The most obvious areas of increased population are likely in the Third Ward, along the Beerline, the East Side, and the Fifth Ward, because each area has seen significant development in recent years and make up part of the 3,000 new condos that have gone up in the greater downtown area in recent years.  In some cases a TIF District was created, to fund Riverwalk development, streetscaping, environmental cleanup, and infrastructure improvements.  Generally, the TIF funds were used not to directly build residential units, but with the goal of making the area desirable for private development.  At the same time that these quality of life improvements were going on, a back to the city movement led by Baby Boomers, and Generation Y was picking up steam.  Clearly, the current recession has surely slowed development, but as the economy begins to rebound its amazing just how much space Milwaukee has to grow so we shouldn’t stand in its way.

The Park East, despite its issues, still has a great potential to fill in with high-density residential projects.  The Third Ward has more room to grow, and has the potential for significant growth if the Hoan Bridge is rebuilt to allow the freeway ramps to be removed.  Just a few of the many other opportunities for growth include the possibilities along S. 2nd Street, the Reed Street Yards (incidentally take a look at this thesis project by Austen Conrad and Ryan Sands), Eco Bay, and the Hide House all of which could bring additional residents to Milwaukee.  Unfortunately, it seems that more often than not, we as residents work to stop Milwaukee’s growth.  I do hope when big ideas such as lowering the Hoan Bridge, or small projects like Eco Bay, come along they are giving a fair shake prior to saying, “what about the cars” or “not in my backyard”.

I say bothersome because of the arguments made against the proposal had little to do with design or the green components.  Throughout the meeting what many residents used as an argument against the proposal was that it didn’t “maximize tax base,” so it shouldn’t have been the winning proposal.  One of the many Bay View residents that opposed the project because of the senior housing component, stated that “if you’re building low-income senior housing you’re not maximizing tax base.”  For one, it needs to be pointed out that if “maximizing tax base” is truly the goal then high-rise buildings with lake views should have been allowed as a possible proposal during the RFP process.  Though comments by other residents indicating that they “don’t want lots of people in a congested space,” that the project should be “scaled down,” and the fact that Bay View recently passed an overlay district restricting heights, indicate that wasn’t a widely supported alternative.  So, this discussion of maximizing tax base was fascinating, misleading, and to me offensive.

Fascinating because the opposition was strong, vocal, and seemed organized, but beyond opposing low-income seniors being able to live in a new facility in Bay View, there wasn’t a lot of comment on the actual design.  Misleading and offensive because this discussion of “tax base” was an expression of fears over “low-income” people living in the neighborhood and hurting property values.

Yeah, pretty harsh words from me today, but what I learned at that meeting wasn’t that Bay View is committed to green living, sadly it was that my mom isn’t welcome in Bay View.  I truly hope somebody will prove me wrong.

photo provided by bensons