City Seeks Development of Long-Vacant Bay View Site
A decade after last try, conceptual plan calls for 14-story tower with lake views.
Army Reserve site development plan. Image from Bay View Neighborhood Plan.
The City of Milwaukee is gearing up to advance a key component of the 2023 Bay View Area Plan.
The Department of City Development is again advancing the development of the Army Reserve Site, at 2372 S. Logan Ave.
The 5.4-acre, city-owned site currently functions as a passive green space. But the 2023 area plan called for it to be developed with housing of varied density and income levels.
A DCD-led community workshop will take place on July 20 from 4 to 7 p.m. at South Shore Pavilion. “The purpose of the meeting is to gather input that will help inform a future request for proposals for development of the site,” says the meeting website.
Then-Alderman Tony Zielinski was overruled by his colleagues in 2017 when he attempted to get the site designated as parkland, and DCD did not advance a compromise RFP that would have left a portion of the site as green space.
The 2023 area plan conceptually calls for E. Linus Street to be extended through the property and for a 14-story tower at the northeast corner to afford lake views. Lower-density homes would be located on the Logan Avenue (west) side, facing existing homes.
The site sits just north of Beulah Brinton Park, which includes a playground, community center and several outdoor athletic fields and courts.
Area Alderwoman Marina Dimitrijevic endorsed the planning process, which includes two other catalytic sites, in 2023 when it was reviewed by the City Plan Commission. “This plan reflects a truly collaborative approach to placemaking. While we may not agree on every single aspect of it, we can be proud of it because all voices were heard and all positions were respected,” Dimitrijevic said.
“We had unprecedented levels of engagement,” said DCD planner Monica Wauck Smith in 2023 of the two-year process. She said 646 people attended the seven workshops and events, and even more people participated online.
Now all of the voices will get another chance to be heard.
Wauck Smith, in 2023, said the plan would guide a future RFP, including pushing for lower-density development along S. Logan Avenue near existing homes, green space and higher-density development on the east side near Interstate 794. “We want to have a variety of different housing styles,” she said.
Development of the park has been a long time coming. The site was previously identified as a key parcel in the 2008 Southeast Side Area Plan.
The Army Reserve site is named for its former use: temporary military housing after World War II.
The Bay View Area Plan also includes recommendations for redevelopment of a Kinnickinnic Avenue site and a large site on S. Chase Avenue.
More information on the meeting is available on the EngageMKE webpage for the project.
Photos and Conceptual Rendering
Existing members must be signed in to see the interactive map. Sign in.
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.
Political Contributions Tracker
Displaying political contributions between people mentioned in this story. Learn more.
Marina,
This is an important green space for the neighborhood & it’s sad that Tony Zielinski was overruled when he proposed this becoming a park. I voted for you & hoped you would fight to keep spaces for people to enjoy & not keep cramming more traffic in the neighborhoods whose streets can’t handle the existing traffic. The neighborhood roads are in horrible shape & constantly adding traffic will make the roads worse than the alleys. What’s next, tearing down neighborhoods to widen streets? Bay View needs housing but not because the real estate lobby & developers want to build. They make their money & leave not considering the mess they left for the current residents. I realize I sound like a NIMN (not in my neighborhood) person but living in this area for 30 years I have seen Bay View go from shabby to desirable & feel it now declining.
I recently made a TikTok saying the city should look into this. We need density, and this is an area of Bay View with city-owned land that is only a few blocks from the high transit intersection of KK/Lincoln/Howell. I make the argument that the city should be looking for lighter density – I don’t think this 5-over-1 shoebox that’s going up everywhere fits the neighborhood. I think Chicago-style three-flats would be perfect for the whole parcel, but at least the city’s sketches aren’t putting the big buildings across the street from the single-family homes.
Neighbors balked at a previous proposal, and I know there’s some minor use of the green space, but the city can’t just bow down every time to NIMBY’s. Mayor Johnson has already gone back on his push for housing zoning fixes and yesterday’s opposition to tearing down 794 flies in the face of nearly all of his campaign promises. I hope that he doesn’t get in the way of DCD’s job and they can get this parcel developed with reasonable density.
No way we can come close to the million residents by 2050 Chevy has pushed for if they don’t get this land developed, and not with more single family homes. Put real density here that’s reasonable for the parcel.
Link: https://bit.ly/bayviewreservesite
This is adjacent to the regional rail proposal (MARK – Milwaukee Area, Racine Kenosha). It should be as high density as possible. There’s a large park next door in addition to a dog park.
@ludwig you sound like a NIMBY because you’re kinda being a NIMBY. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but this is city-owned property near a strong transit intersection and there’s green space a few blocks away on the lake shore. The whole interchange with 794 next to this should be rebuilt anyways, it’s extremely confusing to truck drivers who are not familiar and it’s massively overbuilt; we could reclaim some green space through that as well.
Check out “missingmiddlehousing.com” to see what kind of housing can be brought here. None of that would ruin the neighborhood. The RFP can also push for “car-light” homes to reduce the cars. Look at the Cul-de-Sac development in Phoenix, they actually require residents to not have cars. Milwaukee probably could do one of those over by 794 in the Third Ward where the most popular transit corridor in the state exists. Here I would go for car-light – one car families at most, no street parking permits for those moving in.
I don’t know why everyone thinks residential causes a ton of new traffic. People don’t all have the same schedules, and many work from home. A gas station? A car wash? A strip mall? Yeah, then maybe.
The City should require that any housing, especially apartments, MUST include at least one FREE parking spot per unit. None of this “we expect people in congested areas to use public transportation”. It just doesn’t work that way. If you don’t, renters will not pay for a spot (or two) and just park on the street to save a buck and increase the problem. What if a developer will tell you that there is not enough space to provide it? Then too bad. Don’t build if you cannot plan for it. We need housing…yes. But the vast majority will have cars in an area that has inadequate transit. Don’t just think about the taxes Milwaukee will make for gosh sakes…and end up sticking it to the established residences that will struggle with the increased parking congestion
The city should not have any parking minimums and parking should be kept separate from rent. By mandating parking requirements, you’re dramatically increasing the amount of rent a perspective tenant has to pay. You add something like $20-30 per floor of parking to each household’s monthly rent even if they don’t pay for a spot. Absolutely terrible policy proposal.
I’d like to see this developed as condominiums. There are older folks in Bay View who would like to stay in the neighborhood but can’t find a suitable low maintenance option as well as younger people interested in an urban but less congested neighborhood. And once you’re above the third floor the views would be a selling point. This large block has been empty for well over a decade but is not a park. There’s a park adjacent at either end. I know there will always be some people who will object to any change but a significant new investment (if done well, which is what needs to be hashed out) will enhance neighboring property values.
There is no parking congestion in that area whatsoever.
I support building on this site if some space is left as green space. I favor growth, not status quo.