Commission discusses 2025 "Cream City" awards, voting process and ceremony logistics

At its May 5 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed nominations for the 2025 Cream City awards, discussed categories and eligibility rules, and confirmed that the awards ceremony is scheduled for May 29 at Best Place with ballots to be distributed to commissioners by email.

Commissioners and staff spent the bulk of the item reviewing five principal nominations and the mechanics of voting. Project nominations mentioned on the record included: Concordia 27 (a Concordia neighborhood mixed-use rehabilitation), Double Dutch Hotel (a small hotel on Marshall Street), the Fitz Apartments (new infill on Summit Avenue/Hackett), Thrive on King (the former Gimbels/Shuster’s department-store redevelopment), and the Pabst Malthouse (referenced as a prominent “back from the brink” restoration). Commissioners also discussed other nominations such as a Tannery Boutique project and several smaller rehabilitations around the city.

Staff and process notes A staff member told commissioners that ballots would be emailed after the meeting and that commissioners who want to participate should return their ballots by the following day. The staff member said there will be a press release once votes are tallied and that the Common Council press office typically distributes award publicity.

Commissioners debated award categories and eligibility rules. Topics included whether awards should recognize original development teams or current owners, how to classify new construction versus rehabilitation (sensitive infill vs. large multifamily), and whether the commission should create a subcommittee or broaden the nomination outreach for future years. Commissioners noted an absence of a clear restoration-specific category and discussed adding formal parameters or an external advisory panel to recruit nominations.

Ceremony logistics and timing Commissioners confirmed the ceremony will be held on May 29 at Best Place; the start time was discussed as either 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., and staff noted the commission website lists the event time. Several commissioners encouraged additional publicity and suggested forming a small subcommittee to broaden nominations and recruitment for future years.

What did not change at the meeting The commission did not take final award votes at the meeting; instead members agreed to vote on projects (the process described in the meeting was thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting and commissioners may vote for multiple projects). The meeting record shows commissioners voting informally at the table to indicate preferences while staff recorded that electronic ballots would be distributed for the official tally.