Park East Development Inching Forward

Here’s a good example of the failure of a command economy.

The long-stalled Park East Square project, which Chicago developer Richard Curto wants to build on a vacant lot his firm bought from Milwaukee County, may be moving forward with the sale of a $30 million bond.

The city Redevelopment Authority is scheduled to consider the bond sale at its Thursday meeting, according to the agency’s newly issued agenda.

Curto and his partners would be responsible for paying off the debt raised by selling the bonds to investors. This proposal does not involve a city loan to Curto, but because the bonds are issued under the Redevelopment Authority’s name, they are tax-exempt. That allows Curto to borrow the money at a lower interest rate.

Curto’s firm, RSC & Associates, bought 2 acres bordered by N. Milwaukee, N. Jefferson and E. Lyon streets and E. Ogden Ave. from Milwaukee County in December 2007. RSC paid $2,725,000 for the lot, the only Park East parcel sold by the county so far.

For a bit of history, the Park East Freeway was an artery that ran from I-43 to the lakeshore on the north side of Milwaukee.  It was torn down in 2004.  The promise was that it would open up 26 acres of prime development land near downtown.  The real reason was that Milwaukee Mayor Norquist is a big “urban lifestyle” liberal and wanted to make it harder for people to travel out of the city for anything. 

The City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County control the land.  Any chance of real development of the land was hampered when both of these government units decided to impose all sorts of onerous restrictions on any developer who might have wanted the land.  Things like prevailing wages, minority labor requirements, “affordable” housing requirements, etc. made it economically unfeasible for developers to profitably develop the land without handouts from the taxpayers. 

So here we are… five years later… and those 26 acres are a vast moonscape on the north side of downtown.  The original decision to tear down the freeway was based on fantasy projections and idiotic presumptions.  It never should have been torn down.  The over-regulation of any potential developers made any opportunity to fix the mistake highly unlikely. 

I suspect the land will be developed at some point.  It will be years from now after millions of taxpayer dollars are handed out to developers and it will be nothing of the economic boom that was promised. 

1. For a bit of history, the Park East Freeway was an artery that ran from I-43 to the lakeshore

   If you are going to give history lessons you should probably know a little of your subject.  The Park East was never anything that could be considered as vital as “an artery”, and it dead ended into a strip mall, not even close to the lakeshore.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 1839 hrs




2. I guess I didn’t realize that “artery” had such a flamboyant definition.  But to appease you… “the Park East Freeway was spur (is “spur” OK?) that diverted from I-43 toward the lakeshore on the north side of Milwaukee and made it a helluva lot easier to get there than the current configuration.” 

   Better?

   Posted by Owen on November 17, 2009 at 1852 hrs




3. and made it a helluva lot easier to get there than the current configuration 

   Easier to get where?  The grocery store at the strip mall?  It is easier to get to all of the side streets now than it was when that stupid thing was standing.  It is better with it gone. 

   It’s removal has sparked a good chunk of development around the area even if the county and city owned parcels haven’t been developed.  But, I agree that the regulations on those parcels are overly restrictive.

   Miller Park should be standing in the Park East.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 1919 hrs




4. Miller Park should be standing in the Park East.

   Now that, I agree with.

   Posted by Owen on November 17, 2009 at 1933 hrs




5. That Freeway started to get torn down in late 2001 I believe.  This thing has been going longer than five-years.

   The best part are those old buildings they keep hanging onto like that bombed out brewery and the Sidney “High” building, both of which should be demolished. 

   I’ve thought for years that the city could simply turn those into free surface parking lots with bus service and you’d improve the downtown job outlook. 

   But I hope the site stays vacant for a new arena someday.  Belling is correct on his assertion that having the Feds spend $300 million for a new arena there would be real stimulus.  Real brick and mortar.  Real investment.  You may want something different built, but at least an arena would be a lot better than the stimulus waste we’ve endured.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 2046 hrs




6. The brewery building departed this world a week and a half ago, Steve.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 2146 hrs




7. That “artery” was very handy to reach the Upper East side of Milwaukee. Shame they’ve done nothing with it in all this time. Glad I moved.
   It was kind of a craphole, but I have some fond memories of Sidney High. I was a member of a band that practiced in the Western-most building. One of the best practice areas I ever was a part of. Most of the local bands practiced in those buildings. Many of us were good friends and supported one another in the music scene which sadly died out. McGee finally had us booted out. Oh, and surprisingly enough it wasn’t a drug haven. At least in our section.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0032 hrs




8. @Owen The PERC regulations have had little impact on the Park East.  To my knowledge not even one developer has even mentioned them, and the developers have been very vocal about the Park East.  It is possible they are part of the delay, but well the bigger issues are at the County.  First, is parcel size.  This is what really drives the cost of a proposed project sky high, and squeeze out smaller developers.  Second, is two levels of government with conflicting goals.  The County has made deals to sell (or sold options on land) to developers that in some cases had never done a project anywhere near that size (subsequently failed), or simply put put less than quality projects together that conflicted with Park East plan.  To be clear this is the County Board and Walker as their goal is simply to fill a budget hole each year with land sales.

   Further, a little note on the Park East.  When it was originally built land was cleared going east much further than were it actually was built to, as it had been planned to go to the lake front (dear lord).  Anyhow that land, that land which had been cleared is today a pretty nice section of townhomes, and that strip mall as someone mentioned.  Point being is the land will eventually fill in, and that is much more valuable to Milwaukee than having a freeway spur blighting, and limiting development in Milwaukee.  Finally, it is likely the North End, the FlatIron, the Aloft, and even Manpower would not of happened if the Park East still stood.

   You can look at cities around the world and over time the land will fill in, development just takes time.

   Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 0848 hrs




9. @Owen “Milwaukee Mayor Norquist is a big “urban lifestyle” liberal and wanted to make it harder for people to travel out of the city for anything. ”  Ridiculous, as someone who actually lives in the city, and in this very area it is still amazingly easy to travel out of the city for anything from downtown.  Amazingly easy..  Mayor Norquist wanted to add tax base, and a new neighborhood to Milwaukee, it will take time but it will build out.

   Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 0855 hrs




10. Ridiculous, as someone who actually lives in the city, and in this very area it is still amazingly easy to travel out of the city for anything from downtown.  Amazingly easy..  Mayor Norquist wanted to add tax base, and a new neighborhood to Milwaukee, it will take time but it will build out.

    This from the Congress of New Urbanism, Norquist’s current employer:
       
    John O. Norquist
    President and CEO
    Email: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    John Norquist’s work promoting New Urbanism as an alternative to sprawl and antidote to sprawl’s social and environmental problems draws on his experience as big-city mayor and prominent participant in national discussions on urban design and school reform. John was the Mayor of Milwaukee from 1988-2004. Under his leadership, Milwaukee experienced a decline in poverty, saw a boom in new downtown housing, and became a leading center of education and welfare reform. He oversaw a revision of the city’s zoning code and reoriented development around walkable streets and public amenities such as the city’s 3.1-mile Riverwalk. Named a Governing magazine Public Official of the Year during his tenure as Mayor, he also widespread recognition for championing the removal of a .8 mile stretch of elevated freeway, clearing the way for an anticipated $250 million in infill development in the heart of Milwaukee. At CNU he has joined local activists in numerous cities as a key champion of plans to replace freeways with boulevards. A leader in national discussions of urban design and educational issues, Norquist is the author of The Wealth of Cities, and has taught courses in urban policy and urban planning at the University of Chicago, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Architecture and Urban Planning, and at Marquette University. Norquist served in the Army Reserves from 1971 to 1977, earned his undergraduate and master’s degrees from the University of Wisconsin. He represented Milwaukee’s south and west sides in the Wisconsin Legislature. He chaired the National League of Cities Task Force on Federal Policy and Family Poverty and served on the Amtrak Reform Council. He is married to CNU Board Member Susan Mudd. They have two children, Benjamin and Katherine. A springtime view from John’s office

    To suggest that Norquist was anything other than a new urbanist, focused on doing everything possible to make travel in and out of the city as difficult as possible is ignorance.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0912 hrs




11. Instead of tearing down the freeway they should have connected 145 together with the other “spur” that extends down from the northern suburbs. It would have eliminated the need to expand the freeway on I94 westbound and would have extended the life of the zoo interchange.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0948 hrs




12. To suggest that the label “new urbanist”, is in any way related to “making travel in and out of the city as difficult as possible” is moronic ignorance.

    Uncle Herb should donate the Bucks to the people of the city of Milwaukee and they should put a new arena in the Park East corridor.  Brandon Jennings is going to need a nice place to work for the next 12 years or so.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0953 hrs




13. To suggest that the label “new urbanist”, is in any way related to “making travel in and out of the city as difficult as possible” is moronic ignorance.

    Hmmm…. Name calling with nothing to back it up… Interesting.

    
    Look Here: http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html

    The principles call for much more dense living areas (keep the people in the city). That are conducive to travel by foot (make it more difficult for travel by car) by making streets narrow with buildings close to the street (limiting parking for cars). Creating a heirarchy of boulevards, narrow streets, and alleys (note that freeway system is not at the top of the heirarchy) and green public transportation for longer distance travel (NOT CARS). A network of high-quality trains connecting cities, towns, and neighborhoods together. Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages a greater use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, and walking as daily transportation (NOT CARS).

    Care to make more of an ass of yourself?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1007 hrs




14. The fact of the matter is, that a lot of people (including me) want to live in the country and commute to a business they own in the city. I have just as much a stake in the city (if not more) than the average homeowner there, and more than any renter. I drive every day through (from the north) Milwaukee, and it is pretty clear that the goal with I43 is to limit its possible traffic flow, something that is evidenced everyday between the morning hours of 6 and 9, and the afternoon hours of 4 and 7. Not only is it dangerous, it is not going to convince me to live in a crime infested, filthy city.

    I support the principles of new urbanism, the problem is that city life tends to attract unsavory elements, that tend to break down the ability of the (utopian) new urbanism principles. New urbanism is as likely to work in the future as socialism and communism have been in the past.

    Tearing down the park east may eventually spur some development, the problem is that the justification for tearing it down was that the development would occur right away. Unfortunately the development bubble in Milwaukee occurred on the complete opposite side of downtown, proving that government has horrendous foresight.

    Now the argument is that we need to tear down the Hoan, because it will result in immediate development. All it will result in is another big mud puddle on the opposite side of the city.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1023 hrs




15. @Doug If more people walk, bike, and take transit does that not make it easier to get around for those who wish to drive?  i.e. If I walk or bike instead of drive I’m not using that road or parking spot you want to use.  As far as freeways Norquist likely understands the concepts of induced demand i.e since when do you loosen you belt to lose weight?

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 1031 hrs




16. As far as the Hoan nobody thinks development will happen overnight, but opening up new land in the Third Ward near the lakefront, and downtown is not a bad idea.

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 1036 hrs




17. @Doug If more people walk, bike, and take transit does that not make it easier to get around for those who wish to drive? 

    No, because the other canon’s of new urbanism require that there be fewer “driveable” roadways. Narrow passages (alleys are how they are describe) that are best suited to walking and bicycling are to be the majority of the paved surface, not the wide roadways that we have now. Picture the interior of the Bayshore town center, that is exactly what the target of new urbanism is, only rather than a shopping center, they believe that entire cities should be built as such.

    The goals are to have wide sidewalks and narrow streets… Those who are more inclined to walk are already doing so. Building cities to cater to them will not necessarily promote a greater percentage of people to pound the pavement as their transportation method of choice.

    People want to get from point a to point b as quickly as possible, and until teleportation is invented that means personal transportation (cars) and a well designed freeway system. Once teleportation is developed, I think that the ideals of new urbanism will be much more realistic in achieving their goals.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1200 hrs




18. As far as the Hoan nobody thinks development will happen overnight, but opening up new land in the Third Ward near the lakefront, and downtown is not a bad idea.

    And making travel for the tens or hundreds of thousands of people on the south shore vastly more difficult (especially after we spent hundreds of millions creating that convenient “spur”) is a good idea? Not to mention that you would be tearing down a Milwaukee landmark. I would support using stimulus dollars to replace the Hoan, anyone have Santiago Calatrava’s home number?

    The growth in the third ward was a bubble, there are condo’s there now that have been vacant since the buildings were finished years ago, and more that are unlived in because they were bought on speculation of a boom that was not a boom. There are still dozens of empty (already standing) warehouse and industrial buildings down there, what would be the point of opening up more land? The third ward is lovely, but it’s growth is more than likely over. Anyway, who wants a condo overlooking the waste treatment facility? Lets not even discuss the environmental cleanup costs that would have to be undertaken before any development could be completed down there.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1208 hrs




19. Doug… “urbanism is as likely to work in the future as socialism and communism have been in the past”

    I aplogize for the name calling, but you are being extremely ignorant of the history of human development.

    People always have and always will like living in densely populated areas.  Not all people, but a good percentage of the population.  Cutting up the densely populated areas with freeways for cars is hugely detrimental to the health of those popluated areas.

    The only reason there is a differentiation between “new” and old urbanism is because there was a concerted effort to deurbanize post war America.  Repairing the urban fabric by removing freeways and making it more pedestrian friendly is good for the city and doesn’t “make travel in and out of the city as difficult as possible”.  The removal of the Park East increased the travel time from I43 to the Pick n Save by about a minute, but it is easier to get to points in between the old exits than it was when the free way stood. 

    Every design decision is a trade off.  Removing the freeways that should have never been constructed within our cities is a no-brainer.  It makes the city more livable, but makes it slightly less friendly to those that need to zip through the city.  Those of us that live in the city appreciate it.  Those of you that don’t like the city or live in the city, should keep your nose out of the city.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1250 hrs




20. The original decision to tear down the freeway was based on fantasy projections and idiotic presumptions.  It never should have been torn down.  The over-regulation of any potential developers made any opportunity to fix the mistake highly unlikely.

    Posted by Procerin Reviews on November 18, 2009 at 1300 hrs




21. @Doug Couple of things.  Development in the Third Ward continues today.  Yup today.  Corcoran Lofts and Jackson Square Apartments are under construction now, so development has not stopped (hell Mandel is even slowly selling through the Point on the River).  Interestingly enough buildings like Marine Terminal lofts (which can see the sewage plant) are both full and very expensive. 

    The Hoan would be replaced with a different bridge, so travel times wouldn’t be impact to and from downtown significantly.  The key is really landing it earlier to open the land in the Third Ward.

    “Not to mention that you would be tearing down a Milwaukee landmark.”  There are bridges that are look a lot like the Hoan all over the world, just saw one in Portland. OR

    “Anyway, who wants a condo overlooking the waste treatment facility? ”  Ummm the land in the Third Ward that could be opened up by this wouldn’t overlook the waste treatment facility it would overlook the Milwaukee Art Museum (well closer), and as I point out those units near the plant have already sold and are very expensive.

    “Lets not even discuss the environmental cleanup costs that would have to be undertaken before any development could be completed down there.”  Ummm most of the Third Ward has had to do environmental cleanup (or design for it like Corcoran Lofts did), still development has marched on.

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 1418 hrs




22. I guess I question 3rd Way’s comment about those who don’t like the city should keep their nose out of the city. 

    Can we do that for tax purposes (federal, state, local)?  Withhold taxes from the city if we agree to stay outside it?  I mean seriously, let’s look at where so much of our tax revenue flows to.  The City of Milwaukee.  And I’m guessing a lot of that is paid for by residents outside Milwaukee and business both in and out of Milwaukee. (business that needs an ability to allow its workers to easily get to their offices via highway spurs)

    I’m not really sure why we can’t have an 8-10 lane freeway that cuts through Milwaukee to help commerce in this State.  And why said Freeway can’t have two spurs on the North and South side to run to at least within 6 blocks of the Lakefront. 

    The problems with a decaying city lie in other areas than just having some freeway spurs that psychologically “separate” certain business districts.

    Part of this new urbanism seems to me to be class warfare politics.  i.e. Because you suburbanites don’t share our political and social values, we’re going to make it tough for you to do business in our city out of spite.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1418 hrs




23. Those of you that don’t like the city or live in the city, should keep your nose out of the city.

    I own a business in it, which provides several jobs in the community, and I pay property taxes in excess of $20,000.00/yr. to that city/county/school board/technical college.

    Let me ask you, since you have named yourself king of Milwaukee, DO I HAVE A SAY?

    Cutting up the densely populated areas with freeways for cars is hugely detrimental to the health of those popluated areas.

    Tell the potential customers of the future condos at Pabst and/or the Moderne that the freeway separating their half million dollar investments from the worst neighborhood in the city should be integrated with said neighborhood. Those’ll sell nicely…

    You can try and argue (as did Bob Greenstreet when I was an architecture student) that the freeway system is what caused those neighborhoods to degrade, but if you believe that you are delusional.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1432 hrs




24. I mean seriously, let’s look at where so much of our tax revenue flows to.  The City of Milwaukee.

    Does anyone have data on that?

    I would like to see these statistics that show how Milwaukee drains far more resources than it creates.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1457 hrs




25. I am not saying that it doesn’t.  I don’t know if it does or not.  I have never seen the data.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1459 hrs




26. @Doug Ummmm it’s just not likely The Moderne would be being built if the Park East hadn’t come down…  And interestingly enough The Brewery has been able to land office tenants and residents (no condos built yet just apartments I believe) as new buildings have opened.  In fact go up there and check out the Brewery it is coming along nicely…  Even has a big parking garage if you want to drive:)

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 1511 hrs




27. To suggest that Norquist was anything other than a new urbanist, focused on doing everything possible to make travel in and out of the city as difficult as possible is ignorance.

    Indeed.  With my previous company we developed a piece of software for Norquist.  The first time I walked in his office it wasn’t more than a few minutes til he asked me where I lived.  When I replied “new berlin” his response was “why the hell would anyone want to live in New Berlin” “besides a good thai place on highway 100 there is nothing” and proceeded to try and convince me I should buy a condo in the city.  They guy seemed to have a myopic rejection of anything that wasnt downtown.

    The PERC regulations have had little impact on the Park East.  To my knowledge not even one developer has even mentioned them, and the developers have been very vocal about the Park East.

    I guess your knowledge needs to be expanded.

    My firm works directly with most of the largest developers in Milwaukee and Chicago.

    Unfortunately I can’t provide you with links to conversations I’ve had with them about the park east and its “community benefits” requirements, but I can assure you that those restrictions requiring union wages and benefits, affordable housing requirements are major reasons the Park East has been a failure.

    Having to deal with the city and county is another.

    The Milwaukee real estate development community is cringing over plans to create a community benefits ordinance that would establish affordable housing and wage requirements for future developments along the demolished Park East Freeway.

    “Regulations like this will stifle the resurgence of downtown development,” said Jim Barry III, president of James T. Barry Co. Inc./Colliers International, Milwaukee.

    Tearing down the Park East Freeway was one of the best urban planning decisions the city of Milwaukee made in the last 50 years, said Barry Mandel, president of The Mandel Group, Milwaukee.

    “It would be a shame to unravel the work that’s been done by the Norquist administration,” said Mandel.

    Barry thinks Milwaukee is at the cusp of its most important development period because of the land reclaimed by tearing down the Park East Freeway.

    “Any restrictions on development that are imposed now will have adverse effects on future development,” said Barry.

    http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2 003/12/08/newscolumn1.html

    I guess after reading that article this is the appropriate time to say “Told you so”

    Milwaukee blew it with the Park East.  They squandered the development opportunities that would have flocked to the land during the real-estate boom that was still on fire in 2004 - 2006.

    NOW they have the economy to blame, but thats just a fortunate scape-goat for them to hide behind. Anyone with half a brain would see that there was no development when the real-estate market was still booming.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1655 hrs




28. Tearing down the Park East Freeway was one of the best urban planning decisions the city of Milwaukee made in the last 50 years, said Barry Mandel

    Mandel has arguably been more successful than anyone in else in the city at creating wealth from the development of the city.  If he says tearing down the Park East was a good idea all the red blooded capitalists in the room would be well advised to agree with him.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1739 hrs




29. xxpilot You’re right I shouldn’t of indicated that the PERC is irrelevant, just not the biggest factor.  I understand those requirements can play a role in development or not, in fact I opposed (and wrote quite a bite about it) the MORE ordinance (similar city ordinance to the county’s PERC) because of these concerns.  That said of the developers that actually had options and such, I don’t recall Mandel being active in the RFP process, they complained a lot but not about the PERC.  The projects i.e RSC, and the two Ruvin projects begged for TIFs, so the city for subsidize parking garages, in the press but to my knowledge never referred to the PERC as a problem.

    As long as were referring to conversations that can’t be verified the folks in the biz I’ve spoken with most often point to lot size.  Then there is the problem of two levels of government.  But maybe I should reach out and followup with a few more of them to find out more.

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 18, 2009 at 1750 hrs




30. @Doug Ummmm it’s just not likely The Moderne would be being built if the Park East hadn’t come down…  And interestingly enough The Brewery has been able to land office tenants and residents (no condos built yet just apartments I believe) as new buildings have opened.  In fact go up there and check out the Brewery it is coming along nicely…  Even has a big parking garage if you want to drive:)

    
    I was referring to I43….. Did you even read what I wrote? The park east separated downtown from the lower east side, I43 separates downtown from the north side, an area from southeast to northwest known as “Murder Alley”.

    My only complaint about tearing down the Park East is that it was done at a terrible time, and that the restrictions on development are absolutely rediculous.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2029 hrs




31. I don’t have a problem with tearing it down.  My problem was that they torn it down and have made it damn near impossible for anyone to develop it.  Remember GE Medical and how it want to build a new headquarters on some of that land with hundreds of professional level jobs that the condo dwellers could walk to?  Well all the strings that the gov’t attached to any potential project lead directly to that new facility ending up NOT downtown. 

    And as for the condo market.  I work downtown among the condo dwellers and the market is really soft.  They are still building because they have to keep the projects going or the lose the progress cash-flow on their loans.  The entire downtown development scene is operating on the assumption that things will recover enough that they will be able to sell of the units when construction is complete.  Many of those that are already built are being let as apartments not sold as condos.  And the new units that do sell are destroying the used condo market.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0842 hrs




32. @Joe GE Medical didn’t build downtown because Norquist didn’t want to use TIF dollars attract them.  And the construction that is going on currently in the Third Ward is apartment units, not condos.

    Posted by Dave Reid on November 19, 2009 at 1039 hrs




33. Mandel has arguably been more successful than anyone in else in the city at creating wealth from the development of the city.  If he says tearing down the Park East was a good idea all the red blooded capitalists in the room would be well advised to agree with him.

    Right.  So if you are going to believe him when he says it was a great idea, then I think when he goes on to say the restrictions are going to stifle development, I think he knows what he’s talking about. 

    And we need not speculate anymore.  Just “look”

    I don’t have a problem with tearing it down.  My problem was that they torn it down and have made it damn near impossible for anyone to develop it.

    I agree

    The entire downtown development scene is operating on the assumption that things will recover enough that they will be able to sell of the units when construction is complete.  Many of those that are already built are being let as apartments not sold as condos.  And the new units that do sell are destroying the used condo market.

    In the real estate boom my firm saw just about every apartment that could conceivably be converted to condos, converted to condo’s in just about every major metropolitian condo market in the country. 

    Developers look at the housing market and the financing options and build one or the other knowing they can always convert apartments to condo’s or lease the condos.  The rental market demand seems to behave inversely to the demand of the equity market.  Its a perfect hedge.  The credit crunch has been great for the rental market.  I have tennants that wouldn’t be renting if money was still free.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1241 hrs




34. Do some people want to live in urban areas?  Yes.  Do many more people live in non-urban areas?  Yes.  Do these same people like to visit the urban areas and spend their money, own businesses and pay taxes on the business?  Yes.  Did it make sense to tear down a “spur” to make it easier for “outsiders” to visit downtown?  No.

    Not to mention the neighborhood to the north of the old Park West….ah, not a very nice one.  I wouldn’t want to live by it.

    Put something there that will actually be an asset to the city like an area or other venue.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1418 hrs




35. Did it make sense to tear down a “spur” to make it easier for “outsiders” to visit downtown?  No.

    I worked at 1661 N. water from Oct of 2000 til April of 2004.  I took the Park East every day until they closed it.  Once all the surface streets were completed, I can honestly say that my commute to work was not any longer. If it was, couldn’t have been more than 1 or 2 minutes.  I’m a suburbanite.  I enjoy the city, but working downtown (and boating on the river) is about all I need it for.  I’d be happy to slam the city where apprapos.  But I can’t in good conscience rip the decision to tear down the Park East.  In my opinion, downtown Milwaukee is just as accessible as it was with the Park East. 

    The exit off of 43 north that use to feed the Park East now feeds onto fondulac/mckinley ave is just as fast to get to 4th or 6th street (which is where the first exit from the park east took you)  its no different except its on the ground instead of in the air.  That part of downtown is just as accessible.  The other exit from the park east dumped you off at Pick n Save.  Removing the park east means you now have to take surface streets for a whole 5 blocks IF you needed to go all the way to where the park east dropped you off.  (with the park east you’d have to back track to get down to water street or broadway)

    NO material difference in accessibility to downtown Milwaukee with the Park East gone.  Arguably MORE accessible cause there are more ways to get back onto McKinley Ave/ Fondulac ave. to get back on 43 without going back up the hill to jefferson st.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1443 hrs




36. According to the World Bank, 81% of Americans live in urban populations, which makes the United States tied for twentieth in that category ...

    http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/the-u -s-ranks-20th-in-urban-population/

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1501 hrs




37. And the construction that is going on currently in the Third Ward is apartment units, not condos.

    I’m sure everyone who paid $300K+ for their units are thrilled about that!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1654 hrs




38. Hey, Fact-or…you might add “subsidized by the rest”.  Mass transit, urban poverty and any number of other items needed to keep the urban jungle from becoming worse than it is are subsidized by those outside.  For Milwaukee, it also includes MMSD.

    I lived in the EastSide for a few years.  It was great fun….for a while.

    Posted by Steve on November 19, 2009 at 2224 hrs




39. you might add “subsidized by the rest”.

    So your claim is that about 19% of the population subsidizes the other 81%?

    Wow, am I getting a good deal.

    Got any data to back that up?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0025 hrs




40. Pretty self-evident, IMHO.

    Posted by Steve on November 20, 2009 at 0647 hrs




41. Too bad you can’t link to self-evidence.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1051 hrs




42. IMHO that’s an opinion Steve.

    Enjoy the data.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1111 hrs




43. Hey, Fact-or…you might add “subsidized by the rest”.  Mass transit, urban poverty and any number of other items needed to keep the urban jungle from becoming worse than it is are subsidized by those outside.

    I partially agree.  Clearly the large percentage of urban residents contribute nothing (or next to nothing) to the tax base while utilizing most of the services (mass transit etc)  But there are wealthy people living in urban areas too.  (though they don’t use the services to the extent those who don’t pay taxes do)  Of course “urban” by definition might include tosa and brookfield for all I know.  Tosa and brookfield aren’t “rural”

    So your claim is that about 19% of the population subsidizes the other 81%?

    YUP!

    Wow, am I getting a good deal.

    You sure are! 

    Got any data to back that up?

    Squeezing the Wealthy Even More

    According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton’s final year in office.

    In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

    The bottom 20 percent of income earners’ share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
    The next 20 percent’s share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
    The middle quintile’s share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
    The fourth quintile’s share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1459 hrs




44. Back up a little.

    This is the comment I was responding to from Kelly#34

    Do some people want to live in urban areas?  Yes.  Do many more people live in non-urban areas?  Yes.

    That’s what my link references and the actual breakdown of the US population that is 19% rural vs 81% urban.

    The stats for the 19% rural population reflect a poorer, less educated and more impoverished group than the 81% who are urban dwellers.

    Who is subsidizing who?

    That’s it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1628 hrs




45. Perhaps one should actually inquire as to the definition of “urban” before touting 81% of the US population as being urban.  Note that the cited data show 43% of the US population as living in areas of greater than 1,000,000 in population and that definition is probably much closer to what most people would consider urban than the definition of urban used to achieve the 81% figure.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1633 hrs




46. Perhaps one should actually inquire as to the definition of “urban” before touting 81% of the US population as being urban.

    Perhaps you should talk to the World Bank about your concerns, it is after all their graph.

    Funny how the USDA must have made the same mistake based on the labeling of their data sets.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1646 hrs




47. If you consider such places as Marathon County, Wisconsin to be be urban, then by all means argue away.  Otherwise, I suggest, fact or opinion, that you actually read something you link to.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1949 hrs




48. Look Bro, your missing the point and I am not going to get into a definitional mambo w/you over it.

    You don’t agree the definitions used for the graph or the data that is your issue not mine.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2237 hrs




49. On the contrary fact or opinion, you’re the one claiming 81% of the US as urban and citing sources that count places like Marathon county as urban to achieve such a figure.    Per the sources you cite, a 43% urban figure is more applicable to cities such as Milwaukee.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2310 hrs