The June 24th, 2009 Public Works Committee Meeting was a good day for the efforts to rebuild S. 2nd street as a complete street.  The Department of Public Works presented three options as possibilities for the rebuilding of S. 2nd Street.  The first option was to simply resurface the street, with essentially no pedestrian improvements.  The second option would resurface the street at the same width, but would included painted bike lanes, reduced travels lanes, and street trees.  The third option was the closest to being a complete street, it included narrowing the roadway with wider sidewalks, a street reconstruct, one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes, and street trees.  Clark Wontoch, of the Department of Public Works, indicated the department is open to the complete street option.

The complete street option is valuable, because it takes people in mind when constructing a street, not just automobile traffic, with the thought of creating a livable community, and spurring economic development.  Juli Kaufmann, a partner with Pragmatic Construction Co., described the concept saying “it looks at street as, a community, a neighborhood in itself,” and added that “it’s an economic opportunity.”  The idea being that a complete street is more than a street, it is a place, where people are comfortable to walk, sit out, chat, and interact.  It accomplishes this goal by utilizing street trees to create shade and shelter from the rain, by narrowing streets and minimizing travel lanes to slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety, and with aesthetic improvements to make the overall experience more appealing.  Alderman Witkowiak explained that by making these type of improvements “we can have some real quality development, if we treat the street properly.”  The idea of utilizing TIF funds if the state wasn’t to support the project was suggested and championed by Alderman Bauman as a way to insure this project moves forward.

Beyond rebuilding the street with people in mind, the investment itself sends a signal to developers and potential entrepreneurs that the City of Milwaukee is willing to invest in this area.  For an area of the city that hasn’t seen a lot of public investment, this could be a catalytic project that spurs new private investment and grows the neighborhood.  Nathan Bernstein, a property owner on S. 2nd Street, suggested that this plan could accelerate his plans to redevelop his property.  Although today it might not be obvious that the potential for economic development along S. 2nd Street is there, it is clear that local property owners and developers see the potential, and that with a push from the city the redevelopment of S. 2nd Street could begin.

To get and idea of the buildings that currently exist along S. 2nd Street, and the potential for redevelopment we’ve provided a photo gallery of the area.

Like the temperature outside, the Hoan Bridge reconstruction debate will heat up over the next few weeks.  Alderman Robert Bauman, who represents downtown Milwaukee and the north end of the bridge, recently issued a press release that details how the city will likely position itself on the issues with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT).

The release indicates positions we have advocated for before, including the need for the bridge to better interact with the city at its northern terminus at Clybourn and Lincoln Memorial Drive.

One should not hold out hope that the city gets everything it asks for though.  As evidence of how little influence they city may have in the issue, Mayor Barrett and Common Council President Hines were mere attendees at the Marquette Interchange ribbon cutting.  They stood among the crowd, while Governor Doyle and Transportation Secretary Busalacchi unveiled their $800 million interchange.  There might not be better symbolism for highway building than that.  The city can yell all it wants, but will the state listen?

When

Bridge reconstruction is expected to be completed in 2013.  The timeframe for such a redevelopment is relatively fast.

Where

The entire structure is in need of serious maintenance in the form of a redecking.  Running from the eastern half of Interstate 794 downtown to the south end of the bridge where it touches down in Bay View.

Who Uses It

The bridge serves primarily Bay View, St. Francis, and other southside residents looking to enter downtown and nearby neighborhoods.  It likewise provides access for individuals downtown looking to get to the airport.

Who Builds It

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will award and manage contracts for bridge reconstruction.  The City of Milwaukee is not the project manager by any means.

Cost

Simply rebuilding the bridge as is was estimated at $200 million, and some sort of rebuild is viewed as necessary for safety reasons.  A considerable amount of money is going to need to be spent, even just to maintain the status quo.

Bauman’s Proposed Principles

Alderman Bauman’s press release revealed a series of principles to be introduced to the full Common Council on July 7th.

• The bridge and its approaches must use the existing right-of-way and substantially the same footprint.
• The bridge’s approaches must remain elevated over all land uses currently beneath the approaches, including but not limited to the Port of Milwaukee, MMSD and the Maier festival park.
• Any moveable bridge spans must have sufficient clearance over the (average) water level to minimize bridge openings for non-commercial vessels.
• Bridge openings must be limited to non-peak traffic periods, except in emergencies.
• The bridge and its approaches must accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
• The bridge and its approaches must be limited to two travel lanes and one distress lane, bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk in each direction.
• The lake shore interchange must be eliminated and replaced by an at-grade intersection or roundabout in the approximate location of Clybourn Street and Lincoln Memorial Drive.
• All new or reconstructed structures must be designed with lighting and architectural elements developed in consultation with the City of Milwaukee.

Conclusion

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the completely elevated bridge could be rebuilt in a fashion much more respectful to the city, that doesn’t impair motorists’ ability to enter downtown.  Drivers looking to enter downtown might actually have a better experience being dropped to street-level faster (the street grid gives options) at the north end of the bridge.  Also, while much of the land over which the bridge crosses isn’t developable, the land at the north end of the bridge holds a lot of potential.  A bridge that better interacts with the city could pay dividends in the form of a healthier neighborhood and increased tax base.

Cost is something to consider, and dropping the bridge to an intersection at the north end would likely mean the loss of the Interstate designation and some amount of federal funding.  That isn’t a reason not to do a highway rebuild though, as the state has shown by spending $400 million rebuilding Highway 26 from Janesville to Watertown, which includes the addition of by-passes around towns smaller than the Bay View neighborhood.

The Wisconsin state budget is now at a point where it will go to a conference committee after the Senate approved their version of the budget yesterday.  The conference committee will reconcile the difference between the Assembly and Senate versions, and send the budget off to Governor Doyle.  Doyle will then use his line-item veto power on certain language he doesn’t like, and Wisconsin have a budget.

The item of most interest to most Milwaukeeans, outside of income tax levels, is the proposed Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority.  We have created a chart to track the changes that have been made to the proposal, and included a more in-depth explanations into each step below.

What will come out of the conference committee to merge the two budgets, we cannot guess.  In regards to stimulus funds, the amount of money for high-speed rail jumped up to $8 billion, from previous considerations of around $2 billion.  Conference committees are a bit unpredictable sometimes.  It looks like the KRM will get done, one way or another, and that a new sales tax is coming for Milwaukee County.

We’ll update you when we know more, but for now here is a look at how it got to the way it is.

RTA Board, Governor’s Budget Proposal

Governor Doyle stuck his neck out to include the recommendations of SEWISRTA in his original budget proposal.  Those recommendations, as a refresher, were up to a 0.5% sales tax to fund the KRM and transit services in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties and remove transit from the property tax.  Also included was the ability for municipalities to enact a .15% sales tax for public safety, which was included to gain the support of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  When Doyle issued his recommendations, he removed Barrett’s 0.15% sales tax.

RTA Board Recommendations
Governor Doyle Budget Recommendation

Joint Finance Committee

The Joint Finance Committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature then took up the Governor’s proposed budget, and made their changes.  The Joint Finance Committee RTA changes were made in the middle of the night , with a number of Republicans (who hold the minority in both the Senate and Assembly) heading out to the bars while waiting for Democrats to finish caucasing behind closed doors.

When the meeting finally started, Senator Lena Taylor, Representatives Pedro Colon and Tamara Grigsby had helped turn the southeastern Wisconsin RTA in two RTAs.  One “regional” transit authority for Milwaukee County only, that was funded by a 1% sales tax, and was in charge of supporting transit, parks, EMS, and culture.  The amendment included no clear dividing lines between areas, so it wasn’t clear if Milwaukee County would have parks paved with gold or the best-staffed EMS department in the world.  Of that 1%, 15% would go directly to the City of Milwaukee, with no apparent restrictions on how it could be spent.  This was somewhat similar to the referendum that was narrowly approved by Milwaukee County voters on November 4th.

The second RTA created was the KRM authority, which would operate the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail line.  The motion was sponsored by Senator John Lehman, Senator Lena Taylor, Representiave Cory Mason, and Representative Pedro Colon.  Instead of using the RTA board recommended, and Governor proposed .5% sales tax to fund both buses and the commuter rail line, the rail line was to be funded by a $16 rental car tax (per transaction).  A pork stop for Pedro Colon was included to have the train’s first stop out of the Intermodal Station be at East National Avenue (originally called West in the motion that was distributed), a mere mile out of the station.  A stop would make sense in such a location for a light-rail or streetcar vehicle, but not a heavy rail train.  Additionally, the make-up of the board was extremely partisan in nature, with the Milwaukee and Kenosha County Board Chairs appointing their county’s representative as the County Executives in each respective county is a Republican.  Racine County would have had their member appointed by the County Executive.  Bonding authority for the KRM was also reduced to $50 million.  The motion was approved on a party line vote, 12 aye, 4 no.

Representative Robin Vos (R) from Racine County proposed a motion to require a referendum be held in each county to approve the KRM and to exclude western Racine County from the rental car tax.  It was defeated on a party line vote, 4 aye, 12 no.  Vos also moved to amend the KRM authority to have county members of the authority appointed by the county executives.  This was again defeated on a party line vote.

Motion 218 - Southeast RTA
Motion 223 - KRM Authority
Motion 226 - KRM Authority
Motion 228 - KRM Authority

Wisconsin State Assembly

On June 10th, 2009, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved their version of the budget.  They approved a version of transit services more similar to what the Governor and RTA board had recommended than the Joint Finance Committee’s approval.  In brief, the Assembly approved a few key changes to the Joint Finance Committee motions.

• Rename KRM authority SERTA (South Eastern Regional Transit Authority).  Designate it the only entity in Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha that can apply as an RTA to the FTA.
• Rename the Milwaukee Regional Transit Authority the Milwaukee Transit Authority (MTA).
• Authorize the Milwaukee County Board to assess a .65¢ sales tax for Milwaukee County. Mandate ½ ¢ has to go to the Milwaukee Transit Authority for transit.
• If the sales tax is adopted, existing funding for transit must be removed from property tax levy.
• Authorize the Milwaukee County Board to approve up to .15% (NOTE: Urban Milwaukee believes this should be cents, not percent, as that would be 9.75 cents as written) of the sales tax go to Milwaukee County municipalities prorated on a formula based on the number of police and fire employees within each municipality.
• Increase the approved car rental tax to $18. Designate that $1 per vehicle from this vehicle rental tax will go to the City of Racine for the Belle Urban System & $1 per vehicle go to the City of Kenosha for the Kenosha Transit Authority to support their local transit systems. Each city will then be required to generate new funds to match new car rental tax revenues. The $1 for the respective cities will not be released by SERTA until the City of Racine and the City of Kenosha have demonstrated an established funding source to produce the matching funds.
• Add a KRM stop in the City of Milwaukee at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bay Street. (NOTE: This is a long-discussed stop in Representative Jon Richards district)
• Include language specifying that municipalities in Racine and Kenosha Counties, outside of the cities of Racine & Kenosha, shall not have a KRM transit stop in those municipalities until they each provide for a sustainable mechanism to generate new funding to contribute to the Belle Urban System or the Kenosha Transit Authority.
• Restore the language from Governor Doyle’s budget proposal to provide $100 million in bonding
  authority.

The Assembly made adjustments to the KRM after key members met with members of Herb Kohl’s staff and communicated with FTA officials to learn what it would take to get federal approval for the project (federal funds are key to the development of the KRM).

Full Assembly KRM Amendment

Wisconsin State Senate

The Wisconsin State Senate approved a budget closer to that of the Joint Finance Committee than the Assembly on June 18th, 2009.  In brief, their key changes included the following.

• Delete the Milwaukee County Regional Transit Authority (RTA) proposed under the substitute amendment. Remove the reference to the Milwaukee County RTA as an eligible applicant under the southeast Wisconsin transit capital assistance program and, instead, make Milwaukee County an eligible applicant under that program.
• Grant Milwaukee County the ability to enact an additional 1% sales tax for transit, parks, culture, and emergency medical services, and require the property tax levy be reducing by $67 million (NOTE: this would be about half of what the sales tax brings in).
• Require Milwaukee County to distribute the other 15% of the new sales and use tax revenues to the municipalities in Milwaukee County. Require the municipalities to use these funds to support police, fire, and emergency medical services. Specify that the funds would be allocated among the municipalities in Milwaukee County on a per capita basis.
• Rename the KRM Authority, as proposed in the substitute amendment, the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (SERTA). Modify the appointments to the SERTA board by specifying that the Kenosha County board chair, rather than the Kenosha County Executive, would appoint the Kenosha County member to the board. Specify that SERTA would be an eligible applicant for the southeastern Wisconsin transit capital assistance program that would be created under the substitute amendment. Require that the KRM commuter rail project include a stop in the City of Milwaukee at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bay Street.

Full Senate Budget - Page 65 for RTA

The proposed snow and ice fee increase, the furloughs, the possible use of eminent domain for economic development, and the formation of a streetcar committee were topics of interest at this Common Council meeting.

A raise to the snow and ice fee that was proposed to help create a surplus going into next year’s budget was defeated.  During these discussions Alderman Donovan stated that “this is the same old song and dance, increase taxes and fees, and cut services.”  Additionally, he asked for a “plan” to resolve the budgetary issue, but later fought other measures intended to cut costs.  As some of the members in opposition to the raising of the snow and ice fee indicated their opposition revolved around the timing of the raise so it is likely this will be brought up again in late September.

Alderman Donovan offered an amendment in an attempt to exempt the Milwaukee Police Department and Milwaukee Fire Department from the furloughs, despite the majority of both departments already being exempted.  Alderman Kovac explained that as the police and fire departments represent about 60% of the budget and due to the impending budget shortfall that if the Common Council excludes those departments that “then we’re just going to have to cut everything like crazy.”  He also suggest that the union will have to participate in cost cutting measures.  Alderman Donovan’s amendment failed and the furloughs were approved by the Common Council.

File number, 090127, was of particular interest as it proposed utilizing eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property, owned by the Cetina family, to convey the property to Pete’s Fruit Market for economic development.  Alderman Bauman spoke at length and took issue with the character attacks that some have take against Alderman Witkowikak regarding this issue, and indicated these attacks have only strengthened his belief this would be an appropriate us of eminent domain.  Alderman Bauman added that at RACM “a very strong record was presented” arguing for the use of eminent domain and that “there is no question this is blighted property.”  It was pointed out that despite claims that the Cetina family had proposed opening a restaurant in 2006 the plan presented did not include a kitchen.  Alderman Witkowiak later added that “it was presented as a full blown nightclub.”   He indicated that the Cetina family will be bring forth a new plan soon which he has yet to see, but as he said “in the interest of being fair, I’m going to ask this be held in council.”  This file was held by the Common Council for one cycle.

Alderman Bauman brought forward a file that would create a Joint Committee on Downtown Streetcar Implementation, with the goal of suggesting routes, suggesting funding options for operating costs and capital costs, and additional advisory options.  He indicated that this committee wouldn’t have any approval authority but would give the Common Council information when the time comes to vote on the proposed streetcar plans.  He added in regards to the future streetcar plans that “we may vote in the negative, and we may send the money to Saint Louis,” essentially saying a vote against the streetcar will in the long run send federal funding away from Milwaukee.  Alderman Witkowiak added that “we need to support this file, the rest of the major cities in the United States are passing us by, as far as transportation options go.”  The file was adopted on a 12 to 2 with both Alderman Donovoan and Dudzik voting in opposition.

This meeting had a couple of topics of particular interest, the use of eminent domain, and TIF policy.

The first file of interest involved the possibility of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee utilizing eminent domain to acquire two properties and convey them to Pete’s Marketplace, Inc. which would expand its facilities and add between 30 and 40 new employees.  Alderman Murphy expressed his concern over the City of Milwaukee taking such an action saying “I’m very reluctant to support the use of eminent domain.”  Despite offers of $275,000 for the vacant lots, at 1443 and 1445-47 S. Muskego Ave., the properties were recently appraised at approximately $15,000, because the owners, the Cetina family, had over the time they’d owned the property been required to demolish the existing buildings on the site due to their conditions.  The Cetina family had attempted to construct a new building for the purpose of opening a restaurant or nightclub, but neighborhood opposition stopped them from obtaining a liquor license.  This file was approved and will now go before the full Common Council.

There was also a communications file reporting about activities related to the City of Milwaukee’s Tax Incremental Financing Districts.  The report predicted that in 2010 the city could close three more districts, unless they are extended, including district 56 which is notably “extremely lucrative,” and five districts appear they could be closed in 2011.  It also showed that districts 20 and 21 are currently under-performing and will need to receive donations.  Finally, it also pointed out that in 2008 there was $1.2 billion in increment which represents 3.7% city’s total equalized value of $32.3 billion.

During this discussion Alderman Bauman seem to argue that city needs to utilize TIF more often and with more projects during this downturn when he asked “what precisely are we doing to prime the pump?”  He brought up New Land Enterprises’ proposed building at N. VanBuren St. and E. Kilbourn Ave. and expressed his concern over the Department of City Development not pushing projects that request TIF funds.   Specifically, he said we have “put a big bucket of cold water on the project behind closed doors,” and added that “if you don’t bring the project forward we can’t have the debate.  James Scherer, of DCD , responded that “my concern with it, was that it had no equity in it at all.”  Alderman Murphy agreed expressing that “if nobody has any skin in the game there is no reason to have them as a partner.”

The production of renewable energy continues to move forward in the Midwest as new projects are proposed and government adjusts to make construction of new developments easier. The most noteworthy is the planned 39 acre urban solar power plant in the City of Chicago’s West Pullman neighborhood.

The site selected for the solar power plant is a heavily contaminated brownfield on Chicago’s south side.  The site has been unused for 30 years, and even after remediation wouldn’t be suitable for recreational use.  Judging from other reports, all that stands between the plan and its implementation is the approval of a $48 million stimulus loan from the U.S Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office to cover up to 80% of the project costs.

This 10-megawatt solar photovoltaic (PV) facility, featuring 32,800 solar panels that will produce enough clean energy to fulfill the annual requirements of 1,200 to 1,500 homes, will displace approximately 31.2 million pounds of greenhouse emissions annually (the equivalent of taking more than 2,500 cars off the road or planting more than 3,200 acres of forest).

View Chicago Solar Power Plant in a larger map

Also of interest, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Thomas Content has a good rundown of what progress has been made regarding wind power in Wisconsin, and what obstacles are holding its development.  From a high level things appear pretty good…

By many accounts it was a banner year for the state. Record development of wind power took place, with the opening of four large wind-power projects by companies including We Energies, Invenergy and Wisconsin Power & Light Co.

Eight times as much wind power is being generated today as there was a little more than a year ago. But electricity from the wind still accounts for only about 5% of the state’s power supply.

But there are significant challenges.  A couple key takeaways from the article…

• State Senator Jeff Plale (D-Milwaukee) and State Representative Jim Soletski (D-Green Bay) are lead sponsors of a bill to set up uniform siting standards for all wind farms that would be built in the state.  To put things in perspective, the last project that was approved by a local government happened in March of 2007.
• The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has been difficult to work with in order to obtain permits to move the parts throughout Wisconsin.  According to Port of Milwaukee marketing director Betty Nowak this has led to an direct decrease in the volume of wind-power parts coming through the port.  These issues have since been resolved. I would guess this is why WisDOT has been so feverishly expanding freeways around Milwaukee ( for the Zoo Interchange, and for I-94 to the state line), but judging by how Bucryus and Joy Global continue to produce massive mining equipment in Milwaukee, this can’t be the case.
• Wisconsin is behind marketing itself to wind power companies.

How does all of this affect Milwaukee? Besides the obvious change to a more sustainable of source of power, which will result in cleaner air for Milwaukee residents, there are numerous other pieces to this puzzle.  One already mentioned is the use of the port, a higher port utilization means more jobs.  On top of that, Wisconsin has for a long-time been involved in the manufacturing supply chain.  Despite that an incredible number of those jobs are gone for one reason or another, the capacity for such production still exists.  With the size and timing of such projects creating a rather large incentive to make the parts locally, Wisconsin and Milwaukee in particularly could benefit from the increased use of wind turbines for power.

The development of an urban solar power plant is something to also watch closely.  If it works on a Chicago brownfield, I can imagine it would work equally as well on a Milwaukee brownfield (or factory rooftop).

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn has had his new police district boundaries approved by the Common Council Public Safety Committee.  The new boundaries will have the most significant affects on the East and South sides of Milwaukee.

A looming issue with the construction of the new UWM dorm on the Hometown site on North Avenue was that it it will sit on the dividing line of the first and fifth districts.  Concerns were raised at the public meetings preceding the approval of the dorm that policing may be an issue in the area.  The new boundaries should eliminate any potential communication issues by placing officers near the new dorm in the same district.

The existing UWM Riverview Residence Hall will be now be in District 5, which will encompass all of the Riverwest, Brewers Hill, and Harambee neighborhoods as well as a few more neighborhoods to the northwest.  While the existing Riverview Residence Hall was originally on the North Avenue dividing line as well, it did not draw the same concerns from neighbors as no one lives south of the dorm until you hit Commerce Street and the Beerline B neighborhood.

Old Districts

New Districts

Larry Sandler at the Journal Sentinel has more information on the South Side redistricting.

“Today I’m a little disappointed in my alma mater,” said Supervisor Lipscomb at the Thursday, May 21st Milwaukee County Board Meeting during the discussion of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s purchase of part of the Milwaukee County Grounds for an engineering school.  As a graduate of UWM’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning his words and actions showed he understood how this proposal flew in the face of the school’s own teachings.

The concept sounds good, build an engineering school and business park close to GE Medical and the Medical College of Wisconsin in an effort to expand UWM’s research in the medical field, and there’s no doubt that some research and jobs will come out of this effort, but the bigger picture is that the continued hollowing out of the urban core isn’t good for UWM, the City of Milwaukee, or the region.  That by design this site will inherently have issues with pedestrian access, transit, and forced auto dependence.  That by developing this site natural habitats will be lost, congestion will be created, and additional pollution will be generated.  That this site would further discourage and disenfranchise minorities and limit their ability to attend the school.

Supervisor Lipscomb wasn’t the only board member to see the bigger picture.  In fact Supervisor Weishan did all he could to improve the deal or slow the process to allow time for further improvements to the agreement.  He offered multiple amendments, one which tried to specify the allowable uses for the purpose of encouraging the development to be more mixed-use in design, and another that would have created a scholarship fund for minorities to attend the engineering school.  Both of these amendments attempted to address some of the big picture issues regarding the proposed school location, but received little support from other members of the county board.  He went on to make it entirely clear as to why he felt other members of the board supported the proposal, stating that he felt “the majority of this board has made up their mind that they just want the money.”

As this proposal has been an topic we’ve felt strongly about we do appreciate that Supervisors Dimitrijevic, Larson, Lipscomb, and Weishan voted against this proposal, and do hope UWM works to provide better transit access to the area, creates a facility that respects the Monarch Trail, expands other programs in the city, and finds a way to diminish the environmental impacts of this development.

Recently, with the encouragement and support of our readers, the help of graphic artist Kieran Sweeney, and the drive of Juli Kaufmann a conceptual idea for the redevelopment of S. 2nd Street, in Walker’s Point, was created and entered in to GOOD Magazine’s livable streets contest.  Although it didn’t win, it did come in a strong second, validating the importance of a complete street redesign for S. 2nd Street.  The need for improvement of S. 2nd Street is obvious as its current form leaves much to be desired, and although simply repaving the street would technically be an improvement, it wouldn’t change the image of the street.  To successfully change the image requires changes to the physical infrastructure, and the organizing of business owners to facilitate the revitalization of the street.

The organizing and obtaining of funds to complete the street is a significant challenge, but the concept itself is truly very simple.  Add street trees, bike lanes, and planters, remove a travel lane or two, update some lighting fixtures, and shake vigorously.  These ingredients when mixed together change the physical environment from an automobile freeway, that is hostile towards the pedestrian, to one that is not just conducive to people, but welcoming to people, be it for walking, biking, shopping, or siting at a cafe.

Unfortunately, the idea may seem radical to traffic engineers who’s only concern is how fast can the traffic flow, or to politicians afraid to go to bat over funding, but for those who are actively working on creating a better urban environment that would support local business, it makes complete sense.  Hopefully this idea can come in number one where it matters, within the Department of Public Works, the Wisconsin DOT, and the Milwaukee Common Council.

As the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors barrel ahead towards Thursday’s vote on the Milwaukee County Ground land sale to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee word comes, according to the Daily Reporter article Main Campus Still in Play for UWM Engineering Building, that UWM’s own planning includes possible development sites for College of Engineering and Applied Science buildings on the East Side campus.  I’ve long suggested a variety of sites downtown and near downtown as better options for expansion than the Wauwatosa site, but expanding on the current campus is of course a logical choice as well.  This site make sense because the issues of the lack of affordable housing, limited access to transit, and the negative environmental impacts of sprawl are alleviated by developing within the urban environment.

That said, these plans, although great and preferred, and confusion to the issue and clearly bring up a series of questions that deserve answers.  Why hasn’t this idea been thoroughly investigated by the UWM?  What exactly is UWM proposing to build on the Milwaukee County Grounds?  What is the rush to close on the land acquisition if these plans are a possibility?  There has been a lot of discussion about collaboration and research within the areas of bio-medical research, but what about computer, chemical, civil, construction, and the numerous other fields of engineering will they be staying on the East Side?  At first UWM proposed the land would be used for the “engineering school,” then it was “just graduate students,” still later “just research,” but at the same time the discussion expanded to include a boutique hotel and restaurant.

It appears the “plan” has gone through significant changes from the beginning until now, and more questions have arisen than have been answered, all of which need to be answered and spelled out clearly for the public prior to any approval or land sale.