Prospect Avenue in the 10/3/08 “Final Draft” of NE Side Plan

By Eileen Collins 10/9/08

 

(1) SUMMARY ANALYSIS

 

All in all, the 10/3/08 release of the 10/3/08 “final draft” NE side plan http://www.prospectaveassn.org/newweb/NESdraft110308.pdf does a remarkable job of integrating multiple concerns and suggested solutions from the community, including the Prospect Avenue neighborhood.  It calls for historic preservation, context-sensitive development, pedestrian-friendly amenities, green space, well-landscaped streetscape, high-quality architectural design, green building standards, pedestrian safety including safety of people with disabilities, resolution of traffic issues, more streamlined and efficient transit, and consideration of how continuing development impacts traffic and the area’s quality of life.

 

Just how all this will be handled in practice is not clear.  Once the plan is approved by the city, I hope the city will create “an overlay district for Prospect Avenue” which will allow PAA to work with the city and other stakeholders to pin down more details.

 

I am very pleased that the document recognizes the important role of social networks, cooperation, and participation in successful implementation of the plan and stresses the need for the city to actively seek neighborhood input in both the design and development stages of GPDs and DPDs.

 

On two issues that are of concern to members of the neighborhood, the Prospect Avenue section of the plan does not address the affordable housing question; nor does it fully banish consideration of two-way traffic on Prospect Avenue (but I bet that two-way traffic will not survive further study).

 

The plan assumes that condo towers will come to Prospect Avenue.  I am glad that the plan calls for “context-sensitive” “high-quality” development (such as “taller more slender towers that allow more light and air, rooftop gardens”).  But I worry that a second “principal façade” facing the Oak Leaf trail for new condo towers and possibly “hillside units that terrace down to the Oak Leaf Trail” would turn the Oak Leaf Trail into half city and half park.  I wonder if “a more massive base with a taller more slender tower” on a condo high-rise would amount to fortress-like walls towering over the Oak Leaf Trail and running along the sidewalk on Prospect Ave.  It seems to me that the way to provide light and view for pedestrians, bikers, hikers, and neighbors is to make any new condo tower slender from bottom to top (while allowing it to go taller if the builder wishes).  I hope the various issues associated with the construction of condo towers can be handled in a balanced way when an overlay district for Prospect Avenue is written.

 

Finally, the Glossary of Urban Planning Terms, is extremely helpful.

 

(2) DETAILED ANALYSIS

 

Plan Background

 

Milwaukee’s Northeast Area Plan is part of the city’s Comprehensive Planning effort http://www.mkedcd.org/planning/plans/CompPlan/index.html undertaken to comply with Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Law, a.k.a. the “Smart Growth” Law.  Just when and how particular pieces of the plan will be implemented will depend on future public and private decisions and funds.  Nevertheless, once the plan is adopted, all future land use decisions are supposed to be consistent with it. 

 

The NE plan covers the area “bounded by Interstate 43 to the west, the communities of Glendale, Whitefish Bay and Shorewood to the north, Lake Michigan to the east and Walnut Street/Pleasant Street to the south.”  See map, p 28, of the 11/3/08 draft.

 

Prospect Avenue in the Plan

 

Details for Prospect Avenue, between Ogden Avenue and North Avenue, are on pp 241-242 of the 11/3/08 draft

 

The draft supports both historic preservation and high-density high-rise residential development, along with other “compatible” uses.

 

It calls for pedestrian-friendly amenities, green space, well-landscaped streetscape, high-quality architectural design, green building standards, pedestrian safety including safety of people with disabilities, resolution of traffic issues, more streamlined and efficient transit, and consideration of how continuing development impacts traffic and the area’s quality of life.

 

The draft seeks preservation of “the existing historic districts while allowing new context-sensitive development to occur.”  It recommends consideration of “an overlay district for Prospect Avenue to protect and enhance the urban and historic neighborhood character.  The overlay district guidelines should take into consideration: preservation of historic and noteworthy buildings; green building standards for new construction; tower design and setbacks; street frontage on Prospect (particularly the “base” or the first three building stories that have the greatest impact on the street) as well as Oak Leaf Trail frontage.”

 

Generally, a Good Plan for Prospect Avenue

 

All in all, the plan does a remarkable job of integrating multiple concerns and suggested solutions from the community, including the Prospect Avenue neighborhood.

 

In addition, the plan still recommends consideration of an overlay district for Prospect Avenue.  PAA urges prompt creation of an overlay district once the NE Side plan is approved.  This would enable PAA to work with other “stakeholders” and the city to address issues and questions remaining in the plan.

 

But the devil is always in the details.

 

A Couple of Concerns about the Plan for Prospect Ave

 

1.  The draft plan does not mention preservation of affordable housing.  Residents of currently affordable condos and rental units worry that construction of luxury condos on Prospect Avenue will drive them out.  And many residents, whether they are of moderate income or not, value the current socioeconomic diversity of the neighborhood.

 

2.  The draft still recommends study of the effects that two-way traffic could have on traffic circulation and the pedestrian environment.  Many residents believe that two-way traffic would have negative effects on both traffic and pedestrian safety.  They wonder why further study is needed and how a balanced analysis would be structured.

 

3. The call for context-sensitive high-quality development (such as “taller more slender towers that allow more light and air, rooftop gardens”) would probably be welcomed by most of us.  But some suggested specifics could be counterproductive:

 

a. Does the call for a “principal façade” on both the Oak Leaf trail side and the Prospect Avenue side for a new condo tower mean that the condo could be built right up to the top edge of the bluff?  If so, it could turn the Oak Leaf Trail into half city and half park.  The city intrusion would be especially pronounced if “hillside units that terrace down to the Oak Leaf Trail” were built.

 

b. Would the idea of a “a more massive base with a taller more slender tower to allow greater space, i.e., view corridors, between the towers to the lake” actually provide better view corridors for pedestrians on Prospect and hikers and bikers on the Oak Leaf Trail?  Would this result in fortress-like walls on the front and back for virtually the full width of the property?  The best way to provide light and view shed for pedestrians, bikers, and hikers is to make the building slender from bottom to top (while allowing greater height if the builder wishes).

 

4.  Page 241 mentions development pressures for high rise condos.  But page 68 reports “approximately seven years of supply at current absorption rates,” according to a 2007 study.  That was before the melt-down in the financial and real estate markets nationwide.  It is likely to take considerably more than seven years to fully recover from the real estate dive.  Condo prices have already fallen, and construction of new condos would be likely to cause further price drops.

 

Lakefront Area in the Plan

 

Pp 253-268 of the 11/3/08 draft covers the Lake front area.

 

“Bluff Stabilization” is considered in pp 255-256 of challenges and issues:

 

“There are no active bluff slump areas within the study area.  Monitoring of bluff conditions was most recently documented  in Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) reports on the Milwaukee Lakefront and Lake Park Area Bluff Conditions (2004). However there are visible areas of erosion along Lincoln Memorial Drive, which indicate a need for bluff stabilization. The recent high-rise construction along the bluff’s edge has produced some erosion due to construction and reduction of the vegetation.  There are concerns related to long-term bluff stabilization of the slopes west of Lincoln Memorial Drive, including erosion caused by:

  Groundwater seepage patterns

  Off-trail visitor traffic on the slope

  Wind, water, and soil creep

  Cutting of existing vegetation

  Lack of natural landscape buffers

  Increase of invasive species (that exacerbate erosion due to loss of native ground plantings which stabilize soils)

  Lack of land use policies to create an environmental buffer adjacent to the bluff zones”

 

Opportunities “to help monitor, preserve and restore bluff stabilization” include:

  “Create physical development guidelines or buffer management requirements.

  Provide regulatory requirements for review by County, DNR, or other environmental protection agencies in response to proposed development plans adjacent to the bluff.”

 

Comment on Lakefront Area in the Plan

 

I think it is important to keep an eye on bluff stability so we don’t get into one of those situations where everybody thinks the bridge or the plane or the levee is safe until it breaks up.  I just hope no developer turns the issue into a self-serving justification for building a fortress-like structure on the edge of the bluff.  I am told there are multiple options should the issue come to a head.

 

Any of you with an interest in the bluff or the Oak Leaf Trail might want to encourage city officials to do the right thing.  You might also consider initiating contact with our county Supervisor Gerry Broderick Gerry.Broderick@milwcnty.com, the Milwaukee County Parks Department, and possibly the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Lakefront Development Advisory Committee.

 

Plan Implementation is covered in pp 271-287.

 

Smart Growth Principles” guide implementation (p273):

1.  Reinvest in cities. Discourage urban sprawl.

2.  Promote sustainable healthy urban living.

3.  Reinforce multi-modal transit options.

4.  Greater density requires a higher level of public amenity.

5.  Reinforce social networks and support systems.

6.  Target public investment to enhance the public realm.

7.  Reinvent, reinvigorate, re-energize the economic base.

8.  Cities are for people. Good cities put people first.

9.  Neighborhoods are the building blocks of cities.

10. Promote development that is mixed use, compact and walkable.

11. Preserve historic buildings, sites and districts.

12. Approach regional issues regionally.

 

Social networks, cooperation, and participation play an important role in applying smart growth principles.  Among other things, the plan says:

 

“Recognize that neighborhoods are complex entities. No one thing can be considered in isolation or problem can be fixed/ resolved/improved in isolation. All aspects intersect and affect each other.” (p278)

 

“Comprehensive community change initiatives must shift away from the “old model” of one organization acting as a single driving force commanding all resources, to a collaborative model of multiple partners working cooperatively on shared goals using a broad range of resources.” (p278)

 

“Survey the community and engage residents to bring about positive and sustainable neighborhood change. The benefits from neighborhood planning need to be visible to those in the community.” (p278)

 

For General Plan Development (GPD) or Detailed Plan Development (DPD) “to work successfully, the city must actively seek neighborhood input in both the design and development stages of GPDs and DPDs.” (p285)

 

Comment on Implementation

 

I believe the draft plan’s recommendations regarding social networks, cooperation, participation, and neighborhood input are excellent.  They are essential to for good neighborhoods.  And they should help residents and owners have a voice in the future of our neighborhood.

 

The Glossary of Urban Planning Terms, pp 293-305, is great.  Check it out.

 

HOME