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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic Milwaukee on Economic Development

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

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

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

Historic Milwaukee’s Position on this Proposal

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

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

Economics of Rehabilitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, it was reported that Robert and Michael Levine are once again considering the demolition of historic buildings along Wisconsin Ave. and Milwaukee St., this time with the hope of landing a hotel development.  The proposal draws upon the failed “urban renewal” projects of the past.  Bulldoze the heart of the city, level the past, and then try, one day, to build new.  Unfortunately, the most common results of which are new surface parking lots, a loss of city character, and (if we’re lucky) sterile, suburban-style development, not high-quality, urban infill development.

This plan is especially disturbing as there are great models of what can be done with historic structures, literally all around this block.  In the Historic Third Ward, an entire neighborhood has grown up by investing in aging structures and mixing in new development, not by mass demolition.  Just down Milwaukee St. from this site, Milwaukee’s high-end entertainment district is a direct result of the restoration and re-use of historic structures.  In view of the buildings that are to be torn down, there are now plans to renovate the historic Loyalty building and convert it into a hotel.  Not too far from downtown, the Iron Horse Hotel, which was recently named the “Boutique Hotel of the Year” 2010 by the Boutique & Lifestyle Lodging Association, is a fine example of rehabilitating and re-purposing a decaying structure.

Demolition isn’t the only option.  Instead of demolition there are numerous ways that these buildings can be saved and returned to active use.  The owners could work with the City of Milwaukee to acquire facade grants to fix up the front of the buildings.  Much like the owners of the historic Colby Abbot building have done, there is an opportunity to work with BID #21, and get involved with programs such as the Holiday Lights Festival Retail Emporium.  Beyond these programs, there are federal and state historic tax credits that can be used to rehabilitate these structures.  There is also the very real possibly to utilize tax incremental financing from the City of Milwaukee if a solid project is put together.  It is certainly worth saving these buildings, given the available aid programs, the great character of the buildings, and the excellent examples to draw upon.

There may come a day when tearing down portions of the Milwaukee’s core to build new is advised, but no, today is not that day.

UPDATE: If this project were to go forward it would be Wave Development, LLC, as the developer.  Robert and Michael Levine would sell the Broadway Books and Starbar buildings to Jackson Street Management, LLC which would tear them down, and other buildings, to build the hotel.  Further, this project would demolish buildings on Wisconsin Ave., and Milwaukee St., not Broadway.  A related project, involving some of the same property owners, would demolish building(s) on Broadway.  All of this area is in a Historically designated district.

Lakefront Gateway

Department of City Development staff presented the Downtown Plan Update at the September 15th, 2010 Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee meeting.  Similar to the City Plan Commission meeting, staff presented the overall themes and the eight catalytic projects, which are geared towards increasing density and connectivity throughout downtown, whiles creating a sense of place.

Alderman Wade raised a few questions pertinent to the plans catalytic projects.  In particular he asked how the plan would address the lack of a positive downtown gateway experience, and whether or not the city had weighed in on what to do with the O’Donnell Parking Garage.

Responding to Alderman Wade’s questions, Rocky Marcoux, Department of City Development Commissioner, explained that “the city has not weighed in officially” regarding the parking garage, but then spoke at length regarding the lakefront catalytic project saying the area near the garage, specifically the entrance way to the lakefront from the Hoan Bridge, is “a really disjointed presence.” He added that “we should be looking at the potential relocation of the bus terminal,” and emphasized the importance of this project stating that this connection to the lakefront attraction is “the piece that’s missing.”

Alderman Murphy brought up the role of public art and its role in the plan. Greg Patin, City of Milwaukee Planning and Development Manager, responded saying it is an “integral part”, and that “we see that as one of the things we weave together.”

Pat O’Brien, President of the Milwaukee Development Corporation and the President of the M7, praised the city’s work on the plan, but raised some items.  He warned that the plan should focus development on the existing catalytic projects leftover from the previous plan, including the Pabst Brewery and the Park East.  Additionally he asserted that the city should be careful not to destabilize existing downtown projects, and that density is an important goal, but the projects should be prioritized. When asked by Alderman Murphy if his organization expects or want direct subsidies for projects he responded “that would be a good thing.”

The plan was passed unanimously by the committee and will now go before the Common Council.

More details on the plan can be found here.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station Train Shed Rendering

The second phase of the redevelopment of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station will begin next month.  The $18 million project, which has been in the works since as early as 2005, will be a significant, long overdue, upgrade to the more than forty-year-old train shed.  The driving factors behind the project is to bring the train shed into ADA, fire, and Homeland Security compliance as well as to match the train shed to the rest of the facility.

Although this project is not part of the City of Milwaukee’s oversight, at the September 1st, 2010 meeting of the Milwaukee Common Council Alderman Dudzik brought a resolution forward that had it been approved would have requested the state delay the project until after the gubernatorial race.  Alderman Bauman responded to Alderman Dudzik’s resolution, by explaining that since 1965 the train shed hasn’t seen an upgrade of much significance.  He pointed out the structure has “rusting steel members”, “cracked and broken platform areas”, and went on to say that “any reasonable person would agree this facility is suffering from deferred maintenance.”  Dudzik’s measure was soundly defeated by a vote of 13 No’s, 1 Yes, and 1 Excused.

Below is a Gallery of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station Train Shed Redevelopment Renderings

It’s not that easy being green
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold
Or something much more colorful like that

-Kermit the Frog

Bein’ green might not be that easy for Kemit, but for some development projects it seems all to easy “bein’ green.” In fact it seems easy to be Silver, Gold, or even Platinum, “Green,” or in this case LEED certified.

LEED certification takes into account a number of green practices and technologies. These might include the re-use of materials, utilizing renewable energy sources, the use of energy efficient windows and lighting, weatherization, grey water systems, and numerous other items all of which are a great step towards being green. But missing from LEED certification seems to be a key component of actually bein’ green.

Transportation.  A site can fail any true measure of bein’ “green” if it requires automobile use to access or is for the express purpose of serving the automobile.  Be it the emissions, heavy metals and toxins auto’s spread, oil consumption, storm water impacts due to land use demanded by automobile use, the automobile brings with it negative environmental impacts that need to be taken into account.

A not so green, “green” development is a planned “net-zero” sub division being developed in suburban Chicago. In fact this project, Prairie Ridge Estates, is being developed on farmland forty miles from Chicago. Starting with location, it will require automobile use simply to access the homes. Additionally, as a single-use, single-family subdivision it will require automobile use to get work, for grocery shopping, to access entertainment options, essentially to do any activity outside of the home it will encourage additional vehicular trips. Although the community is being billed as ‘net zero’ in regards to energy use, in truth that’s only if you leave out half of the equation.

Here in Milwaukee, the recently completed parking garage at The Brewery project received LEED Gold Certification, because it used LED lighting and recycled building debris allowing it to receive enough points to meet the standard. No question, it is good the project used these methods and incorporated energy efficient features, but the the purpose of a parking garage should disqualify, or at least severely handicap it, in its ability to receive LEED certification. The building’s primary use is to support, essentially encourage, automobile use, an inherently anti-green function. The LEED standards are a start and a step in the right direction, but it needs continual refinement and improvement if it wants to truly be green.

Station Gateway Plaza

The preparation of the Downtown Plan Update has involved various public input sessions, countless hours of community and stakeholder input, resident surveys, the involvement of the business community, and the work of city staff. The process is still ongoing and the presentation before the City Plan Commission for approval was the next step in the process.

As previously reported the plan update spells out eight catalytic projects designed to increase density, improve connectivity throughout downtown, and create a sense of place. The eight catalytic projects, would as City of Milwaukee Planning and Development Manager Greg Patin, explained build on the catalytic projects from the 1999 plan.

Surprisingly, at the commission meeting there was some opposition. Pat O’Brien, President of the Milwaukee Development Corporation and the President of the M7, argued that the plan should focus on the remaining catalytic projects from the 1999 plan, that the plan should focus on demand generators, and it should prioritize catalytic projects. Vanessa Koster, City Planning Manager, responded to the critisim saying “We don’t prioritize catalytic projects” and indicated that this will allow the market to respond and drive the projects. She added that “we have many pearls downtown,” and that “this plan strings them all together.”

Broadway Connection

Wispark President Jerry Franke, spoke of a need to create a matrix to guide development, specifically to prioritize TIF use, and that the area laid out in the downtown plan was to far reaching.

Alderman Bauman spoke last saying that he was surprised about there being any controversy, stating that “this is a land use plan, this is not a statement of the City of Milwaukee TIF policy.” He added later that he was glad to hear that the M7 and the MDC are interested in demand generators in downtown Milwaukee. In fact he hoped to hear soon that the M7 has changed their position regarding UWM’s expansion in Wauwatosa, and that he looked forward to the subsequent article by Tom Daykin entitled “M7 calls for demand generators in downtown Milwaukee… like the Engineering School.”

Despite calls for the City of Milwaukee to set TIF policy within the land-use plan, the Downtown Plan Update moved forward with unanimous support from the City Plan Commission.

Station Gateway Plaza

This week the City of Milwaukee announced its new downtown plan.  The plans were informed by holding multiple public input sessions, numerous stakeholder input meetings, as well as a citywide survey.  The planning process is long from over, as more pubic input is coming, and there are various levels of approvals still required, but if the key themes and catalytic projects are any sign, this has been a worthwhile effort that was informed by citizenry and good urban planning.

The plan contains four key themes:

• A Distinct Downtown Center: Focus and Connections
• Place-Making in Downtown: Recognize Existing Places
• A Connected Downtown: Identify Key Connections Needed
• Density and Intensity: Infilling Density along Key Connections and Adding Demand Generators at New Places

Broadway Connection

In addition to the overall themes the plan lays out eight  key catalytic projects:

• Broadway Connection –  This project would include the development of a mixed-use complex at Broadway and Michigan Streets, improvements under I-794 and electronic visual effects, improved streetscaping with a center median, and a shared parking garage with ground-floor uses to better link Downtown with the Third Ward.
• Wisconsin Avenue Strategy -  This project includes focused improvements on Wisconsin Avenue focused on a tightly defined area, developing a Downtown Retail Incentive Plan, coordinate with BID 21′s retail recruitment efforts, targeted code enforcement, identify buildings for rehabilitation, identify locations for residential infill, and create  a Strategic Storefront Zone Overlay.
• The Station District – This project includes integrating the Intermodal Station with the new Streetcar network, intercity rail and intra-region bus services by creating a new Plaza at 4th St. and St. Paul, the relocation of the Milwaukee County Downtown Transit Center, the creation of a new Streetcar stop, and development of new commercial and residential buildings.
• Downtown Streetcar – This project includes the construction of a modern, electric streetcar system that would link important destinations with high density neighborhoods.
• Pere Marquette Square – This project includes the redevelopment of the Journal Sentinel block into a entertainment-oriented area, a public atrium, a tourist information center, and a curbless street between Pere Marquette Park and the Journal Sentinel block.
• Haymarket Square – This project would include the creation of a new central square, an eventual streetcar station, a mixture of townhomes, 6-unit buildings, and higher-density development along the southern edge of the area.
• Lakefront Gateway – This project includes a reconfigured Lakefront traffic pattern by shifting the existing alignment of Lincoln Memorial Drive, the relocation of the Downtown Transit Center, the creation of a new lakefront plaza or park, and improved pedestrian access to the area.
• Kilbourn extension to MacArthur Square – This project centers on a two-block development site at the easternmost end of the MacArthur Square District.  It would include the relocation of the existing the freeway connections to open up land for development, and create better access to MacArthur Square.

Below are the summaries and designs included for each of these catalytic projects:

Milwaukee’s beginnings offer the framework to continue to grow into an aesthetically distinguishable city.  During the genesis of Milwaukee the competitive nature of its founders, Solomon Juneau and Byron Kilbourn, manifested itself in the town’s street layouts.  The streets did not line up on opposite sides of the river.  A walk down Water Street reveals how the competition between Solomon Juneau and Byron Kilbourn created a multiplicity of vistas that can be used to beautify Milwaukee today.  Very few, if any, Midwestern cities have this advantage since the Jeffersonian grid system had wholly encompassed American Urban Planning by the time of any meaningful western expansion, leaving long straight streets with no termination opportunities even in high density areas.

The historic cores of many other Midwestern cities founded concurrently with Milwaukee have for the most part been destroyed.  The great fire of 1871 wiped out the historic core of Chicago where Grant Park exists today.  In St. Louis, the historic core was razed to make way for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (the Gateway Arch) in 1965.  While these new public spaces serve their communities well, the absence of historic cores presents Milwaukee with a great opportunity to showcase its urban fabric and unique block structure.

The fact that the most urban part of Milwaukee is still along the historic core with its many functions and multiple vistas should be studied and implemented in the current and future development of downtown.  The optimal component of beautifying these vistas is that most of the termination points also lie on the Milwaukee River Walk.  Creating a beautiful city, founded on the past looking toward the future, will set a good example for future generations to continue to contribute to the pleasant and sustainable urban environment in Downtown Milwaukee.

Guest post by: Matthew Trussoni

Matthew Trussoni, PhD, PE, RA is currently an Assistant Professor in and an alumnus of the Milwaukee School of Engineering’s Architectural Engineering Department.  After graduating MSOE he attended the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. where he completed a dual master’s degrees program in the School of Architecture in 2005 earning the degrees of Master of Architecture and Master of Urban Design.  In 2009 he earned his Ph.D. in civil (structural) engineering in the Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Department. His professional experience has encompassed both architecture and engineering as he is a Registered Architect and Professional Engineer in the State of Florida.

If the goal of regionalism is to create a stronger region, then moving items out of the urban core and building them in a car-only suburban style sprawled across Greater Milwaukee is a sure fire way to fall short.

But how will Milwaukee succeed at regionalism?  Place making.  Creating attractive, walkable nodes across the region that expand upon instead of undermining the existing core of the region in downtown Milwaukee.

How will the Milwaukee region create place in locations that are well-located, but poorly designed such as Innovation Drive near the Zoo Interchange?  By creating the regional governance units that regionally adopt solid land-use planning and deliver access to jobs and resources.  An example of a regional government units that could deliver on such a level, is the recently reformed Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority.  SERTA is responsible for creating the KRM commuter rail line, a rail line that could spring nodes of transit-oriented development all the way to the Wisconsin-Illinois state line.  Transit-oriented development would not only create sustainable, both economically and environmentally, communities in Racine and Kenosha, but would also connect Milwaukee residents with jobs in Wisconsin and Illinois.  It would accomplish this all without hollowing out downtown Milwaukee and the surrounding neighborhoods like the construction of the freeway system did (along with a handful of other factors).

In the coming water debate with Waukesha, Mayor Tom Barrett and the Common Council will need to weigh the pros and cons of allowing Waukesha access to Lake Michigan water.  Can it be done in a way that is a win for the urban heart of the region as well the suburbs?  Will it grow the overall wealth of the region?  I would argue that without increased transportation and land-use planning concessions from Waukesha, it can not, but we’ll see what the elected officials think.

The notion that a rising tide lifts all boats is a key to regionalism.  We can’t simply relocate companies to shiny new facilities in other cities in the region and call that growth.  But we can attempt to attract new companies to the region, and have it as a win for the region provided we have a sound regional transit system to connect people and solid land-use planning that is focused on creating a sense of place.  Likewise, it’s good for the region as a whole not to attempt to block developments within an individual city that will better allow people movement (the Milwaukee Streetcar) or create a sense of place (Shorewood’s steady development of Oakland Avenue into a more urban street).

If Milwaukee is to win as a region, it’s going to have to attract smart people and retain the ones we have.  We’ll need the region as a whole to be working together on regional governance issues such as transit and water to achieve that.  And cities within the region will need to fight their own internal battles to make themselves a valuable part of the region, be it MPS failing in Milwaukee, or increased teenage drug consumption in the suburbs.  All the while working to create destinations that offer enough of a sense of place to attract people in the first place.

As CEO for Cities President Carol Colleta puts it, “if we’re going to promote regionalism—and we should—we need to go in with eyes wide open, knowing that we undermine regional strength when we fail to invest in making vibrant places. When in the name of regionalism the only politically correct meeting place is at an expressway off-ramp, we are consigning ourselves to ever more sprawl. For fear of putting a stake in the ground that any one place in the region matters more than others, we doom our regions to having no places of distinction.”

It’s no small task, but the people of the Milwaukee region can get this done, one issue at a time.

Wangard Properties (Proposed)

The most recently announced of any of the projects.  Tom Daykin reported yesterday that Wangard Properties intends to build an apartment building next to the Highbridge Condominiums (developed by New Land Enterprises) on N. Water St/E. Kane St.  The proposed building would likely include no more than 88 units.

Latitude Apartments (Under Construction)

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.  Construction is in full swing now.  When finished the $13 million project will feature 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.  Direct access to the Oak Leaf Trail is a unique aspect of the project.

Jackson Square Apartments (Under Construction)

Under 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.

Corcoran Lofts (Under Construction)

The Corcoran Lofts are under construction on Corcoran Avenue in the Third Ward and are on pace to open in the spring of 2010.  A Mandel Group development, the six-story development will include 76 units and 3,400 square feet of retail space.  The building will connect to Mandel’s 138-unit Gaslight Lofts, which will allow Corcoran residents to take advantage of Gaslight Lofts amenities such as the fitness center.  It will also allow the operating staff at the Gaslight Lofts to serve the new building. Rents will range from about $900 to $1,500.  The first two floors of the building are largely all parking, with the apartments being confined to the upper four floors. Urban Milwaukee has extensively photographed the development of this project, visible in our Friday Photos feature.

• Official Website

The North End ONE (Open)

ONE, the first building in the “neighborhood by design” development has been a resounding success in terms of apartment occupancy so far.  Having opened in the late spring of this year, the 83-unit Mandel Group development is within a couple units of being completely leased.  On a positive note for Milwaukee, Richard Lincoln of the Mandel Group estimates that 75% of the residents have moved to the building from outside of the city.  Mandel has a letter of intent for 3,000 of the 12,000 square feet of first floor retail space.  The next building built in the North End is likely to feature apartments as opposed to condos as well.  Mandel hopes to break ground on that building in 2010. Urban Milwaukee took a tour of the building while construction was finishing.

• Official Website

Bridgeview (Open)

A former warehouse turned apartment building by Lighthouse Development, the 55-unit Bridgeview is part of the South Water Works development just south of the Third Ward in Walker’s Point.  One and two-bedroom units with prices ranging from $900 to $1,800.  The five-story building that was once home to Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG) is 85% leased and over 75% occupied. Urban Milwaukee took a tour of the building when it was under construction.

• Official Website

Blue Ribbon Lofts (Open)

The former Pabst Brewing Keg House is now home to 95 units by way of Gorman and Company Inc.  A big piece of the conversion of the Pabst Brewing Complex into The Brewery.  Targeted towards the creative class, the building features a music studio, artists’ workspaces and galleries, a fully equipped business center and conference rooms, a theater/presentation space and a fitness center.  Of the 95 units, 69 are available under affordable rent tax credits thanks to tax credits from WHEDA to support the project’s development.  The total project cost was $16.2 million.

• Official Website

The Mayor walked through the three possible routes and numerous possible future extensions.  He broke down how successful systems in cities such as Seattle, Portland, and Tacoma have started with routes similar in length to the proposed for the Milwaukee Streetcar system (2 to 3 miles).

The public is invited to attend an open house to review and comment on the proposed routes on October 8th, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Zeidler Municipal Building at 841 N. Broadway.

Keep in mind that this is a starter system, limited by the availability of funds.  The plan is that once something is in the ground, expansions will be a lot easier.  Mayor Barrett himself describes the plan as a “trojan horse” designed to be expanded.

Likewise, this system is outside of the purview of MCTS and their funding issues.  It is certainly a piece of a larger regional transit solution, but the lack of a transit authority with dedicated funding is not a reason to stop working to actually utilize 18-year-idle federal funds.  That said, we still believe a regional transit authority with dedicated funding is vital to developing a healthy, regional transit system.  Thankfully Jim Doyle has proposed a plan to address just that, and now it’s up to our state legislators to act.

We invite you to vote in the below poll for your favorite route (and leave a message in the comments why), here is some quick food for thought from us.  You’re also invited to buy a streetcar t-shirt, and wear it to the event on October 8th to show your support.

Alignment #1

• This route seems positioned for success because it connects likely riders (urban residents) with jobs.  The Third Ward and downtown are filled with “creative class” jobs, and downtown and the lower East Side are filled with “creative class” workers.  Likewise this streetcar would connect service industry workers with numerous restaurants, bars, and retail locations, saving money for the people who need it most.
• The jog up to Brady is more valuable than the jog further south in the Third Ward.  Adding access for thousands of residents by connecting to Brady is more desirable than getting to the front door of more jobs in the Third Ward.  It seems likely that if riders were dropped off by the iconic Milwaukee Public Market they would likely walk to the jobs located south of St. Paul in the Third Ward.
• Development potential along this route is good, although secondary to the potential for riders.  This is key in this author’s viewpoint for making the starter system successful.
• Connection to the Intermodal Station is essential for regional transit (Amtrak, KRM, Megabus, Greyhound, etc).
• The 4th Street jaunt at the west end of the route seems likely to be underutilized, with likely only convention attendees and a few hotel guests using the leg.  It might be better waiting until funds are available to make the 4th Street leg go further north.

Alignment #2

• The Water Street leg seems to pass less housing than Alignment #1 would.  On the flip side it would likely pass more jobs, and more bars.  It seems that a better balance would yield better ridership for the starter system.
• The potential Brady Street leg is intriguing, but likely a disappointment in terms of development.  The Water Street portion could see more accelerated development, because of the line’s construction (The North End’s development would likely be accelerated).  The Brady Street portion would draw riders, however, future growth may be difficult because of neighborhood politics including the East Village Neighborhood Conversation Overlay District that limit heights and thereby inhibits density beyond a certain level.  Additionally, Brady Street itself is a historic district, which could limit the possibility of new development as well.  Long-term development potential from the line on Brady Street is likely fairly limited (compared to other potential routes).
• Connection to the Intermodal Station is essential for regional transit (Amtrak, KRM, Megabus, Greyhound, etc).
• The 4th Street jaunt at the west end of the route seems likely to be underutilized, with likely only convention attendees and a few hotel guests using the leg.  It might be better waiting until funds are available to make the 4th Street leg go further north.
• The alignment is less connected with the Third Ward, a large center of jobs, and is even further disconnected with the growing number of apartments at the east and southern areas of the Third Ward.

Alignment #3

• The alignment misses a large portion of East Town, the most jobs-dense portion of the city.
• The alignment serves many major entertainment hubs (Bradley Center, US Cellular Arena, Milwaukee Theater, Turner Hall Ballroom, Midwest Airlines Convention Center), which are likely to generate high ridership, but only on a handful of days.
• The alignment misses the Third Ward completely, a large jobs center, and an increasingly dense population center.
• The potential Brady Street leg is intriguing, but likely a disappointment in terms of development.  The Water Street portion could see more accelerated development because of the line’s construction (The North End’s development would likely be accelerated).  The Brady Street portion would draw riders, however, future growth may be difficult because of neighborhood politics including the East Village Neighborhood Conversation Overlay District that limit heights and thereby inhibit density beyond a certain level.  Additionally, Brady Street itself is a historic district, which could limit the possibility of new development as well.  Long-term development potential from the line on Brady Street is likely fairly limited (compared to other potential routes).
• The leg from Ogden to Brady would be important to generate ridership on the route, but it’s hard to imagine many people riding it to work daily.
• The route has the greatest development potential of the three routes, with all of the Park East covered.  Unfortunately, that comes with the trade-off of likely the lowest ridership.
• If the goal is to build a starter system with the greatest number of riders possible, this is the worst option.

Urban Milwaukee has produced a limited number of Milwaukee Streetcar t-shirts, available for $15 a piece.