The Sconi

Key members of the Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission appear to believe their role involves assessing housing availability, facilitating development deals, or aiding in securing tax breaks. This perception follows the commission's 3-1 vote last month to endorse a 35-year-old "postmodern" building for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The decision was unexpected and contradicted by a similar state entity's conclusion.

The commission's website states it is “responsible for designating historic landmarks and historic districts and for approving Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) for permission to alter historic buildings.” However, during a meeting in early July, discussions seemed more focused on development particulars than historical or architectural significance.

At this meeting, staff argued that the downtown Milwaukee building known as 100 East is an “exceptionally important piece of postmodern architecture” deserving of the “historic” designation despite its age falling short of the typical 50-year requirement.

The commission comprises seven mayor-appointed members: a registered architect, a historian, someone experienced in real estate development or financing, a member of the Milwaukee Common Council, and three citizen members. Present at the July meeting were Alderman Bob Bauman, Ann Pieper Eisenbrown, Sally Peltz, and Jordan Morales. Pieper Eisenbrown ultimately voted against the designation without much discussion.

During deliberations, Peltz directed questions towards Bauman regarding financial aspects related to an investor group's request for historic preservation status to secure federal and state tax credits for converting an office building into apartments.

Peltz: “I would love to ask the alderman of the district…”

Bauman: “This is part of their financing package.”

Peltz: “That is what I concluded.”

They referenced 100 East Propco LLC’s request to qualify for up to 40% tax credits on their $28.75 million purchase conversion project. Approval from both city and state commissions as well as the National Park Service is required for such designation.

Bauman remarked on potential benefits:

“So, I mean if they can get this (designation) through the National Park Service, more power to them.”

Peltz questioned further:

“And in terms of high-end apartments?”

Bauman replied:

“No, I think it is going to be more mid-range.”

The conversation highlighted concerns about office space reduction:

“I think the building is almost empty now,” Bauman noted.

Peltz responded:

“Does that mean we have too much office space?”

Morales added:

“We definitely need the housing.”

Peltz countered:

“It is not going to be affordable housing.”

Bauman clarified that some units might be affordable due to tax incremental financing requirements.

Morales finally pointed out:

“But that is separate from the designation.”

Critics argue these discussions strayed from evaluating historical or architectural value. UW-Milwaukee Professor Don Hanlon previously criticized 100 East as detrimental to downtown aesthetics.

Despite Morales’ curiosity about financing dependence on designation being minimal (“I couldn’t care less”), he believed in its historical significance based on committee presentations.

Pieper Eisenbrown cast her dissenting vote without public explanation; she did not respond to comment requests alongside Bauman and Peltz.

Ultimately, another body has final say—the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Review Board recently rejected 100 East’s nomination. A board member described it as merely "a copy of a historic building."

Mike Nichols is President of Badger Institute. Permission granted for reprint with proper citation.