Championing Urban Life In The Cream City



East Side

Photos of the East Side from our Flickr group

Hometown UWM Site Meeting - Review

Sep 4th, 2008 | By Dave Reid | Category: Hometown Gas Station, UWM

This meeting was appropriately held at the Urban Ecology Center. It was appropriate because one of the key opposition concerns around the Hometown site was its location along the Milwaukee River. Although the location was different many of the same citizens were attendance. UWM brought with it the same group from the previous meeting, David Gilbert from the UWM Real Estate Foundation, UWM Director of University Housing Scott Peak, Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Communications Tom Luljak and UWM Chief of Police Pamela Hodermann.

The Mandel Group appeared well prepared and attempted to show that this was a green project in part because the Hometown site is currently a vacant gas station with environmental issues. Further they had materials showcasing a long list of brownfield development projects that they’d been involved in. The dorm’s most recent version is a “U” shaped complex designed to minimize the frontage along the river. It will have 105 parking spots, a cafeteria, first floor retail, and it was specifically pointed out that there will be no mechanical facilities on the roof.

Many of the audience member questions revolved around UWM’s need for new dorms, how will they control the students, and taxes. Members from UWM indicated the need for beds is strong because they currently provide only 12% of housing for students. This is an issue because it hurts student retention and that students living in university-run housing perform better than students living outside of university housing. Tom Luljak pointed out that during “this past year we [UWM] spent a lot of time quantifying the crime in terms of neighborhood disruptions” and that “in the last year as we tallied up the number of citations issued by Pam’s department and the Milwaukee Police Department we found the minority of the students cited lived in university housing”. Additionally, there were a couple citizen complaints regarding their belief that UWM doesn’t pay taxes and how that is unfair to them as the taxpayer. But what seemed lost on the audience was that UWM will be making payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) to cover their impacts on city services.

The most vocal opposition came from Sura Faraj, a former candidate for third district alderman, who said “I appreciate the university but this is not the site”. She then went on to argue that density isn’t green and that “the most sustainable thing you can do is not build on the Milwaukee River”. This seems misguided because promoting high population density is actually one of the greenest efforts available. Density allows you to develop less land and share energy use which are both green priorities. Ann Brummitt, The Miwaukee River Work Group Coordinator, added that they support the view-shed because “we believe very strongly in the face of a lot of people not agreeing with us in scenic beauty”, but as noted in the comments below she says “Mandel has met every criteria we asked for”.  So it appears now that despite Sura’s objections, the Milwaukee River Work Group believes Mandel Group has proposed a workable solution and as Ken Leinbach, the Executive Directory of the Urban Ecology Center, indicated in reference to Mandel’s proposal that “they have meet that criteria”. UPDATE It appears now that The Milwaukee River Work Group is supportive of Mandel’s proposal so this has been updated to reflect their sentiment.

Unrelated to the night’s topic, two audience members brought up UWM’s efforts of expanding into Wauwatosa and argued UWM should do this in downtown Milwaukee. Tom Luljak attempted to say it was about partnerships and not real estate but also then talked up the Wauwatosa site’s natural area and how it could be used for research. Before he finished Alderman Kovac butted in with “what about Downer Woods”, reminding Luljak that UWM already has a great natural space right on its campus.

In the end what stood out, in stark contrast from the Prospect Mall site meeting, was that although opposition remained present at this meeting, it had a much calmer tone leaving the door open to amicably developing this site. In fact a handful of residents supported the project saying “I hope this site is approved”, “we might as well make it a positive” and “I’m kinda of excited about this site”.

Our thoughts on the last meeting can be found in the Prospect Mall UWM Site Meeting - Review article.



UWM Prospect Mall Parking Lot Dorm Renderings

Sep 4th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Prospect Mall, UWM

Boulder Ventures provided us with a rendering of their proposed dorm for the Prospect Mall parking lot on the east side of Prospect Avenue. Click on the image for a full-sized rendering.

The site as it stands now looks as such. Again, a high-res image is available by clicking on the image itself.

Clearly the dorm would be an improvement over the stand-alone Qdoba and surface parking lot. It might even help hide the gas station.

Our full review of the meeting where Boulder Ventures presented their vision for the site is available in a past article.



Prospect Mall UWM Site Meeting - Review

Sep 3rd, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Prospect Mall, UWM

UPDATE: Renderings have now been made available to us by Boulder Ventures.

The Maryland Avenue School played host to a tension-filled meeting to discuss one of three proposals for the location of the new UWM dorm. The proposal on the table was the nearby Prospect Mall parking lot location proposed by Boulder Ventures.

The meeting began with Alderman Nik Kovac introducing those in the audience who would take questions. They included Robert Schmidt from Boulder Ventures and their project consultant Doug Weas, David Gilbert from the UWM Real Estate Foundation, UWM Director of University Housing Scott Peak, Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Communications Tom Luljak and UWM Chief of Police Pamela Hodermann.

Following the introductions by Kovac, Robert Schmidt gave a presentation with Doug Weas. Their presentation hit all the high-level facts of the building and Doug drilled into so more low-level aspects including what aspects of the building would qualify it for LEED-certification. As Robert Schmidt listed off many nearby amenities for freshman (the proposed residents) the crowd began to moan and groan “bars”. Other details of the development included in the presentation included that it was to be 8 to 10 stories tall with 40 to 45 students per Resident Assistant (an average amount) on each floor. The first floor was to be entirely retail with 37 parking spots (some of which would be surface spots). Students would enter from Ivanhoe Place and go to the second floor where all of the standard dorm facilities would be. There would be 70 keycard protected parking spots for students separate from the parking for the retail facilities.

At the conclusion of Boulder Ventures presentation it was clear that their presentation may have been tailored to the wrong audience. While the presentation may have sold the university, city officials, and other Milwaukeeans on the proposal, their presentation I think did little to ease the fears of the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) Water Tower Landmark Trust and Greenwich Village neighborhood associations who were at the meeting. That said, I’m not sure there is anything Robert Schmidt could have said that would have pleased the attendees.

As a current Milwaukee college student at MSOE, an almost 22-year-old, and a friend to well over 100 UWM students, I would like to address some the fear about students and bars. Freshman aren’t 21, and therefore can’t legally enter bars. If they are entering bars without fake IDs, then you have a problem with a bar (and I would safely say these bars don’t really exist on the East Side, my under-21 friends continue to search though). This raises the fake ID question, to which I will boldly assert that no more than 5% of college students in Milwaukee have a fake ID and use it. That percentage is even lower for freshman, the proposed residents of the new UWM dorm. Many claim to have one (from an older sibling or whomever) but never use it, presumably out of fear that it wouldn’t actually work because it doesn’t actually look like them. The point of my detailing this is that under-21 students don’t really go to the bars in Milwaukee, especially during their first year in college (they don’t have friends that can go yet, therefore have less interest in going). The bars could be in the bottom of the building, the students still wouldn’t be going to them.

The development would be located on the former Prospect Mall parking lot and including the land that currently that the Qdoba is currently on. The gas station (not owned by Boulder Ventures) would be left unchanged. Prospect Mall, currently empty, would have far greater support for redevelopment with the dorm located across the street. Schmidt indicated that locating the dorm across the street, would help Boulder reach their vision for Prospect Mall. The vision includes removing the current false facade so that the original brick is visible (similar to the nearby Alterra) and adding two to three stories on the top of the mall. The old spaces would presumably be filled with retail, while the upper levels could be offices. Questioning later in the meeting revealed that the mall lost all but one of its tenants after Marcus closed their cinema (which Schmidt said they attempted to negotiate with to stay to no avail). The final remaining tenant was relocated because the cost to keep the entire mall open for one tenant was too high.

Now what college students do like to do when they’re bored and the opportunity presents itself is go to keg parties. As a number of the UWM representatives indicated the keg parties got out of hand (i.e. got busted by the police) when they were held by freshman and students who had never lived in the dorms. Tom Luljak had information from enrollment figures indicating that with the opening of RiverView dorms, 300 less students lived off-campus. This means less stress on the neighborhood and less opportunities for out of control keg parties. Another new dorm is only going to further improve things for neighbors, by making it possible for more owner-occupancy or family rentals with more students living in campus housing. At the end of the day what you end up with is fewer big keg parties. Small gatherings of students where underage drinking happens will still exist, but I don’t think any complaints originate from neighbors when students drink moderately inside without making noise or littering the sidewalk. If mandatory freshman on-campus housing happens (which is what UWM is working towards), crazy keg parties are going to be very few and far between.

Back to the presentation.

Immediately following the presentation, the first question was a statement from a nearby neighbor asking everyone in the audience to join together and oppose the project. This included the belief that UWM had broken a promise with the neighborhood never to have underclassmen live in dorms in this neighborhood. Tom Luljack clarified that the memorandum of understanding that was signed indicated only that upperclassmen would only live in the nearby Kenilworth building (exposing a problem with memorandum of understandings in that everyone hears what they want to hear regardless of what ends up written).

UPDATE: We have obtained the Memorandum of Understanding and posted it for you to interpret.

During Luljak’s initial answer he was interrupted almost immediately by someone in the audience. Interrupting UWM representatives and the Boulder Ventures team became the norm for the rest of the night, which was certainly disappointing to those actually looking for a reasonable and civil discussion.

After Doug Weas and UWM were grilled repeatedly for breaking a promise they claimed not to have made (and claim to have a memorandum that backs that up), it was time to move on to other things the neighborhood thought was wrong with the project.

Neighbors were concerned about the historical nature of their neighborhood and how this dorm would affect that. While the neighbors certainly have a valid interest in preserving their historic homes, it’s very ironic that they’re interested in protecting a large surface parking lot, empty shopping mall, and Qdoba restaurant (to which they later indicated was a major safety concern because of delivery trucks). The reality of the situation is that the new dorm would be largely hidden by a seven story building immediately east of it and consistent with new development in the area including the next door Whole Foods (Medical Commons building) and Columbia-St. Mary’s hospital complex. These developments are not threatening to the neighborhood because they are infill developments replacing underdeveloped properties. As long as residents don’t sell their homes to absentee slumlords they have nothing to worry about (and as stated earlier, there will be fewer and fewer slumlords if UWM gets its way and eliminates a large amount of their tenant base. The historical factor kept popping up again and again throughout the meeting, and it was really humorous to watch people defend a massive surface parking lot as if it had historical significance.

The issue of parking was brought up. It was clear that residents don’t believe that dorm residents don’t bring cars to campus (as they sign an agreement that they won’t if they don’t rent an on-campus parking spot), despite UWM’s assurances they do (including having the agreement on hand). In my personal experiences (and post-meeting survey) I was able to come up with only person who brought a car to school “illegally” freshman year (and hid it in the Columbia property parking garage). The simple fact of that matter is that the cars are generated by commuters and off-campus residents. The dorm would actually reduce the number of cars in the neighborhood. The dorm is also located directly on the 30 bus route (which students can ride for free with their Upass) and would also be serviced by the UWM shuttle bus (currently serves Kenilworth and Riverview every 15 minutes until 10 p.m.). This is not to mention the cutting-edge car sharing program UWM has implemented in partnership with Zip Car. UWM does a good job promoting and demanding a car-free lifestyle.

Despite facts in opposition, the meeting attendees almost unanimously voiced their concern via booing, hissing, and actually talking that the proposed dorm would make their already heavily congested neighborhood a nightmare. The stance that appeared to be held by many was that “we need to have our cars and Park Lafayette was the final straw, we can’t let anyone else have cars in our neighborhood other than us.” Numerous people suggested a 700-car parking garage for the dorm or a parking stall for every bed. They also indicated that both the hospital construction site (soon to be a non-issue) and the Qdoba delivery trucks (could and would be redesigned with the new dorm) were creating traffic hazards.

Neighbors had concerns with the density of the project and the process by which zoning would be changed. Alderman Nik Kovac responded to these questions. He stated his position that he believed much of North Avenue should be up-zoned to allow for higher density, mixed-use projects to be built with ease. Alderman Kovac didn’t comment if he thought this development (proposed at 8 to 10 stories) would be out of character for the neighborhood, although I think the new, dense hospital complex across the street makes the thought that it wouldn’t ridiculous.

A few people demanded that the neighborhood associations bond together to prevent the dorm from being built from where they didn’t want it to (which appears to be anywhere).

A couple clearly individuals attacked UWM’s use of diesel buses to move students from the dorms to the campus as not environmentally friendly. While concern over the noise of the buses may a legitimate issue (and something hybrid buses could help with), attacking a heavily-used bus line as not being environmentally friendly is just funny.

Sura Faraj, Riverwest resident and former 3rd District Aldermanic candidate, spoke up criticizing the lack of a discussion on the “nitty gritty” of the building being green. She dismissed the partial green roof and demanded a full green roof. She also said that it wasn’t worth discussing a building being built in an urban location, replacing a parking lot, and being located along a transit route, because that just happened with the site. She dismissed these things as not green, just part of the site. She called for the university to be proactive with the building. Basic LEED certification wasn’t enough for her, she wanted the university to aim for Gold or Platinum certification, the highest of LEED certifications. Urbanism, a naturally green lifestyle, that discourages car use, generates less run-off than suburban buildings, and consumes less power is apparently not enough for some.

The final large concern of the night was safety. Not that the students were criminals (which had been largely insinuated for the rest of the night by many), but that they attract crime. Many members of the audience complained of an increase in crime around UWM in the past few years (to which UWM was largely dismissive of and said they didn’t think stats fell on the neighbors side). The paradoxical issue of putting more cops on the street always causes an increase in reported crime was never discussed, even though putting more officers was repeated over and over again. Others suggested that North Avenue was now a crime-haven and that the dorm would only attract more criminals that would mug the new students. The discussion of safety ended without any real resolution and really had no bearing on this specific site. The simple fact is that by putting more eyes on the streets (be it waiting at a bus stop, walking down the street, or simply someone looking out their window) lowers the odds of getting mugged. The proposed dorm would be a good step to building a safer neighborhood by leveraging one of densities inherent advantages.

At the end of the meeting, Kovac pulled no punches indicating his support by telling the UWM representatives that he fully supported building the proposed engineering campus downtown.

It will be interesting to see what comes to the table the rest of the week. At the end of the meeting I was highly discouraged to see such an angry NIMBY crowd oppose something that could actually improve the entire east side of Milwaukee without damaging their homes.



Public Meetings On Final Sites For New UWM Dorm

Aug 26th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Brady Street, East Side, Hometown Gas Station, Milwaukee River, UWM

Public meetings for each dorm site have been announced.  At each meeting the development teams will explain the proposal.  The developer of the proposed site and UWM representives will be available for questions at each meeting.  As a refresher we have included our opinion on each of the sites as described (we have not see the proposals yet).

If you want to see fireworks, the best meeting to go to will be the Hometown site.  The controversial (in application, not nearly as much in theory) river overlay district is going to empower the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) crowd to assume they have ownership over the entire river corridor and probably engage in quite the debate filled with half-truths and well-spun facts.  Bring your thinking cap and evaluate everything you hear, as individuals will certainly bend facts to attempt to make a point.

Dave Reid and myself will be at the meetings on the 2nd and 4th, but will unfortunately have to miss the meeting on the 3rd.

Tuesday, Sept. 2 • 6:30pm • Maryland Ave. School - 2418 N. Maryland Ave.
Boulder Venture’s proposal for the Prospect Mall parking lot, between Ivanhoe Pl. and Kenilworth Pl.

Site #1 - The Prospect Mall
Actual Location: Prospect Avenue between Ivanhoe Place & Kenilworth Place
What’s There Now: Former Prospect Mall, currently empty, along with surface parking lot across Farwell
Note: We have heard that this project would potentially only use the east side of Prospect, the surface parking lot and Qdoba. We are unsure how it would integrate into the currently empty mall. If this is true, it could change our ranking (see bottom of article) of the site.  UPDATE We contacted Boulder Venture to clarify this question but they are unable to comment on the proposal at this time.

Pros

  • Close to other dorm (Kenilworth) and close to campus
  • On an existing bus route (30)
  • Uses a currently unused property
  • Would help area businesses by delivering 500 new customers
  • Would please students to be close to other students

Cons

  • Would create another cluster of students possibly creating more neighborhood backlash

Wednesday, Sept. 3 • 6:30pm • Urban Ecology Center - 1500 E. Park Place
The Mandel Group’s proposal for the old Hometown gas station, on the NE corner of North Ave. and the Milwaukee River

Site #4 - Hometown Gas Station
Actual Location: 1436 North Avenue
What’s There Now: Abandoned gas station

Pros

  • On North Avenue near entertainment district
  • On existing transit route (21)
  • Inbetween both Riverview and Kenilworth dorms
  • Next to river
  • Easy for current UWM Shuttle to stop here on route from Riverview

Cons

  • Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
  • Nearby residents would certainly raise a fuss about parking, congestion, regardless if it were true or not.

Thursday, Sept. 4 • 6:30pm • Holy Rosary Hall - 2011 N. Oakland Ave.
Phelan Development and Towne Investment’s proposal for the SE corner of Farwell Ave. and Royall Pl.

Site #2 - Near Brady Street Site
Actual Location: 1744 N. Farwell Avenue, Southeast Corner of North Farwell Avenue and East Royall Place
What’s There Now: Surface Parking Lot

Pros

  • Would deliver 500 new customers to Brady Street area
  • Replaces existing surface parking lot
  • Close to entertainment for students
  • On existing bus route (30)

Cons

  • Would be furthest dorm from campus


Goll Mansion Project Renderings

Aug 19th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: 1550 N. Prospect Avenue

New Land Development has made renderings available of their Goll Mansion project.  We’ve reposted them here to continue discussion on the proposed development.

We’d like to give you a sneak peek at our planned high-rise development at 1550 N. Prospect - Milwaukee’s premier lakefront site. This project will only have 2 and 1 units per floor,with direct unit access from the elevator, private amenities such as a swimming pool, state of the art fitness facility, and spa. More importantly, the fully restored Goll Mansion will serve as a world class amenity for the residents of the building and their guests.

As a refresher on the issue, here is what Urban Milwaukee co-author Dave Reid had to say about the development in his first article on the project.

New Land Enterprises’ development of the Goll Mansion property, located at 1550 N. Prospect Avenue, has been in the works since 2005 when New Land Enterprises purchased the property. The current plan is to build a 27-story 35-unit condominium building that would utilize the historic Goll Mansion as the lobby of the condominium building. This plan would add $60 million to the City of Milwaukee’s tax base, enhance the skyline, bring new residents to the city and save the Goll Mansion.

And now for the renderings…

For the sake of simplicity, we ask that you continue discussion of this project on our previous article on the issue.



UWM Picks Our Three Favorite Dorm Sites As Finalists

Aug 15th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Brady Street, East Side, Hometown Gas Station, Prospect Mall, UWM

The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Real Estate Foundation announced the final three sites (narrowed from a field of 8) for the new 500 to 700 bed dorm to be built.

In alphabetical order they were…

Boulder Venture: The old Prospect Mall at 2217-2239 N. Prospect Ave. and parking lot at 2214-2228 N. Prospect Ave. between Ivanhoe Place and Kenilworth Place. The Prospect Mall building, bought by Boulder Venture in 2004, has about 42,000 square feet.

Mandel Group, Inc.: Property that abuts Milwaukee River corridor, E. North Ave., N. Cambridge Ave. and Wisconsin Paperboard, 1514 E. Thomas Ave.

Phelan Development, LLC and Towne Investments: 1744 N. Farwell Ave. (southeast corner of N. Farwell Ave. and E. Royall Place).

Our picks for the three best sites were…

Best sites currently for the new UWM freshman dormitory

1. Prospect Mall Site
2. Near Brady Street Site
3. Hometown Site

The same three sites. Now we’re not vein or ignorant enough to think that anyone from UWM based their decisions off our conclusions. It is possible though they used some of the same logic we did though to get to their conclusion. They obviously have much more data than we do, but at this point let’s go over again what we know about each site.

Site #1 - The Prospect Mall
Actual Location: Prospect Avenue between Ivanhoe Place & Kenilworth Place
What’s There Now: Former Prospect Mall, currently empty, along with surface parking lot across Farwell
Note: We have heard that this project would potentially only use the east side of Prospect, the surface parking lot and Qdoba. We are unsure how it would integrate into the currently empty mall. If this is true, it could change our ranking (see bottom of article) of the site. UPDATE We contacted Boulder Venture to clarify this question but they are unable to comment on the proposal at this time.

Pros

  • Close to other dorm (Kenilworth) and close to campus
  • On an existing bus route (30)
  • Uses a currently unused property
  • Would help area businesses by delivering 500 new customers
  • Would please students to be close to other students

Cons

  • Would create another cluster of students possibly creating more neighborhood backlash

Site #2 - Near Brady Street Site
Actual Location: 1744 N. Farwell Avenue, Southeast Corner of North Farwell Avenue and East Royall Place
What’s There Now: Surface Parking Lot

Pros

  • Would deliver 500 new customers to Brady Street area
  • Replaces existing surface parking lot
  • Close to entertainment for students
  • On existing bus route (30)

Cons

  • Would be furthest dorm from campus

Site #4 - Hometown Gas Station
Actual Location: 1436 North Avenue
What’s There Now: Abandoned gas station

Pros

  • On North Avenue near entertainment district
  • On existing transit route (21)
  • Inbetween both Riverview and Kenilworth dorms
  • Next to river
  • Easy for current UWM Shuttle to stop here on route from Riverview

Cons

  • Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
  • Nearby residents would certainly raise a fuss about parking, congestion, regardless if it were true or not.

Let the debate continue.



Does Downtown Milwaukee Need More Street Trees?

Aug 12th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Brady Street, Downtown, East Side, East Town, Natural Capital, West Town

Ask yourself what’s missing along most of Wisconsin Avenue as it crosses through downtown.

Then take a look at Milwaukee’s lower east side.

The biggest difference?  The trees.  The trees that cover the lower east side give it a sense of place, despite being just north of downtown.  Despite sporting the highest population density in Wisconsin for a neighborhood, the lower east side seems calm, manageable, and cool (thanks to the shade provided by the trees).

Trees also have a large number of other effects.

Trees Increase Revenues

Merchants often oppose tree planting programs, fearing their signs or windows will be blocked from view.  Careful species selection and trimming can maintain views and overcome these objections.  But is it worth the effort?  One study [3] found customers not only prefer shopping districts with trees, but are willing to pay more for products purchased there.  Specifically, the study found:

  • Customers traveled longer, farther, and more often to tree-enhanced shopping districts.  The stayed longer, and were willing to pay more for both products and parking.
  • Participants rated “Amenity and Comfort” of tree-lined sidewalks about 80% higher compared to non-shaded streets.  Also, “Quality of Product” ratings were 30% higher in districts having trees, and customer service was considered better on these streets.
  • When asked to estimate a price for each of 15 items in a “basket of goods,” participants consistently priced goods significantly higher in districts with trees.  It did not matter what type or price range of products were being sold.
  • Merchants also showed a general preference for trees, but they consistently underestimated the effect of trees on customer behavior and buying decisions.

So with numerous retail locations empty along Wisconsin Avenue and even more underdeveloped properties located just off the grand avenue, wouldn’t adding more trees be the equivalent of picking the low-lying fruit?  This isn’t to say that the core of downtown Milwaukee is completely barren, some properties are wonderfully streetscaped, but the vast majority are concrete heat islands.

There certainly isn’t a shortage of people downtown, well over 78,000 people work downtown on a daily basis.  Numerous retailers complain that the downtown workers don’t purchase things downtown before heading home at night.  More street trees would be a good step to fixing that.  It would encourage people to get outside and walk around, and make the environment seem safer to outsiders (despite downtown’s good safety record).

To any naysayer that claims adding trees would eat needed sidewalk space, I challenge them to stand on almost any downtown street during a weekday and count how many times they had to get out of the way because the sidewalk was entirely full.  They wouldn’t need to use their toes to count, and would be lucky to almost run out of fingers.

The answer to the title of this blog post is yes.  Adding more street trees to downtown Milwaukee is a no brainer.  It would be a cheap and easy way to improve the business climate, encourage further use of the park once concept, and a good way to make the area more attractive to potential residents.



Where Is The New UWM Dorm Going?

Aug 7th, 2008 | By Jeramey Jannene | Category: Beerline, Brady Street, East Side, Kenilworth Square Apartments, MCTS, Milwaukee River, Natural Capital, Riverwest, Transit, UWM

To be honest, we don’t know exactly. But we do know that they’ve proposed 8 sites, and we’ll break down each one to determine which one we think might be the best. Our best and worst rankings are available at the bottom of the article.

Site #1 - The Prospect Mall
Actual Location: Prospect Avenue between Ivanhoe Place & Kenilworth Place
What’s There Now: Former Prospect Mall, currently empty, along with surface parking lot across Farwell
Note: We have heard that this project would potentially only use the east side of Prospect, the surface parking lot and Qdoba. We are unsure how it would integrate into the currently empty mall. If this is true, it could change our ranking (see bottom of article) of the site.  UPDATE We contacted Boulder Venture to clarify this question but they are unable to comment on the proposal at this time.

Pros

  • Close to other dorm (Kenilworth) and close to campus
  • On an existing bus route (30)
  • Uses a currently unused property
  • Would help area businesses by delivering 500 new customers
  • Would please students to be close to other students

Cons

  • Would create another cluster of students possibly creating more neighborhood backlash

Site #2 - Near Brady Street Site
Actual Location: 1744 N. Farwell Avenue, Southeast Corner of North Farwell Avenue and East Royall Place
What’s There Now: Surface Parking Lot

Pros

  • Would deliver 500 new customers to Brady Street area
  • Replaces existing surface parking lot
  • Close to entertainment for students
  • On existing bus route (30)

Cons

  • Would be furthest dorm from campus

Site #3 - Near Beerline Site
Actual Location: 1887 N. Water Street, just west of Humboldt Avenue
What’s There Now: Empty Warehouse Building, former home of Pro Graphics Inc

Pros

  • It’s near the Good Life which is fun to eat at? (and Wolskis)
  • It’s a short walk to Brady Street (although not as close as the other site)
  • Next to river

Cons

  • Would draw continued opposition from nearby condo owners
  • Site could be better capitalized by condo development
  • Next door to empty Gallun Tannery (wouldn’t necessarily encourage condo development there)
  • Close to an existing transit route (10), but transit route does not go through campus
  • Awkward walk to Riverview, despite being just across the river
  • Potentially difficult spot for shuttle bus to pick-up/drop-off from.

Site #4 - Hometown Gas Station
Actual Location: 1436 North Avenue
What’s There Now: Abandoned gas station

Pros

  • On North Avenue near entertainment district
  • On existing transit route (21)
  • Inbetween both Riverview and Kenilworth dorms
  • Next to river
  • Easy for current UWM Shuttle to stop here on route from Riverview

Cons

  • Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
  • Nearby residents would certainly raise a fuss about parking, congestion, regardless if it were true or not.

Site #5 - Humboldt Avenue Site
Actual Location: 2628, 2650, and 2660 North Humboldt Avenue, just south of Center Street
What’s There Now: Collection of buildings

Pros

  • On existing bus route that goes downtown, but not to campus (10)
  • Next to river
  • Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
  • Would help revitalize businesses along Center Street

Cons

  • Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
  • Close, but yet not, to Riverview dorm, awkward walk
  • Not a good connection to campus without UWM shuttle
  • Would certainly irritate neighbors with noise of freshman students walking to keg parties in the area

Site #6 - Holton Terrace
Actual Location: 2825 N. Holton Street, at the intersection of Holton and Locust
What’s There Now: Green space adjacent to Holton Terrace public housing

Pros

  • Would utilize what is currently underutilized land, which long-term may be catalytic to other development along Locust and Holton

Cons

  • Perception of being next to public housing facility would be negative, regardless of how safe the facility is.
  • Neighborhood would likely reject students and be irritated with their noise
  • Not near any retail or entertainment districts

Site #7 - Tracks Tavern and Grille
Actual Location: 1020 E. Locust Street
What’s There Now: Tracks Tavern and Grille, surface parking lots, and a few apartments

Pros

  • Would replace surface parking
  • Would be near existing new development (Alterra Coffee on Humboldt)
  • Would be catalytic to other development near the intersection
  • Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
  • Would likely not generate resistant from neighbors
  • Connected to campus during school year with bus (60)
  • Next to two parks

Cons

  • Awkwardly close, but yet separated from main campus
  • Not near other entertainment/retail options other than Alterra [there are some bars on locust]
  • Next to two parks that are overly big and underlit at night, might not be well used by students at night out of fear

Site #8 - Heinemann’s Commissary
Actual Location: 1300 E Locust Street
What’s There Now: Heinemann’s Commissary located in a small building

Pros

  • Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
  • Connected to campus during school year with bus (60)

Cons

  • Small lot, tall building
  • Would likely draw opposition from residents over Milwaukee River Overlay District despite tall public housing facility next door
  • Along busy street
  • Close, but awkwardly far from main campus because of long Locust Street bridge
  • Would not be positioned well to generate neighboring new development
  • Students would be fairly isolated, with longer walks to any retail or entertainment.

Best sites currently for the new UWM freshman dormitory

1. Prospect Mall Site
2. Near Brady Street Site
3. Hometown Site

Worst sites currently for the new UWM freshman dormitory

1. Near Beerline Site
2. Holton Terrance
3. Humboldt Avenue Site

View Larger Map



UWM Dorm is a Hot Topic Among 3rd District Neighbors

Aug 1st, 2008 | By Dave Reid | Category: East Side, Riverwest

On July 29th a meeting of 3rd district residents was held to discuss the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s (”UWM”) recent Request for Proposal (”RFP”) to build a new student dorm with 500 to 700 beds.  Alderman Kovac attempted to set the tone by reminding the audience that “overall we’re lucky to have UWM as a neighbor”.  He was also quick to point out that UWM hasn’t announced any specific sites yet and that he’d like the meeting to focus on general guidelines to lead the discussion with UWM.  Residents representing a long list of neighborhoods organizations including the Brady St Area Association, Cambridge Woods Neighborhood Association, East Village Association, Mariners Neighborhood Association, Murray Hill Neighborhood Association, Riverside Park Neighborhood Association, Riverwest Neighborhood Association, Greenwich Village Neighborhood Association, Prospect Ave. Association and Milwaukee River Neighbors were in attendance.

RoseMary Oliveira of the Riverwest Neighborhood Association gave a short presentation about her experience with the RiverView dorm project.  She called out former Alderman D’amato claiming that “early on the citizens were locked out of that process” and that “we now have an alderman who’s willing to work with us which is different than the last time”.  She then characterized the RiverView site as “parkland” and although some of the site was zoned “park”, this was misleading as the site was in fact a contaminated brownfield.  These accusations and mis-characterizations did little to add to the discussion and took away from the groups efforts.

Ann Brummitt, Coordinator of the Milwaukee River Work Group, spoke about the group’s concerns with the development occurring within the primary environmental corridor along the Milwaukee River.  To alleviated these concerns the group was involved in the creation of the The Milwaukee River Greenway Corridor Interim Study Overlay District (”MROD”) and are pushing for building restrictions along the top of the bluff.  Specifically they want a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff with a 45 foot height limitation on new construction.  She expressed that the Milwaukee River Work Group’s interest in the UWM dorm project concerns the possibility of development encroaching in to the “view-shed” along the river.

Alderman Kovac took the opportunity to gather community input on a variety of topics related to UWM.

  • He asked the residents if they wanted UWM to cap their enrollment?  Approximately half of the residents wanted UWM to cap enrollment.
  • He asked the residents neighboring UWM if they wanted new dorms to be built closer to campus or throughout the city?  The residents voted for throughout the city.
  • He asked the residents from neighborhoods further from UWM if they wanted new dorms to be built closer to campus or throughout the city?  The residents generally voted for closer to UWM.
  • He asked the residents if they wanted UWM to expand the Engineering school in downtown Milwaukee?  Although this wasn’t specific to the meeting’s topic it was interesting because it was the only question that received unanimous support.

As the only question that found consensus didn’t relate to this RFP, these questions emphasized the difficulty of projects like this and that rarely will you obtain agreement on a specific design or location.  Despite Alderman Kovac’s assertion that he didn’t intend to get into specific locations, Sura Faraj presented a list of rumored possible sites.

  • “Hometown”
  • The Tracks
  • Heinemann’s Commissary
  • Prospect Mall
  • N. Farwell Ave. near Brady St.
  • On Humbldt near Center St.
  • Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital
  • Riverworks
  • Jessica’s on Capitol
  • Lena’a on Capitol
  • Maryland Avenue School

When the discussion turned to the reuse of the soon to be vacant Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital, Alderman Kovac reminded the audience that “we can’t just be against dorms we need to be for something”.  Additionally he pointed out that Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital and the Maryland Avenue School site won’t be part of this RFP because UWM intends for this dorm to open prior to these sites becoming available.  The discussion didn’t get to far into specifics of each site as was Alderman Kovac’s hope but as this process moves into the next phase the debate is sure to heat up.

If you’d like to weigh in on the list of sites, please leave a comment.



27-Story Tower on Prospect Faces Opposition - But Why?

Jul 18th, 2008 | By Dave Reid | Category: 1550 N. Prospect Avenue

New Land Enterprises’ development of the Goll Mansion property, located at 1550 N. Prospect Avenue, has been in the works since 2005 when New Land Enterprises purchased the property. The current plan is to build a 27-story 35-unit condominium building that would utilize the historic Goll Mansion as the lobby of the condominium building. This plan would add $60 million to the City of Milwaukee’s tax base, enhance the skyline, bring new residents to the city and save the Goll Mansion.

On July 17th a community meeting was held to give the public an opportunity to hear about the proposal and ask questions. Architect Scott Kindness started with an informative overview of the proposed project and went a step further by attempting to explain the zoning issue. He displayed renderings of a shorter although wider building that could be built within zoning and a preferred option that was taller and narrower that would require the zoning change. He went on to explain that the the preferred design wouldn’t take up any more volume than the current zoning allows but with the change in zoning it would allow them to create a taller thinner structure.

Local historian Russell Zimmerman spoke at length about the history and the specific plans to restore the Goll Mansion. He addressed citizen concerns over building the new structure behind the historic Goll Mansion by pointing out that building a new structure in conjunction with restoration is actually a preferred preservation technique utilized in numerous cites. He compared this project to the preservation of the Villard Houses in New York City which blended the historic structure with a new high-rise now known as The New York Plaza Hotel. Because this project will involve historic preservation work both the Milwaukee Preservation Alliance (”MPA”) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation were collaborated with during the design process. Further it was explained that before this project breaks ground there will be a memorandum of agreement in place to insure the preservation work happens as promised. Alderman Bauman indicated that the City of Milwaukee will do whatever is legally possible to insure this and that as the intentions are to utilize the Goll Mansion as the condominium’s front door and lobby it seems likely these efforts will be completed with the condominium project.

Beyond the historic preservation concerns the audience brought up various additional complaints. Some audience members raised concerns that this $60 million development would hurt their property values, that there’s already not enough parking, and that the proposed development is too close to the bluff. Alderman Kovac got in to the act by responding to some remarks when he stated that “the developer’s track record is relevant” in a clear reference to the New Land Enterprises’ Downer Avenue project. But underling all of these issues was just one issue. Lake views.

The core opposition was mainly composed of residents from 1522 On The Lake and despite other concerns their primary interest came through loud and clear. That they didn’t want their lake view obstructed in any way. One resident went so far to propose an additional option, that the property not be developed at all. This drew applause as no change at all is safe and of course wouldn’t impact their view. But what seemed lost on the discussion was that New Land Enterprises’ could construct a building under current zoning that would actually block more of the view than what they are proposing.

There will definitely be more press and heated debated over this proposal in the coming months but the choice is clear. Help preserve a historic structure and add $60 million to Milwaukee’s tax base or preserve lake views for the residents of 1522 On The Lake?