Like Lake Michigan itself, Milwaukee’s lakefront is often taken for granted. We bike along the pathways, jog the beaches, spread picnic blankets on the grass and sit lazily on lakeside park benches, hardly giving a second thought to what is the best front yard in Wisconsin.
But steadily and quietly – sometimes out of the public eye – plans are being made to irreversibly alter that front yard. Currently on the drawing board are proposals for all types of developments, including museums, a battleship built in 1948, a state park, an underground war education center, a digital theater, even a charter school.
“The lakefront is the jewel of Downtown Milwaukee,” says Charlie Kamps, president of the advocacy group Preserve Our Parks and an attorney active in lakefront issues for more than 30 years. “I’d hate to see it frittered away with ad-hoc, case-by-case development. And when you start putting things at the lakefront that don’t have any real need to be there, how do you say no to the next project?”
Nothing but doom and gloom nonsense, retorts Michael Cudahy, Milwaukee philanthropist extraordinaire and a moving force behind the $46 million Pier Wisconsin maritime education center at Municipal Pier.
“Let’s face it,” says Cudahy. “We need activity at the lakefront, we need excitement. We need it for the kids. To leave it gray and barren would be a tragedy.… Not touching the lakefront is like having seat covers in your new car.”
Clearly, the lines are drawn.
Within Milwaukee, it’s difficult to find an impartial opinion about the lakefront. The major players seem to have made up their minds, and much of the discussion devolves into personalities and questions of who knows whom.
From his office in Madison, landscape architect Phil Lewis has a different perspective. A nationally renowned pioneer in regional design who taught for five decades at the University of Illinois, Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin, Lewis has been involved in Wisconsin land management since the 1960s.
He realizes it is next to impossible to stop urban development. Yet development can be planned in ways that respect the environmental and cultural systems that sustain society, he says, “so we can protect them for future generations.”
Toward that end, says Lewis, you have to ask where to build and where not to build, what to build and what not to build.
“Those areas on the lakefront of Milwaukee,” he says with an easy laugh, “that’s where not to build.”
Could it really be that simple?
Coming soon?
When Milwaukeeans talk of “the lakefront,” there’s little need to be overly specific. It’s that five-mile expanse along the water just east of Downtown – from the beaches, the marina and the lagoon to the kite shop and open fields of Veterans Park to the old art museum and the new one with its fancy wings, all the way to Summerfest and the harbor.
At first glance, it seems as if there’s an abundance of open space along the water. But look again. Development within the past 50 years has all but erased open land from the War Memorial south to the Marcus Amphitheater at Summerfest. Meanwhile, open fields north along the lake have become more and more precious, with parking lots dominating good-sized chunks of Veterans and McKinley parks.
At one time, in the 1970s, there was a proposal to build high-rise condos on city land near the lakefront, east of what is now the Hoan Bridge. The plan was voted down by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. More recently, controversy has focused on city-owned lands along the southern portion of the lakefront.
Dan Steininger, first appointed to Milwaukee’s Board of Harbor Commissioners in 1978, says the commission’s main role is as a watch dog. “We have an important role to say no,” he says. In 2001, the commission negotiated a new 20-year lease with Summerfest after a long-fought battle with festival administration. And last year, it rejected Pier Wisconsin’s initial plan to build a white-winged, Calatrava-like center just off Municipal Pier, forcing the group to come up with a new design.
With the southern tracts along the water essentially developed, pressure is building for projects beyond the purview of the Harbor Commission – specifically, projects on Milwaukee County-owned parklands north of the War Memorial. “The real pressure is now on the county land,” says Steininger.
Among the proposals:
• America’s Freedom Center, a $70 million-$77 million, 100,000-square-foot complex north of the War Memorial, with educational exhibits on U.S. wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.
• The USS Des Moines, a 716-foot, seven-story decommissioned battleship to be permanently berthed along the southern edge of Veterans Park.
• A $3.5 million, 10,000-square-foot Native American education center/museum at the old Coast Guard station across from Alterra at the Lake.
• A conceptually approved $3.5 million, 17,000-square-foot, two-story expansion of the Milwaukee Community Sailing Center in Veterans Park, based on a 20-year lease signed in 2000 and subject to final county approval.
• Development of Lakeshore State Park on the island east of Summerfest. The $11 million-$13 million project has been approved, although details on amenities and buildings are not finalized and the city has not yet transferred the land to the state.
What’s more, Milwaukee Art Museum officials admit that another addition is likely, although perhaps not for 25 years or so. A sublease has already been signed for expansion of the museum to the north.
And then there’s the parking.
Parking is already a problem at the lakefront, especially during summer months. At issue is not just space but the environmental impact from traffic, fumes, asphalt and concrete. What will happen when there are hundreds of thousands of additional visitors attracted by new developments?
“Nobody is addressing the traffic and parking issues,” says outgoing Milwaukee County Supervisor Sheila Aldrich, who for eight years has chaired the Parks, Energy and Environment Committee.
Last June, to help resolve emerging controversies in this latest batch of proposals, the Milwaukee County Board formed the Lakefront Task Force, made up of representatives from various governmental entities – the Harbor Commission, Milwaukee’s Department of City Development, county supervisors and Common Council members – and members of groups such as the Greater Milwaukee Committee and the Park People, a nonprofit group working in partnership with the County Parks Department. One of the task force’s main purposes is to develop criteria to evaluate proposals.
“If you have any kind of project, you want it at the lakefront; it’s the most gorgeous piece of land in the city,” says task force chair Laura Schuett, an attorney and membership director of the Park People. “So there has to be a way to evaluate the projects in a methodical way.”
Another purpose of the task force, although not explicitly stated, is to act as a political buffer as it evaluates privately funded proj-ects put forth by powerful interest groups.
“There’s a lot of pressure, absolutely, especially when it comes to veterans groups, and with the Indians as well,” says Aldrich, a task force member. “You’re perceived as saying no to mom and apple pie.”
More than 30 years ago, local planning consultant Russell Knetzger joined a community coalition to stop construction of a freeway along the Milwaukee lakefront. Backed by city, county and business leaders, the unsuccessful freeway project would have been federally funded (see “Expressway on the Lake”).
The funding mechanism is a significant difference between lakefront development then and lakefront development today, notes Knetzger. “Private money is now the driving force behind many of the things that are threatening lakefront areas,” he says. “The attitude is, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. And that’s very hard to deal with.”
The Lakefront Task Force has been meeting since fall of 2003 and presented its “vision” statement to the county on Dec. 9. In January, the task force added prominent new member, Gloria McCutcheon, a DNR regional director. But with upcoming elections at the county and city level, including the election of a new Milwaukee mayor, the political playing field couldn’t be more uncertain. With all of the plans for new centers and attractions, a comprehensive plan for lakefront development is nonexistent.
War Museum
If you haven’t heard of many of the proposed projects at the lakefront, don’t worry. David Gordon, director and chief executive officer of the Milwaukee Art Museum, was unaware that the Community Sailing Center planned to expand. Bill Mosher, head of the sailing center, hadn’t heard of America’s Freedom Center. And these are people who are at the lakefront on a daily basis.
It’s not that complete confusion reigns. But it’s close. Part of the reason is that proj-ects are sometimes kept under wraps until commitments from big donors are secure. Part of it is that projects change and what is agreed upon originally may transform into something different. Another part is due to politics, such as the upheaval in the County Parks Department and, in the city’s case, a changing mayoral administration. And part is that different entities are involved – from the county to the city to the state Department of Natural Resources to the Army Corps of Engineers.
As an example, look at America’s Freedom Center. The center is not necessarily better or worse than many proposals. But it epitomizes the complexities.
First the question of who controls the land.
As a general rule, land from the Calatrava north is owned by Milwaukee County; land to the south by the City of Milwaukee and overseen by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. In the case of the Freedom Center, the land is owned by Milwaukee County and leased to the War Memorial Corporation, which in turn subleases the land to the Freedom Center. The War Memorial Corporation also subleases to the Milwaukee Art Museum.
The Freedom Center’s plans call for a $70 million-$77 million building north of the War Memorial. To minimize blocking lake views, the building is partly underground, although sections extend significantly above the Lincoln Memorial Drive retaining wall and futuristic glass towers rise at the northern end.
Architectural drawings have been shown to potential donors, articles have appeared in select publications and a sophisticated Web site has been developed. The estimated completion date is November 2006.
Yet there has never been a public announcement of the project, nor has there been a public hearing, even though the center will be built on public land.
“We expect an announcement sometime early in the year,” Robert Cocroft, president and chief executive officer of America’s Freedom Center Foundation, said in December. “We’re waiting for a major donor who is planning the PR.” Cocroft says County Executive Scott Walker has been apprised of the center’s latest plans but admits that is not the case with key county officials and staffers.
In December, this reporter brought drawings of the proposed center to the attention of John Schapekahm, a Milwaukee County corporation counsel involved in lakefront issues. Schapekahm looked with interest at the drawings; he had never seen them before. Nor had a number of other county employees and supervisors involved in the lakefront.
Schapekahm knew the Freedom Center was being planned. Several years ago, he was shown architectural drawings. But at that time, the proposed center was much smaller and was to be built in the concrete-enclosed empty space below the Lincoln Memorial Bridge. That proposal was subsequently deemed architecturally and aesthetically unsound.
Schapekahm was also involved in the 2001 lease negotiations concerning the Freedom Center, although the group was then known as the Wisconsin Veterans War Memorial/Milwaukee Inc. Building plans were described in the sublease as “the developments of new improvements on the WMC [War Memorial Corporation] premises to accommodate expanded operations and programming.”
At the time, there was little expectation that “developments of new improvements” meant a $70 million-$77 million building. Nor did the history of the veterans’ group indicate such ambitious plans. When the Wisconsin Veterans War Memorial group first incorporated in 1999, its purpose was to raise monies to help renovate the War Memorial Center. Only later did the focus shift to a separate education center.
Schapekahm, like others, describes the “chicken and egg” approach that complicates proposals. What should a group do first? Develop architectural plans, get funding commitments and then ask the county for permission to build? Or go to the county first and worry that the project may not be taken seriously because it doesn’t have financial backing or building plans are too vague?
But Schapekahm clearly thinks the Freedom Center has erred on the side of being too cautious in sharing its plans. During lease negotiations, “the whole operating understanding was that they would have to come back with their proposals before they were very far along,” says Schapekahm. “At the minimum, I think it’s poor planning on their part not to keep the county up to date on what they are planning to do.”
There is also a question of whether the planned center falls within the existing sublease or whether it requires additional land not controlled by the War Memorial and thus another lease. Cocroft says the project stays within the sublease boundaries. Others look at the drawings and disagree. It’s one of many questions that lawyers will resolve.
Cocroft says the Freedom Center is following accepted procedures. It has a sublease, it is raising money to ensure the proj-ect is viable, and when the time comes, it will go to the War Memorial Corporation and then through the County Board process.
There are several stages of approval in a lakefront project: the conceptual go-ahead, a lease and approval of the actual building plans. City projects generally go through the Board of Harbor Commissioners, then to the Common Council and mayor. County projects generally go through the Parks, Energy and Environment Committee, then to the County Board and county executive. At any step, problems can erupt.
There’s also the matter of whether a project is appropriate for the lakefront. Many have questioned whether developments that have nothing to do with Lake Michigan belong east of Lincoln Memorial Drive, especially those that block lake views.
Cocroft argues that the Freedom Center belongs at the lakefront so it can further the War Memorial’s mission “to honor the dead by serving the living through the principles of arts and peace.”
But might the Veterans Administration lands west of the baseball stadium, which include the VA cemetery, provide a more appropriate and more solemn connection?
“The concept and the vision was not to create an America’s Freedom Center somewhere in the City of Milwaukee but to be part of the War Memorial Corporation and to be located on these grounds,” says Cocroft.
But would the center consider another location?
“Our first and foremost effort is to build here,” he answers.
At some point, parking is going to have to be addressed, says David Drent, director of the War Memorial Center, a popular meeting venue that attracts 300,000 visitors a year. “We can pretty much go out of business if we don’t have parking here. And it’s barely sufficient right now.”
What’s more, the existing surface lots are also used by Milwaukee Art Museum employees and visitors. And the Art Museum has not been shy about jumping into lakefront controversies to protect its interests.
Gordon, the British-born head of the Art Museum who came to town in fall 2002, immediately became embroiled in the controversy of the original Pier Wisconsin design, which came under fire for its height and conceptual similarity to the Calatrava. Since then, Gordon has softened his statements, at least in public.
“I simply don’t know enough about it to comment,” he politely says of the Freedom Center. “We’ve had one presentation, to the Art Museum board, a few months ago.”
The Art Museum wrote a letter asking detailed questions, he adds. But as of mid-December, it hadn’t received a reply.
Cocroft, meanwhile, says relations have been “fairly good” with the Art Museum and that the Freedom Center had gotten “a nice thank-you letter from David Gordon.”
It’s clear both Cocroft and Gordon are talking in euphemisms.
Lakefront Battleship
Cocroft, Gordon and Drent are all extremely likable people. In fact, despite the many controversies at the lakefront, there are no villains in this drama. Everyone, no matter how much their visions may differ, believes they are doing what’s best for Milwaukee. And they are all working hard, often without pay, to make that vision a reality.
Take Dick Caswell, the moving force behind the USS Des Moines proposal. A retired Navy captain, he’s the prototypical hard-working American, the kind of guy you’d want for a neighbor. Frank Steeves, chief executive officer of Pier Wisconsin, has the contagious enthusiasm of a little kid who still believes in Santa Claus and just wants everyone to enjoy the Denis Sullivan schooner. Bill Mosher, of the Community Sailing Center, has a passion for helping those who can’t afford a boat to nonetheless sail Lake Michigan.
During numerous interviews, the only cranky person was former Mayor John Norquist. But then, perhaps it was Norquist’s petulance that allowed him to say aloud what others only think in private about certain projects, particularly the USS Des Moines.
“It’s a bad idea,” Norquist says bluntly, calling it “like something from another planet.
“It’s never going to happen,” he predicts, not wanting to even waste time talking about the Des Moines. “It’s expensive and the group doesn’t have the money.”
Mothballed since 1961 in a Philadelphia naval shipyard, the Des Moines needs a deepwater location and 1,000 feet of access to berth – more than three times the length of a football field. It will also need 24-hour lighting and security, perhaps including fencing, electrical, telephone, water and sewage hookups and possibly a road for deliveries. It will even need its own separate breakwater so the ship isn’t smashed to pieces during a storm.
There’s also the parking problem.
Caswell says sufficient parking exists at Veterans Park, the War Memorial, along Lincoln Memorial Drive and on top of the bluff. What he doesn’t mention is that such parking is already in high demand.
For most people, the battleship’s size is most worrisome. Even County Executive Walker, not regarded as a dependable protector of parklands, says he is concerned that the lake be kept visually open and that public access be protected.
Out-of-town visitors “are very impressed that we have a lakefront that is so open, both visually open and from a public access standpoint,” Walker notes. “That’s a legacy I would like to continue.”
Given that the battleship is 716 feet long, 76 feet wide and 70 feet high (with towers as tall as 125 feet), it’s hard to argue that the battleship won’t block views. To say nothing of the wind.
If the USS Des Moines is berthed at Veterans Park, it will be almost impossible to teach sailing within the nearby breakwater area, warns the Sailing Center’s Mosher. “There won’t be enough wind,” he says.
To date, the Des Moines hasn’t been conceptually approved. Many people believe the project is doomed by the $20 million it will cost to bring it here. Even supporters admit they have only raised $50,000 in three years, in part because they lack a definite location.
But looking only at finances begs the question: Shouldn’t there be a policy about what is and isn’t appropriate development at the lakefront? If the Des Moines is deemed too big and too questionable, as many say in private, why not be honest with its supporters and say so before the vets spend years trying to raise the necessary funds?
Caswell, meanwhile, says he is determined to berth the ship at Veterans Park. And what the group lacks in financing, it makes up for in willingness to play political hardball.
“There are 85,000 veterans in Milwaukee County, and with our wives, that’s a potential voting bloc of 140,000,” notes Caswell. “It would take a very brave politician to ignore that.”
Pier Wisconsin
Fifteen years ago, Frank Steeves had a dream – to build a 19th century three-masted schooner like the ships that once dominated Lake Michigan commerce and then to use the schooner to educate people about preserving the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water in the world.
“For a community of this size to have no institution that educates people about the lake, that’s appalling,” he says.
Today, Steeves’ dream is a reality. The Denis Sullivan, launched in 2000, is not only sailing the Great Lakes but has become the catalyst for Pier Wisconsin. Over the years, Steeves’ group has garnered incredible good will – organizing thousands of volunteers and members; providing programs to schoolchildren, with a focus on low-income kids; and working with a broad array of community and environmental groups to raise awareness about the Great Lakes. (Like many involved in lakefront issues, Steeves is an attorney; he heads up Pier Wisconsin on a volunteer basis.)
There is consensus that the schooner and an education center belong at the lakefront. But Pier Wisconsin is also a cautionary tale of how an originally modest idea can expand to what some call Disney-like dimensions.
Steeves’ original focus was on building the schooner. In 1999, the schooner group merged with Great Lakes Future, which had planned to build an education center at the old Coast Guard station. It seemed a natural fit.
In May 1999, media reports talked of a $6 million environmental education and visitor center at Municipal Pier. By fall 2001, reports cited a $20 million, 50,000-square-foot project. When Pier Wisconsin drawings were publicly announced in May 2002, plans had grown to a $30 million, 65,000-square-foot facility reaching 90 feet into the sky. Michael Cudahy, with all of his financial and political clout, had become a key backer.
In summer 2003, Pier Wisconsin received a 30-year lease from the city, with a lump-sum rent of $390,000. In fall, following months of criticism of the design’s height and Calatrava-like look, Cudahy and Pier Wisconsin agreed to open up the design to competition. In mid-January, an architectural jury, which included Cudahy, chose the local firm Hammel, Green and Abrahamson to design the building, shown in early drawings as a four-story glass box building. The building plans, however, have not yet been approved by the Harbor Commission or city.
Current plans are for a $46 million, 120,000-square-foot facility, with a height restriction of 65 feet overall and an average of 50 feet. Components include a 450-foot-long dock for cruise ships, a replica of the schooner, exhibits, a long-distance learning lab, media presentations, a state-of-the-art digital theater, an amphitheater, saltwater and freshwater aquariums, a cafe and a gift shop. Discovery World, a hands-on science/technology center, will move from the Milwaukee Public Museum to Pier Wisconsin but will have separate facilities and admission fees, according to Cudahy. The architectural proposal even includes a 14,000-square-foot charter school.
A charter school? How did that happen? It’s unclear. Even people involved in lease negotiations weren’t kept in the loop.
“My fellow commissioners have not heard about a charter school,” Steininger said in December. “Nothing has been presented to us – no request, no negotiations, nothing.”
Ald. Mike D’Amato, who closely follows education matters, likewise said the possibility of a charter school did not come up when the Common Council approved the lease with Pier Wisconsin last summer.
Steeves said in mid-December that a charter school “is in discussion phase only.… There are no current plans to put a charter school in this facility.”
Cudahy is more candid. Yes, a charter school is planned and is included in the architectural drawings, he said shortly after Christmas. Income from the school is even figured into the project’s finances.
How many students?
“A couple hundred,” Cudahy answers.
What grade level?
“Middle school probably. Middle and/or high.”
For now, that is all Cudahy wants to say.
But a charter school is not the only last-minute addition to Pier Wisconsin. Also planned for the building: the Cudahy-sponsored Discovery World museum, added on thanks to a deal between Norquist and Cudahy and publicized only when the Pier Wisconsin lease was drawn up.
The addition “came out of a meeting that Cudahy and I had,” says Norquist. “I said, ‘We’re not doing that design. We’re going to block it.’ Cudahy thought about it, decided to back off and then suggested that he would like to have Discovery World down there.… Finally, we reached a consensus.”
Cudahy’s version differs in terms of why and how the negotiations progressed but not on what was decided. He says the mayor didn’t care about the design but simply wanted the project moved south to placate the Art Museum and to bring peace to the community. Norquist also demanded that new parking be underground.
The mayor, says Cudahy, thought moving Discovery World was a wonderful idea and agreed that more space and a new design would be needed.
“So then we decided to throw the new design open to competition,” says Cudahy. “They all cheered and said, ‘Wonderful.’ ”
Does Cudahy think he came out ahead?
“Yes, I do,” he answers without hesitation.
Indian Center
When the Milwaukee County Board formed the Lakefront Task Force, it also approved a moratorium on new development on county-owned lakefront lands until a criteria for development is hammered out. Plans for the USS Des Moines fall under the moratorium, though opinions are mixed about America’s Freedom Center. County Executive Walker says the moratorium applies to the vets center as well.
Mentioned as an exception is the already approved renovation of the Coast Guard station as a Native American education center. The debate around the proposed center raised certain complexities. Milwaukee County took over the 1915 Coast Guard station from the federal government in the late 1980s, promising to preserve the facility and its architecturally historic Prairie style. When word got out several years ago that the county planned to raze the building, historical preservationists cried foul. Proposals were then sought for restoring the station.
The County Board approved the Native American center conceptually in March 2003. The group that will run the facility – the advocacy group HONOR (Honor Our Neighbors’ Origins and Rights) and its legal partner, Loonsfoot – calls for a $3.5 million, 10,000-square-foot facility that will focus on teaching schoolchildren about the state’s Native American heritage and culture. The group is now in the process of negotiating a lease with the county.
Jim De Nomie, director of the Loonsfoot/HONOR Center, as it is now called, says he hopes to break ground this spring and be operational by fall. One of his biggest hurdles will be raising money. Loonsfoot does not have federal tax-exempt status so does not file a federal tax return. But HONOR’s 2002 tax form shows that the group had only $50,098 in revenue that year and $1,688 in net assets.
De Nomie is not worried. “We have had a number of foundations, corporations and tribes that want to contribute,” he says. One anticipated source is the Potawatomi tribe, which owns Milwaukee’s bingo casino.
Aldrich and outgoing Supervisor Dan Diliberti were the two supervisors who voted against the Loonsfoot/HONOR Center, raising questions about the lack of parking and arguing that there is no inherent reason an Indian education center should be on Lake Michigan. Aldrich and Diliberti have been the quickest to question lakefront proposals and to fight for green space. As a result, Diliberti says, they have been unfairly tagged as anti-development.
“Everyone seems to think that the lakefront is undeveloped land,” says Diliberti. “I consider it developed. It’s a Milwaukee County Park.… Open green space and access to the lakefront is just as important as other organized activities.”
Diliberti says priority should be given to water-related projects. He’s a big fan of the Community Sailing Center, calling it “the one true public access for people who don’t own a boat to get out onto the lake.”
There is concern that continued development may not only edge out water-related and recreational activities such as skating and kite-flying but eat up the open space needed for gatherings such as Harleyfest and the July 3 fireworks.
Which raises another point. How much should the lakefront be reserved for activities that don’t cost money? Add up admission prices to the Art Museum, Pier Wisconsin or Discovery World, throw in parking and lunch, and suddenly families with children may think twice about whether they can afford to take advantage of the lakefront’s wonderful new attractions.
How the county will resolve these issues is unclear. Neither Diliberti nor Aldrich is running for re-election. Furthermore, the Parks Department not only has faced significant staff cuts but is working through the kinks of its merger with the Public Works Department. Newly named Parks Superintendent Sue Black, meanwhile, has yet to make her imprint on lakefront issues.
In other words, stay tuned.
On the Horizon
Summerfest, one of the headline-makers along the lakefront, has entered quieter political waters – for now. Howard Schnoll, president of Milwaukee World Festival Inc., said Summerfest is developing a new strategic plan and exploring everything from increasing mid-week attendance to year-round activities. References to Navy Pier in Chicago pepper his comments, and he admits something similar “is a possibility if everyone thought it was a good idea for Milwaukee.”
While specifics remain unclear, expect some changes. “Like any business, if you don’t improve, you’re going backward,” says Schnoll.
One project that has not sparked controversy is the high-speed ferry that will dock north of Bay View on land controlled by the Port of Milwaukee. The ferry is expected to begin service this summer, says Port Director Ken Szallai, adding that the Port has long wanted to re-establish water-based passenger service between Wisconsin and Michigan.
Szallai, meanwhile, is adamant that the Port’s 300 acres of rentable property south of the port be devoted to commercial, port-related activities. Yet the question arises: How long before developers, edged out of the Downtown lakefront, begin eyeing the huge tracts of land nestled under the Hoan Bridge and I-794?
While it is impossible to know how such issues will unfold, one lesson from history is clear: Pressure for development will grow. And once an institution gains a foothold, odds are it will eventually want more space.
“I can’t think of any development – from the Milwaukee River to the Yacht Club – that hasn’t expanded,” says Kamps of Preserve Our Parks, who is also an alternate member of the county’s Lakefront Task Force. “By their nature, developments are either going to expand or go belly up.
“On the other hand,” he continues, “what if you locate a new, well-financed building in the inner city or anywhere within the city limits? By putting everything on the lakefront, you lose the opportunity to upgrade the city itself.”
Of course, when questions are raised about developments that have nothing to do with Lake Michigan, the immediate rejoinder is, “What about the War Memorial and the Milwaukee Art Museum?”
Interestingly, it’s a debate that has shadowed the War Memorial ever since it was first proposed in 1944.
Various sites were debated, including Downtown along the Milwaukee River, Red Arrow Park and the bluff overlooking Lake Michigan. But when plans got serious after the war, housing was in short supply and several of the sites would have required demolition of homes and historic churches. Neighborhood residents sued.
At one point, Washington Park was suggested as a site, a possibility that from today’s standpoint offers intriguing second-guessing on how that might have altered the city’s historic pattern of neglecting neighborhood development in favor of Downtown and the lakefront.
By the early 1950s, people were tiring of the controversies and lawsuits. In an effort to resolve the matter, the lakefront site was chosen. No homes would be knocked down, no churches destroyed and the county already owned the land.
Originally, three buildings were planned: a veterans building, an arts center and a music hall. Money was short, however, so the veterans building and arts center were combined in the War Memorial Center. When it opened in 1957, designed by famed Finnish architect Eero Saarinen, it created a stir akin to the praise that would greet the Art Museum addition by Spanish-born Santiago Calatrava 44 years later.
The music hall, meanwhile, was postponed for financial reasons. When monies became available, the consensus was to build it Downtown near other entertainment venues and within easy access of bus lines and parking. Thus was born the Performing Arts Center (now the Marcus Center).
The Marcus Center’s Downtown location has proved a success. But not everyone was happy with the War Memorial’s location, especially its blocking of lake horizons.
“The placing of that War Memorial and art institute where it is purposefully cut off our view of the lake there,” Dan Hoan, Milwaukee mayor from 1916-1940, wrote in an April 14, 1958 letter to newspapers. “It is a crime against Milwaukee.”
Dan Steininger is Hoan’s grandson. He says that until Hoan’s dying day, he was so upset that he refused to go to the War Memorial. The memory of his grandfather stays with Steininger still – one reason, he says, he opposed the 90-foot-tall original Pier Wisconsin design.
Whether the War Memorial should or should not have been put at the lakefront is, at this point, moot. But should it be used to justify other projects that are not related to Lake Michigan?
There are no easy answers. But perhaps there can be guiding principles: What is the purpose of lakefront parklands in an urban area? To become a museum and tourism hub, a second Downtown? To educate citizens about the importance of the Great Lakes? To provide a gateway to sailing, boating, swimming and fishing? To act as a scenic backdrop for local institutions? To be an oasis and respite from the press of urban life, a playground for skating, picnicking, listening to the waves and enjoying the view?
How much can we demand from one stretch of property?
Nancy Frank, acting dean of the School of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says that to date, Milwaukee has done a good job with the Downtown lakefront. Like the more open areas of Chicago, Milwaukee has a lot of green space along the lake. Unlike Chicago, it had the sense not to build a freeway near the water.
It’s the example of Cleveland, where there is very little public land or access to Lake Erie, that worries Frank.
“It’s not so much that any one project will disrupt the current use and view of the lake,” says Frank. “But if we were to put all these new projects at the lakefront, or if we don’t develop criteria for when we say yes or no, the concern is that we are going to end up like Cleveland.”
Perhaps, in the end, it is Lewis – the regional planner who has devoted his life to exploring the relationship between urban density and our environment – who asks the most pertinent question.
“What’s more important? The lakefront or a building?”
Barbara Miner is a Milwaukee-based journalist. Her feature on the Greater Milwaukee Committee appeared in Milwaukee Magazine’s February issue.
Full disclosure
Milwaukee Magazine Publisher Betty Quadracci is a member of the Milwaukee County Lakefront Task Force, representing the Greater Milwaukee Committee. She is also a member of Preserve Our Parks. Her opinion on lakefront development, however, was not solicited and she was not interviewed for this story.
Water Rights
Milwaukee’s lakefront is owned by you.
Because so much land along Lake Michigan is privately owned, it’s easy to forget that the lake belongs to everyone.
In essence, the law recognizes that the waters of Lake Michigan – and the state’s navigable rivers, lakes and streams — are not owned by those rich or lucky enough to have shoreline property. They are common property for all to use equally.
The law is known as the Public Trust Doctrine, a dreadfully dull name for what is an important constitutional right.
Drawn from 6th century Roman civil law and incorporated into the Magna Carta in 1225, the doctrine made its way to the English colonies. When Virginia ceded the Northwest Territories, it mandated that the navigable waters therein shall be “forever free.” Such language was incorporated into the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848.
Thanks to the Public Trust Doctrine, no one can chase you off a Wisconsin lake or river, whether you’re the owner of a 75-foot cabin cruiser or an 8-foot dinghy.
Over the years, the courts have ruled that all Wisconsin citizens also have the right to enjoy their “natural scenic beauty.” If structures impair natural beauty, they can theoretically be deemed detrimental to the public interest.
But along with the Public Trust Doctrine is another concept that’s no less important: lakebed grants. Much of the land along the lakefront used to be water, including portions of Veterans Park, Municipal Pier, McKinley Marina and Bradford Beach. These landfills came under the Public Trust Doctrine because they are built on waters that, under the constitution, are to remain forever free.
The Public Trust Doctrine is not absolute, however. Some uses are allowed on lakebed lands – power plants or water treatment plants – with limited access. Similarly, security – protecting sailboats at the yacht club or buildings at Summerfest – may lead to access restrictions. At issue, though, is how far those restrictions reach.
Under the Public Trust Doctrine, a restaurant should be an amenity that is part of a public institution, not a privately owned operation that is a destination in its own right. When Pieces of Eight opened on Municipal Pier in the 1960s as a privately owned commercial venture, many say it was illegally built in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine. But according to a 1987 legal opinion, nothing could be done because the DNR did not object at the time.
Expressway on the Lake
Over the years, there have been various proposals for the lakefront that never saw reality – from cancer memorials to high-rise condos.
But perhaps the mightiest threat to the lakefront was a failed yet popular plan in the late 1960s to build a six-lane freeway joining up to the now demolished Park East freeway and I-794. According to the plan, Lincoln Memorial Drive would have been moved east and the freeway would have cut into the lake bluff and county parkland.
Seduced by the promise of federal funds and frightened by warnings of traffic gridlock, the city’s mover and shakers all backed the project – from the Common Council, County Board and Port officials to the Greater Milwaukee Committee, Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce, Milwaukee Labor Council and The Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Sentinel.
Five community groups banded together to oppose the Lake Freeway, a daunting challenge. With their options all but exhausted, they brought suit based on an obscure 1936 deed restriction preventing county parklands from being diverted to non-park use. A Circuit Court judge halted the project in 1971.
Fred Van Hecke, an attorney who argued the lawsuit for the opposition, finds a lesson in the anti-freeway struggle. “When you stack up the natural environment against the interests of concrete and construction contracts, watch out,” he cautions. “There ain’t no money in the environment.”
