BreakWater Fiasco
A column in Milwaukee Magazine criticizing the design of Renner Architect’s soon-to-be completed BreakWater Condominiums spurred a response from Peter Renner‘s firm that was in very poor form. The column in Milwaukee Magazine centered around the design of the BreakWater building itself, although Renner’s rebuttal was more interested in other things.
There are two key elements to the issue. The first is the response from Peter Renner’s firm. The second is the question of the actual architectural value of the building.
In the case of the first issue, Peter Renner’s firm issued a response via email to an article by Tom Bamberger in Milwaukee Magazine (not yet available online). The email sent out to an undisclosed number of individuals, but presumably went to every future BreakWater resident as part of a “BreakWater Condominiums Weekly Update.” The email that was sent out was addressed from sales staff member Chris Corley, but Renner himself should be held personally responsible until he issues an apology. Furthermore, it would be shocking if Renner himself didn’t have involvement in the authoring of the email with the amount of architectural detail included.
A rebuttal to a printed column that criticizes your development is completely fair, and that’s not at all where the issue is. The problem is the way the rebuttal was authored, and the personal attack it included.
The final and most egregious insult Renner issued was at columnist Tom Bamberger, exposing his address unnecessarily (with the only point of posting photos of his home and mocking his home), marginalizing his financial well-being, and randomly criticizing his photography skills.
A response from Renner was certainly not uncalled for, but the way this response was written certainly was.
The second question is over the architectural value of the building. Bamberger was rather harsh in his criticism of the BreakWater, but when you’re building something that is visible from more than a mile away you’re not going to please everyone.
Do I personally think the building is a great architectural addition to the skyline? It’s okay, nothing special. There is a better question to be asked though. Does every building that adds to the skyline have to be approved by the architectural community as a quality addition? I say no, although I’m sure others would certainly disagree.
Milwaukee is blessed with a number of beautiful buildings from Milwaukee City Hall to “the Calatrava.” There are also a lot of bland buildings that are still assets to the urban fabric. The massing of the BreakWater will certainly prevent it from ever blending in with others around it, but it will certainly will not distract from Milwaukee’s best architectural assets.
The inside of the building is a different story from the outside. The quality of the construction as far as we can tell (from past Renner projects and tours of the BreakWater) should make the BreakWater a great place to live for years to come. Renner has a history of delivering quality units that have historically had high resale prices.
From an urbanist’s perspective the development is pretty sound, it interacts with the street pretty well, and brings a substantial amount of residents into downtown Milwaukee. Unfortunately it’s not a mixed-use development, but there are a substantial amount of commercial buildings in the area. Another real positive is that it elevated the height of the neighborhood, which should help future developers build high-density buildings in the area.
If I was Peter Renner I would have issued a response to my customers in response to Bamberger that said “look at my track record.” Nothing more was needed.
If you think stories like this are important, become a member of Urban Milwaukee and help support real, independent journalism. Plus you get some cool added benefits.
Tom Bamberger hit the mark in his criticism of Break Water. I’m not a member of the “intellectual architectural community” Renner refers to in his response; I’m a neighborhood resident who has to look at his graceless, clunky box of a building day after day. Compare Break Water to any other high-rise in the area and the difference is obvious: his is ugly. He simply took his low-rise design from the Third Ward and stretched it to 20 stories. I appreciate his reputation for constructing comfortable residences, but couldn’t he have spent a little time and money to make those out-of-place balconies and flat roof extension a little more aesthetically pleasing? A quick look at the dozens of new condo towers in Chicago would indicate that Renner is out in left field on the issue of design.
I enjoyed the counter-criticism presented by Chris Corley. While there isn’t a need for an apology by Renner, I admit that this is a response that is more personal and controversial than what would be typical from many similiar development firms, it’s refreshing.
Wow! I understand that the e-mail was likely not meant for widespread publication but try keeping it professional next time.
Renner owes Mr. Bamberger an apology. What in the world does Bamberger’s personal residence on National Avenue, his photographs, or his financial status have to do with the feature in Milwaukee Magazine, which by the way is online as I write. I bought that National Avenue residence in the 80s, fixed it up and lived there before selling it to Mr. Bamberger. Renner’s photos of Mr. Bamberger’s residence make it look like a dump… and just so you know, one of Bamberger’s exquisite photographs (of the field of corn) was exhibited to great acclaim at UW-Milwaukee’s lovely Kenilworth Gallery. Uh oh, Renner deemed it “not suitable” for The Breakwater.
wow. really? a real business person is going to resort to personal dissing, class-warrior shtick and innuendo? on another note: i live down the street from mr. bamberger’s residence and it’s actually a very cool, neighborhood-appropriate building. fiasco indeed.
meanwhile, here’s the bamberger article in milwaukee magazine.
It might not be prettiest building in the world, but it’s selling… Almost 70% full.
How full are the rest of the condo developments in the area??
@Bob Oh I totally agree. That fact is the BreakWater is selling its units much better than a lot of other projects in town. But the letter attacking the Milwaukee Magazine writer personally was way over the top. Honestly when I first got it I thought it was some sort of joke.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/r9yn41
The article in question is available here.
Tom Bamberger is full of himself and probably did something privately to piss off Renner. This resulted in an article “attacking Renner” and Renner responding to not only the article, but letting their personal issues spill out into the open.
I guess if you tipped the building over in the lake, it could act as a breakwater
I received the Corley email before the story broke, and my feelings haven’t changed. He’s a simpleton who shouldn’t have been given a format from which to gush his infantile rants. That being said, shame on Renner for letting it happen; Corley would have been quickly unemployed if he worked for me.
As for Bamberger, he’s simply an art critic whose opinion is valid to some and not to others. Maybe he has a vendetta, or maybe he doesn’t. If he thinks it’s so bad, and he truly wants to see change, he should design a high-rise building himself. Once he’s designed his opus of a building, see if he can sell the units. I’m betting not. They’d sit because no one could afford them. That’s the market right now, Renner knows it, and he played it well. His units sell and are affordable because his building was built with a smart, tight budget. The market simply isn’t ready for a 20-story Calatrava Condo.
It’s all just a lot of people with opinions and not enough brains to keep their idiocy to themself.
For the record, I have no “private” relationship with Peter Renner than I know of. The reason I wrote about his building is because I have, along with all of us in Milwaukee, a very public relationship to his building.
One other clarification. I probably shouldn’t have made the aside in my article referencing the future value of his condos at the Breakwater. I write about how things look, review really only half of architecture, the outside. Obviously every piece of architecture is also real estate. But I am no expert in the latter. I do, however, have the overarching hope that good architecture can create real estate value in the end. Maybe that is a fantasy. Maybe I am just plain wrong about that.
As I noted in my article though, even Renner believes as I do when he says on his website that one of the virtues of his building is its proximity to so many other buildings of stature including the mansions along Prospect and the Calatrava.
I have to agree that the outside of Breakwater is very unattractive. I have not been inside as of yet, however in his other condo projects, the insides are very nice. He seems to know what buyers are looking for especially the ones transiting from suburbia to city life. Mr. Renner should have been proud of that fact knowing what he has built in the past has sold well and so far he has done well in selling this project. It should have been a no commit status…not worth my time attitude.
Instead his attack on other condo projects in the area and worse the attack on Mr. Bamberger has put a worse tarnish on the project than the article. It has shown Mr. Renner’s character and put a bad light on his staff.
Developers cannot please everyone and there will be negative comments and they should be handle with grace and respect. I believe BOTH Mr. Renner and Mr. Corley owe people an apology.
First off, let me start by saying that yes, I am a future BreakWater owner. I am your average 20-something, first-time home owner who has worked hard to save up so I can live in one of Milwaukee’s finest condominiums. Second, though I do disagree in part with Renner’s response to Tom, a harsh response was well-deserved.
In the first paragraph of the article, Bamberger launches a personal attack on Renner stating that he has an ego. This is the second Milwaukee Magazine article in the last six months to say such a thing. First, it is of absolutely no value to the article and second, it is completely erroneous. Renner and his team have gone out of their way to make sure that my first home purchase is a very positive experience. They are all very hard-working professionals who take pride in the work that they do, which is evidenced throughout the BreakWater. There is a difference between pride and ego – pride is knowing that your developments are the best in Milwaukee (as evidenced by not only sales at the BreakWater, but also the strong resale values from past developments). After spending a lot of time searching Milwaukee for the best value in the Condo market, nobody else could come close to providing that level of quality at the prices the units are selling for.
Bamberger makes the statement that BreakWater will have resale problems some day and questions Renner’s view that the BreakWater is a great long term investment going so far as to say that Bamberger is, “betting against him” on resale value. Well, Bamberger is not betting against Renner on this, Bamberger is betting against me and the over 70 other future owners of BreakWater units. Frankly, like Peter, I am rather insulted by this. Basically, Bamberger is saying that the biggest investment I have ever made in life is a waste. I would not recommend betting against me on this one – as I am very certain that I will come out ahead. I did not buy a unit at the BreakWater because of the neighboring mansions (nor, on the flip side, did I buy because of the St. Catherine Residence on the same block). The views of the mansions below disappear quickly the higher up you go, and therefore, I am really not so sure that the comment about the neighboring mansions increasing the BreakWater property values is correct. I would venture the giant lake on the east side of the building would have a bit more of an effect on that, but what do I know? I don’t read architectural magazines.
Take a look at the photo of the BreakWater that accompanies the article. As Tom goes on to insult both Renner and the BreakWater, it seems rather ironic, given that of the 19 “dock-like decks” featured in the picture, 14 of them have a sold sign attached. Another bit of irony is the timing of the article. During the same week that I received my copy of Milwaukee Magazine, one condominium project folded and another is transitioning to rental units. Now, as I said, I am not one for reading architectural magazines, myself, but from what I have seen, both the Palomar and the Residences on Water had very nice facades. Apparently, when shelling out a few hundred thousand dollars (or more), there is more prospective buyers look for than just a pretty exterior.
Bamberger takes another shot at Renner by calling the BreakWater an “architectural failing” and referring to it as a “disappointing landmark.” Architectural failing? Renner is a very passionate person, and as mentioned above, is very proud of his work (as he should be). For someone to call a very successful project (the only development in Milwaukee that seems to still be selling units) a failure that he has no stake in (other than he does not like it) is just absurd. Renner took the time out of his schedule to talk with Bamberger for this article (Renner is rather busy at the moment, trying to finish up his “architectural failure” and all) and this is the respect he gets back? Great work Bamberger – waste his time to write such a poor article attacking the man and his passion. As for the line about “lack of inhibition,” I have absolutely no idea where Bamberger is trying to go with yet another personal attack, other than to maybe foreshadow what was to come as a response to such a grotesque piece in an otherwise respectful magazine.
In the next few months, I will be moving into my “curious mistake” of a condo. I look forward to living in my condo where I will have “a place to plug in a grill and a home entertainment system” and relax on my “ridiculous” balcony – all of which I am very much looking forward to. However, I think if Mr. Bamberger took the time to truly view the BreakWater for everything it has to offer, he would see that the condominium is so much more than that. My “curious mistake” will be my home; a spacious place that provides everything a 20-something just about everything I could want. A place to entertain, a place to build a strong community with those around me, a place to call home; and judging by sales over the last year and a half, it seems I am not alone in believing this. Bamberger did not only attack Renner and insult his latest project, but he has insulted me, a future resident and tax-payer of Milwaukee (along with all my neighbors). Tom, I would me more than happy to take you up on that bet against the value of my home, as I am sure would every other resident in Milwaukee’s hottest selling property.
Ray, I understand your point.
But………. just because you bought something and will enjoy it is not a good argument for the quality of the architecture.
Just because something is sold, accepted by the market, does not mean that it good…. or very good.
What about Denny’s??????? They sell a lot more meals than any restaurant one would want to write about, ya or nay.
speaking of photographs (as Renner did in his tirade against Bamberger)someone told me that there are photographs signed “P. Renne”..they are hanging in an Erie St. pizza place in a building owned by Peter Renner. Is Mr. Renner the photographer?
Tom, I am going to have to completely disagree with you on this one. You stated that, “Just because something is sold, accepted by the market, does not mean that it good…. or very good.” We live in a capitalistic society here in the United States. That means we have the right to choose what we want to spend our money on. If something is sold, it has value to somebody. If something is accepted by the market, than it has value to a large group of people. That is how our economic system works and is the backbone of our nation.
We are privileged to live in a society where we have the right and responsibility to make the decisions on our own and I would encourage you not to overlook this key factor. Whether you are talking about a $5.99 Grand Slam Breakfast from Denny’s or a $500,000 condo in downtown Milwaukee, the idea of utility is at work.
Now, where you came up with Denny’s, I have no idea, and do not really see it as a good comparison to the BreakWater, but in terms of economics, both are very successful by appealing to customers in different ways. Denny’s provides decent food at a reasonable price. This is a successful model for the company, they are not targeting rich executives, but the average American who wants a hot breakfast now and then, but does not want to cook it, nor pay $15+ a plate for higher quality eggs-over-easy.
At the same time, the BreakWater has been a successful development in Downtown Milwaukee by appealing to home owners looking to maximize condominium value. They are not the most expensive on the market and not the largest on the market, but they are built in a way that provides high-end luxuries and amenities while still remaining affordable with floor plans that make sense.
As for “quality of architecture,” I think high ceilings, a foot of concrete between me and my neighbors, high-end fixtures, and a solid/sustainable building, all while keeping costs in line makes for quality architecture. That is a reason I bought into the BreakWater. I think the word you are looking for is “beauty,” and as far as I am concerned, I have no issues with it. The building looks just fine and is a great addition to the skyline. Tom, you disagree, I know, you have established that you do not like its beauty – but when it comes to quality, BreakWater is built strong and built to last.
For a couple years while in college, I worked in a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Now, my guess is that Tom would consider this a “gold standard” in how buildings should look. As for the building I worked in, I found it to have a very odd design with limited functionality and whenever it rained, the roof leaked. Another building at the same location by the same architect is no longer usable because that “brilliant architectural design” did not adhere to fire codes.
Functionality is a very important factor to look at when reviewing architecture and, Tom, I do not think you see this. Based on previous comments, it seems you may have never even been in the BreakWater or perhaps any other development in Milwaukee (please, correct me if I am wrong on this one). Now, I am not going to pick on any in-progress properties in Milwaukee, because I wish them all success in this tough market, but there are many floor plans that are just not functional. There is no way to furnish a lot of these “modern” layouts in a way that makes sense and the plans do not make efficient use of space. While the building may be suitable for an architectural magazine from the outside, it is going to be hard to get someone to spend half a million dollars or more if they do not like the inside. Then, even if this project is accepted by you or some architectural magazine, it does not mean the market will accept it, and like it or not, we, the buyers, are the ones who dictate the condo market, not the people who like (or don’t like) to see a building in the sky line.
So, in summary, my point about architectural quality is that, like it (or believe it) or not, it is the market that determines the success of a project, the people spending the money to live there are more concerned about the interior, and quality should not be confused with beauty, because when it comes to quality, you will not find a better development than the BreakWater.
Also, your idea that something sold by the market is not good is obscured. If there is demand for it in the market, then it is obviously providing utility (maybe not to you, but to someone). I hope you do not continue to overlook how powerful the value of free economics our country is – as this truly is something special. We have the freedom to determine what is and is not “acceptable” in our market, and if something is not providing enough benefit for the cost put in, then it will not be successful in the market. I would strongly encourage you to think about this because it truly is one of the foundations of our great nation.
I would like to thank Peter for putting Mr. B in place. The easiest job in the world it that of a critic. Peter’s properties have some of the best creature comforts available in the condo market. i live in a condo on the river and would personally enjoy a large balcony, such as the ones Peter builds. Simply tour any one of his fine buildings and you will quickly see why buyers flock to them.
Mr. Renner is very aware of what his market and what his clients desire. That being said, he is filling a void left by other developers.
I’m sorry, but Milwaukee is not Chicago, and never will be. To compare Milwaukee’s condominium market to Chicago’s is unfair and far from realistic.
Perhaps printing the writers home and address may have smacked of retaliation, but was appropriate considering the credentials of the writer and his lack of product knowledge. Again, its quite easy to criticize, and another thing to produce value added – in demand products.
The Denny’s reference is also without merit, as you can’t compare a restaurant chain to luxury condominiums.
I’d like to know what credentials Mr. B. has, that could warrant such an uneducated criticism and lack of knowledge on the current desired construction and amenities in the condominium market.
I only wish I could afford one of these fine condominiums. Perhaps he’ll think twice in his next critique?
I heard (from my barber on the East side) that Renner required all his subcontractors to purchase a home in the Breakwater if they wanted to be awarded a contract to work on his building. So, Bob, how many of the 70% sold are owned by the contractors?
Ray, it’s not enough to say that Break Water is appealing to you and its other tenants. The exterior of the building has a major impact on its neighborhood. The ONLY reason its located where it is, is because of the BEAUTY of it surroundings. If its exterior seriously diminishes the attractiveness of those surroundings, and that is what actually bothers its critics, people who don’t live in the Break Water are entitled to speak out .
Renner is way over reaching if he thinks he’s above thoughtful criticism, and only advertises his ignorance (and lack of balance?) with that absurd rant. If he’s willing to respect other people’s views, he will continue to provide excellent value and more thoughtful exteriors — they needn’t cost a penny more — where appropriate.
I’m afraid success in the Market is not self justifying in and of itself. If it were we should all be hero worshipping crack-cocaine merchants, pornographers, etc. etc. Other values count too. Including respecting your neighbors.
Lenny, absolutely critics are entitled to speak out, but the key phrase in your comment is “thoughtful criticism.” This is what the article lacked. Rather than Tom saying he does not like the building (which I disagree with him on, that is fine, he is entitled to his opinion – as are you), he goes on to attack the developer. Actually, he starts off the article by attacking the developer (as noted in my first comment on the article from 2/2). Then, later in the article, Tom goes on to talk about future values of the Breakwater Condos (a statement he does try to retract on this blog). That is not thoughtful criticism; that is poor journalism and is very disappointing.
As for the comment about, “hero worshipping crack-cocaine merchants…” I do not condone illegal activities.
I also disagree with the comment that “The ONLY reason its located where it is, is because of the BEAUTY of it surroundings.” By surroundings, it seems you are referring to the historic mansions in the area (since you mention the impact on the neighborhood in the line before). Take a look at Peter’s previous residential developments. In Milwaukee, they all have one thing in common – water. There are no historic mansions on Erie St. (that I know of), it is all old warehouses and converted condos.
The location of the BreakWater (in context with neighboring buildings), in my opinion, has little to do with its success, other than the neighboring buildings tend to be under 4 stories (leading to nicer views of downtown, Miller Park and the lake for residents). There is another condo development from a reputable developer a few blocks away from the BreakWater which is further from the lake and is surrounded by historic mansions. This is a more modern-looking building that appears to target the same market of potential buyers as the BreakWater, based on unit price. This development opened several years ago (back when the housing market was in a much better condition), and based on that developer’s website, is still only about 36% occupied. There are several reasons why this could be the case, but this project also promotes its proximity to the historic mansions, and that has clearly not made this development a success.
First, I think the BreakWater is quite attractive. Being solid and strong does not equate to ugly.
Unlike many of the buildings built in recent years, the BreakWater is neither pretentious nor dreary. It will not be one of those buildings that people remember as “one of those ugly buildings built around the turn of the 21st century.” Instead, it is timeless and handsome.
Milwaukee has had other eras of disgraceful architecture. But the attempts at “modernism” (Renner accurately describes the absurdity of that name) in the last several years will certainly result in this era being remembered among them. Most of these buildings will be quickly dated. The BreakWater will not be lumped in with them.
While Milwaukee has many beautiful buildings and styles (the myriad of Cream City brick buildings, the timeless majesty of the US Courthouse and the grace of Cudahy Tower come to mind), one can drive through our streets and marvel at the ugliness of the wedding cake stuck on the beautiful Pfister building, the East German look of the 411 building, the Milk of Magnesia Federal Building, the NML buildings, and so forth.
Someday, people will look back and count places such as The Edge, Park Lafayette and Cathedral Place among the ugly buildings that are out of place in Milwaukee. Actually, we can only hope people think they are out of place. If they do not, it will mean their coldness has replaced the warm, solid look that has been the best of Milwaukee.
The BreakWater is not a landmark. It is a home. And, as Renner stated in his recent WUWM interview, it blends well into the surrounding neighborhood. There is a reason why the BreakWater is the only condominium that is not facing financial ruin. It is the best building on the market.
Renner is a polarizing figure. He always has been. He is a strong, opinionated guy, and he rubs some people the wrong way. He also does not cave to the modernist cult like many of his slavish, lemming-like colleagues. That has made him a target for the likes of Whitney Gould and, perhaps, Tom Bamberger.
I agree with Mr. Bamberger on one point. Art is not purely subjective. There is good art and bad art. But that does not mean that only effete, elitist snobs can discern the difference. Great art is recognized as such over time and is usually embraced by the public. Or are David, the Pieta, the Ghent Altarpiece or the Jewish Bride equivalent to Denny’s (see above) because millions flock to see them?
People like Mr. Bamberger believe that only they and people like them are able to discern great art from popular pablum. Of course, that attitude ensures that their art can be hung in galleries and their architecture can receive recognition, even if noone wants to buy their product other than toads who, lacking any sense of themselves, listen to the intellentsia who tell them it is good.
Renner’s building is not art. But, although I might prefer something even more traditional, it is attractive. It comes much closer to capturing Milwaukee than most of the other new buildings being constructed.
If a true list was made of Milwaukee’s ugliest significant buildings, the BreakWater would not be on the list (unless of course the list was compiled by the architect fascists of the modernist movement and their supporters).
There is a reason why the BreakWater is the only condominium that is not facing financial ruin. It is the best building on the market..
And while it might not make a list of the 10 most beautiful buildings, i
Renner was tough in his e-mail. His biggest mistake was allowing it to go out in Corley’s name when everyone knows that he wrote it. His history and description of modernism is dead on, and he was right to call out the hypocrisy of modernist advoactes who, rather than practicing what they preach, live in traditional homes. I won’t bother to comment on Mr. Bamberger’s art.
Mr. Bamberger, sorry you did not like Renner’s e-mail but, when you pull on the tiger’s tail, you better have a plan to deal with its teeth.
I agree with Tom’s opinion of the building. I also agree that Mr. Renner was the real writer of the retort against Tom’s article. I don’t believe that Chris Corley has the capacity to write such a vindictive article about someone he doesn’t even know.
I am a resident at the Breakwater and have found the experience to be anything other then pleasant! Mr. Renner has used his board to change the original marketing tools that were used to help people move from the suburbs to a downtown location. On the other hand he has make it a miserable experience. Not only has he maligned Tom Bamburger, he has maligned me and from what I’ve heard anyone that disagrees with him on anything. That is one of the various methods Mr Renee, I mean, Mr. Renner, uses to get his way. Mr. Renner uses “bully” typed of tactics to achieve his agenda. Not everyone moves to a condo because it has a good television system, which by the way Mr. Renner does not pay for. I have many other opinions on this subject but for now I’ll reserve them to myself.
@mamamia699 I’m curious what you have not enjoyed about living at the BreakWater?
There have been many things. I can be very clear that most all of the problems have come from management. or lack there of! There are to many things that need to be done at the Breakwater that have not been completed. One person cannot do 10 other peoples jobs. The security is not sound, not because of security person but because of the various other duties that he/she has to complete when on duty. We now have no concierge and the Breakwater advertised as “the amminities of a 5 star hotel. That is hardly close to the truth. The last thing I heard was the Breakwater was going to be operating according to “The Constitution of the United States of America”. I have lot’s more to say and tell but have retained counsel to deal with many of the unfortunate issues that have gone on here over the last year. If you have further questions you can ask me about them on this site.
My thoughtful criticism is that I don’t care for it and would not live there. But others are free to do as they please, some people like to eat at Denny’s and Applebee’s, I prefer something more unique for my food and architecture.
As far as the publications, I think both sides could use some restraint and professionalism. People can agree to disagree in civil manner. Let’s face it; none of these buildings are a Mies van der Rohe or a Robert Stern. Both Modernism and traditional design are pleasant when done well, even better when done in juxtaposition.
suffice it to say it might be time to consider doing an interview with someone regarding the coming and goings at the BreakWater?
I agree with Mathew Trussoni, I however do live here and there are many confusing things that have gone on that I feel Mr. Renner is responsibile for. Mr. Renner is not only the developer but he seems to run the board, at least all indications point in that direction