The vote by Memphis City Council is still about six weeks away, but it’s becoming clearer and clearer that it’s about much more than whether McDonald’s can build a suburban restaurant on on a key corner in the University of Memphis’ neighborhood.
More and more, it is a vote about whether Memphis is going to throw in the towel on planning and urban design.
It is a vote on whether pledges made by the city about overlay districts will be honored.
It is a vote on whether public input – as in the University District – is merely for show and in the end, the voices of Memphians who are invested in their neighborhoods will be ignored.
It is a vote on whether Memphis values the kind of planning that creates a great city rather than acting as a barrier to it.
It is a vote on whether Memphis’ growing rhetoric about the importance of livability and placemaking is merely that – rhetoric.
It is a vote on whether the Unified Development Code (UDC) – now loaded down with amendments that dumb down what was once exciting potential to improve neighborhoods and Memphis’ livability – is merely a sham.
It is a vote on whether City of Memphis is willing to send a message that quality neighborhoods matter and that City Council wants its planners to fight for them.
It is a vote on whether Memphis can show the same pride as other cities who have told McDonald’s that their suburban design doesn’t work in an urban setting, and as a result, they got a more urban, better designed estaurant.
Sending a Message Inside and Outside Government
Simply put, for many Memphians, it’s a vote that will demonstrate whether City Council members can do something that has so far been elusive in the planning function: setting and pursuing higher standards that are about creating a place rather than about dealing with projects.
We are optimistic that they will do just that and send an unmistakable message that business as usual is simply unacceptable, and that they expect the kind of quality planning that is a prerequisite to a quality city.
We are also optimistic that once this message is received by the handful of planners that are left in city and county governments, they will prove that they can deliver the kind of plans common in other cities where they inspire civic action, catalyze civic pride, and reflect a city’s feelings of self-worth.
More to the point, good planning can increase property values which in turn increase property taxes which contribute to the bottom lines of city and county governments at a time when they are in dire need of new revenues. In addition, good planning can be a major fact in whether our city attracts talent, jobs, investments, and new residents.
Not Even in the Game
It’s understandable that city-county planners seem to aim for the lowest common denominator. After all, they have to feel like veterans at a Pearl Harbor reunion. Each year, there are fewer of them. Surely, the draconian budget cuts that decimated the city-county planning function have been profound drags on highly motivated planning. After all, if your employer is sending you a message that is tantamount to saying your work has no value, it’s pretty difficult not to be demoralized.
And yet, it is still discouraging when the city-county’s top planner said, as he did as part of the McDonald’s debate, that “playing hardball” with developers drives them to Mississippi, and that Memphis must balance zoning regulations with economic development.
First, it would be encouraging to us if hardball was ever the response by local government to developers’ self-interest – but failing to even try to play hardball in response to zoning requests does serious damage Memphis neighborhoods (particularly those with overlay districts).
More to the point, if a McDonald’s restaurant is now seriously considered economic development, we are all in more trouble than we thought.
Listen to U of M
The opposition of the University of Memphis to the plans by McDonald’s has been vocal, and it’s hard for us to imagine a city that would ignore the wishes of its major educational institution, much less its ambitions to create a district like those in other cities that have paid important dividends in neighborhood redevelopment, talent attraction and retention, and in cementing the town-gown relationship that should matter to everyone in city and county governments.
It is incredible that in Memphis, this kind of university district has to be fought for, and yet, here, we are told by the very people who should inspire us with their planned vision for our future that we don’t deserve better and that we should never aspire for better planned neighborhoods and a stronger urban design ethos.
Instead, it has been said that the aim in the McDonald’s case is to “balance the interests of applicants, property owners, and other stakeholders in the neighborhood while considering the overall benefits of the development to the area.” We suggest that rather than assume Solomonic roles in deciding the benefits of development, when an overlay district sets out a neighborhood’s own vision for the future, there is nothing more important for planners to do than to support it in achieving that vision.
Back to the McDonald’s zoning issue, City Councilman Harold Collins has thankfully sent a strong message: “If McDonald’s wants to be a part of the community, then they will find a compromise because McDonald’s knows that this council will be in full support of the aesthetics of this district.”
Tipping Point
At this point, the reason that this vote has resonated throughout Memphis is that the city has reached a tipping point. Neighborhoods are unwilling to watch as planning decisions run counter to their best interests and while developers seem to get several bites at the apple while the promises made to neighborhoods and citizens about overlay districts are disregarded and discarded with the attendant damage to the public’s confidence in its own government.
Memphis City Council has an important opportunity to take a stand in restoring public confidence, and it begins at an unlikely place – the southeast corner of Highland and Southern.
One of Memphis’ wise senior architects says that good planning and good design are always worth fighting for, and it’s strange how often that’s what we have to do to get them. Hopefully, this vote by City Council can set off a movement that fights for the future of Memphis neighborhoods with new energy and passion.
Members of Memphis City Council have an opportunity to lead it. We predict that they will.
Well said. It’s worth noting that many of the UDC amendments pushed by the Office of Planning and Development remove decision-making authority from the hands of elected officials such as the City Council, that must respond to the public.
Instead, the amendments invest that authority in the appointed Board of Adjustment, where the public’s only recourse is to go to court. As a result, citizens are essentially disenfranchised in favor of special interests with deeper pockets. Unless the Council takes the appropriate stand on the University Overlay issue and other amendments, it may find itself without a voice in future.
Planning and design are not fuzzy, unnecessary pursuits. The pursuit of excellence in city building distinguishes successful cities where middle class and high-income talented people choose to live. It is an economic issue, plain and simple, and it affects everyone who lives or works in Memphis. Every taxpayer should all be clamoring for more and better design and planning.
Walkability, aesthetics, and other smart planning concepts are certainly important, but we need to remember that the primary issue is an economic one.
National chains from McDonald’s to Walmart are able to sell cheaper products through economies of scale, but the long term damage they do to local economies (by bankrupting local producers and siphoning capital out of the region) far outweighs the short term benefits.
In McDonald’s case, they have an even further edge over local restaurants because of their deep integration into the (taxpayer subsidized) industrial food system. This shouldn’t be a small-scale fight to keep the UDO “livable,” it should be part of a larger fight to change the way city leadership thinks about economic development.
There is already a McDonalds’ on highland. I didn’t catch where the second one was going to be and how this would cause a negative impact on the area surrounding Memphis State???
The “aesthetics” issues are confusing and have little to do with it. Apparently, supporters of the UDC overlay do not want parking lots and drive throughs.
It’s not that no one wants parking lots, but there is an urban form so that the parking lots aren’t separating people from their streets and sidewalks. There are urban-sensitive McDonald’s built in cities that care more about design and they don’t have wraparound drive-throughs, but instead move it to the back of the restaurant and out of the line of sight. There are ways to do this right – as McDonald’s as proven in other cities.
But back to the point of this blog, this district set design guidelines and had higher ambitions for their neighborhood and city government through its planning department is giving them the same old fast food building as Germantown Parkway. Different parts of the city call for different designs, rather than cookie cutter designs that destroy the urban fabric.
University of Memphis has a great vision for the future of this area as the kind of university district that other universities have. They deserve the chance, and so does the University District, to make that happen.
Kathy b,
The aesthetics issues have an enormous role in this issue. Exactly what do you find confusing?
“Apparently, supporters of the UDC overlay do not want parking lots and drive throughs”… is representative of a very uninformed opinion, the type I hope is becoming less common as residents become more informed.
First, while portions of the UDC are applicable in this case, the University District Overlay is the primary driver in regards to urban form and development in the University District.
Second, as noted in an earlier post on the matter, in no way does the UDC or the University District Overlay prohibit parking lots or drive-thrus. In fact, off-street parking is recognized as a requirement for supporting virtually any business in the area. However, unlike most other areas of the city, building owners are not required to provide off-street parking- a land use which provides no direct income yet does require regular maintenance and lighting. Drive-thrus are also expressly permitted. One finds an entire paragraph concerning their location and design.
Also noted in an earlier post: the requirements of the University District Overlay (UDO) are hardly new or unique. Relatively speaking, they are a bit lax when compared to similar overlays found in peer cities such as Nashville, Little Rock, Charlotte and Dallas. Examples of McDonalds locations that would likely satisfy the requirements of the UDO can be found in cities of comparative size and in districts with similar goals across the country and nearby such as can be seen in Louisville and Oklahoma City.
Frank- well said.
Waal, it’ll be most convenient for Earth Science majors to put their ‘You want fries with that?” speech to good use.
keepin’ it in the neighborhood, n’ all, ye see…
I remember back in the 1950s we did something called “window shopping”. We would park the car and walk down the street looking in store windows for interesting things we wanted to buy. Every now and then would be a restaurant that we would walk into or pass by but still a storefront up to the sidewalk giving a sense of continuity to the walk.
The window shopping was enhanced by set back entry doors with two sided window displays on either side thanks to the great architect Victor Gruen who later gave us the enclosed suburban shopping mall with its walking environment.
The University District Overlay is an attempt to go back to a walking environment with a sense of continuity not interrupted by cars, fumes and barriers to pedestrian access.
McDonald’s believes that a vast majority of its customers will arrive by car, but in a University setting at this location the customer base may well be pedestrians.
Words like “urban form” and “walkability” are terms that only planners and architects are familiar with. To me, urban means concrete jungle.
The best parts of Memphis can be found on Central going west from the University of Memphis. Actually, East Parkway, near Christian Brothers University, with its garden atmosphere and huge setbacks is the one of the best streets in the city. I do not see that area as “urban.” And I never looked at the University of Memphis area as urban either. It always seemed more of a neighborhood, with plenty of green.
Kathy b:
If you like the revitalized Overton Square along tree-lined Madison Avenue where pedestrians are protected by on-street parking, or the corner of Cooper and Young with its collection of restaurants right on the sidewalks of manageable, compact streets, then you know what walkable urban form is all about.
True, it’s not for everybody. However, people who enjoy city life generally prefer compact, vibrant, convenient, and economically sustainable business districts to the more suburban form, profligate, auto-oriented streets such as eastern Poplar or Summer Avenues. Each choice represents certain values. As a committed city-dweller, I find the urban form of a Cooper-Young business district not only more livable, but also more economically sensible, and therefore preferable.
Thanks rbud. I do like Overton square. There is parking there. If you do not live in that neighborhood, you can drive there, park, and walk. I love that. People in cars come and buy from the neighborhood businesses. I have not found it easy to get to Cooper young as much. But if that immediate neighborhood can support those businesses, ok.
RBUD- thank you. There will always be a segment of the population that will struggle with any neighborhood concept that requires there parked vehicle to not be within direct eyesight of their desired destination. However, that is why we have thoroughfares such as Germantown Road. It is gratifying to see so many understand and vocalize their support for the types of neighborhoods that you described so well.
Kathy-
Fortunately places like Cooper Young continue to attract those living in the immediate vicinity and residents from throughout the region and beyond. In fact, the majority of the business that is done at those restaurants, pubs and shops comes from those who reside outside the immediate area and apparently are not deterred by any misconceptions regarding parking. It only reinforces Cooper Young’s ranking as one of the top 10 best neighborhoods in the nation as part of the larger “Great Places” initiative. It also reinforces the underlying goals that the residents, businesses and organizations in University District set for their own neighborhood. A great, urban neighborhood attracts people from near and far. In the end, some will find the wide lawns of Germantown and Collierville appealing, but the renaissance occurring in America’s urban centers shows that individuals increasingly prefer walkable, higher density neighborhoods.
“Words like “urban form” and “walkability” are terms that only planners and architects are familiar with”…. while that is your opinion, it seems more likely that they are simply terms with which you are unfamiliar.
Regarding terminology, it is generally the accepted rule to use terminology associated with the topic in hand. I personally have found that you are mistaken regarding the understanding of terms such as “walkability” and “urban”. I suggest you check out sites such as http://www.walkscore.com/ which are so universally understood that they are connected to real estate search sites and have been referenced is major national publications from the Wall Street Journal to the Seattle Times to the NBC Nightly News. Even the CA and the Memphis Flyer have published articles related to the terms and the information available. This is pretty mainstream stuff. There is a reason that doctors do not discuss matters of physiology using layman terms unless absolutely required. These terms have specific meanings and definitions which elevate the conversation.
I apologize for the “there” instead of “their” in my post. I must be slipping.
Urban nut–you say, ” In the end, some will find the wide lawns of Germantown and Collierville appealing, but the renaissance occurring in America’s urban centers shows that individuals increasingly prefer walkable, higher density neighborhoods.”
Are individuals requesting more urban design or are zoning codes forcing it into some areas?
Some prefer wider lawns like those going west on Central, and down East Parkway and South Parkway, not those in Germantown.
Kathy,
That is a good question and the very simple answer is that, as a general rule in our relatively free market, zoning and land use policy react to market demands- especially so in Memphis.
In the case of the University District, the overlay is the result of a neighborhood planning effort that was very inclusive of residents in the neighborhood, business and property owners as well as local institutions. It was driven by local needs and goals first. The policy (overlay) came after. So here we see that the neighborhood’s desire for a walkable urban built environment is driving the code and design.
Regarding the green lawns of Central Avenue: I agree. Some prefer these neighborhoods which is why I am glad they exist. Central Gardens, High Point Terrace, Joffre, Chickasaw Gardens, Red Acres, Belle Meade- they are all examples of neighborhoods with remarkable staying power, involved residents and provide the foundation from which the city can reinvent itself. This is also why they are likely to continue to exist in their current form in the foreseeable future. Unless the neighborhood residents of those and adjoining areas begin an active campaign to steer future development in their area in a new direction, I cannot imagine a situation where the city or any other group would impose any sort of ordinance to alter the existing character and qualities of those neighborhoods. As a general rule of thumb where planning is concerned, Memphis/Shelby County do not lead- they react. In the case of the University District Overlay they are reacting to the goals set by the residents in that neighborhood as opposed to the goals set by individual private developers.
Historically zoning changes were typically very piecemeal and were reactive to the desires of individual developers and projects. As such, these changes were not often instituted as part of some grand land use policy change being driven by city hall or design professionals. The results are streets like Union Avenue with its mish-mash of high density and suburban land uses. Sure, there is the occasional county wide zoning ordinance revision or update (once every 20-30 years or so), but even that has been largely driven by the market. While prescriptive planning may have been utilized historically in existing developed areas, in our age of hyper-public participation, those days are largely a thing of the past.
It does continue as a regular practice for almost any undeveloped area on the “urban” fringe where cities and towns have zoned existing agricultural or other rural areas for future use. Think of Carriage Crossing dropping onto what had been farm fields south of Collierville.
Thanks, Urbanut. We wish we were as articulate as you are on these issues.