Laser Cuttin' at the Milwaukee Makerspace. Photo by Pete Prodoehl.

This guest post comes from Pete Prodoehl, a member of the Milwaukee Makerspace. When he’s not making things, Prodoehl runs the second oldest blog on the internet.

When I was growing up, my grandfather had an amazing basement workshop. It was filled with all sorts of hand tools, power tools, jars full of nuts and bolts, plenty of wood, and a giant workbench that could fit multiple projects. My father also had a nice workshop, slightly smaller, but still filled with plenty of tools to get the job done. Besides fixing things around the house, he built furniture and crafted some great-looking wooden cases. He had taken some night classes in woodworking when he was younger and throughout the years became skilled with the tools available to him.

I inherited their passion for building things. And, I was lucky enough to take a few shop classes in high school, but my own workshop is not as impressive as my predecessors. It’s in a little corner of my basement with a portable workbench and a small selection of tools. I do have an old table saw and a few other nicer power tools. But, I can’t really utilize it as a proper workshop because the basement is also home to our laundry area, arts & crafts area, a small photo studio, and our primary storage space, so I can’t exactly send sawdust flying everywhere, and even if I could, I don’t think I could fit anything larger than a few 6 foot 2x4s down there.

Now imagine your dream workshop… only instead of being in your basement, it’s in a large, wide-open building. Maybe you’re more interested in metalwork, like welding or casting, or you might be into 3D printing or need a place to create large-scale art, or wish you had a laser-cutter or a computer-controlled router, or the ability to etch your own circuit boards and use a well-equipped electronics lab with oscilloscopes and logic analyzers.

These dream workshops do exist. In cities around the country, these “makerspaces” are popping up wherever people come together with a desire to share knowledge, tools, space, and ideas. Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, and Madison all have such spaces, and we’ve even got one right here–Milwaukee Makerspace.

Even if you won the lottery and decided to trick out your home workshop with every tool you could image, you’d still be missing the the most important element of a makerspace: the community. At the Milwaukee Makerspace there are over 40 members willing to share their varied skills with you. Maybe you’ve got a project idea that requires welding, but you’ve never welded before. Not a problem! There are many members who can give you a lesson and show you how it’s done. The story is the same for the woodworking equipment, the electronics lab, the laser cutter and the CNC router. If you’re not quite sure how to do something, someone will give you the direction to get started and give you advice along the way. (And hopefully you’ll be willing to do the same for others…)  One thing the members believe is that we learn better when we learn together.

Milwaukee Makerspace is a member-based organization, and the members include artists, engineers, designers, scientists, software developers, hardware hackers, builders, tinkerers, and the curious. The term “skill collector” has been used numerous times to describe folks who love to learn new skills and add another item to their list of things they can do. For access to the space (and to pay for all the tools), there is a monthly membership fee, and you can think of it sort of like a gym membership, but instead of treadmills and personal trainers, there are tools, people who know how to use the tools and who can help you get started in making pretty much anything you can think of.

Milwaukee’s urban dwellers may love being in a downtown apartment or a well-maintained condo, but those places may not have a space where you can fire up a table saw or plug in a welder. So, if you’re looking for a space to work on your projects or a group of people you can learn from and collaborate with, consider stopping by Milwaukee Makerspace any Tuesday night at 7pm for the weekly meeting. You’ll find members discussing projects they are working on as well as group projects to get involved with, or you can take a tour and see what the group has to offer.

The Milwaukee Makerspace is located at 3073 S. Chase Ave, in Bldg 34. It’s a member-based organization with various levels of membership, and we’re always looking for new people to join us in making amazing things right here in our amazing city.  Find out more information about us and our projects on our website:  www.milwaukeemakerspace.org.

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.

The Moderne

As the US economy continued its slow recovery from the Great Recession, Milwaukee was left with a couple of failed development projects to complete, a changing real estate market, the opportunity to make small infrastructure changes, and questions about the future of transit.  In 2011, some of these ‘failed projects’ moved towards becoming successes, while the developers in town shifted from condominium development to apartments and hotels.  Small changes to the built environment came in the form of new bike infrastructure, and the conversion of streets to two-way traffic.  Although the Milwaukee County Transit System once again faced budget cuts, there was movement in bringing new modern transit service to Milwaukee in the form of express busing.

First Place on the River, Park Lafayette, and The Residences on Water all ended up in serious financial trouble, and in some cases in drawn out legal battles.  Park Lafayette, which had been considered by many a failure, became a turnaround success under the guidance of the Mandel Group in 2011 as it was converted from high-end condos to luxury apartments, and today it is 93% occupied.  Equally as impressive of a turnaround story is The Point on the River (formally First Place on the River).  The developer had run out of funding, and once the lending bank took over they brought in the  Mandel Group to complete the project.  Ever since, Mandel Group and Garrison Partners have been steadily selling units in the project, and while there were over 45 units available this time last year there are only 11 available for sale today.  The one significant project that has yet to be resolved is The Residences on Water, but signs indicate that the drawn out legal battle surrounding it is coming to a close.

The apartment market saw continued development through a strong reliance on WHEDA tax credits and other forms of  government financing (due to the weakened financial industry).  The construction of the Beerline B Apartments, which is being funded with WHEDA tax credits, nears completion.  Another WHEDA funded project, the 73-unit National City Lofts in Walker’s Point, began accepting tenants in October.  Although Mercy Housing Lakefront’s East Side apartment proposal received various city approvals, and appeared on the verge of moving forward, it failed to obtain WHEDA tax credits to support the funding of the project.  The second phase of The North End development, which will include two buildings and 155-units, gained approval for a $4.6 million loan from the City of Milwaukee and will utilize $26.9 million in WHEDA bonding to construct the project.  The most visible development in 2011 has been the construction of  the 30-story 203-unit apartment building, The Moderne.  It was financed with a $42.4 million loan from the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust (HIT), a $9.3 million loan by the City of Milwaukee, and $5 million private equity, and expects to be topping off in early 2012.

Hotel development became a hot area of development and controversy in 2011.  The controversial Marriott Hotel project was approved by the city, and in part because of the debate more of the historic buildings than originally proposed will be saved.  Unlike the Marriott project, two other downtown hotels are being developed within historic structures without significant demolition.  A proposal that would develop a Hilton Gardens Hotel within the Historic Loyalty Building in downtown Milwaukee worked through legal issues allowing for construction to get underway.  At The Brewery, Gorman & Company has started the redevelopment of the former brewhouse building into a boutique hotel.

Alterra's On-Street Bicycle Corral

The built environment saw small, but important improvements in 2011.  Wells Street was finally converted to two-way traffic and carmaggedon didn’t follow.  The streetscaping of Broadway in the Historic Third Ward, which will tie the district together, is finally being completed.  Bay View saw Milwaukee’s first raised bike lane built, and on-street bike corrals began popping up on streets around the East Side.  S. 2nd Street, in Walker’s Point, re-opened with the new street redesign, and quickly saw numerous establishments add cafe seating, and a the construction of a new building, the Milwaukee Fix, get underway.

Transit both made steps forward and steps backwards in 2011.  As we believed would happen, cuts to mass transit funding were deep at the state level, and threatened to push MCTS off the cliff.  Although new County Executive Chris Abele worked to maintain transit service by converting some routes to express routes to save money, this still represented a net reduction in service.  At the same time, the Milwaukee Streetcar project was approved by the Common Council on a 10-5 vote this year and has now proceeded into final engineering.  Though as we feared a challenge is being made to Milwaukee’s local control.  Brett Healy, of Oconomowoc, has petitioned the Public Service Commission to rule that, despite local ordinance, the City of Milwaukee must pay the cost to re-locate utilities operating in the public rights-of-way necessitated by the streetcar construction.

In 2011 Milwaukee continued to face a difficult financial and political environment, but managed to move forward on improvements to the built environment, transit, and many significant development projects.

MCTS services changes as a result of proposed Bayshore - Airport Express

The meeting, held at the Bay View Library, was focused primarily on the changes that would occur to existing south side service (Routes 11 and 15) as a result of the new service. The meeting was led primarily by Thomas Winter, Director of Schedule and Planning at MCTS, who guided the audience through the key points of the proposed Bayshore – Airport Express route, as well as changes to existing routes within the corridor. Winter did not focus on the other proposed express service routes, but they will include a Fondy – National Express and a Capitol Drive Express (a 27th Street Express was applied for, but not awarded).

MCTS will be utilizing CMAQ funds from two different sources, the cancelled Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail service (which died when the latest state budget pulled the plug on the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority) and the never implemented bus rapid transit service along Fond du Lac, Greenfield, and National Avenues.

The short explanation, the Bayshore – Airport Express will connect Bayshore, UWM, Downtown, and Bay View with stops roughly every 1/4 of a mile, seven days a week, with headways of 10-15 minutes during the rush hours, and 15-20 minutes during off-peak times. The fare for the express service will be the same as standard service. It is intended to achieve between 20-25% time savings running the same route as traditional MCTS service.

Details – South Side

• Route 11 will be eliminated, but vast majority of service area will continue to have service via the express and other new or adjusted services. Some areas will actually see an increase as a result of the change.
• In some cases, riders will need to about one block further to get to a stop. Current MCTS service spaces stops at 1/8 mile, but express plans call for 1/4 mile spaced spots.
• Route 52 will be introduced to service one branch of the former 15 route on Clement, Pennsylvania, and 15th (pictured in map). It will terminate at Lincoln and Kinnickinnic.
• Route 56 will be introduced to service Greenfield Avenue from 2nd Street to 124th Street. This will replace an area formerly serviced by Routes 11 (to Miller Park Way) and 18 (70th to 124th). Service along Miller Park Way, previously provided by Route 11, will be eliminated.
• New Route 15 will still run unmodified on 1st Street, Kinnickinnic Avenue, Chicago Avenue, and Packard Avenue to Columbia Avenue.
• New Route 15 will run down Pittsburgh Avenue to Milwaukee Street through downtown. This will replace the service lost from the elimination of Route 11. The Bayshore – Airport Express will service Water Street.
• The Bayshore – Airport Express will divert from the current Route 15 at Lincoln and proceed south towards the airport on Howell. This will replace Route 11 service on Howell and Chase. Route 11 service on Boliver, Pine, and Layton will be discontinued. This new service supports the Aerotropolis concept.

Details – North Side

• Route 11 is being eliminated, but the stops on the north side of its route, Milwaukee Street, Ogden Avenue, Van Buren Street and Holton Street, will be serviced by new route 15.
• The new route 15, replacing the northern portion of Route 11, will continue north to Bayshore Mall instead of terminating at Capitol Drive. It will use Port Washington Road to get to Bayshore.
• The Bayshore – Airport Express will replace Route 15 service from Bayshore to downtown, running the same route to downtown as the 15 currently runs. Because of the express service, this will result in the elimination of some stops (from 1/8 mile spacing to 1/4 mile spacing), but stops will still be placed at all major destinations and transfer points.
• Route 68 is being eliminated. Limited 68 service on Green Tree, Lake Drive, and Brown Deer Road will be eliminated entirely. Route 68 service on Port Washington Road north of Bayshore will be replaced with Route 63, which currently terminates at Bayshore. Route 68 service south of Bayshore will be replaced by the new Route 15 to Capitol Drive. South of Capitol Drive to Keefe Avenue will no longer have service.

Following the introduction of the service changes by Thomas Winter, and brief comments in support by the Milwaukee County Supervisors in attendance, Supervisor Dimitrijevic led the question and answer session.

Questions from Audience

This is by no means a complete digest of the questions asked, but an attempt by myself to identify the most important and/or interesting questions and statements.

• When would the proposed changes go into effect? MCTS Manager Director, in attendance for the meeting, jumped in to note that the proposed changes would go into effect January 29th.
• One Howell Avenue resident noted that he liked the connection to the airport.
• Will the Bayshore – Airport Express run as late as other service? Yes
• Wifi in buses? Lloyd Grant – we are working with a local firm on in-bus advertising, this could happen. (My perspective – I don’t see it as likely, and I don’t believe that the new version of Transit TV proposed by Troy Shaw will produce the millions in revenue that has been projected, but I hope to be proven wrong.)
• Same commenter as wifi comment – Bus tickets should be handed out with tax receipts
• Same commenter as wifi comment – There should be park and ride areas on south side.
• Supervisor Jursik requested that Grant speak about the potential new farebox system. Grant mentioned that three years ago they received federal funding to help implement a new farebox system, and that he expected RFP responses this week. Supervisor Dimitrijevic noted that she hoped that a new system would utilize “smart cards” similar to those seen in other cities, which drew applause from the audience. Grant discussed a number of potential outcomes of the process, but noted that 40% of current fares are paid in cash.
• One commenter noted that park and rides should be installed across the south side to alleviate congestion at UWM and listed a number of potential locations including the airport. Supervisor Jursik noted that she didn’t think the airport would be likely, given its potential for abuse.
• How is service impacted from Brady and Farwell to downtown? Lloyd Grant noted that service would actually improve because of the switch from the 15 bus to express service.
• Will bike racks be on express route? Yes (drew applause from audience)
• MCTS driver – 1. Freeway Flyers being favored over local routes, not good. 2. The farebox is a trouble spot with the union, specifically the transfers. 3. How does it connect with streetcar? – Kris Martinsek, of Martinsek & Associates who is involved in the creation of the Milwaukee Streetcar, noted that streetcar project is in preliminary engineering and is being designed to have seamless connections with existing transit service.
• One life-long non-driver asked about smaller buses or vans to preserve service. Lloyd Grant responded that MCTS has retired their smaller vehicles over time as they aren’t as cost efficient given that they can’t be used on many routes.
• Express part of existing fare structure (following a comment thanking MCTS for their hard)? Lloyd Grant noted that this is the first time he has been asked, and that yes it would cost the same as a standard fare.
• Will Freeway Flyers stay the same? Yes.
• Multiple people noted the challenges in getting home from the airport to Bay View, that taxis frequently refused to give rides because of the airport fee structure. Where will the stop be at the airport? Where the Route 80 currently stops, at the south end of the Baggage Claim.
• Any change to Route 51? No changes at this time. This question was offered apparently in response to a neighborhood issue with bus noise, with people in attendance on both sides of the issue. Supervisor Haas remarked he was happy they have now met and could sit down to talk about it, which drew a laugh from the audience.
• What is the possibility that the CMAQ funds are not approved? Lloyd Grant said that rejection is not expected for any reason, and that it is up to Secretary of Transportation Gottleib to approve now.
• Samuel Jensen, representing the Milwaukee Transit Riders Union offered perhaps the most amusing remarks of the evening. He remarked that he was happy about the new service, but not happy to learn about it so late and that it was done in secret. He remarked that “we are not living in the Soviet Union or a third-world dictatorship.” During his comments he repeatedly said “this is absurd,” asking what other cuts were hidden (claiming the audience first learned of the Route 68 cuts today). He noted the lack of a real long-term funding solution for transit in Milwaukee, and asked when the Milwaukee County Board is going to do something about this? Supervisor Jursik downplayed his remarks, noting that he was attacking local politicians for an issue created by the state. She noted that she wasn’t pleased with being in the dark on the proposals before they were submitted. Her response ended with applause from the audience. Lloyd Grant noted that there were no unpublished cuts. Jensen responded by noting that Jacqueline Janz, MCTS Marketing Director, would do the USSR (Soviet Union) a service with her PR skills.
• After a few more questions, the meeting ended at 8 promptly because the Bay View Library closed.

Conclusion

Milwaukee County and MCTS have clearly been dealt a tough hand with the funding cuts to transit coming from the state budget. Despite the fact that the CMAQ funds at this point are only a two-year solution, and will result in some areas losing service, the solution is a creative one to stave off major cuts including the elimination of all Freeway Flyers, special event service (Summerfest, State Fair, Miller Park, etc, etc), and service reductions on many routes. In an ideal world, existing service would be maintained and new express service would be added on top, but given the circumstances this is a great solution to a terrible problem.

MCTS services changes as a result of proposed Bayshore - Airport Express

Bay View Apartment Proposal

HKS Holdings LLC. proposal for a $12 million mixed-use apartment building in Bay View was recommend for approval at the December 6th, 2010 City Plan Commission meeting.  The 5-story building, to be located on the southeast corner of Kinnickinnic Ave. and Conway St., would include 70 loft apartments, 9,000 square-feet of first-floor retail, 71 underground parking spots, and 14 additional parking spots dedicated to retail use.

Eric Ponto, from Engberg Anderson explained the design and how it addresses the pedestrian environment.  Along Kinnickinnic Ave. the building will be setback to allow for wider sidewalks, and along Conway St. walk up units will hide the parking.  He added that they wanted the corner to be the “icon of the development.”  The building’s materials include a synthetic cast stone block and cement panels, while the balconies will be stainless steel with Ipe wood caps.

The development group is seeking WHEDA financing for a portion of the project, which would require 20% of the building to consist of affordable rental units.

There was some opposition to the project by a couple of community members.  Greg Bird went so far as to say “the design is boring,” and another neighbor arguing against the gentrification impacts of a project like this saying Bay View isn’t the Third Ward and “we are not that classy.”

This proposal will now before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee on January 11th UPDATE December 17th. If approved by ZND, the proposal will go before the full Common Council.

Bookends North (Proposed)

Odds of New Land Enterprises project getting off the ground in the next twelve months are slim to none. Probably worse with the recent announcement that New Land satisfied a potential foreclosure by surrendering their Transera/Goll Mansion property.

Brewer’s Hill Lofts (Proposed)

Commonwealth Development Corporation received $1,313,568 in WHEDA tax credits to help finance the proposed 45-unit Brewer’s Hill Lofts on the corner of N. Holton Street and E. Brown Street. No other public details have emerged on this project yet.

Mercy Housing Lakefront – North Avenue (Proposed)

Perhaps the most active of any proposed project in the Milwaukee-area. After a number of revisions by Korb Tredo Architects and Mercy Housing Lakefront, this $8.5 million, 5-story, 54 unit project finally appears ready to seek full Common Council approval.

Mercy Housing Lakefront's proposal

North End Phase Two (Proposed)

The speed at which this $39 million second phase leaves the drawing board and breaks ground appears largely in the hands of the city at this point. Despite the eagerness the city had to finance The Moderne and the Bookends North proposals, the city to-date has not yet pushed through any type of financing the second building at The North End. The project would include two six-story buildings at 1551 N. Water Street. The Mandel Group had hoped to break ground in the spring of 2011.

Park East Commons (Proposed)

This project seems unlikely to move forward in the next twelve months, and may be dead all together. CommonBond Communities had agreed to buy a portion of the Park East block (bordered by Milwaukee, Jefferson, Lyon and Ogden) that RSC & Associates bought from Milwaukee County. CommonBond’s proposal was for 87 apartments, 61 underground parking spaces, and street-level retail (11,000 square-feet, owned by RSC). CommonBond was placed “on hold” by WHEDA for the $1,672,644 in federal affordable housing tax credits for which they applied. Prior to the CommonBond deal, RSC was approved for a $30 million bond issuance by RACM in January. To-date RSC has been unable to develop anything on the land.

The Moderne (Proposed)

The Moderne has had more false starts in the past year than the Chicago Bears. Initially, with financing from the city they hoped to break ground in November of 2009. That didn’t happen, so it was on to a planned December 2009 ground-breaking after the city awarded the proposal financing in early November. December didn’t happen, which led to Developer Rick Barrett believing February would see shovels in the ground, but due to a delay at HUD that didn’t happen. Next up was a September or October groundbreaking, which again didn’t happen because of HUD even though they awarded the project final loan guarantee approval in late August. Technically it could still happen in November, but now it looks like The Moderne will finally break ground in December of 2010 with HUD expected to finally close on the deal.

Nighttime rendering of The Moderne

Wangard Properties (Proposed)

Wangard’s proposal to develop an apartment building next to the HighBridge Condominiums on North Water Street received zoning approval in January of 2010. Wangard, as of August, was seeking a loan guarantee from HUD for the proposed 68-unit building, and had hoped to break ground in October 2010. Similar to the The Moderne, this project is still waiting on HUD to move forward.

Beerline B Apartments (Under Construction)

General Capital Group broke ground on the Beerline B Apartments in November of 2010. The project is financed in part by $2,345,310 in WHEDA tax credits. The project includes 140 units, and will occupy the long vacant corner of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street in Milwaukee’s Beerline neighborhood.

Beeerline B Apartments Rendering

Jackson Square Apartments (Under Construction)

Nearing the completion of construction in the Third Ward is Robert Joseph’s 81-unit Jackson Square Apartments.  When finished the project will feature 100+ underground parking stalls, and 9,000 square feet of retail space.  Rents will range from $800 to $1,600 with units split between one and two bedrooms.

Jackson Square Apartments Construction

National Lofts (Under Construction)

Dixon Development (Tim Dixon, Iron Horse hotel, Kramer Lofts) has begun demolition of the former Barry Trucking facility on the northeast corner of National Avenue and 1st Street. This development will be the first on the site, and will be placed at the back of the lot. It is being financed through $1.5 million in federal affordable housing tax credits.

South Water Works – Building Three (Under Construction)

Lighthouse Development is in the process of building an additional 52-unit apartment building at the South Water Works development. Construction is expected to be completed by March of 2011. Average unit size in the new development will be smaller than the neighboring Bridgeview apartments (800 vs 940 square-feet).

Corcoran Lofts (Open)

Mandel completed the Corcoran Lofts in the spring of 2010. The building is connected to the existing Gaslight Lofts, and includes 76 apartments and 3,400 square feet of retail space.

Corcoran Lofts Construction

Hide House Lofts (Open)

The Hide House Lofts were completed in November of 2010. The Bay View development features sixty units on four floors. General Capital Group and Joseph Property Development built the apartments after a contentious battle with area residents in 2009, which largely centered around the building’s use of WHEDA tax credits to finance part of its construction. The Hide House Lofts replaced the portion of the Greenebaum tannery complex built in the 1940′s, the portion built in 1898 still stands.

Hide House Lofts Construction

Latitude Apartments (Open)

The Latitude Apartments were completed in August 2010. Originally a project of New Land Enterprises, the Latitude Apartments won full zoning approval from the Milwaukee Common Council in December 2008 and was sold to Dermond Property Investments for $2.1 million in January 2009.  The project is located at the intersection of Kenilworth Ave. and Farwell Ave. just across from the Kenilworth Square Apartments.  The $13 million project features 90 units, and 7,500 square feet of street-level retail.  The units are broken down into 71 one-bedroom units and 19 studios.  Units range in size from 650 to 1,000 square feet.  The project includes 90 underground parking spaces, with 13 reserved for retail tenants.

Latitude Apartments

Bay View Apartment Proposal

HKS Holdings, LLC is proposing a $12 million 5-story mixed-use building, which would be located on the southeast corner of Kinnickinnic Ave. and Conway St. in Bay View.  It would include 70 high-end loft apartments, 9,000 square feet of first-floor retail, 70 underground parking spots accessible from an alley, and 15 additional parking spots located behind the building.   The project, which is being designed by Engberg Anderson, would include a club room, rooftop garden, a green wall, and the building will be set back to allow for wider sidewalks along Kinnickinnic Ave.

Individual apartments would include stainless steal appliances, and washer and dryers in the units.  Rent for one and two-bedroom units will range from $700 to $1,800.  The development group is seeking WHEDA financing for a portion of the project, which would require 20% of the building to consist of affordable rental units.

This proposal will go before the City Plan Commission on December 6th, 2010 to request a change in zoning to a Detail Planned Development.

Related Articles:

• Alterra now plans to demolish Bay View building
• Revised Alterra plans demolish former Maritime Bank building in favor of new construction
• Alterra bakery gets zoning okay

Renderings:

“This is a great opportunity to take a beloved Milwaukee brand and share it with the world,” said Lincoln Fowler, co-founder of Alterra Coffee. “But it is important that our customers know that Alterra Coffee will remain a growing, independent, locally opened company. We are proud of our culture and our employees and we are loyal to our customers.”

“Milwaukee can be proud that Mars wants to share the Alterra experience with the world,” said Fowler. “They traveled the globe looking for a great cup of coffee, and they found it right here in Milwaukee. Mars saw what makes Alterra special – that we source, roast and serve a high quality coffee in a setting that reflects our artisanal heritage, unpretentious roots and strong work ethic.”

This builds on the already good news that Alterra gained approval for their Bay View expansion, and will continue to grow in Milwaukee. Alterra Coffee certainly isn’t the evil big business that some claim it to be, even with this deal.

Same great local coffee shops, now with worldwide brand recognition. Great to see a Milwaukee firm growing internationally.

You’ll remember him most recently for his campaign against the Hide House redevelopment.

UPDATE:  Here is the official press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MILWAUKEE ALDERMAN FILES STATEWIDE COMMITTEE
ZIELINSKI TAKES STEPS TOWARD LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S RACE

MILWAUKEE, WI. August 21, 2009 . . . Tony Zielinski (D-Milwaukee) announced today he has formed a committee to set the groundwork for the race for the Democratic Party nomination for the open seat of Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor.

Alderman Zielinski was first elected to public office in 1988 as a Milwaukee County Supervisor, and has served since 2004 as an Alderman representing the southeast district of Milwaukee.

Zielinski holds a B.A. in Political Science, a Masters Degree in Business Administration, is a graduate of Marquette University Law School, and is a practicing attorney.

“The Lieutenant Governor has a bully pulpit to champion this state’s Law and Order issues, promote a healthy economy and level the playing field for American workers, “ said Zielinski. “That’s my plan to move this state forward. I will aggressively champion Wisconsin.”

“We will have a new team leading Wisconsin after the election,” said Zielinski. “I look forward to working with the Governor and serving the citizens of Wisconsin and seeing their interests come first when the state spends their tax money.”

Zielinski, who graduated as an Officer from St. John’s Military Academy said that experience taught him discipline and dedication to hard work, adding, “My twenty-one years of experience in elected office has helped me learn how to create coalitions and work with disparate groups to bring people together.”

“My six election victories – most recently with 84% of the vote — have shown I understand the rigors of campaigning. I have experience in building grassroots support,” said Zielinski. “I look forward to stumping the state for the Democratic leadership ticket in the 2010 race.”

Under state law Zielinski can transfer the balance –approximately $50,000 — of his current campaign account to his Lieutenant Governor campaign committee. This is in addition to the $10,000 he raised for the Lieutenant Governor’s race in the first day.

The primary election is in September 2010. The Lieutenant Governor serves a four-year term.

Both the General Planned Development, and the Detailed Planned Development for the Rivianna project were approved at the Common Council meeting.  The $80 million Rivianna project consists of three 15-story towers that will include apartments, a hotel, and first floor retail. The developer, Rivianna Development Group, intends to break ground soon after obtaining financing, and has pledged to meet the requirements of the M.O.R.E. ordinance despite not requesting any city financing as of this time.  The associated file for the project were approved with only Alderman Bauman being recorded as a no vote.

At the recent meeting of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee the committee overruled a interim decision by the Historic Preservation Commission which designated the entire Hide House Complex as historic .  The ZND Committee found that only the buildings built in 1898 were historic, and removed the more recent buildings from protection.  Alderman Zielinski, who has been working with neighbors to stop the Hide House proposal, made a motion to amend the ZND Committee’s decision and restore the historic preservation to the entire Hide House complex.  Despite the matter at hand specifically regarding only the historic designation of a property, not the proposed development, AldermanZielinski continued his line of discussion regarding the lack of a public meeting saying “I think that just about every alderman here would want a public meeting.”  It is important to note that the proposed low-income apartment building is legally allowed under its current zoning.

Oddly, Alderman Zielinski pointed to Empowerment Village as a positive example of his intervention in development projects saying “we defeated that proposal for development along the river.”  He indicated that he helped the developer of the Empowerment Village find another site, and that the developer was content with the new site.  Although Empowerment Village was eventually able to be built, albeit as a smaller project than originally planned, in that case the property owner was the City of Milwaukee, whereas General Capital Group currently owns the Hide House property and has invested significant funds into the sites redevelopment.

Weighing in on whether or not the process use to split the historic designation was proper Alderman Bauman compared the Hide House complex to a single home saying, “it’s one address, one building,” and made the analogy that the home had various additions added to it after its initial construction.  He argued that “we’re saying part of the house is historic, part of the house isn’t historic.”  Because of this he argued that the motion made at the Historic Preservation Commission was the appropriate motion and added that “I didn’t think it was legally appropriate to split a parcel.”  This argument seemed to be a response to Assistant City Attorney Gregg Hagopian’s statements at the ZND Committee meeting that indicated the designation of an entire complex wasn’t within the bounds of interim designation law, and that the law only allowed a single structure to be designated.

Alderman Witkowiak explained that “we had this debate for three hours at committee,” and asked the council to vote against Alderman Zielinski’s simple amendment.  The motion to approve Alderman Zielinski’s amendment failed on a 4 to 10 vote.  This vote upheld the decision of the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee which will allow General Capital Group to begin the demolition of the existing structure and start work on the 60-unit apartment building.

Deputy DCD Commissioner Martha Brown explained that the official staff report recommended designation of the 1898 buildings, although not the 1940s buildings.  Alderman Zielinski , took issue with this characterization of the staff report saying the front line historic preservation staff who don’t have any political motivations recommended interim historic designation for the entire development.

Bruce Block, the attorney representing the developer, pointed out that the development team has in the past “received national recognition for development excellence,” and that the proposed building, and use are allowed under the site’s current zoning.  Further he noted that it wasn’t until they had obtained a building permit and WHEDA tax credits that Alderman Zielinski requested the interim historic designation.  He laid out the reasoning for the appeal.  The major points were that the case for designating the structure is marginal at best, the 1898 portion is not at risk, rehabilitation of the 1940′s section is not economically viable, the proposed project is within zoning, and the project is consistent with Southeast Side Plan.

Reference was made to a December 2006 Business Journal article in which the developer stated their intention to demolish a portion of the Hide House complex to build condominiums.  At the time no nomination for historic designation was brought forward by Alderman Zielinski, in fact it wasn’t until after WHEDA tax credits were received, and building permits were pulled that the papers were filed.  There was debate over whether or not the Southeast Side Plan supports this type of project.  Attorney Bruce Block pointed to page 94 while Alderman Zielinski fired back pointing to page 99 on the plan saying that it contradicts the developers view of the plan.  Bruce Block expressed the development team’s belief that historic preservation laws are being misused in this case saying “it’s an inappropriate use of the city’s landmark ordinance.”

Alderman Zielinski brought his own theory to the table indicating his belief that there was something unusual going on saying that “basically what we’re seeing here is the executive branch using their pull and power to override the interests and the will of the neighborhood.”  He also on numerous occasions railed on about the lack of a community meeting, and specifically stating “there’s a big difference between an open house and having an actual public meeting.”

The development team had contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society and hired John Vogel, Ph.D., of Heritage Research LTD, an expert in the field of historic preservation, when this issue arose to determine if an appeal was warranted.  The Wisconsin Historical Society found that the Hide House complex consisted of unremarkable architecture, and was no nexus to Milwaukee’s tannery industry.  Specifically the Wisconsin Historical Society findings indicated that no portion of the project would be eligible for protection under history or architecture.  John Vogel , Ph.D. remarked “is something significant simply because it is old?  The simple answer is no.”  He explained that the Hide House was not the headquarters building, and it was not the primary facility of the Greenbaum Tanning Company.  Further, the structure itself has no distinguishing features of an architectural type, and lacks any company branding.  He went on to point out that it is not a unique example of south side industrial architecture, and that numerous other buildings of this style still exist on the south side.

Sig Strautmanis, one of the developers, explained that “the vast majority of the space have been vacant for decades,” which has led to the serious decline of the 1940′s buildings.  Just a few of the issues included items such as roof sections collapsing, structural slab failure, severe water damage, and some of the buildings were built with salvaged brick which is deteriorating.  He added that they don’t allow employees into these buildings anymore and that “this is beyond repair and salvation.”  Additionally, he explained that these buildings are functionally obsolete.  Saying that “the layout makes no sense,” the floors don’t line up, and some levels have no windows in large parts of the building.  He also explained that yes at one time the apartment building would have needed to go before BOZA for a variance, but that they had adjusted their plans to insure it conformed to the current zoning.  Referencing the nomination for historic designation he said “needless to say, the timing isn’t curious, it’s blatant frankly.”  Finally, he stated his belief that the opposition “isn’t about history,” that in fact “this is about thwarting a high quality affordable housing project”

A large number of Bay View residents spoke in opposition of the appeal.  The general argument for historic preservation spoke of the working class history of the neighborhood, and that the Hide House complex is part of this history.  It was said that Bay View workers  put their blood sweat, and tears into their homes, and the tannery.  Sandy Palokonis , a Bay View resident, summed up the opposition’s argument for historic preservation stating “it’s part of our houses, it’s part of working man’s history.”  Another common thread that rang through was that the neighborhood felt a community meeting should have been held regarding the project.  In addition to the dozen or so people who spoke in opposition, seven additional neighbors were counted in opposition.

There were residents, and tenants of Hide House that spoke in support of the appeal.  Marilyn Walczak, expressed her belief that the reason behind the interim historic designation “has nothing to do with historic preservation” she indicated that from what she’d seen that the opposition was about the low-income housing component.  Gibson Bathrick , whom initially attempted to redevelop the Hide House, explained that precedences had already been set at Hide House as other structures had been demolished due to safety concerns.  He added that redevelopment of the north end “wasn’t in the cards,” and that “it’s just not feasible.”

Assistant City Attorney Gregg Hagopian pointed out that “interim designation is on a structure basis,” not a complex basis indicating that the action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission may not be in line with the ordinance.  Recognizing the implication and in a clear attempt to find a balance between the needs of the community, and the rights of the property owner, Alderman Murphy made a motion to in effect “split the baby,” and designate buildings 1,2,3, and 4 as historic.  In reference to the other buildings he stated “in my opinion [they] don’t meet the definition of what is historic.”  Alderman Zielinski opposed the motion saying “I don’t follow the argument of splitting the baby.”  The appeal was granted on a vote of 3 to 2, in that it removed the historic preservation designation from buildings built in the 1940′s.  This action will now be taken up at the next meeting of the full Common Council.