What should become of Milwaukee’s Mitchell Park Horticultural Conservatory—the landmark trio of glasshouses perched above the Menomonee Valley more commonly referred to as the Domes? Some practical, visionary and imaginative proposals have been offered by consultants advising a committee considering future paths for the Domes. The public will have an opportunity to express feedback about proposed options on Tuesday, June 26, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. in the lobby of the Mitchell Park Domes, 524 S. Layton Blvd.
The horticultural complex includes three display domes, a greenhouse-and-annex complex added in 2015, as well as support and educational structures. Designed by Donald L. Grieb and built between 1959 and 1967, the Domes have gradually fallen into disrepair after decades of deferred maintenance. The Tropical Dome, Desert Dome and Show Dome were all closed for several months in 2016 after ongoing leaking caused some concrete coating on steel beams to deteriorate. As a stop-gap measure, mesh netting was installed in each dome to prevent any flaking concrete from falling.
The structure has been declared a “national treasure” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and named to the Trust’s “11 Most Endangered” list in 2016. The Cultural Landscape Foundation also named the Domes an “at-risk landscape” in 2016. The Milwaukee County Task Force on the Mitchell Park Conservatory is evaluating long-term options for the conservatory, its grounds and associated activities. The task force will recommend a course of action to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors and County Executive Chris Abele.
Since convening in November 2016, the Domes task force has reviewed a report about repair options presented by Milwaukee-based GRAEF USA and a peer review by Chicago-based Wiss, Jenney, Eltsner (WJE)—an engineering firm which has worked on many high-profile historic buildings. The latter study was funded by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Following a request for proposals, Milwaukee County then enlisted a consulting team headed by HGA, a Milwaukee architectural firm, along with Boston-based ConsultEcon, an economic consulting firm, to evaluate conditions, constraints and opportunities for the Domes to continue serving the community. Quorum Architects of Milwaukee, also part of the team, is conducting the project’s public input phase.
|
|
Task force members also engaged in brainstorming to consider ways to maintain and possibly enhance the cone-shaped Domes. ConsultEcon’s Robert Brais suggested “using their uniqueness and where they are in their life cycle to make the conservatory a regional destination.” ConsultEcon’s report also presented ways to increase the Domes’ programming, promotion and attendance.
Despite minimal marketing, the Domes are the fifth most popular attraction in Metropolitan Milwaukee among public and nonprofit institutions. With 210,000 visitors in 2015—81% of whom are from Wisconsin—it trails only the Milwaukee County Zoo, Milwaukee Public Museum, Discovery World and Milwaukee Art Museum in attendance. Nonetheless, ConsultEcon’s report stated that Domes attendance could rise, in some cases dramatically, with “targeted investments.” Numerous options “would not be huge undertakings but could make a big difference” in positively improving the visitor experience and increasing attendance, according to Brais.
Options for the Domes include higher quality changing exhibits and interpretative displays; integration of science, technology, engineering, art and math (STEAM) education within programming; exhibits and programs about native-plant ecology, sustainability and landscaping; night-time educational events; children’s gardens and butterfly or “insectarium” exhibits and programs. Other upgrades could include a visitor orientation-theater space and food service facilities. New on-site greenhouses could also be integrated into public programming or used to grow plants for sale to the public.
Eight Options Identified
Following extensive research and numerous task force meetings, the consulting team presented eight options for immediate and long-term planning. Input is also being gathered during focus groups with representatives of varied community institutions and constituencies. The public may also complete a short survey at mitchelldomes.org about the options by Monday, July 9.
Consultants said they did not include an option to demolish the Domes and build a conservatory elsewhere since there have been no indications of support for that approach. The Domes’ role as an economic and community anchor within the Clarke Square neighborhood has also been discussed. The options presented for the park facility by the consulting team are as follows:
1.) Do Nothing
This would mean that Milwaukee County continues to neglect maintenance, and water will continue to seep into the structures. ConsultEcon reports that this course of action would eventually lead to the Domes’ demolition, possibly within five years.
2.) Demolish the Domes; Keep the Greenhouses
Some, or even most, of the Domes’ multi-million-dollar horticultural collection would be lost if the county does not then construct another conservatory facility or move the plants to another proper location.
3.) Address the Deferred Maintenance
Completing Domes maintenance needs would cost between $20 and $30 million. The WJE analysis states that, “Overall, the glass cladding and precast concrete have performed well considering that minimal maintenance and repairs have been completed on the Domes. The primary issues are water leakage and spalling concrete at the embedded connections... Past repairs have not addressed water leakage into the Domes.”
4.) Targeted Investments
This option would include conducting deferred maintenance along with making other capital investments. It could cost $40-50 million dollars, which planners envision coming from county coffers, public-private partnerships and community philanthropy. New investments could include additional classrooms or meeting spaces, an improved or expanded guest entrance, more retail space, parking and programmatic options and food service.
5.) EcoDome Destination
An “EcoDome” concept would include deferred maintenance of the Domes and targeted investments and greatly expand upon the Domes’ ecological experiences and educational opportunities and functions. It would include a new immersive Ecological Habitat Zone with canopy walks, aquariums, live animals, expanded outdoor gardens, a children’s garden and a destination restaurant.
6.) Adventure Dome
The “Adventure Dome” concept envisions aspects like those of the EcoDome plan (as outlined above), but it would have an “adventure” focus with amenities like ziplines, climbing structures, a playground and water-play features rather than more ecological displays and experiences.
7.) Hybrid Redevelopment: EcoDome Destination Attraction
This option is the same as the EcoDome, except for razing the existing Show Dome and replacing it with a new EcoDome Destination Attraction.
8.) Hybrid Redevelopment: Adventure Dome Destination
Like the previous option, this would demolish the Show Dome and incorporate a new Adventure Dome.
