Note: There are renewed conversations about the ways to spark more economic growth in Memphis, but often they turn into ideas that are merely extensions of the present or resurrected ideas from the past (think music studios). In an effort to look to the future and the forces that can propel the economy, we reprise this post from March 25, 2015. Ms. Coletta is now Senior Fellow with the American Cities Practice at The Kresge Foundation.
*****
“The rules of economic development have fundamentally changed. It’s all about place and talent. Talent is the critical variable, and it is increasingly drawn to great urban places.” – Joe Cortright, City Observatory
“(Memphis) needs to recognize that the most important economic development strategies don’t even necessarily look like economic development strategy. Every economic development decision should be seen through the filter of ‘will it increase talent, will it increase opportunity, and will it improve quality of place.’” – Carol Coletta, Knight Foundation
*****
These two key points were made recently when Mr. Cortright, Portland economist and City Observatory guru, and Ms. Coletta, vice-president of community and national initiatives for the Knight Foundation, spoke to representatives from organizations working to improve leadership, attract and keep talent, and improve economic performance in Memphis.
Listening to their compelling, provocative, and timely presentations, it was impossible not to conclude that we are engaging in old-style economic development that regularly misses the mark on what really matters: talent and quality of place. More to the point, it raised the question of why can’t Memphis be the place that invents modern, progressive economic development, one that keys on distinctiveness, downtown, and college-educated talent.
Everyone Benefits From Higher Education
“A better educated city is a successful city,” said Mr. Cortright. “Sixty percent of the variation in incomes between cities is about one fact – percentage of college-educated adults.”
But, the best news of all is that cities with more workers with college degrees are also more successful for people with high school degrees. “In these cities, a high school diploma is worth more because a person with a high school diploma earns more in a city with higher educational attainment, because it has more economic opportunity,” he said, “but there are spillover benefits that come from a well-educated population.”
“Having lots of well-educated neighbors improve everyone’s economic prospects. In areas with more mixed incomes, there are better public services and better opportunity and that’s your best bet at tackling poverty. Kids growing up in poor families have better mobility if they grow up in mixed income cities and cities with more talent, so less economic segregation deals positively with the cycle of poverty. Living apart tends to greatly impair the economic prospects of less educated and low income peoples.”
Cities Should Be Cities
Successful cities are attracting college-educated talent, and this group is so important because they are mobile. “Talented people are mobile so if you don’t have a great place, it is very hard to hang on to people educated in your city,” said Mr. Cortright, adding that special attention should be given to neighborhoods within three miles of the CBID (Central Business Improvement District), because well-educated 25-34 year-olds are 125% more likely to live there than the rest of the city. Jobs were growing faster in the suburbs but that’s flipped in the last four years. Close-in neighborhoods are growing twice as fast as other neighborhoods. ”
More to the point, cities that try to compete with the suburbs by being more suburban are in the wrong race. “Most cities have attractive suburbs,” he said. “That’s not a competitive advantage. Not every suburb has an attractive city. You can’t exist as a healthy ring with a decaying core. You have to consciously choose to be urban, because you won’t ‘out-suburb the suburbs.’”
Most of all, competitive advantage is found in the most obvious place – in Memphis’ distinctiveness. “You can’t do whatever every city is doing and expect to be successful,” Mr. Cortright said. “The unique characteristics of your place are your greatest advantages. If you want to grow great companies, it helps to build on the unique characteristics that make Memphis special.”
And what should those urban neighborhoods look like? “Dense, diverse, interesting, bikable, walkable, and transit-served,” said Mr. Cortright.
He said that today, Memphis lags in the bottom three of the 51 largest metros in college attainment and 25-34 year-olds with college degrees. It’s a crucial challenge because “location decisions of companies are determined by the location of young talent,” he said, adding that while high school diplomas are important, it is four-year degrees that have the really “big payoff with higher economic prospects.”
Six-Step Program for Memphis
Ms. Coletta had six recommendations for Memphis:
“One, because most important economic strategies don’t necessarily look like economic strategy, Memphis should make economic development bigger like Boston (universities) and smaller by focusing on clusters.
“Two, invest in downtown and in robust public life. Memphis needs to double down. We should never pretend Memphis is different and that we can buck national trends. We need to act with urgency because if we wait, we’re farther behind. Downtown is most important for another reason. What made Portland such an engaged community is that it got Portlanders out of the living room and into public life. They lived life in the public because then they would talk about their city with strangers. This is an important role for downtown.
“Three, rediscover strengths of neighborhoods near downtown. We’ve written off North and South Memphis, but there are strengths there we can build on to create affordable opportunities.
“Four, welcome newcomers and connect them to the social life of the city. That’s why density is important. When a city is dense, it’s easy to find your tribe. (She mentions Campus Philly as an effective program in this regard.)
“Five, reconnect with Memphians who have moved away.
“Six, invite people to help with a creative process. People have lots of ideas for making cities successful and they want to help. The future is not being written by a few people. It is being written by thousands of people making small decisions every day about their life in their city. It’s about answering, what could we accomplish as a collection and start imagining what we can get done in the next 10 years because it is the runway to Memphis’ third century as a city.”
***
Join us at the Smart City Memphis Facebook page for daily articles, reports, and commentaries relevant to Memphis.
All Memphis area officials need to do for economic growth inspiration is look 200 miles east to Nashville. The entire Nashville metro area and most of the Middle Tennessee region are experiencing tremendous growth and economic development. Sadly, It’s a very different story here.
Over and over again we zone downtown in a suburban fashion. Here is a new item about proposed development in South Main. It will feature suburban style homes with driveways and front lawns. No one will oppose it and it will be approved. It sits next to Loflin Yard, an area that should boast high density.
New South Main Development Planned
More residences are planned for the South End. Home builders Hamilton & Holliman, on behalf of property owners David and Stacy Petringa, recently submitted plans for a 10-lot subdivision at 27 W. Carolina St.
The property is immediately west of bar and restaurant Loflin Yard.
Plans for the 1.2-acre lot include “three common open space lots for private drives and green space,” according to the application.
The application will be reviewed at the May 12 meeting of the Land Use Control Board.
FWIW, Peter, I scanned the application pending at the LUCB, and it looks like two rows of townhouse separated by a private drive. The homes are going to front Carolina, right up to the sidewalk, and the greenspace will be behind them (think, Front Street townhouses across from Central Station). While it’s probably not as dense as can be accommodated there, I think a mixture of homes is good for that neighborhood, so long as there are no “driveways and front lawns” as you said.
Eric- No, inspiration cannot be found 200 miles to the east. You missed the underlying points of this post.
Just this morning read that Hanook Tires is moving its North American headquarters to Nashville from NJ. Hanook is completing construction of a major tire plant in Clarksville. The auto industry is a major factor in Nashville and mid TN with Nissan, General Motors, Bridgestone and Hanook all there.
Peter and Will-
Simply my opinion here and nothing more- I tend to agree with Will on this one. Assuming the townhomes along Carolina will actually “face the street”, there is not much to object to here. To build on Will’s comment, the greenspace appears to actually serve as a “Mews” condition between 5 of the townhomes and the existing warehouse (Lot 11) located at the rear of the property. Higher density would obviously be preferred and the planned development may be a little short sighted in that regard. It also appears to have a lot of surface parking located on “COS A”. I assume those spaces will be utilized by the existing multi-floor warehouse (Lot 11) or perhaps its future redevelopment. Hopefully the staff review will shed additional light on this proposal.
Re: Middle Tennessee. There is little doubt that anyone would regard Middle Tennessee’s economic growth over the last 2 decades as anything but phenomenal. As one post noted above, much of that growth has resulted from the location of external (as opposed to home grown) corporate manufacturing facilities whose selection process was heavily dependent on local and state financial incentives and often involved multiple state bids. In many ways, this runs counter to or are unrelated to the points made in SCM’s original post which appears to propose a vibrant urban economic setting. We also see the resulting impact on the type of place Middle Tennessee has become with highly scattered manufacturing sites over distances in excess of 80 miles driven by the dependency on cheap greenfields + easy expansion of highways and utilities (also dependent on relatively cheap, rural land). While Nashville’s continued push for higher density neighborhoods is noteworthy, it pales in comparison to the continued preferred pattern of a diffuse sprawled region characterized more by cul-de-sacs in place of vibrant town centers. There is hope that the new comprehensive plan for Nashville will begin to drive a cultural shift, but its limit to Nashville-Davidson in many ways fails to acknowledge that 85% of the region’s growth has and is expected to continue to occur beyond the Nashville-Davidson municipal boundaries. Two suburban counties where 1 in 3 metro residents lived in 2010 will account for as much as 43% of that metro’s population by 2040. The Nashville Area MPO plans and proposed investments support this continued pattern of sprawl.
I would suggest that we look towards Middle Tennessee as a precedent of both what and what not to do. No one can deny the value of the occasional mega-project, but I would prefer Memphis strive to adopt a path similar to Austin’s Economic Development Department (EDD). In that case public financial aid is more dependent on issues derived from corporate culture, employee volunteer participation, educational opportunities for employees, median wage as opposed to the highest wage, and diversity goals and vs. diversity reality. This approach would be in contrast to economic development that results in very low density sprawl and highly economically and demographically segregated and somewhat isolated communities that may bring short term gratification and easy profits, but do not create the long term value necessary to fuel the type of economic engines that can withstand multiple economic cycles and the occasional massive economic/cultural shifts that result from technological leaps and innovation.
If Memphis relies on “home-grown” economic development, we will see nothing but further decline in the city and region. To compare Memphis to Austin is laughable. Nashville and Austin are quite similar in terms of economic development. Both are state capital cities, Austin has more high tech, and Nashville has a diversified economy anchored by health care, entertainment and automotive. Importantly both cities have renowned educational institutions that are much greater contributors to their respective economies than anything here. I was in Nashville just last week and there are literally dozens of cranes fitting the skyline in every direction.
Russ (or whatever you are calling yourself at the moment),
If you take time to re-read my post, you will notice I did not compare Memphis to Austin directly for the same reason I would not compare Nashville and Austin economically. Austin shares little in the way with either city when one examines median income, educational attainment and economic diversity. Census and economic development data clearly illustrate that Memphis and Nashville are far more similar than Nashville and Austin in terms of income, educational attainment and employment. Even as capital cities, Austin employment in the government sector is far greater both as an overall number and as a percentage than that found in either Memphis or Nashville (where a surprisingly similar percentage of the respective populations are employed by local, state or federal government). I am very happy you noticed “dozens of cranes fitting the skyline in every direction” but I am unaware as to how that actually related to my comments regarding economic policy or strategy.
My comment focused on economic development policy and was very clear: “I would prefer Memphis strive to adopt a path similar to Austin’s Economic Development Department (EDD)”.
Will, Thanks for doing the research on that new South Main project. And while it is certainly better than I thought I would say that overall we continue to see (as Tom mentions in the above think piece) creeping downtown suburbanization. We often equate – pushed up to the curb, which of course developers love – as somehow urban. I would argue that the new South End apartments not only look cookie cutter and cheap but also only pay lip service to an urban esthetic. They look more like student housing in Austin than apartment dwellings in San Francisco.
I’m with SCM we must keep Downtown urban and we must also build and support projects that look like they are here for the long term rather than a get rich quick scheme – we must demand more. The new apartments at Central Station – built by the same developers – look the same. They could be part of Cordova new urbanism.
Peter & Will-
What may really prove cause for a raised eyebrow is the proposed surface parking lot at 287 S. Front. Here is a link to the pending application:
http://shelbycountytn.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3567
It’s the same short sided mindset that approved countless small motels and hotels making it impossible for the One Beale Hotel to rise.
Urbanut and Peter –
First, hopefully the LUCB will have the good sense to shoot that surface parking lot down before it goes anywhere – it’s a horrible idea.
I agree with both of y’all about residential development downtown. Particularly, Peter, I agree with you about the apartments on the south end – I don’t think the gated, garden-style, faux-high end apartments are a particularly good look for the area. I’d honestly rather have tightly-packed, nicer town houses there, and really take advantage of the infill opportunities between south main and the core (particularly along Front) for more urban residential development.
Here’s hoping that LUCB does the right thing. Our favorite part of the application is: “the development will improve development of the surrounding properties and will not hinder existing properties.” Now that’s a bold vision for a great downtown for you.
What gives us any hope that the LUCB will do the right thing? Memphis never asks anything from its developers. We always approach every project as if we should be very grateful that anyone has chosen to build. Any usually throw in a tax payer funded garage to sweeten the deal. Because, we all know otherwise it just won’t pencil out.
It’s the same form of low self-esteem that permeates every facet of life here. No one will protest and if they do as with the small low budget hotels the short sighted low self-esteem way will win out.
It would seem that the place with the most potential to derail this awful project is the Downtown Parking Authority at Downtown Memphis Commission. It’s a chance for the new leadership there to show that it has a vision for a better downtown.
The worst part of the proposed parking lot on Front St is that they demolished a building in order to then suggest that a parking lot benefits the area. If I’m not mistaken this is the same development philosophy that devastated the Pinch District, which currently looks as if it suffered a several kiloton nuclear weapon. If anything we should upzone South Main and permit more apartment/condo high rises, and perhaps get rid of this silly notion of preserving “neighborhood character.” If I’m not mistaken the Artesian condos are selling quite well.
I looked at buying at the Artisan condos but our problem is when you leave the building there is no street life. You are obligated to drive to find anything – that’s not city life.
Re: David: Completely agree that the Artesian condos are absolutely disconnected from the street grid. It’s unclear what the architect was thinking with his parking garage placement and lack of connection to Riverside. That said, I’d like to see other new condo buildings in other parts of downtown (with higher walk scores) well-integrated into the street grid.
Chatul et al.
If I had my druthers we would turn the current paradigm on its head. I would revise zoning to remove minimum requirements for parking entirely to be replaced with maximum caps on parking based on use, intensity and proximity+frequency of public transit. A development would not be required to provide parking and the property owner would be allowed to determine the number of spaces they felt were necessary to make their project viable based on the target market not to exceed a prescribed limit. I would couple that with the expansion of the street frontage designation (a tool already available in the UDC) to the above mentioned areas. Such designation would have been useful in preventing the Artesian from disregarding its primary entrance on Riverside. Maybe not citywide mind you but in downtown, along key corridors (such as Union, Madison, Poplar) and maybe in targeted neighborhoods/districts such as Crosstown, Cooper Young, Broad Ave and the University District.
Speaking of the Artesian, there is enough space to allow for future development to occur as a “liner” building between Riverside and the parking garage.
Another problem with the Artisan that weaves back to past planning directives is that many units have views of suburban style single family houses. Not only are you removed, by design,from urban life but what beacons you from the high-rise is suburban housing or a complete lack of the urban dynamics.
The issue here is less about the one off asphalt parking lot which will always be replaced as the market dictates with a structure but what we replace it with. As most local developers live out east – we get what is a suburban person’s idea of city living – often fortress like structures that are both conservative in design and suburban in esthetic.
Re Urbanaut and Peter Taylor. Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.The mention of the expansion of the street frontage designation along important corridors is timely with the news that Zaxby’s will be replacing an apartment building on Union with a single-use fast food restaurant. This is only a stone’s throw from the great urbanism I’m seeing coalescing in Overton Square. Who comes up with these ideas?
I know what you mean Chatul. A fast food Zaxbys in a prime part of Union replacing an apt bldg. is just so very typically Memphis. Reminds me of how developers here settle for Hampton Inns downtown instead of building larger hotels. Junk fast food and payday loan stores is all we seem to be able have built in Memphis. This city gets no respect and nothing really unique. And I’d never call Overton Sq great urbanism — it’s more like a mediocre makeover, definitely not great urbanism!
Zaxby’s is a perfect example of our unending quest to bring suburbanization full bore into the urban core. The demolition of the apartments and replacing them with a cookie cutter suburban ugly chain store. That sums up Memphis urban style: anything that produces a short term quick buck. I mean build new apartments with a tacky chain store on the ground floor at the very least.
Oh and of course Zaxby’s is being placed in Midtown this city’s best foot forward to attract young educated professionals – the types looking for authenticity over chains. How about a chain store moratorium in midtown?
I think Midtown, especially Cooper Young, has always been highly overrated. Yes it may be the best area of the city (certainly better than downtown Memphis). It’s still very much a hodgepodge area with some areas far nicer and more urban than others, but generally not inspiring or unique in character. This Zaxbys is an insult and a kick in the butt for improvement in the entire midtown area. I can’t believe they will knock down a multi residence apt no matter how run down it might be for fast food and more surface parking –especially on Union. Bad news for midtown!
Maybe Zaxby’s isn’t up to the high standards of some in this community, but there are many more in the community who are happy about the chance at a job. When it comes down to job vs no job, I would be inclined to be happy that jobs are being created in Memphis.
This Zaxbys fast food place will employ about 30 people max, paying most very minimum wages. Yes, that’s sure a great way to grow employment in Memphis with the creation of these fantastic, high wage new jobs! And we are losing multi unit apartments which will be razed to make it happen. Only in Memphis!
Once again the Memphis low self esteem mind set blooms. We are not in a position to turn down ANY job or development and the mention of low wages jobs and ugly architecture means your a stuck up snob. Translation = we’re a small poor town and we like it like that. Grit and grind and moving boxes.
Idea: Do a pedal-to-the-medal infrastructure–interstate, high speed rail, fiber optic, microwave tower, car transport, hyper loop, whatever–build out to Birmingham (…Atlanta) and St. Louis (…Chicago) before Nashville can, making us the link between the Midwest and Piedmont Super Regions. Then do the same kind of buildout to Nashville and then New Orleans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
“Federal policy should refocus on helping these nascent archipelagos prosper, and helping others emerge, in places like Minneapolis and Memphis, collectively forming a lattice of productive metro-regions efficiently connected through better highways, railways and fiber-optic cables: a United City-States of America.”
Idea: Snowflake development pattern. Densify up the 240 loop/core and downtown cores of the city. Concentrate city services and maintenance upgrades there. Then instead of de-annexing or randomly abandoning perimeter areas like Raleigh or Hickory Hill maintain their key axes. Keep their main arteries going but take out all the blight and services off the arteries, sort of like a snowflake with long crystals and gaps between those crystals. The gaps can be deliberate green spaces. This plan will solve the city density problem, i.e.:
1) Focused density in the core will take advantage of existing infrastructure and offer all the connective advantages of city that appeal to young workers, businesses, and most Memphians. Focusing growth increase its multiplier effect.
2) Instead of creating a Game of Thrones battle between Frayser, Raleigh, Whitehaven, Parkway Village, and Hickory Hill in which all slowly decline even further to an even lower equilibrium or one totally collapses, all will be preserved. No one mega region will be targeted for termination (politically unfeasible), nor will all be left with to wither in hope that one will die before all go down together (Detroit).
3) Instead, the pain of shrinkage will be felt evenly.
4) But without de-annexation.
Yes, moving boxes in the middle of the night and fast food jobs are the epitome of economic development and growth in Memphis. Sad but true.
Trey,
You don’t know the area very well. I’ll take the national rankings concerning CY over your opinion. Zaxbys stinks but then again places like downtown Nashville and OKC can boast of some brand spanking new drive thru fast food joints too complete with suburban parking in front. This is an issue found across the south where corporations cannot imagine their clients getting out of their cars.
Chatul, et al.
I agree with your comments about Overton Square. A few may have the opinion that it is not “great urbanism” but the actual experience on the ground proves otherwise. The Square continues to evolve, a process that is likely to continue into the future. We are already seeing the renovation of a few of the existing historic garden apartment buildings up and down Madison and the owners have been very vocal that their investment is based on what they see occurring around their properties. Only the future will tell.
The use of the site on Union should be separate from the discussion of the form taken by the proposed physical footprint of the business. I would prefer Zaxbys (or any other use or group of uses) be held to a more urban design ethos. As the former Methodist church on Union proved to be a lesson learned by the previous administration regarding demolition of well designed, urban and historic structures, perhaps Zaxbys will represent a new lesson: that sometimes replacing an existing mediocre quality building with a new mediocre quality building does nothing to encourage additional investment or positive change in the immediate surroundings.
Regarding financial benefits to the city: considering the existing appraisal and taxes being collected on the property and the values associated with similar uses on Union, the new Zaxbys will likely result in a greater financial benefit in the form of both property taxes collected and additional sales tax revenue. It is easy to understand why the city would see no great issue in this proposal.