Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Industrial Waterfront Redevelopment: Milwaukee's Inner Harbor, Urban Design and Redevelopment Strategies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Industrial Waterfront Redevelopment: Milwaukee's Inner Harbor, Urban Design and Redevelopment Strategies


Published on

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTHE INNER HARBOR and theTRANSFORMATION of MILWAUKEEGreat cities emerge over time - not with one project, plan, or program, but through an evolu-tion of transformative development. For decades, Milwaukee has engaged in this transforma-tion process assertively and with broad community support.Today, the Inner Harbor offers thepotential for new achievements that can elevate Milwaukee even further on the internationalstage of great cities.This publication moves us closer to that achievement by envisioning pos-sibilities for the Inner Harbor’s transformation.Since the 1970s, UWM’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning (SARUP) has played akey role in helping Milwaukee envision successful long-term initiatives, including the Lakefront,Park East, and the Menomonee Valley (to name a few).The frameworks for such community-changing initiatives have matured through the open dialogue among Milwaukee’s electedofficials, professional experts, and students and faculty. Actions based on these visionaryframeworks have taken root in new public and private investments. This publication plantsnew seeds for regenerating the Inner Harbor. The redevelopment strategies offer ideas - notsolutions - that can subsequently improve the ongoing process of implementation.This publication represents the work of a team of undergraduate and graduate level students(both planners and architects) investigating urban design and redevelopment strategies. Theprojects range from overall master plans to designs for specific public places. All have grownfrom a series of community-based initiatives engaging local neighborhoods, land owners, andbusiness leaders.Work on the Inner Harbor was initiated in the plans, programs, and policies of variousstakeholders, including the City of Milwaukee, the Port of Milwaukee, and the MilwaukeeMetropolitan Sewerage District. Not the least of these efforts is the signature investment inUWM’s new School of Freshwater Sciences - a leadership initiative based on Milwaukee’sand UWM’s long-standing connection to the Great Lakes. At the same time, the integrationof existing plans offers opportunities for conceptualizing innovative yet pragmatic possibilities.The projects in this publication focus on embracing urban redevelopment into a Port environ-ment.The concepts integrate industrial, commercial, and institutional uses, as well as housingand a full complement of public places and environmental features. Students also used con-cepts gleaned from other classes focused on issues of landscape, engineering, water-baseddesign, urban agriculture, sustainability, and public policy.This effort will continue each semester as a new Inner Harbor takes shape. SARUP’s Insti-tute for Ecological Design will continue a school-wide effort to develop a coordinated pro-gram of dialogue, research, planning, and design among multiple studio classes, work¬shops,seminars, lectures, and presentations. This publication, as well as the work of other classesin Spring 2011, sets a foundation of ideas that next semester’s students can use to movefurther in the process. This multi-year and multi-class effort provides one more example ofSARUP’s innovation in community-based education and the achievement of UWM’s urbanmission. In a decade or less, Milwaukee should be able to look back at this effort and see re-sults from this unique formula that combines UWM’s urban mission with Milwaukee’s publicand private leadership. Larry Witzling, Studio Critic 5
  • 4. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES INTRODUCTION The City of Milwaukee has developed and changed around the Inner Har- bor, the area where the Menomonee, Kinnickinnic, and Milwaukee rivers converge and empty into Lake Michigan. Milwaukee has grown and changed around this area, seeing its fortunes rise and fall with the ebb and flow of activity on the lake’s edge. The Inner Harbor has many assets to offer the City, but also has challenges that local leaders will have to address as the area continues to change with Milwaukee. The Inner Harbor sits along rail lines near downtown, and is surrounded by the neighborhoods of Bay View, Walker’s Point, the 5th Ward, and the 3rd Ward. The adjacent area also has a large number of vacant properties, of- fering opportunities for future development. The Inner Harbor represents a place of great potential to the City and the region, but also has obstacles to overcome , such as aging street infrastructure, brownfield sites, and phys- ical and psychological disconnections from the surrounding area. The groups of people and types of industries around the Inner Harbor have gradually changed over time: fishing no longer provides a major way of lifeBelow: Walker’s Point, Jones Island, andthe Inner Harbor circa 1937. Notice the for local residents, and industries have moved away from the harbor, eithernatural state of Jones Island (except for out of the City or the state. The Inner Harbor is still an active port, andthe sewage plant built in 1926) and the provides other uses too, such as storage for coal and salt and dry docks fordense, residential neighborhood of Walk- boats. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District also uses the land,er’s Point before I-94. housing its large wastewater treatment facility there. The Inner Harbor clearly still has value to Milwaukee, but how might the city further utilize this resource? BRIEF HISTORY Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor area has long provid- ed resources to local residents. Native groups, explorers, and early settlers all harvested on the bounty of wild rice and fish that the swampy bot- tomlands held near the confluence of the three rivers. As the City of Milwaukee grew, the ur- ban area spread out from the harbor. The har- bor became a major shipping port on the Great Lakes, receiving products like coal, and shipping out grain and industrial goods. The port’s loca- tion at the mouth of three rivers also allowed for inland waterway navigation. The Inner Harbor contained various industries and rail yards, helping further develop Milwaukee’s economy. 6
  • 5. INTRODUCTIONEarly Milwaukee residents also called the Inner Harbor home, with theKaszubian fishermen (immigrants from the West Prussian Peninsula of Hel)and other European groups settling on what would come to be called JonesIsland.The island was home to a thriving fishing community until the 1940s,when industry and the wastewater treatment facility started redevelopingthe land. Today, only a small park on the island and histiorical accounts re-main to remind us of this former settlement. Above: The average Jones Island family had six to nine children. The youngsters’ playground was the beach, the lake, and the river. They fished, crabbed, swam, and built boats with sails made of stolen bedsheets. Above: A street scene on Jones Island. In the heyday of the island, the near- est building was a grocery store. In theThe Kaszubes 1930s it became a fish market.To the question, “who are the Kaszubes?’ The answer varies. They weremostly farmers and fishermen. Hard-working people who survived livingunder many different regimes, they owe their preservation to the trait oftenacity. They did not get involved in the politics of the particular regimebut went about their lives working, eating, drinking and making merry. Theywere known for decades as a religious, peaceful, mostly Catholic group. Aclose knit community, they depended on each other for survival. Below: A map of block 195 illustrates the quilt pattern of houses and enclo- sures on Jones Island in 1887.These traits they carried over to Jones Island until they were forced to re-locate to different areas and lost their community structure. However, theirassimilation into the larger community happened well before that time.Henry Rotta writes in his book Jones Island that “many think we were onlyfishermen but we held many jobs. Only small percentages were fishermen.Some of those occupations were banker, lighthouse keeper, boat builder,carpenter, factory worker and postal worker.”(Excerpt from South Milwaukee Historical Society Newsletter:Volume 1, Issue 2. June 2009) 7
  • 6. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESBelow: Various maps from 1836, 1870, 1876, and 1900. Notice the progression from a marshy wetland to an islandto an industrialized peninsula with port slips. 8
  • 7. INTRODUCTIONBelow: Various Maps from 1916, 1935, 1962, and 1984. While the street and block pattern for the northern part ofthe site is carried over into a new century, the development pattern is much more scattered and industrialized. 9
  • 8. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESAbove/next page (one image): A PLANNING THEMES1915 view of Jones Island shows The Inner Harbor redevelopment project presents both a unique challengea conglomeration of fishing shan- and opportunity to the City of Milwaukee. The following section looks atties, houses, trees, and boats. Onthe northern tip are the U.S. Coast the significant planning themes which will be addressed in the design andGuard station and the pumping sta- redevelopment strategies outlined in this document.tion. Adjacent to them is land whichwas condemned and cleared to make 1. Accessway for harbor and sewerage disposal The Inner Harbor, historically home to many of Milwaukee’s industries, isimprovements. Entering the harbor at present a neglected and overlooked area of the City. Once home to theis the tourist vessel, Christopher railway switchyards that connected the City to the region, the Inner Har-Columbus. bor never formally developed a robust street grid. Reconnecting the area to Milwaukee’s street grid is an essential first action.The Fisherpeople of Jones Island Additionally, Lake Michigan is undoubtedly one of Milwaukee’s greatest as- sets, an asset which should be accessible to its citizens. Redevelopment therefore must emphasize public access to the waterfront. The Harbor presents an opportunity for a continuous harbor walk along the water, as well as a series of public parks, landings, and natural wetlands. 2. Working Brownfields The Inner Harbor area includes over 90 separate brownfield sites, which could better serve the City in active use, generating revenue and creating employment. Environmental remediation will be an important first step. Furthermore, new parcels and infrastructure should be planned to present the best opportunity for working reuse. Finally, designs for reuse should incorporate strategies to maintain or improve the environmental quality of the site and its surroundings, using best ecological practices and stormwa- ter management. 3. Milwaukee Manufacturing Governor Walker’s commitment to add 250,000 jobs and 10,000 new busi- nesses in the state means 65,000 jobs and 2,800 new businesses in the Mil- waukee metropolitan statistical area. Demographics of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Inner Harbor show that manufacturing and related 10
  • 9. INTRODUCTIONindustries are still major employers for this part of Milwaukee. The InnerHarbor is a chance to further the tradition, connecting to the MenomoneeValley and hosting the emerging organizations of Milwaukee’s water cluster.4. A Rich HistoryMilwaukee historian John Gurda notes the Inner Harbor’s importance inMilwaukee’s history, as well as its peculiarities. Redevelopment should seekto build on this history - history as a working harbor, and history as hometo a group of exceptional Milwaukeeans—the Kaszubes. Relevant histori-cal themes can be used in developing a memorable and exciting brand forthe Inner Harbor areas.5. A Unique ApproachThe unique aspects of the Inner Harbor demand a redevelopment strategythat is not reproduced from a case study nor regurgitated from a previousproject. Redevelopment must focus on creating vibrant neighborhoods,districts and corridors that incorporate traditionally separated land uses,use innovative environmental strategies, and challenge stakeholders tothink outside the box.6. Railway –Obstruction or OpportunityRailways present a great challenge to urban design, as it is difficult to createnew crossings or encroach on railroad right-of-way. Critical upgrades tothe Greenfield Avenue bridge will undoubtedly interfere with the railway;this could present opportunities to relocate the tracks into a configurationmore friendly to parceling land.Moreover, the Inner Harbor presents a unique chance for the City of Mil-waukee to create its first full-scale transit-oriented development, in a lo-cation amenable to both a future streetcar and the growing Milwaukee-Chicago commuter line. Above: Some of the existing rail lines in the Inner Harbor7. Water QualityThe EPA has designated the entire Inner Harbor an area of concern, where- 11
  • 10. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES by environmental degradation has impaired certain beneficial uses of natu- ral waterways. The Inner Harbor hosts the confluence of the Kinnickinnic To learn more about and Milwaukee rivers, as well as the harbor and the connection to Lake Milwaukee’s water Michigan. Redevelopment must incorporate strategies to clean up the In- quality and Lake ner Harbor and rivers, and establish sustainable, green practices to protect the invaluable resource in the future. Michigan, visit: 8. School of Freshwater Sciences Successful redevelopment projects at Goose Island, Chicago, and Dubuque, Iowa, were both catalyzed with large research and development institutions (Wrigley’s Global Innovation Center and the IBM Global Delivery Center, respectively). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has made a very strong commit- ment at the heart Inner Harbor with the new School of Freshwater Sci- ence, the only of its kind in the nation. The school can serve as a catalyst and anchor facility, incubating technologies that promote focus areas of water, energy and advanced manufacturing. 9. Leverage Diversity An inner-city endeavor at the scale of the Inner Harbor redevelopment project will require coordination of numerous stakeholders. These stake- holders, including the City of Milwaukee, the Port Authority, and UWM, each have diverse concerns and unique interests. However, these stakeholders together have the capacity to harness considerable resources needed for a successful project at the scale for the Inner Harbor. 10.Think Long-Term Finally, the Inner Harbor project is an expansive undertaking, thus certainly an expensive one. A pragmatic redevelopment strategy must identify stages of development, and include five-, ten- and twenty-year time frames. Long range planning will outline a vision for the future of the site and provide future planners and developers with the goals and objectives as well as catalytic projects to be completed to make the development successful. This framework will allow future planners to fill in the gaps where develop- ment can and should occur. POLITICAL CLIMATE The redevelopment of the Inner Harbor will commence under a political climate unique in Wisconsin’s history. A Democratic Milwaukee Mayor and a Republican Governor with opposing budgets means Milwaukee will have to be creative in its approach to redevelopment and its efforts for funding. Despite some challenges, the Inner Harbor redevelopment project has the opportunity to bridge political parties, and provide a common ground for12
  • 11. INTRODUCTIONboth the State and City and County Governments of Milwaukee. The Milwaukee shareNew Jobs and Businesses of Governor Walker’sGovernor Scott Walker, in his inaugural address, declared that “Wisconsin new jobs and busi-is open for business!” The Governor has stated goals of creating 250,000 nesses totals 65,500new jobs in the state and 10,000 new businesses by 2015. As Milwaukee isthe largest economy in the state, a large percentage of those jobs will likely new jobs and 2,800be in the City. The Inner Harbor site can play a role in the economic future new businesses.of the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin.The Milwaukee metropolitan statistical area (MSA)contains over one quarter of the state’s civilian laborforce. If Milwaukee’s labor force were to gain itsproportional share of the new jobs, the MSA wouldgrow by 65,500 new jobs.The Milwaukee MSA is also home to roughly 37,000of the 133,000 business establishments in the Stateof Wisconsin; 28% of the State’s total. Adding 10,000new businesses in the state would mean an addition-al 2,800 new establishments in the Milwaukee MSAThe Inner Harbor project presents a unique opportunity to the State,County, and City. Redevelopment of the Inner Harbor can incubate manynew businesses and create thousands of new jobs. This in turn will helpthe Governor and Mayor to reach their economic goals for Milwaukee and US Census Bureau Statistics of USWisconsin. Businesses, 2007As the table (above) shows, unemployment has dropped in the past year.While the state has added 25,300 jobs from February 2010 to February2011, the month-by-month statistics are not as promising. The state ispredicted to add 900,000 to its unemployment rolls from January 2011 toFebruary 2011.2011-2012 BudgetThe budget for the 2011-2012 biennium is constrained by the current eco-nomic conditions. While many programs are experiencing stagnant or de-creased funding, there are several bright spots which are encouraging for 13
  • 12. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES the Inner Harbor redevelopment. Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation- The State Budget has an allot- ment of $200 million for the WEDC. Set to replace the State’s Department of Commerce, the WEDC will provide new and existing businesses with support, expertise, and financial assistance. This is promising for the Inner Harbor’s brownfields, potentially home to a variety of new industries. Transportation infrastructure improvements- The State Budget has $3.2 billion set aside for highway construction and rehabilitation projects. An impor- tant first step to redevelop the Inner Harbor is repairing and extending the existing street network to improve accessibility and connectivity. Federal Funding of Projects Inherent in the Inner Harbor redevelopment project are a litany of up-front costs. An essential element in the redevelopment is leveraging federal dol- lars to support the project. The following (page 11) are two opportunities which currently exist. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- The ARRA provides funds for fed- eral contracts, grants and loans with the intent of spurring economic activ- ity and creating long term growth. EPA Superfund- The EPA Superfund is a federal fund which helps to clean-up hazardous waste sites. Environmental remediation will be necessary for the redevelopment of the Inner Harbor.14
  • 13. INTRODUCTION2012 ElectionsWhile the Inner Harbor is not a politically charged area, local, state and fed-eral elections will still doubtlessly influence the redevelopment prospects.Milwaukee County elected Chris Abele as County Executive to serve untilthe 2012 election cycle. In addition, 2012 will see new or re-elected of-ficials at the City level (the Mayor and Aldermen), the County (Executivepositions), the State (half of Senators and all Assemblymen), and the Federallevel (President, Congress, and Senate).The 2012 elections will no doubt change the face of Wisconsin politics.This will have its impact on Milwaukee and the Inner Harbor in numer-ous ways. However, the Inner Harbor is a massive land area with a lot ofdevelopment opportunities. It must be treated with a long time frame inorder to achieve a long- term result. The political climate is ever-changingso taking advantage of all the opportunities for support at federal, state, andlocal levels is something the City should watch and plan for. 15
  • 14. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES EXISTING CONDITIONS This section, examining the existing conditions of the Inner Harbor site, in- cludes demographics and physical conditions. Demographics are important because they acknowledge the social capital of the study area, and help to Manufacturing and understand who its residents are, where they work, how they travel, and related industries how they live. By comparing the Inner Harbor to Milwaukee and other employ 37.5% of the cities of similar size, we can begin to see similarities and differences which present opportunities for the site. Working in tandem with physical condi- population of the tions, demographics tell the story of the area and how it came to be. Physi- Inner Harbor niegh- cal conditions paint the picture of the various land uses and their values, borhoods. ownership and agglomeration, the urban form, vacancies in the fabric of the city, accessibility, and opportunities for growth and development. DEMOGRAPHICS Demographic analysis shows the importance of manufacturing and industry to the City of Milwaukee and the neighborhoods around the Inner Harbor. The table below shows the working populations of four U.S. metropolitan areas, and the neighborhoods surrounding the Milwaukee Inner Harbor. Pittsburgh is noted for successfully reinventing its economy from industry to health care and the service economy. Portland has a vibrant harbor and industries. Both Milwaukee and Green Bay have long traditions of manu- facturing and industry in their respective cities. Manufacturing and related industries employ over one-third of the workforce in metropolitan Milwau- kee and Green Bay. In the neighborhoods surround- ing the Inner Harbor, manufacturing and related in- dustries employ 37.5% of the population, the highest percentage in the comparison. Manufacturing alone accounts for 23.5% of employ- ment in the neighborhoods surrounding the Inner Harbor, almost double the percent of metropolitan Pittsburgh’s employment share, and higher than any other in the comparison.Employment in Industry & Employed Civilian Transportation Total Population Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Utilities Total Total PercentRelated Population, 16+ & WarehousingPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2,358,695 1,074,663 6.10% 12.30% 3.60% 5.30% 1.30% 307,221 28.60%Portland--Salem, Oregon 1,919,985 959,420 6.70% 15.10% 4.70% 4.10% 0.90% 301,935 31.50%Milwaukee--Racine, 1,689,572 832,079 5.00% 21.40% 3.70% 3.90% 0.80% 289,612 34.80%WisconsinThe Inner Harbor & 64,814 27,657 5.00% 23.50% 3.60% 5.20% 0.40% 10,382 37.50%Adjacent NeighborhoodsGreen Bay, Wisconsin 226,778 120,530 6.20% 21.10% 4.00% 4.80% 1.40% 45,148 37.50%Data: 2000 Decennial Census, SF-3 Files 16
  • 15. EXISTING CONDITIONSMilwaukee’s vision of the Inner Harbor calls for the development of severaleconomic clusters to build on the City’s strengths while exploring new op-portunities. The two identified sectors, green energy and water technology,are exciting growth sectors. Both sectors depend on creativity and innova-tion as drivers of growth.In turn, creativity and innovation are sourced from the ‘creative class’, youngand well-educated adults. So how do Milwaukee’s and the Inner Harbor’screative classes stack up? Below are some demographics looking at educa-tion of the population 25 and above, as well as demographics of the 25-45age range. High school or Associate Bachelors Masters Professional school Doctorate Total, TertiaryEducational Attainment Population 25+ equivalent degree degree degree degree degree degreePortland--Salem, Oregon 1,253,461 23.70% 6.60% 19.10% 6.40% 2.10% 1.00% 35.30%Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1,643,114 37.70% 7.00% 15.10% 5.70% 2.00% 1.00% 30.90%Milwaukee--Racine, 1,090,663 29.50% 6.80% 17.80% 5.80% 1.90% 0.70% 33.00%WisconsinInner Harbor & Adjacent 38404 45.20% 6.60% 15.00% 4.90% 1.50% 0.50% 28.50%NeighborhoodsHistoric Third Ward 381 7.30% 5.50% 42.50% 6.60% 8.70% 3.40% 66.70% 17
  • 16. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES In educational attainment of its population 25 years and older, metropolitan Milwaukee compares well with its peers Portland and Pittsburgh. However, the Inner Harbor & adjacent neighborhoods have the lowest percentage of its population above 25 with a tertiary degree. This is in dramatic contrast to the Historic Third Ward just across the river, where two-thirds of the population has a tertiary degree. Planning for contemporary, urban housing options in the Inner Harbor Area to complement the School of Freshwater Sciences can introduce a higher percentage of the creative class into the area.The Creative Years, Percent Creative Total population 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 Total, 25 to 44of Population ClassPortland--Salem, Oregon 1,919,985 7.70% 7.80% 8.10% 8.20% 609,165 31.70%Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2,358,695 5.60% 6.50% 7.60% 8.40% 661,710 28.10%Milwaukee--Racine, Wisconsin 1,689,572 6.50% 7.10% 8.20% 8.40% 510,260 30.20%Inner Harbor & Adjacent 38,113 9.70% 7.80% 7.60% 6.70% 12,121 31.80%NeighborhoodsHistoric Third Ward 491 10.80% 19.10% 9.80% 8.40% 236 48.10% The above table shows the 25-44 age range as a percentage of population. Again, the Inner Harbor area is in line with Metropolitan averages, but well below Milwaukee’s Historic Third Ward. The Inner Harbor compares to Pittsburgh in the percent of population in the creative class. This presents Percentage of Population in the “Creative Class” Age Group, 25-44 the Inner Harbor an opportunity for a similar approach to redefining itself.18
  • 17. EXISTING CONDITIONSThe following tables show the housing, incomes, and commute times forworkers in neighborhoods surrounding the Inner Harbor. It is importantto know these demographics because there is often a direct relationshipbetween where people live and work. We’ve seen a shift in the averagecommute time in recent years as the suburbs have grown. Correspond-ingly, there has been a shift of higher income and higher value housing in thesuburbs. In this comparison, we see how that shift in wealth and proximityto the workplace has not occurred in the Historic Third Ward. Althoughit is a more affluent district in terms of housing and income, likely fromthe Historic designation, the Historic Third Ward exemplifies how the live/work relationship can prosper in the urban environment.In both the Inner Harbor areas and the Historic Third Ward, residents areoften located very close to their workplace, and use a variety of transpor-tation to get there. This allows for a multi-modal approach to transporta-tion at the policy level. Additionally, it can allow for a more prosperous andsocial neighborhood because residents are more active and their presenceon the street allows for a strong social capitol and a safer environment.The area adjacent to the Inner Harbor is a vibrant residential area, withover 25,000 households, and strong historical roots. The housing stock ismature; the average residential structure built in 1940. This housing stockcompares to the Historic Third Ward in age, but not type. While the ThirdWard is a mix of old warehouses and distribution facilities converted tolofts and condominiums, the Inner Harbor and adjacent neighborhoodscontains a residential building stock of bungalows and duplexes. 19
  • 18. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT MILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Long Term 8 - 15 Years 17.6% Immediate Change PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 10.1% Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor still serves as an active port, and will continue Short Term 1 - 7 Years to receive and ship goods. Because of the required dock space, the Inner Long Term 8.7% 8 - 15 Years Harbor currently has little public access either along the harbor itself, or onComplicated 17.6% Immediate Change 10.1% the lake side. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the Inner Harbor is also lim- 23.8% Not Happening Short Term ited because of incomplete and disjointed street infrastructure. Both the location of the docks and the railways has reduced access in and around 1 - 7 Years 8.7% 39.7% Complicated the Inner Harbor area. Additionally, Jones Island only has limited access at 23.8% the southern end, and the area has security considerations as well. Not Happening 39.7% Two large sites in the Inner Harbor area have redevelopment promise. The Grand Trunk Railroad site at the southern end of the harbor contains some protected wetlands, and is the future site for the Gillen Company. While Immediate Change - 85.33 acres - Mean Value $3.47/sq. ft. Short Term - 1 - 7 Years - 72.95 acres - Mean Value $5.73/sq. ft. this area has potential for redevelopment, change may not occur for some Long Term - 8 - 15 Years - 147.49 acres - Mean Value $19.24/sq. ft. Complicated - 199.84 acres - Mean Value $14.86/sq. ft. time. The former Solvay Coke site south of Greenfield Avenue represents Not Happening - 332.52 acres - Mean Value - $24.40/sq. ft. Immediate Change - 85.33 acres - Mean Value $3.47/sq. ft. a better near-term opportunity for redevelopment, but is also a brownfield Short Term - 1 - 7 Years - 72.95 acres - Mean Value $5.73/sq. ft. Long Term - 8 - 15 Years - 147.49 acres - Mean Value $19.24/sq. ft. Complicated - 199.84 acres - Mean Value $14.86/sq. ft. and will require remediation first. Not Happening - 332.52 acres - Mean Value - $24.40/sq. ft. The 1st Avenue corridor represents opportunities The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has area at the end of Greenfield Avenue for its School of Freshwater Sciences, which could potentially for commercial, residential, change the landscape at the edge of the harbor. While the school has not and even industrial develop- started new work yet, UWM stands to play a major role in the redevelop- ment that could help better ment of the Inner Harbor. Key stakeholders see this area as a potential knit together the surround- development for Milwaukee’s growing water-related industry cluster. The ing neighborhoods with the railways in the Inner Harbor also creates a physical and psychological divi- Inner Harbor. sion between the harbor and the 1st Street corridor. 20
  • 19. EXISTING CONDITIONS Images: Existing conditions from various locations within the Inner Harbor project boundary. 21
  • 20. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Inner Harbor Study Area Legend Milwaukee County-owned Property City-owned Property ¯ Inner Harbor Study Area 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 1,270 feet22
  • 21. EXISTING CONDITIONS Total Assessed Land Value per Square Foot Legend Inner Harbor Study Area VALUE_ACRE $0.00 - $1.50 $1.51 - $2.73 $2.74 - $3.57 $3.58 - $5.38 $5.39 - $9.00 $9.01 - $15.36 $15.37 - $20.40 $20.41 - $28.49 $28.50 - $43.45 $43.46 - $175.56 ±0 650 1,300 2,600 Feet 1 inch = 900 feet 23
  • 22. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Current Zoning - Inner Harbor Area Legend Inner Harbor Area <all other values> ZONING Industrial-Heavy Industrial-Light Industrial-Mixed Industrial-Office Local Business Pending Parks Two-Family ± 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 1,469 feet24
  • 23. EXISTING CONDITIONSIn 2011, the Redevelopment Plan for the Port of Milwaukee was passed Sub Area “A”by the Common Council. The Plan proposes less restrictive zoning to al- Permits: Commercial, Light Indus-low for redevelopment of the Inner Harbor area. Until the passage of the trial and Multi-Family ResidentialRedevelopment Plan, the existing zoning was almost exclusively Industrial- UsesHeavy. Alternatively, the new plan now allows for Industrial-Mixed and Prohibits: Heavy Industrial, MotorIndustrial-Office (along with Industrial-Heavy). These zoning changes will Vehicle Sales, Salvage Operationsenable mixed-use development and lessen restrictions on industry type, and Single-Family Residentialcreating greater variety. Sub Area “B” Permits: Commercial, Office, Re-The Port as an Economic Driver: search and Light Industrial Uses- 1,119 direct jobs Prohibits: Residential and Heavy- 909 indirect jobs Industrial Uses, Motor Vehicle Sales and Salvage Operations- $93.6m in wages Sub Area “C”- $79.6m in business revenue Permits: Light to Heavy Industrial- $35m in federal, state and local taxes and Manufacturing Uses- Over 3m tons/year of imported raw materials Prohibits: Residential and most(steel, salt and coal) and grain and heavy machinery exports Commercial Uses- Profitable unit of City government Park (PK) Zoning Zoning Park (PK) 25
  • 25. EXISTING CONDITIONS Bus Stops and Routes - Inner Harbor Area h g g h h h g g h h g g Legend h g h g Bus Stops h h g g h g " ) 18 Bus Routes h g h g h h g g Route 11D 15 h h g g h h g g 18 h g h g 48D h h g g h h g g 53 54 h g 1/4 Mile Walking Buffer hh h gg g h h g g h g " )h g 11D " ) 48D ± " )15 " ) 48D h g h g h gh ghg h hh g gg hh gg " ) 17 h gh g h g h g" ) 54 h g h g h g " ) 40Dhg h g h gh g h g h g h g hh gg h g h h g g h g " ) h gh g 53 gh hg h g h g h g h g hh gg h g h g 0 750 1,500 3,000h g Feet 1 inch = 1,010 feet 27
  • 26. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESImages: Susceptible to changeproperties. From top to bottom:Immediate change, short-term(1-7 years), long-term (8-15 years)or complicated. 28
  • 27. EXISTING CONDITIONS Potential Phases for Change Inner Harbor Study Area Immediate Change Short Term - 1 - 7 years Long Term - 8 - 15 years Complicated Not Happening ±0 800 1,600 3,200 Feet 1 inch = 1,071 feet 29
  • 28. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES STAKEHOLDERS The primary objectives of this chapter are to determine the catalytic proj- ects and plans impacting the Inner Harbor site and its future use.These de- terminations were made through analysis of Milwaukee’s Southeast Side and Near South Side Area Plans, The Port of Milwaukee Redevelopment Plan, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) study on the KRM South Side Station location and Request to Initiate Pre- liminary Engineering, and several studies of the Kinnickinnic River. While there are realistically hundreds of stakeholders in the primary proj- ect study area, this report looks at some of the major stakeholders and their interests. Included among these are the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee, the neighborhoods of Bay View, Walker’s Point, and the 5th Ward, the Port of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) is one of the major play- ers in the future of the Inner Harbor. UWM has recently selected a site on Greenfield Avenue as its new home for the School of Freshwater Sci- ences. This site lies in the geographic center of the Inner Harbor and offers UWM the opportunity for expansion as well as direct access to the lake and potential future industries in the surrounding context. Much of the land adjacent to the UWM site is will remain industrial. Since this is nearly half of the project site, this analysis contains excerpts from the two Area Plans which favor industry as a major use in the area. Additionally, this land provides the City of Milwaukee the opportunity to market to national and international companies to expand its economic development just as it did in the Menomonee Valley. This site is perfect for the ever-growing “green” industry cluster led by the Wisconsin Energy Research Consor- tium (WERC) and the Milwaukee Water Council. Another major theme throughout this analysis was the inclusion of Transit- Oriented Development and a South Shore Station location. This type of development, primarily mixed-use in nature, would be located at the south end of the Inner Harbor site. The location provides an opportunity for neighborhood development based on the future use of a commuter train running between Milwaukee and Chicago. It also allows for a transition between the neighborhood of Bay View to the south and The Port and industrial uses to the north. While mixed-use was deemed to be the best use of land in this area, increased density and architectural quality were also major objectives. Mixed-use was also recommended to the north of the Inner Harbor site as a transition to the 5th Ward.30
  • 29. EXISTING CONDITIONSFinally, this document made clear the City’s plans for reclamation of thewater’s edge (Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River, and “Great discoveriesInner Harbor) for public access and use. The various projects and plans and improvementscollectively recommend balancing the need for economic development andenvironmental protection while preserving the water’s edge for public ac- invariably involvecess in the form of pocket parks and extended Riverwalk segments. Ad- the cooperation ofditionally, the restoration of wetlands and natural habitat is intended to beutilized as both stormwater and water quality management strategies. many minds.”The preferred alternative for the Inner Harbor recommends a strategic,aggressive, and focused approach to redevelopment for three objectives: – Alexander Graham Belleconomic development, transit-oriented development, and public accessand environmental remediation of the water’s edge.UNIVERSITY OFWISCONSIN-MILWAUKEEOf all the major stakeholders invested in the Inner Har-bor, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee arguablyhas the most to gain from the Inner Harbor’s redevel-opment. Home to the new School of Freshwater Sci-ences, the Inner Harbor presents acres of vacant landfor the University to continue its community involve-ment by expanding its campus on the Inner Harbor site.Surrounding the School of Freshwater Sciences, UWMcould provide housing, entertainment, and other ameni-ties to serve a growing student population and act as acatalyst to integrating the existing neighborhoods of Above: A proposed rendering of UWM’sWalker’s Point, Bay View, and the 5th Ward into future development. School of Freshwater Sciences along Greenfield Avenue in the heart of theA large portion of the land in the Inner Harbor will remain industrial, pre- Inner Harborsenting UWM with a second opportunity-to partner with new industries.The industry/institution partnership allows partners to share information,resources, and research and development facilities. As the School of Fresh-water Sciences is the only graduate school in the nation dedicated solely tothe study of freshwater, the opportunity for a new water industry clusteris ideal. WERC seeking new world headquarters: Milwaukee in the Mix! The Wisconsin Energy Research Consortium, of which UWM is already a member, combines Wisconsin’s industry leaders with the state’s leading engineering research Universities to provide consulting, research & workforce development capabilities. They leverage the knowledge and resources of our University and Technical Colleges to sup- port our member companies, develop new companies & expand Wisconsin’s Energy, Power and Control Industries. 31
  • 30. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES DEPARTMENT OF CITY DEVELOPMENT NEAR SOUTH SIDE AREA PLAN The Near South Side Area Plan is a community-led comprehensive plan facilitated by the City of Milwaukee and community partners. The plan is a guide to future investment, development, and preservation in the area for the benefit of the Near South Side’s residents and businesses. Below are excerpts, taken from the plan, which impact the Inner Harbor study area. Catalytic Projects Catalytic Project #4: Riverfront Node Parks and Riverwalk Extension Currently, no mechanism preserves areas along the river for public access to open space, and there are limited parks and open spaces within the near south side. A system of finger-like parks and canals that are connected by the Riverwalk should be created. Nodes would generally be located where existing and future roadways terminate at the rivers and canals, and provide public access and maintain view sheds to the waterways. Specific RecommendationsAbove: Near South Side Area Plan: - Preserve space for river node parks prior to development occurring, (i.e.Adopted May 2009 roadway stubs preserved for public access as conservation easements)spe- cifically at Water and Bruce streets, Water and Florida streets, Water and Oregon streets, 1st and Seeboth streets, and 3rd and Seeboth streets. - River node parks should be primarily landscaped areas that contain vege- tation, grass and other natural plant- ing while limiting hardscapes. Addi- “...participants sug- tional park activation features are en- gested targeting couraged, i.e. benches, fountains, play equipment. green industries, - Focus preservation efforts for river research and de- node parks in areas that are likely to see development in the short term. velopment firms, - Make each river node park unique educational facilities, in the context of the surrounding natural and built environment. and mixed commer- - Space for parks and Riverwalk ex- cial and residential tensions should be preserved regard- less of adjacent land uses. uses...” Accordance with the Port Redevelopment Plan - Continue the adaptive re-use of former industrial/warehouse buildings into mixed-use structures that support commercial and industrial uses. - Encourage a mix of retail, residential, office and entertainment uses alongAbove: Catalytic project # 4 proposes the 1st Street corridor.parks and public access on the water. - North of Washington or Scott Streets, allow the transition of the area into a mixed use business area with a range of commercial, retail and light 32
  • 31. EXISTING CONDITIONSmanufacturing.- South of Washington or Scott Streets, preserve large parcels and possibly Kinnickinnic River Corridorcombine underutilized and obsolete parcels to create a business park for Neighborhood Planoffices, research and development, and light manufacturing. “The new KK River corridor isDEPARTMENT OF CITY DEVELOPMENT envisioned as a greenway, withSOUTHEAST SIDE AREA PLAN improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, community gatheringLike the Near South Side Area Plan, the Southeast Side Area Plan contains places, water quality and storm-several catalytic projects and recommendations for the future of its neigh- water management features, in-borhood. Because of the proximity to the Bay View’s main commercial stream and riparian habitat forcorridor (Kinnickinnic Avenue), all the recommendations and projects are fish, birds, insects and other wild-sensitive to the fact that there is a need for uses other than commercial. life, and new economic opportuni-One of those uses, proposed in Catalytic project #2: Army Reserve Site, is ties for local businesses and entre-the idea of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Primarily residential in preneurs.”nature, this type of development would be served by a South Shore stationand provide Bay View’s middle class with an alternative mode of transporta-tion. Another design proposal for the site is a net-zero energy communitycalled Solar Village.Catalytic ProjectsCatalytic Project #2: Army Reserve SiteThis site (2372 S. Logan Avenue) “is ideally suited for redevelopment, suchas multi-family and/or senior housing”. Increased housing means customerbase for local business like the Kinnickinnic commercial corridor, and in-creased property value in the existing neighborhoods. There is an excellentopportunity for a Kenosha Racine Milwaukee TOD passenger rail stationwhich has been identified east of the site.Project Objectives- Maintain neighborhood context while improving transition between resi-dential and industrial Port.- Create housing options which includes a diversity of housing and sup-ports a dense customer base. Above: Southeast Side Area Plan:- Facilitate transit-oriented development next to a future KRM site - mixed Adopted October 2008use (boutique style hotel/inn), high-density residential, and green space. Below: A typical Dutch Woonerf is used- Add significant architectural quality to the area to increase property val- to create a public space between build- ingsues. Consider limiting height to match the surroundingcontext, while allowing a few developments of four storiesor more to take advantage of lake views.- Extend Linus Street east to create a critical connection. Consider the option of the Woonerf.Specific Project Recommendations- Multi-Family Housing- Preserve option for Transit-Oriented Development 33
  • 32. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Options for the Army Reserve Site - Elderly Housing - Transit Oriented Development - Solar Village - Combination of all Catalytic Project #3: Kinnickinnic River Area Catalytic Project #4 proposes to create a new neighbor- hood which provides jobs and housing in an improved natu- ral setting. “Sensitive treat-Above: A bird’s-eye view of Solar Village, ment of the KK River riparian“Concept A” is one option for the Army edges could improve the water resource value in this EPA-designated “AreaReserve Site. There is an active RFP for of Concern” while also spurring contextually appropriate economic de-Eco Bay housing development which velopment.” An example is the Menomonee Valley in Milwaukee, whereproposes a “net zero” energy residential industrial parcels were created by raising the sites out of the floodplain anddevelopment of 135 total residential, controlling stormwater runoff through ecological management techniques.mixed-use units and a transit stop. Industrial economic development has been the result, with almost all rede- veloped parcels sold out. Remediation and removal of contamination has occurred at the Solvay Coke Plant. The Grand Trunk RR site has immediate access to RR and the water. “It has a wetland and plant communities that stakeholders have expressed a desire to protect, and the site may be large enough for the development flexibility entailed in its protection.” Project Objectives (Guided by Ecological Riverfront Design) - Create a new neighborhood in a vastly improved natural setting. - Honor the form and functioning natural system of the Kinnickinnic River by naturalizing river edges where viable. - Redevelop underutilized riverfront land to create a green, accessible wa- terway for public use and economic development. - Create “Use Zones” to transition from industrial uses (at the harbor) to mixed residential and green spaces (upstream and inland). - Use parks to create a green infrastructure network of trails which con- nect visually and physically with the river. - Support Multi-modal transportation. - Integrate seasonal activities. - Design buildings to engage public space. 34
  • 33. EXISTING CONDITIONSProject Design Principles- Preserve natural river featuresand functions.- Buffer sensitive natural areas.- Restore riparian and in-streamhabitats.- Use non-structural alternativesto manage water resources.- Reduce hardscapes.- Manage stormwater on site anduse non-structural approaches.- Balance public access with riverprotection.- Incorporate history and infor-mation about the natural resources of the river into the design with inter- Above: Conceptual rendering of apretive signs, public areas, and other functional design elements. “Smart Growth” development along the Kinnickinnic RiverSpecific Project Recommendations- Balance economic development with environmental protection.- Gradually transition from green space, waterfront residential and mixeduse development on the west, through industrial, mixed use and institu-tional uses to industrial uses consistent with the working Port on the east. - Case Study #1- Chicago River Corridor Design Guidelines and Standards- narrow green riparian buffer along Kinnickinnic River (30 ft). Balance pollutant removal with economic development. - Case Study #2- Willamette River Greenway Program (Oregon)- relatively wide green riparian buffer (100 to 150 ft). Maximize pollutant removal but reduce economic potential.Accordance with Milwaukee Port Redevelopment Plan- Preserve the port as a resource.- Identify development opportunities and encourage employment oppor-tunities.- Buffer industrial uses from residential uses.- Encourage water-related industrial and market-rate industrial develop-ment. Above: Two perceived concepts for the edge of the Kinnickinnic River 35
  • 34. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES PORT OF MILWAUKEE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The Port Redevelopment Plan balances the need to create family-support- ing jobs while remediating brownfields and restoring the natural environ- ment. The Plan provides a framework for several hundred million dollars in anticipated development and associated property tax revenues, as well as hundreds of jobs and associated income tax revenue. Main Objectives - Preserve land for uses that support operations and growth of the Port of Milwaukee and water-related businesses. - Promote development that creates or retains employment opportunities in the City of Milwaukee. - Mitigate environmental contamination and eliminate blighted influences. - Improve public access to natural water resources. General Development Standards - All new construction or building additions should follow urban design principles, use high-quality materials and provide sufficient landscaping.Above: Jones Island is home to the Port of - Buildings that incorporate aggressive energy-efficiency practices, alter-Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Metropoli- native energy methods, recycled materials and other sustainable buildingtan Sewerage District (MMSD) Wastewa- features are highly encouraged.ter Treatment Facility. - Wherever feasible, when a property along the water is redeveloped, public access to the water should be provided in the form of a path or riverwalk segment- a permanent public easement for each segment should be sought. - Efforts should be made to preserve or reinstate wetlands where possible. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Great Lakes Restoration Initiative In 2009, President Obama, along with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 15 other federal agencies, made restoring the Great lakes a na- tional priority, proposing $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The Action Plan will guide the various agencies in the restoration process of the Great Lakes, with the EPA leading the development and implementation of the initiative. The GLRI will report to the President annually on the progress of the action plan and accomplishments to date. Areas of Concern Human populations, settled near polluted and degraded areas of the Great Lakes, comprise the Area’s of Concern (AOCs). Wisconsin AOCs include: the Menomonee River, the Fox River/Southern Green Bay area, the She- boygan River, and the Milwaukee Estuary. The Action Plan, created to ad- dress these areas, focuses on cleaning up legacy contamination (or prior- use pollution), including persistent toxic substances (PTS) such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Flame retardants, surfactants, medi- 36
  • 35. EXISTING CONDITIONScations and personal care products have increased concern among the sci-entific community because of their harmful effects to humans and wildlifesurrounding the Great Lakes.Beneficial Use ImpairmentsBeneficial Use Impairments, or BUIs, are defined in the Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement (with Canada) as “a change in the chemical, physical, orbiological integrity of the Great lakes System sufficient to cause any of thefollowing”: 1. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption 8. eutrophication or undesirable algae 2. tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; 9. restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems; 3. degradation of fish wildlife populations 10. beach closings; 4. fish tumors or other deformities; 11. degradation of aesthetics 5. bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems; 12. added costs to agriculture or industry; 6. degradation of benthos (community of organisms 13. degradation of phytoplankton and that live on lake bed); zooplankton populations; 7. restrictions on dredging activities; 14. and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.Focus Areas The vessel (image below) was originally owned by theBy identifying significant ecological stress factors, the Great Edward E. Gillen Towing Company of Milwaukee. TheLakes Restoration Initiative created five focus areas with Edward E. Gillen Company is to this day actively in-goals and objectives to address those stress factors. These volved in marine construction projects, with a facilityinclude Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern; Invasive located on the Kinnickinnic River in the primary studySpecies; Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution; area. One of only three known Wisconsin-built woodenHabitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration; Account- tugs, this vessel was built by the Sturgeon Bay (WI)ability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication Ship Building and Dry Dock Company in 1928. The tugand Partnerships. was sold by the Company in the mid-1960s and subse- quently stripped (salvaged) and then abandoned at aWISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF bend in the Kinnickinnic River across from the EdwardNATURAL RESOURCES E. Gillen Company site. It was documented as a historicThe main role of the WI-DNR has been the remediation and artifact and removed by the US EPA and WI DNR inremoval of contaminated soil from the Kinnickinnic River 2008 as part of the KK River dredging.and primary study area. Because the site contains a for-ty-plus acre brownfield, the WI-DNR must work with theRACM and the EPA to remediate the site for future devel-opment. The removal of contaminants in the soils and wa-terways of the project site will provide short- and long-termenvironmental and economic benefits including reduction ofcontaminated sediment getting in to Lake Michigan, reduc-tion of toxicity and the risks of the contaminated sedimentsto aquatic life and human health, improvement of habitat fishand wildlife, and navigation improvements likely resulting inan increase in recreational and commercial boating. 37
  • 36. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES KENOSHA, RACINE, MILWAUKEE COMMUTER RAIL The Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee Commuter Rail Study (2010) was con- ducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to analyze the proposed South Side Station Transit-Oriented Development.Below: Conceptual urban design frame- Constructed east of the intersection of E. Bay St. and E. Lincoln Avenue inwork of a proposed KRM TOD South the northeast portion of Bay View, this study included several communityShore Station workshops. From those workshops, four major themes emerged: 1. Preserve existing neighborhood charac- ter with a mix of housing types and range of housing values. Channel high density to underutilized or vacant areas adjacent to the station. Sensitivity needs to be given to the KK business corridor. 2. Preserve and improve greenway linkages between major neighborhood destinations, including KK business corridor, and South Shore and Humboldt Parks. 3. Simplify access and circulation for both motorized and non-motorized transporta- tion, including access to Lake Michigan. 4. Establish quality architecture and land- scape guidelines for new development. In addition to the four major themes generated from community input, KRM STUDY PROJECT GOALS analysis was done to determine the likelihood that this neighborhood could - Improve regional transit mobility and access support high-density transit-oriented development. Various attributes in- - Improve travel options- reduce cluding residential, commercial, and office suggest that TOD is possible. reliance on the automobile - Attract increased transit Residential: It is estimated that 734 new housing units could be construct- ridership ed within the ½ mile station area by the year 2020. Housing values in the - Expand and improve inter- station area have been increasing 15%-20% annually in recent years. Bring- community transit ing rail service to the area offers the potential to capture a higher share of - Contribute to economic future housing construction for the station area. development - Redevelopment of underutilized Commercial: The study team estimates that the station area can absorb areas approximately 25,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet of new retail space - Focus development around growth and redevelopment between 2005 and 2020. patterns - Maximize the existing infra- Office: The station area may be attractive for some new office users that structure want to be close to downtown, but can not afford the cost of downtown - Preserve and protect the space. The study team estimates between 25,000 and 50,000 sq. ft. of office environment space may be supported in the 1/2-mile station area over the next 15 years. 38
  • 37. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES CASE STUDIES In hundreds of cities across the United States, redevelopment of urban wa- terfronts is becoming the latest undertaking of planning departments and The Waterfront Center’s redevelopment authorities. As manufacturing and industry have declined Urban Waterfront Manifesto: over the last thirty years, urban waterfronts have been left with abandoned Basic tenets of waterfront redevelop- factories, coal piles, warehouses, ship yards, and railyards. Once the heart of ment economic activity and employment centers for neighborhood manufactur- ing, these brownfields have left contaminated soils and waterways and have 1. The public sector should act as the “steward” of water- worn holes in the urban fabric of once thriving neighborhoods. fronts and stand ready to imple- ment waterfront plans in partner- However, opportunity for urban planners and urban designers to find the ship with the private sector. balance between revitalization and the needs of working waterfronts has emerged. In Chicago, the use of an Overlay District has attracted an ag- 2. All urban waterfront proj- glomeration of new industry to a historically industrial island. In cities like ects should provide public ac- Portland and Victoria, B.C. , the reinvention of the waterfront has meant cess to and along the water. public access and new neighborhoods for a new, creative middle class. And still, as cities all over the world begin to attack the redevelopment oppor- 3. One size does not fit all. tunity of their waterfronts, new ideas for reuse and reinvention emerge. Waterfront redevelopment proj- ects should from the nature of each site and reflect its essential The following case studies outline what has been done in five North Ameri- spirit. can cities. They present opportunity for Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor by relat- ing critical issues and key urban design concepts to Milwaukee’s framework. 4. Waterfronts should accom- Ultimately, there is variety in waterfront redevelopment and a balance must modate a variety of uses, from be established between the working industry and the need for public ac- passive open space to active uses, cess and contamination remediation. In Milwaukee, the need for industry be welcoming both day and night, remains. But the typically isolated nature of industrial uses must now be and incorporate places and activi- incorporated into the fabric of a dense city center- the way it used to be. ties that attract people of all ages, races, and incomes. BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION 5. Waterfront projects should Project: Menomonee Valley preserve and interpret “the Location: Milwaukee, WI tangible aspects of the histo- Status: Completed, Parcels available for development ry” of a site as a way of enhanc- Overview: In 1998, the City of Milwaukee, the Menomonee Valley Business ing its character and telling the Association and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District prepared larger waterfront’s story a land use plan for the redevelopment of the Menomonee Valley. At the time, the State of Wisconsin was laying the groundwork for the Hank Aaron 6. Water-dependent uses State Trail. As a result of these planning efforts, Menomonee Valley Partners should receive preference in was formed as a nonprofit organization, a public-private partnership to the redevelopment programs, facilitate business, neighborhood, and public partners in effort to revitalize “even if they are unsightly.” the Valley. Today, the Valley is a national model of economic and environ- mental sustainability. Recognized by the Sierra Club as “One of the 10 Best Citation: Urban Design for an Urban Century: Placemaking for People Developments in the Nation,” the Menomonee Valley continues to receive local and national recognition. Credit: Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc.40
  • 38. CASE STUDIESCritical Issues: “Machine Shop of the World”As manufacturing practices changed at the turn of the twentieth century, From 1879 to 1985, the Valley wasthe Valley was left a blighted area with abandoned, contaminated land and the location of the Milwaukee Roadvacant industrial buildings. Bridges into the Valley were demolished as busi- Shops, an enormous complex thatnesses left, isolating the Valley from the surrounding city. The neighbor- made rail cars and locomotives forhoods adjacent to the Valley most strongly felt the impacts of the Valley’s the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &decline as residents suffered from limited access to jobs and recreation Pacific Railroad. In the 1900’s, theopportunities, high levels of asthma and obesity, and poor air quality. In Milwaukee Road was one of theaddition, The City of Milwaukee found it increasingly difficult to attract and largest employers in Milwaukee withretain businesses due to the frequent flooding of the Menomonee River. nearly 3,000 employees. Many livedMany key objectives emerged: in the neighborhoods nearby and- Remediate the brownfields; walked to work.- Control stormwater and the Menomonee River;- Reconnect the Valley to the people;- Create easy access for trucks through roadway redesign;- Return amenities and green space to the Valley;- Market the Valley to retain existing industry and recruit new firms;- and restore the natural habitat and environment.Key Urban Design Concepts:- The $20 million brownfield remediation project included 23 feder-al and state grants to address the contaminated soil, old foundations andmiles of relic brick sewers. Asbestos was removed and the soil was cappedto protect human health and the environment.- The land in the Valley is expected to capture every drop of rain that fallson the business park. The “Stormwater Park” will feature native plantingthat can filter and cleanse all the stormwater run-off from the 100acre business park.- With the remediation of the site and new stormwater features in place,the City has ensured itself new economic development opportuni- The Department of Cityties while restoring the ecology of the Valley.- In the past 10 years, 27 companies have moved to or expanded in the Val- Development offersley, 4,200 jobs have been created, 45 acres of native plants, seven miles of information and links totrails have been established. several local, state, and- 10 million people visit the Valley’s recreation and entertainment des- federal financial incen-tinations each year. tives for brownfield re- development on its web-Inner Harbor Impact:The Menomonee Valley serves as a case study for the Inner Harbor for site: reasons. Not only is the Valley a national model of brownfield Financial-incentivesremediation, but it now serves as a model for sustainable industrial devel-opment, neighborhood manufacturing, and how public-private partnershipscan spur economic development. 41
  • 39. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Employees  Building  Parcel  (Valley  Square  Employees  Company Acreage Location) Footage per Acre Taylor  Dynamometer 3.31 25         43,350                   8 Badger Railing 1.82 32         18,400                18 Charter Wire 7.83 95      160,000                12 Caleffi 2.56 20         35,000                  8 Ingeteam 8.15 275      114,000                34 Derse 8.25 110      160,000                13 Palermos 9.68 450      135,000                46 Falk/Rexnord 50.49 950   1,500,000                19 total 92.09           1,957   2,165,750         157.46 average 5.94* 144* 95,107*          21.25 * excludes Falk/Rexnord42
  • 40. CASE STUDIES 43
  • 41. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES CONNECTING COMMUNITIES Project: UrbanRiver Visions Location: Seven initial communities across Massachusetts Status: The Office of Environmental Affairs and each community adopted the plan. “[this plan] represents a Overview: In 2002, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) launched the UrbanRiver Visions program, a statewide ini-true collaborative process tiative to assist cities in better utilizing their downtown waterfronts. Thewhereby each community initial group included seven participating cities, and in 2006 the EOEA an- has a different asset that nounced another six cities would participate in the program. Goody Clan-is shared along the river.... cy held the design charettes for all the communities, winning the Honor Fifty years ago, the river Award from the American Institute of Architects in 2004 for Regional and Urban Design.was viewed as least desir-able, but now it is seen as Critical issues:the center of the commu- - Revitalizing older urban centers along waterways nity.” - Long-term decline in industrial jobs - Bringing together varied stakeholders, many whom have historically not Urban River Visions had the same views - Creating plans that would address environmental, economic, and social 44
  • 42. CASE STUDIESperspectives, in order to strengthen grass roots political support for theprojectsKey Urban Design Concepts:- Expansion of green space by reusing and reinventing existing places.One town closed a street and reused a vacant lot to create a new down-town focal point.- Providing pedestrian access to the river allows for towns to openup new areas for people to experience, creating new public spaces andamenities.- Downtown brownfield redevelopment instead of suburban ex-pansion will help preserve existing green space and make better use ofexisting underutilized spaces.- Making brownfields green can turn otherwise unusable properties in-to dedicated parkland and other types of green space. Above: Union Street Mills, in Easthamp- ton, before redevelopment Left: Pedestrian access to the water was created in the form of the Blackstone Bike Path; part of the Plan for Worcester Below: Aerial overview of East- hampton downtown waterfront areaInner Harbor Impact:The UrbanRiver Visions project showcasesthe need for public involvement and stake-holder input. With so many different enti-ties involved in the future of the area, it wascritical to obtain input of a representativegroup of those individuals and businesses.Similarly, the City of Milwaukee should en-gage citizens to help with the future design ofthe Inner Harbor waterfront. Specifically, theCity should engage the public in the processfor developing locations and ways to createa more public space. The planning processmust bring together both public and privatestakeholders in planning redevelopment forthe Inner Harbor. 45
  • 43. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES MIXED-USE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT Project: South Waterfront Location: Portland, Oregon Status: Under construction Overview: In the early 1900s Portland’s waterfront was made into an industrial area to take advantage of the connection to the Willamette River. One of the early industries of the site was Power’s Lumber Mill. Following the water theme, the area took on the use of maritime indus- tries during the United States involvement in World War II. Many Navy ships were dismantled and salvaged within the site leaving metal scraps andAbove: Portland’s bustling industrial river- other pollutants on the river’s shore. Following the war, the site re-front during the 1960’s mained industrial in nature, primarily used for manufacturing of aluminumBelow: South Waterfront’s future land and agricultural chemicals.use diagram As one of the only remaining undeveloped parcels in Portland, the 130 acre North Macadam Urban Renewal Area broke ground on redevelop- ment in 2003. With solid public and private investors in place, the newly named South Waterfront district intends to implement its vision of a high density residential district with a rich mix of urban-scale offices, housing, hotels, parks and retail uses in the near future. Critical Issues: - Expanding bio-science and other high technology fields - Expanding functions and locating substantial facilities of science-based in- stitutions in South Waterfront - Recovery species listed under the Endangered Species Act and a grow- ing knowledge of riparian and floodplain ecosystems of large, low gradient river systems like the Willamette River - Incorporating regional transportation developments already under con- siderationRight: Some of South Waterfront’s builtout density. The final program will containover 5,000 housing units, 788 of those af-fordable units, and 10,000 jobs within thedevelopment area 46
  • 44. CASE STUDIES- The River Renaissance vision of a healthy, active riverfront outside Port-land’s front door- Providing a wider greenway within the district for circulation, recreationand habitatKey Urban Design Concepts:- The land use and urban form proposalseeks to encourage a rich mix of uses in thedistrict including office, institutional, residen-tial, neighborhood-scale retail, parks, andgreenway uses. A highly urban character isestablished by requiring active uses on theground floor of buildings, limiting surfaceparking and prohibiting drive-thrus, and en-forcing maximum and minimum buildingheight limits and allowing bonuses or excep-tions for public improvements or eco-friend-ly construction. Finally, buildings and viewsshould be oriented and placed to maximizethe relationship to the waterfront.- Greenways and parks are incorporatedthroughout the district to provide a varietyof experiences for people including an urbanplaza, neighborhood parks, and public accessgreenway along the waterfront. Above: South Waterfront as an industrial park before development, and be-- Transportation alternatives include a low, the vision for the built-out South Waterfront.streetcar extension into the district, pedest-rian and bicycle connections, an aerial tram to medical facilities, and rivertaxi’s. The street grid will be differentiated in the north and south portionsof the district to reflect the bend in the river. East/west streets are alsoused to visually and physically connect the development and the riverfront.- Environmental design will be used to improve the conditions of the Taking advantage of...district including surface stormwater management, eco-roofs, and green-way improvements including native plants and habitat. amenities the river create aInner Harbor Impact: South Waterfront acts as a primary example of new residential neigh-how the natural advantage of water can impact development. Taking advan-tage of the opportunities and amenities the river provides, Portland hopes borhoodto create a new residential neighborhood (with over 38 dwelling units peracre) for a new middle class. Public access through parks and greenwayshighlights the importance of investing in the people of the City. In addi-tion, the brownfield remediation and design elements will allow this site toachieve LEED Gold and Platinum Certifications. 47
  • 45. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AGGLOMERATION INDUSTRIES Project: Goose Island Planned Manufacturing District (PMD) Location: Chicago, Illinois Status: CompletedAbove: The industry of Goose Island is Overview: Chicago’s growth and status as America’s second city was his-at the the confluence of Chicago’s neigh- torically fueled by industry. In the 1850s, 146-acre Goose Island was cre-borhoods of West Town, Noble Square, Old ated when the North Branch Canal was dredged to aid barge traffic onTown, and Wicker Park. the Chicago River. The island, owned by the Chicago Land Company, saw steady growth of industry in its early years. While Goose Island’s status as a center of industry and the island’s many rail lines allowed business to thrive, the island also acquired a negative Goose Island was historically reputation for foul smells and repulsiveness. In the early 20th century, home to a thriving, yet economi- a resident-driven proposition was brought to convert Goose Island into cally marginal, community: “Alder- park. Chicago’s authorities won out, however, and the Ogden Viaduct man Thomas P. Keane, who grew was constructed to connect the island with the mainland and to hopeuflly up on Goose Island during the stimulate industrial development. 1890’s, remembered that ‘Every house had a garden and chickens, Flash forward to the 1980s. Across the country, a trend of urban industrial sometimes a goat . . . It was a decline was wreaking havoc on downtowns. Industry, once the central little community where everybody city’s economic powerhouse, was fleeing the city and relocating to rural knew everybody else’.” areas and overseas, causing inner-city unemployment and other related 48
  • 46. CASE STUDIESsocial dislocations. At the same time, industrial districts in downtown Chi-cago were experiencing encroachment of incompatible land uses (commer-cial and residential hi-rises) into their areas.Originally promoting local hiring practices, a com-munity development corporation, the LEED Council,found that manufacturing firms were hesitant to in-vest in the area because of perceived future instabil-ity. In 1990, following the example of the adjacentClybourn area, Mayor Richard M. Daley authorizedthe creation of Chicago’s second Planned Manufac-turing District on Goose Island. The PMD wouldcreate an industrial zoning overlay that would beprohibitively difficult to amend. Unlike the ClybournPMD, the overlay needed no buffer zone because the Above: The new Wrigley Global Innovation Center, a Research andChicago River would act as a natural barrier. Development Facility on Goose IslandCritical Issues:The goal of the PMD was to create and retain well-paying jobs by protect-ing industrial firms from speculation and uncertainty, which could presum-ably displace them from the City. This approach was controversial, becauseit went against a commonly-held principle of many developers and officials:that land use should be governed by the highest and best use. The PMDallowed for heavy and light industrial uses. It also permitted postal services,utilities, building maintenance services, construction, office and retail space(with certain restrictions), warehousing and distribution, and automobilerepair. Also, a TID was created to spur investment in the area.Project Success:Goose Island has seen strong growth since the PMD’s inception, both bythe number of firms locating on the island, and overall employment figures(70% growth, 2000-2004). Goose Island is home to large employers such asChicago Transit Authority, River North Distribution, and FedEx. However, Goose Island has seensome argue that the growth in employment is not in traditional manufac- strong economicturing sectors, as was the original intent in creating the PMD. growth since theIn 2004, Kendall College located its Riverworks Campus in a converted PMD’sindustrial facility. In 2005, the Wrigley Corporation opened its Global Inno- inception.vation Center on the northwest corner of the island. The 193,000 squarefoot facility houses 250 employees, labs, offices, and a pilot productionplant. Interestingly, Goose Island is a prime example of industrial agglomer-ation economies. A look at businesses reveals that some of Goose Island’sactive businesses cluster around two distinct sectors:See Page 43 for related tables. 49
  • 47. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES However, the high cost of real estate remains a problem. The TID’s assessed property values climbed from $14 mil- lion in 1996 to $55 million in 2008, a 305% increase. This has been cited as the reason why traditional industry has not seen major growth on Goose Island in recent years. Inner Harbor Impact: Goose Island represents how local government can use zoning to retain land uses critical to the stability of its economy. The establishment of a Planned Manufacturing District as an Overlay Zone on Goose Island re- tained industrial firms and highlighted Chicago’s commitment to creating a new industry cluster for its industrial economy. Like Chicago, Milwaukee was built on industry and manufacturing. Instead of transitioning away from their past, Milwaukee has chosen to reinvest in manufacturing. In this way, Goose Island serves as a case study in the stra- tegic use of PMDs for industrial economic development. PLANNING FOR PEOPLE: IDENTITY AND ACCESS Project: Prince Arthur’s Landing at Marina Park Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaAbove and Below: Bounded by Lake Status: Under constructionSuperior on the east and a rail corridor Overview: Thunder Bay’s waterfront was originally developed for grainon the west, the Thunder Bay’s Harbour shipping and industry, but with a switch to railway and then road shipment,shares similar constraints to Milwaukee’s much of the area has been abandoned and left derelict. Over the past 40Inner Harbor. It also shares a similarclimate and a former industrial site, now years, efforts have been made to redevelop parts of the waterfront intoa brownfield, adjacent to residential uses. accessible parkland and amenities, though not the New Marina and Pool 6 Lands. This presents the City an opportunity to revitalize this vacant brownfield to act as an economic catalyst and attract and retain residents while creating employment. The close proximity to the downtown core will also attract tourism to the area, specifically during the summer boat races on Lake Superior. Finally, since there is virtually no demand for water-related industry in Thunder Bay, a mix of open space, recreation, commercial and community land uses can be developed. Critical Issues: -Maintaining views of surrounding natural features (Sleeping Giant); 50
  • 48. CASE STUDIES- Integration of Aboriginal heritage; “The vision for Prince- Expanded marina with new slips, storage and service; Arthur’s Landing includes- Better waterfront-downtown linkages (e.g., pedestrian walkways); an important commit-- Incorporating existing structures and artifacts (e.g., marina foundation,boulders, grain elevators) to create a cultural landscape; ment to public art, which- and creating a new public park programming facility with active and features the amazingpassive recreational features, cultural facilities (festival area, museum), and talent of regional artists.tourism opportunities. The waterfront will be- come an arts-based des-Key Urban Design Concepts: tination drawing visitorsThe key urban design concepts for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront, specificallyPrince Arthur’s Landing, are administered through urban design guidelines. from the region, CanadaAll of the guidelines promote the experience of the pedestrian and their and around the world.” -relationship with the water. Attention to detail, pedestrian facilities, and Calvin Brook, Principal, Brookbuilding orientation and materials are some of the methods employed to Mcllroy/Pace Architectspromote the best and highest use while reflecting the local character ofThunder Bay. Finally, the whole redevelopment is tied together by the stra-tegic location of five unique beacons. These are architecturally significantvertical elements which orient and attract people and give the waterfrontdistrict a sense of place.- Access to the shore should be clearly public and continuous for thelength of the study area.- Roads, pathways and buildings should support convenient, accessible,non-motorized travel, including walking and cycling through dedicatedbike lanes, weather-protection features for pedestrians such as canopies Below: Thunder’s Bay’s waterfront is al-and washroom facilities. most entirely publicly accessible. Its lo-- Key views to the lake from downtown streets should be protected. catio adjacent to the working port and- Material choices for buildings, walkways and other park elements should downtown make it a great comparison toreflect the local character of Thunder Bay, be of high quality and Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor. 51
  • 49. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES be easily maintained. - Park and Village programming and tenants should be geared to support all-season use. - Environmentally sustainable design should be employed wherever feasible. - Retail uses should be clustered and located near high traffic areas to reinforce economic sustain- ability. At-grade, multi-story buildings are pre- ferred locations for retail. - Building orientation, landscaping, signage and circulation patterns should reinforce the clear demarcation and separation of public and pri- vate spaces. Prince Arthur’s Landing, Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines Inner Harbor Impact: The City of Milwaukee can use Thunder Bay as a case study for redevelopment for a number of reasons. The Thunder Bay site and Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor both share a common boundary of a rail corridor. In Thunder Bay, they decided to treat that as an opportunity and create a new train station which opens into the heart of the redevelopment. Milwaukee has that same op- portunity. Because of the similarity in climates, Milwaukee can also borrow on Thunder Bay’s approach to all-season use and incorporate seasonal or year- round facilities for entertainment. Milwaukee also has the opportunity to make the Inner Harbor unique by creating a new cluster or district through marketing devices, zoning, or pro- viding good design which will attract a certain group of users. By paying attention to detail, the Inner Harbor will become interesting by design - the use of repetition and distinguishing features can tie the area together, allowing for a sense of place that people will remember and revisit. Finally, the Thunder Bay case study provides Mil- waukee a case study on the incorporation of sust-52
  • 50. CASE STUDIESainable practices. Through master planning and urban design guidelines,Thunder Bay has been able to incorporate some of the best practicesin stormwater management, building design and orientation, and habitatrestoration. These all contribute to a heathier waterfront and a bettereconomic and social environment. Below: Thunder’s Bay’s waterfront of- fers entertainment during all seasons. A Milwaukee can borrow Thunder BMX/Skatepark and an Ice Rink are two of the entertainment venues offered on Bay’s approach to all-season use... Prince Arthur’s Landing. Because of the and incorporate year-round facili- similarity in climate, Milwaukee can use Thunder Bay as a reference to all-season ties for entertainment. entertainment venues. 53
  • 51. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS PUBLIC ACCESS GREENWAY Tennessee RiverPark- Chattanooga,Tennessee The master plan for the Tennessee River park defined a vision for the fu- ture development of the inaccessible and industrial edge of the Tennessee River as it passed through Chattanooga. The plan called for the sensitive distribution of new development, nature preserves and public parks and continuous trail system along twenty miles of the river. Negotiations with industrial and commercial landowners for easements through their prop- erty were successful, and the first eight miles of public trails were devel- oped within three years.This project has long been a positive symbol of Chattanooga’s rebirth as a progressive, highly livable city, and has become a model for the Inner Harbor to emulate. ial ustr Ind WATERFRONT INITIATIVE Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, Washington D.C. The components identified in D.C.’s Waterfront Initiative are environment, Residential transportation, parks, destinations and neighborhoods, which are respec- Downtown Chattanooga tively represented by the themes Restore, Connect, Play, Celebrate andAbove: Tennessee RiverPark is a series Live. The ultimate goal of the initiative is a vibrant mix of natural and neigh-of natural and active parks connected borhood assets along a clean Anacostia River, and preservation of naturalby a multimodal pathway which passes resources for the benefit and enjoyment of residents and visitors.through industrial lands, residential neigh-borhoods and nature preserves before RIVERFRONT RECAPTUREterminating in downtown Chattanooga. The Connecticut River- Hartford and East Hartford, Connecticut The goal of Riverfront Recapture is to reconnect metropolitan Hartford with the Connecticut River and provide community access to the water-Below: Washington D.C. has invested in front through four beautiful parks in Hartford and East Hartford. Leverag-improving the Anacostia River. ing public access, Hartford hopes for economic development and public investment to boost the quality of life surrounding its waterfront. SPECIAL/ MIXED USE DISTRICT Red Hook: Brooklyn, New York Red Hook is a Brooklyn neighborhood on New York’s south side, at a hook- shaped peninsula of land extending The mixed-use district out from Brooklyn. Historically, the neighborhood was centered around allows for residences its bustling dockyards. From the mid- and industry to share 1800s to mid-1900s, Red Hook was a close quarters. While thriving neighborhood, home to Ital- heavy industry is pro- ian and Irish American longshoremen and prosperous industries. hibited, a large amount of business activity still takes place. 54
  • 52. CASE STUDIESOver the years, Red Hook was subject to a fate similarto other American ports. Industrial decline, disinvest-ment, and advances in technology dramatically alteredthe economics and as a result, the social fabric of theneighborhood was diminished. As the waterfront be-gan its decline, the surrounding neighborhood sufferedas well.Red Hook, despite its location in the City, resistedgentrification for many years. This is in part due to itsisolation. No subway line runs to Red Hook and theneighborhood is surrounded on three sides by waterand the fourth by major highways. It is still home toan eclectic mix of residential, commercial, and indus-trial properties. The neighborhood is also home toRed Hook Houses, one of New York’s largest housingprojects.Recently, interest has grown in this quirky neighbor-hood. Its waterfront warehouses, cobblestone streets,views of lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty,and small-community feel have all fed interest in theneighborhood. The site is now home to one of theworld’s largest IKEA stores, newly constructed at aformer dry dock site. Current residents, while inter-ested in economic gains, are also concerned aboutthemes familiar with gentrification: increases in pop-ularity, costs of living, and subsequent displacement.Business concerns are similar: increases in popularitywill undoubtedly make their job harder and drive upthe cost of doing business.In response to these diverse concerns, New York Cityplanners created a special mixed-use district in the Top: Red Hook’s zoning map contains acenter of the Red Hook neighborhood. The mixed-use district allows for special purpose district which allows forresidences and industry to share close quarters. While heavy industry is mixed use of industrial and residentialprohibited, the district allows for a large amount of business activity to take Middle: Red Hook’s special mixed Use DistrictDespite some challenges, the district has been cited as a successful integra-tion of residential and industrial uses. The City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, Bottom: One challenge facing the mixrecently modeled a district after the example of Red Hook. of residential and industrial is the amount of noise industrial uses can produce. 55
  • 53. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter provides a framework for the future of Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor. Previous chapters identified both the history, political climate and existing conditions of the site. They also described relevant case studies and characterized the stakeholders. This chapter outlines strengths, weak- nesses, opportunities, and threats, and general economic opportunities and Every state except provides redevelopment and design strategies for the Inner Harbor.Wisconsin and Indianahas more employees in The next chapter will refine the identified recommendations and strategies by creating an outline for future steps to development. Together with thegovernment jobs than information in this section, the final chapter will complete a cohesive strat- industry and egy for revitalization of the Inner Harbor. manufacturing. A cornerstone of the framework for the future of the Inner Harbor is a focus on economic development. Below are excerpts from Milwaukee’s Citywide Policy Plan regarding land use policies, emphasizing the impor- tance of economic aspects of redevelopment: Milwaukee Citywide Policy Plan, Land Use Policies I. Use a targeted catalytic approach to plan land use and development to meet and stimulate existing and future market demand for residential, commercial, and industrial uses and to strengthen the local and regional economy. The location and relation of the City’s land use combined with the details of its land development program significantly impact economic activity, strength, and competitiveness. Land use and development can help strengthen the city’s position as the economic and cultural center of south- eastern Wisconsin. C. Strengthen commercial and industrial centers, districts, and corridors and expand commercial and industrial activity. 2. Preserve industrial land uses and revitalize the industrial economy for a changing global and regional economy. Consider clean and green industries, clean water technology, research and development, and eco-industrial parks as redevelopment options for vacant and underutilized industrial property. Support the industrial employment base by allowing and encouraging lim- ited commercial development near industrial districts that complement the needs of employees and businesses. “Make no little plans.They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably them-selves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work…Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us...Think big.” Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect.56
  • 55. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (S.W.O.T) ANALYSIS The Inner Harbor presents an ideal development opportunity for the City of Milwaukee. Through multiple redevelopment plans, area studies, and al- The Inner Harbor ternatives analyses, various stakeholders have outlined their desired future uses of the area. However, until this point, there has not been a plan com- represents one of bining all the stakeholder interests while understanding the constraints ofthe last large under- the site. developed areas in The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (S.W.O.T.) Analysis Milwaukee. is used as a strategic planning tool, particularly for redevelopment, to iden- tify the key factors that are important to achieving the objectives of the various stakeholders. The analysis must first start with defining a desired objective. Because there are multiple stakeholders with multiple objectives, The Inner Harbor consideration must be given to key elements of each respective plan or strategy. The result is a synergy that is otherwise unattainable as individual area has over 90 entities.separate brownfield • Strengths are defined as characteristics of the site that give it an advan- sites. tage over other sites in the City, State, or Country. • Weaknesses include characteristics that place the site at a disadvantage relative to others in the City, State, or Country. • Opportunities present external elements that support this site for de- The large space velopment.could house...a spe- • Threats are external elements that could cause trouble or create bar- riers to development.cific industry cluster. STRENGTHS The Inner Harbor represents one of the last large underdeveloped areas in Milwaukee with over 700 total acres. However, the Inner Harbor still The political cli- serves as a working port, as well as an industrial area. With UWM’s ongo- mate in Wisconsin ing investment in the School of Freshwater Sciences, the Inner Harbor will have a strong anchor interested in future development. The Inner Harbor may have an effect Area is already zoned to continue industrial job development, aiding in areaon near-term devel- job growth. All these factors make the Inner Harbor an attractive redevel- opment area.opment possibilities. WEAKNESSES The Inner Harbor area has over 90 brownfield sites (including both open and closed sites), and the potential costs for cleaning the remaining open sites present a financial challenge. Some of the existing industrial uses will also need remediation if they will become other types of uses. The In- ner Harbor area also contains a lot of deteriorating infrastructure, such as crumbling streets and railway overpasses.58
  • 56. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESOPPORTUNITIESThe Inner Harbor site has great potential for varying uses. The large amountof available space could house new industry, ideally a specific industry clus-ter. The Milwaukee Water Council and the Wisconsin Energy ResearchConsortium both represent cluster possibilities. The City of Milwaukeewants to see the area redeveloped, and can help to leverage more supportfor redevelopment. Because of the size of the area, the Inner Harbor areacould also become a new district for the City, or provide new space forurban agriculture.Like the Menomonee Valley andGoose Island, the Inner Harbor hasthe opportunity to pay homage topart of its industrial heritage. Thesmokestacks from Solvay Coke plantremain on the Inner Harbor site andcan be used as a focal point, a des-tination spot, or a marketing tool.Although the smokestacks in theMenomonee Valley since been re-moved, their presence influenced thestormwater park design and their re-mains now act as a focal point andmeeting place for pedestrians usingthe Hank Aaron State Trail.Finally, by having plans in place anda strategic approach to redevelop-ment, Milwaukee can position itselfto receive needed maintenance im-provements on existing infrastruc-ture. These improvements will go along way in allowing sites to open upfor redevelopment while limiting anynew capital costs to taxpayers.THREATSSome external barriers to the redevelopment of the Inner Harbor include Above: From top to bottom; thethe available industrial land in the Menomonee Valley and in other parts Menomonee Valley in Milwaukee, Gooseof the City. The Valley has previously been redeveloped and is thus more Island in Chicago, and the Solvay Cokepoised to host new industry or expansion of existing industry. Second- Site in the Inner Harbor of Milwaukeely, the current political climate in Wisconsin may also have an effect onnear-term development because of the tax climate for businesses and theways in which federal, state, and local authorities decide to prioritize theirspending. 59
  • 57. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES To specifically identify various strategies and alternatives, the Inner Harbor New Urbanist Development is broken down into seven study areas or distinct sub-areas. These sub- Characteristics areas fall under three distinct types: the neighborhood, the district, and the corridor. Within each there are various recommendations and strategies, Neighborhoods based upon a New Urbanist approach to development. 1. A defined center and an edge, the center can be an eccentric location if there is a shoreline. Public open For each sub-area, the chapter defines the location and boundaries, eco- space and public buildings. Edge nomic concerns, transportation, land use and public space. It also provides can be natural or infrastructure. specific recommendations for redevelopment, and summarizes strategies 2. The optimal size is a quarter mile created in the Inner Harbor Design Studio. from center to edge. This allows it to be pedestrian and bike friendly. 3. The neighborhood has a balanced mix of activities. Mixed use, with NEIGHBORHOODS uses: dwelling, shopping, working, KILBOURN’S DIG NEIGHBORHOOD schooling, religion and recreating. 4. Structures building sites and traffic Location on a fine network of interconnect- Kilbourn’s Dig Neighborhood is located south of and across the river from ing streets. Multiple routes to the Third Ward, East of Walker’s Point, and north of the School of Freshwa- diffuse traffic and shorten travel ter Sciences and Lapham’s Field Industrial District. distances. Slows automobile activity and encourages pedestrian comfort. Economic Development 5. Priority to public space and to the The neighborhood is currently replete with industrial properties and va- appropriate location of civic uses. cant brownfields. The location on the harbor and at a natural extension of Water Street can make it an ideal redevelopment location. While there are Districts large industries located in the neighborhood, most are not noxious, loud, or 1.Districts are specialized but allow multiple activities to support their incompatible uses with commercial or residential properties. primary identities. 2.Industrial evolution and environ- Transportation mental regulation reduces the need The neighborhood is bisected by two rail corridors, and is the site of large for segregating uses. The modern parcels. Consequently, the street grid is weak and interrupted. The main workplace is not a bad neighbor to dwellings and shops. east-west corridor into the neighborhood is National Avenue, and Water 3.Organizational structure parallels Street extends through the area, but with very low traffic counts. that of the neighborhood and relies on its relationship to transit. Land Use 4.Public spaces, circulation, clear The western edge of the neighborhood along the KK corridor is residen- boundaries. tial and mixed- use commercial. The area is predominately zoned industrial Corridors as you approach the Inner Harbor. 1. Connector and separator of neigh- borhoods and districts. Public Space 2. Characterized by visual continuity. Currently, the area’s main public space is the boat landing at the end of 3. Most universally used public spaces as they connect. Bruce Street. This location is the natural site for a future public place. Also, 4. Imperative to use good design to all designs from the studio feature a continuous, public-access harbor walk create strong form. along the length of the water’s edge.60
  • 58. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESGeneral BoundaryCurrently, the area with redevelopment potential is south of Pittsburgh Av-enue, north of Washington Street, East of Kinnickinnic Avenue, and bound-ed to the East by the Inner Harbor.RecommendationsOf the entire Inner Harbor area, this neighborhood shows some of thestrongest potential for redevelopment. Redevelopment should focus oncreating a neighborhood in line with the principles of new urbanism – intoa vibrant, compact, mixed-use neighborhood with new residential and com-mercial structures. Considering the current character, with proper regu-lation, it is still possible to accommodate many existing industries. An es-sential first step in redevelopment is reconnecting and extending the streetgrid within the area. This can be accomplished by first extending WaterStreet, enhancing its importance as a corridor.Redevelopment Strategies1.Waterfront Neighborhoods Above: Kilbourn’s Dig Neighborhood Lo-The Studio in Urban design has produced many strong iterations of this cationsubarea. While each iteration differs in character, all feature similarities. Allfour designers emphasize residential development, creating a unique, newwaterfront neighborhood on the Inner Harbor. Redeveloping this area willreconnect Walker’s Point to the waterfront. Also, all four feature a majorfocal point ending at Bruce and Water St., with an associated public space, Bottom Left: Waterfront amenities likeand all integrate a continuous harbor walk. Some commercial uses are parks and urban spaces are one way toadded along the main corridors, including National Avenue, Bruce Street attract people to the waterfront.and Water Street. Also, the designers incorporated multiple green spaces Below: One conceptual rendering ofor plazas as node parks along harbor. Kilbourn’s Dig neighborhood 61
  • 59. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESAbove: This design makes waterfront access evident via a distinctive street design for all Inner Harbor streets that terminate at thewaterfront. One example would be National Avenue.Below: Renderings of a proposed Harbor Walk. Setting back new residential development allows for continuous public accessalong the Harbor Walk, sure to become one of Milwaukee’s great public spaces. Mixed-use dense developments will activate thewaterfront, while creative spaces along the Harbor Walk will provide attractions for visitors to the Inner Harbor. 62
  • 60. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESTop: This iteration places high-value mixed use developments in an existing context, creating a diverse and unique neighborhood.Above Left: The popularity of the Milwaukee Marina can be replicated at a smaller scale in Kilbourn’s Dig.Above Right: A bird’s eye perspective of a public landing in Kilbourn’s Dig – the neighborhood is anchored by two hi-rise towers.Bottom Left: The public landing at the end of Bruce Street will provide recreational access to Milwaukee’s freshwater resources. Left: Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor has a rich his- tory imbedded in some of its existing structures. Adaptive reuse of histori- cal buildings will create a unique character to the neighborhood. Here, a restaurant occupies a former malting house. 63
  • 61. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESBelow: An iteration of Kilbourn’s Dig 2. Harborview:Transit- Oriented Developmentneighborhood, designed with New Ur- Harborview establishes a contemporary, transit-oriented neighborhoodbanist principles in mind. Here, density close to downtown Milwaukee, while creating a valuable asset on the un-and diversity of use increases along the derutilized harbor front. The development realizes the social, cultural, andrail corridor and waterfront, while leaving economic values of the Inner Harbor’s assets—views of Lake Michigan, theample room for public places. harbor entrance and Hoan Bridge, and the convergence of Milwaukee’s three rivers. The celebration of these views represents the true identity of Milwaukee. While Milwaukee’s downtown presents many symbolic connections to Lake Michigan, Harborview brings people to the water’s edge by increasing activity and improving public access. In a traditional industrial city, this pat- tern can only be accomplished when a large area of land is developed into a neighborhood framework that allows for creating the collective “view.” Harborview integrates sustainability in its overall design. The development features stormwater management in the form or bio-swales, detention ar- eas, and green alleys. Harborview also takes advantage of an underutilized asset, MMSD’s deep tunnel, by generating district heating from effluent wastewater. The development is interspersed with public spaces, includes multi-use paths, and features a harbor walk and several public plazas. Future studio projects could focus on the specific types of housing and public places that can make this neighborhood stand out. Designs can ex- plore models to integrate single-family housing with high-density, high-rise development. Designs may also explore waterfront design, activities, and experiences to improve Milwaukee’s regional and national identity. Above: A rendering of a redesigned pub- Above: This design scheme features high- lic space at the end of Bruce Street and density at the water’s edge. It allows for Water Street which offers a true reflection ample public access to the waterfront via of the grand nature of the location’s views. the street layout and ample plazas and green space. 64
  • 62. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESDOCKLANDS NEIGHBORHOODLocationThis area sits on the bend of the Kinnickinnic River, adjacent to the north-west side of Bayview. Lincoln generally marks the southern boundary ofthe neighborhood, Kinnickinnic St. on the east, 4th St. on the west, andbetween Maple and Mitchell Streets on the north.Economic DevelopmentThe Docklands has a smaller role to play in the economy of the city cur-rently. Many of the parcels serve as boat storage during the winter, as wellas providing warehouse and light industrial space.TransportationThe neighborhood has major street connections with 1st St. and KK St.The area has access to a number of bus routes but all the routes run alongthe periphery of the site. Both 1st Ave. and KK feature bike lanes, and theside streets all have low enough traffic counts to also accommodate traffic.Land UseCurrently the Docklands area has a combination of boat storage along theKK River, and light industrial/warehouse facilities scattered throughout therest of the neighborhood. Residential areas sit around the outlying edgesof the neighborhood, but the Docklands has no internally situated residen-tial space. The neighborhood has no retail commercial space currently, butdoes have businesses located there that utilize the light industrial areas.Public SpaceThe neighborhood currently has little available public space, aside from theright-of-way. Lincoln Fields sits on the southwest corner of the neighbor-hood, and is the only park. Above: The Docklands NeighborhoodGeneral BoundaryThe Docklands Neighborhood surrounds the bend in the KK River, where Below The new Horny Goat Hideawayit turns north and then towards the east. The neighborhood is generally is an anchor for the future of the Dock-bound by Kinnickinnic St. on the east side, Lincoln Ave. on the south side, lands Neighborhood.4th St. on the west side, and somewhere between Maple St. and Mitchell St.on the north side.RecommendationsRedevelopment to the neighborhood should create a stronger identity forthe area, as well as better connections to the surrounding neighborhoods.Underutilized properties in the neighborhood present opportunities tocreate more active, vibrant places. Adding to the street grid will providemore connections to the neighborhood, and open up new spaces. Any new 65
  • 63. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES redevelopment strategy should take advantage of the river’s location, creat- ing a focus on the bend area and giving Milwaukee another urban river that is a amenity to the city. Redevelopment Strategies 1. “Main Street” Neighborhood To increase activity in the neighborhood, 1st St. could become a main street of the neighborhood, offering mixed-use retail. The neighborhood could increase higher-density housing, and also become a commercial hub for the south side area. The more intense use of the neighborhood will increase the activity in the neighborhood over the whole day, not just during work- ing hours. A riverwalk along the KK River will provide access to the water, as well as increase the amount of public space through the middle of the neighborhood. A riverwalk along the KK River will provide access to the water, as well as increase the amount of public space through the middle of the neighborhood.Above: Conceptual renderings of oneproposed neighborhood strategy. In orderfrom top to bottom they include: the ParkWetlands, the Harborview, the Bay Streetcorridor, and the Beecher intersection .Left: Conceptual Site Plan for the MainStreet redevelopment strategy 66
  • 64. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESDISTRICTS Below: The Lapham Field District is lo-LAPHAM FIELD INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT cated in the area which was formerlyLocation home to the Solvay Coke Plant.Lapham Field is the location of the old Solvay Coke Plant, just south of thecoal pile. It extends east to the project boundary and it split vertically bythe Canadian Pacific Railway.Economic DevelopmentWhile significant unknowns about the environmental character of the siteremain, the site is a prime location for brownfields industrial redevelop-ment. Following the brownfields redevelopment models of Milwaukee’sMenomonee Valley and St. Paul’s Phalen Corridor, Lapham’s Field can be re-purposed into a vibrant industrial district that complements the School ofFreshwater Sciences, and possibly home to a cluster of Milwaukee’s thrivingwater industry.TransportationThe site is situated on two rail corridors. The street network does notcurrently extend into this site other than on the north via Greenfield Ave.Land UseLapham’s Field is zoned heavy and medium industrial.Public SpaceMost buildings have been demolished on the site, and is in a ‘natural’ state.Therefore, it could be considered ‘green space’, but is by no means publicspace.General BoundarySouth of Greenfield Avenue, east of the Canadian Pacific rail line, boundedon the east and south by the Inner Harbor and the KK River.RecommendationsEnvironmental remediation of the brownfields is the first step. for rede-velopment. As the ongoing EPA study produces a more definite situation-al analysis, the City can formulate a practical environmental remediationstrategy. Industrial uses can also be mixed with open spaces, and/or urbanagriculture. Relocation of the coal pile is also crucial. It is important tolay a practical street network which provides connections to the City andregion, and is amenable to large trucks and industrial vehicles. This can beaccomplished by extending both Water Street and Lapham Boulevard into Above: An overhead plan of Laphamthe area, and redesigning Greenfield Avenue as a vibrant corridor. The sta- Field with new road infrastructure, indus-tus of the rail corridor a has significant impact on the development of this trial parcels, and building footprints witharea and the potential for parceling land. parking areas. 67
  • 65. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Redevelopment Strategies 1. Attract Industry Designers in the Inner Harbor Studio subdivided Lapham’s Field into large, multi-acre parcels with the intent of maintaining its industrial character. They also extended a street network into the area, although keeping it moderate in order to accommodate for larger parcels. Designers have en- visioned a large and thriving University at the end of Greenfield Avenue, providing a connection to Lapham Field. As in other areas, Designers have included a continuous Harbor walk to create public access to the water-Top: Extending Lapham Boulevard into front, connecting Kilbourn’s Dig, the Greenfield Slip, and the Grand Trunk.Lapham Field will allow for the develop-ment of a vibrant industrial district on un-derutilized brownfield property.Above Left: This perspective shows po-tential buildout of a Lapham Field PlannedManufacturing District (PMD).Below: Hemp has a wide variety of uses.Wisconsin is also one of the best places togrow the crop. 2. Urban Agriculture In their study “Brownfield Remediation: Solutions for Urban Agriculture”, a group from McGill University in Montreal explored some of the barriers to transforming brownfields to urban agriculture. The largest barrier is the cost of remediation to make the soil safe for agricultural production. The issue of high cost becomes accepted because of the redevelopment poten- tial. In this case, the expected revenue from urban agriculture tends to be low enough that remediation for these purposes doesn’t make fiscal sense. One way to make up this difference is with grant funding. The EPA has some available funding for brownfield remediation, but the available funding level will vary depending on the current economic and political conditions. For 2011, the EPA has awarded $4 million to 23 different communities. Different types of agriculture provide varying levels of remediation: some crops like corn, tomatoes and peppers can grow in contaminated soil with- out transferring those contaminants to the fruit. Certain types of trees can actually bind to and sequester heavy metals in their roots. Other types of crops can have a quick harvest time, such as bamboo and hemp, while vineyards, orchards and hops provide more long-term agricultural options. “The open policy issue is how…to acknowledge and remediate the displacementof the still-viable manufacturers…and preserve sufficient, affordable space in other areas for future industrial uses.” Brookings Report on Urban Manufacturing 68
  • 66. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESGRAND TRUNK DISTRICTLocationThe Grand Trunk District sits at the northern edge of Bay View, with theKK River and the Harbor framing the northern edges of the district.Economic DevelopmentThe Grand Trunk Railroad Company has previously used the site for its railconnections. The site also has a grain elevator. Most recently, the GillenCompany, a marine contractor, has signed a 25-year lease with the City tolocate their operations on two 15-acre parcels on the site. “...preserved and restoredTransportation natural lands in water-While the site has rail lines running through, it has remained largely inac- sheds and along rivers andcessible to many people. The site does not have many access points to it, streams boost the valueand the few it does have, not many people know about. In addition, the site of adjacent real estate,currently has few activities on it to draw many outside users in. which in turn increasesLand Use city tax revenues.”Most of the land use currently revolves around storage space, though muchalso lies vacant at this point. On the southwest corner of the site is St. Ecological Riverfront Design,.Mary’s Cement. A 4.9-acre area in the middle of the site must remain natu- APA, PAS Report Number 518-519ral because of the DNR-protected wetlands’ boundary extends over theproperty. Some of the other parcels along the KK River contain boat workactivities. Some of the space is currently available for lease, while otherplaces, such as Wrought Manufacturing, are actively in production. The onlyresidential use in the area also sits on the southern end of the site, with amix of single family residential, duplexes, and townhouses.Public SpaceAside from the wetlands, this site has no significant open space, and thewetlands remain inaccessible to most people.General BoundaryThe KK River and the Harbor frame the northern edges of the site, and BayStreet roughly holds the southern edge of the area.RecommendationsThe Grand Trunk site represents great opportunity for the city because ofthe combination of open space and proximity to the harbor. The City coulddevelop the available land for many different uses, and increase the level ofactivity in the district. Because the wetlands must remain, the City has anopportunity to use them for natural features that could incorporate somepublic open space into the area. Recommended uses can include Port ex- Above: The Grand Trunk site is just northpansion space, a special district, and/ or the preservation of wetlands. of the neighborhood of Bay View 69
  • 67. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Redevelopment Strategies 1. Planned Manufacturing District Using the case study of Red Hook in New York, Milwaukee can create a district which is bordered by residential infill on the south along Bay Street and flows into the exiting Bay View neighborhood. This residential land useBelow: A bird’s eye perspective of the would combine with a stronger commercial presence which would add toGrand Trunk site with an industrial land the Kinnickinnic Avenue corridor running through the heart of Bay View.use buildout. Finally, the presence of light manufacturing, which has always been a staple of the Grand Trunk site, could utilize this space for water related industriesBelow Middle: A proposed amusement or port-oriented uses. With the focus of The Port as an economic driverpark would use the whole Grand Trunk for the City of Milwaukee, this space can allow The Port to consolidate landsite while preserving the DNR wetland. uses and serve the City more efficiently. Using a PMD or industrial mixedBottom: A proposed amusement park overlay, these land uses can all coexist within the same district. 2. Amusement Park One possibility for the Grand Trunk site is to create an entertainment/destination district. Because of the site’s proximity to both the river and the water, there are op- portunities to create access with a river/ harbor walk. The wetlands also provide an opportunity to focus on public/green space, and could either become a natural feature for enjoyment, or for conservation and education. The remainder of the area can hold an entertainment venue, such as a lakeside park with rides and attractions. The rest of the site could also continue to house industrial uses, with a retail/mixed-use buffer, creating a gradient between the industrial area and the residential part of Bayview. Extending Water St. through the site to Bay St. will help improve connection and access to the eastern part of the site. 70
  • 68. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES3. Major League Soccer Stadium Below: The Highbury Pub in Bay ViewAfter twenty-seven years the Milwaukee Wave, as part of the Major Indoor is one of Milwaukee’s few soccer shrines.Soccer League, have become the most successful soccer team in Wis- Its guests are ideal supporters of a futureconsin history and arguably one of the most successful American soccer Major League Soccer team in Milwaukee.franchises in history. Building off their success at the indoor level, the Wavecould expand its current operations to join America’s largest soccer league,the MLS. However, this will not be possible without a new stadium and arenewed marketing effort aimed at a younger, soccer-minded crowd.Recent attempts to expand Milwaukee’s soccer success outdoors havefailed largely because the team was marketing to the wrong crowd andthere was no regional support, and also site location issues. By partner-ing with Chicago and Minneapolis, the City can create a regional draw to anational sport. This Midwest regional attraction will create local rivalrieswhile complimenting the existing regions in the northwest (Portland, Seat-tle and Vancouver) and east (New York, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia).It is also pertinent that Milwaukee gain the interest of soccer fans, thosewith discretionary income, and Milwaukee’s fastest growing population.Former efforts have marketed to a family-oriented crowd on the City’snorth end. Utilizing the Grand Trunk site will allow Milwaukee to caterto recurring fans in the area, not just families. Bay View’s creative class hasthe means and desire to support a new, urban entertainment venue, andMilwaukee’s Hispanic population on the south side has traditionally been agood supporter of local soccer. The MLS is always looking for internationalplayers and Milwaukee could draft a Hispanic star to start its team.JONES ISLAND (PORT) DISTRICTLocationJones Island is located south of downtown on Lake Michigan and at thewest side of the project boundary. The land in this heavy industrial districtis mostly owned by the Port of Milwaukee, but the Metropolitan MilwaukeeSewerage District Jones Island Treatment Plant is at the northern tip of theisland. Jones Island offers some of the best views of Lake Michigan, the In-ner Harbor, and Milwaukee’s skyline.Economic DevelopmentJones Island’s main occupant is the Port of Milwaukee. The Port is criticalto the economic success of the City of Milwaukee as well as the region andstate of Wisconsin. The Port allows Milwaukee manufacturers like Bucyrusand Rexnord to ship large cargo around the world. In addition, The Porthandles bulk commodities like salt, cement, and coal which are all essential Above: Jones Island is the peninsula ex-to the success and growth of the State of Wisconsin. While operations of tending north from the south end of thethe Port should continue to be the focus of economic development on primary study area. 71
  • 69. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESBelow: Jones Island is home to a random Jones Island, the consolidation of land (especially at the southern end)assortment of industries would allow for the integration of new industrial uses and port storage. Transportation Jones Island currently had sixteen berths for cargo vessels, provides con- nections to two railroads, and allows for truck access at its southern end which connects to I-94 and WIS 794. The transportation options, while primarily used for the shipping industry, do provide for limited automobile access at the southern end of Jones Island. These roads allow access to views of the Lake from parking lots under WIS 794 along South Lincoln Memorial Drive. There is also automobile access to historic Kaszubes Park on the western side of Jones Island. While the roads allow auto access, there is much to be desired for pedes- trian, bicyclists, and drivers alike. The crumbling infrastructure, railroad crossings, and multitude of confusing and unappealing signs make Jones Is- land undesirable for non-industrial users. Two opportunities for public ac- cess present themselves in the form of bicycle trails and a harbor walk. See the Public Space section below. Land Use The primary land use for Jones Island is heavy industry for Port operations and commodities and transportation-related uses. This land use should remain the primary focus of the Island, but should be consolidated to allow for public land uses and the inclusion of other industrial/office type uses. Public Space The Public Trust Doctrine and the 1923 lakebed grant made under State Statute Chapter 285 are two development tools the City of Milwaukee can use for Jones Island. The 1923 lakebed grant would “give a limited property title to the municipality for specific public purposes, for example park of navigation needs.” “Municipalities may fill lakebed areas. Any facility con- structed on lakebed must be widely available to the public and support the primary purpose for which the legislature made the grant.” Development in accordance with the aforementioned Public Trust Doctrine and lakebed grant could include extensions of the Oak Leaf Bike Trail from the south to allow stronger connections to Bay View, the Grand Trunk site, the CDF site, and other Inner Harbor locations; a harbor walk around the northernAbove: Kaszubes Park is the only publicspace currently on Jones Island. It is also tip of the Island to provide public access to Jones Island while allowing Portlikely the hardest designated “Milwaukee and MMSD operations to continue; creation of a pedestrian promenadeLandmark” to locate. It’s on Jones Island’s along the east edge of Jones Island to open lake views and encourage morewest side, directly adjacent to the coal pile awareness of the area while potentially generating economic activity; and a water taxi stop at the MMSD harbor walk park along the northern tip of the island. The Oak Leaf Bike Trail should also be continued as a dedicated 72
  • 70. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESbicycle/pedestrian path across the Hoan Bridge when it is reconstructed.General BoundaryJones Island is generally bounded by Lake Michigan on the east, the Milwau-kee River/Menomonee River confluence on the north, the Inner Harborand east Bay Street on the west, and east Lincoln Avenue on the south. Aclear boundary should be established on the southern end and consider-ation should be given to buffering the Bay View residential neighborhoodfrom the industrial Port uses.Recommendations- Retain Port as primary use.- Retain MMSD Treatment Facility.- Create more port storage (60+ acres) by consolidating parcels- Create more jobs by creating development sites and allowing Port-relatedindustries and uses.- Explore alternative energy technologies to reduce the impact of the coalpile on nearby uses.- Create a significant public space(s) along the eastern edge of Jones Islandand the northern tip around MMSD’s facility. Above: Unused space under Interstate 794 on Jones IslandRedevelopment Strategies1. Rotterdam Strategy for public space- At Grade BoulevardThe Hoan Bridge, a Milwaukee icon, might prove politically infeasible toremove, especially considering the recent funding allocation for its reha-bilitation. However, Milwaukee could learn from Rotterdam, a Dutch cityhosting Europe’s largest port and a population similar to Milwaukee. Rot-terdam, following Baltimore’s successful model of port redevelopment,consolidated its industrial activities to make room for mixed-use develop-ment along the waterfront. In order to connect two parts of the city sepa-rated by the Nieuwe Maas River, the City constructed the Erasmus Bridge,an iconic structure referred to as the “Great Swan”. The bridge meets anat-grade boulevard which hugs the shoreline and provides both movementthrough and access to the local area. Milwaukee’s 794 interstate could belowered to traverse Jones Island at-grade while providing a lift for irregularlarge vessel crossings, opening up the island for future high value uses.2. Sustainable/Green Port Above: The Erasmus Bridge in Rot-Increasingly, businesses and organizations are looking to the triple bottom terdam was part of an at-grade roadline and including environmental concerns in their operations. Jones Island redevelopment which opened a once derelict industrial district to more highcould be a great incubator for initiatives aimed at improving sustainability of end development.the Port of Milwaukee. Some examples include facilities for renewable en-ergy for docked boats, and development of greener industries by improvingexisting operations and implementing green practices. 73
  • 71. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES CORRIDORS GREENFIELD SLIP Location The Greenfield Slip is a corridor named for its location along Greenfield Avenue running eastward from Rockwell and terminating at the School of Freshwater Sciences (SOFS) on the Inner Harbor. It is the smallest (in acres) of the seven sub areas, but its strategic location in the center of the primary study area and its users (Rockwell, UWM, Port of Milwaukee) make it arguably the most important sub area. It acts as a separation of Kilbourn’s Dig neighborhood from the Lapham Field industrial district. Economic Development The future of Greenfield Slip depends largely on the relocation of the coal pile the Port of Milwaukee currently stores on the eastern edge. Because of its necessity, the short-term economic benefit of the coal pile is enor- mous to not only the City of Milwaukee, but the region and the State of Wisconsin. However, the long-term future of coal as a resource is unclear. With the emergence of sustainable and “green” technologies, replenishingAbove: The Greenfield Slip Corridor is the coal pile, especially in its current location, is unlikely. This opens thehome to Rockwell Automation, the WE coal pile site for potential future expansion of UWM’s School of Freshwa-Energies coal pile, the UWM School of ter Sciences and other campus related uses like dormitories, extended stayFreshwater Sciences, and more than ten visiting faculty housing, water research facilities, or a hotel.acres of vacant land in the heart of theprimary study area. Another opportunity for the Greenfield Slip which has been an economic engine for the Inner Harbor, the south side, and Milwaukee in general is“The federal government Rockwell Automation. The presence of Rockwell and UWM, along with should provide support vacant developable land between them, presents an outstanding opportu-to states to establish and nity for industries similar to Rockwell or related to fresh water to activateoperate advanced manu- the Greenfield corridor. This agglomeration will attract similar industries to the Lapham Field site as well as spur mixed-use economic development facturing centers that along the 1st and 2nd Street corridors. Transit-Oriented Development provide both research around a KRM station, a street car stop, and multiple bus stops is a likely to develop new, relevant optiontechnologies, and the edu- cation to help manufac- Transportation turers apply these tech- The Greenfield Slip is currently served by the Milwaukee County Transit System along 1st Street and an incomplete street grid system which dead nologies to their work.” ends at the SOFS along Greenfield Avenue. There are numerous opportu- Brookings Report on Urban Manufacturing nities for an expanded transportation network including Oak Leaf Bike Trail extensions, a KRM stop, a Streetcar stop, a Water Taxi stop, and a more complete road network allowing more than one access point east of the railroad corridors currently bisecting the site. Transit-oriented development presents a realistic opportunity for Green- 74
  • 72. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVESfield Slip as there are already two anchor land users (Rockwell and SOFS) Below: The small park at the end ofand more than eight acres of vacant developable land. Rockwell alone has Greenfield Avenue is the only public spaceroughly 2,000 employees who could support a Streetcar, KRM, or Water currently allocated for the Greenfield SlipTaxi stop, and a University campus is always a user of public transportation. Corridor. The views of the Inner Harbor argue for themselves that more public space is desirableLand UseThe primary land use along the Greenfield corridor is industrial. Becauseof the amount of vacant land and the potential for the removal and/orrelocation of the coal pile, mixed-use, transit-oriented development is adesirable future use for the Greenfield Slip. The inclusion of additionalneighborhood scale industrial and institutional uses is also welcomed.Public SpacePublic space is provided as a node park at the terminus of Greenfield Ave-nue on the Inner Harbor. This park should remain and be expanded to pro-vide a harbor walk along the northern and eastern shores of the GreenfieldSlip and Lapham Field sub areas. Additional civic and public green spaces “Redevelopment of theshould be incorporated into future development and should be centered Greenfield Avenue con-on transit stops like a KRM stop, a Streetcar stop, and/or other significantland uses. Stormwater management techniques should be incorporated text will require partner- ships with the City andinto public spaces as functional and aesthetically significant public features. landowners to provideGeneral Boundary public realm improve-Greenfield Slip is generally bounded by Washington Street on the north, ments, environmentalRockwell or 2nd Street on the west, Orchard Street on the south, and the clean-up and new infra-Inner Harbor on the east. structure.”Recommendations- Create a unique identity or brand for the corridor. From UWM’s Campus Master Plan- Remove the coal pile to allow for development.- Expand the UWM campus.- Activate street from Rockwell to SOFS.- Explore possibilities for Transit- Oriented Development.- Add private sector water research facility. Below: The School of Freshwater Sci-- Allow for public access along harbor. ences and the surrounding area should become a catalytic project for the City ofRedevelopment Strategies Milwaukee.1. Identify and ReconnectThe idea behind this strategy is to draw attention to the School of Fresh-water Sciences and reconnect the coal pile site to the rest of the City.Three main goals are achieved through good design and strong form. 1.)A new railroad bridge is created (for the high speed line) along GreenfieldAvenue. This bridge will be an architecturally significant attraction, designedto draw attention to the program area and the School of Freshwater Sci- 75
  • 73. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ences. The transparent nature of the bridge allows people to see its ar- chitecture while discovering the new campus on its western side. Finally, reconstructing the bridge and removing the mid-street supports will allow for a widened automobile and pedestrian experience which creates a newBelow, Left: A view from a revitalized corridor physically and visually, all the way to the Inner Harbor. 2.) Build-Greenfield Avenue leading to the School of ing mass at the corner of 1st Street and Greenfield Avenue will give theFreshwater Sciences and the Inner Harbor corner a distinction as a place and gateway to the SOFS. A minimum build-Below, Right: The Greenfield Avenue ing height of three feet on all corners will give the intersection an urbanand 1st Street node present a strong op- feel and allow for branding and unique physical form. 3.) Continuing theportunity for dense, transit-oriented de- urban form of the intersection, the last goal is to create a streetwall alongvelopment near existing neighborhoods, Greenfield Avenue in order to draw people to the SOFS. The density andmany workplaces, and UWM’s Inner Har- form will create a unique urban experience in the Inner Harbor and makebor Campus. the Greenfield Corridor a desirable destination within the Inner Harbor and the City of Milwaukee. 2.Water Works Campus- R & D for the water industry This project focuses on research and development from conception to reality through cooperative efforts between the school of freshwater sci- ences and future water-related industries. Technology and ideas stem from the research University section of this plan. Then, as science and develop- ment progresses, the research is conducted in labs and finally brought to production in light industry factories all on the same campus. This strategy provides research facilities for industry and test and production facilities for the University all on the same “water works campus”.Far Right: The Greenfield Slip, of pivotalimportance in the Inner Harbor’s revi-talization, may become an exciting pub-lic forum for viewing the industrial InnerHarbor.Right: Creative integration of water man-agement into the public space outside thenew School of Freshwater Sciences’ mainfacility. 76
  • 74. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES Above: The expanded School of Fresh- water Sciences closely integrates industry and water research with an innovative campus setting. Left: A relocated coal pile and remediat- ed site allows the terminus of the Green- field corridor to become a vibrant universi-KASZUBE LANDING a/k/a Contained Disposal Facility (CDF) ty and research setting, closely integratedLocation with nearby industries.The 44-acre Contained Disposal Facility extends out into Lake Michigan atthe southern end of Jones Island.Economic DevelopmentThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed the CDF site tomanage contaminated sediments dredged from Milwaukee’s waterways.Originally designed for 10-years volume of material, the USACE is nowredesigning it to hold an additional 20 years’ worth of dredged material.The site can only have buildout if WDNR grants approval for construction.New construction would also require additional engineering studies. Thesite also has a car ferry terminal on it on the southern side of the site.TransportationThe site only has driving access from land. Currently, no transit stops di-rectly by the site. The site also has a slip for the car ferry and a few otherboats. The main driving access to the site comes from I-794 or LincolnAvenue. The site is also within a mile of multiple types of rail access.Land UseOriginally designed for 10 years’ volume of material, the USACE is nowredesigning the CDF site to hold an additional 20 years’ worth of dredged Above: Named after the Kaszubes,material. The other main use is the car ferry on the southern end. The City Kaszube Landing is formerly known asof Milwaukee has been exploring siting a wind turbine on the site as a dem- the Contained Disposal Facility (CDF) site, which contains the dredging from the KKonstration project, pending approval. The City generally envisions the site River.remaining as a Port-related use, because of the environmental challengesfor residential and commercial development. 77
  • 75. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESBelow: The CDF in its current state Public Space The CDF site currently has no space available for public use. However, theMiddle: Lakeshore State Park is an CDF site is part of a Lakebed Grant of the City of Milwaukee (the Stateexisting model infill park on Milwaukee’s holds title to all natural lake beds, except where the state has given lakebedlakefront. grants to municipalities; in this case, the municipality is charged with ensur- ing public trust lands are preserved for public use). In interpreting this law,Bottom: Proposed renderings of oneredevelopment strategy if the city develops any part of this site, the development must allow for public access of the site. Any new development on the CDF location must allow for public access. General Boundary Lake Michigan touches three sides of the site, and the western edge of the site runs along South Lincoln Memorial Drive. Recommendations Factors to consider for redevelopment include environmental remediation, improved site access, connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, and new economic uses. The strength of this site is its location right on the Lake. If development can overcome the aforementioned factors, this site could serve as a highlight for Milwaukee. The site must provide public ac- cess to the Lake. Redevelopment Strategies 1. Freshwater Academic Territory This corridor builds on the future of the UWM School of Freshwater Sci- ences and various sites located along a new academic “path.” The Fresh- water Academic Territory begins at Greenfield Avenue, where the original School of Freshwater Science site is located. The academic path proceeds west on Greenfield Avenue until it reaches South 1st Street. At this point, the academic path continues South on 1st street where it crosses the Kin- nickinnic River. Where 1st Street and West Lincoln Avenue intersect, the territory continues east and terminates at the South Harbor Campus. 78
  • 76. STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES Below: Kaszube Landing is more than just the former CDF site. Here it is envi- sioned as an academic corridor and an extension of UWM’s School of Freshwa- ter Sciences. 79
  • 77. INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTMILWAUKEE’S INNER HARBOR: URBAN DESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES NEXT STEPS PLANNING As UWM’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning (SARUP) continues exploring possibilities for Inner Harbor redevelopment, project stakehold- ers should capitalize on the unique opportunity to open dialogue about the future of the area. Stakeholders should build on the momentum already generated for the Inner Harbor. The City can aggressively seek funding for planning related to the Inner Harbor. Two Federal Agencies, HUD and DOT, have unrolled a joint $75 million initiative to fund “localized planning activities that inte- grate transportation, housing, and economic development”, focusing on liv- ability principles. Also, the Federal $75 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II grants are viable avenues for transportation and redevelopment planning for the Inner Harbor. Initial planning for the Inner Harbor can focus on issues critical to creating viable redevelopment strategies. These issues include:Above: The existing coal pile alongGreenfield Avenue in the Inner Harbor Rail corridor analysis The two major rail lines that bisect the Inner Harbor study area will un- doubtedly exert considerable influence on redevelopment prospects. A comprehensive study could describe ownership and activity, both present and planned. This study could look at the frequency and intensity of use, examine the feasibility of layout options, and provide a cost-benefit analysis. Brownfield analysis The 93 brownfield sites present an obstacle to immediate redevelopment. A study could prepare a comprehensive inventory of the sites, with issues, costs, and recommendations for the types and stages of remediation. “Public Planning for infrastructure improvementsinfrastructure spurs Infrastructure improvements will spur and shape private investment in the Inner Harbor. Based on the redevelopment strategies, planners will create and shapes urban a plan for Inner Harbor-wide infrastructure improvements, including roads, growth.” sewer, and stormwater provisions. The Inner Harbor provides a great test- ing ground for new technologies, such as district power generation. Parcel analysis Several of the sub-areas identified previously have large tracts of underuti- lized land. These parcels, however, are owned by various entities with vary- ing property agreements. An extensive parcel analysis can pave the way for consolidation and parcel accumulation strategies as well as identify targets for teardowns and rehabilitation that the private sector would take on. 80
  • 78. NEXT STEPSTwo Specific examples are increasing additional port acerage through con-solidating raw material storage on Jones Island and new land for mixed usedevelopment via reevaluation of boat storage in the Dockyards District.Public access and park developmentPrevious City plans have prioritized increasing park and public access to thewaterfront. Immediate improvements in these areas could create the inter-est and environment conducive to larger-scale change in the Inner Harbor.DESIGNThe semester-long Inner Harbor Design Studio at SARUP was an oppor-tunity for students to envision the future of Milwaukee’s Inner Harbor.Ten students of architecture were allowed creative license in conceiving adesign for part of, or all of the Inner Harbor study area. Each iteration -whether master plan, sub area, or specific location - clearly offers a uniqueapproach for redevelopment. Taken together, along with the work of allI4ED stuidos, these design proposals and strategies present an excellentcollection of alternatives to be considered in future planning and designefforts.IMPLEMENTATIONStage OneThe most tangible and immediate project is redevelopment of the Green-field Slip. As previously discussed, UWM has made a strong commitment tothe Inner Harbor – the SOFS provides an anchor at the end of Greenfield,next to the water – a facility set to grow in importance and patronage overthe next five years. In order to activate the street, two things need to hap-pen – infrastructure improvements and a second anchor at the First St. /Greenfield node.Stage TwoWe Energies has recently committed to determining the feasibility forswitching the Valley Power Plant to natural gas-driven power generation.The Solvay Coke site presents a great opportunity for a revitalized indus-trial district close to the water and inter-city transit networks. The site,while denied Superfund status, could be eligible for remediation throughthe EPA’s Brownfields Awards. A remediated Lapham Field Planned Indus-trial District can link to the SOFS as a site for Milwaukee’s water clusterand an advanced manufacturing center, serving as a hub of economic devel-opment. A cleaned-up site may also host viable industries relocated fromKilbourn’s Dig, a new mixed-use neighborhood north of the site. 81