That $100 million

The topic was the land bridge, and the room was packed. So many attended the League of Women Voters meeting Monday night, they had to bring in more chairs.

At the end of the program, someone in the audience asked how much of the $100 million earmarked for the RDC in the 2003 budget has been spent on the Public Promenade phase of the Master Plan and on the land bridge.

Mr. Lendermon referred this question to Rick Masson, who had served as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer in the Herenton administration and who is now a vice-chairman of the RDC board.

Mr. Masson seemed mystified and said he didn't know anything about $100 million in the CIP budget.

We think we can help solve the puzzle.

The person who posed the question was apparently talking about the following paragraph in Mayor Herenton's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Address, which can be found at this link (as a PDF file):

Memphians will soon see our riverfront begin to take shape ultimately becoming a beautiful, vibrant public entertainment and activity district worthy of international acclaim. The five year CIP [Capital Improvemants Plan] includes $100 million for Riverfront development, of which $32 million is in City General Obligation Bonds. [emphasis added]

Let's do some quick math: $100 million over five years is $20 million a year. We have seen the RDC's own cash flow projections (dated January, 2003) and those documents talk about the RDC receiving $20 million a year for ten years ($200 million) -- money expected to be derived from "public sources" to help pay for the construction of the land bridge and other components of the Master Plan.

Coincidence?

We report, you decide.

[Click here to read more...]

Notes and Readings from League of Women Voters presentation February 28, 2005

On February 28, Virginia McLean and Benny Lendermon gave presentations to the League of Women Voters on the subject of the land bridge. Here are some notes and further readings from Virginia McLean's presentation.

The RDC's land bridge, as shown in the Master Plan.

Photos and Plan renderings

• The satellite image was obtained from TerraServer (www.terraserver.microsoft.com). The image was photographed on January 29, 1997. The river's level on that date was 16.5 feet.
• Overlay images of the land bridge and other Master Plan components were extracted directly from a mapview drawing by Cooper Robertson & Partners, prepared for the RDC. The drawing appears in the published Master Plan, and at one time appeared on the RDC Web site.
• The drainage service area for the Gayoso Pumping Station is based on a 1914 City map of the North Memphis Levee system, by J.H. Weatherford, City Engineer, which is still in general use.
• The computer model of the Master Plan appears on our site here; it can also be found on the Cooper Robertson & Partners Web site.

Newspaper & Commentary Articles

• “Pumping Stations Fulfill Role in Surging River Rise,” Tom Charlier, The Commercial Appeal, January 10, 1991.
• “Harbor Lake Cost Rises by Millions; City Hopes to Land Federal Dollars,” Cornell Christian, The Commercial Appeal, June 25, 1997.
• “Ford Discourages Harbor-Park Project; Says Housing, Education More Important,” James W. Brosnan, The Commercial Appeal, June 4, 1998.
• “100 Cast About, Snag Some Ideas for the Riverfront,” Deborah M. Clubb, The Commercial Appeal, February 17, 1999.
• "Downtown Drainage System Stressed Out, Overhaul in Works," Tom Charlier, The Commercial Appeal, October 30, 2000.
• Aim of Reshaping Harbor is New Land, Not Man-Made Lake,” Deborah M. Clubb, The Commercial Appeal, November 18, 2001.
• “No Land bridge! The costs, both human and economic, would be unacceptable,” Thomas Kroll, The Memphis Flyer, April 25, 2002.
• “Land bridge Yes! The ‘disadvantages’ of the project have been greatly exaggerated,” Benny Lendermon, The Memphis Flyer, May 10, 2002.
• “Riverfront Project Could Delay Cleanup of Harbor,” Tom Charlier, The Commercial Appeal, January 13, 2002.

Other documents

• The Waterfront Center: Memphis Riverfront Redevelopment Workshop, February 16, 1999 (complete text of report).
• Memphis Riverfront Master Plan, March 2002. Online version here. We strongly recommend obtaining the printed version, which has numerous drawings and some additional material, from the Riverfront Development Corporation.
• Jack Belz memo to Lendermon and City Council, April 26, 2004.
• An Advisory Services Report, Memphis Riverfront, Memphis, Tennessee, by the Urban Land Institute (PDF file available on RDC Web site). Quotation is from p. 33.

[Click here to read more...]

Welcome!

We’ve pulled together loads of information about the Memphis riverfront -- answers to your questions and facts you may not know. We’ve worked hard and hope that you will enjoy the result.

The best way to use the site is through the sidebar, and the clearest order is to start at the top and work your way down.

Another website, Gathering at the River, provides us with an outstanding library. You may click to it through the Library link in the menu bar at the top of each page.

Thank you for taking the time to visit. Stay awhile and come back often. We’ll keep you up-to-date with new articles, announcements of events, and issues worthy of thought.

So, read on, and be sure to let us know what you think.

FfOR board members Virginia McLean, Don Richardson, Jeanne Arthur, and Sue A. Williams, posing with a special friend and supporter (holding award) at a Sierra Club meeting in December.

[Click here to read more...]

About our organization

Friends for Our Riverfront, formed in 2003, is a nonprofit citizen group dedicated to protecting our harbor and revitalizing our riverfront.

Our goal is to promote the improvement of the Memphis riverfront to its full potential as a green space for public enjoyment, preserving its historic, natural, and aesthetic character.

FfOR supports commercial, retail, and residential development downtown, but we believe that development should augment and support the renaissance of our current downtown and focus on our current business district which is east, not west of Front Street.

We oppose the Riverfront Development Corporation's plan to let private interests develop public land at taxpayer expense and to convert the Memphis harbor to a lake.

Our Board of Directors

Virginia McLean, President
John Gary, Vice President
Sue A. Williams, Secretary
Gerry Millaway, Treasurer
Jeanne Arthur
Susan Caldwell
Heathie Colvett
Judith Johnson
Carroll Mayfield
Hite McLean
Bert Merrill
Don Richardson
Lisa Snowden
Jack Tucker
June West

On behalf of FfOR, president Virginia McLean accepting the Memphis Heritage 2004 Preservation Planning Award. From the left: Hite Mclean, Don Richardson, June West, Jeanne Arthur, Virginia McLean (front), John Gary (back) Judith Johnson, Susan Caldwell, Sue A. Williams.

Contact Information

Friends for Our Riverfront, Inc.
P.O. Box 111387
Memphis, TN 38111
901-496-0736

An email link is at the bottom of this page.

[Click here to read more...]

Recognition and awards

Friends for Our Riverfront board member, Susan Caldwell, was selected one of the year's 50 Women Who Make a Difference for 2006!!

In 2004, Friends for Our Riverfront received recognition from the Memphis chapter of the Sierra Club and from Memphis Heritage.

Sierra Club Smart Growth Award

Friends for Riverfront received Sierra Club's "Smart Growth" Award in December, 2004. The award was in recognition of FfOR’s plan to protect the harbor and to restore the Public Promenade. The Promenade, which was donated by City founders as a public greenway, is currently on the Tennessee Preservation Trust’s "Top Ten" list of most endangered sites.

Virginia McLean holding the Sierra Club 2004 Smart Growth Award. With her from left are board members Jeanne Arthur, Sue A. Williams, Don Richardson. Click photo to enlarge.

Memphis Heritage 2004 Preservation Planning Award

On September 23, 2004, at the historic Parkview Hotel, FfOR president Virginia McLean was presented with the Memphis Heritage Preservation Planning Award for 2004. This honor was given "for outstanding efforts to foster historic preservation activities through the use of the urban planning process."

[Click here to read more...]

1819: A gift to the public

The bank of the Mississippi River rises abruptly in four places in Tennessee. On the fourth and most southern of these Bluffs, three Tennesseans saw the potential for a great river city with open civic spaces. That city would be called Memphis.

Usually safe from flooding and strategically important for control of the river, the Bluff had been the home of early Woodland Indians, the hunting ground of the Chickasaw, a port for traders, and the location for French, Spanish, and early America forts.

In 1819, Andrew Jackson (7th president of the U. S.), John Overton, and James Winchester owned 5000 acres on the Bluff at the point where the Wolf River flowed into the Mississippi. As real estate speculators, they envisioned an important city and commissioned surveyor William Lawrence to lay the groundwork. Lawrence drew a map of the new town designating lots, public squares, a Public Landing, and a Public Promenade.


The city's founders saw the importance and value of a public common space along the riverfront, and set aside the land along the river as "public ground" to be used and enjoyed by all Memphians in perpetuity.

Memphis was incorporated in 1826, and in 1828 the city's founders or their successors executed a document putting to rest any doubt what their intentions were as to the public use of the property along the riverfront.

Thirdly: In relation to the piece of ground laid off and called the Promenade, said Proprietors say that it was their original intention, is now, and forever will be, that the same should be public ground for use only as the word imports, ....

Jno. Overton (seal)
Jno. McLemore (seal)
George Winchester (seal)
William Winchester (seal)

Office of the Register of Shelby County, Tennessee

[Click here to read more...]

The 1980s: Emphasizing conservation and public spaces

By the late 1970s downtown Memphis had been abandoned for the suburbs. The Public Promenade and Front Street were lined with parking garages -- the City had turned its back on the River. Searching for a way to rejuvenate a depressed downtown, the City decided to take another look at the riverfront.

As Memphis grew, the section of the Bluff designated as a Public Promenade felt the pressure of City needs. At first these pressures were cultural and civic in nature, but by the 1950s the City wanted downtown parking spaces. The solution they came up with was to build parking garages on the Public Promenade; after all, they wouldn’t need to pay for the land. A commitment was made that the parking garages would be built underground with parks on top. That promise was broken.


In 1970 the City even considered building a 16-lane expressway along the riverfront to connect the Mississippi River bridges on the north and south ends of downtown. As then-Mayor Dick Hackett said,

I inherited a Federally funded design that would have tied the interstate from the south end of Downtown to the tip of Mud Island, up Mud Island, and connect to I-40 on the north side. If that had been allowed to continue, it would mean that our Downtown would be separated from the river by an expressway.

The City decided to take another look, and many of the ideas that have since given us a Bluffwalk took shape.

1978 Memphis Riverfront Study

In 1978 the Memphis and Shelby County Office of Planning and Development recognized the value of parks and civic spaces in a city and suggested the riverfront become a garden walkway. They specifically recommended:

• Connection of all publicly owned river frontage from J.B. Edgar point to Volunteer Park as a "Riverfront Garden Walkway"
• historic restoration and development of the cobblestone wharf with suggestions that a "performing arts barge, an open air marketplace, barges or piers, marine service, and a better mooring site for riverboats" be considered for the area;
• the cleanup of the Wolf River Harbor;
• construction of a boat ramp and canoe pullout on the north end of Mud Island

Some of these things have since been accomplished; other ideas have reappeared in later plans.

Center City Riverfront Public Spaces Plan

In 1982 Mitch and March Hall in the Center City Riverfront Public Spaces Plan gave detailed suggestions for a path system and ways to beautify public spaces. Among other things itsuggested:

• improving the Public Promenade with new landscaping, a bridge to cross over Court Ave., and better access to the west side of the library
• renovating the cobblestones and adding a floating dock system,
• constructing a Bluffwalk that would include a footpath over Riverside Drive to Tom Lee Park

Center City Commission Plan

In the 1984 the Center City Commission hired noted architects Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown to do a comprehensive plan for downtown. According to the architect's website,

Fearing intense development could erode the amenity of the City-river connection, the Center City Commission called for a comprehensive development strategy, an overview that would address the area's problems, develop policies, and implement programs to encourage development, while at the same time preserving the amenity of the downtown, which is the prime attraction for economic development.

The study divided downtown into subareas; one of these was the riverfront. The Riverfront Sub-Area volume, completed in 1987, began with these words:

The Memphis riverfront is completely unique with its unspoiled natural amenities, its lack of industrialization, and its general accessibility and proximity to Downtown. Historically, the river and the bluffs determined the very establishment of the city at this point. Favored by the natural beauty of the river and a dramatic view to the fertile Arkansas flood plain, the Memphis riverfront offers young and old a serendipity for the senses and an easy escape to nature.

Figure 2: The 1987 Center City plan for the Promenade area. We had it redrawn and spot color added for visual clarity: green means green space. Click to enlarge.

The 1987 Center City plan recommended:

• improving the Public Promenade as a grand civic open space connecting the River with downtown
• historic restoration of the cobblestones and making the wharf area into a place to visit with such amenities as floating restaurants and places for art
• something special at the foot of Beale Street
• a Bluffwalk with pedestrian bridges to cross over Riverside Drive from the Bluff to Tom Lee Park
• a pedestrian drawbridge at Monroe to connect with Mud Island
• the addition of an aquarium to Mud Island River Park,

[Click here to read more...]

The 1990s: Development becomes the focus

In the 1990s, plans began to focus less on quality of life issues and more directly on economic development of the riverfront. Mayor Herenton came into office saying he wanted to turn the scenic but underdeveloped Memphis riverfront into an "economic engine" for Memphis. In 1994, he outlined an ambitious plan to enhance tourism and commercial use of the riverfront.

The suggested projects continued to include the renovation of the historic cobblestones and floating docks, but now stores were added to provide 75,000 leasable square feet. The projects also included dredging a boat basin along the riverfront from Beale to Court to accommodate large vessels. The estimated total cost was $19.7 million with the federal government to provide $15-million. Part of the money was for finishing and lighting the Pyramid and $1-million for face-lift for Confederate Park.

The Mayor also called for the creation of a riverfront development authority that could issue bonds, lease property, and grant tax incentives to oversee public and private improvements. The authority’s boundaries were to cover the area from Wolf River diversion channel on the north, to DeSoto Park on the south, and from Front Street on the east to the city limits on the west.

By 1995 four phases of development were defined to transform the harbor into a tourist attraction:

• build an overlook plaza at the foot of Union and a cobblestone walkway to the new Visitors Center,
• complete the walkway south to Beale Street and Tom Lee Park,
• restore the cobblestones,
• procure four barges from the Corps of Engineers to use for 84,000 square feet of retail stores and restaurants.

In 1996 the Mayor announced a new version of his Riverfront plan and three ideas appeared for the first time:

• filling in the south tip of Mud Island to create 10 acres for private development as a "theme village"
• building two land bridges (dams) to convert part of the harbor to a 28-acre lake
• cutting a channel from the remaining harbor to the Mississippi River

The two bridges would connect Mud Island to the mainland, one at Beale Street and one near the Visitors Center. Docking and mooring would be moved to the south side of the Beale Street bridge. A boat channel would be built north of Hernando DeSoto (the “M” bridge) to reconnect the remaining harbor to the Mississippi River.

The price estimate was to $25-30-million and depended upon securing Federal funding. [September 5, 1996]

Figure: Detail of the 1997 version showing two bridge-dams forming a 28-acre lake. A new boat channel (click picture for a wider view to see the channel) would prevent the north harbor from becoming yet another lake. Source: Hnedak Bobo Group

By 1997 the price of the riverfront had grown to $43.2-million. The plan still included the ideas from 1995 and 1996, but:

• the channel to provide Mississippi River access to industries in the harbor would have to be cut at the north end of Mud Island, through the levy, for safety reasons;
• a bridge would need to be built over the channel so cars could enter the north end of Mud Island;
• the mouth of Wolf River where it empties into the Mississippi would have to be widened;
• the lake had grown to 36 acres;
• an upgraded riverboat docking facility was mentioned
• Tom Lee Park would be turned over to developers for residential units.

They're talking about private development of parkland, but at this time the parkland involved was south of the original 5000-acre tract and did not involve the dedicated Public Promenade.

Developers were interested. As a marketing expert said at the time, extending Beale Street to an island out in the middle of the Mississippi River -- that gets people’s attention.

But the plan didn’t get federal funding. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. said the requests arrived too late and suggested Mayor Herenton reconsider his priorities and focus on education and housing.

The 1997 plan failed, but the development concept did not die.

By 1998, there was a new estimated cost: $50-million. The Mayor mentioned scaling down, but said he planned to continue with plans for waterfront development and would ask the City Council for $6-million for the plan.

In 1999, the Waterfront Center was hired to work with over 100 members of the public in developing ideas for the riverfront. The public consensus from that session was for

• free year round access to livelier Mud Island River Park
• slower traffic on Riverside Drive
• protection of the cobblestones
• an improved dock for river tour boats, and
• to scratch the idea for a lake.

Several people now closely associated with the RDC attended this meeting, but no mention of the Waterfront Center recommendations can be found on the RDC website.

After the Waterfront Center planning session, Mayor Herenton appointed a Riverfront Steering Committee with John Stokes as chairman. The steering committee was chartered as the Riverfront Development Corporation, and Benny Lendermon agreed to retire from his job as the City’s Director of Public Works to become the new organization’s executive director.

Stokes said the new focus would be to provide a lot of development opportunities for the private sector.

By now, the city had spent $15-million on expansion of Tom Lee Park, improvements to Riverside Drive, the Tennessee Welcome Center, the Bluffwalk, and engineering studies and had $12 milion in hand.

The RDC did not yet have control of the riverfront parks, which were still managed by the Memphis Park Commission, and they needed more money.

NEXT: The RDC Plan: Paving Paradise

[Click here to read more...]

The RDC Plan: Paving Paradise

When the RDC was established, several obstacles to development of the riverfront were removed and the RDC plan took form.

In 2000 the Memphis Park Commission, which was established in 1900 and which for nearly 100 years oversaw the development and maintenance of a city-wide system of parks, was dissolved. The Riverfront Development Corporation (RDC) was established, and the Mayor and City Council shifted control of the Memphis riverfront parks to the new quasi-governmental body. $250,000 was approved by the Council to pay the RDC’s operating costs, and the historic Public Promenade first became a subject of discussion in development plans.

The Memphis Riverfront Master Plan

The RDC hired lawyers, public relations specialists, and New York planning consultants Cooper, Robertson & Partners (CRP) to come up with a plan. Starting with development ideas from the 1997 plan, they worked fast on the plan and scheduled public hearings to present it.

The Master Plan incorporated many aspects of earlier plans, but it made some eye-popping additions. At public hearings in 2001, first mention was made that:

• The two dams had become one massive 50-70 acre dam -- a "land bridge" for commercial development -- that would fill the harbor stretching between Court and Poplar;
• The channel to the Mississippi River had disappeared, harbor industries would be removed, and the harbor would become Wolf Lake.
• Private development was proposed on the Public Promenade as well as in Mud Island River Park (most of which would be replaced).

Figure: Architect's model of the land bridge connecting Downtown to Mud Island, supplying 50 acres of land for new development, and forming Wolf Lake to the north (upper left). White buildings represent the envisioned new development; existing buildings are gray. This rendering pre-dates the Promenade Plan; those skyscrapers are not shown. Click the picture for a wider angle view including Beale Street and Harbortown. Source: Cooper, Robertson & Partners.

The RDC's estimated capital cost for this plan was $292 million. It would be the most expensive project in our City's history.

As details became known, a lot of concerns were raised about the plan, especially about the land bridge. But the City Council unanimously approved the Riverfront Master Plan on May 22, 2002.

The Master Plan contemplated several implementation phases, stretching out over 10 years or more. It also left out many details that would be filled in with individual sub-plans.

One detail they addressed almost immediately was what exactly to do for the Beale Street Landing. The RDC held a well-publicized contest inviting designers world-wide to submit proposals. They received 171 entries from 20 countries and 27 states. The winner was announced on October 31, 2003.

The Promenade Land Use Phase

One of the more pressing issues remaining to be resolved was what to do with the area the City's founders had reserved as a "Public Promenade" in 1819. The Master plan showed a high rise and some other development totaling about 600,000 square feet, but provided few further details.

A Tennessee Supreme Court ruling was long thought to have settled the issue of private development on the Public Promenade, but apparently the City had ideas that were contrary to that decision.

In late 2002 and early 2003, three parallel initiatives were begun:

• The RDC hired the Urban Land Institute to reaffirm the Master Plan, and in particular to endorse the need for developing four blocks of the Public Promenade.
• The City hired Washington, DC attorneys Shaw Pittman to figure out how they could overturn the founders' covenant and develop the Public Promenade
• The RDC's communications consultant developed a campaign to guide the public process, capped by a series of three "public meetings."

The RDC once again hired Cooper Robertson & Partners (CRP) to design the Promenade. Underscoring their pressing need, the RDC gave CRP only three months and $125,000 to come up with a design. (In the end, it took a little longer and an extra $17,000.)

In the final design, Confederate Park remained a park. The post office was left standing. But the rest of the four blocks were to be turned over to private developers for

• two highrises of up to 300 and 400 feet
• other buildings at 150 feet
• leasable space doubling to 1.2 million square feet
• a minimum of 1,040 public parking spaces
• the remaining Bluff parkland replaced by a two-level concrete promenade with eating and shopping.

Figure: The Promenade Land Use Plan. Click for an enlargement of the plastic model pictured on the cover. Source: RDC.

The RDC estimated the cost of the Promenade phase to be $50 million.

With only a week to review the actual document, the RDC's Board voted to approve the plan. On May 18, 2004, with a height restriction modification, the Memphis Public Promenade Land Use Plan was approved by the City Council. The vote was 10 to 3.

Earlier that year, and largely unnoticed, Mayor Herenton had signed an additional contract with the RDC -- this one a Master Development Agreement, making the RDC the City's agent for all riverfront development.

NEXT: Design: Memphis deserves better

[Click here to read more...]

Design: Memphis deserves better

What looks good to one person may not appeal to another. Some people like yellow; others, purple. Those are not points to argue about. But when we plan new buildings that will be standing for years, we owe it to ourselves to follow some basic design concepts and to try to imaginatively create spaces that are authentic and appropriate. The RDC plan fails the test.

It’s pretty much common philosophy among planners and architects today that efforts to invigorate a city, must be based on that city’s unique strengths, and that any plan should respect and preserve the city’s history and natural environment.

...a beautiful City, nobly situated on a commanding bluff overlooking the river.
- Mark Twain, 1883

Mark Twain described Memphis as "a beautiful City, nobly situated on a commanding bluff overlooking the river." Most Memphians would agree that the Mississippi River is our city’s greatest natural resource and the Riverbluff, with its magnificent vistas, our most unique feature.

So you would think, we would capitalize on those strengths when we plan for our riverfront –- that we would want to protect, not obstruct, our magnificent open vista; encourage the preservation and adaptive reuse of our historic buildings; stimulate the vibrancy of our harbor for navigators and naturalists; and celebrate, not homogenize, our uniqueness.

Several riverfront plans in the ‘80s did just that.

But the current RDC plan fails the test and instead proposes allowing private developers to build high-rise apartments, hotels, offices, shops, and restaurants on the most strategically located section of our public riverfront. It proposes exchanging our right to a green riverbluff for a paved walkway and shops in private buildings.

The massive new building projects proposed for the Public Promenade and "Land Bridge" are urban sprawl in the most destructive sense.

An RDC artist's conception of the future waterfront (looking south). Urban sprawl on the land bridge (foreground) replaces the present Mud Island River Park. Source: RDC

The proposed buildings have nothing to do with Memphis. They look like something that fell from New York in the ‘80s and landed in Memphis by mistake. Creating a fake downtown, an Anywhere, USA, as Richard Florida author of The Rise of the Creative Class says, “is a sure way to kill its attractiveness."

12 or 40 stories high, it really doesn’t matter. The scale of these buildings will dwarf the smaller historic buildings to both their south and east.

In our artist's conception, you are standing on Front Street at Union, looking north. The proposed buildings tower over the historic Cotton Row on your right (east).

And panoramic views from taller buildings will be gone, too. Replacing the 2-3 story parking garages now on the Bluff with high rises will only compound past mistakes and further separate the River from downtown.

People like human spaces – we feel good there. Nobody really wants to walk around a vast parking lot or along a major thoroughfare. If you’ve walked down the street next to skyscrapers, you know how empty, dark, and dreary it can feel. Built on the western edge of downtown, the new high-rises will cast the rest of downtown in shadows, both physically and economically.

This is how Front Street could look. Drawings by Jack R. Tucker Associates, Architects.

We need private commercial development downtown, but not on the Public Promenade. There’s plenty of vacant space available nearby, in fact right across the street. The current downtown, Class A office, vacancy rate is more than 22%, and that doesn’t include buildings like the Sterick which are totally vacant.

Revitalize the Public Promenade as the great urban park it was meant to be; encourage new development a couple of blocks to the east; support the current Renaissance downtown; and we can have the best of both worlds.

Building a new downtown on the land bridge, Mud Island, and the Promenade would only cannibalize our city's rebirth.

NEXT: Economics: A Pyramid of new debt.

[Click here to read more...]

Economics: A Pyramid of new debt

Few Memphians have seen the financial projections for the Memphis Riverfront Master Plan -- they're not good news for a City now battered by fiscal crisis. The project will lose money for at least 20 years, with debt piling up to a peak of over $140 million. We boil the issues down for you.

Flawed market analysis

Sensible businesses, before they ever design a product, determine whether there is a market need for that product. But not the RDC.

The objective of the riverfront development should not be to develop a parallel downtown...
-Jack Belz

Apparently, the RDC set out to develop, not revitalize, the riverfront. They hired consultants Cooper, Robertson & Partners, who came up with a design and calculated the potential leasable space. Using rules of thumb they calculated the potential leasing revenue and compared that to existing market demand studies already done by the Center City Commission and others. It appears that the RDC did not do any substantive new research. They did not come to an understanding of whether the new development would attract new markets.

Worse: they just assumed that the riverfront development would draw off any available demand and ignored the negative impact that would have on the rest of Downtown.

By Jack Belz's reckoning, the realistic market demand isn't sufficient to justify speculative development on the Promenade:

There is adequate vacant property east of Front to accommodate all of the commercial development which the market could absorb for at least 50 years....The objective of the riverfront development should not be to develop a parallel downtown but rather to provide the environment and amenities to facilitate the optimum development of the existing downtown properties.

Dismal financial scenarios

Even if market demand on such a scale actually appeared, would the project still make economic sense? In May, 2001, RDC insiders were clearly worried. "We have a finite amount of money for five years, and if we don't do a quality job on development, we're dead," John Stokes told the Executive Committee. "That underscores what comes next--development."

Development of the scale that is contemplated by the RDC will require financing that is enormous in scale and complex in its formulation.
- Urban Land Institute

"Five years is a quick timeframe made more challenging by the fact that most of the revenues are generated by land we have to create," the minutes dourly noted.

The designers certainly created land--enough to build 3,400 residential units, 900 hotel rooms, and 5.3 million square feet of office/retail space. But they couldn't create financial success. The unpublished cash flow projections were stark and dismal:

• The total construction costs were $340M.
• Assuming $200M of public money, $140M would have to be borrowed.
• The project wouldn't be cash flow positive for at least 20 years.
• After 30 years, somebody would still be on the hook for $116M of debt.

Even RDC's own experts, the Urban Land Institute, seemed alarmed:

Development of the scale that is contemplated by the RDC will require financing that is enormous in scale and complex in its formulation. It will come from multiple sources, both public and private, and will require management that is able to weave together financing in a manner that is mutually reinforcing to each financing source. [p.33]

Cash flow concerns and hopes for quicker leasing revenue is probably why, by spring of 2003, development of the Public Promenade had become a high priority. This may also explain the unexpected addition of skyscrapers in the final plan.

The taxpayer pays.

Plan proponents have repeatedly assured Memphis that the Promenade plan will pay for itself and will not burden the taxpayers. At least three City Council members didn't buy that, and neither should you. The Master Plan is the first clue.

The "public portion" of Master Plan construction costs was $200 million (more than 58%). We don't know how much will be the City, State, and Federal government shares. But public portion means "taxpayers" in our dictionary.

After the $200 million "public portion" is subtracted, the RDC will still have to borrow the rest of the money to build the Master Plan infrastructure. The RDC doesn't have the balance sheet or credit rating to borrow such sums as $140 million. We believe the City will have to guarantee the bonds, putting the taxpayers at risk.

Taxpayers are already paying for this. Most of the RDC's operating budget has been, and continues to be, public money: A combination of "fees" from the City and operating revenue that used to go to the City. Indeed, the RDC has negotiated a set of long-term City contracts that will pay their own bills. Without taxpayer's money, the RDC couldn't exist.

Furthermore, to get developers to take risks and build, the City must offer tax and other incentives. Taxes not paid have to come out of other taxpayers' pockets.

The big unknowns.

What we've discussed here is the original Master Plan -- before the Promenade phase was factored in. We are still looking for an update to the financials that includes Promenade. (Were those projections run and presented to the City Council before they voted to proceed on May 18, 2004?)

Nvertheless, we aren't optimistic that the riverfront finances will be salvaged by skycrapers on the Promenade. After all, as Mr. Lendermon has so often told his audiences, there is "very little chance those skyscrapers will ever get built."

NEXT: Environment: The unanswered questions.

[Click here to read more...]

Environment: The unanswered questions

The proposal to dam up the harbor with a "land bridge" and to create Wolf Lake is a cause for concern. The dam is simply urban sprawl and raises water quality contamination issues. Water seepage could also damage the buildings already constructed on Mud Island and those planned for the dam.

Photo Map: On this satellite photo of the area, we have added the land bridge, the lake, and other items of interest. Click the picture to get an enlargement in a separate browser window. Use your browser's controls to zoom and pan. The blue shading is the storm runoff area served mainly by the Gayoso Bayou and Pumping Station (shown in green).

Creating new land for downtown is considered an environmental issue. Smart growth calls for infill and appropriate redevelopment of existing areas where there is already infrastructure. New land requires new roads, sewers, and other expensive amenities — police and fire service, etc.

The surface of the lake would be maintained at about 32 feet. The level of the Mississippi River fluctuates because of the amount of water it receives here and north of Memphis. At times, the Mississippi River would be as much as thirty feet below the proposed lake water level. The difference in elevation would create water pressure on the silt and sand that makes up Mud Island and on the dam itself. The Master Plan estimates that about 324,000 gallons of water per day would be lost through this seepage. Engineers advise that the resulting seepage and land settlement could cause cracking in existing or proposed buildings. No environmental impact studies (EIS) have been conducted for the proposed earthen dam. The Corps of Engineers is just starting a preliminary study (January, 2005).

The Master Plan contains no provisions for dealing with exposed sediments that have been contaminated with heptachlor and chlordane. These chemicals are known to cause cancer. Dredged sand could expose contaiminated sediments in the lake and in the River to fish, to humans--especially children who might come in contact with the chemicals while playing on filled land-- and to lake users.

Portions of the Mississippi River are under a fish advisory issued by the State of Tennessee.

Two major pumping stations, Gayoso and Marble, would feed Memphis rain water run-off into the Lake. This run-off is from residential, commercial, and industrial sources. It is not treated to remove pollutants prior to its discharge into the proposed lake or existing harbor.

In this five square mile watershed, there are currently 15 large industrial sources of untreated stormwater run off. This includes several automobile junkyards, several scrap metal recyling facilities, and other industries. While many of these industrial sites have storm water permits” issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), a Sierra Club study found that a number of these industries have not submitted the required reports to TDEC and are not in compliance with the terms of their permits. The same study also reported that the concentration of pollutants in the runoff from several industrial sites exceeded TDEC’s standards by as much as 30 times! While some of the industries would be relocated under the Master Plan, the plan does not contain any proposals to deal with water quality improvements.

And these are just a few of our environmental concerns. What about the stability of the dam in an earthquake, the encroachment on the floodplain, and the existing floating beverage containers, to name a few? These issues must be addressed.

Wolf Harbor collects refuse, Memphis area runoff and contaminates from local industry. This photo of the north harbor was taken at flood stage, January 21, 2005. Photo by Sue A. Williams.

Links:

Here is a link to the Tennessee Water Sentinels.

NEXT: The legal issues

[Click here to read more...]

Let's go to the minutes

RDC officials told Tom Charlier of the Commercial Appeal last October that they would try to avoid eminent domain, calling the approach "very convoluted." Judge for yourselves. Here are some relevant portions of the Executive Committee minutes.

Apparently, the first mention of condemnation was on March 1, 2001:

The Master Plan should include an option in the event that the Overton Heirs do not participate. Condemnation to [sic] may be necessary.

It was mentioned in passing, as if just a last resort. Therefore, what RDC Chairman Stokes told the newspaper just a few months ago might have been true four years ago. By the spring of 2003, the tone of discussion had changed dramatically:

[May 27, 2003:] Mr. Stokes expressed concern that RDC not loose [sic] focus on its major priorities - the Overton Heirs Property, the RDC contract with the City, and the Hyneman property between Harbor Town and Mud Island Park. He asked that the staff report on these three items at every Executive Committee meeting...

Mr. Lendermon reported that the two major issues in regard to the Promenade are the legal strategy and the public process. The City of Memphis, through City Attorney Spence, is taking the lead in and paying for the legal strategy. Shaw and Pittman, a firm with a national reputation for public purpose litigation, is designing the legal strategy for acquiring the land along the Promenade.

Please note that "public purpose litigation" is a lawyer's term for "condemnation." Mr. Lendermon continued:

In regard to the public process, since condemnation issues will be involved, public relations must be carefully planned....The Urban Land Institute Report, to be released the end of July, will be used as a very positive launch for the public process. This will be closely followed by a series of public meetings, facilitated by Carol Coletta, to receive citizen input. By the first of July a contract with an urban-land-use design firm will be in place, to formulate preliminary plans in conjunction with the meetings. The public process will be limited at this time to the area between Union Avenue and Jefferson Avenue. Chris Peck, the new editor of the Commercial Appeal, has committed the paper's involvement in the public process with good coverage of possibly a follow-up reader questionnaire.

The following month:

[July 17, 2003:] Mr. Lendermon reiterated that Shaw-Pittman's legal division, with a national reputation for handling condemnation matters, was researching the legal issues; to underscore the public use of the promenade public meetings are planned to develop the use and design of the Promenade portion of the Master Plan. Preliminary meetings have been held with representatives from the University of Memphis on relocating the Law School to the Post Office....

Were the "public meetings" really intended to "receive citizen input"? Or were they just part of a strategy to "underscore public use" which is necessary for any successful eminent domain action? The answer becomes clearer the next month, when the RDC's communications consultant speaks up:

[August 21, 2003:] Ms. Colleta who will coordinate the public meetings for the project outlined the plans for the process. In anticipation of condemnation proceedings, the first step will be to meet with the lawyers to understand what the final product must look like in order to demonstrate that the Promenade property will be used for public purpose. On receipt of the Urban Land Institute report, which highlights the importance of the Promenade to riverfront development, three public meetings will be held:
1. A walk around the site laying out challenge and inviting questions and discussion.
2. A workshop where participants will help design the answers
3. A presentation to the public of a final product

You might have noticed that the Urban Land Institute (ULI) figured prominently in all these discussions. Why? Because when the ULI report finally came out, it specifically recommended developing the Promenade and even suggested use of eminent domain. In politics, that would be called "political cover".

We don't doubt that the ULI panel strives to be as independent as it possibly can. But you have to remember where consultants get their information: the client. As we learn from the following passages, the RDC provided the ULI's briefing materials, recommended the Memphians for ULI to interview, and had "involvement" in the selection of the ULI panel. From the minutes:

[February 5, 2003] Urban Land Institute Review: Ms. Spence outlined the process for the ULI review of the Master Plan. The Committee noted the importance of a complete briefing before the Committee's meeting with the ULI as well as the need for continued involvement by the Committee in the process of selection of ULI review team members and materials sent to the ULI review team.

[March 4, 2003:] Mr. Lendermon presented a proposed list of persons to be interviewed by the ULI panel. The Committee proposed several other persons. Mr. Lendermon reminded the Committee of its next meeting to be held with the ULI panel, on March 25.

[September 4, 2003:] Report & Media Coverage: Copies of the Urban Land institute report were distributed. Mr. Lendermon reported that it looks good, is well written and a valuable piece as we move forward. The panel responded to the specific questions RDC asked of them and RDC plans to follow these recommendations. They also made recommendations in areas in which they had no background information, which RDC will consider. However, some recommendations are in areas in which RDC has no control. Ms. Spence reported that Deborah Clubb is writing a major story on the ULI Report for Sunday, September 7, Commercial Appeal that should excite additional media coverage. A walk around meeting of the Promenade will be held ar 5:30, September 10, led by representatives from Cooper Robertson, facilitated by [RDC's public relations consultant], where the public can see first hand the area the Report cites as a major priority for immediate development. The lawyers who are handling procedures will be present for the walk around but will make no comments at that time.

[Return to The legal issues]

[Click here to read more...]

A better way

Cities around the country are rejuvenating their waterfronts to jumpstart downtown redevelopment. Where it’s been most successful, the plan has focused on the city’s uniqueness and the goal has been to make the city the most attractive, pleasant place to live. According to Mayor Richard Daley whose city Chicago has witnessed a spectacular renaissance, business will follow.

Memphis has a head start. We sit on a dramatic Bluff overlooking the most important river in North America.


Mark Twain recognized its beauty in 1883 when he wrote in Life on the Mississippi, "It is a beautiful city, nobly situated on a commanding bluff overlooking the river."

According to Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown, designers of the 1987 Center City Development Plan, “it is the vastness and almost overwhelming grandness and beauty of the river and the Arkansas flood plains coupled with the city’s spectacular siting on the bluffs, that most strongly distinguishes downtown Memphis.”

It is the riverfront that shapes our identity as a City and gives us a pride of place.

The public riverfront and harbor are irreplaceable.

Rejuvenating them should be our goal, and it doesn’t have to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, if you’ve ever watched a sunset from the Bluff or big barges make the turn into our harbor, you’ll have trouble believing anyone would even suggest making Memphis a bluffless city on Wolf Lake, much less spend tax dollars to do it.

There's a better way.

Let’s start now, and let’s do it right.

Any plan for the Memphis riverfront should

• build on our strengths and those things that make us unique,
• improve the quality of life for the people of Memphis,
• respect our history,
• foster downtown’s renaissance,
• and stimulate use of our harbor and public spaces.

Any plan for the Public Promenade should honor the use for which the land was dedicated and give us what we’ve said we want – a great urban park on our riverfront.

Where cities are successfully rejuvenating their riverfronts, parks are helping bring them back to life. Parks bring space, air, and beauty into a city and provide social, environmental, economic and health benefits. They often become a city’s signature and prime marketing tool.
Federal funds, foundation grants, and individual gifts are being used to support and create park projects.
And the parks are having a major impact, not just on the quality of life, but also on the economic vitality of their cities.

Check out the successes in other cities, and remember -- It can happen in Memphis.

We have one of the few slack water harbors in the country; it can be full of boats.
The Public Promenade is ours to use as a great urban park; it can be part of a greenbelt that connects the river to our historic downtown and provides us with the framework for what we’ve said we want on our riverfront:

• flexible open spaces;
• beautiful gardens;
• places to play, walk, hear music, eat a sandwich, get a cup of coffee;
• a place to gather, picnic, and watch the sunset…

That’s how we define progress.
Take the vision test.
See what we can do with $7-million.
Check out the success stories in other cities.
Read Mayor Richard Daley’s comments – It should be required.
Get involved.

It’s our riverfront – save it.

[Click here to read more...]

Let's talk about vision

The RDC Promenade Plan boosters all wore "Get the Vision" name tags at the Council meeting on May 18, 2004. The message, of course, is that they are the visionaries, and the rest of us just don't get it. Take this simple, three-step vision test to see if you "get it."

Step 1: What's there now.

Step 2: The RDC's vision.
Note: The top-most, blue-gray building sections in the RDC proposal would now be prohibited by the City Council's 150-foot height restriction.

Step 3: Our vision. Click picture to enlarge. Drawings by Jack R. Tucker Associates, Architects.

Any questions?

NEXT: What can be done with $7 million

[Click here to read more...]

What can be done with $7 million

When we began discussing a way to restore the riverfront for as little as $7 million, the RDC became greatly agitated. They attacked the idea as flawed and unaffordable. It will cost $20 million just to move the fire station, they reminded us. "[Any plan] no matter what you put back is very costly -- $50 million." Lendermon wrote.

We can understand their alarm. $7 million is less than the RDC's annual budget.

But we really don't appreciate their distortions of what we said.

Take the fire station. We didn't propose moving it. The City has to move our fire service headquarters because the building doesn't meet earthquake code. If they haven't already set aside for the move, the people of Memphis should demand to know why.

We didn't propose moving the Post Office. Let the Feds do that when they're ready. But we will keep the building, thank you, because it's a beautiful bit of our history, and there have been several good ideas for its adaptive reuse.

We didn't propose a new library. Just tearing down the front part, and saving the rest of the original Cossitt for future restoration.

Those garages? They were supposed to be underground in the first place. Plus they've served their useful life. The CCC has already figured out that there's plenty of parking downtown. And isn’t the idea to get parking off the Riverbluff anyway?

We stand by our estimate: $7 million, give or take.


What we proposed was a simple, baseline concept for bringing the Promenade back to being, well...a Public Promenade. Bulldoze the garages, the fire station (after the fire department moves out), and the library addition. Restore all available area to green space. Landscape it. Rebuild the Bluffs and finish the Bluffwalk - including three new pedestrian bridges.

If Memphis wants to do even more, it will cost more, of course. But why not start with this?

And why not have a real public process to determine what Memphians want, and then how to pay for it? We’re a pretty creative, entrepreneurial bunch. Maybe we’ll want it lighted at night, planted with every native tree, a curving drawbridge to connect to Mud Island, places for artists to display their work, a tumbling waterway to the river, vendors selling fried green tomatoes and watermelon in the summer, outdoor movies in the fall, a platform for speakers/musicians/playwrights … Who knows what we’ll come up with. Give us a chance to dream and create our own space.

Figure: Here is how our Riverbluff might look if Memphians wanted to add a few additional-cost features. Click the picture for a closer look. Drawing by Jack R. Tucker Associates, Architects.

NETXT: Success stories: Parks bring beauty, activity, and investment

[Click here to read more...]

Success stories: Parks bring beauty, activity, and investment

Cities around the country are competing to attract people, businesses, and money. To win – they’re polishing their image and rejuvenating their downtown. If they’ve got a waterfront, they’re finding it a good place to start. The spectacular successes seem to be the cities that have figured out who they are and what their citizens want. Memphis can join the list.

Here’s a short list of some of the best success stories with links to their websites:

Chattanooga - Twenty years ago, Chattanooga was faced with a rusting industrial downtown. Determined to do something about it, the City began a true public process to identify public goals and values. That led to the creation of 8 miles of green space along their riverfront connecting to a 75-mile greenbelt. They’ve built new museums, improved old ones, and added an aquarium and river facilities for the public to use.

The downtown renaissance has earned Chattanooga honors as one of the world’s great cities (NPR’s Morning Edition); one of the most enlightened cities in America (Utne Reader); one of the top 10 family vacation destinations (Family Fun magazine); and one of the country’s best places to live, work, and play (Outside Magazine).

Pittsburgh - Any packet of Pittsburgh postcards would be sure to include a photo of Point State Park. Located where the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers meet, the park, with its panoramic vista, has come to symbolize Pittsburgh.

In the early 1950s, the area had become a slum, but now reclaimed it is a National Historic Landmark.

The park's 36 acres are loaded with history, bike and skating paths, and plenty of green space. It gets plenty of use and is today the place to take people to show off the city.

Portland - The citizens of Portland stopped an interstate along the city’s riverfront and instead insisted on a park to connect its historic city with the Willamette River. Extensive public involvement was a key to the entire project. Advisory committees with representatives from a variety of interests and expertise but without a direct financial stake in the park’s outcome were appointed to work with the consultant team and staff to prepare the plan.
The outcome: a 36-acre green space which has helped build Portland’s reputation as one of the country’s most livable cities.

New York – The land for Bryant Park in New York City was designated as public property in 1686. In 1934 Architecture magazine described it as disreputable, and, by the 1970s, it aptly was called “Needle Park." Today it is described as "one of the most sensual, graceful open spaces in New York City."

What happened? The Bryant Restoration Corporation was formed to create a master plan and revitalize the park.

Today Bryant Park offers wireless technology, an outdoor library, places to play chess and bacci, a restaurant, free yoga classes, outdoor movies, and a space for events – all in a green park.

And it proves that parks are not just amenities; they are good for business.

In the neighboring area, leasing activity has increased by 60%. Demand for space in nearby office buildings was revived, and, between 1990 and 2000, rents for commercial office space near Bryant Park increased between 115 and 225%.



Chicago - Chicago’s lakefront and Memphis’ riverfront have a lot in common:

• In both cities land along the waterfront was set aside for parks.
• In both cities, this vision fell under pressure and gave way to other public uses: public dumps, railroads, parking lots, and roads.
• In both states, lawsuits to protect the parkland have been heard by the state’s Supreme Courts, and in both instances, the courts have ruled against development on the parkland.

Today Chicago is known as a city that recognizes the value of parks, trees, flowers, and street art citywide, but nowhere is it as apparent as in the city’s newly reopened lakefront park.

The magnificent 24-acre Millennium Park is part of 3,600 acres of green space along Chicago’s lakefront. Restored through a partnership of public and private funds, the park combines extraordinary contemporary architecture, sculpture, and landscape design into a space that is vibrant, exciting, and inviting to both Chicagoans and visitors. It’s been described as the crowning achievement of the city’s park system.

The renovation was expensive, but reopening in July of 2004, Millennium Park is already proving that parks are good for business. Luxury condominiums in a new 57-story tower just west of the park are 99% sold; 17 new high-rises are being built nearby in a $2.5 billion development on what was 28 acres of vacant land; and historic buildings along Michigan Ave. are being restored for adaptive reuse.

Charleston - In Charleston, Mayor Joe Riley, who has received award after award, among them the Urban Land Institute's "Prize for Visionaries in Urban Development," stopped developers when they wanted to erect high-rise offices on Charleston’s riverfront. A tempting scheme, but Riley said he wanted all Charlestonians and visitors to enjoy the sparkle and breeze of the riverside.

He created Waterfront Park instead, calling it a gift to the future.

Memphis – We can join the list. As President John F. Kennedy said, "I look forward to an America...which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."

---

These are just a few role models. You can read more about these parks and others at these links:

• Trust for Public Land.
• Project for Public Spaces. Nonprofit organization dedicated to creating and sustaining public places that build communities. Online library of case studies and photos.
• Slideshow of Chicago's renaissance. (This is an PDF document; Adobe Reader required. Caution: Over 10.5 MB.)
• And this should be required reading: Mayor Daley’s remarks at the Urban Parks Institute’s "Great Parks/Great Cities" Conference, July 31, 2001

[Click here to read more...]

Information for the press and media

This page provides information for the press and other media.

Images for Publication

Higher resolution versions are available for many of the drawings and photos on our site. Here is where you can download them as JPEGS. If an image is designated "Permission granted", then legitimate news media may publish the image (with proper credit) without asking for specific permission. Otherwise, media are responsible for obtaining permission from the original source.


Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: Sue A. Williams
Permission granted.
[1272x762]




Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: James Baker
Permission granted.
[2032x1524]





Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: FfOR
Permission granted.
[1280x960]




Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: FfOR
Permission granted.
[909x794]




Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: Jack R. Tucker Associates, Architects
Permission granted.
[2132x940]




Page where used
Source: FfOR
Credit: Jack R. Tucker Associates, Architects
Permission granted.
[1023x1155]

[Click here to read more...]