Green Bay Development News

[Nativist]

Maybe it will be the site of our future bushville!

[Puant]

Originally Posted by Night Rider

If the city wouldn't have bought Younkers out of their lease, would the store have continued to have been open for a few more years (i'm guessing no)? What is the worse that could have happened if they let it alone? It's not like they had a developer sitting ready with a sledgehammer on a new project. Obviously we know what the negatives are of buying out the lease...10 + million loss, no store, huge crater in ground, no body paying taxes on the property, attorney fees...etc. I must be missing something! But without all the facts to me it seems like a HUGE blunder. Please fill me in.
Thanks

Bad timing.

Missed opportunities earlier on. It was clear the mall was dying by 1999-2000 yet they tried to hang on, sell to local investors, turn into a mixed use commons, etc...and by then the new Younkers had opened in Ashwaubenon and the writing was on the wall.

Had they cut ties with the mall and Younkers and got the whole thing started in about 2000-2002 I think Astor and the other projects would have gotten off the ground in the ripe market.

I hate to beat this dead horse even more, I'm ready to just move on. There is no way in hell that these local investors will help with the financing for Astor, especially not after this stock market bomb. Lending has tightened up even more now. We might as well not ever mention Astor Place again in this thread. Ever. It's over. Let's move on.

[MattGiguere]

Got a chance to read the Richard Ryman column today in response to the Downtown Green Bay survey. And let me say I appreciated it, it was a nice, positive addition to the hope for downtown. But I just wanted to make one minor critique, not of the article, but rather it's presentation. As I was reading it online I found it rather fitting that right next to the statement '"The thing I keep learning and seeing is Green Bay has the amenities people are talking about. We don't market them well," Weiss said, who, having lived in Madison, has a basis for comparison.' there was an advertisement for downtown Wisconsin Dells. I realize that this is pure coincidence as the ad changes every time the page is refreshed. But, would it hurt to at least include in the article a little snip-it about "Better By The Bay." Again just a minor point, but I felt obligated to point it out.

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Night Rider

If the city wouldn't have bought Younkers out of their lease, would the store have continued to have been open for a few more years (i'm guessing no)?

Well, IIRC, Younker's was locked into a lease on that site for a few more years (the number five comes to mind, but I don't know if that was right at all), so unless they wanted to pay to lease a vacant property, they would have had to operate a store (and if they had left, that would have been worse because the owner could just let it sit vacant and still collect the rent). So the city took control of the building and got Younker's out of the lease to free up the site. This is what the lawsuit has been about all along, the former owners we're suing the city, they were suing Saks in relation to the lease being broken (or something like that). Buying the Boston Store property from Saks so that it could become Baylake Bank was part of this as well.

So, I think the city had the right idea to try to begin working on that failing mall and trying to get something happening. And it's not as though nothing improved as a result, because of the improvement to the Boston Store site and the people that's brought downtown. Where the city screwed up was in taking responsibility for any legal judgments against Saks for leaving their lease at the Younker's site. That makes little sense to me, other than the city allowed themselves to be duped by Saks who knew this would be coming.

Originally Posted by Puant

I hate to beat this dead horse even more, I'm ready to just move on. There is no way in hell that these local investors will help with the financing for Astor, especially not after this stock market bomb. Lending has tightened up even more now. We might as well not ever mention Astor Place again in this thread. Ever. It's over. Let's move on.

Well, the stock market has no-so-much to do with it. That's more to do with herd mentality than anything. Credit's the real problem, and I think that will begin to improve as the Fed begins to use their new powers (whatever you think of all that) to restore confidence that it's safe to lend. In the same way, the market going up 11% today isn't going to suddenly make credit available either.

But to your larger point, that (improved access to credit) may not come in time to save Astor. Depends on how long the city wants to give Vetter. At this point, I'd be skeptical that any developer's going to be able to finance a project on that site. Obviously, the fact that this didn't get done years ago doesn't inspire confidence that it's suddenly going to happen now (nor does that parking lot!), but we'll see.

[Chicagoenvy]

There are a million things that could be done with the Astor site. The Astor project isn't even that great....the longer this goes on I start to think the building is kinda ugly.

To be so hung up on this is stupid.

It didn't work...fine...move on.

I'd like to see some retial there still...the whole market place concept or whatever it was.....some civic space....some mainstream stores,etc.....you could still do a 3 level glass 'box' of sorts....a mall but not a mall sort of deal and then maybe another 3 levels of apartments or a hotel perhaps.

It could still end up being the tallest structure on the strip there and then really go bonkers on site 4 with the 'signature' tower.

I agree...Astors ship has sailed and we missed it.....but that site need not continue to be a black hole.

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Chicagoenvy

There are a million things that could be done with the Astor site... It didn't work...fine...move on.

I'd like to see some retail there still...the whole market place concept or whatever it was.....some civic space....some mainstream stores,etc.....you could still do a 3 level glass 'box' of sorts....a mall but not a mall sort of deal and then maybe another 3 levels of apartments or a hotel perhaps...

I agree in principle with what you're saying. There's nothing magical about the 17 floors, and while I wouldn't kick Vetter to the curb, at this point I don't see why he shouldn't compete to see what's the best/most viable project for that site. At the same time, I'm curious by what you mean by "mainstream stores." I take it to mean places like what you'd find in any mall (The Gap, etc.). Am I reading you right?

[jerkylips999]

here's something I've been thinking about lately.. Most of the plans/suggestions/ideas that we've seen & heard have centered around one theme--the "signature" building or buildings, should be on the river. The mall site may get some 5-10 story buildings at some point, but in general that area would be smaller scale.

If the tallest buildings downtown are on the river, nothing else downtown will have a view of the river, theoretically (on the east side, at least).

As a long-term plan, would it make more sense to plan some of the larger scale, taller buildings back toward the mall site with something more like 5-7 story buildings along the river? That would seem to preserve the view of the river for more of the downtown area rather than....ahem....blow the wad on the strip right on Washington Street.

Thoughts?

[titletown]

Looks like T Wall got an extension for yet another 2 more months. Also they said on Fox 11 (Uverse ha! ) that the boardwalk will start later this year. I am just wondering if I disappear and get stranded on a deserted island and come back 5 years from now I really will not miss much as far as downtown goes. I just about had it. I have been a member of this site for 3 years now and they are still dilly dallying around. Talk about a non progressive city.

[hckystr42]

I wonder if the City Deck delays have anything to do with Guy Zima's complaints. There was another clip on Fox 11's website from last week that has him being quite upset about this still and trying to have it stopped. The city council is waiting until the next meeting, later this month, to here is reasoning.

I thought whoever it was in this thread that was interested in leasing space from T-Wall said that at least one of the buildings T-wall was proposing was completely leased already and that he was ahead of schedule with everything?

I'm with you though Titletown, this is getting rediculous how nothing is getting accomplish. Yes times are tough, but some of these plans have been in the works for years. Then again I guess this is what we should come to expect. It only took them 3 years to start construction on some retail space in a parking ramp. How long will we have to wait to have a 10+ story building?

[Justinsane]

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=9179384

This story sounds promising....i just hope that it is actually going somewhere...i cant wait for the City Deck to be done...i think it will be a great addition to downtown

[Puant]

OK the street grid is going back into the mall. Those streets, presumably, would be public streets maintained by the city. So why doesn't the city just go in and put the streets through right now? Oh yeah, there's no money. Anyone know how much money it would cost to raze the mall? What if we all chipped in? Some Saturday, let's all gather together whatever sledgehammers, jackhammers, skidsteers, excavators and whatnot that we can rally and let's go take care of it ourselves. It'd be fun, we could all release a lot of pent-up frustration, get some exercise, and bond.

OK I'm being facetious.

But my point is, I still don't understand why we need to wait for one single developer (like T Wall) to come up with a plan to fill that whole mall site at once, or even in phases.. Why just 1 developer?. How many new city blocks would there be again? This old mall is a huge footprint--something like 20 Bellin Buildings would fit here even with streets.

Can we please just dismantle the mall, put the street through, and sell off the new parcels at smaller increments? I don't even care if they're empty parcels for a while, it would be better than the mall and at least we'd be able to drive and of course walk on the new streets between things like the convention center and the rest of downtown, right away. Heck, maybe we could even park on the empty parcels until the smaller developers come along. But, I suppose that's just me being crazy again....whacking the dead old horse.

[Green Bay roots]

it is better to have it all under one developer because there is then one vision, one contact for the ENTIRE site, and only one contract the city has to deal with. right now in omaha nebraska, there is a 4 block radius that is being redeveloped by just one group of 4-5 investors and that have a contract with one general contractor. it is a 250 million dollar redevelopment site and everything is just flying. as fast as they are putting it up, they are getting leasers. i think they had just signed another hotel and the site is only half complete. i don't know why that seems to be going so fast and everything in GB seems to stammer but o well. it happens i guess and most of us have learned to live with it because of the original relics that still live there. anyway the site in omaha is called Midtown crossing. here is the site address: http://www.midtowncrossing.com/index.html

[Jschmuck]

Howdy, i just got back from Texas, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Georgia, and then Indiana. Now lets see if i can contribute - just found this this morning...

hope the link works... http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...810150698/1978

[Danillo]

Did you guys see the renderings they showed on Channel 2 for the mall site???? PUANTS!!!!! Bet you never guess those would have such legs!

[Night Rider]

"City Attorney Allison Swanson said groundbreaking for The CityDeck boardwalk will be within the next two weeks, pending Gov. Jim Doyle's schedule."

Please tell me we are not waiting for him so he can be present for the groundbreaking! I think all the guy does is go around the state and get camera time for money he dishes out.


Authority member Alderman Tom Weber said city taxes are not paying for the project.

"This has no impact whatsoever on our tax levy," he said.

The project is being paid for by state and federal grants, private donations and tax-increment finance district money.

How nice, our city tax levy will remain the same, only our federal & state taxes are affected!

[Justinsane]

when i saw the renderings on WBAY i nearly soiled myself....Puant, maybe you should make a proposal to the city.....something may get going then

[honest86]

When was green bay added to google street view?

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by jerkylips999

As a long-term plan, would it make more sense to plan some of the larger scale, taller buildings back toward the mall site with something more like 5-7 story buildings along the river? That would seem to preserve the view of the river for more of the downtown area rather than....ahem....blow the wad on the strip right on Washington Street.

Thoughts?

I've thought of this too. I'm not sure. I think that sites 1 and 4 need to be fairly substantial buildings. The properties along the river are the most valuable, and as such the best opportunity to concentrate the greatest value. Also, a river being what it is, once you get up to a certain height is having a river view really that big of a deal? I mean, let's say you are 20 floors up, looking across the river you won't see the river unless your looking straight down, and any views up and down the river won't be affected in the same way by taller buildings along the river. I'm just not sure anything important would be blocked.

At the same time, for the perspective of having an appealing skyline, I don't think you'd want a wall of tall buildings along the river and nothing behind that. Standing on the west side of the river, it would look nicer to have the skyline sort of step back a bit. That said, I think there are many factors in developing the city that are much more important than trying to plan for a nice skyline at this point, and I think these would have to be taken care of to make the land values high enough to support taller buildings away from the river.

Originally Posted by Puant

I still don't understand why we need to wait for one single developer (like T Wall) to come up with a plan to fill that whole mall site at once, or even in phases.. Why just 1 developer?.... Can we please just dismantle the mall, put the street through, and sell off the new parcels at smaller increments?

I couldn't agree more. Problem is, this would cost money. Personally I believe that cities should invest in future growth, and the city is going to pay to take the mall down whether it's upfront or through TIF dollars to a developer (the difference is that the TIF way secures development first and as such is less risky). But the reality is that the city council is still fighting over whether or not to go ahead with the CityDeck even though it's not placing any burden on the property tax payers!

I have no doubt that the best thing would be to do as you say, not only because it would make for smaller sites and less tricky development which should get things going sooner, but also because I believe the final product would be more diverse, sustainable, urban, and just plain better. The reality is that this city just won't spend money to do that. There are a lot of great things about Green Bay that make it a great area to live, but this ain't one of them.

Originally Posted by Night Rider

Please tell me we are not waiting for him so he can be present for the groundbreaking!

Well, it looked to me last weekend like they had already started with the CityDeck. Not actual construction, but the area is fenced off and the portion of the trail in front of Nicolet Bank had been torn out. So I think they are already working to get the site ready, and that the groundbreaking ceremony is just a formality.

[Puant]

Originally Posted by Danillo

Did you guys see the renderings they showed on Channel 2 for the mall site???? PUANTS!!!!! Bet you never guess those would have such legs!

Shoot, I didn't even know that my old web site was still up & running. It was fun to think about, but not realistic. I don't even agree with the concept anymore myself, even with the 3-4 parcels I left to be developed at smaller increments.

Originally Posted by honest86

When was green bay added to google street view?

Just recently, maybe a month or two ago.

Originally Posted by Danillo

I couldn't agree more. Problem is, this would cost money. Personally I believe that cities should invest in future growth, and the city is going to pay to take the mall down whether it's upfront or through TIF dollars to a developer (the difference is that the TIF way secures development first and as such is less risky). But the reality is that the city council is still fighting over whether or not to go ahead with the CityDeck even though it's not placing any burden on the property tax payers!

I have no doubt that the best thing would be to do as you say, not only because it would make for smaller sites and less tricky development which should get things going sooner, but also because I believe the final product would be more diverse, sustainable, urban, and just plain better. The reality is that this city just won't spend money to do that. There are a lot of great things about Green Bay that make it a great area to live, but this ain't one of them.
.

Again, I'm sure we'd all chip in to take the mall down. We all have pent up frustration over that thing and the whole downtown. WE could probably smash that thing down in a matter of days. I'll bring the explosives & beer.

But seriously...

Well all right, the alternative is to sit and wait. Wait for what? For a single developer to come along with the perfect plan and all the financing in the world? If this is the approach, we're going to be looking at this empty old mall for many years to come.

It's not even that this old mall is bad to look at (though I'd say the old dumpster loading area along N Adams and the 'wall of plywood' along Washington Ave are hideous). What's worse, the dead mall as a barrier dividing key places on Main St like the Convention Center, Hotel Sierra, Regency from the rest of the downtown prevents other key activities and connections from taking place. THis to me is even more unacceptable than the hideousness.

Put the streets in. If some smaller developments fill in the site they'll start actually start generating a little bit of tax revenue and vitality to the site. This and maybe a little bit of revenue from the temporary parking lots (as much as I hate parking lots) might recoup some of the money invested on the new street grid.

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Puant

Well all right, the alternative is to sit and wait. Wait for what? For a single developer to come along with the perfect plan and all the financing in the world? If this is the approach, we're going to be looking at this empty old mall for many years to come.

Look, you may think they should take down the mall, and I may think they should take down the mall, but they ain't gonna take down the mall unless there's a developer ready to fill the space back in, or at least enough of it to offset the cost of the mall's removal. I don't like it any more that you do, and I think it's hurting city finances in the long term, and hurting growth in the short and long term, but it just is.

The only possible alternative I could see, and it would have to be in a better economy because they aren't going to spend 2 cents to take the mall down right now, would be if they had all the plans set and parceled out the land, but didn't actually take the mall down until a Nicolet Bank sized development came along. The mall at its end was, I believe, valued at about $4 million. Now it is valued at zero. Nicolet Bank is a $12 million building. So the tax from a $12 million property isn't, I don't think, going to pay to have the mall taken down and the roads put through, but in the right climate I can conceive of Green Bay being willing to pay to clear the site if a building of that value was certain to follow. And really, a building of that size would leave a lot of the site left.

Now, there's some chance that through the phased idea of what T Wall would theoretically do, that something like what I've described will be exactly what does happen.