The economic development group Milwaukee 7 was formed to create a regional entity to promote economic development in Southeastern Wisconsin.
http://www.choosemilwaukee.com/
Similarly SEWRPC (South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission) was created in 1960 to address regional transportation and infrastructural issues in the largest urbanized region of the state.
http://www.sewrpc.org
Both the Milwaukee 7 and SEWRPC include the counties of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha, Walworth, Racine, and Kenosha.
Together, these seven counties account for 35.6% of Wisconsin’s population (2,003,218), but account for 52.5% of the income earned. (WI per capita - $25742, SEW - $38056)
In many ways, SE Wisconsin operates as a single economic entity, with a fair amount of integration and connection between these counties. However, the Census Bureau defines metro areas based upon commuting statistics as solicited during the decennial census. Therefore, as defined by the US, Milwaukee’s Metro, or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is only Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties. The more expansive analysis of a Combined Statistical Area (CSA) adds Racine into the area. On the other hand, Kenosha is part of Chicago’s MSA.
While classifications are simply that, the shortchanging of the Metro area harms the region in statistical measures and regional perception. It fails to include counties experiencing higher growth, but are connected to the region (Racine, Walworth, Kenosha) as well as Western counties becoming more connected to the metro through Waukesha county’s growth (Jefferson and Dodge). As an example of this impact, the City of Milwaukee has an estimated population of 602,191- 23rd in the country; however, with a MSA population of 1,549,308 it falls to 39th largest Metro, looking at CSA, Milwaukee metro moves back up to 32nd.
Therefore, in terms of regional marketing, Milwaukee City is in population league with peers Denver (26), Seattle (24), Boston (21), and Baltimore (20), while in metro areas is compared to Jacksonville (40) and Providence, RI (37).
There are a few problems with the Census’ definition of the Milwaukee metro area. First, it fails to acknowledge the longstanding interconnection between all of the counties of SE Wisconsin. Secondly, it fails to acknowledge the growth of Waukesha County as an economically significant location in the state. This growth was possible through Waukesha’s interrelation with the rest of the metro region.
As mentioned before, the Census Bureau defines MSAs and CSAs through its Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) Analysis. Bear with me for a minute while I explain in a nutshell, this analysis.
For ease of understanding CBSAs are basically counties.
A CBSA is included in an MSA if either 25% of its workforce commuting to work in an MSA, or has 25% of its employment with workers commuting from an MSA.
A CSA adds to the MSA any additional CBSA with an Employment Integration Measure (EIM) of 25 or more. The EIM is the sum of the % of the CBSA workforce commuting into the MSA from the CBSA and the % of the employment filled b workers commuting from the MSA into the CBSA.
Finally, A CBSA may be included in a CSA if the EIM is greater than 15 and there is public support for the combination, as reflected by the federal representatives representing the CSA and the CBSA in question.
As The CBSAs are generally only redefined every 10 years, based upon commuting data, most of the commuting data that I was able to find was from the 2000 census.
http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov/oea/pdf/commuting2000.pdf
However, referring to this document I was able to calculate the EIM scores for myself for this outer ring of counties that were not included in Milwaukee’s CSA, as well as to see how close Racine county was to falling within the Milwaukee MSA.
In 2000, 19.8% of the Racine County workforce worked in the Milwaukee MSA and 8% of the employment in Racine County was from people commuting from the Milwaukee MSA. Therefore, while Racine was still about 5% short from qualifying for the MSA, Racine scored an EIM of 27.8 and automatically qualified for the Milwaukee CSA.
The commuting statistics for the other counties are as follows:
Commute from County / Commute into County / EIM
Walworth 11.4% / 5.4% / 16.8
Jefferson 17% / 5.7% / 22.7
Dodge 18.2% / 4.6% / 22.8
Therefore, all three of Walworth, Jefferson, and Dodge Counties qualified in 2000 to be included in the Milwaukee CSA based on local opinion. The strength of the connection of these counties is not only to Milwaukee (with over 1000 people commuting to Milwaukee County from each of these counties), but the strength of the Waukesha County economy which drew over 3,000 commuters from each from Dodge and Walworth Counties and 5400 commuters from Jefferson County.
Jefferson and Dodge Counties nearly met the EIM threshold of 25 for automatic inclusion in the Milwaukee CSA, but none of these counties were included under the public opinion provision. My question is whether there is no public support, or no public knowledge of these designations?
But 2000 is long and gone, and the country is gearing up for census 2010, how will new data affect these determinations?
The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development tracks the employment numbers around the state. http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov/oea/county_profiles/current.htm Looking a job growth between 2002 and 2007 (as reported in the downloadable spreadsheet) was strongest in the region in Waukesha County, which added 15,000 jobs (+6.6%). Meanwhile, Milwaukee County lost 10,000 (-2%), but by 2007 was up off of a loss of 16,500 jobs from 2002-2005. Washington County added 5,000 (+9.9%) jobs and Walworth County added 2,000 (+4.3%) jobs, while Racine and Ozaukee Counties were flat. Therefore, the region added jobs in the three Western Counties, while job growth in the three Eastern Counties was negative or flat. This further contributes to the shifting of the Economic center of the Region westward, at least in terms of job growth.
The other aspect to look at is population growth. People may keep their job in Milwaukee County, but move to one of the surrounding counties and choose to commute into the City, further strengthening commuting ties. Once again Milwaukee County was the only loser of population, losing 3,700 (.4%) people between 2002 and 2007. Waukesha (13,500 3.7%), Washington (9,000 7.4%), Ozaukee (3000 3.2%), Walworth (6,000 6.5%), and Racine (4,700 2.4%) all gained in population over this time period. As each county’s population growth was greater than its job growth, an increase in commuting is probably necessary for the new residents of working age to be employed.
Therefore, as job growth indicators for the middle part of the last decade show population and job growth in the western counties of the Milwaukee MSA, I predict that the commuting numbers also show a similar shift with increased commuting into Waukesha and Washington counties. As commuting tends to center between adjacent counties, I would especially expect increased commuting statistics between Waukesha and Washington Counties with the surrounding Dodge, Jefferson, and Walworth Counties. These increased commuting statistics may be enough to increase the EIM for each of these counties above 25 such that they are automatically included into the CSA.
However, if they are not, then I feel that our representatives in congress should be made aware of this issue, such that the most fitting definition of the Milwaukee-Waukesha-Racine CSA is put forth by the government. Looking at the congressional Map, this could be a trick in itself. As 5 congress men and women represent the area with which we are concerned.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/ltsb/redistricting/Maps/con2007.pdf
While there are only definitions at stake, it is the larger reflection of the economic development and success of SE Wisconsin that is the issue.
Looking back at the relative metro sizes, if Walworth, Jefferson, and Dodge Counties were included in the Milwaukee CSA, then it would move the CSA into the same range as Portland, Kansas City, and Indianapolis, all cities considered to be peers of Milwaukee, rather than Salt Lake City, Virginia Beach, and Raleigh-Durham which currently have comparable CSAs to Milwaukee.
Once again, it is about an improved reflection of SE Wisconsin, and recognition of the interrelationships between the counties of this metro area. If the new census data do not automatically qualify these counties for inclusion in the metro area, then we must press upon our representatives to accurately define our metro region.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Revisiting Miller Park
The Brewers are currently underway in their eighth season in Miller Park and as local residents, we have been paying a .1% sales tax to help pay for the stadium for thirteen years, with an estimated five more to go.
The new stadium for the Brewers was a controversial deal both due to the large percentage of the funding that has come from the public, and the decision by the Selig family to build the stadium in the parking lot of County Stadium, rather than an alternative proposed site in Downtown Milwaukee.
Since the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers have been sold to new ownership which has guided the team to relative success, making the playoffs for the first time in 25 years in 2008.
Not surprisingly, this on-field success has brought with it off-field success in the form of record attendance (3,000,000+ ) last season, good for 9th best home attendance in the league. Not bad for being the smallest Metro area with an MLB team. (however, look for a post coming shortly with respect to that)
With the success has brought new and intensified rivalries. Most notably with the Chicago Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals. These rivalries have brought about all manners of comparisons between these teams competing for the Central Division crown - on the field etiquette (players), off the field etiquette (fans), fan baseball knowledge, attractiveness of fans, which side of the bread you should butter, - and of course the Home Stadiums themselves.
Miller Park differs from Wrigley Field (Cubs) and Busch Stadium (Cardinals) in two obvious ways - 1. It has a retractable roof (but that would have to be another post) and 2. Wrigley and Busch are located downtown or within densely developed neighborhoods, while Miller Park is built outside of downtown and is surrounded by parking lots.
Did Milwaukee and the Brewers miss out on an opportunity to build their stadiums downtown? Are either or both worse off for it? Is there any hope for the future?
Urban Milwaukee recently wrote their take on the subject:
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/mil....kee-vs-st-louis
Thursday Associates, a Chicago design firm specializing in large, urban developments was contracted by the City to provide renderings and plans for a downtown stadium.
http://www.thursdayassociates.net/Baseball%20Projects/milwaukee.htm
Looking at the site plan, the Downtown Stadium would have combined three blocks by closing off McKinley at Water Street.
Even with the combination of these blocks, the footprint of the stadium is still pretty small, much smaller than the footprint of Miller Park. As the Bradley Center will attest to, much of the revenue from a stadium comes from the ability to generate alternative forms of revenue while people are at the games - concessions, restaurants, attractions, stores, games, and a modern stadium needs room for all of these amenities.
Looking at Thursday's renderings, the pictured stadium looks rather "quaint" - kind of like if you rebuilt Wrigley using basically the same plans. It doesn't look like it has the space for the wide concession areas, ample bathrooms and good sight lines that make Miller Park a much more enjoyable experience for watching baseball.
The proposed Downtown Stadium was to be located at a mostly currently undeveloped block in the area made available through the demolition of the Park East Freeway Spur. Looking to the Parking Plan from Thursday, the rest of the Park East would be devoted to parking through a combination of "Temporary" lots, Parking Structures, and Mixed use Parking Structures. Some of these areas that would have been parking are now buildings - Trostel Square, MSOE's Kern Center, a local church expansion, Part of the Manpower Headquarters, Park East Enterprise Lofts, and Aloft Hotel, or have currently pending development proposals - North End Phase Three, Eco Square, Park East Square Phase 1.
Therefore, to accommodate the parking needs to move 40,000 people in and out of the downtown, what the City would have gained in one big development, the City would have already lost in substantial other developments. But, it should also be noted that much of the Park East currently sits undeveloped, nearly 15 years after this was proposed. Clearly a mixed used parking garage is a higher current use than a vacant lot.
This ties into another issue regarding large scale entertainment developments in Downtown. While Miller Park attracts an average of over 37,000 people to each game, it is only used 81 times a year. The remaining 284 days, it sits basically unused. It took Downtown 10+ years to begin to turn the corner from Downtown being a "ghost town" after 5 pm as everyone returned home to the suburbs after work. An entertainment venue provides large spikes of activity, but this can be hard on infrastructure (see the large number of required parking structures above) that while necessary for game day, would flood the downtown parking market the rest of the year. In addition to this required infrastructure, when there is not a game, it reduces street activation, the development of neighborhoods any extension of Downtown to the North. In effect, we would have replaced the Park East barrier with a newer one.
I seem to remember (I was only 14 at the time this was debated) that tailgating was an issue that weighed against a downtown location. A lot of people like to tailgate. Looking at Thursday's Parking Plan, there would be "Temporary" surface lots - sounds like a good tailgating location to me. Additionally, parking structures could sell tickets to the top decks (which could allow grilling) for a premium, creating additional space for 'wursts to be grilled.
But I would submit that if unable to tailgate, those same people would do alright at one of the many bars on Water Street, with undoubtedly a few more springing up due to the stadium. But how many more? The Bradley Center, while half the size of Miller Park, but holding more events per year, doesn't seem to support much of any of a bar district on its own. Certainly 3rd street has seen a resurgence as of late, and it gains from BC activity, but I don't think that 3rd street exists due to the BC.
Urban Milwaukee derides the short-sightedness of Miller Parks' vast Parking lots in an age when people are driving less, and touts Bush Stadium's proposed "Ballpark Village" mixed use development as the type of development that Miller Park is/will be unable to generate. However, right now "Ballpark Village" is itself and undeveloped parking lot.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firef....011201&t=h&z=17
Miller Park has lots of those. If car ridership ever dropped to the level whereby Miller Park had too much parking, then just as easily as the development of "Ballpark Village," the furthest West Portions of the Dodgers Lot, or the Northern Lot, Giants, could be developed into a higher use.
All in all, while I think that a Downtown Stadium would have been good for my current enjoyment, and initial development within the Downtown, the development costs that would have come with the downtown stadium taking up much of the Park East, and creating a barrier to Downtown expansion, make the ultimate location of Miller Park probably better for the ongoing development of the region and downtown as well.
The new stadium for the Brewers was a controversial deal both due to the large percentage of the funding that has come from the public, and the decision by the Selig family to build the stadium in the parking lot of County Stadium, rather than an alternative proposed site in Downtown Milwaukee.
Since the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers have been sold to new ownership which has guided the team to relative success, making the playoffs for the first time in 25 years in 2008.
Not surprisingly, this on-field success has brought with it off-field success in the form of record attendance (3,000,000+ ) last season, good for 9th best home attendance in the league. Not bad for being the smallest Metro area with an MLB team. (however, look for a post coming shortly with respect to that)
With the success has brought new and intensified rivalries. Most notably with the Chicago Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals. These rivalries have brought about all manners of comparisons between these teams competing for the Central Division crown - on the field etiquette (players), off the field etiquette (fans), fan baseball knowledge, attractiveness of fans, which side of the bread you should butter, - and of course the Home Stadiums themselves.
Miller Park differs from Wrigley Field (Cubs) and Busch Stadium (Cardinals) in two obvious ways - 1. It has a retractable roof (but that would have to be another post) and 2. Wrigley and Busch are located downtown or within densely developed neighborhoods, while Miller Park is built outside of downtown and is surrounded by parking lots.
Did Milwaukee and the Brewers miss out on an opportunity to build their stadiums downtown? Are either or both worse off for it? Is there any hope for the future?
Urban Milwaukee recently wrote their take on the subject:
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/mil....kee-vs-st-louis
Thursday Associates, a Chicago design firm specializing in large, urban developments was contracted by the City to provide renderings and plans for a downtown stadium.
http://www.thursdayassociates.net/Baseball%20Projects/milwaukee.htm
Looking at the site plan, the Downtown Stadium would have combined three blocks by closing off McKinley at Water Street.
Even with the combination of these blocks, the footprint of the stadium is still pretty small, much smaller than the footprint of Miller Park. As the Bradley Center will attest to, much of the revenue from a stadium comes from the ability to generate alternative forms of revenue while people are at the games - concessions, restaurants, attractions, stores, games, and a modern stadium needs room for all of these amenities.
Looking at Thursday's renderings, the pictured stadium looks rather "quaint" - kind of like if you rebuilt Wrigley using basically the same plans. It doesn't look like it has the space for the wide concession areas, ample bathrooms and good sight lines that make Miller Park a much more enjoyable experience for watching baseball.
The proposed Downtown Stadium was to be located at a mostly currently undeveloped block in the area made available through the demolition of the Park East Freeway Spur. Looking to the Parking Plan from Thursday, the rest of the Park East would be devoted to parking through a combination of "Temporary" lots, Parking Structures, and Mixed use Parking Structures. Some of these areas that would have been parking are now buildings - Trostel Square, MSOE's Kern Center, a local church expansion, Part of the Manpower Headquarters, Park East Enterprise Lofts, and Aloft Hotel, or have currently pending development proposals - North End Phase Three, Eco Square, Park East Square Phase 1.
Therefore, to accommodate the parking needs to move 40,000 people in and out of the downtown, what the City would have gained in one big development, the City would have already lost in substantial other developments. But, it should also be noted that much of the Park East currently sits undeveloped, nearly 15 years after this was proposed. Clearly a mixed used parking garage is a higher current use than a vacant lot.
This ties into another issue regarding large scale entertainment developments in Downtown. While Miller Park attracts an average of over 37,000 people to each game, it is only used 81 times a year. The remaining 284 days, it sits basically unused. It took Downtown 10+ years to begin to turn the corner from Downtown being a "ghost town" after 5 pm as everyone returned home to the suburbs after work. An entertainment venue provides large spikes of activity, but this can be hard on infrastructure (see the large number of required parking structures above) that while necessary for game day, would flood the downtown parking market the rest of the year. In addition to this required infrastructure, when there is not a game, it reduces street activation, the development of neighborhoods any extension of Downtown to the North. In effect, we would have replaced the Park East barrier with a newer one.
I seem to remember (I was only 14 at the time this was debated) that tailgating was an issue that weighed against a downtown location. A lot of people like to tailgate. Looking at Thursday's Parking Plan, there would be "Temporary" surface lots - sounds like a good tailgating location to me. Additionally, parking structures could sell tickets to the top decks (which could allow grilling) for a premium, creating additional space for 'wursts to be grilled.
But I would submit that if unable to tailgate, those same people would do alright at one of the many bars on Water Street, with undoubtedly a few more springing up due to the stadium. But how many more? The Bradley Center, while half the size of Miller Park, but holding more events per year, doesn't seem to support much of any of a bar district on its own. Certainly 3rd street has seen a resurgence as of late, and it gains from BC activity, but I don't think that 3rd street exists due to the BC.
Urban Milwaukee derides the short-sightedness of Miller Parks' vast Parking lots in an age when people are driving less, and touts Bush Stadium's proposed "Ballpark Village" mixed use development as the type of development that Miller Park is/will be unable to generate. However, right now "Ballpark Village" is itself and undeveloped parking lot.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firef....011201&t=h&z=17
Miller Park has lots of those. If car ridership ever dropped to the level whereby Miller Park had too much parking, then just as easily as the development of "Ballpark Village," the furthest West Portions of the Dodgers Lot, or the Northern Lot, Giants, could be developed into a higher use.
All in all, while I think that a Downtown Stadium would have been good for my current enjoyment, and initial development within the Downtown, the development costs that would have come with the downtown stadium taking up much of the Park East, and creating a barrier to Downtown expansion, make the ultimate location of Miller Park probably better for the ongoing development of the region and downtown as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
