The new East Library?

The Milwaukee Public Library Board of Trustee’s Building and Development Committee met at the East Library on Wednesday night to hear final proposals from the three respondents to the East Library Redevelopment RFP. The committee heard presentations from Stonehouse Development, Gorman & Company, and HSI Properties, and asked a number of questions of each of their presentations. Following a closed session for deliberations, the Building and Development Committee voted to move the proposal from HSI Properties forward to the full Library Board.

Following a public meeting held by Alderman Nik Kovac (a Library Board Trustee)  in September, all three applicants were previously granted additional time to refine their designs. This meeting provided each team with 20 minutes to use the projector to go over their design, and an additional 15 minutes for questions from the committee, and other trustees in attendance (as well as written questions from the audience as selected by Committee Chair John Gurda).

In attendance from the committee were Chair John Gurda, Vice Chair and Alderwoman Milele Coggs, Sharon Cook, Supervisor Theo Lipscomb, and Sam McGovern-Rowen. Also in attendance were Library Director Paula Kiely, Alderman Nik Kovac, and Board President and Alderman Ashanti Hamilton.

What follows is an attempt to capture the highlights of each presentation, as well as the most significant questions.

Stonehouse Development

Stonehouse was the first group to present. Rich Arneson, Stonehouse Vice President, led much of the team’s presentation, with assistance from Mike Bahr and Scott Davis of Plunkett Raysich Architects. Arneson emphasized many of the firms green accomplishments during the presentation. He also highlighted Stonehouse’s experience with WEHDA financing, the route his firm proposed to go for their design.

The architectural team highlighted the pocket park in their design along Cramer Street that would be available to the public. They also noted the library aspect of the project was supposed to be a modern interpretation of the facade on the former Pizza Man restaurant. The team has branded the window bays on the first floor as “windows on learning”, where children could sit and read. They noted that the tower piece on the corner of Cramer and North was inspired by the binding of a book.

The Stonehouse proposal included 80 residential units, 10 at market-rate, and 70 affordable units. The building was to be wrapped in eight three-bedroom townhomes.

John Gurda asked what was on the roof in the proposal, with Arneson noting the roof included solar panels, whose visibility could be adjusted.

Theo Lipscomb asked about the viability of getting the credits, to which Arneson that this was one of the best sites in Milwaukee, and that his firm has a good track record with receiving the low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) from WHEDA. Sam McGovern-Rowen asked about the price per credit Stonehouse had budgeted to receive (87.50%, Gorman had budgeted the credits at 85% of their value). Arneson noted that this project was based on information they have received from a banking partner they had previously worked with, and that that number could end up even being higher.

Nik Kovac asked if a proposal of just market rate housing was considered? The response was yes, but that the funding as proposed in their response gave the best budget for the project. Kovac followed that up by asking about the mix between affordable and market rate, to which Arneson emphasized that the tax credits were a competitive process (a refrain that would be heard across all teams) and that to get the maximum number of points in the category a mix of 15% market-rate housing was needed, and that his firm had found a way to make 12% work.

An audience member, through a written comment, asked a series of parking questions. The response noted that parking was provided at a rate of one stall per unit, and that it would cost $60/month. It was also noted that the library parking would be separated underground from the residential parking. An additional question was asked about the proposed building’s height, to which the team responded it was a few feet below the zoning maximum at 54 feet.

A question about the location of the pocket park led the team to note that the building was designed to be built to the urban line in front, and that the park was used to break up the mass of the building.

Nik Kovac asked about the extra space in the building (1,200-1,500 square feet) as retail, to which the architectural team noted it was likely in the wrong spot for such a use, but could be redesigned.

• Stonehouse Revised Submittal (PDF)
• Stonehouse Revised Budget and Financial Projections (PDF)
• Stonehouse Original Proposal (PDF)

Gorman & Company

The Gorman presentation was led by firm Development Manager and General Counsel Ted Matkom. Matkom noted that the firm has an in-house architectural team as well as general contracting and property management teams. He admitted the firm’s initial design was lacking. He noted that they have now teamed with Eppstein Uhen Architects, to which President and CEO Greg Uhen was on hand to assist with the presentation. Matkom noted numerous other projects they have completed including the recently opened Villard Square Branch of the Milwaukee Public Library.

The design of the proposed 4-story building was shown to include a courtyard on the east side for residents, as well as town homes and all of the parking located completely below grade. The building was designed in a C shape, because of the uncertainty of what could be located to the east of the building in the future. A landscaped outdoor green space along Cramer Street was included for the library, as well as an optional second story patio and community room (would be converted to more units if the library elected not to purchase it). The goal for the project was to achieve a LEED Silver rating.

The building was to include (under their WHEDA funded model) 73 units, 57 one-bedroom units, 8 two-bedroom units, and 8 three-bedroom units, with a 68 to 5 split between affordable and market-rate units. The market rate proposal would have included 80 units in the form of 21 studio units, 43 one-bedroom units, 8 two-bedroom units, and 8 three-bedroom units. In both models, 85 parking spaces for the residents would have been included, as well as 41 for the library.

The truly unique aspect of Gorman’s proposal was that they were asking the library to pay $1,958,000 for the library space. This led to a series of questions for clarification where Ashanti Hamilton asked for a detailed explanation noting that “I must be slow”, and a follow-up question from John Gurda where he noted “I must be slower than Ashanti”, as well as questions from other members of the committee. Matkom noted that although on the face of it giving the land away (valued at roughly $2 million) for in exchange for a roughly $1.5 million library shell makes sense, in reality the value of the land is never realized by the developer because the library shell goes back on the land. Matkom noted that the rents would feasibly only cover the cost of construction, and that they had worked hard, but couldn’t make the numbers work. In response to a question from Hamilton, Matkom noted that yes, it is as “bad as it sounds”, the bottom line is that the library would need to come up with $2 million for this deal to work.

For posterity’s sake, Gorman broke down the cost of the library shell as follows.

• Cost per SF: $75
• Shell construction cost: $1,233,000
• Rooftop improvements: $125,000
• Library underground parking: $600,000
• Total: $1,958,000

Milele Coggs asked a question about the “band” that wraps the front of the building, and what could be done with it. The team responded that it could be made up of any number of materials, and that it could be used for a variety of things including public art.

Nik Kovac asked about  cost savings if the library didn’t want the second floor space, Matkom noted that this would shave about $200,000 off the cost of the shell.

• Gorman Revised Submittal (PDF)
• Gorman Revised Budget and Financial Projections (PDF)
• Gorman Original Proposal (PDF)

HSI Properties

Blair Williams, of WiRED Properties, led the presentation for the HSI team (the confusion between the two developer’s partnership was addressed later). The team also includes Engberg/Anderson who designed the Villard Library (as well as the Bay View Library and over 90 other libraries). Williams began by noting that he lives only a few blocks away, and that this is the library he brings his daughter to. He stated his believe that a market rate project is the best fit for the neighborhood. Like the other teams, he indicated this was a challenging project, stating that the “biggest challenge is you extract no value from the land the library sits in.”

Mark Ernest from Enberg Anderson noted that his firm did the 1999 master plan for North Avenue, and that the design follows the proposed architectural review board (one can rest assured there will be more on the proposed board in future articles). He also noted that his firm proposing using the existing stained glass in the building (if you look close, it’s there), more prominently in the facade of the new building.

Blair Williams highlighted that the development would include an option 2,500-5,000 of retail space on North Avenue, set back slightly so that the library was the most prominent feature. He noted that they were open to deed restrictions on the retail stall.

The HSI proposal includes two unique aspects, developing the building with only market-rate units (through HUD financing support) and surface-level library parking. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) financing support, something Williams noted HSI has experience through a recent project in Wauwatosa, would come in the form of a loan guarantee from the Section 221(d)(4) mortgage insurance program. Williams noted that while the loan guarantee is not a for sure thing, there is a very good reason to believe the outcome of the process will be positive. He stated that the guarantee’s are awarded as part of a competitive scoring process, and that one of the criteria is density. Noting that “the least expensive floor you build is the next one”, he explained that since their initial proposal they added a floor to increase the density of the building. Williams did state that the HUD process could take 10-12 months, and that final design would need to be completed before the final application was made.

The library parking is proposed to be located at the surface level behind the library, as it is currently. Similar to WiRED’s development in Shorewood (The Cornerstone, noted for its most visible tenant, Alterra), the parking entrance will be located in the middle of the building, and the building will span the entrance. The decision was made have street-level parking based on a perceived preference of Milwaukeean’s to park at street-level, as well as the ability for library officials to keep watch over the lots, and the ability to avoid any takeover by default of underground library stalls by residents.

Paul Kiely asked about the two developers, to which Blair noted they both “block and tackle”, but that they each bring their own specialties. HSI brings a lot of financing experience to the table, including experience with HUD, and WiRED brings multi-family experience. He said they are in many respects “co-developers”. The HSI representative in attendance nodded in agreement.

Nik Kovac asked about the surface parking being a design or finance decision. Williams indicated that although it was marginally cheaper (the length of the property is still residential parking underground), it was a design decision. Anticipating a second question from Kovac, he also noted that they didn’t use town houses because they are loss leaders, and there is a security problem “perception” of having your front door right at ground level. Williams noted that many of the homes of the East Side do not have entrances only a step or two off the street.

• HSI Revised Submittal (PDF)
• HSI Revised Budget and Financial Projections (PDF)
• HSI Original Proposal (PDF)

HSI's Revised Proposal - From North Avenue	HSI Floor Plan	HSI Floor Plan
HSI's Revised Proposal Night Time	HSI's Revised Proposal - Cramer Street	HSI's Revised Prosal - Thomas and Cramer

Moving Forward

Following a closed session to deliberate on the proposals, the Building and Development Committee voted to move forward the HSI Properties proposal. This proposal will now go before the full Library Board. It would have been interesting to be in the room to listen to the deliberations over the Gorman proposal, who appeared to be sounding an alarm about the financial viability of the project as conceived. If the project fails to get off the ground, it will be interesting to see if a revised RFP will emerge with terms similar to what Gorman proposed.

It is important to note that the HSI design is not final, and is likely to be slightly adjusted as the project moves forward. There were, however, no significant reservations about it raised, although there was debate about the lack of green space. Also noteworthy, under HSI’s timeline the new library would not open until 2014.

Best of luck to HSI, WiRED, and Engberg Anderson as they move forward.

The East Library along North Avenue, with the parking lot immediately north of the building.

Wednesday night, Alderman Nik Kovac held a public meeting to allow feedback to be voiced regarding the three proposed alternatives for the redevelopment of the one-story East Library into a mixed-use facility. The meeting was a follow-up to a meeting last November discussing the potential of issuing a request-for-proposal (RFP) for the redevelopment of the East Library site. Attendees at the meeting were provided with an update on the process and allowed to ask questions about the process and proposals. In attendance were officials from the Milwaukee Public Libary, the City of Milwaukee Library board, the Department of City Development, and the Redevelopment Authority. Four public officials were in attendance listening and answering questions, Alderman Ashanti Hamilton (Library Board president), Alderman Nik Kovac (Library Board member), Alderwoman Milele Coggs (Library Board member), and Mayor Tom Barrett.

As a background on the process, the Library Board has proposed transforming the way library services are delivered by introducing three different types of libraries, mixed-use facilities, area libraries, and express libraries designed to expand facility hours and modernize operations. Following the November meeting, a RFP was issued for redevelopment of the East Library located on North Avenue. Gorman and Company, HSI Properties, and Stone House Development all responded to the RFP, offering designs that those answering questions agreed were all fairly similar. Before the questions began, the officials gave a brief overview of the process to-date, highlighting that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library will open October 5th 15th and that the Library Board may make a decision on which, if any, of the proposals to invite back for individual review on September 27th. Alderman Kovac explained to the audience that for final approval the redevelopment plan would need approved by the Library Board, the full Common Council, the Mayor, and likely the East Side/North Avenue Architectural Review Board (assuming it is approved prior to this project).

Questions

A number of questions were asked of the officials in attendance. I have included summarized versions of many of the questions and answers below in an attempt to provide the most information about the project, but not to require one to read a word-by-word transcript of the meeting. The answers are not mine, but are paraphrased from the officials in the room.

Is the land being sold? Yes, for $20,000 as well as the provision that a white-box, first-floor condominium be provided for the East Library in return.

Who is the architect? The developer will have their own architect for the exterior of the building, as well as their privately-owned areas. The Milwaukee Public Library will contract with an architect to design their space.

Criteria for picking the best proposal? A number of things were mentioned including the size of the library condominium, parking, architectural design, compliance with design guidelines, prominence of library, articulated facades, green space, quality of materials, economic sustainability, and what the additional uses provide to the neighborhood.

A comment was made that many new apartments are targeted towards “new urban professionals”. The commenter noted that she would love to live above the library and that the developments could be targeted to “old urban professionals” as well.

Temporary library? The temporary library would need to be within walking distance and would likely be within a half-mile and not west of the Milwaukee River. Gorman was the only developer to propose a specific solution that involved a phased construction process with a temporary library on the north end of the lot similar to what is currently done in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Free parking? Yes, the same number if not more stalls. One proposal has surface parking, two have underground parking. All have at least 40 stalls. These stalls are in addition to any parking necessary for residents of the proposed apartments.

A comment was offered stating that the commenter was “not impressed” about the proposals. This drew applause from the audience. The commenter offered up that the designs looked too much like other new apartments in the area. This was repeated a few times.

The Urban Ecology Center is financing a new location through donations, could the library do the same? No, estimates have new single-story, 20,000 square-feet library costing $11.7 million to build. There are significant cost savings through building a mixed-use library, including the financial relief provided by the property taxes from the rest of the development. Alderman Nik Kovac noted that it has been shown that density on North Ave. is in demand.

Are we stuck with the designs presented? Can developer cheapen designs during construction? Alderman Kovac answered that no, we are not stuck with the designs as is, and that no the developers can not cheapen the designs during construction. At this point Mayor Barrett jumped in to note that we need to collectively decide if the designs meet our expectations, and that he, as well as others, expected more applicants.

In the only explicit endorsement of the night, one commenter stated they liked the HSI proposal the most, but merely because it was the one they disliked the least.

Historic Preservation Commissioner Sandra McSweeney asked about what happens if financing from WHEDA falls through for the selected developer (provided it was one of the two seeking low-income housing tax credits – Gorman, Stone House), noting that being awarded WHEDA financing is not always dependable (likely intended, in particular, as a reference to the failure of the Mercy Housing proposal to be awarded credits). Alderman Kovac remarked that similar to what happened at Garden Park, it would likely kill the project and require it to be restarted.

Is the condition of the library causing this? Not yet, but that at least one million dollars in maintenance would be required soon. Both Alderman Kovac and Mayor Barrett encouraged those in attendance to visit Villard Avenue Library.

Is a TIF available for the site? Alderman Kovac said that it was definitively not.

Ownership structure? The library would be in a condo owned by the Milwaukee Public Library, and that the library would hold a 50% share of the condo association.

One commenter noted that Milwaukee has many distinct neighborhoods, and that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library appears great for that neighborhood, but in regards to the proposals the commenter stated “that’s the best they can do?”

Only one question was about height (compared to 5 at the first meeting). Alderman Kovac noted that all of the proposals were below the zoning height limit of 60 feet.

Blair Williams, part of the HSI Properties proposal and the only developer publicly in the room, noted that as it is in Milwaukee, density is driven by parking and the site is only so large (and underground parking is prohibitively expense below one floor). Answering to Alderman Hamilton’s question of him on design, Williams discussed that land costs are actually $1.5 million when the costs of the library condominium are considered. To those asking for an iconic building (a term that came up over and over), the cost of the building can’t exceed the revenue it generates. He noted that various forms of tax credits could help, similar to what was achieved when he developed The Cornerstone in Shorewood. Williams also noted the struggles from the timeline of the RFP, which resulted in a rendering that only reflects the massing and layout of the building, and not the end design.

Tax revenue? Earlier in the questioning, Williams had also jumped in to a question about the tax revenue from the site. Noting, contrary to what the officials estimated, the construction cost of the site would exceed the assessed value of the site, and therefore the tax revenue from the site would likely be in the ballpark of $200,000/year.

Moving Forward

It will be interesting to see what the outcome is given the feedback offered tonight. The pulse of the room didn’t seem warm to the designs, but it also didn’t appear overall hostile to the idea. Would those in attendance be happy with any design short of the quality of City Hall or the Central Library (two buildings that Alderman Kovac noted no RFP could cause to be built today in Milwaukee)? Is using the design as the central point of disagreement merely a way of attempting to reject the project as a whole? The panel of five (Alderwoman Coggs, Vaneesa Koster of DCD, Jim Plaisted of the East Side BID, Library Director Paula Kiely, area resident and Legacy Redevelopment Corporation founder Sally Peltz, and UWM SARUP Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D) that is tasked with selecting which proposals to move forward has their work cut out for them.

If all three of the proposals are ultimately rejected and another RFP is issued, it would be interesting to see if the design quality improves with a longer window to respond and a reduction in the parking requirements for the library portion of the project from 40 stalls to 20.

Which proposal do you like? Vote in our latest poll in the sidebar. In addition there is an official form to offer your feedback in.

Renderings

Corrections – Alderman Kovac thankfully corrected two factual errors in my reporting. One, the Villard Avenue Library opens October 15th. Still please go visit. Two, Alderwoman Milele Coggs is not on the selection committee, but UWM School of Architecture and Urban Planning Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D is.

The Library Board has proposed transforming the way library services are delivered by introducing three different types of libraries, mixed-use facilities, area libraries, and express libraries designed to expand facility hours and modernize operations.

The first phase of the plan is underway with the construction of the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library, the library portion of which will replace an existing one-story facility, and will operate out of a 12,000-square-feet, first-floor condo below 47 apartments. The new apartments will pay property taxes. In addition to the new revenue from property taxes, the library will be open 45 hours a week instead of 35 thanks to cost-savings from implementing a more modern design (the ability to operate the facility with only one staff member instead of three at all times being the biggest savings). The new library will also include more flexible meeting rooms to better accommodate both large and small crowds, as well as a host of other improvements designed to increase the utility of the library.

The intent is for the second implementation of the mixed-use library concept to be done with the East Library. To-date three proposals have been made for the site including two hotels (one by Doug Weas, whose firm redeveloped the nearby Kenilworth facility for UWM, another by ASQ Center developer Bill Orenstein, Founding Principal of Williams Development Corporation) and an apartment building by Mercy Housing, who is currently proposing a nearby apartment building. Alderman Kovac also noted as a possibility that a potential request-for-proposals might be expanded to include the adjacent Continental Savings Bank building. After a presentation on the broad efforts of the Library Board and the increasingly smaller budget they’ve been dealt, feedback was solicited from attendees.

Similar to many East Side meetings, audience comments focused around design, parking, and building height. Written comments were collected, but of the 27 comments made before the group they focused on…

• 10 comments included concerns about design, many of which were aimed at the design of a potential parking garage, including one from Thea Kovac requesting that Spancrete not be used, an obvious reference to the unfortunate outcome of the Downer Avenue Garage design process.
• 6 comments included concerns about congestion and parking.
• 5 comments included concerns about with the height of the potential building, to which Kovac reassured the audience that a potential design review board would keep the height in scale with current zoning limits of 60 feet, similar to the recently completed Cambridge Commons.
• 3 comments included concerns about the perceived negative effects of privatization.
• 2 comments included concerns about the installation of solar panels or green roofs as cost-saving solutions.
• 1 comment was voiced in support of increased density
• 1 comment was voiced in full support of the mixed-use concept as put forth by the Library Board.

Assuming the Library Board elects to go forward with the process of converting the library to a mixed-use facility, the likely next step in the process is to prepare a request-for-proposals (RFP) to solicit official development proposals.

The East Library along North Avenue, with the parking lot immediately north of the building.

Related Links

• Background on Library Board plan

• Seattle mayor Greg Nickels is working on a plan that will encourage all city employees to use public transportation, by giving the free transit passes.  Milwaukee should get behind this.
• The Daily Reporter has a good look at the issues affecting the 27th Street ramp off of Interstate 94.
• Thrivent Financial for Lutherans has made a significant donation to promote the improvement of the Harambee neighborhood.  It would be great to see more companies jump on board to help the process along.
• Neal Peirce has a piece on the rebirth of rail as a well-traveled mode for inter-city movement.  He mentions how a leader is Frank Busalacchi, who ironically has been nothing but car happy in the past couple of years (failure of KRM funding source, expansion of I-94).
  • But state initiatives are also vital. Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi heads the "States for Passenger Rail Coalition" of 30 state transportation departments appealing for an 80-20 federal-state funding split to put some real steam behind rail expansion.
• The National Corridors Initiative is hosting a conference, "Carmichael Conference On The Future of American Transportation", in St. Louis discussing the promotion and expansion of inter-city rail travel in the United States.  I won’t be able to attend because of financial reasons (if you have $300 to pay for the conference and hotel, let me know), but look forward to seeing the results.  Inter-city transit is a huge boost for urban areas and Milwaukee could certainly use a boost with more linking with nearby Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, and Racine.
• The Milwaukee Public Library system will no longer transfer movies, television shows, or music CDs around the system and to the suburban libraries in a move that will cut costs and allow the system to be open longer.  I would like to see the system only transfer the media within Milwaukee and not to the suburbs, as I think it gives more access for the people of Milwaukee, especially those that benefit from the free resources of the library most.  Unfortunately, the system has decided to go with an all or nothing route.  I am glad that they chose this route over closing the library earlier though, as I think libraries having longer hours are a great way to deter juvenile crime.
• An intelligent look at how individual route management might work in New York City and does work in Copenhagen.  MCTS could use something like this for areas of its system to improve service.  Bus design and management should certainly be different for routes that serve UWM and Marquette vs those that serve primarily the workforce.