Madison or Ann Arbor? (Milwaukee: attorneys, living, law)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chelito23

Drover,

I have always wondered about that ordinance so thank you for sharing. I wanted to ask though, for instance, the area near Wal Mart and Woodman's off Gammon Rd, near West Town Mall is the highest area in the city. Just being in the Wal Mart parking lot you can see downtown, and you are actually higher than the capital building. SO, my question is, id the local elevation is higher than the base of the dome...what happens? Obviously, there aren't too many high rises near west town, and interestingly enough, the business park west of the beltline near Old Sauk Rd. has mainly the one or two story sprawl buildings, but when you cross into Middleton, you have several 10 story buildings....

The ordinance is only in effect within one mile of the Capitol square.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee Ronnie

If there was a huge demand to build tall buildings in Madison, the height restriction would have been eased a long time ago. But there is very little demand to build such buildings. The town and its surrounding county comprise a half million people. About half the size of Omaha.

I say keep the ban to avoid having one 25-30 story tower defacing the view of the Isthmus and capitol.

Developers have tried to get variances but they're always rejected. That's fine, as long as you're willing to concede that this only increases demand for space in the office parks along the Beltline -- in other words, urban sprawl. That, in turn, insures that Madison will never have the kind of dense urban core that 1) serves as an alternative to urban sprawl, and b) justifies the creation of a light rail system that the armchair urban planners have been clamoring for. To be honest, I lean toward supporting the height restriction, but too many people who also support it don't (or refuse to) recognize the tradeoffs that comes with that restriction; and that some of those tradeoffs directly contradict other stated policy goals that many of the height-restriction also purport to hold.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

I'm not saying that developers have never tried to get the height restriction lifted in Madison. In fact I know of one condo developer who went over the maximum height and took a fine for it. What I'm arguing is that, in the balancing act of economics and aesthetics, if the development pressure in downtown Madison was higher than it is, then the economics would have outbalanced the aesthetics and the city would have bent a little on the height restriction.

What would happen if the height restriction was lifted in Madison? My guess would be something similar to Springfield, Illinois. A low rise skyline with one, awkward 30 story tower sticking out like a sore thumb. Our State Capitol is way too pretty to have to be degraded by that.

On the other hand, if there was this great, overwhelming pressure to build up in Downtown Madison, then lifting the height restriction would mean a dense office core that would be an economic generator for the city and region. This might be worth lifting the restriction for. But the development pressure is not there to make this happen.

[Drover]

You presume that politics always yields to economics. Not so.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Drover

You presume that politics always yields to economics. Not so.

Clearly. But having spent some time working with Madison city officials back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I do believe that on balance, if the business and real estate community there were absolutely convinced that the development pressures to build more and taller were so intense that they were losing out on millions by not being allowed to go over 11 stories, then the city would at least have entertained the idea of lifting the height restriction.

As it is, if you've got one or two developers a year proposing something like 12 or 13 stories, why would the city lift the restriction? No real economic reason to lift it, so you might as well keep it to maintain the aesthetics.

Madison city officials often get stuck with the "anti-business" label, but the fact of the matter is that Madison lacks a unified, cohesive business lobby. Sure, there are the start-ups and the growing firms like Epic and TomoTherapy, but where's the financial sector? Where's the professional services sector like accountants, etc?

Banks and insurance companies build skyscrapers, not biotech firms. Professional services like attorneys and accounting firms lease space in them, not tech start ups. This is why Chicago has one of the most impressive skylines in the world -- a huge finance and insurance sector. This is why Milwaukee has a modest skyline -- it's a minor player with only a few major banks and insurance companies headquartered here. And, this is why Madison won't ever have a tall skyline -- because as of now, the only bank based there is AnchorBank, and AmFam is staying put in the corn fields east of town.

Incidently, this is also why Des Moines has a skyline much more impressive than most other towns its size. It's become a mini-hub of the finance sector.

[Drover]

Had you considered the possibility that the reason why Des Moines has become a mini-hub and Madison hasn't is because the government in the former (and in Iowa in general versus Wisconsin) is less hostile toward business formation? I'm not saying that's the case, but you seem a lot more sure than I am that government doesn't play a role in the fact that there isn't a strong business climate in Madison. Business will go where there is less resistance. On paper, Madison has everything going for it, be it easy access to/from Chicago, a huge high-quality university to recruit talent from, a reputation as a hip town for young professionals to move to, and a generally well-educated population.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

There is isn't a strong business presence in Madison because it's a government town. I know that there are many who like to think that it's not, and I acknowledge that not everyone in Madison works for University or State, but to me it's plain as day that, especially up until about 10 years ago, government was really the only game in town. Sure, there always have been firms like AmFam, Oscar Meyer and Rayovac. And now there are firms like Epic, Tomo Therapy, etc. But there's very little corporate presence in Madison. I'm talking the big players with a national presence and huge management structure.

In Milwaukee, there are 7 Fortune 1000 companies. In every one of those companies you have top level executives and management, a whole army of people who make high level decisions that have global ramifications. You can't underestimate the effect of having corporate headquarters on a community. These people, the corporate managers, have global connections, shareholders all over the world, and control vast sums of money. This is key to getting things done. Of course, I would like to see Milwaukee's business community do more to get real things done to move our city forward, but at the very least the human capital is there.

In Milwaukee, if you were to bring together the ten most powerful people in the city to have a conversation about a project, 8 of those people would be from the corporate world: CEOs, high level managers. 2 would be from government. In Madison, bring together the 10 most powerful people in the city and it would 5 business people, mostly the owners of privately held firms, and the other 5 would be from government. That makes a big difference in how things get done.

So, in sum, I don't neccessarily think Madison is "anti-business." I just think the corporate element isn't there. Which isn't neccesarily a bad thing, just something that makes Madison what it is: a government town.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee Ronnie

So, in sum, I don't neccessarily think Madison is "anti-business." I just think the corporate element isn't there. Which isn't neccesarily a bad thing, just something that makes Madison what it is: a government town.

I agree and disagree. I wouldn't call it "a government" town, but I would definitely say that if Wisconsin's corporate structure ever strengthens and we become a more major player, it will have to happen in Milwaukee. Whether it is the fact that the downtown is set on the isthmus (combined with height restrictions), or whatever, Madison will always be a town whose population is in the "intellectual" fields over the corporate fields. By and large, research/science/medical/etc companies, and of course government.

It may be a great place to live, but the "structure" to build it into a corporate city just isn't there like it is in Milwaukee.

[Drover]

I don't know how you couldn't call Madison a government town. It's the state capital, county seat, has a substantial city bureaucracy, and hosts a major flagship university. And throw in a federal courthouse for good measure. The two largest employers in the city are government institutions. I wouldn't be surprised if the third-largest employer wasn't also a government institution. Its economy wouldn't be so stable and its unemployment rate always well below the national average if it weren't a government town. I don't know that it necessarily has to be that way, but for now it still is. Government is still the major game in town and Madison's economy would collapse Detroit-style without it.

I also don't get the supposed disconnect between "intellectual" fields versus corporate fields. A lot of entities doing scientific and medical research are corporations, and a lot of the academic institutions doing said research receive funding from corporations.

[italianman2112]

Been a long time since a post here, but someone wondering about the 2 might catch this in a google search such as I did. Madison wins hands down for living !! outside of Ann Arbor is a waste land ! ypsilanti is just minutes from Ann Arbor and the closer you get to Detroit only 15 mins from there is so sad run down.

Keep in mind in a mornings commute you have Milwaukee, Chicago Ill, Debuque Dubuque IA, Cedar Rapids IA, Iowa city IA, Twin Cities MN !!!