551

downtownVital.org

February 3rd, 2007, 06:38 PM

I'm all for tall buildings, trust me, but I'm with GBM in that I don't think we need tall buildings for the downtown to be a success. We do need improvements, and we do need progress, but in theory that can be had with 4-6 story buildings. Taller buildings would be great, but to me that's just gravy.

I also agree that major corps. probably aren't going to relocate to Green Bay. We may get a branch of some company here and there, but luring outside employers in doen't seem to be where it's at to me. As I see it, the important thing is to make the environment right for existing businesses. The largest employers in the area tend to have sprung up here, and I think we need to make the area attractive so they stay and grow here, as well as helping new businesses prosper. The downtown is part of that. I think what happened with APAC is a great success story of an employer who very well could have left town, but liked what they saw happening downtown and wanted to be part of that. That's what it's all about.

Like all things, Green Bay is what it is, and that's good. Most people here stay here becuase they like the quality of life. I don't think we need to make a big show for others, and to be honest I really couldn't care less what bumper shots Monday Night Football uses. I want Green Bay to work for the people of Green Bay.

That doesn't mean things can't improve or shouldn't improve. If you've followed this tread a while you realize my views on that. I just think that there's a lot here that's right and need not change. I also think there's a lot of pride in this community today, and we shouldn't sell that short.

Puant

February 3rd, 2007, 08:43 PM

I also think there's a lot of pride in this community today, and we shouldn't sell that short.

Yes there is community pride, but it seems most people are most proud of Oneida Street and the stadium district area, and places like that. Many of those same people love to rip and cut down the downtown and take pride in avoiding it at all costs. How many people do you know boast about how they never go downtown any more? I know quite a few. They laugh at the downtown's struggles.

I think there are parts of this city that are fantastic, and I'm proud of them too. We have great residential neighborhoods, for example. I just don't talk about those areas much because to me, they aren't "broke". What's broke is the downtown.

I understand that not everyone is an "urbanite" who enjoys urban places. A lot of folks who grew up here love to hunt, fish, go up north...essentially they love nature. And' I'm very cool with that. Long before I became an urbanite, I was (and still am) a nature loving freak.

The two (nature and urban density) have to jive: Sprawl takes away the beauty of nature, and ruins the serene untainted natural settings.. But sprawl is not really urban, either. Sprawl ruined our dense urban core and smeared it all across hundreds of square miles. Even in little tiny Green Bay. We have destroyed then abandoned our once-vibrant, formerly high-quality downtown and simultaneously destroyed the pastoral natural settings of the whole region.

So now those of us who live here have neither fun, interesting densely urban places nor high quality natural areas. We have to drive a couple hours up north to get our fix of nature or drive south a couple hours to enjoy great urbanity. It seems to me that Green Bay back in 1930, though much smaller, had the great downtown and nearby (like, within a bicycle ride's distance) nice pastoral farmland, woods, rivers, streams, etc. Seems like the best of both worlds to me.

Puant

February 5th, 2007, 01:26 AM

I was looking at skylines of other mid-sized cities, comparing them to GB's.

Here's Grand Rapids. This is similiar to what GB's skyline could be. You can almost imagine that river being the Fox, that bridge being Main St., and the tower on the left being Astor Place, the center would be River Center and then Site 4 on the right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Grskyline114.jpg

downtownVital.org

February 5th, 2007, 11:33 PM

Yes there is community pride, but it seems most people are most proud of Oneida Street and the stadium district area, and places like that. Many of those same people love to rip and cut down the downtown and take pride in avoiding it at all costs. How many people do you know boast about how they never go downtown any more? I know quite a few. They laugh at the downtown's struggles.

I think there are parts of this city that are fantastic, and I'm proud of them too. We have great residential neighborhoods, for example. I just don't talk about those areas much because to me, they aren't "broke". What's broke is the downtown...

I don't know anyone who boasts that they don't go downtown. I know some people who will tell you that they don't go because they don't feel there's anything for them there, but I can't think of anyone who boasted about that. I'm sure there are people like that, but there are such people in every city.

I am obviously all for reducing sprawl and for growth downtown. But just because someone isn't as enthused about it as I am, or because they don't feel it's worth investing time in a downtown that they see as failed doesn't mean thay don't have pride in Green Bay. This is a city with some great neighborhoods, an excellent parks system, good schools, an unbelieveable staduim, good roads etc. etc. It's a place where a railroad corridor was made into a public access recreational trail that allows everyone access to the river. It's a place where a new aquatic center, the second in the city, will open and becuase of their location, both primarily benefit the lower-income families nearby. It's a place where it's generally safe to raise a family. This didn't all happen by luck, it happened because a whole lot of people took great pride in their community.

A lot of people are down about the downtown, and looking at history, it's easy to see why. But that they don't share our interest in the downtown doesn't mean that they don't have pride in their city, not in the least. You and I may argue that they are wrong and their views aren't in the best interests of the city, but we shouldn't demean those with a different point of view as lacking pride in their city. In the end, our role is to prove people who don't share our vision wrong, and to welcome them to an improved downtown that they will want to come down to.

I was looking at skylines of other mid-sized cities, comparing them to GB's.

Here's Grand Rapids. This is similiar to what GB's skyline could be. You can almost imagine that river being the Fox, that bridge being Main St., and the tower on the left being Astor Place, the center would be River Center and then Site 4 on the right.

Looks nice. It's fair to note though that Grand Rapids' city population is 197,800 (GB's is 102,313), their metro population is 771,185 (GBs is 237,166) and their CSA population is 1,315,319. So as a guide of what Green Bay should be, Grand Rapids is pretty poor. As I comparision of what a row of buildings along a river could look like in Green Bay, I can see where you're going.

Puant

February 6th, 2007, 12:42 AM

^^ Don't get me wrong--I respect the opinion of others. It's not like I'm going to fight someone with an opinion different than mine, if I should say, meet them in a dark alley (or maybe in GB's case, a dark parking lot would be more likely).

You're right on with your points, but what I'm saying is that I wish for more pride for the downtown. You can't deny that a lot of people gave up hope on it, and frankly, many didn't care because they don't go there anymore, anyway.

YOu're also right about Grand Rapids being a bad comparison. However, what about Rochester Minnesota as a comparison--midwest, river city, population is for both city proper and MSA are roughly the same (a little less, even) than Green Bay's. However they have a much more spectatular skyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester%2C_Minnesota and make sure you scroll down and enlarge the images.
What else is cool about Rochester's downtown is the underground system of walkway tunnels (pedestrian 'subway').
I've never been here, but I'm planning a trip this summer (cousin's wedding) and plan to stay downtown to check it all out.

Bartles53

February 6th, 2007, 04:02 AM

About 5 or so years ago I stopped in Grand Rapids for lunch on the way back from a business trip. I was absolutely stunned at the quality of their downtown. It was filled with cool buildings (new and old), classy hotels and great restaurants. The best tapas place that I've ever been to was right in the heart of downtown Grand Rapids. At the time (and actually until Dan posted the actual numbers) I was under the impression that Green Bay and Grand Rapids had about the same population. I always wondered why Green Bay's downtown on a scale of 1-10 was about a 2 while Grand Rapid's was a 9. It's interesting, if you look at the numbers on Wikipedia, GR's population density is 4,430 while GB's is 900. I guess that explains most of it. Also, if I remember correctly there is at least one university situated downtown. That definitely ups the demand for housing in the downtown area as well as the need for restaurants/recreational activites (clubs, bookstores, etc.) It's a little depressing when you compare it to GB but it's also inspiring that a city of GR's size could have such an urbane downtown. Maybe someday Green Bay will have something at least in the same ballpark. Something to be proud of and to show off to visitors that have never been to the area.

titletown

February 6th, 2007, 08:11 AM

Green Bay 4 Life

February 6th, 2007, 08:00 PM

Both Rochester and Grand Rapids have some of the best hospitals and healthcare industries around. That is one of the reasons why their downtown keeps building and people are moving downtown. Those 2 cities are amazing, especially Rochester for it's size.

Also, what Green Bay is lacking is a great deal of Philanthropist's that are dedicated to making the Downtown succeed. Maybe Dick Resch from KI, but that be about it. Funny when you have Schrieber Foods, WPS, and our two hospital in the near vicinity to downtown that there isn't more of a push to donate funds towards improvements. They can't all come from one guy or family. Rochester has had some very nice donations (based around Mayo) to improve the appearance of the downtown area.

GBSurveyor

February 6th, 2007, 08:39 PM

Not to change the compelling subject at hand...

Did anyone notice the JC Penny building being up for lease? I saw the ad in the recent "Business News" Paper. It mentioned that either 1 or 2 floors were available and also Facade improvemant were planned. I had alway thought that a portion of that building was to be reserved for an expanded KI center. I wonder what the improvemants will do to the look? I can't say I have my hopes up.

Also has anyone heard any news about the "What up downtown" program? It seems like it is time for an update.

And finally to change the (-) direction of this forum the last few weeks, Lets say if you had a choice, what one project would you like to see get going (either proposed or conceptual)?

I think I would have to go with the Rivercenter project - I want the Childrens museum to open up. Green Bay needs more activities for families.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 6th, 2007, 09:18 PM

I wouldn't get my hopes up about the JCP building. I'm assuming facade improvements will be similar in style to Baylake Bank. Obviously much better than what is there now, but just getting a user in there in the long run may not be what is best for downtown. My opinion only.

As far as the project I'd most l;ike to see. The Boardwalk. Because that would mean other projects have commenced and there is a reason for it to begin construction. Obviously the boardwalk by itself is somewhat silly in downtown's current state.

downtownVital.org

February 6th, 2007, 09:26 PM

However, what about Rochester Minnesota as a comparison--midwest, river city, population is for both city proper and MSA are roughly the same (a little less, even) than Green Bay's. However they have a much more spectatular skyline.

...I've never been here, but I'm planning a trip this summer (cousin's wedding) and plan to stay downtown to check it all out.

Looks nice. I'll be curious about the pedestrian corridors. Cities with skywalk systems, in a way they're nice, but they can also rob life from the street. I wonder if this will be any different.

Another city very similar in size to GB is Cedar Rapids, IA. The picture here isn't the best, but there are some pretty nice buildings. When I was there (I think it was in '98 or '99) the streets were dead though, so that wasn't so great. I don't know how the street life is there normally. They have the skywalks too, so I don't know how big of an effect that had.

http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/images/Cedarrapidsiowa.jpg

Both Rochester and Grand Rapids have some of the best hospitals and healthcare industries around. That is one of the reasons why their downtown keeps building and people are moving downtown. Those 2 cities are amazing, especially Rochester for it's size.

Also, what Green Bay is lacking is a great deal of Philanthropist's that are dedicated to making the Downtown succeed.

These are key points. Large numbers of highly-paid residents, some of whom help out downtown. Even look at what Dudley's done in Wausau. There's really not much a city can do to create people like that, but one motivated individual can sure make a difference.

And finally to change the (-) direction of this forum the last few weeks, Lets say if you had a choice, what one project would you like to see get going (either proposed or conceptual)?

First my qualifiers: I don't think cities need tall buildings to have a good downtown, and I don't think we should be disappointed if a certain building doesn't reach a certain arbitrary height.

Okay, that said (again), no doubt for me that I most want to see Astor Place get going. It would be so damn cool to have an 18-story building right downtown, and more than anything else it would make it impossible for people to ignore the progress that has been building over the last few years.

LA1

February 7th, 2007, 02:31 AM

Puant

February 7th, 2007, 02:52 AM

^^ If you can wait a couple of months, the Packers have minicamps in May (open to public, usually) to give you a little more NFL action. . The weather will be much nicer by then, of course. Otherwise, the training camps in August are always a big draw, lots of fun.
DOwntown is a few miles from the stadium area. I'll suggest you stay downtown at St. Brendan's Inn. I think the cost is reasonable, and you might like to eat there too. (see my blog below for their web site link). The place is usually pretty 'happening' on weekend nights, at least. You can walk down Washington St to other restaurants and pubs (if you're so inclined). Kittner's is cool.

GBSurveyor

February 7th, 2007, 03:07 AM

I live in Downtown Chicago, and I would like to see Green Bay in person, being a big NFL fan. I wouldnt drive, probably take Greyhound, since Amtrak doesnt go there. Any advice on this trip? Hotels, cost, restaurants downtown etc?

I too would recommend St. Brendans to stay, there are a few other hotels downtown, but the bulk of them are in Ashwaubenon, many around the stadium. For eats I would recommend Titletown (http://titletownbrewing.com)-pub fare with decent beers, catch happy hour brews for $2/pint, I also really like Jakes Pizza- East side on Main street. Another authentic Green Bay place is The Stein on Adams St. and Al's Hamburgers on Washington street. I have to warn you in advance that the downtown is not much to write home about, but do come and check it out and let us know what you think.

Bay2Bay

February 7th, 2007, 04:11 AM

Another authentic Green Bay place is The Stein on Adams St.

The Stein on Adams St. has the best Reuben Sandwich this side of New York!

GBFAN

February 7th, 2007, 04:20 AM

I live in Downtown Chicago, and I would like to see Green Bay in person, being a big NFL fan. I wouldnt drive, probably take Greyhound, since Amtrak doesnt go there. Any advice on this trip? Hotels, cost, restaurants downtown etc?

I concur that St Brendans is nice. Also Jakes is a must and Als as stated Another hotel option would be Regency Suites(formerly Embassy Suites) Probalby about $100.00 a night but included like Embassy is the Evening social hour with drinks and snacks, also breakfast each morning. If you are a Packer fan you will probalby want to hit the Packer hall of fame, Brett Farve's steakhouse. I do agree you should wait until May for both the weather and mini camp. You also could check the program at Meyer Theather they have a varied list of entertainment and you may find something of your liking it is on Washington downtown- For other nightlife Washington Street has some good pubs as mentioned many have good bands on weekends. If you like more of a club scene then go to Hip Cats, PI or Confetties all downtown

a couple of restaurants downtown in addition to the mentioned are Victorias(itailian) also Hinterland Brewery. If you eat at the lounge at Hinterland, there is a great view of downtown and soon it will be the best restaurant view of the Astor-Place Condos(ground breaking soon)

If you take the bus and need a cab while in town, Bay City taxi is recommended, I use them for airport trips, nights out, etc.

have fun in GB!

Puant

February 7th, 2007, 04:47 AM

And finally to change the (-) direction of this forum the last few weeks, Lets say if you had a choice, what one project would you like to see get going (either proposed or conceptual)?

I think I would have to go with the Rivercenter project - I want the Childrens museum to open up. Green Bay needs more activities for families.

I'll be less negative once one or two of these big projects gets started!
I'm with you on River Center for the #1 thing to start. I can't wait to take my kids to the childrens museum. I think RC should be the first because right now the old buildings are a big vacant crummy looking eyesore (sorry, being - again). The vacant Astor site isn't ugly right now, at least..there's a nice tree there.

What I hope happens after R/C, in somewhat of an order:

2) A close second for me is the mall site. At minimum, put the streets back through and try parcel it off large or small, whatever happens, happens. The streets must go through regardless. You guys convinced me.
3) Astor Place
4) the boardwalk to tie it all together and finish the riverfront (well, except site 4).
5) The Daily Planet site tower

I should see no reason for all of this stuff to be done by December 2010.

Then, put up a really fantastic building on "Site 4". I hope the mayor didn't give up on his vision of having the "signature" riverfront "bookend" building here. I don't care if it's not super tall, just make it awesome.

gbgoose

February 7th, 2007, 06:00 AM

I'll be less negative once one or two of these big projects gets started!
I'm with you on River Center for the #1 thing to start. I can't wait to take my kids to the childrens museum. I think RC should be the first because right now the old buildings are a big vacant crummy looking eyesore (sorry, being - again). The vacant Astor site isn't ugly right now, at least..there's a nice tree there.

What I hope happens after R/C, in somewhat of an order:

2) A close second for me is the mall site. At minimum, put the streets back through and try parcel it off large or small, whatever happens, happens. The streets must go through regardless. You guys convinced me.
3) Astor Place
4) the boardwalk to tie it all together and finish the riverfront (well, except site 4).
5) The Daily Planet site tower

I should see no reason for all of this stuff to be done by December 2010.

Then, put up a really fantastic building on "Site 4". I hope the mayor didn't give up on his vision of having the "signature" riverfront "bookend" building here. I don't care if it's not super tall, just make it awesome.

I am probably stating what most of you have already said, but here's my humble 2 cents.

1. Light up the city more - that included Hwy 172, Tower Drive, Hwy 41 from Oneida to Mason or Shawano Ave. I'm in agreement with Titletown in thinking if Mayor Schmitt wants to have Green Bay start 'acting like we're the third largest city in Wisconsin', then give the perception to drivers on the freeways that we are in a city, and not driving through the country at night.

2. River Center / Astor Place. This will be a boost to get people to initially get more curious as to what's happening downtown.

3. The grid system restored. This should open up some more traffic, and have another avenue to some of the empty buildings downtown. I'm not sure what level of excitement is downtown since I am guessing some of you are much more involved than I am, but having the grid can open some doors.

4. More entertainment - if you want more people to come downtown for more than just the bars, then give us a reason. Artstreet, Winterfest, Bayfest, 4th of July (Celebrate Americafest), shows at Meyer, etc. I feel downtown could use something significant (i.e. the Ampitheater idea - that could be placed at Leicht Park). The Boardwalk / Riverwalk and Childrens Museums will be a starting point for the attractions. Bayfest needs to be better organized though.

5. Site 4 - and beyond. Adding buildings of any size in Green Bay is going to be tough because of the city's perception - that it's the Packers and only the Packers. Right now the focus is around the stadium and Oneida Street. Something in Site 4 with a higher level building would be cool when driving over the Fox on 172 to see something instead of the smoke stacks at Georgia Pacific.

The beyond piece...if Green Bay is working on the riverfront, I'd like to see some redevelopment in some other areas in the downtown - Madison, Monroe, Jefferson - I guess I'd like to see a vibrant downtown as a whole....and that starts with the river.

I concur that St Brendans is nice.

a couple of restaurants downtown in addition to the mentioned are Victorias(itailian) also Hinterland Brewery. If you eat at the lounge at Hinterland,

If you take the bus and need a cab while in town, Bay City taxi is recommended, I use them for airport trips, nights out, etc.

have fun in GB!

I'd also add Fox Harbor, which is about a block away from St. Brendan's - that's a pretty cool startup place. Titletown is a must - and I'd also add Angelina's on Adams St for restaurants.

Check out Curly's Pub inside of Lambeau Field as well.

I also like Renegade Taxi.

LA1

February 7th, 2007, 06:18 AM

Awesome. Thanks guys. I will probably go up when the weather is in at least the 40s :)

I like Wisconsin far more than Illinois or Indiana (outside of Chicagoland) btw.
Reminds me alittle of my home state of VA.

downtownVital.org

February 7th, 2007, 07:10 PM

^^ I'll be the 5th or 6th to reccommend St. Brendan's. My wife and I stayed there for a weekend once and it was very nice, good breakfast when we were there too. I'm glad GBgoose mentioned Angelina's, excellent place, in my experience the most authentic Italian this side of Italy (and I've been to Italy a few times, so I'm not just saying that. The owner of Angelina's came here from Italy). If you'll be out by the stadium, I'd definitly go to Kroll's... the difinitive butter-bomb-hamburger. Mmmmmm. Though there's a Kroll's now on S. Michigan Ave., so it's not like you can't go there at home.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 9th, 2007, 09:17 PM

In today's GBPG

Regency Suites may be sold to Kansas firm

The owner of the Regency Suites Hotel and Convention Center in downtown Green Bay is in talks to sell the property to Wichita, Kan.-based LodgeWorks.

The hotel at 333 Main St. has 241 rooms and suites and employs 200. It also manages the adjacent KI Convention Center.

Blaze Brigman, general manager of Regency Suites, said owner Joseph Simek of Medford, a co-founder of Tombstone Pizza, is negotiating with LodgeWorks. Simek was an original investor in the hotel and assumed full ownership in the mid-1980s.

If a deal is agreed upon, it will be closed at the end of the month, Brigman said.

He said the hotel would continue to manage the KI Convention Center.

LodgeWorks owns, develops and manages hotels across the United States, specializing in all-suite, extended-stay properties.

Its founders launched Residence Inn by Marriott, Sierra Suites and Summerfield Suites. It owns or operates 17 hotels in 10 states and employs more than 600.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/GPG03/70209076/1978

I saw on Fox 11 last night that there may be a possibility the new owner would seek to renovate the rooms and common areas as well as potentially look to expand the convention facility in the future. Hopefully this will be a positive for downtown.

Puant

February 10th, 2007, 04:27 AM

We've discussed this before some, but, since there's a lull in development news, how about some fun: I'm curious what you think about the location of UW-GB:

If you could go back in time and make the decision yourself, would you have put UWGB where it is, or would you have placed it downtown? If downtown, where?

Myself, I think about how nice it is to have that arboretum around it (in it's current location): Awesome, natural public land that if not for the University, would have been developed as private land, probably another cookie-cutter subdivision, inaccessible to most of us.

On the other hand, wishing that the downtown was more exciting, I sort of dream about how the university would have looked on the Larsen canning site next to the river. Maybe the old depot (now Titletown) would have been like some sort of "commons" for the university fronting Main St, and the campus could have stretched along the river to the north with perhaps a few high-rises. The old Broadway district would have some of the cool off-campus housing like in other college towns (Madison, Oshkosh, LaCrosse, etc). Yeah, there would be some slummy-type housing and other problems, but surely it would have injected some much-needed life into that part of downtown. And who knows? Maybe the Resch center or some other sports facility would have been placed downtown instead of where it is. I'd love to catch UWGB basketball downtown (I also wish they had a D1 baseball team to go along with it's D1 basketball team but that's another story). Lots of other amenities could have followed suit. Well, dream on, right/ I guess in the end, I would have put the university downtown on the Larsen Canning site, and tried hard to find another way to preserve some of the natural beauty of the current campus site.
Maybe the C.Reiss coal site along the river woudl have been another nice spot for the university. I know, neither of these riverfront sites were an option for a uni. back when they started it, because of course shipping is an important part of the city. Nobody, including C.Reiss themselves, like being where they are, though. They could have moved that coal facility down to the mouth of the river years ago, and put the university right there. High rises would have been a must, because real estate would be pretty limited.

GBSurveyor

February 10th, 2007, 08:53 AM

Back before UWGB became a school, I am sure they looked at putting the campus somewhere else. It would be intersting to see what sites they had considered, I seem to recall that the current campus was a gift. I think the creation of UWGB just happened at a terrible tiime in US history, possibly near the peak of freeway construction. So again I have to believe that people thought that locationg the campus made the most sence since the auto was the future. You also have to remember that downtown back they wasn't broke like it is now, also Larsen Canning was open, both sides of Mason had enormos coal piles. I tend to think that if a site was selected it would have been placed where the regency suits sits today. But just as a what if... I too would agree the larsen complex would be a great location. I couldn't imagine what an injection of 7500 students would due to the downtown area. I am sure that the lack of like 100 acres of surface parking that now exists at UWGB would really make a bunch of students have different habbits...

How about another what if??? What if the current campus wasn't so isolated from the existing neighborhood that is out there now, or what if private developers were alowed to create the housing options available. I am sure it would have shaped up much different. There is no reason for the average person to have a reason to go out on the campus now, but look at any other campus, businesses are usually clustered very near and walkable to the campus which also benefits the adjoing neighborhoods.

Some day in the future the campus will be located entirely within the sprawl/growth of the city and it won't seem so isolat ed, but what if it was in the near downtown??? I can only imagine.

Geography Teacher

February 10th, 2007, 05:55 PM

I agree that had UWGB been placed downtown, we would have a much more vibrant city center. And the way that land near the bay is being developed these days, that land would probably be put to good use anyway.

Whenever I went to UWGB for a band camp they'd always have to bus us somewhere to do something fun (shopping, movies, hanging out). I'll bet there aren't a lot of college campuses in which that would have to happen. UWGB is quite isolated and when you're there you feel that much more isolated because of the low density of its campus and the ring of undeveloped land around the developed portion of campus. Yes, it is great to walk through but it adds a buffer between student life and the rest of the world.

Attendance at the Resch for UWGB basketball games would be much greater and the home court advantage would be better with more students actually attending the games. Even when presented with free tickets, many UWGB students don't want to make the long trek to Ashwaubenon, especially on a cold winter night.

Even as Green Bay continues to grow, I don't ever envision the current campus location integrating fully with a "normal" offcampus community. The land around the campus is already filling up with residential lots taking advantage of the location and views. There is little land available for commercial use. And the campus is connected to its neighborhood by only a few roads that funnel traffic.

We can fault Green Bay for the terrible mistakes it made in the 1970s with downtown -- knocking down historic buildings and building a suburban mall, for example -- but I can't fault it for putting UWGB where it is. As has been mentioned, at the time the downtown was not broken, it was more industrial, and urban sprawl was not yet a dirty word.

By the way, Puant, excellent blog about Green Bay's urban sprawl. To the contrary, you are quite the wordsmith.

Bartles53

February 13th, 2007, 03:45 AM

Ashwaubenon’s building-height proposal keeps eye on horizon

By Patti Zarling
pzarling@greenbaypressgazette.com

ASHWAUBENON — Skyscrapers may not be coming to the village anytime soon, but the possibility, at least, is there under a proposal the Village Board will consider Tuesday.

The board is expected to take a final vote on a building heights map, which outlines just how tall structures can be throughout various parts of the community. Most of the village would be limited to buildings no taller than 36 feet — or about three stories. Some, primarily commercial areas, will accommodate buildings that could be five to 10 stories tall. And an area along U.S. 41 and Wisconsin 172, as well as a strip from roughly the Resch Center to Bay Park Square mall, would make room for 20-story buildings.

“Property owners in that area are asking a lot for their property,” said village President Norbert DeCleene, referring to the strip near the Resch, an area that is part of the proposed Ashwaubenon Boulevard. “People who buy it have to get their money back out of it.”

And it isn’t unusual to see taller buildings near major highways, he said.

“I don’t think we’ll see 20-story buildings popping up everywhere,” DeCleene said.

Village trustee Mark Williams said he hopes that doesn’t happen.

“As a resident of Ashwaubenon, I don’t want to be in a high-rise community with increased traffic,” he said. “I like the small-community atmosphere. I don’t want it to become urbanized.”

The impetus for the plan, in fact, stemmed from complaints about a proposed condominium complex near Lambeau Field more than two years ago.

"I think they did need a building heights committee," responded Tom Urquhart of Ashwaubenon last year. "But for the life of me, I don't understand why they want to build 10 stories or more. My feeling for the village is that buildings should stay about the height of the Resch Center or the (Pioneer Credit Union) bank on Morris Avenue. They're all about five stories, and that seems to fit.

"You've got heavy residential not too far from that, and 10 or 11 stories would have a negative effect."

More than two years ago, Urquhart helped organize a petition against a proposed five- to six-story sports-themed condo project on Ridge Road near the Packers’ stadium. The developer reduced the height to three stories, then backed out altogether.

Ashwaubenon leaders determined the village should have something on the books detailing acceptable building heights, and a citizen committee was formed. That committee supported maximum building heights of 10 stories, or 120 feet. The village Site Plan Review Committee suggested the 20-story max, Williams said.

But he said he understands the rational behind the recommendation, and said it doesn’t mean he’ll necessarily vote against the plan.

“I know the density levels you need the height to make if affordable,” said Williams, who owns Williams Auto Body Inc., 825 Potts Ave. “And I’m not opposed to the 120-foot limit, if they have a conditional permit.

“I just don’t think the whole community supports going to something that big.”

DeCleene, though, argued the village still will take a look at proposed 10 or 20-story complexes, and that he doesn’t expect it to be an issue, since most of the zones allowing for taller buildings are kept to the east, commercial area of the community, or its industrial regions.

“If you have a bunch of taller buildings together, it’s not going to look out of place,” he said. “But I don’t think it will happen. I think developers are getting enough land – full blocks – to utilize what they have. Maybe a little bit of both, but it won’t look out of place.”

Bartles53

February 13th, 2007, 03:49 AM

This is from a blog by my favorite Packer columnist, Cliff Christl. I included it here because it has some historical references to downtown Green Bay.

FRIDAY, Feb. 9, 2007, 2:35 p.m.

An institution is closing

The owner of the Candelstick Lounge in Green Bay has told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that she will be closing her doors within the next month or so. The Candlestick has been a fixture in the city since 1962.

It's original location was within a block of the old Northland Hotel, where almost all visiting teams stayed until at least the late 1960s. And I remember hearing stories as a teenager about how players from opposing teams would head to the Candlestick shortly after arriving in town. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard once that Hall of Famer Gino Marchetti got in a fight with the bartender at the Candlestick the afternoon before a game and threw him out in the middle of Pine Street. I've heard that the late Bobby Layne toasted more than a few there, as well.

The Candlestick also was a hangout for many of the Packers' players in the 1960s when the downtown was still the hub of activity in Green Bay. As recently as the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was a hangout for Lindy Infante's staff and even some of Mike Holmgren's assistants.

Fans also packed the bar on Sundays of Packer games, both home and away. For home games, the bar ran buses to Lambeau Field for its customers.

There are still a few thriving bars in downtown Green Bay, but the heart of the city is almost lifeless. And the Candlestick crowds have shrunk to almost nothing except maybe on a few special occasions.

In a satirical sense, it could be said that the day the Candlestick closes will be among the saddest in Packers' history, along with those when Brehme's Bar, George Whitney Calhoun's favorite haunt and where he hosted many of the visiting legends of the game; the Piccadilly, put off limits by Vince Lombardi shortly after he arrived in Green Bay and learned it was where Scooter's Packers did most of their carousing on the way to their 1-10-1 finish; and Mother Pierre's Whorehouse, where Johnny Blood allegedly did some of his frolicking, all closed.

Bartles53

February 13th, 2007, 04:12 AM

In 10-20 years from now if downtown becomes a thriving and populated section of Green Bay is it possible that the Northland Hotel once again becomes a properly used feature of the city? I realize politically it’s a disastrous move to suggest moving those who currently reside in the building to a different area. However, just think if someday downtown is the place to be (again). We’d potentially have a historic jewel of a building put to use as a high-end hotel or even condos. It’s especially enticing to consider if the street grid goes through and that building sees some traffic rolling by regularly. Just think of the high end historic hotels in San Francisco. It’s always a treat to stay in a place with a grand lobby that’s been around for 100 years—even when the rooms aren’t as spacious as a contemporary hotel. Now I’ll admit that I know next to nothing about that building nor have I ever stepped inside but someday when the market can sustain the presence of a nice hotel or more condos downtown I’d love to see that building properly lit up, restored and bustling with activity. What do you guys think, is it feasible? Does anyone know if the city currently owns the building?

downtownVital.org

February 13th, 2007, 06:02 AM

^^ I've never been in the Northland either. I hear that there's quite a nice ballroom type space inside. I've heard personally from one representative of a Milwaukee based developer who revitalizes old, historic buildings and has preliminary interest in the Northland. He found that the State (I think it was the State) has that site for something like 10 more years. So if that's true then not much will happen there for that time. Also, a few moths ago when I interviewed the Mayor he told me sort of in passing that he felt that something should eventually be done with that building. Everyone who ever mentions the subject says that obviously you can't just displace those people, and that to develop the property one must first move them in a way that improves their circumstances. So if that can be done in an agreeable way, I think there is interest in that site, in fact I think there are many who view that as perhaps the most desireable redevelopment property downtown.

Puant

February 13th, 2007, 06:41 AM

Hotel Northland building
I know the lower 2 floors are completely underutilized. I've walked into the building a few times (the doors are open because there is one or two offices still open in there). I walked around the lobby and I was astounded by the character of it. It's really cool, but neglected. I can only surmise that the upper parts of the building is also in need of some repair. I talked to a lady who helped maintain the building, she said that I could take pictures of the ballroom upstairs if I wanted. But, I had only my crappy little camera so I took a rain check. I think a better photographer should go through it and get some good shots. I would be interested in digging up old photos of that place. Surely with all of the weddings, banquets, etc that took place there over the years, there are lots of photos out there already.

downtownVital.org

February 13th, 2007, 06:44 AM

^^ If I have time I'll try to head out there this week or weekend and take a few photos. I'd be curious to see what it looks like in there.

Puant

February 13th, 2007, 06:52 AM

^^ If I have time I'll try to head out there this week or weekend and take a few photos. I'd be curious to see what it looks like in there.

Dan, with your skill and eye for photography, I would think the interior of building would be a bonanza for you. I really cannot think of another building in town that has an interior that fascinates me more than this one. Maybe the ghosts instill a sort of mystique about it, I don't know. Seriously, you don't typically see anyone in the lobby..but history oozes from everything you see. . it's spooky quiet, not scary though!

GBSurveyor

February 13th, 2007, 07:31 AM

I also tend to wonder what kind of occupancy that place is at. A quick google search leads to Wisconsin Housing Preservation Corporation websitehttp://www.cardinalcapital.us/page.aspx?page_id=12. I also verified that with the county tax records, another tax exempt property downtown, Whatever the case may be, they were able to work out a deal to move the homeless shelter from Broadway to a brand new facility a few blocks down the way, Sort of a win-win, a new state of the art facility and redevelopment potential on Broadway. Maybe if and when the current lease is up, they will be looking to upgrade the building. Who knows.

As far as "the stick" closing...you really could see it coming, the owner closed it down last winter, did some remodeling, added some food to the menu and now a year later she just decided to call it quits, I can hardly blame her. It is a ghost town down there. Adams Street is close to 100% vacant, now that is depressing. We keep talking about progress, but it seems as if nothing ever gets going. And the all too mentioned Oneida St. corridor is packed, just packed. I just really can't seem to understand, its not like it is that easy to get to, the only thing that is nice about that area is that there IS something going on, there is the buzz, just a huge amount of energy that is happening. I really just wish that I didn't have to risk my life navigating the parking lots. Maybe, and I really hope that someday I will be talk about downtown being cool, maybe 20 years???

Puant

February 13th, 2007, 07:44 AM

^^Adams St. isn't quite that bad. Angelina's next door is very, very, very nice, and The Heel seems to keep going. I talked to the owner of The Heel and asked him if he was ever tempted to move to Oneida St like everyone else, and his response was pretty much "No Way!!". He feels his store is enough of a unique destination that he'll hang in there.

Then there's the renovated phone company building across the street (Associated Bank offices moved in). So, this little stretch of Adams St has a few things going on. Of course, most of the activity is during the weekdays, not so much nights or weekends.

Did anyone see the other article about the Candlestick closing (I think it was the P/G)? The owner gave basically 2 reasons for closing: The first was that there wasn't much activity with the Mall closing, and the other reason for closing was the new parking ramp behind it. I'm not sure what the big parking ramp had to do with it, I suppose the back view of the Stick was no longer visible from Washington St.??

I thought the Frankenthal builing would only be vacant for a little while, but it's been like 2-3 years now? That's a high quality bilding with enough of a visible street corner location with plenty of parking, I thought for sure someone would move right in after that clothing store left.

GBSurveyor

February 13th, 2007, 08:44 PM

Adams St. isn't quite that bad. Angelina's next door is very, very, very nice, and The Heel seems to keep going. I talked to the owner of The Heel and asked him if he was ever tempted to move to Oneida St like everyone else, and his response was pretty much "No Way!!". He feels his store is enough of a unique destination that he'll hang in there.

You are right, I was a little tought on Adams, there are a few hard core business there, The Heel and Lou's Bootery, that is amasing that they are still there. There are times when I do get downtown during the day and I can't really say that I ever see anyone walking around. It is creapy. Mostly there are people standing by the Bus shelter smoking. I am sure there are times, like when businesses open or close, there may appear to be people down there, but there is no destination other then to get in their car and drive somewhere else. This is a problem. I believe that the building up of residental downtown will help, but it must continue much, much faster. Downtown will not be able to support all the new dining establishments that have opened there the last year without either more people living there or more people visiting, and for no other reason, the latter will not happen.

Did anyone see the other article about the Candlestick closing (I think it was the P/G)? The owner gave basically 2 reasons for closing: The first was that there wasn't much activity with the Mall closing, and the other reason for closing was the new parking ramp behind it. I'm not sure what the big parking ramp had to do with it, I suppose the back view of the Stick was no longer visible from Washington St.??

I think she is just looking for a reason to justify her decision. Sure when the parking lot was there it was a direct view from Washington Street that let people over. But as people soon found out it was nothing special. With all the regulars either moving away or dieing for that matter the customer base kept shrinking, that is why you must change and adapt, I think. I personally haven't been to the stick for years, nothing there excited me.

titletown

February 14th, 2007, 01:28 AM

Yeah that is too bad for "The Stick". I haven't been there in a while. Everytime I walk through there with my friends I swear I hear on the jukebox "Its time for the Percolator" song. :lol: Here are a few pics, wasn't downtown full of life back then! Sure would be nice to have a main street kind of like College Ave in Appleton. Also you can find old pictures of a bridge collape and trainwrecks last century right here in GB.

http://www.co.brown.wi.us/Museum/Collections/Collections/Photo_Reproduction_services/Snapshots_in_Time.htm

WWI Registration Parade

http://www.co.brown.wi.us/Museum/Collections/Collections/Photo_Reproduction_services/Snapshots_in_Time/6209_125B.jpg

Hotel Northwoods construction in 1924
http://www.co.brown.wi.us/Museum/Collections/Collections/Photo_Reproduction_services/Snapshots_in_Time/10185_24.jpg

Bartles53

February 14th, 2007, 04:19 AM

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/GPG03/70213200/1247

In other action, the RDA approved moving $500,000 from community development block grants into John Vetter’s riverfront apartment and condo projects in what is partly an accounting maneuver to free up the money for use on the planned riverside boardwalk.

Vetter will be required to meet certain affordable-housing targets for the grants to be applied, which he has agreed to do.

The city will add the amount of the grants to the price of the land they are selling to Vetter. When he buys the land, the city will take the $500,000 and apply it to the boardwalk project.

The majority of the money was allocated to other projects that for various reasons were not completed.

Allison Swanson, city economic development director, said the city has to show it is spending the block grant money within a certain time or lose it.

“We can’t afford to keep carrying this money over,” she said.

Developer Paul Kaczrowski reported some changes in his Prestige Towers project along Tony Canadeo Run. Kaczrowski said he had to realign the footprint of his hotel/condominium and retail project because he was not able to acquire two pieces of property owned by Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt.

“I’m very disappointed with that fact,” he said. “There’s nothing I can do about it.”

Authority members directed planning department staff to proceed with the creation of tax increment finance districts for Olde North and Military Avenue redevelopment areas. The City Council will have to approve the TIFs.

Bartles53

February 14th, 2007, 04:41 AM

I've heard personally from one representative of a Milwaukee based developer who revitalizes old, historic buildings and has preliminary interest in the Northland. He found that the State (I think it was the State) has that site for something like 10 more years. So if that's true then not much will happen there for that time. Also, a few moths ago when I interviewed the Mayor he told me sort of in passing that he felt that something should eventually be done with that building.

Good info. It's always good to have insiders on the forum. Did anyone you spoke with mention whether the idea is to make it into a hotel or condos?

I know the lower 2 floors are completely underutilized. I've walked into the building a few times (the doors are open because there is one or two offices still open in there). I walked around the lobby and I was astounded by the character of it. It's really cool, but neglected. I can only surmise that the upper parts of the building is also in need of some repair. I talked to a lady who helped maintain the building, she said that I could take pictures of the ballroom upstairs if I wanted. But, I had only my crappy little camera so I took a rain check.

Interesting. I'd love to check the place out some day. I'm looking forward to seeing pictures.

Now the Northland is cool because it's historic and when the street grid is re-introduced it'll be in a good location. But the building I like even better is the YMCA. This might be my favorite building in Green Bay.

http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/artwork/hist_pres_artwork/ymca.jpg

When I was younger I remember sneaking around in the stairwells of that place. I believe the YMCA only uses the 1st and 2nd floor. I wonder if the upper floors could be sold off as condo units. I'm pretty sure the rooms are vacant so there's no need to displace anyone. It's a beautiful building that oozes with character. The one drawback is that it's a little farther from the river and from the bar/restaurant scene in downtown but if floors 4-6 were gutted and developed, I'd be clamoring to get in. Has anyone heard any whispers about that place?

gbgoose

February 14th, 2007, 04:49 AM

The pending sale of the Tundra Lodge is very intersting as well - and with the Wyndham hotel base "very intersted" in adding the Tundra to its group.

Bay2Bay

February 14th, 2007, 05:50 AM

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q28/westwinder/BridgePillars-1.jpg

I was in the Green Bay area last week and took this picture of the new bridge pylons on the west side in De Pere. I like the way the pylons frame the approach to the bridge.

GBSurveyor

February 14th, 2007, 06:28 AM

The pending sale of the Tundra Lodge is very intersting as well - and with the Wyndham hotel base "very intersted" in adding the Tundra to its group.
From what I have heard is that the current owner is oozing (the word of the day) money badly. So I guess this is great news that a major player will come in and try to fix it before it is broke, unlike -the soon to be closed for a year now- locally owned Washington Commons. As far as Wyndham goes, this is suprising. Most of there properties are often large resorts in large metro's.

I too think the YMCA building is very, very intersting and if I had to bet the upper floors are vacant. I remember hearing a few years back that the YMCA was looking to build a new downtown location, something more modern. I haven't heard any talk lately so I have no idea what ever happened with that idea. I can't imagine that the current facility is the best possible use for the YMCA, maybe a facility could be incorporated into the redeveloped WC complex and then the current one could be redeveloped. I'll go ahead and add that to the dt wishlist...

I also took a closer look at Adams St tonight, I think the south end is just as bad (mostly vacant buildings w/ abunance of surface parking) if not worst off then the north end (mostly just vacant buildings). Associated must own like half of the buildings on the north end.

One more thing... I was over at Circuit City tonight-which by the way is moving to the old Dick's building on Oneida St. soon- and was thinking how West Mason/Military Ave. could really use some help as well.

Puant

February 14th, 2007, 07:13 AM

Good posts today! They oozed with information.

As for the downtown YMCA: I understand the desire to modernize it a bit, but do renovations, don't build a new one. A raquetball court or a weight room is the same whether it's in a cheap new cinderblock building or an historic brick building like the current one. I think it would be a shame for the YMCA to abandon that place. They did a nice job updating some of the locker rooms lately. I suppose the indoor walking track is a little small compared to the new Y's, but what else is really so critically out of date and can't be fixed? I guess I don't know. All I know is that I don't go there nearly enough...

The top couple of floors do appear vacant. I heard somebody was murdered up there a while back. Is that true? Or am I thinking of the Northland?

Inside the Beltway

February 14th, 2007, 04:31 PM

My grandfather was an electrician and I remember him taking me up to the YMCA when I was maybe 10-12 years old to check out the damage from a fire that ate up much of the top couple floors. He was hired as part of the renovation but I'm not sure if the top floors were ever occupied again after that incident.

I will agree with others that the YMCA building might be the most interesting in the downtown area.

downtownVital.org

February 14th, 2007, 06:44 PM

Did anyone you spoke with mention whether the idea is to make it into a hotel or condos?

I believe their business is condos/apartments.

I think that building would be perfect for UWGB student housing. I like where campus is, and I think it's good for the UW system to have some urban campuses and some like UWGB that are more natural. But I think it would be cool for UWGB, as the campus tries harder to connect with the community and make an impact within the community, to have a permanent downtown center. The Northland would be perfect becuase some of the spaces such as the ballroom would be awesome for University functions, they would have space for a downtown university retail store, and I'd bet the floorplans from a hotel would set up great for student housing. Much less renovation needed than to convert the rooms into condos. Make the building housing for juniors and seniors (the over-21 crowd) and I'd bet it would be a hit. It would also make UWGB the only campus (as far as I know) in the system to have "rural" and urban housing options.

Puant

February 14th, 2007, 08:22 PM

^^that seems like one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 14th, 2007, 09:06 PM

I like the idea of off-campus housing for UWGB in downtown, but then again you are still keeping the development off the tax base if it is associated with the University. A private development conversion in my opinion would be ideal.

Geography Teacher

February 14th, 2007, 10:08 PM

Ashwaubenon's Village Board decided yesterday to limit building construction to 10 stories. It seems to me that they are jumping the gun a bit with the whole issue, considering there's only one fairly tall building in the entire municipality (Merrill Lynch building near the river on 172), and every planned development (e.g., the one at Holmgren and Potts) seems to be going nowhere.

I found the following online reader comment about the article interesting, humorous, and disturbing:

SHOULD ONE APPLAUD....OR......BOOOO THIS BOARD DECISION? ON THE ONE HAND IT SOUNDS LIKE A NICE GESTURE. COULD ONE SAY THAT THIS IS BEING "SHORT SIGHTED?" IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT GREEN BAY'S DOWNTOWN AREA HAS MOVED TO SOUTH ONEIDA STREET IN ASWAUBENON....YOU WOULD WANT CONSTRUCTION TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE LARGEST LEVEL POSSIBLE.

I UNDERSTAND A HOMEOWNERS CONCERN....I TOO OWN A MODEST HOME IN THE GENERAL AREA. [THE LAMBEAU NEIGHBORHOOD]

TIMES AND THINGS ARE CHANGING....I WILL HATE TO LOSE MY HOME, BUT, WHEN THE DAY COMES THAT ECONOMIC EXPANSION HITS MY NEIGHBORHOOD...I KNOW THAT MY HOME WILL BE PLOWED UNDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR A NEW STADIUM, A PARKING RAMP, OR A HOTEL, OR SOME OTHER BUSINESS.....IT'S TOO BAD BUT IT IS TRUE.

IF I REALLY WANT A RIVER VIEW...I SHOULD BUY A PLACE ON THE SHORE SOMEWHERE......IF I WANT A VIEW OF THE WOODS...I SHOULD BUY A PLACE IN THE COUNTRY.

DON'T GET ME WRONG. I LOVE MY HOME. I WOULD HATE TO LOSE IT.....BUT WHEN THAT DAY COMES....I AM GOING TO HAVE TO STEP ASIDE FOR PROGRESS. ALL OF US IN THE SOUTHWEST / ASHWAUBENON AREA...HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE CHANGES HAVE STARTED ...AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP.

SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE...PEOPLE WILL REALIZE THAT DOWNTOWN HAS MOVED. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WENT DOWNTOWN?

TO SAVE ASHWAUBENON / SOUTHWEST GREEN BAY....DOWN TOWN HAS TO BE FIXED.....UNFORTUNATELY THE "SAME CLASS IF IDIOTS" THAT TORE DOWN OUR DOWNTOWN IN 1964 [43 YEARS AGO] HAVENT BEEN ABLE TO FIX IT YET.

GET USED TO IT.....YOU ARE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE.

P.S. Here's one more vote for the YMCA as one of downtown's most interesting buildings. Hopefully, someday, buildings like the YMCA, county courthouse, Hotel Northland, and Bellin Building will be beautiful and FUNCTIONAL jewels among the new flashy 10-20 story buildings Green Bay deserves.

Geography Teacher

February 14th, 2007, 10:13 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

February 14th, 2007, 10:45 PM

One of my high school students who works in the strip mall at Military and Shawano Avenues told me today about an interesting rumor. He heard that some of the buildings near that intersection, possibly including that strip mall, may be torn down for new development. Now, normally I wouldn't put much credence in something a kid said, but he has worked for this business for a couple of years and has a close relationship with the owner, so maybe there's something to it.

Could this possibly be the first example of new development -- a hotel or nice restaurant -- on Green Bay's west side thanks to the lifting of the alcohol ban? We've been waiting for the Military corridor to take off... Anyone have information on this rumor?

There are two items on the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting variances for redevelopment projects along Military. Not sure if this includes the location that was referenced, or what the proposed developments are, but...

116 N MILITARY AVE.

Robert Mach, on behalf of EMK of West Green Bay, LLC, proposes to redevelop business property located within the General Commercial (C1) zoning district, and is requesting the following variance:

1) Sec. 13-810, Table 8-2, Dimensional and Area Requirements. Reduce the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 0.14 from 0.3 to 0.16; and

2) Sec. 13-1706, Nonresidential and multi-family driveways. Increase the maximum width of double or two-way driveways for the combined use by autos, single-trucks, and semi-trailers by 5 feet; thus increasing the maximum width at the property line from 25 feet to 30 feet and increasing the maximum curb cut width from 35 feet to 40 feet.

615 S MILITARY AVE.

Excel Engineering Inc., on behalf of Alliance Development, proposes to redevelop business property located within the Highway Business (C2) zoning district, and is requesting the following variance:

1) Sec. 13-810, Table 8-2, Dimensional and Area Requirements. a) Increase the maximum impervious surface coverage area 2% from 80% to 82%, b) reduce the minimum front yard setback along S Military Avenue by 10 feet from 15 feet, c) reduce the minimum corner yard set setback along W Mason Street by 8-1/2 feet from 15 feet, and d) reduce the minimum side and rear yard setback by 6 feet from 6 feet.

GBSurveyor

February 15th, 2007, 05:09 AM

There are two items on the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting variances for redevelopment projects along Military. Not sure if this includes the location that was referenced, or what the proposed developments are, but...

116 N MILITARY AVE.

Robert Mach, on behalf of EMK of West Green Bay, LLC, proposes to redevelop business property located within the General Commercial (C1) zoning district, and is requesting the following variance:

1) Sec. 13-810, Table 8-2, Dimensional and Area Requirements. Reduce the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 0.14 from 0.3 to 0.16; and

2) Sec. 13-1706, Nonresidential and multi-family driveways. Increase the maximum width of double or two-way driveways for the combined use by autos, single-trucks, and semi-trailers by 5 feet; thus increasing the maximum width at the property line from 25 feet to 30 feet and increasing the maximum curb cut width from 35 feet to 40 feet.

615 S MILITARY AVE.

Excel Engineering Inc., on behalf of Alliance Development, proposes to redevelop business property located within the Highway Business (C2) zoning district, and is requesting the following variance:

1) Sec. 13-810, Table 8-2, Dimensional and Area Requirements. a) Increase the maximum impervious surface coverage area 2% from 80% to 82%, b) reduce the minimum front yard setback along S Military Avenue by 10 feet from 15 feet, c) reduce the minimum corner yard set setback along W Mason Street by 8-1/2 feet from 15 feet, and d) reduce the minimum side and rear yard setback by 6 feet from 6 feet.

FYI-
116 North Military is the property just north of perkins. The Valley Motel, I think.

615 South Military is the Northeast corner of Mason and Military, I think the Flowerama.

I know that there has been talk of a Walgreens at the Shawano Ave- Military Intersection for while. Neither requiest seem to fit a Walgreens prototype. They do seem to be requsting a nice setback variance for the 615 S. Military Ave property. It may almost looks 'urban' with the reduced setbacks. I know that the city has been kicking around the idea of a TIF, don't remember wher that is at, I do know that they are moving ahead with roadway design for Military Ave.

GBSurveyor

February 15th, 2007, 05:26 AM

I found this great pic on my hd, I'm not sure where it came from, but it paints a picture that I have not seen about downtown. This obviously dates back to before the construction of the Port Plaza mall. Does anyone recall this area? Had they previously tore down all the structures or was it just that vacant?
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n213/gbsurveyor/downtown.jpg

titletown

February 15th, 2007, 07:02 AM

GBSurveyor- They must have torn down a bunch of buildings where it is empty in your picture. Look at the density of downtown back then. It was bigger in 1950...really sad what they did. Kitty-corner to the Bellin Building it looks like there were some nice mid-size buildings that were knocked down and turned into surface parking lots.

Looking North towards the harbor (1889)
http://128.104.245.250/700004110096/0411001181-l.jpg

Looking South down Washington Street (1912)
http://128.104.245.250/700004120048/0412000577-l.jpg

Downtown Green Bay (1924)
http://128.104.245.250/700004120037/0412000443-l.jpg

Downtown Green Bay (1950)
http://128.104.245.250/700004110086/0411001067-l.jpg

Source: Wisconsin Historical Society

Puant

February 15th, 2007, 07:12 AM

GBSurveyor

February 15th, 2007, 08:32 PM

(GBsurveyor's picture)Ahh, the mall site, just before construction.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but based on what I've read, this site began to be cleared in the mid-1960's for the eventual mall. But , because of political wrangling the actual mall construction didn't begin until years later (mid 70's). I think the central library cornerstone plaque says 1972 on it. I'd say this photo was taken about 1973?

If you look at aerials from 1960 (http://www.gis.co.brown.wi.us/website/orthophotos/viewer.htm?Box=99800:567367:101481:568334?Layers=0000100000), this site was still fairly dense with buildings, though the northern part already had some parking lots.

Just think--If the mall is now torn down, this site might again look similiar to how it looks in this photo.

Great link Puant. I have a really hard time imagining Main Street actually going through...
So basically from the 60's to the 80's downtown had an explosion of construction, building and road, be it good or bad. All of the current parking ramps, the KI, all of the Buildings that basically block off Main Street (its origional location) and of course the mall. Looking back the old Main Street Bridge location now make sence. I guess it is too bad that Pine Street will not be able to be extened as well.

The view of the photo that I posted is rarely seen, most of the old picture are from Washington Street. I really can't image that the entire mall will ever be torn down.

sr22ger

February 16th, 2007, 10:46 PM

downtownVital.org

February 17th, 2007, 12:13 AM

I've created a photo thread of the Northland, see it here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=11770767

Bartles53

February 17th, 2007, 02:59 AM

Thanks Dan. Plenty of potential in that building. Kinda depressing what's come of it.

On a side note, I take it you have a friend in the top floor of the Riverfront Lofts? How did those places turn out on the inside?

downtownVital.org

February 17th, 2007, 07:23 AM

^^ I don't have a friend there. One of the units is being used as the showroom for Astor Place. I called Jen Kuo to set up having our DGBI Urban Design Committee meeting there, and that is where I took the photos from. If anyone would like to see it for themselves, I think you could just give Jen a call to arrange a time to see it.

The units look nice. The one I was in is one of the two units that is double width. For me, it isn't as nice as some of the loft units with the two-story windows, and the layout isn't what would be my first choice. But it is pretty impressive. The view facing the river is obviously nice, but I really like the view facing back over the downtown, it's probably the best view I have seen of the downtown.

Puant

February 17th, 2007, 06:35 PM

^^Dan, nice pictures, thanks for posting them!

WPS parking
Looking at the acreages of parking around WPS at the Fox/East river confluence...that is acres and acres of surface parking. To me, that's not the "highest & best use" of that significant chunk of land..

I got to thinking about whether the recent sale/merger of WPS with Peoples out of Chicago might actually help increase the chances of getting a parking ramp built near WPS so that some of the land could be freed up for other uses.

Why did I think this? I suppose (and it's a stretch) but I suppose it's becuase the people at Peoples, being that they're based out of Chicago (a larger city), might understand that parking ramps/garages are typical, normal investments, not out of the ordinary for a city and might increase the chance of contributing some funding & support to get a ramp built. Not to say WPS didn't support ramps, I don't know, but maybe there just weren't the finances at the time..maybe with the Peoples merger, who knows? Maybe there's a little more leverage for this sort of thing now. I suppose the city would also be involved. This ramp might also generate parking revenues from the convention center, and help offset some of the lost parking when they knock down or cut through the old ramp across the street to put Adams St. back through.

Sounds like a crazy idea, maybe, but the city's Downtown Design Plan from 1997 does call for a "WPS Parking Ramp" (#21 on this map (http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/planning_development/planning/dt_plan_map.html)). The plan notes that the Recency Center empolyees might also use this ramp, and note the plan also shows some really cool new uses for this area near the confluence of the Fox & East rivers.

Anyone here "in the know" on any of this? GBsurveyor--didn't you say have some ideas about this a while ago?

P.S. as far as parking ramps go, they are usually pretty ugly, but has anyone here ever seen the Water Street Parking ramp in Milwaukee? (picture of it below).

It's designed such that it could easily pass for an office building and it's not the typical horizontal scheme..it's more art-deco-ish with emphasis on the vertical--the piers actually rise uninterrupted all the way from the base to the top--very unusual for a parking ramp.

I wish the new ramp on Washtington in GB had been built a little more like this..ya ya, more expensive I know, but it sure would have fit into the established context of this city streetscape a lot better.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o52/Puant/WaterStreetParkingTowerMilwaukee.jpg

GBSurveyor

February 18th, 2007, 09:16 AM

^^Dan, nice pictures, thanks for posting them!
Agreed, that place is very interesting- I feel that I must also go there. Did you gain access through the main doors?

Anyone here "in the know" on any of this? GBsurveyor--didn't you say have some ideas about this a while ago?
I can't seem to recall anything specific, other then the comment that it seemed like they were spending a good chuck of $ on the new parking lot just north of the Holiday Inn. I sure hope that their interest is short term with the parking lot and when the time comes, that building on the land becomes feasable.

I wish the new ramp on Washtington in GB had been built a little more like this..ya ya, more expensive I know, but it sure would have fit into the established context of this city streetscape a lot better.I don't disagree with you but think that if and when the retail portion of the ramp gets built out that it will be a huge improvement over what is there now. I also wish the bank drive through wasn't built the way it was. If the drive through lane had been kept parallel with Washington Street it would have reduced the potential conflict points and would have kept a continual build out the length of the block.

GBFAN

February 22nd, 2007, 02:47 AM

Hello everyone, I am partly posting this to keep things going. Last week it was post after post and this week I think we are all waiting for announcements, groundbreakings, etc.

Has everyone checked out the cometogreenbay.com website? I went thru it last night . I guess this is the start of the marketing for getting people to move to the GB metro. The website was actually much better than I had thought it would be.

Beyond that does anyone have anynews on Downtown?

choyak

February 22nd, 2007, 04:44 AM

Here is the Jefferson Street parking ramp in Wausau, the 2nd building on the left side, looks like 5 stories
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/choyak/DSCN0184.jpg

That one in Milwaukee is excellent. I wonder if Milwaukee and Wausau is the same architect, the Wausau one has retail in the ground floor, as the Milwaukee one appears to have also. Um, the Milwaukee parking ramp was built in 1929, if so, that is absolutely amazing!!!!!

Here is an UGLY parking ramp in Milwaukee (I think) courtesy of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/feb05/goulcol022105.jpg

Wow alot of good information at wausaudevelopment.com.

The picture of DT GB in the 50s is exceptional. The downtown that time appeared to be nicer than now. I still can hope for Astor Place, that will be cool.

Emerald City

February 22nd, 2007, 08:42 PM

It seems awful quite on the eastern shore of the Fox, is this the calm before the storm, or a lull into solitude?

Puant

February 23rd, 2007, 04:57 AM

^^I just caught something on WBAY--they said something about another delay on the Younkers site project..The 10:00 news is going to have something about this. Nothing's on their web site yet.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 23rd, 2007, 03:38 PM

^^ It had to do with problems with asbestos. It is like hello?, how long have you wanted to redevelop this building. Don't you think you could have figured this out like a year and a half ago and figured into your plans? It feels like it will 2010 by the time we see anything happen.

Asbestos Delays Younkers Demolition

By Chris Duffy

A major construction project that will change the skyline of downtown Green Bay is on hold for a few more months.

Last year, city leaders told us the vacant Younkers Department Store building would be ripped down in January to make way for a large-scale riverfront project with apartments, condominiums, shops, and a children's museum. But here it is late February and nothing is happening.

That's because if the former Younkers building is torn down as-is, some potentially harmful contaminants could be released into the air downtown.

On the inside, you can sort of tell the building used to be a department store. There's also plenty of evidence inspectors have been here, checking walls, floors, and ceilings for asbestos.

"It can be found in just about anything," Jerry Hinke, an environmental inspector with American Air Environmental says.

"Most building materials are considered suspect materials that should be sampled and determined whether or not there is asbestos within that material, and then identify whether that material needs to be removed from the building."

Hinke says because of the Younkers building's size and age, the asbestos-removal process will take some time.

"That could take several months if it's tens of thousands of square feet of that material, and a lot of times in commercial buildings like that, you would find that type of material."

The city says the asbestos removal process will likely begin late next month, and demolition could start as early as April -- but it will happen gradually as each segment of the building becomes asbestos-free.

Now I'm sure since they are waiting on Astor until after they begin River Center we will have to wait and wait and wait.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 23rd, 2007, 03:57 PM

Not sure if this is means anything but there are two condos in the Riverfront Lofts that are for sale by a different real estate company. Not sure if these were bought as investements and were going to be sold at a later date or if our "urban pioneers" are getting fed up. Both are asking quite more than what they originally were listed at on the RFL website.

Unit 205 - 978 SF - $240,000 http://eratitletown.cybersunshine.com/10701463

Unit 405 - 3,470 SF - $989,000 http://eratitletown.cybersunshine.com/10701860

Inside the Beltway

February 23rd, 2007, 07:12 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

February 23rd, 2007, 07:15 PM

FYI-
116 North Military is the property just north of perkins. The Valley Motel, I think.

615 South Military is the Northeast corner of Mason and Military, I think the Flowerama.

I know that there has been talk of a Walgreens at the Shawano Ave- Military Intersection for while. Neither requiest seem to fit a Walgreens prototype. They do seem to be requsting a nice setback variance for the 615 S. Military Ave property. It may almost looks 'urban' with the reduced setbacks. I know that the city has been kicking around the idea of a TIF, don't remember wher that is at, I do know that they are moving ahead with roadway design for Military Ave.

Just read the minutes from the BOA.

116 N. Military is proposed to be a Walgreen's. 615 S. Military is proposed to demolish the Flowerama and build a Starbucks and FedEx Kinkos.

Green Bay 4 Life

February 23rd, 2007, 07:18 PM

Is it because of the slow pokey-ness of the way things get done in Green Bay a reason why more developers aren't knocking down the doors to get in?

On the other extreme we have places like Northern Virginia where the politicians will do (and take) anything to not stand in the developers way.

Where is the middle ground? If there is demand for this type of residential development in downtown Green Bay, then go for it and build it. If not, then our leaders need to not give ammunition to those who think downtown is a joke. Right now it is starting to look suspect.

Being an engineer, I have a hard time believing that only NOW they are figuring out the building has asbestos in it...duh. Sorry to vent, but it seems a bit silly now how things are going...

I'm not sure how the politicians and asbestos figure together. Obviously the developer had to do some preliminary studies before proposing a project or at the very least over the course of the last year and a half, enter the building at least once and walk around. I think asbestos was even mentioned as far back as when Juza was proposing his development - so this is not new news that there is asbestos present in the Younkers building.

Why is it the City leaders fault? Maybe the fault should be thrown the other way?

Inside the Beltway

February 23rd, 2007, 08:28 PM

Why is it the City leaders fault? Maybe the fault should be thrown the other way?

Maybe it's both. How many start dates and deadlines have been thrown out there and none of them have come true? The people who contribute to this message board are probably some of the few who are still paying attention to any news that comes out regarding downtown.

The longer this drags on with no action the more it will reinforce the opinion of the "downtown sucks" naysayers. Not good for momentum! Sorry to say, but it is true...

As for the asbestos, I should know better than to get my information from a news reporter, especially a television news reporter. I'm sure the developers have known about the asbestos for a while, the story just makes it sound like the demo team walked in to the building one day in January and said "can't start now, we've got asbestos" and the whole thing is now delayed until April at the earliest. It probably didn't shake out quite like that...

Puant

February 24th, 2007, 04:26 AM

THis doesn't bum me out too much. I believe the developer & city knew there was some asbestos all along, just not exactly how much. They probably figured it would take a month or so to remediate it, but upon further inspection, realized it would take longer. No big deal.

I wonder, though...how did this story get in the news? I doubt it was a press release, more likely, Channel 2 WBAY contacted someone to ask what was going on. I do have to give WBAY credit for staying on top of the downtown news. I have turned to WBAY for most of my local news...They are the only station located downtown, and they stay on top of whatever few happenings there are...and it's not nearly as "hokey" as the other channels (no Anna Nicole news 24/7 thank God).

titletown

February 24th, 2007, 06:32 PM

Bay2Bay

February 24th, 2007, 07:34 PM

The asbestos contaminants in the old Pranges/Younkers building explain the slow down for the River Center building; but, what about Astor Place? What's the slow down there? Hasn't the street realignment been completed?

GBSurveyor

February 25th, 2007, 05:07 AM

Maybe it's both. How many start dates and deadlines have been thrown out there and none of them have come true? The people who contribute to this message board are probably some of the few who are still paying attention to any news that comes out regarding downtown.

I would probabally agree with you on this one, no one really seems to give a rats ass about downtown, and with the real estate market the way it is here, I truthfully can't see anything happening soon. I have a good belief that the RC will happen soon, I believe that the city is doing as much as they can do, there is a substantial chunk of public money available for this one. Astor though seems like a long shot. The buzz has worn off. I know that Vetter has mentioned several times that demo of Younkers will start befor Astor so I am also assuming the construction staging is somewhat laid out, on paper that is.

GBSurveyor

February 25th, 2007, 05:10 AM

Maybe the amateurs developers should take a class in Miami or a Miami Developer can come here and show these boys how it is done....pathetic..Unbelievable how slow paced this area is.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=415787

I am sure any developer could have success in the Miami market. One thing I do know is that there is not a Winter Storm Warning there right now.:lol:

Maybe if we could just speed up global warming, most of the south will be under water and the weather will be warm here:jk:

Puant

February 25th, 2007, 05:47 AM

I would probabally agree with you on this one, no one really seems to give a rats ass about downtown, and with the real estate market the way it is here, I truthfully can't see anything happening soon. I have a good belief that the RC will happen soon, I believe that the city is doing as much as they can do, there is a substantial chunk of public money available for this one. Astor though seems like a long shot. The buzz has worn off. I know that Vetter has mentioned several times that demo of Younkers will start befor Astor so I am also assuming the construction staging is somewhat laid out, on paper that is.

Well, again, I still believe in my heart that Astor is going to be just so unique for this area that it will fill a big niche and won't have trouble selling, even in this slow real estate market.
It is unfortunate that it's taking so long. We ought to be looking at steel in the cold, snowy air right now.

Very good video

I just watched a video, "Insights on a Lively Downtown" examining what makes a downtown district appealing. THe example used here is another upper midwestern city of about the same size as GB. I think you guys will like it.

Here's the link. (http://www.mlive.com/aanews/video/flash/index.ssf?20061001_livelydowntown)

gbmphillips

February 25th, 2007, 04:40 PM

Sadly if the mayor had not been so quick to make a name for himself and really wanted to do what was best for the city he would have given a local developer a better chance at doing something with the old building, he may have even started working on it instead of just offering lip service about what he is going to do.

The real sad part here is not only is nothing getting done downtown thanks to the mayors tunnel vision but we are going to be stuck with his incompetence even longer after this April.

Inside the Beltway

February 27th, 2007, 11:36 PM

Has anyone checked out the "City riverfronts: what do you like?" thread? I am very impressed with cities such as Des Moines, Toledo, and Columbus and what they've done with their riverfronts. Milwaukee too. I can only wish the Fox looks that nice someday as well.

I think what the boardwalk needs is more trees and lawn.

GBSurveyor

March 1st, 2007, 01:55 AM

^^
Agreed. More green space would be nice. If I decifer minutes from the RDA correct...
CDBG funds in the amount of $265,000 would be used with the WHEDA sponsored portion of the project that involves rental housing. Due to CDBG regulations, over 51% of the units would be made available to workforce households. The funds would be used as a grant. The sale price of the property would be increased the amount of this grant, which would be paid at closing to the City. The money would then go into the TIF for boardwalk construction.

HOME funds would be utilized in a similar fashion for the condominium project in that the $235,000 would be added to the sale price of the property and then paid to the City at closing. Vetter Denk would be required to create two condominiums that would be made available to income qualified households only.

It sounds like some money will be available right away for construction. That is if the sale happens this year.

GBSurveyor

March 1st, 2007, 07:50 AM

More positive news downtown...from wbay.com (http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=6158051)
By Isabelle Kallie, Feb 28, 2007 06:41 PM,
People living in the Port Plaza Towers in downtown Green Bay who park their vehicles in the parking ramp behind their building say enough is enough. Frustration is high after vandals damaged almost a dozen vehicles.

Long-time resident Tina Melotte says she can no longer afford to fix what continues to be a weekly problem.

"I've gotten my brake lines cut, my windows smashed, my stereo stolen, four tires I had to replace," Melotte said.

She fears what will be next. "When I got my brake lines cut, I mean, that's kind of dangerous -- I didn't have brakes!"

She's not alone. Her mother, who also lives at Port Plaza Towers, had all four of her tires destroyed around 8 o'clock Tuesday night.

"I can't just leave the building, go out and get my car and leave. I need assistance. When I go out there and I find I have a flat tire, that's big-time to me," Lynda Smith says.

It's on the third level of the Pine Street ramp that residents say the vehicles were broken into. They say they're afraid of coming out at night for fear something might happen to them.

"I fail to see... the point of why these individuals are doing this. It's probably random acts, but why?" Ron Buerschinger asked after his car was vandalized.

Others who don't live in the building but park in the ramp and work nearby say something has to be done.

"If this keeps happening, I'll just have to find a job somewhere else. It's costing me more than what I'm making almost," Anthony Steiner said.

City Official's Response

City Alder Celestine Jeffreys says she can no longer sit back and hear about more cars being broken into. "I want them to feel safer and I'll do the best I can to make sure they feel safe." She said what's of great concern in the break-ins is that Port Plaza residents tend to be elderly or disabled.

Jeffreys points out the vandalism occurs at all times of the day. She says more attention needs to be paid to every corner of the parking ramp.

She reassured residents some changes are coming to improve security in the apartment complex and this parking ramp, and possibly improve the lighting around their vehicles.

Residents want a surveillance camera, too. Jeffreys says it'll be up to the city council to approve it.

"It's a camera on a public piece of property. Where does the information go? Now, maybe our police department would be interested in to doing that. I'm not sure what cameras we have around town currently."

Jeffreys says all the changes won't happen overnight but she'll work to make some of the changes soon.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 1st, 2007, 03:39 PM

WS Packaging will move headquarters from Algoma to Green Bay area

ALGOMA — WS Packaging Group Inc., based in Algoma, will relocate its corporate headquarters to the greater Green Bay area sometime during summer 2007.

"Even as we have expanded operations throughout North America over the past few years, our Algoma facility has continued to serve as the corporate headquarters in addition to being the largest manufacturing facility within WS Packaging Group. We have now reached the point that we have run out of office space in Algoma. The offices currently occupied by our corporate staff are needed to support the growth of the Algoma manufacturing area," said Terry Fulwiler, chief executive officer of WS Packaging Group Inc. "While some corporate support staff will remain in Algoma, our corporate officers, accounting department and our legal staff will relocate to our new headquarters in Green Bay."

WS Packaging Group Inc. has more than 40 years of experience and is one of the largest printing and label converting operations in North America.

It operates 17 manufacturing facilities and produces packaging products.

Hopefully it will be in the City of Green Bay, and double hopefully downtown. City leaders should make it a priority to land a business that is looking to locate their corporate headquarters here no matter how large or small.

As far as the ramps article. It is sad. All these negative articles and events that are the cause of a few morons all -- work to continue to hurt and stain the image of downtown Green Bay. I know it happens everywhere else, but it always seems magnified when it happens in here.

Inside the Beltway

March 1st, 2007, 04:02 PM

City leaders should make it a priority to land a business that is looking to locate their corporate headquarters here no matter how large or small.

Absolutely!

Green Bay 4 Life

March 1st, 2007, 11:06 PM

Regency Suites in Green Bay to become Hotel Sierra

The operator of the Sierra Suites Hotel chain has purchased the Regency Suites Hotel in Green Bay that's attached to the KI Convention Center and will reflag it as Hotel Sierra.

LodgeWorks L.P., of Wichita, Kan., did not disclose a purchase price for the hotel. It will renovate the hotel during 2007 and reflag it under the Hotel Sierra brand in early 2008.

Renovations include updates to the atrium and lobby space and renovation of the 241 guest suites. The company plans to install flat-screen TVs, new furniture and new carpet in the rooms, which will also feature remodeled bathrooms. The company did not disclose how much it would spend on the renovations.

The hotel is part of a complex that includes the KI Convention Center, downtown Green Bay's main convention facility.

The Hotel Sierra flag is a new brand for LodgeWorks, which is also planning this year to open Hotel Sierras in Sterling, Va., and Bellevue, Wash., and reflag six Sierra Suites hotels as Hotel Sierras in early 2008. LodgeWorks also operates the Sierra Suites and the Summerfield Suites chains.

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2007/02/26/daily38.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Hopefully this will also lead to a push to expand the KI Convention Center space sooner rather than later as well...

GBSurveyor

March 2nd, 2007, 10:40 PM

Posted March 2, 2007

New owner looking to update key area convention hotel

By Richard Ryman
rryman@greenbaypressgazette.com

LodgeWorks L.P., the new owner of Regency Suites Hotel, plans a total makeover of the key downtown property over the next two years.

LodgeWorks of Wichita, Kan., said Thursday it acquired the hotel at 333 Main St. from Joseph "Pep" Simek. The parties had said in February they were negotiating a deal.

Terms of the deal were not announced.

"It's the largest hotel, and it is also the key convention hotel," said Jeff Mirkes, executive director of Downtown Green Bay Inc. "It really sends a very important message to their existing guests and also to prospects that they are making a very significant investment."

LodgeWorks said it will update the atrium/lobby and renovate the 241 suites. The rooms will get remodeled bathrooms, 32-inch flat-screen TVs, new furniture and new carpet. Sometime in 2008, after remodeling is complete, the property will be re-branded as Hotel Sierra.

Tina Walterscheid, LodgeWorks spokeswoman, said the renovations will be coordinated with scheduled conventions and Green Bay Packers games.

"It does have some good bones, but it does have some of the original furniture inside," she said of the eight-story hotel, which opened in 1985 as Embassy Suites.

The hotel dropped its Embassy Suites affiliation about 2000 and has been a successful independent, but the LodgeWorks acquisition will provide additional resources, said General Manager Blaze Brigman.

"It will be great for downtown and the hotel," he said. "There will be more resources."

Brigman will continue as general manager of the property and its 200 employees. Regency Suites also manages the adjacent KI Convention Center and will continue to do so.

"We plan to integrate Regency Suites Hotel fully into our company, with the belief that we can add resources, technology and other innovations," said B. Anthony Isaac, president of LodgeWorks.

LodgeWorks owns and operates six Sierra Suites Hotels in four states and plans on opening two more in 2007.

"We like to think our Sierra Suites are a little more upscale," Walterscheid said.

The LodgeWorks partners pioneered extended-stay lodging with the development of the Residence Inn concept, which it sold to Marriott, and the Summerfield Suites chain, which it sold to Wyndham International, and is now owned by Global Hyatt.

The company manages seven Hyatt Summerfield properties and owns and manages two others. It also manages a Hawthorn Suites hotel in Dallas.

This is not new news anymore but here is the Link to the P-G article (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070302/GPG03/703020580/1247)

Has anyone heard of any talk of the expanded KI center? I know that a while back the JC Penny building was put up for sale. I wonder if this is a step to expand, maybe a company with deeper pockets.

I was also wondering if anyone knows if the KI center is owned by the city or the taxing district created to collect the hotel tax. Because I believe that the room tax money funds the the Arena and the KI center.

Bay2Bay

March 3rd, 2007, 03:16 AM

The new ownership of the Regency Suites for downtown Green Bay is wonderful news. LodgeWorks L.P., of Wichita, KS seem to have a track record of being innovative in the hospitality industry and they seem to be a company that is opening top-notch properties. It's nice to see a quality company from outside of the region have enough faith in Green Bay's downtown to make this commitment.

Puant

March 4th, 2007, 12:02 AM

I don't think anyone's mentioned about the reason Victoria's moved out of the Regency. Has another restaurant replaced Victorias inside of the Regency yet? Do you know what will? I thought one of those news articles would mention this..maybe I missed it?

The current Regency website (http://www.regencygb.com/index.php)does not do this great building justice..THere should be better pics of that awesome indoor atrium area.

GBSurveyor

March 4th, 2007, 06:52 AM

I don't have any facts, but what I think the deal may be is that Glory Years Sports Bar had closed and Victoria's lease may have been up. It may have been a chance to expande service, catering and such at the Quality Inn (http://www.qualityinngreenbay.com/glory.html). I am not sure if they have purchased the location on Washington St. or if that is also a lease. The new location however is much more inviting for non-hotel customers as it has street frontage as well as hotel access. On a positive note at least they decided to relocate downtown and not just close up shop.

Hopefully this spring we will be floooded with development activity, RC, Astor, the mall, expanded KI or maybe even the larson site. One of those projects are bound to take off soon.:)

GBSurveyor

March 4th, 2007, 06:57 AM

Astor update.

Not sure if this is of any worth or not but the KBS website still has the Astor Place construction to begin early 2007, at least it doesnt say spring 2006.
Website (http://www.kbsconstruction.com/projects.php?recordid=31)

Puant

March 5th, 2007, 06:13 AM

Do any of you plan to attend the mayor's "state of the city" address tomorrow night? I just saw on WBAY news that he is likely to break some news about the site next to the Meyer Theater (the old Daily Planet site), among many other things of course.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 5th, 2007, 03:26 PM

^^ I plan on attending. But as far as beaking news, I'm sure it will just be a continuation oef the same news we have been hearing. The fact that the event is at the Meyer and the Theatre Board is looking to do a building makes it somewhat appropriate. But as far as groundbreaking news, I seriously doubt it....I hope I am wrong.

historybuffer

March 5th, 2007, 04:39 PM

Why haven't the Onieda been more prominent in downtown development?
Wouldn't they have the financial clout now to bring a new hotel to downtown G.B?

Puant

March 6th, 2007, 05:38 AM

Here's the WBAY news (http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=6177483) I was referring to yesterday. Was it much adieu about nothing? Anything else of interest come out of the mayor's speech this evening?

Oshkosh49

March 6th, 2007, 05:57 AM

Why haven't the Onieda been more prominent in downtown development?
Wouldn't they have the financial clout now to bring a new hotel to downtown G.B?To me, there is simple answer for why they don't build a hotel downtown. They already own and run a hotel and casino on their own tribal land next to Austin Straubel airport. Why would they be silly enough to build a development in downtown in which they would have to property taxes to the white man's governmental agency like the city of Green Bay. I wouldn't either if I were them.

gbgoose

March 6th, 2007, 02:04 PM

To me, there is simple answer for why they don't build a hotel downtown. They already own and run a hotel and casino on their own tribal land next to Austin Straubel airport. Why would they be silly enough to build a development in downtown in which they would have to property taxes to the white man's governmental agency like the city of Green Bay. I wouldn't either if I were them.

And that's also the same reason the Oneidas were hesitant to build a hotel / casino near the Lambeau Field area. No taxes.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 6th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Obviously many initiatives were discussed, and as I assumed nothing new about the thatre project was disclosed. The one major bit of news was that the Younkers building and Astor Place are two developments that are potnetially going to happen downtown. Wait, wasn't that last year? No, no, that was the year before. Maybe next year we will hear that they are still going to happen...:bash:

Puant

March 6th, 2007, 08:44 PM

Green Bay 4 Life

March 7th, 2007, 07:54 PM

GBSurveyor

March 7th, 2007, 08:23 PM

One comment by Mayor Schmidt's opponent in the election stood out to me:

"The mayor's downtown strategy will continue to breed failure if the mayor doesn't address traffic concerns to and from the downtown area", Kriescher said.

Any comments? I'd like to know what he suggests.

I really don't know how to read his quote, I do though see how there can appear to be a traffic problem getting to and leaving from downtown. When it takes 15-20 minutes to get downtown from 41 that is a problem, no one is ever going to take there time to come downtown if they have 30-40 minutes of wasted time sitting around at traffic lights that aren't really needed. I don't really know what can be done other then changing the cycle frequency of the lights on the major arterials. Also I know that the Webster Ave exit from 43 will be reconstructed in the near future a the city could make a significant appearance upgrade by removing a row of houses and redeveloping that area. I am not trying to understate the fact that this is a huge waste of resources, but I believe that for downtown Green Bay to grow we are going to have to make some visual changes to the area. Gentrification in some form will have to occur.

Is Kriescher the one running for mayor?

Another side note, it seems like they keep digging around on the Astor place site, anyone have a clue what they are doing? Are they still working on the dock wall project?

Also from the Whats up downtown newsletter.

Select office Building occupancy in Downtown Green Bay:
Nicolet Center- 100%
Riverwalk Plaza- 100%
U.S. Bank Building and annex- 100%
Johnson Bank Building- 100% projected by July 2007
Bellin Building- 96% projected by August 2007
Baylake City Center- 91%
Regency Center- 94%

Wasn't the Bellin building like mostly un-occupied when the current owners purchased it? Has anyone heard any news about this. If I recall there was to be a convenience store and a deli/cafe in addition to a full restaurant.

Bartles53

March 8th, 2007, 12:14 AM

I pulled this quote from an article that I posted on the first Green Bay thread on this website. It was taken from the Journal Sentinel and is about the promise of downtown Green Bay (the original article was from mid 2004). At the end of the article the author (Whitney Gould who writes architecture related pieces) mentioned a few things that she'd like to see that would aid the redevelopment process:

Make it easier to get downtown. I'm not advocating new highways. But an improved way-finding system from I-43 would be welcome. Strong says such a system, including entry-way boulevards, is called for in the city's 20-year plan. I'd make it an immediate priority.

I realize there's not a lot of detail here but I guess it may explain what Kriescher was getting at.

The article is no longer free on the JS Online website but if you'd like to read it, it can be found here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20040719/ai_n10977182

Puant

March 8th, 2007, 03:19 AM

Yeah, I suppose enhancing Webster or even Mason St to make it "easier" to get downtown might be beneficial...

However...

I wonder whether sinking lots more money into roads, just so people can shave minutes off of their car commute, is really the best way to spend public money?

WOuldn't it be better to use that public money to build a really cool downtown destination? That way, people might actually want to come downtown, and given a good reason to go, I don't think they'd necessarily mind taking a few more minutes to get there.

Better signage would be good, relatively cheap I guess. Perhaps the city could work in some better landscaping and/or gateways along Webster to make it more inviting, as was suggested in the Bartles link. But I don't think we need to spend lots of $$ on widening streets, adding lanes, etc. I don't think any of us were thinking that way, but I wonder if that's what Kriecher was suggesting.

P.S. here's a good article (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-fitness-walkable-communities,0,2792190.story?coll=sns-ap-health-headlines)

Bartles53

March 8th, 2007, 04:48 AM

Puant, I like the article. I like the thought of trails if for no other reason than they give one hope that the populace is attempting to keep itself at least somewhat attractive to the opposite sex. Basically they're a selling point for a community. But a walk to nowhere and back will eventually get old.

I within the last year moved from the Westside (basically a huge suburb) to Koreatown which is a much more urban neighborhood in Los Angeles. I actually tripled my commute and moved into a 300 s.f. studio mainly because I like the idea of walking to the market, restaurants (damn I love Korean food), the library, the subway, etc.

I can understand why developers would feel skittish about putting their dime on the line to fill downtown Green Bay with condos. But I think there are a lot of people out there that feel the way that many of us on this board do. Give the people some legitimate housing options within an urban setting. If you build it, they will come.

Puant

March 8th, 2007, 05:45 AM

I just watched the mayor's State of the City address replayed on Cable Access (don't ask me how I pulled myself away from the latest Anna Nicole news, but I did, somehow:lol: )

Anyway, I watched & listened carefully and here's what the mayor said:

On the Younkers redevelopment: "..work will begin this month.."

On Astor Place: "...construction will begin this summer.."

Like GBSurveyor, I did notice there is an excavator at the site. Maybe that means something's about to get started. They are not digging near the dock wall. I'll try get a closer look tomorrow.

GBSurveyor

March 10th, 2007, 09:28 AM

I found something which may appear to be of some interest. Anyone know what item 4 may be, there is not a lot of detail included.

AGENDA

REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF GREEN BAY

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

City Hall, Room 604

1:30 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:

2. Discussion and action on assignment of the KI Convention Center Management Agreement to Green Bay Hotel Associates LLC.

Recommendation: Approve assignment of the KI Convention Center Management Agreement to Green Bay Hotel Associates LLC.

3. Discussion and action on development agreement for Prestige Park Phase I – Champions Restaurant.

The Authority may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 19.85(1)(e), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating or negotiating the sale of public properties, investing of public funds as necessary for competitive or bargaining reasons. The Authority may thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to report the results of the closed session and consider the balance of the agenda.

Recommendation: Approve agreement.

4. Discussion regarding status of downtown development.

The Authority may convene in closed session pursuant to Sections 19.85(1)(e), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating or negotiating the sale of public properties, investing of public funds as necessary for competitive or bargaining reasons. The Authority may thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to report the results of the closed session and consider the balance of the agenda.

Recommendation: Report to be presented at meeting.

5. Request to replace failed windows in skywalk over Main Street for $16,500.

Recommendation: Approve expenditure up to $16,500 for replacement of windows.

downtownVital.org

March 12th, 2007, 07:27 PM

I found something which may appear to be of some interest. Anyone know what item 4 may be, there is not a lot of detail included.

There's a proposal that needs to be reviewed regarding the first piece of River Center, the rental portion on the north end. If you take a look at the agenda for next Monday's (the 19th) Planning Board of Appeals, you will see this related item:

River Center Lofts, LLC, proposes to develop a mixed-use commercial and residential project located within the Downtown (D) zoning district, and is requesting a variance from Sec. 13-1719 and Table 17-2, reducing the maximum required number of parking spaces for the project by 67 spaces - from 131 spaces to 64 spaces.

The plans I've seen for this (they've been revised in the last month or two) raise some significant questions, not the least of which is that (and I don't remember the total number of units in the rental portion) the number of parking spaces for the rental portion is, I think, less than one per unit. As much as I'd like Green Bay to be a city where one could comfortably live downtown and not own a car, I don't think we're especially close to that point yet, and wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

Anyway, I'm going to try to make it to the RDA meeting tomorrow to hopefully learn more about what's being proposed here. Hopefully some of my concerns, and there are several, will be addressed.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 12th, 2007, 11:23 PM

The plans I've seen for this (they've been revised in the last month or two) raise some significant questions, not the least of which is that (and I don't remember the total number of units in the rental portion) the number of parking spaces for the rental portion is, I think, less than one per unit. As much as I'd like Green Bay to be a city where one could comfortably live downtown and not own a car, I don't think we're especially close to that point yet, and wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

Anyway, I'm going to try to make it to the RDA meeting tomorrow to hopefully learn more about what's being proposed here. Hopefully some of my concerns, and there are several, will be addressed.

Holy Cow!!! Less than one parking space per unit. Who is going to rent a unit in this place if they cannot be guaranteed a parking space? Reducing the parking by more than half is just really out there for Green Bay. Even in other more urban areas how many projects look to exclude parking? Can you imagine some poor tenant walking across the Main Street Bridge in the middle of winter with 6 bags of groceries? Hopefully, the money that they save on parking will be put back into cool features or architecture? IS Vetter doing this building?

Puant

March 12th, 2007, 11:26 PM

Does the city ever reserve parking spots in any of the ramps or other public lots for residents who live downtown (as in discounts or other incentives)? The ramps are never really full, not even close.

Whoever goes to that meeting tomorrow: I'd love it if you'd post whatever info you gather on here. Big thanks in advance if you do.

Updated:

GBSurveyor

March 13th, 2007, 06:21 AM

As far as the tone of item 4...
4. Discussion regarding status of downtown development.
it seems like should cover a much broader picture??? If it was River Center specific shouldn't it just say discussion of the River Center development??? Maybe I am just thinking too much.

The plans I've seen for this (they've been revised in the last month or two) raise some significant questions, not the least of which is that (and I don't remember the total number of units in the rental portion) the number of parking spaces for the rental portion is, I think, less than one per unit. As much as I'd like Green Bay to be a city where one could comfortably live downtown and not own a car, I don't think we're especially close to that point yet, and wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

If this helps the project move forward and lowers the rents/price of the condo's and gets the place built... then I am all for it. I have seen the parking ramps sit nearly empty downtown. Parking is not cheap to build or maintain. If we are going to improve downtown we need some activity NOW not another year from now, or 10 years from now at the rate it seems to be going. I am sure that there are many properties in the city that do not have sufficant parking allocated for the housing. But if I can recall there are close to 5000 parking spots in the ramps alone within a few blocks of the building.
I do realize that it is almost impossible to imagine not having a car to just hop in and go where ever, but many people do this, yes even in Green Bay. We have a transit system, even if no one that posts here uses it. I see people hop on the Bus at Cub Food with their groceries. Its not like you need to walk across the bridge carrying 6 bags of grocieries. I have taken my bike to the store. Maybe you only pick up a few items, or better yet maybe a store will open downtown. So if this is a make or break deal for the River Center then I am all for it.
We really need this project to start. If parking is such a sore spot tear down the mall and build a surface lot, that is a perfect transitional model for underutilized land. Just my :2cents:

Puant

March 13th, 2007, 02:11 PM

^^ Right on!

I'm anxious to find out what goes down in the meeting today. I wish they had some sort of streaming web audio thingy so I could listen in on the meeting. I think the State does that now. Maybe it will work down to local government someday.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 13th, 2007, 02:58 PM

I understand the need and importance of getting downtown development moving. I also understand the need and importance placed on easily accessible and sufficient parking for projects. But I guess I am a little surprised that a project in a place like Green Bay, which let’s face it, is not as urban as Milwaukee and Madison in places – would forgo reserved spaces for each unit in a residential building. I know the residents in this building are going to be geared towards lower income – but that doesn’t mean they are second class citizens. I know there is a push to get away from the automobile dominated landscape – and I very much agree -- but did Riverfront Lofts reduce the parking available for units? No. More parking than units was implemented. Did Riverside Condos reduce parking? No, more parking spaces than units were made available. What makes this project different? Would those other projects have been as successful if they only offered half the number of required spaces per code? We may never know. Or was it because the price point of the individual they were seeking demanded it. I know the ramps appear to be empty – but if the massive changes take place and people start coming down for the Boardwalk, Children’s Museum, commercial and office component of River Center, the mall redevelopment – then I see parking as again being a huge issue in terms of abundance. We can’t just plan for right now and say, well nobody parks there now – so it is okay. We need to look at the future and say if everything happens, what potential parking problems will there be? I think at the very least providing sufficient parking for residents in a residential building will be a key approach in ensuring a successful project. Remember Green Bay isn’t as progressive as other cities, don’t have the campus like Madison does in the downtown that make it extremely walk able. We can hope for that, but one project isn’t going to change that feel about Green Bay. That is the risk I think that is real. :2cents:

mohammed wong

March 13th, 2007, 07:55 PM

I got turned around in your town,
which is easy to do, Im getting a little better at driving around greenbay and its burbs but it is challenging,

I was trying to find st. norberts college and couldnt find it,
but did find the corrections building of greenbay,
what a gorgeous structure!
its like the palace of doom,

i think it said it used to be a repository, (probably reformatory)

some info i found on it

SPECIAL HISTORICAL NOTES AND OTHER INSTITUTION INFORMATION
The Green Bay Correctional Institution is a maximum-security correctional facility that is administered by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Division of Adult Institutions. It is centrally located in Brown County between Green Bay, De Pere and the Fox and East Rivers.

In 1897, the Wisconsin Legislature approved $75,000 for construction of a state reformatory for male offenders who ranged in age from 17-30 years (in addition to the Waupun prison that housed older offenders). The purchase of 198 acres and old brick bicycle factory became the Wisconsin State Reformatory (WSR) and temporarily housed 8 inmates, then transferred from Waupun on August 31, 1898.

Prison construction occurred in the next two decades: North Cell Hall from 1898-1904, South Cell Hall and prior Administration Building from 1915-1922, and a wooden fence by 1916 for the main compound Seven years later it was replaced by the existing 22-foot high concrete wall.

In order to alleviate overcrowding in 1932, the Legislature decreased the age parameters of the 808 offenders housed at WSR to 16-25 years. But, in 1972, WSR became an adult male, maximum-security prison. The name was changed to the Green Bay Correctional Institution on July 1, 1979.

The majority of the now 29-acre grounds is contained within the perimeter walls secured by 6 armed towers. GBCI’s population of 1067 offenders is housed in the two original 294-bed cell halls, two dormitory units (consisting of 112 and 50 bed units), Mainstream Unit (25 beds), and one 150-bed segregation building. This Segregation Unit is utilized for offender protective, temporary, emergency, and disciplinary confinement. Other areas are a kitchen, two dining rooms, power plant, laundry/textiles facilities, school (academic and vocational), health service unit, chapel, psychological/social service areas, maintenance facilities (including yard and garden), indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, a visiting room, and administrative offices.

I have never seen such a cool prison.

downtownVital.org

March 13th, 2007, 11:16 PM

Mohammad, glad you liked the prison.

So, I'm back from the RDA. I'll give the best rundown I can off the top of my head (it was a recap of many downtown projects).

Mall - The plan is to put Adams St. through to Main, and Flatley Ct. will dead end at the Penny's building. This creates 4 or 5 development sites. So the city has put out a request for proposals for people interested in one, any combination of, or all of those sites. The goal is to get proposals by 60 days from yesterday, though it obviously could take longer than that.

The Penny's building is not in that RFP, as there is a party interested in that site. That party (I don't know who) would make it into a non-residential mixed-use building. They need to get tenents to make it work though, so as with all projects that's a challenge.

River Center - WHEDA requires that the rental portion project expenditures reach 10% by (oh shoot, I don't remember the date) sometime in May. So they need to get going on that pretty quick. There are 64 units in the building. For that, there are 32 reserved parking spaces in the RC ramp to be built, and another 32 "floating" spaces. Vetter isn't directly in charge of this piece, though I guess he is in an oversight capacity, and he's speaks for it, but Stone House Development is creating this. So anyway, its a rental building with some sort of minimal retail on the Washington St, and river sides.

There's nothing really to report about the rest of River Center, as it seems they are still trying to nail down exactly what will be in that portion, specifically what will be in the river-facing portion above the first floor. Most of that will be raw lofts, but the layout could change depending on some other possible uses.

Astor Place - Vetter said that they have $10 million in committed sales in their pocket, and another $2 that seems in good shape. The project is at about $30-35 million total, and they are looking for $15 to $20 million in pre-sales value. So at minimum they need another $3 million in sales. They are looking for groundbreaking in June.

I actually feel reasonably confident leaving that meeting. These are tough projects, but there is progress too. If I were asked, right now, to define the chances of each project being built, I'd put River Center at about 90%, and Astor Place in the area of 70 to 80%. I hope I'm not wrong.

Puant

March 14th, 2007, 05:28 AM

DtownVital:
Thanks for your notes, much appreciated!

GBSurveyor

March 14th, 2007, 06:05 AM

downtownVital.org- Yes thank you very much for reporting the info to us. The minutes never really capture what actually goes on.

Mall - The plan is to put Adams St. through to Main, and Flatley Ct. will dead end at the Penny's building. This creates 4 or 5 development sites. So the city has put out a request for proposals for people interested in one, any combination of, or all of those sites. The goal is to get proposals by 60 days from yesterday, though it obviously could take longer than that.

The Penny's building is not in that RFP, as there is a party interested in that site. That party (I don't know who) would make it into a non-residential mixed-use building. They need to get tenents to make it work though, so as with all projects that's a challenge.

I am just curious if there was any timelines established or if it was like wait 60 days and see if there is any interest sort of deal. Did Adams extention seem likely or a sure thing? As far as JC Penny goes- no mention of expanded KI? The Downtown Office space sure seems to be in demand- If the whats up downtown newsletter paints an accurate picture, with many properties 100% leased or occupied.

River Center - WHEDA requires that the rental portion project expenditures reach 10% by (oh shoot, I don't remember the date) sometime in May. So they need to get going on that pretty quick. There are 64 units in the building. For that, there are 32 reserved parking spaces in the RC ramp to be built, and another 32 "floating" spaces. Vetter isn't directly in charge of this piece, though I guess he is in an oversight capacity, and he's speaks for it, but Stone House Development is creating this. So anyway, its a rental building with some sort of minimal retail on the Washington St, and river sides.
So as I understand it then this componant is seperate from the Childrens Museum and the Riverfront Condo project then? and the 64 spaces are reserved for the rental housing? Is the Rivercenter Ramp exclusive to this building or will it be a common ramp for the entier complex?

There's nothing really to report about the rest of River Center, as it seems they are still trying to nail down exactly what will be in that portion, specifically what will be in the river-facing portion above the first floor. Most of that will be raw lofts, but the layout could change depending on some other possible uses.
Was any sort of timetable given for this part, which I assume contains the Childrens Museum? Any mention of marketing the condo's? or price points?

Astor Place - Vetter said that they have $10 million in committed sales in their pocket, and another $2 that seems in good shape. The project is at about $30-35 million total, and they are looking for $15 to $20 million in pre-sales value. So at minimum they need another $3 million in sales. They are looking for groundbreaking in June.
SO in all it sounded like a good meeting.
I surely can't wait to see some construction activity to commence. I took a side trip to view the Flatley site and the "old cottonwood tree" still stands. If I recall someone has been trying to take that thing down for years for various reasons, I assume when Astor Place gets buit it will come down. But it is still holding on to dear life while most other trees have been removed. That's the price you pay for development.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 14th, 2007, 02:41 PM

Today's GBPG

Action expected soon along Green Bay's riverfront

Construction work will begin with River Center project

By Richard Ryman
rryman@greenbaypressgazette.com

Construction on downtown Green Bay riverfront projects will begin in the next few months, developer John Vetter told the Redevelopment Authority on Tuesday.

Vetter said work will begin first on the River Center project, which encompasses the former Younkers department store building.

Construction of the 17-story Astor Place, north of River Center, is projected to begin in July.

"River Center has leapfrogged Astor Place (in the construction schedule)," Vetter said.

That is largely because the developer of 64 River Center apartments, Stone House Development of Madison, is under a Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority deadline to have 10 percent of the project under way by May 1.

Environmental abatement of the Younkers building will begin soon, and demolition of part of the building will follow. Vetter said much of the abatement will be asbestos, but there are other materials involved as well. He said abatement will take six to eight weeks.

"The apartment building can start even while they are demolishing the other building," Vetter said.

He said the one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments should be ready for occupation in spring 2008.

He said work on the riverfront projects will have 200 to 300 workers in downtown Green Bay on a regular basis.

Vetter said they've gotten commitments on $12 million in sales for Astor Place, which will have 89 condo units He said they would like to get another $3 million on the books before beginning work.

"We still have three months of pre-sale," he said.

Also Tuesday, the RDA approved a development agreement with Paul Kaczrowski for a new bar/restaurant on Tony Canadeo Run on the far southwest side. It will be next to the Cambria Suites hotel now under construction.

Kaczrowski said restaurant owner Ron Enke has more than 5,000 pieces of Packer memorabilia. He said Enke, who will close his establishment in Gays Mills to move to Green Bay, has 20 years of restaurant experience.

"He hopes to be open by July," Kaczrowski said.

Allison Swanson, city economic development director, said developers have shown some interest in the vacant Washington Commons property, though a number were interested only in parts of it.

She said the city, along with property owner Baylake Bank, will request additional proposals based on a return of the street grid, which would break the mall into four sections. She said a walk-through of the mall is scheduled for developers in April.

"We would hope in the next six months we'll have something for you," she said.

Harry Maier, who was re-elected RDA chairman Tuesday, responded to remarks he said were made by Alderman Gary Kriescher that the RDA cares more about condos than neighborhoods. Kriescher is a candidate for mayor.

Maier said the RDA has generated $1.57 million of federal grant funds for neighborhood development projects, which helped 131 families, and more than $10 million of direct investments in neighborhoods. He said RDA funding leveraged $88.9 million of investment in original neighborhoods and $56 million in other projects.

He said RDA provided $40.6 million over the last five years in tax increment finance money for more commercial projects.

"I just want to say the RDA is looking at the big picture," Maier said.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/GPG03/703140578/1247/GPGbusiness

Bay2Bay

March 14th, 2007, 03:47 PM

Articles about the downtown construction starting soon is starting to remind me of the movie Groundhog Day.

downtownVital.org

March 14th, 2007, 04:08 PM

I am just curious if there was any timelines established or if it was like wait 60 days and see if there is any interest sort of deal. Did Adams extention seem likely or a sure thing? As far as JC Penny goes- no mention of expanded KI? The Downtown Office space sure seems to be in demand- If the whats up downtown newsletter paints an accurate picture, with many properties 100% leased or occupied.

The city's plan for the mall site includes putting the streets back through. I suppose if a developer came out with some knock-your-socks-off type proposal that didn't put the streets through, the city would listen. But I can't imagine what such a proposal could be. So barring that, my sense is that the city is very committed to seeing the streets put through, I'd say 99% committed, but not to do so before they have a buyer.

So as I understand it then this componant is seperate from the Childrens Museum and the Riverfront Condo project then? and the 64 spaces are reserved for the rental housing? Is the Rivercenter Ramp exclusive to this building or will it be a common ramp for the entier complex?

Yes, the rental part is seperate. There will be one ramp shared by all portions of the River Center project. I think Vetter said that it was about 300 stalls total (but don't quote me on that). The ramp will be on the Washington St. side, above the Children's museum and commercial lobby space, and below any potential commercial office/hotel space.

Was any sort of timetable given for this part, which I assume contains the Childrens Museum? Any mention of marketing the condo's? or price points?

Here's my rough understanting of the sequence of events. The northern part of the existing building (the north half of the white part, where the Terrace Room was) will be saved, and the rest of that portion demolished. That saved portion will be extended towards the river, and I think have two floors added on top. So work will begin there first to meet with the WHEDA timelines.

As work is going on there, the oldest part of Prange's along Wash. St. will be demoed. The Children's Muesum will be on the corner of Wash. and Pine, with retail/lobby space north of that along Wash. towards the rental building. The parking will be above that, and the commercial (at a later time, I don't know how much later) above that.

The yellowish/brownish part of Prange's along the river will remain, and be converted to lower level retail with the raw lofts above. The lofts will be about in the 800 to 1200 sq.ft. range, and I think sell in the $140,000 to $250,000 range... these are estimates (and they are RAW lofts, so there will need to be some degree more spent by the owner to make them liveable).

From what I can tell, all of this will be going on at the same time but progressivly. So the rentals will be the first portion completed, then the Washinton St. side, then the river side. That's how I understand it anyway, but all of this is phase one. Phase two is the commercial space, and I have no idea what the timeline for that looks like.

Hope that makes sense.

Inside the Beltway

March 14th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Articles about the downtown construction starting soon is starting to remind me of the movie Groundhog Day.

Yeah, but articles about downtown construction don't include Andie MacDowell...

Green Bay 4 Life

March 14th, 2007, 06:19 PM

Plus the movie ends happily. We have no idea if we will wake up one day and it will be the first day after one or both of these projects are scrapped.

gbgoose

March 16th, 2007, 03:28 AM

GBSurveyor

March 16th, 2007, 07:53 PM

In the past, we talked about getting people to come downtown. I'm not sure if I understand the value of this event, but with Cabela's having a walleye tournament around downtown Green Bay Bayfest weekend - it will bring more people downtown and it will bring about $1 million to the area.
I'm not sure on what event you are talking about, but any event that is downtown will bring some people out. I myself liked whan Bayfest was out at UWGB, that may never happen again, but hopefully over time I will come to appreciate it downtown. Hopefully by that time there will be some construction occuring on the river.

Is anyone paying any attention to the Imperial Lane 'project'? There was some discussion about it in the Advisory Committee recentally. Link (http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/mins_agd/minutes/20070307MN1376.html)

Mr. Vissers said there are approximately 283 residential units within an area of 18.81 acres, which is just over 15 dwelling units per acre. He said if the vacant parcels are taken out, it pushes it to 16-17 units per acre, which is more than is allowed by the R3 zoning, adding that this area was developed in the 70’s and 80’s and exceeds the maximum density that the code allows right now. He said the number of acres in the entire area is a little more than 78 acres That density is really nice, however I took a ride through that area recentally and noticed that the area sure isn't nice at all. This is the are where the Kroc center is to be built. It looks like Mr. Vissers has done a ton of studing this area. I was very surprised that there wasn't more mention of recreating the housing to better suit the area while keeping the density that now exists. There are many, many single story duplexes and many 4, 6 and 8 unit apartment buildings. If I am correct, the Kroc center is there to support the 'lower' income families. Why is it a good idea to remove much of the existing housing to construct a business park?
I can see how a business park can bring in more $ then low income housing, especailly properties that are run down and not properly maintained. If there is a parking problem anywhere in the city it is this area. There are cars parked all over the place. If you anen't familar with the area take a drive through. I'm not saying that the area doesn't need help. I am just not sure I understand the avenue that the city wants to take to improve this area.

Let me know what you guys think.

gbgoose

March 17th, 2007, 01:47 AM

I'm not sure on what event you are talking about, but any event that is downtown will bring some people out. I myself liked whan Bayfest was out at UWGB, that may never happen again, but hopefully over time I will come to appreciate it downtown. Hopefully by that time there will be some construction occuring on the river.

This is what I was referring to:

I understated the economic impact - it'll be up to $5.5 million. I do agree in I liked the event more at UWGB, but if they're going to have Bayfest downtown, they need to have it more structured than last year. Such as using the park by Titletown.

Bartles53

March 17th, 2007, 02:26 AM

Hmmmm...Am I correct to assume that Mr. Vissers is our old forum friend Avissers? If so, congrats Avissers.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 19th, 2007, 02:44 PM

This is a section of the minutes from the 2/7/07 Advisory Committee Meeting. It appears Ald. Nicholson wants the residents out of there...

5. Request by Ald. Nicholson to review the Imperial Lane project.

Ald. Nicholson said he has received updated information on four different options from the Planning Department with respect to the Imperial Lane project. He shared the plans with the committee members and said he would prefer the plan which would include making most of the rental unit buildings disappear; he believed this was Option #3. He said it will come down to choosing a plan and seeing what the cost would be. Ald. Jeffreys questioned Ald. Nicholson on his proposal for relocating the people that would otherwise be residing in these units. Ald. Nicholson said he needs to work this out with the Mayor’s Office.

Chad Weininger addressed the committee at the request of Ald. Nicholson. Chad W. apologized that a planner was not present as Rob Strong is ill and Mr. Lockery is attending another meeting. He stated there are a couple of options, depending on what type of funds we use to purchase the properties . He indicated that there have been a few developers who have talked with the Mayor and Economic Development and said the Mayor wants to get someone interested in the property, who has a plan. He said the development could be anything from commercial business or a new development with housing, and said Rob Strong could come to a future meeting and talk more in depth about the options. Discussion ensued about using donor TIF, with Chad W. responding that to fund a development will take more than TIF money and said they do not have a cost estimate on the plan options. Ald. Nicholson questioned if the Mayor’s Office is marketing this area to developers? Chad W. responded that the Mayor and Economic Development discuss different sites when developers come in said they do mention the Imperial Lane site for redevelopment. He indicated that the Mayor has talked to three developers but it didn’t work out for this site. Ald. Weber said the fair market value of the property is $10.2 million, adding that he didn’t believe a developer would pay that kind of money.

Ald. Weber questioned with the building of The Kroc Center, if that would that have a positive effect on the neighborhood? Ald. Nicholson responded that there are transient people living there who do not live there for many years. He said the crimes still remain and he doesn’t see how the Kroc Center would improve that problem, adding that he would like to clean up the area for the Kroc Center. Ald. Jeffreys questioned what effect razing the properties in question would have on the population of Eisenhower School? Ald. Nicholson said he will check and see how many students live in that area. The committee reviewed the sketches of the four options, with Ald. Nicholson stating that he brought this forward for the committee to review and give their input. It was agreed that this area is too dense, is a fire hazard and needs to be thinned out. Chad W. asked if the committee would like Rob Strong and the Planning Department to come back with a more formal presentation that would include the cost for these options.

Motion made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Wery to refer this item to staff for further information and analysis and to present at the next Advisory Committee meeting. Motion carried.

Green Bay 4 Life

March 19th, 2007, 11:11 PM

Looking at the Astor Neighborhood Association Minutes from January 2007 and noticed this item. Does anyone know where this site is? The only blue warehouse located in the Astor Nieghborhood District is located south of Mason, that the only one that faces coal piles...

Lakeshore Development, and Bayland Builders, began with a presentation of their plan to develop the waterfront, e. side of the river, s. side of bridge, by removing the blue warehouse. On the Bob Vander Kelen site, which Lakeshore Development has an option on. Small retail store (deli, coffee shop, boat rentals as ideas) for trail users, and reroute the trail closer to the water. 3 stories, 45 units, inside parking for the units, outside parking for guests. Plan for 2 parking spots per unit. Public and private (unit owner) docking. From Cass to Mason St. Detailed pictures were shown. 3000 sq. ft. of retail. Liquor licenses are not foreseen. Bellin Hospital does use some parking under the bridge. Unit prices would be $200,000-350,000 each, 1000-1500 sq. ft. Stone and masonry hardboard (concrete) finish. The city’s design review team would look over any plans. Would like to have a fountain and meeting place at the NW end of the building. Minimum 10’ wide hard surface, and 12-14’ easement around. The new building base would be about 2’ higher than the present building. Mostly private financing, of at least a $10 million project. No timeshares. Mayor Schmitt expressed the city’s interest in developing the waterfront. Comments from the public (about 25 present): concern about the costs of these units, concern about appearance blending with an historic Astor Neighborhood, concern about scenery of the bridge and coal piles (many comments about coal piles and dust). The developers feel that a good % of inhabitants of the new condos downtown are Green Bay area residents, either young professionals or empty nesters. Important to have a wide-enough trail for both bikes and pedestrians. Favorable to be boater-friendly, but not a boat launch. Desire to have more public park setting along the river. The city is expecting an opinion from the Astor Neighborhood Association concerning this proposed development.

http://www.astorneighborhood.org/minutes/January%202007%20minutes.pdf

Puant

March 20th, 2007, 12:50 AM

^^ Oh,man, would this be a big improvement on this site! I'm all for it.

Granted, the coal piles directly across the river aren't beautiful, but the ships that dock there are kind of fun to watch maneuver and unload.

This is the site (http://www.gis.co.brown.wi.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm?Box=97764:563883:99139:565083)

GBSurveyor

March 20th, 2007, 03:42 PM

This is a section of the minutes from the 2/7/07 Advisory Committee Meeting. It appears Ald. Nicholson wants the residents out of there...
I'm don't dispute that at all. I'm sure most law abiding citizens would want them out. But where will they go? I'm pretty certain that in every instance that has been published, the root of the problem stems to absent landlords and government subsidies (that is a whole other topic). There is no way that the density mentioned is excessive. In fact, that is great density for a nice urban setting. The main problem is that no one in their right mind would want to live there. There is way too much dilapidated(sp?) housing which always seems to attract the lowest income renters. It would be interesting to note what the % of poverty is in that area.
I believe one of the main reasons that Green Bay was chosen for a Kroc Center is because of the density of low income housing in the area. Many of the residents work at Packerland Packing on earn a living. I'm sure that there are also many that don't work at all.
An easy solution would be to just tear everything down and force the problems out, but the problems will not go away, they will just resurface some where else. Sure I'm also certain that no one (private enterprise) will go out in invest in the area. This is exactly why there is that nice little tool called a TIF.
Come on Green Bay, instead of just trying to ignore the problems, let work on fixing them.:rant:

Green Bay 4 Life

March 21st, 2007, 10:43 PM

Some interesting doings in the minutes of the RDA Agenda that was discussed here previously. Thought they deserved further discussion, highlighting.

Mayor Schmitt stated the looks of this building are important. He understands the limited resources and that money is a factor, but he doesn’t want that to intimidate you. He supports the different living opportunities downtown, but wants to make sure that if it costs more to do it right, that somebody needs to find the money. He recommends an architectural review committee review this before it is approved. Don’t let the tight deadlines drive the decision, as this is a very valuable piece of property.

What is the deal with this? Are the building elevations for the WHEDA project that ugly? Is Vetter the archietct on this? I keep forgetting... There was no action taken, but I guess it was just an update. I guess it would be interesting to know what the building looks like, but it is good to hear that the Mayor has indicated that regardless of the use, the building should be of a high architectural quality.

Regarding Astor Place, J. Vetter stated site mobilization would occur in June with construction starting in July. They have $10 million of sales in hand, about $2 million in pocket, and are looking for another $3 million in the next 45 days to give full confidence. They have three months of presales to hit $15-20 million before starting construction. The development consists of 17 floors, 89 units, and approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of retail. The project is moving closer to $35 million in value.

Maybe this year we will see Astor start to come together. It has been awhile, but let’s hope the final stretch run and movement on these two projects combined will revitalize interest in people looking and purchasing units.

P. Kaczrowski further stated that in April he plans to start construction on an approximately 10,000 square foot strip center from Champions Restaurant moving toward Ashland Avenue. The new Pizza Hut/Wings is now open and the old Pizza Hut building will be coming down in the next 3-4 weeks. The design center is just about completed for the towers and they plan to open sales April 10.

Looks like the design center and pre-sales of the twin 12 story condo towers on the west side will be hitting the ground soon. Good to see additional development such as the restaurant and retail moving forward in that area. I think this is good to take advantage of the proximity of Lambeau Field since most of the commercial property around the stadium is in Ashwaubenon. This will at least add to the tax base of Green Bay and hopefully attract unique retail not typically found around Bay Park.

The City, in conjunction with Baylake Bank, sent out an RFP for the mall site. There has been a fair amount of interest as well as interest in specific portions as opposed to the entire site. A letter was sent out showing a street grid pattern, essentially creating 4 different sites, and asking for an updated RFP if interested in the entire site or 1 of the 4 sites. A walk-through for potential developers will occur in April. Proposals are due back in 60 days. Baylake will be doing some additional marketing as well. There is an existing offer on the JC Penney building so a RFP was not sent out on that property.

Mayor Schmitt added that regarding the mall, we are sticking to the plan of the value we want. The bank understands this and we are working together with the bank. We may need to spend more money on marketing. He won’t commit that we will have “the” proposal we will go with back in 60 days. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing.

Ahhh, the mall. What can you say? Good to hear they are sticking to opening the street grid back up. If anything, that is a positive start. Wonder what the offer is on J.C. Penney and what, if any, improvements will be made to that building which is one of many eyesores downtown.

Puant

March 21st, 2007, 11:57 PM

^^reason for optimism

I just checked out the Astor web site (http://www.astorplacecondos.com/home.htm), it's been updated. The old "pricing" page is gone, I can't see which units are avialable anymore. There are some new pages. A timeline was added. The "FAQ" page is interesting.

I wholeheartedly agree with the mayor's points on the architectural quality. RC will be the focal point, it will define the city, it's that "Monday Night Football" shot that will be shown repeatedly. Too many times we've done things half-assed and built junk with no lasting quality in this city. Can't let that happen here.

Thanks for the post, 4Life. Good work!

GBSurveyor

March 22nd, 2007, 03:45 AM

I really wish that they would web stream the video or at a minimum record the audio so we could here the discussion, I know that much more is talked about then is recorded in the minutes.

Dan Moore, of the DGBI Urban Design Committee, expressed concerns about parking issues related to the Stonehouse apartments and the pedestrian level accessibility. He wants to make sure the project is creating a place people want to be with a high degree of life.

Nice job Dan. What are the comments from Jeff Mirkes supposed to mean?

J. Mirkes stated that the DGBI Urban Design Committee is an ad-hoc committee and not a committee vested with any authority. It is a group of volunteers and he doesn’t feel this is the committee to make final decisions.
The tone seems like "these people just waste their own time to try to make things even better then it should be" or am I just reading it wrong? I am sure no one wants construction to start more then me, but do we want the end product to be a mistake that we will resent until the net generation wants to tear it down?

downtownVital.org

March 22nd, 2007, 04:55 PM

Oh boy, I don't know how to structure these thoughts so that this all makes sense, but I'll try. For more about the parking issues, see the Zoning and Planing Board of Appeals minutes here (http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/mins_agd/minutes/20070319MN1388.html).

First, the part of River Center that's being talked about here, the rental portion, is designed by Stonehouse out of Madison, sort of under the supervision of Vetter (from what I can tell). The design is, well, plain. Take a box, put some windows on it, and add some brick and raised metal surface treatments, and you'll have what we're talking about here. That's not to say it will be a disaster, it may turn out to be fairly handsome, but it's not going to win any awards for originality.

There were renderings done a month or two ago that were quite a bit more interesting, and I don't know why they changed. Maybe the more dynamic features of that design were cost-prohibitive. Maybe Vetter didn't feel like that design would mesh well with the rest of the property (though I can't see how that would be).

This seems like a good time to mention that if you ever want to get Vetter fired up, go to an RDA meeting and raise concerns about his project. I ran into him on my way out of city hall and talked to him...wow. Now I want to be careful to say that he wasn't rude about it nor disrespectful of my views, in fact he was pretty nice about it, but man he seemed fired up. It was kind of entertaining. Anyway, he made a comment about not every building along the river needing to be a statement building, and that you need some buildings that just fit into the fabric of the area well so that the whole area doesn't become overwhelming. I'll let you guys read into that what you will.

Beyond the aesthetic end of things, is the ground level use issue. There are a couple of pretty small retail bays along Washington, and some more retail space along the river. Facing Flatley Court would be several "live/work" units. These aren't really live/work units. They are rental (residentail) units with their front door on the street, but since you can't have residental units configured in that way, they are called live/work. Some of the Wash. St. retail space may or may not be used as the rental office for the apartments.

Vetter's defense of this situation boils down to that the rest of River Center will have ground-level retail all the way around, and so the project as a whole is sufficiently responsive to ground-level uses. He also stated at one point the 64 units was some sort of magic number to make the rental project viable, so one may read into that that the live/work units are necessary to reach the total of 64 units.

As for the parking, my biggest concern has to do with things like this:

Mr. Arnesen informed the Board that he has done several urban projects like this in Madison and Milwaukee. This one to one parking ratio has been more than adequate for these projects. These are mixed income apartments and some residents don't have cars. This project would have a one to one ratio. There are sixty-four units and sixty-four spaces.

One could just as easliy state the since they've done projects in New York and Chicago and this ratio of parking spaces was okay, so it will be here too. Cities are analogous or they are not, and Green Bay is not analogous with Milwaukee and/or Madison. The parking may be enough, but one really can't say base on those comparisons.

That said, parking is a HUGE challenge here, it won't just build itself. On a project like Astor Place, the TIF can go a much longer way in compensating for the challenge of creating parking in an urban setting. But in River Center, the TIF has to compensate for the cost of the property, abatement and demo of the existing building, and parking, all of which are challenges that would not exist in a suburban greenfield setting. So I can sympathize with the need to make the project big enough to generate enough value to make them feasable, and yet dealing with the high cost of providing parking for all those users. My guess is that no matter what is ever done on this site, parking is going to be a similar challenge.

Nice job Dan. What are the comments from Jeff Mirkes supposed to mean?

The tone seems like "these people just waste their own time to try to make things even better then it should be" or am I just reading it wrong? I am sure no one wants construction to start more then me, but do we want the end product to be a mistake that we will resent until the net generation wants to tear it down?

I don't want to speak for Jeff, but the Urban Design committee isn't a real architectural review board. Such a board would probably be a good idea, but it would need to be constituted from the beginning as such. At the same time, as a representative of DGBI in charge of looking into urban design issues, could the committee be asked to give feedback on these issues in a more formal way? Sure, and I think Jeff downplayed that too much and was probably a bit unfair to the committee memebers in that regard.

For what it's worth, the Urban Design Committee did discuss this project at our meeting earlier in March. The committee was NOT happy with the design for the rental building, so while the view may have moderated somewhat if we gave it more discussion and were provided with more information, a reasonable person could conclude that if the Urban Design Committee was asked to give feedback on the design, it would have been negative. That's why I was at the RDA and spoke about concerns rasied by the project. I can't answer whether the views of the committee played a part in how Jeff chose his words.

I do want to be careful here not to sound too harsh, Jeff's a good guy and a friend and I don't think was trying to put down our committee, but I think he'd admit that, especially from the representation in the minutes, he could have chose how he framed the committee better.

Puant

March 22nd, 2007, 11:49 PM

oops double post, sorry

Puant

March 23rd, 2007, 01:13 AM

May I comment again?

First, I wish we could see the latest renderings / plans of RC. IS there a good way to keep up on the changes? SOme of you have been helping keep everyone in the loop by posting images here, that's always appreciated. I know I've been rather harsh on the designs of RC. I've been starting to think maybe the last images were just bad renderings, and that the actual finished product will look better, and we'll all be pleasantly surprised. There's another side of this coin, of course: some computer renderings are done too nice and they gloss over what the actual finished product will look like. WHo knows which is which here?

As for the parkign issue on RC:
I say minimize the parking, let's go with the current plan and see what happens. I don't feel that the disproportionate amount of parking makes the tenants "2nd class citizens"...not in the least; in fact, I would say quite the opposite, that anyone who can live without a car is actually quite noble. I don't think that's discriminating at all. Almost every decision made in the downtown over the last 50 years revolved around parking,parking,parking. I think this led to many poor decisions. Let's not let the parking (or supposed lack thereof) be such a dominant theme here.

I also don't have a problem with the live/work (emphasis on the 'live') units facing Flatley Way, although again, I'd like to see the plan/render just so I can get a better sense of it.

Hopefully everyone can work through the challenges here and move this thing along.

I am a little perplexed as to why the vacant "site 4" is not "sexy enough" (someone else's phrase) when there are almost none of these issues to deal with (no existing structures or abatement issues; and there's plenty of parking with the ramp right across the street, etc).

Finally, I just want to say to Dan: You seem so level-headed, you don't fly off the handle, your posts are mostly coherent and logical, you always make good points. Again, too bad you don't live in the City so you could run for alder where you could do your thing and have more influence.. But do keep up the good work on the Urban Design committee. I'm still crossing my fingers for that little park in front of BayLake. Can you share the plans? Or is this dead?

Puant

March 23rd, 2007, 01:20 AM

Seems that simple editing of posts creates new ones? Sorry.

sr22ger

March 23rd, 2007, 11:53 PM

Posted March 23, 2007

NEW communities get state brownfield grants

MADISON – A number of Northeastern Wisconsin communities will share in $1.7 million in state grants to assess contamination at abandoned or underused properties.

Statewide, the grants will fund 47 projects that help redevelop brownfields, which are abandoned, idle, or underused industrial or commercial properties where redevelopment is hindered by contamination.

The DNR Brownfields Site Assessment Grants (SAG) provide seed money to local governments for demolition, environmental assessments and removal of abandoned tanks and containers. To receive funding, local governments must provide a 20 percent match.

The grants were announced by Gov. Jim Doyle’s office.

Northeastern Wisconsin governments receiving grants, followed by the project the money will help fund and the amount of the grant are:

City of Algoma, former Metal Ware riverfront, $30,000

City of Green Bay, Younkers redevelopment site, $30,000

Marinette County, former Sefarian site, $90,000

City of Marinette, Colonial building property, $30,000

City of Oconto, Kelly Pickle redevelopment (Parcel A), $30,000

City of Oconto, Kelly Pickle redevelopment (Parcel B), $30,000

City of Oconto, Kelly Pickle redevelopment (Parcel C), $30,000

City of Peshtigo, former Badger Paper Mill, $30,000

Was Vetter planning on having this money for RC? I suppose $30,000 isn't alot of money for a project of that size.

GBSurveyor

March 25th, 2007, 02:07 PM

63 percent of those surveyed find progress lacking

By Paul Srubas
psrubas@greenbaypressgazette.com Link (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/GPG0101/703250641/1978)
Posted March 25, 2007

Green Bay may be about to solve the chicken-and-the-egg puzzle.

That's the way Jeff Mirkes sees it. Mirkes, executive director of Downtown Green Bay Inc., described Green Bay's downtown redevelopment efforts as a "chicken and egg" problem — retailers don't want to commit to downtown until there's enough residents there to keep them in business, and residents don't want to live downtown until there's enough businesses and services available to make it convenient.

The dilemma causes a big stalemate, with no one willing to go first, and redevelopment lies at a standstill.

The phenomenon probably is partly to blame for a lingering pessimism about Green Bay's downtown.

The annual Brown County Quality of Life Survey being released this week shows attitudes about Green Bay's downtown revitalization efforts were among the most pessimistic on the survey. The survey reflected positive attitudes about nearly every other aspect of life in the county, including the quality of its health care, schools, police department and government.

The survey, conducted by the St. Norbert College Survey Center, shows those attitudes about downtown revitalization improving minimally since last year but were still deeply negative, with 63 percent of those surveyed saying progress has been poor or not so good.

The drawn-out struggle with the downtown mall is at the heart of it. Opened as Port Plaza Mall in 1977, the shopping center thrived for nearly 20 years before stores began dropping out one by one. By 2001, when it changed ownership and was renamed Washington Commons, the mall was in serious trouble, and less than five years later, it closed its doors.

The community's pessimism, while understandable, is a step behind a growing confidence among investors, Mirkes said, and it's that investor confidence that's ultimately going to solve the chicken-and-the-egg puzzle.

A lot has happened downtown in recent years, Mirkes said. Some of that remains at the "promise" stage — notably, the Vetter Denk proposal for the 17-story Astor Place, which is to consist of 89 condominiums, and the 64 apartments of the River Center, at the site of the old Younkers building.

But there's been plenty of real action nearby, too — the development of a 795-stall, $10 million parking ramp, condos, apartments, banks and offices.

The good news accompanying that is that occupancy is high, Mirkes said. Nicolet Center, Riverwalk Plaza, the U.S. Bank building and annex are all 100 percent occupied; the Johnson Bank Building is expected to hit 100 percent occupancy by July; the Bellin Building is projected at 96 percent full by August; the Baylake City Center is at 91 percent; and Regency Center is at 94 percent.

"What we're seeing is growing confidence by the community and by businesses," Mirkes said. "Obviously our organization is involved with revitalization, and we want to be able to stand behind our claims that downtown revitalization is moving ahead, but those are real-life indicators."

When companies invest in building those spaces, and other companies commit to occupying them, that's an indication that people are downtown to stay, and that should spread the confidence to retailers who need to know there'll be people living and working and likely buying their products or services, Mirkes said.

Confidence growing

Mayor Jim Schmitt says he understands some lingering pessimism.

"It's been years not being the most vibrant downtown," he said. "A few years ago, to ask someone to make a major contribution to investment was not without its challenges."

But with investors "stepping up" with such buildings as Nicolet Bank, Baylake Bank, the Riverfront Lofts, no one can really say anymore that things aren't happening downtown, Schmitt said.

The mall may be a reason for pessimism, but it's also a 7-acre parcel of opportunity, and as confidence grows in the rest of downtown, pieces of the mall will grow in attractiveness to investors, he said.

People need to get it out of their minds that the mall will ever be resurrected as a mall, Schmitt said.

"A viable downtown will happen; a viable mall will not," he said. "Downtown malls don't work any more."

More likely, sections of it will go toward fulfilling the needs of the growing downtown population, he said — groceries, laundry services and other amenities that will be in high demand as the condominium and rental projects come to fruition.

The strategy seemed to appeal to at least some people.

"I work in downtown Green Bay, and I like what they are trying to do, bringing back businesses," said Sally Keuer of Brillion.

Investor confidence is growing, and all that is needed to help the community's optimism to follow suit is for people to start seeing some of the other downtown projects get under way, Schmitt said. Work on the Vetter Denk project likely will take place this spring. Plans for the Agrilink building on North Broadway likely will firm up this spring, too, he said. He also predicted a plan will begin to materialize for the mall within the next 60 days.

Premature optimism

All of that may indeed break the chicken-and-egg cycle, but it may also be counting one's chickens before they're hatched. Alderman Gary Kriescher, who is running against Schmitt for mayor, cautioned that a lot of the optimism arising from development downtown may be premature.

"You're saying there's been $80 million worth of development, but if you're saying there's been a benefit to the city tax base, you're lying," Kriescher said. "There won't be a benefit until the (tax-increment finance district) is done."

The city has been working on its downtown for the last 30 to 40 years, "and it's been nothing but TIF, TIF, TIF, TIF," Kriescher said.

Every time a TIF district is established, it means taxes raised from the improvements go back directly to the district for 20 years, which means there'll be no tax benefit outside the district for those 20 years, Kriescher said.

"They're saying they improved the value of the downtown, but until the tax is collected, is it worth it?" he said. "It's supposed to be the most valuable land in the city, but why do we have to keep begging, borrowing and stealing to get people to go there?"

A healthy downtown is vital to the health of the city, and a healthy mix of retail, residential and office development is vital to the health of downtown, Schmitt said. And when the city completes its boardwalk along the Fox River downtown over the next few years, "it'll make downtown special," he said. "It's what Green Bay deserves as the state's third-largest city."

Wow I never really knew that Kreischer was that bad. He totally misses the point of what a downtown is really all about. He does bring out an interesting point about begging people to go downtown, and as we all know redevelopment is quite a bit more expensive then greenfield development on the outer fringe.

Inside the Beltway

March 26th, 2007, 02:27 PM

Wow I never really knew that Kreischer was that bad.

Yeah, but he's saying all the right things for those who are concerned with only taxes, taxes, taxes. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those voters in Green Bay.

downtownVital.org

March 26th, 2007, 04:55 PM

First, a forum reader took some photos in the Northland Hotel and e-mailed them to me to have me post them with the others I posted last month. THey are really great, and you can see them here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=12359657#post12359657)

Wow I never really knew that Kreischer was that bad. He totally misses the point of what a downtown is really all about. He does bring out an interesting point about begging people to go downtown, and as we all know redevelopment is quite a bit more expensive then greenfield development on the outer fringe.

Yeah, but he's saying all the right things for those who are concerned with only taxes, taxes, taxes. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those voters in Green Bay.

Wow, Kreischer really doesn't get it. I mean aside from the idea that TIF is important because in a greenfield you don't have to knock down an old building, fit in parking without large surface lots, etc., apparently he forgets that while the TIF doesn''t necessarily generate new tax revenue right away, A) it will over time, and B) it's not raising taxes either. I guess he'd rather not attract businesses and jobs and residents into the heart of the downtown, nor does he have an interest in using growth to create new public ammenities. Very forward thinking!

Finally, I just want to say to Dan: You seem so level-headed, you don't fly off the handle, your posts are mostly coherent and logical, you always make good points. Again, too bad you don't live in the City so you could run for alder where you could do your thing and have more influence.. But do keep up the good work on the Urban Design committee. I'm still crossing my fingers for that little park in front of BayLake. Can you share the plans? Or is this dead?

Your payment for the preceeding comments will arrive shortly in an unmarked envelope. :cheers1:

The little plaza/park is moving forward. I had a meeting with a team of people from the city where the work that the Urban Design committee did was "handed over" to the city to take from there. The concept we came up with was well received and so now it's up to the city and their landsacpe architects to take that seed and turn it into a real plan. I think the idea is to have a plan by fall/winter of this year so that it can be built in spring of '08. Obviously all of this is preliminary though and has to go through the whole approvals process before that happens.

downtownVital.org

March 27th, 2007, 04:37 PM

Oh heck, I don't think there's any reason not to post this on here, so why not? This is basically the plaza concept that we came up with for the portion of the Adams Street lot along Washington St. There are a couple of things to know about this:

First, the planting areas probably need to stretch further towards Baylake Bank as the seating area doesn't need to be that big.

The plantings themselves will try to have a more natural look, but not so much so as to look weedy. The feeling should be distinct from yet complimentary to the riverfront designs.

The planting areas my be able to serve as storm water collection areas, which is good.

The clock tower on the corner won't even necessarily be a clock, but something of some mass and height should be there to help define that corner.

Clocks and water features aren't free, so as with all things, a funding source may need to be found for those items.

The little raised platform in the SE corner probably doesn't need to be there, and the bike rack pictured probably isn't the best place for a bike rack.

I could pick this apart all day, but I think the concept is pretty strong, and that's what is important here. The details will be worked out by the professionals whos job it is to design these sort of things. Anyway, here's the drawing:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/downtownVital/plaza.jpg

Green Bay 4 Life

March 27th, 2007, 08:11 PM

^^ I like the concept. Obviosuly a huge improvment over what the site currently looks like. Having something on the corner to give it a hard edge and some type of focal point is a great idea. Again, doesn't have to be a clock. I like the water feature as well as the use of hardscape and green space rather than all urban hardscape which at times can be rather cold. However, then it comes down to maintenance. It would be a cool area for artists to go and display art pieces or do work. Overall, good job. Obviously a little refinement may be in order, but I do like the idea. However, that being said, I would rather see some type of building (higher than 2 stories) built on the remainder of the parking lot. Know that will never happen, but it is nice to dream...

GBSurveyor

March 28th, 2007, 01:47 PM

However, that being said, I would rather see some type of building (higher than 2 stories) built on the remainder of the parking lot. Know that will never happen, but it is nice to dream...

Now, you can't just say that. At some point that land may warrant another use other then a parking lot...I just don't see it happining any time soon.:)

Green Bay 4 Life

March 28th, 2007, 02:44 PM

Now, you can't just say that. At some point that land may warrant another use other then a parking lot...I just don't see it happining any time soon.:)

You may be right, however even though there is a parking ramp across the street and a new parking ramp planned as part of the River Center development, I think both Baylake Bank and the businesses along Washington Street would freak out to lose such highly visible surface parking lot spaces. At least the GB Redevelopment Authority owns the land, however, my my confidence that development of this site will take place will stay skeptical at best until other projects that seemed to be slam dunks actually start to materialize.

downtownVital.org

March 28th, 2007, 04:02 PM

Here's a plan I was trying to push:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/downtownvital/plaza3.jpg

This would reduce parking by about half, but if you made that parking a combination of 15 minute and one or two hour parking, then the surrounding businesses would still have space for their customers, in fact, maybe even better parking for their customers. Plus you get to have a pretty nice open public square. If you're down in that lot some evening or night, imagine that as a public square, it would be really great surrounded by the retail that borders it.

Anyway, from the limited feedback I heard, at least some of the surrounding business people thought this was a good idea. I don't remember if I ever heard anything from the people with the biggest stake in that parking, and the most to gain or lose, the retail/entertainment businesses.

Two things are stopping this, A) cost, and B) the guidelines for how much parking needs to be downtown will not allow for a loss of 80 stalls or whatever it is. I guess the Cherry ramp is full or close to it on weekdays, the River Center ramp is all spoken for (and as we've seen recently, there's some question as to if that ramp is even big enough for it's own uses), and when development comes to site 4 there will be even greater pressure on parking.

So, as I've told people who will listen, surface parking is just about the lowest and worst use of that land. But for now, the situation is what it is and the smaller plaza will improve that area without a loss of parking capacity. In the long run, the solution is to make the demand for parking reduced so that the idea of converting that surface lot is more palatable.

GBSurveyor

March 28th, 2007, 07:49 PM

I really like your plan much better. It is very inconvienant to park in the lot to run to Bosses or Maloney's or any other place. I do feel that there is really a need for the open space downtown. The plaza idea is a great, inexpensive (in relitive terms) plan. Surface parking lots serve no purpose other then as a land bank for future development. When the time comes that the downtown value has increased, the surface parking will no longer make financial sense.

Once the mall is dismantled the parking should spead out more if properly configured. The mayors re-election flyers mention the possible soon to redeveloped mall property, I just hope soon is this decade.

Puant

March 29th, 2007, 06:51 AM

Here's a plan I was trying to push:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/downtownvital/plaza3.jpg

then the surrounding businesses would still have space for their customers, in fact, maybe even better parking for their customers. Plus you get to have a pretty nice open public square. If you're down in that lot some evening or night, imagine that as a public square, it would be really great surrounded by the retail that borders it.

Two things are stopping this, A) cost, and B) the guidelines for how much parking needs to be downtown will not allow for a loss of 80 stalls or whatever it is. I guess the Cherry ramp is full or close to it on weekdays, the River Center ramp is all spoken for (and as we've seen recently, there's some question as to if that ramp is even big enough for it's own uses), and when development comes to site 4 there will be even greater pressure on parking.

I think that creating a high-quality place like this is more essential than preserving these relatively few parking spots. And I'm saying this as a guy who deals with parking here most weekdays (when I'm not carpooling, which I've been doing more...I even took the bus, but that's another story).

Anyway, as a guy who goes down here daily, I can tell you that the Cherry Street ramp is nowhere close to full. Levels 2 and 3 are often fairly full, level 4 is usually about half to 3/4 full, but levels 5-7 have plenty of open spots. Now, I do understand that many of these spots are "reserved" in some way, for site 4 or whatever. Additionally, once Adams and other streets are put back through there will be more on-street parkning. Perhaps if they tear down the mall, some transitional surface parking would work there, until the lots sell, kind of like "site 4".

In any case, something like Dan's park idea should be a high priority. It's a fairly simple, relatively inexpensive, yet highly effective way to vastly improve this core part of the downtown.

I wish there was something I could do to help promote and make this plan become reality. If I could be supreme ruler of the city for a week, this is what I'd get done.

downtownVital.org

March 29th, 2007, 11:00 PM

I just had a thought, so I'll post it here. My website hasn't been, to put it mildly, the most consistantly updated site in the world. The problem is that I lack the time and energy to manage the site by myself for long periods.

A really good model for this sort of thing is the Wausaublog (http://wausaublog.wordpress.com/). Perhaps the thing to do is to turn downtownvital.org into a group effort, and use more of a blog format like the wausaublog. Keeping it updated more regularly would make it more of a destination. We could even use it to present "new" ideas like the plaza plan and have a launch pad to promote them.

Thoughts, comments???

Puant

March 29th, 2007, 11:46 PM

I too, watch the Wausaublog, and I like it for the most part. The group effort keeps it fresh, for sure.

I've always felt the "skycraper" forum is good, but by virtue of it's name and purpose, it's focus was skyscrapers and development. We've sort of turned SSC into more than that, but about 6 months back I started my blog because wanted another outlet for my own idiosyncratic interests, which while related, didn't always seem to "fit" into the Skyscraper forum. I also like to put a little extra effort into "feature" articles once in a while, like the two or three "pillar (http://green-bay-blog.blogspot.com/search/label/Pillar%20Article)" articles.

I like your idea--should we combine efforts or continue on separate paths?

I have lots of other draft articles and thoughts I'm kicking around in my head that I intend to turn into blog articles, but like you, I'm a pretty busy guy and I don't have a lot of time to put them together on a consistent basis. Actually, one of my article ideas relates to your park plan. Last night I dusted off my old 3D model of the downtown and dropped your plan in, just to play around with it a little bit and see it in more context.

GBSurveyor

March 30th, 2007, 03:13 PM

(when I'm not carpooling, which I've been doing more...I even took the bus, but that's another story).
I'd be interested in hearing that story. I have noticed that they may be considering a route restructuring with an additional west side hub. I took the bus a few weeks ago, more of a lleasure trip (on saturday) to the Library. It seems like the routes meander so much that it seems like it takes forever. I think that I also liked it better when you could transfer downtown, now to get there I needed to transfer which added time. Another thing that sort of bugged me is that there is not a 1 day pass. When I was in Salt Lake City we bought a 1 day pass good for all light rail/bus rides the whole day, and it was like $2. I think the fare in GB is $1.5 each way, so my leisure trip cost $3. That isn't that bad, but if I wanted to make a stop somewhere else it would start to add up. I guess if I was a full time rider I would probabally get a pass.

In any case, something like Dan's park idea should be a high priority. It's a fairly simple, relatively inexpensive, yet highly effective way to vastly improve this core part of the downtown.

I totally agree, I still think that we need a larger area like a surface parking lot for events like artstreet, but I bet they would still find a place to put everything.

I wish there was something I could do to help promote and make this plan become reality. If I could be supreme ruler of the city for a week, this is what I'd get done
I also would like to be more involved to get some of these ideas flowing or at least out there for the public to review and ponder, what downtown can be.