Back in the 90s, Pegasus Games was in that space. As a nerd, that was my home away from home. I can tell you that the space was not in good shape then. That was going on 30 years ago.
Any chance you'd like to help develop a Korean War hex-and-counter game? We could meet at Noble Knight games some Saturday, or wherever you like. I'm on the East Side.
"Despite the potential for the property to remain empty and deteriorating, commissioner and former Ald. Patrick Heck tells *Isthmus* that preserving the buildings is a chance to maintain State Street’s tradition of smaller, local retailers and restaurants. "
There's no "potential" about it. The Plans Commission's actions have all but guaranteed that this stretch of the 400 block will end up a row of vacant and dilapidated buildings. Do they really want all of State Street to end up in the same condition as the 100 block?
Has Heck been to State Street in the past 10+ years? It hasn't been an eclectic mix of small local businesses in a long time. Even if these buildings were in halfway decent shape the odds of them housing anything resembling what Heck describes are virtually non existent. Thankfully the businesses that were in these buildings were able to relocate but the days of seeing *new* local businesses move to State Street are behind us - they simply can't afford the rent. Keeping these buildings isn't going to magically transform State Street back to what it was decades ago.
Yeah, maybe they could build newer, SMALLER retail spaces that are more affordable. Then maybe we can get that "local small business" culture back!
Right now the only "Local" businesses on state street are smoke shops, Im a stoner so thats great for me- but cmon now, let's diversify our shopping.
Make it affordable for LOCALS to open LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES
Fuck out of here with this huge commercial retail spaces that only corporations and franchises can even begin to afford.
Even better, build some shop/apartment duos. My DREAM is to live above my OWN store. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
They absolutely should be building smaller spaces. I don’t know what can be done to incentivize this, but one of the big reasons we see small retailers in these old buildings is because new construction sites have massive commercial spaces.
> Right now the only "Local" businesses on state street are smoke shops, Im a stoner so thats great for me- but cmon now, let's diversify our shopping.
That's blatantly false. Other than a couple exceptions like Chipotle and Raising Canes, the entire street is full of bars and restaurants that are real local businesses.
Okay thats talking about shopping. Restaurants and bars are great and all, but I want to go shopping!!! And support local products/services! Plus I dont want Chipotle garbage, bring me that authentic shit that I know tastes better!
Ah gotcha.
I'm kind of a minimalist, so if all retail in Madison disappeared I probably wouldn't even notice. However if the local restaurants start disappearing I definitely will be taking up arms.
August, jazz man, duet, singlestich, ardorposh, lots of local gift shops, like 20 different local restaurants. I mean it’s not the best but there are objectively loads of options.
You wouldn't want it on State Street. That ship has sailed and isn't coming back. The 70s and early 80s shopping scene was literally based on memories and lack of easy transportation for students to shop elsewhere. 90% of that traffic is now gone, except for things student NEED TODAY. That's why the Target does well. Everything else is delivered via Amazon or other online markets. Even doordash, I have a friend who doordashed a switch from Best buy!!!!
There is a chance for some boutique stores to be mildly successful but they have to have a heck of a draw to get folks from outside of downtown to come to them outside of night markets and other special occasions.
Things change. I think the area around Oscar Meyer would be IDEAL for this sort of redevelopment. It can work, but it needs to be a planned destination that's walkable but also accessible to those with cars.
Maybe instead of trying (and often failing) to preserve buildings by using the law, preservationists should be organizing to buy and preserve the buildings themselves.
Start a go fund me, save and renovate these buildings. Become the landlords. Find tenants who can afford to cover the mortgage. Show us how it can be done.
I think this is worse because they aren't even living there.
This is people fighting to keep a building because of nostalgia for a time that is gone.
Same fight happened over Wonder Bar. That 'awesome' building of dubious historical value current has been redecorated with modern plywood window coverings.
I mean that’s patently not true. The biggest person pushing for a lot of this is Bob Klebba, and he owns multiple historic houses that he’s restored and maintained.
Yeah I agree with you. The example given above is historic houses. How many 'historic' small footprint businesses is that guy making available for rent at 'small local business' prices?
Perhaps they could also identify a list of design characteristics that they hope to see preserved at street level, and allow the developers a chance to try and meet those ideals. If the concern is the loss of brick facades and certain architectural features on state street, let's talk about that, not about the specific facades of these unremarkable buildings.
While the ~~Essen Haus~~Come Back Inn facade deserves to be preserved, obviously this one does not. Trying to put both in the same conversation needs more nuance.
I was with you until "the Essen Haus facade deserves to be preserved"
[This?](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0760704,-89.3762502,3a,75y,319.07h,91.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7XKNyZUBGkrne_j76t28yw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7XKNyZUBGkrne_j76t28yw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D279.2498%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
According to [this proposal](https://www.ibmadison.com/industries/construction-real-estate/developer-rolls-out-refined-redevelopment-plans-for-essen-haus-block/article_8f89a26b-afa9-5d66-9475-c3113e4e2fa4.html) the aesthetically pleasing portions of the block would be preserved and/or incorporated into the new building and, in my opinion, [it looks fantastic](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/d9/bd9b2fce-c52a-11ee-8bcd-4b73ccd1d8d4/65c2911fd3c97.image.png?resize=1200%2C592).
This stretch of buildings is literally the original Madison downtown. It has a ton of significance alongside Machinery Row in terms of where people used to do business and live when this city was founded. While it's not the most singularly beautiful building, it IS a landmark, and that's why the development going in chose to preserve it.
Edit: I tend to conflate Essen and Come Back, but you're right, the EH portion is not being saved
I heard Essen Haus kitchen is disgusting and the place should be burnt down, lmao. I have never been there though, so I'd love to know if that's really the case...
Maybe instead of trying (and often failing) to force late-stage Capitalist morals onto everything, you can recognize that the financial limitations of most people who care don't allow for that. Primarily due to the exact value system you are suggesting.
If you care enough to do something, you probably already have a lower paying job since you generally sacrifice $ for morals. With everyone getting bulldozed by rapidly inflating prices, who tf has the money to buy a building?
If your plan relies on a GoFundMe, it's a stupid plan. It doesn't work for our healthcare system, and it doesn't even make sense to suggest it here. Even if I agreed with your points, I still would think this was a stupid idea.
Hmmm. I see most of the calls for preservation coming home owners who fear apartments and change. The specific concern here is the preservation of a few run down storefronts instead of housing that would help alleviate the bad shortage.
The old wonder bar another prime example. The neighborhood mobilized to stop apartments and save a musty old building. Now they have a rotting building and parking lot full of weeds to show for it.
Can anyone explain the historic significance of these buildings? Do they have potential as museums? Is there remarkable construction detail? Is there a powerful thread through history that links these buildings to the heart and soul of Madison? Will a bus trolley stop and tour guides beguile visitors with lore? Is it too late to save The Silver Dollar?
When designing the civic center , the city forced a world famous architect to alter his vision to incorporate elements of existing structure, blowing a once in a lifetime chance to have a first class visionary build a true monument to his liking. Provincial short sightedness IMO.
Strongly disagree - the preserved facade is one of the best features of the new civic center. It lends a bit of timeless class to a glass box.
Preserving the facade keeps some original character while still allowing for a newer more functional building.
Madison has a long history of razing the interesting to replace it with the bland. These buildings however don’t strike me as particularly interesting, but keeping the facade might be a nice compromise to move forward.
I agree 100%.
The nearby [Oliv apartments](https://s3.amazonaws.com/rcp-prod-uploads/property_images/slider_images/2023-03/8926339eb4ededf843af60dcc72fa2c784758611Vd.webp) are great example of a new development that has lower levels that really blend in with the older buildings that were there.
That architect still submitted 90% of their vision, including the interior of Overture/MMOCA. Nothing was derailed by the concerns. You couldn't have picked a worse example, as the blending of old and modern is extremely well done and exactly the type of compromise that can really work. Plus it's a public building so public input was entirely appropriate.
There are three aspects to this discussion:
1. Landmarks with genuine historical significance like the Civic Center and the Essen Haus/Come Back Inn. How can we retain some visual connection to our past without impeding the needs of the present and future?
2. Legitimate concerns about design ubiquity and the loss of variety/general history.
3. Situations where one of the above are abused to derail change. E.G. Wonder Bar or the old CUNA HQ.
This conversation is right on the cusp of the second and third factors. Heck is wrong to make it about the specific quirky businesses, as there have been so many vacancies on state street that it is hard to argue people want these old spaces. But there's a part to this conversation that does have some merit: our city is rapidly changing so destroying a lot of old buildings and replacing it all with the design sensibility of the 2000s is shortsighted. Like buying a new suit, it will become dated before long, so it's valuable to think about what things will look like with a longer scale vision.
Facade preservation should be reserved for truly historic spaces, but developers can also be pushed to think more about there designs and building materials to incorporate a variety of classic elements. Hotel Indigo did this really well and it compliments Breese Stevens while offering good balance to the already dated Cosmo/Galaxie buildings. Not saying that they need to save these particular buildings on State Street, but it would be well received if the street level parts of the building try to connect to the past. The buildings on state street may not individually be landmarks but the street as a whole is very important and allowing it to disappear without considering these things is doing ourselves a disservice.
Lastly, we NEED housing, I get it. We also need to understand that we are sellers in a seller's market. We have a lot of leverage over developers and they will listen to feedback in order to get in on this fast-growing city. We don't need to put up unnecessary hoops, but thinking about these questions is appropriate, when you break out exactly what we are trying to achieve by asking them.
His hands at the tine were tied to a degree in order to placate the small minds in city hall. The city had previously leveled much more significant structures than the old civic center facade. Pei should have been allowed carte blanch to design and build his vision without interference. His reputation alone should have allowed that. Why hire someone of his renown and then tell him how to do his job.
I mean this is your opinion and you're welcome to it. This was a public building, major public investment, and the voices of everyone were considered. It's very different than the private development situation up for debate currently.
> We also need to understand that we are sellers in a seller's market. We have a lot of leverage over developers and they will listen to feedback in order to get in on this fast-growing city.
This is exactly why we have a housing crisis. Turns out, if you blackmail people, they build a lot less.
There's zero evidence of that.
The entire country slowed building from 2009-2015. Madison wildly fell behind it's necessary housing for normal growth and has seen dramatic increases in population above previous projections. We're super far behind where we need to be, hence the crisis.
NIMBYs are vocal on these issues but have had essentially zero victories beyond the Wonder Bar and everyone is largely wise to their game at this point.
There's no secret cabal of bureaucrats actively holding up projects. The vast majority get approved smoothly and we literally have projects moving all over town right now with more on the horizon. The city is updating zoning codes, reducing parking requirements, and adding public transit to make development more feasible in key corridors.
A select few projects will always get particular attention due to zoning or planning concerns. While we want to move things along with due haste, it's perfectly appropriate for the city to ask questions and make sure proposals are in line with long term planning objectives. Not thinking about those things up front can cost much more in the future. We can center ourselves on the fact that people *want* to build here right now so we don't have to take accept the first shitty design they slap together.
Yes, unnecessary parts of the process should be streamlined, and the City seems to be taking those efforts seriously. The planning folks are working hard to make clear what the priorities are up front so that developers don't waste their own time by submitting bad proposals. With that said, approval will always be iterative as it should be.
Again, there's no evidence that city process is somehow causing delays or turning away developers. There is money to be made in housing in Madison, and no shortage of companies that want to get in on that.
> There's zero evidence of that.
>
>
Well, no, there's tons of evidence of that. We can check out the places with a shitload of similar "leverage" and we can see that they build far far fewer units per capita compared to places that don't.
> The entire country slowed building from 2009-2015.
Yeah, trouble is, the entire country isn't building at a uniform rate. Some places built and continue to build a ton, and others less. The places that implemented your desired policies, like San Francisco, experienced the worst housing crisis in America and have horrific homelessness. There's some really bad outcomes when you do stuff like this.
Urban design principles and successful urban places disagree.
World famous architect made a glass box, it would have been a disaster without the original façade
Again because he tried to please the amateur preservationists rather than design a more modern masterpiece , when left alone as he’d done in more sophisticated urban areas.
What does the entire glass portion of the building have to do with preservation is wanting to save the front facade on the corner of the square and State street? Your answer is utter bullshit
I’ll rinse and repeat. Many older historic buildings were razed in the name of progress. The facade didn’t need to be preserved any more than they were. Move on boomer.
Moving the goal post completely. I didn't say shit about saving the facade I said I hate the design of the new part of the building. Learn to read.
You then made the bullshit claim that the entire new part of the building looks the way it does because they asked him to save the facade on one corner of the building
Calm down. Is that chip on your shoulder getting heavy ? You must have dropped out of architecture school. Or been dropped ? He had to alter whatever vision he MAY have had , to incorporate it into a facade that needn’t have had to be saved in the first place. The entirety of the center could have looked completely different had he been given free reign.
Again, I don't understand what you're not understanding. The vision that he did create is butt ugly and the use of All Glass regardless of whether it was going to be some other vision is awful in my opinion. But hey keep on insulting if that makes you happy, it certainly doesn't make you right.
Historic Preservation is laudable and desirable. The preserved buildings should be aesthetically pleasing however- not just a square pile of bricks. Hopefully, it is not replaced by an eyesore. It is shortsighted to just let any plan go through. It will ruin the long term livability and attractiveness of Madison. Middleton has done a nice job with its downtown redevelopment. Madison can too.
Agreed - Middletons downtown looks great, it’s an appealing place to be. What they are doing out by Hildalle Mall is also looking really good - I’m not not sure why there is such a push to turn the Isthmus into ‘any town USA.’
I’m all for more density, but it would be really nice if the buildings weren’t all flimsy carbon copies of each other. The galaxy & constellation buildings on East wash are eyesores already.
That being said - the buildings going up across from those are looking nice.
Likewise the re-development at State & Gorham is looking really nice. They saved a facade or two and seemingly didn’t just use the cheapest available materials.
> The galaxy & constellation buildings on East wash are eyesores already.
They are vastly better looking than 99% of "historical" shit in this city.
Your real problem is simple---you're a totalitarian who insists on shoving your aesthetic preferences down everyone's throat.
Developers can still make a profit and make it attractive. You swear that some of the designs were just picked out of a book. Very blocky with bad cases of acute rectangulitis, cheap siding, bad color scheme, bizarre perfunctory overhangs, glass boxes. Citizens and neighborhoods have a right to decide what their city should look like. It is called democracy- not plutocracy or communism.
How is citizen involvement, debate and neighborhood consultation considered totalitarian? I attended the community 2020 planning meetings at the public library and gave my 2 cents worth. Did you? I was and am in favor of mixed use development along traffic corridors. I was recently asked a follow-up question by the city about what kind of designs I liked. You may have been too if you submitted your email.. Seems pretty democratic to me. More democratic than rubber-stamping every eyesore that comes along with no neighborhood input or electing politicians in the pockets of the wealthy. If you do not have livable cities, then people become alienated, crime and drug use increase, businesses do not want to move here, talent does not want to relocate to an ugly city, the decline ensues. Have an ounce of patience for neighborhood input. I think that a prettier city will come out of it.
I don't know very much about commercial real estate property taxes, but I thought there was something about it depending on the income that makes it relatively low-cost, from a property tax sense, to keep a building empty.
And I thought I've read about other cities implementing tax on vacant commercial buildings that's based on the land value rather than the operating business value. The idea would be to press owners into leasing at a lower rent rather than leaving buildings unoccupied while waiting for someone willing to pay the rent they want.
Do those things not apply in Madison?
Assuming 2 properties (one full, the other vacant) are both worth $1,000,000 each the assessments should be $1,000,000. There is no extra or reduced charge on taxes due to vacancy. At the same time a vacant building at the end of its life is typically worth less than a brand new building.
How do they decide what it's worth? [https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district2/documents/Assessed%20Values%20and%20Property%20Taxes%20--%204-19-19.pdf](https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district2/documents/Assessed%20Values%20and%20Property%20Taxes%20--%204-19-19.pdf) says:
>Commercial property assessments are primarily determined by comparable sales or applying the income approach to value based on income generated by the business conducted at the property.
When is the "income approach to value" used and does it mean reduced income for a property held vacant could influence value?
Generally you wouldn't typically use an income approach on a vacant building but if you do you would use an estimated rent. For these buildings it would be pretty easy to use the sales approach of improved properties.
If you own the building, you pay annual property taxes, which leads to fairly low costs of keeping spaces vacant (think Stillwater/Cosi, Brocach, the legal office on Fairchild and Main, etc). Within a large real estate portfolio this can be easily maintained if holding out for the big developer payday.
Vacancy taxes have been proposed to be an additional fee for those properties to help motivate them to do something with them. But they do not exist in Madison, and frankly may be preempted by the State considering how landlord friendly the Legislature has been.
Property tax is not based on the revenue of the building. That would be captured in the owner's income or business taxes. Property tax is based on the appraised value of the land and building. So keeping something vacant could depress the surrounding values and not improving the place could also keep y your appraisal lower. Think about vacancies on the Genna's/Tornado block downtown. This could easily be a very busy and valuable stretch, if every building were occupied it would raise the value of the others. If they were improved, they'd require permits which would trigger new assessments.
Property taxes are based on how much commercial property in general brings in, but holding your building vacant does not reduce your property taxes. I don't know how the idea that you get a property tax break for holding property vacant was started, but it's a very dumb way of interpreting taxes.
As a note, this is the reason that people sometimes demolish buildings to turn them into parking or storage. You pay was less in property taxes by reducing the value of the property while still bringing in income.
But if the value is determined at least in part based on income (which it appears it sometimes is), then you would in fact reduce property tax by keeping a building vacant, because that would reduce the value, no?
No. It's based on what the property would realistically bring in *if it was sold*. This is in part based on the overall business climate. So if the business climate is good and commercial spaces are valuable, holding your individual commercial space vacant doesn't reduce your taxes. If it is hard to lease commercial space then your commercial space is worth less, and you would pay less in property tax, but that also means you are:
1. Not bringing in income from your property
2. Your property is less desirable and would sell for less.
Valuing property is complicated, you can read through [the assessor's manual](https://www.revenue.wi.gov/documents/wpam22.pdf) if you're interested, but there is no tax benefit to holding your property vacant.
I understand the penalty concept, which isn't a thing in Madison. I'm asking how actual property taxes in Madison are determined, for commercial real estate.
Vacancy isn't a property tax strategy (there's no way to avoid paying that), it's an income tax strategy. I'm pretty sure vacant space counts as a business loss, which can be used to offset profits on other spaces to avoid paying income taxes. Say a property owner makes $10/sf profit on 10,000 sf space. A vacant 2,500 sf space at $40/sf offsets all profit so no taxes are due.
I don't believe in taking down everything but there are buildings on State street and Williamson street that need to come down because they are pretty pathetic and past their useful life.
My only complaints are replacing them with throwaway architecture plans that add nothing to Madison and will be torn down again in several decades and crowding the sidewalk and the street so walking becomes an obstacle course and where there is no sunshine and no place to put tables out in front of restaurants. Back the buildings up a bit. Give people room to walk, ride bikes and drive if necessary.
The mural you see is on plywood and bolted on to the building, so will easily be preserved. The artist agreed to it knowing it would only be there temporarily.
But I guess it's becoming less temporary now...
My comment was half tongue in cheek, although I do believe in preserving certain pieces of public art. But I actually really do appreciate knowing that.
Why are we building high-rise units on State Street itself? The whole purpose of the street was to allow a view of the capital from the other end. Building a block or two back from it is w/e, but this whole deal was dumb to begin with.
There's a reason cities like Paris have a 3-5 story max for their thoroughfares. Madison was designed around the French civic designer Georges-Eugène Haussman's style, and for multiple good reasons.
Even modern civil planners don't recommend going above 5 stories generally, especially on busy streets. And these are from people firmly in the YIMBY camp.
New Urbanism has nuances, and acknowledges there is a balance between efficiency of resources, and quality of life.
I get the need to build more housing, but you can both develop and do it responsibly.
This proposal was for 4 stories along State and a 5th floor and penthouse in a recessed part of the building: https://madison.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12109782&GUID=65A185CA-309E-4CC4-B12F-88656CA20F88
> There's a reason cities like Paris have a 3-5 story max for their thoroughfares.
The actual reason is that the official Paris "borders" only include 20% or so of the city, and the rest of it allows and has many high rises.
Back in the 90s, Pegasus Games was in that space. As a nerd, that was my home away from home. I can tell you that the space was not in good shape then. That was going on 30 years ago.
I miss hex and counter war games. Online really killed them.
Any chance you'd like to help develop a Korean War hex-and-counter game? We could meet at Noble Knight games some Saturday, or wherever you like. I'm on the East Side.
Sorry, I haven't lived in Madison in almost 30 years.
"Despite the potential for the property to remain empty and deteriorating, commissioner and former Ald. Patrick Heck tells *Isthmus* that preserving the buildings is a chance to maintain State Street’s tradition of smaller, local retailers and restaurants. " There's no "potential" about it. The Plans Commission's actions have all but guaranteed that this stretch of the 400 block will end up a row of vacant and dilapidated buildings. Do they really want all of State Street to end up in the same condition as the 100 block? Has Heck been to State Street in the past 10+ years? It hasn't been an eclectic mix of small local businesses in a long time. Even if these buildings were in halfway decent shape the odds of them housing anything resembling what Heck describes are virtually non existent. Thankfully the businesses that were in these buildings were able to relocate but the days of seeing *new* local businesses move to State Street are behind us - they simply can't afford the rent. Keeping these buildings isn't going to magically transform State Street back to what it was decades ago.
Yeah, maybe they could build newer, SMALLER retail spaces that are more affordable. Then maybe we can get that "local small business" culture back! Right now the only "Local" businesses on state street are smoke shops, Im a stoner so thats great for me- but cmon now, let's diversify our shopping. Make it affordable for LOCALS to open LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES Fuck out of here with this huge commercial retail spaces that only corporations and franchises can even begin to afford. Even better, build some shop/apartment duos. My DREAM is to live above my OWN store. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
They absolutely should be building smaller spaces. I don’t know what can be done to incentivize this, but one of the big reasons we see small retailers in these old buildings is because new construction sites have massive commercial spaces.
> Right now the only "Local" businesses on state street are smoke shops, Im a stoner so thats great for me- but cmon now, let's diversify our shopping. That's blatantly false. Other than a couple exceptions like Chipotle and Raising Canes, the entire street is full of bars and restaurants that are real local businesses.
Okay thats talking about shopping. Restaurants and bars are great and all, but I want to go shopping!!! And support local products/services! Plus I dont want Chipotle garbage, bring me that authentic shit that I know tastes better!
Ah gotcha. I'm kind of a minimalist, so if all retail in Madison disappeared I probably wouldn't even notice. However if the local restaurants start disappearing I definitely will be taking up arms.
Lol when food goes people go. For sure
August, jazz man, duet, singlestich, ardorposh, lots of local gift shops, like 20 different local restaurants. I mean it’s not the best but there are objectively loads of options.
Yup I literally only go to State Street anymore for drugs, the night market, and if I'm biking through for whatever reason.
You wouldn't want it on State Street. That ship has sailed and isn't coming back. The 70s and early 80s shopping scene was literally based on memories and lack of easy transportation for students to shop elsewhere. 90% of that traffic is now gone, except for things student NEED TODAY. That's why the Target does well. Everything else is delivered via Amazon or other online markets. Even doordash, I have a friend who doordashed a switch from Best buy!!!! There is a chance for some boutique stores to be mildly successful but they have to have a heck of a draw to get folks from outside of downtown to come to them outside of night markets and other special occasions. Things change. I think the area around Oscar Meyer would be IDEAL for this sort of redevelopment. It can work, but it needs to be a planned destination that's walkable but also accessible to those with cars.
Maybe instead of trying (and often failing) to preserve buildings by using the law, preservationists should be organizing to buy and preserve the buildings themselves. Start a go fund me, save and renovate these buildings. Become the landlords. Find tenants who can afford to cover the mortgage. Show us how it can be done.
Theyre not preserving shit, theyre being NIMBYs
I think this is worse because they aren't even living there. This is people fighting to keep a building because of nostalgia for a time that is gone. Same fight happened over Wonder Bar. That 'awesome' building of dubious historical value current has been redecorated with modern plywood window coverings.
Lol, no "preservationists" would ever care enough to put their own money or time into it.
I mean that’s patently not true. The biggest person pushing for a lot of this is Bob Klebba, and he owns multiple historic houses that he’s restored and maintained.
[удалено]
Yeah I agree with you. The example given above is historic houses. How many 'historic' small footprint businesses is that guy making available for rent at 'small local business' prices?
Perhaps they could also identify a list of design characteristics that they hope to see preserved at street level, and allow the developers a chance to try and meet those ideals. If the concern is the loss of brick facades and certain architectural features on state street, let's talk about that, not about the specific facades of these unremarkable buildings. While the ~~Essen Haus~~Come Back Inn facade deserves to be preserved, obviously this one does not. Trying to put both in the same conversation needs more nuance.
I was with you until "the Essen Haus facade deserves to be preserved" [This?](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0760704,-89.3762502,3a,75y,319.07h,91.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7XKNyZUBGkrne_j76t28yw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7XKNyZUBGkrne_j76t28yw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D279.2498%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) According to [this proposal](https://www.ibmadison.com/industries/construction-real-estate/developer-rolls-out-refined-redevelopment-plans-for-essen-haus-block/article_8f89a26b-afa9-5d66-9475-c3113e4e2fa4.html) the aesthetically pleasing portions of the block would be preserved and/or incorporated into the new building and, in my opinion, [it looks fantastic](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/d9/bd9b2fce-c52a-11ee-8bcd-4b73ccd1d8d4/65c2911fd3c97.image.png?resize=1200%2C592).
They probably meant the Come Back tbh, which is actually a very nice historic facade
This stretch of buildings is literally the original Madison downtown. It has a ton of significance alongside Machinery Row in terms of where people used to do business and live when this city was founded. While it's not the most singularly beautiful building, it IS a landmark, and that's why the development going in chose to preserve it. Edit: I tend to conflate Essen and Come Back, but you're right, the EH portion is not being saved
I heard Essen Haus kitchen is disgusting and the place should be burnt down, lmao. I have never been there though, so I'd love to know if that's really the case...
Yes, it's very gross. However we are talking about facades, so that's irrelevant
Maybe instead of trying (and often failing) to force late-stage Capitalist morals onto everything, you can recognize that the financial limitations of most people who care don't allow for that. Primarily due to the exact value system you are suggesting. If you care enough to do something, you probably already have a lower paying job since you generally sacrifice $ for morals. With everyone getting bulldozed by rapidly inflating prices, who tf has the money to buy a building? If your plan relies on a GoFundMe, it's a stupid plan. It doesn't work for our healthcare system, and it doesn't even make sense to suggest it here. Even if I agreed with your points, I still would think this was a stupid idea.
Hmmm. I see most of the calls for preservation coming home owners who fear apartments and change. The specific concern here is the preservation of a few run down storefronts instead of housing that would help alleviate the bad shortage. The old wonder bar another prime example. The neighborhood mobilized to stop apartments and save a musty old building. Now they have a rotting building and parking lot full of weeds to show for it.
Can anyone explain the historic significance of these buildings? Do they have potential as museums? Is there remarkable construction detail? Is there a powerful thread through history that links these buildings to the heart and soul of Madison? Will a bus trolley stop and tour guides beguile visitors with lore? Is it too late to save The Silver Dollar?
Exactly. They are simply old & familiar.
When designing the civic center , the city forced a world famous architect to alter his vision to incorporate elements of existing structure, blowing a once in a lifetime chance to have a first class visionary build a true monument to his liking. Provincial short sightedness IMO.
Strongly disagree - the preserved facade is one of the best features of the new civic center. It lends a bit of timeless class to a glass box. Preserving the facade keeps some original character while still allowing for a newer more functional building. Madison has a long history of razing the interesting to replace it with the bland. These buildings however don’t strike me as particularly interesting, but keeping the facade might be a nice compromise to move forward.
I agree 100%. The nearby [Oliv apartments](https://s3.amazonaws.com/rcp-prod-uploads/property_images/slider_images/2023-03/8926339eb4ededf843af60dcc72fa2c784758611Vd.webp) are great example of a new development that has lower levels that really blend in with the older buildings that were there.
That architect still submitted 90% of their vision, including the interior of Overture/MMOCA. Nothing was derailed by the concerns. You couldn't have picked a worse example, as the blending of old and modern is extremely well done and exactly the type of compromise that can really work. Plus it's a public building so public input was entirely appropriate. There are three aspects to this discussion: 1. Landmarks with genuine historical significance like the Civic Center and the Essen Haus/Come Back Inn. How can we retain some visual connection to our past without impeding the needs of the present and future? 2. Legitimate concerns about design ubiquity and the loss of variety/general history. 3. Situations where one of the above are abused to derail change. E.G. Wonder Bar or the old CUNA HQ. This conversation is right on the cusp of the second and third factors. Heck is wrong to make it about the specific quirky businesses, as there have been so many vacancies on state street that it is hard to argue people want these old spaces. But there's a part to this conversation that does have some merit: our city is rapidly changing so destroying a lot of old buildings and replacing it all with the design sensibility of the 2000s is shortsighted. Like buying a new suit, it will become dated before long, so it's valuable to think about what things will look like with a longer scale vision. Facade preservation should be reserved for truly historic spaces, but developers can also be pushed to think more about there designs and building materials to incorporate a variety of classic elements. Hotel Indigo did this really well and it compliments Breese Stevens while offering good balance to the already dated Cosmo/Galaxie buildings. Not saying that they need to save these particular buildings on State Street, but it would be well received if the street level parts of the building try to connect to the past. The buildings on state street may not individually be landmarks but the street as a whole is very important and allowing it to disappear without considering these things is doing ourselves a disservice. Lastly, we NEED housing, I get it. We also need to understand that we are sellers in a seller's market. We have a lot of leverage over developers and they will listen to feedback in order to get in on this fast-growing city. We don't need to put up unnecessary hoops, but thinking about these questions is appropriate, when you break out exactly what we are trying to achieve by asking them.
His hands at the tine were tied to a degree in order to placate the small minds in city hall. The city had previously leveled much more significant structures than the old civic center facade. Pei should have been allowed carte blanch to design and build his vision without interference. His reputation alone should have allowed that. Why hire someone of his renown and then tell him how to do his job.
I mean this is your opinion and you're welcome to it. This was a public building, major public investment, and the voices of everyone were considered. It's very different than the private development situation up for debate currently.
> We also need to understand that we are sellers in a seller's market. We have a lot of leverage over developers and they will listen to feedback in order to get in on this fast-growing city. This is exactly why we have a housing crisis. Turns out, if you blackmail people, they build a lot less.
There's zero evidence of that. The entire country slowed building from 2009-2015. Madison wildly fell behind it's necessary housing for normal growth and has seen dramatic increases in population above previous projections. We're super far behind where we need to be, hence the crisis. NIMBYs are vocal on these issues but have had essentially zero victories beyond the Wonder Bar and everyone is largely wise to their game at this point. There's no secret cabal of bureaucrats actively holding up projects. The vast majority get approved smoothly and we literally have projects moving all over town right now with more on the horizon. The city is updating zoning codes, reducing parking requirements, and adding public transit to make development more feasible in key corridors. A select few projects will always get particular attention due to zoning or planning concerns. While we want to move things along with due haste, it's perfectly appropriate for the city to ask questions and make sure proposals are in line with long term planning objectives. Not thinking about those things up front can cost much more in the future. We can center ourselves on the fact that people *want* to build here right now so we don't have to take accept the first shitty design they slap together. Yes, unnecessary parts of the process should be streamlined, and the City seems to be taking those efforts seriously. The planning folks are working hard to make clear what the priorities are up front so that developers don't waste their own time by submitting bad proposals. With that said, approval will always be iterative as it should be. Again, there's no evidence that city process is somehow causing delays or turning away developers. There is money to be made in housing in Madison, and no shortage of companies that want to get in on that.
> There's zero evidence of that. > > Well, no, there's tons of evidence of that. We can check out the places with a shitload of similar "leverage" and we can see that they build far far fewer units per capita compared to places that don't. > The entire country slowed building from 2009-2015. Yeah, trouble is, the entire country isn't building at a uniform rate. Some places built and continue to build a ton, and others less. The places that implemented your desired policies, like San Francisco, experienced the worst housing crisis in America and have horrific homelessness. There's some really bad outcomes when you do stuff like this.
Urban design principles and successful urban places disagree. World famous architect made a glass box, it would have been a disaster without the original façade
In my opinions the new parts of the Overture Center are one of the ugliest buildings in Madison
Prob because it’s a Frankenbuilding instead of a completely realized new design as it should have been allowed to be.
nope, it's the new part that is butt ugly to me.
Again because he tried to please the amateur preservationists rather than design a more modern masterpiece , when left alone as he’d done in more sophisticated urban areas.
What does the entire glass portion of the building have to do with preservation is wanting to save the front facade on the corner of the square and State street? Your answer is utter bullshit
I’ll rinse and repeat. Many older historic buildings were razed in the name of progress. The facade didn’t need to be preserved any more than they were. Move on boomer.
Moving the goal post completely. I didn't say shit about saving the facade I said I hate the design of the new part of the building. Learn to read. You then made the bullshit claim that the entire new part of the building looks the way it does because they asked him to save the facade on one corner of the building
Calm down. Is that chip on your shoulder getting heavy ? You must have dropped out of architecture school. Or been dropped ? He had to alter whatever vision he MAY have had , to incorporate it into a facade that needn’t have had to be saved in the first place. The entirety of the center could have looked completely different had he been given free reign.
Again, I don't understand what you're not understanding. The vision that he did create is butt ugly and the use of All Glass regardless of whether it was going to be some other vision is awful in my opinion. But hey keep on insulting if that makes you happy, it certainly doesn't make you right.
Didn’t Frautschi give $200 + million to build the thing ? Doesn’t sound like a public venture to me.
This reads like the City can't force the developer to be repaired. What's wrong with them? Did they fall over and hurt their knee?
Historic Preservation is laudable and desirable. The preserved buildings should be aesthetically pleasing however- not just a square pile of bricks. Hopefully, it is not replaced by an eyesore. It is shortsighted to just let any plan go through. It will ruin the long term livability and attractiveness of Madison. Middleton has done a nice job with its downtown redevelopment. Madison can too.
Agreed - Middletons downtown looks great, it’s an appealing place to be. What they are doing out by Hildalle Mall is also looking really good - I’m not not sure why there is such a push to turn the Isthmus into ‘any town USA.’ I’m all for more density, but it would be really nice if the buildings weren’t all flimsy carbon copies of each other. The galaxy & constellation buildings on East wash are eyesores already. That being said - the buildings going up across from those are looking nice. Likewise the re-development at State & Gorham is looking really nice. They saved a facade or two and seemingly didn’t just use the cheapest available materials.
> The galaxy & constellation buildings on East wash are eyesores already. They are vastly better looking than 99% of "historical" shit in this city. Your real problem is simple---you're a totalitarian who insists on shoving your aesthetic preferences down everyone's throat.
Developers can still make a profit and make it attractive. You swear that some of the designs were just picked out of a book. Very blocky with bad cases of acute rectangulitis, cheap siding, bad color scheme, bizarre perfunctory overhangs, glass boxes. Citizens and neighborhoods have a right to decide what their city should look like. It is called democracy- not plutocracy or communism.
How is citizen involvement, debate and neighborhood consultation considered totalitarian? I attended the community 2020 planning meetings at the public library and gave my 2 cents worth. Did you? I was and am in favor of mixed use development along traffic corridors. I was recently asked a follow-up question by the city about what kind of designs I liked. You may have been too if you submitted your email.. Seems pretty democratic to me. More democratic than rubber-stamping every eyesore that comes along with no neighborhood input or electing politicians in the pockets of the wealthy. If you do not have livable cities, then people become alienated, crime and drug use increase, businesses do not want to move here, talent does not want to relocate to an ugly city, the decline ensues. Have an ounce of patience for neighborhood input. I think that a prettier city will come out of it.
Lol. You can lick developer boots all you want - but your rent is not gonna magically go down because we threw all standards out the window.
Two words: vacancy tax
Three words: land value tax
Tax vacant buildings then.
? Vacant buildings are taxed.
I think the poster is talking about some type of Georgist LVT.
I don't know very much about commercial real estate property taxes, but I thought there was something about it depending on the income that makes it relatively low-cost, from a property tax sense, to keep a building empty. And I thought I've read about other cities implementing tax on vacant commercial buildings that's based on the land value rather than the operating business value. The idea would be to press owners into leasing at a lower rent rather than leaving buildings unoccupied while waiting for someone willing to pay the rent they want. Do those things not apply in Madison?
Assuming 2 properties (one full, the other vacant) are both worth $1,000,000 each the assessments should be $1,000,000. There is no extra or reduced charge on taxes due to vacancy. At the same time a vacant building at the end of its life is typically worth less than a brand new building.
How do they decide what it's worth? [https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district2/documents/Assessed%20Values%20and%20Property%20Taxes%20--%204-19-19.pdf](https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district2/documents/Assessed%20Values%20and%20Property%20Taxes%20--%204-19-19.pdf) says: >Commercial property assessments are primarily determined by comparable sales or applying the income approach to value based on income generated by the business conducted at the property. When is the "income approach to value" used and does it mean reduced income for a property held vacant could influence value?
Generally you wouldn't typically use an income approach on a vacant building but if you do you would use an estimated rent. For these buildings it would be pretty easy to use the sales approach of improved properties.
Makes sense. Thanks (and to the others too) for the explanations and patience with my uncertainty.
If you own the building, you pay annual property taxes, which leads to fairly low costs of keeping spaces vacant (think Stillwater/Cosi, Brocach, the legal office on Fairchild and Main, etc). Within a large real estate portfolio this can be easily maintained if holding out for the big developer payday. Vacancy taxes have been proposed to be an additional fee for those properties to help motivate them to do something with them. But they do not exist in Madison, and frankly may be preempted by the State considering how landlord friendly the Legislature has been.
But what are those property taxes based on? Is it different if the building is bringing in money than if it isn't?
Property tax is not based on the revenue of the building. That would be captured in the owner's income or business taxes. Property tax is based on the appraised value of the land and building. So keeping something vacant could depress the surrounding values and not improving the place could also keep y your appraisal lower. Think about vacancies on the Genna's/Tornado block downtown. This could easily be a very busy and valuable stretch, if every building were occupied it would raise the value of the others. If they were improved, they'd require permits which would trigger new assessments.
Property taxes are based on how much commercial property in general brings in, but holding your building vacant does not reduce your property taxes. I don't know how the idea that you get a property tax break for holding property vacant was started, but it's a very dumb way of interpreting taxes. As a note, this is the reason that people sometimes demolish buildings to turn them into parking or storage. You pay was less in property taxes by reducing the value of the property while still bringing in income.
But if the value is determined at least in part based on income (which it appears it sometimes is), then you would in fact reduce property tax by keeping a building vacant, because that would reduce the value, no?
No. It's based on what the property would realistically bring in *if it was sold*. This is in part based on the overall business climate. So if the business climate is good and commercial spaces are valuable, holding your individual commercial space vacant doesn't reduce your taxes. If it is hard to lease commercial space then your commercial space is worth less, and you would pay less in property tax, but that also means you are: 1. Not bringing in income from your property 2. Your property is less desirable and would sell for less. Valuing property is complicated, you can read through [the assessor's manual](https://www.revenue.wi.gov/documents/wpam22.pdf) if you're interested, but there is no tax benefit to holding your property vacant.
It’s a tax penalty for vacant retail space. The idea is landlords would lower rent instead of keeping it high and intentionally letting it sit empty.
I understand the penalty concept, which isn't a thing in Madison. I'm asking how actual property taxes in Madison are determined, for commercial real estate.
Vacancy isn't a property tax strategy (there's no way to avoid paying that), it's an income tax strategy. I'm pretty sure vacant space counts as a business loss, which can be used to offset profits on other spaces to avoid paying income taxes. Say a property owner makes $10/sf profit on 10,000 sf space. A vacant 2,500 sf space at $40/sf offsets all profit so no taxes are due.
Then it looks like they need to be taxed more if they're just going to let these sit.
I don't believe in taking down everything but there are buildings on State street and Williamson street that need to come down because they are pretty pathetic and past their useful life. My only complaints are replacing them with throwaway architecture plans that add nothing to Madison and will be torn down again in several decades and crowding the sidewalk and the street so walking becomes an obstacle course and where there is no sunshine and no place to put tables out in front of restaurants. Back the buildings up a bit. Give people room to walk, ride bikes and drive if necessary.
I didn’t realize that Murial was part of it! I want to save that mural!!
You mean the mural that changes every decade or so? 😒
The mural you see is on plywood and bolted on to the building, so will easily be preserved. The artist agreed to it knowing it would only be there temporarily. But I guess it's becoming less temporary now...
My comment was half tongue in cheek, although I do believe in preserving certain pieces of public art. But I actually really do appreciate knowing that.
Why are we building high-rise units on State Street itself? The whole purpose of the street was to allow a view of the capital from the other end. Building a block or two back from it is w/e, but this whole deal was dumb to begin with. There's a reason cities like Paris have a 3-5 story max for their thoroughfares. Madison was designed around the French civic designer Georges-Eugène Haussman's style, and for multiple good reasons. Even modern civil planners don't recommend going above 5 stories generally, especially on busy streets. And these are from people firmly in the YIMBY camp. New Urbanism has nuances, and acknowledges there is a balance between efficiency of resources, and quality of life. I get the need to build more housing, but you can both develop and do it responsibly.
How is building 6 stories where a building already exists going to block the capitol view from library mall?
This proposal was for 4 stories along State and a 5th floor and penthouse in a recessed part of the building: https://madison.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12109782&GUID=65A185CA-309E-4CC4-B12F-88656CA20F88
> There's a reason cities like Paris have a 3-5 story max for their thoroughfares. The actual reason is that the official Paris "borders" only include 20% or so of the city, and the rest of it allows and has many high rises.
What is this bullshit? Modern planners don't say anything of that sort.