Sydney Hih

The historic Sydney Hih building, which city officials had intended to tear down, may have been saved for another day, due to a legalistic maneuver by alderman and attorney Bob Baumann at a Tuesday meeting of the Common Council’s Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.

As part of a joint city-county effort to bring Kohl’s corporate headquarters to downtown Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Economic Development Corp., an affiliate of the City of Milwaukee, had quietly purchased the Sidney Hih, in order to ensure site control for the project. But Kohl’s decided not to move Downtown, and no other viable project has arisen for the site, yet the City recently issued an order to raze the Sydney Hih, seemingly sealing its fate.

So things stood when the Zoning committee took up the issue of an “obsolete” file (091436) that normally would have been summarily dismissed. The file was a citizen’s request to save the Sidney Hih, filed back in February, 2009, and approved by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission.

Jim Owczarski, City of Milwaukee Clerk, explained that the historic preservation ordinance required the council to act within two years of an application for preservation, and that the two years had already passed, making the file obsolete, and eliminating that impediment to razing the Sidney Hih. But Alderman Bauman objected, noting that the Zoning committee had acted to hold the file back in the Spring of 2010, which effectively “tolled” the process and stopped the clock from continuing to run on the historic preservation proposal.

Given the differing viewpoints on the status of the file being offered by the City Clerk and Bauman, Ald. Michael Murphy made a motion to hold the file, keeping the issue open. The committee approved the motion.

Frankly, by the time the Committee concluded its business the status of the file, and the Sydney Hih wasn’t entirely clear.

Preservation is an important component of Milwaukee’s built environment, but that doesn’t mean that adjustments to our preservation ordinance aren’t in order.  Unlike Alderman Witkowski’s proposed changes, my suggestions are about freeing the process from politics, reducing the ability of lobbying and money to impact Milwaukee’s history, and at the same time making the process a touch more developer friendly.

Two recent development projects, and the process they went through, have shed light on the what the real issues are with Milwaukee’s historic preservation legislation.

Hide House Lofts Construction

One story is about a workforce housing development, and the effort to stop it from being built.  General Capital Group planned to demolish a portion of the Hide House warehouse structures to develop an apartment building that was funded in part with WHEDA tax credit financing.  Shortly before demolition was to begin, in what was a transparent effort to stop the project, Alderman Zielinski nominated the building for historic designation.  Opposition to the project stemmed from the proposed development being built with WHEDA tax credits, not because it might be historic.  This abuse of our historic preservation ordinance did damage to the process, by making it about low-income residents and not historic preservation.  This isn’t the only time this distortion of motivation has entered the debate, and this case might have encouraged others to follow this example by ‘putting a wrench‘ into another project.  The wrench being our historic preservation laws being used for all the wrong reasons.

Marriott Hotel Site Demolition Work

The second story, involved the construction the new Marriott Hotel in downtown Milwaukee.  The proposal required the demolition of numerous buildings in the long established Historic East Side Commercial District.  This proposal immediately became political, as a public relations firm was hired, a scapegoat was found in Alderman Bauman, and an enemy was selected, historic preservation.  It quickly became about Milwaukee being open for business, instead respecting the process and our history.  Despite the perception of this process taking a long time, it took a total of 77 days to go from a partially filled file to Common Council approval, which was significantly quicker and faster than any project in recent historic.  Not only did the commission move quickly, but in the end the development was able to move forward, despite this being a clear case of demolition by neglect.  Unfortunately, for our history and our process, it became a political process that distorted our laws, disregarded procedure, and vilified preservation.

In both cases the developments ended up moving forward, but more importantly each case shows an example of how the process has been tainted by politics.  In the first it was to stop ‘low-income’ housing.  In the second the motivation behind opposition to a project was to protect a historic district (not just the individual buildings), but was twisted into a belief that the ordinance was anti-business.

Clearly, our historic preservation laws  should balance development and preservation.  But more importantly it should act to remove politics from preservation cases, not deepen its influence.

So lets critique Ald Witkowski’s proposed legislation (note his legislation was loosely defined, and the final language has not been presented), and then I’ll make some of my own suggestions.

1. Establishes a $25 fee to nominate a structure or district.  There have only been a eleven properties nominated in the past five years, and a $25 would not have stopped any of these properties from being nominated.
2. Restricts the nomination of a property or district to the property owner, a Common Council member, or by petition from at least 25 city residents.  During the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on this ordinance Randy Bryant, HPC Chair,  stated that this,  “is really not a problem for us”, because the vast majority of the commission’s actions have been upheld by the Common Council.  Although it is true that most of the commission’s actions have been upheld some refinement is still needed, because it isn’t simply that their actions are upheld it is also about protecting the process.  The recommend change makes designation slightly more difficult while still allowing influence to enter the debate.  Instead the ordinance should to allow the property owner, or 25 city residents to nominate a property, but remove the Common Council member’s ability to nominate a property.  This will limit the political nature of the process, and although it raises the bar for designation, Milwaukee has two active preservation organizations that should be able to find 25 citizens willing to participate if the nomination is worthwhile.
3. Demolition by Neglect.  Speaking at the commission meeting Alderman Bauman said it right, “to the extent that this can be toughened up, I’m all in favor of it”.   As the Marriott case pointed out, this is an area that needs improvement, as today it is common to wait for buildings to deteriorate to the point that demolition becomes the acceptable option.  Perhaps the city could enact new grant or loan programs to help restore historic properties, while at same time the city should work to ensure better and stiffer enforcement of code violations so that buildings don’t fall into disrepair.
4. Removes the provision requiring the HPC to wait 30 days for a further public hearing after a CoA application has been initially heard by the HPC.  The large turnout and extensive development team’s appearance at the first commission meeting regarding the Marriott proposal made it abundantly clear that almost no one on either side of the issue was aware of this 30 day waiting period.  Remove it or leave it as part of the process, but either way the key here is to clarify the language in the ordinance so that everyone, the commission members, the developer, and the public are keenly aware of the process so as to avoid any appearance of arcane tactics and political maneuvers being utilized.
5. Voice of the Owner 1 – Requires that the commission attempts to obtain a written statement of the owner’s preference in the designation of a historic property.  This would simply be the codifying of current policy, and therefore is a reasonable change.
6. Voice of the Owner 2 -  If the owner of a site or structure, or 35% or more of the owners included in a proposed district, file written objections, the designation would not become effective without super majorities (2/3) of both the Historic Preservation Commission and Common Council.   Alderman Bauman put the impact of this change well saying, “this waters down the entire thrust of historic preservation”.  The designation process does need improvement, (addressed in a bullet point below), but this would set a tremendously high bar for designation.  At a minimum the super majorities should be dropped to simple majorities, and the property ownership required to stop designation should be at least a majority.  Without these changes this ordinance might very well might become what Alderman Bauman called it, “the absentee landlord empowerment bill”.
7. New construction design review - Requires the HPC to consider the Department of City Development’s design review recommendations when considering applications for certificates of appropriates for new construction.  Having DCD involved in the discussion of new construction could lead to better projects, and in no way negatively impacts the saving of historic structures.
8. Timing of Demolition Permits – Reduces the deferral period from 12 to 8 months. This might be an “olive branch to the development committee” as Jim O stated, and it seems reasonable, besides once it’s gone, it’s gone what difference does it make if it takes a year or 8 months.
9. Proof of Financing for Issuance of Demolition Permit.  One of the primary concerns with the Marriott proposal was that the historic buildings would be demolished, and nothing would be built in their place, an all too common occurrence.  Avoiding this bait and switch, is a critical improvement that needs to be spelled out in detail in the ordiance.
10. Consideration of Economic Hardship – Directs the HPC to develop a procedure to permit CoA applicants to make a case for economic hardship.  Opening up the commission to consider economic hardship cuts away at the fundamental purpose of the commission, this should be handled through an appeal process through the Common Council.
11. Legislative Oversight.  Allows the Common Council, by resolution, to consider and act on any application for a CoA that has been on file for more than 90 days.  No.  This would move place historic preservation policy firmly into the political realm, and as Alderman Bauman explained could become “a new roadmap to applications, who don’t want to respect the system”.
12. De-Listing 1 – a 3/4 (12 votes) vote of the Common Council (and commission) is require to terminate a historic designation (owner, common council member, 35%).  Matt Jarosz, a commission member, summed up the fundamental  issue with this change saying, “a minority of a neighborhood being able to change the character of a neighborhood is just a terrifying thing”.  Clearly,the minimum requirements of 35% of a district being able to push de-listing of a historic neighborhood  should at least be changed to a majority of property owners.  Further, an individual Common Council member shouldn’t be able to bring a de-listing forward as that circumvents the other protections.
13. Historic Plaque Program.  Although, memorializing the failure to save our history seems sad its result is irrelevant to actual preservation, and therefore is an acceptable change to the ordinance.

Our additional suggestions.

• Tighten criteria for designation.  To the public it appears that just about any old building can receive designation.  The current criteria should be further clarified, and potentially narrowed to eliminate this perception.
• A Common Council member should not sit on the Historic Preservation Commission.  The Common Council already has the ability to weigh in on a CoA, or a nomination through the appeals process, by having a Council member on the commission it opens this portion of the process to the appearance and potentially influence of politics.  Additionally, it amounts to one vote being predetermined at the council level.
• A Common Council member should not be allowed to vote on any nomination they submitted to the Commission.  If the ability for an Common Council member to nominate a property is not removed, as suggested above, then at a minimum the council member should not vote on the matter, as this also amounts to one vote being predetermined at the council level.

“Hopefully we can improve the ordinance”.  I couldn’t agree more Alderman Witkowski.

Eyes on Milwaukee

Welcome to the sixth installment of Eyes on Milwaukee. This week I take an initial look at Alderman Witkowski’s attempt to redefine Milwaukee’s historic preservation ordinance, the Miller Park sales tax’s sunset, the ugly turn Juarez versus Donovan has taken, and more.

Historic Preservation Getting Remodeled

Milwaukee’s Historic Preservation ordinance appears likely to change at the outcome of Alderman Witkowski’s committee to study the matter. I won’t dig deep into the issue at this point, because as a result of yesterday’s Historic Preservation Committee it looks like the not-yet-formal proposal is likely to undergo a number of revisions before being formally submitted. Yet I can’t help but express my disappointment that with all the changes possibly coming, none of them appear to remove the extremely political nature of the process. Obviously the process will forever be political at its core, but making it harder for citizens to nominate a property, while making it easier for the Common Council to intervene is a step backward.

Miller Park Sales Tax

The Miller Park Sales Tax is scheduled to end in 2017 according to the latest annual report. Despite economic setbacks which have dragged down sales tax collections (and the ultimate scheduled end date), the end continues to draw near for paying off the debt on The Keg. Will 2017 actually be the year? Will the tax exist forever? Does Bud Selig personally get a penny every time I go out to eat?

The real question is when will discussions start on a host of other items likely to draw sales tax dollars in the future? Three different constituencies might be looking for a fraction of a penny on a dollar.

• A new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks, with the latest rumor from Dave Begel being that Craig Leipold is interested in buying the team.
• The Milwaukee County Transit System, which is on a two-year lifeline thanks to CMAQ funding
• The Milwaukee Police Department, Mayor Barrett was quick to slide in a .15% sales tax proposal for public safety the last time a regional transit authority tax was discussed.

Regardless, the cliff is quickly approaching for a number of these issues. Push is going to turn to shove well before 2017 for transit at the very least, and I wouldn’t be shocked if arena deal discussions heat up as well.

The War on Bob Donovan

The Benjamin Juarez campaign appears to be fixated on Alderman Bob Donovan’s prior arrest for Disorderly Conduct, going so far as to release a one-page website on the issue. That would be news if it happened while Donovan was in office, but the incident in question happened in 1992 (Donovan was first elected in 2000). Even more odd is the fact that this has been brought up in past campaigns, and Donovan still won.

Fixating on this issue appears to be a bit of a desperation on the part of Juarez’s campaign. While I haven’t been a fan of Donovan’s views on public art, the city budget, or the Milwaukee Streetcar, I hope this campaign returns to a campaign about the actual relevant issues in the 8th District.

Development News

The tower crane at The Moderne has come down as the project chugs along towards completion. The exterior continues to look closer and closer to complete with the windows being installed to nearly the top floor.

Construction appears to be underway at Casablanca on their second floor addition.

The UWM School of Freshwater Sciences will break ground on their Reed Street Yards building renovation in June or July.

Irgens Development is looking to redevelop one of US Bank’s garages (not the recently rebuilt parking garage) on Michigan near the lakefront.

Sean Ryan’s latest Take 5 column is with Jerome Knapp, the new Executive Directory of the King Drive BID.

Openings and Closings

Aurora has opened a new Walker’s Point Community Clinic in the Clock Shadow Building.

Fresh Healthy Eatery & Juice Bar opened a few days ago at the Shops of Grand Avenue.

As I speculated last week, Ian’s is indeed opening in the former What’s Fresh Deli near the corner of Water and Juneau.

The Pedal Tavern will be back on the streets soon, with five vehicles this year. You’re missing out if you and 15 of your best friends haven’t gone for a ride around the Historic Third Ward.

Pita Brothers and America Euros are both back on the streets. This will end my one-by-one food truck/cart reporting until the clustering starts up again.

The Bay View Brew Haus abruptly closed this week, but will see new life soon as the Down and Under. Sound familiar? It should, Up and Under Pub owner Tim Brodersen will take over. The Up and Under Pub is a fixture for live music on Brady Street.

Sil’s Mini Donut Shop, located at the corner of North and Oakland, will close at the end of April. No word on why, but the firm declined to renew its lease according to OnMilwaukee.  Mere speculation, but I can’t imagine the influx of late night food in the past few years to North Avenue (Ian’s, Classic Slice, Subway, Z-Pantry) helped Sil’s bottom line. You will still be able to get the donuts at Seven Mile Fair and a variety of summer festivals.

Photo of the Week

This week’s photo features the ongoing work to build a new permanent stage at the festival grounds.

Setting the Stage by John December

While this is not 100% of what the preservationist groups wanted, and not 100% of what Wave Development LLC. wanted, it will allow the historic character of downtown Milwaukee to be preserved, while allowing new development.  And yes we’re not sure what our good friends at Historic Milwaukee Inc., feel about this solution, but we think this is a solution that can, and should be, supported.

The buildings in question were not recently designated, someone didn’t designate them to obstruct development or to “put a wrench in the process“, and this process was not sprung on the development team.  In fact these buildings have been recognized both locally and nationally since the late 80′s, so some concessions by the developer should have been expected.  The development team will  have to go back to the drawing board, and this will likely add cost to the project, but we do have preservation laws, much like many cities, for a reason.  So, maybe a compromise such as saving the historic fabric along the street is a good compromise.

In addition to saving all or even most of the facades, a couple of other items should be considered before this moves forward.  First, the deal should come with a guarantee that no demolition will occur until financing is locked in place, otherwise the possibility of the project falling through once demolition has begun is still a real possibility.  Secondly, as MBI Properties LLC. is a property owner involved in this project that also owns other buildings within this historic district, some assurance as to the protection of the buildings they own within the district should be put in place.  Because without this insurance in place, the allowing of the almost complete demolition of the building to build the Marriott will act as a precedent, and further encourage the demolition of other buildings within East Side Commercial Historic District.

This compromise will allow Milwaukee to save some history, keep Milwaukee unique, and add jobs.  While at the same time Marriott Corporation will get a unique hotel, not a another Anywhere U.S.A. box.

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The Marriott Hotel proposed for downtown Milwaukee has received a lot of attention lately. It parlays questions going far beyond the buildings themselves. The proposal brings Milwaukee’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Downtown Area Plan under question. It brings to high relief the pressure a strained economy can put on development decisions. Unfortunately, much of the talk surrounding this proposal has been incomplete and inaccurate. With this article we intend to clarify what preservation means for Milwaukee and to state Historic Milwaukee’s position on the current proposal.

In 1987, Milwaukee’s Common Council unanimously passed a resolution to create the East Side Commercial Historic District, putting development in the district under the regulatory oversight of Milwaukee’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, carried out by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The buildings in the district are designated historic as they currently stand; any external alterations or demolitions must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the HPC. The East Side Commercial Historic District is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places, providing financial incentives for rehabilitation.¹

On October 21, 2010 the Common Council unanimously approved the Downtown Area Comprehensive Plan Update, a plan designed to maximize tax base and job creation that the City spent 18 months on and over 2,500 people participated in developing. The plan states that “locally designated contributing historic buildings should be retained and redeveloped in accordance with local preservation requirements” (p. 65) – because it makes good economic sense.

We as a community have determined through a legislative process of passing a historic preservation code, designating a historic district, adopting a Study Report of that district, and approving the Downtown Area Plan Update that the East Side Commercial Historic District is a valuable piece of our City’s heritage and economy.

The proposal at issue is Wave Development, LLC’s application requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HPC for the demolition of five 19th century buildings² – the last intact late 19th and early 20th century block of commercial buildings in downtown Milwaukee – and the construction of a new Marriott Hotel within the East Side Commercial Historic District.

The Historic Preservation Commission is holding a public hearing on Wave Development’s proposal today at 4pm in room 301-B of City Hall. The HPC will hear public testimony and may take action in one of four ways:

1. The HPC may vote within 30 days after the public hearing to defer a determination on the application for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the application. HPC must provide the applicant with a report on these reasons. During the deferral, HPC and the applicant must discuss and cooperate on the application, and the owner must take whatever steps are necessary to prevent further deterioration of the buildings. However, the applicant may appeal deferral to the Common Council.
2. The HPC may issue a COA.
3. The HPC may issue a COA with conditions. The applicant may appeal to the Common Council if it does not accept the conditions.
4. The HPC may deny a COA. The applicant may appeal this decision to the Common Council.

Historic Milwaukee on Economic Development

Historic Milwaukee would like to see more development and supports new, quality construction; we hope a development moves forward and commend Wave Development for investing in downtown. Unfortunately, public discourse has been pitted as a battle between forces assumed to be mutually exclusive – historic preservation and economic development. The view that these are mutually exclusive actually makes it more difficult for development to move forward in Milwaukee. Time is wasted creating divisions rather than finding paths toward negotiation and a mutually acceptable end point. Historic Milwaukee wants to work with Wave Development, the Department of City Development, preservationists, and the Common Council to find an acceptable end point at the earliest possible opportunity.

Our interests lie in the careful consideration of the built environment and the long-term vitality of Milwaukee. It has been shown that when a community can “wind the thread of history without breaking it”³ it can ensure more sustained and predictable increases in land and property values. For instance, a poll put out by the Journal Sentinel gives individuals the choice between “saving the buildings” and “building the hotel”. Historic Milwaukee is not voicing concern over the Marriott Proposal in order to “save” anything. The word “save” indicates the buildings are without their own inherent contributions to the economy and growth of Milwaukee. The reason we are asking the developer to use the historic buildings for the Marriott Hotel project is not because these buildings necessarily need saving, but because we understand that adaptively and creatively reusing them will save us from moving in economically, environmentally, and socially unsustainable directions.

Historic buildings are living parts of our contemporary urban fabric; they contribute to history as records of events, construction methods, rare materials, planning practices, and social structures. Historic and older buildings have the unique ability to harness preservation as, really, the ultimate tool in urban planning and development. Incorporating historic buildings, sites, and districts at every level of planning and development has been proven to have superior economic power, environmental sensitivity, and attraction over time.⁴

Historic Milwaukee’s Position on this Proposal

Historic Milwaukee is not opposed to a Marriott Hotel at N. Milwaukee Street and E. Wisconsin Ave. downtown. However, as currently submitted, Historic Milwaukee does not support Wave Development’s application. This is not because Historic Milwaukee is against economic development, but because the proposal was submitted without consideration of historic preservation and, in fact, fails to address or even reference a single one of the demolition guidelines⁵ it is required by law to satisfy. The developer’s application also fails to conform with the policies and standards of the Downtown Area Comprehensive Plan Update, seeks to create new wealth while destroying existing wealth, and asks the City to trade something that we as a community have determined makes us unique for something that increases our anonymity. The Follansbee and Field Blocks even appear in the Updated Downtown Plan as an example of buildings that should be restored. Whether you agree or not, our elected representatives thought the five 19th century buildings sought to be demolished by Wave Development were unique enough to the history and heritage of this City to unanimously pass a resolution protecting them (on November 17, 1987; File No. 870085). Historic Milwaukee cannot support a Certificate of Appropriateness that would completely ignore these important legal requirements.

The Historic Preservation Commission has a duty to apply the preservation ordinance and carefully consider major changes to local historic districts. Wave Development submitted the proposal on November 3rd, the next HPC meeting was held on November 15th, 2010. It is misleading to say HPC delayed a decision by calling for a public hearing on December 13th. The HPC pursued its duty by allowing time for public input and a decision on what may be a major disruption in the East Side Commercial Historic District.

Economics of Rehabilitation

Understanding that the proper allowance of time should be given for commission review and public input does not relieve the sense of urgency the community and our elected officials feel about the need to decrease the jobless rate and balance the budget. Yet here we run into another false dichotomy, that we will not create jobs if the current application is not approved by the Common Council. A $50 million rehabilitation project would result in about 820 jobs, a net increase of 30% over new construction.⁶

The difficult bridge to build is over the division between the conventional development model and the resulting, sustained high property values of rehabilitated historic building stock. The conventional focus on reduction in upfront costs in project procurement usually eliminates the implementation of local vernacular building practices, local history, and culture. Unique, hand crafted architecture is expensive as compared to large “kit of parts” prefabricated buildings. However, these are the precise aspects of the built environment that are investments for the long-term value in buildings and communities. The long-term prosperity of communities is based on their ability to retain and attract residents, which is partially based on the quality of the community’s built environment. This conflict between short-term profitability and long-term community viability and profitability has lead to severe reductions in the quality of the American built environment in the second half of the 20th century. This is one of the reasons it is imperative to rehabilitate, reuse, and adapt buildings from before this era.

There is hope we won’t have to make a stark choice between retaining historic building stock and the conventional development model. Evan Zeppos, the spokesman for Wave Development, has indicated in multiple comment threads, “Our first idea was to preserve the historic look on Wisconsin Avenue as portrayed in the drawing on page 3 of the Plans of the official filing.⁷ There also are ways to reuse building materials and further modify the design on page 3. While we have been pleased with the overwhelmingly positive response to this project, we still appreciate and value the comments from those with a different opinion. Ongoing discussion just might lead to a solution that everyone can support.” While Historic Milwaukee hopes the developer will do more than give a contemporary hotel a “historic look”; we are genuine in our desire for ongoing discussion and open to a great variety of solutions.

It is remarkable for any commercial structure to have survived for 144 years this close to a city center. It would be a mistake to raze these buildings without diligent investigation, prudence, and at least consideration of Milwaukee’s Preservation Ordinance, especially at a time when the market actually supports places of distinction, a sense of history, and authenticity. We will attract more people and have a more vibrant city if we can be forward thinking and create a powerfully distinct, authentic, and human-scale path of Milwaukee’s historic architecture from Brady Street to Cathedral Square, through the East Side Commercial Historic District, and all the way down to Walker’s Point. Let’s not lose that opportunity with a decision made in one month, without negotiations.

The question is not whether we must either build a Marriott or rehab historic buildings, we can do both at this site. The question is how we as a community are choosing to use the vetted tools we currently have in order to harness as much economic, environmental, and cultural vitality from our built environment as possible. We have a preservation ordinance and a downtown plan because we want the decisions we make today to yield the best possible outcomes, on all fronts, in the future. Let’s apply the knowledge and laws time has vetted. It is the application of these tools that allows conscious and thoughtful mediation of short and long-term interests, of economic, cultural, and environmental interests. Let’s not act in haste on this issue, as we all are aware of what that produces.

Guest Post by Anna-Marie Opgenorth with contributions from Matthew Trussoni.

Anna-Marie Opgenorth is Historic Milwaukee Inc.’s Executive Director.

Matthew Trussoni is currently an Assistant Professor in and an alumnus of the Milwaukee School of Engineering’s Architectural Engineering Department, and is an acting member of Historic Milwaukee’s Preservation Committee.

1. The developer can twin New Market Tax Credits with Federal and State Rehabilitation Tax Credits netting a significant reduction in project costs either through offsets to future income taxes or as equity if syndicated. 20% Federal tax credit plus 5% State tax credit.  In addition, “twinning” of RTC and New Market Tax Credits on the same real estate transaction has a net effect of adding 30-35 percent more equity to the transaction. (www.ncptt.nps.gov/preservation-economic-impact-model-20-1997-0)
2. These buildings are: The Pioneer Building (1864-65/1925-1926) at 611- 625 N. Milwaukee Street, the Dr. James Diefendorf Building (1867) at 627-631 N. Milwaukee Street, the Samuel A. Field Building (1877) at 633 N Milwaukee Street, the Follansbee Block (1867) at 319-323 E. Wisconsin, and the Samuel A. Field building (1867) at 327 E Wisconsin. (The southwest corner of North Milwaukee Street and East Wisconsin Avenue is popularly known as the Birchard’s and Follansbee’s Block. Birchard’s building is currently owned by Johnson’s Bank. It is a beautiful example of rehabilitation of 19th century architecture for modern uses. Birchard’s building is not part of Wave Development’s proposal.)
3. Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918), U.S. historian. The Education of Henry B. Adams, p. 1151, Library of America (1983).
4. (http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/preservation-economic-impact-model-20-1997-0)
5. (http://city.milwaukee.gov/TableofContents1179.htm)
6. (http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/preservation-economic-impact-model-20-1997-0)
7. (http://milwaukee.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=797937&GUID=88C9858B-8DA1-4428-93AF-91276EB812C1&Options=&Search=)

Wisconsin Ave.

A large crowd turned out, at the November 15th, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission meeting to speak out regarding Wave Development LLC’s request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish buildings located at 319-327 East Wisconsin Ave., and 625-631 North Milwaukee St.  This approval is required before demolition would be allowed as the buildings are part of the East Side Commercial Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Wave Development LLC intends to construct a 200-room Marriott Hotel, that would front both Milwaukee St. and Wisconsin Ave. once the demolition is complete.  The hotel amenities would include a restaurant and bar, fitness center, indoor pool, meeting rooms, and structured parking.

Despite the large crowd, no public testimony was taken as Alderman Bauman made a motion to set a date for a public hearing.  Alderman Bauman explained that per the ordinance the only two options available at the commission at this point in time were to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, or move to set a date for a public hearing.  Even if the commission had taken testimony, members of the public would need to attend the officially noticed public hearing.  By ordinance this public hearing has to be held in the next thirty days, and so it was scheduled to be held at the next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on December 13th, 2010.

Milwaukee St. & Wisconsin Ave.

Wave Development, LLC is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the buildings located at 319-327 East Wisconsin Ave., and 625-631 North Milwaukee St. to construct a Marriott Hotel. This request will be taken up at the November 15th, 2010 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.  The buildings proposed for demolition were built between 1867 and 1870, and are a part of the East Side Commercial Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, for over twenty years.

The Marriott Hotel would consist of a ten-story building on Milwaukee St. and a two-story lobby that would front Wisconsin Ave. The hotel would have 200 hotel rooms, a restaurant and bar, a fitness center, an indoor pool, meeting rooms, and structured parking. On Wisconsin Ave. the building height would range from 52-feet for the flat section and 72-feet at the top of vaulted roof. On the Milwaukee St. side the building height would range from 123 feet to 133 feet.

But here’s the problem.  What is the wrench that Jill is suggesting to be used to stop this proposal?  Historic Preservation.

In her email she suggests that someone files a request for historic designation of the proposed building at 2151 N. King Drive in what is a transparent attempt to derail the process.  It is quite clear from her email that Jill’s intentions have nothing to do with historic preservation.  There have been far too many examples of when Milwaukee’s historic preservation laws have been twisted to block development projects, such as the Hide House, and the Palomar project, unfortunately the tactic is catching on.

From: brewershill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:brewershill@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of j###########
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:39 AM
To: brewershill@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Brewers Hill- Help regarding DHS relocation – Historic Preservation

Regarding the relocation of the State Department of Health
Services (DHS) from 1220 W. Vliet Street to
2151 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.

We can put a wrench in the process by requesting that the buliding at 2151 N Dr. Martin Luther King Drive be grated temoporary Historic Designation by the City.
In order to do this we need help with filling out the form.
We need someone to volunteer to help with filling out the section of the document regarding the “significance of the structure”
See the following link:
http://www.mkedcd. org/build/ pdfs/EAppHistDes ig.pdf

We need to file this form ASAP so please email me if you can help!

Jill Capicchioni
414-###-####

When these tactics are used, it muddles the debate, and draws into question one’s motivations.  Unfortunately this exemplifies an ongoing, often seen, regularly scheduled problem, that is turning Milwaukee’s historic preservation laws into a sham.  Historic preservation laws aren’t supposed to be a “wrench,” to keep those people out, protect a view, preserve the status quo, stop a high-rise, or ensure a union deal, but instead to protect a significant piece of architectural work or history.  These tactics hurts real preservation efforts, and devalue the process.  Enough already.

The initial item regarded the proposed interim historic designation for the Sydney Hih building. The developer requested it to be held over and as it had been previously presented the developer had no immediate intention to demolish the building. Although Sandra McSweeney questioned how many times it could be held over and whether or not there was a limit, it was held again.

The highly contentious and overly litigated Downer Avenue parking garage came before the commission again. This time it was to request a change to the Certificate of Appropriateness (“COA”). The request was actually prompted by future tenant Associated Bank. The bank has taking issue with the lime green color that much of the building is slated to be stained. Specifically the request was to allow the developer to paint the scored panels white instead of the green stain. Although paint wasn’t the first choice for the building because some of it has already been stained the only option available is to paint it. Also discussed at length was if this change would impact the wall facing into the neighboring properties’ backyards. This request wasn’t addressing that side other than to stop it from being stained green. Throughout the discussion there were hints to the troubled history of the project as Sandra McSweeney claimed the color was part of the “muddy water” and Pat Balon said “we have several dangling issues regarding this project”. In the end it was approved with Sandra McSweeney abstaining from the vote.

The last item of interest was a slight change to the COA for another building that is part of the Downer Avenue redevelopment project. Of interest was that the first portions of the Mulkern Building to be redeveloped will be the two vacant storefronts and then will proceed as tenants depart the building. Because the requested change was minor it was approved quickly.

Original plans for the Palomar project involved the redevelopment of the Sydney Hih building as part of a new Kimpton Hotel. Over time these plans have changed and now Gatehouse Capitol and Ruvin Development intend to demolish the buildings to a develop new a 22-story building.

Milwaukee resident, David Somerscales, nominated the Sydney Hih building for an interim historic designation that would last 180 days and would give time to determine if this building should be permanently protected. An extended presentation was giving connecting the building to a Dr. Nicholas Senn. Dr. Senn had been a fairly well known doctor who made many medical advances in the late 1800′s. This was relevant because one of the criteria for the nomination of a building is connection with a historical figure. Additionally it was presented that during the 1970′s it became the home to the counter culture, prompting Alderman Bauman to remark that it’s “almost an iconic building of the counter culture”.

There was some questioning regarding the motivations behind the people supporting this historic designation because of their potential ties to the union, UNITE HERE, which is currently negotiating with the developer to insure union workers are employed in the hotel once it is completed. This came to light as Alderman Bauman questioned the occupation of many speakers and he made his feelings clear stating that “I’m also concerned this is another example of the historic preservation process being abused”. Despite that belief and efforts by the development team to show how this building doesn’t qualify for protection, Alderman Bauman went on to say that “it may be moot what the motivation is” indicating his belief that the Sydney Hih building might be a good candidate for historic preservation regardless of motives. This item was held and will be brought back up and the next Historic Preservation Commission meeting.

The Brewery project was requesting a change in the material for a pedestrian walk way that runs along a pocket park and behind some buildings. Mike Mervis, assistant to Zilber Chairman Joseph Zilber, was proposing the project use a colored and scored concrete instead of the salvaged pavers as originally planned. Alderman Bauman was upset over this downgrading and suggested that if a trade-off is to be made that the park should be cut back on as once the sidewalks are paved it isn’t likely they’ll ever be redone with the pavers. Alderman Bauman went on to suggest that “the park can be enhanced incrementally over time”. The meeting became pretty heated when Mike Mervis fired back that “I’m not willing to cut the quality of the park”. It was suggested that the developer at least use the pavers along the park section and not all of the pathway which finally found agreement by both parties.

New Land Enterprises was scheduled to present minor changes to the parking structure of its proposed 26-story tower located behind the Goll Mansion. The changes included using a colored concrete behind the green-screen and adjusting the pattern of the green-screen to mimic that of windows to provide some articulation and so that during the winter the building would appear better than concrete block. Despite that these changes had been worked out with city staff, no action was taken on this item because the meeting had ended abruptly as there was no longer a quorum of commission members.

Scott Kindness, of Kindess Architecture, explained that the existing zoning would allow unlimited height, up to 186 units and a volume of approximately 112,000 square feet.  He showed a variety of renderings and examples that pointed out that the change in zoning request is “basically just a re-allocation of that volume” because under current zoning it would require a building with wedding cake style setbacks so instead they’ve proposed a taller thinner building that would be about 60 feet wide.  He also noted that they have reduced the design by a story and a half since the neighborhood meeting.  The design now calls for a 26-story building with a maximum of 35-units and five levels of parking.  The parking garage would include windows looking into the parking area to lesson the impact on the eastern side.  He also explained that they didn’t design it with underground parking because it would be impractical without access to the site from the east and that underpinning the mansion would likely be unworkable.  Further he pointed out that “if we go down below one level we undermine the structure to the north”.

H. Russell Zimmerman spoke about the historic preservation efforts that will be undertaken in this project.  He pointed out that at one time the site that 1522 On the Lake sits on was home to Governor George Peck’s Manson, so this development proposal saves the Goll Mansion unlike previous high-rise developments.  As he did at the July 17th community meeting he pointed out that there are similar examples of this style of preservation throughout the world, most notably the Villard Houses in New York City.  Specifically the rehabilitation of the mansion would restore the first floor essentially to its original design with the addition of access to the new tower.  The second floor of the mansion will contain two guest suites and possibly a care-taker suite.  The third floor will restore a large meeting room and convert it into a club house or community room.  He also pointed out that they have most of the original barge boards which had been removed by a previous owner and that they were literally saved out of the dumpster.  He made a strong case for the project by stating that the “bottom line, I think this is the greatest possible solution for one of the few remaining mansions on Prospect Avenue”.

Martha Brown, of the Department of City Development (“DCD”), laid out the three parameters specified by the city attorney that HPC should consider as part of the COA’s approval.

1. If the work on the structure will have a negative impact on exterior features.
2. If the connecting structure fits the guidelines and has no negative impacts.
3. If the tower constructed in the “back yard” will have a negative impact on the exterior features.

The city staff made the recommendation to approve the COA if the developer were to meet these requirements.

1. The tuck-pointing is limited to only those areas that need work, that the mortar matches, and that staff reviews the mortar work before it begins.
2. The front porch is rebuilt to its original design.
3. The developer will provide shop drawings of additional features.

Many residents and interested parties spoke out regarding this project, both for and against it.  Randy Bryant, from Preserve our Parks, indicated that New Land Enterprises had met with Preserve our Parks and he in spoke in favor of the project saying that “everything we have requested has been incorporated into the project”.  Kevin Donahue, one of two architects on the City Hall project and a board member of Milwaukee Preservation Alliance (“MPA”), spoke in favor of the project and reminded the audience that “once these buildings are gone, they’re gone”.  Todd Farris, an attorney representing the 1522 On the Lake Condo Association pointed to the historic preservation guideline study report and claimed that regardless of designation of site that HPC has jurisdiction.  He went on to say that “this would violate the constitutional rights of his clients” and that the commission should “rise above the politics because it is inconsistent with their guidelines”.  There were residents who spoke to their concerns regarding the impact to their views, property values, and preservation of the Goll Mansion as well as a long list of people who put their names in as opposed but didn’t wish to speak.  Part of this opposition included Dawn McCarthy, Peter Kovac and Thea Kovac all of which are still involved with a lawsuit between them, the City of Milwaukee and New Land Enterprises.

After hearing hours of public testimony HPC took the issue into the commission for discussion.  Sandra A. McSweeney, an HPC member, spoke in opposition because the parking structure would be higher than the ridge line of the Goll House.  She also didn’t approve of the proposed AC locations on the new tower, thought the connector was to small and “too shed like”, and she didn’t understand how the access from the Mansion would work.  Other HPC members saw value in the project and added their support and comments.  Ann Pieper Eisenbrown, an HPC member, added that “we could continue to let the building to sit” or approve the COA and allow for its preservation to occur.  Sandy Ackerman, an HPC member, added that “I want to save the mansion” and went on to say that “I do believe that the next step would be demolition”.  Indicating her belief that the way to save the Goll Mansion was to support this development because otherwise it would likely be lost.  Alderman Bauman, an HPC member, explained that if they didn’t approve the project, the property owner could apply to demolish the property, and that even the lawyer for 1522 On the Lake admits that “it would be better for 1522 if he just demolished the building”.

Although much of the discussion revolved around historic preservation, New Land Enterprises had worked out a memorandum of agreement between itself and the Milwaukee Preservation Alliance regarding the project so these concerns should of been alleviated and this called into question the true reasons for opposition.  Alderman Bauman went on to say that “all this talk about historic preservation, not by everybody, but by many people this is all phony”, that “most of the argument are smokescreens” and “I’m not sure we heard honest testimony as to why people really oppose this project”.  This line of discussion upset the residents, as audible groan could be heard, but the point he was making was that much of opposition and the discussion around historic preservation was possibly a cover for other motives.

Alderman Kovac spoke neither in opposition or support but mainly wanted a guarantee that if this project was to go forward that the Goll Mansion truly would be preserved.  Boris Gokhman, of New Land Enterprises, explained that the Goll Mansion would be restored as it was “one of the major reason people will buy it”.  Indicating that people buying condos in the development will expect the entrance-way to their condos to be completed and see it as part of their reason to buy.  Further New Land Enterprises agreed to have the memorandum of agreement added as the fourth criteria to the COA.  Ann Pieper Eisenbrown made a motion to approve the COA with the additional condition that the restoration work is consistent with the memorandum of agreement.  The COA was approved with the additional condition with only HPC Member Sandra A. McSweeney voting in opposition.

After the Historic Preservation Commission approved the COA the City Plan Commission took up the DPD.  Whitney Gould started off CPC’s brief discussion saying “I think it is an usually creative solution to a preservation problem” and then she gave a great discussion on how similar preservation projects have happened in many cities around the world.  She made a motion to approve the DPD with two conditions.  First, the architect will work with planning staff to tweak the garage, to hopefully lesson its impact.  Secondly that any significant changes that effect the Goll Mansion itself will go back to HPC.  The DPD was approved and will now go before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.