A five-story, 168,000 square-foot building brings yet more activity to the area.
A five-story, 168,000 square-foot building brings yet more activity to the area. Back to the full article.
You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.
If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.
Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us
A traditional chain grocery store would be great there. I love independent stores but there is a place for chains. With all the residential and even more offices here its time for some mundane services.
Oh, that’s a great little area! And a decent building – I enjoy the glass. Very “modified modernism” on that side. Complements the newer building across Cat Square. Certainly an adequate replacement for the totally immemorable Babcock building.
Interestingly, Babcock moved its operations to a spot in the Airport Industrial Park, close to Associated Spring Barnes Group. If that area gets one more spring-related business, it will technically be considered a “Spring Valley” by the International Association of Spring Manufacturers. That may qualify it for financial incentives and beautification.
Anyone know if MIAD ever got the okay for their new dorm on the other corner of Erie?
While I am seldom this critical of other Architects, this building is not fit for the Third Ward. The simply adequate building would be a great addition to the City’s West side, but this is the most vibrant and desirable neighborhood in the City. The proposed massing and roof line contains almost no Architectural articulation, rather it presents s a single monolithic form taking ques from the worst of the neighborhood. The Third Ward owes much of its dynamic character to the diverse tight urban fabric of numerous buildings with similar but yet unique forms. The proposed building is more reminiscent of a super block building, and is not fit for the Third Ward.
The Third Ward Guidelines are a joke at this point. Let’s see a odd shaped block with direct adjacencies to historic fabric and an existing one story structure that will remain.
The Marine Terminal Lofts is a three story RIVERFRONT building with a two story penthouse addition. The guidelines establish no ‘canyonizing’ as well as that riverfront properties shall be the tallest structures. This proposal is tearing down 1 story existing fabric to put up a five story building with an additional story of mechanical penthouse?
The openings (voids) are way out of scale and the use of metal panel is a cheap solution. It’s depressing to see the Third Ward destroyed for glassy office buildings. Not to mention how many vacant office floor plates currently exist in the Ward.
Too bad no one is willing to hold developers and architects to the established guidelines. If this proposal was the entire block – not ignoring the height of the remaining one story structure and was three floors with a penthouse I’d maybe understand. This is simply over scaled and without consideration of the historic nature of the district.
WAY TOO TALL!!!
It’s a great idea to fill in existing surface parking lots within the Third Ward. No one can argue against the value of re-establishing density. Density and the existing historic beautiful architectural craftsmanship are what make the Ward a national treasure.
What’s disturbing is that any development proposed is welcome by the Third Ward Review Board. Where’s the accountability for ensuring that the carefully constructed guidelines are being followed? Kahler makes the agreement that they’ve taken cues from the adjacent structures however in the elevations and renderings submitted these relationships are down played and simplified to an abstraction that’s negligent. Beware – Don’t let those computer model camera angles convince you otherwise.
Leaving materiality & facade composure aside. There are major short coming on the proposals massing & height. The ‘base-middle – top’ is very thin especially on the ‘top’ portion. The establishment of height is pulled out of thin air (or rather from the developers bottom line).
Let’s breakdown appropriate heights according to adopted guidelines.
130% taller than existing fabric. That’s a one story building on the block and a three story building with two story setback penthouse along the river. The proposals fails at meeting any height restrictions (5 stories plus penthouse).
Any chance they shared a wall section? I’m willing to bet any of the diagramed solid portions of the facade will not read once constructed due to the lack of depth designed into the highly glazed elevations. There will not be shadow depths.
It’s a great design for an office park in the Valley! Anyone who believes that this project has followed through on living within the Third Ward Design Guidelines hasn’t taken the time to read them.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/plans/ThirdWardDesign/ThirdWardDesign.pdf
What’s next an eight story MIAD dorm that demolishes the tavern on Erie?! (Unless architectural professionals begin respecting contextualism the answer is very likely yes) Come on Milwaukee we’re better than this!!!
Alderman Bauman should know his constituents and at least have the proper spelling of Mr. Iannelli. Secondly, Mr. Iannelli is not being difficult or uncompromising. He simply isn’t interested in selling the property.
I fail to understand why he has to complicate the issue and portray Mr. Iannelli in this fashion. If one were to knock on Mr. Bauman’s door with an offer to purchase his home, would he be intransigent by replying “no thanks, it’s not for sale.” The same applies here. With his rich vocabulary, I’d expect Mr. Bauman to grasp Mr. Iannelli’s viewpoint without the drama.
Isn’t one of the buildings they are planning on tearing down on the National Historic Register?