Visual Preference Survey™ 18 Questionnaire Results 36 Vision Translation Workshops 40 Professional Synthesis 44
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 MILWAUKEE DOWNTOWN PLAN City of Milwaukee John O. Norquist, Mayor Common Council City Plan Commission Ald. John R. Kalwitz, President Robert Greenstreet, Chairman Ald. Marvin E. Pratt Douglas Drake Ald. Michael S. D’Amato Larri Sue Jacquart Ald. Paul Henningsen Julilly Kohler Ald. Daniel F. Schramm R. Gray Mitchem Ald. Marlene Johnson-Odom J. Allen Stokes Ald. Fredrick G. Gordon Martha Garza Ald. Wayne P. Frank Ald. Donald F. Richards Dept. of City Development Ald. George C. Butler Ald. Annette E. Scherbert Julie A. Penman, Commissioner Ald. James N. Witkowiak Peter J. Park, City Planning Director Ald. Jeffrey A. Pawlinski Ald. Suzanne M. Breier Dept. of Public Works Ald. Thomas G. Nardelli James C. Kaminski, Commissioner Ald. Michael J. Murphy Mariano A. Schifalacqua, City Engineer Ald. Willie L. Hines Co-Sponsors Milwaukee Redevelopment Corporation Richard A. Abdoo, Chairman Jon L. Wellhoefer, President Wisconsin Center District Franklyn Gimbel, Chair Richard Geyer, President Preparation of this plan was funded by the City of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Redevelopment Corporation, and the Wisconsin Center, and by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Downtown Plan 2 Participating Staff Downtown Plan Task Force City of Milwaukee Ald. Paul Henningsen Department of City Development Mr. W. Martin Morics Jeffrey Bentoff, Economic Development Ald. Marvin Pratt Policy Coordinator Mr. Frederick P. Stratton, Jr. Carl H. Madsen, Principal Planner Mr. Stephen Marcus Brian F. O’Connell, Long-Range Planning Mr. Franklyn Gimbel Manager Mr. Richard Abdoo Mr. James Keyes Department of Public Works Mr. William Abraham Robert W. Bryson, Project Engineer – Traffic Mr. James Ericson Studies and Research Mr. James Kaminski* Jeffrey H. Dillon, Transportation Design Ms. Julie Penman* Manager Mr. Jon Wellhoefer* Thomas H. Miller, Public Works Coordination Manager *ex officio David A. Novak, Chief Planning and Development Engineer Milwaukee Redevelopment Corporation Steven S. Halmo, Staff Architect Team ANA A. Nelessen Associates Uihlein Architects Anton Nelessen David Uihlein Melissa Saunders Marsha Sehler Graciela Cavicchia Mark Paschke Ted Wright Frank Ruchala Edwards Associates Galen Hoeflinger Bruce Spann Troy Jones Juan Ayala Cooper Carry Associates Fany Fernandez Richard Heapes Tim Mount White Mountain Survey Merril St. Leger Chester “Rick” Chellman Prime Interests, Inc. Richard Gehring Milwaukee 3 Introduction Regional Context 4 Evolution of the City Form 7 Inheritance 10 Susceptibility to Change 14 Visual Preference Survey™ 18 Questionnaire Results 36 Vision Translation Workshops 40 Professional Synthesis 44 The Plan Plan Goals 48 Market Opportunities 50 Proposed Uses 52 Plan Process 54 Methodology 56 Housing 58 Retail, Mixed Use and Entertainment 60 Employment 62 Neighborhoods 64 Central District 66 South End District 76 North End District 84 Parking 94 Landscaping 106 Streets Introduction 116 Street Hierarchy 118 One-way / Two-way Streets 125 Elevated Highways 127 Street Grid Extension 130 Pedestrian Realm Introduction 134 Quality of Pedestrian Realm 136 Proposed Pedestrian Activity 137 Streetscape Elements 138 Intersection Improvements 144 Transit Introduction 148 Trolleys 150 Streetcar 155 County Buses 157 Heavy Rail Passenger Service 160 Water Taxis 161 Satellite Accessed Taxi 162 Bicycles 163 Neighborhood Connections Introduction 166 Implementation 172 Bibliography 173 Other Books Executive Summary Design Guidelines Catalytic Projects Downtown Plan 4 INTRODUCTION Downtown Milwaukee, 1990 Introduction in Downtown. With this base the consultant team began fieldwork for the Public Visioning Process. arly 1996 construction began on several highly They walked and drove every street to examine the visible projects in Downtown Milwaukee: the E existing conditions. Fieldwork included a low-level Wisconsin Center, the Humphrey IMAX Theater, flight to examine the pattern created by the parks, and the RiverWalk, among others. As construction streets, buildings and surface parking lots. All con- proceeded, Downtown business people, organiza- ditions were professionally analyzed and photo-doc- tions, and elected officials began to ask questions like umented. Professional review of this data began “How can the spin-off benefits of these projects be with mapping these conditions. Next a Visual maximized?” and “What should be done next to con- Preference Survey™ composed of local images, tinue the redevelopment of Downtown?” alternatives from other locations, and simulations was constructed. A demographic and policy ques- At the same time, public officials were aware that tionnaire supplemented the images. key Downtown planning and policy documents needed to be created or revised to reflect the new The public attended Visual Preference Survey™ ses- projects and the changing conditions in both the sions between October 1997 and January 1998; the local and national markets for retail and office space results of these surveys generated the visual character and downtown housing. A planning partnership for future development. In March 1998 the public composed of the City of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin participated in Vision Translation Workshops; the Center District Board and the Milwaukee workshop exercises identified where the preferred Redevelopment Corporation (MRC), the not-for- images would be appropriately located. The profes- profit downtown development corporation formed sional team synthesized the public input for one by Milwaukee’s business community, concluded week. The professional workshop included meetings that a new plan was needed to provide a blueprint with City and County staff and Elected Officials. for the further development of Downtown and to Draft concept plans were presented and critiqued. A identify the specific actions which should be taken Concept Plan was presented to the public at the cul- to foster that development. mination of the professional workshop. The partnership retained a consultant team led by The planning process continued with strategies to A. Nelessen Associates of Princeton, New Jersey, to implement the plan. In meetings with the Mayor, assist the community in preparing the plan. The City staff, the advisory committee and task force, other members of the consultant team are identi- priority actions were articulated. Refined plans were fied in the Acknowledgments section in the front presented and critiqued. Another concept plan was of this document. presented to the original group of interviewees in August 1998. Staff critique helped to shape the final The Downtown Planning Process began in spring draft document. In addition, plans separately devel- of 1997. The process began with interviews of elect- oped for the North Harbor Tract, Maier Festival ed officials, business and educational leaders and Park/Summerfest Grounds, the Third Ward and for neighborhood associations. These interviews intro- the preservation of Downtown’s historic character duced the consultants to a range of perceptions have been incorporated into the final document. regarding the local conditions. Interviewees identi- These plans are listed in the Bibliography at the end fied the most critical problems and recent successes of this document. Milwaukee Regional Context 5 Source: SEWRPC This document resulted from the efforts of the con- 813,700 people. Included are 13,900 service firms, sultants, technical staff from the city and MRC, and 8,200 retailers, 3,200 manufacturers, 3,400 whole- the people who live, work, learn, and visit salers and 3,700 construction firms. As is true in Downtown Milwaukee. The complete Downtown most metropolitan regions, the service sector is the Plan consists of this document, an Executive fastest-growing segment of the region’s economy, Summary that provides a concise overview of the representing 30 percent of the workforce. Metro plan, and a Catalytic Projects report that describes Milwaukee, however, is still a leading center of individual projects that are necessary to implement manufacturing. Of the nation’s 36 largest metropol- the Plan. itan areas, the region ranks third nationally in the percentage (22%) of its workforce in manufactur- ing. The Metro Area produces $24 billion worth of Regional Context manufactured products annually. he Metropolitan Milwaukee area encompasses Tfour counties, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, The U.S. Department of Commerce estimated Washington and Waukesha covering 1,460 square retail sales reached $13.2 billion in 1996. miles with a combined population of over 1.4 mil- According to Sales and Marketing Management lion people, making it the 36th largest SMSA in the Magazine, that number translated into an estimat- nation. With 620,609 people, Milwaukee ranks as ed $26,041 in retail sales per household in the the Country’s 17th largest City and Wisconsin’s Metro Area. In 1997, there were 29.7 million largest municipality. square feet of retail space in the region with an 8.36 percent vacancy rate. The Metro area recorded a population gain of 2.5% over the 1980-1990 period. The growth was con- There were 26.5 million square feet of office space centrated in the four suburban counties. in the Metro Area with a 15.9 percent vacancy rate in 1997. Approximately 50 percent of the office Total personal income for the Metro area was $34.9 space is located in Downtown, though the suburban billion in 1994, which translates into a per capita percentage is increasing. personal income of $23,948. The per capita figure is 9.7 percent