Trinitas Ventures Initial Renderings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The East Library along North Avenue, with the parking lot immediately north of the building.

Wednesday night, Alderman Nik Kovac held a public meeting to allow feedback to be voiced regarding the three proposed alternatives for the redevelopment of the one-story East Library into a mixed-use facility. The meeting was a follow-up to a meeting last November discussing the potential of issuing a request-for-proposal (RFP) for the redevelopment of the East Library site. Attendees at the meeting were provided with an update on the process and allowed to ask questions about the process and proposals. In attendance were officials from the Milwaukee Public Libary, the City of Milwaukee Library board, the Department of City Development, and the Redevelopment Authority. Four public officials were in attendance listening and answering questions, Alderman Ashanti Hamilton (Library Board president), Alderman Nik Kovac (Library Board member), Alderwoman Milele Coggs (Library Board member), and Mayor Tom Barrett.

As a background on the process, the Library Board has proposed transforming the way library services are delivered by introducing three different types of libraries, mixed-use facilities, area libraries, and express libraries designed to expand facility hours and modernize operations. Following the November meeting, a RFP was issued for redevelopment of the East Library located on North Avenue. Gorman and Company, HSI Properties, and Stone House Development all responded to the RFP, offering designs that those answering questions agreed were all fairly similar. Before the questions began, the officials gave a brief overview of the process to-date, highlighting that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library will open October 5th 15th and that the Library Board may make a decision on which, if any, of the proposals to invite back for individual review on September 27th. Alderman Kovac explained to the audience that for final approval the redevelopment plan would need approved by the Library Board, the full Common Council, the Mayor, and likely the East Side/North Avenue Architectural Review Board (assuming it is approved prior to this project).

Questions

A number of questions were asked of the officials in attendance. I have included summarized versions of many of the questions and answers below in an attempt to provide the most information about the project, but not to require one to read a word-by-word transcript of the meeting. The answers are not mine, but are paraphrased from the officials in the room.

Is the land being sold? Yes, for $20,000 as well as the provision that a white-box, first-floor condominium be provided for the East Library in return.

Who is the architect? The developer will have their own architect for the exterior of the building, as well as their privately-owned areas. The Milwaukee Public Library will contract with an architect to design their space.

Criteria for picking the best proposal? A number of things were mentioned including the size of the library condominium, parking, architectural design, compliance with design guidelines, prominence of library, articulated facades, green space, quality of materials, economic sustainability, and what the additional uses provide to the neighborhood.

A comment was made that many new apartments are targeted towards “new urban professionals”. The commenter noted that she would love to live above the library and that the developments could be targeted to “old urban professionals” as well.

Temporary library? The temporary library would need to be within walking distance and would likely be within a half-mile and not west of the Milwaukee River. Gorman was the only developer to propose a specific solution that involved a phased construction process with a temporary library on the north end of the lot similar to what is currently done in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Free parking? Yes, the same number if not more stalls. One proposal has surface parking, two have underground parking. All have at least 40 stalls. These stalls are in addition to any parking necessary for residents of the proposed apartments.

A comment was offered stating that the commenter was “not impressed” about the proposals. This drew applause from the audience. The commenter offered up that the designs looked too much like other new apartments in the area. This was repeated a few times.

The Urban Ecology Center is financing a new location through donations, could the library do the same? No, estimates have new single-story, 20,000 square-feet library costing $11.7 million to build. There are significant cost savings through building a mixed-use library, including the financial relief provided by the property taxes from the rest of the development. Alderman Nik Kovac noted that it has been shown that density on North Ave. is in demand.

Are we stuck with the designs presented? Can developer cheapen designs during construction? Alderman Kovac answered that no, we are not stuck with the designs as is, and that no the developers can not cheapen the designs during construction. At this point Mayor Barrett jumped in to note that we need to collectively decide if the designs meet our expectations, and that he, as well as others, expected more applicants.

In the only explicit endorsement of the night, one commenter stated they liked the HSI proposal the most, but merely because it was the one they disliked the least.

Historic Preservation Commissioner Sandra McSweeney asked about what happens if financing from WHEDA falls through for the selected developer (provided it was one of the two seeking low-income housing tax credits – Gorman, Stone House), noting that being awarded WHEDA financing is not always dependable (likely intended, in particular, as a reference to the failure of the Mercy Housing proposal to be awarded credits). Alderman Kovac remarked that similar to what happened at Garden Park, it would likely kill the project and require it to be restarted.

Is the condition of the library causing this? Not yet, but that at least one million dollars in maintenance would be required soon. Both Alderman Kovac and Mayor Barrett encouraged those in attendance to visit Villard Avenue Library.

Is a TIF available for the site? Alderman Kovac said that it was definitively not.

Ownership structure? The library would be in a condo owned by the Milwaukee Public Library, and that the library would hold a 50% share of the condo association.

One commenter noted that Milwaukee has many distinct neighborhoods, and that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library appears great for that neighborhood, but in regards to the proposals the commenter stated “that’s the best they can do?”

Only one question was about height (compared to 5 at the first meeting). Alderman Kovac noted that all of the proposals were below the zoning height limit of 60 feet.

Blair Williams, part of the HSI Properties proposal and the only developer publicly in the room, noted that as it is in Milwaukee, density is driven by parking and the site is only so large (and underground parking is prohibitively expense below one floor). Answering to Alderman Hamilton’s question of him on design, Williams discussed that land costs are actually $1.5 million when the costs of the library condominium are considered. To those asking for an iconic building (a term that came up over and over), the cost of the building can’t exceed the revenue it generates. He noted that various forms of tax credits could help, similar to what was achieved when he developed The Cornerstone in Shorewood. Williams also noted the struggles from the timeline of the RFP, which resulted in a rendering that only reflects the massing and layout of the building, and not the end design.

Tax revenue? Earlier in the questioning, Williams had also jumped in to a question about the tax revenue from the site. Noting, contrary to what the officials estimated, the construction cost of the site would exceed the assessed value of the site, and therefore the tax revenue from the site would likely be in the ballpark of $200,000/year.

Moving Forward

It will be interesting to see what the outcome is given the feedback offered tonight. The pulse of the room didn’t seem warm to the designs, but it also didn’t appear overall hostile to the idea. Would those in attendance be happy with any design short of the quality of City Hall or the Central Library (two buildings that Alderman Kovac noted no RFP could cause to be built today in Milwaukee)? Is using the design as the central point of disagreement merely a way of attempting to reject the project as a whole? The panel of five (Alderwoman Coggs, Vaneesa Koster of DCD, Jim Plaisted of the East Side BID, Library Director Paula Kiely, area resident and Legacy Redevelopment Corporation founder Sally Peltz, and UWM SARUP Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D) that is tasked with selecting which proposals to move forward has their work cut out for them.

If all three of the proposals are ultimately rejected and another RFP is issued, it would be interesting to see if the design quality improves with a longer window to respond and a reduction in the parking requirements for the library portion of the project from 40 stalls to 20.

Which proposal do you like? Vote in our latest poll in the sidebar. In addition there is an official form to offer your feedback in.

Renderings

Corrections – Alderman Kovac thankfully corrected two factual errors in my reporting. One, the Villard Avenue Library opens October 15th. Still please go visit. Two, Alderwoman Milele Coggs is not on the selection committee, but UWM School of Architecture and Urban Planning Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D is.

A rendering of the streetcar at the intersection of Van Buren and Wells in downtown Milwaukee.

Yesterday, Alderman Donovan called for a referendum to be held before moving forward with the Milwaukee Streetcar project.  A referendum that wouldn’t be held until the Spring primaries on February 21st, 2012.  Making a proposal such as this reminds us that there wasn’t a referendum for the Hoan Bridge reconstruction, the I-94 expansion, or the $810 million (not including utility relocation costs) Marquette Interchange project.  Locally in Alderman Donovan’s district, there wasn’t a referendum for National Avenue’s recent streetscaping project between S. 27th St. (Layton Blvd.) and S. 35th St.  Finally, when the $300 Milwaukee Connector guided bus proposal came up for a vote there were no calls for referendum from Alderman Donovan, in fact he voted  in a straight up and down vote, on the losing side.  But now a smaller, $64 million project, is too big to vote on?  It appears that the standard for its approval is being set higher than for other infrastructure projects, and that the only criteria being used to call for a referendum is that the Milwaukee Streetcar project just might have support of the majority of the Common Council and the Mayor’s office.

Despite Alderman Donovan’s claim that this is about ‘letting the voters decide’, that isn’t the impact his proposal will have.  Citizens may argue that we should have our own vote, and there is certainly a time and place for referendums, while other members of the Common Council may see this as a way to avoid voting on a difficult issue.  Other citizens and maybe even some elected officials might see this as a way to change the route to an inner-city location or to use the money to improve bus service.  But that isn’t what this vote is about.  It is about derailing the Milwaukee Streetcar.

Holding this vote, next year, would jeopardized the current funding.  Milwaukee has had these funds available for transit improvements since 1991, but never before has the potential for the funds to be rescinding been any higher.  It would also insure that Milwaukee misses out on its chance to obtaining TIGER 3 funding and possibly a Livability grant that could become available later this year.  These funds could pay for route extensions to the North, South, and West.  Moving the Milwaukee Streetcar project forward this month is Milwaukee’s best chance to see this kind of service expanded throughout the city.  Waiting until next year serves only one purpose, to derail the Milwaukee Streetcar.

So if you want to see the Milwaukee Streetcar come to Bay View, Bronzeville, Sherman Park, or Lindsay Heights now is the time to support the effort.  Please once again use the form below to pledge your support for the Milwaukee Streetcar Project.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

MSOE Soccer Parking Facility

Talks between M&I, MSOE, and Milwaukee County regarding MSOE’s proposed parking garage in the Park East have dragged on for months, and it is likely because of a new detail that makes a marginal project into a bad project.  Apparently, the deal would be contingent on an additional parking lot for M&I to replace the lot they would sell to MSOE.  This surface parking lot, which would be located across the street from another M&I parking lot along Water St., would essentially lock up a vast section of the Park East land to never see significant development.

This project was marginal from the beginning as it had an assortment of drawbacks.  For example, it is sited incorrectly in that the park would not have allowed it to enhanced future developments.   Another issue was that the 700 car parking garage was not large enough to help other developments offset their parking ‘needs’.  The design shows little inspiration, in that it failed to wrap much of the building with active uses, and failed to capitalize on an opportunity to create a point of focus where the building comes to ground.  Further, the soccer field wasn’t the public park intended by the Park East plan, and it is a real question as to whether this will become a public amenity or a MSOE-only facility.  And now M&I is pushing for control of the land along Water St. to potentially create a new surface parking lot.

Hopefully this part of the deal can be resolved, because in this form this deal has more of a chance of stopping any development, rather than encouraging any development as it will turn much of the Park East land into a single-use, low-utilization, low tax-base sea of parking.

One improvement that is being negotiated is for M&I, at least in the short run, to lease their parking slots inside the new garage.  This would be a significant improvement, though apparently M&I is still pushing for long-term control of the lot along Water St., so this may not be a good long-term solution.  As Alderman Kovac explained to me “if the lot west of there eventually becomes a surface lot it is a failure,” but that he hoped a long-term solution could be worked out to resolve the issues.  Better yet, MSOE could build a larger garage that would not only meet the long-term needs of M&I, but also the needs of future developments in the Park East.  A larger garage could be accomplished with some sort of City of Milwaukee involvement and could include an upgraded first-floor design to insure tax revenue and street activation.

Although the project is still questionable as to its long-term benefits to Milwaukee, the deal breaker is if parking garage comes with a surface parking lot, as that would be a failure.

Boris Gokhman, Barry Mandel, Peter Park, and John Norquist at the University Club Tower

One day before the start of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) 19th annual conference in Madison, former Mayor and current CNU President & CEO John Norquist returned to Milwaukee with a number of his former deputies to offer a tour of many of the urban projects started during his tenure as mayor.

The tour began at the offices of architecture firm Hammel, Green, and Abrahamson, Inc (HGA), where former Norquist-appointed Department of City Development (DCD) Commissioner Julie Penman serves as the Associate Vice President. There Barry Mandel, President of the Mandel Group, gave an overview of the Marine Terminal Lofts building, a mixed-use development that houses HGA, the Mandel Group, and a number of condos in a refurbished and expanded former intermodal shipping facility along the Milwaukee River. There Peter Park, who served as City Planner under Norquist and is currently the Manager of Community Planning and Development in Denver, gave an overview of what the 40+ attendees would see on the tour and a bit of background on the principles that guided the Norquist administration’s vision for Milwaukee.

Third Ward

Barry Mandel at the Corcoran Lofts

After Park’s introduction, John Norquist lead attendees on a tour of the Historic Third Ward, a neighborhood just south of downtown composed of restored warehouses and infill development. The first stop on the tour was in front of Mandel’s Corcoran Lofts apartments where Barry Mandel gave a brief overview of the development noting that 77% of the residents have come from outside the City of Milwaukee and that the his firm has found that green roofs can help generate a premium on rents. Mandel also noted that his firm hopes to break ground on a new project next to the Marine Terminal Lofts sometime next year.

Next it was off to Boris Gokhman’s development, the 217-unit Jefferson Block Apartments. There Gokhman, a Ukrainain immigrant and painter turned developer, explained some of the struggles his firm, New Land Enterprises, had gone through in building the project, and some of the successes they have had. Tour attendees were shown the courtyard of the apartment complex, and Boris explained how New Land has integrated the courtyard into the street grid by allowing it to function as a pedestrian street, as well leveraging it as an amenity to residents.

John Norquist in the Historic Third Ward

After seeing the neighboring developments, the tour continued with Norquist leading the group to Broadway and explaining the historical function of the street. A discussion on design guidelines emerged following a question by tour attendee Alderman Nik Kovac with Norquist noting there were pros and cons to the Third Ward’s Architectural Review Board. Norquist expressed to Kovac that the North Avenue design review board warranted further discussion prior to implementation. After a short stop in Catalano Square (including a look at the recently restored and installed former streetcar stop shelter), it was on to the last leg of the tour.

The last leg of the Third Ward tour was a walk down the Milwaukee RiverWalk on the west edge of the Third Ward with Norquist and Park stopping the group to offer insights into the process to get the RiverWalk built. RiverWalk consultant Ken Kay, who worked on getting the Milwaukee RiverWalk off the ground through much of downtown, noted that the Third Ward stretch lacks sound urban design in many spots. Norquist was quick to reminisce about the challenges of that stretch, having worked with artist Mary Miss on this stretch whose original ideas were thought to be unsustainable and would serve only to attract flotsam and jetsam. Norquist also talked about his desire to put the Buffalo Street bridge back in place (after it was removed for cost-savings reasons), and how it would have served to activate the western side of the river (currently a gas station and a storage lot for USPS semi-trailers).

Milwaukee River

Willie Hines, Jr.

After lunch at the Milwaukee Public Market (a product of the 1999 downtown plan) and a brief speech by Common Council President Willie Hines, Jr., the tour took to the water on one of the Edelweis boats. Gary Grunau, the original business community backer of the Milwaukee RiverWalk, narrated much of the riverboat tour. Grunau, a Milwaukee real estate developer, reflected on the challenges he and Norquist faced in getting the project off the ground. Norquist noted how he met Ken Kay at CNU 1, which led to Kay becoming the consultant for the Milwaukee RiverWalk’s original development. As the boat stopped at Mason Street, Kay talked about his time consulting on the RiverWalk project and noted that its most important aspect is the connectivity it provides.

The boat idled where the former Park East Freeway spur crossed the Milwaukee River as Norquist and Grunau reminisced about how discussions with former Governor Tommy Thompson went when Norquist wanted to tear down the freeway, noting the plans for the Harley Museum at Grunau’s Schiltz Park development were the key to getting the ball rolling. Norquist noted how many of the city and privately-owned lots had been developed, while the county lots sit in empty, in large part because of aggressive demands for prevailing wages to be paid by developers. Barry Mandel also touched on his neighborhood-by-design development The North End, noting that he believed his firm had reached a consensus with the city on the next phase of the development.

Beerline B

The water-based portion of the trip ended at the Milwaukee Rowing Club in the Beerline B neighborhood located at the north end of the Milwaukee RiverWalk. The Beerline B neighborhood is one of the most visible vestiges of the Norquist administration, an urban neighborhood consisting of $87 million in development that replaced a rail line that previously served three downtown breweries.

Attendees disembarked the book to explore the neighborhood, ending with a presentation by Grace La of La Dallman who designed the Marsupial Bridge that hangs from the Holton Viaduct, providing a pedestrian connection for the Beerline B with the thriving Brady Street neighborhood. Law detailed some of the design and engineering challenges of the bridge, including the decision to build the bridge with concrete instead of steel.

Lakefront

After a bus tour of Brady Street and the Lower East Side, the tour group stopped at the Milwaukee Art Museum (affectionately known as “the Calatrava”) for a brief overview of the iconic lobby of the building. Then it was off to the final stop, the University Club Tower located just up the hill from the Art Museum.

University Club Tower

At the University Club Tower a panel consisting of Julie Penman, Barry Mandel, Boris Gokhman, and Gary Grunau all spoke on their views on the evolution of Milwaukee’s market and the impact of urbanist ideas. Penman started the panel by noting the drive at the Department of City Development towards being customer focused, and streamlining their approval process. She detailed the transition from being the City Assessor to the Commissioner of the Department of City Development.

Next up were the developers. Barry Mandel spoke highly of the Norquist administration’s vision for the city, going as far as to call former Milwaukee City Planner Peter Park his “sixth man” who made all the projects he touched better. Mandel praised the predictability of Norquist’s administration, noting that it was easy to find where they stood on issues and that DCD’s “customer focus” was beneficial to making things happen.

Boris Gokhman followed Mandel, and began by saying that he was 100% unprepared and 100% in agreement with what Barry said. Boris jokingly stated that all he knew about new urbanism was that John Norquist and Peter Park don’t age. He also addresses his recent financial troubles by saying “sometimes you lose more than you’re worth, and than that’s a problem.”  He continued on this by indicating that in his opinion, working on more than one project and doing deals for more than you’re worth is part of the reality of being a developer.

Gokhman also supported the streamlining of DCD, indicating that much changed between when he did his first project in 1993 through the end of the Norquist administration. Tongue-in-cheek references to the Transera/Goll Mansion project were also dropped with Gokhman stating that it is easier to build on a polluted site, than a site with historic preservation issues.

Gokhman also talked about his success with the city’s request-for-proposal (RFP) process for parking lots and other parcels of city land. He indicated that his firm had won “8 or 9″ of the 11 they bid on. Gokhman finished by talking about the public meeting process, saying that his Russian accent put him at a disadvantage and that demands by neighbors that he live by all of his projects were unreasonable and would have required him to be a gypsy. He also touched on the often overlooked point (at least in Milwaukee) that those in support of a project often stay home instead of going to a meeting.

The final developer to speak was Gary Grunau. Grunau was applauded by Norquist for being an integral part of the host committee for CNU 7 in Milwaukee, attempting to get the stadium downtown, and preventing the Greater Milwaukee Committee from destroying the city. Grunau began by saying that the best thing John Norquist did was establish a cabinet style of governance. He also praised Norquist’s ability to work as a team to get projects done (giving an example of the Midwest Airlines Center and Wisconsin Center District). He lamented the current state of affairs, stating a perceived right-left divide enabled by the press and talk radio. Gary also touched on the state of transit, noting that the returning of the $810 million for high-speed rail was a bad idea, and that Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to cut mass transit funding and move it from the transportation fund to the general fund was a mistake. Grunau wrapped up by questioning the ability of The Moderne (passed well after the Norquist administration) to pay back it’s mezzanine loan from the city, given that he has a condo project (The Edge) that he would gladly sell to the city. Gary Grunau finished by stating as those before him had, that Norquist, Park, and Penman got things done.

Bauman, Norquist, Gokhman, Mandel, Grunau, and Penman

John Norquist thanked everyone for the praise, but made it clear that he wasn’t running for any office. He finished by inviting Alderman Bob Bauman, who represents downtown, to say a few words. Bauman said that “downtown Milwaukee is fundamentally healthy, but the rest of the city is perhaps not,” and that that was part of a greater trend playing out across the Midwest. A short discussion between Norquist and Bauman ensued, with both sides agreeing the housing bubble’s collapse significantly set back large portions of the city, but that there were a few healthy neighborhoods in Milwaukee.

Following the panel, attendees and guests were welcomed to Barry Mandel’s condo on the 35th floor of the University Club Tower for a reception before heading back to Madison.

The tour served as a great way to highlight all that was done during the Norquist administration, but also showed that there are a number of opportunities left including the Park East land, parts of the Third Ward, and the large Gallun Tannery site across from the Beerline B.

Urban Milwaukee will be at CNU 19 covering the Congress live on the CNU 19 Liveblog.

Governor Walker’s move to implement pro-sprawl policies has been quick and wide spread.  Starting even before he took office, his opposition to the $800 million high-speed rail system cost the State of Wisconsin a service that would have benefited Milwaukee and Madison directly.  Quickly this was followed up with dramatic changes at the Department of Natural Resources .  It started with the appointment of Matt Maroney, the former Executive Director Metropolitan Builders Association of Greater Milwaukee, to the Deputy Secretary position, and was quickly followed up by the DNR announcing that it will be reducing air pollution, or rather the reporting of air pollution.

There’s more.  There was the passing of legislation that removed small wetlands from protection so that these wetlands could be developed, often enough into parking lots.   There is a proposed rule that would negatively impact  wind turbine siting, while opening the door for more sprawling development.  Every penny of funding for bike infrastructure was cut from the budget.  Another measure alters the tax impacts for pre-fab home construction, which will essentially have Wisconsin exporting sprawl to neighboring states.  Even the PACE program which would have protected our local food source, our farms, and slowed sprawl is to be eliminated.

The budget also dramatically speeds up freeway construction, while at the same time slashing local street funding and cutting transit. As predicted there will be a significant hit to transit systems statewide as there are deep funding cuts, the possibility of losing federal funds for some systems, a proposed dismantling of regional transit authorities, and the moving of transit funding out of the transportation fund into the general fund.  If this laundry list of agenda items shows anything, it is that there is a pro-sprawl agenda coming straight from the Governor’s office.

It’s unfortunate, because Wisconsin had been on track to be better prepared for our global future.  But it looks like as oil prices continue to rise, environmental impacts continue to pill up, and as the demands of the creative class go unanswered, Wisconsin will be unprepared and unwilling to move forward.

In recent years Milwaukee County was put on the e-notify system, and this certainly was an improvement, but it lacks the level of detail needed for open government.  Leading the efforts to bring more transparency to Milwaukee County, Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic, pushed forward a project that will put Milwaukee County’s records into the City of Milwaukee’s Legistar system.  The online system will allow for enhanced public participation by allowing citizens to subscribe to legislative files via RSS, search the back history of a piece of legislation, and view the associated documentation.  For an example of how this system is currently used by the City of Milwaukee, and will soon be used by Milwaukee County, you can view all of the associated documentation regarding the recent Marriott Hotel project at this link.  Once complete, Milwaukee County will proceed with plans to add better access to archived video from committee and County Board meetings.   Together these will provide a level of transparency, history, and accountability to Milwaukee County that has been sorely missing.

Early testing of the integration is underway, an e-notify went out with a sample agenda attached, and access to the system should be available to the public in 2011.  To get a better understanding of what this system will do for citizens, check out this video from Saint Paul, MN.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station Trainshed

Our belief that 2010 could have been the Year of the Park East, came up a bit short, and unfortunately it wasn’t the only project that was derailed in 2010.  The Rainier Properties II LLC’s office and movie theater proposal hasn’t budged.  The CommonBond project, an apartment proposal on RSC’s Park East land, failed to receive WHEDA tax credits so it stalled.  In fact nothing actually broke ground in the Park East, and most Park East proposals have gone quiet during this past year.

That said there were a couple of significant advances in the Park East.   First, The Moderne finally received financing, and although it has yet to officially break ground, site preparation started this past week. Secondly, The North End Phase II project received a funding agreement from WHEDA, though it is still working with the City of Milwaukee to complete the project’s financing.  Finally, MSOE proposed the building of a parking garage/athletic facility in the Park East which seems to be on the fast track.  So with an improving economy it looks possible that the Park East project will be able to get back on track in 2011.

Unfortunately, 2010 ended up being the year of high-speed rail, just not in Milwaukee.  Governor Walker ran a campaign that featured shutting down the high-speed rail upgrade and extension project as a key plank in his platform, and once elected he got his wish.  As a direct result the funds were reallocated from Wisconsin to a multitude of other states, costing Wisconsin, and Milwaukee in particular, jobs, tourism, and improved transportation options.  Legally required upgrades to the Milwaukee Intermodal Station are now delayed and possibly unfunded.  The funding for freight tracks that were to be upgraded to allow trains to travel at speeds higher than 10 MPH was also lost.  Finally, instead of 125 new central city jobs, Talgo will likely only keep 60 here in Milwaukee.

Clearly, 2010 wasn’t the year of the Park East, though certain projects did move forward, unfortunately for Milwaukee it turned out to be a year of anti-urban rhetoric that cost us much more than the pennies a year high-speed rail service would have cost Wisconsin.

The Wealth of Cities

Milwaukee’s former Mayor, John Norquist, in his 1998 book The Wealth of Cities writes up the impacts of U.S. policies on our cities, lays out his foundational beliefs that today form a key plank of the New Urbanism movement, and shares his insight into how he believes cities should be governed.

Covering a bit of history the book explores how a variety of public policies have negatively impacted cities and encouraged the rise of, as he calls it, “the mediocre suburb.” One such example that he points to is how zoning regulations have negatively impacted density in cities, and in turn decreased the number of affordable housing units available in a city. FHA mortgage insurance and home loan programs are another example of public policy that has had a negative impact on cities. He gives the history of how these policies have subsidized single-family home development and suburban sprawl, furthering the decline of the core.

Known for his efforts to remove the Park East Freeway spur (the book was written well before the freeway was removed in Milwaukee), and as a critic of freeway expansion, it is only appropriate that he takes an entire chapter to provide background history regarding freeways in the U.S. In particular he covers how freeways, or as he says U.S. Autobahns, have done damage to the very cities they were supposed to improve. He covers the negative impacts to health and air quality brought on by proximity to freeways, how freeways have divided neighborhoods (sometimes by physically cutting them in half), and how they have blighted urban areas. He uses the removal of the San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway and its redevelopment in to a boulevard as a model for other cities to follow. The removal played a significant role in the improvement of the quality of life for the citizens of San Francisco, without significantly impacting congestion.

Beyond the typical urbanist discussions, he touches on his own personal beliefs and concepts in regards to city governance. As a self-proclaimed “New Democrat” he writes about his long list of cost-saving budget measures, such as avoiding the use of one-time grants as they, in his opinion, lead to future budget holes. The choice school voucher system is another area which he covers, comparing it to the G.I. Bill and Pell Grants, arguing that those programs haven’t hurt public universities, so therefore the choice system should be supported because improving education is vital to a city’s future. The Broken Windows Theory of policing is yet another non-traditional urbanist area that he touches on, arguing that public safety is key to the success of any city, and this model of policing is a strong way to deliver safety. Straying into national politics, he even points out the value of immigration to our cities, saying “Cities are the soil in which commerce grows. One ingredient vital to such growth is people. Immigration has always been a source of strength for cities.”

Often New Urbanism is viewed as a discussion of merely the built environment, and that is a primary focus, but as his writing shows urbanism is about much more than buildings.

Critics claim the goal is unrealistic and his jobs plan as lacking and juvenile. Walker counters this criticism with a little faith and some history. Wisconsin has bounced back before. In his victory speech he said that back in 1985, Wisconsin was facing “nearly identical circumstances,” losing nearly as many jobs then as now. Wisconsin was able to overcome the job losses with the election of Tommy Thompson, who governed over an increase of nearly 268,000 new jobs.

How accurate is this claim? And can we rely on Walker’s policies to get us there?

First, let’s look at the jobs data from 1980 through 2009. Wisconsin did indeed experience job losses in the early 1980s (about 71,000 jobs between 1980 and 1982). However, by 1985, Wisconsin recovered the lost jobs, surpassing the 1980 level. Similarly, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate increased from 7.3% in 1980 to 10.3% in 1982, but dropped to 7.2% in 1985.

In contrast, between 2007 and today, Wisconsin lost over 171,000 jobs and unemployment increased over 5% during the “Great Recession.”

Given the differences in the two recessions, Walker’s claim about “nearly identical circumstances” seems a little out of touch empirically. The economic tide began to turn in Wisconsin far before Tommy Thompson became governor. In fact, the bulk of Wisconsin’s economic recovery occurred during former Democratic Governor Tony Earl’s term.

So what about Walker’s goal of creating 250,000 jobs? Well, he’s right – Wisconsin did experience job expansion between 1986 and 1990. Over 267,700 new jobs were created during that period, and unemployment fell from 6.9% in 1986 to 4.3% in 1990.

What explains the increase in jobs? The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance offers a clue in their September report. They suggest that a significant expansion in the workforce, especially among working women, fueled the state’s job growth during that period. However, while Wisconsin experienced steady job expansion during Thompson’s terms in office, Wisconsin’s job growth still lagged behind the national average. Moreover, Thompson nearly tripled the amount of state spending during the 1990s (which I’ll return to in a little bit).

In his victory speech, Walker pointed to policies such as reducing (governmental) regulation, less litigation, and repealing the state’s law on health savings account to get us to the 250,000 jobs mark. In other forums he’s flirted with the idea of repealing the state’s tax on corporations. Can these usher in a new era of Wisconsin job growth?

Now, I can’t speak for most economists, but it’s important for readers to know that job creation doesn’t necessarily follow tax cuts per force. In fact, I’m constantly flustered at how this claim continues to seduce voters. See here for an example of how county tax cuts haven’t impacted the county unemployment level.

Job creation models are based on fancy statistical regressions that show how change in one factor can lead to change in the other – keeping every other variable constant. Specifically, tax cuts can lead to job growth only without changes in any other factors, such as state spending levels. With significant cuts in state spending levels, tax cuts will wash, and job creation won’t follow. In many cases, governmental spending is more important that tax rates in creating jobs (see here for an example of how government spending on roads leads to decreases in the unemployment level).

Overall, Walker’s optimism is somewhat grounded in reality (rebounds can happen!), although some important specifics are off.

I just hope that hope policymakers remember the lessons about the conditional impact of tax cuts and state spending. Significant cuts in education, health care, municipal services, and infrastructure can negatively impact job creation in the state – even if major tax cuts occur. If Walker really wants to follow in Tommy Thompson’s footsteps, then he’ll use strategic tax cuts without slashing services.

Related Article:

• Working on job creation

Guest post by: John Kovari

John Kovari is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the 2008-2009 Norman N. Gill Fellow at the Public Policy Forum. Additionally, he has served as a legislative assistant to city of Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy.

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.

The proposed district would establish rules for new development within this corridor.  Specifically, it would restrict development within 50 feet of the top of the bluff, so as to protect tree roots and bluff stability.  Though, there are measures that would allow buildings to encroach into this area, but additional requirements such as enhanced storm water management practices, and additional landscape screening would need to be met.  The proposed legislation also includes height limitations to protect the scenic quality of the river corridor.  For example, in areas where the corridor crosses commercial districts building height limitations would force a step back configuration to hide the buildings from being viewed from within the river corridor.  Additionally, it includes, new green building requirements, the restriction of some building materials and designs, which would exclude blank walls or vinyl siding along the river.  Surface parking lots would have additional landscape requirements, and any signage along the corridor would have to be of the city’s Type A style.  Existing single family homes and duplexes are exempted from the new requirements as it is particularly targeted at new multi-family developments along the corridor.

It was apparent that some compromises had been made in regards to property south of North Ave. which made this legislation palatable to property owners and developers in this area, as there was minimal opposition to the legislation.  It was also pointed out that an Planned Development would trump the overlay district so Mandel Group’s property on the west side of the river south of North Ave. could still be developed according to its existing plan.

A large group appeared to support the project, with only some minor opposition.  During the presentation the topic of the height limitations came up as an issue that the Department of City Development had a philosophical issue with, so some members of the audience spoke in support of the “viewshed” restrictions.  Ann Brummitt, of the Milwaukee River Work Group, argued that the “urban hardscape” had crept up the river and that is was infringing on the scenic beauty of the corridor.  In fact she argued that the “public trust doctrine” supported the “viewshed.”  Linda Keen, Architect from Studio 1032, argued that even Frederick Olmsted would recognize the “viewshed” as vital to the corridor, though this seems contrary to the evidence as one of his most famous works, Central Park in New York City, is surrounded by high-rise development.  Alderman Kovac wrapped up explain that “there have been several compromises,” and that he felt “that makes this a win win for everyone.”  This was approved at the City Plan Commission and will now go before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.