Creating Old World Wisconsin: The Struggle to Build an Outdoor History Museum of Ethnic Architecture

Chapter Three. Master Planners

58 chap ฀ ter฀thr ee H Master Planners As the acquisition of the site bogged down in protracted negotiations, Fishel moved to accomplish another major incremental goal. He knew the vision had to be transformed into a plan that would guide the acquisition and relocation of buildings on the anticipated site. Planning, even without the site, was indispensable for moving forward. Lacking a ready cash reserve, Fishel had to secure the services of a planner at minimal or no cost. This chapter considers the process by which the Society acquired its plan at no substantial expense. It focuses on college professor William H. Tishler and his students—sixteen undergraduates and three master’s students—the team that crafted the first formal master plan. Associate Director Dick Erney feared the impact of the projected museum on the Society and he especially disliked Fishel’s willingness to ignore established procedures. He characterized Fishel’s incremental method as a “nose under the tent” tactic. He elaborated: “The camel gets his nose under the tent, and then pretty soon you have the hump under, too.” He did recognize two advantages: cultural agencies, the Society included, “could only succeed by such means,” and OWW “would not exist if we had . . . followed procedure” and sought state approval. Erney allowed that financial exigencies drove the acquisition of a master plan. When asked about hiring a professional, Erney said master฀planners h 59 that it “never occurred to us to hire one, because we had no way of getting the funds to hire a professional planner. We didn’t even know how to find one.” He conceded the utilitarian value of an approach that assured Tishler’s students a valuable educational experience while still keeping the project alive and yielding the possibility of a plan.1 Conservation forced the Society to offer at least an outline of a plan when the two agencies discussed a land deal in 1962. If Conservation was to serve as the Society’s land agent, it needed a better idea of how its land might be used. Developing a detailed plan would take time. “I realize that the planning will involve a detailed study of topography and soil, of access routes, and historical information relating to ethnic groups,” FitzGerald wrote almost four years later, “and we are prepared to take whatever time is necessary to make these studies or to have them made for us.” A master plan was the next step. Still, two more years passed before the Society contracted for a formal plan.2 Fishel first turned to Perrin. He wanted advice on the location and size of the site, the number of ethnic groups to be represented, the number of structures available, the costs for moving them, the estimated cost for site preparation and operation, and a basic outline for the “story we want the buildings to tell.” Perrin, not intimidated by the scope of his charge, reported by the end of May. This first (very tentative) plan called for six or seven clusters of ethnic buildings with some space between them. It recommended starting with seven restored German half-timber buildings. With furnishings, he estimated $30,000 per building would have them operational. The interpretational focus would be on “ethnic appearance and activities” and not on the chronological approach employed at Stonefield. The site should be in excess of 500 acres and within a radius of fifty miles from the Milwaukee County boundary. A necessary first step, but little more than a working outline.3 The OMC, while focused on the important task of finding a suitable site, realized that the outline needed embellishment. At its first meeting in October 1964, the committee discussed its need to better understand the proposed museum and the potential problems that the Society might encounter. The usual route was to contract a professional planner. In the context of numerous board and staff discussions about the inadequate funding for existing historic sites, the committee undoubtedly understood planning would have to be accomplished internally. Indeed, Fishel saw no need to ask for a budget allocation for the committee’s work. The proposed park was part of the larger and increasingly expensive historic sites operation. Fishel argued that it was time for the Society 60 H master฀planners and its committees to assess expectations and costs as they considered the historic sites program’s future.4 The OMC agreed on three guidelines that needed...