The Milwaukee Industrial Survey

The Wisconsin Historical Society started a project late in 2015 to research and document Milwaukee industrial architecture, retaining the engineering and planning firm of Mead & Hunt. The idea behind the project is detailed in the following summary from the report they produced.

Milwaukee has historically been Wisconsin’s largest industrialized city. As industry left the city, scores of industrial buildings were left behind, vacant and underutilized. The availability of federal and state historic tax credits has made these buildings attractive candidates for rehabilitation and reuse. However, an impediment to the use of the tax credits has been the limited information on which buildings meet National Register criteria, one of the requirements of the tax credit program. To address this need, the Wisconsin Historical Society undertook a comprehensive architectural and historical study of Milwaukee’s historic industrial buildings. The intent was to create a record of Milwaukee’s industrial heritage as embodied in the remaining industrial buildings that would serve as an incentive for building owners and developers to reinvest in Milwaukee’s historic building stock, thereby increasing property values, creating new retail or housing opportunities, promoting green architecture, and attracting people back to devalued areas of Milwaukee.


The value in rehabilitating former industrial buildings can be seen in the success of the Third Ward which prior to its development starting in the late 1980’s was solely a warehouse and light-manufacturing district. One of the last buildings in the ward that remains functioning as light industrial is the Hoffco Shoe Polish Factory at 125 N Water St. In the mid-80’s before the transition, the ward was half-empty with many of the light-manufacturing businesses moved out of state. Commission Row on Broadway was the busiest part of the neighborhood with several fruit and vegetable wholesale businesses distributing their goods throughout the day.

The final report was finished late last year and was unveiled at an event at the Pritzlaff Building on January 19th. The 160-plus page document is available online through the Wisconsin Historic Society website and details the many types of industrial buildings to be found in Milwaukee, a history of the various industries and their development, and a complete list of industrial buildings in the city. This is an amazing tool for developers, researchers, and the public to gain an understanding of this underappreciated type of building.

Buildings That Are Older Than They Seem

Those people that came downtown during Doors Open Milwaukee last month had a chance to see some old, historic buildings. The age of the buildings was apparent in the layers of dust and dirt and the classic architectural features like mansard roofs, elaborate cornices, carved stonework, and incredible terra cotta ornaments. Some of the buildings that weren’t open were probably given a quick look as they were passed but nothing much stood out to identify the buildings as historic and old.

It is surprising to find that a building’s history is much older than it seems. Even when the building looks old, it might be that it is much older. One interesting example is the Lou Fritzel Building located at 733 N. Milwaukee Street. The Fritzel women’s clothing business occupied the building since it was renovated in 1939 until it closed 50 years later in 1989. Since then it has mostly remained vacant and time is starting to take its toll on the empty shell, making it look older than the style of its Moderne facade. In fact the building actually was built in 1877 with an Italianate style common to some neighboring buildings.


The renovation of 1939 clipped off the top two stories and made the building a one story building that was very modern looking for the street at the time. On the adjacent buildings the ghost silhouette of the original building can still be seen. There really are no visible clues to the real age of the building when seen from the street.


Another nearby building that might seem to be very recent is the 14 story Banker’s Building at the northeast corner of Water and Wisconsin. It was actually built in 1929 by Eschweiler and Eschweiler architects in a stylish neo-classical design similar to many buildings built at that time like the Hilton Hotel at 5th & Wisconsin or the Empire Building at Plankinton & Wisconsin. It originally had a much different exterior with terra cotta banding on the cornice and top floors. The bottom two floors had elaborate terra cotta ornamentation and large plate glass windows with darker brass metalwork. A complete renovation in 1983 removed all of the old brick work and terra cotta to be replaced with a more monochrome, dark red brick. Windows were replaced with modern, dark windows in vertical bands making the building appear very contemporary.


A few other buildings exist downtown that have been made over a few times and are extremely different than they once looked. I’ll try to write a future blog post about these other buildings.

HMI January Panel Discussion

The East Side Commercial Historic District: From Controversy to Catalyst

The HMI panel discussion on Thursday night, January 17th talked about many recent issues and changes that have happened in the East Side Commercial Historic District. This locally designated historic district, under the jurisdiction of the City of Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is shown here:

The controversy which spawned this discussion began in 2010 with plans by Wave Development to build a new 200 room Marriott Hotel in place of five historic buildings within the district. The developers fought the HPC rejection of their initial plans. Those plans ran counter to preservation guidelines put in place for the district in 1987 as well as the Preservation Ordinance. The ensuing battle between the developer’s public relations firm, the City HPC, and preservationists became a media event for weeks. When the dust settled, the developer revised their plans to save the Noonan Block on Wisconsin Avenue. The Preservation Ordinance was subsequently put in the spotlight with promises to be gutted by Alderman Witkowski because it was viewed as anti-development. It was amended in December of 2012 by the Common Council but with changes that made it stronger and not weaker. The final consensus was that preservation “makes good economic sense”.

UWM Professor, Matt Jarosz presented the history of the district and its importance as the virtual heart of Milwaukee since the first settlement. It is unique among similar American cities in not continuously redeveloping the land as time progressed. Many of the buildings within the district are 19th century interspersed with a few early 20th century buildings examples. Professor Jarosz went on to give a multitude of examples from his students on how this district could be improved to take advantage of the current impediments. Some of the best concepts took advantage of underutilized surface parking to build modern buildings that connect to historic buildings and offer updated access to those buildings. These new buildings would add larger entrances, elevator service, and other improvements to modern standards and codes without requiring expensive retrofits to the older, historic buildings. One example showed how a new structure to the south of the Iron Block could add features to it and the Zimmermann Block next door. Infilling adjacent to the Button Block would encourage re-use of the upper floors. Another interesting proposal was converting the public alleys into shared space that could be used as a semi-covered pedestrian space or for extended outdoor seating. His common theme was that intelligent, planned new development could reinvigorate the district and encourage property owners to invest in building rehabilitation.

Some of the other presentations of the evening included an overview of the work done by architect Mark Demsky of Dental Associates with the restoration of the Iron Block Building. Dental Associates took unprecedented steps in restoring features that had been removed from the building over 100 years ago including decorative cast iron urns above the Water Street entrance and intricate grape leaves on the columns. He researched the history of renovations and found a trove of information that would be overlooked by architects doing a basic renovation. When the building is unveiled in March it should be a showpiece of preservation in Milwaukee.

Steve Schwartz, CEO of the First Hospitality Group talked about his company’s work renovating the Loyalty building on Broadway and Michigan. They faced many challenges in converting the Solomon Spencer Beman designed masterpiece from an office building into a hotel with modern conveniences. As with many 125 year-old buildings, it had been remodeled many times over the years, removing or hiding some of the notable features. The First Hospitality Group has been involved in several adaptive re-uses nationally, this building being the sixth. The first was in Indianapolis, converting a former 16-story bank building into a Hilton Garden Inn in 2003. Adaptive re-use preserves details of historic buildings that couldn’t be done economically in a new building and creates an “experiential” space encouraging participation and use.

The final talk was given by Josh Jeffers, owner of the Mitchell Building with the work he has been doing the past few years in stabilizing the foundations of his building as well as the facade and roof renovations. The persistent problem of a dropping watertable downtown have resulted in the exposure of old wooden piles under building foundations to wood rot. In the Mitchell Building, it was found that many of the footings were unsupported because of the advanced state of decay of these pilings. The exterior of the building shows some effects of the settlement over the years. The work to repair the problem has been time consuming because nearly all of the excavation has to be done by hand in tight spaces in the basement. Great care must be taken to avoid further damage to the building. The area under the stone pile caps must be removed manually, the rotted piles must be cut out and a new concrete pile cap was poured in the excavated area. In addition, a new technology of using the building’s wastewater in a sub-basement drain system was used to keep the deeper wooden piles wet and free from future rot. This major investment in the building will keep it standing firm for many years to come.

Plankinton Mansion Woodwork Auction

The City of Milwaukee managed to salvage many items of historical interest when it demolished the Elizabeth Plankinton mansion in 1982. These doors, windows, and other pieces of woodwork have been in storage all these years in a Housing Authority warehouse. Finally the city is selling most everything they saved in an online auction which can be found here.

This is your chance to own a piece of history. Some doors are going for a relatively low cost while some items are already over $1,000.

The Loss of Haymarket Square

Last year I posted an article from 1880 talking about the many public squares that the city had in use. One which was lost due to urban renewal in the late 1960s was Haymarket Square at 5th & McKinley. The area is now mostly taken up by a large WE Energies substation and several vacant buildings. The dismantling of the Park East freeway on the other side of McKinley has left a large area waiting for development and improvement.

Questions have come up, especially at the recent Envisioning the Seen program sponsored by Historic Milwaukee, Inc., as what should be done to spur development of the Park East. I say we should bring back a public market square. This would be instantly used by residents at Hillside Terrace who have no grocery or market nearby and would help to promote mixed use development in the Park East. Markets elsewhere in the city are well used as a source for fresh, healthy and cheap vegetables.

Public parks and markets are places in the city which can turn vacant space into used space and provide something which can attract development. How many developers want to take a risk on a vacant area that has no life? An actively used public space will make adjacent lands that much more valuable and attractive.

Unfortunately after Richard Perrin made the decision in 1966 to squeeze the last of the activity out of the area with the urban renewal project, the seeds of development could never take root and today we are left with vacant buildings and deserted space.

Milwaukee Journal, October 26, 1966

Haymarket Square Draws No Opposition

The proposed Haymarket Sqaure urban renewal project was discussed at a one hour public hearing Tuesday. No objections were heard from the more than 70 persons present. Eleven persons said they favored the project.

The 60 acre, L-shaped area is bounded roughly by W. Walnut, N. 3rd, W. McKinley, N. 8th, W. Vliet and N. 6th. Nearly 21 acres will be cleared and 14.4 acres rehabilitated. Streets and alleys occupy the other acreage.

The city redevelopment authority hopes to remove all residential structures from the area making the land available for expansion of existing businesses and for new industry.

The authority is not expected to give its final approval to the plan until Nov. 10 because it must allow property owners 15 days from the hearing, or until Nov. 9, to file written objections. Final action then will be sought from the common council.

1968 Target Date

Richard W. E. Perrin, the authority’s secretary, said land acquisitions could begin by next January. By mid-1968, he said, it is possible that all land involved will have been acquired and cleared.

The entire $3,241,058 cost of the project will be borne by the city – making it the first such project in which no federal funds for renewal will be used. The city is expected to recoup about $1,600,000 from the resale of land to developers, placing the project’s net cost at $1,640,000.

According to a new survey, the city will have to relocate 60 families, 166 individuals, 55 businesses, and 7 institutions from the area. City planners had estimated earlier that the project would uproot 133 families and 75 individuals.

Beautification Urged

At the hearing Richard Bosely, owner of Graphic Studios, 1331 N. 3rd st., asked that the project be amended so that something could be done to beautify the east side of N. 3rd. Much of it consists of railroad lines and loading-unloading areas.

Calling the street the “front yard” of the project because it carries heavy traffic to and from the downtown area, Bosely suggested that a brick retaining wall with greenery on top be used to screen that side of the street.

John Budzien, representing Milwaukee Gowers, Inc., 519 W. McKinley av., urged the retention of the farmers’ market in the area. Its proposed removal, he said, would create an economic hardship for the firm.

Convent Hill

If you look now at the old Convent Hill, much has changed since has changed since the demolition of the Park East Freeway stub. There is still plenty of open land although plans are beginning to develop to use the vacant fields. This area got its name from the large Convent for School Sisters of Notre Dame which encompassed the entire block between Milwaukee, Jefferson, Ogden, and Knapp Streets.

Before the Park East was a dream, the area was dominated by the Convent and workers houses for the Pfister & Vogel Tannery and other nearby industries like Schlitz Brewery. It was a nondescript working class neighborhood and traces of it can still be found around Jefferson, Jackson, and Pleasant Streets.

Demolition for the Park East was extensive and wiped away a large swath of land as well as these working class neighborhoods between Lyon and Ogden. The Convent was closed and torn down in the early 1960s and moved out to Elm Grove. Everything seen in these pictures from 1930 is long gone but the neighborhood continues to evolve and actually improve.

Remembering Richard Nickel

In the 1970’s the city of Chicago, like Milwaukee saw many buildings fall to the wrecking ball. In the spring of 1972 the Chicago Stock Exchange building was being demolished. This structure was a grand example of late 19th century architecture designed by the famous Chicago architects, Dunkmar Adler and Louis Sullivan. It was considered one of Sullivan’s best remaining works of architecture in the early 1970’s. It was an imaginative work that used the latest technology of the steel frame and merged it with the highest forms of decorative arts and terra-cotta.

One person interested in documenting and trying to save the Stock Exchange and other 19th century Chicago buildings was Richard Nickel. He was an architectural photographer and historian who was continuing a project to completely document all of Adler and Sullivan’s remaining work. This started in the early 1950’s after studying under Aaron Siskind at IIT Institute of Design in Chicago. The project continued after he completed his thesis in 1957 and grew with the demolition of the Garrick Theater in 1961. Nickel launched an all-out preservation effort to try and save the Garrick early in 1960 and even with a court battle by preservationists was unable to halt the building’s demise. Luckily he was able to salvage many terra-cotta and plaster ornamentation as well as completely documenting much of the building prior to its destruction.

The last battle that he fought was the effort to save the Chicago Stock Exchange. This crusade was fought for several years before it was found to be unwinnable. As with the Garrick, the only solution was to save as much of the building’s artwork as possible. Richard Nickel worked with the Art Institute as well as the Metropolitan Museum and Southern Illinois University to save various architectural artifacts for their collections. Through his effort, many artifacts were salvaged from the Stock Exchange building including an immense entrance arch which was placed outside the Art Institute in 1977. He continued on with his salvage work and documentation, often working alone whenever he had the opportunity. He sacrificed much to save a history that many didn’t think was worth saving and because of that we know much about Adler and Sullivan that would have otherwise been lost.

The last day anyone saw him alive was 40 years ago today. He was found in May 1972 in the rubble of the Stock Exchange as the last walls came down.

I recommend:
Art Institute of Chicago website
Digital Stock Exchange
They All Fall Down

Piecing Together The Past

Last year I was browsing the Library of Congress website doing research on some of their photographic collections of Milwaukee material. I was already familiar with the work of John Vachon, a Farm Security Administration (FSA) photographer who had spent some time in Milwaukee in September 1939 and was browsing his work. Some of the catalogued pictures had no descriptions but obviously were from the same date as other pictures from Milwaukee. This one in particular intrigued me because it was a Milwaukee-style building but I did not recognize it at all.

It stayed in the back of mind for months but it was a building that was long lost or from somewhere else. Today while looking through some images I have scanned from other sources I came across this picture and recognized it almost immediately. It was the mystery building right in the heart of downtown! I still have yet to piece together the history of the lost building but now I have an address which is a start.

Sometime in the 1960s it was torn down to make way for this nondescript parking structure.


Old Buildings Made New

In the 1930s and 1940s, the effort was underway to give Milwaukee a more modern appearance. This was usually done by tearing down old buildings and building new. It was usually cheaper to take an old building and make it look modern. Sometimes this was effective as was the case with Lou Fritzel building at 733 N. Milwaukee St and also the building shown below on N. Teutonia Ave. Although with the passing of time and less attractive renovations the building doesn’t appear too modern anymore.

Milwaukee Journal January 9, 1938

The remarkable improvement that can be made in soundly built old structures that are out of date in style is shown by the transformation of the Staadt Hardware Co building at 2816 N. Teutonia av. The pictures show the building before and after. Alexander H. Bauer, Milwaukee architect, designed the remodeling, using Lustron, a new enameled steel with a glass finish, to veneer the exterior. The new material is handled by Porcelain Building Products, Inc.

As it look now, via Google Maps.

Early 20th Century Historic Preservation in Germany

This is an interesting article that I found in the Construction News magazine published in Chicago from the September 20, 1913 issue. It may get a little clinical about the issues of historic preservation but shows that Europeans were trying to come to terms with how the desire to modernize their cities would fit in with their historic and national identity.

Even today we must work out our local identity and how that relates to the urban landscapes of past, present and future so that we don’t lose what makes our city “Milwaukee”.


Stringent Laws Enacted

In the German Empire there are numerous Federal, municipal and communal statutes in operation for protecting buildings, plazas, streets, etc., of historic and artistic interest. According to the provisions of the enacted laws, the authorities of the districts in which the buildings, streets, etc., are located are empowered to issue regulations, ordinances, etc., for their preservation, and many such regulations are now in force, writes Consul General A. M. Thackara, Berlin. One of the most far-reaching of the protective laws is the Prussian act of July 15, 1907, a liberal translation of which follows:

1. The consent for the erection of buildings and alterations of the same is to be refused when the general appearance of the streets or public places of a city or village is greatly disfigured thereby.

2. By local statute the consent of the building police may be withheld for the erection of buildings or alterations of the same, in certain streets or places of historical or artistic interest, when such building operations would materially detract from the characteristic features of such streets or places. Furthermore, by local statute the consent of the building police may be withheld for the alteration of single buildings of historical or artistic importance, or the erection or alteration of buildings in the neighborhood of the said buildings, when the characteristic features or the general impression of the above-mentioned buildings may be marred. If the building operations as contemplated by the owners in the main would harmonize with the surroundings and the costs of the changes nevertheless required by the local statute are greatly out of proportion to the costs of the original plans, then the application of the provisions of the local statute may be waived.

3. By local statute it can be prescribed that the erection of billboards, advertising cases (showcases), advertising signs, and pictures is subject to the consent of the building authorities. This consent may be withheld under conditions similar to those set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. For the development of certain land, villa sites, health resorts, boulevards, etc., by local statute, special conditions may be prescribed which are more stringent than the provisions of the ordinary police building regulations.

5. Experts must be consulted before decisions are rendered under the local statutes in the cases specified in paragraphs 2 and 4.

6. Unless contrary to the requirements provided for in paragraph 2 of the law, before granting or refusing a building concession, it is necessary to consult with experts and also the head officers of the district (Gemeinde Vorstand). If the police building authorities wish to grant a concession contrary to the opinions of the Gemeinde Vorstand a written notice to that effect must be sent to the latter officials. They can within two weeks appeal against the decision of the police authorities to the board of supervision (Aufsichtsbehorde). In communities where the local administration does not consist of several persons, and in those where the mayor is at the same time the chief of police, the substitute for the mayor, in case of the latter’s absence, represents the Gemeinde Vorstand.

7. Regulations for independent manors (Gutsbezirke) can be issued by the district committee (Kreisausschuss) after consulting with the administrator of the manor. The decisions of the district committee must be confirmed by the county committee (Bezirksausschuss). The provisions of paragraph 2, sections 2, 5 and 6 are applicable the above cases.

8. The president of a government district may, with the consent of the district authorities, make special regulations for the preservation of unusually fine landscape, by which the consent of the police building authorities may be refused for the erection or alteration of buildings outside of cities, if thereby the entire landscape may be disfigured, if by the selection of other sites, or by the use of different building plans the disfigurement may be avoided. Before refusing the consent, experts and the district committee should be consulted, and in communities in which the district committee does not consist of several persons and in those where the mayor is at the same time the chief of police, the municipal officer who represents the mayor in case of the latter’s absence, takes the place of the Gemeinde Vorstand.

Prior to the enactment of the above law the building police authorities had no power to restrict building operations for esthetic reasons, except that within the jurisdiction of the Allgemeine Landrecht, the general land law of Prussia, gross disfigurement of streets and plazas might be prevented; but there was usually great contention as to what constituted a gross disfigurement. By the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present law, however, when there can be no doubt that the erection of buildings would greatly disfigure the public streets or plazas of a town or village, the building police authorities must refuse permission for the construction of such buildings. The law of July 15, 1907, falls into three parts. The first part (par. 1) extends to the whole State the provisions of the general land law relative to the gross disfigurement of streets, etc. The second part (pars. 2 to 7) erects a foundation on which local governments may rest more far-reaching provisions of an esthetic kind, especially with a view to the protection of historic and artistic structures. The third part (par. 8 ) serves to protect the landscape in especially favored localities against desecration by unsightly buildings.

Paragraph 1 provides that the permission of the building police for the erection of buildings or for alterations shall be refused when streets or plazas in the neighborhood or the general outlook would thereby be grossly disfigured. In contradistinction to the provisions of paragraph 1, formally conferring upon the building police authorities the immediate right to refuse building permits, the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 7 may only be applied after a local ordinance or statute granting to the local police the necessary powers shall have been passed. If such a local ordinance be passed to that effect, the local police are bound by its provisions. Under the provisions of the general law the following are among the regulations which may be provided for by local statutes:

“Permission for erecting buildings or for making alterations of buildings on specially designated streets or plazas of historic or artistic importance may be refused if the character of the streets or plazas is impaired.” Just what constitutes a street or plaza of historic or artistic importance is a question to be decided in each particular case. Newly-laid out streets or newly constructed buildings may be considered of artistic importance in the sense of the law. Streets or plazas may be regarded of historic value only when all or a part of the buildings erected thereon have the character of an historic epoch. In the meaning of the law it would not suffice if the particular street or plaza was merely the place where an historical event occurred; the buildings and the surroundings must be commemorative of the event. Certain limited parts of streets may be protected by local statute. Unimportant building operations which do not encroach upon the historic or artistic characteristics of the town or its streets do not fall within the prohibitions prescribed by the law. For streets or plazas of a distinctly historic or artistic character it may be stipulated in the local statute that new buildings or structural alterations shall correspond in style to that prevailing at the time the street or plaza was built. In such cases provision may be made as to the style of the exteriors of the new buildings, the materials to be used, the coloring, etc. Not only structural changes of an historic building, such as the Steffen House at Danzig, for instance, may be prohibited by local statute, but also changes or removal of parts of the building.

The law allows the communities great liberty in protecting their historic and artistic buildings and plazas but no hard and fast rule can be given for the preparation of local statutes, as their provisions must depend upon the prevailing conditions in the locality in which the buildings and plazas are situated. Local statutes enacted under the law which would refer to other matters than the protection of the artistic or historic character of the buildings, streets, or plazas would be illegal. Not only may streets, villages, towns, etc., of historic importance be protected by local statute, but the provisions may also be extended to single buildings of historic or artistic value, such as churches, monasteries, towers, town gates, castles, etc., whether they are located within or without cities, towns, etc. Even characteristic frame buildings in the city or country are not excluded according to the wording and intention of the law. Alterations of buildings or the erection of neighboring buildings which would detract from the general appearance of the characteristic frame buildings may be prohibited by local statute. It is not within the provisions of the law to prevent the demolition of buildings of artistic or historical importance when owned by private parties.

The Prussian law of June 2, 1902, was enacted to prevent the disfigurement of prominent landscapes by the display of advertising signs. It reads as follows: “By police regulations, based on the provisions of the law of the general land administrative act of July 30, 1883, the police authorities are empowered to prohibit the defacement of prominent parts of landscapes by the erection of billboards and other signs and pictures which would detract from the beauty of the surrounding scenery either in whole individual districts or in parts of the same.”

By the provisions of paragraph 3 of the law of July 15, 1907, the scope of the foregoing law is extended to embrace streets and plazas of a town, historic buildings, etc., provided that a local statute has been enacted requiring the permission of the police authorities before such advertisements are erected. By the provisions of paragraph 4 of the law, by local statute special restrictions may be placed on the architecture of building operations in suburban residential districts, seaside resorts, and boulevards which are more stringent than the ordinary building police regulations in force. Paragraphs 5 and 6 provide for the employment of experts when their opinions may be deemed necessary and for the procedure in cases when differences should arise between the police building officials and the municipal administrations. By paragraph 7 the provisions of the law are extended so as to embrace manor houses and the appertaining lands. The provisions of paragraph 8 are intended for the prevention of the defacement of particularly fine landscapes by the erection of unsightly buildings. The governor of a district (Regierungsprasident) may, with the consent of the district authorities, require that the permission of the building police officials be refused for the erection of buildings and building alterations outside of the towns or cities if the scenic views are greatly disfigured thereby. These regulations can only be made applicable to what are recognized generally to be particularly fine landscapes.

The law contains no regulation in regard to indemnification. It was claimed by the lawmakers that if indemnities were provided for it would be a temptation on the part of unprincipled builders to submit plans which could not be accepted by the building police authorities, in the hopes that the costs of alteration or construction would be partly borne by the communal authorities. Section 2 of paragraph 2 of the law stipulates that the local statutes shall not be enforced if the plans in the main are suitable and the costs of the changes necessary to satisfy the building police, authorities are small in comparison with the costs of the entire building operations. The provisions of the law are applicable to the State government in the construction of official buildings, also to religious bodies in the erection of their churches, monasteries, etc. Under the authority granted by the Prussian law of 1907 a number of local statutes have been enacted, the most typical of which are given in the brochure entitled Wichtige Ortsstatute, nach dem Preussischen Verunstaltungsgesetz.

In Germany there is a national association called the Bund Heimatschutz formed for protecting and preserving the natural beauty of the German fatherland together with its historic and artistic buildings, cities, monuments, etc., also to unite the efforts being made by various local and State organizations. Its membership consists of State organizations, local associations, which do not belong to State organizations, and single members who may include persons, corporations, officials, etc., located in districts in which no organization is in existence. In connection with the association there has been established an international bureau to extend the scope of its work by collecting all laws,regulations, etc., of foreign countries bearing on the protection of historic buildings, etc., and for exchanging with foreign societies literature and other information. The director of the German association is Mr. Fritz Koch, with headquarters at Charlottenstrasse 3, Meiningen, Saxe Meiningen, Germany. Mr. Koch would be pleased to enter into correspondence with American associations, municipal authorities, and others interested in the protection of native scenery, historic artistic buildings, plazas, etc.

Special ordinances are issued by various German cities of which three of the most picturesque are Nuremberg, Rothenhurg, and Treves. With reference to Nuremberg Consul Ifft writes in part as follows:

“In Nuremberg the provisions of the ordinances for the protections of historic buildings, etc., are made effective through an art committee named by the Stadt Magistrat (mayor). The director of the local Industrial Art School is an ex-officio member of this committee and the other members are local artists. Whenever any alterations in old buildings are proposed, or the erection planned of new building in historic quarters, the plans are submitted to this art committee and may not be carried out until approved by this committee. As a matter of fact, no building in the old city is permitted without the approval of this committee, which is also consulted in regard to the plans for all public buildings and improvements. In Rothenburg there is no special committee of this kind, but the Stadt Magistrat reserves the right to consult experts whenever any question of this character arises. Consul Dunlap, in forwarding the building police regulations for the city of Treves (Trier) inclosed a letter from the mayor of that city, a translation of which follows:

“I take pleasure in informing you that many antiquities and ancient buildings are in the possession of the State. For this reason ample provision is made for their protection. The protection of the antiquities belonging to the church is provided for by the law of June 20, 1875, relative to the administration of the property belonging to the Catholic congregations, which prescribes in section 50 that the resolutions of church prelates and general representatives of church congregations regarding objects of a historic, scientific, or artistic value are subject to the approval of the government authorities (Aufsichtsbehorde). Provision is also amply made for preservation of antiquities in the possession of private persons. For instance, section 46 of the municipal ordinance for the Rhine Province of May 15, 1836 prescribes the following:

“The approval of the District President (Regierungsprasident) is necessary for any projected sales or important changes of objects being of a certain scientific, historic, or artistic value.’ The protection of antiquities in the possession of private individuals is provided for by the local laws for the town of Treves.”