Plenty of Horne
White House Tavern Controversy
New owners of 1890 tavern making changes, alderman files for historic preservation.
Get a daily rundown of the top stories on Urban Milwaukee
New owners of 1890 tavern making changes, alderman files for historic preservation. Back to the full article.
Photos - Page 5
Categories: Arts & Entertainment, Food & Drink, Plenty of Horne
9 thoughts on “Plenty of Horne: White House Tavern Controversy”
“Aldermen usually like to hear of such proposals firsthand from the owners, and not secondhand from a real estate advertisement soliciting operators for the 1,338-square-foot commercial space, as was the case in this instance.”
This is a brilliant one-sentence summary of about 75% of what is wrong in Milwaukee politics today.
Why wasn’t there any kind of action taken when the former owners covered the whole building with vinyls siding?
If Milwaukee is going to have one, I can see how this location & building would be a good contender for a destination-type restaurant with reservations, relatively-high prices, curated wine list & valet parking. It’s 4 blocks to the lake, in a neighborhood with a good food & drink scene, close to a cinema, easy proximity to downtown, in a classic building. I think it would be good.
IMO there’s a lot of untapped potential in Milwaukee’s higher end food scene. Unlike other major US cities, Chicago doesn’t have any 2 hour away foodie/touristy meccas, stocked with Michelin star-type restaurants. MKE does pretty well right below that tier, and just needs a couple really strong restaurants to really establish the city as a foodie destination.
Didn’t the alderman tear down a historic home to build his new one?
This is what has alwasy bothered me about the Historic Preservation program. I buy a building with my money and I bear the responsibility for maintaining it, paying the taxes, etc. Yet someone else who is not an owner, not the person who has to pay for anything, and not the person ultimately responsible for the building can just pop out of nowhere and say, “But it’s histooooooric!” and now I have to abide by strict rules about the design, materials, and manner in which I rehab MY property. Yet the person who filed for the Historic designation doesn’t have to do a thing. That ain’t right.
Yes history is important. But I don’t think the City should allow anyone, an Alderman or any other citizen, to file for historic designation on a property that they have no financial or ownership interest in. If a building is so very important, why don’t these history lovers pony up the funds and buy/rehab the property themselves?
GreenDoor, when you buy a landmark house, you either understand the rules, and if you don’t, you should have read the fine print.
The point is moot now that TZ has reversed his position about the new owners and pulled the application for historic designation. Perhaps Michael could get us an official update?
And John, I think GreenDoor means AFTER the property has been purchased, someone can come in and try to get it designated as Historic. There was no fine print to read at time of purchase. That’s what happened here. The White House was not designated as Historic at the time they bought it.