Get a daily rundown of the top stories on Urban Milwaukee
Milwaukee County Grounds
Despite the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s efforts with the Center for Sustainability Education (CSE), the hiring of a sustainability coordinator, construction of a green roof on Sandburg Hall, and maintain of the 11.1 acre Downer Woods the leadership at UWM who are pushing to develop an engineering school on the Milwaukee County Grounds seem to be missing the larger point, that there is nothing green about greenfield development. You can build all the retention ponds and green roofs you want, but greenfield development is inherently not environmentally friendly. You might even construction a building or two, maybe the proposed boutique hotel, that achieve some level of LEED certification, but understand because of the location and development style it brings with it negative consequences to the environment.
A greenfield is already green, when you develop it you destroy the natural habitats, increase storm water runoff, and significantly encourage, if not require, more automobile use. In recent years we’ve seen coyotes and deer find there way into urban areas, this happens because as we continue to sprawl outwards more and more natural habitats are eliminated. In the case of the Milwaukee County Grounds the habitat in question is the
landing place of the Monarch Butterfly. Although, this is not something that impacts me personally, it is important to realize that by displacing this creature we do lose something of value to many people and to the ecosystem as a whole. It is also obvious just by looking at the massive MMSD retention ponds, which are being constructed on the site, that development of greenfields has a direct impact on the ability of the earth to take in and filter rainwater. Finally, when a development is placed outside the realm of a walkable community its environmental impacts go far beyond “paving over paradise.” This is true because it actually encourages people to drive, even if there is a bus stop “across the street.” When you can’t walk to lunch or to the store, and buildings are surrounding by acres of parking you are truth, required to drive. If researchers need to “collaborate” with the folks “kitty corner across the freeway,” at GE Medical, they will drive, even if UWM provides an occasional shuttle, because sprawling development insures it is inconvenient to get around any other way.
I don’t believe UWM should be expanding in Wauwatosa, for reasons far beyond being environmentally friendly but one way this project could be a touch more environmentally friendly and truly be about collaboration, not development, would be for this research facility to be built on the parking lots bordering the Medical College of Wisconsin and not on the Milwaukee County Grounds.
To see what could be impacted by UWM’s proposed Engineer School we’ve provided a photo gallery of the Milwaukee County Grounds.
Dave, I love your well-thought-out posts.
Got a very disappointing email back from Gerry Broderick today re: the proposed UWM expansion. I put it on my blog.
Yeah, I had noticed it on your blog and appreciate the support. I’ve still got a few days to keep writing about this but well it is definitely an uphill fight.
Dave, the approach on this issue is driven by dollars. If the University had the dollars coming from state funds, we probably wouldn’t have this issue before us. We know that the real reason that UWM wants the expansion to occur way out in Tosa is their funding source is private dollars.
You well thought out presentation of the facts is always appreciated. Maybe newspapers are dying, but journalism is still alive
Yeah, and when you hear representatives from UWM mention the boutique hotel, restaurant, or how they want to resell the land, it does make you question the motives.
PS If you look one of the photos has GE Medical in it. So close you have to drive!
Unfortunately, the 5300 faculty and staff of the Medical College have to park somewhere, so putting UWM on the existing MCW parking means that greenfield will eventually just get paved for satellite lots. (Unless we extend light rail out to the campus, but that’s a debate for another day, or another blog.) I love the downtown idea, but someone high up, in government or UW, has to get behind it or it’ll never happen. Tosa is, for better or worse, the path of least resistance.
Once again, stellar post. Passing this on around!
@Cranky Welcome I’m glad you found your way over here!:) I think you’ll find the discussion a little more open. That said there appears to be more than enough parking near the Medical College (generally lots have way more spot than are ever needed), and the UWM plan already involves a large underground garage. The could build a larger above ground garage instead (on the cost saving from not going underground), on the lots.
That said you’re right that it sure seems this train has already left the station, but I’m going to keep fighting the good fight!:)
@Thanks Nick and please do send it around…
Dave: Before declaring that the ‘greenfields’ on the County grounds are in fact greenfields, I believe there should be some research done to find out what was built there years ago.. I think you will find that at one time there were a number of buildings on the property. I don’t have access to earlier land use maps; perhaps one of your other readers can dig out that information. I don’t think they are as ‘green’ as you describe them. I do agree that having a college with a bunch of businesses tucked in between academic labs, with parking lots around buildings is certainly not very creative nor green. Keep up the dialogue. Todd
Dave,
Been reading here longer than any other local blog and love it. It’s just that posting agreement is boring, dontcha think?
@Cranky Yes and no… Its not that everyone agrees with everything over here but it seems to me the discussion is actually a discussion.
Mr Reid:
As a Friend of the Monarch Trail, I recently walked the Monarch Trail (Sunday), I was thinking why do the politicians what to destroy a migratoy path for many birds and the Monarch butterfly. We have this land that no other state has plus a part on International history?. Maybe, It must be outside pressure and money, to help save some of the present budget.. Scott Walker promise “NOT to sell this land “in his 2002 special election, how many more broken promises, and he wants to run for Governor… “It is time to win” for the concern citizens, Sierra Club members, Friends of the Monarch Trail, should attend the May 11th vote@ the Mil County Courth House @ 09:00 AM (Room 201, the Elected Officials will be put to test. We are not quitters, just an up hill battle.
@Todd Yeah, it is possible I used the term ‘greenfield’ a little to freely, but I believe the point still stands, that this project by UWM flies in the face of all of their recent ‘green’ efforts.
PS I do know that some of the land is actually a graveyard, which could be an additional problem for development.
UWM’s Chancellor Carlos Santiago and Bob Greenstreet (UWM Dean of Architecture/City Planner) act like arrogant, aggressive bullies. In our neighborhood of Riverwest they used terms like dormant land, and brownfield to describe a beautiful meadow on the banks of the Milwaukee River. They enlisted the help of a few well placed members of our neighborhood association to force the building of an all-freshman dorm on federally protected parkland. I don’t think Santiago sees the harm he is doing to the University’s reputation by bulldozing the public’s green space and threatening endangered animals like the Butler Garter Snake and the Monarch Butterfly.
@Eric To be fair I believe the dorm in Riverwest is built on a brownfield, i.e. I do believe the land was contaminated. Further, I believe the swap of land was actually a good thing, and generally speaking high density urban infill is much more green than suburban development.
To be clear, the unfair land swap was overwhelmingly opposed by Riverwest neighbors-654 opposed, 3 supported (one of whom was a DNR employee).
“Good thing,”- for what?
The dead brownsnake I found near the dorm this morning?
The neighborhood who is now facing destabilized bluffs and loss of natural flooding protection?
The citizens of Milwaukee who are still drinking the contaminated runoff from this site?
Infill for high density urban development does not mean taking our green space.
@Eric To me it is a good thing, for the environment because people living in dense developments use less energy, drive less, and pollute less. Good thing, for Milwaukee because UWM is key to Milwaukee’s future and growth, and they need good quality places to house the kids. Good thing, for the East Side and Riverwest business because students support retail. And again this structure was built on a brownfield, in an urban environment as it should be. Further I believe the swap involved obtaining land for a bike trail that was previously privately held.
I don’t expect everyone to agree on everything but that’s my take on it.
A few months ago I toured the trophy headquarters of Epic, a software firm located on a 300 acre spread on former farmland about five miles west of Madison. The facility is loaded with “green” features like geothermal and stormwater retention. The massive underground parking structure is touted as “envinonmentally friendly” because it’s completely underground and covered with grass , supposedly reducing stormwater runoff. What was left unsaid is the fact that the overwhelming majority of employees and visitors drive there, sometimes at quite a distance. They drive because while there is a bus line, and a bike path, it’s located on the outskirts of town and has an enormous parking structure that can fit everyone.
Our cars constitute a huge portion of the environmentally-damaging emissions put into the atmosphere. Any development that does not actively discourage driving cannot call itself “green.” But outside of places like NYC or Portland, where there is a strict limit on the cap of parking spaces in new developments, cars are king.
Good Morning Dave,
Izzy’s Mom here…..I can’t thank you enough for opening this topic for discussion. I don’t claim to know everything about this issue, but I have been heavily involved in several meetings with all the representatives of this sale. I have heard their stories change from meeting to meeting. I have been open to compromise. UWM believes they are a powerhouse. Well I have news for them. There are so many issues I do understand about this deal. I have to take my daughter to Children’s Hospital sometimes several times a month and the traffic congestion out there scares me. There are so many cars coming and going plus having to deal with the anxiety of taking your child to the clinics or hosptial distracts me/us as a driver. This plan has now become a nightmare for me. It is not just about the Monarchs.
Okay… I will stop for now but we need to be seen and heard now through MONDAY and thereafter.
On a good note, Izzy’s letter made the Tosa Now editiorials. I know have to prepare her for Monday’s meeting. She wants to do a Julia Butterfly Tree Sit on Mother’s Day 🙂
Keep up the climb! We can do this if we all come together.
@Lisa Keep up the work on the UW-Tosa fight. I unfortunately will be out of town on Monday so I won’t be able to attend the meeting.
I have to first admit my novice-ness on the topic of both sustainable/green development in general and the Wauwatosa situation in particular, but I wonder if there are ways that this development could be carried forth on County land in a way that is more truly “green”. The Monarch butterfly habitat, as one example, would seem like a plus that people would naturally want to preserve as an added attraction to the property…is there a way that this habitat could be preserved by incorporating into the development design?
My bias is also that these types of developments take place in the city but the reality of politics (and the current financial situation) mean that decision-makers are likely to compromise. While some aspects of this site seem, at least in the near term, to result in unavoidable problems that hinder a “sustainable” development (e.g. increased traffic and related pollution), it seems like this could be an opportunity to push for some innovation in design to minimize negative impact to the land/ecosystem in those areas that can be controlled. After all, even if the site was decided to be developed in the city, you’d have people traveling from the hypothetical research partners (GE HealthCare et al) in the burbs to the city and creating their share of additional pollution.
That said, glad to see that you’re bring this issue to the forefront and providing more context than we’d get from the traditional media sources.
You can create a greener development but the overall spreading out of development insures it won’t, can’t really be environmentally friendly.