Originally posted by Paule
What does other cities think of the new Milwaukee? Check this article out from the Kansas City Star.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/4317327.htm

I saw the Star article the other day, but forgot to mention it. It's great that Milwaukee is getting that kind of press.

Unfortunately, we also get some unflattering press as well. Check out this article from the Austin American-Statesman (co-authoired by a guy who used to live in Milwaukee and write for the Journal).

http://www.austin360.com/aas/specialreports/citiesofideas/whiteflight/0901whiteflight.html

Be sure to check out the article about Madison too, in the "More on this story" sidebar.

Ha ha, I didn't expect an article bashing Milwaukee for an answere to my post but since Markitect has brought it on I will answere his.
Markitect the short but sweet "It's great that Milwaukee is getting that kind of press" is not the kind of answere I want to give you on the link you provided. I think this is a real opportunity to talk about what we can all do to help better the cities in which we live.

I printed the article out as well as the article on Madison and will read them fully sometime this weekend. It's my wifes birthday today and we have plans for the whole night as well as most of tomorrow but I will get back to you on this, I promise.

Cheers

Well, i think the last two posts of articles was like receiving Good and Bad news all in one. I don't know what to think now...

Here's a new development in the Harley Museum...guess they won't be ready for their anneversary...

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/nov02/92385.asp

dj the way I think of it is niether of the stories is real news to me. For one it's nice to read that other cities like KC and Louisville can leave Milwaukee after a visit and be impressed with what they see going on and two the Austin article I thought was about right but maybe exaggerated a bit on the White flight from the Milwaukee Metro, what some call "a quality of life shift" to other cities that are refered to as cities of ideas, the centers of innovation and entrepreneurship.

In the Austin article they try to paint Milwaukee as a dead and dieing city and metro unwilling and/or unable to change. They say that the task ahead of turning things around is formidable and imply that Milwaukee will never turn things around. I agree with them calling it a formidable task but I disagree with their assumption that Milwaukee is in a hopeless spiral downward. They point out how pessimism in Milwaukee is endemic rangeing from building a new economic culture to confidence in the city government because of scandal and leaders leaving for better opporttunities to those "cities of ideas". I also believe Milwaukeeans view of their city in general is not good. Their, or your, inferiority complex is strong BUT I also believe not only can that change but the startings of it is happening already. The can't-do attitude in the town I do see changeing, ok not to a can-do attitude but more of a well maybe we'll give it a try, we'll see attitude. For Milwaukee that's pretty good!

Here's one of the last paragraphs in the article.

Roberts at Austin's Tip Development Strategies has searched, without success, for evidence that Milwaukee is prepared to solve it's economic problems. Without answeres, Milwaukee is likely to fall further behind the cities of ideas.
"I think it's going to get worse in Milwaukee," he says. "before it gets better."

I really don't think this guy Roberts did his homework. The article in the JS a few months back numbering all the new small tech businesses downtown that have sprung up is evidence of the fact that there are people in the city that think Milwaukee is worth the try. That's the "well maybe" new attitude I'm seeing and the reason why I say Milwaukee has seen their worse days and things will only get better. I believe it will be slow because old habits die hard but I think Milwaukee will be alright.

Care to comment Markitect? I'm interested in what you think about the article and weather you concur with me or them.

Oh, I just posted the Austin article as another little bit of press that's been published within recent months about our fair city. It wasn't meant as a response to your article.

I agree with your perspective on the Austin article completely. It's appears to overexaggerate a bit.

As for the author "not doing his homework" in relation to Milwaukee's small but blossoming tech business, I think the Austin article came out a few weeks before the Milwaukee article about tech business and the stuff about the creative class in Milwaukee.

Thanks for pointing out the Madison article to me Markitect because I might have missed it otherwise.
I concur with the article and liked the fact that instead of bashing the city of Madison like I thought they did with Milwaukee, they at least seemed to paint a promising future for the city.

I do think it a bit funny however that the authors of the article paint Austin as some kind of utopia, a shangrala for the rust belt. I really like Austin and think it's becomeing a great city and with these two articles I've learned alot about it.

What I thought was real interesting in these articles is that it contradicts what most of us here at these skyscraper forums say makes a great city. We here talk about urbanism and alot of us judge a city on it's urban feel yet they talk about the "new demographic Balkanization." This being the flight or escape of affluent America, mostly white, from the increases in economic costs and decreases in quality of life of RAMPANT URBANISM. These people are not just moving out to the suburbs anymore, they're packing their bags for cities that have better opportunities "cities of ideas." They do make their point that unlike alot of people here may think, many Americans would rather live in sprawl, as long as they've better themselves economically they don't care or at least they'll put up with it.

Hey Markitect I'm glad you posted these articles, as you can see I enjoyed reading them alot! I'm not one to shy away from constructive criticism and think you Milwaukee forumers should use this bit of information to help better the city. The only way Milwaukee will change is that if the young keep this "well maybe" attitude I'm talking about. Before long who knows the next generation will be saying "can do". I suppose because I'm up here in Wausau I see Milwaukee in a different light but I've never really understood the inferiority complex you people have down there. I don't think you have any reason for it. I mean Austin may already be a city of ideas with answeres but Milwaukee has a population of people more than capable of being like that, you just have to want to try.

More detailed plans for Milwaukee's lakefront were announced this past Friday. The latest plans include a new breakwater, improvements to the Municipal Pier (separate from the Calatrava-ripoff eduactional center proposed last spring), and a new dock for cruise ships. Also revealed were more details about the Lakeshore State Park that will be going in adjacent to the Maier Festival Park.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2002/10/28/daily56.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/92560.asp

Cruise Ships? Like Titanic, Queen Elisabeth, Lusitania Cruise Ships?


I know not that luxurious (new ships never are that nice) but in that size range? Sorry I don't know the names of the newer cruise ships.

You know what, I should read the article to find out. I loved that Kansas City article. I don't have the guts to read the Austin one if it bashes Milwaukee like it sounds it does....

Very interesting. It doesn't sound like they are talking about the big cruiseliners from the Carribean, etc., because it says that it is space for lake-going cruise ships, which to me suggests a smaller sized ship. I had read the the Journal Sentinel Article (I never think to post those kind of articles! :) ), but the Buisiness Jounal one was new to me. Thanks Markitect.

Bah, don't underestimate the Great Lakes buddy, being the fact that Lake Superior is the most dangerous body of water IN THE WORLD.

I am confused, Mil-town. :? Was that directed at me? Is the fact that Lake Superior is really dangerous going to make cruise companies want to make lots of cruises on the Great Lakes? Or was your tongue firmly planted in your cheek? :)

Err, when you said you thought they would more than likely be "smaller" cruise ships I thought you meant that meaning that there would be less weather to deal with on the Great Lakes.


And whether or not cruise ship companys are building many ships for Lake Superior, that doesen't mean it is any less dangerous...and seeing as how it is the most dangerous body of water in the world that would mean it is pretty DANGEROUS.

Despite the dangers of Lake Superior, i think that would be awesome to have cruise ships dock in Milwaukee!! They should build a little resort of the lake, and have shops and cafes (might even connect with the third ward, tourist would like the artsy feel of the third ward). And thats where the Italian Community center comes into play with that huge parking lot they want to devolpe!!

I'm not sure a whole lot of people would consider Milwaukee for their family vacation, even if something like djcody said as DEVELOPed. ;)

Milwaukee just needs to be reconized more, I agree though Fiddler, it is overlooked very often by families planning vacations.

I went to Milwaukee for my vacation because of Miller Park. Then the Sox on the way back. And the clean lakefront around the museum.

Milwaukee is overlooked by tourists because it can't compete with many big-name cities. While this park is a step in the right direction, we're nowhere near making the list of the Top Ten Places for a Family Vacation.

Hey, at least we know our airport will be able to handle the traffic when it does come. ;)

Oh yes - one question: where is this park going to be? Are they reclaiming land from Lake Michigan? Or are they just revamping the lakeshore?

The fact is Milwaukee will never be seen as a tourist destination town, much like other greats cities like Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore. It's not a place that familes in Florida would say "Milwaukee would be a great town to get away from it all, just to relax" about. People that do visit are here to see family, friends, or stay for the weekend up from Chicago. But realistically seeing Milwaukee as a tourist town just ain't gonna happen, no matter what we do.

As far as the article implies, all of this is just revamping; no "new" land will be created (though, when you think about it, all of that land around Municipal Pier and the Festival Park is reclaimed, as it was all under water back in the trading post days).

As for the cruise ships, the article doesn't specify, other than lake-going cruise ships. The ships you see in places like the Carribean are much to big to ply the Great Lakes (and I'm pretty sure they're too big to even pass through the St. Lawerence Seaway and the various locks between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes, even most modern-day freight ships can't fit through there anymore). Some kind of lake ships would be pretty cool though--like something between Chicago, Milwaukee, and the western shore of Michigan (come to think of it, there was such a ship called the Milwaukee Clipper that had such excursions until the 1960s or 70s).

I have to say, I'm not too keen on setting up a resort of the lake on Milwaukee's lakefront, even if Milwaukee was a top "vacation city." Keep the tourist traps in Wisconsin Dells. The lakefront should be preserved and remain publically accessible, just as this plan proposes.

Milwaukee could become a tourist destination, and the focus wouldn't have to be on the lake at all.

Just look at New York. I would love to travel there, but I wouldn't go there to check out the ocean or East River. I would go there because of the Museums, buildings, libraries, and other interesting institutuis that are housed there.

Most Southern Cities on the beach can use that to attract northern populations to travel there, but Northern cities can get tourism as well, they justy have to base it off soemthing other than hot beaches, because the fact remains, Lake Michigan is not the kinda place you go to spend a week at the beach on.


Well at least I wouldn't, I don't know about anyone else.

"Milwaukee would be a great town to get away from it all, just to relax"

True. Admit it, MIL has the best summer weather. When I went it was only 82 degrees from noon to three. After three it dropped around 75 with cool, refreshing winds. Why isn't Milwaukee called the windy city?

I have never been to Florida and I don't plan on going because of the heat and all the tourists.

Milwaukee does have great summer weather, a awesome lakefront, neighborhoods, museums, sports facilities, resuratants, and it's pretty inexpensive. But you're not getting the picture. 95% of people in this country still have a fair amount of respect for the city like, for example, one would think of Cleveland, but there is still a stigma that Milwaukee is an industrial city that is not a tourist place. You could TRY as hard as you could and still not draw TOURISTS in the sense of a "getaway" vacation. I mean, if I lived in Baltimore, I would have some respect for the city and would want to explore it maybe on a business trip or a family reunion. But waste vacation money on it? I don't think so.

"Lake Michigan is not the kinda place you go to spend a week at the beach on."

Yeah, all those tourists flocking to Door County in the summer must be going for the cheap eats.

Indy gets tourists from hosting events like the World Basketball Championships.
Everyone I know says Cleveland is the boringest city in the nation.

Cleveland has also been through some pretty serious tough times economically. It's in a recovery right now, I believe.

I was looking around on Google today for some pics to use in another thread, and I came across this. It's a really old proposal for the redevelopment of Milwaukee's lakefront. I know there was an international design contest for the redevelopment of said area at some point in the 80's (Not sure on the decade, just the contest.) Apparently I stumbled on one of the entries! Imagine how drasically different things would have been had this been built!

http://www.archdirect.com/wi-milwaukee-competition-1985.jpg

http://www.archdirect.com/wi-milwaukee-competition-1985-panel2.jpg

http://www.archdirect.com/wi-milwaukee-competition-1985panel4.jpg

http://www.archdirect.com/wi-milwaukee-competition-1985plan-det.jpg

And I also found a website with more pics than I knew what to do with!!! Here's the link:

http://www.december.com/places/mke/album.html

Yeah, december.com is a great site. Also, I was wondering, what is West Milwaukee like? What is it, residential, commercial...I really would like to get to know more about West Side Milwaukee.


Also, (Markitect) what is the (in your opinion) the most rundown looking area in Milwaukee? Like where there are just streets of abandoned housing etc.

The last time I visited Milwaukee I drove for 5 hours alone in the South Side and couldn't find a single area that resembled anything of a slum or ghetto, although one time one my brother was showing me where his new job is (on the south side) there were just streets of abandoned housing with gang writing all over them, porches ripped off, stripped cars and the streets were about as empty as they come. I remember we went to go see part of the Hoan Bridge get blown off, then we went from there to my brothers work which is called "Homeboyz" (which, I may remind is in about one of the worst areas of Milwaukee). Possibly, it was just the fact of me living in Appleton my whole life(ok Chicago for 2 years as a child) but Appleton doesen't have any abandoned buildings except for on Wisocnsin Avenue and out by Northland Mall which is a kind of run down commerical district. The areas that I recently drove by in the South Side basically just looked like an area that has seen better days...nothing more.

I dunno...I guess I was just hoping I was going to find them on my last visit, I obviously didn't...so I want to make sure I know what area to look at on my next visit.

Wow, CityGod, those are cool. I just wish they were a little bigger. It would be a different place indeed. It looks like the overall plan has some nice elements to it, but it is hard to tell how it would actually look architecturally. Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by mystad
"Lake Michigan is not the kinda place you go to spend a week at the beach on."

Yeah, all those tourists flocking to Door County in the summer must be going for the cheap eats.

I believe the original quote was in reference to Milwaukee beaches, not Door County. In which case, you must not be familiar with the terrible stench Milwaukee's beaches have been getting in recent years as a result of sewage from the Deep Tunnels being emptied into Lake Michigan.

Originally posted by CG5
I was looking around on Google today for some pics to use in another thread, and I came across this. It's a really old proposal for the redevelopment of Milwaukee's lakefront. I know there was an international design contest for the redevelopment of said area at some point in the 80's (Not sure on the decade, just the contest.) Apparently I stumbled on one of the entries! Imagine how drasically different things would have been had this been built!


All of the entries from that lakefront design competition (from the very early 1980s) were published in a book. Here's the info:

Anatomy of a Competition: Urban Design for Milwaukee's Lakefront / Lawrence P. Witzling, W. Paul Farmer.
Milwaukee [Wis.] : National Endowment for the Arts, Design Arts Program, 1982.

Seeing as it was put together by SARUP faculty (as was the competition itself, and a handful of faculty entered the competition) I don't really know how easily available at libraries outside of UWM.

I wasn't too impressed with most of the entries, as a lot of them were a little over-the-top or too monolithic in scale for my tastes. Then of course, there's the typical International Style, glass box, wide open windswept public plazas all over the place too.

I will have to check out that book. Is it in Golda Meir, or the resource center in the Architecture building? Yeah, the buildings in the posted design look kind of monolithic, but i wasnt sure if that was a final design or if they were just to show the location of buildings.

Originally posted by MiL-TowN
Yeah, december.com is a great site. Also, I was wondering, what is West Milwaukee like? What is it, residential, commercial...I really would like to get to know more about West Side Milwaukee.

Do you mean West Milwaukee, as in the City of West Milwaukee, the suburb, or West Milwaukee as in the West Side of the City of Milwaukee?

The City of West Milwaukee is almost entirely industrial. Some residential and commercial exist in various stages of condition.

The West Side of the City of Milwaukee has a good mix of residential, commercial, and industrial; also in various stages of condition.


Also, (Markitect) what is the (in your opinion) the most rundown looking area in Milwaukee? Like where there are just streets of abandoned housing etc...

I dunno...I guess I was just hoping I was going to find them on my last visit, I obviously didn't...so I want to make sure I know what area to look at on my next visit.

I'm not too sure where exactly you can find block after block of abandoned houses. From my experience of some of Milwaukee's severely run down hoods (all on the North and West Sides), I'd suggest checking out the following areas:

- North Avenue/Fond du Lac Avenue/20th Street - a few blocks south of where these streets converge is the site of the fatal teenage mob attack that happened in late-September. I've not spent much time in the actual neighborhood where it happened, though from tje little I've seen and heard, it seems to be what you might be looking for. One interesting thing to check out is the relatively stable blocks very close by to this site--an neighborhood revitalization development called CityHomes (an old JS artcile about CityHomes) (http://www.jsonline.com/homes/buy/jan00/cityhom23012100.asp).

- North Avenue sort of goes in and out of "good/decent" areas to "bad" areas, especially west of I-43. A good chunk of the blocks paralleling North and Fond Du Lac Avenues were demolished in the 1960s to make room for the Park West Freeway, which was never built. Some of it has been redeveloped. In other places, you can drive along for a few blocks and see completely empty blocks--no buildings at all, not even abandoned ones; it's all grass and dirt with alleys overgrown with weeds.

- You also might want to try neighborhoods off of Keefe, Locust, and Center Streets, again probably west of I-43.

I remember a time when you could actually drive down I-43 and look up at the houses on the streets that paralleled the freeway, and you could always find boarded up houses. I don't know if this is still the case, as in recent years I haven't traveled the highway as often and/or haven't paid much attention anymore.

If I had the time, I'd fire up a geograhic information systems program which would allow me to pinpoint exact addresses of abandoned houses and such, but I don't have the time to do that (even though the thought of it is interesting) and I am still learning the basics of using it.

Originally posted by MSPtoMKE
I will have to check out that book. Is it in Golda Meir, or the resource center in the Architecture building? Yeah, the buildings in the posted design look kind of monolithic, but i wasnt sure if that was a final design or if they were just to show the location of buildings.

Come on, man. Fire up PantherCat and see for yourself! :)

There might be a copy in the Resource Center, but the ones I know about are at Golda. Apparently the only copy on the shelves is checked out already (had to look it up to remember the exact book info anyway), but there are a few other copies floating around the Archives section.

By the way, when you get to your senior or graduate years, you're looking for a studio to take, you've got an interest in urban design, and you're interested in getting away from designing buildings for a while, I recommend you take one of Larry Witzling's studios.

Originally posted by Markitect


I believe the original quote was in reference to Milwaukee beaches, not Door County. In which case, you must not be familiar with the terrible stench Milwaukee's beaches have been getting in recent years as a result of sewage from the Deep Tunnels being emptied into Lake Michigan.

Yeah, you are right Markitect, sorry I didn't clarify. :(

Thanks for the advice, Markitect. It will be nice to be able to choose what studio to take. Is there anything you like in particular about Larry Witzling's studios? Because, yes, i do definatly enjoy the urban design aspect of architecture.

On another topic, that Costa Rican Orphanage prototype in the courtyard sure is going up fast! The four foundation supports just sat there with a smilie face of rocks in the center for so long, i was wondering when they were going to actually build the thing. I walked into studio early this afternoon, and thought, "oh, thats new!" Granted, it is not the most complicated building, but every time i walked past, the students constructing it were playing frisbee. :D

Originally posted by MSPtoMKE
Thanks for the advice, Markitect. It will be nice to be able to choose what studio to take. Is there anything you like in particular about Larry Witzling's studios? Because, yes, i do definatly enjoy the urban design aspect of architecture.

Yeah. I just like doing urban design over designing buildings. And usually the projects are connected in some way to real life, as opposed to the more hypothetical projects you get in the lower level studios (which seems to be generally true for all the upper level studios too).

On another topic, that Costa Rican Orphanage prototype in the courtyard sure is going up fast! The four foundation supports just sat there with a smilie face of rocks in the center for so long, i was wondering when they were going to actually build the thing. I walked into studio early this afternoon, and thought, "oh, thats new!" Granted, it is not the most complicated building, but every time i walked past, the students constructing it were playing frisbee. :D

Yes I saw it. It went up pretty quick. It only took like two hours to get the basic framing up I guess since it's all prefabricated. Then they worked on a bunch of little detailing stuff I guess, or were tweaking what they had done already (in between frisbee). There are supposed to be like three or four units in a row, and they're in clusters of six total units, I think. I'm wondering if they're only going to build one as a display, and have the rest built in Costa Rica, or if the one that's being built will be shipped down there.

Either way, it's better that that goofy-looking sculptural contraption/pavillion thing that was sitting out there for a few years, falling apart.

A new artcile (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/94110.asp) about the Park East redevelopment is out in today's Journal Sentinel. Most of it is a rehash of old news, however it does give a general outline of expected development, as described in the draft plan and guidelines, which haven't been publically released yet--though I've known about them for some time already ;) :

The Department of City Development's preliminary plans divide the 60-acre Park East development district, which extends beyond the 26 acres being opened up now, into three general areas: McKinley Ave., lower Water St. and upper Water St.

- The area between McKinley Ave. and Juneau Ave., west of the river, will have large parcels near I-43 that make it a likely place for new offices.

- Lower Water St., which runs from Juneau Ave. to Cherry St., will likely feature residential developments overlooking the river, along with small and midsize offices and street-level retail and night-life tenants.

- Upper Water St., running from Cherry St. to Brady St., is expected to have additional residential developments.

- Most of the developments would be required to include parking structures.

Another interesting tidbit is the possiblity of attracting companies that would usually consider moving to the suburbs. The availability of land in Downtown provides a chance for the City to "steal" some of the competition from the suburbs. There's a good possibility that some have already been looking around in the general area of the corridor.

Oh, and if you're able to show up to the Open House next week, you'll be able to see maps, renderings, and a scale model of the redevelopment showing hypothetical development will be unveiled. You won't want to miss it:

The proposed Park East Corridor Redevelopment Plan will be available for viewing at the rotunda of City Hall, 200 E. Wells St., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Thursday and Friday. The plan will serve as a guide for future housing and commercial development within the corridor. It will require approval from the Common Council and Mayor John O. Norquist.

A skyscraper on the corner of Water and Juneau maybe???

Here's to hoping! :lol:

And I love the idea of extending water out and making it have nighttime tenants. Increasing the nightlife I think is a good first step, although I could be wrong.

Oh well, partay! :cheers:

Hey this is just in time, I'm on vacation next week! Anyone here with plans to go to the open house? Thank's Markitect for that bit of good news!!!

I'm going to the Packer game Sunday and it will be an over nighter so I don't know what my funds will be like at the end of the week but MAN I would really love to go to the open house!

Here's to Milwaukee!!!

Check out the thread on the Calatrava Art Museum addition I just made!
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10140
Pretty neat huh! The GIF works better at the Milwaukee Architecture site so check that out too!

Hey, I'm gonna be stuck in school next week Thrus/Friday. Could somebody remember to take pics of the exhibit? Gracias, mucho.

Water street bars need some help.

Well, would you mind elaborating further than "Water street bars need some help."

Oringinally posted by ThatGuy
A skyscraper on the corner of Water and Juneau maybe???

Here's to hoping!

The draft redevelopment plan makes a few recommendations as to where more significant buildings (such as skyscrapers) should be located--usually placed at the end of some kind of visual axis, so as to terminate the view. That's not to say taller buildings can't be built elsewhere, but certain locations have "priority" over others.

And speaking of tall buildings, more news about Kilbourn Tower. (http://www.jsonline.com/bym/News/nov02/94329.asp )

I will be attending the Park East Open House on Thursday (and possibly even Friday, to check out how people are reacitng to the model (which I might start refering to as "My Baby")), most likely with camera in hand and a photographic memory in head( for those who cannot make it. I would assume the event will be covered with an article in the Journal Sentinel as well, plus maybe some TV news spots, since there will be a press conference.

I have always said from the start that if any of these condos get built I hope it's the Kilbourn Tower. I love the design, it continues to build on the new exciting look that the city needs to spring forward continued grow in the downtown area. It's an original plan that comes from Milwaukee. Great news Markitect, thanks!!!

Sorry but I doubt I'll be able to make the opening but Markitect I will assume you'll provide us here with any pics and or JSonline article links next week after this happens. I for one want to see your "baby".
Again sorry if I can't attend the festivities but it's not looking too good right now, but then again there's always a chance!

I'm glad to hear some news on Kilbourn Tower. (had me worried). Now that the ownership has changed, will the design? or just the ownership?

Also, that little building next to Lafayette Place was recently knocked down. Some bulldozer demolished the hell out of it. And some ground was brought up. So are plans for Lafayette still in the Marketing Studies Stage??

Did you not read the article? All the questions you asked are answered in it.

They have been saying "feasability and marketing stages" for those two proposals for about a year now.

Wow ... sorry I haven't commented in awhile -- been too busy getting my ducks in a row here in Grand Rapids.

But I had to hop in here since I realized this thread is up to 15 pages ... it must be about time for a new forum pretty soon. Seems like every time this thread gets around 20 pages or so, a forum move is announced. :)

just kidding.

Anyway, I'm going back to MIlwaukee for a day or two this week, just to get my stuff out of my storage locker in Germantown. Any recommendations about what I should make sure to see? Anything significantly new since September? I doubt too much is, but surprises are always good. :)

Rob

I did read the article. I know it said the Tower was in the Market Studies Stage. I also know I saw some building get knocked down, and made me wonder if the Tower really was STILL in the Market Studies Stage. I guess I better stop wondering and asking questions...

rstravis: hey nice to hear from you again bro! What date are you coming down? I'm not sure what has happened since sept., because i see it everyday. The parkeast highway is coming along, especially around 6th street.wow. Commerce St or the Beerline B community is still building condos/apt. Wisconsin St. has road work going too. 1522 is almost finished. 875 E.Wisconsin (next to USBank) has two huge concrete coloumns coming out the ground. The third ward has some condo/apt construction going too, it is a block or two south of the Italian Comm. Center.... hope to hear from you soon.

Cool picture of Wisconsin Ave. circa 1930.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/wi/milwaukee/postcards/wwisst.jpg

If only the street still looked that good.....



Anywho, I will be staying in the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Milwaukee on December 14th. My dad who is 51 is in a reggae band(an extremely good one too, they play everywhere...Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Wisconsin Dells, Minneapolis...popular) that will be playing IN the hotel. So, with any luck I might land myself on one of the higher floors, hopefully anything above the 14th story and I will then be able to take photos. I will more than likely get a scanner this Christmas and some webspace as well and then be able to post the hundreds of Milwaukee pictures I have. The resteraunt at the top of the hotel would be great for pictures but...it kind of moves :)

Yeah, I'll elaborate. Water Street bars need some help if they're ever going to attract people besides suburbanites or out-of-towners.

With the exception of the Harp, the bars on Water Street are mostly sub-par in comparison with those on the East Side.

Maybe I'm coming off as an elitist, but Water Street seems to me to be a place to go to hear top-forty crap and get sh*tfaced, nothing more.

If I want to hear good music and hang out with locals I will stay in the east side. Sorry, but it's true.

Milwaukee has trollies?

Milwaukee HAD trollies.

Nicw find Fiddler!

Originally posted by mystad
Yeah, I'll elaborate. Water Street bars need some help if they're ever going to attract people besides suburbanites or out-of-towners.

With the exception of the Harp, the bars on Water Street are mostly sub-par in comparison with those on the East Side.

Maybe I'm coming off as an elitist, but Water Street seems to me to be a place to go to hear top-forty crap and get sh*tfaced, nothing more.

If I want to hear good music and hang out with locals I will stay in the east side. Sorry, but it's true.


Even so, Milwaukee STILL has some of the best bars in the nation.

How would you know...you're not even of age yet to frequent the bars!?

I agree with Mystad's view about the atmosphere of Water Street bars--but he left out one important group of people who frequent those places in his assessment: college students...lots of them. While the bars are a somewhat nice thing to have, as they do enliven part of Downtown into the later hours of the night, they're "coolness" reputation is a little over-rated.

Just got back from putting the final touches on the model that will be on display at the Park East Corridor Redvelopment Plan Review at City Hall being held tomorrow and Friday. It looks awesome.

Second thought, I plan on buying one of these babies before my trip to the Hyatt in Milwaukee... www.foveon.com


mmm, kiss scanners GOOD BYE.

sup fellas!! i did this for CG5 at sspage .. but i thought you guys might like it here too. . .i added a few towers and clustered the others together . . .

http://202.92.76.227/Photo17/195015/50/1536037.jpg

might I add that i have come to love the unique beauty of your skyline. . i love all the rooftops . .it took a lot of searching and lurking around this thread to get good pics. . (for the bigger version of the drawing you can go to the site on my sig, page 3)

later!

ytkj

Anybody watching the news on TMJ 4 tonight got a sneak peek at the Park East model just a few minutes ago. However, most of the blocks with new development potential were not shown--that's being saved for tomorrow's presentation.

Markitect, you'd better take pictures. I'm so pissed. Last weekend, I had off on Thursday and Friday. This week, I had half-days yesterday and today. Next week I have off on Friday. The one long weekend I DON'T have is this one. Go figure. :|

And the trollies are back. They're kinda kitchy, but they'er back. If the city were to invest more in them, and extend their routes, they'd probably see a lot more traffic. But that's speculation, and I'm basing it on my opinion, so don't quote me on that.

I've ridden the trolly...it's...cute.

Blingbling, what the heck does "ytkj" mean??

Rest assured, pictures will be taken.

As for the "trolleys" Milwaukee has, they're not exactly like the trolleys [streetcars] seen in the drawing above. The pseudo-trolleys we have now are just goofy looking miniature buses (or more like a van on steroids)--specifically called rubber-tired "trolleys"--designed to look like the old-fashioned real trolleys we had decades ago, minus the rails.

If you want to see trolleys in Milwaukee you could hangout on Wisconsin Ave. I know I have seen them more than once there, so I believe there is a route there.

I know standing on a street corner may not be the most fun thing to do, but if you want to see them, that is a way! :lol:

And nice picture. Did you draw that freehand or with a computer?

i drew it with pencil. . .and a little india ink. .

im way past due to visit Milwaukee .. i had the oppurtunity to see a Bucks game back in 99 but it was finals week ..

Awesome drawing Caledon!! You should sell that!! I'd buy it! :D

More worthless blabber from BlingBling, the one who wants us to all look at a little porn :)...remember?

Yo u tralking smack about bling bling mothafucka!! IMA give 2 blacks eyes!

Hey Mil-town! Guess what?

hey? whot the f---- worte that? :bleep: :bleep: :rant: :rant:

Anyway....

Here's a new article about the Park East today, with a nice overhead shot of the model.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/nov02/95847.asp

I was down there all Thursday afternoon checking it out with my camera (with plenty of close-up shots too) and evesdropping in on all the comments from government officials, private planners, co-workers, and general public. It's always cool to hear nice things from complete stragers about something they have no idea you helped build. Unfortunately, the pictures turned out kinda grainy. Plus, the Cyburbia.org Gallery I use to host my photos was not working for me earlier tonight, so I couldn't get the pics online. Any suggestions?

In addition to the model, there were some posters describing the basic history and rationale for the project, access diagrams, aerial photos. There were also textual and visual descriptions of the districts (outlined in the article above) as well as examples of the regulating plan and urban design guidelines for the project. Plus also some really nice draft plan documents that are supposed to appear (in whole or in parts) on the Department of City Development's website in the coming days.

I suspect there will be some more articles about the presentation in the coming days too, so you might want to check all of the newspapers.

Here's another article:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/95922.asp

The DCD has updated it's website with some nice photos from the open house:

http://www.mkedcd.org/parkeast/index.html

Thanks Markitect for the links, your a real pal!
There was something in that press release in the last link I read that I didn't like. They were talking about height restrictions for the residential area of N Water street. From 4 to 10 story buildings with buildings in key area's up to 20? So I take it then that let's say a hotel chain would want to build a tall tower of like 30 or more floors there, their plan is going to be refused. They're going to be told to either scale down the plan to 20 or less floors or pick another site somewhere else. If the hotel chain really wants that location they'll scale it down. I didn't have to use a hotel chain for this anology I could've used a developer wanting to build a 30 or more story office building. You understand what I'm saying? This is so typical of Milwaukee it's pathetic!

Hey Markitect are you in any of those pictures? You said you were there all Thursday afternoon.

Blingbling... Keep it up and you will soon be banned.


Either grow up, stick to the topic and avoid attacking others or you are out of here. There won't be another warning, just you vanishing.

Originally posted by Paule
Milwaukee HAD trollies.

Nicw find Fiddler!

What happened to them, I love trolly cities?

Originally posted by Paule
There was something in that press release in the last link I read that I didn't like. They were talking about height restrictions for the residential area of N Water street. From 4 to 10 story buildings with buildings in key area's up to 20? So I take it then that let's say a hotel chain would want to build a tall tower of like 30 or more floors there, their plan is going to be refused. They're going to be told to either scale down the plan to 20 or less floors or pick another site somewhere else. If the hotel chain really wants that location they'll scale it down. I didn't have to use a hotel chain for this anology I could've used a developer wanting to build a 30 or more story office building. You understand what I'm saying? This is so typical of Milwaukee it's pathetic!

Don't get too bent out of shape over the height limits.

This is a draft of the plan, meaning it isn't final. And even if it is finalized and adopted, it can still be changed.

In fact, I specifically heard that if a building taller than 20 stories were to be proposed (be it a hotel, office building, condos, apartments, whatever), it could indeed still get built. The City knows better than to turn away someone with a proposed building just because it's 20+ floors. So a developer won't necessarily have to scale down a building or go someplace else.

Hey Markitect are you in any of those pictures? You said you were there all Thursday afternoon.

Nope. I must have been off wandering around.

Originally posted by syramo


What happened to them, I love trolly cities?

Like most American cities after World War II that had extensive streetcar/interurban systems, they were replaced bythe explosive love (and subsequent dependence) of the automobile. The trolleys themselves were replaced with diesel buses and freeways.

Time for another Whitney Gould chat.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/96035.asp

Love Whitney Gould! The woman rocks! I also notice in some of the pics of the open house that two or three buildings might be catergorized as skyscrapers(from their height in comparison of other buildings). wonder how tall they will be?

Those are the buildings we've been talking about with the 20 story limit.

Well I was on the east side today, and I saw 1522 on the Lake, and it is loking nearly complete. They got a lot of glass in where the yellow bopards used to be on the top, and I don't know if that was it, but the building looks just spectacular now. I mean it really looks great with the galss, I couldn't stop staring at it. I can't wait till it is 100% finnished, and it is lit up at nigt! That will look so great.

And I am glad Whitney thinks some buildings downtown need to be lit up at night as well. Like I said before, the one that needs it the most is the Milwaukee Center. It is the nicest skyscraper IMO and it is completly invisible at night, except for like 3 storys below the roof. It looks rediculous for a building so great.

Markitect I understand what your saying but still once developers see that they may run into problems with neighbors and city officials with building something higher than 20 stories they may not even try. My point is they never should have had anything in the plan about a 20 floor limit. A 4 to 10 story limit for most of the area was fine but it should state that in key areas a unlimited height will be permitted. Developers have a hard enough time in Milwaukee with getting something built( has the Kilbourn broken ground yet?) so why throw stumbling blocks in their way? Yeah, sure, maybe the city will make exceptions but the thing is with this plan they have already set the tone, they have already made the vision. You want to build something higher then what we want there your going to be meet with opposition. That's what this plan says to me.

Originally posted by Paule
Markitect I understand what your saying but still once developers see that they may run into problems with neighbors and city officials with building something higher than 20 stories they may not even try.

If there is a valid reason for scaling back a proposed tower, such as what happened with Lafayette Place--the proposal was just way too tall and out of scale with the existing surounding neighborhood--then there may be problems. Of course, one of the advantages of the Park East redevelopment is that there isn't really a neighborhood that could oppose anything, as they're working with a clean slate, as opposed to Lafayette Place where a high rise was being plopped into an existing neighborhood.

However, there are other more important factors than neighborhood opposition that play a role in the height of a building...

My point is they never should have had anything in the plan about a 20 floor limit. A 4 to 10 story limit for most of the area was fine but it should state that in key areas a unlimited height will be permitted. Developers have a hard enough time in Milwaukee with getting something built (has the Kilbourn broken ground yet?) so why throw stumbling blocks in their way? Yeah, sure, maybe the city will make exceptions but the thing is with this plan they have already set the tone, they have already made the vision. You want to build something higher then what we want there your going to be meet with opposition. That's what this plan says to me.

More bits of info discussed at the design sessions and Open House about the height limit:

Like it or not, twenty stories is a pretty big building for Milwaukee, but there is one major factor that plays a role in determining the "tallness" of Milwaukee's buildings: the market. Milwaukee just does not currently have the market to support several brand new high rises, be they office or residential. The height limit is a way for the city to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket by oversaturating the market with office/residential/whatever space, especially in a newly developing part of the city.

If the City allows a developer to erect a 60-story office skyscraper at one of the key points along Water Street, that will take away the potential market for erecting any kind of high rise at any of the other key points throughout the redevelopment area, which means that other parts of the redevelopment area will be left to sit empty because the market is oversaturated with office space, and they will have to sit empty for who knows how long while the market catches up. Thus the city is stuck with one 60-story skyscraper and two empty skyscraper sites, which the City isn't making any money on.

On the other hand, if the city allows three different office tower developments around 20 stories each on three key sites, then none of the key sites will be left vacant, and the city makes money on all three sites. This incremental approach also allows the City to control the market a bit better than the other scenario, because the market will not get oversaturated in one shot.

The same is true for a high rise residential tower. If the City allows a 40-story condo tower, that will take away from the amount of mid-rise residential development that is proposed to occur in the corridor (and most of the proposed residential development within the corridor is in the mid-rise range). So again, the City is left with a 40-story condo building and an adjacent empty block where mid-rise residential development was supposed to occur.

So it's not usually the case of a developer wanting to build a building X stories tall just because he/she wants to or is allowed/restricted to, the height of the building is determined a great deal by how much the particular market can sustain.

And as I said before, the height limit is not set in stone. Should the market in Milwaukee allow for more buildings taller than 20 stories, you'll start seeing more and more 20+ story buildings getting built in Milwaukee.

Thus, the restrictions are less of "stumbling blocks" as they are tools for guiding and controlling growth in the Park East corridor.

The city should offer coupons or something to get as many new developments there as possible, and get companies to relocate downtown! :lol:

I know it is stupid, and will never happen, but it would be kinda funny! :lol: I cannot wait however to see Kilbourn Tower go up, and that new Development start. I do think Kilbourn Tower will be built at the right time though, because when it is finnished it will draw a lot downtown, and I think it will be the spark that starts the boom......at least I hope so! :D :D :D

Thanks for Clarifying Markitect, I thought the 20 story imit was dumb, but now I understand where you are comming from. Maybe they should make it a temporary limit, or there should be something in the contracts that says there is no guarantee you building will have it's views onm every side blocked, that way no one can complain about their "views" being blocked.

I love how the people ina 2 story building complain about their view being blocked and get a spire knocked off a building, and yet oddly enough they are satisfied, however their lake view is just as blocked as ever.

Stupid Nimby's

wow Markitect , for a minute there i was thinking the height limit was stupid, but after that last comment , you really cleared things up... thanks bro.

Well I'm trying to find something I don't like about this plan but I think Markitect just took us to school on this with his answers. Thanks Markitect for putting this in a good light for us!

I'd like to bring up one more thing now that you, Markitect, brought it up. It concerns the market for highrises. What about hotels? Or rather one big one. I've heard over and over again from people that they hate it going to Milwaukee when something big is going on. There is never any hotel rooms available in the city. Milwaukee has suffered from a lack of hotel rooms for a long time it seems. I know a guy who is going to the Harley Davidson 100th Birthday Bash this comeing summer. He had to make reservations in a hotel in the Chicago area because from Oshkosh to Kenosha the hotels are filled! He made these reservations a year ago. I think the market is ripe for a big hotel to be built, it's got to be! I've heard that hotel chains don't want to press the button until the last phase of the convention center is built. Well the plan is in the works to do just that! In this article it touches on the plan a bit http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov02/96824.asp you have to read down but the convention centers last phase just may get started sometime in 2003!

It took awhile for me to find this thread again so I tought I would post. I am glad to see you guys have not lost your energy and enthusiasium about Milwaukee. I have read what has been said about the 145 freeway being torn down and that a lot of property will be open for development. I don't know if I would have said even as a guideline that a 20 story limit on highrises was needed. I will say that within that property a large scale hotel should be built (500 to 1000 rooms). I could be mistaken but if such a Hotel were built with 500 rooms (at Mininum) that such a hotel would exceed 20 storys and if that restriction (suggestion)is in fact a restriction then seeing a new hotel downtown will be a hard deal to accomplish for any developer.

Depending on how spread out the hotel (if built) will be, you can have either a 500 room hotel that covers a lot of land or a 500 room hotel that takes up very little space. For instance, the Hilton is 25 stories @ 765 rooms , but the Sheraton Four Points (by the airport) is 7 stories @ 570 rooms. Since they are going to build in the park east corridor, building up is more probable than building out. If the height restriction does apply, we should squeeze a 500 room hotel under 20 stories. Now 1000 rooms should brings us to how many floors? i'm gonna guess 35 floors. Whats your guys' intake?

I based my figure on 25 rooms per floor divided into 500 rooms would be 20 floors just in that standard if you add some other amendities like conference rooms, swimming pool, and a in hotel restaurant and usually more luxurious suites on the top floors. a building like that could add up to 20 or more stories. But in any case Milwaukee if it is a place that wants to attract some major conventions is in a real need to add hotel room in the downtown area whether it be one 1000+ room hotel, or 2 or 3 500+ room hotels just to get where it needs to be IMO.

Originally posted by Markitect


Like most American cities after World War II that had extensive streetcar/interurban systems, they were replaced bythe explosive love (and subsequent dependence) of the automobile. The trolleys themselves were replaced with diesel buses and freeways.

Sad, another reason to despise the automobile.
Hey its still a great city.

You're welcome for the clarification.

A few things in regards to the hotel:

Djcody hit the nail on the head, as far as sizing a hotel. How tall it will be depends on the specific site and design of the building, as well as zoning regulations.

As for Paule's comments about the lack of hotel space in Downtown Milwaukee, yes it's a problem, as we discussed a couple months ago with the whole GenCon thing.

Personally, I'd like to see a hotel developed on the parking lot at N. 4th Street and W. Wisconsin Avenue, across the street from the Midwest Express Center (and one was proposed for that site a few years back, but fell through), as opposed to a hotel in the Park East corridor. My rationale behind that is simple, in that it would be located in the heart of Downtown, right in the middle of all the attractions. Not only would a hotel in the Park East area be further away from many of the Downtown attractions, but it'd be stuck out there in the midst of partially-developed and/or empty blocks (waiting to be developed)--not exactly the kind of location that would attract visitors (although at this point in time ANY hotel built in ANY locations in Downtown would fill up quick). That's not to say I don't want any hotels built in the Park East--I just don't think one should be built there right away (you know, wait until there's some other new development going on in the area first--and possibly some other new attractions).

Though, I believe one of the landowners with some developable property in the redevelopment corridor, is a hotel management company, so you never know what could happen.

There was also some talk about a possible hotel (and restaurant) to be built in conjunction with the proposed Harley-Davidson museum--which was supposed to go into the old Schlitz brew house (a block north of the Park East), but design and cost issues arose rendering that an infeasable location (though they're still looking at other nearby sites). I'm wondering if they've thought about looking at a place within the old Pabst Brewery--essentially on the other side of the Park East, a few blocks from the Schlitz (but then I realized that Harley pobably has loyalties to Grunau (the developer for the Schlitz site), and would not want to break ties to work with a completely different developer who's redeveloping the Pabst site).

Regarding NIMBYs and tall towers:

I already explaind my stance on the Lafayette Place project (and the designers did scale it down somewhat from the original design due to neighborhood reaction--though I still think the latest version (http://www.lafayetteplace.com/index2.htm) is still overwhelming).

The NIMBYs for Kilbourn Tower, on the other hand, have a very weak reasoning for their complaints, for the simple fact that the views out their windows is not protected by law unless the proposed tower in some way harms them (like if it completely cuts out sunlight, or reduces the flow of air to their building, or things like that) or if there is some view preservation or height restriction imposed (like Madison has--where buildings in Downtown cannot exceed the height of the Capitol dome; or like Boulder, Colorado has--where certain views of the mountains cannot be developed) on the property that the proposed tower is supposed to be built upon (which there isn't). Thus, the "I won't be able to see Lake Michigan from my living room window anymore" argument won't hold up in court. And it didn't, the first time around. The second time around, the NIMBYs came back with some claims that the City unlawfully declared the site blighted (there are very specific definitions and laws about thiss stuff that I won't even beging going into here) so they could sell it to the developer so he could build the tower. That's what I gather from the articles anyway. None of the recent articles about Kilbourn Tower have mentioned anything about the status of the NIMBYs' case (unless I missed it). Of course, the latest delay with the project concerns the developer's legal troubles in an unrelated matter--and even then, the most recent report said he passed Kilbourn Tower on to some partners so it could finally get built. It was reported that groundbreaking should occur in December.

Until the Bradley Center and Wisconsin Center Dist boards stop their bickering between themselves a hotel or lot of the other projects around the park east may become a mute point. To me there is a great opportunity for Milwaukee to reinvent itself with the Pabst property and the tearing down of the 145 freeway and converting it to street level and open property.
But what use will it be if the Bradley center isn't remodeled to the point where the Bucks can make some money? I am not saying the Bucks could leave Milwaukee but Milwaukee is already supporting the worlds suckiest major league baseball team (Brewers) I can't see Milwaukee wanting to support a sucky Basketball team (Bucks)too. Then you have the Admirals (Hockey) and Wave (indoor Soccer) waiting for whatever is going to happen at the Bradley center not even mentioning Marquette Basketball.
Both of those boards need to come together and find a sollution that will be of benefit to both sides and not just of one side conceding everything and the neither side gets nothing.
I don't know what I can say, other than both boards seem to be only thinking of their own posterity in saying it was "WE" the (what ever board) that did all this for the community and we did this despite what the (other board) tried to do to us. "WE ARE THE HERO'S HERE." And the other guys were the ones who held everything up.
What I am saying here is no hotels will want to build a hotel if phase III of the Midwest Express convention center isn't built and conversely no hotels will want to build if the Bucks have to leave Milwaukee to greener pastures if something isn't done to bring the Bradley Center upto the NBA league Standards of what a arena can bring to an NBA team that plays there.
If both sides can quit thinking of themselves and look to see what both together can bring to the table as a unified force then you might see the reinventing of the whole west side of downtown Milwaukee and you will see hotels being built and maybe some office building being built too.
If I were those two boards instead of meeting in a confrentational atmosphere that a board room brings to a meeting maybe meeting at a local tavern and having a few beers and and chatting about why it is to both their mutual benefit to work together then I would say that is a step in the right direction because nothing will really get done until bothsides get their acts together on all the projects that need to get done to improve the area's that need to be improved.

First let me clarify the supposed height restriction or sugestion we're talking about. If you read the press release that Markitect provided us through his link it only talked about this when it was discribing the residential areas of N Water St and east of the river. It doesn't mention any kind of suggestive heights for the west side of the river, at least not that I remember.
That was a good post dj and I agree with you but I also agree with Markitect on that if a big hotel is proposed I think it should be closer to the convention center and on the lot he has pointed out. Were just talking about one big hotel so if the management company that Markitect talked about wants to build a smaller type of hotel like something less than 500 rooms in the Park East area I think it still can be done. That is if the Phase III goes through for the convention center. The article I provided sort of warned not to be too opimistic since it will take public funds with a new tax and the atmosphere in Madison says the plan wont be recieved well.

Hey Man From Oshkosh! Glad to see you join us here once again!
You bring up some pretty convincing points but again I really don't think the Height suggestion is meant for the area west of the river so if a large hotel chain wanted to build a tower there they shouldn't meet up with any opposition unless city officials want to convince them that building nearer the convention center would be better.
What Milwaukee needs now more than ever is strong leadership. Starting with the Mayor on down. Someone from the city needs to bring those two boards together and work things out. I loved your idea of the two sides hashing things out in a local tavern Man but, lol, you never know what might happen with these guys under the influence! I can see it now, they're playing pool, egos and greed start to surface and the next thing you know Mr Payne is calling Mr Gimbel a jack ass and Gimbel answers back with fuck you too which in turn gets him a pool cue broken over his head, LMAO!!! Ok, so that's over doing it a bit but my point is you can't or shouldn't leave these guys to do it themselves, IMHO.

Paule, part of my problem with the Bradley Center and Wisconsin Center Boards is, that it is a microcosm of what has been and still is a problem in Milwaukee, the lack of looking at the big picture, too much of what I've done leadership and not enough leadership behind closed doors. Its almost like these two boards haven't learned their history lessons. Lesson one being it took from the time the Bucks came into the NBA to 1988 for the Bucks to move into a quality playing facility. 20 years of hageling 20 years of not getting done what should have been done sooner. Lesson two it took the Brewers almost 20 years from the time Bud Selig Said that there was a need for the Brewers to play in a better facility and again through much unneeded hassels and threats and the recall of an elected official did Miller Park get built. This much must be said about the Bucks current situation, all they want is to remodel the Bradley Center and not Build a whole new arena like what they want to do in Minneapolis with their sports teams ( Vikings and Twins) want to do with the Metrodome.

Its due to that lack of getting things done that what could have been Milwaukee is the Milwaukee that we have today. If Ford motor company were not shot down before they even got here would have added 10's of thousands of new jobs. But no due to local leadership Ford was deemed not good enough to move in Milwaukee and basically stayed in the Deerborn and Detroit area. At one time the Federal Government wanted to build and add some offices for government programs in the metro area. Well needless to say that got bogged down too and the Government went elsewhere with those office jobs. There could many such examples of people wanting to do things that would help bring jobs and people to the Milwaukee metro area only to meet up with opposition, and due to their frustration decided it would be best if we can go to a place where we can do business. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Milwaukee's Leadership.

It is that "Look at what I did" leadership style that has led to a 5.1 percent metro growth rate as compared to Chicago's 11.1 percent growth rate and Minneapolis and St. Pauls 16.9 percent growth rate. Milwaukee's influence even within the State has suffered because there are other areas growing at a much faster rate than metro Milwaukee. As a side note back in 1970's Milwaukee's Metro area was about 100,000 less than that of Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul. Such cities as Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, Houston, Portland OR, et.al. were either smaller or approximatelly the same size as Milwaukee. Now all those cities are considerable larger than metro Milwaukee. If one looks at the current census Sacramento CA has growen to 1,796,857 or 21.3% since the last census. Kansas City has growen to 1,776,062 or 12.3% since the last census. Now look at Milwaukee/ Racine, it to has growen to 1,689,572 up a whopping 5.1%. Milwaukee's just not keeping up. The 3 cities immediatelly following Milwaukee in the current metro census ( Orlando +34.3%, Indianapolis +16.4%, San Antonio +20.2%) are all growing at a much higher rate than Milwaukee. Just knowing that tells me that the Milwaukee Metro area's leadership just isn't getting it done.

As I have said the Bradley Center and Wisconsin District Boards need to get their acts together and work together to get their projects up and going. There should be NO who got the better of whom here. Look at the area's that the both sides can influence if you both can work together (Pabst property and Park East). If nothing gets done in 5 years both should be equally blamed for not getting things done. But to be fair here the City, the County and the State all have to do a better job of getting things done for the betterment of the area at large or you will see your area's influence dwindle more and more.

The draft of the Park East Redevelopment Plan is now up on the DCD website in PDF format (you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view them).

http://www.mkedcd.org/parkeast/index.html

Thanks Markitect, for posting that. They have a lot of interesting stuff in that report, including a detailed map of what the proposed downtown loop freeways was supposed to be like. I had never seen such a detailed version of it before.

wow, somehow i completely missed the three posts before Markitect's. About the Bradley Center remodeling proposal, could someone let me know what is substandard about the facility? I ask this not in a "what is wrong with a perfectly good sports arena" sort of way, but in a "i have only been there once and it was for a concert so i really dont know" sort of way ( :) ).

man from Oshkosh, you draw some interesting comparisons between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. LOL, yolu said it took the Bucs and the Brewers 20 years of haggeling to get decent facilities. It is looking that way for the Twins and the Vikings too! I would say 20 years is just about right for when they will get their respective stadium deals passed.

I feel sorry for the Twin cities because they did do the right thing in the 1980's. The Metrodome is only and I say ONLY 20 years old. When opened in 1982 it was said at the time it was State of the art of domed stadiums for that is what the Vikings and Twins wanted. Some of the Stadiums now being replaced are really not all that old. We have already seen replacements in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta and soon Philadelphia. It is maddening that a Stadium built back in the late sixty's early seventies has in most cases lasted only 30 or so years. As seen by Dodger Stadium Built in 1962 if you take care of the facility the way one should that stadium could last a longer time. Edison Intl Field (built in 1966) was just recently remodeled and that seems to be a more than adequit place to play. Wrigley Field is still considered a great place to play even though it was built in 1915.

I think part of the problem many in Milwaukee had with the building of Miller Park is what is now happening in the Twin Cities, that the Brewers will come knocking at the states door in say 10 - 15 years time and say that they need a newer state of the art ball park. If memory serves me Miller Park will not even be paid off at that time for it cost the tax payers of the 5 county metro Milwaukee area in excess of 350 to over 450 million dollars after interest it could end up costing more. So I can understand the resentment many in the Twin Cities must feel when the Twins and Vikings come knocking at the door asking for a new state of the art facility after only 20 years of use.

Anybody have some pics? There have been 6 pages of endless info without sum purty pictures. Seriously, if anyone has any, I'd like to see them!

You want pictures posted??? Pictures, in the Urban Photos Forum??? My God, Man, I think that would be a little out of place, don't you? Seriously, I am slightly mystified as to why this thread was put in the Urban Photos section now, I think a better place would be in the City Talk Section. But it is here now, so i guess that is Ok...

man from Oshkosh, you are absolutely right about the sentiments of people in the Twin Cites forking over money for 2 new sports stadiums after just 20 years. Its not that we (do i say "we" or "they"??? i dont live there anymore...) don't support our/their sports teams, they just don't want to pay so much more money so soon. It seems mind boggleing that the Brewers could possibly come foreward in 15 to 20 years and ask for a shiny new stadium, but with current additudes, you never know...

I really think the new Residential Towers being built, the Commercial towers being built, in combination with the refixing of the Bradley Center, Phase III of the Midwest Express Center, and a hotel being built downtown would have an amazing affect on downtown.

All these things are so close to comming to reality, yet they seem so far away, and in all likelyhood, only a few will actually be completed.

Phase III would eb great to have done in 3 years when Gen Con's Indianapolis contract runs out, because they already said they would love to come back ehre if there were more hotel rooms and convention space.


And a question.....am I the only one who thinks they should find some way to make a phase IV for the Midwest Epress Center as well? I mean the center is nice right now, but in comparisson to other convention centers it is relatively small, and I think it would be great if it were a lot bigger! :D :D :D Maybe they could expand across 4th street. Get rid of that ugly parking Garage! :D :D :D

No? Ok maybe across 5th street, and they can tear down the relatively small empty building there. I mean now that the Pizza Hut is gone, what is the point of keeping it? :lol: ;)

Oh my god, i must be dumb as a box of rocks, i can't post pictures, i have been trying for the past hour. i'm over it. Is there an easier way???:
wallbash:

Easier way? i am only aware of one way.... what seems to be the problem? are you getting red x's? I could try to help if i knew what the trouble was, and if i am still here. I am looking foreward to seeing them.

I just don't know what to do. It says to put these :[img] before and after a url. But the pics i wanna post are from my computer not from a website. So then i get red x's. hmm....

yeah, they gotta be on the web. i am not the person to ask about an imagehost for your pictures on the internet, unfortunatly. Well, at least someone is trying to post pics, it has been quite some time...

dj you can't post pictures off of your computer period, you have to use a host site or a
site that alows posting,
for instance the photos
on the Milwaukee Architecture site by Dr. Steven Reyer are linkable. I use
www.ranchoweb.com
for a host site you only get 1.0KB free space and after that you have to pay. This is why
I have to delete all my
pics after so much time.
When you get your
membership and use
your space on ranchoweb
the way you post the pic
is type{img} paste the url,
then type {/img} but has
been said so many times don't shift but just use the[] ok!


I haven't been here for a few days and would very much like to carry on the conversation
we're on and I will do that
but since someone has
requested pics I must comply.
Fiddler your right we do
need some pics here, it's
been too long. With all
the pics I have I thought I'd do a night time, twilight, sunrise
theme.

Some of these pics are big so hold on to your seat and let her ride.
I used the enter button so we you don't have to scroll while reading this.
Usually I'm pretty good at doing this but for some reason it
didn't turn out so good this time?!?!?

http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/m3-or-0.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/m-or.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/askylineb-night.jpg
I love these next few shots!!!
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/21548071egfwftbyab_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/21548316nugdneszpk_ph.jpg
One of my all time favorite shots of downtown Milwaukee!
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/21548420oqzvgsgipo_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/mil-vi.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/milw2.jpg

Web cam pics of a beautiful sunrise in Milwaukee!!!
I have a ton more which at sometime or another I'll post them all but for
now just enjoy these ok
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/studios_640x480-10-15-02.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/studios_640x4803D9-25-02.jpg
This next pic although dark I think is nice.
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/millerpark_640x480-11-08-02.jpg



Here's a rare couple of pics from my own camera. These pics are from a trip last August.
What's neat about this first pic is that it shows the further construction of the S Water St.
riverwalk!
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/scan0282Cseptember012C2002.jpg

Looking up 2nd St. I loved the building to the left that I was standing next to
but I could get good shots of. The brick work was wonderful!!!
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/scan0302Cseptember012C2002.jpg

I just saw that someone wants to develop a property on the corners of State street and Water Street. I guess there is a parking garage there that will be torn down to make that development. There is a story on it in the (11-22) edition of JS Online.

Although completely unrelated I would like to display my hatred for Marshfield in especially their football team. Two f-ing years in a row we have lost close to them in state semifinals and they have gone on to win it all....sorry..rant over

Anyone have any pictures or info on Marshfield WI as a city?

A very nice shot:
http://december.com/places/mke/images/etwilight.jpg

http://december.com/places/mke/images/eside6.jpg http://december.com/places/mke/images/eside4.jpg http://december.com/places/mke/images/eside3.jpg http://december.com/places/mke/images/kile6th.jpg http://december.com/places/mke/images/1knwater.jpg http://december.com/places/mke/images/wisn4th.jpg

good, i got it to finally work. Whew!:D

What do you guys think Milwaukee's number of homicides will be when this year ends? Right now they are at 103 murders and the year is almost over but....I'm thinking maybe 130 at most.

Thats still pretty low for a city that size.

http://december.com/places/mke/images/mec.jpg

Ok ok, djcody...you know we can always visit December.com ourselves :)

Originally posted by MiL-TowN
What do you guys think Milwaukee's number of homicides will be when this year ends? Right now they are at 103 murders and the year is almost over but....I'm thinking maybe 130 at most.

Thats still pretty low for a city that size.

Where the hell are you getting that number from??

Sadly, that 103 figure is accurate, as of last Thursday. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/nov02/97852.asp)

However, I'm not one who really wants to speculate on year-end murder figures, as it seems rather morbid.

Let's hope it stays at 103! That would be nice!

Well, it wouldn't be nice, per se, but I get your point.

I like the style of alot of Milwaukee's buildings. There seems to be a nice mix of boxy and peaky shapes in the skyline.

My favorite Milwaukee building:
http://december.com/places/mke/images/100ewi.jpg
The Cool Bus Stop:
http://december.com/places/mke/images/mecbus.jpg
Milwaukee's Gem:
http://december.com/places/mke/images/mamo.jpg

My Prediction is that if the Kilbourn Tower doesn't get built it will show the US economy, particularly in the midwest, is gone! It should be a signal to us all that the song "happy days are here again" is in reverse.

Milwaukee's only hope is to build it's retail base in the downtown. It's great news the the Mall downtown is getting two big new tennents but they wont be ready for another year.

I hate this slow action to change, don't you?
I must say I am worried!

"Happy days are here again" in reverse, you say? "Again here are days happy" Or perhaps "Niaga ereh era syad yppah". Just kidding, I know what you are talking about.

Yeah, it is frustrating when the progress is slow, but we all just have to be patient. The economy will imporove, eventually.

Better slow than never! :D :D :D

I hope they don't tear up the plankington arcade too much. I mean do they really need see-through ceilings? I am gald there are new tenants going in, but that building is so beautiful, I really do hope that it will look nearly the same when they are done moving in!

I doubt much will be changed with the Arcade, as that's what the new stores can market as making themselves unique from their suburban counterparts.

The skylights, rotunda and second-floor walkways looking down to the first bloor below will be preserved.

Good! :D :D :D

I hope they also keep the stairs at the east end, with the laterns, cause that is cool. And the chandelier in the middle. The plankington arcade is really nice, I honestly hope almost nothing is changed other than getting as many stores in there as they can, because that is one of the nicest interiors of any building in Milwaukee IMO.

ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : NEWS : MILWAUKEE : E-MAIL | PRINT THIS STORY


Milwaukee News Briefs
From the Journal Sentinel
Last Updated: Nov. 27, 2002

Land sale approved for downtown condos
On its way to helping erect some of Milwaukee's priciest housing, the Common Council took a brief detour Tuesday into discussing whether the deal also could help build housing that average people could afford.

Aldermen eventually voted unanimously to sell city-owned land at the corner of N. Prospect and E. Kilbourn avenues to Fiduciary Real Estate Development Inc. for $700,000. That's a key step in Fiduciary's plan to build Kilbourn Tower, a $45 million, 32-story building whose 68 condominium units will sell for from $390,000 to $2 million.

Before the sale was approved, however, downtown Ald. Paul Henningsen tried unsuccessfully to persuade the council to order that the $700,000 from the sale be used to develop affordable housing, supplementing federal community development block grant funds in some way to be

WHEW!!! is all i got to say!!!

Well boys, I just had a feeling something was happening downtown, so I drove down to 923 E.Kilbourn Ave and wood and orange fencing surrounded the plot of land to be built. And a construction trailer was plopped in the middle...just like Lafayette Place. We should place bets and see which one makes up the fastest!! :D Anyway, thought l'd let you know, and everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving!!
:eat:

Sounds great dj thanks for shareing that but what's this about Lafayette Place?!?!

By the way congratulations on your first picture posts. I've been to that site before. That guy has alot of good pics but I wish the pics were of better quality. What site are you useing for a host? Is it Ranchoweb that I suggested?

Paule: What i mean is that both Kilbourn and Lafayette have construction trailers on their land. I haven't heard anything about Lafayette yet, but last week they had a bulldozer down there tearing up some building on the site, and now the trailer. As for a host site I use december.com, and now my own...

I went downtown two weeks ago around 4:30pm, and I took some shots of Milwaukee. So I made this make shift site for now.Some are not so bright, because it gets dark out early now.Tell me what you think, ok? But here is the site:Downtown Update (http://geocities.com/topdjcody/UnNamed.html)

http://www.mcw.edu/peds/images/skyline.jpg

Both are starting! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

OMG this is sooooooo coool! I am so excited right now! It is friggin Thanksgiving night at 11:00 and I am seriously contemplating going downtown to check this out! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Orange fencing and trailers on both! Two Towers going up! :D :D :D I am sooooo Happy! OMG it will be so sweet when both are completed. The only thing that would make it sweeter is if there was still the spire onm Lafayette, but oh well, it is still massively tall, and I love it! :D :D :D

Fences and trailors or not, Lafayette Place is nowhere near ready to begin construction. Last anyone heard, they were still in planning stages.

Besides, I really hope this tower never gets built. Have you ever been to the site? It's right smack dab in the middle of a residential community. The tower would be completely surrounded by single-family houses and low-rise residential structures for blocks. Totally out of place.

Now, Kilbourn Tower, on the other hand, is something I'm getting excited for. I'm surprised that nothing has been heard in the news about it lately, if it's this close to construction time.

The tower would be completely surrounded by single-family houses and low-rise residential structures for blocks. Totally out of place. -CityGod


Umm, SO WHAT?!?!? Jesus christ, who cares...Milwaukee needs everything it can get.

BTW- Those are some killer pics Djcody, the 1522 On The Lake looks awsome!

I can understand where CG5 is coming from...I mean I would love to have Lafayette Place moved to the gap in between Kilbourn Tower and 1522. But, again, anything built in this city will get my applause. BTW, more pics will be coming soon on the Milwaukee Webpage (http://geocities.com/topdjcody/UnNamed.html) , if any of you guys have suggestions, please tell me.

Lol, Rainier that's a 1980s pic, but I will give you an A for effort! Thanks for stopping by and showing an interest!

I think CG5 is right, the Lafayette Place isn't about to go into the construction stage. The last anyone has heard about it was that it's still in the marketing stage. Clearing the site for construction is a good step forward however. As for the site I would also say that I wish it would be closer to the CBD but with the height of the building it will still be visable good enough from there.

CG5 if you take a look at page 19 you will find links that were provided that gives up to date info on Kilbourn Tower.


I really liked your pics on your webpage dj! That one looking down Water St from the Park East was great. Yes I do have a suggestion. With such good photos you should let us look at them in full size. I'd really love to see them alot bigger!!!

Mil-Town, why do you always have to be such a petulant jerk? If you like Lafayette Place, great, fantastic, kudos to you! Hoo-frickin-ray! But regardless of style or aesthetic, a 30-story tower in the middle of a residential neighborhood will be out of place, and I do not like it. And I don't have to. And won't. Ever. Deal with it.

Read the second part of my sig. This is a PERFECT example.

Paule: page 19?

Regarding the page numbers: The Message Board displays different page arrangements (posts per page) according to how the user sets them. Not everybody will have 19+ pages if their posts per page are set higher than someone else's (I'm at 16 pages right now).

Regarding Lafayette Place: It is definitely not ready to go up yet, as the most recent reports have stated its still in the marketing/feasability stages. Not only that, but if it were ready to begin construction, you would have read an article about it the paper, since it has been a very hot topic on the East Side with regards to the proposed tower's scale and out-of-character appearance to the surrounding residential neighborhood.

I think Lafayette Place would be out of place, but I still would love it! :D :D :D

But who knows, maybe it's out of placedness (is that a word?) would get some more built in that area! I sure know that I wouldn't object to the city extending it's boundaries anywhere.

And just think, when the Empire State Building was built, there was nothing around it of similar height, and it was completly out of place. It still is taller than all the buildings around it, but I don't think anyone would go tear it down.

Of course Lafayette Place is no where near that scale, or grand in saymbolic meaning, but it's just a thought. Who knows, it may go up, and we could all hate it or like it.

Anger surge there CityGod? I never said you had to like it, nor did I say it wouldn't be out of place. But have you seen the Milwaukee skyline lately? Obviously not if you are actually picky about a 30 story building going up...this isn't New York. I also believe ThatGuy sums it up nicely, when the Empire State building went up, it sure as hell looked out of place, a 102 story building among buildings at most reaching 40-50 floors. Also, if this gets built maybe more will come! I mean, lets go all the way back to when Firstar(U.S. Bank) was built, you think just because it was "out of place at the time," it should have never been built? Well in 50 years if we look back at this and see a group of 30 story buildings in the same place as Lafeyette, will you still say if it goes up then that it is out of place? You have to start somewhere.

There are more suitable locations for a 30-story tower that won't destroy the character of the neighborhood full of duplexes, low-rise apartment buildings, and single-family houses (most of which are in good to excellent shape, I might add) where Lafayette Place is proposed.

For starters, there's a perfect site a few blocks south, at Prospect and Ogden avenues, right on the bluff. A residential tower would fit in perfectly there amongst the other residential towers nearby. It would also fill in a vacant lot, filling the "street wall" (the "wall" type effect along the street formed by adjacent building fronts) in order to enclose the beautifully renewed Burns Commons park in an "outdoor room."

And lest we forget, the land being opened up in the Park East is also in need of a few tower buildings in key locations (see previous posts for discussion about this).

And also, once again, tall buildings are not what makes a city great. The quote from Rainier in CG's signature is a perfect example of this, and why Lafayette Place should be built elsewhere. Why destroy the character of one very nice, fully functional neighbrohood when there are other sites more fitting for such a development? If it's not broke, it doesn't need fixing.

Once again, I never said skyscrapers make a city...no where in any of my posts have I said that, Markitect. Furthermore Milwaukee is in NEED of more skyscrapers to make it more of a city, but like I said, I am quite aware that skyscrapers don't make a city. I mean, lets all be honest here, Milwaukee does have a pretty pathetic skyline...especially for the size of the city. I would also like you, Markitect, to stop making claims that Lafeyette would ruin the neighborhood. Have you powers to see into the future? Maybe it will add to the neighborhood, but in truth you as a human cannot make claims such as the ones you are making.

I really wish the mods would have banned you when they had the chance.

I would love to see Lafayette go up somewhere else, but I am perfectly fine with where it is going up as well. Sure it will look out of place, and it has the potential to mess the area up, but it could help the area.

I would really like to Lafayette Place go up on the river, and I would love it even more if they put the spire back, which they could do if it were downtown. Maybe they should move it! Woudl that be out fo the question for them? I mean there is going to be a lot of room downtown, and that would be a great place for it to go, especially with the spire.

I ame really stuck on that aren't I! :lol: But ti was soooo cool.

And guys calm down a bit. I mean everoyne has their opinion, and you are just going to get in trouble if you keep fighting.

Originally posted by MiL-TowN
Once again, I never said skyscrapers make a city...no where in any of my posts have I said that, Markitect. Furthermore Milwaukee is in NEED of more skyscrapers to make it more of a city, but like I said, I am quite aware that skyscrapers don't make a city. I mean, lets all be honest here, Milwaukee does have a pretty pathetic skyline...especially for the size of the city.

Slow down; you're not making any sense. You do realize the contradicting statements you just made in this quote, right?

You're all gung ho about boosting Milwaukee's "pathetic skyline," so you want more skyscrapers, any skyscrapers, it doesn't matter where they're built. Milwaukee NEEDS skyscrapers in order to make it more of a city, you say. Yet in the very next sentence, you say that skyscrapers don't make a city.

And I will be honest here, and always have been: I don't think Milwaukee's skyline is pathetic--even for a city its size. Quite honestly, the size of a city (area-wise or population-wise) has less to do with how many skyscrapers it has than its economy and and location--the factors that play a major role in how many skyscrapers a city will have.

I would also like you, Markitect, to stop making claims that Lafeyette would ruin the neighborhood. Have you powers to see into the future? Maybe it will add to the neighborhood, but in truth you as a human cannot make claims such as the ones you are making.

Ease up there--I'm not the only one who mentioned that a high rise plopped in the middle of a low-to-mid rise neighborhood would "ruin" the neighborhood. I simply said that the character of the neighborhood would be severely, drastically, and needlessly altered. The neighborhood itself wouldn't be ruined--in the sense that it'd turn into a slum or whatever if Lafayette were built at the proposed location. What I'm saying is that the character, the experience, the feeling, the aesthetic, the essence of the neighborhood (by the way, those qualities are what makes a city) would be ruined. There are better places on the East Side for a residential tower. You don't need a crystal ball to see that.

GO MILTOWN!

Paule: page 19?
Lol, yeah silly me I forgot all about that! I should've just told him to check back several posts to find the news story you posted dj.




Slow down; you're not making any sense. You do realize the contradicting statements you just made in this quote, right?

Markitect I think this shows just how much some of the guys long for more skyscrapers in town that they really just don't think about everything that is involved with putting them up. I feel the same way as they do. I hear what your saying when you talk about what truely makes a city and your right about that IMO but when you get a group of guys together that love skyscrapers it's going to be kind of hard to convince us that this tower shouldn't be built, you may not have but that's what CG5 suggested earlier.

Just my very humble opinion!

Now I would love for the tower to be built closer to the CBD if it is in fact going to be built but if the question was put in such a way as to suggest that it's either going to be put up on that site or nowhere I say build away and lets take our chances.
Again as I've stated before what Milwaukee needs is strong leadership. One that the city government can and will persuade these contractors to build their towers where it would make more sense for all involved. What I would really love to happen is for there to be so many towers going up that we can afford to over look a project like this one. Milwaukee isn't like that however and when there's only 1 or 2 towers built every 10 years I'd hate to be too picky about where they're built.

I throw my two cents worth on Lafayette Place. In the neighborhood where this tower is being proposed I really don't think it would fit in well. If this tower was proposed closer to downtown or even the last of the string of highrise condos along Prospect Ave then I would be all for it. If its just to start a new trend in building highrises why not try building this tower just south of downtown like on Buffalo, Chicago and Menominee streets closer to the Summerfest grounds, that would be different and actually might spur some developement in the lower downtown district.

But to be truthfull one must think what such a project will bring in the future. If Lafayette place was built in an isolated residential area where there is no chance to develop anymore such projects wouldn't a 400 ft tower located there look just a little out of place? It would be good to ask some Houstonites as to what they think of the Williams tower (901 ft) located some 5 or 6 miles from downtown Houston. If there is little or no chance for further development then it makes no sense to build something that for the lack of a better word is a "White Elephant" that sticks out like a sore thumb. What may make more sense in that area may well end up being a 5 to 10 story commercial/residential building. Though there may still be some opponents to such a development a 5 to 10 story commercial/residential building will still add to the tax base and the chance to develop in the area will stand a better chance of getting done.

If Lafayette place were built closer to downtown the tower will blend in better with an established highrise area and the chance of further developments will not look out of place if built next to Lafayette place.

I think one of the problems Lafayette place is having, is with the planning and zoning commission whoes job it is, that projects meet with the areas requirements of fitting in well with its proposed neigbors.

Why don't they just move the tower downtown? There are plenty of open lots!

I have no iea what the complications would be, but it sounds like they are having a hard time getting it built where they want it, so why can't they just move the project downtown, into a residentail area zoned for high rise buildings?

I am sure it is alot more complicated than just "moving" it, but it sounds like they have a lot of complications right now! I dunno though. Maybe it isn't possible based on teh design or market they are going for.

What I would really love to happen is for there to be so many towers going up that we can afford to over look a project like this one.
Oh my God, that would great if this were to ever happen!! I'd be downtown taking pictures and posting every day!

Man, this forum is getting heated. I think we all need to walk outside in the 20 some degree weather and and take a breather. Am I the only one that notices that happens a lot here?

Well CityGod, for one thing nothing I have said in this forum could get me banned you ill-tempered redneck. Also, the admins never HAD a CHANCE to ban me here because I haven't done anything wrong, so what is this claim you are making about the admins banning me when they had the chance?:?



Slow down; you're not making any sense. You do realize the contradicting statements you just made in this quote, right?

You're all gung ho about boosting Milwaukee's "pathetic skyline," so you want more skyscrapers, any skyscrapers, it doesn't matter where they're built. Milwaukee NEEDS skyscrapers in order to make it more of a city, you say. Yet in the very next sentence, you say that skyscrapers don't make a city.

And I will be honest here, and always have been: I don't think Milwaukee's skyline is pathetic--even for a city its size. Quite honestly, the size of a city (area-wise or population-wise) has less to do with how many skyscrapers it has than its economy and and location--the factors that play a major role in how many skyscrapers a city will have.



I said, it could only use a few more high-rises to make it more of a city, I never said it needed high-rises to make it a city. Obviously you didn't read my post thoroughly. I also, never said that there aren't better spots for Lafeyette, because there are, but I just want to see some things get built here no matter how stupid of a place they are supposed to be built.

Here we.............go?






From the Milwaukee Business Journal:

Marcus Center eyes high-rise project
Irgens studying idea for parking garage site
Kathy Bergstrom

The Marcus Center for the Performing Arts is exploring the feasibility of constructing a high-rise, mixed-use project on the site of its parking garage.

The center has retained Wauwatosa real estate developer Irgens Development Partners L.L.C. to conduct the study, said Paul Mathews, Marcus Center president. He said the study, which began earlier this year, will probably take several more months, and no deadline has been set to make a decision.

Eppstein Uhen Architects of Milwaukee has been hired to develop designs for the project, and a search for a contractor is underway to help determine cost projections, said Jackie Walsh, a partner at Irgens.

Irgens has talked with potential office and retail tenants to gauge their interest in the project, Walsh said. Size and costs have not been determined, but the building would have to contain at least the same amount of parking, at 700 spaces, as the existing garage and would be at least five stories, she said.

"Whatever would happen would be market-driven," she said.
Office projects typically need to be 50 percent leased before they can begin construction, she said.
The project would contain office, residential and retail development, but it's unknown how much of each, she said.
"It would be, obviously, a very exciting project, but we still have quite a bit of work to do," said Walsh.

As far as the length of the feasibility study, Walsh compared it with the two years that Irgens spent studying the feasibility of 875 East, a 209,000-square-foot office building under construction at 875 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee. Irgens is an owner and developer of that project.

The Marcus Center operates the parking structure, which it leases from the city of Milwaukee for $1 per year. The existing lease extends until 2019, Mathews said.

The structure is at 1001 N. Water St., and the site is bounded by Water, Edison and State streets and Highland Avenue. The garage was built in 1970 and is about 100,000 square feet.

"We could sit on that lease until 2019, because the parking is certainly adequate for our needs, but it's not the highest and best use of that land," Mathews said.

Irgens is not being paid for the work, he said.
Any future development would have to include parking for the Marcus Center. One of the challenges in constructing a project would be keeping parking available at all times, Walsh said.

The parking structure is across the street to the east from the Rojahn & Malaney Co. floral warehouse at 1005 N. Edison St. The Rojahn site has frontage on the Milwaukee River and has been identified as an attractive redevelopment prospect in the past.

Mathews said there have been "general discussions" with the owners of Rojahn & Malaney, but the feasibility study is focused only on the parking garage site.

He declined to say any more about the nature of discussions with the company. Walter Rojahn couldn't be reached for comment.

The land on which the parking garage sits doesn't have an assessed value now because it isn't taxed, but the value could be more than $3 million based on comparable vacant land sales, said Peter Weissenfluh, the city of Milwaukee's chief assessor.

A development would allow the land to be put on the tax rolls, Mathews said.

The Marcus Center's interest in exploring development is to contribute to downtown and see the site put to its best use, he said. "That's part of our civic interests," he said. "We're not interested in participating financially in some type of commercial development."

Timing seems right. The possibility of developing the site has been considered in the past, Mathews said. With the demolition of the Park East Freeway and success of other downtown projects, "it seemed like it might make sense to look at this site," he said. The site's proximity to the entertainment district makes it attractive, Walsh said.

"If you look at the area now, there's a gap created by that parking structure being there, and this would be extremely complementary to the Bradley Center," she said.

The site would be attractive to national restaurant chains, she said.

Any decision on the site would require approval by the Marcus Center board, the War Memorial Corp., which is the Marcus Center's parent company, and the city.

The parking structure generates about $1 million in revenue annually, which covers costs of operation and long-term maintenance, Mathews said. Parking revenue does not subsidize the Marcus Center's operation, he said.

The $30 million River Tower condominium project was proposed for land immediately north of Rojahn & Malaney by River Tower L.P. However, this summer one of the project's investors pulled out of the project. River Tower's option to buy the land from the city has expired, said John Bratina, a spokesman for the Department of City Development

So they consider a 5 storey building a high-rise?

Originally posted by MiL-TowN
I said, it could only use a few more high-rises to make it more of a city, I never said it needed high-rises to make it a city. Obviously you didn't read my post thoroughly.

Trying to dogde the issue with semantics, eh? And I have read all your posts thouroughly.

I also, never said that there aren't better spots for Lafeyette, because there are, but I just want to see some things get built here no matter how stupid of a place they are supposed to be built.

So it's quantity over quality for you?

That's how a lot of crap gets built.

Do you care at all about the experience of a neighborhood...what it's like to live there...to visit there...what makes it great...what makes it alive...what distinguishes it from other places...about the people who live in the neighborhood...? You'd be willing to wipe that all away just to put up tall buildings? This applies to any neighbrohood in general, in any city.

:bash:


Wow, that is aweosme! I have always thought that parking grage was on good land! They really should remove it for something bigger better and taller, IMO. :lol:

It is a real nice piece of land. Only problem are that those really small condos on the river would fight it hand over fist I think, cause their sunlight would get blocked, but if they are in a high rise zone, I don't know hom much of a case they would have.

So Is River Tower dead for sure? Cause I really liked that project also, and it was across the street, on the smallest land, bt it sure made great use of it, and I think towers along the river look nice! :D :D :D

at 700 spaces, as the existing garage and would be at least five stories, she said.
I think what they mean is that the garage, not the building, would be at least 5 stories to accomadate the current spaces. So Is River Tower dead for sure?
I think it might be,check out the Skyscrapers.com site (http://skyscrapers.com/english/worldmap/city/skyscrapers/detail/0.9/101324/sro0001/rpp10/ht2/bt07/index.html) because they list the River Tower as "never built". I really wanted to see that one built too, it was very european/modern.
:(

River Tower has been dead ever since it was proposed, guys.



BTW- No, Markitect, I am not trying to dodge anything. What I am saying is, Milwaukee could use a few more high-rises to make it....mmmm.....maybe more a well known city so to speak, to the point where anybody could see a picture of the Milwaukee skyline and actually know what city they are looking at. Oh, and about you(rather stupid) comment about quantity over quality, no, I would not prefer quantity over quality. That rule doesn't even apply here considering there is only "one" tower going up. Also, like I said before, how do YOU know this tower would ruin the neighborhood its in? Going off with your super-human strengths again Markitect?:laugh:

I don't think Milwaukee needs high-rises to make it a better city. What Milwaukee needs are some better downtown attractions and shopping/restaurant areas.

Now, this is coming from somebody who spent 4 years living on the East Side, so take it however you want.

Not too many people live downtown, and the people living in the surrounding areas (East Side, 3rd Ward, Riverwest) tend to be the younger, trendier "urban pioneers." I suppose I was one of them at one time, or whatever.

If Milwakee wants to really explode it needs to lure people with a little more money back into the downtown area. You do that by making downtown a convenient, attractive place to live. You need more than a few good concert venues and museums.

I agree 110% mystad. I guess I wasn't trying to say "Milwaukee needs more high-rises to make it a city" but instead maybe just saying that to make the downtown a more exciting place to be. But yeah, the attractions thing I totally agree with. Like downtown Appleton, WI(where I live) only about a year ago the downtown was dead and probably about 25% of the buildings downtown were abandoned. Now, with the new art museum and the new (high quality) 5 storey hotel going up, I'm seeing a big change for the better.


Speaking of attractions in Milwaukee, imagine if it had an Ikea in the heart of the downtown(Wisconsin Avenue etc.). An Ikea next to a 5 star hotel. :cheers:

Now I myself am not an avid Ikea shopper, but that store is still...a very popular place with thousands, if not millions of people.

Ikea? What is that?

I think the new Residential buildings Downtown will help bring in the boom we need. Them along with the Offices going up, and the New stores going into Grand Avenue, and the Old Navy that is supposed to be built dw there.

I know I would reather go to that Old Navy than the one out in Brookfield! :lol:

I don't know how many of you like their clothes, but they are pretty good for a low cost, so I like them :lol:

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

I too would like to see a more high profile downtown Milwaukee skyline. True there is going to be some prime real estate sites opening up around the downtown Milwaukee area. The Pabst property looks as though it will be developed with a mixture or residences and commercial uses. There also seems to be a trend of building highrise condo's going on in Milwaukee right now.

I can't help but think if Milwaukee is going to build that one tower that exceeds US Bank Center (formerly Firstar Center) in height somebody in the corporate culture in Milwaukee will have to be in a serious need of office space. Let's be honest here, NML (Fortune #111) has already invested alot Downtown so they likely won't build anything anytime soon. Johnson Controls (Fortune # 124) isn't likely to build a skyscraper Downtown. Manpower (Fortune #182) isn't to likely to build a skyscraper either. Rockwell (Fortune #380) is happy where they are. Kohl's (Fortune #253) has a large campus in Menominee Falls. Wisconsin Energy (Fortune #420) isn't to likely to build anything either. Roundy's (Fortune #452) was just sold to a Chicago investment group so anything from them isn't going to happen. Harley Davidson (Fortune #466) like Johnson Controls isn't in the market to build a skyscraper. The only company I can see wanting to expand and build a skyscraper in Downtown Milwaukee is M&I Banks but I think they like the low profile company that they are and to build a high profile tower might not be what they want.

In order to build a higher profile skyline firms of the like of Insurance companies, Banking Corps, Mixed Financials, et al. have to have a need for office space in the particular area. Milwaukee really doesn't have those kind of companies and the city itself hasn't to my recallection gone out and talked with other corporations about moving a headquarters or regional HQ to the Downtown Milwaukee area. Unless someone wants to move into downtown Milwaukee the Office skyline likely won't change too much.IMHO, Really the Marcus center project is likely the only project that could add some real height to the Milwaukee skyline if it is decided to build a skyscraper of 30 + floors or more.

Ikea? I saw the web site, its a furniture store!! A furniture store is about the last thing Downtown Milwaukee needs. Let's just add a BIG K-Mart down there too. LOL......

maybe more a well known city so to speak, to the point where anybody could see a picture of the Milwaukee skyline and actually know what city they are looking at.
I thought about this too.
What Milwaukee needs are some better downtown attractions and shopping/restaurant areas.
OMG yes. I hate traveling to Mayfair or Southridge to shop!! Plus it would make it more of a hussle and bussle city.
and the city itself hasn't to my recallection gone out and talked with other corporations about moving a headquarters or regional HQ to the Downtown Milwaukee area
I heard Norquist hasn't done his job on this issue. If he did attract more businesses with tax incentives or "No Tax Zones" or even "no tax" for the first 10 years (pick a number) then ease into the taxing...Wouldn't that attract more BIG Companies who would wanna invest in this city and make it more like a
"Downtown"?! Hopefully with the condo boom bringing in more of a tax base, he can afford to do this which in turn could spark Commercial Devolpment.

Originally posted by djcody


If he did attract more businesses with tax incentives or "No Tax Zones" or even "no tax" for the first 10 years (pick a number) then ease into the taxing...Wouldn't that attract more BIG Companies who would wanna invest in this city and make it more like a
"Downtown"?!



OMG that is exactly what I thought he should do!

Umm, Ikea is much more than a "furniture store." It's actually a hip and trendy place to shop, so don't go making claims its a simple furniture store that wouldn't attract any attention.

No matter if Ikea is a furniture store or not, it is still a big box retailer that really has no buisiness being downtown. Ikeas are pretty much suburban stores. I have never been to one, so i don't know exactly what they are like, but i don't think it would fit in downtown. There are a lot of things Milwaukee needs more than an Ikea store.

I know Downtown Minneapolis has a 2 story concept TARGET store. What kind of business it attracts I don't know but if you are to want to attract a retailer a concept store of the likes of that concept TARGET store in Minneapolis might work in downtown Milwaukee. Ikea might be more than just a furniture store but that isn't the kind of store IMO that will bring tourists to downtown Milwaukee. Try maybe SAK'S FIFTH AVE, LORD & TAYLOR, BLOOMINGDALE"S, NIEMAN MARCUS or some other upscale department store with your 5 star hotel then maybe that would work.

I would like to see the city of Milwaukee try to talk with KOHL'S deparment store about trying a concept store like the TARGET concept store in Minneapolis. Most of the KOHL'S stores in the metro Milwaukee area are quite popular and maybe a concept store downtown might bring a few more people downtown that otherwise might not come downtown.

Ikea's are popular too.


Look guys, my Ikea comment was almost a joke so don't take so seriously. Also, I don't think we should be thinking about tourists right now, I think we should be thinking about bringing our very own MILWAUKEANS back into the downtown, not worry about some tourist. Yet. The art museum was a start, but I personally think an Ikea store would be a good idea as well as a success.

Lol...redneck. Our resident Appletonite is calling me a redneck.

Oh, and you weren't saying Milwaukee needed more skyscrapers to be a better city?? Hm...so what did you mean when you said...

"Milwaukee needs everything it can get."

"Furthermore Milwaukee is in NEED of more skyscrapers to make it more of a city."

"...it could only use a few more high-rises to make it more of a city..."

Granted, you did quickly contradict yourself on those last two, stating the exact opposite in the next sentence. Perhaps it's more of a reflection on your reasoning skills than anything...

I've been avoiding responding to any of youre rediculous posts because A.) Markitect seemed to be doing fine, and B.) I knew that you'd only talk in massive, unintelligible circles, making yourself impossible to understand and giving me a headache in the process. However, I have found silence to be even more annoying, and I need to make some corrections, and ask some questions of my own...

Have I seen the Milwaukee skyline lately? Um, yes. It's not pathetic at all. You are failing to take into consideration the fact that Milwaukee has been, since its early days, an industrial center, losing mauch of its commerce to big bro Chicago to the south.

The Empire State Building was not in a group of 40-50 story buildings, or anything even remotely close to that height. The surrounding area was about ten stories, with a handful of exceptions, reaching into the high twenties. Plus, this is a terrible example for your argument. The ESB was located in the middle of a dense, commercial zone, not a quiet residential area. And more did not come. The area around the ESB is still around 10-15 stories.

Firstar was not out of place at the time. It was built downtown. Where else would it have been built? Brookfield? The North Side? The Menominee Valley? And it did not spur development. In fact, after Firstar, we didn't see any major developments until the 1980's, a decade later.

If, in 50 years, Lafayette Place is surrounded by 30 story towers, I will be deeply saddened. One of the things that is so impressive about our fair city is that it has managed to preserve so many beautiful historic structures, including the homes on the East Side. To lose them to a bunch of (likely banal) residential people boxes would be an architectural crime parallel to that of the loss of the Pabst Building.

Your sarcastic cracks about Markitect's 'psychic abilities' are pretty stupid. Much like the redneck comment. He's not claiming to have any powers...have you ever heard of precedent? Probably not. Precedent is what is shown by previous examples. In other words, if you look at neigborhoods that have had skyscrapers plopped in the middle of them in other cities, you will see that they suffered from this uncharacteristic development. Did you know that LA's entire downtown was created in the 1950's? The city condemned and destroyed a dense, vibrant neighborhood to build a forest of glass boxes that, in the end, looks pretty silly stuck in the middle of the LA valley. Is that what you want to see on the East Side?

And don't make such gleaming comments about Ikea and then get snippy with everyone when they actually take you seriously.

BTW, when I said I wished the mods banned you when they had the chance, I was referring to the occasion when there was a MiL-TowN impersonator running around the forum, and Jasonhouse threatened to remove both of you from the forum if it wasn't figured out. Silly me. I actually defended you. Don't worry...it won't happen again.

Have a nice day. :)

CG5, one has to forgive MIL-TowN's attitude a bit. With him living in Appleton an attitude that we are better than you is what Appleton is about to a certain degree. Appleton is a growing area though the city itself is getting boxed in by its surrounding communities. I live here in Oshkosh (what many up in Appleton consider a suburb) and I have seen the correlation between what Chicagoan's have said and think of Milwaukee is somewhat similar to what Appletonian's think of Oshkosh. I don't dislike Appleton its just a fact that more development is being done up there and not down here. The main difference between Appleton and Oshkosh is MONEY, hence some of the arrogence that goes with it. I feel some of MIL-TowN's problem in communicating what he thinks is being helpful is being interpreted as being condesending and inconsistent. Enough of defending though, because I do live in Oshkosh and I would like to see this area get its shit together too.

MIL-TowN I just think it is funny that Ikea would be a good fit in an area that doesn't have the foggiest idea what an Ikea store is, (I did see that Ikea has a store in Schaumberg IL). That's why I made light of building a BIG K-MART downtown. I was just trying to be funny.

IMHO the city of Milwaukee has got to do a much better job of promoting their city. There is not a city with a better water front than Milwaukee. There isn't a major city that has had to put up with the kind of crap Milwaukee has (though Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis have been dissed often enough too). I would like to see some major improvement in downtown Milwaukee but unless City Hall and civic leaders in MIlwaukee get their acts together Milwaukee will always be a city of what could have been as compaired to a city that is.

IMHO the city of Milwaukee has got to do a much better job of promoting their city. There is not a city with a better water front than Milwaukee. There isn't a major city that has had to put up with the kind of crap Milwaukee has (though Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis have been dissed often enough too). I would like to see some major improvement in downtown Milwaukee but unless City Hall and civic leaders in MIlwaukee get their acts together Milwaukee will always be a city of what could have been as compaired to a city that is.

I agree with much of what you said there Man from Oshkosh. I've said before in here
that at this point in time what Milwaukee needs more than anything is strong leadership.
I agree also that Milwaukee doesn't do a very good job at promoting itself.
I don't know if I'd say Milwaukee has the most beautiful water front but I'd certainly
say it's one of the best!
I think we need some pics in here and celebrate Milwaukee's lake front beauty!
Milwaukee truely has a beautiful lake front! It's that one thing I think most people outside
of Milwaukee don't know about and the city keeps secret.

Here's an old pic, early 80sish
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/30943643dearsevmyn_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/21716660fsankdhvfj_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/42912610jibfrs_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/45495611tjmjsp_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/22911851ohgkwihcyj_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/42912708wdoypv_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/45493895hrqazp_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/45498068oxillx_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/45499104vzxbzd_ph.jpg

Originally posted by Paule


Here's an old pic, early 80sish
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/30943643dearsevmyn_ph.jpg


This pic makes me think that maybe Lafayette Place won't be THAT bad. I mean sure it will still be out of place, but maybe from farther away it won't look all that seperated from the city. I dunno, this is an early pic according to you, but I think the building around there is higher.

Of course I am probably looking at it from the wrong angle. It may look way out of place from the lake. Yeah, they really should moveit downtown if they can, I think it would be to the benifit of everyone. Maybe on one of those empty lots!

Oh yeah, I was at the Milwaukee Museum store the other day, and I saw these paintings of Old Milwaukee. The first one I noticed because of the Pabst Tower. It sure was a beaut (Yes I did just say beaut! :lol: )

I also saw one of the lakefron that showed the Wisconsin Gas building! So well, I thoguht I would share mydiscovery with all ya'll.

http://www.mpm.edu/store/media/blaser2.jpg

This print features the bustling river commerce of a November 1908 Milwaukee. A tugboat pulls the schooner Melitta, laden with Christmas trees, along the Milwaukee River toward an open drawbridge. Also featured are the Christopher Columbus whaleback passenger ship, the Pabst Office Building and Milwaukee City Hall.

http://www.mpm.edu/store/media/blaser1.jpg

A pigeon's eye view of Milwaukee in 1945, patched with white from the snow of a late winter storm. The automobiles on Astor and Wisconsin Streets are worn-out survivors from the Depression years and most people take the Milwaukee Electric Line Trolleys to the factories. The old Chicago and Northwestern Railway Depot is busy with the arrival and departure of young soldiers, sailors and marines. Behind the doors of the coal-heated Elk Club, there will still be a dance in the ballroom tonight.

http://www.mpm.edu/store/media/blaser3.jpg

This print features this once bustling community on Milwaukee's Lake Michigan harbor in 1915. Here, the sale and processing of smoked fish became the major business of the island. Bars and restaurants were found on every corner - it was "the" place to be on weekends for the people of Milwaukee.


Hope you like 'em! :D :D :D

I actually defended you. Don't worry...it won't happen again.

Ah yes, I remember the exact words you used in the open forum "This can't be SprecherVille, he hasn't used the word fuck once." I'm sure that really helped J-house make his decision whether to BAN me.


And honestly, I've never needed you to defend me, and I never will. Also, downgrading me just to make yourself sound smarter is really, (as you, being the genius that you are would say) "Stupid."

Lol...redneck. Our resident Appletonite is calling me a redneck.

Would you prefer "CityGod the stereotype?"

And really, its too bad your head grew to about twice its normal size the second I made the comment about Milwaukee's skyline being somewhat "pathetic" because I have always had a certain respect for you, mostly because you *seemed* like a reasonable person (an ass at times) but all that respect is now gone after seeing the way you act after someone makes a comment about Milwaukee...BTW, its also JUST a city.

Paule: nice pics

Can you guys please stop fighting!!!!

So...how about them Packers!?

Originally posted by CG5
Lol...redneck. Our resident Appletonite is calling me a redneck.

Oh, and you weren't saying Milwaukee needed more skyscrapers to be a better city?? Hm...so what did you mean when you said...

"Milwaukee needs everything it can get."

"Furthermore Milwaukee is in NEED of more skyscrapers to make it more of a city."

"...it could only use a few more high-rises to make it more of a city..."

Granted, you did quickly contradict yourself on those last two, stating the exact opposite in the next sentence. Perhaps it's more of a reflection on your reasoning skills than anything...

I've been avoiding responding to any of youre rediculous posts because A.) Markitect seemed to be doing fine, and B.) I knew that you'd only talk in massive, unintelligible circles, making yourself impossible to understand and giving me a headache in the process. However, I have found silence to be even more annoying, and I need to make some corrections, and ask some questions of my own...

Have I seen the Milwaukee skyline lately? Um, yes. It's not pathetic at all. You are failing to take into consideration the fact that Milwaukee has been, since its early days, an industrial center, losing mauch of its commerce to big bro Chicago to the south.

The Empire State Building was not in a group of 40-50 story buildings, or anything even remotely close to that height. The surrounding area was about ten stories, with a handful of exceptions, reaching into the high twenties. Plus, this is a terrible example for your argument. The ESB was located in the middle of a dense, commercial zone, not a quiet residential area. And more did not come. The area around the ESB is still around 10-15 stories.

Firstar was not out of place at the time. It was built downtown. Where else would it have been built? Brookfield? The North Side? The Menominee Valley? And it did not spur development. In fact, after Firstar, we didn't see any major developments until the 1980's, a decade later.

If, in 50 years, Lafayette Place is surrounded by 30 story towers, I will be deeply saddened. One of the things that is so impressive about our fair city is that it has managed to preserve so many beautiful historic structures, including the homes on the East Side. To lose them to a bunch of (likely banal) residential people boxes would be an architectural crime parallel to that of the loss of the Pabst Building.

Your sarcastic cracks about Markitect's 'psychic abilities' are pretty stupid. Much like the redneck comment. He's not claiming to have any powers...have you ever heard of precedent? Probably not. Precedent is what is shown by previous examples. In other words, if you look at neigborhoods that have had skyscrapers plopped in the middle of them in other cities, you will see that they suffered from this uncharacteristic development. Did you know that LA's entire downtown was created in the 1950's? The city condemned and destroyed a dense, vibrant neighborhood to build a forest of glass boxes that, in the end, looks pretty silly stuck in the middle of the LA valley. Is that what you want to see on the East Side?

And don't make such gleaming comments about Ikea and then get snippy with everyone when they actually take you seriously.

BTW, when I said I wished the mods banned you when they had the chance, I was referring to the occasion when there was a MiL-TowN impersonator running around the forum, and Jasonhouse threatened to remove both of you from the forum if it wasn't figured out. Silly me. I actually defended you. Don't worry...it won't happen again.

Have a nice day. :)





Racist :yes:

So....how bout them packers!?

Can you say Superbowl XXXVII Champion Packers!!!:) :)

Paule, Excellent pictures of Milwaukee's lakefront. I have seen many pictures of Milwaukee's Northshore but rarely have seen any from the Southshore though.

I have a thought that has been bugging me for awhile about Milwaukee's skyline and it involves 3 towers in the Milwaukee skyline.

1st and 2nd. M&I and Marine Bank (now BANKONE Milwaukee) built two very mediocre IMO towers in the mid to late sixties. Why in the name of heaven did they build two box type's under 300 ft towers? I for the life of me don't understand why they didn't go higher than 288 ft for BANKONE's Blue Box and 277ft for M&I's Bronze Box. if there is to be a complaint that I would have with Milwaukee's skyline is that one or both of those towers should have topped out a 480+ ft and the other at 400+ ft. Man!! what a difference it would have made to Milwaukee's skyline if just one of those towers passed the 400 ft mark.

3rd NML's Data tower at 395ft. Don't tell me that Firstar center occupents complained that their views would be obstructed if NML had built a taller tower than the 395 footer they ended up building? Man!!! if that tower were topped out at the 500+ft level :?:?

If all 3 of those towers were built thinking ahead of time well Milwaukee would have a really nice downtown skyline with height and deapth. Even if 2 of the 3 we would still have a really nice skyline. Even 1 of 3 it would still be better than what it is now. That is my thought, I know it is wishfull thinking but golly if all 3 of those towers were 400 + ft of more man oh man :?:? Milwaukee would really have a nice downtown skyline.

Originally posted by man from Oshkosh


1st and 2nd. M&I and Marine Bank (now BANKONE Milwaukee) built two very mediocre IMO towers in the mid to late sixties. Why in the name of heaven did they build two box type's under 300 ft towers? I for the life of me don't understand why they didn't go higher than 288 ft for BANKONE's Blue Box and 277ft for M&I's Bronze Box. if there is to be a complaint that I would have with Milwaukee's skyline is that one or both of those towers should have topped out a 480+ ft and the other at 400+ ft. Man!! what a difference it would have made to Milwaukee's skyline if just one of those towers passed the 400 ft mark.

3rd NML's Data tower at 395ft. Don't tell me that Firstar center occupents complained that their views would be obstructed if NML had built a taller tower than the 395 footer they ended up building? Man!!! if that tower were topped out at the 500+ft level :?:?

If all 3 of those towers were built thinking ahead of time well Milwaukee would have a really nice downtown skyline with height and deapth. Even if 2 of the 3 we would still have a really nice skyline. Even 1 of 3 it would still be better than what it is now. That is my thought, I know it is wishfull thinking but golly if all 3 of those towers were 400 + ft of more man oh man :?:? Milwaukee would really have a nice downtown skyline.

My guess would be that those particular companies didn't have a demand for anything taller. If what they built suited their needs, then they didn't have to go any higher--thus saving themselves money. "Why build more of a building, and thus pay more for it, than what you need?" is probably the rationale behind it. I would also guess that they were built during an era where there really wasn't much thinking ahead and foresight than what is emphasized today. These were businesses, they're not interested in contributing to a city's skyline as much as they were interested in the bottom line.

ThatGuy those are three real nice pics. I've seen them before I think on JSonline.com but they are well worth looking at again, nothing wrong with that besides some of those pics I recently posted are reposts so. Again though too bad the pics are so small!

I remember telling CG5 that I thought that the next major office highrise would have M&I as it's major tenent. M&I is a growing bank. I'm not prepared right now to list info on the bank but I do see it growing steadily. Markitect if the M&I building was built to fit it's needs in 1969 when it was built then I would say they're in need of more space. I'm sure they have branches all over the place but every Bank needs a strong HQs building right?

The Marine Bank was built in 1962 and I've always liked the building, I don't know maybe I'm the only one but I love the color, the shape, and the window style.

I would say man from Oshkosh that the same reason the two didn't build any higher than they did is the same reason why Milwaukee doesn't have any plans or proposals to build any real high office building now, it's the markets need for class A office space. Right now Milwaukee's class A office occupancy rates don't warrant any kind of major construction of building.

Mil- Town and CityGod....

Let's end the silliness, before one of the mods has to please...If you guys want to call each other rednecks and make personal attacks on each other, please do so via PM and leave the rest of us in peace.:bash:

My guess would be that those particular companies didn't have a demand for anything taller. If what they built suited their needs, then they didn't have to go any higher--thus saving themselves money. "Why build more of a building, and thus pay more for it, than what you need?" is probably the rationale behind it. I would also guess that they were built during an era where there really wasn't much thinking ahead and foresight than what is emphasized today. These were businesses, they're not interested in contributing to a city's skyline as much as they were interested in the bottom line. [/B]

Markitect, you hit the nail right on the head with your reply, your answer also turned on the light bulb as well. Milwaukee is a very PRACTICAL and somewhat FRUGAL town. I am not saying it is bad to be practical or frugal but it is a good explaination as to why MIlwaukee is where it is and why it may always be in the position it is already in.

I think building skyscrapers is one of the most SPECULATIVE and PROGRESSIVE things an invester or builder can be. One has to take a chance and say this project will work despite the odds against it and then make it happen. There also has to be an large sized ego involved saying I do want my tower to stand above the rest.

The major difference between Milwaukee and Chicago and Minneapolis is that Milwaukee is a PRACTICAL/FRUGAL city and Chicago in particular and Minneapolis to a lesser degree are more SPECULATIVE/PROGRESSIVE type cities.

I chose the 3 downtown towers as a point of reference and the difference between what could have been and what is. I myself don't care for modern box type towers, although the digital clock and thermometer sign on top of the BANKONE tower is a downtown landmark, other than that I am just not a fan of modern box type towers. NML's Data tower I do like that building I was just expressing some wishful thinking on what might have been a more visible tower if it had been built a little higher.

I have seen some of the posts expressing a wish that Milwaukee had a more distinctive downtown skyline, I feel the same way. But as with your answer "If what they built suited their needs, then they didn't have to go any higher-- thus saving themselves money. "Why build more of a building, and thus pay for it, than what you need?" is a very revealing reply. It's a reply of thinking in the now and not of the future.

When I look at Chicago the reverse of the way Milwaukee thinks is there for all to see, a skyline that boggles the mind in wonder and why. Minneapolis too has a very well respected downtown skyline and many of the companies that built in both those downtowns were not much larger corporations in some cases smaller than the ones in Milwaukee and just went for it.

I know I can't change the results of Milwaukee's current skyline but to point out the possibility was there at one time. But the question the begs to be asked is weather the recent proposed office tower (1001 Water Street) is going to built that fits a current need or if it is going to be built to make a statement on the future? It is my thought that it will only fit a current need as in 15 to 20 storys or there abouts. It would be beyond my imagination if they decided, okay we were rebuffed at 875 Wisconsin Ave we are now going to make a statement with this tower to the likes of 40 to 50 stories.

I hope that what I pointed out isn't taken the wrong way for all I did was point to some facts and some of my opinion. Milwaukee is a great town but the fact is unless there is a change in the attitude and way of thinking in Milwaukee, its ranking in the census will continue to fall.

Lol...it's amazing how when someone smashes someone elses' argument, all the smashed person can do in return is smash the character of the original smashee. I'd like to know how the heck those comments were egotistical or racist, but whatever. I'll stop now.

As for M&I, my uncle works in the current M&I Building. He's a VP for the company. I asked him if there were any plans for expansion, but he looked at me like I was speaking French. I guess that was a no. :)

I guess, for now, we'll have to count on that new Marcus Center development to come up with some interesting plans.

Originally posted by man from Oshkosh


...the recent proposed office tower (1001 Water Street) is going to built that fits a current need or if it is going to be built to make a statement on the future...


Umm what tower is this! :D :D :D

I am not sure that I have heard of it! Anotehr tower! I am liking this. Even if it is sorta short, you gotta start somewhere! So is there a concept or article on this building?

"Ikea what is that? "

They are the world's largest furniture retailer...sales of $10 billion USD last year.


Toronto has 4 of them, and I don't think they would be suited to downtown...they need large parking areas, as you take it all home and assemble it yourself. They are also quite big...one of the Toronto stores is 330,000 sqft.



KGB

I know I can't change the results of Milwaukee's current skyline but to point out the possibility was there at one time. But the question the begs to be asked is weather the recent proposed office tower (1001 Water Street) is going to built that fits a current need or if it is going to be built to make a statement on the future? It is my thought that it will only fit a current need as in 15 to 20 storys or there abouts. It would be beyond my imagination if they decided, okay we were rebuffed at 875 Wisconsin Ave we are now going to make a statement with this tower to the likes of 40 to 50 stories.

I hope that what I pointed out isn't taken the wrong way for all I did was point to some facts and some of my opinion. Milwaukee is a great town but the fact is unless there is a change in the attitude and way of thinking in Milwaukee, its ranking in the census will continue to fall.

man from Oshkosh to answer your question of will this building be built to fit the current needs of the tenants or will they look further into the future and make a statement. I would first say you have to look at who is haveing the building built, who is going to be the main tenant or only tenant. In the case of this new building on 1001 Water St. the main and if I'm not mistaken the only tenant is going to be the Milwauke Performing Arts Foundation. I would summit to you that they are not interested nor should they be with Milwaukee's current office space needs. From what I remember reading on this is that they want a 4 to 5 floor car garage with their offices on top. They didn't say how high the building will be or what their current needs are but I can't see any real big highrise going up there. I think the fact that they're planning on a new building says they are looking to the future. One concern they did talk about was the increase in the future need for parking space as a result of the Park East developments and the need for office space of their own. I wish someone will post the article on this that was in the JSonline, that would be helpful!

The articles about redeveloping the Marcus Center parking garage (which has been informally referred to in this thread as "1001 N. Water" -- although that actually is the address of the current parking garage, I would hope they come up with a more imaginative name should something get built there) state that the Center, developers, and architects are investingating a mix of uses, including parking, retail, office, and residential. They don't say whether the offices would be for the Marcus Center (or it's parent comany the Marcus Corporation--which has its offices on Wisconsin Avenue) or not.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/News/nov02/97816.asp
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2002/11/25/story4.html -- This article was just posted in this thread the other day.

As for retail in Downtown, while upscale stores like Nieman Marcus are nice, I think a more affordable retailer would be more beneficial to the area, because it would be able to serve a broader customer base (not everybody can afford to shop regularly at Nieman Marcus). A nice department store like Kohl's is an especially appropriate example, seeing as they're a locally based chain and they have a history in the area. And a good precedent for this might be the downtown Target store in Minneapolis, which is a locally based company which had focused on bix-box suburbab stores) opening up an urban-friendly store in a downtown area.

Moving on to "no tax zones" and things like that in order to encourage businesses to locate in Milwaukee...this has advantages and disadvantages. Mayor Norquist makes a point (a good one, in my opinion) that local governments should avoid subsidizing all kinds of private businesses with tax benefits and the like. One of the most basic reasonings behind this argument is that the City loses out on tax money--which is used to pay for City-provided services--leaving residents and existing businesses to pay more for those services (which are not only used by existing residents/businesses, but also by the "tax free" businesses, who aren't payihg for those services because they don't have to pay taxes). Why should the City give out free land or "no tax deals" to a big corporation, especially if the corporation has deep pockets?

However, that's not to say the city government doesn't do anything to help attract new businesses to Milwaukee. In fact, it does quite a bit, though not as directly as handing over free land to businesses. The City likes to use tax incremental financing (TIF) for some redevelopment projects as a means of attracting/retaining businesses while improving the public realm at the same time.

TIF is a way of funding redevelopment projects from taxes collected within a redevelopment district itself. The City invests money into public improvements (usually public infrastructre, like roads, sewers, sidewalks, streetscaping, lighting, open space, environmental clean-up, etc.) within a specific district that's been targeted for redevelopment. The increased revue generated from the redevelopment effort (fixing up the area increases property values in the area and new development is attracted to the area) is used to pay off the public improvements. Once those costs are paid off, any taxes collected from the district go back into the general pool with all the rest of the non-TIF properties (so they can be used to help pay for other city services). The City uses this method a lot, from major developments to a few smaller ones.

Oh, and just to throw a little tidbit of news out there, I have heard from a few very reliable sources that there's a rather large coroporation out there that's looking to move its headquarters from the suburbs into Downtown Milwaukee (I know for a fact it's looked at building something in the Park East corridor). However, I've been sworn to secrecy from revealing the identity of the company. We'll just have to wait and see.

Oh come on Markitect! It's likje dangling a carrot in front of a donkey's nose and not letting him have it! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, so you cannot tell us the name of the corporation, but can you tell me what size building would be a reasonable guess that they might build???? And when do they plan on announcing this?


Oooooooh, soooo coooool!

hey i found some milwaukee pics i don't think are very common. or maybe they are. i don't know the broad.

http://a.lifeuncommon.org/travels/faraway/milwaukee/Picture-007.jpg
http://www.grad.mu.edu/img/milwaukee.JPG

or maybe they aren't.

Thanks cubercle, I've seen that night pic of downtown Milwaukee but I haven't seen many of the Mitchell Park domes.


Great article on the JSonline.com site if your into census figures.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/101444.asp

The state of Wisconsin was undercounted by a estimated 36,910 people. 10,021 of those undercounted were Milwaukee city residents. Therefore Milwaukee still is above that 600,000 mark. Instead of the 596,000 for 2000 it's 606,000. I did always thought that that was too big of a jump downward. Between 1980 and 1990 there was only a -10,000 population count difference.

The state went from 5,363,675 to 5,400,585


By the way thanks for posting the links Markitect. I was wrong about a few things. This will most certainly be a very interesting project. I can't wait to read the formal detailed proposal due early in 2003!

Thanks for that link, Paule. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there have been an undercount of approximately the same size in the 1990 census? That would mean that, yes, Milwaukee still has more than 600,000, but the number that the population droped between 1990 and 2000 would still be roughly accurate, since about the same number of people can be added to both the 1990 and 2000 figures.

Going back a bit...... I think an urban Kohl's would be a good fit to Downtown Milwaukee. The Target in Minneapolis is pretty cool, and people do actually shop there. It is 2 floors, so there is a nifty escalator just for carts. They did a good job of not making it a big box, although the interior, other than the entrance areas on both floors, is nothing special. I guess they wanted the interior to be consistent with other Target stores. Khol's is growing pretty fast, and i think this would be a good sector for them to expand into.

The cencus correction is cool news...brings the metro to just under 1.7 million! --1,699,593. And with the UN census projections (in another thread) Milwaukee is supposely to gain about 160,000-- hopefully are decrease in Population is over.

Originally posted by djcody
The cencus correction is cool news...brings the metro to just under 1.7 million! --1,699,593. And with the UN census projections (in another thread) Milwaukee is supposely to gain about 160,000-- hopefully are decrease in Population is over.

It's, Milwaukee's rate of growth that is low. Not that there has been a decline in population in the metro area. I think over the next few years the trend of moving out of the central city to the suburbs will slow but there will still be growth in the suburbs by people relocating into the area (One can hope). I think the trend that rust belt metro area's losing population will change in the next census. I can't see Buffalo NY(-1.6%), Pittsburgh PA(-1.5%), Syracuse NY (-1.4%) and Dayton-Springfield OH (-0.1%), to continue to see population drops in their metro area's. I also can't see sub 6% population growths in Cleveland-Akron OH (+3.0%), St Louis MO/IL(+4.5%), Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City PA/NJ/DE/MD (+5.0%), Milwaukee-Racine WI (+5.1%), and Detrit-Ann Arbor MI(+5.2%) to name a few to continue to have such a low rate of growth. I think every area has had slumps in growth or in some cases decline to come back in better shape than before let's hope that such is the case with some of these metro area's as well.

A great article in the Business Journal of Milwaukee frovides some insight into how the Park East project evolved from studios at UWM's School of Arhcitecture and Urban Plannning to become a real life project--for those of you who don't know the history. I took the studio a couple years ago, and helped build the recently displayed model at City Hall last month (which I've heard rumors that it might get displayed elsewhere for a while--perhaps at the Courthouse...if I ever find out, I'll let you know).

A great article in the Business Journal of Milwaukee provides some insight into how the Park East project evolved from studios at UWM's School of Arhcitecture and Urban Plannning to become a real life project--for those of you who don't know the history. I took the studio a couple years ago, and helped build the recently displayed model at City Hall last month (which I've heard rumors that it might get displayed elsewhere for a while--perhaps at the Courthouse...if I ever find out, I'll let you know).

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2002/12/09/story1.html

Hi guys! Just needed to take a little break from here and involve myself with some of the other
stuff this fine forum offers!

Markitect that was a very good article and well worth reading, thanks for posting it!

Here's a quote that I think you school dudes should think about.
The Park East project
is "a very good example of how academic thinking can make the unthinkable possible,"
said Bob Greenstreet, the UWM school's dean.


Short but sweet but he says alot right there. I agree with him and I hope you guys realize
that nothing will ever change in Milwaukee if you don't dream and believe!

PICTURES!!!

South shore from Bayview
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/525.jpg

Far away shot, don't know where it's taken from.
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/54781705FaJyUC_ph.jpg

Skyline from I-94, nice view of the 6th st. viaduct!
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/53361020HwIkOn_ph.jpg

Yep, that was a good quote. As a 'school dude', i will keep that in mind!:)

Paule, was your "break to involve yourself with some of the other stuff this fine forum offers" the reason this thread has lagged down in posts towards the bottom of the page recently? :D

LOL, wouldn't I love that to be true but no not at all! I think with the way the thread was going for the last couple of weeks we all seemed to feel the need to take a break, do you agree? I think I'm right about this because we still have alot to talk about right? I know I still have plenty of pics to post and OH!!!!!! by the way go down to the Architecture forum here and view my thread on the MAM The pictures I posted are great and the discusion was good!

Better yet here's the link
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14642

Hey, cool thread Paule!

I took some rather amazing shots of the art museum myself, and more than likely this weekend I may be able to post them since (brag) I'm staying at the Hyatt on saturday...and because my brother who has everything you need for posting pictures lives in Milwaukee I should be able to post the Art Meseum pics and the rest of the 1,000 Milwaukee pictures I have.

Mil-Town you got to try and get up to the top of the Hyatt and take some pics there! I would think a pic of the Court House from there would be excellent and same goes with the Milwaukee Center! Looking forward to your post!

I took some more pics of the city this past week. I'm going to finish off the roll of film and then get it develop, and they should be on here by the weekend.
Great thread Paule!

There were two interesting transportation articles in the Journal Sentinal today.

The first is nothing groundbreaking, basically just a group supporting the Metra commuter rain extension to Milwaukee. It is good news, though. It gives a few specifics on the level of service recommended, etc.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/102700.asp

The second is about a group called the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that suggests the Marquette interchange be turned into a Tolled interchange.
http://www.jsonline.com/traffic/news/dec02/102660.asp
As my Architecture Professor says, "Two words: Bad Idea". They suggest tolls be $2 for cars and $10 for trucks who go thrugh the interchange. :ohno: Who would pay that??? All it would do is cause congestion on local roads around the interchange by people trying to avoid the toll. A $2 toll is something you pay to go over a bridge, when it is the only reasonable way to get form point A to Point B, not on an interchange that you can easily exit right beforehand, and then hop right back onto after the toll. The mayor is quoted as saying that he thinks this plan is pretty much dead on arrival, and i agree. What a dumb idea!

Yes, I agree completly. I take the marquette whenever I head to the east side or i go to the art museum, but I could easily easily avoid it if I wanted to. In fact a lot of the time, I do.

A 2.00 fee is also way to much for someone like me with a very limited income. I mean 2 dollars can buy me a gallon of gas. I am not going to blow it on a single trip through an interchange. 4 bucks to get back home! :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is already overcroweded, no way I am going to pay 4 bucks to sit in crappy traffic! :lol: :lol: :lol:

What do you think of my Milwaukee snow globe. I just realized it was Milwaukee (haven't seen it for a long time and couldn't identify it when I first got it) because of Miltown's beer sign.

http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/bgt2/im001563.jpg

Hey that's pretty neat. Where did you get it?

I don't know WHAT that thing is on the top of the Firstar building is. Chop that cube off, and it would be fine. I think it is neat that they incleded a Midwest Express Jet in there, too.

I got it as I gift

Lol...it'd be pretty cool if Wisconsin Gas really were that tall. :)

Cool snowglobe.

perhaps broadening the entire freeway system in southeast Wisconsin to a tolled system with much smaller fees would work, said Peter Beitzel, vice president for business development of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.
This idea i'm for, not the $2 one, but the smaller fee one. Cuz how are we gonna pay for it then? right? They proposed raising the Tax Title and Registration Fee to $90, but that didn't pass, so then they came up with this idea. What do you guys think?

The problem with Wisconsin building a Tollroad is that such a tollroad (I-94) would need Federal approval for I-94 and possible Milwaukee bypass (I-894) to be done. The Tri-State tollroad going into Illinois was originally built as a tollroad before it was (I-94). The State may well have to come up with another idea.

Yep. i think they would need federal approval because the interstates were built by the state largely with federal money. If they were to build a new highway, it could be tolled from the beginnig, but that wouldn't really solve any budget problems. I think I-894 being tolled would require the same approval, as it is an interstate as well, and was built with federal money.

Man from Oshkosh is that a new avatar you got there? I really like it!

Markitect I promised you I'd take some pics of that Frank Lloyd Wright building in Wausau and I did just that this weekend. I made a thread and put them in it along with some other pics of Wausau so if you've never been up here I incourage you and all of you to take a look see!

A December pic
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/57581476kTFHzo_ph.jpg
One of the Domes
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/3135508CIwssyJefr_ph.jpg
Wisconsin Ave shot
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/52739537AxwXBL_ph.jpg
The Cudahay Apts, One of my favorite buildings in Milwaukee
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/52740256OaarlS_ph.jpg
Another favorite, the Milwaukee County Court House
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/56711586XvCWBJ_ph.jpg
A Marina shot
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/45496006YKQHHs_ph.jpg

Do you like?

I didn't mean to forget this new night shot of the MAM!
http://www.boomspeed.com/paule17/title.jpg

hey paule: that wisconisn ave shot is rare, lol. my roommate actually works in that taller building on the left!! On the 8th floor is Clear Blue Technologies...it where most of the big businesses run their internet through...

Love the MAM!

dj are you talking about the Ameritech building way off to the left? If so that's were
my brother works. He's a manager for Ameritech's computer programming department.
I don't know what floor he work's on, sorry.

That Wells building looks so sad since they stripped off the decorative designs on
the top 4 floors. At the time it was built in 1902 it was the tallest terra cotta building in
the world I do believe. It didn't hold that distinction for long but still a good piece of trivia!

Here's a pic from that time period. As you can see the Wells building was very attractive
looking.
http://www.jsonline.com/desk/histwis/images/cornerbig.jpg

Paule: he works in the Wells building.
Wow, it really does look good in that pic!! and look at all those people...i wonder how long it's gonna take to get milwaukee that busy again?! I hope in the next 20 yrs or so...

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone !!

Nooo! Why woudl tehy take off the decorations on the top of that building! It used to look so good! Now it is blah. What a tragedy.


Happy Holidays to everyone! :D

The exterior decoration on the top floors of the Wells Building got too heavy for its own good. Same as the Pabst Building. If they hadn't stripped it off, it would have fallen onto pedestrians.

Milwaukee being that busy in the next 20 years, djcody? I don't think so, try the next 800 years. The downtown is now nothing more than an excessory to the city, back then the downtown was where everything was...thus bringing in large crowds. For it to be that busy again, then the whole city has to move back into the downtown.



BTW- I should have some of my Milwaukee pics up sometime tomarrow night.

While it may be true that we don't see the sidewalks of Downtown packed with pedestrians today like in the historic photograph, Downtown Milwaukee is still quite busy. The difference between then and now is that a lot of the people walked in combination with using the streetcars (obviously visible in the photo); personal automobiles were rare at the time. On the other hand, in modern times, most people drive in Downtown Milwaukee, as opposed to walking and/or using the bus (the modern day equivalent to the streetcars), thus making the sidewalks appear less crowded.

As for the line about Downtown being an accessory to the city, this is completely untrue. Downtown is still the heart of the metropolitan region (just like all downtowns in all cities are). It may have competition with suburban office parks and the like, but to say Downtown has been reduced to being just some extra part of the city (which is what the terminology you used implies) is not accurate. Where else in the region has Downtown's concentration of a variety of museums? Theaters? Restaurants? Nightclubs? Arenas/convention centers? Office buildings? Government buildings? You won't find those things with such concentration anywhere else outside of Downtown.

Here's a front side look at the Wells, too bad it's so small!
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/wells_bd.jpg
Even though they had to strip the top bare couldn't they have at leaqst paint the top in the color the rest of the building is instead of that ugly tan color?

Mil-town your right about that but also most cities downtown's were crowded, over crowded in my view, back then because with no cars people used the street cars to come into the city. Notice there are no cars or horse and buggies parked along the street side? No parking lots or parking ramps either. People did alot of walking back then.

Then again Markitect, some of the very things you listed ARE accessories.

Hurry up with those pics Mil-Town! My tail is wagging!

TONIGHT, THEY ARE COMING TONIGHT!!! :)


Let me tell you though, they aren't that great. My brother only had time to scan a select handful. The thing is, my best pictures are the ones I haven't gotten developed yet(atleast I think so).

My new pictures are black and white unfortunitaley, only type of film I had. I covered the South Side, and I got some slums on the North Side. Don't worry, when I get a scanner I'm putting them all up.


I'll give you the link as soon as I get them up.

That's quite alright Mil-TowN with the B&W pics, sometimes they can be better than color. B&W for slum area's should work real well together!
I hope you get that scanner for chirstmas! I got my early christmas present from my wife last night. It's a SiPix SP1300 digital camera!!! As soon as I figure it out I'll be snapping some pics and posting. The pics will all have to be of Wausau as I don't have p[lans to visit Milwaukee until early March.

Please hurry with your pics, Mil-town!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forgot to add LATER tonight maybe even early morning. My brother said he would have them on the internet tonight before he leaves to come here, when he gets here I can get the link to the pictures.

I cannot wait to se those pics either! :D :D :D

And point well taken on the removal of the decorative pieces on that building. Too bad they were falling though, cause they were real nice. But I think that would be marred with a few squished people on the sidewalk. I wish there was some way they could safely attach something that resembled them back up there though, causse it sure looked nice back then.

I think seeing the streets crowded like that is cool. But I don't know if I could stand huge crowds like that today. I am a fast walker, so I would probably get pretty angry at the people in front of me! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry guys, I guess it wasn't a good idea to rely on someone that first, had to get off of work, and second had to drive all the way to Appleton. My brother got off of work around 12:00 A.M. and by the time he got here he just went to bed.


But I'll put them up today FOR SURE.

Milwaukee pics anyone?

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17873

who wants to tell me the best deal i can get on image hosting so i can post these milwaukee pictures i took?

Free space
www.ranchoweb.com

i tried it but they wont mail me my password. it's been hours. i'm actually willing to pay if i can get a good deal.

Hey y'all. I just flew back from Atlanta today and boy, are my wings tired! Sorry...I just had to do that. Anyway, I snapped a pic when we were flying over downtown (don't ask why we came from the north...I have no clue) and I'm not sure if it turned out. We'll have to wait and see...

Anyway, I checked out the J-S website today, and I found a fantastic article by Whitney Gould (who else?) about the WTC competition and Milwaukee architecture. Check it out...



Trade Center Site Design Nearly Finds Right Mix.
Whitney Gould


December 30th, 2002


Looking at the array of mostly audacious new proposals for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site, I thought of those memorable lines from Yeats' "Easter 1916":

"All changed, changed utterly;

A terrible beauty is born."

Yeats was writing about a thwarted rebellion in Dublin. But his words resonate as people begin to reimagine the 16 acres of lower Manhattan obliterated by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Everything has changed: Instead of settling for the bland, generic approach represented by an unheralded set of rebuilding proposals unveiled last July, New Yorkers can now ponder some visionary designs that reflect the transformative power of architecture. And that seismic shift in consciousness has lessons for other cities, including Milwaukee.

Whether New York will see construction of any one of the proposals solicited by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is another matter entirely; with 17 million square feet of vacant office space in that area alone, it will be difficult for any developer to win financing for a tall-building complex that could become a terrorist magnet.

Still, the chance for a wounded city to dream big dreams once again is worth cheering in itself. Keep your fingers crossed that whatever is finally built will capture the spirit of those dreams instead of evolving into just another bottom-line real-estate deal.

The challenge for the architects was how to honor the victims of 9-11 and also rebuild a neighborhood, without letting either mission overpower the other.

None of the seven teams of architects chosen from 407 submissions managed the perfect fusion of grief and renewal. Part of the problem is that they were asked to pack far too much into a limited site, rather than develop an integrated plan for the entire area. (To judge the results for yourself, check out www.renewnyc.org, the Web site of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.)

But to my mind the plan that comes closest to striking the right balance is Daniel Libeskind's, with a memorial space sunk 75 feet below ground zero on the footprints of the twin towers. Above it: a glassy museum surrounded by a complex of faceted, light-filled buildings and a vertical garden. Twisting and shimmering like quartz crystals, these sculptural forms remind us of what great architecture can do - stir the soul.

A new rail station and other transit links, along with ground-level shops and cafes, would all help to knit back together the street grid that was badly disrupted by the twin towers themselves. At ground level, some of Libeskind's imagery looks so busy and fragmented that you want to give it a tranquilizer. But overall, this design has remarkable expressive power - just what you'd expect from the Polish-born architect of the Jewish Museum in Berlin, whose zigzag shape evokes a broken Star of David.

A team headed by Britain's Lord Norman Foster also envisioned a below-ground memorial, topped by a twinned tower of interlocking glass triangles, with connections that create observation platforms and cafes. Despite numerous "green" features, such as tree-filled "parks in the sky," the aloofness and massive scale of Foster's building - it would be the world's tallest - make it look as if it would be more at home in some upstart metropolis on the other side of the globe.

Richard Meier & Partners imagined a grid of five H-like towers overlooking glass-bottom reflecting pools set on the footprints of the twin towers. Skidmore Owings & Merrill offered up a "vertical city" of wedge-shaped offices and sky gardens. The Think group submitted three designs, the most striking a pair of glass latticework towers overlooking a 13-acre memorial at the entrance to a transit center.

These and the other entries each have appealing features, but none approaches Libeskind's in its capacity to recivilize a devastated site while reminding us of what was lost there.

Which brings us to Milwaukee. Our city, thank goodness, has nothing to compare with that terror-stricken chunk of Manhattan (unless you count the intentional destruction caused by urban renewal and freeway construction in the 1960s and '70s). But in rebuilding the Menomonee Valley and the Park East Freeway corridor, we could take a cue from the Trade Center experience.

The central lesson: Architectural competitions, by letting creative juices flow freely, can sow the seeds for vibrant new neighborhoods. Competing against each other, architects also compete against themselves, often transcending their own limitations. The results can raise the bar for others and embolden the public to demand smarter design.

If only the folks behind the Pier Wisconsin building on the lakefront had opened up their project to a design competition involving architects far and wide. Instead of a gimmicky imitator in the shadow of Santiago Calatrava's sublime expansion of the Milwaukee Art Museum, we might have had a more sensitive gesture, just as Calatrava rose to the top over other international players in the museum's own competition.

Smaller-scale competitions have already yielded some handsome work, including designs for the soon-to-be-built Kilbourn Tower condos (La Dallman Architects), the Wrightian River Homes condos along Commerce St. (Vetter Denk Architects), Bradley Tech high school (Jim Shields of Hammel, Green & Abrahamson and Ursula Twombly of Continuum Architects & Planners) and a new footbridge that will be built over the Milwaukee River south of North Ave. (Chicago's Holabird & Root).

What was missing in each case, alas, was a public debate of the submissions; for proprietary reasons, competitors were allowed to keep their ideas under wraps. In the future, officials would do better to insist on a full public airing of designs for projects over which the city has some control. After all, the citizens of Milwaukee will have to live with these projects for a very long time.



I agree with her everywhere (including Libeskind's proposal being the best ;)) except in one place - I don't think that the public should be able to see all the proposals. At least not all of the time. It is my opinion that the public in general is somewhat (if not totally) ignorant of architecture. If the public were allowed to voice their opinion on every major proposal, we'd see a few monsters go up, as well as see some beautiful buildings never get past the paper & pencil stage.

I also agree here with you CG5. You know what my feelings are about the Pier Wisconsin since I haven't been silent on them as you know very well but Whitney is right about one very important thing and that is competition. I do believe that a competition between architects on the project would've served for a better purpose. With as important as the building will be and in such a high profile piece of realestate the building will occupy I see it as irresponsible that a design competition wasn't held.

Hope that pic turns out and if it does please put a rush job on posting!

Not only did it turn out, but it sucked royally. It was just a greyish blur of clouds. I can make out some forms, but it's reeeeeally hard. I deleted the picture. But I'll have to get down there some time soon with my digital camera (oh yeah - did I mention that I have one now? :D ) and snap some shots. I know I'm going to the East Side some time in the coming month. I'll make sure to bring the camera with me then.

Sounds like alot of us got digital cameras for Christmas this year. Mil-TowN, myself, and now you too!

Sorry to hear about that pic CG, maybe next time. I've seen some pics of downtown from a plane before. If I can find them again I will post them.

I found those pics. They should look similar to how your pictures would've turned out CG.


The first picture I've shown once before but the other two are
new but not as good.

http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/17748819moxhpnwpcm_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/2659211fdkrxeigke_ph.jpg
http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/paule17/2659215cniwywdyaa_ph.jpg

Here we go people! Here's an article suggesting evidence that the office space in Milwaukee will become in demand in the near and far future! Everthing we all been talking about here with Milwaukee improveing and talking about a Milwaukee renaissance may actually become in full bloom! This is exciting!
http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec02/107275.asp

I'm in a hurry right now and have to go so I'll post back latter for more in depth opinions.

Great article Paule...by looking at that first airial pic, it looks like our downtown has a rectangular shape, doesn't it?

_I-94________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I 43 _ _
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
Third Ward l Downtown l Eastside
l l
l l
l l
l l
/ l
794______/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ok, it looked fine before i posted it. lol. oh well, i tried.