The City of Milwaukee is offering two new ways for residents to support transit initiatives in Milwaukee.  First the City of Milwaukee has rolled out an online petition and are asking residents to sign it if you agree with the four points laid out below:

1. The Connector plan should enhance and expand existing public transit service in Milwaukee.
2. Transit routes that are fixed in place are more likely to spur significant development. Thus, the Connector plan should include fixed transit.
3. The design of the Connector plan should maximize the amount of federal transit investment attracted to Milwaukee.
4. The Connector plan should be viewed as a significant, substantial beginning to major transit improvements in Milwaukee — with the expectation that our community will build upon these improvements over time.

Additionally the Milwaukee Connector study group will be holding a series of meetings to allow residents to voice their opinion.   The open houses will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on the following dates:

February 3, 2009
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Union
Wisconsin Room
2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.

February 4, 2009
Fritsche Middle School Cafeteria
2969 S. Howell Avenue

February 5, 2009
Black Historical Society
2620 W. Center Street

February 10, 2009
Northwestern Mutual
Franklin Campus
1 Northwestern Mutual Way (S.27th Drexel and Rawson)

February 11, 2009
Milwaukee County Research Park Technology Innovation Center – Room 162
10437 Innovation Dr.

February 12, 2009
O’Donnell Park
Harbor Lights Room
910 E. Michigan Street

Sign the petition

The Wisconsin DOT presented the most recent plans for the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange.  The project team argued that because of the age of the interchange, number of accidents, and predicted congestion that the interchange needs to be rebuilt and widened.  They presented multiple options, all of which included the relocation of at least 13 residential homes, one business and would cut the parking lot at State Fair in half.  It was pointed out that the under the plans now being considered there will be no impact to the Honey Creek Business Park.  The design includes additional lanes and new frontage roads, referred to as Texas U-Turns, that essentially double the footprint of the highway.  Alderman Bauman expressed that the Wisconsin DOT seems to always push for freeway expansion saying that “no one ever talks about the no build option” and that “this a stealth widening of the Milwaukee freeway system”.

In response to a series of questions and comments regarding transit options, Ms. Brown, from the Wisconsin DOT, responded that “transit is not considered as part of the construction of the interchange”.  Alderman Murphy expressed the committee’s belief that the Wisconsin DOT has ignored multi-modal options at the expense of the City of Milwaukee saying that “the way they (Wisconsin DOT) set up this planning they specifically excluded it”.  Wisconsin DOT staff repeatedly pointed to SEWRPC’s planning as their guiding direction and Ms. Brown reiterated “that (rail) is not an option given the schedule and time frame”.  Near the end of the meeting Alderman Bauman summed up the committee’s message to the Wisconsin DOT saying “carry back the message you don’t have any happy campers”.

South Water Works

South Water Works

South Water Works

South Water Works

South Water Works

A column in Milwaukee Magazine criticizing the design of Renner Architect’s soon-to-be completed BreakWater Condominiums spurred a response from Renner’s firm that was in very poor form.  The column in Milwaukee Magazine centered around the design of the BreakWater building itself, although Renner’s rebuttal was more interested in other things.

There are two key elements to the issue.  The first is the response from Peter Renner’s firm.  The second is the question of the actual architectural value of the building.

In the case of the first issue, Peter Renner’s firm issued a response via email to an article by Tom Bamberger in Milwaukee Magazine (not yet available online).  The email sent out to an undisclosed number of individuals, but presumably went to every future BreakWater resident as part of a “BreakWater Condominiums Weekly Update.”  The email that was sent out was addressed from Sales staff member Chris Corley, but Renner himself should be held personally responsible until he issues an apology.  Furthermore, it would be shocking if Renner himself didn’t have involvement in the authoring of the email with the amount of architectural detail included.

A rebuttal to a printed column that criticizes your development is completely fair, and that’s not at all where the issue is.  The problem is the way the rebuttal was authored, and the personal attack it included.

The email, which I have posted in its entirety as a PDF, attacks architecture critics in the city calling them hypocrites.  Renner then moves along to attack Park Lafayette comparing it to something you would find in the Soviet Union.  It follows that up with an attack the UWM School of Architecture and Urban Planning.

The final and most egregious insult Renner issued was at columnist Tom Bamberger, exposing his address unnecessarily (with the only point of posting photos of his home and mocking his home), marginalizing his financial well-being, and randomly criticizing his photography skills.

A response from Renner was certainly not uncalled for, but the way this response was written certainly was.

The second question is over the architectural value of the building.  Bamberger was rather harsh in his criticism of the BreakWater, but when you’re building something that is visible from more than a mile away you’re not going to please everyone.

Do I personally think the building is a great architectural addition to the skyline?  It’s okay, nothing special.  There is a better question to be asked though.  Does every building that adds to the skyline have to be approved by the architectural community as a quality addition?  I say no, although I’m sure others would certainly disagree.

Milwaukee is blessed with a number of beautiful buildings from Milwaukee City Hall to “the Calatrava.”  There are also a lot of bland buildings that are still assets to the urban fabric.  The massing of the BreakWater will certainly prevent it from ever blending in with others around it, but it will certainly will not distract from Milwaukee’s best architectural assets.

The inside of the building is a different story from the outside.  The quality of the construction as far as we can tell (from past Renner projects and tours of the BreakWater) should make the BreakWater a great place to live for years to come.  Renner has a history of delivering quality units that have historically had high resale prices.

From an urbanist’s perspective the development is pretty sound, it interacts with the street pretty well, and brings a substantial amount of residents into downtown Milwaukee.  Unfortunately it’s not a mixed-use development, but there are a substantial amount of commercial buildings in the area.  Another real positive is that it elevated the height of the neighborhood, which should help future developers build high-density buildings in the area.

If I was Peter Renner I would have issued a response to my customers in response to Bamberger that said “look at my track record.”  Nothing more was needed.

SPONSORED POST:

Tonight is the first of HMI’s events, Milwaukee Comprehensive Plan.

What is Milwaukee’s Comprehensive Plan? How will Smart Growth change the way American cities are organized?

Historic Milwaukee Inc. invites you to join us for A View of Our City in Four Acts:  HMI’S 2009 Panel Discussion Series. This series brings together Milwaukee’s most tuned-in and interesting thinkers in an intimate setting. Listen and react to thoughtful discussions on Milwaukee’s built environment as influenced by history, law, design, art and politics. Creative genius behind the project is Attorney Bruce Block, who will be acting as Moderator for each discussion. Visit www.reinhartlaw.com to learn more about Bruce.

We are also holding a Cocktail Hour prior to each discussion. Speak one-on-one with the evening’s panelists and fellow attendees interested in our built environment while enjoying cocktails and substantial hors d’ouevres. Reservations for the Cocktail Hour are an additional $20.00 per person and limited to 20 people per evening. We are lining-up a stellar group of speakers. You will not want to miss this.

1. Milwaukee’s Comprehensive Plan, January 29, 2009

2. Public Involvement in the Planning Process, February 26, 2009

3. Joseph Zilber’s Neighborhood Initiative and Chicago’s New Communities Program, March 26, 2009

4. African American Settlement in Milwaukee Thursday, April 23, 2009

Location: Penthouse, 1000 N. Water St.

Time: 7:00PM-9:00PM

Parking: Attendees may use the public parking lot at 1000 N. Water St. The entrance ramp is located on the East side of the building, on Market Street. Volunteers will be stationed at the building’s street entrance and parking garage entrance to guide guests to the penthouse.

Ticket Price:*

Members of Historic Milwaukee $15.00 per discussion / $45.00 for series

Non-Members $20.00 per discussion / $65.00 for series

University and College Students $7.00 per discussion

Cocktail Hour: 6:00PM-7:00PM, $20.00 each or $50.00 for series. Reservations limited to 20 people per night

I hope you will be able to join us in exploring Milwaukee’s past, present and future.

*All Historic Milwaukee 2009 Guide Training Students can attend our Panel Discussions at no charge. To find out more about this in-depth course on Milwaukee’s history and architecture, please visit www.historicmilwaukee.org.

In the name of cost savings two green efforts were stalled during today’s meeting of the Public Works Committee.

The first item to run into issues with the committee was the Central Library’s resolution that would of allowed them to apply for a $250,000 MMSD Stormwater Best Management Practices Partnership grant.  This grant was to be used in conjunction with $950,000 of city funds in the construction of a green roof on the Central Library.  The existing roof is in disrepair and will be in need of replacement in the near future.  Although it was presented that this green roof could potentially double the lifetime of the roof, concerns were raised over the cost of construction.  Additionally it was estimated that the green roof was would save $3,500 in energy costs per year.   Lost on the conversation regarding the increased cost was that this grant has an education component that goes above and beyond the building of a new roof.  Alderman Donovan expressed his thoughts on the costs when he said “everybody likes green, well we’ve gotta have the green money”.  This file was held at the call of the chair which opens up the possibility that the City of Milwaukee could miss the deadline to request the grant.

The second resolution of importance that was held up proposed having the State of Wisconsin paint bike lanes on to West Forest Home Avenue between South 68th Street and South 45th Street after completing a road construction project.  In reference to problems experienced with recently painted lane markings Alderman Bauman complained that “what we’re painting doesn’t last even in months”.  Alderman Dudzik argued that if the City of Milwaukee can’t keep the roads painted properly for drivers, then the City of Milwaukee can’t add the additional burden of new markings to maintain.  This file was also held to the call of the chair.

We had originally speculated about the origins of the ban on carry-ins at Jazz in the Park.  Our speculation was that it was really a money issue, but that we thought the East Town Association had the right to and should attempt to generate money from the event.

Today we received just about all we needed to confirm our suspicions, a couple of great quotes from the Milwaukee Chief of Police Edward Flynn courtesy of the Journal Sentinel article Jazz in the Park fans have a whine and cheese party.

“It’s the first time I’ve been thrown under a bus by a wine-drinking Brie-eater,” he said.

“Listen, I can’t tell you the Police Department is not going to enforce appropriate laws. I will tell you that when it comes to an event like this, we’re going to respond to conduct. We’re not doing anything pro-active.”

Translation: The police don’t care if you uncork your own bottle of wine or pop a few carry-in beers at Jazz in the Park, as long as you’re peaceful and behave.

Flynn communicated this to Kate Borders, East Town’s executive director, when he saw her at the fest last summer. “Against the backdrop of 19 years of no major incidents there, I certainly assured her that we weren’t suddenly going to become revenuers,” Flynn said.

It’s perfectly reasonable for the East Town Association to want this event to break-in, or even generate a profit to support area businesses, no one should complain about that.  What is a shame is how this whole thing has been handled.  The East Town Association has done nothing to help itself here, failing to control and soften the reaction at every step of the way.  The statements from Chief Flynn, that contradict earlier reports from the East Town Association, are just another step in this saga that probably isn’t over.

Let’s at least give it a catch title.  Jazzgate?

153 N. Milwaukee St.

Educators Credit Union

The North End

Breakwater Condos

The Edge

Tom Daykin did some digging and was able to uncover that the final request from Gatehouse Capital Corp. was $18 million in public money for the Palomar.

What else does $18 million buy us?  Well, it would be about the salary Bucks’ star Michael Redd will earn in the 2010-2011, around the time the Palomar would have opened down the block.  If you had bought one of the condos financed with $18 million in taxpayer dollars you would have been able to get a good view of Redd’s jump shot from the luxury box that the Palomar was going to buy for residents.

Also, you could get Prince Fielder for two years (story just broke).

But how about something that would have impacted the city the way the Palomar was supposed to (and in case you can’t remember Mary Beth Waite had a whole list of great things the building was going to do), what else could we do with that $18 million?

What if we as Milwaukee spent $16 million on the local funding share required to access the $91.5 million available to build a new type of transit system and executed Mayor Barrett’s transit vision?  Well instead of a hotel and condo project, we would have a streetcar system that links downtown together, as well as an express bus system.

Sure, there is a question of a funding source for operating costs for that system, but the RTA (which we endorsed) has a solution in the works.

Would you spend $18 million on a building that may or may not encourage development on the land around it?  Or would you spend it on a system that links up not only downtown, but the region and encourages development on (and increases the value of) every property near the route.

It’s not a choice between the two, but it’s important when considering the potential value of the Palomar to consider what else you could get with a similar amount of public dollars.  Spending that much on a luxury project with dubious catalytic potential is just too much.

In case you’re not yet convinced it probably wouldn’t have been a good investment to make.  Manpower received a $25.3 million TIF for their new headquarters just a few blocks away from the project.  They brought 900 permanent jobs, as opposed to the 200 or so permanent jobs the Palomar would have created.