So some negatives off the top of my head:
-Congested downtown deters suburbanites from coming down
-Congestion uses more gas and pollutes more
-Congestion hurts area business' accessibility (people may see businesses easier if they are going slower, but if they are hard to access and they arn't within walkin' distance you will lose a lot of customers)
-Traveling becomes more expensive (especially for cab drivers, delivery trucks, etc)



-Congested downtown deters suburbanites from coming down

Chicago's neighborhoods are made great not by the suburbanites that visit, but by the residents. And if the suburbanites in Chicago want to visit downtown or the neighborhoods, they have a number of options for ways of doing so. Brady Street is normally congested when I'm there, and a very small number of the people there are suburbanites. Again I'm not saying that suburbanites shouldn't visit, but a great neighborhood should never depend primarily on the suburbanites for anything.

-Congestion uses more gas and pollutes more

Congestion also leads to a higher use of alternate trasportation, potentially leading to a lower net pollution. By area, Manhatten has some of the country's most polluted air. But by capita, each person in Manhatten contribute the least to air pollution.

-Congestion hurts area business' accessibility (people may see businesses easier if they are going slower, but if they are hard to access and they arn't within walkin' distance you will lose a lot of customers)

This is unfortunately true, but typically more common in places that don't provide residents the ability to easily walk to businesses.

-Traveling becomes more expensive (especially for cab drivers, delivery trucks, etc)

True, but that is the very thing that leads to great urbanity. People don't want to travel, so they do everything they need to locally. I hear there is a new Costco planned for the West Suburbs. Do we want people from downtown bypassing local stores to shop at Costco?

@El Mariachi Well Target for the me the great spot would be backing up to 794 on the vacant surface lot on Michigan. Partially because I don't expect much of a building out of Target (remember Minneapolis is Target's headquarter so yeah better design) so the back would front the freeway.

You mean that lot just to the south of the Grand Ave.? Yeah, that's an awful stretch that needs to be redeveloped. I always thought that Target would be more open to a better design then the other big boxes. The one in Minneapolis is great, but your right about it being the flagship store of the company.

Everst College to proceed with building plans (http://www.jsonline.com/business/81332417.html)
The debate over the school, which has simmered in recent weeks, has shaped up as an issue of economic development.

At a news conference, officials from California-based Corinthian Colleges Inc. outlined the benefits of building a new campus adjacent to Milwaukee's Park East corridor, which is made up of largely vacant buildings and empty lots.


UWM Columbia Dorms to Have fewer beds (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/81194187.html)
Santiago, speaking at a UW System Boad of Regents meeting last Friday, said the need for student dormitories is "less acute" because of new residence halls that the university is developing.

Santiago didn't mention a revised, smaller number for student housing at Columbia. But he told the regents that the new 700-bed Cambridge Commons residence hall, which is under construction, will allow UWM to provide 4,060 beds for its incoming fall freshman class, estimated at 4,100 students.

UWM plans $75 million academic building on east side campus (http://www.biztimes.com/realestateweekly/2010/1/13/)
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is planning another major building project that has been overshadowed by its numerous other real estate projects.
UWM plans to build a 5- to 6-story, 150,000 to 200,000-square-foot integrated research complex building at the northwest corner of Kenwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue at the school’s main campus on the east side of Milwaukee.
The facility will provide integrated space for academic departments for research and collaboration including the physics, biology, geology and chemistry departments.
“It’s a very important project for UWM,” said David Miller, associate vice president of capital planning for UW system. “This will be a cornerstone building at UWM. It’s a very large project. It’s the first large academic building built on the campus in 20 years.”
The facility will be the first of a three-phase project to redevelop the entire block with 500,000 square feet of new building space, Miller said. Groundbreaking for the project is expected in 2012, he said.
The project is one of several building projects that will be funded by the $240 million that was allocated for UWM building projects in the last state budget. Each project still needs to be approved by the state legislature. Other projects include the proposed Freshwater Sciences facility, the proposed engineering campus in Wauwatosa, the School of Public Health project and the planned purchase and redevelopment of the Columbia Hospital complex.

New office building coming to downtown, broker says

By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 14, 2010 10:16 a.m.

A demand for new office space will spark the development of a new building in downtown Milwaukee in 2010.

That's the view of Steve Palec, a senior vice president at C.B. Richard Ellis Inc.'s Wisconsin office. Palec, an office leasing broker, made those remarks at this morning's Institute of Real Estate Management Milwaukee Chapter's annual Forecast Breakfast, at the Italian Community Center.

Palec told the crowd that the vacancy rate for downtown office space is 18%.

But Class A space east of the Milwaukee River--i.e., downtown's newest and most expensive space--has a vacancy rate of 8.5%, he said. There are major companies looking to either expand downtown, or relocate to downtown from the suburbs, Palec said, and developers are competing for those pending deals.

"There will be a new downtown building," Palec said. "Somebody is going to win the race."

As I've previously reported, prospective tenants include accounting firm Baker Tilly, engineering firm CH2M Hill and law firm Godfrey & Kahn.

Possible locations include a parcel next to the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 N. Broadway; a site at E. Michigan St. and N. Cass St., east of the U.S. Bank Center's new parking structure, and the area bordered by N. Water St., E. Knapp St. and the Milwaukee River.

I'll have a longer story, including forecasts on the apartment, condo, retail and industrial markets, later at JSOnline.com, and in Friday's Journal Sentinel.

The Water and Knapp location is the best on this list.

Think it's possible it could be in the 30+ story range at all?

-Congested downtown deters suburbanites from coming down

Chicago's neighborhoods are made great not by the suburbanites that visit, but by the residents. And if the suburbanites in Chicago want to visit downtown or the neighborhoods, they have a number of options for ways of doing so. Brady Street is normally congested when I'm there, and a very small number of the people there are suburbanites. Again I'm not saying that suburbanites shouldn't visit, but a great neighborhood should never depend primarily on the suburbanites for anything.

-Congestion uses more gas and pollutes more

Congestion also leads to a higher use of alternate trasportation, potentially leading to a lower net pollution. By area, Manhatten has some of the country's most polluted air. But by capita, each person in Manhatten contribute the least to air pollution.

-Congestion hurts area business' accessibility (people may see businesses easier if they are going slower, but if they are hard to access and they arn't within walkin' distance you will lose a lot of customers)

This is unfortunately true, but typically more common in places that don't provide residents the ability to easily walk to businesses.

-Traveling becomes more expensive (especially for cab drivers, delivery trucks, etc)

True, but that is the very thing that leads to great urbanity. People don't want to travel, so they do everything they need to locally. I hear there is a new Costco planned for the West Suburbs. Do we want people from downtown bypassing local stores to shop at Costco?

Sorry that I got us off topic, it's a good discussion so if we keep going we should probably move it... but anyway!

You can't compare Milwaukee to Chicago and Manhatten... they are at a critical mass where congestion won't affect them as much. A city like Milwaukee though, that is trying to grow it's downtown, can very much be affected. Especially since our downtown area is still mostly used by suburbanites coming downtown to work and play.

Brady street is the exception that proves the rule that you need a high concentration of residents to have a street work in the manner you described. Most of downtown does not have that. Thus, congestion will hurt the area way too much to make the positives worth it.

The same facts lend itself to your other points. Manhatten has good shopping, great alternative transportation in place already, and other things that both draw people to it and make it livable. Our city isn't livable without a car for most people and won't be for a long long time. Hurting our city NOW will only make it harder to create the awesome urban experience that we want later. The more people drawn to downtown the more people will move downtown.

(I'm referring to downtown, not the lower east side by the way. Thats where this project is proposed for, and thats where the original comments on congestion was directed)

You can't compare Milwaukee to Chicago and Manhatten... they are at a critical mass where congestion won't affect them as much. A city like Milwaukee though, that is trying to grow it's downtown, can very much be affected. Especially since our downtown area is still mostly used by suburbanites coming downtown to work and play.

Actually you CAN compare Milwaukee to Chicago. The former might not be anywhere near as large in population or geography as the latter, however they do have similar population density figures... Chicago's is higher, but not THAT much higher. Milwaukee's population density is higher than many many other cities in America, including Los Angeles, although that should be no surprise. I think updated figures will show that with all the added housing downtown and in the near downtown, population density in the area has gone even more. It's not just a city like Atlanta or Houston where people work downtown during the day and then go home at night and maybe come on a weekend night for a performance. An increasing number of Milwaukeeans work AND live in or near the city centre. Brady Street, after all, is very near downtown and shares resources with it all the time.


The same facts lend itself to your other points. Manhatten has good shopping, great alternative transportation in place already, and other things that both draw people to it and make it livable. Our city isn't livable without a car for most people and won't be for a long long time. Hurting our city NOW will only make it harder to create the awesome urban experience that we want later. The more people drawn to downtown the more people will move downtown.

Sorry, pet peeve but it's "Manhattan". And I would have to take issue with your opinion that Milwaukee is not livable without a car-- I personally take the bus and ride my bike everywhere. I rarely use my car. Indeed, I lived in the city for over 8 years without a car. It can be done, although I would say that it's not as easy as in places like NYC, DC or Chicago. This is all the more reason Milwaukee MUST build a comprehensive mass transit system. If I held the reins, Federal funding would have afforded Milwaukee a subway system long ago, like they did for other cities in the US. Now we have to push for the KRM commuter line and the Milwaukee connector as viable options to improve transit in our city.

There is no reason cars need to be going 45 mph driving through downtown streets. Congestion is definitely a good thing. Slowing down cars will get people to park and walk and take mass transit instead. The draw for places like Manhattan and Chicago and Paris and London is that they ARE congested places. Their city centres are like the happening party on the block. People are social animals-- when there's a lot of us congregated in an area, we want to join in. The reason people move to New York isn't because the streets are empty and traffic flows easily-- it's because the streets are JAMMED with people and it makes it exciting and vibrant and an interesting place. Congestion = good.

One last point about there being safety in numbers. It's true to a large extent that a street full of people is often going to be safer than a street void of people. Many of our city streets were overbuilt and made far too wide -- and many of our sidewalks are extremely too narrow with no room for landscaping. Narrowing the streets will allow for beautification that will also help bring up property values.

Think it's possible it could be in the 30+ story range at all?

It might just be a hunch but being that several office projects have come up nearly to surface only to drop back down over the last few years, I feel like this has just created a pent up demand for even more office space that may very well yield a high-rise tower that is comparable in height to the US Bank building. This is just my opinion, though.

I moved our discussion to a seperate thread so we don't have to fill up the development thread.

I moved our discussion to a seperate thread so we don't have to fill up the development thread.

heh... thanks, i saw that... although people in the Green Bay and Indianapolis development threads post nonsense all the time :lol:

Haha yeah I know. Besides wanting to follow the rules I was also thinking others from outside Milwaukee could weigh in. :-)

Actually you CAN compare Milwaukee to Chicago. The former might not be anywhere near as large in population or geography as the latter, however they do have similar population density figures... Chicago's is higher, but not THAT much higher. Milwaukee's population density is higher than many many other cities in America, including Los Angeles, although that should be no surprise.

^ Do you ever use facts to back your arguments? This statement is an absolute lie.

Chicago's population density is double that of Milwaukee, and LA proper's population density is indeed higher than Milwaukee's.

Chicago: Between 12-13,000 ppm
LA: Between 8-9,000 ppm
Milwaukee: Just over 6,000 ppm

See, I said that in the other thread. haha

I remember in one of the articles about the new research complex on UWM's campus that the first phase that will be built will not require the demolition of the Kunkle Center that currently occupies the SE corner of the SW quadrant. Does anybody know if that means that the first phase will be constructed on the current parking lot just north of the Kunkle Center??

^ Do you ever use facts to back your arguments? This statement is an absolute lie.

Chicago's population density is double that of Milwaukee, and LA proper's population density is indeed higher than Milwaukee's.

Chicago: Between 12-13,000 ppm
LA: Between 8-9,000 ppm
Milwaukee: Just over 6,000 ppm
Jesus Christ, calm down. I post a lot on here from my iPhone which makes it difficult to copy/paste references. All I can say is I am finding conflicting numbers on pop density maybe some of it is old data but where are you getting these LA numbers? I am seeing It listed max at 7,900 and some lists place Milwaukee above Boston in pop density others put Boston way above. I will find the list that has Milwaukee above LA since you're having a fit.

New office building coming to downtown, broker says

By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 14, 2010 10:16 a.m.

A demand for new office space will spark the development of a new building in downtown Milwaukee in 2010.

That's the view of Steve Palec, a senior vice president at C.B. Richard Ellis Inc.'s Wisconsin office. Palec, an office leasing broker, made those remarks at this morning's Institute of Real Estate Management Milwaukee Chapter's annual Forecast Breakfast, at the Italian Community Center.

Palec told the crowd that the vacancy rate for downtown office space is 18%.

But Class A space east of the Milwaukee River--i.e., downtown's newest and most expensive space--has a vacancy rate of 8.5%, he said. There are major companies looking to either expand downtown, or relocate to downtown from the suburbs, Palec said, and developers are competing for those pending deals.

"There will be a new downtown building," Palec said. "Somebody is going to win the race."

As I've previously reported, prospective tenants include accounting firm Baker Tilly, engineering firm CH2M Hill and law firm Godfrey & Kahn.

Possible locations include a parcel next to the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 N. Broadway; a site at E. Michigan St. and N. Cass St., east of the U.S. Bank Center's new parking structure, and the area bordered by N. Water St., E. Knapp St. and the Milwaukee River.

I'll have a longer story, including forecasts on the apartment, condo, retail and industrial markets, later at JSOnline.com, and in Friday's Journal Sentinel.

I don't remember this article ever being posted, it's about the reasons why Milwaukee office vacancy rate for class A office space is so much lower than other cities. Dated 1-5-09

http://www.jsonline.com/business/37090444.html

It might just be a hunch but being that several office projects have come up nearly to surface only to drop back down over the last few years, I feel like this has just created a pent up demand for even more office space that may very well yield a high-rise tower that is comparable in height to the US Bank building. This is just my opinion, though.

I agree, but in a recent article Tom posted it said that the proposed tower was only going to be 12 stories, apparently. If it's that short, that's kinda lame. I really hope it's gonna be tall enough to actually be worth noting (at least 25 stories).

@perilouspete I know this is skyscrapercity.com but much more important than the number of floors is if the building continues to fill in vacant or semi-vacant (surface parking lot, or even structure parking garage space) land. That's my take anyhow.

Everst College to proceed with building plans (http://www.jsonline.com/business/81332417.html)
The debate over the school, which has simmered in recent weeks, has shaped up as an issue of economic development.

At a news conference, officials from California-based Corinthian Colleges Inc. outlined the benefits of building a new campus adjacent to Milwaukee's Park East corridor, which is made up of largely vacant buildings and empty lots.

.

I heard about the opposition to this listening to Sykes radio show earlier today and it kind of frustrated me. It reminded me of a few years ago when other nitwits running this city were not happy about BuySeasons moving to the Valley because they didn't think the jobs payed enough.

@perilouspete I know this is skyscrapercity.com but much more important than the number of floors is if the building continues to fill in vacant or semi-vacant (surface parking lot, or even structure parking garage space) land. That's my take anyhow.

I think the vast majority would agree with you. Skyking, at last check, was banned and he was one of the few that seemed to prefer a single 1000ft tower opposed to a Park East filled in with a bunch of 10-25 story towers.

Don't get me wrong--I would be pretty excited if we could finally build something taller then the U.S. Bank, but I don't see that happening.

Well ok, don't write me off as the crazy guy who only wants big buildings and nothing else. I would much rather see a 2-story building go up than an parking lot occupying the land as well. But I guess I'm always hoping that Milwaukee keeps pushing for some bigger buildings (and that takes tenant demand, obviously). I live with a reality mindset but always dream big. I guess that's why I want to get into development when I get out of college.

@perilouspete Fair enough. I do enjoy seeing the bigger projects come along too. The Moderne and St John's on the Lake should keep us busy for awhile! I've actually been pretty impressed that though this downturn Milwaukee has still been filling in with projects like Corcoran Lofts, Jackson Square Apartments, Cambridge Commons, ALoft, and Latitude.

@Twoaday I totally agree, MKE has a solid amount of development going on right now and I'm thankful for it. I guess we all get greedy sometimes, but I'm proud of what has been happening, especially the Moderne. Absolutely love that tower and can't wait to see what it will do for that part of the city. It's beautiful.

Btw, if that office tower is to be built at the area bordered by N. Water St., E. Knapp St. and the Milwaukee River, as the article lists, I realllly hope it's the Marcus Complex:

http://eppsteinuhen.com/portfolio/project_detail.cfm?m=2&id=244

I've been pretty excited about this project since it was proposed but there's been no word on it for at least a couple years.

Jesus Christ, calm down. I post a lot on here from my iPhone which makes it difficult to copy/paste references. All I can say is I am finding conflicting numbers on pop density maybe some of it is old data but where are you getting these LA numbers? I am seeing It listed max at 7,900 and some lists place Milwaukee above Boston in pop density others put Boston way above. I will find the list that has Milwaukee above LA since you're having a fit.

you need to do research before making claims of pop. density. Or any other claims.

Btw, if that office tower is to be built at the area bordered by N. Water St., E. Knapp St. and the Milwaukee River, as the article lists, I realllly hope it's the Marcus Complex:

http://eppsteinuhen.com/portfolio/project_detail.cfm?m=2&id=244

I've been pretty excited about this project since it was proposed but there's been no word on it for at least a couple years.

Completely agree. That is my absolute favorite proposal BY FAR. I've wanted that building more than Moderne, Lake Pointe, and University Club Tower combined. I don't care that it's not the tallest building.

I agree, but in a recent article Tom posted it said that the proposed tower was only going to be 12 stories, apparently. If it's that short, that's kinda lame. I really hope it's gonna be tall enough to actually be worth noting (at least 25 stories).

Wasn't that the tower being talked about for Johnson Controls??? Anyone know if these are two separate projects????


I heard about the opposition to this listening to Sykes radio show earlier today and it kind of frustrated me. It reminded me of a few years ago when other nitwits running this city were not happy about BuySeasons moving to the Valley because they didn't think the jobs payed enough.

What I heard about the college was that it had had legal problems in other state with credits not transferring to higher universities, and also it would replicate some of the programs already available, at a reasonable price, from MATC, in essence creating very close competition with MATC's dowtown campus....?

^ Do you ever use facts to back your arguments? This statement is an absolute lie.

Chicago's population density is double that of Milwaukee, and LA proper's population density is indeed higher than Milwaukee's.

Chicago: Between 12-13,000 ppm
LA: Between 8-9,000 ppm
Milwaukee: Just over 6,000 ppm

First of all, your statistics are wrong.

Second, people per square mile calculations are disingenuous to the urban fabric and true nature of densities in cities. The way tose numbers are generated is a simple 'population/size' equation. This method of tabulating densities calculates New York City's density as being less that of Los Angeles, or that Tampa is denser than Boston, which is obviously incorrect.

There is no way to correctly calculate density of a city since there are so many definitions that need to be applied to 'city' and 'density.' However, the most reliable way of calculating this to have been developed is the weighted population, which examines population trends in cities and acknowledges that in a city like New York, while statistically 'less dense' than Los Angeles, a greater percentage of New York's population lives in a dense area than that of LA, meaning that New York is a denser city because, essentially, the dense parts of NY are more important than those of LA. You can read the further logic here: http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/03/perceived-densi.html
An extreme but simple example: Suppose Metropolis consists of a central core of 100,000 residents on 10 square miles, and a suburb of 10,000 on 100 square miles. Its standard density is 1,000 persons per square mile.

But this is a meaningless number. Most of the residents of Metropolis live in a very dense environment. The roughly 90% who live in the core are packed in at 10,000 per square mile, while just 10% live at the rural density of 100 per square mile. By giving the core's density a weight of 90%, we get an adjusted density of 9,100 persons per square mile, a much better description of the density perceived by the average resident.

In a weighted density calculation [http://www.scribd.com/doc/2367901/Urbanized-areas-census-tract-weighted-densities-corrected], New York is number 1, and while Los Angeles is more dense than Chicago or Milwaukee, it is still very important to note that Milwaukee is the densest city in the Midwest outside Chicago, a fact not necessarily represented by the perceived density of its housing stock. This means that, while it may lack the townhouses of Cincinnati or St. Louis, urban Milwaukee is thoroughly populated and, what's more, a greater proportion of metro-Milwaukeeans live in a dense, urbanized condition rather than suburban than any other city in the Midwest besides Chicago.

Ultimately, yes. Chicago is very compareable to Milwaukee. Their histories run parrallel to each other, and while Milwaukee was never as big as Chicago, the two do share their fundamental urban genetics. Economy, landscape, building stock, social and cultural history, demographics, transport history [minus the el train], infrastructure, landscape, population trends, crime, public housing, parks systems, architecture... yes, there are great differences between Milwaukee and Chicago but if Milwaukee can be compared to any city in the world Chicago is the one to be made. Milwaukee may be composed of detached duplexes, bungalows, and walkups, but it is still a very densely populated city by American standards.

Wait a minute!
I thought the whole argument for light rail in Milwaukee
was that as a lot posters here wrote the Brew City is the "densest city in the Midwest." What happened to all the members of that band wagon? What's with all the detractors
here? :)

@historybuffer I doubt anyone argued Milwaukee is the "densest city in the Midwest" as we do have Chicago just down the lake. BUT Milwaukee certainly has better density (and weighted density I believe), than many cities that have built successful light-rail systems.

What I heard about the college was that it had had legal problems in other state with credits not transferring to higher universities, and also it would replicate some of the programs already available, at a reasonable price, from MATC, in essence creating very close competition with MATC's dowtown campus....?

Heaven forbid MATC has any competition. I heard people on the radio saying what you heard too, and I say to them, so what? I wouldn't mind if MATC shrunk and took less tax money from me... although knowing government controlled entities they probably would keep the same number of staff and just end up wanting MORE tax money instead of shrinking to the proper level.

And I've heard the same thing about MATC with credits not transferring... some do, some don't... but they lead students to believe they all will. I know more then one person that was stuck in college extra years because of their misleading information.

Heaven forbid MATC has any competition. I heard people on the radio saying what you heard too, and I say to them, so what? I wouldn't mind if MATC shrunk and took less tax money from me... although knowing government controlled entities they probably would keep the same number of staff and just end up wanting MORE tax money instead of shrinking to the proper level.

And I've heard the same thing about MATC with credits not transferring... some do, some don't... but they lead students to believe they all will. I know more then one person that was stuck in college extra years because of their misleading information.

MATC would probably take more tax money if they had less students coming in..., but as a recent graduate of MATC, it isn't rocket science to figure out what credits transfer where, actually they made it quite clear for my program and other programs I was checking out. Don't get me wrong they are probably taking way more tax money than they need, but they do offer real training for real jobs and are helping to put people to work in real careers in a shorter amount of time than a 4 year college.

What I heard about the college was that it had had legal problems in other state with credits not transferring to higher universities, and also it would replicate some of the programs already available, at a reasonable price, from MATC, in essence creating very close competition with MATC's dowtown campus....?

I read a little about that in the article and the problems they had---but I am not too concerned about it. The government needs to stop acting like a parent and let the market decide whats best. Just listen to the comments made by Alderman Coggs and how she views her constituents as a bunch of fools who apparently cannot use the internet or say no to recruiters. Not only that, but one of the articles claimed she and her supporters were complaining about traffic. Really? Oh my, we really can't upset those people living in government payed for public housing living in downtown, right off the freeway. Does NIMBYism know no bounds? :lol:

First of all, your statistics are wrong.

^ Thanks for the info, but I think you took a big leap by assuming that I was including suburban data.

I by no means was doing so. I could give 2 shits about the auto-sprawl, characterless, extremely low density of many of Chicago's worthless burbs, or LA's burbs, or any city's burbs, to be honest. Nor should I--most suburbs by every conception are allergic to density, massive centralized planning, pedestrians, and mass transit--the characteristics I associate most with the qualities of urbanity. Just because Schaumburg is 20-30 miles from Chicago means nothing to me when I am calculating Chicago's built density, because it simply AIN'T Chicago's fault that Schaumburg is the auto, cul-de-sac hell that it is.

Now in regards to density within city borders, Chicago is #3 in the nation (behind NYC and SF).

And in that regard, Milwaukee is nowhere near Chicago or many of America's bigger cities.

^ Thanks for the info, but I think you took a big leap by assuming that I was including suburban data.

I by no means was doing so. I could give 2 shits about the auto-sprawl, characterless, extremely low density of many of Chicago's worthless burbs, or LA's burbs, or any city's burbs, to be honest. Nor should I--most suburbs by every conception are allergic to density, massive centralized planning, pedestrians, and mass transit--the characteristics I associate most with the qualities of urbanity. Just because Schaumburg is 20-30 miles from Chicago means nothing to me when I am calculating Chicago's built density, because it simply AIN'T Chicago's fault that Schaumburg is the auto, cul-de-sac hell that it is.

Now in regards to density within city borders, Chicago is #3 in the nation (behind NYC and SF).

And in that regard, Milwaukee is nowhere near Chicago or many of America's bigger cities.

So you apparently didn't understand any of what I posted? If we're going to spend millions of dollars on a transportation network one needs to observe all the data for the entire metropolitan area. In those regards, the density, building stock, and urban fabric of Milwaukee and Chicago are very similar.

It's important to understand that because of the civic limits of where a city ends the density formula you presented runs into issues because the city limits include suburban areas. The city of Milwaukee is enormous, and was expanded multiple times over the past century to incorporate rural areas, and, as a result, much of it's civic data represents 'auto-sprawl, characterless, extremely low density' neighborhoods. But a city like Boston, with a compareable civic population, is not as expansive, and as a result, covers only distinctly urban neighbourhoods. Even further, municipalities like Shorewood, Wauwatosa or Bay View are continguous, urban extensions of the neighbourhoods of Milwaukee, yet are legally 'suburbs.' Because of all of the variations across the country regarding city limits and how people are populated within them, data analyzing the entire region is vital to calculating accurate data.

If you are only going to look at the data you want to look at, then yes, Milwaukee is much less dense than Chicago. But anyone striving for data based in reality than opinion will have to look at everything, in which case, Chicago and Milwaukee are cities which are compareable because of their historic similarities. What's more, Milwaukee is the densest city in the Midwest that isn't Chicago. Looking only at city populations and land areas in calculating built densities is incorrect and extremely misleading-you know as well as I do that Tampa is not more dense than Boston, which is a conclusion reached using the calculatory logic you presented.

MATC would probably take more tax money if they had less students coming in..., but as a recent graduate of MATC, it isn't rocket science to figure out what credits transfer where, actually they made it quite clear for my program and other programs I was checking out. Don't get me wrong they are probably taking way more tax money than they need, but they do offer real training for real jobs and are helping to put people to work in real careers in a shorter amount of time than a 4 year college.

I agree with everything you said, and I didn't say anything to the contrary to that in my earlier post. I'm glad though that they made it clear for your program what transfers... my main concern with that is when they advertise it as a stepping stone to a 4 year college, only for the student to find out that even if a credit transfers it doesn't line up with the general education classes required for their 4 year school. So sure, they get the credit, but they are still left with half the prerequisites needed which makes college an extra year for them.

So you apparently didn't understand any of what I posted? If we're going to spend millions of dollars on a transportation network one needs to observe all the data for the entire metropolitan area. In those regards, the density, building stock, and urban fabric of Milwaukee and Chicago are very similar.

It's important to understand that because of the civic limits of where a city ends the density formula you presented runs into issues because the city limits include suburban areas. The city of Milwaukee is enormous, and was expanded multiple times over the past century to incorporate rural areas, and, as a result, much of it's civic data represents 'auto-sprawl, characterless, extremely low density' neighborhoods. But a city like Boston, with a compareable civic population, is not as expansive, and as a result, covers only distinctly urban neighbourhoods. Even further, municipalities like Shorewood, Wauwatosa or Bay View are continguous, urban extensions of the neighbourhoods of Milwaukee, yet are legally 'suburbs.' Because of all of the variations across the country regarding city limits and how people are populated within them, data analyzing the entire region is vital to calculating accurate data.


^ Don't get me wrong--when it comes to defining the size of a given metropolitan unit, I'm all for including suburbs. It makes sense, since suburbs and cities often have codependent economies with shared commuting networks.

But when it comes to a transportation network (specifically rail), I could not disagree with you more. By failing to separate densities of various regions, one fails to accurately determine what regions need more transportation money than others. If you were to simply lump Chicago and Milwaukee together as regions of "near equal density" without considering the fact that in the city of Chicago itself, it is twice as dense as Milwaukee, and along its lakefront neighborhoods perhaps 4-5 times denser, how does one appropriately allocate rail infrastructure dollars?

Add to that the reality that rail infrastructure in the more densely developed city is far more likely to attract riders than in the sprawled out suburbs, I think it is highly important to separate densities between municipalities, especially when it comes down to issues of transportation.

It's common sense to have mass transit in the densely populated areas of the city first. I don't understand why you need to calculate suburbs in the equation.

It's for the simple fact that suburban areas are contained within Milwaukee's city limits, making any sort of 'city population/land area' calculation completely wrong, as the urbanized area of Milwaukee is not defined by the city limits.

The list I posted does not take into account suburban areas. What it does do is identify the relative density of a city by assigning weight to census tracts and determine how many people live in what part of the city. This method of calculating density accounts for the suburban areas of Milwaukee city and shows that urbanized Milwaukee is the second densest urban area in the Midwest that isn't Chicago because even though 600,000 people live across however many square miles, what is more important is the distribution of density within that defined space.

My point is that Milwaukee city is a very large land area; the core is very very dense and the outer areas of the city are very spread out. What the Urban Politician's statistics say is 'Milwaukee is not a dense city because it has suburban areas inside its city limits' but what my figures say are 'Milwaukee is a dense city because more of the people living in the city live in dense, urban conditions, than suburban,' which is more correct and relevant to defining the nature of the urban fabric of Milwaukee relative to how to develop a proper mass transit system.

I'd add that Milwaukee's density, whichever way you look at it, is higher than numerous cities that have built rail systems.

Can we start promoting Milwaukee as a walkable city? Maybe publish some cheap walking maps like Boston, and put up some signs similar to those in Cleveland? I happen to be sitting across from a family of four visiting from South Africa. They're just walking around the East Side, exploring the city. If only we'd realize that there are in fact tourists in this town.

^

But when it comes to a transportation network (specifically rail), I could not disagree with you more. By failing to separate densities of various regions, one fails to accurately determine what regions need more transportation money than others.

Milwaukee gets a disproportionatly anemic amount of transportation dollars compared to other cities and regions. If there is one single city in the united states that is overdue for some massive rail transit funding it
is Milwaukee and ONLY Milwaukee!


along its lakefront neighborhoods perhaps 4-5 times denser,

you've got to be kidding me. Along the coastline is where Milwaukee is probaby MOST SIMILAR IN DENSITY to Chicago! Have you even ever been to Milwaukee???


Add to that the reality that rail infrastructure in the more densely developed city is far more likely to attract riders than in the sprawled out suburbs, I think it is highly important to separate densities between municipalities, especially when it comes down to issues of transportation.

let's recognize that there are different modes of rail transit (lrt, commuter rail, hsr, other heavy rail) that serve different functions: some for connecting regions, others for use within existing dense corridors. Either way, you seem to not grasp the fact that rail almost always connects hubs of density, whether they are boroughs in a city or suburban "downtowns". Regardless, milwaukee, more than msp, FAR more than Madison, more than Chicago at this point needs rail transit dollars badly.

you've got to be kidding me. Along the coastline is where Milwaukee is probaby MOST SIMILAR IN DENSITY to Chicago! Have you even ever been to Milwaukee???


yeah if you include everything that isn't the downtown.....which in Chicago, that's obviously significant. if you're comparing Milwaukee's Upper East Side to Chicago's northern city limits, for example, maybe you've got a case. but don't forget, if we're just talking within the city, we can't include high-density areas like Shorewood to compare to Chicago.

Regardless, milwaukee, more than msp, FAR more than Madison, more than Chicago at this point needs rail transit dollars badly.

^ Based on what?

^ Based on what?

Based on the fact that Chicago and msp already have rail and Milwaukee has NONE!!! ZERO!!! Our tax money is going to build rail in other cities but
you are not returning the favour!

^ Based on what?

Remember our friend Max tends to have strong opinions on most subjects, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Well, this sucks....

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/82039532.html

Pizza Man Total Loss after Fire
By Sean O'Flaherty and Jay Sorgi
Story Created: Jan 19, 2010

(Story Updated: Jan 19, 2010 )

MILWAUKEE - Milwaukee firefighters are trying to put out a stubborn fire in a building that housed a popular east side restaurant.

Milwaukee Acting Fire Chief Michael Jones says about 150 firefighters are fighting a four-alarm fire which is believed to have started in the apartments in the same building as Pizza Man, on the corner of Oakland and North Avenues.

The building has partially collapsed twice and was described as a total loss. Officials say the fire is contained, but not under control.

The fire spread to four additional buildings to the east. The complex where the fire occurred also includes the CUSH Lounger, the Greek restaurant Grecian Delight and the Black and White Café.

Hours after the fire started, just after 3:30 a.m., thick black smoke filled the air three blocks away and made it hard for firefighters to breathe while trying to put out the fire.


"We're going to be here for several more hours," said Jones during a 7:30 a.m. news conference.

"We could see some partial (collapses) in another part of the building, so there is no intent on our part to go into the building at this point in time."

Roads were impassable for part of the Tuesday morning commute.

Crews had to contend with low water pressure, weather and issues with electrical lines and had to shut down gas to the building.

Authorities believe that most of the people who lived in the 10 apartments have evacuated the building and are accounted for at this point. There are no reports of injuries.

It is unsure how much damage the restaurant has sustained or how the fire started. Firefighters had been focusing their attention on the apartments, but were unable to get inside the building to battle the fire through at least 6:00 a.m.

Jones said the fire was so big that other municipalities covered some of the fire houses which had to respond to this fire.

The Milwaukee Fire Department has called in the state fire marshal and arson investigators to look into the cause.

The restaurant was founded in 1970 and has been well known for both its pizza and its award-winning wine selection. Its interior had a combination of stone, brick and thick wood.

A Milwaukee County Transit bus and Red Cross personnel are assisting those who had to be evacuated.

@historybuffer I doubt anyone argued Milwaukee is the "densest city in the Midwest" as we do have Chicago just down the lake. BUT Milwaukee certainly has better density (and weighted density I believe), than many cities that have built successful light-rail systems.

I do not know how far back these forums will go but for 2010 I promise I will
track down the comments I am referring to. :)


About Chicago vs. Milwaukee it was the railroads that forever changed
the course of history between them both cities had before the expansion of the railroads had similar populations. Both cities were at the same time
attempting to build canals or connections to Mississippi, but it was the railroad barons decision to make Chicago the hub of railroad westward expansion that made Milwaukee into the second fiddle it is today. This geographic relationship has blessed Milwaukee economically more recently than in the past and we are seeing the benefits of being part of an ever expanding megalopolis. From more out-of-state condo ownership downtown,
to burgeoning retail activity needing to serve those people and empty nesters Milwaukee is reaping the rewards of being
2nd.

And that is why boys and girls rail is the most important part of Milwaukee's economic future again.
The high speed rail corridor will allow businesses to locate in Milwaukee but still have the access to a larger metropolitan airport
like O'Hare, and other bigger city amenities at a lower
cost of living and operating a business.

Being 2nd isn't going to be all that bad this time around.

Well, this sucks....

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/82039532.html

That is incredibly sad news. Pizza Man was one of my favorite restaurants in the entire world. Their pizza was always top-notch, albeit a bit crazy sometimes (Artichoke & Goat Cheese I think I had once), and their wine selection was intense enough to make an Italian cry.

Wow that really sucks. I had only eaten there once before I moved out to NY but damn that's dissapointing...some of the best pizza in MKE...

Well, let's hope that all damaged parties were properly insured, and will be able to rebuild and reopen in a timely manner that maintains people's wishes.

I got caught up in the traffic snarl near the fire this morning. What a terrible loss for the Eastside. We're losing more than some fine businesses and housing, we're losing a local icon. You simply can't recreate the years of patina and memories that made the Pizza Man corner what it was. This will be a deep scar on North Ave until someone rebuilds there. Let's just hope we don't get the same garbage that was built on the former Century Hall site - an entirely anonymous, Anywhere USA strip mall.

This makes me want to go spend some quality time in other Eastside gems. Zaffiros is sounding pretty good about now...

I regrettably never visited Pizza Man in my 2 and a half years living here, which makes me even more sad that I missed out on such a wonderful place. I always thought it was a great looking building and appreciated its uniqueness. I heard nothing but great things about it. When I heard the news this morning I couldn't believe it. Why couldn't it have been a bad pizza place, like Zayna's? :(

On a more positive note:

Plans proceeding for hillside apartments on east side
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 19, 2010 10:24 a.m.

Wangard Partners Inc. is proceeding with its plans to develop a hillside apartment building on Milwaukee's east side.

The proposal, for a 68-unit development on land east of HighBridge condominiums, 1888 N. Water St., will be reviewed by the Plan Commission at its Monday meeting. That's according to a meeting agenda posted this morning.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82063907.html

The building doesn't look too bad, I just wish it did more to animate Water Street with perhaps some space for lease as a small shop or business. Oh well,at least it will help that section of Water St transform into a stronger urban canyon.

really sucks about that fire because that was a pleasant looking collection of businesses/resturants. Never ate at any of those places, but I was prohibited from going into Cush after going to a Bucks game because of my jersey.

Well, this sucks....

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/82039532.html

last time i went to pizza man I was rushed out of dinner and didn't get to enjoy it. Hopefully the businesses will be able to reestablish themselves elsewhere.

The thing im going to miss most is their sign that was a huge penis. Lol they tried to cover up with lights on the side and I never noticed until someone pointed it out to me... but once you see it its blatantly obvious.

I got caught up in the traffic snarl near the fire this morning. What a terrible loss for the Eastside. We're losing more than some fine businesses and housing, we're losing a local icon. You simply can't recreate the years of patina and memories that made the Pizza Man corner what it was. This will be a deep scar on North Ave until someone rebuilds there. Let's just hope we don't get the same garbage that was built on the former Century Hall site - an entirely anonymous, Anywhere USA strip mall.

This makes me want to go spend some quality time in other Eastside gems. Zaffiros is sounding pretty good about now...

i agree. those of you who never went to pizza man, shame on you! you should be exploring your city and trying different places all the time! this really depressed me to see this morning (the fire engines and helicopter got me out of bed pretty early this AM). i just hope the building is replaced quickly but with something with some real thought provoking design-- something worthy for that busy corner-- it could stand to be a bit taller than this sadly now destroyed structure, but not too much taller, as i wouldn't want to have some sort of parking structure as part of the new development. the worst thing would be to let the lot sit vacant for too long-- that building housed pizza man, cush, black and white and the gyros place... it was a MAJOR focal point of north avenue. if there is nothing there for a year or more, it's going to hurt businesses all along north avenue. at least there are a few new spots now open further east in the building that just went up where the old gas station adjacent to hooligans was. still, oakland and north... you have to put something good there.

Remember our friend Max tends to have strong opinions on most subjects, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

just because i have strong opinions, doesn't make my points any less relevant... to assume so would be illogical.

besides, didn't i already answer is question? chicago, msp already have various rail projects that have been amply supported by federal tax dollars. milwaukee has no rail other than the intercity amtrak service.
milwaukee is LONG overdue for rail transit dollars. you do not want to get me started on that tirade. milwaukee is one of if not the single largest city in america without a system of rail based mass transit.

in some slightly better news today...


http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/82084967.html

"RTA plan would allow Milwaukee County sales tax for transit
By Larry Sandler of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jan. 19, 2010 2:00 p.m.

South Milwaukee - Milwaukee County could create its own transit authority, funded by a half-cent sales tax, to take over the county's troubled transit system, under proposed legislation unveiled Tuesday.

The 0.5% sales tax would produce more than enough money to replace property tax support for the Milwaukee County Transit System. The new transit authority would be required to use the rest to restore bus routes cut since 2001, increase service by at least 8% or reduce fares by at least 30%.

After several months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, Gov. Jim Doyle announced the plan at a news conference at Bucyrus International corporate headquarters. He was backed by the chief executive officers of some of the region's largest corporations, who said the southeastern Wisconsin regional economy depends on reliable transit that isn't funded by property taxes.

That Milwaukee County authority would be part of a complex web of local transit authorities that eventually could merge into the existing Southeastern Regional Transit Authority, which already oversees planning for the KRM Commuter Link rail line. County or municipal governments could also form transit authorities in Kenosha, Racine, Ozaukee, Washington and Waukesha counties, but those authorities and the Milwaukee County body would only be temporary steps toward a single regional agency.

Outside Milwaukee County, the local transit authorities could be funded by local vehicle registration fees, hotel taxes or property taxes contributed by local governments, but they could not impose sales taxes unless voters authorize them to do so in a referendum. Doyle said Milwaukee County voters had already done that, even though the November 2008 vote was supposed to be advisory and was actually for a 1% sales tax that would fund parks and emergency medical services as well as transit."

On a more positive note:



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82063907.html

The building doesn't look too bad, I just wish it did more to animate Water Street with perhaps some space for lease as a small shop or business. Oh well,at least it will help that section of Water St transform into a stronger urban canyon.

Am I blind??? I don't see a pic anywhere?

Am I blind??? I don't see a pic anywhere?

Here (http://www.mkedcd.org/planning/cpc/HighbridgeZoning/index.html)

Here (http://www.mkedcd.org/planning/cpc/HighbridgeZoning/index.html)

Thanks, looks decent.

i agree. those of you who never went to pizza man, shame on you! you should be exploring your city and trying different places all the time! this really depressed me to see this morning (the fire engines and helicopter got me out of bed pretty early this AM). i just hope the building is replaced quickly but with something with some real thought provoking design-- something worthy for that busy corner-- it could stand to be a bit taller than this sadly now destroyed structure, but not too much taller, as i wouldn't want to have some sort of parking structure as part of the new development. the worst thing would be to let the lot sit vacant for too long-- that building housed pizza man, cush, black and white and the gyros place... it was a MAJOR focal point of north avenue. if there is nothing there for a year or more, it's going to hurt businesses all along north avenue. at least there are a few new spots now open further east in the building that just went up where the old gas station adjacent to hooligans was. still, oakland and north... you have to put something good there.

Wait... the entire block was leveled? Even Grecian Delight? I used to go there twice a week during my UWM years on my way home to Cambridge and Brady. Holy Moses, this has become a complete punch to the gut! I'm repulsed.

Just posted on Jsonline.com...

Plans for Marcus theater, offices in Park East moving forward
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 20, 2010 11:30 a.m.


A local developer hopes to begin construction this year on a Marcus Corp. theater, and an adjacent office building, in downtown Milwaukee’s Park East area.

The $100 million project would overlook the Milwaukee River, west of N. Water St. and north of E. Knapp St. The 2.6-acre site would be developed by Rainier Properties II LLC, led by Bruce Westling.

The site includes a privately owned parking lot, along with a small county-owned lot. The County Board’s Committee on Economic and Community Development meets Monday to consider extending Westling's purchase option on the lot, which covers just over 16,000 square feet, until June 30.

A commitee report says the development would include a theater operated by Marcus; a 10-story, 285,000-square-foot office building; a 560-space parking structure, along with restaurants and shops. San Antonio, Texas-based USAA Real Estate Co. would provide financing, the report says.

The office building, developed on top of the parking structure, would rise 15 stories above the ground.

Marcus Corp. is interested in the site, but hasn't yet signed a contract to operate the theater, said Doug Neis, chief financial officer.

An earlier plan, disclosed in 2008, included a Marcus theater, and said Associated Banc-Corp was planning to consolidate its local offices at the site.

Green Bay-based Associated, which houses most of its Milwaukee operations at 401 E. Kilbourn Ave., apparently is no longer part of the project. But there are other businesses considering an expansion or relocation downtown, as I reported last week.

The project, if built, would be a huge boost for the county’s lagging attempts to attract development to the 16-acre Park East strip.

The land, left empty when the Park East Freeway stub was demolished in 2003, has so far seen just one sale: a 2-acre site bordered by N. Milwaukee, N. Jefferson and E. Lyon streets and E. Ogden Ave., sold in December 2007 for $2,725,000.

After several delays, developer Richard Curto now plans to begin construction this spring on 121 apartments on that site. Curto also plans to eventually develop two hotels.

The 64-acre Park East area includes privately owned properties that have been developed, including the new Aloft Hotel, 1230 N. Old World 3rd St., and the first phase of The North End apartments, 1551 N. Water St.


----------------------------------
This could really kick start the Park East development. Exciting news!

I'm with you Milwaukeemark... this is very sad for me. Pizza man was my prime 1st date location and it always worked out well!!! NOW what am I supposed to do??

But really, I loved that place and that was a neat old building and sad to see it go too.

in some slightly better news today...


http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/82084967.html

"RTA plan would allow Milwaukee County sales tax for transit
By Larry Sandler of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jan. 19, 2010 2:00 p.m."


By slightly better news you mean...?? Thats like saying "Well, there was a car accident and someone died today. But in slightly better news today, there was a car accident and no one died."

I support rail, but not rail funded by a sales tax. This is more bad news in my book.

Just posted on Jsonline.com...

Plans for Marcus theater, offices in Park East moving forward

----------------------------------
This could really kick start the Park East development. Exciting news!

This IS exciting!! I'll believe it when I see it though... talk of a downtown movie theater has been around for a hot minute.

Now Milwaukyle, while not only having a more creative name, has actually brought us good news!

This IS exciting!! I'll believe it when I see it though... talk of a downtown movie theater has been around for a hot minute.

Haha, did you just use "hot minute" on these boards??

I love it! :cheers: :lol:

Now Milwaukyle, while not only having a more creative name, has actually brought us good news!


ouch - :lol:

Anyways, now that this news has cracked, let's hope the businesses around town that are looking for new office spaces inquire about this. If that happens, we could realistically have a 20-30 tower on our hands.

Plans proceeding for hillside apartments on east side/By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel/ Jan. 19, 2010 10:24 a.m.
Wangard Partners Inc. is proceeding with its plans to develop a hillside apartment building on Milwaukee's east side.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/looksee/metroplace.jpg

OMG!! This!! http://eppsteinuhen.com/portfolio/project_detail.cfm?m=2&id=244

I was really hoping this was going to happen, super excited! The only thing is that the rendering on that site is about 20 stories and this one is only 15...oh well, definitely psyched for this.

I could see this theatre to be similar to what Marcus just built in Omaha
http://marcustheatres.com/Theatre/TheatreDetail/181/?theatres=Midtown+Cinema+-+Omaha&zipResult=181

A mix of lounges, and dine-in eating.

Im interested to see if this project will look anything like the renderings done by Eppstein Uhen. I hope it does, great looking building.

Im interested to see if this project will look anything like the renderings done by Eppstein Uhen. I hope it does, great looking building.

Ya'll are really comin' out of the woodwork!

Welcome to the forum newbies.

Edit my last comment, the article in JS for the original Marcus design clearly states that it was going to be 14 stories (for the office tower part), my mistake. So this one could be taller (15), but we don't know if it will have the same design. I really hope they do keep the original design, I love it.

Thanks for the welcome. Ive been interested in Milwaukee's development for years, but just recently found this forum.

@periouspete

I feel like you're correct with the first statement. The rendering definitely has 20-21 floors and the blog article stated it would be 15 total. Hopefully it will keep the general design and just be scaled back a bit.

The renderings look like around 20 stories, but in this article:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/29560254.html
it says that the taller office tower was going to be 14 stories. It also mentions a 6 story parking garage, which if that office tower was to be built on top of it as the new proposal is, then 20 stories would make sense. It doesn't say one way or the other though.

I was also reading these articles a little more carefully, and if you add up all of the numbers in this article for the old proposal, it says that there would've been 453,000 square feet of office total space between two 6 story towers and one 14 story tower (if I'm reading that correctly). This new proposal only calls for 285,000 square feet of office space in one tower.

I'm sure no matter the size though, it will be pretty substantial if it's gonna cost $100mil. I can't wait until new renderings come out.

Just posted on Jsonline.com...

Plans for Marcus theater, offices in Park East moving forward
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 20, 2010 11:30 a.m.


A local developer hopes to begin construction this year on a Marcus Corp. theater, and an adjacent office building, in downtown Milwaukee’s Park East area.



What wonderful news to come home to! I have always been excited about the prospect of a downtown movie theater. Can't imagine a better location to have something like this downtown, being on the riverfront. Really am interested to see how this affects downtown and if it can bring more people downtown.

Hopefully, it would be like the Majestic with some more upscale theaters serving food, maybe an Ultrascreen, and some bars. That Marcus Theater in Omaha looks great, although I personally would prefer more then 5 screens if at all possible. Maybe 10? That one in Omaha is only showing 6 movies on 5 screens. I guess I can kind of see why they would go that route as to keep the theater more intimate and trendy----rather then showing blockbusters that will bring in huge crowds of teenagers (ie. Mayfair) who will trash the place.

Especially with the footprint that it will take up, in be a huge addition to the Park East and a real catalyst as well. With a 30 story apt/condo tower and a 15 story office/entertainment tower within two blocks from each other. That would be wonderful.

Maybe the Moderne is going to be the catalyst for construction to kick off in Park East, similar to what Colubmia St Mary's/Whole Foods did for North Ave.

I know there was a link posted, but I gotta post these renderings. I'm sure they change though.

http://www.eua.com/data/portfolio/B6&12_11.jpg

http://www.eua.com/data/portfolio/B6&12_3.jpg

And from the net:
http://www.bigscreen.com/Graphics/News_Events/2008/q2/marcus_parkeast.jpg

Just posted on Jsonline.com...

Plans for Marcus theater, offices in Park East moving forward
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 20, 2010 11:30 a.m.


A local developer hopes to begin construction this year on a Marcus Corp. theater, and an adjacent office building, in downtown Milwaukee’s Park East area.

The $100 million project would overlook the Milwaukee River, west of N. Water St. and north of E. Knapp St. The 2.6-acre site would be developed by Rainier Properties II LLC, led by Bruce Westling



The seagulls are going to be PISSED OFF!!!

I was playing with SketchUp, and drew up a project for the replacement of the the Pizza Man buildings (RIP). What do you guys think?

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1431/street2l.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7228/street1.jpg

I like the idea of all the glass but I'm not a big fan of the brick you've got in there. Reminds me of Golda Meir Library at UWM a bit. I think you're on the right track by going with a more "futuristic" design than using what was there before.

I was playing with SketchUp, and drew up a project for the replacement of the the Pizza Man buildings (RIP). What do you guys think?

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1431/street2l.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7228/street1.jpg


nice work, man! i like the huge windows-- even though pizza man was enjoyed for its cozy enclosed atmosphere with lots of crazily-placed bricks, low ceilings and all around cozy interior, that corner of oakland and north does lend itself to a design that is open and airy with lots of glass and perhaps a terrace/garden out front. i would say that maybe instead of the institutional brick, you could use warm wooden paneling, much like on the outer walls of manpower headquarters (i was looking for a picture of this online but i can't seem to find any at first blush-- maybe i'll snap some myself tomorrow).

The seagulls are going to be PISSED OFF!!!

LOL soo true...

Too soon eastsider... too soon. :-(

you know, i was looking at this (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pizza+man&sll=43.038902,-87.906474&sspn=0.372383,0.880966&g=milwaukee&ie=UTF8&hq=pizza+man&hnear=Milwaukee,+WI&ll=43.060395,-87.887704&spn=0,359.996559&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=43.06018,-87.887708&panoid=Zl8u7N7dbO85_U6bTi-Aog&cbp=12,319.64,,0,-5.45) and one thing i'd like to see when this corner is redeveloped is the electric and phone wires finally get buried--- what is it with milwaukee that we have such a hard time burying those unsightly wires underground?? it would seem to me that if we had started 20 or 30 years ago to do this, by now most of them would be buried already.

@MilwaukeeMax This issue is cost. My understanding is to do this would require a significant amount of cash (thousands of dollars) by property owners, not the city, to facilitate the new connections, to the existing buildings... Something like that.

So you apparently didn't understand any of what I posted? If we're going to spend millions of dollars on a transportation network one needs to observe all the data for the entire metropolitan area. In those regards, the density, building stock, and urban fabric of Milwaukee and Chicago are very similar.

It's important to understand that because of the civic limits of where a city ends the density formula you presented runs into issues because the city limits include suburban areas. The city of Milwaukee is enormous, and was expanded multiple times over the past century to incorporate rural areas, and, as a result, much of it's civic data represents 'auto-sprawl, characterless, extremely low density' neighborhoods. But a city like Boston, with a compareable civic population, is not as expansive, and as a result, covers only distinctly urban neighbourhoods. Even further, municipalities like Shorewood, Wauwatosa or Bay View are continguous, urban extensions of the neighbourhoods of Milwaukee, yet are legally 'suburbs.' Because of all of the variations across the country regarding city limits and how people are populated within them, data analyzing the entire region is vital to calculating accurate data.

If you are only going to look at the data you want to look at, then yes, Milwaukee is much less dense than Chicago. But anyone striving for data based in reality than opinion will have to look at everything, in which case, Chicago and Milwaukee are cities which are compareable because of their historic similarities. What's more, Milwaukee is the densest city in the Midwest that isn't Chicago. Looking only at city populations and land areas in calculating built densities is incorrect and extremely misleading-you know as well as I do that Tampa is not more dense than Boston, which is a conclusion reached using the calculatory logic you presented.

who cares about the suburbs, they won't take transit anyway. Btw. Boston is about 600,000 people for 48 square miles, anything like it in Milwaukee? cut up Milwaukee however you want.

Eastsider... I think your idea looks like a good start, but I am left question the intended uses for the building in your design. In addition I am wondering why you would set back the entrances so far when the sidewalk is already really wide. I personally would like to see the site redeveloped to about a three story massing on the corner which rises up to 4 to the east, with a strong corner and perhaps a sheltered/gated courtyard(possible atrium space?) about the width of one of the garage doors that made up Cush between the two pieces that could be used by a restaurant or a bar as outdoor seating as well as a light well, and which would be visible from the street.

@MilwaukeeMax This issue is cost. My understanding is to do this would require a significant amount of cash (thousands of dollars) by property owners, not the city, to facilitate the new connections, to the existing buildings... Something like that.

no, i understand that-- but it's been an issue for a long time-- I thought that over the decades, when street repair projects go forward and streets and sidewalks are torn up anyway, the costs of burying wires would go WAY down, compared to doing it as a separate project. that's how they got most of the wires in europe underground.

-- but it's been an issue for a long time--

I think streetlight lines are usually buried, but I'm unaware of buried lines ever being proposed generally for this city. Where have your read or heard otherwise?
Most other utility lines, at least in the older, denser parts of town, are routed through alleys, essentially invisible from the street. That's why Brady Street is such an anomaly. I don't know why this block of North Ave. also looks so slapdash. It has a temporary appearance.

Too soon eastsider... too soon. :-(

Oh man, sorry boss.

who cares about the suburbs, they won't take transit anyway. Btw. Boston is about 600,000 people for 48 square miles, anything like it in Milwaukee? cut up Milwaukee however you want.

If Boston's city limits represented a larger share of the metropolitan area, its density would be lower. Urban Milwaukee is extremely dense, but because its expansive city limits include suburban areas, its 'population/area' calculations will be disingenuous to the true urban fabric of the city. The simple fact is, more people in Milwaukee live in dense environments than suburban. Please go back and re-read my previous comments because you clearly do not understand what I am trying to say with these density distribution posts.

who cares about the suburbs, they won't take transit anyway. Btw. Boston is about 600,000 people for 48 square miles, anything like it in Milwaukee? cut up Milwaukee however you want.
So that's a density of 12,500 persons per square mile.

According to the US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=&-errMsg=&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=140&-redoLog=false&-parsed=true&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=4001|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=0.13750541748169456|dh=0.07569779903695369|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-87.94446894442277|cy=43.05183567607704|zl=4|pz=4|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=16000US5553000|ds=DEC_2000_SF1_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=140|mn=195|mx=29432|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Persons/Sq%20Mile|pr=0|th=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=555&-_lang=en&-geo_id=16000US5553000&-_pageX=646&-_mapY=213&-_mapX=288&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=pan#?484,217), Milwaukee's census tract 110 (along Farwell near downtown) has a density of 28,565 persons per square mile. Looks like over two dozen tracts have densities over 18,000 and that same amount again have densities between 12,000 and 18,000. So yes, Milwaukee does have areas with density that exceeds the overall Boston density. Quite a few areas, in fact.

If you'd read what CGII wrote, you'd see that he doesn't care about the suburbs in his density calculations either.

So that's a density of 12,500 persons per square mile.

According to the US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=&-errMsg=&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=140&-redoLog=false&-parsed=true&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=4001|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=0.13750541748169456|dh=0.07569779903695369|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-87.94446894442277|cy=43.05183567607704|zl=4|pz=4|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=16000US5553000|ds=DEC_2000_SF1_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=140|mn=195|mx=29432|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Persons/Sq%20Mile|pr=0|th=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=555&-_lang=en&-geo_id=16000US5553000&-_pageX=646&-_mapY=213&-_mapX=288&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=pan#?484,217), Milwaukee's census tract 110 (along Farwell near downtown) has a density of 28,565 persons per square mile. Looks like over two dozen tracts have densities over 18,000 and that same amount again have densities between 12,000 and 18,000. So yes, Milwaukee does have areas with density that exceeds the overall Boston density. Quite a few areas, in fact.

If you'd read what CGII wrote, you'd see that he doesn't care about the suburbs in his density calculations either.
for starters that census tract 110 of a population density of 28,565 people pere square mile has a total population of only 3085 people.

I still stand. Please divide milwaukee or milwaukee area anyway you want to get a population of 600,000 people of 12,000 people a square mile or 600,000 people in 48 square miles. Gerrymand away I don't care just come up with a similar number. It can't be done.

Why the sudden influx of Chicago formers? Not a lot of action in Chi-town, or just a general interest in Milwaukee going-ons?

I was playing with SketchUp, and drew up a project for the replacement of the the Pizza Man buildings (RIP). What do you guys think?


So, I was thinking about what should go in it's place too and one of the things I'd REALLY like to see happen before we move any further is the saving of the corner tower. I know that there might be some grout issues from the heat, but I think it's solid enough that it can be reinforced and stand alone until some infill building goes behind it.

Am I crazy to think that this is something worth saving?

So, I was thinking about what should go in it's place too and one of the things I'd REALLY like to see happen before we move any further is the saving of the corner tower. I know that there might be some grout issues from the heat, but I think it's solid enough that it can be reinforced and stand alone until some infill building goes behind it.

Am I crazy to think that this is something worth saving?

Would be great, but with public safety concerns paramount, I'm afraid it's as good as gone.

More good news in a blog post by Tom Daykin this morning. http://www.jsonline.com/business/82315282.html Things really seem to be looking up for the Park East. Possibly 4 construction projects going on this year with The Moderne, this apartment project, the new apartment proposal near N. Water and Astor and the proposed Marcus development. Exciting stuff!

for starters that census tract 110 of a population density of 28,565 people pere square mile has a total population of only 3085 people.

I still stand. Please divide milwaukee or milwaukee area anyway you want to get a population of 600,000 people of 12,000 people a square mile or 600,000 people in 48 square miles. Gerrymand away I don't care just come up with a similar number. It can't be done.
Yes, that is 3085 people in ONE of the 50+ census tracts with a density over 12,000 people per square mile. That'll add up to quite a few people living at very high densities. But if you're looking for 600,000 people living at that density in Milwaukee, you're right. But NO ONE here claimed Milwaukee had as many people living in a dense area as Boston. We're just saying that Milwaukee does have areas of high density and those areas are a good basis for having good public transit.

Would be great, but with public safety concerns paramount, I'm afraid it's as good as gone.

I agree that they need to get the street safe and open as soon as possible, but it wouldn't be difficult to put up some scaffolding over the sidewalk and clear out the Eastern half of the building. They could do that today if they wanted, and it wouldn't be horribly expensive. If anybody knows anyone related to or associated to the owner of the site, could you please plant that verbal seed? I really don't think it's too late to save that corner of the building, and I think it's worth saving. I called my mother and told her about the fire and the first thing she said was, "OMG, I used to go there all through college. So the curvy brick wall is gone?"

Why the sudden influx of Chicago formers? Not a lot of action in Chi-town, or just a general interest in Milwaukee going-ons?

hmm... I really like Milwaukee. So I apologize if it seemed like I was poking fun at Milwaukee. I feel, naturally after my home town bias, that Milwaukee's Eastside is the best urban neighborhood in the midwest, though Minneapolis' Uptown neighborhood is pretty good too. From diversity, nightlife, walkability, and beautiful lakefront neighborhoods Milwaukee in the midwest cannot be beat.

Last year a friend and I rented a car and drove up to Milwaukee. He is from HK to LA to Chicago and outside of Chicago knows nothing of the midwest even after 6 years here in Chi. We spent the day on the East Side and downtown. He was impressed and goes, I had no idea.

whatsup qwerty! :cheers:


Can we all just agree that Milwaukee is dense? Dense enough for mass transit at least. Looking at density figures, we are comparable to European cities like Rotterdam or Frankfurt. It always seems like density, diversity, and metro area populations cause the biggest disagreements on this website!

Speaking of mass transit and trains, do you guys think that the idea of rail would be more popular if they were talking about building a subway? I realize its more expensive and wouldn't serve the outer areas, but I imagine it would be extremely popular in winter to avoid the cold/snow and the traffic that goes along with that.

You are my density.

You are my density.

nice one, George McFly. :lol:

whatsup qwerty! :cheers:


Can we all just agree that Milwaukee is dense? Dense enough for mass transit at least. Looking at density figures, we are comparable to European cities like Rotterdam or Frankfurt. It always seems like density, diversity, and metro area populations cause the biggest disagreements on this website!

Speaking of mass transit and trains, do you guys think that the idea of rail would be more popular if they were talking about building a subway? I realize its more expensive and wouldn't serve the outer areas, but I imagine it would be extremely popular in winter to avoid the cold/snow and the traffic that goes along with that.

:)

unfortunetly I did too much of that last night. Had no intentions of drinking but as I was walking home late night the bars just looked to appealing.

whatsup qwerty! :cheers:


Can we all just agree that Milwaukee is dense? Dense enough for mass transit at least. Looking at density figures, we are comparable to European cities like Rotterdam or Frankfurt. It always seems like density, diversity, and metro area populations cause the biggest disagreements on this website!

Speaking of mass transit and trains, do you guys think that the idea of rail would be more popular if they were talking about building a subway? I realize its more expensive and wouldn't serve the outer areas, but I imagine it would be extremely popular in winter to avoid the cold/snow and the traffic that goes along with that.

thank you for pointing this out. A subway system is the holy grail of mass transit options. I think even those who are against building a tram on mileaukee's city street (the connector) would be for a subway. You are indeed absolutely correct in stating that with the weather conditions as they are in Milwaukee, underground subway stations would be popular places especially in the winter. I have lived in Washington, DC, New York City and Berlin, Germany and have visited cities such as Prague, Stockholm, London, Paris, Warsaw, Buenos Aires, Budapest and elsewhere and the subways in these cities make them all the more livable -- indeed, I escaped the cold rainy climate of Stockholm during my time there by staying in vicinities around their underground stations. Chicago's el stations are not fun places to wait for a train in bad weather, however even Chicago has some subterranean stops along the blue line which are wonderful.

The argument against subways is that they are "cost prohibitive" and just would be too expensive to build per linear mile than almost anything else. So, is it outlandish to conceive and dream of a Milwaukee with a subway? Not as much as some of you might think. Indeed, Milwaukee actually began to BUILD A SUBWAY in the early part of the 20th century! The line first planned was to go along the Milwaukee river north/south and intersect with an east/west line near then Grande Avenue. Construction began on building the Milwaukee subway but ended abruptly at the start of "the war to end all wars" (WWI), for which resources were needed to furnish weapons and munitions.
If it weren't for the ill timed planning of this project and the fate of war on the global economy, Milwaukee most likely would have had a fully functioning subway. Today, you can still see the first elements of this fledgling subway project under a few of the bridges along the Milwaukee river near kilbourn and state, etc. The archways built out of stone under the bridges were the entrances to the planned subway.
So, no, Milwaukee with a subway is not inconceivable, even though just about every engineer and planner today will scoff at the notion. Sure, construction can be very expensive but still, I wonder how it is that cities such as Washington, DC could construct a subway system in modern times then--using over a billion dollars of federal money, that's how. Why couldn't there be a stimulus package of large amounts for one city like Milwaukee then? For the cost of the Marquette interchange redux, Milwaukee could have built a subway system. Personally, while I know highways are important, I feel they are overbuilt and inefficient and I'd rather my tax money went to a proper rail transit system. If I had my druthers, Milwaukee would have no downtown interstate stretches and a comprehensive subterranean subway system.

It ought to be easier for a place like Milwaukee to build a subway than other cities--after all, we are the home of Bucyrus, a company that produces the giant underground drills that are used for tunneling under cities for subway lines!!!

:)

unfortunetly I did too much of that last night. Had no intentions of drinking but as I was walking home late night the bars just looked to appealing.

I hear you on that! :lol: Thursday night seems to be the unofficial start of the weekend nowadays for alot of people.

thank you for pointing this out. A subway system is the holy grail of mass transit options. I think even those who are against building a tram on mileaukee's city street (the connector) would be for a subway. You are indeed absolutely correct in stating that with the weather conditions as they are in Milwaukee, underground subway stations would be popular places especially in the winter. I have lived in Washington, DC, New York City and Berlin, Germany and have visited cities such as Prague, Stockholm, London, Paris, Warsaw, Buenos Aires, Budapest and elsewhere and the subways in these cities make them all the more livable -- indeed, I escaped the cold rainy climate of Stockholm during my time there by staying in vicinities around their underground stations. Chicago's el stations are not fun places to wait for a train in bad weather, however even Chicago has some subterranean stops along the blue line which are wonderful.

The argument against subways is that they are "cost prohibitive" and just would be too expensive to build per linear mile than almost anything else. So, is it outlandish to conceive and dream of a Milwaukee with a subway? Not as much as some of you might think. Indeed, Milwaukee actually began to BUILD A SUBWAY in the early part of the 20th century! The line first planned was to go along the Milwaukee river north/south and intersect with an east/west line near then Grande Avenue. Construction began on building the Milwaukee subway but ended abruptly at the start of "the war to end all wars" (WWI), for which resources were needed to furnish weapons and munitions.
If it weren't for the ill timed planning of this project and the fate of war on the global economy, Milwaukee most likely would have had a fully functioning subway. Today, you can still see the first elements of this fledgling subway project under a few of the bridges along the Milwaukee river near kilbourn and state, etc. The archways built out of stone under the bridges were the entrances to the planned subway.
So, no, Milwaukee with a subway is not inconceivable, even though just about every engineer and planner today will scoff at the notion. Sure, construction can be very expensive but still, I wonder how it is that cities such as Washington, DC could construct a subway system in modern times then--using over a billion dollars of federal money, that's how. Why couldn't there be a stimulus package of large amounts for one city like Milwaukee then? For the cost of the Marquette interchange redux, Milwaukee could have built a subway system. Personally, while I know highways are important, I feel they are overbuilt and inefficient and I'd rather my tax money went to a proper rail transit system. If I had my druthers, Milwaukee would have no downtown interstate stretches and a comprehensive subterranean subway system.

It ought to be easier for a place like Milwaukee to build a subway than other cities--after all, we are the home of Bucyrus, a company that produces the giant underground drills that are used for tunneling under cities for subway lines!!!

yeah, I think alot of people in Milwaukee would more in favor of having the trains underground, rather then taking up half the street. I really can't imagine anybody prefering to drive around the city in the freezing cold when they can get around town through heated subway stations. You are right about those Chicago El stations. Driving though Chicago on work trips at 4 in the morning, it just shocks me seeing people standing around huddled, waiting for their trains to come in winter. I don't think anybody would want to do that if they didn't have to.

As great as it would be to have a subway, it's probally just a pipedream. If we can't even manage to build light rail or streetcars---I have a hard time believing this city would undergo such a huge, costly project from scratch. It's fun to think about though. I wish more people could do what I did riding around London on its efficient underground lines this past summer. They would see how easy and quickly they could get around town on one of these trains.

:)

unfortunetly I did too much of that last night. Had no intentions of drinking but as I was walking home late night the bars just looked to appealing.

You know they have programs for people like you (us) :lol:

yeah, I think alot of people in Milwaukee would more in favor of having the trains underground, rather then taking up half the street. I really can't imagine anybody prefering to drive around the city in the freezing cold when they can get around town through heated subway stations. You are right about those Chicago El stations. Driving though Chicago on work trips at 4 in the morning, it just shocks me seeing people standing around huddled, waiting for their trains to come in winter. I don't think anybody would want to do that if they didn't have to.

As great as it would be to have a subway, it's probally just a pipedream. If we can't even manage to build light rail or streetcars---I have a hard time believing this city would undergo such a huge, costly project from scratch. It's fun to think about though. I wish more people could do what I did riding around London on its efficient underground lines this past summer. They would see how easy and quickly they could get around town on one of these trains.

yeah, these days it seems incredibly unlikely-- although it's funny how just 100 years ago, citizens of Milwaukee didn't think twice about building a subway here and they started go ahead with building it. if they could do it 100 years ago, why can't we do it now? ugh. this is a frustrating reality that applies to a lot of projects, though... and yet, somehow, we claim to have undergone "progress" over the last century as a nation. sometimes i wonder.

still, as it were, i'd rather have an elevated train or street tram than nothing if those are my only choices. obviously, in a perfect world-- or if i had the wealth of bill gates, i'd build the subway for milwaukee with my own funds, because i believe that deeply about its values as a transportation commodity. if only i could go back in time and tell city planners to start construction of the Milwaukee subway 10 years sooner!

oh well.


my only hope now is that drilling methods and tunneling technology will drop in cost and that it will become a much more realistic option for our city.

still, it severely irks me to see the price tags of projects like the marquette interchange or the i-94 expansion ... at over $1 billion each!!.. and then to think that for the cost of just one of those projects.. just ONE, we could have a comprehensive subway system in milwaukee.

to me, that makes it more about where our priorities are (as a whacked out automobile-infatuated, hyper-individualistic society) than it does about having or not having the resources for such projects. clearly the money is there... it's just that we haven't matured enough as a nation to recognize that what serves the greater good is better than what serves the individual.

^^

actually, another idea that came to mind was that Milwaukee actually does already have a system of underground tunnels that would be big enough to house a subway system right now... the Deep Tunnel project-- a system that has been considered largely a failure for water collection and treatment. there were talks a few years ago of the city possibly not evening using these anymore. and, who knows, with Milwaukee on the forefront of water technology and water treatment methods, perhaps a much more efficient way to treat the city's water resources may come about, leaving the MMSD deep tunnels vacant... in which case.... enter the trains. vacant tunnels could be converted into transit tunnels with a fraction of the cost of building a new system...

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down.

First of all, subways are not only crazy expensive, they are serious long term investments and require a great deal of infrastructure and planning just to be built. Subways back then were constructed using the 'cut and cover' method, in which a street would be excavated to make way for a subway tunnel, and then a road platform would be built above, which is considerably cheaper than boring. This method is hugely invasive and not as often used today, for one reason being American cities are not as impervious to damage as they were 90 years ago.

Second of all, subway platforms are not easy to heat.

Third of all, Milwaukee was never building a 'subway system,' the private owners of the interuban trains were planning to build a tunnel for the interurban trains as they reached downtown, which was only realized as a short stub that led under where the Marquette interchange is now as the depression hit before major construction operations could come to effect.

Fourth of all, who the hell would use a subway in the deep tunnel? The deep tunnel runs along water routes, where the population densities in the city are significantly lower. Who lives anywhere near enough the Menomonee River that would use a subway? Who on the East Side would feel it worth the trek all the way down to the Milwaukee River just to get a hitch downtown?
I like subways as much as the next guy, but building a new system or converting the deep tunnel are just not wise decisions for transit infrastructure here.

http://www.wisconline.com/greenmap/milwaukee/art/deeptunnel.gif

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down.

First of all, subways are not only crazy expensive, they are serious long term investments and require a great deal of infrastructure and planning just to be built. Subways back then were constructed using the 'cut and cover' method, in which a street would be excavated to make way for a subway tunnel, and then a road platform would be built above, which is considerably cheaper than boring. This method is hugely invasive and not as often used today, for one reason being American cities are not as impervious to damage as they were 90 years ago.

Second of all, subway platforms are not easy to heat.

Third of all, Milwaukee was never building a 'subway system,' the private owners of the interuban trains were planning to build a tunnel for the interurban trains as they reached downtown, which was only realized as a short stub that led under where the Marquette interchange is now as the depression hit before major construction operations could come to effect.

Fourth of all, who the hell would use a subway in the deep tunnel? The deep tunnel runs along water routes, where the population densities in the city are significantly lower. Who lives anywhere near enough the Menomonee River that would use a subway? Who on the East Side would feel it worth the trek all the way down to the Milwaukee River just to get a hitch downtown?
I like subways as much as the next guy, but building a new system or converting the deep tunnel are just not wise decisions for transit infrastructure here.

http://www.wisconline.com/greenmap/milwaukee/art/deeptunnel.gif

au contraire, mon frere...

we're not arguing with you that subways are expensive-- yes they are-- but what i'm say is SO ARE HIGHWAYS. for the cost of an interchange, you can have a complete subway system. sorry, but i'd rather have the latter. then maybe the interchange wouldn't see so much use. anyway, that's my opinion.

but you're wrong that Milwaukee wasn't building a subway system. it's a little known fact, but it's a fact all the same. john norquist and peter parks (former DCD director) enlightened me to this fact themselves. i saw the plans for it, although it's damn difficult to dig this stuff up online. i'll see if i can get a copy of it from the historical society. the trains were to run along the milwaukee river-- this is not the underground train tunnel you're thinking of prior to the great depression... this was a project stopped by world war I years earlier.

anyway, i suppose i can agree with you about the deep tunnel that if it's only parallel to the waterways that could be less than ideal, however in the city centre this would work quite well. for several miles, anyway, the heart of the city does indeed run along the milwaukee river. i don't think people would mind getting off a subway and exiting onto the riverwalk. this could also help for redevelopment along the kk and the menomonee if tunnels ran parallel with them as well. i'm just saying it's not the worst idea in the world. hell, the common council's idea to connect miller park to the art museum via a train line through the valley was floated around and that would essentially be the same corridor we're talking about along the river.

i think you're probably opposed to the idea mostly because of cost, but what i'm saying is that in the long term, it would indeed be an incredibly wise investment.

au contraire, mon frere...

we're not arguing with you that subways are expensive-- yes they are-- but what i'm say is SO ARE HIGHWAYS. for the cost of an interchange, you can have a complete subway system. sorry, but i'd rather have the latter. then maybe the interchange wouldn't see so much use. anyway, that's my opinion.

No you can't. Highways are expensive, yes, but a complete subway system will cost far more than one highway interchange. The 7 train extension in New York is going to cost upwards of 2 billion dollars, and is only 1.1 miles long. In 1929, construction of the entire Second Avenue Subway was assessed at 98.9 million dollars without factoring land acquisition [that cost in 2008 dollars is $1.2 billion]. Construction commenced only a few years ago with a budget of $17 billion, which has already been run over.


anyway, i suppose i can agree with you about the deep tunnel that if it's only parallel to the waterways that could be less than ideal, however in the city centre this would work quite well. for several miles, anyway, the heart of the city does indeed run along the milwaukee river. i don't think people would mind getting off a subway and exiting onto the riverwalk. this could also help for redevelopment along the kk and the menomonee if tunnels ran parallel with them as well. i'm just saying it's not the worst idea in the world. hell, the common council's idea to connect miller park to the art museum via a train line through the valley was floated around and that would essentially be the same corridor we're talking about along the river.

No doubt a subway in the heart of the city would work well. But for such an extreme investment to work out in the long run, it needs to follow densely established areas. Sure, the Milwaukee River is sort of densely populated...until North Avenue. And then the surrounding neghbourhood subside up hills and diminish in density, and the river is all parks. Who the hell is going to use a subway that runs through a big long park? If I you lived along Downer in Shorewood, and wanted to go downtown on a 5 degree night, would you walk to Estabrook Park to use the subway? I'd just drive.

As well, the Menomonee Valley is almost entirely unpopulated. A transit line connecting the art museum with Miller Park along Wisconsin Avenue is hugely different than a transit line connecting the same places along Canal St.

People aren't going to use a subway just because it's a subway. If it's not within a few blocks of the residence and workplace, people won't use it. As well, subways are like a last resort; they exist to serve areas that are far too congested and built up to support any other form of rail transportation either at or above grade. Milwaukee is dense, yes, and deserves rail transit, yes, but is it so lacking of space that needs to go underground? Absolutely not.

@MilwaukeeMax I'd add that the deep tunnel is anything but a failure. It has reduced overflows from over 60 per year, in the billions of gallons, to 2-3 (goal was 1-2) into the millions.

We might not have the weather of Portland, but the way the light-rail runs on the street really adds to the city, that I think is what we should shoot for in the long run. I know part of the MAX line does in fact go underground, but most of it is above ground.

Not to mention Portland's terrain is much more hilly, so going underground was a necessity.

First of all, subways are not only crazy expensive, they are serious long term investments and require a great deal of infrastructure and planning just to be built. Subways back then were constructed using the 'cut and cover' method, in which a street would be excavated to make way for a subway tunnel, and then a road platform would be built above, which is considerably cheaper than boring. This method is hugely invasive and not as often used today, for one reason being American cities are not as impervious to damage as they were 90 years ago.

what's crazy is that Vancouver did a cut and cover "subway" line in their downtown area a few years ago (i'm sure it's done by now, for the Olympics, but was under construction when I was there a few years ago). it is essentially their light rail system that goes underground in the downtown area.

some pretty crazy pictures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line

:)

unfortunetly I did too much of that last night. Had no intentions of drinking but as I was walking home late night the bars just looked to appealing.
Another argument for a good train system. I do often enjoy some beer or wine on the ride home. :cheers:

Just putting this out there, 2 cities smaller than Milwaukee that have a small amount of subway; St. Louis and Buffalo. Emphasis on Buffalo.

I agree Milwaukee is dense enough for rail, but to be fair to Boston, it has census tracts of up to 100000 ppl/per sq. Mile

I was actually gonna bring up Buffalo, and how from what I gather, they are sorry they built it. My aunt lives in Buffalo and said that it's not used nearly as much as they projected and was basically a waste of money. I think one of the reason they got one is because NYC has one, and they wanted to be like their big brother. I love Buffalo but it really makes no sense that they have a subway. Milwaukee is bigger than Buffalo, but it wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense here, either. But I'm not gonna lie, subways are pretty badass.

Just putting this out there, 2 cities smaller than Milwaukee that have a small amount of subway; St. Louis and Buffalo. Emphasis on Buffalo.

The Buffalo subway is a joke, and the St. Louis 'subway' is simply an underground portion of a light rail network that spans the metropolitan area [and goes to the suburbs! boo!].

Also, St. Louis is bigger than Milwaukee by about a million people.

The Buffalo subway is a joke, and the St. Louis 'subway' is simply an underground portion of a light rail network that spans the metropolitan area [and goes to the suburbs! boo!].

Also, St. Louis is bigger than Milwaukee by about a million people.

Yes, I understand St. Louis is light rail, but traveling underneath the CBD nonetheless.

And I mentioned "cities" and I meant cities. Yes St. Louis metropolis is larger than Milwaukee metropolis but the city of Milwaukee is larger than the city of St. Louis.

I don't think that Milwaukee yet has enough density for a subway system to get built although perhaps at some time in the future if the development downtown, on the east side, and third ward continue they might be able to handle it. Until then I think it is best to go with a surface line which will encourage increased density in those neighborhoods along certain routes.

And I mentioned "cities" and I meant cities. Yes St. Louis metropolis is larger than Milwaukee metropolis but the city of Milwaukee is larger than the city of St. Louis.

So what? Using city populations is a deliberately misleading trick to inflate Milwaukee's population. If you've ever been to St. Louis, you'd know that it is a far larger city than Milwaukee is, and that using a city population figure to show Milwaukee is bigger is just completely wrong. By that statistic, El Paso, Texas is larger than Milwaukee even though its metro population is hardly half of Milwaukee's.

Milwaukee city is denser than St. Louis, so Milwaukee needs mass transit more than St. Louis. Metro populations do not matter if it concerns the city mass transit problems.

Milwaukee city is denser than St. Louis, so Milwaukee needs mass transit more than St. Louis. Metro populations do not matter if it concerns the city mass transit problems.

You do know that the St. Louis light rail is called the Metrolink, don't you?

Milwaukee doesn't need a metrolink. It needs transit for the city.

Milwaukee doesn't need a metrolink. It needs transit for the city.

Find me one American city where transit is limited only to the most densely populated areas of the 'city' and is successful at doing so.

I thought we were talking about rail transit in Milwaukee and how they don't have rail transit in the city, much less in the suburbs. Hey, if Milwaukee can afford a metro rail system through the suburbs I'm all for it.

Rail transit won't work if it only exists in the city. It needs to integrate the region and understand that the city of Milwaukee does not exist in some sort of regional vacuum. This is why the KRM is far more essential than any other rail transit around town right now.

Someone should suggest a subway in the County Board meeting.

I want to see Walker's head explode.

Or a subway with Maglev technology.

Or a subway with Maglev technology.

Yeah, I am sure they would say something about how the invention of the car made the technology obsolete, as if the trains we have today are the same as the trains we had 100 years ago. :bash:

CGII. I agree that transit needs to be connected to a larger region, but I don't think KRM is as vital right now as the downtown connector. The downtown connector would have a much higher ridership and would have more riders who use transit exclusively as their means of transportation unlike the KRM. It would work for riders who are just going to the grocery store, or bars, or anything else while KRM just serves commuters who come to the city 5 times a week. Comparing KRM to the Connector is like looking at the CTA and the METRA. I would argue that while regional connections are important, without a downtown system for it to feed into the KRM just connects 3 small points on a map and it won't serve to connect Milwaukee to Kenosha or Racine.

The Downtown Connector is a silly compromise proposal that doesn't actually function as a piece of transit infrastructure. Namely, it doesn't actually connect. Sure, it'd be great for me to get from the Third Ward to the Bradley Center a few minutes faster, but how is it going to help me get to my job from my house in Wauwatosa, or Bay View, or the East Side?

Downtown Milwaukee is a commercial neighbourhood more than it is a residential one. Transit is, of course, means of diversifying the use of downtown, but plans must be made to address the current condition of population patterns and uses rather than built to accomodate speculated growth. Meaning, growth cannot happen until the current condition of 'live outside of downtown, work downtown,' is addressed.

The most successful transit systems in the world are the ones that actually go places and connect neighbourhoods; they allow people to move about their city with greater ease and fluidity. The Downtown Connector is a circular route that anticipates, but does not precipitate, a change of demographic. Take a look at the People Mover in Detroit; essentially the same plan.


The KRM is by far the most important transit proposal on the dockets for the region right now. Chicago and Milwaukee are growing into one huge megalopolis and linking them with commuter rail brings great economic benefit to both cities. The KRM is the last piece of commuter rail infrastructure missing from linking a metro area of 1.7 million people with a metro area of 10 million people. The Downtown Connector takes tourists on a sightseeing loop of one neighbourhood of Milwaukee where nobody lives.

The Connector is a start, and Milwaukee is lucky to afford that. I can't see a realistic way for the metro area to pay for it. They can't even afford buses much less rail transit. It has to start in the city for people who can't afford cars and then branch out to the suburbs.

The Downtown Connector is a silly compromise proposal that doesn't actually function as a piece of transit infrastructure. Namely, it doesn't actually connect. Sure, it'd be great for me to get from the Third Ward to the Bradley Center a few minutes faster, but how is it going to help me get to my job from my house in Wauwatosa, or Bay View, or the East Side?

Downtown Milwaukee is a commercial neighbourhood more than it is a residential one. Transit is, of course, means of diversifying the use of downtown, but plans must be made to address the current condition of population patterns and uses rather than built to accomodate speculated growth. Meaning, growth cannot happen until the current condition of 'live outside of downtown, work downtown,' is addressed.

The most successful transit systems in the world are the ones that actually go places and connect neighbourhoods; they allow people to move about their city with greater ease and fluidity. The Downtown Connector is a circular route that anticipates, but does not precipitate, a change of demographic. Take a look at the People Mover in Detroit; essentially the same plan.


The KRM is by far the most important transit proposal on the dockets for the region right now. Chicago and Milwaukee are growing into one huge megalopolis and linking them with commuter rail brings great economic benefit to both cities. The KRM is the last piece of commuter rail infrastructure missing from linking a metro area of 1.7 million people with a metro area of 10 million people. The Downtown Connector takes tourists on a sightseeing loop of one neighbourhood of Milwaukee where nobody lives.

I'm not sure if you are up-to-date on what is currently being proposed for the Downtown Connector. The streetcar route would no longer be a loop, and it doesn't appear to be focused on connecting tourist destinations. See www.milwaukeeconnector.com for the three proposed route alternatives.

I agree that KRM (and other commuter rail lines) as well as the high-speed rail proposals are very important to the region. However, KRM and high-speed rail all drop their passengers off at the Intermodal Station at 5th/St. Paul. Without a streetcar connecting the Intermodal Station to the CBD, how will KRM be useful to someone from Kenosha trying to get to their job in downtown Milwaukee? Are they going to walk 12 blocks every morning? Or take a cab everyday?

Yes, that is quite different than I remember it, and it actually represents my own fantasy vision of where a starter local transit network would look like.

I still think, however, it is a pretty serious compromise to replace light rail trains with streetcars, as streetcars can't leave the street and take advantage of long abandoned rail right of ways and move faster. There are a handful of disused rail right of ways that could be very successful in shuffling traffic through the city but opting with streetcars really diminishes that opportunity.


how will KRM be useful to someone from Kenosha trying to get to their job in downtown Milwaukee?

I think you've answered yourself.

@CGII I'd point out that the East Town part of downtown is actually quite residential, some of the highest population density in the state I believe.

And building the streetcar doesn't preclude Milwaukee from building out a light-rail system in the future, but quite frankly that would require the suburbs to be on board which just isn't the case. Further in Portland both a streetcar system AND the MAX light-rail run on the streets in the downtown area, working together wonderfully. In fact the streetcar could run on the light-rail tracks (they've tested it), but it doesn't currently.

Walker will provide route options; system would use $36.6 million in federal funds

By Larry Sandler of the Journal Sentinel

Despite a setback in the county budget process, Milwaukee County officials still are planning for enhanced express bus service, also known as bus rapid transit.

County Executive Scott Walker's administration is preparing to give the County Board options in March for a one-route or two-route bus rapid transit system, using $36.6 million in federal funding, said Brian Dranzik, administration director for the county Department of Transportation and Public Works.

That cash is the county's portion of $91.5 million in long-idle federal transit aid, which Congress divided between the city's planned streetcar line and the county bus system after local officials couldn't agree on how to spend it. The money legally cannot be spent on the Milwaukee County Transit System's operating expenses.

Walker has long advocated using the federal money for bus rapid transit, or BRT, which supporters tout as offering the advantages of light rail at a lower cost. BRT lines typically use modern, energy-efficient buses that resemble light rail vehicles, running in reserved lanes or separate roadways, with stoplights rigged to turn green when the vehicles approach.

The Milwaukee County version would run in regular traffic but with automatic green lights for buses. Like their counterparts elsewhere, local BRT stops would have electronic signs showing the wait for the next bus.

In the 2010 county budget, Walker proposed a BRT line from the County Grounds in Wauwatosa through downtown Milwaukee to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Supervisors sliced that plan out of the budget, saying they wanted more details.

Transit officials recently presented three options to the board's Transportation, Public Works and Transit Committee. One option would have used all the federal money to buy new buses, without adding BRT service.

Planners have said the need to replace aging buses is a factor in a cash crunch that eventually could force the bus system to slash service by more than one-third. Aided by federal stimulus dollars, the county already has plans to buy 125 buses in the next two years and possibly 30 more in 2013.

With the $36.6 million, and a required match of $6.5 million in county money, the county could buy another 110 buses and cut its 2013 purchase to 10 buses, for a total of 245 new buses, transit system Managing Director Anita Gulotta-Connelly wrote in a memo to the panel. That would eliminate the bus replacement backlog and return the transit system to a cycle of replacing buses every 12 years, she wrote.

But Supervisor Michael Mayo Sr., committee chairman, discounted that option, saying, "We need to enhance our system, not just keep the same system."
Two routes possible

Dranzik said he is fleshing out the other two options: the original $43.1 million plan for a UWM-to-Wauwatosa route; and a two-route plan that would include a line from the Midtown Center on the northwest side, down W. Fond du Lac Ave., through downtown Milwaukee and west to State Fair Park in West Allis, via W. National Ave. and W. Greenfield Ave.

The two-route plan would cost $64 million and require additional federal aid. To hold down costs, the transit system would use clean-diesel buses, instead of the originally planned diesel-electric hybrids and would drop plans for ticket kiosks that would let riders pay their fares before boarding.

Mayo, whose district includes part of the proposed Fond du Lac Ave. route, said that route should be the first priority and the UWM-to-County Grounds route should come second.

In each case, the BRT routes would replace major chunks of existing bus routes - Routes 18 (National Ave.) and 23 (Fond du Lac Ave.) for the Midtown-to-State Fair route and Route 10 (Humboldt Ave.-Wisconsin Ave.) for the UWM-to-County Grounds route. Other parts of those routes would remain intact, Dranzik said. By replacing existing routes, the county would not add significantly to bus operating costs, and the BRT could attract new riders, he said.

Buses on BRT routes would stop every one-third to one-half mile, compared with stops every one-eighth to one-quarter mile on existing routes. Dranzik said 80% of the ridership on the current routes comes from major stops that would still be served, and other riders would have to walk only another block or two.

Supervisor John Weishan, another committee member, said the board needed more details before deciding whether to invest millions of dollars in BRT.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/82567647.html


I'm glad this is still moving along. I hope it's implemented soon, and for selfish reasons I hope they choose the route that connects UWM first. :)

The problem with Walker's "BRT" plan is that first, it really isn't BRT i.e. no dedicated lane. Secondly they plan on cutting regular bus service on the same route, which will likely be a net reduction in service as "BRT" doesn't stop as often than the regular bus.

On a side not has anyone noticed that federal dollars needs a local match

This project is officially moving forward!

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82598762.html

I just hope more tenants can be added, pushing it to 20 stories or so.

so excited when I saw this today! happy times :)

If you've ever been to St. Louis, you'd know that it is a far larger city than Milwaukee is, and that using a city population figure to show Milwaukee is bigger is just completely wrong. By that statistic, El Paso, Texas is larger than Milwaukee even though its metro population is hardly half of Milwaukee's.

if YOU'VE ever been to St. Louis, you'd know that its downtown is an absolute ghost-town and it feels like a much SMALLER city than Milwaukee indeed! its sprawling metro population may be higher but that is only relevant to regional transit planning (ie the KRM) - city population density and outright numbers reflect transit needs as well and while commuter rail is important for linking the suburbs with the city and each other, it does little to move people around WITHIN the city. this is where a right-of-way rail system comes into play, as is the idea behind the Milwaukee Connector.

The problem with Walker's "BRT" plan is that first, it really isn't BRT i.e. no dedicated lane. Secondly they plan on cutting regular bus service on the same route, which will likely be a net reduction in service as "BRT" doesn't stop as often than the regular bus.

On a side not has anyone noticed that federal dollars needs a local match

EXACTLY. Walker's stubbornness is going to lead to a completely useless project that could have been much better if he had just worked with the city and used those funds on a rail-based system with a dedicated right-of-way path. they're also cutting the ability of passengers to buy tickets from a kiosk before they board, which will make boarding/departing much much longer than on a system that would have it. as usual, Walker screws everything up with his lack of vision. maybe a college degree would have helped him.

This project is officially moving forward!

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82598762.html

I just hope more tenants can be added, pushing it to 20 stories or so.

Although, now that I've seen the new rendering, it leaves a little something to be desired compared to the old renderings. But oh well at least it's getting built, that's what matters.

Link to rendering? Unless you are referring to that tiny rendering on the JSOnline main page.

Tom Daykin posted a a couple of larger renderings at the link that Milwaukyle provided:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82598762.html

For being scaled down about 5 stories, I'm actually quite impressed with this new version.

Tom Daykin posted a a couple of larger renderings at the link that Milwaukyle provided:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/82598762.html

For being scaled down about 5 stories, I'm actually quite impressed with this new version.

THIS:
http://www.eua.com/data/portfolio/B6&12_11.jpg

VS THIS:
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/mjs-marcusa.jpg


the new building designs don't really impress as much as the old design did but the exciting part is the cinema addition and all the ground-level entertainment possibilities that will provide.

still, i hope this doesn't count as the "Downtown Office Tower Expected in Near Future" (http://www.jsonline.com/business/79023157.html), as Daykin had suggested-- that would be a disappointing "tower"

To me something like this is infill... but I really like this infill! Like Max said, there's a lot of possibilities for street level activity, finally a theater downtown, and overall the building is unoffensive and will finally get something else moving in the park east.

still, i hope this doesn't count as the "Downtown Office Tower Expected in Near Future" (http://www.jsonline.com/business/79023157.html), as Daykin had suggested-- that would be a disappointing "tower"

I think it is...

And Coldwake, I agree with it being just infill, but i think it is a positive infill which will draw people to the area, and which will improve downtown as more of a nightlife destination beyond just the bars and arena's, which is what the downtown really needs if it is to attract more residents, so as far as infill I think this is a really positive piece.

That's most certainly the new office tower Daykin referred to. Perhaps "midrise" would have been a more accurate term.

I know there's other office proposals out there, but I'm guessing this is by far the most concrete.

The design is alright. Feels like they cut and paste from the original version - especially when viewed from the river. Hopefully we'll see some refined imagery in the future.

Overall this is great news for the city. Let's hope this ushers in some quality new development along the Park East corridor.

if YOU'VE ever been to St. Louis, you'd know that its downtown is an absolute ghost-town and it feels like a much SMALLER city than Milwaukee indeed! its sprawling metro population may be higher but that is only relevant to regional transit planning (ie the KRM) - city population density and outright numbers reflect transit needs as well and while commuter rail is important for linking the suburbs with the city and each other, it does little to move people around WITHIN the city. this is where a right-of-way rail system comes into play, as is the idea behind the Milwaukee Connector.

Downtown St. Louis is dead for reasons that are not 'the light rail goes to the suburbs.' In fact, you can credit the little life that downtown St. Louis has on the fact that is has light rail that brings people into the city.

You're really crazy if you think St. Louis feels smaller than Milwaukee. Seriously.

And I think its alleged inability 'to move people around WITHIN the city' stems from the fact that right now it is only two lines. The Metrolink is one of the more successful instances of light rail in this country and is currently being vastly expanded. I think its worth yours and everybody else's time to look into the various precedents around the country and understand which systems work and don't work and for why. I think it's very very silly to say the Metrolink doesn't move people around the city.

I like the rendering quite a bit, although I am curious about if there are any plans to add boat launches to that section of the riverwalk and resturant/bar patios facing the river---similar to Rock Bottom.

I am also curious to see what they mean by "very upscale". Not that I got anything against classy elements downtown---but I hope this isn't only some movie theater where all the screens are expensive dinner theaters and they only show movies like "Frost/Nixon" and "Lost in Translation". A petty complaint, maybe, but I would like the theater to have variety. Guess there is only so much you can do with a tight lot like that though. I reckon they are going more along the lines of the Alamo Drafthouse where they serve beer and only adults are allowed in---which makes sense considering the theater could be overrun by teenagers scaring off the people we want downtown (adults with money).

Downtown St. Louis is dead for reasons that are not 'the light rail goes to the suburbs.' In fact, you can credit the little life that downtown St. Louis has on the fact that is has light rail that goes to the suburbs.

You're really crazy if you think St. Louis feels smaller than Milwaukee. Seriously.

And I think its alleged inability 'to move people around WITHIN the city' stems from the fact that right now it is only two lines. The Metrolink is one of the more successful instances of light rail in this country and is currently being vastly expanded. I think its worth yours and everybody else's time to look into the various precedents around the country and understand which systems work and don't work and for why. I think it's very very silly to say the Metrolink doesn't move people around the city.

I would also add a reference Denver's RTD Light Rail, a city + suburban system, currently undergoing a huge expansion, albeit one with cost overruns, but a successful system nonetheless. Also Salt Lake City's UTA Trax, which serves the suburbs, and is also hugely successful, and in the middle of a major expansion. Metro systems are the way to go. Once suburbs see the TOD potential, they tend to jump on the bandwagon very quickly. (read: support for more funding) One of Denver's problems with the massive cost overruns they have had, is the sticky politics of which suburbs will miss out if various lines are pushed back or not built at all. Needless to say also, is that both of these two metros are significantly less dense than Milwaukee Metro.

btw--I had to laugh at the comments to the JSOnline article. Even on a story about Park East development, people are talking about Brett Favre's Mama Cass-esque choke job.

Here is the view from the river..... Sweet!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a232/boatnurd/mjs-marcus.jpg

I really like how the new river developments are shaping up. It's like a nice modest version of the Chicago riverfront at a third the height, plus riverwalks. Very big asset to the city.

I would also add a reference Denver's RTD Light Rail, a city + suburban system, currently undergoing a huge expansion, albeit one with cost overruns, but a successful system nonetheless. Also Salt Lake City's UTA Trax, which serves the suburbs, and is also hugely successful, and in the middle of a major expansion. Metro systems are the way to go. Once suburbs see the TOD potential, they tend to jump on the bandwagon very quickly. (read: support for more funding) One of Denver's problems with the massive cost overruns they have had, is the sticky politics of which suburbs will miss out if various lines are pushed back or not built at all. Needless to say also, is that both of these two metros are significantly less dense than Milwaukee Metro.

you and CGII are comparing apples to oranges, though. the KRM would be a heavy rail, commuter system that would mostly run M-F during rush hours to bring people in and out of the city.
the systems in denver and st. louis are light rail transit and, while they do travel on tracks on dedicated runs, they also travel on the streets quite a bit as well. they travel much slower than a heavy rail commuter mode would and aren't really for passengers looking to travel into far flung suburbs the way the KRM will be... they ARE, however, comparable to the Milwaukee Connector that will start as a line on the east side (hopefully running up van buren or water) and eventually part of a larger system that will run out to the zoo and wauwatosa and north to UWM and shorewood. on a dedicated track, the Milwaukee Connector should be able to accomplish much of what the LRT in st.louis and denver do.

i want light rail, i want heavy rail-- i want the best we can have here, but the fact is that people like scott walker and the idiots on conservative talk radio won't listen to any logic and constantly knock our city's chances of putting ANY kind of rail in. we have to take what we can get. i've been personally fighting for over 15 years to try to bring rail transit to milwaukee and after proposal after wonderful proposal was shot down, you start to just want something..ANYthing as a beginning point to prove these morons wrong.


also, CGII - thanks for calling me crazy, but i really don't think it's at all insane to consider that the FEEL of st. louis is that of a city that was once much bigger and now is a shell of what it once was -- a feeling that makes it feel emptier and yes, smaller than Milwaukee. i've spent a good amount of time in st. louis and while it has its enclaves of hip neighbourhoods, i can tell you that overall, Milwaukee definitely has more of a buzz to it.... a buzz that gives it the feeling of being a bigger city.

I find it hard to call a $100 million project infill.. but maybe that's just me.

I find it hard to call a $100 million project infill.. but maybe that's just me.

well, it would seem that the inflated cost of this project has a lot to do with what it will offer on the ground floor. with any luck, it will be similar to the times square cinema i used to goto when i lived in hell's kitchen.. a big open glassy atrium at the entrance with escalators moving people to the different levels of the theaters and a restaurant on the ground floor...

the reduced height and simplification of the new design just isn't as "signature" as the original design. let's be honest about that. the original had that great looking staggered design as it grew in height. this is nice, but as far as milwaukee's "skyline", it won't make much impact. it is definitely infill in that regard.. a gem of an infill, but infill all the same.

the reduced height and simplification of the new design just isn't as "signature" as the original design. let's be honest about that. the original had that great looking staggered design as it grew in height. this is nice, but as far as milwaukee's "skyline", it won't make much impact. it is definitely infill in that regard.. a gem of an infill, but infill all the same.

totally agree. the original design was something that looked straight up impressive as a building by itself. the new design is something that will be a great addition to the area, but it's not something that really blows me away like the original and leaves something to be desired. the Moderne, for example, blows me away (and i thank God that it is supposed to keep all 30 floors, barring...some act of God). yeah $100mil isn't "infil scale," and i'm sure it's going to be beautiful. but the size of it just isn't signature. but still let it be known that i'm glad this thing is finally happening and it will undoubtedly be an awesome addition to the city.

the systems in denver and st. louis are light rail transit and, while they do travel on tracks on dedicated runs, they also travel on the streets quite a bit as well. they travel much slower than a heavy rail commuter mode would and aren't really for passengers looking to travel into far flung suburbs the way the KRM will be... they ARE, however, comparable to the Milwaukee Connector that will start as a line on the east side (hopefully running up van buren or water) and eventually part of a larger system that will run out to the zoo and wauwatosa and north to UWM and shorewood. on a dedicated track, the Milwaukee Connector should be able to accomplish much of what the LRT in st.louis and denver do.

i want light rail, i want heavy rail-- i want the best we can have here, but the fact is that people like scott walker and the idiots on conservative talk radio won't listen to any logic and constantly knock our city's chances of putting ANY kind of rail in. we have to take what we can get. i've been personally fighting for over 15 years to try to bring rail transit to milwaukee and after proposal after wonderful proposal was shot down, you start to just want something..ANYthing as a beginning point to prove these morons wrong.

Agreed. There needs to be a start, and the connector is the best chance we have of that. I would add that I think the first priority for expansion once we have tracks on the ground must be to add a Wauwatosa line, and for that line to be LRT rolling stock, and not streetcars.

I find it hard to call a $100 million project infill.. but maybe that's just me.

Totally agree. The lots surrounding are vacant, and the closest buildings are in the 3-5 story range.

Totally agree. The lots surrounding are vacant, and the closest buildings are in the 3-5 story range.

I don't think he means to say it's actually an infill, clearly there's nothing else of its size in close proximity, but just the size of the building is sort of "infil-ish," or at least that's what i thought he meant. he's just embellishing, but i agree, per my last comment. and again i'm not complaining.

I see it as infill in the larger aspect of things. You'll never see this on a Milwaukee skyline shot... it's taller then everything else in the area... for now, you never know... but even the staybridge and moderne arn't that far away and both are taller. The gatehouse project was pretty close too and that was also much taller.

Mind you, I like this project a lot. I think it's very quality. But quality infill.

The fact that we're even discussing whether that kind of project is infill, is a testament to the strength of development in Milwaukee. A lot of our peer cities, especially in this economic environment, would consider that a signature project.

So kudos to us.

The fact that we're even discussing whether that kind of project is infill, is a testament to the strength of development in Milwaukee. A lot of our peer cities, especially in this economic environment, would consider that a signature project.

So kudos to us.

Well said, sir.

On another note, Is anyone else concerned with the illegal activity going on in the rendering??
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/mjs-marcusa.jpg
^^Jaywalker!!!^^

Well said, sir.

On another note, Is anyone else concerned with the illegal activity going on in the rendering??
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/mjs-marcusa.jpg
^^Jaywalker!!!^^

Sorry that was me!... Nice shot of the new building though!

The cop at the light must be eating.

Sorry that was me!... Nice shot of the new building though!

And I'm about to hit him on my bicycle as he walks right into the bike lane!

aaaaaaaaand it's gone......

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/35472924.html

Just an FYI, with all the excitement around here, I don't know if anyone noticed but the Erie Street Plaza (next to Riptide in the Third Ward) is now under construction...

Just an FYI, with all the excitement around here, I don't know if anyone noticed but the Erie Street Plaza (next to Riptide in the Third Ward) is now under construction...

really? The Bamboo Garden or did the NIMBYs successfuly put an end to that for good?

^Biz Journals (http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2010/01/04/tidbits2.html?b=1262581200^2668581&s=industry&i=banking_financial_services)

Erie Street Plaza work under way

Skid steer loaders were busy this week, ripping out pavement just south of Rip Tide Seafood Bar & Grill at 649 E. Erie St., making way for the city’s $1 million bamboo garden known as Erie Street Plaza.

The controversial 11,000-square-foot bamboo garden on city-owned land next to Rip Tide prompted architect and developer Peter Renner to bring legal action against the city. Eventually, he walked away from a fight to prevent the city from developing the garden.

Renner developed the Harbor Front and Hansen’s Landing condominium building north of the bamboo garden and leases the 5,600-square-foot Rip Tide to Hans Weissgerber.

http://archlandscapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Erie-Street-Plaza-Landscape-STOSS-2009-USA-Wisconsin-Milwaukee01-590x289.jpg

http://archlandscapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Erie-Street-Plaza-Landscape-STOSS-2009-USA-Wisconsin-Milwaukee04-590x296.jpg

http://archlandscapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Erie-Street-Plaza-Landscape-STOSS-2009-USA-Wisconsin-Milwaukee08-590x264.gif

That's not a jaywalker, it's the new location of the Fonzie statue.

I like the look of the garden, but I'm concerned that it's too small a scale to have an impact there. It just looks a little lost in that location.

Wow, more welcome news. I'm pretty surprised this is happening. I was at the contentious public meeting where Renner unleashed his goons on the architect and others defending the project. Their arguments against this were beyond embarrassing.

In other development news, it should come as no surprise to hear the Eco Village in Bayview is dead. See today's JS.

Whoa! The bamboo won?! Wow, i sooo thought that was beyond dead! Great news!

No kidding, this is great news. I thought that project was long lost.

Between this space, the marsupial bridge, and the new Lakefront park, Milwaukee is starting to create some interesting public realms. I hope this trend continues. The city still lacks a certain amount of interesting space for people to congregate/contemplate. I'd love to see Cathedral Square become a truly civic space, among others. These places become the memorable spots that make a city worth living in.

I'd love to see Cathedral Square become a truly civic space, among others. These places become the memorable spots that make a city worth living in.

Yeah, that park could definitely be better than it is. It's in the kind of area of town where it really could be something special, it just needs a lot of TLC.

Wow, more welcome news. I'm pretty surprised this is happening. I was at the contentious public meeting where Renner unleashed his goons on the architect and others defending the project. Their arguments against this were beyond embarrassing.

In other development news, it should come as no surprise to hear the Eco Village in Bayview is dead. See today's JS.

What? They didn't want the beautiful view of Jones Island to be obstructed?

So I drove by the Pizza Man mess last night. How long to you think it will take for them to get the insurance money and build a new building? I am hoping for another Milwaukee style funky modern design to replace what was a quality older building.

Also, how does Milwaukee keep going like this development wise? I mean its like the growth of the central city has only picked up since the recession began. Construction everywhere...

Many projects in the city, incuding this one, will be starting before summer.

The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee (RACM) approved about $25 million in revenue bonds for RSC & Associates’ Park East corridor apartment building development, called Park East Square.

Click on weblink below to see BizTimes.com story and an updated rendering of project; it looks to be about 10-stories with a corner glass tower.

http://www.biztimes.com/realestateweekly/2010/1/27/#racm-approves-bonds-for-rscs-park-east-project-spring-groundbreaking-planned

all this talk of movie theaters and old projects that I thought were dead reminded me of something. Does anybody on here have any updates on the Avalon Theater reopening in Bayview?

^^^

That rendering of Park East Square looks pretty nice.

More good news:

Report: County must deal with pension, health care costs to fix finances

The county's structural deficit - the gap between costs and available revenue - is projected to rise to $106 million by 2014 (before cho-cho trains)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/82758967.html

City = broke
County = broke
State = broke
Nation = broke

Really, the county has to find a way out of these pension liabilities. Just think of all the trains we could buy if we unloaded these pensions. I have a crazy idea. How about we stop giving out pensions we cannot afford.

If only there was some way to fix this????? Oh wait, I forgot, in the USA, money grows on trees!! Whew!! For a second there, I thought we might be in trouble.

The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee (RACM) approved about $25 million in revenue bonds for RSC & Associates’ Park East corridor apartment building development, called Park East Square.

http://www.biztimes.com/realestateweekly/2010/1/27/#racm-approves-bonds-for-rscs-park-east-project-spring-groundbreaking-planned

http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/RE%20Weekly%2001|27|10/Park_East_Square_01_27_10.jpg

I like the look of the garden, but I'm concerned that it's too small a scale to have an impact there. It just looks a little lost in that location.

This rendering is a better perspective of the size
http://archlandscapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Erie-Street-Plaza-Landscape-STOSS-2009-USA-Wisconsin-Milwaukee07-590x310.gif

Yeah, that park could definitely be better than it is. It's in the kind of area of town where it really could be something special, it just needs a lot of TLC.
You mean like this:
http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/29433574.html

You mean like this:
http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/29433574.html

Wow, yeah exactly like that. How come nothing has happened with this since this article was published? I don't know anything about this business.

Great news!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/82864412.html

Wisconsin lands $800 million for high-speed rail
By Tom Held of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jan. 28, 2010

Wisconsin will receive more than $800 million to build a high-speed rail line carrying passengers between Milwaukee and Madison at 110 mph and recapture a piece of a regional rail system largely abandoned six decades ago.

The high-speed line could be up and running as early as 2013, the state says.

President Barack Obama mentioned the federal investment in high-speed rail in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night and was expected to announce the specific awards for 13 projects nationally at an event in Florida on Thursday morning.

A fact sheet issued by the White House lists the $810 million for the stations and track improvements necessary for the high-speed line connecting the state's two largest cities, along with improvements to the Amtrak Hiawatha line between Milwaukee and Chicago that will serve as the building blocks for a 110-mph service along that route.

Ridership on that line nearly doubled from 397,518 passengers in 2002 to 766,167 in 2008, then leveled off in 2009. The decrease was blamed on the recession, which decreased travel across various modes of transportation.

The federal funding is part of an $8 billion package of rail grants approved by Congress in the 2009 economic recovery act. It provides money to build up the tracks and start operation of a high-speed rail connection that had been stalled in Wisconsin for decades.

"I am really pleased with President Obama's investment in the future of Wisconsin's economy," Gov. Jim Doyle said late Wednesday. "This is a major job creation project that will provide a long-term boost to our economy.

"Through high-speed rail we will connect the major centers of commerce in Wisconsin and in the region. This was a national competition, and the results clearly demonstrate that Wisconsin had a very strong application."

As it pursued the federal funds, the state last year decided to purchase two 14-car train sets manufactured by the Spanish company Talgo Inc. Those cars are expected to be built in Wisconsin.

The advance work helped put Wisconsin in a favorable position to win the federal stimulus dollars. The effort also benefited from the planning and engineering work done on the tracks that will be used to carry the high-speed trains.

The route is expected to include stops in Brookfield, Oconomowoc and Watertown.

Eventually, the high-speed line could be extended from Madison to the Twin Cities.

Job creation cited

Doyle promoted the Milwaukee-Madison rail link as an initiative to create jobs in Wisconsin and provide a missing element in southern Wisconsin's transportation options. In earlier lobbying, he said the high-speed line would create nearly 13,000 jobs, reduce auto trips by 7.8 million over 10 years and save millions of gallons of fuel.

Obama also touted the job-creating benefits of rail projects and included the federal grants in the economic stimulus package pushed through Congress last year. Nearly half the states submitted 45 applications for the high-speed rail funding.

The administration promised that the grants would be allocated based on the merits of the individual projects.

The work to upgrade the tracks to accommodate the high-speed trains from downtown Milwaukee to the Dane County Regional Airport is projected to cost roughly $651.8 million. Doyle sought $817 million in federal funds to cover contingencies and inflation.

Advocates and opponents have debated the value of investments in high-speed rail for decades.

Those opposed to the rail project argued that it would waste transportation dollars that the state can't afford to spend, and reduce the amount of money available to maintain and improve freeways.

The high-speed line funded with the federal allocation follows and expands on a rail corridor that existed throughout the early part of the last century, and eventually gave way to I-94.

"There have been discussions along this line for 20 years at least," said Craig Thompson, executive director of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin. "It's very expensive, and we've been having trouble finding money to meet existing needs."

The challenge in the future will be to find the money for ongoing operations of the high-speed rail system, Thompson said.

Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, called the award an "exciting first step" in building a system that connects cities in the region and ultimately across the country.

"Currently, people are forced to drive, and that's the most expensive and least productive way to travel," he said. "We have to find more convenient, faster and less-expensive ways to travel in order to have a strong economy."

Patrick Marley and Diana Marrero of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

That rail line is huge news for the state. I'm sure the pressure will be on the City of Madison now to coordinate a secondary line from the airport to downtown. Madison is already developing very well, this link should help bridge the cities better. It's also likely very good for Watertown, Brookfield, etc. that are on the line.

@NeuBrew I'm just hoping they add the Yahara station to the plan, which stop much closer to downtown and not needed any new tracks as it is on the route.

I see it as infill in the larger aspect of things. You'll never see this on a Milwaukee skyline shot... it's taller then everything else in the area... for now, you never know... but even the staybridge and moderne arn't that far away and both are taller. The gatehouse project was pretty close too and that was also much taller.

Mind you, I like this project a lot. I think it's very quality. But quality infill.

Actually the Staybridge is 14 stories, the new office tower would be 15.

Is there any real reason to be excited about this Madison-Milwaukee train aside from it must spur light rail in Milwaukee to remotely successful? 110 MPH really doesn't do anything for me and the high costs for the intented purpose just seem like waste to me. We have all heard the arguments about the location of the station in Madison, so I will spare you all on that.

I just can't see people riding this thing to Madison for what I assume will be a pricey train ticket. Driving by car will be just as fast and much more convenient. Just seems to me like we are taking a bullet for Minneapolis so they can be better connected with the rest of the region. The money would probally have been better spent upgrading Milwaukee-Chicago lines and building true high speed rail between the two cities. I see that as a bigger benefit to the state.

more good news for the Valley...

Valley data center could begin construction by fall
By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 27, 2010


The developer of a large data processing center proposed for Milwaukee's Menomonee Valley hopes to begin construction by fall.

Source IT Energy LLC has a purchase option on 9 acres south of W. Canal St. and about a block west of S. 6th St., said Herb Zien, the company's Milwaukee-based senior vice president and chief development officer.

Source IT has been talking to prospective tenants, and needs to obtain commitments for around 22,000 square feet to obtain financing for the project's first phase, Zien said. He said the firm is "about halfway" to that goal.

The first phase would be 62,000 square feet, with about half devoted to data processing and remaining space for office and support employees, he said. Source IT hopes to eventually have a 150,000-square-foot facility.

That proposed facility's selling points include cheap power. It would be built next to a We Energies power plant, and Source IT would buy power and steam at reduced rates -- passing the savings on to companies, universities and others that locate there, Zien said.

My colleague Kathleen Gallagher first reported plans for the center in July. Kathleen, on Sunday, had an interesting story about the Milwaukee Institute, a nonprofit group that would help manage the center.

The center's planned site, by the way, is owned by an investment group led by John Stollenwerk, former president of Allen-Edmonds Shoe Corp., which had once planned a factory in the valley.

Is there any real reason to be excited about this Madison-Milwaukee train aside from it must spur light rail in Milwaukee to remotely successful? 110 MPH really doesn't do anything for me and the high costs for the intented purpose just seem like waste to me. We have all heard the arguments about the location of the station in Madison, so I will spare you all on that.

I just can't see people riding this thing to Madison for what I assume will be a pricey train ticket. Driving by car will be just as fast and much more convenient. Just seems to me like we are taking a bullet for Minneapolis so they can be better connected with the rest of the region. The money would probally have been better spent upgrading Milwaukee-Chicago lines and building true high speed rail between the two cities. I see that as a bigger benefit to the state.


I think most of us on here agree that the service between Chicago and Milwaukee is FAR more important than the service between Madison and Milwaukee, however there is no service to Madison, so it's difficult to compare-- personally, I hardly ever go to Madison as I think it's an overrated town, but I can see that there could over time be an integrated economic link between the two cities and this will certainly help.
For me, the stops in Brookfield and Oconomowoc are the most interesting, as they could potentially be points that Waukesha County conservative-voting anti-rail people wind up using as commuter rail depots to get in and out of downtown Milwaukee and to Mitchell International (I know my parents would much prefer to take a train to the airport from Brookfield than to drive there and leave their car there)--- I see this as a potentially pivotal undertaking that could very well convert people in even the most staunchly conservative areas that yes, rail is GOOD and this is why.

I think also that service between Milwaukee and Chicago will HAVE to be equally as good as service between Milwaukee and Madison, otherwise there will be a tremendous community outcry to rectify it as such. 110mph isn't lightning fast, but as track improvements continue, I forsee that number going up to 150 in the very near future, 180 perhaps soon after and eventually to 220 when ridership demands track upgrades again (maybe in 15 years).

personally, I hardly ever go to Madison as I think it's an overrated town,

Whether or not you think Madison is overrated (which is an opinion you are definitely entitled to have) has no merit on if the two cities should be connected by rail. I think such a rail line would be used more for people visiting Milwaukee than people leaving Milwaukee. There is a strong interest in Madison residents using the train to take them to the significantly cheaper Mitchell airport over using the Madison airport. There are 50,000 college students here that could use the train to visit relatives in Milwaukee, or to attend a game/concert/weekend entertainment. And then there are the nearly half a million residents that would use the line to visit Milwaukee (or Chicago) with such a line. In 20 years I'm sure the state will be looking at widening I-94 between the cities, something they are already working on in small doses. Securing good transit infrastructure between the cities could delay such a costly freeway project by decades. Whether or not Madison is overrated has nothing to do with the ridership that such a line would receive.

(yippeee, post 1,000!!)

I think most of us on here agree that the service between Chicago and Milwaukee is FAR more important than the service between Madison and Milwaukee, however there is no service to Madison, so it's difficult to compare-- personally, I hardly ever go to Madison as I think it's an overrated town, but I can see that there could over time be an integrated economic link between the two cities and this will certainly help.
For me, the stops in Brookfield and Oconomowoc are the most interesting, as they could potentially be points that Waukesha County conservative-voting anti-rail people wind up using as commuter rail depots to get in and out of downtown Milwaukee and to Mitchell International (I know my parents would much prefer to take a train to the airport from Brookfield than to drive there and leave their car there)--- I see this as a potentially pivotal undertaking that could very well convert people in even the most staunchly conservative areas that yes, rail is GOOD and this is why.

I think also that service between Milwaukee and Chicago will HAVE to be equally as good as service between Milwaukee and Madison, otherwise there will be a tremendous community outcry to rectify it as such. 110mph isn't lightning fast, but as track improvements continue, I forsee that number going up to 150 in the very near future, 180 perhaps soon after and eventually to 220 when ridership demands track upgrades again (maybe in 15 years).

I love Madison, but I just can't ever see myself taking this train if the station is at the airport. It's just so inconvienent that I doubt anybody will choose to ride it unless it takes riders to the Isthmus. Even in Milwaukee, what good is this thing for Madison/Oconomowoc/Brookfield commuters without a light rail connection to the rest of the downtown area and especially Miller Park/Potawatomi? Thats the whole problem with this plan--it doesn't make anything easier--aside from making Mitchell more accessable to Madison/Western Milwaukee suburbs. Downtown Milwaukee to Union Station Chicago makes sense because it saves people the awful Chicago traffic and parking prices.

Like I said, the only good thing out of this seems that there will be a need for light rail/streetcars/KRM/Madison light rail to make the system viable. But that is a boatload of money that will need to be spent and it begs the question----is there enough to demand to warrant this kind of spending? I love the idea of rail, but I got a bad feeling about all this. Hopefully the train is a success and it the corridor prospers.

I love Madison, but I just can't ever see myself taking this train if the station is at the airport. It's just so inconvienent that I doubt anybody will choose to ride it unless it takes riders to the Isthmus. Even in Milwaukee, what good is this thing for Madison/Oconomowoc/Brookfield commuters without a light rail connection to the rest of the downtown area and especially Miller Park/Potawatomi? Thats the whole problem with this plan--it doesn't make anything easier--aside from making Mitchell more accessable to Madison/Western Milwaukee suburbs. Downtown Milwaukee to Union Station Chicago makes sense because it saves people the awful Chicago traffic and parking prices.

Like I said, the only good thing out of this seems that there will be a need for light rail/streetcars/KRM/Madison light rail to make the system viable. But that is a boatload of money that will need to be spent and it begs the question----is there enough to demand to warrant this kind of spending? I love the idea of rail, but I got a bad feeling about all this. Hopefully the train is a success and it the corridor prospers.

fair enough... i see your point, although i think the probability of KRM and the Milwaukee Connector are much higher now than they ever have been before. with the creation of the RTA and the agreement to raise sales tax to pay for transit and parks in Milwaukee, I think (and hope) that commuter rail and the Connector WILL happen-- and these will be your intermodal methods of getting around the city once you are at the downtown depot. For now, though, bus service will make due-- it's not a fantastic alternative, but it will function... and I would imagine some sort of bus shuttle to/from Madison's airport is all you'll ever need to feed passengers to the Amtrak depot there. it's just impossible to build a station on the isthmus without eminent domain and a wrecking ball that would anger a lot of people.

dane county airport is only about 3 or so miles from the state capitol, anyway... that's not a lot of ground to cover compared to the 7 or 8 miles between downtown Milwaukee and Mitchell International.

I hardly ever go to Madison as I think it's an overrated town,

This made me laugh.

You don't go to a city because others like it too much? Is that like hipster tourism?


Whatever your thoughts on Madison itself, the surrounding area is really becoming a powerful economic force for the state. Long-term, I can't see a real downside to having more transportation options -- especially for business.

This made me laugh.

You don't go to a city because others like it too much? Is that like hipster tourism?


Whatever your thoughts on Madison itself, the surrounding area is really becoming a powerful economic force for the state. Long-term, I can't see a real downside to having more transportation options -- especially for business.

I remember I had the same opinion about Madison - until I took my first drive around the entire Beltline. The whole Beltline is jam-packed with office buildings with the majority of them being built after 2000. I know a lot of business majors in Milwaukee who are equally surprised by what has sprung up around the Madison Beltline. Of course Milwaukee will always be the business capital of the state, but Madison is becoming harder and harder to dismiss as a Capital / University town.

Hiawatha is only about 60,000 additional riders(or 12 additional passengers/trip) a year from being in the black so with the additional riders who will take the train from Madison through MKE to CHI the Hiawatha segment from MKE to CHI will be in the black, and can be used to help subsidize the Madison leg or for more improvements. In addition if on time performance increases which it should for the MKE to CHI segment with increased track switches then there should be higher ridership, so it is possible that given current growth trends and minimal improvments to the MKE-CHI segment the MKE-CHI segment may be in the black before the Madison leg even opens.

I think the real key with the high speed rail link is that it's a start. By the end of the decade when, hopefully, the high speed rail network connects the Twin Cities-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago will be the real prize. Regional networks of high speed rail is key for this country to stay competitive.

In case you missed it in today's JS, Jim Stingl offers a sobering/satirical view on MKE's unbuilt work:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/83001687.html

In case you missed it in today's JS, Jim Stingl offers a sobering/satirical view on MKE's unbuilt work:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/83001687.html

I just caught that, was gonna post it. Reminded me of Andy Rooney for some reason.

Some interesting projects from it:

Architect Michael Brush’s proposed multiplex cinema, at N. 4th St. and W. Wisconsin Ave., lights up the night. It was never built.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9231/stincol29p7.jpg

The First Wisconsin Center, shown in this 1971 rendering by Ezra Stoller Associates, towers over downtown.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/360/stincol29p1.jpg

Happy Milwaukeeans flock to soccer at a new stadium north of the Bradley Center — or at least they do in this 2001 rendering for a project that was never built.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2429/stincol29p6.jpg

Wind turbines top an expanded Midwest Airlines Center in Johnsen Schmaling Architects’ 2007 rendering. There was also going to be a sod roof that doubled as a golf driving range.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8003/stincol29p5.jpg

In case you missed it in today's JS, Jim Stingl offers a sobering/satirical view on MKE's unbuilt work:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/83001687.html

I don't know if it's sobering, but it definitely seems like Stingl is trying to take advantage of the interest in Downtown development to drive readership to his column.

It's a bit desperate to do this.... also why does he only talk about Downtown. Why doesn't he mention anything about other office buildings/waterparks/hotels/subdivisions that are no longer on the drawing board in the rest if the metro?

Guiffree bids on Park Lafayette (http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2010/02/01/story1.html)
Mallory Properties offers $50 million for condo project
Biz Journal 01/29

http://assets.bizjournals.com/story_image/668931-0-0-1.jpg
Milwaukee real estate investor Frank Giuffre is making an offer to acquire the $102 million Park Lafayette condominium building on the city’s east side for an estimated $50 million.

Giuffre and his legal team at Mallery & Zimmerman SC in Milwaukee are negotiating with the Park Lafayette developer’s main lender, Amalgamated Bank, New York City, to take over the project that fell into receivership in late October 2009.

Further that's just the reality of development. Some projects get off the drawing board, others don't.. You could do this article in just about any city.

I don't know if it's sobering, but it definitely seems like Stingl is trying to take advantage of the interest in Downtown development to drive readership to his column.

It's a bit desperate to do this.... also why does he only talk about Downtown. Why doesn't he mention anything about other office buildings/waterparks/hotels/subdivisions that are no longer on the drawing board in the rest if the metro?

Why don't you read some of his other work? He's not desperate, he's one of the few good writers they still have there. This column is par for the course with regards to his work.

Why don't you read some of his other work? He's not desperate, he's one of the few good writers they still have there. This column is par for the course with regards to his work.

A little defensive there, aren't you. Anyway, I've read his other work... in general his columns are above average but still mediocre.

In case you missed it in today's JS, Jim Stingl offers a sobering/satirical view on MKE's unbuilt work:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/83001687.html

Really glad that Grand Cineplex didn't get anywhere!!!, I could go for that Midwest Center Expansion though.

anyone know what's going on on MLK drive directly south of M&I Bank? the site's all cleared and fenced off and it looks like some sort of construction is about to happen.

Really glad that Grand Cineplex didn't get anywhere!!!, I could go for that Midwest Center Expansion though.

What's wrong with having a cineplex downtown? I would think it would drive people into downtown.

What's wrong with having a cineplex downtown? I would think it would drive people into downtown.

I meant the horrible design of that "Grand Cineplex", seeing as we've had better proposals for that site like the Ghazi Tower Proposal. Marcus could have gotten in on that instead of trying to kill it...... I am ecstatic that Marcus has gone in on this cinema idea on Water St. though. I'm dowtown 90% of the time, boy do I wish there was a theater!!!!


This design would've done nothing for the area!
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9231/stincol29p7.jpg

This on Water St. much better!
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a232/boatnurd/mjs-marcus.jpg

I like the design. Maybe you just would like something fancier?

Maybe something not so suburban, or short for such a premier location. I like the one on Water much better too. Something good is bound to get built on Wisconsin Ave eventually, and we can hold out for a "fancier" design.

I like the design. Maybe you just would like something fancier?

I like the design too but I also liked the old design with it's 20 floors alot better!

Oh for cryin out loud, all that will happen building a 10 floor office building in Milwaukee is just lesson the need for class A office space just enough so that it will end any prospect of a real office tower being built downtown. In the mean time there will still be tenants looking for class A office space because the A-holes only built a 10 floor building.

10 floors, are you kidding me?

$225 million waste-to-energy project planned in Milwaukee
By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 2, 2010 2:12 p.m. |(0) Comments


A $225 million project in Milwaukee announced Tuesday would convert municipal and industrial waste into renewable energy.

Alliance Federated Energy of Milwaukee announced that it plans to build Project Apollo, a project that is expected to create more than 250 construction jobs and 45 full-time jobs once it is operational.

The 25-megawatt project would go online in 2013, and would deploy a plasma gasification technology developed by Westinghouse Plasma Corp.

Under this technology, the municipal waste is not burned but is instead converted into a syngas that can be used to generate electricity, steam or biofuels.

Several facilities are operating around the world, but there are no commercial plants operating yet in the United States, company spokesman Josh Morby said.

The firm has an option on a site in the city of Milwaukee but the location is not being announced at this time, Morby said.

The first phase of the renewable energy facility is expected to process approximately 1,200 tons of municipal and industrial waste per day, generating enough clean energy to power roughly 20,000 homes in the Milwaukee area.

“This commercially proven technology is the ultimate in recycling,” Christopher Maloney, Alliance chief executive, said in a statement. “And we are pleased to be building our first project right here in Wisconsin, a state committed to promoting environmental stewardship and technological innovation.”

Alliance said it has gotten initial commitments from Badger Disposal of Wisconsin to supply about 30% of the waste feedstock for the energy project. Badger Disposal is an industrial waste management services company. Discussions are under way concerning the sale of power and syngas from the project.

“We believe that plasma gasification technology has the potential to be a major player in the renewable energy market and are excited to be working with AFE on their Apollo Project,” said Bob Cutshall, president of CorVal-Ryan, the firm hired to design and construct the facility. “We have a number of plasma gasification based renewable energy projects in design or under construction and see that number growing in the coming years."

^^
How is that going to mesh with the ever-tightening EPA air quality standards in SE Wisconsin?

Mike

^^
How is that going to mesh with the ever-tightening EPA air quality standards in SE Wisconsin?

Mike

I was wondering how much pollution may come from this, it's great to turn waste into energy if you aren't creating a lot of pollution. Anyone have any info on waste to energy plants like this??????

^^If you believe what is posted on the company's website, it seems like a fairly clean project. Here's the link:

http://www.afeservices.com/

^^If you believe what is posted on the company's website, it seems like a fairly clean project. Here's the link:

http://www.afeservices.com/

http://www.afeservices.com/contact.php

Didn't know they were based in Milw

^^If you believe what is posted on the company's website, it seems like a fairly clean project.

That's quite a contingency, though. The company is devoted to selling its product, not making its potential consumers aware of the dangers of it.

Plasma arc disposal generates little electricity from the amount of garbage input, and it negatively affects the efficiency of local recycling operations and availibilty of recycled products. Independent tests have not confirmed the claims that this method of power generation is clean, but has shown precedents do emit dioxin. Furthermore, the long term reliability and efficiency of such projects have yet to be proven.

^^ Source?

Most info I can find on the technology alludes to its uber-efficiency. It eliminates toxins due to the extremely high temperatures and literally all garbage can be processed this way, eliminating the need for landfills. The gas by-products of the 'incineration' although that may be too modest a word, are used by the energy company, and other by-products like sulfur can be sold as well. It is indeed a newer technology and more expensive compared to conventional methods but cost-efficiency will come with time and perfection of the technology.

With all the air problems Milwaukee already has, I don't think it is a good idea to locate this plant right in the middle of the most populated area of the state. The idea of turning garbage into power is a great idea, but the facility should be located somewhere in the exurbs, not in the middle of the city.

Why locate it elsewhere, araman0? Are you aware of air quality problems associated with plasma gasification technology that hasn't been presented here?

If so, cough it up.

If not, explain your position better.

With all the air problems Milwaukee already has, I don't think it is a good idea to locate this plant right in the middle of the most populated area of the state. The idea of turning garbage into power is a great idea, but the facility should be located somewhere in the exurbs, not in the middle of the city.

This wouldn't just be a trash-fired boiler that spoils the air. As with anything the devil is in the details.

I'm focusing on how this would slow the flow to SE WI landfills while providing jobs for the area. Since most impurities are removed, this is as clean as burning natural gas for electricity... arguably the best way outside renewables.

Why locate it elsewhere, araman0? Are you aware of air quality problems associated with plasma gasification technology that hasn't been presented here?

If so, cough it up.

If not, explain your position better.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the technology used for this plant, and if this truly is a clean project then build it in the city! I just want to make sure that this does not further contribute to air polution in the city, giving visitors and potential residents a reason to view the city as dirty and move to the suburbs.

so, I know this is from a month ago, but I just read it in the Business Journal
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/12/21/story1.html

Republic Airlines seems to be trying to sucker Milwaukee travelers out of more money than they should be spending on airfare simply based on the logo painted on the airplanes with the brand "Midwest". He is clearly mocking Milwaukee and Milwaukeeans, stating that "nobody would go there unless they had to".

I'm officially finished with Midwest Airlines. It's dead. Airtran shows much more loyalty to Milwaukee now that these douches at Republic have taken over the helm. Republic is based in Indianapolis and since when was that sinkpit a destination?

Friday, December 18, 2009
Airline exec questions Milwaukee as destination
Republic’s Bedford says city not leisure market
The Business Journal of Milwaukee - by Rich Rovito



The top executive of Republic Airways Holdings Inc., which purchased Midwest Airlines earlier this year, offered some disparaging comments concerning Milwaukee as a travel destination during a recent presentation to investors and industry analysts.

“Milwaukee is not a destination market by price. I don’t care how cheap you make it, you don’t go there unless you have to,” Republic chief executive officer Bryan Bedford said at the Next Generation Equity Research Airlines Conference in New York City Dec. 9.

The comments drew laughter from the audience, but Milwaukee business and travel leaders didn’t find much humor in Bedford’s assessment.

Bedford also told analysts that Milwaukee-area travelers are willing to pay more to book a flight on Oak Creek-based Midwest Airlines, which Republic purchased in July for $31 million.

“We have 1.1 million frequent fliers in Milwaukee and they will pay a premium to fly on Midwest,” he said. “They love that cookie.”

Bedford’s comments referred to the baked-on-board chocolate chip cookies that long have been a symbol of Midwest, an airline that historically has catered to business travelers and at one time offered unique amenities such as free wine, champagne and gourmet meals before drastically reducing such offerings in recent years.

Bedford also spoke of Indianapolis-based Republic’s transformation of Midwest into a “virtual airline” with no airline certificate, and no Midwest-owned or leased aircraft, unions or pension.

“All that stuff is gone,” Bedford said. “It’s simply Midwest branding operated by Republic.”

The Milwaukee-area tourism economy in 2009 is projected to be about $2.7 billion, according to Visit Milwaukee, the city’s visitors and convention bureau. About 30 percent of that total is derived from leisure travel, Visit Milwaukee spokesman Dave Fantle said.

“People are making conscious decisions to visit the Milwaukee area,” Fantle said. “We’re a great surprise destination. We have a high ‘wow’ factor.”

Fantle offered to take Bedford on a “familiarization” tour of the Milwaukee area so that he could view local attractions.

“Once Mr. Bedford has had an opportunity to spend more time here, I’m sure he’ll be a new advocate for the city,” Fantle said.

Midwest spokesman Jim Reichart pointed out that Bedford made the comments in the context of a much broader presentation about Republic’s operations.

“You have to consider the environment and the audience. You speak a little bit differently to that crowd,” Reichart said. “This was not at all a commentary about Milwaukee’s importance as a leisure destination.”

The Milwaukee area attracts more leisure travelers in warmer months, but air travel to the area for the rest of the year tends to be limited mainly to business and personal purposes, Reichart said.

Milwaukee tends to mainly attract business travelers, a segment on which Midwest built its business, Republic spokesman Carlo Bertolini said.

“Milwaukee isn’t Las Vegas or Orlando,” he said. “It’s not an insult, it’s just a different traffic pattern. The bulk of the traffic in Milwaukee isn’t leisure.”

Business travel remains the “bread and butter” of Midwest’s business, Bertolini said.

Lower fares often don’t stimulate ticket purchases for business travel like they do for leisure purposes, meaning many Midwest customers pay higher prices, Bertolini said.

“Business travel happens when business needs to be done,” he said.

‘Restoring Midwest network’

As for the transformation of Midwest into a “virtual” airline, Bertolini said such a move was necessary to save the airline.

“It has allowed us to begin restoring the Midwest network at a sustainable cost level,” he said.

The transformation has been “invisible” to most consumers since Republic’s planes are painted with the Midwest name and color scheme.

Robert Fornaro, chairman, president and CEO of AirTran Holdings Inc., which operates AirTran Airways, offered a different assessment of the Milwaukee-area travel market.

“The destination isn’t just Milwaukee. It’s southeastern Wisconsin and northern Illinois,” Fornaro said in an interview. “It’s a bigger market area than most people realize.”

High airfares due to a lack of competition, not Milwaukee’s status as a tourist attraction, have hindered travel to the area, Fornaro said.

“One of the reasons Milwaukee hasn’t been a strong destination is that it has been overpriced,” he said.

Orlando, Fla.-based AirTran Airways has been aggressively expanding its service at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport since a failed takeover of Midwest in 2007.

The increased competition at Mitchell has led to lower airfares and service to more cities, which should allow Milwaukee to attract more meetings and convention business, Fornaro said.

“You’ll have bigger airplanes and better prices and you’re going to be able to compete with Chicago and Minneapolis for the convention business, where in years past it was much more difficult,” he said.

Although Midwest’s operations have changed dramatically over the past two years, the brand remains strong and the airline has been focusing on improving customer service as a result of the financial stability provided by its new owners, Reichart said.

Midwest has been rebuilding its route network in recent months, adding back service to cities such as Los Angeles; San Francisco; Louisville, Ky.; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; and St. Louis, he said.

Midwest also recently announced that it is expanding its existing codeshare program with Denver-based Frontier Airlines, which also is owned by Republic, to include all destinations on both airlines’ route networks. With the expansion, travelers will be able to book flights on a single ticket to a a total of 63 Midwest and Frontier destinations.

“Our association with Frontier also helps us expand what we can offer customers,” he said.

This year has been a time of “brand transition” for Midwest under new ownership, Reichart said. In 2010, Republic will determine how Midwest and Frontier can be combined to best serve air travelers, he said.

Any talk of the elimination of the Midwest brand name would be “premature” at this point, Reichart said.

^^
Now that Midwest is moving their headquarters to Indy I don't see why any Milwaukean should show them (or their cookie) any loyalty.

I don't really think its a slight against Milwaukee to say we aren't a destination. Thats all but a fact. I'm not saying that we don't have some great things to do here, but people around the country don't know about any of that. I would probally say that most people around the Midwest don't know about Milwaukee that much either--aside from those in Chicagoland and maybe Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana. We are known for beer/sausage (maybe Harley) obviously but after that its Laverne & Shirley, Happy Days, crime, industry, cold weather, and all the other stereotypes attributed to Midwestern cities outside Chicago. I would be willing to bet my hard earned dollars that upwards to 75-80% of Americans couldn't place Milwaukee on a map, let alone point out that its on a Great Lake and only 90 miles from Chicago. The fools would probally mix us up with Minneapolis. If it isn't on movies or t.v. (particularly ESPN), then they don't give a s--t.

Milwaukee has some great stuff to do, but I think this city is unvisitable in winter. In summertime, we punch far above our weight with things to do in the city and in the area. If I had to sell the city to someone to visit, I would tell them to try to tell them that we are a great sidetrip from Chicago. Look at any travel guide about Chicago and we are always listed as a good, overlooked destination.

Selling points--

-Summerfest.

-Wisconsin State Fair

-Summer ethnic festivals (Bastille Days, Pride Fest, German Fest, Polish Fest, Indian Summer, Festa Italiana, Mexican Fiesta, Arts festival, fireworks etc.)

-Milwaukee Art Museum/Pier Wisconsin/Lakeshore St. Park and the rest of the Lakefront.

-Milwaukee Public Museum, particularly the rainforest, Old Milwaukee, Butterflies, and Planetarium.

-Brewers game/tailgate/see the racing sausages (one of the things we are famous for)

-Harley Davidson Museum

-Potawatomi, in all its smokey and bad odds having glory. They do have some good resturants and shows there though--as well as free soda. :banana:

-Miller Brewery Tour/Lakefront Brewery Tour/Sprecher Tour/Milwaukee Ale House/Rehorst-Great Lakes Distillery & general Milwaukee bar/drinking/resturant culture (Wolskis, Maders, Karl Ratzschs, Turners, etc.)

-Old World Third St./The Eastside---especially the Oriental Theater which is a jewel in my opinion.

-Performing Arts. Arts Performing Center (more likely) :), etc.

-The Safehouse/The Fonz effigy/Riverwalk triple threat.

-River/Lake boat tours, Edelweiss etc.

-Lesser museums/attractions-The Domes (I guess some people would travel 1000 miles to see some plants) Villa Terrace, Museum of Advertising, County Historical Society etc.

-Architecture--Pabst Mansion, City Hall, Art Museum, St. Josaphat Basilica, Villa Terrace, Central Library, Marquette etc. Milwaukee has some kick ass churches/cathedrals---we should highlight that.

-The Bucks....?

^^ Agreed 100%!

Maybe this will help:

http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2010/2/3/new-task-force-to-assess-milwaukees-identity


New task force to assess Milwaukee’s identity
Published February 3, 2010 - BizTimes Daily

Previous | 6 of 12 | Next

The Milwaukee Community and Economic Development Committee has approved a resolution to create a task force to assess the perceptions and image of greater Milwaukee and help to identify funding for ongoing branding in the future.
Milwaukee Alderman Terry Witkowski, primary sponsor of the resolution, says the task force will help establish an entity that is responsible for creating and maintaining Milwaukee’s image.
“Although a brand identity is important for tourism and conventions, in this global economy, a first-class city like ours needs a stable and recognizable identity for doing business,” Witkowski said.
For years, reports have shown that nationally people have mis-indentified that Milwaukee is in Minnesota or identified Milwaukee as Minneapolis, Witkowski said. In the most recent study, many people failed to respond on questions about their perception of Milwaukee, presumably because they have no perception of or knowledge of Milwaukee, Witkowski said.
“We cannot lure new businesses to the area if no one knows we exist,” Witkowski said. “If the Water Council, M-7 and Milwaukee Gateway Aerotropolis Corp. and others working to bring businesses and jobs to Milwaukee are to succeed, we need to be better known and identifiable.”
The resolution calls for the group to indentify the agency that will be responsible for advancing Milwaukee’s brand. Currently, many groups work on promoting greater Milwaukee, but no one has the sole responsibility for it or for improvement of its image.
The task force is slated to deliver its recommendations to the Milwaukee Common Council within the next year and consists of 24 designated members, including the mayor, the Common Council president, representatives from General Mitchell International Airport, the Greater Milwaukee Committee, the Milwaukee 7, VISIT Milwaukee and others.

http://www.biztimes.com/nf/uploads/Image/Nehring.jpg
Image from Biztimes.com

Nehrings still commited to another upscale grocery store (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/83389707.html) downtown, despite the recent foreclosure lawsuit (http://www.jsonline.com/business/83408682.html) against Boris Goklman, of New Land Enterprises. (JSonline)

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/02/02/milwaukee-train-station-renovation-planned/

Milwaukee train station renovation planned

"On top of the four new stations planned for its high speed rail line, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will renovate the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The department is looking for an engineer to finish the design and construction documents for a renovation to the Milwaukee station’s train shed, which is the building where passengers board the trains. The existing shed will be demolished and a new one will be built in its place, said John Oimoen, WisDOT project director for the high speed rail project."

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/02/02/milwaukee-train-station-renovation-planned/

Milwaukee train station renovation planned

"On top of the four new stations planned for its high speed rail line, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will renovate the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The department is looking for an engineer to finish the design and construction documents for a renovation to the Milwaukee station’s train shed, which is the building where passengers board the trains. The existing shed will be demolished and a new one will be built in its place, said John Oimoen, WisDOT project director for the high speed rail project."


Oh hell yes.

More views of Metro Place, being developed by Wangard Partners. Some nice infill.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7015/92532363.jpg

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6450/82267739.jpg

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7469/77464778.jpg
Images from AG Architecture

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/02/02/milwaukee-train-station-renovation-planned/

Milwaukee train station renovation planned

"On top of the four new stations planned for its high speed rail line, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will renovate the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The department is looking for an engineer to finish the design and construction documents for a renovation to the Milwaukee station’s train shed, which is the building where passengers board the trains. The existing shed will be demolished and a new one will be built in its place, said John Oimoen, WisDOT project director for the high speed rail project."

As frequent traveler of the Hiawatha Line, this news gets me very excited. Finally!

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/02/02/milwaukee-train-station-renovation-planned/

Milwaukee train station renovation planned

"On top of the four new stations planned for its high speed rail line, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will renovate the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The department is looking for an engineer to finish the design and construction documents for a renovation to the Milwaukee station’s train shed, which is the building where passengers board the trains. The existing shed will be demolished and a new one will be built in its place, said John Oimoen, WisDOT project director for the high speed rail project."

Oh hell yes.

I couldn't have put it any better!! I always wondered why they replaced the building but left the passenger boarding area the same?

http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/02/02/milwaukee-train-station-renovation-planned/

Milwaukee train station renovation planned

"On top of the four new stations planned for its high speed rail line, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will renovate the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The department is looking for an engineer to finish the design and construction documents for a renovation to the Milwaukee station’s train shed, which is the building where passengers board the trains. The existing shed will be demolished and a new one will be built in its place, said John Oimoen, WisDOT project director for the high speed rail project."

Such great news!! That shed is uglier than sin, and if they continue with cues from how the main building looks, this will look really cool.

I couldn't have put it any better!! I always wondered why they replaced the building but left the passenger boarding area the same?

It was always part of the plan as a second phase.

that is very good news.... I hope they put a good amount of money into making the shed a nice, open building--- a tall arched glass roof like you find in a lot of the European rail stations would be brilliant. if anyone has been to Berlin's Hauptbahnhof, you'll know what I'm talking about...
http://www.germanblogs.de/pub/germanblogs/reise/Berliner_Hauptbahnhof.jpg

http://www.berlin101.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hauptbahnhof-inside.JPG

http://eiffelover.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/platform-shot.jpg?w=395

The type of design would be great for a train shed. If only ours wouldn't expose a view to the backside of the post office complex...