Hotel Milwaukee

The Journal reports the Mayor is urging the Preservation Commission to approve the Marriott hotel downtown. I've seen no impact analysis or even mention of the ancillary costs, expected income stream, a need for additional hotel beds, additional service needs, really nothing of substance as to why this is a can't-miss investment.

And, if we're making a leap of faith and saying we need this, is it really too much to ask that the structure keep its historic facade?

Preservation is a sense of past, of our history. It is what makes a place special. It is why New Orleans is New Orleans, Savannah is Savannah, Charleston is Charleston, etc. Simply building something, growth for growth's sake, mimicking ever dime-a-dozen development scheme sprouting up across America does not a niche make. Nor does it provide a locality with a sustainable attraction.

The Preservation Commission wants the developers to keep the facades of the historic buildings. A seemingly minuscule request in the greater scheme of things. But, of course, in our 'bend-over-for-business, markets know best, regulation is the boogey-man' world anything that is asked of business is portrayed as an affront to life itself.

Yes, by building a hotel jobs will be created. But, are hotel jobs an economic catalyst? I'd rather have the manufacturing jobs and spin-offs from the likes of a Talgo. Better paying, full-time, full-benefit jobs.

Yes, the increased value of the property will provide more property taxes. But, again, is this the jobs or development we need at this location? At this time? Are we so uninterested in our built environment that we will allow anything to be built anywhere without any boundaries? A third of the property in the city is exempt from taxes. Simply removing some exemptions could add millions in collections.

Yes, there is a fine line between guiding development and stifling it. Such as killing a link amongst a national train network, which benefits businesses and citizens, is stifling of development. Establishing parameters for a business that will take up a half-block, intrude into the downtown skyline, and be part of the downtown for decades to come, doesn't seem burdensome, but necessary.

Rules and restrictions are necessary in life as in development. If a low-tax, low-regulation structure were the end-all, be-all answer to our life, we'd all live in Mississippi. Nothing against Mississippi, but low taxes and nonexistent rules do not assure a glorious existence.

The Hotel Of Dreams

Whether or not the proposed downtown Marriott is the no-brainer the Journal Sentinel claims (they claim any development is a win-win) is debatable. Will it bring more business travelers downtown? Will it increase the City's annual tax revenue by $2.2 million? How will a new hotel enhance the regions tourism and marketing efforts? How will a new hotel boost downtown development?

The constructions jobs are obviously a good (temporary) thing. The low-wage, seasonal jobs created by the hotel are jobs, but not the best. Any development will have a construction boost and create some jobs. Whether or not this is the most optimal, is the best location, and is worth destroying historic buildings, are questions that need answers.

If they plan on razing the historic buildings - something Milwaukee still has numerous examples of, which we should be maintaining - are the developers planning to build something that echoes a bygone era? Or, are they planning on building a modern, square, glass, monstrosity which will look completely out of place downtown? (We already have enough cheap-looking and out-of-character new condos.)

Business travelers come to a place because they have business to attend to. They don't travel to different downtowns to just stay a night at the new hotel. Likewise, tourists don't visit cities just to see the latest hotels. "There's nothing to see here, but our pillows are the softest!" I have yet to see a successful marketing effort for a city focused on hotels.

Improving economic opportunities for residents, creating places of interest, and having accessible and connected transportation routes attracts business, tourists, and creates a buzz. Supply by itself does not attract other development, nor assure success. Simply building a new hotel will not attract new development. The demand has to be here, or some signs of demand on the horizon, before a savvy investor would bet millions on a location or development. And, just because one development moves forward, this does not guarantee others will follow.

I'm not completely against this project, but neither am I completely for it. More questions need to be asked and more details provided. The Journal's marching ahead of any serious discussion and declaring this project a catalyst of development is cavalier and premature. Let's see the site plan, what kind of financing is entailed, and what the impact analyses are forecasting. It's one thing to move swiftly on a well-corroborated project, but quite another to haphazardly move forward on just hopes and wishes.

For Further Reading:

Regional Economic Impact Assessments

Southeastern Wisconsin's Share Of The Tourism Industry