Milwaukee Development News [Archive] - Page 30

Paule

June 23rd, 2012, 02:58 AM

Bored at work so I'm thinking about the proposed 40 story apartment tower next door.

Taking into consideration 5 of the newest residential towers (The Moderne, University Club Tower, Kilbourn Tower, The Breakwater and Park Lafayette) I was curious about how tall it would be.

Averaging out the ft per floor/total building height they average out to 11.79 feet per floor. With a high or 12.39 ft/floor (UCL) to a low of 11.05 ft/floor (Park Lafayette).

Basically if this is the choice the county/city goes with, were looking at a tower that could be around 450-470 ft, putting it on par with the University Club tower. Could be shorter/taller, but that's an estimate.

Would really build on the dynamic of the skyline, reallllllly got my fingers crossed on this one.
Yeah, this is what I'm thinking about too, skyline dynamics and what is possible! Plus I would really like to know what NWM is planning to do with their tower next door? I know they have said they need to tare down their 17 story building and build a new tower on the same spot. The question is, are they going to split operations between downtown and the Franklin property, pull all of their existing downtown operations out of the downtown and commit 100% to Franklin, or commit 100% to the downtown location? If they commit 100% to the downtown location we're looking at a possible 25ish story office tower taking the place of the current 17 story tower.

Things are really starting to get interesting in downtown Milwaukee!!

usbmfa

June 23rd, 2012, 04:47 AM

I thought there would be more complaining about the height. I don't think either this location, or the transit location are good spots for a new 40 story. 20 story buildings would look good on those lots. I'd rather have taller buildings further west on the surface lots of Michigan St (in the year 2050). NM also will not be building a taller building than what they take down. My guess is it will be shorter, but very nice.

The street level restaurant does not really make any sense to me, given there will be no foot traffic at all in that area. It might make more sense to have a restaurant on the terrace or on the top floor.

At least this proposal looks promising, unlike the other office tower that never had a chance.

honest86

June 23rd, 2012, 06:06 AM

I really like the proposal. While it isn't the largest proposal, I think that the design does a good job addressing the pedestrian and street level experience creating a very pedestrian friendly area with a nice little public plaza with a strong building entrance and a good connection with the US Bank building. In addition I think the buildings height is appropriate for the site. I think the site isn't something that warrants a landmark building, it is more of a filler site between two more substantial sites(the US Bank building, and the Transit Center site) and this is a nice filler building. The building is orientated correctly for the site, with it's major sight-lines being north and south so that when the transit site is developed it wont block any views no matter how big the developed building. In addition it will still maintain a nice view of the lake and the the third ward as it looks across the freeway while substantially improving the street-walls of both Michigan St, and Clybourn St.

Paule

June 23rd, 2012, 10:21 PM

I thought there would be more complaining about the height.
Not everyone has commented on this yet.

NM also will not be building a taller building than what they take down. My guess is it will be shorter, but very nice.
I'm wondering why you would say that with such certainty since the major reason why NM gave for needing to take down the present tower and build a new one was because of needing more office space/over-crowding. NM said that they will weigh all options. If they chose to keep all of the current operations at the present site how could they satisfy their need for more space by building an even smaller tower? Just curious as to your reasoning here.

At least this proposal looks promising, unlike the other office tower that never had a chance.
This new proposal does look promising but I disagree with you that the other tower proposal never had a chance. When the earlier propsoal first made news it looked to me that it was very promising but it slowly fell apart.

CGII

June 24th, 2012, 02:01 AM

I'm wondering why you would say that with such certainty since the major reason why NM gave for needing to take down the present tower and build a new one was because of needing more office space/over-crowding. NM said that they will weigh all options. If they chose to keep all of the current operations at the present site how could they satisfy their need for more space by building an even smaller tower? Just curious as to your reasoning here.

The building is old and obsolete. It is no longer efficient and NML wants to update their digs, not add more space.

The idea that 'oh [x company] will come along and say they want space in it and that'll give us a 90 floor building' is fallacious as I can't think of a single proposal in Milwaukee that has actually been expanded and then built along those parameters ever. Its not like some developer in the 70s was proposing a 10 floor building and then First Wisconsin came along and the developer added 30 floors to make the US Bank Center. A company of that size will develop their own building; the kind of speculative real estating that everyone here is praying will add miracle floors to short proposals is a kind of business tactic employed in big cities like NY or Chicago were real estate is a hyper premium and the construction of 50+ floor buildings doesn't bat an eye.

Paule

June 24th, 2012, 08:48 PM

The building is old and obsolete. It is no longer efficient and NML wants to update their digs, not add more space.

The idea that 'oh [x company] will come along and say they want space in it and that'll give us a 90 floor building' is fallacious as I can't think of a single proposal in Milwaukee that has actually been expanded and then built along those parameters ever. Its not like some developer in the 70s was proposing a 10 floor building and then First Wisconsin came along and the developer added 30 floors to make the US Bank Center. A company of that size will develop their own building; the kind of speculative real estating that everyone here is praying will add miracle floors to short proposals is a kind of business tactic employed in big cities like NY or Chicago were real estate is a hyper premium and the construction of 50+ floor buildings doesn't bat an eye.
"fallacious"? Really?? :ohno:

First, I didn't mention anything about a 90 floor or a 50 floor building. I did mention the possibility of a 25ish story building. Second, the building was built in 1978 so it's not that old that a company would want to tare it down and use that as it's only reason to do so. Thirdly, when the news of this broke, a woman high up on the company's ladder was interviewed by the JS where she said that the combination of high maintenence costs and overcrowding at the existing building forced the company to make the decision to tare the building down and build a new tower. She spoke about the overcrowding as perhaps being the major reason for not spending the money to simply fix and update the existing building. I had linked this interview to this thread when it came out. If you know the date of when this story broke then please back track in this thread and find the link.

Paule

June 24th, 2012, 09:29 PM

I was mistaken, I didn't provide a link to JS of the womans comments, nor was it an interview. the lady simply made comments in the comments section of the article covering the story. Here is my post though of what she said.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=84505629&postcount=6662

And here is the article.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/130739638.html#!page=4&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
Northwestern Mutual to replace 16-story downtown building

By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel
Sept. 28, 2011 4:54 p.m. |

One of Northwestern Mutual's downtown office buildings, with 1,100 employees, will eventually be replaced with either a new downtown building, or a building at the company's Franklin campus.

That's the word from company spokesman Mark Lucius, who told me Wednesday that Northwestern Mutual has started a planning process to study its space issues.

That process, which will take until late 2012 to complete, comes after company managers determined that the Northwestern Mutual building at 734 N. Cass St. faces extensive long-term maintenance costs.

The building is currently both functional and safe, Lucius said, but it will eventually be razed. The 16-story building, which also has an address of 815 E. Mason St., was built in 1978. It has around 500,000 square feet.

"Future repair costs were a big factor in this decision, but they were not the only one," a company statement said. "Part of our long-term campus planning deals with creating the functionality and space we need for the future. Removing the building gives us added flexibility to do so.

The primary focus of the planning process will be on determining future space needs, and evaluating options at the downtown and Franklin campuses, the statement said.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/130739638.html

looksee

June 24th, 2012, 11:51 PM

The building is old and obsolete.

Wow. I'd love to see you apply such dismissive logic to your current digs (Europe).

The notion that a rather luxurious and probably no-costs-spared structure erected in 1978 can't be maintained or even slightly updated is simply insulting.

I've most often heard this nonsense from institutions too wealthy (like NML) or too huge (like the UW) to care anymore about decent criticism, and which simply wish to indulge their fantasies at any cost.

the kind of speculative real estating that everyone here is praying will add miracle floors to short proposals is a kind of business tactic employed in big cities like NY or Chicago were real estate is a hyper premium and the construction of 50+ floor buildings doesn't bat an eye.
What you say applies to the replacment of less productive buildings ('though not necessarily old or inefficient) with more remunerative buildings (creative destruction) in dynamic real estate markets; Even then the results can be baneful. Perhaps NML has a golden ace up its sleeve. At least, unlike the UW, it's not indulging itself at taxpayers' expense ('though somebody will foot the bill).

usbmfa

June 26th, 2012, 05:41 AM

Not everyone has commented on this yet.

I'm wondering why you would say that with such certainty since the major reason why NM gave for needing to take down the present tower and build a new one was because of needing more office space/over-crowding. NM said that they will weigh all options. If they chose to keep all of the current operations at the present site how could they satisfy their need for more space by building an even smaller tower? Just curious as to your reasoning here.

This new proposal does look promising but I disagree with you that the other tower proposal never had a chance. When the earlier propsoal first made news it looked to me that it was very promising but it slowly fell apart.

I should say I think a new building will not be taller. NM has the option to expand Franklin, which I am sure they will do. This is not anything against Milwaukee, I just think that they will run out of room there before downtown. They are tearing down a large building (expensive) and replacing it with a larger one is even more expensive. They do not build speculative real estate for themsleves, so a lease option is not possible. They own the building across the street on Jackson. While I doubt it will be for employees in the long run, there is that option, which also would save a lot of money.

What is really interesting is they are sitting on the best piece of real estate in the whole city. I think a smart thing to do would be to redevelop their downtown space around the north and west perimeter of their existing buildings. The parking garage has been covered in scaffold for months. Why not tear that down (or anything else around that area) build the new building on those sites, and clear the site of the existing building. Then in the year 2100, when there is actually demand for class A office space in Milwaukee, you could sell or develop the money site and make a killing. The company has been around for 150 years, I am sure they can wait another 100 years for Milwaukee office demand to pick up. On the other hand, maybe that investment has too long a of duration for even NM.

CGII

June 26th, 2012, 07:03 AM

"fallacious"? Really?? :ohno:

First, I didn't mention anything about a 90 floor or a 50 floor building. I did mention the possibility of a 25ish story building. Second, the building was built in 1978 so it's not that old that a company would want to tare it down and use that as it's only reason to do so. Thirdly, when the news of this broke, a woman high up on the company's ladder was interviewed by the JS where she said that the combination of high maintenence costs and overcrowding at the existing building forced the company to make the decision to tare the building down and build a new tower. She spoke about the overcrowding as perhaps being the major reason for not spending the money to simply fix and update the existing building. I had linked this interview to this thread when it came out. If you know the date of when this story broke then please back track in this thread and find the link.

Name one project in Milwaukee that had floors added because a major tenant landed that wasn't already tied to the project.

Wow. I'd love to see you apply such dismissive logic to your current digs (Europe).

Milwaukee isn't in Europe.

looksee

June 26th, 2012, 08:38 PM

Milwaukee isn't in Europe.
Quite right; It's neither as old or obsolete.

:smug:

Dale

June 26th, 2012, 08:40 PM

Quite right; It's neither as old or obsolete.

:smug:

Ouch!

AcctStdntUWM

June 26th, 2012, 09:30 PM

Park East Square won County Board approval today

Paule

June 27th, 2012, 01:17 AM

Name one project in Milwaukee that had floors added because a major tenant landed that wasn't already tied to the project.
There is definately miscommunication going on here, a failure to communicate. I never suggested for this new proposal, or any proposal in Milwaukee, to have floors added. I don't even know why you brought it up. No one here has said anything about adding floors to any current proposal or that it has been done before. I did bring up a past proposal that was larger and taller in scale than this new proposal and with the same anchor tenant.

If you're talking about the planned NM building being torn down, yes, there is a real possibility that NM would plan on building a taller tower. You may not think they're going to do that, heck, even I don't think they'll do that, but the potential is still there. It's not there because of wishful thinking on my part but because of the stated reasons why NM gave for wanting to tare down the building in the first place, "space issues" and "future repair costs".

Also, the lady I was talking about stated quite clearly that there is no way that NM would ever allow another tenant to share a building with them. A mixed use building would jepardize security with the highly sensitive information that they work on in the building. So, no, I was never saying that a tenant might come by and want to share a taller building with NM because I know that would be impossible.

Either way, there is no current proposal or plans that NM has put forward. All we know is that they say that eventually their current building will need to be torn down. They are conducting a study on their future space needs, that study wont be finished until the end of 2012. The beginning of 2013 we should hear again from them on any of their plans.

Paule

June 27th, 2012, 01:29 AM

I should say I think a new building will not be taller. NM has the option to expand Franklin, which I am sure they will do. This is not anything against Milwaukee, I just think that they will run out of room there before downtown. They are tearing down a large building (expensive) and replacing it with a larger one is even more expensive. They do not build speculative real estate for themsleves, so a lease option is not possible. They own the building across the street on Jackson. While I doubt it will be for employees in the long run, there is that option, which also would save a lot of money.
Thank you, and I mostly agree with you. Months ago I said I thought NM would probably expand in Franklin while building a new tower on the site that is similar in size to what they have now. The potential is still there though for NM to surprise you and I and plan for a bigger tower. It would probably be because of an offer the city makes to NM that they can't refuse.

What is really interesting is they are sitting on the best piece of real estate in the whole city. I think a smart thing to do would be to redevelop their downtown space around the north and west perimeter of their existing buildings. The parking garage has been covered in scaffold for months. Why not tear that down (or anything else around that area) build the new building on those sites, and clear the site of the existing building. Then in the year 2100, when there is actually demand for class A office space in Milwaukee, you could sell or develop the money site and make a killing. The company has been around for 150 years, I am sure they can wait another 100 years for Milwaukee office demand to pick up. On the other hand, maybe that investment has too long a of duration for even NM.
LOL, yes, both interesting and funny. Um, that's all I have for you now...:)

Paule

June 27th, 2012, 01:36 AM

Quite right; It's neither as old or obsolete.

:smug:
:lol: Good one Looksee!

CGII

June 27th, 2012, 02:25 AM

Quite right; It's neither as old or obsolete.

:smug:

Well it certainly is shameful that the American economy is such that a major corporation can simply trash an entire skyscraper, but to only point out that a problem exists and then preach that it is shameful to exist falls short of understanding the problem or proposing a solution. Disposable culture isn't NML's fault, it's the fault of cheaply and readily accessed industrial materials which can be attributed to America's wealth of resources and free market attitudes.

It is very easy to play righteous on this case but it is important to understand that the same relative cheapness of luxury has built the comfortable culture we inhabit. The enormous cities of America are dependent on cheap labor and materials. Consider as an example the industrialization of food, another byproduct of consumer culture that is often criticized. Without a massive industrial and economic infrastructure designed to quickly and efficiently deliver food to urban areas, urban areas couldn't exist. The same can be said for building materials and construction. If the market for construction isn't competitive enough to be able to propose replacing existing buildings, new skyscrapers can't happen.

My point is that the disposability of the NML building is a double edged sword that extends beyond the purview of NML: the affordability and accessibility of advanced materials that makes such a building obsolete is exactly what enables skyscrapers and contemporary urban culture. Competition is the entire point of the skyscraper, and demolition of 'obsolete' older skyscrapers is economically required to sustain new construction. I don't advocate such a system being wise or healthy, it is simply the nature of the system.

You implied earlier that Milwaukee has a lesson to be learned from Rome in terms of the value of reusing buildings, but I should mention that Rome has only about 4 'skyscrapers' for a 3,000 year old city with more than 3 million residents, the tallest of which is only about 25 floors. American and European buildings markets do not operate the same, and it doesn't work to compare the two. I honestly could care less about skyscrapers, but if you advocate skyscrapers, especially in a smaller city like Milwaukee, you should be aware of their urbanistic consequences.

looksee

June 27th, 2012, 05:53 AM

^^ http://www.nevadashooters.com/images/smilies/incazzato.gif ^^

CGII

June 27th, 2012, 03:50 PM

Look, I'm only trying to shed some light on why things happen the way they do. If you'd rather act like a bitter child that's fine, I'll stop wasting my time here. I should've known better than to try and share professional knowledge on the internet.

skylinedude

June 27th, 2012, 04:50 PM

The City of Milwaukee Zoning Neighborhood and Development Committee voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday for the appeal to interim historic designation and pave the way for the demolition of the Sydney Hih buildings. Now it goes up for a vote at the Milwaukee Common Council Meeting on July 6th. The consensus among the 4 aldermen on this committee voting for the appeal is that the proposal came at least 10 to 15 years too late to save the buildings and the hidden not repaired damage from the fires over the years and denial of historic status from the state and federal historic societies didn't help either. So based on this vote I see anywhere from a 10 to 5 or even a 13 to 2 vote in favor of the appeal at the Common Council meeting. Unless a real miracle happens, the Sydney Hih buildings are going to be demolished.

Jesse276

June 28th, 2012, 12:14 AM

mgk920

June 28th, 2012, 01:13 AM

Quite right; It's neither as old or obsolete.

:smug:
OTOH, it is being run by a bunch of people who appear to me to be similarly clueless....

Mike

HaletotheZoo

June 29th, 2012, 01:38 AM

http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120628/ENEWSLETTERS02/120629770

Glad to hear this and with the addition of the Moderene and The North End II this number should hopefully continue to rise.

It shall be noted that West Allis is the 565th largest city in the country :lol:

honest86

June 29th, 2012, 06:58 AM

More information about possible tenants of the new proposed office building downtown next to the US Bank building. http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120627/ENEWSLETTERS06/120629816

Also news about the ground breaking of the new hotel next to the casino. http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120627/ENEWSLETTERS06/120629815/Potawatomi-Hotel-construction-to-begin-in-mid-July

As I said earlier, I think the new proposed office tower downtown next to the US bank building is a good design, and I am excited about it. If the site is successfully developed it will only add more pressure to redevelop the transit building next door, and will contribute to making the downtown more vibrant. Rumors about redeveloping the transit center site are swirling about a mixed use proposal, and having more jobs, a fitness center, restaurant, etc right next door will only make the transit center site more attractive, especially considering the current state of the site of the office building proposal:).

AcctStdntUWM

June 29th, 2012, 05:03 PM

As I said earlier, I think the new proposed office tower downtown next to the US bank building is a good design, and I am excited about it. If the site is successfully developed it will only add more pressure to redevelop the transit building next door, and will contribute to making the downtown more vibrant. Rumors about redeveloping the transit center site are swirling about a mixed use proposal, and having more jobs, a fitness center, restaurant, etc right next door will only make the transit center site more attractive, especially considering the current state of the site of the office building proposal:).

Agreed, I think the scale of the building is great for the site and the design is quite nice. Especially like the idea of a terrace for the building tenants overlooking the lake. Hopefully they could add some green roof qualities to it, or at least a lot of greenery and some small trees.

The building will really be pretty prominent as far as its appearance, IMO, driving 794 east towards the lake, driving over the Hoan or just being down by the MAM or Discovery World.

mohammed wong

June 29th, 2012, 08:25 PM

mohammed wong

June 29th, 2012, 08:29 PM

Personally, I only see the point of saving the buildings at this point if there's an investor or tenant committed. I hate seeing these buildings come down though.

The question to avoid this in 10 years is, why isn't the city being more proactive on building owners? Why aren't preservationists pushing this? Does anyone really think emotional meetings at the last minute can (or even should) save the buildings?

This is total BS. What about the building at Holton and North Ave?
Nice castle brick building just wasting away. Some buildings deserve being saved. I wish the bubble had lasted long enough for some screwball investor to have atleast fixed up the Sydney Hih building and also that really old previous brewery building that got moved. I personally dont understand how it is the city of Milwaukee doesnt have enough money to save those two buildings.

=dba=Ronin

June 30th, 2012, 03:14 PM

This is total BS. What about the building at Holton and North Ave?
Nice castle brick building just wasting away. Some buildings deserve being saved. I wish the bubble had lasted long enough for some screwball investor to have atleast fixed up the Sydney Hih building and also that really old previous brewery building that got moved. I personally dont understand how it is the city of Milwaukee doesnt have enough money to save those two buildings.

Why would, or a better question, should, the city be asked, at taxpayers expense, to save buildings that apparently no one wants to save? If the SH was destined to keep standing someone would have jumped in before it was too late. No one has stepped up because they realize it is too far gone at this point. The sentimental minority who cried out to put the demo on hold should have ponied up when they had the chance, but apparently its worth wasn't all that valuable to them until the reality of its demise came to light. You can't put the burden of it's inevitable fate on the city.

There is no doubt SH was a unique place...I don't frequent the city as much as I would like, but I have known of this building for some time. I think at some point when it would have still been a viable investment, it would have been a worthwhile venture to make some use of the place, but ffs sometimes you just have to let things go and move on...particularly when the odds are so stacked against you. You snooze...you lose.

Jesse276

June 30th, 2012, 06:26 PM

Why would, or a better question, should, the city be asked, at taxpayers expense, to save buildings that apparently no one wants to save? If the SH was destined to keep standing someone would have jumped in before it was too late. No one has stepped up because they realize it is too far gone at this point. The sentimental minority who cried out to put the demo on hold should have ponied up when they had the chance, but apparently its worth wasn't all that valuable to them until the reality of its demise came to light. You can't put the burden of it's inevitable fate on the city.

There is no doubt SH was a unique place...I don't frequent the city as much as I would like, but I have known of this building for some time. I think at some point when it would have still been a viable investment, it would have been a worthwhile venture to make some use of the place, but ffs sometimes you just have to let things go and move on...particularly when the odds are so stacked against you. You snooze...you lose.

Exactly, spot on.

What I was trying to convey above is that it doesn't have to be this way. Why isn't the next SH getting cracked down on deferred maintenance right now?

Yeah, it's politically unpopular to go after owners & investors in the city. However, the building stock is worth more than the sum of its NPV, especially to the city... they'll ultimately have to deal with buildings & crappy landlords bringing down land values.

Go after the low-hanging fruit of marginal & run-down areas. A building stock in better condition, increases desirability & value. Every vacant, boarded up building tears that down, along with our history.

mohammed wong

July 2nd, 2012, 05:44 AM

Why would, or a better question, should, the city be asked, at taxpayers expense, to save buildings that apparently no one wants to save? If the SH was destined to keep standing someone would have jumped in before it was too late. No one has stepped up because they realize it is too far gone at this point. The sentimental minority who cried out to put the demo on hold should have ponied up when they had the chance, but apparently its worth wasn't all that valuable to them until the reality of its demise came to light. You can't put the burden of it's inevitable fate on the city.

There is no doubt SH was a unique place...I don't frequent the city as much as I would like, but I have known of this building for some time. I think at some point when it would have still been a viable investment, it would have been a worthwhile venture to make some use of the place, but ffs sometimes you just have to let things go and move on...particularly when the odds are so stacked against you. You snooze...you lose.

Because it would be a good investment of taxpayer money:). Thats all.
Just my opinion. Yes its not JUST the cities fault. Its just that Milwaukee was too SLOW to recover really as a city to save it and in general that area was too desolate for too long. And yes, it was allowed to crumble/waste away for too long. Really the biggest fault is that of the previous landlord. In any case it shouldve been rehabbed in the eighties or nineties (Sydney Hih).....

mohammed wong

July 2nd, 2012, 05:45 AM

Exactly, spot on.

What I was trying to convey above is that it doesn't have to be this way. Why isn't the next SH getting cracked down on deferred maintenance right now?

Yeah, it's politically unpopular to go after owners & investors in the city. However, the building stock is worth more than the sum of its NPV, especially to the city... they'll ultimately have to deal with buildings & crappy landlords bringing down land values.

Go after the low-hanging fruit of marginal & run-down areas. A building stock in better condition, increases desirability & value. Every vacant, boarded up building tears that down, along with our history.

I agree.... The owners were and are at fault.

CGII

July 3rd, 2012, 05:54 AM

No worries Mariachi, just joshing you:lol: I know Tosa isn't like West Allis (note: Tell your brother to stay far away the suburbs that start at West allis and end up around south Milwaukee). The people that live in Wauwatosa are certaintly a different breed. So if you tend to lean more to the left you pretty much want to steer clear of Tosa since its just (insert waukesha county town here) located in Milwaukee county. Wauwatosa is okay I guess if you like going to the Mall and need to be in close proximity of highway 100 and its never ending strip malls and suburban sprawl:lol:.

Tosa between 60th and 76th (read, the pretty and urban part) is as liberal as the East Side. I grew up in Tosa and the most liberal families and kids I've ever met hail from there.

ThatGuy

July 3rd, 2012, 10:14 AM

Sydney HiH saved? Or a last second attempt to prevent demolition?

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/161160745.html#!page=1&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

NO details are offered, but I do think that anyone willing to attempt to save them should get the opportunity, especially since nothing is currently planned for the space.

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

mohammed wong

July 3rd, 2012, 05:22 PM

Always interesting to read the defeatist suburban centric views on journal sentinel news site. :bash:

If Sydney Hih makes it, it definitely will be against the odds, most people have it out for this building. I personally have my fingers crossed and hoping for the best. :bowtie:

mohammed wong

July 3rd, 2012, 05:31 PM

More pics of potential sydney hih redevelopment.

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/gallery/kilbourn-town/300-318-w-juneau-ave-raettig-real-estate-1.jpg

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/gallery/kilbourn-town/300-318-w-juneau-ave-raettig-real-estate-2.jpg

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/gallery/kilbourn-town/senn-building-raettig-real-esate-3.jpg

GarfieldPark

July 3rd, 2012, 08:46 PM

I sure hope they can save the Sidney HIH buildings. Those buildings are a great, historic anchor that needs to stay at that corner. You've got the Aloft and the Modern next door in two different directions. Its half a block from the River. There's lots of land around it to be further developed. There are going to be good things happening nearby eventually. Its just that - to tear those cool old buildings down would lose the historic culture that remains in that little area. I hope they will be saved and turned into some cool shops, restaurants and maybe a few apartments or condos. The rest of the block could be filled in with some new residential as well, wrapping around the buildings on the north and west sides. Hopefully they will be around for another 100 years - at least.

MilwaukeeMax

July 4th, 2012, 06:56 AM

This is total BS. What about the building at Holton and North Ave?
Nice castle brick building just wasting away...

I think you mean the building on the corner of Humboldt and North, not Holton and North.

I've often wondered about that place too-- when we had a nasty storm a couple of years ago, some bricks actually flew out of that building's side and its outer wall was collapsed-- I don't know what repairs were done to it, but I'd love to see it redeveloped into something beneficial.

Eriol

July 4th, 2012, 07:20 AM

mohammed wong

July 4th, 2012, 07:47 PM

I think you mean the building on the corner of Humboldt and North, not Holton and North.

I've often wondered about that place too-- when we had a nasty storm a couple of years ago, some bricks actually flew out of that building's side and its outer wall was collapsed-- I don't know what repairs were done to it, but I'd love to see it redeveloped into something beneficial.

Yes you are right, sorry :nuts:
Yes Humboldt and North, the castle looking building that is painted
the same drab colors as the Sydney Hih.
Yes, If I had the dough I would buy that place in a heartbeat and fix the HELL out of it. I would powerwash the paint off the brick, rehab it, and put in a nice Bar/Gastropub something like that on the first floor. Its a nobrainer. :cheers:

honest86

July 4th, 2012, 11:17 PM

I used to live a block away from the North and Humboldt building, and one thing I noticed about it as I walked past all the time it the absolutely horrible shape the facade was in. Their are points where the brick facade is pulling away from the structure, you can see where the foundation has settled and there are cracks running through the bricks. It definitely needs some TLC, although the building does look awesome, and it does have great potential.

jpIllInoIs

July 5th, 2012, 12:50 AM

[QUOTE=mohammed wong;92942959]Always interesting to read the defeatist suburban centric views on journal sentinel news site. :bash:/QUOTE]

Quite right..I can only assume they are in lock step with the negative bs what spews from the AM radio in Milw. I catch some of the hate speech when I check to see if the Brewers are on.

honest86

July 11th, 2012, 05:35 AM

http://www.jsonline.com/business/44story-lakefront-tower-proposed-6262o1g-162017865.html

This proposal looks cool. Hopefully it and the project right next to it get built, it would go a long way to uniting the east side to the third ward and making the area more pedestrian friendly, my only concern is the large parking podium that appears to be part of it. I do like the idea of 2 stories of retail in it. I think the proposal has a lot of potential. I can't wait to see more details of the plan.

looksee

July 11th, 2012, 06:16 AM

^^
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/looksee/scraper/44-storytower.jpg
jsonline (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44story-lakefront-tower-proposed-6262o1g-162017865.html)

looksee

July 11th, 2012, 06:32 AM

This is proposed as a hotel/apartment complex with retail.
That should help alleviate the pedestrian dead zones that clusters of strictly office buildings typically create (cough, NML campus, cough cough).

j-hah

July 11th, 2012, 06:55 AM

Eriol

July 11th, 2012, 08:04 AM

Never mind.

ThatGuy

July 11th, 2012, 08:40 AM

Overall, this proposal is great. However, the location is a bit annoying. Am I right that if this gets built, along with the Irgans building, then they (along with the US Bank building) will run parralel along Michigan? While the will provide a great skyline view from the Hoan, it will be odd from most other angles. Also, I actually think a smaller, more unique design might be a better fit for that location (maybe 25-35 floors)....we will see I guess.
In looking at the rendering, if this does get built, NW Mutuals possible new tower could look really nice if it's designed well and located at the same site as the tower they're tearing down!

All and all, this is exciting as its great to see several new projects being proposed!

I may be wrong, but the two new proposals wouldn't butt up against Wisconsin Avenue, so the two new ones would be on the south of MIchigan avenue, while US bank is on the north side....I think.

As for the parking structure, it does suck, but Milwaukee has no serious mass transit, so you cannot do without it unfortunately. I do like them better when they are incorporated into the super-structure like the Modern or underground (which is expensive) as it makes for a more visually appealing city-scape. If the put some ground level retail around the base of a parking structure, I could see that making it better however, kind of like the structure in the Pabst development has (though it is unoccupied at the moment)

jehuty

July 11th, 2012, 03:50 PM

MilwaukeeMax

July 11th, 2012, 06:00 PM

Along with the other proposed buildings so close by, this area could do wonders fro Milwaukee's bland skyline.

About the 44 tower though, As i understand it, it will top off at about 507 feet, the U.S bank tower is at 607 feet. Do you think there could be a way to get the Couture to get like 6 or 8 extra stories? Perhaps getting the Palomar hotel in there or perhaps putting an observation deck/restaurant could add the necessary floors to get it to be more taller.

Excuse me?! I thought we'd been over this before-- Milwaukee's skyline is hardly "bland"... Let me take you out on a boat in McKinley marina sometime and show you how un-bland it is from that particular angle.

And, jehuty, I really like almost all of your comments, but what is it with some of you guys about always prioritizing the height of a building over almost anything else in a development? It seems to me from this rendering that this 44 story building would pretty much take over as Milwaukee's signature skyscraper as it is designed. The US Bank Center would be sitting in this guy's shadow, for the most part. Besides, a gorgeous high-density project like this in that neighbourhood (especially one WITHOUT any office space) is going to drive up demand even more for a tall office/mixed use tower nearby.
The parking structure is pretty damn annoying and yes, for chrissakes, let's get some proper mass transit in this town so that there is far less of an argument for these ridiculous Houston-style vertical garages. I do know that the city has some rules as far as new parking structures go, though, and this one will be required to have ground level retail/office, at least, which should make that element slightly less annoying.
Anyway, the project as a whole is really very positive and I hope it moves forward and gets built soon!

swinter

July 11th, 2012, 07:02 PM

Badgers77

July 11th, 2012, 07:22 PM

Is that taller than the US Bank building? I really honestly hate the US Bank building.

I also think the Milwaukee skyline is starting to focus a little too heavily on white. Or rather, I'm worried that if it begins to develop a bit more, that it will. But this is a nice-looking proposal and I hope it happens. It reminds me of that monolithic black building in Seattle.

Dale

July 11th, 2012, 07:24 PM

I've always considered US Bank as one of the least offensive-looking 80's style boxes out there.

skylinedude

July 11th, 2012, 07:58 PM

I've always considered US Bank as one of the least offensive-looking 80's style boxes out there.

Actually Dale the US Bank Building is from the 1970's. The building opened in 1973. So next year it will be 40 years.

AdmiralsFan24

July 11th, 2012, 07:59 PM

94 feet shorter than the U.S. Bank building.

MilwaukeeMax

July 11th, 2012, 08:27 PM

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it: along with the announcement, the Rinka Chung website has a ton of new renderings posted.

Also, it's kind of cool we were able to see this design before most everyone else. Thanks for posting that thumbnail a few weeks back, MarqKev.

Thanks for that info. I rather like the shopping plaza planned to fit in the middle of the development...

http://www.rinkachung.com/IMAGES/PROJECT%20IMAGES/COUTURE/COUTURE-10.png

... it reminds me a bit of a smaller version of the Sony Center in Berlin.

Dale

July 11th, 2012, 08:30 PM

Actually Dale the US Bank Building is from the 1970's. The building opened in 1973. So next year it will be 40 years.

Gotcha, I'd say it's stood the test of time.

jehuty

July 11th, 2012, 11:33 PM

Excuse me?! I thought we'd been over this before-- Milwaukee's skyline is hardly "bland"... Let me take you out on a boat in McKinley marina sometime and show you how un-bland it is from that particular angle.

And, jehuty, I really like almost all of your comments, but what is it with some of you guys about always prioritizing the height of a building over almost anything else in a development? It seems to me from this rendering that this 44 story building would pretty much take over as Milwaukee's signature skyscraper as it is designed. The US Bank Center would be sitting in this guy's shadow, for the most part. Besides, a gorgeous high-density project like this in that neighbourhood (especially one WITHOUT any office space) is going to drive up demand even more for a tall office/mixed use tower nearby.
The parking structure is pretty damn annoying and yes, for chrissakes, let's get some proper mass transit in this town so that there is far less of an argument for these ridiculous Houston-style vertical garages. I do know that the city has some rules as far as new parking structures go, though, and this one will be required to have ground level retail/office, at least, which should make that element slightly less annoying.
Anyway, the project as a whole is really very positive and I hope it moves forward and gets built soon!

First you have to understand when i'm coming from when I talk about height of buildings when it comes to a skyline. I'm originally from New York City and even though I live in Milwaukee's east side, I spend a lot of time in Chicago. Now I know Chicago and especially New york are world class cities with truly amazing skylines and that Milwaukee will probably never get to those levels, but my issue with Milwaukee is that its skyline is bland. Now i know a bunch of you guys on here like the skyline and accept it for what it is but it truly is nothing special.

For starters, the biggest offense of Milwaukee's skyline is that it is dominated by such a bland and uninspired tower such as the U.S bank building. Its a vertical rectangle that's painted white...that's about it. Its not ugly, nor is it great looking. Its just plain, nothing special at all. That building represents the epitome of Milwaukee's skyline, hence why people laugh at our skyline. I'd much rather all the buildings in Milwaukee be smaller (think european scale) and have city hall be the showcasing building instead of the U.S bank building.

With that out of the way we move on to the rest of the skyline. First from almost any angle you approach the city you can barely see most of it making Milwaukees downtown seem small. This is mostly due to the landscape but the issue still is there. Then you got some buildings that are ugly (parking garages along the river, chase tower, bradley center), or really need to have a makeover (hilton, lose the antenna).

That being said, Milwaukee does have very nice buildings in it (although its very spread out). My hope is that a new office tower would take attention away from the U.S bank building. Not because I want Milwaukee to mirror other cities, but rather because Milwaukee deserves to have a tower that really compliments and showcases the city. That's why for me taller would be better. I think most people would like something taller than the U.S bank building also to say that we have more than one 600 footer. Don't get me wrong though, i'm way more in favor of just more developments than one huge tower, but since this one is being considered, why not make it taller?

As for transit, you already know how I feel about that one. I mean I know why Milwaukee doesnt have rail mass transit in the city, but my mind refuses to believe that some people/cities would be so against Milwaukee that they would jeopardize the state economic engine. As for parking structures, I'm okay with them as long as they are part of the building itself (ala trump tower). Its the lone parking structures that make me furious. That MSOE one that is going up on park east will look stupid no matter what. It burns me that I will have to see that ugly behemoth every time I go down water street.

Either way, I'm just pump to see a real connection between Downtown and the glorious third ward coming to fruition:banana:

hybridy

July 11th, 2012, 11:39 PM

Thanks for that info. I rather like the shopping plaza planned to fit in the middle of the development...

http://www.rinkachung.com/IMAGES/PROJECT%20IMAGES/COUTURE/COUTURE-10.png

... it reminds me a bit of a smaller version of the Sony Center in Berlin.

agreed, but whats the effect on the street with all the bridge connections to adjacent buildings and parking decks?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i104/gehrijac/untitled-10.jpg

Paule

July 12th, 2012, 12:35 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/looksee/scraper/44-storytower.jpg
jsonline (http://www.jsonline.com/business/44story-lakefront-tower-proposed-6262o1g-162017865.html)
I think this rendering gives a better idea of the scale compared to the US Bank. When I first saw the rendering on JSonline I thought the building would be 100' taller than the US Bank and almost fell out of my chair.
From http://www.rinkachung.com/project_couture.html
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h237/paule17/COUTURE-12.png

I love it and support it! Go for it Milwaukee!!

AdmiralsFan24

July 12th, 2012, 02:11 AM

Now I remember why I stay away from the comments on JSonline. The guy who has posted about 25 times as long as it doesn't use taxpayer dollars.

MilwaukeeMax

July 12th, 2012, 03:26 AM

For starters, the biggest offense of Milwaukee's skyline is that it is dominated by such a bland and uninspired tower such as the U.S bank building. Its a vertical rectangle that's painted white...that's about it. Its not ugly, nor is it great looking. Its just plain, nothing special at all. That building represents the epitome of Milwaukee's skyline, hence why people laugh at our skyline. I'd much rather all the buildings in Milwaukee be smaller (think european scale) and have city hall be the showcasing building instead of the U.S bank building...

...My hope is that a new office tower would take attention away from the U.S bank building...

jehuty,
Thanks for the response and I think I get where you're coming from now and I agree with you. While I too don't hate the US Bank Center, I don't think it should be (and probably never was intended to be) the city's signature building on the skyline. It makes for nice, solid, timeless infill for downtown-- it's a great and reliable backup, but shouldn't be the lead in the performance. I've always found its presence as the city's forefront skyscraper as a bit odd, as well. I think the reason that it holds this position in our minds is a matter of perspective, not height, however. The US Bank building has been the dominant building (of its size class), with nothing hindering our view of it from the East or the South for a very long time. Only recently have the University Club tower and Kilbourn tower taken attention away from it from the north end of downtown.
A pretty strong argument can also be made that the Milwaukee Art Museum's Calatrava wing has drawn focus away from that 1973 tower, by being a far more unique structure, however due to its drastic size difference, is limited in its aptitude to do so. I do not think, though, that a future signature building for Milwaukee must, by necessity, be taller than the US Bank Center. 44 stories is quite enough to place this new proposal in the same weight class as the US Bank building and, with its proximity appearing to be further East and further South than its 1973 neighbour, its placement on the downtown map could very well make it the new signature building of our city's skyline. If that's difficult to imagine, then try picturing three or four other buildings of similar height (30 or 40 floors) in the close proximity to the US Bank Center. Suddenly that old, familiar white tower with its angled trusses would be part of the secondary background (where it belongs) and not the lone vertical bastion on the southeast corner of downtown. Once again, infill is the answer.

P.S. - I also agree that Marcus needs to once and for all take that antenna off the Hilton (although, if I'm not mistaken, that is the radio tower for 91.7 WMSE, and I certainly don't want them to go away!).

jehuty

July 12th, 2012, 04:18 AM

jehuty,
Thanks for the response and I think I get where you're coming from now and I agree with you. While I too don't hate the US Bank Center, I don't think it should be (and probably never was intended to be) the city's signature building on the skyline. It makes for nice, solid, timeless infill for downtown-- it's a great and reliable backup, but shouldn't be the lead in the performance. I've always found its presence as the city's forefront skyscraper as a bit odd, as well. I think the reason that it holds this position in our minds is a matter of perspective, not height, however. The US Bank building has been the dominant building (of its size class), with nothing hindering our view of it from the East or the South for a very long time. Only recently have the University Club tower and Kilbourn tower taken attention away from it from the north end of downtown.
A pretty strong argument can also be made that the Milwaukee Art Museum's Calatrava wing has drawn focus away from that 1973 tower, by being a far more unique structure, however due to its drastic size difference, is limited in its aptitude to do so. I do not think, though, that a future signature building for Milwaukee must, by necessity, be taller than the US Bank Center. 44 stories is quite enough to place this new proposal in the same weight class as the US Bank building and, with its proximity appearing to be further East and further South than its 1973 neighbour, its placement on the downtown map could very well make it the new signature building of our city's skyline. If that's difficult to imagine, then try picturing three or four other buildings of similar height (30 or 40 floors) in the close proximity to the US Bank Center. Suddenly that old, familiar white tower with its angled trusses would be part of the secondary background (where it belongs) and not the lone vertical bastion on the southeast corner of downtown. Once again, infill is the answer.

P.S. - I also agree that Marcus needs to once and for all take that antenna off the Hilton (although, if I'm not mistaken, that is the radio tower for 91.7 WMSE, and I certainly don't want them to go away!).

MilwaukeeMax,
I like the cut of your jib.
I do feel like the U.S bank tower is sorta like a stand by and the awesome Brise Soleil has become the de facto key land mark of Milwaukee. I also agree that a couple of buildings next to the U.S bank building that are about 30 to 40 floors would make the skyline look better and take away from the imposing U.S bank monolith. All that being said, I still think it would be very nice if a tower were to go up that was taller than the U.S bank building. Some of it because it would look awesome in our skyline, some of it for bragging rights against similar sized cities (take that twin cities), and some of it due to Milwaukee needing something other than the art museum to showcase to tourists.

But again, i'd much rather see way more development than just one super tall building.

Whats really awesome is that we even get to debate what can and should be built in Milwaukee. Not many other cities are seeing that much development (especially because of the economic downturn). That Milwaukee has seen steady new development and concepts has to be an encouraging sign (just imagine once the economy fully recovers). I like the 44 story building, i just want it to be taller and have a restaurant and observation deck at the top:lol: People are worried about the parking structure and the weird bridges and how they could hamper street level walkability. Well, if they make it look cool enough (perhaps LED screens, cool lighting,etc) that area could do wonders for Milwaukee's retail and nightlife.

But transit matters the most for Milwaukee right now. If people have a way of getting around without having to take their cars everywhere than that would do a lot for Milwaukee's day and nightlife. I still believe that the grand avenue mall would be a million times better (and full of tenants) if it was served by mass transit other than buses (think how the NY subway has tons of stations at time square).

But back on point, lets just hope the county board doesn't somehow screw this up. Heaven knows that there will be some infighting on which proposal to back. Too bad Milwaukee doesn't have the funds to purchase all the park east land and the transit center land so it could handle any potential developments there.

honest86

July 12th, 2012, 04:34 AM

@hybridy - While I do think that the pedestrian bridges will detract somewhat from the pedestrian traffic on the street level, I think that, first, the building overall does a good job of embracing the street level by making the sidewalks around it more pedestrian friendly, but secondly, that it is necessary to reach across Michigan street to the park on top of the ramp which is also connected to the MaM, and that the bridge over the Lincoln Memorial Drive is almost a safety necessity since it is very dangerous to cross that street with all the racing motorist who have just come off the highway. Finally while the pedestrian bridges may detract from the street level, I think that the fact that they are open air and that they connect into an open air courtyard does a ton to really make the area more vibrant as people crossing them will have a stronger connection to their surroundings.

usbmfa

July 12th, 2012, 04:35 AM

While I really like this proposed new building, I have to say I really don't see how this proposal makes any sense at all. There is NO one living within blocks of this site. It is surrounded by office, freeway, museum, festival grounds, and park. Something's missing. Why would someone pay top dollar for a RENTAL unit that is blocks away from the nearest home, and much further from the local shops, bars, and restaurants. People complain about an attached parking garage, but anyone who lives in this building will have to drive or cab it all the time to go out and do anything. Yes it will have great lake views, but so does the Prospect Ave, and you get to live in a neighborhood. You can't even use the trolley as an excuse to justify living here, because it is many blocks from it. Even if you walk all the way to the trolley, where is it going to take you, Ogden Ave?? Milwaukee Train Station?? 1 person out of 1000 will take the trolley vs driving there. The question also has to be asked, does Milwaukee really need this many luxury apartments. I realize this building is still five years away from completion, so it is possible that demand could be there by then. However, there still is a large number of rental units that will be built before then. Also, there is just not that many people who are going to pay well over $2k a month in rent to live in downtown Milwaukee, no matter how great the view. This thing would have more of a chance in the park east.

I know the transit center is a waste of space, and I am as eager as anyone to see it go, but to me it seems like the best use of this site is office/hotel/parking/some retail. If a future building is connected to other buildings in the area by skywalks, I could see a couple restaurants and stores working to serve the daytime office crowd. A hotel makes sense given the location near museums, festival grounds, offices and the lake view. Office makes sense because of the current buildings adjacent to the site. Of course it will take decades for office demand to absorb even a modest building. The only thing that makes no sense is residential. There is a reason all the other proposals included office.

I don't see how any investor could put there own money in to this project. I don't know who this developer is, but he sure seems willing to spend other peoples money. The one thing that seems to be missing from his building projects is his own equity. Of course AFL is also not too worried about investing wisely either, since they will always be bailed out by the rest of us. If this project had to raise private capital or borrow from banks, it would DOA. Considering banks have to jump through a million hoops just to do a tradional mortgage these days, there is no way regulators would let a bank finance this HIGH RISK project.

Last the name is terrible. This is not France or New York. If you are going to build this thing, at least give it a name that does falsely sell the tower and the city. Rental is Couture, only in Milwaukee!!!!!

honest86

July 12th, 2012, 05:01 AM

looksee

July 12th, 2012, 06:09 AM

...I have to say I really don't see how this proposal makes any sense at all. There is NO one living within blocks of this site. It is surrounded by office, freeway, museum, festival grounds, and park.

I respectfully refer you to Chicago's Lake Point Tower, 40+ years of splendid isolation and still going strong:

http://images.travelpod.com/users/michellepawlosk/chicago_2007.1182458760.lake_point_tower2.jpg
Michellepawlosk (http://blog.travelpod.com/travel-photo/michellepawlosk/chicago_2007/1182458760/lake_point_tower2.jpg/tpod.html)

Why would someone pay top dollar for a RENTAL unit that is blocks away from the nearest home, and much further from the local shops, bars, and restaurants.

One word: Exclusivity. Too, this could just as easily become a condo when conditions are ripe.

the name is terrible.

Same reason as above. Maybe it should be called the Haute Couture.
I don't know about Paris, but New York has an abundance of residential towers fancifully named to benefit real estate agents' spin.
Still, Couture sounds a lot better to my ears than, say, "Trump".

Paule

July 12th, 2012, 07:17 AM

Whats really awesome is that we even get to debate what can and should be built in Milwaukee. Not many other cities are seeing that much development (especially because of the economic downturn). That Milwaukee has seen steady new development and concepts has to be an encouraging sign (just imagine once the economy fully recovers).
Amen to that!

This sure beats the usuall discussions doesn't it? Like I said not too long ago, things are really starting to get interesting in downtown Milwaukee, and now I would say, exciting!

Good discussion guys! Keep it up. :)

CGII

July 12th, 2012, 08:05 AM

honest86

July 12th, 2012, 08:11 AM

I am excited about this newest proposal, the proposal for the building right next to it, and I have my fingers crossed about the Northwest Mutual project a block away. With the potential for all three developments this small section of downtown could see a radical overhaul.

AcctStdntUWM

July 12th, 2012, 03:58 PM

JRedd

July 12th, 2012, 09:29 PM

I really like The Couture as a possible tower that can go next to the U.S bank building. Along with the other proposed buildings so close by, this area could do wonders fro Milwaukee's bland skyline.

I guess the thing i'm most excited about is the connection to the third ward all these developments by the U.S bank building would create. That along with a new streetscape and the art museum taking over the vet memorial and making it look like better than its current drab self could really do wonders for the area.

About the 44 tower though, As i understand it, it will top off at about 507 feet, the U.S bank tower is at 607 feet. Do you think there could be a way to get the Couture to get like 6 or 8 extra stories? Perhaps getting the Palomar hotel in there or perhaps putting an observation deck/restaurant could add the necessary floors to get it to be more taller. Either way, hope this proposal happens... along with the streetcar :)

The actual height of The Couture would be 571 feet tall which is a little closer to the U.S. Bank Tower and in the rendering it shows a 47 story tower, not 44 like it says in the orginal plan. Some other source said that the building would reach 531 feet tall so I think the hieght of the proposal at this point is unclear. I do agree with you and would love to see an observation deck and a restaurant at the top to add more floors. Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin needs a new tall building because the U.S. Bank has been the tallest since 1973.....

Dale

July 12th, 2012, 09:30 PM

Wow! If actually 571', given enthusiastic early demand it wouldn't take a very large height increase to surpass US Bank.

JRedd

July 12th, 2012, 09:48 PM

Wow! If actually 571', given enthusiastic early demand it wouldn't take a very large height increase to surpass US Bank.

Yes Yes indeed! I am looking into it more because on the http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120711/ENEWSLETTERS06/120719960/0/MAGAZINE site, it said the buildings height would reach 531...

hybridy

July 12th, 2012, 11:00 PM

Paule

July 13th, 2012, 12:19 AM

So my other question then is this an alternative proposal to irgens 833 michigan proposal, or an additional proposal that will be right in front of it?
It's an additional proposal. The Irgens 833 Michigan is an all office tower proposal while the Couture is a hotel/appartment proposal.

MilwaukeeMax

July 13th, 2012, 01:19 AM

But transit matters the most for Milwaukee right now. If people have a way of getting around without having to take their cars everywhere than that would do a lot for Milwaukee's day and nightlife. I still believe that the grand avenue mall would be a million times better (and full of tenants) if it was served by mass transit other than buses (think how the NY subway has tons of stations at time square).

jehuty, I'm 100% with you on this. I think I may have posted about a similar idea I had years ago that was inspired by my time living in NYC as well.*

I envision the Grand Avenue as being converted into somewhat of a parallel to Penn Station in Manhattan, where the lower underground levels are the boarding areas leading to trains and busses and the ground level and above ground levels are retail and restaurant spaces for travelers and area residents and visitors alike. Since the Grand Avenue is so close to the rail lines that feed into the Intermodal Station which Amtrak uses, and those tracks were part of the historic interurban lines that ran to the west, I can envision a brilliant project involving LRT being implemented, some tracks and tunnels built under a few blocks downtown and the Grand Ave either replacing the Intermodal station or else becoming another transit hub for east/west and north/south transit lines.

As for this 44 (or 47) story apartment and hotel tower proposed, I'd like to see that parking garage reduced in size too-- and maybe that would solve two problems: 1) getting rid of the obnoxiousness of a parking structure and 2) those multiple pedestrian bridges pictured in the renderings that look a bit like slapdash afterthoughts, as though the designer's boss, upon looking at the original designs, asked "but how will people get to the street from way up there?" and they just threw those on there for good measure. I'm not saying they couldn't incorporate some sort of pedestrian bridges or walkways into this to deal with the gradient differences, but why they can't have their retail and plaza on the ground level with parking above it doesn't really make a lot sense to me. Hopefully these are not the final designs and some improvements can be made (including a smaller parking structure that doesn't have775 parking spaces like this proposal does!!!)

*Maybe we should start a fund for all anti-transit people to travel to and spend a good amount of time in New York City (where transit thrives) and similar sized cities to Milwaukee like Portland and Seattle, where light rail is an incredibly great investment that is being used heavily, as it would in Milwaukee if those myopic naysayers would just get off their duffs and spend a little time in other places besides here for once. As Mark Twain said, "Travel is the best antidote to prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance."

usbmfa

July 13th, 2012, 04:35 AM

@usbfma - Perhaps because this site is very well connected, as you said it is near the museum, and park, but it is also a highrise within stumbling distance of the third ward, and with the pedestrian bridge across Michigan St, it has a great connection to the entire lakefront, and downtown. Finally it has amazing freeway access, so anyone that lives there is seconds away from jumping on the freeway and getting anywhere in Milwaukee, or if you are more of a cyclist, it is across the street from the Oak Leaf Trail which connect to the entire east side.

It is possible that some people will value this location, but I say go down to this site, and ask yourself if you pay would be willing more than $2000 a month to live there. Take that walk to the third ward along and under 794. See how long it takes you get a place where human beings are after 7pm. Enjoy that amazing architecture along St Paul and Clybourn.

I also have to ask, who is going to operate that hotel? It would have to be a high end hotel given the location and costs involved. How many high end hotel operators want to get in to Milwaukee? Also, there will be a hotel room glut for the several years. We have Poto going in, the botique in Loyalty building, the real possibility that Staybridge site on Water finally moves forward, and maybe one by Pick and Save on Ogden (not sure about that, but with a trolley going that way, how could someone not build a hotel). We also added Iron horse and aloft recently.

People say this has too much parking. Are you kidding? The finances of this project are already terrible, and now you want to take away parking. How are you going to rent a luxury apartment without parking. Practically every building in Chicago has parking built in, and thats a mass transit heaven for urban nerds. Plus the parking could probably make money to day parkers and festival parkers. Its probably the most financially sound part of this project.

Am I really the only one who sees how dumb this project is. I commend Abele for trying, but he needs to use this site wisely, and I think this is just him trying to build a legacy piece. The irony is he is actually doing a decent job, and should be focused on regular duties, not building monuments to himself.

El Mariachi

July 13th, 2012, 07:01 AM

for fucks sake the calatrava is more than a decade old we don't need to make every new skyscraper white anymore.

also, has anybody else noticed the potential for the downtown lakefront to become a miami strip of dead mega developments? the demand being pushed up by the concentration of the art museum, pier wisconsin, and meier grounds could promote huge developments (isn't this like the fourth huge proposal for this lot/vicinity this year alone?) and the area's history of underdevelopment has little natural barriers to limiting careless development. i mean, look at the size of that parking garage! and even though the mall and bridges are well intended, who is really going to use them? the design of the retail space looks destined to fail.

this parking garage has to be at least four times the volume of the art museum, and it's on the lakefront! what good is a forty floor building if its only being sustained by cars. this is urban design for schaumburg, illinois, not a dense urban center in 2012.

i bring up miami because it's basically what happened there: the city concentrated all of its cultural muscle (art museum, convention center, theaters, arena, monumental park) in one coastal area that was empty lots twenty years ago. the close quarters of these attractions pushed residential/hotel demand so high that the developments spurred by the cultural district were extremely high volume and incorporated parking garages of similar size to this newest proposal. what came of it was a 'neighborhood' of clumsy, oversized developments which contributed negatively to the vibrancy of the area but which irrefutably had an effect on the skyline.
i'm not faulting the architects here, this is a fairly elegant building considering the developer constraints. what i am faulting is milwaukee's total paralysis at fostering an urban culture. politics, economics and public ignorance have kept milwaukee to languish in an urban design vocabulary not updated since 1970. and now we're going to have a ten floor parking deck on the lakefront. whatever.

I agree with some of what you said but I think the comparisons with Miami are a bit off. I think Milwaukee is pretty decentralized in regards to it's cultural institutions and attractions. Development and the high end residental here has also been pretty well spread around the downtown area. I am not too concerned with this individual project because I don't think it will negatively affect anything. This area currently sucks and I think this project can be a catalyst/connector for more development. The concerns I have is how well planned are the connections to the Third Ward, O' Donnell Park, and the Lakefront. There is some real potential with the cleared land from the Lake Parkway ramps and that Marcus/Italian Community Center development.

As for the building itself, I think it looks fantastic. Like you, I think they should have went away from the white. Personally, I think this tower would look even better if it was black. It needs to stand out amongst US Bank and University Club in the skyline. I did initially think Miami when I saw this design though.

I have high hopes for the retail and restaurant components. This is too great of a location. Rick Barrett's Moderne got Carsons Prime Steaks/BBQ to sign a long lease. That's been getting alot of buzz from people in Chicago or have eaten there. Supposedly, it's one of the better restaurants down there and Rick Barrett pushed hard to get it here. I wonder what we will see down at the lake, as it's a far better location than Old World 3rd.

El Mariachi

July 13th, 2012, 07:11 AM

It is possible that some people will value this location, but I say go down to this site, and ask yourself if you pay would be willing more than $2000 a month to live there. Take that walk to the third ward along and under 794. See how long it takes you get a place where human beings are after 7pm. Enjoy that amazing architecture along St Paul and Clybourn.

I also have to ask, who is going to operate that hotel? It would have to be a high end hotel given the location and costs involved. How many high end hotel operators want to get in to Milwaukee? Also, there will be a hotel room glut for the several years. We have Poto going in, the botique in Loyalty building, the real possibility that Staybridge site on Water finally moves forward, and maybe one by Pick and Save on Ogden (not sure about that, but with a trolley going that way, how could someone not build a hotel). We also added Iron horse and aloft recently.

People say this has too much parking. Are you kidding? The finances of this project are already terrible, and now you want to take away parking. How are you going to rent a luxury apartment without parking. Practically every building in Chicago has parking built in, and thats a mass transit heaven for urban nerds. Plus the parking could probably make money to day parkers and festival parkers. Its probably the most financially sound part of this project.

Am I really the only one who sees how dumb this project is. I commend Abele for trying, but he needs to use this site wisely, and I think this is just him trying to build a legacy piece. The irony is he is actually doing a decent job, and should be focused on regular duties, not building monuments to himself.

I don't think there is any question that people will value this site. It may be a bit further away from the hotspots but it's a stonesthrow from the Lake, Third Ward, and the Art Musuem. There isn't much by University Club/Kilbourn Tower and those have been pretty successful. People will take the Lakefront being their front yard any day of the week over being in walking distance of the Metro Mart.

I agree about the hotels and parking though. How can Milwaukee support all these hotel rooms downtown? The number of them popping up is probably the most suprising thing with all this development going on. I never thought of downtown Milwaukee as a place that needed that many rooms.

Jschmuck

July 13th, 2012, 06:03 PM

with the increase in hotel rooms comes the possible increase in more national events, more likely sporting events.

jehuty

July 13th, 2012, 08:10 PM

jehuty, I'm 100% with you on this. I think I may have posted about a similar idea I had years ago that was inspired by my time living in NYC as well.*

I envision the Grand Avenue as being converted into somewhat of a parallel to Penn Station in Manhattan, where the lower underground levels are the boarding areas leading to trains and busses and the ground level and above ground levels are retail and restaurant spaces for travelers and area residents and visitors alike. Since the Grand Avenue is so close to the rail lines that feed into the Intermodal Station which Amtrak uses, and those tracks were part of the historic interurban lines that ran to the west, I can envision a brilliant project involving LRT being implemented, some tracks and tunnels built under a few blocks downtown and the Grand Ave either replacing the Intermodal station or else becoming another transit hub for east/west and north/south transit lines.

As for this 44 (or 47) story apartment and hotel tower proposed, I'd like to see that parking garage reduced in size too-- and maybe that would solve two problems: 1) getting rid of the obnoxiousness of a parking structure and 2) those multiple pedestrian bridges pictured in the renderings that look a bit like slapdash afterthoughts, as though the designer's boss, upon looking at the original designs, asked "but how will people get to the street from way up there?" and they just threw those on there for good measure. I'm not saying they couldn't incorporate some sort of pedestrian bridges or walkways into this to deal with the gradient differences, but why they can't have their retail and plaza on the ground level with parking above it doesn't really make a lot sense to me. Hopefully these are not the final designs and some improvements can be made (including a smaller parking structure that doesn't have775 parking spaces like this proposal does!!!)

*Maybe we should start a fund for all anti-transit people to travel to and spend a good amount of time in New York City (where transit thrives) and similar sized cities to Milwaukee like Portland and Seattle, where light rail is an incredibly great investment that is being used heavily, as it would in Milwaukee if those myopic naysayers would just get off their duffs and spend a little time in other places besides here for once. As Mark Twain said, "Travel is the best antidote to prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance."

You know, I always wonder what architects, engineers, politicians, and other people who had a hand in city planning thought about back in the day. I mean, think about it, how can a cities like New York and Chicago get things so right but then have cities like L.A and Houston get things so wrong. Milwaukee is in that same boat too. Some better city planning (and better annexation) would have made implement any sorta rail easier. Its like the advent of highways and interstates made city planners and politicians forget that a city thrives on pedestrian traffic, not automotive.

As to the point of making people travel to New York to see how good transit system works. I actually think that more and more of the younger generation actually would prefer not to drive because they have experienced good transit in big cities. I mean, tons of people rag on the streetcar here in SE Wisconsin, but in the city of Milwaukee itself, most people seem to not only want it but to make sure that in its initial phase that I covers the largest area possible (Downtown to UWM). I mean, it makes some sense that people from the burbs would not be in favor of good mass transit for tons of reasons (don't want to pay for it, love of cars, don't want people they fled from being able to get to where they live, etc). But in the city, for the most part residents understand that rail transit along with bus transit will make things better for everyone.

*The Couture is fine where it is. Actually there is tons of stuff to do around that area and the people who could afford to live there would probably partake in all that stuff. Plus, a lake view in Milwaukee pretty much guarantees that units will move fast. Even that lone high rise in bay view does well simple because people like living near the lake (or bodies of water). This proposal will probably end up being the one the county supervisors go with (even though I hate parking garages, it makes sense in this case). It would be kinda cool if they changed the color of the tower to blue though:)

AcctStdntUWM

July 13th, 2012, 10:18 PM

You know, I always wonder what architects, engineers, politicians, and other people who had a hand in city planning thought about back in the day. I mean, think about it, how can a cities like New York and Chicago get things so right but then have cities like L.A and Houston get things so wrong. Milwaukee is in that same boat too. Some better city planning (and better annexation) would have made implement any sorta rail easier. Its like the advent of highways and interstates made city planners and politicians forget that a city thrives on pedestrian traffic, not automotive.

This is just my opinion since I wasn't born until '88, but I really this the issue was that in the 60's and 70's the majority or people really just did think the the automobile was the greatest thing that will ever happen to people. People just couldn't bring themselves to look 10, 20 or 30 years into the future and think about how things might change.

It the same BS now, I can guarantee that 20 or 30 years from now when most major cities have extensive light/commuter rail networks and many parts of the nation are connected by high speed rail, there will be a lot of people in the Milwaukee area and Wisconsin as a whole that will be saying 'Wow what were we thinking not getting on this earlier. We could've been at the forefront of modern intercity rail in America and now were left in the dust.'

ThatGuy

July 14th, 2012, 10:57 AM

Well good news for the Couture already, the Supervisors of the County Board's Economic and Community Development Committee pulled rank and are getting a meeting on the building heard on July 23rd over the complaints of Patricia Jursik.

She apparently got bent-put-of-shape when Able announced this proposal without including her in the media newsconference. As a result, she tried to block any hearings on it until September, but the money and potential of the proposal appear to be to great to just let go, so the supervisors called a meeting in over her head.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/supervisors-push-the-couture-proposal-onto-agenda-c8649aj-162423466.html

I think this is good. Regardless of the tiny flaws that everyone apparently sees in the building, I think it is a great thing both for the area and Milwaukee as a whole. It SHOULD get built, and as soon as possible, and now it looks like things are moving forward on it quickly.

Boatnurd

July 14th, 2012, 03:30 PM

Boatnurd

July 14th, 2012, 04:44 PM

Who updates the Skyscraper page depicting all of the skyscrapers by city? Milwaukee is missing a number of key buildings and projects. Moderne, Couture, Casino, etc.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?c77

Paule

July 14th, 2012, 07:15 PM

^^
Plus we should have a Couture Proposal thread started in this forum.

Eriol

July 14th, 2012, 09:01 PM

The special session of the committee is the 23rd and the Common Council meets 3 days later. It said in the article that they will only need six council members to delay the vote on the proposal though, so that's not encouraging.

i_am_hydrogen

July 15th, 2012, 05:06 AM

http://www.jsonline.com/business/jackson-st-attracting-highend-apartment-proposals-rd636k2-162463456.html

mohammed wong

July 15th, 2012, 06:44 AM

^^
That proposal deserves to be seen (or not), very nice,
would like to see more of this in Chicago.

http://media.jrn.com/images/660*491/28475487-mjs_jackson15p2.jpg

Not working for me. Oops...

usbmfa

July 15th, 2012, 06:21 PM

How is it possible that the casino hotel at 20 floors will cost 150 million to build whereas the Couture at 44 floors is 120 million? I do not trust this initial cost and expect this to grow to upwards of 150+ million dollars. Heck, the Moderne at 30 floors is closer to the 55+ million dollar mark. I doubt if that project stayed within budget after years of negotiation but boy does it look nice.

I cannot figure this proposal out either.

Here is a somewhat comparable residential project in floor count in Chicago.

http://www.chicagodowntownliving.com/500-n-lakeshore/

45 stories, cost $160M, no hotel. 500 luxury rental units.

Compare to Couture: 44 stories, a HOTEL, 179 luxury apartments, most likely more parking than Chicago project, cost $120M. Chicago labor is going to be more expensive, and it looks like the Chicago building has bigger floor plates, but with Couture having a hotel, I am thinking the overall projects are similar square footage. At Couture's apartment to floor ratio, roughly 4, those seem like they will be huge units, that will be very expensive to rent. Only the rich, evil, greedy 1% who don't pay enough in taxes will be able to afford this place. Lets hope the Bucks and Brewers players like it.

For a preview of Couture, check out this building in Dallas.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=7647&page=107

Jesse276

July 15th, 2012, 11:52 PM

I cannot figure this proposal out either.

Here is a somewhat comparable residential project in floor count in Chicago.

http://www.chicagodowntownliving.com/500-n-lakeshore/

45 stories, cost $160M, no hotel. 500 luxury rental units.

Compare to Couture: 44 stories, a HOTEL, 179 luxury apartments, most likely more parking than Chicago project, cost $120M. Chicago labor is going to be more expensive, and it looks like the Chicago building has bigger floor plates, but with Couture having a hotel, I am thinking the overall projects are similar square footage. At Couture's apartment to floor ratio, roughly 4, those seem like they will be huge units, that will be very expensive to rent. Only the rich, evil, greedy 1% who don't pay enough in taxes will be able to afford this place. Lets hope the Bucks and Brewers players like it.

For a preview of Couture, check out this building in Dallas.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=7647&page=107

Why do you have to be so annoyingly political with your posts?

Let's look at that garble about the 1%. How much do you think they'll be charging for rent? A 1%'er makes more than $500,000 by definition. So, assuming 30% of gross income for rent...do you really expect these to cost $12,500/month in rent?

CGII

July 16th, 2012, 03:11 AM

^^
That proposal deserves to be seen (or not), very nice,
would like to see more of this in Chicago.

http://media.jrn.com/images/660*491/28475487-mjs_jackson15p2.jpg

Not working for me. Oops...

Probably the best thing about Milwaukee not having a colloquially identifiable housing stock (like brownstones or brick flats like Chicago) means that very little of our infill tries to cheaply imitate some centuries old style. Instead, we get fairly high quality, distinct buildings that don't try to be anything they aren't.

AdmiralsFan24

July 16th, 2012, 05:15 AM

^^
That proposal deserves to be seen (or not), very nice,
would like to see more of this in Chicago.

http://media.jrn.com/images/660*491/28475487-mjs_jackson15p2.jpg

Not working for me. Oops...

http://media.jrn.com/images/28475487-mjs_jackson15p2.jpg

Just thought I'd post the picture for you. All you have to do is get rid of a slash and the 660*491.

mohammed wong

July 16th, 2012, 03:27 PM

^^:lol: Thanks I guess Im kindof ignorant about that sort of stuff......
Very nice development IMHO, what was there before?

mohammed wong

July 16th, 2012, 03:29 PM

Probably the best thing about Milwaukee not having a colloquially identifiable housing stock (like brownstones or brick flats like Chicago) means that very little of our infill tries to cheaply imitate some centuries old style. Instead, we get fairly high quality, distinct buildings that don't try to be anything they aren't.

Agreed. We have some better stuff in Chicago in Wicker Park/Logan Square
but sometimes we have some pretty blah stuff too.
This is a very nice sharp modern design......

looksee

July 18th, 2012, 08:27 PM

A little change of scenery during this seventh inning stretch:

"interesting map of Fortune 500 headquarters per capita:"

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/07/12/Screen%20Shot%202012-07-11%20at%204.27.22%20PM.png

urbanophile (http://www.urbanophile.com/)

But a word of caution (from the Comments section):

"One Response to “Infographic: Corporate Headquarters”
Paul says:
July 18, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Florida picked up this study from an article by Nick Berg at http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/07/urban-and-suburban-fortune-500/2525/.
It seems a little curious to me to draw a bright line along the city limits in determining corporate clout of a city. I’m left unsure of just what general point was being made other than corporate headquarters now tend to be located in suburbs for some cities. Chicago looks weak with only 2 Fortune 500 companies. But McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Walgreen, Sears Holdings, Allstate and Abbott Labs, none of which are included in Chicago’s total, are all near by.
As an aside it has long been in the back of my mind that Pittsburgh was a major corporate headquarters town, but it was totally absent from this study."

Dale

July 18th, 2012, 09:54 PM

Damn! LA, Boston and Miami are welterweights. Milwaukee, Minneapolis and San Jose are punching above their weight.

AdmiralsFan24

July 18th, 2012, 11:25 PM

Even if they extended it to include Fortune 500 companies in metro areas Milwaukee would still compare well to other cities and be above other metros close to their size. Johnson Controls, Northwestern Mutual, Manpower, Kohl's, Rockwell Automation and Harley-Davidson.

AcctStdntUWM

July 18th, 2012, 11:29 PM

Wow Milwaukee #1 as far as city limits go.

I'd be interested in seeing this re-done using Metro area populations.

Maybe I'll do it myself...

Boatnurd

July 19th, 2012, 01:45 AM

Even better if done by state.

usbmfa

July 19th, 2012, 05:02 AM

Why do you have to be so annoyingly political with your posts?

Let's look at that garble about the 1%. How much do you think they'll be charging for rent? A 1%'er makes more than $500,000 by definition. So, assuming 30% of gross income for rent...do you really expect these to cost $12,500/month in rent?

1%'ers make $344k, by definition.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

I compared couture to Moderne and came out with an average rent of $3600/month for couture. Take that divided by .3, and you have to make about $145k/year to afford to live in Couture. That would be the about the top 5%. Luckily for us, its only those making more than $250k/year who are evil, greedy, tax dodges that need to pay their "fair" share. So Couture should be just fine. I am sure there is at least 150 young professionals, adults with no children, or retired people with that kind of money to spend on a rental unit in Milwaukee. I say 150 because I figure the professional athletes will take about 30 units. Just to put a $3600/ monthly payment in context, at today's 30 year mortgage interest rates, that could get you an $800k home. But renting in Milwaukee makes much more financial sense.

I think this project would make more sense with a mix of high end condos. It probably also needs more units to drive average rent down to a more reasonable level. Redoing the lake interchange would also greatly improve this buildings location in terms of making the walk to the third ward less depressing. I know the builder can't do that, but I think the county and city should make a case of how urgent it is to redo the lake interchange, not just for this one project, but in terms of opening up the land under 794 to development. Yes it would only benefit Milwaukee, it would be expensive and probably have to be paid for the state, but the trade off could be a much better environment around the festival grounds, which are a major tourist destination for this state. I am just trying to find any way to justify getting the lake interchange done with the 794 rebuild. The other thing that might have to happen with couture is the hotel could have to be postponed. If they get an operator, then great, build the hotel too.

Eriol

July 19th, 2012, 07:21 AM

Nope! Never mind...

AcctStdntUWM

July 19th, 2012, 04:07 PM

Kohl's confirms Woodland Prime as new corporate offices
By Tom Daykin

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/163017906.html#!page=1&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

ohl's Corp. has made official what we've surmised for months: it will build its new corporate campus at the Woodland Prime office park in Menomonee Falls.

The development, announced Thursday, includes over $70 million in state and local financing.

Kohl’s will take ownership of 100 acres at Woodland Prime, now owned by the Village of Menomonee Falls. and a small office building adjacent to the vacant land, the company announced...

Jesse276

July 19th, 2012, 08:56 PM

1%'ers make $344k, by definition.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

I compared couture to Moderne and came out with an average rent of $3600/month for couture. Take that divided by .3, and you have to make about $145k/year to afford to live in Couture. That would be the about the top 5%. Luckily for us, its only those making more than $250k/year who are evil, greedy, tax dodges that need to pay their "fair" share. So Couture should be just fine. I am sure there is at least 150 young professionals, adults with no children, or retired people with that kind of money to spend on a rental unit in Milwaukee. I say 150 because I figure the professional athletes will take about 30 units. Just to put a $3600/ monthly payment in context, at today's 30 year mortgage interest rates, that could get you an $800k home. But renting in Milwaukee makes much more financial sense.

I think this project would make more sense with a mix of high end condos. It probably also needs more units to drive average rent down to a more reasonable level. Redoing the lake interchange would also greatly improve this buildings location in terms of making the walk to the third ward less depressing. I know the builder can't do that, but I think the county and city should make a case of how urgent it is to redo the lake interchange, not just for this one project, but in terms of opening up the land under 794 to development. Yes it would only benefit Milwaukee, it would be expensive and probably have to be paid for the state, but the trade off could be a much better environment around the festival grounds, which are a major tourist destination for this state. I am just trying to find any way to justify getting the lake interchange done with the 794 rebuild. The other thing that might have to happen with couture is the hotel could have to be postponed. If they get an operator, then great, build the hotel too.

Glad you broke down your rent guesstimates, still... why the hyperbole? What's the deal? People look at what you're saying & either deduce that you've got some type of mental hangups or you're just not credible because of the blatant partisanship.

Personally, I don't think you've drawn very strong conclusions about the potential buildout of the Couture. I will trust a developer with a successfull track record any day of the week.

You assume that someone with that amount of money available would choose to buy a home. I don't think you consider the massive amount of relocations, often times for only a couple years, that Milwaukee corporations bring in. These are people that are doing a rotation in Milwaukee & may not intend to risk losing home value or simply take on the lifestyle of owning their own place. I don't suppose you run into many people like that in your day to day life, do you?

Also, you mention redoing the Lake interchange... which I agree with. However, the interchange is going to be rebuilt imminently because it will fall down otherwise... the only question is if it's rebuilt in the same land-hogging, 3rd ward cutting-off, Lake Michigan access despoiling form. The money will be spent, it doesn't necessarily cost more to do it right. Look at the Park East, seriously. The Park East was a huge victory, of course marred by Milwaukee County not developing it for 10 years, but a victory nonetheless. We're talking about what can be built there, that wouldn't have been an option with it still up... plus it saved taxpayers millions to do it right. It's not a matter of justifying to the state, it's a win for everyone to rebuild it right. The problem at the DOT is lack of willingness to change, well I'll tell you we can bruise a couple traffic engineers' egos if it means a better city, state & Downtown.

embora

July 21st, 2012, 08:44 AM

Here is Mary Louise Shumacher's take on the Couture. My summary of her thoughts are that she thought it did a good job in some ways, but challenged them to come back with something more midwestern, and less "Miami Beach." She used "Aqua" from Chicago as an example of something that would seem more midwestern. She also didn't seem to crazy about how the bulky base contrasted to the slender tower. I think its worth your time to read it.

The Couture, finding the right fit for Milwaukee
By Mary Louise Schumacher of the Journal Sentinel July 20, 2012 12:39 p.m

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/163127656.html#!page=2&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

=dba=Ronin

July 21st, 2012, 02:03 PM

So did anyone see Daykin's Land and Space blog this week? He mentioned that some private watchdog group ("Preserve our Parks") is trying to block the Cotoure development based on the fact that the transit center is built atop former Lake Michigan lake bed. Apparently there is some type of public trust doctrine that bars private development on former lake bed sites that were converted to dry land.

Here is a link to the blog post:
http://bcove.me/xaqg30sg

This sounds like one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Why must there always be someone who stands in the way of development, seemingly for the only reason to draw attention to itself and with no actual merit of common sense. My guess is that this is something that won't grow any traction, but it really makes you wonder who comes up with this stuff. I don't know about any of you, but to me the transit center hardly evokes any sentiment as being the type of public park worth preserving.

Eriol

July 22nd, 2012, 02:58 AM

j-hah

July 25th, 2012, 02:30 AM

Dale

July 25th, 2012, 02:35 AM

Here we go.

honest86

July 25th, 2012, 03:58 AM

Super Cool. ^^ I can't wait to hear the parks groups come out against anything which is proposed. It is too bad the county couldn't pass a resolution saying that a certain percentage of the additional tax revenue from new developments within a certain distance of a park be set aside for park improvements and maintenance for x number of years. That would help split up the real park enthusiasts and people who are interested in improving the county parks and improving outdoor recreational venues from the nimby's who use park preservation as a reason to oppose development. I think we need to promote denser development near parks to increase access and use of them instead of trying to keep people away from them.

AdmiralsFan24

July 25th, 2012, 05:05 AM

That article has like 20 commercial real estate sources. I hope the make the building blue. It would be a nice contrast to the white, nice and clean along Lake Michigan.

Eriol

July 25th, 2012, 05:14 AM

They better not mess with the view!

bayviews

July 25th, 2012, 06:23 AM

Damn! LA, Boston and Miami are welterweights. Milwaukee, Minneapolis and San Jose are punching above their weight.

Gotta love this map!

When it comes to Corporate HQs per capita...

Booming Springfield beats poor Boston hands down!

AcctStdntUWM

July 25th, 2012, 11:29 PM

Northwestern Mutual Might Go BIG Downtown!

Link: http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120723/MAGAZINE03/307239998/-1/MAGAZINE/Northwestern-Mutual-could-go-big-downtown&template=currentIssue

Wow, this would be exciting. It's cool to see that Milwaukee's economy (and skyline) seems on the verge of a surge! This, along with the Couture and Irgans development would make a HUGE impact downtown. Exciting stuff! :)

That is incredibly excited. It's a lot of speculation, sure, but to have that many sources citing this information it's more encouraging.

Can't wait for the coming months when we'll start to hear more about it and get information from the company themselves.

Dale

July 26th, 2012, 12:19 AM

Might 'significantly larger' and 'it would be substantial' possibly translate to a new tallest ?

Paule

July 26th, 2012, 12:20 AM

That is incredibly excited. It's a lot of speculation, sure, but to have that many sources citing this information it's more encouraging.

Can't wait for the coming months when we'll start to hear more about it and get information from the company themselves.
Yes, very exciting news, thanks for the link J-hah!

Paule

July 26th, 2012, 12:21 AM

Might 'significantly larger' and 'it would be substantial' possibly translate to a new tallest ?

From the article:
"One developer said he has seen plans for a building on Northwestern Mutual's downtown campus that is about 10 stories taller than the 16-story building that the company plans to tear down. Another commercial real estate source said he heard the company was considering plans for a 1 million square foot facility, which would be similar in size to the 42-story U.S. Bank Center, the tallest building in the state, located across Wisconsin Avenue from the Northwestern Mutual downtown campus."

I'm cautiously optimistic. NM said that their study of future space needs wont be completed until the end of this year. Because the souces are giving different stories of what they're seeing and hearing from NM officials I would speculate that NM is still weigthing their options. Although those options look more like deciding on how big to build the new tower downtown and not whether they should build in Franklin!

ThatGuy

July 26th, 2012, 03:06 AM

At least one of those sources is implying that they are looking at making it a new city's tallest. Exciting next couple of years here in MKE!

Dale

July 26th, 2012, 03:28 AM

Slightly off-topic: is the streetcar more or less assured, at least the starter line ?

embora

July 26th, 2012, 03:51 AM

I got the sense that NM is contemplating more than a single downtown building, as opposed to a new tallest, based on the following.

From the article same article:
Meanwhile, Northwestern Mutual is moving forward with plans to purchase and renovate a 153,720-square-foot office building at 733 N. Van Buren St., near its downtown campus. The company plans to add a skywalk connecting the downtown campus to the building, which it is buying from Van Buren Management owner Joel Lee. The building will provide space for Northwestern Mutual employees while it replaces the downtown building that it plans to tear down.

... so 733 N. Van Buren could end up being part of the permanent fix for some NM employees. I mean, why purchase a building if you are only going to house people there temporarily? If they desire 1,000,000 sf downtown, they would need about 850,000 from new construction after filling the 733 N. Van Buren Building.

Also,

From the same article:
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120723/MAGAZINE03/307239998/-1/MAGAZINE/Northwestern-Mutual-could-go-big-downtown&template=currentIssue
One commercial real estate source said Northwestern Mutual wants to purchase O'Donnell Park from the county to make sure that it was operated better and maintained better. The company would also be able to use meeting space in the facility. Another source said Northwestern Mutual wants to demolish O'Donnell Park and build a new parking structure there with an office building on top of it.

... so if NM wanted a total of 1,000,000 s.f. downtown, it could simplify the logistics by first relocating employees to the 733 N. Van Buren building and to a new building on the O'Donnel Park site. If a building on the O'Donnel Park site were large enough, maybe they could house the balance of the current downtown employees there, and subsequently demolish their current building and replace it with enough space so that the sum of the square footages of their downtown spaces equals the desired 1,000,000 s.f.

Paule

July 26th, 2012, 04:17 AM

I got the sense that NM is contemplating more than a single downtown building, as opposed to a new tallest, based on the following.

... so 733 N. Van Buren could end up being part of the permanent fix for some NM employees. I mean, why purchase a building if you are only going to house people there temporarily? If they desire 1,000,000 sf downtown, they would need about 850,000 from new construction after filling the 733 N. Van Buren Building.
Yeah, the 733 N. Van Buren building could end up being a permanent fix if NM sees a new tallest as being too expensive, but I got the sense that it will be just a temporary building for them until the new tower is built. IDK, I just don't like speculating too far from what this article actually says. I mean, since the main reason why NM is planning to take down the existing tower has alot to do with space issues they have to find somewhere to put these employees while the work of taking down the old tower and building a larger one is being constructed. They can't just lay off thousands of employees and say come back in a few years when the new tower is built, they still have an insurance company to run.

... so if NM wanted a total of 1,000,000 s.f. downtown, it could simplify the logistics by first relocating employees to the 733 N. Van Buren building and to a new building on the O'Donnel Park site. If a building on the O'Donnel Park site were large enough, maybe they could house the balance of the current downtown employees there, and subsequently demolish their current building and replace it with enough space so that the sum of the square footages of their downtown spaces equals the desired 1,000,000 s.f.
I agree, that is all possible and might be what unfolds but that isn't what I see the article saying. The source saying NM was looking at 1,000,000 sq. ft. used it in the context of a single tall building.

Paule

July 26th, 2012, 04:25 AM

At least one of those sources is implying that they are looking at making it a new city's tallest. Exciting next couple of years here in MKE!
What's the sq. footage of the US Bank building, do you know? Anyone? I think I remember it being 1.2 million.

Dale

July 26th, 2012, 04:29 AM

With today's floor-to-ceiling heights one-million sq.ft. could EASILY yield a new tallest.

Paule

July 26th, 2012, 04:42 AM

With today's floor-to-ceiling heights one-million sq.ft. could EASILY yield a new tallest.
I hope you're right, I just don't want to get my hopes up only to have them crash and burn...:)

AdmiralsFan24

July 26th, 2012, 06:36 AM

What's the sq. footage of the US Bank building, do you know? Anyone? I think I remember it being 1.2 million.

1.3 million.

http://www.usbankcentermilwaukee.com/USBank_AboutUs.aspx

AcctStdntUWM

July 26th, 2012, 05:18 PM

It really does seem at this point they have numerous options to weigh. Seems like the keys are, will they build at all in Franklin, if so, how much new space will be dedicated to the Franklin campus? Will they be looking at one building on the current site of the tower they are tearing down or, will they be looking to build on top of a new parking structure on the O'Donnell site in additional to the current tower site?

Also, seems like they may just want to take over ownership of the O'Donnell site and maintain it during office hours for their employees and run it for profit during the evenings, nights and weekends.

Ideally, I think I'd love to see them building their complete new spacial needs in one tower on the current site and then take over the O'Donnell structure from the county. With the financial support NWM could provide, the structure could be much safer, and cleaned up. Not to mention I'm sure they'd look at sprucing up the park portion of the site and put it to better uses than it is now.

I get the sense that the building on Van Buren will only be temporary. If anything they'll maintain ownership of it and just keep it in their portfolio and try to lease the space, especially since it will be much more updated after their renovations.

DooMer_MP3

July 26th, 2012, 08:30 PM

looksee

July 26th, 2012, 11:38 PM

Haven't seen anything on the downtown Milwaukee Marriott in some time, so I did some digging and see they have a site with progress photos updated nearly monthly...
http://www.downtownmilwaukeehotel.com/progress-photos.html

http://www.downtownmilwaukeehotel.com/uploads/5/8/5/7/5857071/9976839_orig.jpg
http://www.downtownmilwaukeehotel.com/uploads/5/8/5/7/5857071/2869856_orig.jpg
http://www.downtownmilwaukeehotel.com/uploads/5/8/5/7/5857071/6180688_orig.jpg

Oshkosh49

July 27th, 2012, 01:33 AM

Pretty exciting possibilities regarding the new NM building. Just for fun I calculated that 1,000,000 sq. ft. divided by 20,000 sq. ft. per floor, and 6 floors of above ground parking that it would end up being around 51 stories tall. Maybe, a 700 footer!!!

Oshkosh49

July 27th, 2012, 01:37 AM

That would be cool to have a 700 foot NM building, a 601 foot USBank building, and a 500 foot Couture building all rather next to each other.

Paule

July 27th, 2012, 02:30 AM

You guys are killin me here!

Awesome pics Looksee!

Paule

July 27th, 2012, 02:42 AM

That would be cool to have a 700 foot NM building, a 601 foot USBank building, and a 500 foot Couture building all rather next to each other.
You forgot about the new 18 story Irgens project smack dab in the middle of all this! Yeah, lets have fun, why not? I'm tellin you guys, I haven't been this excited about the future of downtown Milwaukee since I don't know when! Why, because this is all possible.

honest86

July 27th, 2012, 05:35 AM

Three new major developments within a 3 block zone, and none of them would directly compete with each other since they all target different uses. Pretty cool.

Harpua24

July 27th, 2012, 06:39 AM

It'd be cool to see a rendering of what all three would look like together

Eriol

July 27th, 2012, 07:08 AM

Thank you for the pictures. That red sheet-metal looking parking garage to the south is still about the ugliest PoS building I know. Isn't it the one with the horrible sheet-metal looking skywalk over Michigan St.?

There were some sketchy plans about 25 years ago that included NMI putting up a very large building where the Irgens project is as well as another across the street where there's a parking lot south of the 600 E. Wisconsin building. In fact, the block was cleared other than the 600 East building by NMI for that purpose. I think it was the '87 stock market crash that stopped that and a lot of other developments from ever happening, including a project virtually identical to the Marriott. All that lead to them going to Franklin instead, apparently.

Well, I hope I hope I hope!

edit- no it was Trammel Crow that wanted to build a 50 story building where the Irgens is, or maybe a little further east, hard to tell.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Center_(Milwaukee)):

After remaining under the ownership of First Wisconsin since its opening, in June 1987 it was announced the tower would be purchased for $195 million by the Dallas development company Trammell Crow.[13] At the time of the announced sale, Trammell Crow unveiled plans to construct a 50-story tower southeast of the First Wisconsin Center in overtaking it as the states tallest building, which has since remained unbuilt.[13] The sale was completed in January 1988 with Trammell Crow paying $195 million for the complex only to subsequently sell it to a investment partnership for $220.9 million.[14]

But NMI did plan on the 600 block, too. There was a rudimentary drawing of the whole scenario at the time.

Trying to find info on that and I came across this article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-15/business/8703260149_1_downtown-milwaukee-work-downtown-redevelopment)from that time. I love the internet!

looksee

July 27th, 2012, 07:44 PM

That red sheet-metal looking parking garage to the south is still about the ugliest PoS building I know.

I think Whitney Gould used to rag on that structure too. It may or may not seem a surprise to some that I've never had a problem with it. I rather like cantilevering, and also the corrugated metal look in most instances (but not as a building material for impoverished slums, let me make clear). I do think it was originally painted a more muted color (silver-gray or pale green, perhaps) which lessened its impact and better hid its surface flaws.

At any rate, far, far worse in my opinion are the two awful concrete lots built in the '60s by Willard Isaacs at 3rd and 6th and Wells, a pair of rough, charmless behemoths which hollered "screw you" to any sense of urban (or any other kind) of aesthetics. In spite of some changes in the neighborhood, the one between 6th and 7th and Wells is still almost unbearable to look at.

Jesse276

July 27th, 2012, 10:27 PM

In spite of some changes in the neighborhood, the one between 6th and 7th and Wells is still almost unbearable to look at.

I don't think that ramp will be long for this world. The city has been clamping down on the owner over the last couple years, forcing them to repair or shut down the building. I know there was a Firestone tire store at the base but had to move because the structure was unstable there. I don't know if the building is currently in use... but I hope it's taken down sometime soon.

It's an ideal location directly across from the convention center, lots of visibility on 6th. You'd think there would be some interest once the concrete house of cards is down.

vitamin R

July 28th, 2012, 05:46 PM

Somehow, I just don't think they would go to the trouble of tearing down their current building just build a clone of it. I hope they build something tall and beautiful. Love Milwaukee: Great city with some great people, food ain't too shabby either.

miltown

July 29th, 2012, 05:47 AM

IDK I think when news originally broke on NWMutual demolishing the 16 story tower they said that the 733 N Van Buren building was only temporary, while they evaluated other options. I'd have to think that all of the 1 million square feet are included in one of the planned buildings.

I really hope this happens! Also they could re-do O'Donnell Park a lot better, with public land and more parking maybe.

AdmiralsFan24

July 30th, 2012, 07:18 PM

Some must watch videos of the views of the tallest buildings in Milwaukee. Courtesy of the Journal-Sentinel's Mike De Sisti.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/163895366.html

araman0

July 31st, 2012, 05:06 AM

^^ Great videos, thanks for posting.

hybridy

July 31st, 2012, 04:45 PM

From the Business Journal (the free edition) June 26:

'The issue revolves around the state’s Public Trust Doctrine that requires only public uses on land that is former lakebed that was filled with dirt. An unsigned letter in the envelope emphasized in bold letters that the map, “clearly shows that the downtown transit site sits on the lakebed, making it subject to the Public Trust Doctrine and, therefore, ineligible for private development.”

Not so, says the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The DNR a year ago investigated the issue when the Milwaukee County work group was writing the downtown lakefront plan. In a July 13, 2011, e-mail, DNR Milwaukee River Basin supervisor Sharon Gayan wrote that the transit center is not on the lakebed and not subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.'
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/real_estate/2012/06/question-raised-about-private-projects.html

Anonymous map mailings prompt public trust doctrine review for The Couture

"But the mysterious packages of maps sent around the community in recent weeks prompted Preserve Our Parks to hire a surveyor to determine the location of the original shoreline. That review determined that 75 to 80 percent of the Downtown Transit Center site is filled lake bed and subject to the public trust doctrine, said John Lunz, president of preserve our parks"

http://biztimes.com/article/20120725/ENEWSLETTERS06/120729915/Anonymous-map-mailings-prompt-public-trust-doctrine-review-for-The-Couture

HaletotheZoo

August 1st, 2012, 05:16 AM

Anonymous map mailings prompt public trust doctrine review for The Couture

"But the mysterious packages of maps sent around the community in recent weeks prompted Preserve Our Parks to hire a surveyor to determine the location of the original shoreline. That review determined that 75 to 80 percent of the Downtown Transit Center site is filled lake bed and subject to the public trust doctrine, said John Lunz, president of preserve our parks"

http://biztimes.com/article/20120725/ENEWSLETTERS06/120729915/Anonymous-map-mailings-prompt-public-trust-doctrine-review-for-The-Couture

This is idiotic. Why the hell does it matter if that used be water, it is NOT anymore.

miltown

August 1st, 2012, 06:37 AM

This is idiotic. Why the hell does it matter if that used be water, it is NOT anymore.

Unless we decide to go with a Venice them downtown!!! Seriously though, this is a mess, these people need to calm down. They'd really rather have a dilapidated shell of a transit center than and urban tower center? it's not like it's an option to make it a park.

Jesse276

August 1st, 2012, 04:56 PM

This is idiotic. Why the hell does it matter if that used be water, it is NOT anymore.

Yeah, I generally like the law that prohibits development on lakes but this is just ridiculous.

SWDetroit

August 1st, 2012, 07:26 PM

Slightly off-topic: is the streetcar more or less assured, at least the starter line ?

Yesterday, the voters in Atlanta pretty much deep-sixed its transit projects that were planned for the next decade--including both highway and public transportation...

Excerpts from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation- ... 88552.html (http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation-referendum/voters-reject-transportation-tax-1488552.html)

Voters reject transportation tax
By Ariel Hart

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Distrustful of government and riven by differences, metro Atlanta voters on Tuesday rejected a $7.2 billion transportation plan that business leaders have called an essential bulwark against regional decline.

Voter revolt

The metro Atlanta result was no surprise to independent pollsters who in recent weeks predicted an overwhelming loss, fueled by citizens' distrust of government and the metro area's splintered transportation desires.

Voters interviewed Tuesday — urban transit fans and suburban drivers — confirmed the predictions.

The metro Atlanta tax would have built a $6.14 billion list of 157 regional projects — relieving congestion at key Interstate highway chokepoints and opening 29 miles of new rail track to passengers, among others — as well as $1 billion worth of smaller local projects. The list was negotiated by 21 mayors and county commissioners from all 10 counties, and it contained about half transit and half roads.

jehuty

August 1st, 2012, 09:40 PM

Yesterday, the voters in Atlanta pretty much deep-sixed its transit projects that were planned for the next decade--including both highway and public transportation...

Excerpts from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation- ... 88552.html (http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation-referendum/voters-reject-transportation-tax-1488552.html)

Voters reject transportation tax
By Ariel Hart

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Distrustful of government and riven by differences, metro Atlanta voters on Tuesday rejected a $7.2 billion transportation plan that business leaders have called an essential bulwark against regional decline.

Voter revolt

The metro Atlanta result was no surprise to independent pollsters who in recent weeks predicted an overwhelming loss, fueled by citizens' distrust of government and the metro area's splintered transportation desires.

Voters interviewed Tuesday — urban transit fans and suburban drivers — confirmed the predictions.

The metro Atlanta tax would have built a $6.14 billion list of 157 regional projects — relieving congestion at key Interstate highway chokepoints and opening 29 miles of new rail track to passengers, among others — as well as $1 billion worth of smaller local projects. The list was negotiated by 21 mayors and county commissioners from all 10 counties, and it contained about half transit and half roads.

1) Sucks for the Atlanta Metro area. Never underestimate people voting against their own self interest. They'll pay for such oversight in the future.

2) Atlanta's metro area and the city of Milwaukee are hardly the same thing or even in the same predicament. Where as Atlanta's transportation includes a large part of its metro area (read:suburbs), Milwaukee's streetcar plans doesn't include any of its suburbs mainly because the city knows not to even bother.

3) Milwaukee already has the means to accrue funding for the starter phase of the streetcar system in Milwaukee. Aside from that jerk face from Oconomowoc that is trying to throw a wrench in the whole thing by having AT&T and the Utilities claim it will cost millions to move wires and the such for the streetcar line, the streetcar line is good to go. Good thing we have Alderman Bauman standing up for Milwaukee and letting WE Energies and AT&T know that if they keep interfering with local politics, the city of Milwaukee may just need to start charging them for using our infrastructure which they use for free at the moment.

The starter line in Milwaukee will happen. The problem is that Mayor Barrett smartly wants the line to extend all the way to Brady st and beyond in the initial stage in order to have the maximum amount of initial ridership. This will cost millions of dollars, and the fed isn't exactly ponying up. Me thinks they first want to see the starter phase of the streetcar system before they hand over funds (sorta like Minneapolis-St.Paul and more recently Cincinnati).

4) So in summation, yes Milwaukee will get its streetcar system (probably withing a couple years). This makes suburbanites real upset because rail transportation is an evil socialist liberal communist agenda or something.

There are seriously some people who exist in the U.S that would love for a city like NYC to knock down tons of buildings to make room for parking structures just to accommodate their cars. That same mentality is present in Milwaukee's suburbs, hence why downtown Milwaukee probably has more parking structures than actual residential or commercial buildings.

DooMer_MP3

August 1st, 2012, 09:52 PM

Don't feed the trolls!

SWDetroit

August 1st, 2012, 10:50 PM

Since January, the fed's LaHood rejected funding for both a 9.3-mile streetcar route and most recently a smaller 3.4-mile route for Woodward Avenue in Detroit.

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the 2.9-mile Detroit People Mover--a failed boondoggle that was supposed to have an annual ridership of 13 million instead of its current 2 million. It operates out of a reserve fund because its regular funding was not available this year due to Detroit's near-bankrupt financial situation. Its cashbox revenue at the former 50-cent fare only provided 8% of its annual cost of operation, so the fare was recently upped to 75 cents.

Milwaukee, WY

August 1st, 2012, 11:42 PM

Paule

August 2nd, 2012, 12:15 AM

This is idiotic. Why the hell does it matter if that used be water, it is NOT anymore.
Well, it matters because there's a city law that says no private projects can be constructed on what used to be lake bed. I'm with you and just about everybody else on this but the law is on the books. Now, if the Minnesota Vikings can build a new stadium with public money in Minneapolis even though there's a city law that says that the city is not allowed to spend over $10,000 on a sports arena or stadium, I'm more than sure this can also be figured out as well.

Twoaday

August 2nd, 2012, 02:53 AM

@Paule It is not a city law that prevents development on lakebedland. The Public Trust Doctrine, which is in the Wisconsin constitution, is what is at issue. That said the doctrine doesn't actually state anything specifically about filled land per se, at least not to my knowledge. It has been the courts interpretation on the doctrine that has lead to this protection. Here's an article discussion the topic in reference to the Bay View wind turbine project. http://bayviewcompass.com/archives/6050

Jesse276

August 2nd, 2012, 02:56 AM

Well, it matters because there's a city law that says no private projects can be constructed on what used to be lake bed. I'm with you and just about everybody else on this but the law is on the books. Now, if the Minnesota Vikings can build a new stadium with public money in Minneapolis even though there's a city law that says that the city is not allowed to spend over $10,000 on a sports arena or stadium, I'm more than sure this can also be figured out as well.

Just want to say it's not a city law, it's in the Wisconsin constitution. Even if it could be easily changed, I don't think it should be to allow 1 project in Milwaukee. Hopefully the map is incorrect and it doesn't apply.

Eriol

August 2nd, 2012, 05:29 AM

Wisconsin Constitution
Article IX, Section 1
THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

[T]he river Mississippi and the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the state as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost or duty therefor.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/consthi/04consthiIV4.htm

This goes into great detail of the interpretation and various challenges over the years. By strict interpretation I don't see how the Couture project violates it. Considering that they have already approved the restaurant built on the pier almost directly between the transit center and the actual lake, how can they then declare that the transit center must remain undeveloped? That's the argument I would take to the court.

If they were so serious about the doctrine, they should go after the townhouses on the Milwaukee River between Highland and Juneau that are preventing building the riverwalk through there on the east bank. People should be able to walk the riverbank there, regardless of the function of the buildings along it.

DEVO_LICIOUS

August 3rd, 2012, 01:40 AM

Hello All,
I've been following this forum for a couple years now, but just finally set up an account, because I finally have something to contribute.

In these snapshots I modeled a couple rough renderings of the three possible towers that will be going up.

I have the NW office tower set at exactly 700'
The Couture, (I can dream) at 504'
and the Possible 20 story office building at roughly half the height of the US Bank tower.

enjoy!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Dal/ScreenShot2012-08-02at61248PM.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Dal/ScreenShot2012-08-02at61136PM.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Dal/ScreenShot2012-08-02at60748PM.png

These are views from 700' above ground. atop the possible NW tower
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Dal/ScreenShot2012-08-02at61353PM.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Dal/ScreenShot2012-08-02at61432PM.png

DEVO_LICIOUS

August 3rd, 2012, 01:49 AM

If anyone wants the Google Earth files of these models, let me know. You'll be able to view them from any angle you like.

usbmfa

August 3rd, 2012, 03:01 AM

DEVO:

I think your 20 story office building is in the wrong location. I believe it is supposed on the directly to the west of the couture. I also am extremely skeptical that the new NM tower will be much higher than the old, but like you say, we can always hope. Still is fun to see these buildings modeled.

honest86

August 3rd, 2012, 06:34 AM

Devo, I agree with usbmfa, the 20 story tower goes between the us bank podium and the couture. You have your model set up wrong. It would actually have a pedestrian walkway that connects between the US bank building and the Couture running though it, so that all of the buildings would be tied together.

dudemeister

August 3rd, 2012, 12:51 PM

Hey Devo, could you send em to me please - johns866@uwm.edu.

Thanks dude, models look sweet.

AcctStdntUWM

August 3rd, 2012, 05:08 PM

Thanks Devo for doing these, it's always nice to see something, however speculative, on paper (or on the screen in this case).

AcctStdntUWM

August 3rd, 2012, 07:35 PM

The people at Preserve are Parks are really starting to get on my nerve. I'm absolutely all for maintaining our natural landscapes, but not after the whole Couture issues with the Public Doctrine, now apparently people within their organization are bitching about the plan to help fund improvements to Cathedral Square and Juneau Park saying it's going to give the East Town association too much power over the events held there. (see the latest Land and Space video update at JSonline.com)

These are hugely need improvements to two of the best used and most high profile parks we have in the city. Preserve Our Parks really needs to get off the stick.

ThatGuy

August 8th, 2012, 10:03 AM

Well not sure how many of you saw this, thought I would post it...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577573393290580100.html?mod=ITP_personaljournal_3

I don't know how to feel about it. Obviously the article is a bit of a joke, barely mentioning the city at all, and I do think it will never happen...

...buuuuut since I do tend to think of these things because I am a dreamer, I got to thinking that the city is not as far away from making this a reality as it would seem on the surface.

For one we have the facilities for the most part. Sure we'd have to make an Olympic Stadium, as well as a few of the other venues, most notably being the Aquatic Center, but most other cities do, and both could be repurposed. The Olympic Stadium could be sent to UWM or Marquette to finally establish a football team in the city. I know they have been hesitant to do so, but that is because of the startup costs, the largest being the building of a new stadium. As for the Aquatic center, it would probably go to good use by one of those universities as well. As for the others, we could employ the temporary method Chicago was planning on using, and constructing them for only the games itself, such as the Tennis and Beach Volleyball arenas. We have the US Cellular arena as well as the BC for basketball and gymnastics (and other arena sports im missing), not to mention were we to get a new BC, they could delay demo on one of the other two (if they were planning on demoing one in the first place) and we would have three arenas. We have our convention center for things like judo, weightlifting and handball (handball was held in Atlanta's convention center). Rowing can be done on the lake (Chicago had the same plan for their bid), and we have nearby farmland for equestrian events.

The Olympic Park and Olympic Village of course are also items that need to be there. We have the Maier Festival Grounds for the Park, honestly its really perfect other than dislocating a cultural festival or two for the one year, and the Village could also be used as dorm space for a Marquette or UWM (I know, I am putting a lot of weight on their shoulders, but split between the two I think they could handle it)

Now of course you've already come to the conclusion that the city is to small, and could never host the influx of visitors due to our lack of hotel space. Well, in a solution that would surely alienate some, a highspeed train could be run down to Milwaukee. Now, since I am already dreaming large here, I will just say if we went with a maglev, they supposedly run at 268mph, so that would make the 90 mile trip just over 20 minutes. Not great, but acceptable to bus people into the city, especially were it to run frequently, at least for during the Olympics. Cost would be expensive, but Chicago would probably pitch in some, as would the federal government.

But that still leaves Milwaukee's city transportation woefully short, and the only thing I haven't found a solution for other than "build a subway" which for me seems the most implausible part of the whole suggestion.

So no, I do not think that Milwaukee can feasibly host the Olympics, but I don't think we are as far away as it would first appear.

/enddream

Eriol

August 8th, 2012, 10:32 PM

I love that article. I wish it were possible, but I can't imagine the cost of such a thing and if people here can't agree on whether to build an arena to keep the Bucks how will they ever get behind funding everything that would be needed for the Olympics?

Good mental
fun though!

This was in the BJ today:

Milwaukee project to improve link between marsupial bridge and Beerline
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/real_estate/2012/08/milwaukee-project-to-improve-link.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2012-08-08

It has been a long time they have been talking about doing this. I thought they forgot.

Paule

August 9th, 2012, 01:14 AM

http://www.jsonline.com/business/shopping-for-an-apartment-development-planned-at-grand-avenue-uq6coqh-165347526.html
"Apartment demand is strong," said Breunig, who operates Franklin-based Sunset Investors. "It's not just people who work downtown. It's also people who want to live downtown."

Paule

August 9th, 2012, 01:26 AM

I love that article. I wish it were possible, but I can't imagine the cost of such a thing and if people here can't agree on whether to build an arena to keep the Bucks how will they ever get behind funding everything that would be needed for the Olympics?

Good mental
fun though!
The artricle is a joke, and probably only thought up because people in NY don't understand why Milwaukee is the third highest rated city for watching the Olympics. But listen up, if Chicago can't win a Games, Milwaukee, er, Wisconsin wont either. It was a fun article none-the-less. :)

Paule

August 9th, 2012, 01:30 AM

I have a question, who are the mods in this forum?

JRedd

August 9th, 2012, 06:13 PM

I can't wait to see what the future holds for downtown milwaukee!

honest86

August 10th, 2012, 02:05 AM

I can't wait to see what the future holds for downtown milwaukee!

I know. After several slow years, proposals are finally starting to pick up again. I am moving out of WI in 2 weeks to NYC, but hopefully when I come back to visit my friends and family there will be some big changes!

usbmfa

August 10th, 2012, 03:53 AM

Is this a joke???

Milwaukee community organizations are suing to block reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange, accusing state and federal transportation officials of discriminating against urban minorities by not including public transit improvements in the $1.7 billion freeway project.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, argues the project will "have the likely effect of exacerbating regional racial segregation, and it will have adverse environmental effects on air quality and water resources . . . If the project proceeds, it will have major and significant impacts on the most racially segregated region in the United States."

The lawsuit argues the project violates environmental justice rules, which prohibit federally funded projects from discriminating against minorities.

Another concern is that the Zoo Interchange is being built with the capacity to expand if six-lane freeways are later widened to eight lanes, the lawsuit says. That would bring more traffic and boost air pollution, at a time when "persons of color in the region, especially African-Americans, have higher rates of air-quality-related respiratory disease, such as asthma, than white persons."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/groups-sue-to-block-reconstruction-of-the-zoo-interchange-dj6ehfo-165653316.html

Seriously, do these people have any idea how stupid they sound and act.

=dba=Ronin

August 10th, 2012, 02:26 PM

Is this a joke???

I sincerely hope so. Between this and Preserve our Parks, it is a wonder that anything can get built in Milwaukee. I can see the argument from PoP to a degree, but this one is just laughable. I wonder if other major cities have to put up with this sort of crap every time they try to build something.

ajknee

August 10th, 2012, 03:41 PM

This is great news! I'm glad the people of Milwaukee still have the political will to stand up for themselves. The freeway construction in Wisconsin right now is ridiculous. MCTS has lost 25 routes and Amtrak funding was returned, yet they continue to EXPAND freeways!?! It would be one thing to be performing preventative maintenance on our roadways, it's another to expand a system that already requires an insane amount of funding for maintenance. Look at the global trend...urban freeways are a dying mode.

AcctStdntUWM

August 10th, 2012, 11:20 PM

Not going to lie, with all the ridiculous BS that's canceled projects like the HSR or KRM line. Don't mind seeing a challenge to freeway construction in Milwaukee for once.

jehuty

August 11th, 2012, 04:15 AM

MJinOshkosh

August 11th, 2012, 06:09 AM

As someone who drives for a living I find some of the comments about the Milwaukee freeway system amazing! It is no wonder that Milwaukee is in my mind where it is and what it isn't. To coin a phrase "I will cut my nose to spite my face." takes on new meaning when it comes to some of the comments I've seen.

Really!

Really???

REALLY!!

WOW!!! If I don't get a Train project whether it be HSR or KRM I will celebrate if the freeway system doesn't get the improvements needed for it to function the way it should.

I guess it takes all kinds.

As I sit here in Oshkosh and wonder and laugh at the foolishness and folly of the metro Milwaukee area and why nothing over there is seems to be getting done as far as transportation goes.

WOW!

honest86

August 11th, 2012, 06:55 AM

If we can have a frivolous lawsuit to block the streetcar from a suburban commuter, we can definitely have a more reasonable lawsuit that pretty much just ask that the state balance their priorities to make sure they are not discriminating. I think the big objection toward this and other projects are that they are huge freeway expansions, yet there is no comparable expansion of spending on transit for a lot of low income and minority residents, even at a time like this when the average mile traveled on a freeway is decreasing, and when people are on the whole are driving less, yet actual transit ridership is increasing. Do we really need to double capacity of the interchange at a cost of several billion dollars, and then also spend billions more rebuilding the other exchanges around milwaukee? If you look at the overall freeway plan for the area the cost of rebuilding all of the freeways is staggering. We are talking tens of billions of dollars of spending which we don't have, and then the maintenance costs are also going to skyrocket as well.

usbmfa

August 11th, 2012, 03:05 PM

Jesse276

August 11th, 2012, 04:24 PM

So apparently minorities breath different air than the rest us. Apparently, no minorities use the interchange and get stuck in it massive traffic jams during the rush hours. Apparently rebuilding an existing interchange causes racial segregation. Apparently it is perfectly logical to compare hobby trains to the most heavily used interchange in SE WI.

Again, is this a joke. How stupid are people??

There are more freeways in Milwaukee & we get to breathe the exhaust fumes from it. More money needs to be allocated to transit projects, especially now that driving is down & transit usage is up.

Eriol

August 11th, 2012, 04:44 PM

The focus of this website is development. The point of development is to make the places around us better places to live so more people will want to live here. You want more people you have to accept they come in cars.

It is always mentioned that building more lanes will bring more cars to fill them. The fact is the cars are coming anyway and without more lanes the lanes we have will just become more and more clogged. If you think people can be forced out of their cars you are deluded. They will simply choose to live elsewhere.

Do you only want people who think like yourselves to come here and the rest can go somplace else? You are outnumbered.

OliverDP

August 11th, 2012, 08:12 PM

A few thoughts on this topic...

I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I don't think you can say that the Zoo interchange is more/less important than the light rail, street car, etc. because they serve different purposes. The zoo interchange is a connecting point for a huge volume of traffic, much of which is comprised of commercial transportation that ships our goods across this great land of ours. This highway/interstate system has proven to be an essential part of our American culture and is now fully woven into most of our daily lives. Whether you live in the city, suburbs or on a farm we all depend on the this system in some regard. On the other hand, mass transit like the street car or light rail serves a completely different purpose (at least initially in MKE it would). This system would help those that live/work downtown get around to many of the local attractions, businesses, etc. in another manner. Some would argue more efficiently and with less of a carbon footprint. The problem is that when you look at the potential benefit of the street car/light rail it is much more difficult to justify the expense because we just don't know how it will turn out. There have been a number of successes and failures across the country we can point to. I'm not saying it shouldn't be pursued (and I'm glad it is), but it is hard for me to personally justify the ROI considering the initial start-up costs. Of course, if money were no object I would be completely in favor of expanding both projects and giving everybody what they wanted, but since the slice of funding comes from the same pie we have to decide where it is best utilized.

mgk920

August 11th, 2012, 08:49 PM

I'm actually really glad that they are suing to stop freeway expansion. I don't care if the Zoo interchange is vital for commuters and commerce alike. Things need to be fair and the state has done absolutely nothing to help Milwaukee's transit woes. I hope the fed stops funding for the freeway and adds the stipulation that a considerable amount of fund must be given to Milwaukee so it can implement local transit options.

I know the suburbs don't care about Milwaukee neighborhoods being destroyed in order to make their commute more convenient, but here in Milwaukee people actually care about their neighborhoods and understand all the expansion of the interstate will do is add to traffic congestion.

Ahhhh, the Zoo Interchange, of which several of its bridges are in imminent danger of catastrophic failure, is of *CRITICAL* economic importance to the entire State of Wisconsin north of Milwaukee, especially for us here in the Appleton and Oshkosh area, as well as for much of Da Yoopee of Michigan. It is not just a 'Milwaukee' thing.

Get that straight, OK?

:ohno:

Mike

jehuty

August 11th, 2012, 08:57 PM

@ Eriol

No. People can be made to change. Especially now a days when it is proven that the younger generations simple are not as interested in driving as much as the older generations are. Tons and Tons of people move to real metropolitan areas in the world and give up driving because of general ease (and saving a ton of money).

The point of this website is development, and while expanding the interstate while destroying and fraying some city of Milwaukee neighborhoods may serve a purpose to some (namely those who live in the suburbs), it does nothing for city residents (especially those who live around the area of proposed expansion).

I really don't get how some people can so anti public transportation. Its like people live in this fantasy world were the human population isn't getting bigger every day and that a better means of moving people isn't necessary. Not every one can afford a car plus insurance. Further more, not everyone wants to drive. As a matter of fact the younger generations are more likely to favor public transit. One wonders how New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Portland, San Francisco, etc do it. And those are just some of the U.S cities that rely on public transit and do it well enough.

The question that people really need to ask themselves is what makes more sense, Milwaukee to follow in the footsteps of cities/metros like Portland or Seattle, or to follow in the footsteps of L.A and Houston ( in terms of transit).

So expand the free way go ahead, but not until there is a reasonable compromise so that local transit systems don't get cockblocked from the tens of billions of dollar that goes directly to the road builders and their cartel.

jehuty

August 11th, 2012, 09:17 PM

Ahhhh, the Zoo Interchange, of which several of its bridges are in imminent danger of catastrophic failure, is of *CRITICAL* economic importance to the entire State of Wisconsin north of Milwaukee, especially for us here in the Appleton and Oshkosh area, as well as for much of Da Yoopee of Michigan. It is not just a 'Milwaukee' thing.

Get that straight, OK?

:ohno:

Mike

Ahhhh, the Zoo interchange, of which they simple don't just want to repair but also expand which in turn will mean that it will cost even more to maintain.

I'm not even against repairing it or even expanding the Zoo interchange for that matter. Simply put, i'd like to see the state/fed stop acting like roads are the only thing that needs funding. As the lawsuit states, "Milwaukee community organizations are suing to block reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange, accusing state and federal transportation officials of discriminating against urban minorities by not including public transit improvements in the $1.7 billion freeway project. All I want to see more modes of transportation get more of the share of funds which almost go entirely to road, interstate, and highway projects (which i'm surprised we even have money for since I thought we were broke).

Doesn't sound so unreasonable does it?

Crankbaiter

August 12th, 2012, 04:54 AM

@ Eriol

The question that people really need to ask themselves is what makes more sense, Milwaukee to follow in the footsteps of cities/metros like Portland or Seattle, or to follow in the footsteps of L.A and Houston ( in terms of transit).

I don't think our freeways even come close to a Portland or Seattle. Louisville KY has more Freeway miles in their metro area than MKE.

I'm not opposed to rail and mass transit but MKE is woefully underdeveloped from a Interstate standpoint.

Now, having said that, a Metra style rail system should be considered from the North, West and South suburbs as a start. Then a NW and perhaps a SW line.

Milwaukee, WY

August 12th, 2012, 10:41 PM

Ahhhh, the Zoo interchange, of which they simple don't just want to repair but also expand which in turn will mean that it will cost even more to maintain.

I'm not even against repairing it or even expanding the Zoo interchange for that matter. Simply put, i'd like to see the state/fed stop acting like roads are the only thing that needs funding. As the lawsuit states, "Milwaukee community organizations are suing to block reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange, accusing state and federal transportation officials of discriminating against urban minorities by not including public transit improvements in the $1.7 billion freeway project. All I want to see more modes of transportation get more of the share of funds which almost go entirely to road, interstate, and highway projects (which i'm surprised we even have money for since I thought we were broke).

Doesn't sound so unreasonable does it?

Certainly not unreasonable at all. I don't get the idea that highways and transit are mutually exclusive. They should both be included in a balanced transportation plan.

Jesse276

August 12th, 2012, 11:02 PM

I don't think our freeways even come close to a Portland or Seattle. Louisville KY has more Freeway miles in their metro area than MKE.

I'm not opposed to rail and mass transit but MKE is woefully underdeveloped from a Interstate standpoint.

Now, having said that, a Metra style rail system should be considered from the North, West and South suburbs as a start. Then a NW and perhaps a SW line.

Yet, don't we also have some of the lowest levels of congestion in the country? I find that more telling than a mere comparison of lane miles. If we have a strong arterial road network, which we do, then you don't need as many miles of interstate.

The lack of congestion is real life data that most expansion is completely unnecessary and wasteful.

AcctStdntUWM

August 13th, 2012, 04:05 PM

As I sit here in Oshkosh and wonder and laugh at the foolishness and folly of the metro Milwaukee area and why nothing over there is seems to be getting done as far as transportation goes.

WOW!

Oh there's been plenty of transportation projects getting done in Milwaukee the last 10 years...all freeway related. Billions has been poured into the interstate system in metro Milwaukee, and while obviously the necessary maintenance on our roads is a must, I've seen nothing but services cuts and raising fares with the bus system, while no other new options have been implemented yet.

DooMer_MP3

August 14th, 2012, 12:44 AM

As I sit here in Oshkosh and wonder and laugh at the foolishness and folly of the metro Milwaukee area and why nothing over there is seems to be getting done as far as transportation goes.

WOW!

Yes, it is perfectly clear that you will sit in Oshkosh and laugh at Milwaukee, which you basically use as a thoroughfare for your job, while we Milwaukeeans get to experience years of construction mess and increased congestion that highway expansion is proven to cause. WOW! :nuts:

Fact is, this state has spent BILLIONS on highway improvements and NOTHING on public transit improvements. I'm glad to see someone bringing some attention to this, no matter how "stupid" people think it is.

Nexis

August 14th, 2012, 10:26 AM

I would like it if Wisconsin committed to building this , aside from 220mph Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison - Rochester - Minneapolis line , everything else would be cheap and serve the needs of most the state and Milwaukee.

Key..
Bullet Train / High Speed Rail - 170-220mph+ (Electric)
Regional Rail - 70-125mph (Electric or Diesel)
Existing / Upgraded Amtrak - 70-110mph (Electric or Diesel)
Commuter Rail - 60-100mph (Electric or Diesel)

Proposed Milwaukee Commuter Rail Network
-KRM Commuter Rail
-Waukesha Commuter Rail
-Port Washington Corridor

http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/images/map_projects_wisconsin_1000.gif

atrain5371

August 14th, 2012, 06:00 PM

For that to even be looked at it would be at a minimum of 2015 since the governor would do everything possible to avoid rail projects.

MJinOshkosh

August 14th, 2012, 09:16 PM

Yes, it is perfectly clear that you will sit in Oshkosh and laugh at Milwaukee, which you basically use as a thoroughfare for your job, while we Milwaukeeans get to experience years of construction mess and increased congestion that highway expansion is proven to cause. WOW! :nuts:

Fact is, this state has spent BILLIONS on highway improvements and NOTHING on public transit improvements. I'm glad to see someone bringing some attention to this, no matter how "stupid" people think it is.

Laughing was used figuratively(more like shaking my head).

The amazment I feel toward some of the posts has more to do with the feeling of some that take a certain amount of delite in the prospect of a hold up in one transportation project because of a cancelling of their pet project or projects.

And talking about road construction, there is plenty of that happening up here too with the reconstruction of US 41 from Oshkosh up to Green Bay.

Jesse276

August 15th, 2012, 12:17 AM

And talking about road construction, there is plenty of that happening up here too with the reconstruction of US 41 from Oshkosh up to Green Bay.

Trust us, we know. The state roads in the northern 2/3rds of this state are constantly widened, repaved & generally smooth as glass. All with gas taxes funded by the large cities in this state.

I wonder how much you'd laugh if you actually had to pay for what you use.

araman0

August 15th, 2012, 01:32 AM

usbmfa

August 15th, 2012, 05:11 AM

The project to rebuild the state's busiest crossroads must continue; the issues raised in the suit can be addressed in other ways.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/zoo-interchange-lawsuit-wellintended-misguided-uo6fvf0-166194396.html

They don't use the word "stupid", but take the safe, boring, pc middle of the road route.

MJinOshkosh

August 15th, 2012, 06:17 AM

AcctStdntUWM

August 15th, 2012, 06:30 PM

Really cool article about a recent conference for the Alliance of Area Business Publications. I love reading the various visiting editior's thoughts on their visit. Check it out.

Visitors rave about Milwaukee
Corporate Event Planning

By Steve Jagler

http://www.biztimes.com/article/20120806/MAGAZINE03/308039981/-1/Hospitality/Visitors-rave-about-Milwaukee

Jesse276

August 15th, 2012, 09:53 PM

And to answer your second prose. No! I don't laugh when I go to the gas pump. But my Wallet does cry alot when it forks over the money to pay for my gas and whatever tax money the state takes from my purchase.

Does your wallet also cry when it pays for your morning coffee? or your house payment? or at the grocery store?

If it does, it sounds like a really high maintenance wallet... trade it in for something a little lower key... unless drama is your thing I guess.

AcctStdntUWM

August 17th, 2012, 05:13 PM

Parks director Sue Black departs, says Abele fired her
By Steve Schultze of the Journa

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/parks-director-sue-black-departs-supervisor-says-she-was-fired-bl6h6r7-166444126.html

Milwaukee County Parks Director Sue Black, who brought national honors to the county's park system, was fired Thursday by County Executive Chris Abele.

Black said she was stunned when told by Abele during a regular weekly meeting with him that "we are going in another direction. We are letting you go..."

I sincerly hope there's some facts brought to light about this situation, because there's no way in hell Sue Black should be let go for the fact that the county wants to "go in another direction." Wtf is Abele thinking?

j-hah

August 18th, 2012, 02:30 PM

Cool Potential Restuarant Location

I came across this the other day. The Grain Silo in the Pabst complex is being redeveloped into a restaurant and meeting rooms. If it happens, it'd be a really cool place and could bring some much-needed life to the area.

Link: http://www.620wtmj.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1465026789001

usbmfa

August 18th, 2012, 02:41 PM

jehuty

August 18th, 2012, 09:47 PM

Janitors union wins delay on Park East Square loan

http://www.jsonline.com/business/janitors-union-wins-delay-on-park-east-square-loan-vr6h7j2-166492016.html

So lefty special interests are now trying to block Couture, zoo interchange, and now park east development. Yet the least useful project, the streetcar, is still on. Sigh...

As much as some people may hate regulations, they do exist for a reason and should be followed. Things have to be vetted, that just how government operates. And since all the projects you have mentioned all will take up public land, and local or federal monies, than yes, they should all be vetted.

Good for the unions on not letting a developer just steamroll their way on to a loan that the City of Milwaukee will have to provide for a development. You do know the City of Milwaukee has requirements that developers have to follow in order for them to get approved for loans right? You do know what happens when the developers don't meet said requirements right?

Zoo interchange being repaired would be very useful and as a matter of fact is still going to happen. What some groups in Milwaukee don't want is it getting expanded without there being some consideration being shown to mass transit. And since the state shows almost no interest towards mass transit, this objection is about due. You may not like people looking out for their city and their interests but fortunately many people do care.

The Couture would look great by the lakefront and add to Milwaukee's skyline. That being said rules still have to be followed. And if a rule says you cant build something private on public land than them are the breaks. The Couture will still end up happening so its much ado about nothing.

And finally you obsession with being anti streetcar is both fascinating as it is misguided. The least useful project? That is a whole lot of Hyperbole in one statement. And is the streetcar still going on? You mean the same streetcar that's been stuck in the planning phase for over a decade? You mean the same streetcar that the utilities are trying to torpedo by bringing up costs of moving lines and pipes even though they use the city streets and infrastructure free of charge? You mean the same streetcar that has exposed Bob Donovan of being a republican shill and being in bed with the likes of "Americans for Prosperity" and the "MacIver institute" ? You mean the same streetcar that has people that don't even live in the city up in arms because rail transportation is seen as an evil liberal ploy? Is this the streetcar that you claim is still going on?

mgk920

August 19th, 2012, 05:08 AM

=dba=Ronin

August 19th, 2012, 05:31 PM

Trust us, we know. The state roads in the northern 2/3rds of this state are constantly widened, repaved & generally smooth as glass. All with gas taxes funded by the large cities in this state.

I wonder how much you'd laugh if you actually had to pay for what you use.

Well, you guys didn't want the money for projects in your area, so the state spent it in places that were much more welcoming of it.

:yes:

Mike

And to boot, since when doesn't the remaining 66% of the state not pay taxes on gas?

As citizens of the state of Wisconsin, we all have the right to expect that no matter what part of the state we are in, or might travel to, our roads should be efficient, safe, and well maintained. If all anyone wants is for their own locality to benefit, that would mean they have no intention of using any other part of the system, so why even bother having it to begin with? However, we all know people go from A to B in great numbers, so it benefits everyone if we just stop pointing fingers and being greedy and share the wealth of the pool we ALL pay into.

I for one travel quite a bit from SE WI to the central part of the state. I am more than happy to see the improvements that have been done to US41 and HWY10 over the past couple of decades, and moreover, I am OK with knowing that the taxes I pay on the gas I fill up with at home are going towards improving something I utilize elsewhere. Likewise, I do use the Zoo enough that I would love to see it brought up to modern standards, and I am willing to help pay for that too.

Conversely, I hardly ever travel to Madison, but I am not going to stomp my feet if they build a new interchange just because I don't use it. I got my slice of the pie with the 41 rework in Oshkosh, they deserve theirs.

Just because we live in one area doesn't mean we don't benefit from work done in other areas. The system is not a closed circuit meant to cater only to the needs of it's direct neighbors.

Jesse276

August 20th, 2012, 02:58 AM

Well, you guys didn't want the money for projects in your area, so the state spent it in places that were much more welcoming of it.

:yes:

Mike

We're all for increasing maintenance and replacing infrastructure, you're welcoming pork.

AcctStdntUWM

August 20th, 2012, 05:03 PM

SWDetroit

August 21st, 2012, 12:52 AM

Everything is so black and white with you it's annoying.
Everything is so white and black with you it's equally annoying.

BTW, he's right, you know.

atrain5371

August 21st, 2012, 02:13 AM

Everything is so white and black with you it's equally annoying.

BTW, he's right, you know.

Not really, saying all impediments to development are looney lefties (as someone who lives near Jefferson County likes to waste their money saying) is intellectually lazy at best and completely wrong in actuality. Especially when it might not be liberals opposing certain things and when in other cases they are just trying to get things done right and not at all opposed to particular projects.

SWDetroit

August 21st, 2012, 06:23 PM

Speaking of far-left loonie tunes, an article yesterday on examiner.com had this headline:

Former union boss: Goal of Occupy to overthrow capitalism and 'build communism'
Occupy DC August 20, 2012
by: Joe Newby
http://www.examiner.com/article/former-union-boss-goal-of-occupy-to-overthrow-capitalism-and-build-communism

It is probably only coincidental that this former union leader headed a public-transit local--ATU local 689, which “bills itself as the third-largest union local in North America,” according to the article. Or is it?

Below is an excerpt of the article's first six sentences...

While speaking at an*Occupy DC*"People's Assembly" on Sunday, former Amalgamated Transit Union local 689 president Mike Golash said his political goal is to "make*revolution*in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build*communism.”

“Progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization,” he told Occupy DC activists at the Luther Place Church in downtown Washington, D.C., the*Daily Caller*reported Monday.

According to Golash, he and his comrades are “trying to learn something from the historical revolutions of the past: the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the revolutions in Cuba and Eastern Europe.”

“What can we learn from them so we can build a more successful movement to transform capitalist society?” he asked.

"Golash recently retired from his job as a public transit bus driver. The ATU local 689, which he used to lead, bills itself as the third-largest union local in North America," the Daily Caller added.

MJinOshkosh

August 21st, 2012, 06:57 PM

SWDetroit

August 21st, 2012, 08:24 PM

^^
:ohno:

I don't see what this has to do with development in Milwaukee or the most recent discussion on transportation in Milwaukee or Wisconsin in general. All this line of thought is going to do is insite some of the posters in this forum.

insite?

Even if the streetcar boondoggle's first leg is ever built, there never will be any appreciable (if any at all) extensions due to a lack of finances for capital construction and even operating costs. Milwaukee already has far more serious infrastructure needs to try to fund than an amusement-park streetcar novelty.

It will be much like the failed Detroit People Mover, which never came anything remotely close to its 13 million (actual: 2 million or less) ridership projection 25 years ago and recovers only 8% of its annual operating costs through its cashbox fares. (Milwaukee's proponents claim it will get 22% back through fares.)

Furthermore, it would be insane for its proponents to keep considering its planned extension into the most dangerous ghetto locale in all of Wisconsin--along Fond du Lac.

MJinOshkosh

August 21st, 2012, 08:58 PM

Insite is to bring up some Washington DC union cronie expousing his point of view (One of which I happen to disagree with).

It is quite another to bring up the proposed Milwaukee Streetcar which is relevent to this forum.

I agree that I am not buying into the so called value of the streetcar for Milwaukee. But I will not likely listen to an opinion thats sole purpose is to deviate and insite point of views outside of the topic being discussed.

I realize that you are pointing out that Detroit and Milwaukee are similar in a lack of wise transportation solutions. But to bring up something in my mind as being irrelevent to the subject at hand defeats the whole purpose of what might be a relevent point that you might happen to be making.

I do think some of these posters have their minds made up on the streetcar (whether I agree or not with them) but again to bring up a DC area union cronie to me isn't a good way to get their attention. :)

DooMer_MP3

August 21st, 2012, 09:29 PM

Furthermore, it would be insane for its proponents to keep considering its planned extension into the most dangerous ghetto locale in all of Wisconsin--along Fond du Lac.

You are such a tool. Yes, giving low income people access to cheap fixed rail transit and jobs is insane. :bash:

DooMer_MP3

August 21st, 2012, 09:33 PM

Also, I *love* SWDetroit's repeated comparisons of the streetcar to Detroit's failure aka "People Mover". NO rail system is going to be successful when it is a loop. This is why the original streetcar loop was rejected. Look at any successful rail transit in this country (or anywhere else for that matter), and it is all point A to point B with several branches. The People Mover *is* a joke. So please stop comparing a starter line that moves people *through* the most densely populated zipcodes in the state to it.

We need a moderator to ban Skyking2 (SWDetroit) again.

looksee

August 21st, 2012, 11:18 PM

Speaking of far-left loonie tunes,...
Speaking of far right loons^^there's this Congressman from Missouri who publicly said that women who were raped in a certain way could naturally prevent becoming pregnant...

This is called trolling: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

My example is for illustrative purposes, but yours, obviously, is just an excuse to express barely related hatreds. It's a violation of forum rules, and, at the very least, should be deleted.
Moderators please take note.
(I'll be happy to see my post vanish too afterwards.)

SWDetroit

August 21st, 2012, 11:26 PM

You are such a tool. Yes, giving low income people access to cheap fixed rail transit and jobs is insane. :bash:

"Cheap" to tax-and-spenders is taking other people's money and then waste it. So, low-income people (who really do not want streetcars...) are your poster children for supporting streetcars.

Face it... Milwaukee will have to settle for regular and BRT buses, whether the New Urbanist "elitists" in Milwaukee like that or not. Streetcars outside of a possible short downtown route will not ever happen.

Obama's LaHood rejected funding for Milwaukee's streetcar boondoggle four times already. Limited federal funds for transit and other cities having more feasible projects will doom Milwaukee's funding chances.

And after a regime change coming on next 20 January, there just will not be much federal funding for transit anywhere.

Matt.Altstiel.

August 22nd, 2012, 02:39 AM

neqquah

August 22nd, 2012, 02:25 PM

I'm amazed that SWDetroit hasn't been banned yet.

AcctStdntUWM

August 22nd, 2012, 04:00 PM

"Cheap" to tax-and-spenders is taking other people's money and then waste it. So, low-income people (who really do not want streetcars...) are your poster children for supporting streetcars.

Face it... Milwaukee will have to settle for regular and BRT buses, whether the New Urbanist "elitists" in Milwaukee like that or not. Streetcars outside of a possible short downtown route will not ever happen.

Obama's LaHood rejected funding for Milwaukee's streetcar boondoggle four times already. Limited federal funds for transit and other cities having more feasible projects will doom Milwaukee's funding chances.

And after a regime change coming on next 20 January, there just will not be much federal funding for transit anywhere.

I rarely drive, so should I be saying that almost none of my tax dollars should go to street repair and highway expansion and maintenance? ALL forms of transit rely on contribution from all aspects of society. The Fond du Lac Avenue corridor is a perfect expension because it will be close to people who will want/need it for transportation. Whether it's some white yuppie Eastsider or a poor black single mom, everyone pays the same fare. You're kind of racist, "do what's only good for me" thought process is exactly what has made Milwaukee one of the most segregated and transit inefficient cities in the country.

hybridy

August 22nd, 2012, 04:53 PM

Isn't there a Detroit forum? Or there is not enough going on that city to justify you using it?

Did anyone read about the proposal to tear down a part of the Schlitz complex for a park? I'm sorry, but Milwaukee has plenty of park space in and around downtown. They need greater density and more jobs, not more parks...

he/she can go back to the detroit thread to complain about the M-1 rail line moving closer to fruition. with regard to the schlitz brewhaus demo, i think its a damn shame. i would like to get my hands on those awesome cream city bricks though. big loss especially for a park.

DooMer_MP3

August 22nd, 2012, 05:04 PM

You're kind of racist, "do what's only good for me" thought process is exactly what has made Milwaukee one of the most segregated and transit inefficient cities in the country.

It's also the type of thinking that caused Tommy Thompson to stop supporting the nearly-passed light rail plan from downtown to Waukesha back in the 90s. Waukesha didn't want "certain people" coming to their city.

It's *really* pathetic that some people have a mentality that prevents poor people from easy and cheap access to jobs, and then complain about poor people being poor... rinse and repeat. I guess its far easier going about life with the "me first" caveman attitude than trying to find ways to better society as a whole.

AcctStdntUWM

August 22nd, 2012, 05:18 PM

SWDetroit

August 22nd, 2012, 05:44 PM

DooMer_MP3

August 22nd, 2012, 06:36 PM

Milwaukee's rapid-transit systems bellied up in several stages before 1951. Just how would yet another rail system from Milwaukee to Waukesha (or elsewhere, for that matter) be expected to stay in business today?

Excellent comparison! I'm sure the traffic on I-94 back in the late 40s/early 50s was similar to the traffic jams of today at rush hour. Or perhaps, it wasn't because the interstate didn't even exist yet. I'm sure urban sprawl was a problem back then too... oh wait, it wasn't because urban sprawl wasn't a problem until the interstate system was created.

Let's not even get into GM purchasing all rail lines (under a holding company) in several cities, including Milwaukee, slashing service and hiking fares to make cars look more attractive.

Way too easy. Try again, troll! :lol:

neqquah

August 22nd, 2012, 06:46 PM

Okay, has it even been more obvious that SW is a troll? Let's just ignore him.

DooMer_MP3

August 22nd, 2012, 07:17 PM

Yeah, broke my own rule while in a bad mood yesterday. I'm done with him.

SWDetroit

August 22nd, 2012, 07:22 PM

Excellent comparison! I'm sure the traffic on I-94 back in the late 40s/early 50s was similar to the traffic jams of today at rush hour. Or perhaps, it wasn't because the interstate didn't even exist yet. I'm sure urban sprawl was a problem back then too... oh wait, it wasn't because urban sprawl wasn't a problem until the interstate system was created.

Let's not even get into GM purchasing all rail lines (under a holding company) in several cities, including Milwaukee, slashing service and hiking fares to make cars look more attractive.

Way too easy. Try again, troll! :lol:
You need a history lesson. The Milwaukee part of I-94--the East-West Freeway--was not even built until almost 1962.
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/eastwest.html

GM, AFAIK, was not ever involved in Milwaukee's interurbans--being already way unprofitable back then. Lots of urban legends concerning GM still exist.

The original owner of the Milwaukee interurbans was Milwaukee's electric utility downtown, with its transit operations at 940 W. St. Paul.

Perhaps, you can fill in the Milwaukee version of GM's purchases if you can...

hybridy

August 22nd, 2012, 07:59 PM

When Northland Greyhound Lines ran the ill-fated Milwaukee Interurban (Milwaukee to Waukesha and Milwaukee to Hales Corners rapid-transit lines) during 1948 for one year, it was losing $20,000 monthly. Adjusted for current inflation, that $20,000/month in 1948 is equivalent to an operating loss today of $2.4 million annually. Greyhound sold it to Speedrail, whose new owners stayed in business until 1951 before going bust, and their rolling stock was salvaged into scrap in Waukesha.

Part of that line is currently I-94 from the former Eighth Street and Hibernia downtown to Hawley Road.

Milwaukee's rapid-transit systems bellied up in several stages before 1951. Just how would yet another rail system from Milwaukee to Waukesha (or elsewhere, for that matter) be expected to stay in business today?

food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

http://thewestcorridorbackfence.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/transit-oriented-communities-by-niccolo-casewit-aia-april-15-2010/

AcctStdntUWM

August 22nd, 2012, 08:53 PM

You need a history lesson. The Milwaukee part of I-94--the East-West Freeway--was not even built until almost 1962.
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/eastwest.html

GM, AFAIK, was not ever involved in Milwaukee's interurbans--being already way unprofitable back then. Lots of urban legends concerning GM still exist.

The original owner of the Milwaukee interurbans was Milwaukee's electric utility downtown, with its transit operations at 940 W. St. Paul.

Perhaps, you can fill in the Milwaukee version of GM's purchases if you can...

Perhaps you shouldn't use examples that aren't from the last few decades.

OliverDP

August 22nd, 2012, 10:24 PM

Why so hostile? I didn't see anything in the previous post that was confrontational in any way. If facts were misstated or we don't agree with a point of view we have the right to point them out, but there is no reason not to keep it civil and polite.

AcctStdntUWM

August 22nd, 2012, 11:27 PM

Eriol

August 23rd, 2012, 05:37 AM

I'm amazed that SWDetroit hasn't been banned yet.
Why? He's not being offensive, unless you count disagreeing with you to be offensive.

He seems to know Milwaukee better than a lot of posters.

DooMer_MP3

August 23rd, 2012, 09:39 PM

Possibly because he's been banned before for politics? There's a general discussion forum for politics.

"He seems to know Milwaukee better than a lot of posters." LOL

Milwaukee, WY

August 23rd, 2012, 10:22 PM

Why? He's not being offensive, unless you count disagreeing with you to be offensive.

He seems to know Milwaukee better than a lot of posters.

Because he's yet again hijacked and dragged this entire thread off topic. It's the definition of trollish behavior. If I wanted to read bass-ackwards commentary on the subject of "libruhls" and "choo choo trains" I'd stick to the comments section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Mods, if you're there, please do something.

SWDetroit

August 23rd, 2012, 10:28 PM

Possibly because he's been banned before for politics? There's a general discussion forum for politics.

"He seems to know Milwaukee better than a lot of posters." LOL
As is your wont, you (among others...) continue to make things up and throw them against the wall, hoping that some of them might stick...

I have never been banned, BTW.

Politics and business are inseparable. Perhaps, after a sizable maturation period on your part, you might learn that.

Why the bitterness from some thin skins on this forum? Beats me...

I was born in inner-city Milwaukee and have resided there or the Brookfield or Shorewood burbs for over a quarter century, worked a few years starting at age 22 as the chief engineer at Waukesha's two (then) radio stations during the 1960s, moved to the Madison/Rock County area for another 27 years, before relocating to SE Michigan.

It would appear that some puppies on this forum cannot take nor want to encounter any criticisms to their poorly conceived (New Urbanist?) beliefs.

looksee

August 23rd, 2012, 10:57 PM

It would appear that some puppies on this forum cannot take nor want to encounter any criticisms to their poorly conceived (New Urbanist?) beliefs.

Take criticism? Sure. Even a patronizing, dull-witted supercilious kind.
But what would you describe this post you contributed as?
Speaking of far-left loonie tunes, an article yesterday on examiner.com had this headline:
Former union boss: Goal of Occupy to overthrow capitalism and 'build communism'...
If it looks like a troll, walks like a troll, and quacks like a troll, it might just be a troll.
If you want to show good faith toward this community, I suggest you delete it yourself.

usbmfa

August 24th, 2012, 03:41 AM

It's also the type of thinking that caused Tommy Thompson to stop supporting the nearly-passed light rail plan from downtown to Waukesha back in the 90s. Waukesha didn't want "certain people" coming to their city.

It's *really* pathetic that some people have a mentality that prevents poor people from easy and cheap access to jobs, and then complain about poor people being poor... rinse and repeat. I guess its far easier going about life with the "me first" caveman attitude than trying to find ways to better society as a whole.

You perfectly capture the mindset of street car supporters. The project only benefits those in some of the weathiest parts of the city. There is absoltely no funding to expand the route now, or in the forseeable future. Thus this streetcar will exist solely for the benefit of a weathy few. On the other hand, if the money could be used for something a like BRT route, it could have a broader reach and could actually give some people who need mass tranist what they really need.

I feel like the biggest weakness of the streetcar, and the MKE to Madison train, is that there is no funding to build the network that the initial route is designed to support. If these projects were popular, politicians would easily secure the funding through passing a dedicated tax to fund them. The fact that politicians have to keep sneaking these projects through shows that the public does not support them. Look at CA HSR. The public supported the project at the time, and voted to authorize its funding. I would have dig to find out how the many new streetcar and light rail project systems in the US are funded, but I am guessing they have a dedicated local tax source to support them. This is fine, because the public voted, either directly or indirectly, to make sure these systems will get the money needed to maintane them and build them out. What is missing on the Milwaukee streetcar is the funding. Yes the feds might chip in something for expansion, but the local users must provide most of the funding. In Milwaukee, so far as I can tell, there is no plan to fund a larger system, which means the city is left with this little hobby train that does no service to the broader public. I am not saying jack up taxes and I will support this project. Rather, if the mayor really believes in the streetcar, he should be out there selling not just the "free" portion from the feds, but the entire system, how it will be funded, and how it will benefit the ENTIRE city of Milwaukee. Unfortunately for the city, the mayor is lazy and prefers things to happen by themselves.

On the opposite side of the argument, roads and highways enjoy broad support. While people never like paying taxes, they realize if they do have to pay taxes, they would rather have the money go to roads than the trains. If traffic congestion was so bad that the only way to alleviate would be through mass transit, then there is no reason to think the public in Milwaukee would oppose it. However, Milwaukee, being a smaller metro realizes that it can easily solve most of its transit issues by investing its transit dollars in the roads it does have. People need to accept that Milwaukee does not need rail at this stage of its development, and since Milwaukee grows at a snails pace relative to most the metros investing in rails, Milwaukee will not need rail for quigte some time. The debate about building rail should happen, just not now, and not for quite some time.

Jesse276

August 24th, 2012, 04:38 AM

You perfectly capture the mindset of street car supporters. The project only benefits those in some of the weathiest parts of the city. There is absoltely no funding to expand the route now, or in the forseeable future. Thus this streetcar will exist solely for the benefit of a weathy few. On the other hand, if the money could be used for something a like BRT route, it could have a broader reach and could actually give some people who need mass tranist what they really need.

I feel like the biggest weakness of the streetcar, and the MKE to Madison train, is that there is no funding to build the network that the initial route is designed to support. If these projects were popular, politicians would easily secure the funding through passing a dedicated tax to fund them. The fact that politicians have to keep sneaking these projects through shows that the public does not support them. Look at CA HSR. The public supported the project at the time, and voted to authorize its funding. I would have dig to find out how the many new streetcar and light rail project systems in the US are funded, but I am guessing they have a dedicated local tax source to support them. This is fine, because the public voted, either directly or indirectly, to make sure these systems will get the money needed to maintane them and build them out. What is missing on the Milwaukee streetcar is the funding. Yes the feds might chip in something for expansion, but the local users must provide most of the funding. In Milwaukee, so far as I can tell, there is no plan to fund a larger system, which means the city is left with this little hobby train that does no service to the broader public. I am not saying jack up taxes and I will support this project. Rather, if the mayor really believes in the streetcar, he should be out there selling not just the "free" portion from the feds, but the entire system, how it will be funded, and how it will benefit the ENTIRE city of Milwaukee. Unfortunately for the city, the mayor is lazy and prefers things to happen by themselves.

On the opposite side of the argument, roads and highways enjoy broad support. While people never like paying taxes, they realize if they do have to pay taxes, they would rather have the money go to roads than the trains. If traffic congestion was so bad that the only way to alleviate would be through mass transit, then there is no reason to think the public in Milwaukee would oppose it. However, Milwaukee, being a smaller metro realizes that it can easily solve most of its transit issues by investing its transit dollars in the roads it does have. People need to accept that Milwaukee does not need rail at this stage of its development, and since Milwaukee grows at a snails pace relative to most the metros investing in rails, Milwaukee will not need rail for quigte some time. The debate about building rail should happen, just not now, and not for quite some time.

Oh, the great usbmfa is sticking up for the poor, ha. And that's where your story lost any credibility. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last I'm sure.