Architects show six ‘test-fit’ concepts for Shorewood DPW site; higher-density options would raise assessed value

Epstein|UN Architects presented six conceptual “test-fit” options for development of the village’s Department of Public Works site, showing a range from low-density two‑unit buildings to higher-density mid‑rise apartment schemes with podium parking.

Presenters said the exercise is a high‑level study to illustrate what could fit on the parcel if the village chose to move DPW operations to an alternate site. The study modeled several product types: duplex-style two‑story flat/flat buildings (34 units), suburban “walk‑up” buildings (roughly 48 units in the concepts shown), mixed podium buildings that preserve one or two existing site structures and add an elevator building (about 80 units in one scheme), and larger mid‑rise apartment bars (more than 100 units in the largest concept). The architects emphasized these are conceptual site fits, not final designs.

Engineers and cost consultants presented opinion-of-probable-cost numbers. For the lower-density scheme the team estimated a round construction cost in the low‑tens of millions (a representative option cited was roughly $15 million); a single mid‑rise option the team priced at materially higher amounts per unit but with a larger overall assessed value. The presentation noted a significant east‑side retaining wall and site grading that influence cost and layout choices; reusing one of the existing warehouse or office buildings reduces demolition costs but adds renovation expense.

The team also modeled parking strategies. Low-density layouts included one‑to‑one enclosed garages; higher-density plans used a mix of enclosed podium or structured parking plus surface visitor parking. Architects explained underground parking would be cost‑prohibitive on the site because of shoring and foundation expense; podium parking with ramping and multiple levels was deemed technically possible but costly.

The presentation concluded with estimated assessed‑value ranges per option and a reminder that the test fits were intended to inform discussions of site capability and potential value to a developer, not to propose a specific redevelopment. Board members asked about unit sizes, parking, and development feasibility. The board did not take action; presenters said the materials and a written summary would be posted to the village’s project page.

Speakers from the consultant team included Michael (Mike) Oates and Scott Kindness from Epstein|UN Architects, and a construction cost representative who gave the cost overviews. Staff and trustees asked technical and programmatic questions during the presentation.