Milwaukee Development News

[NeuBrew]

Originally Posted by CGII

So apparently there is a rumour that Ruvin's project for the parcel that includes the Sydney Hih and Gipfel Brewery has fallen through.

That would be a terrible blow to the Park East. That was the project I was most looking forward too. The city needs to step in and assist this one if true.

-----

On another note, that Chase parking garage proposal looks like set design for a trippy low-budget movie about an alternate-future Mayan metropolis thriller. Is it strange that I can picture some sort of crappy actor like Jake Busey holding a glowing orb at the top of that building and screaming to the gods?

In other words, bleh!

[brewcityfan]

Originally Posted by NeuBrew

That would be a terrible blow to the Park East. That was the project I was most looking forward too. The city needs to step in and assist this one if true.

Good luck with that. Ruvin wanted perhaps a TIF, which apparently the city doesn't want to hand out TIFs. TIFs have been a very unpopular topic on this thread as well.

Mr. Marcus has led the way against new hotels in downtown Milwaukee, especially those hotels that are direct competition to his: InterContinental, Pfister, and Hilton. The Kimpton would have been direct competition with the InterContinental.

[Twoaday]

brew> This had very little to do with Marcus corp. This had everything to do with the fact the city has already spent 20 million on infrastructure for the Park East. Further the downtown market study backed up DCDs belief that TIFing the Park East was un-needed and/or not deservered. i.e. the Park East land should sell itself. The study did also mention other hotel locations that may require/deserve a TIF so clearly if the city supports those projects we will be able to drop this "its Marcus Corps fault"? stuff and realize that not all projects deserve/require a TIF?

Ruvin knew the deal and thought they could play politics via the media to put pressure on to get a handout.

[DooMer_MP3]

The hilarity of Park East continues.

[brewcityfan]

After what I'm seeing in little Franklin, WI - I wouldn't be at all surprised if studies are influenced by big names like Mr. Marcus.

[NeuBrew]

I guess I viewed the TIF differently on the Ruvin proposal because it included historic preservation of the Gipfel and Sidney Hih.

[Twoaday]

Doom> help me here what's so funny? Lets see has taking down the freeway helped the North End become developable? yes (currently under demolition), help spur interest in redeveloping the Pabst? hell yea... make the Staybridge lots more appealing to be developed... yes... And of course the FlatIron is almost done. The Park East is a HUGE amount of land to become available in a city so its going to take awhile to develop...

Further after removing an ugly freeway spur weren't we supposed to see congestion hell? And the death of downtown business? Gee neither happened... Now that's funny.

[brewcityfan]

I honestly don't see why small projects such as the FlatIron are praised so much. The Milwaukee condo market is still going strong, yet developers choose to build such small buildings even outside of the Third Ward. For example, what's with those condos/apartments along the Milwaukee River on what? State or Highland? I mean, tacky, small, and not very downtownish. Then you have FlatIron, which is what? 6 stories? The North End will be what? 10 stories??

I mean, it's very unimpressive - especially along a big attractive river called the Milwaukee River. I don't know, perhaps that's what is so funny about this - you got all these open parcels of land that downtown Chicago would looove to have, and what do we get? Proposals that sprawl out one single building and only about 20 stories tops.

[MilwaukeeMark]

Originally Posted by brewcityfan

I honestly don't see why small projects such as the FlatIron are praised so much. The Milwaukee condo market is still going strong, yet developers choose to build such small buildings even outside of the Third Ward. For example, what's with those condos/apartments along the Milwaukee River on what? State or Highland? I mean, tacky, small, and not very downtownish. Then you have FlatIron, which is what? 6 stories? The North End will be what? 10 stories??

I mean, it's very unimpressive - especially along a big attractive river called the Milwaukee River. I don't know, perhaps that's what is so funny about this - you got all these open parcels of land that downtown Chicago would looove to have, and what do we get? Proposals that sprawl out one single building and only about 20 stories tops.

amen.

[MilwaukeeD]

Originally Posted by brewcityfan

For example, what's with those condos/apartments along the Milwaukee River on what? State or Highland? I mean, tacky, small, and not very downtownish.

Those were built in the 80's and downtown was desperate for anything at the time. No one would ever rebuild those today.

Hmm....why is downtown Chicago such an attractive place to be? I bet transit has nothing to do with it...

You see, in Milwaukee, when you build a 20 story building, you need to build a 500-1,000-car parking garage along with it. Which makes it infeasible to do without subsidy.

I don't support transit because I like choo-choo trains. I support it because we could have a lot more development if we started acting like the big city we all want Milwaukee to become.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by brewcityfan

I honestly don't see why small projects such as the FlatIron are praised so much. The Milwaukee condo market is still going strong, yet developers choose to build such small buildings even outside of the Third Ward. For example, what's with those condos/apartments along the Milwaukee River on what? State or Highland? I mean, tacky, small, and not very downtownish. Then you have FlatIron, which is what? 6 stories? The North End will be what? 10 stories??

I mean, it's very unimpressive - especially along a big attractive river called the Milwaukee River. I don't know, perhaps that's what is so funny about this - you got all these open parcels of land that downtown Chicago would looove to have, and what do we get? Proposals that sprawl out one single building and only about 20 stories tops.

Eh? Building big doesn't necessarily mean 'building higher than 20 floors,' if that's what you mean. I never imagined I'd hear of someone complaining that the North End wasn't daring to be big enough:

http://www.mandelgroup.com/condomini...ail.cfm?c_id=8

[DooMer_MP3]

Originally Posted by Twoaday

Doom> help me here what's so funny? Lets see has taking down the freeway helped the North End become developable? yes (currently under demolition), help spur interest in redeveloping the Pabst? hell yea... make the Staybridge lots more appealing to be developed... yes... And of course the FlatIron is almost done. The Park East is a HUGE amount of land to become available in a city so its going to take awhile to develop...

Further after removing an ugly freeway spur weren't we supposed to see congestion hell? And the death of downtown business? Gee neither happened... Now that's funny.

To me, the hilarity is - You have these developers who purchase parcels and come up with fantastic proposals, without the slightest hint of asking for a TIF. Once approved, they ask for TIFs that I now understand shouldn't be awarded just for the sake of being awarded. Then the project goes defunct or gets immensely scaled back.

The North End is a fantastic development to me, BTW. Its good to see its moving along. The demolition seems to have gone full steam ahead in recent weeks.

[Twoaday]

doomer_mp3> Both Ruvin and RSC were fully aware of DCDs stance on TIFing the Park East they both just tried to play politics thru the media. Further I believe the only approvals they've gotten were an option to buy the land from the County.

Finally RSCs proposal was far from "fantastic". yippie Krispe Kreme NOT!

[brewcityfan]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMark

amen.

Thanks for the confidence vote!

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeD

Those were built in the 80's and downtown was desperate for anything at the time. No one would ever rebuild those today.

Hmm....why is downtown Chicago such an attractive place to be? I bet transit has nothing to do with it...

You see, in Milwaukee, when you build a 20 story building, you need to build a 500-1,000-car parking garage along with it. Which makes it infeasible to do without subsidy.

I don't support transit because I like choo-choo trains. I support it because we could have a lot more development if we started acting like the big city we all want Milwaukee to become.

If you keep talking transit, MilwaukeeD, you're sooner or later going to become part of the train! The point of downtown Chicago was, on those parcels of land available in the Park East corridor, you could easily fit the John Hancock Tower and Water Tower Place on a single square block! But no, what do we have? Some measily 20-story job that will only be seen if you perhaps come from I-43 N. I mean, all this land for what? Squat??

Hey, I agree that transit is big, but if Kilbourn and UCT can do it next to each other...on a smaller parcel of land than the majority of the Park East...then what's going on here?

Originally Posted by CGII

Eh? Building big doesn't necessarily mean 'building higher than 20 floors,' if that's what you mean. I never imagined I'd hear of someone complaining that the North End wasn't daring to be big enough:

http://www.mandelgroup.com/condomini...ail.cfm?c_id=8

CGII - I love the Mandel project, don't get me wrong there. I clap my hands for them! However, once Mandel is done with The North End, it's gonna be there for how long? 100 years perhaps?? before it gets redone into something else. The Milwaukee River is gaining in popularity by the week. I mean, wasn't that MLG who proposed that 30+ story tower on Water and McKinley...right next to The North End? That's what Milwaukee needs, not a bunch of smaller buildings. What tops it off is, The North End is mostly residential, correct? Residential is hot HOT in Milwaukee - they could have easily sold units, IMO, if they would have built taller on that parcel. The River just almost secures that.

Originally Posted by Twoaday

doomer_mp3> Both Ruvin and RSC were fully aware of DCDs stance on TIFing the Park East they both just tried to play politics thru the media. Further I believe the only approvals they've gotten were an option to buy the land from the County.

Finally RSCs proposal was far from "fantastic". yippie Krispe Kreme NOT!

Hey, not saying it was fantastic here, but at least it was a decent sized building. Oh, and Krispy Kreme....I mean even Downtown Chicago has those! You need some quickie fast food joints downtown as well as higher end bistros. Wasn't RSC saying Hyde Park Steakhouse might be a tenant as well?

[DooMer_MP3]

Originally Posted by brewcityfan

CGII - I love the Mandel project, don't get me wrong there. I clap my hands for them! However, once Mandel is done with The North End, it's gonna be there for how long? 100 years perhaps?? before it gets redone into something else. The Milwaukee River is gaining in popularity by the week. I mean, wasn't that MLG who proposed that 30+ story tower on Water and McKinley...right next to The North End? That's what Milwaukee needs, not a bunch of smaller buildings. What tops it off is, The North End is mostly residential, correct? Residential is hot HOT in Milwaukee - they could have easily sold units, IMO, if they would have built taller on that parcel. The River just almost secures that.

Hey, not saying it was fantastic here, but at least it was a decent sized building. Oh, and Krispy Kreme....I mean even Downtown Chicago has those! You need some quickie fast food joints downtown as well as higher end bistros. Wasn't RSC saying Hyde Park Steakhouse might be a tenant as well?

Fully expecting the wrath of Skyking2 here, I will say that I don't think Park East's success will depend on > 20 story buildings. I see nothing wrong with the soft-limit of 20 stories in the Park East area. Density is going to be key there. The North End seems like a dense, well thought out development. Who's to say it will last only 100 years? There are quite a few parcels of land still available in the CBD and immediate areas of it for highrise development.

As for the RSC development, I really didn't see much wrong with it either. Condos, apartments, retail, restaurants... Krispy Kreme was but a name in a long list, not a certain.

[CGII]

I think it might be just a bit rash to be designing buildings for 100 years ahead of us, right now. Do you think the developers responsible for Wisconsin Gas would have proposed 80 additional floors just because of a notion that it might not be up to par with its modern neighbours and demand a century down the road? Let's design our buildings for the present and forseeable future, please.

[MilwaukeeD]

Originally Posted by brewcityfan

Hey, I agree that transit is big, but if Kilbourn and UCT can do it next to each other...on a smaller parcel of land than the majority of the Park East...then what's going on here?

Kilbourn Tower and UTC both have lake and Calatrava views. The Park East has neither. In addition, both are filled with condos around $1 million and up. Milwaukee doesn't have enough people with that kind of money to fill up too many more towers...and the Park East is the last place most wealthy people would want to live in...they would generally pick lake views or something along the river. Finally, both of those towers only have somewhere around 45-50 units, which means there are a LOT less parking spaces needed.

A 30-story tower with regular-sized units would require several hundred parking spaces. Just look at Park Lafayette...they were digging a hole for about 8 months to fit all of their parking in. Until transit is a viable option in Milwaukee, particularly to and from downtown, we will not see the type of development that we all want to see (without massive subsidy). Chicago has a vibrant downtown because I would venture to guess that half of the people arrive there through some form of mass transit, thus creating pedestrian activity and allowing larger towers to be built without providing as much parking.

[Twoaday]

Agreed MilwaukeeD people just don't understand how the lack of transit in Milwaukee is one of the factors that limits the height and density of ANY project built. Also some seem to think if you wave a magic wand (or give them a TIF) somebody will build like 10 40 storey towers along the river and somehow they will be profitable. But the reality is to build tall towers in Milwaukee you have to go with very high pricepoints (partially due to the parking situation) and then unfortunately you actually end up with fairly low density like Kilbourn Tower and UCT. They look great but don't add a whole lot to the vibrancy of the neighborhood due to the limited numbers of units per floor.

Further RSC was a glorified strip mall who never had a Flag, never had any of the big tenants they claimed to have and wanted the City to TIF them when the public would recieved no public good in return... aka a street a riverwalk a park.

[Robman2k]

you know, despite the obvious lack of height on the wisconsin gas building, i still think its one of my favorite buildings in the city. I still cant help imagining how great it would look if it were 40-50 storys though.

[brewcityfan]

Originally Posted by CGII

I think it might be just a bit rash to be designing buildings for 100 years ahead of us, right now. Do you think the developers responsible for Wisconsin Gas would have proposed 80 additional floors just because of a notion that it might not be up to par with its modern neighbours and demand a century down the road? Let's design our buildings for the present and forseeable future, please.

Hey, I am talking about the forseeable future. I think the great discounting of Milwaukee currently is the Milwaukee River. For that, read after the next quote. Concerning your Wisconsin Gas example....they built according to the demand of what's inside the building. Currently, there's much demand for downtown residential units. It's not like we're biting tooth and nail to land one condo owner.

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeD

Kilbourn Tower and UTC both have lake and Calatrava views. The Park East has neither. In addition, both are filled with condos around $1 million and up. Milwaukee doesn't have enough people with that kind of money to fill up too many more towers...and the Park East is the last place most wealthy people would want to live in...they would generally pick lake views or something along the river. Finally, both of those towers only have somewhere around 45-50 units, which means there are a LOT less parking spaces needed.

A 30-story tower with regular-sized units would require several hundred parking spaces. Just look at Park Lafayette...they were digging a hole for about 8 months to fit all of their parking in. Until transit is a viable option in Milwaukee, particularly to and from downtown, we will not see the type of development that we all want to see (without massive subsidy). Chicago has a vibrant downtown because I would venture to guess that half of the people arrive there through some form of mass transit, thus creating pedestrian activity and allowing larger towers to be built without providing as much parking.

OK - using your UCT/KT example, who's to say that a building with similar indoor layouts wouldn't work in the Park East? You bypassed but then hit on it - the Milwaukee River will be a great view. There's also residents who would like a high rise perspective in their living, more so than perhaps a lake view or a view of MAM. I also say, don't underestimate the wealth of our neighbors to the south. Milwaukeeians naturally underestimate Chicagoans, even up to today. It truly frustrates me! You got the 2nd wealthiest county in America, Cook County, less than an hour's drive away, but yet we follow the philosophy of "let's not market there!" or "c'mon, we don't have THAT many millionaires!" YES WE DO! The Chicago market is more tuned into Milwaukee events and sights ever since MAM got the Calatrava. You see the Third Ward condos selling like hot cakes particularly in thanks to Chicagoans buying not one, but two condos (one for them, one to rent).

Once again, I will say yes to getting different transit options, but I still see potential even without the transit link. The Moderne is what? 30 stories?? and apparently doesn't need it. Once again, if a UCT/KT designed building plopped there, I don't think there would be a transit disaster lurking in the shadows.

Originally Posted by Twoaday

Agreed MilwaukeeD people just don't understand how the lack of transit in Milwaukee is one of the factors that limits the height and density of ANY project built. Also some seem to think if you wave a magic wand (or give them a TIF) somebody will build like 10 40 storey towers along the river and somehow they will be profitable. But the reality is to build tall towers in Milwaukee you have to go with very high pricepoints (partially due to the parking situation) and then unfortunately you actually end up with fairly low density like Kilbourn Tower and UCT. They look great but don't add a whole lot to the vibrancy of the neighborhood due to the limited numbers of units per floor.

Further RSC was a glorified strip mall who never had a Flag, never had any of the big tenants they claimed to have and wanted the City to TIF them when the public would recieved no public good in return... aka a street a riverwalk a park.

Great, well I'm glad some of you decided to become the know-it-alls for transit, but I'm sure others do get the drift, as I do, that yeah...transit is necessary. Also, did anyone say "Let's wave the magic TIF wand!"? Please show me if someone did! And funny enough, it sounds like you're extremely unsatisfied with UCT and KT because of density.... Perhaps we need to calm down about density and start looking at better ways of making our downtown look more attractive to outsiders, which UCT and KT currently have done.

As for RSC, you're fine to have your opinion. I think we established the respectful "agree to disagree" stance a while back. I just think you know the developer personally and hate him or something. It's not that ridiculously out of whack with other downtown developments. We don't know what they had planned for the site, when you think about it. We never really gave them the chance. All the guy did was name off some POSSIBLE tenants, some extremely interested tenants, but I don't think it was finalized to the point of him telling the city, "Yeah, this is what you'll get when you approve my TIF!" I also say downtown needs variety - stores like that need to be downtown as well as high end.