Standing at the foot of Union Avenue, two couples from Indiana are surveying the Mississippi River when one of the men said: “I’ve been here four times for Elvis Week. I absolutely love this city, but it doesn’t look much like it loves itself. Memphis could use lots of TLC.”
While the kneejerk reaction of a local is to defend Memphis, it’s hard to stand with them at one of Memphis’ most visited spots and argue about it. After all, the Riverwalk where they are standing is too narrow and it feels isolated because of the four lanes of traffic they had to cross to get there.
If they had switched to the other side of Riverside Drive, they would have been forced to navigate an obstacle course with traffic and Riverwalk signs in the middle of the sidewalk on the way to the Tennessee Welcome Center, where the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau’s exhibits look like high school science fair projects.
To the south, the original architectural design of Beale Street Landing, with its gentle, sloping roof, has been devastated. Poor design decisions are seen in a grossly oversized elevator, a graceless observation deck replete with railings and garish warning signs, and a parking lot that obliterates the seamless connection to Tom Lee Park. The park, like all of downtown and much of Memphis, is populated by “urban tombstones” — the large electrical transformers that Memphis Light, Gas and Water seems willing to put almost anywhere: in parks, on key street corners, and in some of Memphis’ most photographed places.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was fond of saying that if you bought a gallon of milk in Memphis on your way to Little Rock on I-40, it would be buttermilk when you got there. The same can be said these days about patched up Riverside Drive and most streets into downtown. Meanwhile, the much-ballyhooed Main to Main project is supposed to eliminate the embarrassing condition of Main Street, which is littered with broken gratings and patchwork plywood repairs, but most of the attention is on the Harahan Bridge boardwalk instead.
The Unified Development Code, which took years to develop and promised a new and better future for neighborhoods, is being regularly dismantled and even overlay zoning districts are now irrelevant. The latest proof is the McDonald’s at the corner of Highland and Southern, which flies in the face of the overlay district developed with the residents of the University District.
Simply put, one marker for a city that loves itself is good urban design. At the least, it can provide a city’s sense of itself, and at its best, it produces an architectural pride and commitment that lift up a city and shape its identity and character through an insistence on architectural integrity, high-quality design, and quality control in execution.
It’s not that we don’t know what urban design looks like when it’s done right. We have AutoZone Park and FedExForum, and if anything, they stand apart because rather than being about how cheaply they could be done, they were about setting national design standards.
Too many projects here look like they are the results of a focus group of attorneys and engineers in which the former talks only about liability and the latter rarely talks about design. It succeeds in producing a project but fails in creating a place. Other cities are working to demonstrate that design matters in a number of ways. Some have design studios that vet every investment to ensure that the city’s design principles and values are being met. Some have a city architect that performs this function, some have architects assigned to several city departments, and others use a nonprofit organization like a design center or an architectural advisory committee.
Many of these cities are moving from good to great, but before that transition began, they declared that good was not enough and they deserved more. By focusing on smart urban design, they understand that when done well, it establishes a distinct visual image and identity — sense of place — and embody the urban design principles that improve the quality of life — livability.
It’s hard to argue with the Indiana Elvis fan who said that Memphis needs some tender loving care. Then again, perhaps, even more than that, Memphis needs to adopt Elvis’ famous motto with its signature lightning bolt: TCB. Right now, as much as anything, we need to be taking care of business.
This article appears in the October 2013 issue of Memphis Magazine
I have heard that a proposed McDonalds at the corner southern and highland will violate the zoning, but how? The buildings there now look like blight to me.
There is a city-built parking garage going up in the middle of midtown. Does that fit the neighborhood there?
Or is a fast-food place objectionable to the university? Would they prefer Starbucks?
There is an approved overlay in that district which requires a different configuration, especially regarding the drive thru. City Council has a record of ignoring their own policies in matters like this. It is for this reason many businesses are reluctant to come to or build in Memphis; council may approve whatever they want to be next door with no regard to the law.
Curious, isn’t this forum or website connected with the Mayor’s office? If so, or if not-why doesn’t the Mayor’s office make this issue a priority and enforce development codes for businesses, projects, streets, homeowners, etc?
I am not understanding this issue. Correct me if I am wrong: no business with a drive through is allowed around the university? The drive through is the issue?
So if McDonalds does not build there, what is another option for that corner? Do you think it should stay as it is?
No, This blog is not connected to the Mayor’s office. But, SCM can respond to that.
The McDonalds conflict is over the manner in which the drive thru is in violation of the overlay. Rather than having the building come up to the sidewalk, creating a more walkable area which UM and the overlay support, the plan McDonalds has submitted has the drive thru on the front of their proposed new building. They could easily alter their plan to fit the overlay, and have done so elsewhere, the current plan is easier for them and Memphis is known to cave to whatever a developer or builder wants even when it is in violation of policy and/or law.
Ok. But the UDC was voted in with the understanding it would be periodically revised. The city council has stated this. no surprise.
I also understand that a process exists for a variance–this is true with any zoning code. Are there any municipalities that never approve variances? if variances are never allowed, why would there be a board of zoning appeals or a land use control board?
Most business owners know that zoning can be appealed and changed. We all know that our neighbors can apply to rezone their property. What is troublesome is when properties are rezoned by a planning department without the property owners being notified!
Again, what would be a better way to use that property?
The UDC was voted in with great ambition and enthusiasm, but it has systematically been dismantled, apparently to mollify special interests groups here – think developers.
City regulations require neighbors to be notified of a rezoning. If that’s not taking place, please let your Council member and mayor know.
Thanks, Anonymous, for your good summation of this issue. There is no excuse for approval of this McDonald’s as currently designed. It is an affront to the spirit and agreement of the University District overlay, it says that anything goes regardless of the damage that it does to our urban character, and it is a small building situated on an island of asphalt. It should be voted down by City Council.
No one is saying that there can’t be a McDonald’s on that site. We are saying that a suburban design undermines the integrity of the area, and University of Memphis’ vocal protests about the damage done by the existing design says volumes.
PS: This blog is not associated with local government in any way. It is the corporate blog of Smart City Consulting.
The best way to fix the way local know nothings mucked up the original Beale Street Landing design is to add a giant Catfish! That will be so out of place and so ugly we won’t notice the other locally made design flaws.
In addition to SCM’s comments re: the McDonalds, I would like to add that properties being “rezoned by a planning department without the property owners being notified” is in no way the situation here. First and foremost, the property owners are not requesting the property be “rezoned”. They are requesting they be exempt from design regulations crafted by neighborhood residents as well as surrounding property and business owners.
The University District Overlay was created over a lengthy period of time where planners, architects and public officials worked with property owners, neighborhood residents and nearby institutions to identify a shared vision for the neighborhood. This vision in turn informed the creation of the University District Overlay (which is different than “rezoning” a property). Thus the numerous protests being voiced by the University, other property owners in the district and surrounding residents and neighborhood organizations over the proposed design of the McDonalds. The people who created this and have the most at stake in the area specifically stated that the typical suburban drive thru type model was incompatible with their vision for their neighborhood. Former property owners and the existing tenants of that site are among those who have made it known that they disapprove of what would be built in that space should it be approved today.
Another point here: a drive thru can be built in the district, however, it must meet certain siting and design criteria. In fact, McDonalds has built restaurants (which include drive thrus) that would likely satisfy the regulations set forth in the overlay in other places. Not only will you find such facilities in major cities such as Chicago, Denver and San Diego, but in peer cities such as Oklahoma City and Louisville. In no way would this require them to create a special design just for this one location. What I find troublesome is the idea that the existing property owners, developers and corporate McDonalds (none of whom live or work in the neighborhood) believe they are somehow special and should be exempt from a set of design regulations crafted by those who actually live, work and have a vested interest in the area. Personally I don’t consider the site “blighted” per se. In fact, I think the mural on the north wall is one of the best in the city.
One more thing: that has been recent development in the area that does conform (or is within “98%” of conforming) with the design criteria and intent established in the overlay. These property owners and developers believe and have invested in the vision as set forth by the neighborhood itself. Thus, they now are vested partners in this vision. They invested in this area, in part, because they believe that the vision for the district will bring additional value to their properties, potential value that will be denied if the existing overlay regulations are ignored. If I were one of these property owners and the city council approves this suburban travesty on this site, I would seriously consider suing for damages resulting from said approval and the negative impact this suburban mess would have on my property values.
Beautifully said, Urbanut.
Another friend of this blog added:
I truly believed OPD would support the UDistrict plan and overlay in their review of the proposed McDonald’s PD at Highland and Southern. The worst thing about that plan in my view is that is demolishes almost a whole city block of buildings where there were multiple small businesses and replaces them with a plan that is mainly surface parking. This is not infill, but “urban renewal” in the bad sense of the word.