Curious to know what everyone thinks about this future issue. Where should the new arena be built? How large of a seating capacity should it have? How much will it cost? And who WILL end up forking over the bucks (pardon the pun)?

Out of the 30 NBA arenas, the Bradley Center is ranked 20th in size at 18,717 (basketball). And it is one of the 5 oldest arenas in the NBA, being completed in October of 1988. http://www.hoopscorner.com/links/team_arenas.html

Curious to know what everyone thinks about this future issue. Where should the new arena be built? How large of a seating capacity should it have? How much will it cost? And who WILL end up forking over the bucks (pardon the pun)?

Out of the 30 NBA arenas, the Bradley Center is ranked 20th in size at 18,717 (basketball). And it is one of the 5 oldest arenas in the NBA, being completed in October of 1988. http://www.hoopscorner.com/links/team_arenas.html
I wouldn't expect much shift in the capacity of a new arena. If you look at that list of venues, 21 of them fall in the 18,300 to 20,049 range. That's not much of a difference, especially when you consider the wildly different metro populations of the cities represented in the NBA. Hell, Miami has the 6th largest metro pop in country and the smallest arena in the league!

I think it's a pointless discussion because it sounds like most people are looking to renovate rather than build new. A renovation would more likely include restaurants, a hotel, and a better pro-shop rather than changes in seating capacity.

I think it's a pointless discussion because it sounds like most people are looking to renovate rather than build new. A renovation would more likely include restaurants, a hotel, and a better pro-shop rather than changes in seating capacity.What about the all important sky-boxes and suites? Can the renovation of the BC include the sky-boxes and suites without a significant loss of seating capacity. What about the lousy sight lines. Can that problem be corrected during renovation? New restaurants and a new hotel can be implimented into a "fresh sheet of paper" just as easily if not more so verses finding a place for those things within an old design?

And in my book, an intelligent debate over the pros and cons of renovation verses building new is never a pointless discussion. Especially when millions of dollars are at stake, and you nice folks down in Milwaukee and maybe even the surrounding counties may be paying higher fees or taxes in one form or another. And those extra taxes may be applied whether the BC is renovated or something new is built. Either way, it will be a multimillion dollar project.

i know were no LA butLA has at least 3 floors of luxury boxes in thier arena we only have one floor of em. There wouldn't be any way to add luxury boxes without cutting away seats for "regualr" people

well I’m obviously not an expert, but if they wanted to overhaul sightlines and seating capacity, it would almost be cheaper, quicker, or easier to start over with a new arena. The renovation talk to me seems to show that people are interested in creating additional ways to bring in revenue such as pro-shops, restaurants, est.

Plus what do you do with the BC if you build a new arena? The Cell (old MECCA) holds its purpose by being smaller for things like UWM graduation, Mil Wave, UWM basketball. But there is no way Milwaukee needs two full size arenas, the BC and a new one. So do you tear down the BC, a building less than 20 years old and a gift? I think that may be the biggest reason to look at renovation rather than a new building.

the BC could easily take the place of the Cell if a newer bigger arena was built, I agree tho we cant really tear down the BC it is a symbol of a family who poured millions into this commuinty

To be honest, I'm really sick of pro sports franchises holding cities' feet to the fire over stadia. I'm all for communities investing in top-notch public facilities, but to have to build a new arena every 20 years is too much (I can even get behind funding for Millar Park as County Stadium was much older and in much worse shape). I mean, I know the Bucks benefit Milwaukee by generating business and in a way help raise the standard of living. At the same time, from what I've read right here on this forum Milwaukee County can't properly fund the parks, and crime hurts perceptions at least as much as the Bucks help. There are other places to spend money.

In the end, the Bucks need new facilities because other teams have more revenue and over time the Bucks need more money to pay athletes. I don't begrudge pro athletes their money, but at some point spending millions of the public's money to help a pro team pay pro athletes when there's a perfectly good arena already in place (perfectly good in the absolute sense, if not relative to other NBA arenas) doesn't seem like a good way to spend money.

I know when dealing with development it's not this simple, but both the parks and an arena are public ammenities. Would, say, $100 million be better spent on the parks or a second 18-20,000 seat arena? I say the parks, even if that means the Bucks would leave. If the Bucks can be helped by a reasonable renovations and updates to the BC, I say great even with modest public support. But a publicly financed major renovation or new arena seems to me a poor investment.

So downtown, you believe that a new arena would be possible is only through public financing? But no private financing would be offered?

Hey, if a new arena can be privatly funded, then go ahead, that's great. I know that SBC park in San Fran was privatly built, and I think I've heard that the Oakland As new park will likely be privatly funded as well. So it is possible, but runs against the trend for most sports venues. There was significant public funding for Millar Park and Lambeau Field, and my guess is the Bucks are likely to want the same deal.

My guess is that there would be some private financing, and some public financing, so I guess it all comes down to what that combo is. I mean, if somehow 90% of the finds come from the private sector, then there's a good chance a new arena would be a great deal for Milwaukee. If the split is 50-50 or worse, then I guess it depends on a number of factors to see if the deal is worthwhile. Its hard to speculate on without knowing what the actual financing package would be, except to say that I'm philosphically wary of much public funding to replace or significantly upgrade a 20 year old arena.