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.

It is possible that the race could come down to Barrett versus Walker, and because of this the potential impacts on Milwaukee are significant.  If this happens the Milwaukee area is guaranteed to have one top level position albeit the Mayor’s office, or County Executive become vacated.  Clearly, the impacts of either of Barrett or Walker winning have dramatically different outcomes for Milwaukee.

Politically, the policies are well known, it’s clear that Walker would attempt to hold taxes down at almost any cost, likely pushing again for passing TABOR, and as experienced by residents of Milwaukee County by cutting services or in some cases neglecting services.  Holding taxes down is a commendable goal, unless it negatively impacts vital Milwaukee area services such as mass transit, the Milwaukee Public School System, and parks.  Finally, Walker has consistently opposed any sort of fixed rail system, and as he has in the past work in opposition to the KRM project and Milwaukee’s downtown streetcar.

Obviously, Barrett would bring and different set of policies to Madison, a set that would be open to expanding mass transit and building fixed rail, but a set that would in all likelihood raise taxes to cover the increasing cost of services.  Recently, Mayor Barrett showed his support for fixed rail by successfully lobbying Washington to split the $91.5 million worth of federal funds which had been designated to Milwaukee for the purpose of improving mass transit back in the 90′s, so that the money can finally be spent on developing a Milwaukee streetcar system.  On the taxes front property taxes have grown under Mayor Barrett’s helm, though not terribly fast, and fees have certainly risen.  Prior to the market crash the budgets had generally been tight but raising fees, and cutting staff had been the Barrett’s method of slowing the rate of increase in property taxes.

Clearly, rising taxes, and the importance of mass transit are two vital issues that could dramatically impact the future of Milwaukee.  But at the local level it’s far more interesting to speculate at the potential cast of characters that could attempt to replace either Mayor Barrett or County Executive Walker.

For the Mayors Office if Barrett were to win the Gubernatorial race.

• Former Alderman Michael D’Amato.  Recently former Alderman D’Amato has rounded out his resume by becoming involved in education efforts, and the M7 economic development initiative.  At one time he had flirted with running for Milwaukee County Executive, but choose to pass, this might be a better opportunity for his return to politics.
• Alderman Robert Bauman.  Alderman Bauman regularly takes an active role in citywide issues, such as mass transit, as such he might consider entering the race.
• Common Council President Willie Hines.  Council President Hines has broad appeal, and is often considered as a possible candidate, this could be his shot.
• Alderman Donovan.  Alderman Donovan is always working to be in the news, putting out a press release, holding a press conference, or taking a shot at Mayor Barrett, so it certainly appears as though he’d be interested in the office.
• Rep Pedro Colon. (D)  Despite his failure to win the race for Milwaukee City Attorney against incumbent Grant Langley, he may still have aspirations for City Hall.
• U.S. Rep Gwen Moore (D).  It wouldn’t be the first time a U.S. Rep from Milwaukee ran for Mayor, and it might be seen as a stepping stone to even higher office.

For County Executive if Walker were to win the Gubernatorial race.

• Milwaukee County Parks Director Sue Black.  Parks Director Black has done an fantastic job running the Milwaukee County Park System in the face of budget cuts and staff reductions.  She has consider running in the past, but the prospect of running against your boss probably ended any serious consideration.  With Walker out of the way she may consider it again.
• Sheriff David Clarke (I).  Despite continually running as an Independent Democrat, he is still popular among conservatives, and has always appeared interested in a political office.
• Rep. Jon Richards (D).  He has considered running for County Executive in the past, and with Walker out of the way this door might finally be open.
• Rep. Jeff Stone (R). Stone has experience managing his own business, has reached across the aisle on issues like transit lending his support to the RTA. His name is almost always mentioned when it comes to County Executive in the post-Walker era.
• Supervisor John Weishan Jr.  Supervisor Weishan is often in the middle of big issue and debates, not always winning them, but in the fight regardless.
• Supervisor Chris Larson.  As a freshman Supervisor this may be a long shot, but an opening like this don’t come along all too often and Supervisor Larson might have to consider running.
• Joe Klein (I).  Klein is an extremely long and quite frankly a silly shot, but he’s likely to run as he has twice before.

Who did we miss?

The complete street option is valuable, because it takes people in mind when constructing a street, not just automobile traffic, with the thought of creating a livable community, and spurring economic development.  Juli Kaufmann, a partner with Pragmatic Construction Co., described the concept saying “it looks at street as, a community, a neighborhood in itself,” and added that “it’s an economic opportunity.”  The idea being that a complete street is more than a street, it is a place, where people are comfortable to walk, sit out, chat, and interact.  It accomplishes this goal by utilizing street trees to create shade and shelter from the rain, by narrowing streets and minimizing travel lanes to slow traffic and increase pedestrian safety, and with aesthetic improvements to make the overall experience more appealing.  Alderman Witkowiak explained that by making these type of improvements “we can have some real quality development, if we treat the street properly.”  The idea of utilizing TIF funds if the state wasn’t to support the project was suggested and championed by Alderman Bauman as a way to insure this project moves forward.

Beyond rebuilding the street with people in mind, the investment itself sends a signal to developers and potential entrepreneurs that the City of Milwaukee is willing to invest in this area.  For an area of the city that hasn’t seen a lot of public investment, this could be a catalytic project that spurs new private investment and grows the neighborhood.  Nathan Bernstein, a property owner on S. 2nd Street, suggested that this plan could accelerate his plans to redevelop his property.  Although today it might not be obvious that the potential for economic development along S. 2nd Street is there, it is clear that local property owners and developers see the potential, and that with a push from the city the redevelopment of S. 2nd Street could begin.

To get and idea of the buildings that currently exist along S. 2nd Street, and the potential for redevelopment we’ve provided a photo gallery of the area.

The release indicates positions we have advocated for before, including the need for the bridge to better interact with the city at its northern terminus at Clybourn and Lincoln Memorial Drive.

One should not hold out hope that the city gets everything it asks for though.  As evidence of how little influence they city may have in the issue, Mayor Barrett and Common Council President Hines were mere attendees at the Marquette Interchange ribbon cutting.  They stood among the crowd, while Governor Doyle and Transportation Secretary Busalacchi unveiled their $800 million interchange.  There might not be better symbolism for highway building than that.  The city can yell all it wants, but will the state listen?

When

Bridge reconstruction is expected to be completed in 2013.  The timeframe for such a redevelopment is relatively fast.

Where

The entire structure is in need of serious maintenance in the form of a redecking.  Running from the eastern half of Interstate 794 downtown to the south end of the bridge where it touches down in Bay View.

Who Uses It

The bridge serves primarily Bay View, St. Francis, and other southside residents looking to enter downtown and nearby neighborhoods.  It likewise provides access for individuals downtown looking to get to the airport.

Who Builds It

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will award and manage contracts for bridge reconstruction.  The City of Milwaukee is not the project manager by any means.

Cost

Simply rebuilding the bridge as is was estimated at $200 million, and some sort of rebuild is viewed as necessary for safety reasons.  A considerable amount of money is going to need to be spent, even just to maintain the status quo.

Bauman’s Proposed Principles

Alderman Bauman’s press release revealed a series of principles to be introduced to the full Common Council on July 7th.

• The bridge and its approaches must use the existing right-of-way and substantially the same footprint.
• The bridge’s approaches must remain elevated over all land uses currently beneath the approaches, including but not limited to the Port of Milwaukee, MMSD and the Maier festival park.
• Any moveable bridge spans must have sufficient clearance over the (average) water level to minimize bridge openings for non-commercial vessels.
• Bridge openings must be limited to non-peak traffic periods, except in emergencies.
• The bridge and its approaches must accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
• The bridge and its approaches must be limited to two travel lanes and one distress lane, bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk in each direction.
• The lake shore interchange must be eliminated and replaced by an at-grade intersection or roundabout in the approximate location of Clybourn Street and Lincoln Memorial Drive.
• All new or reconstructed structures must be designed with lighting and architectural elements developed in consultation with the City of Milwaukee.

Conclusion

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the completely elevated bridge could be rebuilt in a fashion much more respectful to the city, that doesn’t impair motorists’ ability to enter downtown.  Drivers looking to enter downtown might actually have a better experience being dropped to street-level faster (the street grid gives options) at the north end of the bridge.  Also, while much of the land over which the bridge crosses isn’t developable, the land at the north end of the bridge holds a lot of potential.  A bridge that better interacts with the city could pay dividends in the form of a healthier neighborhood and increased tax base.

Cost is something to consider, and dropping the bridge to an intersection at the north end would likely mean the loss of the Interstate designation and some amount of federal funding.  That isn’t a reason not to do a highway rebuild though, as the state has shown by spending $400 million rebuilding Highway 26 from Janesville to Watertown, which includes the addition of by-passes around towns smaller than the Bay View neighborhood.

First let’s step back to the origination of the problem. What I witnessed on Friday night first hand (and what everything I read seems to agree happened Saturday) was that teenagers began to “cruise” (drive in loops, while hanging their heads out of the window, yelling, and all sorts of other stuff that the DMV would advise against) up and down Old World Third Street from Juneau Avenue to McKinley Avenue. They would frequently block these intersections and the whole area had a general sense of lawlessness to it (I biked through around midnight on Friday, I’ll vouch for the lawlessness).

The general lawlessness of cruising spilled over into the area near the intersection of Highland and Old World Third Street, where the person ended up getting shot in the foot. I witnessed this first hand Friday night, and all indications point to that same situation occurring Saturday night. The illegal activity (cruising is against the law in Milwaukee) outside of the festival, fueled insanity within the festival.

This behavior was further enabled by the vacant Park East land where the Sydney Hih building and Gipfel Brewery sit (and Ruvin is to develop upon). In fact on a night where parking is scarce, very few cars made use of the Park East land to park in, and the few that did were certainly illegal.

If Ruvin was able to start construction on that lot already, none of this probably would have happened. The north end of the festival would have been calmer because cruising wouldn’t have taken place near the festival because the lot would have been blocked off. Why wouldn’t cruising have taken place? The cruisers were using the largely empty lot to turn around.

Now don’t misinterpret my article as saying Ruvin was at fault for the fiasco, he is certainly not. But if Ruvin had fenced off the entire block (Milwaukee County may have to do this since he technically hasn’t executed his option to purchase), it would have made the corridor along Old World Third Street a little less friendly for cruising. It also might have encouraged law enforcement to stand at that end of the festival (even though it is technically outside the edge of the festival) and discourage and ticket cruisers.

It would be hard to convince Scott Walker and company to spend money when they’re not getting any in return though, so why not for the night turn it into a parking lot? Nearby parking garage owners wouldn’t be opposed to this, since they’re owned by the city. The city and county could earn some money to help pay for police officers for the event by charging for parking. Suburbanites in town for the festival would have paid for the convenience, they don’t seem to enjoy the concept of street parking.

RiverSplash will certainly continue next year. If I was in charge (paging Robert Bauman) I would do the following things.

1. Install lights above buildings to illuminate the streets (this is done in Madison during Halloween on State Street and makes it feel safer and more welcoming late at night). Cars usually provide this, but are clearly absent during RiverSplash.

2. Patrol the areas outside of RiverSplash, I felt that there were plenty of officers inside the festival, but not enough on the fringes.

3. Institute a bottle fee at bars so that drinkers pay a deposit and earn it back for their bottles. This should reduce garbage and eliminate the urge to turn bottles into frisbees and footballs. When I studied in Kassel, Germany they made good use of this policy during festivals and it seemed to keep garbage bins largely empty.

4. Look at traffic flows, especially around Highland Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. The area seems to clog up for fairly obvious reasons (it’s narrow and the street is vertically separated from the curb at one point ). See if any barriers can be put in place to encourage movement.

I look forward to attending RiverSplash next year and hopefully seeing the construction progress at Gatehouse Capitol and Ruvin Development’s Hotel Palomar.