brookfieldnow.com
search all things local
Rummage MapseHarmony
weather

64°

Partly Cloudy | 5MPH

NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING

Friday

July 2009

3

Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Practically Speaking

Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers’ perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.

Fountain Brook Crossing: 2 Unbelievably BIG buildings

By Kyle Prast
Sunday, Jan 13 2008, 09:46 PM

I hope you took the time to look at the architect's renderings of Fountain Brook Crossing. But keep in mind, it is nearly impossible to imagine just how BIG this set of proposed buildings is simply by looking at those drawings. They are presented using the roadway to give some sense of open space and perspective.

Even though I am a visual person, I too am having trouble envisioning what this will look like. The easiest way for me to convey the size and scope of this project to you is to compare it to what we already have.

Using the areal photo of the area and then superimposing the architectural drawing on top of the 2 acre site gives a better impression of how large the buildings really are. Remember, they are seeking an increase in floor area ratio from 30% to 140%. 

You can see the Outback Steakhouse (pink) and Country Inns and Suites (reddish) to the north of the proposed Fountain Brook Crossing. They comprise a large building complex set back from Moorland Road.

But when you look to the south, to our plot of land in question, you now can immediately see it is literally filled with buildings!

 

The lighter pink represents the 18 foot high, one story parking garage structure. This compresses the equivalent of 4 acres of parking--400 spaces--into a two story (one underground and one above ground) parking garage building of about 210 feet by 380 feet in size. That is HUGE. (Mayfair's North Ave parking deck has 622 spots.)

On top of that sits the 125 foot by 268 foot large, 4 story, 97 foot tall glass and steel office building. Even BIGGER.

Notice how little grass (green) remains--much of this is the city's property. Notice that those pointed areas extend into what little green there is. These triangles are pretty tall too. Judging by people on the renderings, I am guessing the fountain walls are about 6 feet high, the planting ones are the same as the parking wall, 18 feet tall.

The driveways to the parking building will need to be ramped since there is parking topside too. Notice that the artist did not draw a car right up to the edge of the parking structure. I would guess that was not by accident. They no doubt were trying to downplay the fact that there will be cars visible to the street at 18 feet in the air! 

I then tried to compare this office building to other structures in the area. Since this will be a medical building, I thought, Elmbrook Hospital. Too big, you think? Take a look.

From an areal view, in the same ratio of resolution, I cut out Elmbrook's main building and the large, one story building in the front. I wondered how this would compare to Fountain Brook (I am just going to call it FBC from now on). I found putting Elmbrook onto the FBC site would actually give more greenspace! Plus, Elmbrook from the front is really only 3 stories on top of the 1 story, not 4 stories as FBC is.

When you look at the actual hospital, ask yourself how you would like to see something that size and that close to the sidewalk as your "Gateway" image for entering Brookfield. Remember FBC nearly FILLS the 2 acre site.

 

 

What about comparing FBC to a large office building?

 

This one is in Bishop's Woods.

 

 

 
It has about 325 parking spaces and sits on about 7 acres. It only measures 75 feet by 260 feet though--about 40% smaller than our 125 by 268 foot behemoth (not to mention it is not built on top of a nearly 2 acre sized 1 story parking structure!) 

 

 

 

Notice how this BIG office building looks dwarfed when compared to the FBC building and parking structure.  

 

 



My next question is, how tall is that parking structure and how close is it to the road?

The developer told us that the triangular peaks or points come within 2 feet of the Greenfield side walk. Estimating that the walk is somewhere around 5 feet and the grassy strip on Greenfield is maybe 2 feet, that means those 6 foot tall fountain peaks and 18 foot tall planted peaks will be around 8 to 9 feet from the road edge.

I looked for structures we have that would represent this parking structure wall in height. I estimate City Hall's 1 story section to be around 17 - 18 feet tall. (A door is around 7-8 feet tall.) Most one story structures will be about this height. 

 

The retaining walls on Calhoun are not as tall as 18 feet, but they do convey the feeling of walls close to the roadway.

Note that the car against the wall in the photo is larger than the rendering of the car in the artists depiction of the wall. This means the wall in the rendering is taller than the Calhoun retaining wall.

 
 

Don't forget that there will be that 4 story building on top of the parking structure.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Hope these pictures were a help to you.

Please do contact City Hall with your thoughts on this project and attend the Public Hearing Tuesday night at 7:45pm at City Hall. Email comments to development@ci.brookfield.wi.us by Monday, Jan. 14.

Regretfully, I am unable to attend, but feel free to use any of these points if you agree. 

 

Note the very narrow strip of snow to the left of the far end of the walk. Those 6 foot tall triangular shaped points with the fountains and the taller 18 foot tall planter triangular points will stop 2 feet from the right side of the walk.

FYI: During all the discussion, regarding the widening of Calhoun Road, Engineering told us that a 6 to 8 foot grassy strip between the walk and roadway was necessary for piling snow during the plowing process. Here this developer is requesting tall stone structures be placed just 9 feet from the road edge! 

 

 
counter hit xanga  

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7

Comments

mike36   

- I like the “green building” design. Green Buildings have become a major national trend and they make sense.

- The high wall at grade (17’ I understand) is really bad. The rending is misleading and does not illustrate what this building will actually look like from grade. The rendering shows the building from approx. 25’ above grade from approx. 75’ away. (Also, the roadway at this intersection is much wider than drawn.) At grade, this building will look more like a monolithic wall surrounding a castle. We are hoping for signature architecture to mark the gateway to our city.  Scaled back, this building could be that. But from the perspective of the motorist or pedestrian, this will be intimidating, uninviting and a bad gateway to the city. The fake windows hide the parking garage and will appear “dead” and lifeless- not something we need at street level. The fountains next to the fake windows will never be as big or work as shown – no one can see them since they are inside a box that is taller than a person - they could never look like the rendering.

- I want to support a building like this because it is better than another restaurant at the site. Putting parking underground is a nice concession, but it really points to the fact that this building is way to large for the site. I cannot support it at this size. The architect did what they could given the 2 acre lot and the developers need for big size. But in the end it is out of scale and bad design if we are hoping for “signature” or “gateway” building.

Kyle's reply: You clearly understand this situation and I agree with your analysis. Funny you mention the castle because that is exactly what I was thinking. I think most at the Public Information Meeting did not really understand that the wall was that high and was really a building.

If we are talking about Gateways, entering from the south you have the Suburban sized Walgreen's and tasteful welcome to Brookfield sign on the left and then this huge structure to the right. I know it will offend our suburban sensibilities much like the Trader Joe's does in Glendale. 

January 14, 2008 9:56 AM

intewedm   

It's hard to understand why the last couple of mayors we have had want to turn Brookfield into a commercial center instead of maintaining a more residential environment.  It doesn't seem to be reducing property taxes and it is detracting from the quality of life.  Traffic is almost unbearable!  Brookfield Lutheran church on Burleigh wants is adding to the facility and if they want to add a new sanctuary they will be required to tear down the old church building and the parsonage in order to maintain 50% green space.  How come these rules don't apply when the powers at city hall want to build a behemoth?  Nice analysis Kyle!

Kyle's reply: Good questions! My church on Pilgrim Rd. had its 2nd phase approved of prior to construction of its 1st phase. Now that they are really thinking of implementing the 2nd phase, the city says we cannot do it! 

January 14, 2008 10:12 AM

Larry Knetzger   

Hi Kyle, wow you really took some time to do a very good presentation of your point of view. My view of what is being proposed is that the developer is doing something to get rid of the acres of asphalt paving and the storage of vehicles out of minds eye.

While this type of development is very expensive they are achieving it by the use of architectural enhancement through the use of masonry. Masonry of course is more earthy and visually comforting to the eye than asphalt paving as this building is buffered by. At times acres of cars that come and go.

The garden on the roof sounds like a really bad idea with the winters we can have and the problems with ice. The roofs are suppose to hold some of the foot print water so as not to overwhelm the storm system in the area. Maybe this will be a floating garden in the summer and an ice rink over a swamp in the winter. Just a little humor there.

With this proposed improvement while it might be a domenant building for the area it is also an acceptable piece of architecture that will complement the city and also does not gobble up huge amounts of land. The new St. Marys Hospital on the east side of Milwaukee is a great picture of the community and the business working together to effect its expansion in a very congested neighborhood.

This developer has taken his proposed improvement several steps further with the masonry enhancement to the parking vs. poured concrete walls and columns.

Maybe as a little relief to you I don't see this being built because the cost will be out of line for rentals to pay. There is a development (single building) on Capitol drive,in the City of Brookfield, that took 5 or 6 years to finally rent its final space and that was at 24 to 28 $ a square foot. It to houses a dental clinic which was its first tenant. Took years to get a few more tenants. That building is owned by investors that have multiple properties in the area and so they took it on the chin for years and let the cash flow from other buildings in there portfolio carry the burden of vacancy. The renters are not going to be standing in line to rent this no matter what the advantage is.Economics prevails all the time.

Kyle's reply: I think weight is an issue for the building, at least that is what the developer stated when asked why there was no stone on the building (the usual requirement in Brookfield). He said the building was already swaying as it is designed. 

Bottom line here: The developer purchased land in 2005 knowing what he was buying and now is trying to plead hardship (construction costs to overcome the swampy soil are so high his only hope to recoup cost is to build it for more tenants.) 

As I stated before. The building idea and design is not bad (if you like modern), but the location and size of lot is inadequate.  

January 14, 2008 10:42 AM

mick   

It's at the edge of the Brookfield City limits. Residents to the east and far north knew all this land was zoned commercial. This parcel is already surrounded by commercial development. What did anyone expect would happen? I have a bigger problem with Norhardt Crossing and the density that was allowed to develop in that central area. I can understand objections to this (Moreland/Greenfield) particular development if you feel it represents a trend towards unrestrained commercial development in Brookfield. Otherwise, I'm not particularly bothered by this one.

Kyle's reply: The issue is not that it is commercial, of course it would be commercial. The issue is the density. In floor area ratio alone it represents a 110% increase.  The precedent this will set will really change the face of Brookfield. What developer wouldn't love to fill their land with rentable space? The 4 story office is over 4/5th of an acre in size alone. As near as I can figure it, the amount of the lot left undeveloped (landscaped, grass, or paved driveway) is only about 4% of the 2 acre site! That is what I call density.

January 14, 2008 12:52 PM

Larry Knetzger   

Hi Kyle, once again, just as a side commentary on one point that you have brought up, subsoil conditions. Funny how a developer will know about sub soil conditions but when you hire a contractor to build an addition to Dixon School, no projected concern about sub-soil what so ever, until the shovel hits the soup. Then of course they just exercise there construction contract clause covering that oversight in the planning process.Just kind of a giggle for another subject at hand that will come up in the very near future. Thank you.  

January 14, 2008 2:16 PM

My Two Cents   

If this project is rezoned to the developer's requests, it will set a precedent that will haunt Brookfield residents.  There is a danger to pedestrians walking so close to a busy thoroughfare.  There is insufficient area to store any amount of snow plowed from the street or sidewalk.  The excessive use of water fountains and falls demonstrates a disrespect for the current water crises.  Even recycled water would have to be treated before it could be dispersed into the interior public spaces wouldn't it?  Exits and entrances would not be protected by stop lights creating another traffic hazard.  The request for extreme density is a slap in the face of previous developments that followed the restrictions already in place.  I think of previous projects like Capitol Heights, over-sized street lights and too-high buildings in the village, Fountain Square set too close to Bluemound, too high retaining walls on Calhoun and high density at Norhardt Crossing as examples of bad decisions to give variances to developers. How many more examples can residents cite? Keep up the attack, Kyle.

January 17, 2008 8:16 AM

Practically Speaking   

My Alderman, Lisa Mellon, is really great about keeping her District 7 constituents informed of upcoming

February 9, 2008 10:05 AM

Practically Speaking   

It has been one year since I posted my first piece, Déjà vu: It’s 'Smokes for Votes' all over

February 28, 2008 5:49 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Tags

How the other half lives

Search the Blogs