There’s a little bit out there to comment on . . .
EDGEWATER TOUR
I considered going, but didn’t feel like listening to another sales pitch. Apparently Rummel concludes, yes, the huge building will change the views for neighbors (duh, but somebody had to say it) and Maniaci presents a false choice “Alder Bridget Maniaci, a member of the commission, said the group first has to figure out if ordinance language related to neighborhood’s historic district is meant to “stop destruction of historic properties” or “stop new development in historic districts.” I sat on the commission, I don’t think the commission needs to figure that out, generally speaking, it is clear that development is allowed, and we even said many times it shouldn’t look faux historic, but should reflect the time in which it is built. I think the ordinance is clear that new development is allowed, the question is, is it compatible? Here’s the language about “New Development” in the Historic District:
(e) Guideline Criteria for new Development in the Mansion Hill Historic District.
1. The gross volume of any new structure shall be visually compatible with the
buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related
area).
2. In the street elevation(s) of a new building, the proportion between the width and the height in the facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and the environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
3. The proportions and relationships between width and height of the doors and
windows in new street facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings
and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
4. The rhythm of solids to voids created by openings in the facade of the new
structure should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with
which it is visually related (visually related area).
5. All new street facades should blend with other buildings via directional
expression. When adjacent buildings have a dominant vertical or horizontal
expression, this expression should be carried over and reflected.
There’s other areas of the ordinance that come into play and the commissions job will be to try to balance it all and decide if it should get a certificate of appropriateness and consider:
c. Whether, in the case of any property located in an Historic District
designated pursuant to the terms of Subsection (6)(d) hereunder, the
proposed construction, reconstruction or exterior alteration does not
conform to the objectives and design criteria of the historic preservation
plan for said district as duly adopted by the Common Council.
So, the question becomes, should they get a certificate of appropriateness and does it conform with its plan. My guess is, they won’t make a final decision on Monday, but you never know.
IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING
Hmmm . . . Badger Depot closing causes confusion . . . no kidding, who didn’t see that coming.
“CABLE COMPETITION” BILL NOT DELIVERING
Again, who didn’t see this coming. Rates are up, union jobs are down, and its the beginning of the end of public cable access as we know it. In the Milwaukee area alone the they’ve lost 300 union jobs, or 15% of the jobs.
THE SAD STATE OF THE MEDIA
Sometimes, a picture is worth a 1,000 words. This used to be functioning media room at city hall . . . and now . . . its where they store the chairs.
Better yet, or I guess, worse . . . the other day when I cut through there, one of the computers had a “blue screen of death” on it.
BANDS, PROMOTERS, SOUND GUYS (OR GALS IF THEY EXIST?), ETC, NO DRINKS FOR YOU!
I have the week off, so I was reading the . . .gasp . . . thedailypage forum. Generally, to be avoided as it just devolves into a nasty round of insults, but this discussion is of interest . . . as they note, while its hard to argue that bartenders should be able drink on the job, they bring up some good questions about brewmasters and others. Was the ordinance intended to be that broad? Here’s the ordinance proposal in question proposed by Schumacher and the Mayor:
(8) It shall be unlawful for the licensee, agents, officers, directors, partners, members, managers of the licensee, or any employee or independent contractor of a licensed establishment, including members of the licensee’s immediate family, to drink or consume any alcohol beverage or to be under the influence of an intoxicant, or a controlled substance or a combination of an intoxicant and a controlled substance, while working or performing services on the licensed premises.
BURY THE BAD NEWS
Instead of discussing this during the budget, they release it during a slow news week/when no one is paying attention, but the city is facing a deficit for the first time in 20 years. Not by much given we have a $239M operating budget, but $3.4M still hurts when taking it out of our reserve. It’s also interesting that when looking at the city budget, you can find 16 fund balances, but not the amount that is in the reserve listed anywhere.
Eh, that’s all I got for today . . . Happy Thanksgiving.
