In April 2008 Alderman D’Amato, as one of his last acts in office, brought forward a resolution that stated the City of Milwaukee’s position that the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee should locate its College of Engineering and Applied Science, as well as UWM’s other satellite campuses, within the City of Milwaukee. This resolution received unanimous support and was signed by Mayor Barrett, but this didn’t sway or slow the efforts of UWM to expand in Wauwatosa. Alderman Bauman and Alderman Kovac have continued this effort with a more aggressive resolution which will direct the Intergovernmental Relations Division to lobby the Board of Regents to locate the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and future student residence halls, within downtown Milwaukee.

At the most recent Judiciary & Legislation Committee there was a long discussion regarding this resolution that covered topics such as available space, the catalytic impact, transit, housing and the tax status of UWM. During this meeting Alderman Bohl was added as a sponsor and he spoke at length regarding the topic. He expressed to the committee that “I think UWM missed the ball on this one” and referred to this plan by UWM as “UW-W”. During this meeting it was also mention that Mayor Barrett is in strong support of UWM’s expansion within downtown Milwaukee and has in fact put a request for funds into President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. Alderman Bauman explained that he felt UWM expanding in Wauwatosa was “basically forcing people to buy automobiles” and recognized the value of college students when he went on to say that “believe me we could use a 700 student dormitory sitting on Wisconsin Ave”. The only member of the Common Council to vote against the measure was Alderman Donovan apparently over some concerns about adding additional non-taxable land to the city. The measure was passed by the full Common Council.

Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel is reporting that RedPrairie is no longer moving to Delafield.   The company had just recently announced that they were putting their plans on hold.

We had opined in August that we thought it was a bad idea to move further away from talent sources, and comments to the article concurred that we were on the right track.

Well I don’t think the town of Brookfield is the best place for the company, I think it is a significantly better place than moving further away from universities.

SPONSORED POST:

The following sponsored post comes from Historic Milwaukee, Inc.  Registration for the event is available on Urban Milwaukee.  For more information on advertising with Urban Milwaukee please visit our advertising page.

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 recent Journal Sentinel article, Changes Proposed to lure developers to Park East lots, Supervisor Clark is quoted saying “I think what we’re doing is just fine,” Clark said “It is the economy. We have challenges in the credit markets. I don’t think it’s anything we’re doing to scare developers away from development in the Park East corridor.”  Supervisor Clark is partially correct that the economic crisis has hurt the development of the Park East, but actions or in-action by Milwaukee County have been the most significant hurdle to the development of the Park East.

The primary issue slowing development of the Park East has been Milwaukee County’s desire to sell large blocks of land, instead of breaking the land into numerous smaller properties.  To develop these large lots a developer needs access to significantly larger amounts of financing.  This need limits both the types of projects that can be built and the size of the developer that can legitimately get involved.  Often this lends itself to a bigger, out-of-town developer, which again brings with it more issues.  Specifically an out-of-town developer may lack the local knowledge to navigate the civic environment and political landscape.  By breaking the lots into smaller sizes it will open up the Park East to a wider range of projects and developers that will allow development to occur in a more timely manner.

Another significant hurdle facing developers attempting projects within the Park East is that they have to deal with two layers of government, each with their own agenda.  These layers add time and money to the project that could otherwise be used to create and construct a successful project.  The Palomar project’s failure illustrates out this problem.  After dealing with Milwaukee County and agreeing to  the purchase,  Gatehouse turned around and asked the city for a TIF despite the City of Milwaukee’s stance against utilizing additional financing for projects within the Park East.  Additionally the agreement with Milwaukee County apparently didn’t carry much in the way of a binding agreement with the City of Milwaukee as the Palomar’s designs were dramatically altered from the time they were originally presented.  Had the City of Milwaukee been involved at an earlier point in the process it’s possible the Rana project would of been chosen or additional hurdles wouldn’t of sprung up late in the process.

Lastly, Milwaukee County doesn’t have the depth of staff needed to properly handle a project of this size.  An example of this shortcoming has been Milwaukee County’s slow process of putting properties out for proposal, which in itself shows the county’s lack of ability in this area and has directly slowed the development of the Park East.  In contrast, the City of Milwaukee has successfully managed the redevelopment of the Menomonee Valley, created a vast Riverwalk system, and managed the development of the Beerline .  Further the Department of City Development has a strong grasp of the zoning regulations, an understanding of the desired urban form, and has the localized knowledge necessary to see a project from proposal to move in.

It’s clear, that it is time for Milwaukee County and the City of Milwaukee to work out an arrangement that would allow the Department of City Development to break the lots in to smaller sizes and completely manage the redevelopment of the Park East land.

The East Town Association has posted a question and answer response to their recent policy change banning carry-ins.  Check it out, and let us know what you think.

At some point someone might want to ask why Westown’s River Rhythms hasn’t announced a similar policy yet.

The Edge

The Edge

The Edge

The Edge

The North End

In a stunning announcement today, OMC reports that Jazz in the Park will no longer allow carry-ins of alcohol.  The event which is run by the East Town Association at Cathedral Square is a popular event for a large number of Milwaukeeans every Thursday night from June until the end of September.  The article states that the Milwaukee Police Department and a Wisconsin law are the reasons for the shut down.  We’re wondering if the changes are related to finances and not the law.

The event is free to attend and has an interesting revenue model.  As I have been led to believe by a board member, Bastille Days the French heritage festival held annually in July actually generates a substantial amount of the revenue that allows Jazz in the Park to operate.  Furthermore, and I last discussed this issue in 2006, there was looming concerns that the rainy day fund accumulated by the East Town Association was running low.  I don’t know whether any of that is still true at this point, but assume it is for the sake of debate.

How do you raise revenues?  One option may be standing by and accepting the no carry-ins ruling that has been placed upon you by the Milwaukee Police Department and selling more alcohol on the premises to a crowd that is reduced in size.

Another option for East Town may be to charge admission  to the event.  Could East Town also sell reserved spaces for the event (my group puts our blanket out at noon)?

What about a mix of value-added services included valet parking, a reserved space on the grass, and a food and drink package?

How about not allowing carry-ins, but allowing all businesses with liquor licenses within distance X (say 2 miles) to sell alcohol on the premises (helping Metro Market and upstart Blatz Liquor significantly, along with Taylors and company)?

Is there a way to generate more parking revenue?  MSOE currently sells parking to benefit their athletics program.

What would you do?  We would love if it you would post a comment with your idea(s).  Also feel free to email your alderman to share your idea or just to lend your support for Jazz in the Park as it has been in years past.

The Northeast Side Area Plan which will lay out the vision and guidelines for development within this a large portion of the city was brought forward for approval.  Alderman Bauman proposed two amendments both of which impacted the location of future University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee expansions.  One amendment would of made it part of the plan that the City of Milwaukee wouldn’t support construction of new UWM dormitories on the East Side with the possible exception of the former Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital site.  The other amendment would suggest that UWM build future dormitories in downtown Milwaukee.  Alderman Bauman added that “they should re-double their efforts to locate these dormitories in the central business district”.  Alderman Zielinski felt the plan didn’t included enough of the proposed Milwaukee River Overlay District, saying that “I was hoping to see something more concrete”.  Further discussion explained that the plan included a high level summary of the overlay district and that the specifics are still being worked out between property owners and neighborhood residents.  This file was held to allow for more discussion regarding the possible amendments and to add additional content to the Bronzeville section of the plan.

Also of note was Neighborhood House’s appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of approval to demolish a pre-1850′s home in the Historic Concordia neighborhood.  Neighborhood House had purchased the house to add parking spots and build a bus turnaround.  Numerous community members spoke out in opposition to this proposal and the committee seem to recognize their concerns.  Alderman Wade stated that “I’m probably not looked at as a friend of the historic preservation folks, historically” but went on to explain that he was glad to be on their side on this issue in this case.  Other committee members indicated they were swayed by the citizen reaction and felt there were other options that could be explored to facilitate the bus.  This resolution was denied.

In response to the announcement of the failing of The Residences of Palomar, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an editorial talking about the idea of building a temporary park in the Park East land reclaimed from the former freeway spur.  The idea is a bad one.

I considered the idea back in June as a way to beautify the area between the Pabst redevelopment and the Palomar in the short term, and there are a lot of really good reasons not to do it.

First and the most obvious, is who is going to pay for it?  Not Milwaukee County, they’re struggling to pay for the parks they have and it would be a shame to see Pere Marquette, MacArthur Square, and Cathedral Square deprived of funding to build a couple new parks.

Second, who would use the park?  Scratch your head a few more times and realize the answer is likely no one.  We need residents in the area, not underused park land.

Third, try to name a temporary park. I can’t. By placing a huge amount of green space in an urban area, you’re facing a substantial risk of never getting it back to develop.  There was quite a battle to develop an abandoned gas station into a dorm, the brownfield of brownfields on the East Side.  The city and county would have a monster of a battle on their hands, imagine the headline “Developer Trying to Turn Park into Condos”.  Despite that the parkland would go unused, the not-in-my-backyard crowd would presumably show up in full force to oppose any development, despite their backyards being miles away.

Finally, one must consider the highest and best use of the land, and the reason it’s available in the first place.  It should be developed and we need to do everything we can to get it back to taxable, privately-owned property or public uses that could be catalytic to attracting more development to the surrounding area.  Creating a temporary park on it isn’t going to encourage development.  Anything done with the Park East land should be to encourage development.  Nothing to move it backward (temporary parking lots), nothing to move it sideways (parks), only to move it forward to what the original plan called for.

The solution?  Smaller lots.  The parcel was simply too big to develop.  Bigger parcel, bigger developer, bigger plans, bigger loans.  The small parcels are already being developed in the corridor, in good markets (the Flatiron), and in bad markets with a little public help (the Aloft Hotel).