Keep The Hoan Bridge or Tear it Down? (Milwaukee, Jackson: cost, storage)

[EastSideMKE]

I say keep it! The Hoan was Milwaukee's icon long before the Quadracci Pavilion was built. I drive on the Hoan everyday to get to work down in Cudahy. Right now I can take Lincoln Park Dr to 794 all the way to the airport. It would totally suck if I had to take 43 to the airport as it would probably add another 10 minutes to my already 30 minute commute.

If the city wants more land to develop near the lake, then they should start by developing the parking lots in the Third Ward near Summerfest first. There's also plenty of structures in Easttown and Westown that could definitely use a facelift that are prime for redevelopment.

[2HHI]

I say replace it with something that will really make a statement, and will ultimately become a landmark that is synonomous (spelling?) with Milwaukee...something dramatic like the Calatrava or that other bridge over the valley...a little further west.
If it needs to be repaired anyway...we might as well go all the way and make it look really neat...with cool lights on it so it illuminates really neat at night. After all...its only money, and were so over taxed now...whats a little more going to hurt?

[just1paul]

Originally Posted by 2HHI

I say replace it with something that will really make a statement, and will ultimately become a landmark that is synonomous (spelling?) with Milwaukee...something dramatic like the Calatrava or that other bridge over the valley...a little further west.
If it needs to be repaired anyway...we might as well go all the way and make it look really neat...with cool lights on it so it illuminates really neat at night. After all...its only money, and were so over taxed now...whats a little more going to hurt?

Oh I don't know, I think the design of the Hoan if illuminated could be very cool. I rather like it. I say rebuild the Hoan it it's current design.

[south-to-west]

There's a reason why some of the world's finest city's don't have freeways running through them; and if they do, they're usually buried, out of the line of vision, and have minimum impact on surrounding neighborhoods. I say tear down I-794. Elevated freeways are ugly--and they're especially ugly along waterfronts. A more aesthetically pleasing boulevard would serve the same purpose and support the existing traffic volume along that corridor. Additionally, rezoning the area around the corridor for mixed-use and residential uses would allow the area to revitalize--adding tens-if not hundreds--of millions of dollars in additional property tax revenue for the City and County.

[Milwaukee City]

There's a reason why some of the world's finest city's don't have freeways running through them

Well since we are in America let's keep the comparison to that, now look at NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, SD, Houston. All have major and extensive freeways.

I say tear down I-794. Elevated freeways are ugly--and they're especially ugly along waterfronts.

I agree with other posters that the Hoan bridge with a little light dressing could look really nice and would become a landmark much like in Miami:

A more aesthetically pleasing boulevard would serve the same purpose and support the existing traffic volume along that corridor.

Now think about the amount of traffic it handles during rush hours do you really think a two lane Blvd with a draw bridge would handle it? you would have to have at least 3 lanes and then it would basically become LSD North. Which in the end is basically a freeway.

Additionally, rezoning the area around the corridor for mixed-use and residential uses would allow the area to revitalize

You can do this even with the bridge still up, I'll grab from your earlier point that let's take a lesson from some of the worlds greatest cities and build on the land underneath it and all around it. The bridge is tall enough to put up to a 10 story building underneath it in some spots with the bridge being a 125 ft high.

adding tens-if not hundreds--of millions of dollars in additional property tax revenue for the City and County.

While I agree with you on this point, taxes will still go up!

[TommyGavin]

I think we need to learn a little fiscal restraint, and not take on any additional project until things improve economically.

I know my family's safety is worth not spending any more tax money on BS, non-essential pet projects. Keep the stupid bridge in place until we actually have some actual, extra money to make an educated decision on the bridge.

We are not in a position to do anything, when we are sacrificing all of our safety to do projects.

[43north87west]

I'm waiting for the histrionics to die down before I make my decision. There are a lot of cost/benefit questions still unanswered, as well as issues of logistics. The current abortion of the 60's "utopian" downtown highway system, is overkill. The job can be accomplished without the huge bridge.

There is no doubt in my mind that the property adjacent to, and underneath the Hoan Bridge, will remain unusable and undeveloped, if the bridge stays. It's likely that a surface street would make the adjacent property much more desirable, and would finish off an attractive and valuable commercial and recreational corridor. I have seen comparisons to the Park East freeway, which are in some ways legitimate. Years ago, there were vacant sections of the East Side that were originally leveled to make room for the remainder of the freeway project that fortunately never happened. These were developed in the 80s and 90s. This, coupled with development around Brady Street, made a huge difference in the north part of downtown and the Lower East Side. If there was a freeway running east and west between I-43 and the corner of Prospect & Ogden, the property currently occupying its space, and the properties surrounding the freeway, would probably be low value, possibly ghetto areas, immediately adjacent to Lake Michigan. Instead, it's high value commercial and residential. I'd like to see the same thing happen adjacent to the Hoan Bridge. It wouldn't happen overnight, but if the bridge stays up, it can't happen.

Again, the biggest issue is going to be the cost of one vs. the other.

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

A more aesthetically pleasing boulevard would serve the same purpose and support the existing traffic volume along that corridor. Additionally, rezoning the area around the corridor for mixed-use and residential uses would allow the area to revitalize--adding tens-if not hundreds--of millions of dollars in additional property tax revenue for the City and County.

Rezoning what? You mean rezone Jones Island to be mixed use sewage treatment plant/residential? Port of Milwaukee should be mixed used shipping/residential? Summerfest grounds should be mixed use parking/residential? Where is any of that done? A little dose of reality will bring pretty plans of tree-lined boulevards crashing to earth.

Originally Posted by south-to-west

There's a reason why some of the world's finest city's don't have freeways running through them

There also are many fine cities with freeways running through them and with beautiful elevated bridges to boot. I think the Bay bridge as well as the Golden Gate are very beautiful pieces of engineering to be admired. The Hoan also is beautiful. Granted not everyone enjoys the massive scale and constructions of a modern city but to say that engineering works such as bridges are ugly is insane.

[Milwaukee City]

There are a lot of cost/benefit questions still unanswered, as well as issues of logistics.

I agree, I'm not in favor of tearing it down without some good questions answered and proposals on the table but let's learn from the Park East and have our ducks in a row before we start tearing things down.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

I agree, I'm not in favor of tearing it down without some good questions answered and proposals on the table but let's learn from the Park East and have our ducks in a row before we start tearing things down.

Exactly. Another thing that's somewhat concerning is the potentially expensive environmental remediation that may have to be done to some (or all) areas. I'm all for boosting development, but not without legitimate potential. The pie in the sky drawings I've seen leave a lot to be accounted for. I understand that's how projects get support, but bulldozing half of Jones Island might not be too realistic either. Especially when it requires moving and cleaning up from what already exists today (tank farm, salt storage, etc).