Subscribe for 33¢ / day
North Hall

With Riverside Park closed to the La Crosse Center expansion, the center board will look north, toward the convention center's North Hall and the Pearl Street walkway, shown here.

The expansion and renovation of the La Crosse Center will move forward — but not into Riverside Park.

So decided the La Crosse Center Board on Friday morning, half a day after the La Crosse Common Council sustained the mayor’s veto of the concept that would have extend the convention center toward the Mississippi River. “This project is going forward. B1, as we called it, is not — that’s done — but we’re moving forward,” said board chairman Brent Smith.

The board directed architects from ISG and Gensler to begin working on designs in the $42 million to $49 million range, including designs that would go north, toward the center’s north hall and the Pearl Street walkway, rather than toward the park, instructing them in a series of votes to bring back options in 60 days.

Board member Phillip Addis moved to direct the architects away from Riverside Park, saying, “Do not go into the park in your design, period.”

Addis’s motion was seconded by board member Amanda Halderson-Jackson, who pointed out the benefits of avoiding it, including eliminating the need for approval from the La Crosse Board of Park Commissioners, the costs of renovating underneath the overhang, as well as the need for the hydrological study.

“I think if we don’t go into the park, a lot of people will feel heard, and I think it will bring a better discussion forward about moving this along,” Halderson-Jackson said.

Council member Gary Padesky, who isn’t a member of the board, but attended the meeting, agreed, warning the board that it was unlikely the La Crosse Common Council would vote in favor of any encroachment into the park.

“We’re going to have to go toward the Pearl Street walkway and North Hall and that’s what your design would be,” Padesky said.

The board originally turned toward the park after neighboring business owners balked at a design that would infringe on the walkway connecting Pearl Street to Riverside Park. It also previously decided to keep the entire La Crosse Center operational throughout the project; however, Addis and others said if it needed to close North Hall that would be workable, if not ideal.

“It’s not our best hall anyhow, and it needs a lot of upgrading,” Addis said.

Addis also suggested the board direct the architects to work on options starting at $42 million, agreeing to go up to $49 million after council members Barb Janssen and Phillip Ostrem each said at the beginning of the meeting that they would be open to allocating more funding for a more fleshed out project.

“I think we should squeeze as much space out for the money. Frankly, if it goes a little bit over the $42 million limit, I’m not going to be opposed to that,” Ostrem said.

As the design teams tries to meet its deadline and design to a budget, it’s important that they know what compromises they can make and what the budget will be, said Will Kratt of ISG.

“The design that was put forward, the board and the design team and other stakeholders felt that everything that was in that was needed. There was no fluff. There were no extras in there,” Kratt said. “To (Smith’s) point, we need to hear from the mayor, from the council, other stakeholders, what we can now live without.”

There’s a big difference between designing to $42 million and $44 million, he said.

“If there are any other lines in the sand, that needs to get fleshed out,” Kratt said.

The board also touched on its other priorities as the project advances, with former board member, ex-council member Fran Formanek, saying marketing and sharing information with the public would be key.

“It is very, very important that we continually move forward and get this thing to the point where we can get some groundbreaking done as soon as possible,” Formanek said.

He referenced the first conceptual rendering, which included a white box intended to give a general idea of where the B1 concept would be located.

“Unfortunately, people that I talked to didn’t get the information that this was just a conceptual kind of thing, that this isn’t what it was going to look like,” Formanek said.

Council member Janssen said the impassioned opposition provided the La Crosse Center Board and council with an opportunity.

“I think we need to harness that and bring those people in, maybe to feel like they are part of the project,” Janssen said.

Smith agreed, saying, “We continue to need the input, obviously, of the mayor, our city council, the public — some of those who were opposed to B1 are a part of our community and the discussion — downtown business community, who showed a lot of interest in this all the way through.”

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Jourdan Vian can be reached at jvian@lacrossetribune.com or follow her on Twitter @Jourdan_LCT.

9
1
0
1
1

City government reporter

Jourdan Vian is a reporter and columnist covering local government and city issues for the La Crosse Tribune. You can contact her at 608-791-8218.

(15) comments

Logged

Why do they need to expand. If anything gut it out an remodel what’s already their.

Cassandra2

There. For gods sake, the word is THERE!

Grand Dad's Bluff

Not expecting much from the architect, not after the B1 design. But at least they have some planning guidance which respects the will of the larger community and is not preoccupied with local business desires.

random annoying bozo

yup, their 'planning' guidance is to design "something" that costs at least 42 million dollars.

blacksunshine

I had read an older article from the Tribune regarding the La Crosse Centers annual revenue being reported at 4.5 million for 2016. Does anyone know what the actual profit/loss has been over the last five years? I am not for or against any expansions, just curious if the center had to run on it's own merits could it?

madmen60

This entire project is not needed. If they're bound and determined to build it, I wish they'd try to partner up with the private sector.

canman

This board is hell bent on just pi$$ing away money. What about doing a comprehensive feasibility study on what may be needed with public involvement, what the costs will be, and set up financial accounting procedures to fund future building and capital maintenance expenditures. Smith, Addis and Halderson-Jackson have the horse in the wrong position.

Buggs Raplin

This is a 'damage control' article by the Tribune to try to protect Padesky and Janssen, and at the same time urge all involved to 'get going' on a renovation that will cost the taxpayers plenty. I ask is a great expenditure necessary? La Crosse will always have conventions here due to our downtown hotels, restaurants and bars. That's the bottom line, folks. We've got the goods for conventions-hotels, restaurants, and bars-all within walking distance to avoid drunk driving tickets. La Crosse will always be a good place for a convention. We live in perilous economic times where the federal government-both GOP and Democrat-continue spending a trillion dollars more than we take in every year, and neither party will stop it. Certainty the possibility of an economic collapse should be considered into any determination of funding any improvements. I mean we're talking a huge increase in property taxes, aren't we? But, again, the Tribune is trying to protect its puppet council people-Padesky and Janssen, who both voted yesterday that it was OK to go into the park.-Chip DeNure

Buggs Raplin

Now just wait a minute here. Both Padesky and Janssen voted last night that it was OK to go into the park. They were part of the shameful 7. Now they're singing a different tune. All 7 council members who tried to overcome the mayor's veto ought to be voted out of office. They knew dam well the public opposed going into the park, yet they went along with it. The 7 puppets of the La Crosse establishment ...and now at least two of them (Podesky and Janssen) are trying to obfuscate the fact they were OK with going into the park..-Chip DeNure

allcav

My alderman, David "No project too expensive" Marshall is among the seven.

random annoying bozo

so instead of designing something the fits the purpose, they offer up a price, and tell the architect to design something in that price range?

is it any wonder the center needs to be renovated every few years, and is a perpetual debt endeavor?

ElPresidente

Bingo... I wondered that myself.

Cassandra2

That's a deliberate misreading of what's happening. The architects are FULLY aware of the scope of the project and the needs regarding programming, square footage, etc. The board just reiterated the project budget.

random annoying bozo

the board DIRECTED architects to work on the design in the 42 to 49 million dollar range....it looks like the want "something' built that costs at least 42 million dollars. if I were 'reiterating' a budget, i'd say design something that fit our needs. and is LESS THAN 42 million, not say start at 42 million, and work up.

Cassandra2

You really have no clue about how any complex process like this works, do you?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.