http://www.sailingcenter.org/images/expansion_1a.jpg
http://www.sailingcenter.org/images/expansion_2a.jpg
http://www.sailingcenter.org/images/expansion_3a.jpg
http://www.sailingcenter.org/images/expansion_4a.jpg
http://www.sailingcenter.org/images/expansion_5a.jpg
Link to sailing centers expansion plan (http://www.sailingcenter.org/expansion.php)

Finance panel backs transit board, sales tax
By Patrick Marley And Stacy Forster

May. 1, 2009 6:03 a.m. | Madison - The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee early Friday approved creating a board that could impose a sales tax of up to 1% in Milwaukee County to pay for transit, parks and emergency medical services.

The committee also voted to create a commuter rail authority in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties, which would be funded with a $16 fee on car rentals.

The vote for a sales tax came at 2 a.m., after the Democrat-controlled committee was bogged down for 12 hours in closed-door meetings. The budget meeting was to begin at 11 a.m. Thursday but did not start until 11 p.m.; the motions on transit weren't unveiled until after 1 a.m. Friday.
Full Article (http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/44125027.html)

Also on the sailing center: Stop the presses it's on the lakefront and it's not white!

Finance panel backs transit board, sales tax
By Patrick Marley And Stacy Forster

May. 1, 2009 6:03 a.m. | Madison - The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee early Friday approved creating a board that could impose a sales tax of up to 1% in Milwaukee County to pay for transit, parks and emergency medical services.

The committee also voted to create a commuter rail authority in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties, which would be funded with a $16 fee on car rentals.

The vote for a sales tax came at 2 a.m., after the Democrat-controlled committee was bogged down for 12 hours in closed-door meetings. The budget meeting was to begin at 11 a.m. Thursday but did not start until 11 p.m.; the motions on transit weren't unveiled until after 1 a.m. Friday.
Full Article (http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/44125027.html)

Wonderful news. More taxes. Just what the city needed. Bravo to those in the government, who stayed up all night to get all this for us Milwaukeeans.

that new sailing center is going to look nice. I always assumed it wasn't ever going to happen.

Wonderful news. More taxes. Just what the city needed. Bravo to those in the government, who stayed up all night to get all this for us Milwaukeeans.

What the article doesn't state is that there would be a reduction in the property tax to account for the increase in the sales tax. The net result on an average property owner would actually be a reduction of total taxes, because a portion of sales tax is paid for by people outside of the county.

All this does is help dedicate some of the funding collected through taxes for transit, parks and ems, instead of having those three things on the chopping block every year at budget time.

What the article doesn't state is that there would be a reduction in the property tax to account for the increase in the sales tax. The net result on an average property owner would actually be a reduction of total taxes, because a portion of sales tax is paid for by people outside of the county.

All this does is help dedicate some of the funding collected through taxes for transit, parks and ems, instead of having those three things on the chopping block every year at budget time.

That's good to hear. Makes sense, split the taxes with out of county folks since out of county folks will be using the transit.

Wonderful news. More taxes. Just what the city needed. Bravo to those in the government, who stayed up all night to get all this for us Milwaukeeans.


Hate to burst your bubble, but most major metro areas use a sales tax or something similar to fund their transit systems. Milwaukee is just playing catch up, and also we would continue to have a relatively low to median sales tax percentage even if they go the full 1% up to 6.6%...... Some areas sales taxes are above 10%, could you imagine that.

Hopefully this will finally generate the revenue necessary with maintaining and expanding our transit system. Also it is good that out-of-towners and tourists will share in this tax knowingly or unknowingly!

What the article doesn't state is that there would be a reduction in the property tax to account for the increase in the sales tax. The net result on an average property owner would actually be a reduction of total taxes, because a portion of sales tax is paid for by people outside of the county.

All this does is help dedicate some of the funding collected through taxes for transit, parks and ems, instead of having those three things on the chopping block every year at budget time.

how much will they lower the taxes? Was that announced? I'm fine with this situation if it passes... but unless I get some assurances or see it actually happen, I'll remain a skeptic.

Finance panel backs transit board, sales tax
By Patrick Marley And Stacy Forster

May. 1, 2009 6:03 a.m. | Madison - The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee early Friday approved creating a board that could impose a sales tax of up to 1% in Milwaukee County to pay for transit, parks and emergency medical services.

The committee also voted to create a commuter rail authority in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties, which would be funded with a $16 fee on car rentals.

The vote for a sales tax came at 2 a.m., after the Democrat-controlled committee was bogged down for 12 hours in closed-door meetings. The budget meeting was to begin at 11 a.m. Thursday but did not start until 11 p.m.; the motions on transit weren't unveiled until after 1 a.m. Friday.
Full Article (http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/44125027.html)

^ GREAT NEWS!

I look forward to moving to an area of the country where there is interest in building a real mass transit system.

What the article doesn't state is that there would be a reduction in the property tax to account for the increase in the sales tax. The net result on an average property owner would actually be a reduction of total taxes, because a portion of sales tax is paid for by people outside of the county.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid. They lower one tax for now only to increase the other. Then, they will come back and raise the one they just lowered. This is how it works. How much is enough? Is 60% of earnings the target? If it was, they would still come back for more. Someone mentioned we have a low sales tax compared to others. What about the obscene property and business taxes that far exceed most states. Is our goal to now make the sales tax one of the highest too?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid. They lower one tax for now only to increase the other. Then, they will come back and raise the one they just lowered. This is how it works. How much is enough? Is 60% of earnings the target? If it was, they would still come back for more. Someone mentioned we have a low sales tax compared to others. What about the obscene property and business taxes that far exceed most states. Is our goal to now make the sales tax one of the highest too?


well we're no where close on the sales tax right now (5.6%) ... You know they could bump it up to 9% or 10% and fund universal health care!!!

I took this image off of the Interchange Web Cam.... Maybe someone can take some shots of the very impressive addition to Marquette University. Not too happy with the placement as it cannot be readily seen from many areas. It will look nice from the freeway however. Note the one story grade change from east to west and the curve of its architecture. I believe it has reached the final height.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a232/boatnurd/Marquette.jpg

Nobody is bursting my bubble---but why are fine with making this city less and less competitive? Higher sales taxes, that ridiculous sick pay thing, and this $16 fee that will hit visitors to our city. To pay for a rail line that really nobody can confidently say will be a success (at least for Milwaukee residents). One thing that bothers me the most is why Scott Walker doesn't get to appoint a board member, but corrupt Lee Holloway does? Something about this seems very partisan and unfair. The County executives in Racine and Kenosha are given that power, but not Milwaukee?

You want to keep the city of Milwaukee in the dark ages," said Rep. Pedro Colon, D-Milwaukee, to Republicans who criticized the rail proposals.

This quote kind of made me laugh though. I hate to break it to rail advocates, but rail is closer to the dark ages then the automobile is. A fixed system, where you have to completely rely on the government for your transportation. As opposed to an automobile that allows you to get anywhere, quickly, and its arguably as cost effective. What is it now, $16 for a week bus pass? Thats not much better then what I pay for gas in a week.

I don't know why the car is seen as backwards. Sooner or later, we are going to have to realize that we aren't Europeans or New York/Chicago. Using a car in Milwaukee is easier and cheaper then in some European castle city or London, where they literally punish you for wanting freedom of choice.

Not to say that I am entirely against trains, but I tire of these politicians talking about progress---and giving us half ass ideas. 110 mph trains to Chicago, streetcar loops, etc. If your going to spend the money and continue to bring up Europe (like John Gurda did in todays paper regarding Zurich), then actually build us a quality system like they have. If the money is going to be spent, then spend it on stuff that rivals what they have in other countries like France.

I hate to break it to rail advocates, but rail is closer to the dark ages then the automobile is. A fixed system, where you have to completely rely on the government for your transportation. As opposed to an automobile that allows you to get anywhere, quickly, and its arguably as cost effective. What is it now, $16 for a week bus pass? Thats not much better then what I pay for gas in a week.

El Mariachi, you also have to completely rely on the government to use your car, unless you are driving on your private land. The government built the road in front of your house, the road that goes to your job, the road that goes to the grocery store, the entire interstate system, etc. And the government spends significant resources maintaining those roads every year.

While your monthly gas bill might be close to the cost of a bus pass, you aren't considering any of the other costs that go into owning a car: insurance, parking, oil changes, car payments, etc.

@El I don't imagine that European cities built their rails system overnight. The concept of build nothing or build out a massive system all at once isn't realistic.

"Sooner or later, we are going to have to realize that we aren't Europeans or New York/Chicago."

Why? Because this is an excuse to hold Milwaukee back? To hold on to this manufacturing city rust belt image, despite manufacturing jobs fleeing the U.S. (yes not just Wisconsin). To continue to say owe look how bad Milwaukee is?

No. Why not look to the greatest cities in the world and bring those ideas to Milwaukee?

how much will they lower the taxes? Was that announced? I'm fine with this situation if it passes... but unless I get some assurances or see it actually happen, I'll remain a skeptic.
Also, by the JFC deciding to shut the Milwaukee County Executive out of any appointments to that board, there will be a LARGE part of the county with *ZERO* say of any kind on how it is run and how the money that will be taxed from them is spent.

:ohno:

Mike

One thing that bothers me the most is why Scott Walker doesn't get to appoint a board member, but corrupt Lee Holloway does? Something about this seems very partisan and unfair. The County executives in Racine and Kenosha are given that power, but not Milwaukee?



Well, everybody's favorite county exec. will be running for governor full time pretty soon, so he won't have much time to think about Milwaukee..... wait kinda seems like he already doesn't think about Milwaukee.

And shouldn't "NO TAX" Walker be in support of something that could lower property taxes ( the sales tax taking away the need to add transit costs onto the property taxes ) by sharing the sales tax with county and non-county residents alike.....?????????

El Mariachi, you also have to completely rely on the government to use your car, unless you are driving on your private land. The government built the road in front of your house, the road that goes to your job, the road that goes to the grocery store, the entire interstate system, etc. And the government spends significant resources maintaining those roads every year.

While your monthly gas bill might be close to the cost of a bus pass, you aren't considering any of the other costs that go into owning a car: insurance, parking, oil changes, car payments, etc.

Well yes, we need them for roads---but thats a stretch to say that we "rely" on them.

The slightly higher expense to operate a car is counterbalanced by the time saved from not having to wait for mass transit. Seriously, how can you people live like that? I used to take the bus down Fond du Lac Ave. to get to MATC from Mill Rd. and it was a voyage! :lol:

@El I don't imagine that European cities built their rails system overnight. The concept of build nothing or build out a massive system all at once isn't realistic.

"Sooner or later, we are going to have to realize that we aren't Europeans or New York/Chicago."

Why? Because this is an excuse to hold Milwaukee back? To hold on to this manufacturing city rust belt image, despite manufacturing jobs fleeing the U.S. (yes not just Wisconsin). To continue to say owe look how bad Milwaukee is?

No. Why not look to the greatest cities in the world and bring those ideas to Milwaukee?

No, they didn't build them all overnight, but they had the insane population density to warrant their construction.

I think that a widespread mass transit system is a want, not a need in this city---or in similar cities like Minneapolis or Portland. There isn't enough demand for such systems to build them without any discussion. I don't think raising taxes to pay for something that really is the Louis Vuitton bag of American cities is a good idea. Even in big, dense Chicago, only 25% use mass transit. Just over half use it in even bigger and denser NYC.

I am sort of playing devils advocate here because I would like to see trains here---but its really the least of our problems. Downtown Milwaukee has been booming without them. The only people we really are alienating by not having them are a small percentage of middle-upper class white professionals who have this unusual hatred for cars and the individualism they symbolize.

Well, everybody's favorite county exec. will be running for governor full time pretty soon, so he won't have much time to think about Milwaukee..... wait kinda seems like he already doesn't think about Milwaukee.

And shouldn't "NO TAX" Walker be in support of something that could lower property taxes ( the sales tax taking away the need to add transit costs onto the property taxes ) by sharing the sales tax with county and non-county residents alike.....?????????

Yeah, I know he is running for gov and all---but it struck me as unusual that Milwaukee exec doesn't appoint like the execs in Racine/Kenosha.

Is this sales tax thing really so wonderful? They argue that it could lower propety taxes, but they also could hurt business. I think many of you don't realize how "in the know" people in our suburbs are. It just gives them another reason to do their business in Waukesha County as opposed to in Milwaukee. Not to mention that it also hurts our less priveldged population, who don't pay property taxes and are hit with this tax.

What the article doesn't state is that there would be a reduction in the property tax to account for the increase in the sales tax. The net result on an average property owner would actually be a reduction of total taxes, because a portion of sales tax is paid for by people outside of the county.

All this does is help dedicate some of the funding collected through taxes for transit, parks and ems, instead of having those three things on the chopping block every year at budget time.

Prove it. If you actually believe that BS, you're living in a fairy tale land, my friend.

Well, everybody's favorite county exec. will be running for governor full time pretty soon, so he won't have much time to think about Milwaukee..... wait kinda seems like he already doesn't think about Milwaukee.

And shouldn't "NO TAX" Walker be in support of something that could lower property taxes ( the sales tax taking away the need to add transit costs onto the property taxes ) by sharing the sales tax with county and non-county residents alike.....?????????

Don't be an idiot! Holloway should be in prison, and Doyle...well, talk about incompetents! Most of the Milwaukee County Board is clueless, and Walker is the only chance this state has in the near future. I'm all for the recall of Doyle--what a stooge.

Don't be an idiot! Holloway should be in prison, and Doyle...well, talk about incompetents! Most of the Milwaukee County Board is clueless, and Walker is the only chance this state has in the near future. I'm all for the recall of Doyle--what a stooge.

Way to be an idiot!!!! I was in no way supporting Either Holloway or Doyle! If you would've taken the time to read my post I was criticizing the fact that your county exec. Walker would be spending a lot of time in the near future running for governor and not taking time to think about Milwaukee... next time you want to insult someone take the time to actually read what they wrote!!!!

I in fact dislike Holloway, Doyle, and Walker I just lean a little more left than you buddy.

Is this sales tax thing really so wonderful? They argue that it could lower propety taxes, but they also could hurt business. I think many of you don't realize how "in the know" people in our suburbs are. It just gives them another reason to do their business in Waukesha County as opposed to in Milwaukee. Not to mention that it also hurts our less priveldged population, who don't pay property taxes and are hit with this tax.

Well if it would hurt business I think that would've been figured out by now. This isn't the only place in the country that a sales tax has ever been increased... I find it difficult to believe that someone is going to shop at brookfield square to save a couple bucks when they live right next to southridge or mayfair for that matter. Shopping is about convenience most of the time, and tell me this how often do we even notice how much we paid in sales tax after a purchase?

And as for someone coming in from the burbs to shop they'd only be coming in for something the burbs don't have.... a certain restaurant, a sports event, something close to their place of employment. I really don't think it would have an impact.

Don't be an idiot! Holloway should be in prison, and Doyle...well, talk about incompetents! Most of the Milwaukee County Board is clueless, and Walker is the only chance this state has in the near future. I'm all for the recall of Doyle--what a stooge.

^ Buddy, if I see a Republican win in Wisconsin then I better see taxes come down, because I've looked at your tax rates and I'll be sure to pay my left leg every year.

Seriously, if a Republican wins, lets have this conversation again in a few years and see what (s)he has actually done for me. After all, if I'm going to make this about me and not about anybody else, then I'll go with a Republican--expecting something in return.

If I don't see taxes come down, I see no reason--none--to support anybody in your increasingly reactionary party. If I have to choose between tax & spend on rural roads & golf courses (R) versus tax & spend on urban infrastructure/rail projects (D) I will take the latter--each and every time. You have my word on that.

@El Mariachi

"No, they didn't build them all overnight, but they had the insane population density to warrant their construction. "

Funny Milwaukee is actually more or similarly dense to Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Charlotte, and Minneapolis all of which have built light-rail systems recently. And I believe both Kenosha and Racine have decent numbers, further it isn't only the density before you build it is after it is built (take a look at Charlotte to see TOD development in action).

"The only people we really are alienating by not having them are a small percentage of middle-upper class white professionals who have this unusual hatred for cars and the individualism they symbolize."

Funny half the time rail supporter are the "elite" then the other time it is only the poor.

Don't be an idiot! Holloway should be in prison, and Doyle...well, talk about incompetents! Most of the Milwaukee County Board is clueless, and Walker is the only chance this state has in the near future. I'm all for the recall of Doyle--what a stooge.

Skyking, the recall would only make it harder for a quality replican governor to get ellected because their election campaign funds arn't ready yet. We'll have to ride this out and hope for better come election time.

UWM moving ahead with proposal for Pieces of Eight site
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 4, 2009 11:11 a.m.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is moving forward with plans for an office building at the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site to house part of its School of Freshwater Sciences.

Officials from UWM, Greater Milwaukee Committee and Milwaukee Water Council are scheduled to make a presentation Friday to the city Board of Harbor Commissioners. I'm trying to get more details, but the building apparently would have 40,000 to 50,000 square feet.

The board's agenda says the groups will present information about "the proposed use and request for a lease of the lands under BHC jurisdiction currently leased to Specialty Restaurants."

My colleague John Schmid and I reported in October that the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site, on downtown Milwaukee’s lakefront, could be replaced by the UWM facility. The building also could house the Water Council, which promotes the Milwaukee area as a center for water-related businesses, and possibly other water-related groups.

The idea has been gathering support, as John reported in March.

But it's opposed by Preserve our Parks, which wants to see the former restaurant site converted into green space.

Way to be an idiot!!!! I was in no way supporting Either Holloway or Doyle! If you would've taken the time to read my post I was criticizing the fact that your county exec. Walker would be spending a lot of time in the near future running for governor and not taking time to think about Milwaukee... next time you want to insult someone take the time to actually read what they wrote!!!!

I in fact dislike Holloway, Doyle, and Walker I just lean a little more left than you buddy.

Fair enough, buddy. But, honestly, I did not read those sentiments into your post. Now that you've clarified them, thank you. The "idiot" remark was uncalled for, and I'm all but apologizing for it. :)
You gotta admit, the fact that Doyle and Holloway get to pick people to this board looks stinky and far too calculated to be fair. Bottom line is, the goofball politicos who represent Milwaukee County at the state level, screwed us by voting in the 1% tax -- in addition to the $16 car rental fee! You'll notice that the other county's reps saw their political lives flashing before their eyes if they would've voted for the increased taxes. Can you say "George Petak?" How is it that Milwaukee County taxpayers should be footing the majority of this trolley -- when, in reality, it's supposed to be such an economic boon to everyone along the line?

^ Buddy, if I see a Republican win in Wisconsin then I better see taxes come down, because I've looked at your tax rates and I'll be sure to pay my left leg every year.

Seriously, if a Republican wins, lets have this conversation again in a few years and see what (s)he has actually done for me. After all, if I'm going to make this about me and not about anybody else, then I'll go with a Republican--expecting something in return.

If I don't see taxes come down, I see no reason--none--to support anybody in your increasingly reactionary party. If I have to choose between tax & spend on rural roads & golf courses (R) versus tax & spend on urban infrastructure/rail projects (D) I will take the latter--each and every time. You have my word on that.

Well, we all have a right to our opinion. But, when you talk reactionary, I think you need to look to the Left for a true definition of that term. While it hurts now (Obama and Doyle running up grotesque and sinful tax and spend budgets), this ridiculous display of greed will backfire in upcoming elections.
You can spend all you want on trolleys and urban infrastructure, but if there are no businesses (jobs!) around, what's the point? I grant you that the GOP jacked us around pretty good when they were the majority party, and they paid for it big time. But, the Dems are now taking spending to a whole new realm -- and they will fall as well. Let's face it, most politicians are whores (Arlen Specter) and treat us like dog meat. But, if I have to chose between a free market system or arrogant, nitwit politicians running the country, I'll take the former every time. You have my word on that.

Well if it would hurt business I think that would've been figured out by now. This isn't the only place in the country that a sales tax has ever been increased... I find it difficult to believe that someone is going to shop at brookfield square to save a couple bucks when they live right next to southridge or mayfair for that matter. Shopping is about convenience most of the time, and tell me this how often do we even notice how much we paid in sales tax after a purchase?

And as for someone coming in from the burbs to shop they'd only be coming in for something the burbs don't have.... a certain restaurant, a sports event, something close to their place of employment. I really don't think it would have an impact.

Yeah, sure---its no big deal when your buying a Mountain Dew or something---but people do notice sales tax on bigger purchases. That extra 1% adds up if you are buying a high def t.v., a new car, or doing some Christmas shopping.

Even if we take the suburbanities out of the equation, we are still punishing our own residents, many of them who are poor.

Remember the outrage over the stadium tax a number of years ago? That was 1/10th of the tax that is being proposed right now. I believe the stadium tax is 1/10 of 1%. Now, where is the same outcry for something that will be 10 times that amount? I am hearing crickets!

We cannot get numb to tax increases. This is not good for the city and makes us less competitive to our competition. Taxes never go away.

@El Mariachi

"No, they didn't build them all overnight, but they had the insane population density to warrant their construction. "

Funny Milwaukee is actually more or similarly dense to Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Charlotte, and Minneapolis all of which have built light-rail systems recently. And I believe both Kenosha and Racine have decent numbers, further it isn't only the density before you build it is after it is built (take a look at Charlotte to see TOD development in action).

"The only people we really are alienating by not having them are a small percentage of middle-upper class white professionals who have this unusual hatred for cars and the individualism they symbolize."

Funny half the time rail supporter are the "elite" then the other time it is only the poor.

I agree that Milwaukee is more than dense enough to support rail. Milwaukee County is the third most dense in the region. But I still don't think there is a legitimate need for it. Sure, it would be nice to have it as an alternative to driving---but thats a pretty expensive alternative that would only be used by a fraction of the city/county!

As for the poor vs. elite thing---I think its the elites who are almost always for rail. They are the ones who live in the pricey urban/downtown housing where parking a car is expensive---Prospect Ave. for example. The rest of us just don't really need it if owning a car isn't too expensive or inconveinent. Milwaukee is a great city for owning a car in, in my opinion. The car culture here doesnt intrude on our urbanism really.

Remember the outrage over the stadium tax a number of years ago? That was 1/10th of the tax that is being proposed right now. I believe the stadium tax is 1/10 of 1%. Now, where is the same outcry for something that will be 10 times that amount? I am hearing crickets!

We cannot get numb to tax increases. This is not good for the city and makes us less competitive to our competition. Taxes never go away.

I'm sure there would be some outrage if some of this sales tax increase went to fund a new downtown arena!!!!!! I'd pay an extra 1/10th for that!

UWM moving ahead with proposal for Pieces of Eight site
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 4, 2009 11:11 a.m.

.

Excellent news. I hope they do something cool with that site, architecturally speaking (obviously, nothing that takes away from the MAM!). This whole water science thing with the UN is rather interesting.

I'm sure there would be some outrage if some of this sales tax increase went to fund a new downtown arena!!!!!! I'd pay an extra 1/10th for that!

As would I. The Bucks have to stay. Losing them would be such a terrible blow to this cities ego.

But not to get too offtopic, but what do you guys think would be the best site for a new arena?

As would I. The Bucks have to stay. Losing them would be such a terrible blow to this cities ego.

But not to get too offtopic, but what do you guys think would be the best site for a new arena?

Ideally I would like to see the Bradley Center undergoe a significant renovation. However, if I had to choose a new location it would probably be next to Summerfest on the ICC parking lots or the large parcel on Water street that is surrounded by Broadway and Knapp.

Either way the current location is great, but needs to become more pedestrian friendly and redevelop the surface lots/street-killing JS buildings. It's usually difficult to park in the area, something that a downtown trolley would help with.

UWM moving ahead with proposal for Pieces of Eight site
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 4, 2009 11:11 a.m.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is moving forward with plans for an office building at the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site to house part of its School of Freshwater Sciences.

Officials from UWM, Greater Milwaukee Committee and Milwaukee Water Council are scheduled to make a presentation Friday to the city Board of Harbor Commissioners. I'm trying to get more details, but the building apparently would have 40,000 to 50,000 square feet.

The board's agenda says the groups will present information about "the proposed use and request for a lease of the lands under BHC jurisdiction currently leased to Specialty Restaurants."

My colleague John Schmid and I reported in October that the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site, on downtown Milwaukee’s lakefront, could be replaced by the UWM facility. The building also could house the Water Council, which promotes the Milwaukee area as a center for water-related businesses, and possibly other water-related groups.

The idea has been gathering support, as John reported in March.

But it's opposed by Preserve our Parks, which wants to see the former restaurant site converted into green space.

Ok, here we go! Where the F is Tom Barrett, Rocky Mar-Coo or anybody in Milwaukee development?! Are you kidding me?! UWM is looking at building a 40,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. building on the site of former The Pieces Eight? WTF?! Sorry, but it seems there are people who'd like to develop a major, new office tower on E. Michigan Ave. south of US Bank, but need major tenants. That kind of lease commitment would be huge in moving a 35+ story -- perhaps even a new tallest -- building forward based on some recent interest.

Why not renovate the current building, or replace it with a symbolic structure of 5-10,000 sq. ft (probably what's there now), and locate the majority of the office space in a slender, new office tower? The size building you're going to see with 40-50,000 sq. ft. could be anywhere from 4-7 stories. Why would you want a building of that size blocking the lakefront view?! Not to mention, the buildings would be about two blocks apart. And, because UWM is a taxpayer supported insitutuion, it (WE!) will always make its lease payments. C'mon, Barrett, get your ass out of your trolley!! Step up and do something for a change.

UWM moving ahead with proposal for Pieces of Eight site
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 4, 2009 11:11 a.m.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is moving forward with plans for an office building at the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site to house part of its School of Freshwater Sciences.

Officials from UWM, Greater Milwaukee Committee and Milwaukee Water Council are scheduled to make a presentation Friday to the city Board of Harbor Commissioners. I'm trying to get more details, but the building apparently would have 40,000 to 50,000 square feet.

The board's agenda says the groups will present information about "the proposed use and request for a lease of the lands under BHC jurisdiction currently leased to Specialty Restaurants."

My colleague John Schmid and I reported in October that the former Pieces of Eight restaurant site, on downtown Milwaukee’s lakefront, could be replaced by the UWM facility. The building also could house the Water Council, which promotes the Milwaukee area as a center for water-related businesses, and possibly other water-related groups.

The idea has been gathering support, as John reported in March.

But it's opposed by Preserve our Parks, which wants to see the former restaurant site converted into green space.

Ok, here we go! Where the F is Tom Barrett, Rocky Mar-Coo or anybody in Milwaukee development?! Are you kidding me?! UWM is looking at building a 40,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. building on the site of former The Pieces Eight? WTF?! Sorry, but it seems there are people who'd like to develop a major, new office tower on E. Michigan Ave. south of US Bank, but need major tenants. That kind of lease commitment would be huge in moving a 35+ story -- perhaps even a new tallest -- building forward based on some recent interest.

Why not renovate the current building, or replace it with a symbolic structure of 5-10,000 sq. ft (probably what's there now), and locate the majority of the office space in a slender, new office tower? The size building you're going to see with 40-50,000 sq. ft. could be anywhere from 4-7 stories. Why would you want a building of that size blocking the lakefront view?! And, because UWM is a taxpayer supported insitutuion, it will always make its lease payments. C'mon, Barrett, get your ass out of your trolley!! Step up and do something for a change.

As would I. The Bucks have to stay. Losing them would be such a terrible blow to this cities ego.

But not to get too offtopic, but what do you guys think would be the best site for a new arena?

I'd like to see a new arena go up just north of the Current BC on the Park East land. between 4th and 6th and Juneau and McKinley... Then demolishing the BC.... Having been behind the scenes in that building there isn't much hope for a renovation, at least for a cost effective renovation...
The BC is in bad shape!!!!! (and that is an understatement!!!!!!!)


.......................


As for the Pieces of Eight site, 40-50K square feet does seem like a lot for that spot, unless they build down and have maybe 2 visible stories... It would make no sense to have a taller building there competing with MAM and Discovery World. It would be nice to see some of this fresh water related business expand to downtown to fill in both current office space and new towers (LPT)... Looks like we will have to wait and see....

Ideally I would like to see the Bradley Center undergoe a significant renovation. However, if I had to choose a new location it would probably be next to Summerfest on the ICC parking lots or the large parcel on Water street that is surrounded by Broadway and Knapp.

Either way the current location is great, but needs to become more pedestrian friendly and redevelop the surface lots/street-killing JS buildings. It's usually difficult to park in the area, something that a downtown trolley would help with.

I'd like to see a new arena go up just north of the Current BC on the Park East land. between 4th and 6th and Juneau and McKinley... Then demolishing the BC.... Having been behind the scenes in that building there isn't much hope for a renovation, at least for a cost effective renovation...
The BC is in bad shape!!!!! (and that is an understatement!!!!!!!)

You know, thats a pretty interesting place for an arena down by Summerfest. Thats where I wanted to see them build that soccer stadium that the city apparently poo-pooed (which pisses me off to this day). The only concern about that location would be it being relatively isolated from bars/resturants, etc. And I am sure that those Third Ward residents would take issue with the crowds every night!


I guess that its current area is probally the best place for it to be rebuilt----with all the resturants/bars and freeway access. It would be cool to see the Pabst Brewery site and some of those scattered lots that would be adjecent to a new arena, redeveloped with resturants/bars/nightlife---making Juneau Ave. the focal point of downtown.

Some other locations that would make sense would be the Valley or that huge open lot, off 6th st. in the Fifth Ward.

@skyking Is it possible that the School of Freshwater Sciences building might actually, you know, want to be on freshwater? Further, somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it is possible, no likely that it would have docks. I'm pretty sure there are instances of mistakes made by Rocky that can be pointed to but this just isn't one of them.

@El Mariachi I was all for the soccer stadium as well, and really wish Peter could of pulled it off. But understand it would of been one big big big TIF.

@skyking Is it possible that the School of Freshwater Sciences building might actually, you know, want to be on freshwater? Further, somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it is possible, no likely that it would have docks. I'm pretty sure there are instances of mistakes made by Rocky that can be pointed to but this just isn't one of them.

@El Mariachi I was all for the soccer stadium as well, and really wish Peter could of pulled it off. But understand it would of been one big big big TIF.

Yeah, sorry King---but I am going to have to agree with the current plans. It should be on the waterfront, not in some skyscraper. With the amount of people who visit the Lakefrom/MAM/Pier Wisconsin-----the school should be visibile and accessable.

The whole soccer thing was depressing. We could have had a team and now we aren't even on the backburner for the MLS----as the popularity of the league is growing and bigger cities are trying to get in. I wish the city could have been more helpful to Peter Wilt and those who were pushing for a team. Not having the MLS isn't really a big deal now, but it could have put a bigger international spotlight on the city in the futre---had we a team.

To put the proposal for the freshwater science building into perspective, Calatrava's addition to the MAM was 58,000 sq ft, so the proposal by UWM really wont be that massive, and compared to discovery world which is around 120,000 sq ft, it will actually seem kind of small. I doubt it would block the views of the lakefront any more than the newest addition to the MAM does.

great points ^^^

@skyking Is it possible that the School of Freshwater Sciences building might actually, you know, want to be on freshwater? Further, somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it is possible, no likely that it would have docks. I'm pretty sure there are instances of mistakes made by Rocky that can be pointed to but this just isn't one of them.

@El Mariachi I was all for the soccer stadium as well, and really wish Peter could of pulled it off. But understand it would of been one big big big TIF.

First, sorry about the double post.
Most certainly the school should be "on the water," but up to 50,000 sq. ft. seems like a lot of potentially-lake view killing construction. Time will tell, and hopefully the building will be a nice addition to what's already there. I was only looking at this as an opportunity for having your cake, and eating it, too.

@skyking To be clear the School of Freshwater Sciences building proposed on the lakefront won't be the whole school, most of the school will be near the port. Really it is more the show piece to world (so I assume it will be a unique building) that Milwaukee is the place for water research.

I'm actually kind of on SkyKing's side with this one. Pier Wisconsin is where the tourists and young, impressionable children go. If they don't at least put a freshwater visitors center in it, my vote is completely out. I walked the lake last night and all I could think when looking at that land was that it needs to be a park.

I like that Milwaukee is being aggressive is becoming a leader in freshwater science and industry. We may be the only ones pursuing this in the region, but we have to remember that we're in global competition to become a hub of this technology.

We need to make a major statement to our global competitors that we're serious. What better way than by placing it next to our most internationally recognized icon in the city, the Calatrava?

The design has to be a 10. What the Art Museum was to the last decade, this building should be Milwaukee's symbol for the next. Time to make our next bold architectural move, let's end the era of white.

We have the chops, we commissioned Calatrava for his first US design. Email the mayor, and tell him we want a starchitect. Let's make a building that symbolizes Milwaukee's new economic direction and UWM's rank as a serious research university.

Who's with me?

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/839/realestatespotlight.jpg

The $1.9 billion I-94 freeway project has been discussed a lot lately. The Biz Times had a recent article about some bright spots related to it. Specifically how some real estate will be freed up by redeveloping some of the interchanges, similar to the Mchange project. It's worth a read.

Biz Times: I-94 project will change corridor's real estate landscape (http://www.biztimes.com/news/2009/5/1/real-estate-i-94-project-will-change-corridors-real-estate-landscape)

I like that Milwaukee is being aggressive is becoming a leader in freshwater science and industry. We may be the only ones pursuing this in the region, but we have to remember that we're in global competition to become a hub of this technology.

We need to make a major statement to our global competitors that we're serious. What better way than by placing it next to our most internationally recognized icon in the city, the Calatrava?

The design has to be a 10. What the Art Museum was to the last decade, this building should be Milwaukee's symbol for the next. Time to make our next bold architectural move, let's end the era of white.

We have the chops, we commissioned Calatrava for his first US design. Email the mayor, and tell him we want a starchitect. Let's make a building that symbolizes Milwaukee's new economic direction and UWM's rank as a serious research university.

Who's with me?

Definitely with you, the problem will be getting enough people on board with the idea to raise the money needed to do that. The school can't pay for something like that on it's own, all of the money it is getting is going to all of the things touched on in the Master Plan. If they can get enough outside-sourced funding for it, I think it would be great for both the city and the school if they really focused on making it an architectural landmark. One can only hope.

I like that Milwaukee is being aggressive is becoming a leader in freshwater science and industry. We may be the only ones pursuing this in the region, but we have to remember that we're in global competition to become a hub of this technology.

We need to make a major statement to our global competitors that we're serious. What better way than by placing it next to our most internationally recognized icon in the city, the Calatrava?

The design has to be a 10. What the Art Museum was to the last decade, this building should be Milwaukee's symbol for the next. Time to make our next bold architectural move, let's end the era of white.

We have the chops, we commissioned Calatrava for his first US design. Email the mayor, and tell him we want a starchitect. Let's make a building that symbolizes Milwaukee's new economic direction and UWM's rank as a serious research university.

Who's with me?

I'm with you, so long as they don't plop a Gehry designed building there! Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid would be cool.

I like that Milwaukee is being aggressive is becoming a leader in freshwater science and industry. We may be the only ones pursuing this in the region, but we have to remember that we're in global competition to become a hub of this technology.

We need to make a major statement to our global competitors that we're serious. What better way than by placing it next to our most internationally recognized icon in the city, the Calatrava?

The design has to be a 10. What the Art Museum was to the last decade, this building should be Milwaukee's symbol for the next. Time to make our next bold architectural move, let's end the era of white.

We have the chops, we commissioned Calatrava for his first US design. Email the mayor, and tell him we want a starchitect. Let's make a building that symbolizes Milwaukee's new economic direction and UWM's rank as a serious research university.

Who's with me?

Very good idea, a landmark building would be great. And could be a symbol for our water tech future, like the Calatrava is to Milwaukee arts & culture now.

Well, we all have a right to our opinion. But, when you talk reactionary, I think you need to look to the Left for a true definition of that term. While it hurts now (Obama and Doyle running up grotesque and sinful tax and spend budgets), this ridiculous display of greed will backfire in upcoming elections.
You can spend all you want on trolleys and urban infrastructure, but if there are no businesses (jobs!) around, what's the point? I grant you that the GOP jacked us around pretty good when they were the majority party, and they paid for it big time. But, the Dems are now taking spending to a whole new realm -- and they will fall as well. Let's face it, most politicians are whores (Arlen Specter) and treat us like dog meat. But, if I have to chose between a free market system or arrogant, nitwit politicians running the country, I'll take the former every time. You have my word on that.

^ That's fine and all buddy, but you clearly aren't living in the same country that I'm living in--because the free market left this place a long, long, long time ago. Both the Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated their tax and spend nature, it's just a matter of what type of spending you agree to.

All your complaining in the world isn't going to stop the Govt from spending your money on something; George Bush proved that. All I'm saying is that since we have to pay for something, I'd rather build a respectable mass transit network (Democrats) than useless exurban highways to nowhere (Republicans).

^ That's fine and all buddy, but you clearly aren't living in the same country that I'm living in--because the free market left this place a long, long, long time ago. Both the Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated their tax and spend nature, it's just a matter of what type of spending you agree to.

All your complaining in the world isn't going to stop the Govt from spending your money on something; George Bush proved that. All I'm saying is that since we have to pay for something, I'd rather build a respectable mass transit network (Democrats) than useless exurban highways to nowhere (Republicans).

But, therein lies the rub. Trains and trolleys are ancient forms of transportation, expensive to make and very inflexible. Don't misunderstand, we still need it to move freight and people...in some cities. I have no issue with improving a mass transit network built around flexible bus lines. By using exisiting roads -- or altering them some to accomodate buses -- you can change routes easily according to usage. But, train tracks unnaturally force development and residences where businesses and people would otherwise not want to be.

As for spending, this administration has easily re-established the Dems as the clear winner when it comes to raping our wallets -- especially on wasteful BS.
I don't know about you, but more and more people have had it with the kind of representation we're getting from our elected officials -- from both parties.
If we don't start holding do-nothing, slimy politicians accountable, we're pretty much screwed. I have faith, however, that the people who pay the bills in this country will figure it out and start firing politicos who don't get it.
I understand that the growing number of people who are on the dole want big government (Democrats) to keep taking from others and spreading it around. That's socialism. And it will either get voted out, or it will ruin the country. Wasting billions of dollars on silly trolleys must be checked, and if developed, done in moderation based on common sense.

^ Skyking, I guarantee you that bus transit is not nearly as effective as rail transit at concentrating resources and, essentially, eliminating waste. I can easily argue to you that the natural dispersal of people and resources that exists in a poor transit/high personal automobile environment actually costs us more as a society. We suddenly become responsible for maintaining infrastructure over a much larger area because of the sprawl that is created.

I understand that the growing number of people who are on the dole want big government (Democrats) to keep taking from others and spreading it around. That's socialism. And it will either get voted out, or it will ruin the country. Wasting billions of dollars on silly trolleys must be checked, and if developed, done in moderation based on common sense.

^ And I'm telling you again and again that we already live in a Socialist society. Look around you, buddy--these mental exercises may seem fun for you, but when the cold water hits your face you'll perhaps one day recognize that the Government regulates and pretty much maintains nearly everything you rely on.

I want rail. I don't care about obsolete labels like 'Socialism'. All due respect for your Conservative ideals, I don't think less spending on infrastructure is in our future as a civilization. But if you want that to be so, then good luck--you still have your vote.

Why has rail become synonymous with the future? I respect you guys for wanting it, as urbanists---but I just don't see whats so great about it. For everyday use, its a backwards step.

Now, a regional high speed rail network would be a good thing. That makes more sense then hopping on a plane to fly to say, the Twin Cities or Detroit.

Why has rail become synonymous with the future? I respect you guys for wanting it, as urbanists---but I just don't see whats so great about it. For everyday use, its a backwards step.

Now, a regional high speed rail network would be a good thing. That makes more sense then hopping on a plane to fly to say, the Twin Cities or Detroit.

The are old forms of rail, like heavy rail, amtrak rail, the old street cars of yesteryear and there are forward looking rail options that are both modern and "futuristic" like maglev trains, modern monorails, electric light rail systems, trains are here to stay. Even subways use trains! They are just underground....
And all of these options would be a "futuristic" upgrade to our lovely MCTS diesel buses!

If I may ask what is the conservative stance on subways seeing as these trains are hidden from plain sight????!!!!!

From what my perspective, arguing that rail is cheaper than buses and cars is a rather moot point. The reason being that cars aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future, and neither are buses. If you ONLY had rail, then yeah, of course it would be cheaper. But we're not talking about replacing current forms of transportation, we're talking about creating an alternative (additional) form of transportation. One that we'll all have to pay for, in addition to paying for the roads system that isn't going anywhere in terms of being replaced. Without trying to sound like a pessimist ass hole, saying that it will be cheaper for us to just invest in rail is a concept that can't work as long as we keep funding our existing forms of transportation.

As for the benefits to Milwaukee for "high speed rail," 110 mph to Chicago really is nothing to cheer about when you're gonna be stopping as much as you will along the way. If you were going a further distance, say to Indianapolis, maybe it'd be a good idea. Without so many stops. But I honestly don't see that many people casually saying, "hey why drive to Chicago when we can just take the train?" It's not that far of a drive down there as it is, there's already the Hiawatha (which I realize is pretty damn expensive, maybe something can be worked out there), and once you're there you're still gonna have to pay to get around town by taxi or bus or what have you. If I drive there myself, yeah I'll probably have to spend about $20 to park if I'm downtown, but then I'll be able to drive myself wherever I want and I won't have to pay for a cab to do what I could be doing myself. I can see more benefits for Milwaukee to Minneapolis, since that's quite a further distance. But again, when you're there, you're still gonna have to find some other way to get around town once you're there. You can't change people's desire to be able to drive to wherever they want.

The biggest argument I see for being able to take a commuter train frequently from Milwaukee to Chicago is if you work in one city and live in the other. I just don't believe that there's enough demand for that though, and I also don't believe that putting in a rail will increase that demand enough to warrant how much it will cost. Even if Wisconsin didn't have to pay anything, the government still will, and I don't think it's wise of us to spend all of that right now when we don't need it.

I was all for this rail business two months ago until I thought long and hard about it, and about if I'd really use it that much and whether I thought the juice (benefit) was worth the squeeze (price to put it in). My assertion is no. One line I believe I would probably use if it was there however is Milwaukee to Madison. So no, I'm not saying that I would never use it if it was there. I'm sure most people would try it out. But not enough to make it worth it. And yes, I'm a capitalist. Call me crazy.

The are old forms of rail, like heavy rail, amtrak rail, the old street cars of yesteryear and there are forward looking rail options that are both modern and "futuristic" like maglev trains, modern monorails, electric light rail systems, trains are here to stay. Even subways use trains! They are just underground....
And all of these options would be a "futuristic" upgrade to our lovely MCTS diesel buses!

If I may ask what is the conservative stance on subways seeing as these trains are hidden from plain sight????!!!!!

Yeah, but I think that even the "future" rail systems still lag behind the automobile. High speed commuter rail has a future in this country----but urban light rail? I don't see how that can be construed as being futuristic.

As for subways and the conservatives---I don't think they want anything to do with rail. They are as anti-mass transit as the far left is anti-car. I don't know if this has anything to do with the ideologies of individualism vs. collectivism. I think they may have a point for stuff like the downtown streetcar and maybe even KRM---but they are wrong in that they don't take a serious look at a regional high speed rail network. I would love to see Mag-Lev connecting all the cities in the region. Something like this could really be big for the Midwest.

I guess I consider mass transit to be more convenient than a car. When you deal with a car you have to deal with the headache of driving and finding parking, as well as paying bills for insurance and repairs, all while being trapped with the car. With mass transit I have no long term, or personal commitment to do anything for it, if i travel somewhere and decide I want to walk home I can without having to worry about where i ditch my car. When I travel, I can go to the airport without worrying about leaving my car for a week, and I don't have to worry about missing an insurance payment, or parking tickets. Maybe it is me but mass transit allows for me to be completely free, If i decide tomorrow I want to go travel the world I am free to leave and the only thing holding me down is my apartment.

I guess I consider mass transit to be more convenient than a car. When you deal with a car you have to deal with the headache of driving and finding parking, as well as paying bills for insurance and repairs, all while being trapped with the car. With mass transit I have no long term, or personal commitment to do anything for it, if i travel somewhere and decide I want to walk home I can without having to worry about where i ditch my car. When I travel, I can go to the airport without worrying about leaving my car for a week, and I don't have to worry about missing an insurance payment, or parking tickets. Maybe it is me but mass transit allows for me to be completely free, If i decide tomorrow I want to go travel the world I am free to leave and the only thing holding me down is my apartment.

These are my thoughts exactly. When I got rid of my car years ago, I had no clue how much extra baggage was tied to owning one. The amount of freedom, money, peace of mind, and general health I gained in the months that followed changed my view on cars for life. We are raised in this society to think that cars are absolutely necessary for survival when really they're really just commodities with a hell of a lot of advertising dollars and lobbyists behind them.

Why has rail become synonymous with the future? I respect you guys for wanting it, as urbanists---but I just don't see whats so great about it. For everyday use, its a backwards step.

Now, a regional high speed rail network would be a good thing. That makes more sense then hopping on a plane to fly to say, the Twin Cities or Detroit.

^ Well, why would somebody bother to take a high speed train to Milwaukee if there wasn't a mass transit system in place there to get him to his final destination? These things go hand in hand.

This is basically why Chicago is seen as the natural hub of any midwest HSR system--it's the only midwestern city that has a significant mass transit system that can get one to his destination.

I guess I consider mass transit to be more convenient than a car. When you deal with a car you have to deal with the headache of driving and finding parking, as well as paying bills for insurance and repairs, all while being trapped with the car. With mass transit I have no long term, or personal commitment to do anything for it, if i travel somewhere and decide I want to walk home I can without having to worry about where i ditch my car. When I travel, I can go to the airport without worrying about leaving my car for a week, and I don't have to worry about missing an insurance payment, or parking tickets. Maybe it is me but mass transit allows for me to be completely free, If i decide tomorrow I want to go travel the world I am free to leave and the only thing holding me down is my apartment.

You must be one of very few who live within walking distance of a transit line to hop on and work within a block of where it drops you off. How fortunate is that? And, do you ever have the need to go somewhere mass transit does not take you? How do you get there?

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/839/realestatespotlight.jpg

The $1.9 billion I-94 freeway project has been discussed a lot lately. The Biz Times had a recent article about some bright spots related to it. Specifically how some real estate will be freed up by redeveloping some of the interchanges, similar to the Mchange project. It's worth a read.

Biz Times: I-94 project will change corridor's real estate landscape (http://www.biztimes.com/news/2009/5/1/real-estate-i-94-project-will-change-corridors-real-estate-landscape)

Sweet, interchange land will open up for new Mcdonald's and maybe even a Sonic's!

OK, thats fine... but still wish they had saved 100+ million dollars by not added that stupid extra lane.

I can't speak for Honest 86 -- but it could be that it isn't just "fortune" that he lives near a transit stop and works near a transit stop. I purposely wanted to live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood - and when I bought my house, that was part of why I bought where I did. I live 2 1/2 miles from downtown, near bike paths and good streets for riding my bike into downtown. I live 1/2 block from a transit stop and my work is 1 block from a downtown transit stop. I can walk in less than two blocks from my house to a grocery store, a pharmacy, several restaurants, a bar, a video store, a hardware store, a hair salon, a gas station / convenience stores, a library, a bank, a beautiful park, and several other businesses. It wasn't good fortune that I happened to pick my home's location where it is. It was a well thought out decision for someone who didn't want to have to drive everywhere, especially to not have to deal with a 25 minute comute to work - which is about the average time that the typical American spends traveling each way to their work location. I can drive to my workplace in about seven minutes, or can take transit or ride my bike into downtown and it only takes between 10 and 20 minutes.

I still drive plenty of places too, but its nice to not have to use the car for pretty much every trip. Hopefully, more people will think about this and the type of area they want to live in when they are choosing to buy a home or condo or rent an apartment.

@Coldwake I think you meant $200 Million. And I was thinking the very same thing. This "new" land they are opening up will be perfect for gas stations and sonics... who cares..

PS I use my car about once a month, now that is freedom.

I can't speak for Honest 86 -- but it could be that it isn't just "fortune" that he lives near a transit stop and works near a transit stop. I purposely wanted to live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood - and when I bought my house, that was part of why I bought where I did. I live 2 1/2 miles from downtown, near bike paths and good streets for riding my bike into downtown. I live 1/2 block from a transit stop and my work is 1 block from a downtown transit stop. I can walk in less than two blocks from my house to a grocery store, a pharmacy, several restaurants, a bar, a video store, a hardware store, a hair salon, a gas station / convenience stores, a library, a bank, a beautiful park, and several other businesses. It wasn't good fortune that I happened to pick my home's location where it is. It was a well thought out decision for someone who didn't want to have to drive everywhere, especially to not have to deal with a 25 minute comute to work - which is about the average time that the typical American spends traveling each way to their work location. I can drive to my workplace in about seven minutes, or can take transit or ride my bike into downtown and it only takes between 10 and 20 minutes.

I still drive plenty of places too, but its nice to not have to use the car for pretty much every trip. Hopefully, more people will think about this and the type of area they want to live in when they are choosing to buy a home or condo or rent an apartment.


Exactly! Same goes for me. It is not fortune whatsoever that I happen to live in a neighborhood that is close to where I work and has all of the daily necessities within walking distance. It is a premeditated decision. And this isn't some elite thing where only certain people can afford those neighborhoods...anyone, from the poorest in Milwaukee, to the richest, are able to live in these neighborhoods and enjoy their benefits if they so choose .

If you wish that you could get to work via transit, then you can simply move (or look for a new job within walking distance or on a transit line...when the job market improves, of course).

Good feedback and clarification guys (MilwaukeeD, GarfieldPark). Thanks....

And, do you ever have the need to go somewhere mass transit does not take you? How do you get there?

That was the part I was worried most about when I got rid of my car. But I quickly realized that I really don't need to venture out to Brookfield or Franklin...ever. Everything I need is within walking distance of a transit line. Also, if I do ever NEED to travel where transit doesn't go I rent a car. It sounds incredibly expensive, but with the amount of money I'm saving by not owning a car it actually comes out to be much cheaper still.

That was the part I was worried most about when I got rid of my car. But I quickly realized that I really don't need to venture out to Brookfield or Franklin...ever. Everything I need is within walking distance of a transit line. Also, if I do ever NEED to travel where transit doesn't go I rent a car. It sounds incredibly expensive, but with the amount of money I'm saving by not owning a car it actually comes out to be much cheaper still.

Ajknee, would you consider yourself on the younger side? I do not see the more seasoned individual making these same sacrifices. In many eyes, freedom is having an automobile and the ability to drive it anywhere any time. And, many may not consider it a sacrifice or freedom at all. This may become a generational thing or a change in belief and lifestyles. I however enjoy my cars (Lincoln Town Car and S2000) and drive frequently to places mass transit will never go, and respect those that choose otherwise. I also am blessed to have excessive expendable income that many may not have. Saving the money to use mass transit is not an issue for me and will not be in the forseeable future.

I just want to ensure that the blend of transit is cost effective to all concerned and does not result in our community overspending or forcing change on many who may not need the change.

deleted my own comment! nevermind

I guess I consider mass transit to be more convenient than a car. When you deal with a car you have to deal with the headache of driving and finding parking, as well as paying bills for insurance and repairs, all while being trapped with the car. With mass transit I have no long term, or personal commitment to do anything for it, if i travel somewhere and decide I want to walk home I can without having to worry about where i ditch my car. When I travel, I can go to the airport without worrying about leaving my car for a week, and I don't have to worry about missing an insurance payment, or parking tickets. Maybe it is me but mass transit allows for me to be completely free, If i decide tomorrow I want to go travel the world I am free to leave and the only thing holding me down is my apartment.

I understand the appeal to mass transit if you live in a high density city like London or NYC---but Milwaukee? Even in those cities, you will never be completely served by mass transit. You might have to walk for blocks, wait for a bus/train, and deal with the elements. In my opinion, that is a step backwards. Its something people HAD to do in the 1900's.

^ Well, why would somebody bother to take a high speed train to Milwaukee if there wasn't a mass transit system in place there to get him to his final destination? These things go hand in hand.

This is basically why Chicago is seen as the natural hub of any midwest HSR system--it's the only midwestern city that has a significant mass transit system that can get one to his destination.

The bus system is adequate and downtown is rather walkable in my opinion.

I just want to ensure that the blend of transit is cost effective to all concerned and does not result in our community overspending or forcing change on many who may not need the change.

With respect, American culture is at a transition, and social norms and behaviors are changing. The values of generation x,y, and z are becoming more dominant as boomers retire. I've had this same discussion with my parents, in terms of what our lifestyle and culture will look like in the future.

The idea of the American dream is changing. Younger generations value sustainability, collaboration, independence, technology, and most importantly: change. Researchers have shown that we're brash but smart. We grew up technologically and globally connected, and have a new view on the direction America culture will take. We were raised in a period of social and political chaos, so we're not afraid to mix things up.

The effects of these new values is now being seen in American car-culture. We value sustainability over car independence, we grew up in a limited resource society, so we're FORCED with the idea of creating new solutions to cultural aspects that weren't always problems. Connecting cities and culture through new ideas in transportation is an effect of our value of collaboration. Independence to the younger generation means freedom to buy or experience what we want, NOW. So we're ok with ditching car and insurance payments. Our value of technology influences us to do things better, the results of that is giving us a desire to find more efficient ways to move people around. Global connectivity is a norm for us, so we're more influenced by transportation techniques used internationally and our behavior of competition wants us to make them better.

I'm not saying the boomer generation doesn't share some of these values, or that everyone from younger generations embraces all of them either. Research has shown that younger generations do share most.

You may not have to change your car-culture behavior now, but as younger generations become increasingly influential, it may be socially unacceptable not to.

That was the part I was worried most about when I got rid of my car. But I quickly realized that I really don't need to venture out to Brookfield or Franklin...ever. Everything I need is within walking distance of a transit line. Also, if I do ever NEED to travel where transit doesn't go I rent a car. It sounds incredibly expensive, but with the amount of money I'm saving by not owning a car it actually comes out to be much cheaper still.

But doesn't life become a bit stale if you are only going to do business on Brady St. or wherever? I agree that it would be nice to live in a neighorhood like that, where a person can walk or bike for errands (bank, grocery store, library, etc.). But your life becomes too anchored in one place.

Why has rail become synonymous with the future? I respect you guys for wanting it, as urbanists---but I just don't see whats so great about it. For everyday use, its a backwards step.

Now, a regional high speed rail network would be a good thing. That makes more sense then hopping on a plane to fly to say, the Twin Cities or Detroit.

It's the same with sports franchises. It's not about the need for them, it's all about the prestige of having them. A real international city will have a team in all major sports. If you're like Milwaukee and only have major league teams in baseball and basketball, you're lacking.

The same with rail. All major cities have rail for public transportation. If your city doesn't have it, it is seen as not a big city, or at least not a major city. So this has nothing to do with the need for it, just the want.

You may not have to change your car-culture behavior now, but as younger generations become increasingly influential, it may be socially unacceptable not to.

Which is a scary thought. Read: having a personal transportation freedom will be taken away. Ugh.

But doesn't life become a bit stale if you are only going to do business on Brady St. or wherever? I agree that it would be nice to live in a neighorhood like that, where a person can walk or bike for errands (bank, grocery store, library, etc.). But your life becomes too anchored in one place.

That's the beauty of the urban environment. There are always fun, new things to explore. Life is anything but stale in my neighborhood. Yes, I get restless and sick of city life sometimes, but that's what parks are for. And when I really need to get away, I rent a car and go camping. I would much rather have that than the stale environment of a cul-de-sac.

Which is a scary thought. Read: having a personal transportation freedom will be taken away. Ugh.

I don't want to speak for the other person, but it's a matter of being a pariah, not having 'freedom' taken away.

Which is a scary thought. Read: having a personal transportation freedom will be taken away. Ugh.

Really, you think that humans have an absolute right to drive cars? They're a commodity that has been enormously abused and their time is coming to an end...NOT because the younger generation just wants to screw with you, but because your generation screwed up and we're working to pick up the scraps before our kids have an absolute waste of a world to live in.

^^Do cars have an effect on the enviorment? Absolutely but in reality the Cows in the country produce millions if not billions more C02 particles that harm the atmosphere, americans are addicted to hamburgers even more than gas! Not to mention all the waste that gets dumped into water from these animals...

@ajknee Yeah, who knew the right to drive a car was right there in the Constitution, I didn't know that. And apparently those citizens who don't or didn't own a car aren't free. Too funny. The line that the American automakers sold to U.S. citizens that the car == freedom was a great marketing campaign wasn't it.

Mass transit, and fixed rail doesn't just serve the poor and it isn't only for the elite. It is a component that creates economic development and in the case of fixed rail certainty, it gives access to opportunity and jobs, it reduces the need for parking minimums (this can reduce parking subsidizes), it offers transportation options (sometimes drive - sometimes catch the train), and makes for a better quality of life.

@perilouspete Please nobodys coming for your car.

Really, you think that humans have an absolute right to drive cars? They're a commodity that has been enormously abused and their time is coming to an end...NOT because the younger generation just wants to screw with you, but because your generation screwed up and we're working to pick up the scraps before our kids have an absolute waste of a world to live in.

I'm in the young generation...I'm 20. I like how when someone brings up a point that isn't left-of-center certain people automatically assume that they are old, and therefore old-fashioned and just don't understand these new ideas. Your opinion is that they have been abused, well my question to you is in what way? Because there's just too many of them? Because many families own two of them? People like options. People DO have a right to do drive and own a car. Having a car is a freedom, which doesn't mean that public transportation isn't a freedom either. That's a individual perspective, depending on which one works best for you. But driving cars doesn't make you selfish and doesn't make you careless about the environment. Yes I'm all for trying to do what you can to keep things clean and being mindful about shrinking your carbon footprint. But I will never buy into the concept that cars are the enemy and should be replaced. Which I realize will probably happen to anyway, to an extent, in my lifetime. Fifteen-twenty years from now I'll probably have to report my odometer readings yearly to the government to determine how much more I owe them for driving instead of taking public transportation. That's a very possible reality. I just don't agree with it.

Not to get off subject, but if I remember correctly the Moderne was "hopefully" going to start construction in May, and its May. That's really the only pending 20+ (10+?) building I know of thats planned so I was just wondering what the status of that is. Hopefully with some signs that the recession is waning, it won't be too long.

But doesn't life become a bit stale if you are only going to do business on Brady St. or wherever? I agree that it would be nice to live in a neighorhood like that, where a person can walk or bike for errands (bank, grocery store, library, etc.). But your life becomes too anchored in one place.

I live in the suburbs and you could say my life is anchored and "stale" too. I've been going to the same bank, grocery store, library, etc for years. So I don't think being car-centric or transit-centric in lifestyle makes a difference in variety of life.

Broderick suggests Transit Center as site for UWM water school

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee should put its planned School of Freshwater Sciences in the Downtown Transit Center and not on the former Pieces of Eight lakefront site, says Milwaukee County Supervisor Gerry Broderick, chairman of the County Board's Committee on Parks, Energy and Environment.

Broderick supports UWM's proposal to create the school, which would train water scientists and engineers. But he agrees with those who say the former restaurant site should be converted into green space.

The restaurant, which closed last fall, should never have been allowed on the site because it violates state law that prohibits cutting off public lake access, said Broderick, whose district includes the site.

The UWM building would continue to violate the law, he said Wednesday.

Broderick suggested using the Transit Center, at 909 E. Michigan St., across Lincoln Memorial Drive from Discovery World. It offers an underused and prominent location for the school, he said.

FULL STORY (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44505312.html)

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/44526027.html

Solar housing development proposed for Bay View
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 7, 2009 9:47 a.m.


The former Army Reserve site at 2372 S. Logan Ave., in the Bay View neighborhood, would host 20 single-family homes and townhomes, 75 to 80 independent senior apartments, and 35 to 40 assisted living senior apartments, under a new proposal.

The $40 million planned project, dubbed Eco Bay, would be a showcase for sustainable development, the Department of City Development said Thursday.

It would include solar energy panels, geothermal heat pumps, and a plan to contain all stormwater on the 5.6-acre site, the department said. The proposal was made by the city Housing Authority.

Additional details will be provided at a neighborhood meeting, hosted by Ald. Tony Zielinski. It is set for 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, at Bay View High School, 2751 S. Lenox St.

Eco-Bay was picked from among seven proposals submitted for the city-owned site. The department required the proposed development produce the same amount of renewable energy as the energy consumed on-site.

“We want Milwaukee to lead by example, when possible, to increase the demand for green, clean technologies that create jobs,” said Mayor Tom Barrett, in a statement.

“This will be the first 100% solar development of its kind in the country,” said Zielinski, in a statement.

http://www.eppsteinuhen.com/data/portfolio/jacksonsquare2.jpg

http://www.eppsteinuhen.com/data/portfolio/jacksonsquare11.jpg

LINK (http://www.biztimes.com/realestateweekly/2009/5/6/#construction-begins-for-third-ward-apartment-development)

It's the same with sports franchises. It's not about the need for them, it's all about the prestige of having them. A real international city will have a team in all major sports. If you're like Milwaukee and only have major league teams in baseball and basketball, you're lacking.

The same with rail. All major cities have rail for public transportation. If your city doesn't have it, it is seen as not a big city, or at least not a major city. So this has nothing to do with the need for it, just the want.

I would put having a sports franchise higher then a small, light-rail line. "Big city perception" is probally more identified with sports teams in this country---even if there are 1 or 2.


That's the beauty of the urban environment. There are always fun, new things to explore. Life is anything but stale in my neighborhood. Yes, I get restless and sick of city life sometimes, but that's what parks are for. And when I really need to get away, I rent a car and go camping. I would much rather have that than the stale environment of a cul-de-sac.

To each his own, I guess. I just think that nowadays, one can live in a suburb or less dense part of a city---and still enjoy the urbanity of a city. The car gives you those options. There isn't much difference between living in say---St. Francis or Glendale then there is in Brewers Hill or Bayview. At least in my opinion, with how accessable everything in this city is.

I live in the suburbs and you could say my life is anchored and "stale" too. I've been going to the same bank, grocery store, library, etc for years. So I don't think being car-centric or transit-centric in lifestyle makes a difference in variety of life.

Yeah, but you choose to go to these same places. Its one thing if you live in some far flung suburb like Delafield or Cedarburg. But for pretty much every other burb', the entire city is there for you to do your business. I live way up on the northwest side---but I choose to do my business downtown, Bayview, the Eastside, Mitchell St. etc. Yeah, its a bit more in gas---but I have the options to go anywhere I want, including Gurnee Mills, Chicago, Madison, etc. Thats the beauty of owning a car in a somewhat urban neighorhood/suburb---like Menomonee Falls or Elm Grove.

Broderick supports UWM's proposal to create the school, which would train water scientists and engineers. But he agrees with those who say the former restaurant site should be converted into green space.

The restaurant, which closed last fall, should never have been allowed on the site because it violates state law that prohibits cutting off public lake access, said Broderick, whose district includes the site.


I think this is a stupid idea. Why do we need more green space down there? That spot should be developed, bridging MAM and Pier Wisconsin IMO.

Broderick suggests Transit Center as site for UWM water school

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee should put its planned School of Freshwater Sciences in the Downtown Transit Center and not on the former Pieces of Eight lakefront site, says Milwaukee County Supervisor Gerry Broderick, chairman of the County Board's Committee on Parks, Energy and Environment.

Broderick supports UWM's proposal to create the school, which would train water scientists and engineers. But he agrees with those who say the former restaurant site should be converted into green space.



People in Milwaukee can find any reason to one: COMPLAIN and two to: RUIN... IMO we should be ignoring people "Broderick" who can't see the bigger picture...

1. There is an awful lot of green space on that lake front and this building probably wouldn't be much bigger than the current building.

2. This along with a few other developments could make Milwaukee into a Fresh Water hot spot... for research, technology, education, and business.

3. I would bet a million dollars that a new building there would be a GREEN building, and most of this fresh water tech would be to improve the environment and current uses of the environment!!!

If they stick this school in the "black hole" I mean the transit center I will give up hope on Milwaukee...

Not to get off subject, but if I remember correctly the Moderne was "hopefully" going to start construction in May, and its May. That's really the only pending 20+ (10+?) building I know of thats planned so I was just wondering what the status of that is. Hopefully with some signs that the recession is waning, it won't be too long.
Don't forget about St. John's On The Lake which is over 20 floors and still expected to start construction sometime this year.

I guess I consider mass transit to be more convenient than a car. When you deal with a car you have to deal with the headache of driving and finding parking, as well as paying bills for insurance and repairs, all while being trapped with the car. With mass transit I have no long term, or personal commitment to do anything for it, if i travel somewhere and decide I want to walk home I can without having to worry about where i ditch my car. When I travel, I can go to the airport without worrying about leaving my car for a week, and I don't have to worry about missing an insurance payment, or parking tickets. Maybe it is me but mass transit allows for me to be completely free, If i decide tomorrow I want to go travel the world I am free to leave and the only thing holding me down is my apartment.

I assume you must be serious? Either that, or your deadpan humor is amazing. You would have fit right in to the 19th Century -- before we had the inconvenience of the automobile. Wow! You've certainly got a right to your opinion and how you chose to get around, but please don't try to sell mass transit as more convenient than a car. That's sheer madness. The only way it's more convenient is if you live within easy walking distance to your destination...from your apt.

These are my thoughts exactly. When I got rid of my car years ago, I had no clue how much extra baggage was tied to owning one. The amount of freedom, money, peace of mind, and general health I gained in the months that followed changed my view on cars for life. We are raised in this society to think that cars are absolutely necessary for survival when really they're really just commodities with a hell of a lot of advertising dollars and lobbyists behind them.

Alrighty then. This is the kind of mentality we're deling with on this subject. Yeah, there's a lot more freedom being tied to the schedule of a piece of mass transit than getting into your car and going wherever you want. :lol:

That was the part I was worried most about when I got rid of my car. But I quickly realized that I really don't need to venture out to Brookfield or Franklin...ever. Everything I need is within walking distance of a transit line. Also, if I do ever NEED to travel where transit doesn't go I rent a car. It sounds incredibly expensive, but with the amount of money I'm saving by not owning a car it actually comes out to be much cheaper still.

How does this affect dating? Do you need to rent a car each time you take a girl out, or does she like to take mass transit on dates with you? I'm sure there probably are many attractions within walking distance from where you live, but what about when you want to venture outside of your comfort zone?

Really, you think that humans have an absolute right to drive cars? They're a commodity that has been enormously abused and their time is coming to an end...NOT because the younger generation just wants to screw with you, but because your generation screwed up and we're working to pick up the scraps before our kids have an absolute waste of a world to live in.

Ok, now you're scaring us. Have another long hit and relax.

Skyking, first, there's a multi-quote feature you can use to help cut down on multiple successive posts. No big deal, but it makes the thread a bit easier to read.

Second, you just need to understand that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population that enjoys a transit oriented lifestyle. I for one, because of where I work and where my wife works, have to drive a half hour each way to work. I HATE this. If there was a train in the Fox Valley that allowed me to get to work each day, and it took me 45 to 50 minutes each way, I'd be the first one on board. That's just how I am, I'd rather take longer but not have the stress of driving and to be able to do something else during that time.

Now, I'm not going to try to convince you that rail is a good investment, you have your right to your opinion. But you need to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is mad or old-fashioned. Some people just see transit-oriented lifestyle as more convenient, some don't. I'd personally feel a community is strongest if it can accommodate both.

Really, you think that humans have an absolute right to drive cars? They're a commodity that has been enormously abused and their time is coming to an end...NOT because the younger generation just wants to screw with you, but because your generation screwed up and we're working to pick up the scraps before our kids have an absolute waste of a world to live in.
I want trains as much as the next guy, but this is just arrogant and silly. Cars are not going away. We won't be using gasoline too much longer, but we'll still be driving.

I don't have a car currently because I can't afford a good one, but as soon as I can I will be back in the saddle. But I also would rather take the train than drive in rush hour.

Having a car has allowed me to drive through all 48 lower states and see most of the national parks in the country. I would not have been able to do that without it and the interstate system.

I have also lived in six states from one side of the country to the other and U-Haul made that possible.

The future will be just fine. Your kids will also.:cheers:

Skyking, first, there's a multi-quote feature you can use to help cut down on multiple successive posts. No big deal, but it makes the thread a bit easier to read.

Second, you just need to understand that there's a not-insignificant portion of the population that enjoys a transit oriented lifestyle. I for one, because of where I work and where my wife works, have to drive a half hour each way to work. I HATE this. If there was a train in the Fox Valley that allowed me to get to work each day, and it took me 45 to 50 minutes each way, I'd be the first one on board. That's just how I am, I'd rather take longer but not have the stress of driving and to be able to do something else during that time.

Now, I'm not going to try to convince you that rail is a good investment, you have your right to your opinion. But you need to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is mad or old-fashioned. Some people just see transit-oriented lifestyle as more convenient, some don't. I'd personally feel a community is strongest if it can accommodate both.

Now, that was well said. And, I agree (REALLY!) that mass transit options are a must for a well-balanced urban transportation sysytem. For some people, if it makes sense to walk, bike or crawl to a train stop, and do the same once they depart to get to work, school, etc., they should. But this isn't how most people do it around these parts. And to force a system down our throats -- and into our pocketbook -- by creating an illusionary and artificial market demand is crazy. If I am expected to subsidize rail -- in addition to the direct and indirect taxes I pay for the privilege of driving my car on roads and highways -- then it must also be fair to create an additional tax for mass transit riders for not using roads. Correct?

As for opinions, why is it that mine is systematically discounted and regarded as out of touch by pro-rail advocates? The vast majority of bloggers on this site are of a younger, liberal mindset, and it bothers them when someone has the audacity to disagree with their well-intended, but immature views on this issue. Yes, everyone does have an opinion...including rail opponents like me. Yet, to clarify once again, I am totally in favor of miles and miles and miles of train tracks -- as long as the businesses and people who want it pay for most of it. Let it be market-driven, not politically-driven.

UWM: Pieces of Eight site is great for water school
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 8, 2009 10:43 a.m.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's proposed School of Freshwater Sciences should be built on the former Pieces of Eight site because a school at that location would show the world that Milwaukee is truly a water industry hub.

That was the main message delivered Friday by UWM officials and other project supporters to the city Board of Harbor Commissioners. The board oversees the city-owned site, on downtown's lakefront.

The former restaurant site would be a huge draw for both faculty and graduate students at the proposed school, said UWM Chancellor Carlos Santiago.

"This is a signature location," Santiago said. He said the project would include a public walkway along the lakefront.

Some residents and public officials say the former restaurant, which closed last fall, should instead be converted into green space to create more public access to the lakefront. Some have suggested allternative locations, including the nearby Downtown Transit Center.

The meeting Friday was for informational purposes only, and a public hearing will eventually be scheduled. The Common Council also will consider the proposal.

As for opinions, why is it that mine is systematically discounted and regarded as out of touch by pro-rail advocates? The vast majority of bloggers on this site are of a younger, liberal mindset, and it bothers them when someone has the audacity to disagree with their well-intended, but immature views on this issue. Yes, everyone does have an opinion...including rail opponents like me. Yet, to clarify once again, I am totally in favor of miles and miles and miles of train tracks -- as long as the businesses and people who want it pay for most of it. Let it be market-driven, not politically-driven.

You are not alone Skyking2.....I too am conservative thinking and struggle with the mentality of "build rail no matter the cost". Lets remember that roads are built and used for transit of durable good and not soley for the pleasure of those who choose to drive a car from their suburbs. I don't hear anyone whaling about that. Freeways are not one foot thick of concrete for autos, they are that thick to handle the weight of trucks, heavy machinery, and mass transit buses. Those anti freeway bloggers and mid size city mass transit advocates need to stop and think this through.

I'm not totally against rail either but I would like to add one thought. When Milwaukee had this street car system that has since been discontinued, Maybe this system was discontinued due to a lack of ridership or maybe the cost of running the system (that would include maintenence and managing the system).

I mean really tell me just how profitable a government run inner city rail system will be?

The way I see it is that if one throws ill informed money into a project that is bound to cost a kings ransom to build then all you are going to get is a poorly run transportation system that people won't use and become a huge waste of taxpayer money only so a few hard core public rail riders will use it.

I mean really tell me just how profitable a government run inner city rail system will be?



I'm pretty sure that there is not a single inner city rail system in this country that is "profitable", just like the interstates. They sure do help a lot of people move around and get to their jobs though.

I'm not totally against rail either but I would like to add one thought. When Milwaukee had this street car system that has since been discontinued, Maybe this system was discontinued due to a lack of ridership or maybe the cost of running the system (that would include maintenence and managing the system).

It is pretty well documented that General Motors bought every streetcar system in the country and dismantled them so that those municipalities would have to buy buses from them. Yes, noisy, stinky, bumpy buses were the wave of the future!

Unrelated to your quote, but on the argument that buses are more advanced that streetcars because they are more modern and flexible...I think it is just hard for people to believe that maybe, JUST MAYBE, our predecessors had a better transit system figured out than we currently do. Just because it was in the past, doesn't mean it was worse. I don't see how anyone could think a noisy stinky, bumpy bus is an advancement over a clean, quiet and smooth streetcar.

How does this affect dating? Do you need to rent a car each time you take a girl out, or does she like to take mass transit on dates with you? I'm sure there probably are many attractions within walking distance from where you live, but what about when you want to venture outside of your comfort zone?

I've had my fair share of 'memorable' moments in the backseat of a Taxi at the end of a date. Just sayin.

So I didn't know this, but Michael Cudahy (Milwaukee philanthropist) is into negotiations to buy the leasehold for the former Pieces of Eight restaurant (proposed location for Freshwater Science school).

From the article previously posted:

Cudahy would turn that leasehold interest over to UWM for the school if the plan gains city support. Cudahy responded to what he said were claims that the future school would be ugly.

"I wouldn't let that happen . . . because I love this city and I want it to be something we can be proud of," Cudahy said.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/solar_050809p1.jpg

Old News, New Information (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44567537.html)

The only thing I dislike about our lakefront is that it is too green. It sounds like a silly complaint, I know, but when you look at it, the lakefront is less populated than it could be because it's kind of barren and devoid of public attractions. I think the UWM Water School at the Pieces Of Eight site would cement that section of the lakefront as a sort of pedestrian node that could start to inform later improvements to the lakefront in regard to attracting people to that park space.

why not make part of the Water School into a public freshwater aquarium. That way, you get both the school and a continuation of the public education attractions that are huge in that area. Plus there aren't many freshwater aquariums around.

why not make part of the Water School into a public freshwater aquarium. That way, you get both the school and a continuation of the public education attractions that are huge in that area. Plus there aren't many freshwater aquariums around.

There is a fresh water aquarium right next door!, in fact. It's at discovery world... It's not great and I wish it was a bit bigger. But it is a fresh water aquarium!!!

http://www.discoveryworld.org/aboutus.php

So they already have one.

There is a fresh water aquarium right next door!, in fact. It's at discovery world... It's not great and I wish it was a bit bigger. But it is a fresh water aquarium!!!

http://www.discoveryworld.org/aboutus.php

So they already have one.
well, make a better one then.

edit: I mean a legit one.

why not make part of the Water School into a public freshwater aquarium. That way, you get both the school and a continuation of the public education attractions that are huge in that area. Plus there aren't many freshwater aquariums around.

Umm... Pier Wisconsin?

Maybe I miss some of the local Milwaukee press, but I have only heard the Pieces of 8 location mentioned for a School of Freshwater Sciences (SoFS). I’m worried that if only one area is mentioned in the beginning, Milwaukeeans will be too emotionally invested in that one location to consider other, potentially better spots.

I think a strong location for such a school would be near Milwaukee’s stories of water quality success and challenges. I think such a location would be the Jones Island/Port of Milwaukee section of town (if land is available). Not knowing exactly what a SoFS' needs and curriculum would be, I assume that it would be ideal for such a facility to locate close to Milwaukee’s Sewage Treatment, MMSD, and Milwaukee’s Waterworks [am I correct on the water works location? What about Deep Tunnels?], as well as having easy boat access to the port, Milwaukee’s major rivers, and Lake Michigan for conducting studies, monitoring tests and whatnot. I think these bodies of water would be a likely workshop, locally. Certainly students and professors would rub shoulders with people from these agencies; and, maybe they would come from and go to these agencies. Why not further conglomerate in the same area?

What other locations do you think are suitable? What are the criteria that would make such a location good?

I suppose there is a possibility of expanding the Great Lakes Aquatarium into the new space at UWM. Ownership would be kind of strange, but I think it could work out pretty elegantly. They could run a passage under the grass lawn into the new building.

The possibility of that happening is pretty close to zero percent, but it's worth mentioning to Santiago.

I think a strong location for such a school would be ... the Jones Island/Port of Milwaukee section of town ... I assume that it would be ideal for such a facility to locate close to ... Milwaukee’s Waterworks [am I correct on the water works location?...]

I won't comment on any of these proposals for UWM, but the Waterworks are not located near the Port.

Milwaukee has two water filtration facilities (Waterworks). The Southside plant is on Howard Ave., (next to the old Town of Lake water tower visible from the freeway). The Northside is served by a monumental building constructed by the WPA during the Great Depression. It sits below the northern edge of Lake Park, and is pictured here:

http://www.waterbase.uwm.edu/linnwood/1935as.jpg

As would I. The Bucks have to stay. Losing them would be such a terrible blow to this cities ego.

But not to get too offtopic, but what do you guys think would be the best site for a new arena?


I don't know how it works but was told the Bradley Center's lease was up in two years (?) and they would be moving. Las Vegas & Kansas City were looking at picking them up and they would keep the name "Bucks." Based on current attendance they have no reason to stick around. I believe they sold out one game last year versus the Lakers.

I suppose there is a possibility of expanding the Great Lakes Aquatarium into the new space at UWM. Ownership would be kind of strange, but I think it could work out pretty elegantly. They could run a passage under the grass lawn into the new building.

The possibility of that happening is pretty close to zero percent, but it's worth mentioning to Santiago.



you read my mind... I didn't say it though because I'm not too sure if it would even be remotely possible! But it would be cool... They could have another glass tunnel w/fish that leads to the expanded aquarium....????....

I don't know how it works but was told the Bradley Center's lease was up in two years (?) and they would be moving. Las Vegas & Kansas City were looking at picking them up and they would keep the name "Bucks." Based on current attendance they have no reason to stick around. I believe they sold out one game last year versus the Lakers.


Herb Kohl still owns the team and refuses to sell the Bucks to anyone without a stipulation that they will sign in the contract that they will not move the bucks out of Milwaukee.

They arent going anywhere, stop the speculation.

It is pretty well documented that General Motors bought every streetcar system in the country and dismantled them so that those municipalities would have to buy buses from them. Yes, noisy, stinky, bumpy buses were the wave of the future!

Unrelated to your quote, but on the argument that buses are more advanced that streetcars because they are more modern and flexible...I think it is just hard for people to believe that maybe, JUST MAYBE, our predecessors had a better transit system figured out than we currently do. Just because it was in the past, doesn't mean it was worse. I don't see how anyone could think a noisy stinky, bumpy bus is an advancement over a clean, quiet and smooth streetcar.

Sorry, but no, our predecessors did not have a better transit system figured out than we currently do. The predecessors you refer to did not have cars or buses to choose from, so what was their option? Answer: a rigid transportation model that was not built around effcient travel, but, rather, lack of engineering know-how. Older, congested countries (Europe) and cities in the US (New York, Boston, Philly, etc.) were built long before the automobile was invented. Therefore, those cities were built around the only "advanced" form of transportation available at the time -- trains. Yes, we need a combination of mass transit options, but, in a city like Milwaukee, new train/trolley development needs to be planned very carefully and considered only if it is at least 75% self sustaining through user fees and corporate support from companies who would most benefit from a train line.

Sorry, but no, our predecessors did not have a better transit system figured out than we currently do. The predecessors you refer to did not have cars or buses to choose from, so what was their option? Answer: a rigid transportation model that was not built around effcient travel, but, rather, lack of engineering know-how. Older, congested countries (Europe) and cities in the US (New York, Boston, Philly, etc.) were built long before the automobile was invented. Therefore, those cities were built around the only "advanced" form of transportation available at the time -- trains. Yes, we need a combination of mass transit options, but, in a city like Milwaukee, new train/trolley development needs to be planned very carefully and considered only if it is at least 75% self sustaining through user fees and corporate support from companies who would most benefit from a train line.

Hmm, that's a pretty arbitrary % to use. Where'd you come up with that? And why shouldn't all transportation options be held to the same standard?

Herb Kohl still owns the team and refuses to sell the Bucks to anyone without a stipulation that they will sign in the contract that they will not move the bucks out of Milwaukee.

They arent going anywhere, stop the speculation.
And the current lease was only put in place in the last year after the previous one expired.

They were 24th in average attendence this past season, which is better than New Jersey.

And the current lease was only put in place in the last year after the previous one expired.

They were 24th in average attendence this past season, which is better than New Jersey.

New Jersey is moving to Brooklyn in a year or two!
But that is surprising that the Buck out drew them.

I don't know how it works but was told the Bradley Center's lease was up in two years (?) and they would be moving. Las Vegas & Kansas City were looking at picking them up and they would keep the name "Bucks." Based on current attendance they have no reason to stick around. I believe they sold out one game last year versus the Lakers.

I don't think attendance is that bad. Its on the lower end of the league, but the B.C. is still 80% filled on average. Obviously, not every bought seat is filled or anything. But I don't think the attendance situation in Milwaukee is bad enough to warrant them to leave. As Eriol pointed out, attendance is pretty good compared to markets twice our size---including New Jersey or Philadelphia.

I think fan interest (or lack therof) is concerning though. The last few years, they have been godawful and this year the season was destroyed early with the loss of Redd and Bogut. Its nearly impossible to gain fan interest with this kind of bad luck.

The team isn't going anywhere for awile, at least. Kohl still owns them and I doubt he will sell the team, while in office---to somebody who will move them.

Does anybody know where the Danny Gokey statue will be located? I think Cathedral Square would be a nice spot.

Does anybody know where the Danny Gokey statue will be located? I think Cathedral Square would be a nice spot.

They're already putting up a statue of him? I haven't heard that. Guy barely made it out of town and they already want him enshrined lol. For the record, I think he's an awesome guy and I went to that thing at the Summerfest grounds last week which was absolutely packed. Definitely hope he takes the whole thing. I'm all for anyone who's bringing attention to Milwaukee (I read in the Journal last week that they estimated the airtime Milwaukee will be getting this week on the show is worth about $10mil in free advertising), plus I like his voice either way.

New Jersey is moving to Brooklyn in a year or two!


Hahahahahaha.....


If only you knew...

You're right. That arbitrary percentage should be closer to 90%. And, I'm afraid you're too young -- and blinded -- to really understand any response to your second question. No offense, but it's like talking to a brick wall with a lot of you boys. :bash:

I just don't get how you can keep claiming that roads are not subsidized by the government, and then when I suggest that all forms of transportation be subsidized at an equal rate (not even equal total dollars, just an equal rate compared to the revenue that they bring in) you still say roads should get more. How can alternative forms of transportation ever be competitive and user-friendly (so that the users, under a level playing field can make a market-based decision on what works best for them) if the government policy is so lopsided?

Should we also subsidize hot air baloon rides?

This would be the most cost effective form of transportation and not consume very much energy at all. Why, we could all ride hot air ballons to Chicago and Minneapolis and feel great about how we are saving the earth.

What about space shuttle service to Europe? I want that too. Don't really care what it costs as this is out-of-the box forward thinking. I would be willing to pay $300/ride and let the tax payers pay the rest. Heck, we already pay for those expensive freeway systems. Why not a space shuttle ride to London? Just think of the fancy terminal we could build on the outskirts of Milwaukee. We could even add a light rail to get us right to the space shuttle terminal. Don't worry about how many people would really ride the shuttle or if enough revenue would be generated to sustain it, it would be really cool and I want it. Airplanes are old fashion and that is just plane legacy thinking. Our city would be the only one to have space shuttle service and everyone would come to Milwaukee and want to ride it too.

^^ Did you really just compare hot air balloons and space shuttles to light rail? How about instead just posting "I'm out of ideas so I'm just going to make silly analogies now?"

And regarding this: "Don't worry about how many people would really ride the shuttle or if enough revenue would be generated to sustain it, it would be really cool and I want it," I going to presume you are (again) talking about light rail not generating enough revenue to sustain it, etc. Look, if anyone's wondering why the pro-rail folks here jump on the anti-rail people a bit, it is because of this double standard: roads don't pay for themselves and nobody complains, but the rail is somehow supposed to magically pay for itself. As for ridership, where light rail has been built, it tends to exceed estimates.

Look, you don't have to want light rail. I don't think anybody is saying that all people have to think like us. What's tired is hearing the same arguments that hold little water. If you just don't think there's money for anything new, then fine. If you have evidence why light rail would work here less well than in say Minneapolis or Charlotte, I'd love to hear it. But I personally just don't accept "it won't pay for itself" as a valid argument here unless you are going to come up with a solution where drivers are also paying for the total cost of their transportation. If we're going to have a level playing field when it comes to transportation, then lets really have it and see what results.

Have some humor!

I drove to Kenosha about four weeks ago. Jumped on their light rail track that does a big loop around the downtown. Besides the driver, I was the only one on that light rail car. Had fun though.... Stayed on it for two complete laps. Is that system meeting expectations? Wonder what it costs to run?

Danillo brings up a good point about road cost to drivers. I think drivers are paying a heavy load if they choose to drive a car. They are paying their weight.

License fees - $75 annually
Gas Tax - $270 annually
Other state and federal taxes that are hidden.

What else can we add?

Have some humor!

I drove to Kenosha about four weeks ago. Jumped on their light rail track that does a big loop around the downtown. Besides the driver, I was the only one on that light rail car. Had fun though.... Stayed on it for two complete laps. Is that system meeting expectations? Wonder what it costs to run?

Danillo brings up a good point about road cost to drivers. I think drivers are paying a heavy load if they choose to drive a car. They are paying their weight.

License fees - $75 annually
Gas Tax - $270 annually
Other state and federal taxes that are hidden.

What else can we add?

How does that add up to $6 billion for the I-94 expansion alone? Every person (including kids) in Wisconsin paying their $345/year only adds up to $1.7B, so with all of our gas tax and registration, it would take 4 years for the entire state to just pay for the I-94 expansion alone. That doesn't include any other road project, state or local, new construction or repair. Hmm, that money must be coming from other sources as well (income and property taxes). Thus, the true cost of roads is so hidden in our current system, that everyone thinks that they are cheap and that drivers really cover the cost of them through fees and gas taxes.

Regarding Kenosha's system, their problem is where it goes. Kenosha doesn't have the density that Milwaukee has, particularily along the penninsula where the streetcar currently runs. And it's downtown doesn't have anywhere near the number of jobs or attractions that generate traffic that downtown Milwaukee has.

Here you go, just another $50m road project moving forward even though Waukesha seems to be doing fine without it. State covering $37.5m on the cost, I'm sure only from registration fees and gas taxes.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/44788327.html

Deal struck for $50 million Waukesha bypass
By Darryl Enriquez of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: May. 12, 2009 11:04 a.m.

Waukesha - A deal was announced Tuesday morning to complete a western Waukesha bypass - a nearly $51 million project under discussions for decades but repeatedly stalled over a lack of funding.

Officials from the City of Waukesha, Waukesha County and the Town of Waukesha announced a breakthrough in cost-sharing discussions for the 4 1/2 mile project that would link Highway 59 in Waukesha to Interstate 94 along the existing Highway TT. The project would complete a corridor intended to help motorists in southern Waukesha County gain quicker access to the freeway.

An environmental impact statement, at a cost of $2 million, must be completed before work can begin. The study is projected to be completed by 2011, with road work commencing in 2012 and continuing through 2016.

Officials said the project would be paid mostly with mostly borrowed money that is set aside through long-range capital plans. No federal stimulus funding is directly involved.

The state is expected to cover $37.5 million of the cost, with another $2.6 million set aside for purchasing real estate. Waukesha County would contribute $8.6 million. The City of Waukesha will contribute $2 million.

The bypass has been discussed since the 1950s. Lack of available funding has repeatedly set the project back. Last years, the project sustained another back when Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas balked at a state demand for a 50% of the cost to be covered by local sources.

City, state and county officials have worked on striking a deal on cost sharing amid intense discussions the past two months, Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson said.

How does that add up to $6 billion for the I-94 expansion alone? Every person (including kids) in Wisconsin paying their $345/year only adds up to $1.7B, so with all of our gas tax and registration, it would take 4 years for the entire state to just pay for the I-94 expansion alone. That doesn't include any other road project, state or local, new construction or repair. Hmm, that money must be coming from other sources as well (income and property taxes). Thus, the true cost of roads is so hidden in our current system, that everyone thinks that they are cheap and that drivers really cover the cost of them through fees and gas taxes.



I'm a fan of rail, and I support it... but we have to stop comparing roads to rail. There is a lot of good information at the state's Transportation Developement Association (TDA) website that disputes a lot of what is said here.

First, there is no general funding for state transportation projects that don't directly give back to the fund. Meaning, if the project doesn't return money to the state, it doesn't receive any funding outside of sources like the gas tax and registration fees.

Also, the website says that on average for every dollar invested in transportation you get about 3 dollars in return. So you can't compare rail, which would lose money, to roads that generate a 300% ROI.

Finally, we have to remember that roads are a basic necessity because of how our infrastructure and culture is set up. If nothing else, we need the roads to access our homes! Ever try and create a city in the old simcity games that has nothing but rail? Thats not feasible in real life...

So if you're going to discuss rail in the development thread... at least try and keep it to the merits of rail, and stop comparing it to roads, it is doing a diservice to the discussion.

TDA website: http://tdawisconsin.org/wis_trans.iml

^^ I'm not anti-road at all. I think we need to keep our roads network up-to-date, as well as having alternatives where appropriate. Not one or the other, both. Where I raise the issue of roads is in double standard applied to rail having to pay for itself while roads don't.

Now, regarding the costs of projects like the I-94 expansion. While that is fantastically expensive, that money does come from the gas tax. In essence highways are paid for via the "user fee" of the gas tax. Fair enough. What isn't paid for by the gas tax is construction and maintenance of local roads. That's a pretty big chunk of change that is being paid for by taxes that have nothing to do with whether or how much someone uses those roads. Again, these roads are necessary, but they don't pay for themselves either.

Furthermore, there are all sorts of extended costs resulting from our (over)use of cars. Infrastructure is spread and more costly to maintain. We have a trade defect that is largely the result of oil imports, and that has to be paid for somehow. As a national security matter, we have to try to deal credibly in the middle east while still relying on Saudi Arabia for oil (or Russia... or Venezuela...). There's the costs of maintaining infrastructure to supply oil to us. There's the ecological cost of burning fossil fuels. These and other factors add up to a not insignificant cost that is not paid for by gas taxes or license fees. Now hopefully much of this can be deal with via super-efficient cars, but I think a reasonable solution also involves rail.

And finally, again in the interests of being consistent, if we are going to count development around roads as a factor in how they pay for themselves, then we also must count development around rail stops. Again, that not to be against roads, but we do need to be consistent in how we are defining success.

Also, the website says that on average for every dollar invested in transportation you get about 3 dollars in return. So you can't compare rail, which would lose money, to roads that generate a 300% ROI.

Wait wait wait. How does a dollar invested in a road return three dollars? The only way that a road can directly do that is if the amount of people that drive on it pay $3 more in gas taxes than they would if the road didn't exist.

Otherwise, that 300% return is referring to development that might occur near that road and/or the multiplier effect on salaries to construction and maintenance workers. If that is the case, then the same thing could apply to spending dollars on transit.

I'm not trying to compare something that loses money to something that gets a 300% return, I am trying to compare two things that both lose money.

^^ I believe they are saying that the ammount of money generated by the commerce created through the roads. For example the amount of shipping that is done by trucks down the highway. I don't think they consider the taxes generated or the developement near roads as income from roads.

@Danillo

You're right on the municipal raods, and it depends on the community how they are paid for. For example for major work Milwaukee always gave people on those side streets an assessment so they paid for their own streets, now they have the wheel tax for everyone in the city. That only pays for major work, not the maintenance... but then again, roads are a necessity for us, while rail isn't.

Thats kind of important too, rail is a luxury. I agree that there are many other societal and economic costs that we pay by using cars. The great thing about our country though is that when our economy is healthy we can start to tackle things like environmental inssues (rarely do you see poor countries or weak economies working on things like the environment). And thats the point, those are the arguments and discussions we should have, and not just comparing roads like I've had to read for the past how many pages of this thread...

Basically what I'm saying is the reason for the double standard between local roads and rail is that the roards are a necessity, the rail... I'm afraid to say is not.

Basically what I'm saying is the reason for the double standard between local roads and rail is that the roards are a necessity, the rail... I'm afraid to say is not.

Yeah, but really only because our government subsidized them to the point where it became so (seemingly) cheap for everyone to rely on it. Now, so many people are "stuck" with roads as their only transportation choice. That doesn't mean they are a necessity, we made them a necessity. And instead of altering that line of thinking, some people on this board are advocating that we spend even more money on roads, thus making people even more reliant on one mode of transportation.

To me, that sounds like throwing good money after bad. It also sounds like the government deciding what mode of transportation people will have to use and investing only in that, instead of investing in many options and letting people choose, aka a market-based approach.

^^ I believe they are saying that the ammount of money generated by the commerce created through the roads. For example the amount of shipping that is done by trucks down the highway. I don't think they consider the taxes generated or the developement near roads as income from roads.

It is clear that we do not even have enough money to maintain the roads that we have. Otherwise, why are there potholes everywhere and why is Milwuakee on a 160-year replacement cycle for its roads? Is the gas tax not high enough? Or does the gas tax really not cover the costs of roads?

What I am saying, is why spend more money on new roads (that will have to be maintained in the future) when we can't fix the roads that we already have.

This entire road vs. rail "debate" just keeps going around and around and around in circles (sort of like the Mr. Rogers Neighborhood trolley Mayor Barrett envisions in downtown Milwaukee). Look, it's clear where the divide is on this issue: people who drive cars, own houses and pay most of the taxes are sceptical of trains, and people who don't own cars, rent (or live with their parents) and don't pay as many taxes want trains. Further, they want others to pay for them -- not unlike the entitlement attitude becoming so prevelant in this country today. Sort of like "redistributing the wealth."

We can argue the merits of both forms of transportation, and we need both -- if not other mass transit options (upgraded bus system, etc.) -- but WHO is supposed to pay for all of it?! Most proponents of rail just simply don't understand the economics of it, and don't care so long as they can get somebody else to pay for it. I'm sure government will provide the answer, as opposed to letting a free market system determine whether trains are necessary and how they are paid for. Roads are absolutely necessary and can be used by anybody. Yes, roads are expensive, but when you compare a cost-to-ridership ratio to trains, they are are practically free.

My advice to rail proponents: buy a car, move out of mom's house and drive, man. Just drive. Experience the open road beneath your wheels, roll that window down and live life. Your date will appreciate it, too. :)

^ In all fairness, roads are definitely necessary.

It is unthinkable for a city to exist without roads--lots of roads. Roads have been around since ancient times. They have run through ancient cities and between them.

Rail is a much, much, much later invention, and it is okay to discuss whether they are needed or not. I for one feel that cities begin to need rail once, in the process to relieve congestion, building more roads and creating new infrastructure in undeveloped areas becomes too costly and the disinvestment resulting in already developed areas becomes imminent, thus leading to diminishing returns.

The whole idea is not to create waste in the system. The mid-20th century model of building suburbs to replace the city is exactly the kind of waste I"m talking about. The massive amount of highway building, despite the fact that cities already had plenty of increasingly unused infrastructure, was precisely the kind of waste that should not have happened. It would not be unreasonable for some of our more "anti-waste" conservative forumers to acknowledge that.

The way I see it is:
Mass transit is a public service, it should be there and should function well to benefit the public. Just as roads are a public service built and maintained with tax dollars so should mass transit. And mass transit has a plus side that roads don't, mass transit can bring in rider fee's and advertising money to help offset the cost of this public service...


That's just they way I view it. I'm sure a lot of transit systems were based on that thinking.. not that it was going to generate a huge profit... or else you'd see private companies trying to get in on the action....

So although the City has been keeping the design of UWM's new school of freshwater sciences under wraps, some news has been creeping through on the Design, and maybe Drama of the project.

A recent ARTICLE (http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/murphyslaw/default.asp) from Milwaukee magazine has been following the situation. As we know, local philanthropist Cudahy has been negotiating to buy the lease of the land for the proposed building. Cudahy was also the lead benefactor of the Pier Wisconsin project. Apparently he supported the original design of Pier Wisconsin (see below picture) that was designed by his architect friend Jim McClintock. Well the design commission, especially Bob Greenstreet, hated the design and pushed for a design competition (which is how the final project we have today was conceived).

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/dec02/pierbig121502.jpg

According to this ARTICLE (http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i34/34b00801.htm) referenced by the Milwaukee magazine writer, Cudahy is again pushing for the same architect to design the new UWM building. According to this article one person, Bob Greenstreet, has seen the design from Jim McClintock. He described it by saying it "looks something like a series of gas-storage tanks", and he doesn't like it.

Greenstreet has been working with HGA (the ones who won the design competition for the current Pier Wisconsin building) to come up with alternatives. Greenstreet has been focusing on selling a design that's explained in this excerpt from the article:

He seizes on a streamlined design that hides the building under a long green roof, with white tubes poking out of the top to let sunlight in.

"So you have reduced the building to its sculptural parts — you see these sculptural forms as an extension of the gardens and nearby buildings?" he says, pointing to the model. "Interesting." The philanthropist does not take the bait.

And so it begins...

My advice to rail proponents: buy a car, move out of mom's house and drive, man. Just drive. Experience the open road beneath your wheels, roll that window down and live life. Your date will appreciate it, too. :)

^ Garbage. I am married, highly educated, making plenty of money, and am a rail proponent. I have lived both lifestyles--the carless one and the car-only one--have you? Ignorance is one heck of a bliss, really helps your world make sense, doesn't it?

This entire road vs. rail "debate" just keeps going around and around and around in circles (sort of like the Mr. Rogers Neighborhood trolley Mayor Barrett envisions in downtown Milwaukee). Look, it's clear where the divide is on this issue: people who drive cars, own houses and pay most of the taxes are sceptical of trains, and people who don't own cars, rent (or live with their parents) and don't pay as many taxes want trains. Further, they want others to pay for them -- not unlike the entitlement attitude becoming so prevelant in this country today. Sort of like "redistributing the wealth."

We can argue the merits of both forms of transportation, and we need both -- if not other mass transit options (upgraded bus system, etc.) -- but WHO is supposed to pay for all of it?! Most proponents of rail just simply don't understand the economics of it, and don't care so long as they can get somebody else to pay for it. I'm sure government will provide the answer, as opposed to letting a free market system determine whether trains are necessary and how they are paid for. Roads are absolutely necessary and can be used by anybody. Yes, roads are expensive, but when you compare a cost-to-ridership ratio to trains, they are are practically free.


^ Hmmm, so smarty pants has once again wound his circular logic so tight that he doesn't even know what he stands for any more?

Lets see:

All of the roads in southeast Wisconsin cost billions of dollars to build and maintain. Those are paid for and maintained by...WHO? Government! Is there a user fee for the highway? NO!

But Socialism? No, not Skyking...never. He would never stand for that.

That extra money for a train line--oh my God, that crosses the line! Flag-waving Amurkins like Skyking won't DARE allow the Government to infiltrate their lives! After all, they work hard for their money and don't take handouts from nobody! Nevermind the fact that the very pavement that is the lifeblood of their suburban existence is entirely Socialized.

HYP-O-CRITE. Ever heard that term? That's you, buddy.

^ Garbage. I am married, highly educated, making plenty of money, and am a rail proponent. I have lived both lifestyles--the carless one and the car-only one--have you? Ignorance is one heck of a bliss, really helps your world make sense, doesn't it?

Ditto, swap out married for own a house, and you've got me.

Plus, my girlfriend likes all of the extra money I have from not owning a car. It means we can go out to more nice dinners, concerts/shows, etc. Makes me feel....gasp....free.

My advice to rail proponents: buy a car, move out of mom's house and drive, man. Just drive. Experience the open road beneath your wheels, roll that window down and live life. Your date will appreciate it, too. :)

You really do like veiled personal insults don't you. Give it up, already. I am married, live downtown, own a condo and likely pay more in property taxes than you do. But I (gasp) am a rail proponent. I basically use my car to get to work. That is it. I walk everywhere else (grocer, restaurants etc). If a rail line ran west to the research park area, I could take it, and then walk a few extra blocks to work and save on gas, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. I've taken the bus, and it takes over an hour for my 15 minute car ride. If a rail line could take me 30 minutes and save me the money, I'd love it. You really cannot grasp that simple concept, can you. I'm beginning to think you are the child that lives with mom and dad.

Skyking your flamatory and divisive states are doing nothing for this conversation. If you're so old/wise/mature can you grow up and have a real conversation please?

You really do like veiled personal insults don't you. Give it up, already. I am married, live downtown, own a condo and likely pay more in property taxes than you do. But I (gasp) am a rail proponent. I basically use my car to get to work. That is it. I walk everywhere else (grocer, restaurants etc). If a rail line ran west to the research park area, I could take it, and then walk a few extra blocks to work and save on gas, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. I've taken the bus, and it takes over an hour for my 15 minute car ride. If a rail line could take me 30 minutes and save me the money, I'd love it. You really cannot grasp that simple concept, can you. I'm beginning to think you are the child that lives with mom and dad.


Same here (minus the married), although I've just purchased a house on the west side and will be moving in June. I'll miss living down there a lot!

I feel like this is an AA meeting... *stands up in front of the group* Hello, my name is Andy and I'm a conservative who supports light rail.

They're already putting up a statue of him? I haven't heard that. Guy barely made it out of town and they already want him enshrined lol. For the record, I think he's an awesome guy and I went to that thing at the Summerfest grounds last week which was absolutely packed. Definitely hope he takes the whole thing. I'm all for anyone who's bringing attention to Milwaukee (I read in the Journal last week that they estimated the airtime Milwaukee will be getting this week on the show is worth about $10mil in free advertising), plus I like his voice either way.

nah, I was just joking about the statue! I kind of want to watch American Idol tonight to see if Milwaukee gets some decent skyline and lakefront/Summerfest shots. Could be a nice "perception buster" for the rest of the country, who probally thinks Milwaukee looks like some industrial hellhole. Then again, based on observations about young people in this country, they might not even be bright enough to know about our that. :lol:

@Coldwake Property taxes, assessments, TIF and other bonding (which impacts general fund), dollars, and yes even sales taxes (in some communities) are a few non user-based ways that roads are paid for in the U.S. Of course there is the whole oil/auto subsidy side of things and environmental costs as well, but clearly just looking at straight taxes there is plenty of non-user based fees going into roads.

Further I do believe the ROI referenced is specifically about economic development, not truck traffic, and I'd point out that light-rail often has an ROI higher than as you provided for freeways. Incidentally for me this is a big reason to push for fixed rail, because yes it has economic development component. (NOTE take a look at Charlotte, NC it has been amazing).

But the question isn't really about if roads or transit is subsidized. They are (do your own research). The question, especially one being posed on a forum about the development of skyscrapers in cities, is do we want to subsidized transportation that builds density, and encourages economic development in and that is conducive to an urban environment?

@Skyking2 Again renters pay property taxes!

Look, it's clear where the divide is on this issue: people who drive cars, own houses and pay most of the taxes are sceptical of trains, and people who don't own cars, rent (or live with their parents) and don't pay as many taxes want trains... My advice to rail proponents: buy a car, move out of mom's house and drive, man. Just drive. Experience the open road beneath your wheels, roll that window down and live life.

I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but both myself and Danillo fall under the "drive cars, own houses, and pay taxes", but are not skeptical of trains.

As for your advice, Danillo and I have gone on several cross-country road trips together, so I'm not sure how experiencing more of the open wheel would change our position on trains. Although if you'd like to fund a cross-country road trip, we'd be glad to go on another one.

Tourism spending in the Milwaukee area increased 3.3% in 2008, despite the beginning of the nation's economic recession, a new study says.

Spending by people visiting the Milwaukee area totaled an estimated $2.66 billion in 2008, compared with $2.58 billion in 2007, according to an annual tourism economic impact study conducted by Davidson-Peterson Associates, a consulting firm based in Kennebunk, Maine.

LINK (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44846582.html)

You really do like veiled personal insults don't you. Give it up, already. I am married, live downtown, own a condo and likely pay more in property taxes than you do. But I (gasp) am a rail proponent. I basically use my car to get to work. That is it. I walk everywhere else (grocer, restaurants etc). If a rail line ran west to the research park area, I could take it, and then walk a few extra blocks to work and save on gas, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. I've taken the bus, and it takes over an hour for my 15 minute car ride. If a rail line could take me 30 minutes and save me the money, I'd love it. You really cannot grasp that simple concept, can you. I'm beginning to think you are the child that lives with mom and dad.

Nice try, but, you'd be wrong as usual.

Nice try, but, you'd be wrong as usual.

Wrong about what?

@Coldwake Property taxes, assessments, TIF and other bonding (which impacts general fund), dollars, and yes even sales taxes (in some communities) are a few non user-based ways that roads are paid for in the U.S. Of course there is the whole oil/auto subsidy side of things and environmental costs as well, but clearly just looking at straight taxes there is plenty of non-user based fees going into roads.

Further I do believe the ROI referenced is specifically about economic development, not truck traffic, and I'd point out that light-rail often has an ROI higher than as you provided for freeways. Incidentally for me this is a big reason to push for fixed rail, because yes it has economic development component. (NOTE take a look at Charlotte, NC it has been amazing).

But the question isn't really about if roads or transit is subsidized. They are (do your own research). The question, especially one being posed on a forum about the development of skyscrapers in cities, is do we want to subsidized transportation that builds density, and encourages economic development in and that is conducive to an urban environment?

@Skyking2 Again renters pay property taxes!

Twoaday, usually I think we're on the same page or at least you make comments that I understand where you are coming from, but obviously you didn't read the information I provided in the link to the TDA website... as I'm sure anyone else here who's still whining about roads being subsidized hasnt' either.

A Cambridge Systematics study in 2003 (link at bottom) did a cost/benefit analysis on the planned investments of our state highway system. The cost of the investment equaled about 3.2 billion dollars and they found that the cost savings, efficiencies of travel, and other benefits generated would equal about 9.7 billion dollars.

Despite what you'd like to "believe," this is not development, this is not new construction near roads, this is nothing except for direct dollars in the pockets of individuals and corporations (through trucking companies and the like). So no, you are wrong, this is not about economic develoment near the roads, they did not take those factors into account with that particular figure.

However, they DID take a few other things after that calculation into account... for example the work would create an addition 4800 jobs on top of the 4300 jobs created through the investments. This would add to the figures you're talking about, but no one is producing a dollar amount for those types of events. I'm sure there's a lot of money that will be added to the tax base through those jobs... but they make no mention of that dollar amount either.

Also, state highways... like I said before... are not subsized through bonds (well, actually a very very small percent is), assessments, TIF's, or anything like that. Please, look at the information that I've provided. The only roads that are "subsidized" are local streets and even people who use mass transit require these... so they are not comparable to rail at all.

Sorry for the long post, but do not tell me to "do your own research" when I did my research and provided all the information to you and you ignored it.


http://www.tdawisconsin.org/data/publications/CambridgeComplete.pdf

OH! And not only do they generate enough money through vehicle registrations, state gas taxes, and federal gas taxes to meet the states highway funding needs but Doyle actually takes money from that fund to pay for NON-highway programs like education and healthcare.

Clearly highways support themselves AND they help support other areas as well. Thats actually the main reason we're having issues with having enough money to pay for our road construction projects.

Well, everyone knows that you can get a study done to come to whatever conclusion you want it to. Look at the list of sponsors there, it's mostly major highway engineers or associations.

They calculated $7B in saved time and operating costs for personal trips, going to work and visiting friends. How can they honestly put an accurate value on that? And how do they even know that time will be saved? There are just too many variables to be accurate. And couldn't transit also reduce highway congestion, thus leading to the same savings?

I definitely appreciate you finding some sources to cite (which hardly anyone does on sites like this), but any report like this is just meant to prove whatever point the sponsors of the report want. And, I will admit, that goes for transit studies too.

I don't think anyone is arguing that spending money on roads creates direct construction jobs and indirect jobs as a result of those jobs. But transit creates jobs as well, and there are studies that show that they create 19% more jobs per dollar than highways. Here is one study, for what it is worth, that shows that: http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/jobs_decoder.pdf

Thats a valid point, you have to look at these studies with a grain of salt sometimes and/or look at how they came to their conclusions. For example, in that report they based their 7bil figure on these factors:

• Travel Time Savings. Travel time savings reflect the dollar
value of the reduction in vehicle-hours of travel directly
resulting from increased speeds. This is made possible by
reduced traffic congestion accruing from increased highway
capacity, improved roadway geometry, and/or improved
pavement condition due to increased investment.
• Vehicle Operating Cost Changes. Highway investment can
significantly improve roadway conditions through re-construction
and resurfacing, thereby reducing general wear and tear on
vehicles that result from substandard pavement conditions.
• Safety Effects. Roadway investments can reduce the accident
rate on a highway system by lowering congestion and
improving roadway geometry.

Basically all I want to do is remove highway funding from the discussion because I think we're much better off debating the benefits and costs of rail instead of distracting ourselves with a whole different issue like this.

Creation of jobs is one of the reasons for creating a light rail or commuter rail system. I also like the idea of making more jobs available to people who might not have other means of transportation. Heck, that woudl help reduce our welfare rolls and other societal costs.

If the stimulus was going to happen, which obviously it did, it should have been focused solely on these types of projects... road and rail construction, building of schools, things of that nature. If we're going to spend that kind of money, they could have put it into something that actually created jobs, solved skykings question of where the money comes from (I know sky, you don't like the idea of it being paid for at all... but if they're going to drop 750 bil dollars at least put it towards something that generates jobs and makes a real difference like mass transit).

Alright Coldwake,
I'll bite on the debating on merits alone, but while we are talking about the costs and benefits of transit, lets break it down into the intercity and intracity transit pro and cons because while they integrate nicely, together in a cohesive plan, spending on each of them tends to come from separate sources, while they also provide different types of benefits to cities.

So if anyone else saw American Idol tonight (Danny lost)....I was pretty unimpressed with how much they showed Milwaukee. They made it sound like they were going to show him all over town and at the new Harley museum and everything...they mostly just showed him driving around and the massive crowds. The only real good shots they had of a Milwaukee icon was all the people at Summerfest at the Harley stage. They showed the art museum for about 3 seconds and showed Danny throwing out the pitch at Miller Park for about 2 seconds....pretty lame. If I knew nothing about Milwaukee before I wouldn't have been any more impressed with it after the that thing on Idol. Not one shot of the skyline or much of the city at all. Oh well, I know that the singer was the focus anyway but still.

This might be a bit of a time commitment, but for those interested, I suggest checking out this movie, "Taken for a Ride": http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=taken+for+a+ride&emb=0&aq=f#

It's 55 min and explains the demise of the streetcar and how General Motors bought up PROFITABLE streetcar lines to put them out of business to create a larger market for their busses and cars.

It has been over 50 years since Milwaukee has had any streetcars. And I know after watching this video, people will assume that Milwaukee will just put the same old streetcars back in. But in the past 50 years, as in every industry, there have been tremendous advances in technology, so the streetcar you see in the video is quite different than the modern streetcar proposed for Milwaukee, which would have low-floor boarding, signal prioirty, etc.

Whatever your opinions, this video is an interesting look at a relatively unknown bit of U.S. history. And, how we replaced electric streetcars that ran on domestic energy sources, with cars that run increasingly on foreign fuel sources. Certiainly, the car would have gained a significant user share regardless, but it is a shame that the streetcars were dismantled in the process.

PS, how much money did we just give GM? Another example of the subsidization of the auto.

Alright Coldwake,
I'll bite on the debating on merits alone, but while we are talking about the costs and benefits of transit, lets break it down into the intercity and intracity transit pro and cons because while they integrate nicely, together in a cohesive plan, spending on each of them tends to come from separate sources, while they also provide different types of benefits to cities.

Do you think they already do that? For example amtrak isn't usually spoken in the same terms as the Hiawatha light rail line in the twin cities. I'm sure it's the same for most intracity systems.

The KRM and metra are probably a different story... seeing as how they are intercity... but also serve within the same metro areas. good question!

PS, how much money did we just give GM? Another example of the subsidization of the auto.

:dunno:

They should have let them go into true bankruptcy so they could actually solve their problems effectively and not be muddled in the politics of this quasi bankruptcy that they're doing.

Interesting about GM buying up rail companies... I'll bet if that tried that this day in age there would be antitrust laws and whatnot to stop that.

Interesting too though is that the street car companies were private entities and were profitable... that sort of plays into what Skyking is trying to push for modern rail.

Somebody put up a building, please!

Doesn't this stuff belong on the Rail thread?

Sorry, one last post on this. Coincidentally, I just got an email from TDA today. In it, is a letter from the Executive Director, in which it states that every dollar invested in transit results in SIX dollars of economic gain. So, that is double the number produced by the same organization for roads. Now, obviously all reports are biased. But if they are correct, shouldn't we stop spending money on new roads and instead, direct it towards transit, if we want to have the greatest economic benefit?

**********************************************************



By Craig Thompson, Executive Director, Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin

In recognition of the key role that public transit systems play in Wisconsin’s economy, job outlook, environment and quality of life, Governor Jim Doyle has officially proclaimed that May 18-24 is Wisconsin Transit Week. This is a great time to highlight the many benefits of transit, because bus ridership in the nation is at its highest level in 50-plus years.

In addition, Wisconsin Transit Week is a great time to point out that public transit in Wisconsin involves much more than commuters riding big-city buses. Our state’s transit system actually encompasses a variety of other transit services that, like buses, offer a convenient and affordable alternative to car travel and enhance the quality of people’s lives:

· Specialized paratransit and medical transport companies deliver mobility and freedom to elderly and differently abled citizens in urban and rural areas throughout Wisconsin.

· Shared-ride taxis located in our state’s small towns provide more than 1.5 million rides a year, helping Wisconsinites get to work, access health care, visit friends and family, do their shopping, and more.

In fact, whether the population of your community is 2,500 or 250,000, a strong transit system provides valuable services to everyone it reaches. And as our population ages – nationally, some 20 percent of us will be aged 65 and older by 2025 – the safety and convenience of buses, shared-ride taxis, and medical transportation services will become increasingly important.

Transit is also growing as a key player in local, state and national economies. Numerous studies show that public transit has a positive impact on the bottom lines of local businesses and municipalities; transit helps make economic development possible, raises property values, and generates new revenue for governments. On a national level, studies show that every $1 invested by taxpayers in transit yields $6 in economic gains.

The environmental benefits of transit are equally impressive. Each year, public transportation use saves the equivalent of 34 super tankers of oil. Public transit also reduces pollution, helps promote cleaner air, and cuts the nation’s carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons annually – equivalent to the electricity used by 4.9 million households.

Wisconsin’s transit systems work for everyone, and they make vital contributions to communities large and small. So consider riding the bus or hopping in a shared-ride taxi for your next trip to the store, to your office or job site, to a friend’s home, to the doctor’s office – wherever you need to go, Wisconsin transit is a great way to get there!

For more information on public transit in Wisconsin, visit www.tdawisconsin.org.

# # #

Milwaukee tourism spending tops $2.66B

The Business Journal of Milwaukee


Tourism spending in the Milwaukee area in 2008 topped $2.66 billion, surpassing 2007 expenditures by 3.3 percent despite the recession, Milwaukee Common Council president Willie Hines announced Tuesday.

The data gave city boosters confidence that Milwaukee may be able to ride out the recession without significant hits because of the value the city offers.

"This is an exciting, easy and affordable city to explore with no shortage of world-class, must-see gems to discover,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement. “During tough economic times, people will seek places like Milwaukee to get the most bang for the buck.”

The nearly $2.7 billion in Milwaukee-area traveler expenditures for 2008 compares with $2.58 billion spent by visitors in 2007. In 2008, tourism supported 66,331 full-time equivalent jobs, up from the previous year’s total of 64,854, and accounted for $1.53 billion in wages, up from the $1.47 billion in wages the year before.

Tourism also contributed $426 million in local and state taxes, up from the previous year’s total of $410 million......
Rest of the Article - CLICK (http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/05/11/daily41.html)

Why is it so high? The Fonz statue that big of a draw?

Tourism spending in the Milwaukee area increased 3.3% in 2008, despite the beginning of the nation's economic recession, a new study says.

Spending by people visiting the Milwaukee area totaled an estimated $2.66 billion in 2008, compared with $2.58 billion in 2007, according to an annual tourism economic impact study conducted by Davidson-Peterson Associates, a consulting firm based in Kennebunk, Maine.

LINK (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44846582.html)
There's a couple of significant events that happened in 08 to help with this, including the opening of the Harley Davidson Museum and the completion of the Marquette Interchange.

Also as word of mouth spreads about the new museums on Lake Michigan I'm sure more people go to them as well; especially people from outside the Milwaukee area. In either case this is excellent news, as I believe good tourism numbers relate very well to a city's overall success.

Doesn't this stuff belong on the Rail thread?

Thats too easy! :)

There's a couple of significant events that happened in 08 to help with this, including the opening of the Harley Davidson Museum and the completion of the Marquette Interchange.

Also as word of mouth spreads about the new museums on Lake Michigan I'm sure more people go to them as well; especially people from outside the Milwaukee area. In either case this is excellent news, as I believe good tourism numbers relate very well to a city's overall success.

The Brewers success also probably helped bring in some people from around the state.

And I am sure that the Titanic exhibit, and the Body World exhibit at the public museum also helped our tourism numbers.

Interesting article on a topic we were discussing earlier:

http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/5.15.09issue/roundys.jpg

Milwaukee-based Roundy’s Supermarkets Inc. has two stores downtown about one-third of a mile apart and another store just north of downtown in the former Jewel Food Store at 1100 E. Garfield Ave.

“That’s a little different neighborhood from downtown, across the river the demographics change,” Livingston said. “People downtown aren’t going to go up there, especially with the two other stores downtown.”

The downtown area will get another grocery store next year. John and Anne Nehring, who own a Sendik’s store in Shorewood and Groppi’s Market in Milwaukee’s Bay View neighborhood, plan to open a grocery store called Nehring’s Family Market in three buildings that previously housed the Habhegger Clutch Shop at the intersection of Brady and Water Streets.

Other grocery shopping options near the downtown area include the Whole Foods store at 2305 N. Prospect Ave., the Milwaukee Public Market in the Third Ward and the Good Harvest Market organic grocery store also in the Third Ward.

LINK (http://www.biztimes.com/news/2009/5/15/real-estate-downtown-is-well-fed)

The new Derse headquarters recently became the first Industrial building in Milwaukee to receive LEED Silver Certification
http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/reweekly5.13.09/Derse-LEED.jpg

Two new companies have announced leases for Downtown Milwaukee. Miron Construction at 250 Plaza, and Town Bank at the Milwaukee Center
http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/reweekly5.13.09/250plaza.jpg

LINK (http://www.biztimes.com/news/news-by-industry/residential-real-estate)

The Milwaukee Job Corps Campus recently began construction on it's new $28 million facility on 60th and Green Tree.

The center "offers a link for low-income youth from 16 to 24 years old with education, job training and placement. Students learn a variety of hands-on instruction in more than 100 occupations, in a range of industries based on local labor needs among area employers. Job training is offered in information technology (IT), construction, health care, emergency responders, security and more."

The new facility featuring vocational training shops, academic classrooms, dormitories, a cafeteria, and recreation facilities, much like a closed-campus at a junior college.

http://www.continuumarchitects.com/assets/client_files/Image/v1/portfolio/Job%20Corps/cafe-int-view1.jpg

More INFO: Milwaukee Job Corps (http://www.milwaukeejobcorps.org/)
More Renderings: Continuum Architects (http://www.continuumarchitects.com/htmdocs/portfolio/portfolio_item.php?id=101)

(Hey Guys, sorry if I've had an excessive amount of updates. I got laid off a week ago, so I have a lot of time to dig for information.)

Outside
http://law.marquette.edu/building/images/illustrations/3drender.jpg

"Zilber Forum"
http://law.marquette.edu/building/images/illustrations/zilberforum.jpg

Construction Update
http://law.marquette.edu/building/images/cam/eckstein.jpg

(Hey Guys, sorry if I've had an excessive amount of updates. I got laid off a week ago, so I have a lot of time to dig for information.)



The more the better! Too bad about the lay off.

@Coldwake I'm pretty sure I said roads were subsidized. And here's some research (a bit dated but) that in fact shows this to be the case. In Wisconsin $1.29 Billion yearly comes from non-user fee related sources. That appears to be a pretty large subsidy for auto use to me anyhow.

report (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mmYJipJUWDQJ:www.busadvocates.org/busadvocates/articles/fares/1kFriendsRoadsFundingMar07.pdf+local+road+funding+wisconsin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

PS Apparently I was wrong on how they figured the ROI, but it is interesting that the TDA (note MilwaukeeD's post) say the ROI for transit funding is higher than for roads.

New Land is also working on plans for an apartment building at the northeast corner of Kilbourn and Van Buren avenues in downtown Milwaukee. The design for the project is still being finalized, Gokhman said. The city’s zoning for the site would allow a 20-story building with up to 230 units.

An article in the biz times posted this in February with an update on St. John's on the lake, but what is this little blurb referring to?

There is finally more equipment at the UWM site on North Ave, and it looks like the are starting to move some dirt around.

New Land is also working on plans for an apartment building at the northeast corner of Kilbourn and Van Buren avenues in downtown Milwaukee. The design for the project is still being finalized, Gokhman said. The city’s zoning for the site would allow a 20-story building with up to 230 units.

An article in the biz times posted this in February with an update on St. John's on the lake, but what is this little blurb referring to?

Here is a previous article about the site (and the one across the street) http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/03/10/story1.html

Still trying to track down the renderings... they were posted on this site awhile ago.

Still trying to track down the renderings... they were posted on this site awhile ago.

here is one:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=18898717&postcount=1214

And I am sure that the Titanic exhibit, and the Body World exhibit at the public museum also helped our tourism numbers.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit starting this Fall will probably be just as popular.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit starting this Fall will probably be just as popular.

The MPM is landing the Dead Sea Scrolls? Wow, they really have done a good job there bringing this kind of stuff to Milwaukee. Same goes with the MAM.

Two new companies have announced leases for Downtown Milwaukee. Miron Construction at 250 Plaza, and Town Bank at the Milwaukee Center


Thats good for 250 Plaza. Ever since Marcus (I think it was maruc?) pulled out of that building there has been a lot of vacant space. Thats definately a building that has been struggling.

@Coldwake I'm pretty sure I said roads were subsidized. And here's some research (a bit dated but) that in fact shows this to be the case. In Wisconsin $1.29 Billion yearly comes from non-user fee related sources. That appears to be a pretty large subsidy for auto use to me anyhow.

report (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mmYJipJUWDQJ:www.busadvocates.org/busadvocates/articles/fares/1kFriendsRoadsFundingMar07.pdf+local+road+funding+wisconsin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

PS Apparently I was wrong on how they figured the ROI, but it is interesting that the TDA (note MilwaukeeD's post) say the ROI for transit funding is higher than for roads.


Well yes, if you say all roads... but all that includes then is local roads, and I know you're not suggesting that we eliminate local roads.

It is interesting indeed with the TDA study... because the earlier report from them that I cited says the ROI is 1.66 for transit. If I have time I'll look into what changed between the two reports.

Of course I'm not suggesting eliminating all roads or all freeways. But when gas is burned on those local roads, which were subsidized be it by property taxes, assessments, sales taxes, TIF funding or so on, those taxes paid on that gas being burned is shifted away from where it was used, local roads, to non-local roads.

The Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design board of directors is reviewing four proposals for a new residence hall that would house 250 freshmen near the college’s 3rd Ward location.

One of the proposals would be new construction, one would be a rehabilitation and two would be new construction on top of existing buildings.

The RFP included a long list of stipulations that have to be part of the proposal, including a green design to fit MIAD’s environmental vision; double bedroom units for four students; staff studio apartments for one resident assistant per 30 students; laundry facilities; a fitness center; and a project delivery date by Aug. 1, 2010.

LINK (http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/05/18/story4.html?b=1242619200^1828382)

I read the article on the four site choices for a new dorm for MIAD.

The site on Menomonee Street which has the Snap Fitness is most likely not going to be one of the sites. Snap Fitness is a great business parter in the 3rd Ward, so locating a dorm building there is slim to none.

The site on Chicago Street which is currently listed as CitySide Plaza Condominiums would be the most cost effective because it would be on the same block they already have apartments for students.

For the building in South Water Works on Pittsburgh Avenue in the 5th Ward, it seems like a good option but I thought that much of that space is already leased as well as Bridgeview Apartments are already in the process of being leased on the site. So the option to locate dorms on Pittsburgh really isn't an option there.

What I think is the best option to locate a dorm for MIAD is on the 500 block of Erie Street. This is across the street from Harborfront and Hansen's Landing Condos. It is the last of the industrial buildings on the southeast end of the 3rd Ward and it is where they would build a new building. Also the warehouse to the east of this site which has an address of 100 N. Marshall Street is also for sale. I see this as the best option for MIAD to locate a dorm and future space because it will allow for future expansion. This also would be the catalyst project that could spur development options for the parking lots along Jackson Street and the surface lots on the Summerfest Grounds for urban development that must include parking garages for the festivals. So I suggest that MIAD go with this site as the option for a new dorm and for future expansion.

Full article coming on wednesday, but here's the scoop.

The owners of the Sydney Hih building are working on a plan to convert the vacant property on Milwaukee's Park East strip into offices, shops and apartments.



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/45343777.html

@skylinedude My guess is the MIAD site for the South Water Works site in the 5th Ward is actually one of the other buildings that Lighthouse owns on that site. They own additionally buildings that they haven't redeveloped on that site yet, that could make for a good dorm building. just a guess

I haven't heard anything on this project since it got approved. Has anyone else?

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/wa/watergardensign/watergardensign_story1.jpg

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/wa/watergardensign/watergardensign_story2.jpg

Full article coming on wednesday, but here's the scoop.





http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/45343777.html


I wonder what this proposal will be? Probably scaled back from the Kimpton Plans that were dropped.....


Riverfront party, events venue planned
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
May. 19, 2009 11:37 a.m.

Russell Davis, who operates Vecchio Bar and Grille, Riverwalk Boat Tours and other local businesses, wants to open a downtown outdoor catered event venue, overlooking the Milwaukee River.

Mondo Events LLC, a company formed by Davis, would host corporate parties, weddings, fundraisers and other events on the site, at 1027 N. Edison St., according to Mondo's tavern license application filed with the City Clerk's office.

Those catered events would be within a tented patio just south of the Highland Ave. foot bridge. The city-owned site is now a 19,985-square-foot vacant lot, which Mondo would lease.

Davis has approached the Department of City Development about leasing the lot, and the department is researching the idea, said spokeswoman Andrea Rowe Richards. A lease would need Common Council approval.

Davis in 2007 proposed an eight-story building for the site. The Edison Green development would have included a first-fllor restaurant, a banquet hall on the second floor, offices on the third floor and 25 residential condos on floors four through eight.

That project was not built. But Davis, in his tavern license application, said he still has plans for condos, a hotel and restaurant on the lot.

--------------------------------

Hopefully one day he'll be able to build something there!!!

I haven't heard anything on this project since it got approved. Has anyone else?

What about the bamboo garden in the 3rd ward, too?

What about the bamboo garden in the 3rd ward, too?

There was a recent update on that in the news. They're still building the plaza, but it sounded like the bamboo was nixed.

There was a recent update on that in the news. They're still building the plaza, but it sounded like the bamboo was nixed.

But the bamboo is what made it cool! If I remember correctly, wasn't that the winning design out of a number of contest entries? If so, the winner got jacked. It was never meant to be overly expensive so if money is the problem, why? It was planned to be a "make it quick and cheap" undertaking. I'm pretty sure this contest was held about three years ago and funding came from a tax on the adjacent condo development. Gov. Doyle awarded a $75,000 grant to the project a month ago too.

Full article coming on wednesday, but here's the scoop.





http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/45343777.html

That's perfect. If the Sydney Hih building gets rehabbed, then it was better in the long run the Palomar did not get built. The rest of that site will be developed eventually, we did not need that building to get annihilated to get the Palomar built.

@MilwaukeeMark Yeah, the neighboring condo building residents made a big stink about the bamboo park so that delayed it. And certain features were more expensive then planned so they've been scaled back. But some form of it is going in.

That's perfect. If the Sydney Hih building gets rehabbed, then it was better in the long run the Palomar did not get built. The rest of that site will be developed eventually, we did not need that building to get annihilated to get the Palomar built.

Cross your fingers they'll bring back the old design.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007169_jsdesign.jpg

Developers changed the design of the project on Downer and Park Place.

Old
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/373/61782066.jpg

New
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6053/25394239.jpg

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3136/78178559.jpg

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7233/30416288.jpg

I like how the new downer ave proposal has the curved facade on the corner instead of coming up sharp to the corner. It seems a good way to address the fact the across the street is the beginning of a residential neighborhood.

I dislike, however, that it's some cheap deco revivalist nonsense while the old design was very tasteful and modern. Contrary to popular belief, revivalist buildings spoil historic neighbourhoods, not reinforce them like the community would think.

Also I gave up hope on the old Ruvin design quite some time ago; you should probably too.

I dislike, however, that it's some cheap deco revivalist nonsense while the old design was very tasteful and modern.

Oh please, neither of them are all that fantastic and there's certainly not enough of a difference between the two that could justify such a dramatic shift in your stance.

Oh please, neither of them are all that fantastic and there's certainly not enough of a difference between the two that could justify such a dramatic shift in your stance.

Yeah, but I agree that when people try to make a building look old to fit into the neighborhood, it generally looks pretty cheesy. We'll see how it turns out.

Oh please, neither of them are all that fantastic and there's certainly not enough of a difference between the two that could justify such a dramatic shift in your stance.

I think that when a building is made with a cheap material like precast concrete and then shaped to look like something it isn't it's distasteful. The original was great because it expressed itself honestly through glass and metal. The change does not mark a shift in my support for the project, but I am dissapointed in the watering down of the design. Is it no longer in fashion to strive for the best, even at small scale?

I think that when a building is made with a cheap material like precast concrete and then shaped to look like something it isn't it's distasteful. The original was great because it expressed itself honestly through glass and metal. The change does not mark a shift in my support for the project, but I am dissapointed in the watering down of the design. Is it no longer in fashion to strive for the best, even at small scale?

Not in this economy, no. And honestly, I don't really think the new design is really that bad. Neither are great so I just don't see the watering down aspect when they're both urban mediocrity. Things like this happen all the time... Lakeshore State Park with no trees, benches or trash cans - Erie Street Plaza with no bamboo trees that were originally the main focus - UWM's Enderis Hall with a lack of a facade - It's compromise in the face of financial difficulty and various outside pressures.

I dunno... I just feel as though sometimes we're a little bit too picky. Sure, it's not super fantastic but really, is it astoundingly terrible? No. Realistically speaking, it's just another building that'll blend in to the urban fabric just as all the others have and no one's really going to cry about it ten years from now. If this was a 50-story skyscraper, we'd have ourselves a legitimate argument but for real, it's a three-story lowrise in the upper east side of Milwaukee. No big woop.

If this was a 50-story skyscraper, we'd have ourselves a legitimate argument but for real, it's a three-story lowrise in the upper east side of Milwaukee. No big woop.

I understand what you're saying. But even given the economic environment, I'd rather have a lack of development over poor design.

Yea?

Not in this economy, no. And honestly, I don't really think the new design is really that bad. Neither are great so I just don't see the watering down aspect when they're both urban mediocrity. Things like this happen all the time... Lakeshore State Park with no trees, benches or trash cans - Erie Street Plaza with no bamboo trees that were originally the main focus - UWM's Enderis Hall with a lack of a facade - It's compromise in the face of financial difficulty and various outside pressures.

I dunno... I just feel as though sometimes we're a little bit too picky. Sure, it's not super fantastic but really, is it astoundingly terrible? No. Realistically speaking, it's just another building that'll blend in to the urban fabric just as all the others have and no one's really going to cry about it ten years from now. If this was a 50-story skyscraper, we'd have ourselves a legitimate argument but for real, it's a three-story lowrise in the upper east side of Milwaukee. No big woop.

Did you read my post? This wasn't me saying 'I don't think it should get built now,' it's me expressing my disappointment. I'm just tired of people settling for less, because every time we do we lower our expectations and the projects we get handed to us fall in quality until we're stuck with ugliness everywhere. It's exactly why places like Mequon or Brookfield or Franklin are totally miserable places architecturally; because people don't care about good design anymore.

As an added note I am failing to see the enormous budget difference precast concrete would make over aluminium panels. According to you there is some great cost difference between the two proposals?

http://assets.bizjournals.com/story_image/243073-0-0-1.jpg

Less than four years after its completion, the $52 million Kilbourn Tower condominium high-rise on Milwaukee’s east side is undergoing a $1 million makeover to help sell the remaining 18 units at the corner of North Prospect and East Kilbourn avenues.

The 33-story, 74-unit Kilbourn Tower is remodeling its lobby, club floor and several of the hard-to-sell, two-bedroom units that face northwest, said Rick Ruvin, president of NAJR Properties LLC, a Milwaukee company working with the Kilbourn Tower developer to market the unsold units in a very tough housing and downtown condo market.

LINK (http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/05/25/story3.html)

Since I found out this last week about the proposed shopping area on the vacant land at Pleasant and Commerce not happening, it might be a good spot to operate a public "mini marina" for boaters and for some commercial space. This would provide an inland river location to have a fueling station for boats, boat slips, boat launch, a police and fire boat sub-station and a new section of the Riverwalk. This site can accomodate long trailers for boats. Other possible options for the site?

Other possible options for the site?

An enormous pit full of developer's money that potential tourists can go and take pictures of.

An enormous pit full of developer's money that potential tourists can go and take pictures of.

So are you just plagiarizing the chicago spire thread?

I like the idea of an inland marina by the way. I don't know how it's been since the recession hit... but before that both south shore and mckinely marina's had a year or longer waiting list for slip leasing.

May. 27, 2009 11:31 a.m. JSonline link (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/46241987.html)

Columbia St. Mary’s Inc. has agreed to sell its buildings next to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to a local developer, who would convert the hospital complex into space for UWM.

Developer Doug Weas recently signed a contract to buy the buildings, says Carlos Santiago, UWM chancellor. University officials plan to meet with Weas to discuss their interest in leasing the buildings for student housing, a health care center, child care and other purposes, Santiago tells my colleague, Erica Perez.

UWM’s expansion onto the former hospital site would be the latest in a series of university building projects, including a new engineering campus in Wauwatosa, and a proposed School of Freshwater Sciences on the downtown lakefront.

So are you just plagiarizing the chicago spire thread?

I like the idea of an inland marina by the way. I don't know how it's been since the recession hit... but before that both south shore and mckinely marina's had a year or longer waiting list for slip leasing.
CGII is just being a little cynical and I think he has good reason to be. As for him "plagiarizing" the Chicago spire thread? If what you mean by that is that CGII isn't thinking for himself then I know You don't know CGII very well. Him and I go way back to 2001 when he created the famous "What About Milwaukee" thread and let me tell yah, he does not plagiarize.

If what you mean by that is that CGII isn't thinking for himself then I know You don't know CGII very well. Him and I go way back to 2001 when he created the famous "What About Milwaukee" thread and let me tell yah, he does not plagiarize.

That was CG5.

This is CGII.

Two completely different people.

CGII is just being a little cynical and I think he has good reason to be. As for him "plagiarizing" the Chicago spire thread? If what you mean by that is that CGII isn't thinking for himself then I know You don't know CGII very well. Him and I go way back to 2001 when he created the famous "What About Milwaukee" thread and let me tell yah, he does not plagiarize.

Yeah, what Markitect said... er, actually I didn't realize that either. :)

But I was joking. They were talking about what to do with the big hole in the ground that currently exists at the chicago spire site now that they've stopped construction. A similar comment was made at the time about that hole in the ground and I thought it was funny. Even that comment in the spire thread was taken from a comment posted on a blog.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/mjs-zoo_-nws_-porter_-1.jpg

By Patrick Marley and Tom Held of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: May. 28, 2009 LINK (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/46322737.html)

Madison - Rebuilding the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee could cost as much as $2.3 billion, making it the most expensive road project in state history and almost three times as costly as rebuilding the Marquette Interchange.

Doyle has indicated he does not want to start rebuilding the Zoo Interchange until after work is further along on expanding I-94 from southern Milwaukee County to Illinois. That $1.9 billion project is just starting and expected to last until 2016.

The Marquette Interchange in the heart of Milwaukee was completed last year for about $800 million. It was the most expensive road project in the state when it started in 2004, but it has since been surpassed by the I-94 project, which in turn is likely to be put in second place by the Zoo Interchange.

The junction of I-94, I-894 and Highway 45, near the Milwaukee County Zoo, is the busiest interchange in the state, carrying nearly 350,000 cars and trucks each day. It also has some of the highest congestion counts - nearly 8.5 hours per day with slow or stop-and-go traffic, according to the Department of Transportation.

lets make the interchange a tollway and let it pay for itself.

I understand how costs go up over time, and I understand how important the Zoo Interchange is and can see how improvements to it would move traffic through better. It think it needs to be done. But how on earth is this going to cost 3X as much as the Marquette??? That's just craziness.

^^ Well, I guess this is part of it:

"The Zoo project also exceeds the Marquette reconstruction in geographic scope and lane miles, extending from W. 70th St. to W. 124th St. and from W. Burleigh St. to W. Lincoln Ave. The lane miles reconstructed in the Zoo corridor would exceed the total in the Marquette Interchange by roughly 250%, according to the DOT."

I will just assume that this is entirely funded by the gas tax. And to think that we are spending $91m on enhanced transit, how dare we?! That $91m could help pay for the zoo interchange!

Interesting article on the proposed school of Freshwater Sciences. It gives a good illustration of the area around the site, and design considerations that should be looked at.

Pieces of Eight Restaurant (Proposed location, that would be torn down)
http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007169_aafromdiscoveryworld.jpg

No Walk in the Park FULL STORY (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/46262867.html)
By Mary Louise Schumacher of the Journal Sentinel

Milwaukee has a new story to tell and, as it did eight years ago with the unfurling of Santiago Calatrava’s wing for the Milwaukee Art Museum, there’s a desire to tell it with architecture.

The new narrative goes something like this: postindustrial city on one of the world’s largest bodies of freshwater becomes global leader in water-related research, industry and education.

It's a noble idea, that the waterways around which our city grew, that first brought industry to life here, would give birth to new forms of industry and growth.

Milwaukee is already home to more than 120 water-related companies, including many of the largest in the world, as well as the University of Wisconsin's Great Lakes Water Institute and the new water-law curriculum at Marquette University Law School.

The notion that Milwaukee’s Midwestern, can-do spirit would be directed toward forward-looking water technology and address pressing, global issues of sustainability is wonderfully auspicious.

It is auspicious enough for a lakefront icon, many now argue. A proposal for a $30 million headquarters for UWM's new School of Freshwater Sciences, the first school of its kind in the world, and the Milwaukee 7 Water Council, is gathering support from community leaders.

http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/310buffalo.jpg

Milwaukee's Historic Third Ward, which is becoming the city's main fashion and shopping district, is getting another store. Lorena Sarbu, a high end women's clothing boutique, will in a 3,000-square-foot space at 310 E. Buffalo St. on Thursday. The store is located at the northeast corner of Buffalo and Broadway (the main shopping street in the Third Ward) and is across Broadway from the Anthropologie store. The store, which also has a location in Beverly Hills, will feature clothes from designers from France, Italy, Romania and London. Full Story (http://www.biztimes.com/realestateweekly/)

http://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/br/brick3open/brick3open_story3.jpg

The new Brick 3 Pizza has arrived in the former African Hut spot at 1107 N. Old World 3rd St., and from the looks of it, it's being well received. Sure, pizza's not a hard sell in this town, but when you see the customer line extending through the dining area and going down the back hall, there's got to be more than a classic crust, sauce and cheese combo responsible. OnMilwaukee (http://onmilwaukee.com/dining/articles/brick3open.html)

Downtown project will use new precast system

By Andrew Weiland email , of SBT

Published July 20, 2007

A 14-story mixed-use building under construction at the southeast corner of Juneau Avenue and Water Street in downtown Milwaukee will be one of the first high-rise buildings to use a new precast truss building system. The system shortens construction time considerably and allows for more flexibility in the use of the interior space in the building. It also improves soundproofing and fire protection for the building.

The system, called the ER Post Structural System, was developed and patented by Minneapolis-based Ericksen Roed & Associates. For the Milwaukee project, the system is being manufactured by Waukesha-based Spancrete Group Inc. Specific building applications are custom-designed and produced by Spancrete through a marketing agreement with Ericksen Roed.

The developer for the Milwaukee project is Fort Myers, Fla.-based Development Opportunity Corp. (DOC), which is building the $20 million, structure. The building will have a 128-room Staybridge Suites hotel, 31 condos and 14,000 square feet of retail space. DOC hired Park Ridge, Ill.-based Economou Partners, a design build firm, as architect and general contractor for the project.

“This will be one of the tallest buildings with this type of design,” said Paul Grimes, director of design for Economou Partners. “This truss system is fairly new, especially in a high rise building like this. There are only one or two other high rise buildings that have used it.”

The construction project began in May, and so far, crews on the site have been focused on drilling holes for large caissons. The building will sit on 45 to 46 caissons, Grimes said.

“It’s a lengthy process, because most of the caissons are five to six feet in diameter and we have to drill down about 100 feet,” he said. “There’s a layer of hardpan about 58 to 75 feet down that we have to drill through that is pretty hard.”

After the caissons are in place, construction of the building structure will begin in mid-September.

“That will go fast,” Grimes said. “One of the advantages of building a precast building is the erection time is half.”

It will take less than 100 days to put up the entire precast structure, Grimes said.

Once part of the precast structure is in place, crews will start to install the glass windows. The building will feature floor-to-ceiling windows.

“The glass people will follow right behind,” Grimes said. “The glass and precast will be going up simultaneously.”

The precast structure will provide clear spans of 75 feet, higher ceilings and more flexibility in designing the space inside. The system provides column-free spans, which is what allows for the increased construction flexibility. The new truss system has unlimited floor layout possibilities and is intended for use in multi-family housing, office space and hotels.

In addition, the structure can handle heavier loads, which allows for the 10-foot ceilings that will be a feature in the building.

“That gives it a really open space feel,” Grimes said.

Work on the precast structure began in November, before the design of the building was finalized, Grimes said, which sped up the process of preparing the structure for the building.

“Once I had a conceptual design, I went to Spancrete and they did it as a design-build,” Grime said.

The construction project is expected to be complete next summer.

So far, three of the 31 condominiums have been sold, said Lisa Aldrich, real estate broker for DOC Realty LLC and general manager for the Staybridge Suites and DOC Hospitality Milwaukee LLC.

The price for the condos ranges between $234,000 and $2.3 million. The largest unit is a two-story, 3,600-square-foot penthouse that will have a 2,400-square-foot, private, rooftop park with views of the downtown skyline.

The smallest unit will have 757 square feet of space.

The project is the first that Economou Partners has done in Milwaukee. The firm has done projects throughout the United States and handles all of the projects for DOC. It previously was just a design firm, but added construction to its service portfolio last year.

“It gives us more control over the design and over costs and speeds up the construction time for our clients,” Grimes said.

Go here: www.eyeonlombard.com Same Paul Grimes?

Go here: www.eyeonlombard.com Same Paul Grimes?

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, I really hope not. Especially because the article I posted talks about all sorts of new construction methods. Now, why'd you go and have to get me worried?

Third, does anyone know what's happening with the Columbia Sportswear outlet in South Water Works? Is that still happening?

I understand how costs go up over time, and I understand how important the Zoo Interchange is and can see how improvements to it would move traffic through better. It think it needs to be done. But how on earth is this going to cost 3X as much as the Marquette??? That's just craziness.

I agree, those costs are out of control. I seem to remember that the zoo interchange was going to be done originally at the same time as the marquette as sort of a side project and it was only going to cost a fraction of the amount that the marquette project did by itself. Now THIS?!

Give me a break, I can see how costs go up in 10 years... but by THAT much?!

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, I really hope not. Especially because the article I posted talks about all sorts of new construction methods. Now, why'd you go and have to get me worried?

Third, does anyone know what's happening with the Columbia Sportswear outlet in South Water Works? Is that still happening?

Have a look here:

http://www.atmiprecast.com/Lamborghini.html

That was CG5.

This is CGII.

Two completely different people.
Really? I didn't know that. CG5 has changed his name several times. It was originally City God, then CG5, I thought CGII was just another name change by him.

So, not only did this CGII plagiarize the Chicago thread but he plagiarized CG5's name? LOL!

I seem to remember that the zoo interchange was going to be done originally at the same time as the marquette as sort of a side project and it was only going to cost a fraction of the amount that the marquette project did by itself.

Your memory is wrong. The Zoo Interchange was never planned to be reconstructed during the Marquette rebuild. You may be thinking of the SEWRPC Southeast Wisconsin Freeway Study, which was done about the same time the engineering for the Marquette Interchange was being done (early 2000's), which put the price tag for reconstructing all the SE Wisconsin freeways at $6.2 billion. Or, you may be thinking about the initial scope of the Marquette Interchange project, which was supposed to go to 35th, the approach for the Hoan Bridge (Lake Interchange), south of National, and north of North. The scope reduction (25th, Milwaukee River, High Rise Bridge, south of North) is what got the price tag down from over $1 billion ($1.1-1.3 is my memory) to "just" $810 million.

Give me a break, I can see how costs go up in 10 years... but by THAT much?!

Well, take that $810 million, multiply by 3% inflation for 8 years, and then by 250% for the extra lane-miles, and you get $2.56 billion. Obviously I'm using a guess for inflation and every lane-mile doesn't cost the same, but it shows that the $2.3 billion isn't that far-fetched.

I hope they spend the extra $200 million to increase the number of lanes. That is only a 9.5% increase in cost for a 33% increase in capacity.

That being said, I think they'd be wise to spend an additional $200 million (or more) on transit for during and after construction. A commuter rail line from Oconomowoc to downtown, through Hartland, Pewaukee, Brookfield, and Wauwatosa makes a lot of sense. But then again, the KRM would have been a great investment for during the I-94 N-S reconstruction (again, for about the same amount of money they spent to upgrade from 6 to 8 lanes), and of course they didn't do that.

Third, does anyone know what's happening with the Columbia Sportswear outlet in South Water Works? Is that still happening?

The Biz Times had an article in February. Even though they were delaying openings in larger cities, the Milwaukee showroom was still planned.

Leasing for the building:
http://www.southwaterworks.com/img/201/Deco_elevation.gif

No Walk in the Park FULL STORY (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/46262867.html)
By Mary Louise Schumacher of the Journal Sentinel



I wonder why the public discourse doesn't include more than just one location. Have I missed any other alternatives? Why is this site better than others? Are we under a deadline where we don't have time for such comparison? The environmental planner in me thinks such analysis needs to be established in the public record. In other words, if the lakefront ends up being chosen as the best site, the rationale is well documented, and elected officials have something more than a whim to base their opinions on.


What other locations do you think are suitable? What are the criteria that would make such a location good?

Am I out in left field for asking this?

http://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/br/brick3open/brick3open_story3.jpg

The new Brick 3 Pizza has arrived in the former African Hut spot at 1107 N. Old World 3rd St., and from the looks of it, it's being well received. Sure, pizza's not a hard sell in this town, but when you see the customer line extending through the dining area and going down the back hall, there's got to be more than a classic crust, sauce and cheese combo responsible. OnMilwaukee (http://onmilwaukee.com/dining/articles/brick3open.html)

The owner of this place is the same guy who's doing the Moderne. You can often times see him working after bar time at the pizza place.

EDIT* ok, I just read the article... duh...should have in the beginning. It actually tells you what I just posted.

I really like the way the first building of the North End turned out....

That being said, whats up with the monstrosity attached to the back, facing the river??...The big windowless grey hulk of an attachment...

I figure it must be the parking structure but god is it ugly....And although those units on that side face the river, you would have to look across that ugly building to see it...

Anyone notice this??

That parking structure will be covered up when the more of the buildings get built.

That parking structure will be covered up when the more of the buildings get built.

Do you just mean we won't notice it as much? That may be true but I would imagine it will still be seen from Pleasant as there are no plans to build anything else closer to Pleasant nor does it do anything for all those residents that have to look at it if they face that direction. The integration of the structure into the building is horrendous.

Do you just mean we won't notice it as much? That may be true but I would imagine it will still be seen from Pleasant as there are no plans to build anything else closer to Pleasant nor does it do anything for all those residents that have to look at it if they face that direction. The integration of the structure into the building is horrendous.

You won't notice it, because it won't be there at all.

It's a temporary enclosure until the remainder of the block is built out.

Once the whole project is done, the middle-of-the-block parking garage will be wrapped with buildings on all four sides, and roofed over with a courtyard--so that grey hulk of an attachment will be gone.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6086/northendsiteplancopy.jpg

I often wonder if things would be different right now in the park east if they went with the Rana proposal instead of the Ruvin. Hindsight is 20/20... but looking at this article maybe there still would have been problems.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/46734677.html

Mortgage fraud charges against gas stations operator dropped
By John Diedrich of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Jun. 2, 2009

A year after Chaudhry Asif Rana was charged in federal court with mortgage fraud, all charges have been dropped against him, according to federal court documents.

Rana, 39, of Brookfield, who owns several Milwaukee area gas stations, was indicted by a grand jury in May 2008 on two counts of fraud. He faced up to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors agreed to drop all charges upon payment of restitution, according to the court file. No reason for the move was provided, nor was a restitution amount listed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka declined to comment. Rana's attorney, Michael Fitzgerald, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Rana, whose company made an unsuccessful bid to develop a hotel/retail complex in Milwaukee's downtown Park East freeway corridor, has been a frequent contributor to Milwaukee aldermen along with his wife, records show.

According to the indictment, Rana created false records to have an employee buy homes and lease gas stations in 2003, taking a cut for himself. The case was investigated by the FBI.

You won't notice it, because it won't be there at all.

It's a temporary enclosure until the remainder of the block is built out.

Once the whole project is done, the middle-of-the-block parking garage will be wrapped with buildings on all four sides, and roofed over with a courtyard--so that grey hulk of an attachment will be gone.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6086/northendsiteplancopy.jpg

Thank you. Appreciate the response.

I was biking past the north end yesterday, and the knuckleheads had a huge sandwichboard sign blocking the bike lane in the street. I am pretty sure there are laws against obstructing traffic lanes like that... it is to bad the police or whoever is suppose to enforce that kind of stuff doesn't.:bash:

So, not only did this CGII plagiarize the Chicago thread but he plagiarized CG5's name? LOL!

What on Earth are you talking about? My old forum name on SSP in 2002 was 'ChryslerGuy2' and I got sick of it after a while so I had it condensed. It's only coincidence that CityGod5 had the same initial+numeric sequence. I'm particularly offended that you should start libel like this against me.

As to the plagiarized comment, in case you notice, I have no business at this site aside from the local Milwaukee sections and subjects. I made the remark about the 'pit' completely unaware of any previous mention in any other thread anywhere else on the internet. I was merely suggesting that developers might as well throw money at something totally unreasonable as spontaneously and arbitrarily throwing out ideas for proposals of the mentioned site.

I thought I've been a constructive, knowledgeable member on this site, I really appreciate that it's been returned. :nuts:

I will just assume that this is entirely funded by the gas tax. And to think that we are spending $91m on enhanced transit, how dare we?! That $91m could help pay for the zoo interchange!

You answered yourself. That money is allocated for transit, not expressway reconstruction. Nor should it be, Milwaukee's transit needs help and it would be a slap in the face to users to pass the funding off to automobile oriented projects.

CGII, I was kidding about the plagirism.

Even if it was straight from another thread it wasn't the type of thing that really mattered. It's like repeating a knock knock joke that someone told you earlier in the day.

Ack, I'm a jackass.

Does anyone have any updates on the Moderne or if the Marcus Complex is still going up? I think those are the two coolest projects that haven't broken ground yet (to my knowledge). As far as I know the Moderne was approved but the Marcus is in limbo.

Also if anyone has any new photos of the Pabst project it would be cool if you posted them :)

I rode past the Moderne yesterday and it looks like they've put up a fence. I can't tell if it's a construction fence or just a strange maze of photographs for potential buyers, though. I'm hoping it's a construction fence. I love that building.

Also, what's the status of St John's. I thought that was close to a done deal.

Not particularly related to development but I found a website with a few pretty awesome Milwaukee/Wisconsin t-shirts - http://www.insomniacink.com/shirts.htm

And here's a link (http://betweenthebars.typepad.com/milwaukee_blog/2009/02/free-things-to-do-in-milwaukee.html) to cheap/free things to do in Milwaukee courtesy of one of my favorite Milwaukee blogs - Between the Bars.

I went past the Moderne yesterday and it looked like they were opening some sort of office above Suite, it looked like they were doing some remodeling there so they may be moving their sales center or something else off of the site where they plan to construct.... I am not sure.

CGII, I was kidding about the plagirism.

Even if it was straight from another thread it wasn't the type of thing that really mattered. It's like repeating a knock knock joke that someone told you earlier in the day.
And I was only going off of what you said.

And CGII, I also was just joking about the whole plagirism thing about the name. I did honestly think thought that you were CityGod.