The latest prestigious architectural award for Crosstown Concourse was a powerful statement that the age of derivative architecture in Memphis is over.
At least that’s our optimistic reading of it.
For us, it began with AutoZone Park and FedExForum, ending an era when we thought a silver pyramidal structure on the riverfront was actually visionary.
Yes, we still have suburban designs for too many residences that disrupt the urban texture facing the river, and there are still cookie cutter commercial buildings, but we are feeling hopeful that the tide has finally turned.
It became more viral in recent years as the architecture of other buildings – notably those involved in adaptive reuse – upped their game, creating building designs that rejected the ordinary into something more noteworthy and with more architectural integrity.
With this progress encouraging us, it’s a good time to realize that focusing on better architecture is only half the battle. We need to concentrate more on place, not just project, or put another way, on urban design as much as architecture.
Passing The Test
This means that developers and the architects they hire should ask themselves: Does the architecture support the existing community in ways that revitalize and create welcoming connections to adjacent neighborhoods, and does it send the unmistakable message that the architecture values and respects the neighborhood where it is located?
In other words, the ultimate test of a building is not just that it is able to win architectural awards, but that it inspires ways to reimagine places in neighborhoods that contribute to the neighborhoods’ accelerated success, that recognize their own authenticity, that enhance the economic competitiveness of the neighborhood and not just the project, and that emphasize public spaces’ connections between functions and people.
There are examples of design that fail this test, including the 414-unit apartment complex proposed for the area under Broad Avenue’s now iconic water tower.
As designed, the project largely walls itself off from the neighborhood whose success drew the project there in the first place. It makes no serious effort to connect to Broad Avenue, to increase green public space where the spirit of neighborhood is forged, or to create a synergy between project and place.
More than anything, it feels like an apartment equivalent of a shark – content to feed off the energy of its target but failing to contribute to the organic spirit, bottom-up philosophy, and grassroots inspiration that allowed Broad Avenue to rise from the grave and become the special place it is today.
A Board Undermining Process
We hear a great deal these days about the importance of public input, about government’s interest in neighborhoods’ opinions, and the way that plans like Memphis 3.0 are translating what the public says into what the public wants. It’s a welcome shift from the old days when developers routinely swatted away neighborhoods’ concerns like gnats in a process they essentially owned.
Unfortunately, the Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment – which approved the Broad Avenue project – remains a relic of that past and even today, as we claim to revere public input, the Board of Adjustment allows developers a dependable process to get their way and to deny the public even the right of appeal to their elected officials.
The routine use of the Board of Adjustment to side step the planning process of the Land Use Control Board – with the right of appeal to City Council – and the equally routine approval have long been overused and its purpose has been stretched to the point that it is an entitlement rather than an exception. Board of Adjustment decisions can only be appealed in court, which are cost prohibitive for neighborhood groups and advocates.
It is an indictment of “the system” that the rights of the public to have a voice and to challenge plans are so cavalierly eliminated at the Board of Adjustment. It’s way past time to rein in the Board of Adjustment so that its powers are defined as part of a real process, because, although the media refer to it as a planning board, it is the antithesis of one.
End Runs
It is difficult to imagine that we can achieve the goals, ambitions, and priorities of Memphis 3.0 if the Board of Adjustment continues to provide an end run that limits the vetting of design, the best use of land, and answer questions like: Does an 800-foot-long singular building with aluminum façade really fit into historic, finely-grained architecture?
Hopefully, the powers-that-be will resolve this defect or admit now that we will handcuff Memphis 3.0 as we have done to far too many plans over the past 20 years so that developers continue to get their way.
Now that apartment developers can also get tax holidays as part of EDGE’s PILOT program, the taxpayers whose money is being affected should have a mandated and systematic access to every process that can protect neighborhoods’ integrity and produce an impact that balances the interest of both the developers and citizens.
Come to think of it, now that state law has been amended to allow tax holidays for apartment developers with projects anywhere in Shelby County, there’s never been a greater need for oversight so that projects emphasize not just architecture but urban design.
Good Enough for Memphis
We know that there are some people who would rather support the Broad Avenue apartment project than to oppose it for fear that nothing will be done on the almost 10-acre site. It’s another example of the “it’s good enough for Memphis” attitude that reflects the city’s traditional lack of self-worth and self-confidence.
If Memphis is indeed in the midst of historic momentum, as we are told so often by politicians and economic development officials, the city – and its citizens – are way past the time when the city should settle for just anything in the name of “progress.” It’s worth remembering that we will live with the designs of projects – good or bad – for 50-75 years. For that reason, it’s well worth the time to get it right, and to use the developers’ request for public incentives to make sure it is.
It’s an encouraging sign that EDGE has hired Arch, Inc., to provide architectural review of all potential projects requesting PILOTs. Now that EDGE has grown far beyond its founding mandate with tax freezes not just for companies, but also now for hotels, apartment complexes, and neighborhood businesses, this kind of review could have widespread impact creating an urban design ethos in Memphis.
If. And it’s a big if.
Getting It Right
The proof will ultimately be whether the EDGE review has real teeth in it and if the firm – which has a proven ethos for designing places and not just projects – is given the direction to be bold and aspirational in its recommendations. We have always admired Arch, Inc., for being resolute in its professionalism, its opinions, and its philosophy, so EDGE deserves credit for taking this step.
In its way, EDGE has the opportunity to shape Memphis 3.0’s future by creating the precedents for what a balanced emphasis on architecture and urban design can produce. After all, it comes at a time when cities’ roles are evolving and urban design, particularly in public spaces, are in and of itself becoming magnets for people.
In this way, each of Memphis’ projects can be part of improving public spaces and contributing to community cohesion and connectivity. FedExForum and AutoZone Park were admirable in their attention to it, and the move of Memphis Brooks Museum of Art offers a powerful opportunity for a signature urban design project.
It’s an opportunity more difficult for the proposed aquarium which is more isolated on Mud Island, but it underscores the importance of getting the six miles of riverfront under way and completed. It’s the fabric for urban design whose priority has to be elevated so 2+2 equals more than 4.
These are spaces that every Memphian owns – and where community is built across racial and economic barriers. They have to be designed the right way, and the Studio Gang concept for the riverfront has done just that. It takes into account how the riverfront meets the street and downtown, the kinds of materials used, the scale and size of spaces, better streetscapes, connections to the river, and the emphasis on connectivity so long overlooked in this community.
Reaching For It
We have already learned these lessons from Memphis’ work at the front of the tactical urbanism movement, but we also learned it from the Knight Foundation’s Soul of the Community study, which investigated why people move, and after interviewing more than 40,000 people, the three top answers surprised everyone – “social offerings, openness, and aesthetics.”
In other words, shouldn’t the first objective for our architecture and urban design should be to design the city that people want to love?
That’s the reason to emphasize urban design – the blending of architecture, landscape architecture, and planning to make urban spaces functional, uplifting, and fulfilling. It’s about the arrangement and design of building, public spaces, public services, amenities, pedestrian movement, and transportation to give form to whole neighborhoods.
It’s about place, not just projects; it’s about building on the past; it’s about multiple uses in a small area; it’s about cohesion, not uniformity; it’s about being equitable, diverse, and inclusive; it’s about being environmentally conscious; and most of all, it’s about focusing on people, not cars.
All of us in this community like to talk about Memphis’ present historic opportunities, but in our book, the opportunity to become a leader in urban design is just that. It is real and it is within our reach, if we prove we want it.
**
Join us at the Smart City Memphis Facebook page for daily articles, reports, and commentaries relevant to Memphis.
Architecture in Memphis is at best very mediocre. Our downtown skyline has barely changed in 30 years and is totally unremarkable when seen from most any viewpoint. The Pyramid is far from iconic, its a cheap looking retail store that is badly isolated from the city’s grid. The former Morgan Keegan tower has some of the worst high rise design anywhere. It along with the recent Horizon condo both look like they belong in Tunica. 100 N Main is a ugly big box that is literally crumbling. The Sterick building is beautiful architecture, but is also empty and had been deteriorating for decades. The FedEx Forum and AutoZone Park are OK, but both are undistinguished. The First Tennessee headquarters is unique design but not very prominent. Crosstown Concourse is a terrific redesign. Mostly though Memphis has very little of true architectural significance. Future PILOT giveaway projects will almost certainly continue to be very mediocre because Memphis is a poor city that simply cannot afford great design.
“As designed, the project largely walls itself off from the neighborhood whose success drew the project there in the first place. It makes no serious effort to connect to Broad Avenue, to increase green public space where the spirit of neighborhood is forged, or to create a synergy between project and place”
I’m curious as to how you came to this conclusion as the renderings for this project show additional green space (of which broad avenue currently has none), public courtyards and ground floor retail, all of which contributes to a connected pedestrian scale. I also hate the behemoth cookie cutter apartment that have been popping up everywhere in every city, but this project seems to attempt to be more thoughtful to the context than others. Sure it is not the historic brick facades that give Broad Ave it’s distinct character, but this area is also defined by a diversity of industrial use buildings which include metal facades. Attempting to recreate the historic storefront today would only result in a hollow pastiche of historic style.
Thanks for the article, it brings up many valid points about the BOA and the current nature of new developments and urban design, but I thought Broad Ave was an odd choice to highlight this very real problem.
This piece mentions an aquarium. Well that’s just a dumb and very costly idea. It seems practically every city has an aquarium and two of the best are already nearby in Atlanta and Chattanooga. This won’t do much to help populate our vety isolated Mud Island. We should have learned that about 25 years ago! Typical Memphis backward thinking.
The Broad Ave apt project is about typical of what we can expect in Memphis. The renderings of it are hideous in design. It looks cheaply built. It’s 10 acres will need to be of walled off design because residents and businesses will demand safety and don’t want the many problems of surrounding neighborhoods to creep in. This city simply is complacent on everything —taking what it gets and grateful for every good or bad scrap. I laughed when I read the sentence “Memphis is in the midst of historic momentum.”
Spot on. I see this every month in both large and small cases, both commercial and residential, and all over the city.
Ballet Memphis, Hattiloo, much of the truly modern aspects of Crosstown Concourse all the share the same thing in common. They are all designed by the most celebrated and most recognized architectural firm in Tennessee. The firm’s HQ moved away from South Main because it was looking like a vast cheaply built residential bedroom community. They also designed the very modern Broad Ave apartments you dislike.
There are lots of ugly cheap suburban junk that gets built in Memphis by get rich quick East Memphis based developers – please condem it. But Memphis must celebrate modern architecture that is built and designed by those who are recognized by there peers as the best and who have always called DT/Midtown home.
“It’s about place, not just projects; it’s about building on the past; it’s about multiple uses in a small area; it’s about cohesion, not uniformity; it’s about being equitable, diverse, and inclusive; it’s about being environmentally conscious; and most of all, it’s about focusing on people, not cars.” Bravo, Mr. Jones!
Steve: We hope you saw our loving post about Ballet Memphis when it opened.
That said, our point was in an early paragraph: “it’s a good time to realize that focusing on better architecture is only half the battle. We need to concentrate more on place, not just project, or put another way, on urban design as much as architecture.”
We didn’t even ask who designed the Broad Avenue project. We have talented, creative architects in Memphis and our point is that their architecture proves they are smart and professional. There’s no reason to think they can’t be equally impressive in urban design and connections to neighborhood, etc. Part of the problem with the suburban design of so much is that it’s about a project, not about a place, and that was our major point. It should not be taken as a shot at any specific firm.
I’m concerned that Henry Turley is about to partner with St Jude to build apartments in the Pinch. He has filled South Junction with cheap cookie cutter suburban buildings that have ruined the urban landscape of South Main.
@Smart City Memphis,
I think Steve is saying essentially the same as my comment, which is when there are a plethora of bad projects to use as an example to illustrate your very valid point about the current state of new development in Memphis, why use the one project that actually does appear to meet your criteria for good urban design (based on renderings) as your main example for the thesis of this article?
C: I hear you. I agree that it’s good architecture, but I don’t see it as urban design. And it is lining up to get all kinds of public incentives for a project that erects an 800-foot-long singular building with aluminum façade into a street with historic, finely-grained architecture.
In a perfect world the Broad Arts District members get together with the developer and hammer out the details. Can this be done? Has either party made that effort?
Aaron, yes we have.
Over the past eight months, Broad Avenue has met repeatedly with the developers regarding design, mobility, and strategic alignment with the neighborhood. Sadly, those discussions have resulted in zero concessions/plan changes from the developers. While the developers continue to state “trust us,” they have yet to offer any tangible good faith efforts. However, they did state that it’s our City’s responsibility to address mobility, and not their responsibility even though their development encompasses approximately half of the district.
The two projects going before EDGE on Wednesday represent a developer demonstrating partnership (MRG) with a neighborhood, and one who wants to just build his project irregardless of feedback from and fit with the neighborhood (Loeb/Maclin).
In Downtown, the Medical District, Crosstown, Midtown, Broad Avenue, Soulsville, Highland Row, and even along the Poplar Avenue Corridor buildings should be pulled to the street, designed to contain highly detailed inviting storefronts with canopies/awnings to shield pedestrians from the elements with articulated facades above the ground level with the addition of pilasters, balconies, and cornice elements, they should also include attractive streetscapes with plantings and site furnishings, on-street parallel parking that separates pedestrians from moving vehicles with large parking lots either hidden behind buildings, under buildings, or in parking structures with integrated liner buildings that not only help hide the parking but also continue an inviting streetscape for pedestrians. Breaking up facades to relate to the pedestrian realm is highly important for good urban design. The modernistic architecture of some firms or the lack of details of others will create projects that will not stand the test of time. Those firms and their developers should stick with smaller scale projects or as a supportive role to a firm or developer that can pull it off.In my opinion, there is only one local architectural firm, LRK, that can pull off good urban design in large scale projects.
Unfortunately, our leadership has made many poor choices and in some cases the Office of Planning and Development and Downtown Memphis Commission have made recommendations that have harmed our City. The most notable examples of poor choices are the demolition of the old Union Avenue Methodist Church demolition for a poorly designed CVS Drugstore, the approval of suburban-like hotels Downtown such as the new LaQuinta Hotel on Union Avenue which includes surface parking lots along the street, and the demolition of the Tri-State Bank on Beale for a surface parking lot. Even the demolition of the Sears on Perkins for the Nordstrom Rack and other retail was a huge missed opportunity to start redeveloping the Poplar Corridor. Furthermore, our leadership also allows poor land use such as conversion of non-conforming properties and even homes to be used as car repair shops and used car dealerships with chain-link and razor wire fencing in the front yard (Lamar, Summer, and Park Avenues for example) look like a war zone than a place you would want to live. Code enforcement and blight remediation is critical if we want our City to succeed.
I am also highly critical of the cheap stick construction that we see all over Uptown, South Main, Midtown, and soon to be Broad Avenue Area. The South Junction Apartments and soon to be Sam Cooper Apartments will not stand the test of time. Why are we as a City allowing this cheap construction that is more fit for the suburbs when we instead should be building midrise structures with integrated parking overlooking South Main Street and Overton Park?
Civic Center Plaza is likely the worst place Downtown for good urban design and it was made possible by, and provided for, those who have made these poor decisions. I am becoming increasingly hopeful that the new Loews Hotel and the improvements to the Convention Center will begin to repair the Civic Center Area. We must encourage and incentivize both local and national real estate developers to construct buildings, with the urban design details listed above, instead of incentivizing poorly designed projects that are undercutting the office, condominium, apartment, and hotel market. Many of these projects will also create likely future opportunities for crime as they decline and people lose interest. There should absolutely not be any more incentives for stick construction and surface parking lots in Downtown.