Trinitas Ventures Initial Renderings

Trinitas Ventures’ request for a change in zoning, from Industrial Light 2 to Detail Plan Development, was recommended for denial by the City Plan Commission at the February 6th, 2012 meeting.  The proposal would allow for the development of a $35 million, 681-bedroom private dormitory to be developed on an existing industrial site, which has sat underutilized for numerous years.  Trinitas Ventures targeted the Milwaukee area and this site in particular, because UWM has seen a 9% enrollment growth since 2005, approximately 26,000 students live off campus today, and UWM can currently only house 15% of their student population.  The project would include 1.1 acres of green space, fully furnished units, tennis courts, a basketball court, a swimming pool, a workout room, shuttle service to campus, and other amenities aimed at attracting college students.

Brian Parish, Vice President of Brokerage Services for The Dickman Company, Inc. spoke in support of the project, and explained that they had been marketing the property since 2009, and that it has been available since 2002, but that we’ve “never concluded a sale or lease in this time”.

Chris Coakley, the property owner, explained that after owning the property for ten years that “at the end of the day, I’ve realized that it’s functionally obsolete”, and that “if this project doesn’t move forward, it will sit empty for another ten years.”

The project was opposed by neighborhood residents and at least two neighboring businesses.  Tulip Corporation was concerned with the potential of receiving complaints from new residents, because Tulip Corporation has operations 24 hours a day and has always been located between industrial uses, not residential uses.  Jonathon Eder, President of In Place Machining Company, spoke at length about the project stating it was critical to “keep it [the site] industrial”, and unless the city commits to its industrial zoning that it will “never attract another business”.  Residents spoke about the impacts on parking, property values, noise, conflict with residents, a potential decrease in property values, and a potential increase in crime that could come about if the project was to move forward.

Alderwoman Coggs explained that despite only having $25 million worth of development in her district in recent years she was “in objection” to this project, and that her “position at this location will not change”.  She listed a variety of reasons including the potential for students to be a target of crime, and that this project was inconsistent with the Northeast Side Area Plan.

Alderman Kovac also spoke in opposition to the project adding that “it’s a very high hurdle to change the zoning, and they haven’t even come close.”

The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denying the change in zoning, despite Trinitas Ventures’ request to hold the file.

The project would utilize $420,000 from TID #34 and construct a new Riverwalk section and dockwall.  The 80-foot section is comprised of two properties, and both owners, General Capital and Hoffman, have provided the city with appropriate easements to allow for the new Milwaukee RiverWalk segment. Further, a draft agreement with the Historic Third Ward Association was drawn up to handle maintenance of this section.  If approved the construction would start in April to be finished in August.

The project prompted questions and concerns from committee regarding the apparent change in city policy for this project.  Normally, the local property owner would fund 30% of a riverwalk segment’s construction, whereas in this case the city was planning to 100% fund the construction of the riverwalk segment.   Alderman Murphy asked “Why are we changing our practice?”  Remington answered that “we [the city] don’t want to wait for that development to take place.”  She also explained that there will be no direct connection to the property from the riverwalk, indicating that the adjacent property will received no direct benefit.  Alderman Witkowiak wondered if the city could assess the property owners much like the city does with sidewalks, and stated that this action would be “kinda sorta precedent setting.”  Alderman Bauman, explained that “I support this project,” but pushed to hold the project to work out details regarding a possible assessment or the possibility of requiring the property owners to buy the section if they choose in the future to connect to the system.  The file was held, and will be taken up at the next Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee meeting.

1922-38 West Fond du Lac Avenue - Design

A proposal from Nafiz Efe, owner of EFE Building and Remodeling, LLC, to purchase the city owned lots at 1922, 1924-26, and 1932-38 West Fond du Lac Avenue will go before the  January 31st, 2012  Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.  If the $15,000 purchase is approved, the city lots will be assembled, with an adjoining property, to create an 18,000 square foot development site.  Nafix Efe plans to construct a $3 million three-story mixed-use building on this new site.   The building will include 6,600 square feet of first floor retail space, 16 apartment units, and a 29-space surface parking lot behind the building.

• Land Disposition Report
• Fiscal Impact Statement
• Public Hearing Notice

1601 N. Jackson St. Apartment Proposal

Dermond Property Investments’ request for a change in zoning for the properties 1601 N. Jackson and 522 E. Pleasant St. from Local Business (LB2) to a Detailed Planned Development (DPD) was held at today’s Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.   The change in zoning is needed to allow a 34-unit apartment building to be developed on the site.  The site’s current zoning would only allow for 12-units to be developed, though the massing and height of the proposal is consistent with the current zoning.

Max Dermond, principal of Dermond Property Investments, explained that each unit in the five-story apartment building would include balconies, underground heated parking, and in-unit washer and dryers.  Additionally, he recognized that residents had brought up a list of concerns including parking, height, architectural style, traffic, and density, but that they were working to alleviate many of these issues.

Alderman Bauman echoed the concerns regarding size saying “as an infill project this is totally out of scale.”  The Project Designer, Joel Agacki of Striegel-Agacki Studio, pointed out that “by right someone could even do something bigger”, and that “there are similar residences within eye-shot of the site”.  Also weighing in on the project, Alderman Murphy added “I’m a little concerned about the size of the building and the number of units.”  A few residents showed up to oppose the project, all echoing the same points “it doesn’t fit”, and it will create parking issues .

Alderman Kovac, who represents the area, explained that “this is certainly a completely unique street”, in that while it has a variety of single family homes and duplexes it is also just on short block away from the Park East redevelopment area.  And that depending on which way one is facing there are vastly different building styles and heights in the near neighborhood.  He summarized saying,  “there’s a mix”, and indicated that despite neighborhood opposition, which he pointed out was primarily about parking, that he believes this project “is right on the border”.

At Alderman Kovac’s sugestion, the request was held to allow for the developer to revise the design to make it more appealing to the neighborhood and the committee.

Proposal Links

• Five-Story Apartment Building Proposed on Jackson Street
• Map
• Description
• Drawings

1601 N. Jackson St. Apartment Proposal

Dermond Property Investments’ request for a change in zoning for the properties 1601 N. Jackson and 522 E. Pleasant from Local Business (LB2) to a Detailed Planned Development (DPD) will go before the City Plan Commission on January 9th, 2012.  The developer plans to build a five-story 34-unit residential apartment building that will consist of one-bedroom apartments and studios.  Each unit will have a covered outdoor terrace. The project will be located at the intersection of Jackson St. and Pleasant, the former Joey’s Restaurant location.  In excess of the zoning requirement of 18 off-street parking spots the building will include 34 enclosed parking spaces, 24 in the basement and ten on the first floor.  The project will target young professionals that prefer to live in a high-end apartment building with easy access to shopping, dining, and entertainment.

• Public Hearing Notice
• Map
• Description
• Drawings

UPDATE The proposal was originally reported as a four-story apartment building, but including the party room it is a five-story building.

Reed Street Yards Site Plan

At the December 13th, 2011  meeting of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee, a zoning change and a proposed Development Incentive Zone (DIZ) overlay were approved to allow for future development of the Reed Street Yards.   The 17-acre property, located between South 6th Street and South 3rd Street, is being redevelopment into a water research and development park in a collaborative effort between City of Milwaukee, the property owner Peter Mead, and General Capital Group.  With this approval the property’s zoning will be changed from Industrial Heavy to Industrial Mixed to allow for a greater range of development opportunities.  The DIZ includes the public connections to the river, the new street configuration,  accommodates phasing in the development, and allows standards to be applied that are compatible with the context of the area.  Additionally, the change creates a requirement for approximately 70% building frontage to the street, 40-foot easement along the river, the requirement of pedestrian access points generally no more than 500 feet apart, and does allow for some interim surface parking on the lots south of the extended Pittsburgh Avenue.

This was just another step in the process toward redeveloping the Reed Street Yards.  The property recently received approval for a tax-incremental financing district that will fund the construction of public infrastructure, including the $3.6 million extension of Pittsburgh Ave., new water mains, new sewer connections, 2,700 feet of riverwalk, an extension of the Hank Aaron State Trail, 300 feet of dock wall that is in need of being repaired, and site remediation.

These changes will now go before the full Common Council for approval.

To see renderings of the possibilities for this site, click here.

Reed Street Yards Site Plan

At the November 22nd, 2011  meeting of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee funds for the construction of new infrastructure within the Reed Street Yards were approved.   The 17-acre property, known as the Reed Street Yards, is located between South 6th Street and South 3rd Street, and has been targeted by the City of Milwaukee and the Water Council as the future center of Milwaukee’s water industry.  The project will be broken into two phases and include the construction of public improvements such as the $3.6 million extension of Pittsburgh Ave., new water mains, new sewer connections, 2,700 feet of Riverwalk, an extension of the Hank Aaron State Trail, 300 feet of dock wall that is in need of being repaired, and site remediation.

The financing for this project comes from TID #75, which was created in 2009 for this very purpose.  The funds to payback the TIF, will be generated through the redevelopment of a 88,000 square foot warehouse at 3rd St. and Pittsburgh Ave.  This building will become the home of the Water Council, and will house research facilities for Badger Meter and A. O. Smith, a $500,000 lab paid for by Badger Meter that will be available for tenants use, space for startup water businesses, a Viola water, energy, and transportation accelerator, UWM’s School of Freshwater Sciences, and a multitude of other entities in the water field.  According to Dean Amhaus, Water Council Executive Director, this combination of public-private partnership, in combination with startup space and the lab will make the this a “one of a kind building, from a global standpoint”.

The Hoan Bridge as seen from the US Bank Center top floor.

Last week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) gave a presentation regarding the possibility of adding a bike trail on the Hoan Bridge.  The DOT laid out five potential alternatives, that covered a wide range of costs, and potential impacts such as traffic congestion.

The cheapest option, the $9.4 million version known as Alternative 1A, was clearly the concept on the minds of supporters, because it was the most affordable and realistic of the designs.  But the WisDOT report gave this option a ‘level of service’ rating (LOS) of F, likely ruling it out as a viable option in the eyes of WisDOT.   When WisDOT talks ‘level of service’ they are determining the level of traffic congestion, which is measured by the density of traffic and traffic flow, or speed.  I’m not a traffic engineer, but this ‘level of service’ determination by WisDOT seemed to come to an odd conclusion, and was made using flawed, and even conflicting, assumptions.

In this case, the level of service F grade, as a result of the trail’s construction and lane removal, is predicted to occur in 25 years, for one hour a day, and will result in traffic speeds dropping.  According to the report, today normal traffic operation on the bridge is actually speeding.  In 25 years?  For one hour a day, speeds are projected to drop to 47 mph on the bridge segment while still allowing speeds of up to 54 mph on the ramps.  In fact, the two-lane design will still allow for people to speed across the entire bridge during the vast majority of the day, and on the ramps during rush hour.  Certainly designing any road for speeding should get an F rating, but that’s not the argument here, as WisDOT rates this an F because they assume a free flowing traffic speed of 60 MPH. Their assumption is that driving 10 mph over the speed limit is the ideal operational state for the bridge.  No doubt an odd conclusion. The F grade indicates impending carmageddon, but in reality is merely a projection that people will have to drive near the speed limit for one hour a day.

It also appears the projections are based on flawed assumptions.  In their report, WisDOT makes the assumption, not an actual measurement, that “From this set of historic traffic pattern data it can be concluded that the current weekday traffic volume on the Hoan Bridge, without the current maintenance lane closure impact on traffic, is 48,200 vpd (vehicles per day).”  Essentially, WisDOT is estimating that 12% (6,400 vpd) of the traffic on the Hoan Bridge is currently being diverted to other roads due to lane closures for construction.  While this assumption seems somewhat out of line when compared to recent traffic counts (for example 2010 where the count was 42,900 vpd), this isn’t the only issue with this assumption.  The report makes another assumption, contrary to this one.

“The capacity analysis does not assume any traffic diversion to other routes that could result from a permanent capacity constrained 2-lane condition to accommodate a shared-use path on the Hoan Bridge.”   In other words, when predicting the future congestion levels for design 1A, WisDOT makes the projections based on the three lanes of travel, and ignores the likely possibility of permanent traffic diversion due to a permanent lane reduction (that the 12% they estimate is diverted currently would stay diverted).  The idea that traffic will divert for construction, but not for a permanent lane reduction is questionable, if not contradictory, and calls into question all of the future traffic projections.

Remember that just a few years ago, WisDOT released a document considering replacing the Hoan Bridge with surface level bridges.

Our hope is that WisDOT re-evaluates the traffic projections based on actual traffic counts, and proceeds with Alternative 1A.

Market

Now that the season for indulgence is upon us, it is a good time to explore how food impacts our communities. In light of the current economic downturn, it is important to seek opportunities for job growth in new and expanding business sectors.  In southeastern Wisconsin, opportunities within the local food economy are rapidly expanding.  Food manufacturing, distribution and urban agriculture are major employers and are continuing to grow and evolve.  It’s imperative that we need to take notice if we are to capitalize on their economic development and job-growth potential.

For the past 10 years, the Urban Economic Development Association (UEDA) has hosted its Community Development Summit, focusing on various topics that impact the economic climate in southeastern Wisconsin.  This year, on November 29th, the Summit will issue a call-to-action to southeastern Wisconsin, to come together and develop a plan of action to ensure that our region, and most notably our urban communities, builds upon the growth of this industry and commits to working toward enhancing the economic potential of the food sector.  As additional advancements and investments are made in this sector, the greater Milwaukee region needs ensure that we are at the table to bring jobs and economic development related to this industry’s growth back to our communities.

As a region, we must come together to create an environment that will produce opportunities for job growth in the food sector.  As a community, we need to take advantage of every opportunity to create local jobs that benefit our communities. Food manufacturing and urban agriculture not only create local jobs, they often connect low-income neighborhoods with fresh, locally-produced, healthful food options.

For event information please click here.

Guest post by: Bill Johnson Sr, Executive Director, Urban Economic Development Association of Wisconsin, Inc. (UEDA)

Rendering of the Milwaukee Streetcar vehicle.

This week there are two important public meetings regarding the future of Milwaukee’s built environment.

Today there will be a meeting hosted by the Department of Transportation which will give residents a chance to ask questions and share opinions about the proposal to add a bike and pedestrian lane on the Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge.  The meeting will be held in the DOT offices, 1001 W. St. Paul Ave., and starts at 5 p.m. The DOT planners presentation will begin at 5:15.

On Wednesday the 16th, the Federal Government will hold a Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Milwaukee Streetcar Project.  The meeting will be held in the Frontier Airlines Center, 410 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee First Floor, Room 101A-D (closest entrance is 4th Street & Wisconsin Avenue) and starts at 5:30 p.m.  The formal presentation will begin at 6:00 pm.

UrbanMilwaukee.com has long supported both of these projects (Bike the Hoan / Milwaukee Streetcar Project), and hopes the public comes out to show their support for these improvements to Milwaukee.

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.

Yellow Cab in Milwaukee, WI

It has been said that Milwaukee “is not a cab town,” and it’s true many Milwaukeeans don’t utilize taxicab services.  But this is likely true in part because of the City of Milwaukee’s arbitrarily set limit of taxicab licenses.  In fact, there are only 321 legal taxicabs operating in Milwaukee, so of course Milwaukee isn’t a cab town, how could it be with so little available service.  This limit reduces use and choice, and has even spurred a group of cab drivers to sue the city with the intent of unleashing the taxicab market in Milwaukee.

These taxicab drivers are right.   Milwaukee can and should be a cab town, and to accomplish this the removal of the cap is needed.

Why more cabs?  Beyond the fact that the cap limits job creation, stifles the entrepreneurial spirit, and creates a false market where cab licenses are rumored to be selling for between $80,000 and $150,000, quite frankly more cabs would be welcome because it is tough to flag down a cab in Milwaukee.

For example, my counterpart Jeramey recently tweeted:

Reason #356489 why Milwaukee should lift the cab permit limit: I once took a ride from a pizza delivery driver with a few friends at close.

Seriously, Domino’s shouldn’t be a part of Milwaukee’s transportation needs.

Kidding aside, there are numerous  reasons why opening up this market will be good for the residents of Milwaukee.  Cab service is an expected amenity in an urban environment, a service which is utilized by residents, tourists, and business travelers.  This amenity is lacking in Milwaukee and as a result pricing, variety, and service quality are all being limited because of the artificial limitation.  By opening up the market, additional competition could bring lower fares, better service, and a larger variety of options and types of cabs that could be available.  For example, a green cab company, running hybrids or electric vehicles could break into the market, which today is frozen out because of the prohibitively expensive cost of entry (such a company exists in Madison, another city that many wouldn’t label a “cab town”).  Another benefit of opening up this market is simply to provide more rides, because a limit on the number of cabs is effectively a limit on the number of rides possible on any given night (a limit that is obviously reached on busy nights when you literally can’t get a cab without an hour wait).  Additionally, an obvious, or what should be obvious, reason to open up this market is less drunk drivers on our roads.  Instead of being encouraged to drive home after celebrating a Brewers win at a local brewpub, more people will have the option to take a cab home as there will be more available cabs.

Quite simply, expansive cab service is part of urban life, it encourages people to leave their car at home, offers them more access, and acts as a part of a cities transportation system.   Certainly, taxicabs need to be regulated, but for Milwaukee to become a cab city, the arbitrary limit on the number of cabs needs to be removed.