{"id":12424,"date":"2024-08-29T18:26:37","date_gmt":"2024-08-29T18:26:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12424"},"modified":"2024-08-29T19:03:59","modified_gmt":"2024-08-29T19:03:59","slug":"milwaukee-historic-preservation-commissions-focus-should-be-a-thing-of-the-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12424","title":{"rendered":"Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission\u2019s focus should be a thing of the past"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.badgerinstitute.org\/milwaukee-historic-preservation-commissions-focus-should-be-a-thing-of-the-past\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Housing market and financing shouldn\u2019t be its concern<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Key members of the Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission seem to think their job is to assess housing availability, make sure developers can do deals they like or maybe even smooth the way for tax breaks.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Photo<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The evidence: Last month the commission voted 3-1 to endorse putting a mediocre-at-best, 35-year-old \u201cpostmodern\u201d knock-off on the National Register of Historic Places \u2014 a surprising decision that appears even more misguided now that a similar state entity reached the opposite conclusion.<\/p>\n

A look back at the video of the meeting in which the city commission\u2019s decision was made provides an explanation.<\/p>\n

The commission\u2019s website says it is \u201cresponsible for designating historic landmarks and historic districts and for approving Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) for permission to alter historic buildings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some members of the commission, the thing is, were way less interested in history or architecture than the particulars of a development deal that would turn an office building into housing.<\/p>\n

At a meeting in early July, the staff for the Milwaukee commission argued that the building known as 100 East in downtown Milwaukee is an \u201cexceptionally important piece of postmodern architecture\u201d deserving of the \u201chistoric\u201d designation despite the fact that buildings usually need to be at least 50 years old to qualify.<\/p>\n

The commission has seven members appointed by the mayor and is supposed to include a registered architect, a historian, someone experienced in either real estate development or real estate financing, a member of the Milwaukee Common Council, and three \u201ccitizen members.\u201d<\/p>\n

The four commissioners present at the July meeting were longtime Milwaukee Ald. Bob Bauman, as well as Ann Pieper Eisenbrown, Sally Peltz and Jordan Morales. Eisenbrown remained silent throughout most of the discussion and ultimately voted against the designation.<\/p>\n

When it came time for the commissioner\u2019s discussion, Peltz immediately turned to Bauman, the alderman whose downtown district includes the building.<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cI would love to ask the alderman of the district\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Bauman:<\/strong> \u201cThis is part of their financing package.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cThat is what I concluded.\u201d<\/p>\n

They were referencing the fact an investor development group, 100 East Propco LLC, requested the historic preservation status to secure up to 40% federal \u200b\u200b\u200b\u200band state tax credits on the expense of converting the office building it bought for $28.75 million into apartments.<\/p>\n

The process requires the city commission, the Wisconsin Preservation Review Board and the National Park Service, which oversees the National Register of Historic Places, to all conclude the building really is historic.<\/p>\n

Bauman:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cSo, I mean if they can get this (designation) through the National Park Service, more power to them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cAnd in terms of high-end apartments?\u201d<\/p>\n

Bauman:<\/strong> \u201cNo, I think it is going to be more mid-range.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cI see. And office space. We need to shrink office space?\u201d<\/p>\n

Bauman:<\/strong> \u201cI think the building is almost empty now.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cI am aware of that. Does that mean we have too much office space?\u201d<\/p>\n

Bauman:<\/strong> \u201cProbably. Probably so. That is true around the country. I think this is a big move in many big cities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Morales:<\/strong> \u201cWe definitely need the housing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cIt is not going to be affordable housing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bauman:<\/strong> \u201cIt is going to have an affordable component because they are looking for tax incremental financing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Peltz:<\/strong> \u201cThat is a requirement? That is a strong recommendation? To have certain units affordable?\u201d<\/p>\n

Morales (finally)<\/strong>: \u201cBut that is separate from the designation.\u201d<\/p>\n

No kidding. What did any of this discussion have to do with whether a building is historic? Or of particular architectural value?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not, by the way.\u00a0As my colleague Mark Lisheron pointed out recently<\/a>, UW-Milwaukee Professor Don Hanlon once called the building \u201ca parody of City Hall\u201d that \u201cmakes City Hall look bad,\u201d a building that did \u201ca lot of damage to downtown\u201d and \u201ca bad joke.\u201d<\/p>\n

The back-and-forth about financing and housing needs and office space is basically about whether or not to give a developer a big tax break \u2014 a decision that belongs in another part of City Hall or another committee room or a bank or the Common Council chambers.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, no, I understand,\u201d said Peltz in response to Morales. \u201cBut the fact that 35 (years) is not 50 (years). And at the end of the day (I) sort of get the idea of what is going on.\u201d<\/p>\n

We all do.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd,\u201d she added, \u201cI agree. Certain kinds of housing we really need more of.\u201d<\/p>\n

A little bit later, Morales got down to the nub of things and asked whether the project depends on the historic designation to move forward.<\/p>\n

The staff at that point said yes, and Bauman said, \u201cMost likely.\u201d<\/p>\n

Morales, in a subsequent interview this week, told me the extensive packet and presentation about historic significance given to the committee persuaded him to vote yes and added that \u201csome panned it as an ugly monstrosity, but a lot didn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

His question about whether financing depended on the designation was, he said, just \u201ca curiosity. I couldn\u2019t care less.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although he voted in favor of the designation, he at least mentioned history during the meeting and, in our interview, seemed to really believe the 35-year-old building deserves the designation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it is historic,\u201d he said during the meeting. \u201cBut great for the city to have apartments, whether luxury or otherwise, versus an empty office building downtown.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pieper Eisenbrown, without saying why, was the sole vote against.<\/p>\n

Neither she nor Bauman nor Peltz responded to requests for comment.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission doesn\u2019t have the last say on this issue.<\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Historic Preservation Review Board, another entity that considers designations that qualify for tax breaks, recently rejected 100 East\u2019s nomination. One of the members of the state board, according to the Journal Sentinel<\/a>, called 100 East \u201ca copy of a historic building.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mike Nichols is the President of the Badger Institute. Permission to reprint is granted as long as the author and Badger Institute are properly cited.<\/em><\/p>\n

var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,o):document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+”_”+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),”filter”==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}});<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Submit a comment<\/h2>\n

\n

“*<\/span>” indicates required fields<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\nYour name*<\/span><\/span><\/legend>\n
\n


\n

<\/span><\/p>\n


\n

<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n