Compromise Sought on Bay View Historic District

Puddlers’ cottages on the 2500 block of S. Superior Street. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

Four years after it was first proposed, the City of Milwaukee still hasn’t decided whether a row of 160-year-old homes tied to a long-gone iron mill deserves historic protection.

For a moment Tuesday, it seemed like a decision had been reached.

Alderwoman Marina Dimitrijevic‘s aide Terri Williams said Dimitrijevic supported designating the row of seven puddlers’ cottages of the 2500 block of S. Superior St. as historic. The homes built for workers of the long-gone rolling mill dot the neighborhood, but the Superior Street row is recognized as the largest intact cluster. “The working class community they’ve fostered is really a huge part of Bay View,” said Williams, reading a statement from the alderwoman, to the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee. “One single puddler’s cottage doesn’t tell the story.”

The small houses, once approximately 1,000 square feet in size, were built by the Milwaukee Iron Company for its workers as part of a company-town-style, rent-to-own agreement. Puddler refers to the job title of the ironworkers who mixed molten metal with a long rod. The mill, demolished after its 1929 closure, was once the largest employer in Milwaukee and, most notably, was subject to an 1886 strike over an eight-hour workday that resulted in a crackdown left seven people dead. A well-attended annual memorial event takes place a block north at the former mill site.

The city’s Historic Preservation Commission and the nonprofit Milwaukee Preservation Alliance also support the designation.

But the homeowners don’t, at least as currently configured.

“Our alderwoman promised she had the interests of homeowners first, which clearly has changed in four years,” said Jeffrey Reinbold, who lives at 2508 S. Superior St.

Reinbold has opposed the designation since it was first proposed in 2021. But he doesn’t oppose maintaining his house. “We all have the desire to preserve and make Bay View exactly as we have as our home,” said Reinbold. “Imposing very specific regulations on a very specific number of homes is not the idea of creating a neighborhood solution.”

The 2021 nomination was triggered by a home sale and threat of demolition. The Common Council held a hearing, then took no formal vote. The nomination legally expired in 2023. A new nomination was filed in 2025 in an attempt to block the issuance of permits for a new home, but that house is already under construction.

Reinbold said residents are already preserving the neighborhood. “It is the people that make this community, not just the buildings… We must be allowed to grow with our homes,” said Reinbold, whose wife is pregnant.

He said the designation, which would require any exterior modifications to be approved by the city in accordance with design guidelines, would be too restrictive. He submitted several letters from his neighbors supporting that argument.

Reinbold said he wants grandfathering protections in writing, including the ability to replace items like aluminum window frames without needing to revert to wood. He said all of the homes have already been modified. “We are not against preserving this street,” said Reinbold. He said his interest is in allowing flexibility while keeping out short-term rentals on platforms like Airbnb that are “plaguing the neighborhood.”

The homeowner has even reversed the opinion of Joseph Paterick, who lives nearby and first filed the nomination in 2021 and the second one earlier this year. Paterick, who once tried to buy a home on the block, most recently sought to block Jonathan Bonchak from building a 2,496-square-foot home on a vacant lot in the stretch. Paterick previously told Urban Milwaukee he believed something illegal had occurred because he said he was told by a series of real estate industry professionals that the lot, created by a 1990s fire and demolition of an eighth puddler’s cottage, was unbuildable.

“I did a 180-degree paradigm shift. I’m on board with this guy,” said Paterick of Reinbold.

“This is all new information,” said Williams.

Williams said the alderwoman wasn’t aware of the opposition, though Reinbold had appeared in opposition at August’s historic commission meeting and other neighbors submitted letters in opposition. Historic Preservation Commission senior planner Tim Askin said no one responded to a summer invitation to discuss the guidelines.

“Even I’m reluctant,” said Ald. Robert Bauman, the chair of both the zoning committee and the preservation commission, of approving the designation. He said the design guidelines should be reviewed, but that designation would still support Reinbold. “Historic designation does not freeze a house forever.”

“We understand, we just want a few guarantees,” said Reinbold.

The proposal was held to allow a meeting between the alderwoman, property owners and commission staff.

The properties that are subject to the proposed designation are 2500, 2506, 2508, 2512, 2518, 2522, 2524 and 2530 S. Superior St. A home at the south end of the block, 2538, is to be exempted because it is of a different style. Bonchak’s new home would be treated differently under the guidelines.

July Photos

12►

September Photos

Legislation Link - Urban Milwaukee members see direct links to legislation mentioned in this article. Join today

Existing members must be signed in to see the interactive map. Sign in.