Friday, December 18, 2009
Recipe for Screwing Up a $35 million Boat Dock
Posted by John Branston on Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I have not been a fan of this project since it was conceived. I thought it was grandiose and likely to take several years to complete, cost more than advertised, and overshadow quicker and simpler riverfront improvements. But now that it is underway I hope it is a success. Really. I work half a mile away and walk on the riverfront several times a week.
But I also think the way the project got to this point has been a recipe for how not to do things. Here are some inconvenient truths not included.
Start with a “master plan” with a price tag of $270 million and an infinite timetable that assures there will be no accountability.
Create a Riverfront Development Corporation staffed by three former Memphis public officials and the wife of the city attorney, conveniently making RDC stand for Retired Directors Club.
Repackage same as a focused group with more flexibility and brains than the incompetent public sector.
Pay the executive director, Benny Lendermon, more than the mayor of Memphis but give the agency less responsibility than the mayor or even the Memphis Park Commission.
Gut the master plan by removing its centerpiece, the land bridge to Mud Island and the enclosed harbor. Discuss the ramifications of this rather important and far-reaching decision for less than three minutes at a board meeting.
Pack the board with fishing buddies of the executive director, friendly city council members, and celebrities like Cybill Shepherd, John Calipari and Jerry West who had no stake in the riverfront and didn’t come to many meetings and do not live here any more.
Find a place on the board for the proudly bellicose (ex) president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, Tommy Volinchak, but no place on the board for anyone from Friends For Our Riverfront or Joe Royer of Outdoors Inc, the founder of the canoe race and Cyclocross.
Act exasperated when they do not rise up and call you blessed.
Ignore the demonstrated popularity of minimalist Greenbelt Park across from Harbor Town, which costs little to maintain beyond cutting the grass and has virtually no capital improvements.
Ignore the lessons of Mud Island River Park, an architecture-driven white elephant plagued by delays and cost overruns and now closed half the year.
Ignore the lessons of Chattanooga’s popular riverfront, which has $42 million of private donations.
Take bids for a boat dock but ignore the possibility of a recession (check), the disappearance of overnight riverboat companies (check), the difficulty of building anything in the river especially at the mouth of a harbor and the likelihood of delays, cost increases, high maintenance, and fragile funding from Washington (check, check, and check).
Hire an architect from Argentina.
Use federal funds to leverage at least $20 million in city funds. Remind council members that the project was approved by previous council members, most of whom are no longer serving and who approved the worst administrative outrage in the history of Memphis, the 12-year pension bonanza. Leave current council little choice but to throw good money after bad.
Greet any shred of media skepticism with letters to the editor from board members, orchestrated by the RDC staff.
Lowball the cost of the project to the city council in the face of higher estimates from the city administration, ‘fess up seven months later, but accuse critics of being zany naysayers even if they actually use the riverfront, unlike the RDC board celebrities.
Ignore the probability of more price increases before project is completed in the summer 2011.
Be as adversarial as possible with regular users of the river and the boat docks like Joe Royer.
Go to war with Friends For Our Riverfront even though they are natural allies because 90 percent of the rest of Memphis doesn’t give a hoot about the riverfront after Memphis in May or worry much about tourism when they can’t make ends meet.
Insure thereby that no improvement to the overrated pile of rocks known as the cobblestones will be made for another decade and that attention will be diverted from the more important issue of Front Street.
Allow the corner of Beale and Riverside Drive to persist as a fenced-off weed yard that every tourist walking from The Peabody or Beale Street to the river can see before making that daring and challenging walk across Riverside Drive to Tom Lee Park.
Ask city council to “cough up” the “holdback” in federal funds at a time when household budgets and paychecks are being cut.
Take no blame.
Insist everything will be great.
Comments (64)
Showing 1-50 of 64
like
dislike
You left out the part about making a simple, far more relatively affordable skate park at the tip of Mud Island--that actually would draw locals as well as out of towners--seem like an impossible task despite overwhelming public support at ad nauseum public meetings for over a year.
Good lord again with the skate park. I was at some of the meetings and I would hardly call the 18 to 25 individuals calling for a skate park "overwhelming public support" even if they were the majority of people there. If anything, one might say “skate park proponents overwhelm underwhelming turnout at important civic meeting”. Regardless, I hope they do build one on Mud Island. However, I agree with the original designer that it should not be on the tip of the island. From a purely physical layout and planning standpoint, that is probably the most visible and perhaps most important public space on the riverfront. To prescribe it to a few specific users does the majority a disservice. Build the skate park, but put it somewhere other than the tip of the island. Pittsburgh has a great civic space at confluence of the 3 rivers in its downtown and it does not feature a skate park.
Thanks, Nuts! You just defined overwhelming public support and we both agree that the public meetings were overwhelmingly dominated by people wanting a skate park on Mud Island (the purpose of these said meetings). I'll disagree with your numbers (facts) as I was at 2 of the meetings and there were 18-25 people around each table who were interested in a skate park on Mud Island. You are not entitled to your own set of facts. We agree to agree on that.
We also agree you are not in Pittsburgh. I love Pittsburgh too, but your point is not germane.
A world class skate park on Mud Island would appeal to more than a few specific users.
This is the exact template that our city leadership has used for the last several years, why is anyone upset, now?
Another good source on this long-running saga is http://www.memphiscobblestones.com/, they have been on it a while as well.
This is a beautifully written article except for Mr. Branston's apparent unhappiness with ditching the land bridge plan. The land bridge was an ill-conceived idea for an area with as much water ebb and flow as the harbor has, and, worse, it would have taken away the versatility of the downtown water.
Joe Royer and other regular boaters will tell you that on windy days, it is amazing to have three miles' worth of protected harbor to paddle in and get your workout, but on good days, you want to get out on the river. Having both options available and connected keeps the riverfront much more accessible for different weather conditions and also for different levels of kayakers. Pittsburgh has made the kayaker the iconic image of its riverfront, and Memphis would benefit from selling the river as our natural adventure. We don't have beach or mountains, but we have a seriously underused river. Let's not cut it off and make the harbor a suburban-development-type pond that has no larger use.
Bravo! I bet that was depressing as hell to write, but it's true.
Like m1martha, I thought the land bridge was a rotten idea. But I think an elevated people bridge crossing over to the south tip (see Chattanooga and a hundred other cities for great examples) would be awesome, because we'd be able to run/walk/bike/skate a loop and create positive activity for Mud Island and its deserted walking paths. It would also be much cheaper than B.S. Landing.
In addition, the land bridge was rotten because: (1) it would have plugged the already polluted harbor creating an environmental nightmare of a lake; (2) it would have created a "new downtown" competing with the existing one which was already languishing; (3) it would have cost Memphis taxpayers over $300M when interest and all other costs were added up. Even the Urban Land Intitute thought it was a flakey idea.
http://www.memphiscobblestones.com/2009/08…
The only ones really benefiting were developers and owners on Mud Island. The RDC liked to say, "Connecting Memphis to the river." That was a marketing deceit. In reality it was supposed to connect Mud Island back to the mainland. Once you realize that, you can easily figure out who was pushing the land bridge idea behind the scenes.
Great article, but I think you forgot the idea the RDC had for the giant ferris wheel like in London. When I heard about that I almost pissed myself laughing. The RDC must just sit around and think up the most absurd ideas possible.
If the skate park people can kill the Beale Street Landing, I'll support a skate park. It's cheaper and doesn't seem quite as crazy as the BSL and Ferris Wheel.
What a splendid analysis and clear-eyed focus! Next time there's any kind of oversight/developmental/planning/brainstorming group of any kind for anything in the realm of downtown, it would be nothing short of crime not to appoint my colleague Branston. Nay, let him head it!
John,
Let's say you are correct in your assessment. And I can say that I agree to most. However, no one can predict a recession or price increases.
Joe Royer should be on that board. I agree. Having celebrities is not a bad idea. It's just not a good idea. But it does bring awareness and notoriaty. Who cares, they are there for name only.
Now. Mr. Turley is a friggin' genius in my book. For one, I don't understand a word he says. He'll start a sentence with one subject and end it with another. And there are twelve more subjects in between. Be that as it may, he did Greenbelt Park absolutely 100% spot on. He's not in the Park business. He's in real estate. The park, grocery and cafe sells his real estate. The proximity of all those citizens makes that Park popular. The Riverfront is a whole nuther ball of wax.
And it took Henry over 20 years to build Mud Island into the thriving metropolis that it is today.
One more thing. The Argentenian Architect....he won a contest for the best design. I will concede that I don't know who the judges were or how qualified they were, but I do happen to like this design.
It's not that Turley "did greenbelt park" he had no choice at the time b/c the cost to get it out of the flood plane would of cost him a arm and leg. If it was up to Turley, like with any developer, he would of built shit there to. Letting the city have it was his way of getting some funding for the other stuff. If we want stuff for a vibrate downtown, then sure charge the people who live down town, the condo yuppies and the Harbor Towners. Us that live out east don't get downtown enough to use any of that shit.
Another thing that gets me is that the RDC keeps citing rising steel prices. However, the price of steel peaked back in 2007. It's at some of the lowest levels it has ever been at, and the mills over in Arkansas have cut back their hours. Their needs to be audit.
Barn,
We are getting a "half pike", I think that's what they call it in Greenlaw Park. Come see.
:)
gbbarnes: "Another thing that gets me is that the RDC keeps citing rising steel prices. However, the price of steel peaked back in 2007. It's at some of the lowest levels it has ever been at, and the mills over in Arkansas have cut back their hours. Their needs to be audit."
You have hit the nail on the head. There needs to be an independent audit. I can tell you from personal experience, trying to get a handle on the numbers: The numbers from (three different funding sources) are so complicated and screwed up nobody can make heads or tails of them. City Council has no staff and they just have to take RDC's word for everything. Perfect setup for obfuscation, coverups, and deceit.
The RDC's argument: "We've gone too far, spent too much, and can't turn back." Nobody can get a handle on the numbers to verify this, much less argue with them.
It is time for AC to put a hold on the project and order an independent audit.
Oh and as far as Henry "doing" the Greenbelt Park. Don't you see? He did do it. Had he not been a stakeholder over there, that land would be as it was. Whether he did it personally or was a direct cause something was done, because someone had a stake. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a "stake" in DT? It would be a whole lot different. Memphis is not devoid of green space. Memphis is devoid of stakeholders.
38103,
I can tell you that the six figure salaries of Harbor town and Orgill lofts are not out riding skate boards.
"Oh and as far as Henry "doing" the Greenbelt Park. Don't you see? He did do it. Had he not been a stakeholder over there, that land would be as it was. Whether he did it personally or was a direct cause something was done, because someone had a stake. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a "stake" in DT? It would be a whole lot different. Memphis is not devoid of green space. Memphis is devoid of stakeholders."
What you don't see is that Turley didn't do it out of the goodness of his own heart. He did it out of necessity. If he thought he could of sold the area of the park to a chemical processing company and have still been able to sell lots down there, then he would of have done that.
Turley didn't do uptown because he has a big heart, he did it because he could get land for free on top of a load of city, state, federal development money, which allowed him to sell a house for $160k and still make the profit he would make on a $400k condo.
Developers are not in it for a long term plan, they are developing property b/c you can make a high return on investment alot quicker than developing out any other type of business or putting it in the market.
Yes, Barn, so you do understand. Is it not brilliant? This capitalism thing. It's a win-win. Real estate mogal can't put a chemical processing plant next to his condos and still sell them, so the tennants get a nice park. It's so beautiful...excuse me for a moment...I'm getting a little teary eyed.
And regarding the skateboarders. The guy that proposed this whole skateboard thing is a research scientist that lives in Harbortown and works with underpriviledged youth in Uptown. He is a skateboarder. He makes 6 figures and he's giving back to the community.
I don't know what else to say. Except that I do think Henry has a big heart. I think it's independant of Uptown, though. Uptown needed revamping. How would you have done it? Why are Memphians so opposed to people that take risks making a profit?
If the land in Uptown was given to you, could you have developed it? Would you have wanted to if you didn't realize a profit? If there are any of those people around, please step forward, we need you.
And even if what you say is fact, there weren't a lot of people stepping up to the plate to revamp that area before Turley and Belz. Including the City.
Raising some important questions about that RDC steel contract:
http://www.memphiscobblestones.com/2009/12…
Write your City Council members and demand answers.
Mike,
I absolutely adore you. I have read the blogs. I am all for an uprising of the people. I LOVElovelove public uprisings. Truly I do. But I am still not understanding.
First off, to revamp it, you have just spent $50K (pulling a number out of a hat-probably conservative) on drawings that you admittedly can't do. I couldn't do them either. And that's just the start of the expense.
Second, as TSM stated. The funds were awarded in August. Perhaps that was the hurry. I don't know. I do know that it is a delicate balancing act with plans, funding, so forth and so on. I personally could not and would not have the patience for all that.
But my biggest query is that we don't need the boat dock but you want the cobblestones restored to continue 150 years of "continuous" use for river boat landings.
Am I being dense? Am I misunderstanding? I don't understand what you are saying here.
My next biggest query is that it cost Chatanooga 120M. Why is 35M, 40M or even 50M so outlandish?
Please. I am not being argumenative. I just don't understand.
Looks a little like a scandal. I had heard Lowrey did some shady stuff at the end of his term. I guess this is what they were referring too.
Everyone keeps talking about the Chattanooga redevelopment. That is a great thing, but it was done with a mix if public and private money. The $120 million redevelopment was funded with $61 million from a lodging tax and $51 million in private funding. The risk was taken off of the citizen and local taxpayer of Chattanooga ,and instead put on the back of visitors and private companies. Corker, being the stanch Republican that he is, declared that no funding would come from the city's general fund.
If the guy that wants the skate park is living in Harbor Town and making six figures then why doesn't he pay for it. If he is so sure that it will be succesful then he can sell the digs in Harbor Town, move to a cheap apartment and us the funds to build the park, if it is a success the city can buy it back from him. If the city is going to pay for it, put it up for public referendum and see if it passes.
I for one am tried of the tax dollars thats wasted on down town, and now the influx of people who moved down town, a lot of it on bad money, are voicing concerns for the amenities that are already out east and in midtown. Right now it's just a demand for leisure and better retail, but in a few years when the babies of the younger downtowners and Harbor Towners are school age, we'll see a want for some public/private partnership on a private school. People are more than free to have a vibrate big city lifestyle, but why should our taxes be used to bring that about? Should our taxes be used for some to have their cake (a big city lifestyle) and eat it too (a big city lifestyle without big city costs)? With the price of the lofts in downtown and the houses at Harbor Town, we know that those individuals that live down there have very high incomes so why can we not levy a Downtown redevelopment surcharge for those that live down there. . Places that I have lived at in NY and DC have done the same thing.
I'm opposed to people taking risk with public property and funds. Would Turley have done uptown if the city would of charged him for the lots or could of taken the whole development over if he failed? Pure capitalism is great, but with guys like Turley it isn't pure capitalism, because they mitigate the risk with city funds and property. Developers like Turley take huge pats on the back when they are successful, if they aren't they sell the stuff dirt cheap and then are free and clear. If sub-standard pipes are used or if the drainage systems are not built to spec, guys like Turley are free and clear in a year or two of hastily built development like uptown and the city has to pick up the cost. I once owned one of the condos in Turley's printer's building. As a person with a GC license and a masters in finance, i can tell you that it was sub-par and he made a killing off of it.
The thing about the recent financial collapse is that the demand for projects like Uptown is going to slow down. Banks have stopped lending on risky developments and redevelopments, and the mind set that would take the risk and buy in those areas will not have all the funky mortgages and cheap loans to buy into those areas.
If gentrification of a area needs to happen, then the city needs to step up and enlist individuals to gentrify houses in a area. The benefit of city resources and funds need to go to the individual owners and not huge developers who we can't audit and who have under the table deals with the local officials.
The city could redevelop downtown if our city officials got out and worked their ass off. If our elected officials will quit attacking companies within the area with threats of a commuter tax and accusations of a company not being diverse enough then we would maybe see actual businesses move back to the office buildings, and we wouldn't have to rely on office space being converted to living space. Fedex has alot of smaller offices around town, that it would like to consolidate out to Collierville. The city should get off it's ass and put together a proposal for those offices to be consolidated to a downtown location, with a contract that would penalize city elected officials for interference in the operation of those offices or in the hiring practices of who will work in those offices. It's great that there are more opportunities for living space downtown, but the problem is that to live downtown you almost have to work somewhere within the area. Chattanoga's development attracted white collar jobs to their downtown development which is what was part of the success of it. For a downtown redevelopment to work, there is going to have to be white collar jobs that are not Law or Medical.
Our current dependence on the medical community and it's salaries for downtown Memphis is a slippery slope given the current political climate. No one has determined what congress is going to do yet to the medical field. Yes, Chatt got a health insurance provider to bring jobs to it's downtown, but I don't believe it is the Health Insurance providers that are going to see income loss in any new health legislation.
However, Memphis needs a White Knight to be the cornerstone of any project. Fedex needs to be enticed to move something into the downtown area or a deal needs to be brokered to bring another HQ to the downtown.
DId anyone see the part on the cobblestones site where they say "The FY 2009 grant is not yet available" on a Dec 2009 email. The federal fiscal year of 2009 ended back in October of 2009. SO where is the grant money? And who is blowing smoke at whom?
If I recall correctly: In government, the year number is the beginning of the fiscal period, i.e. 2009-2010. In business, it's the opposite.
DAMN. I must have hit a nerve.
Barn, love ya' babe, but I couldn't disagree with you more on almost every point except for FedEx moving it's headquarters DT :)
Peace out. I'm done.
Mike the Federal Government is currently in FY 2010. They run on a Oct-Sept FY frame. The federal Fiscal year starts October 1st of the previous year. FY 2009 started Oct 1, 2008 and Ended Sept 30, 2009. Now Congress is constantly behind in passing FY budgets, so in most years it's late Oct or even Dec before the new FY budget gets passed, so they just pass a 30 day pro-rated continuation of the previous FY budget. They make up for any Oct-Dec changes that a new FY budget allocated for in June of the FY. So if it's Oct 2009, and USDA is running on a continue of the FY 2009, and Congress votes in a pay raise for the FY 2010, the employees see the Oct amount show up in June 2010.
Well Julie,
I just see it as the "Have's" not wanting to put thereselves at risk for what they want, but instead making the "Have not's" share part of the risk. However, the elected officials of the "have not's" can't play Robin Hood and try to rob the "Have's" of what they have built.
Julie,
It's impossible to answer all your questions in a single comment. Let me just address one aspect in detail.
The big overnight cruises -- 600 footers -- have all gone out of business, back in 2007. Those big boats are what BSL was supposed to be designed and used for. But even when those riverboats were stillin business, BSL wasn't really needed, because those riverboats have used the landing across the harbor on Mud Island itself -- and can STILL do so. We certainly could have spruced up the MI landing for a couple mil, but we really didn't have to build a new boat dock for tens of $$ millions.
There was only a brief 3-year period when BSL was legitimately believed to be needed: 2003-2005. Why? Because the land bridge (proposed in 2002) would have eventually bulldozed and eliminated the Mud Island landing. When the land bridge was cancelled at the end of 2005, the legitimate need for BSL went away. However, RDC had to have something to build, a consolation prize for losing the land bridge, if you will, so they were more commited than ever to building BSL, whether needed or not. Then the riverboats went out of business in 2007-8. That still didn't stop this charade. It intensified.
Now let's talk about the 300-foot boats -- the daily excursion boats operated by the Memphis Queen Lines. Those have always used the Cobblestones. Even with the land bridge, they could have remained at the cobblestones. The 2002 Master Plan wanted the Cobblestones to remain active and become even more so, with all kinds of boats - except the biggest ones (at BSL). Well, when big riverboats went out of business, that laft only the Memphis Queen lines as a potential customer for BSL. You get my drift? The RDC couldn't have Memphis Queen cruises at the Cobblestone Landing and have BSL stand empty! You getting it now?
I personally believe those daily cruises should STAY at the Cobblestone Landing, for mainly two reasons: (1) So that tourists and Memphians can board them the way these boats have always been boarded -- from an authentic cobblestone landing. Tourists can take river cruises from modern boat docks anywhere. But in Memphis they can have an authentic experience they can't have other places, if any. (2) If we stop using the Cobblestone Landing and it stops being an active and lively visitor desination, you know what will happen? In 20 years, someone will say "Why do we keep that pile of rocks around? Get rid of them."
Those are the same two reasons, I'm certain, that the 2002 Master Plan and every other plan for the past 20-30 years has emphasized keeping the center of focus at the Cobblestone Landing. It's authentic Memphis, it's historic, and it's an experience that sets Memphis apart from other places. The Master plan wanted to make the Cobblestones even more lively and active.
But somebody at RDC doesn't like the Cobblestones and changed the plan.
Certainly, the Cobblestones could use a facelift and better facilities and better access for disabled. It wouldn't take $35 million. My guess is about $12 million, perhaps more if you want a floating restaurant or something. Somebody who knows more than I should study and figure out what it would take. But the RDC won't even give it serious study. They dismiss the idea. They want to build BSL and they don't want the Cobblestones competing with that. Their Cobblestone plan is all about moving the daily cruise boats to BSL, and putting the Cobblestones "under glass" -- a relic and a museum piece -- look but don't touch, for heaven's sake don't use.
What;s even worse: The RDC's plan would have covered the lower portion of the landing with rip rap, re-graded it, built a ledge and sidewalk, and generally made it costly if not impossible for us to ever go back once we realized our mistake in future years. Remember how they pretty much tore down the real Beale Street, said whoops, and had to rebuild it? And the same with Stax. Let's not repeat our mistakes.
I say, go back to the 2002 Master Plan's objectives (which are not different from other plans decades earlier) and do it right.
I hope the above answered at least one of your questions.
I think gbbarnes makes some good points here. The main one I would underline is this:
Developers are business people. No matter how nice they may be, their principle motive is to make a living...a profit. In dealings with City government, they try to make the best deal they can. If the deal isn't good enough, the numbers don't work out, they walk away. If the deal is good enough, why stop there? Make it better. I can't fault them for this. It's sensible.
On the other side of the coin, this City government operates out of desperation. They give away the store, and they put us in situations like the Pyramid/Bass Pro, where there are no alternatives and we have to give them what they ask for for fear of losing the only bidder. Smart City Memphis writes a lot about how we give away the store with our PILOT programs.
The RDC itself is an example of this perversity. It was set up to give the developers an even greater advantages than they already have, to put the City's powers and public policy machinery almost directly in the hands of a private entity who feel more beholden to the developers than to the citizens. The RDC claimed to be listening to the citizens in their public meetings, but I have found it written otherwise, right in their minutes. They had these meetings to SELL the plans they had already made TO the public, not listen and abide by the public's wishes. It was a charade. You want to read for yourself? Follow this link:
http://www.friendsforourriverfront.org/200…
To add a little context to those minutes, a brief background:
The RDC has always wanted the City to use eminent domain to take over the Promenade blocks, so the RDC could turn them over to private developers. In the early 2000s, they got the City to pay a DC law firm to figure out how it could be done, and write the lawsuit. That's perverse in itself, because the Promenade already belongs to the public. The City would be taking land AWAY FROM the public to give it to private developers. A story in itself.
But the RDC had long denied this plan, even to the newspapers. Lo and behold, right in their ExecComm minutes, was the evidence: They were planning a series of public meetings specifically to lay the PR groundwork for the eminent domain lawsuit -- SELL the public on the idea and establish grounds for "blight"-- even as they were telling Tom Charlier otherwise. Meanwhile, they were telling the public that these meetings were to "get the public's input."
Perverse to the nth degree.
Mike,
What ever happen to the Overton Heirs claim on the promenade? I seem to recall that they were trying to take the land back b/c the city never followed through with the intent. I was living in DC at the time and was just following everything through the flyer.
It's complicated to explain, but there's no realistic way they could ACTUALLY take it back. It just wouldn't as a practical matter happen.
What the local heirs are actually doing is trying to protect the public's interest. The heirs do have standing to object to the City trying to convert it to private development. In fact the heirs have done this before (in the 60s) -- prevented a hotel -- and it's a settled issue all the way to the TN Supreme Court. That may be the case you are thinking of.
The RDC knows this. They also know, from the legal work Willie paid for, that if the City takes the eminent domain route (which extinguishes the conservation easement), they might have a realistic chance of success. Then everybody loses -- except the developers.
I would like to go on record as a 50-something white chick from Midtown. I want a skate park. It would get far more use than the 28 or so people you see at the meetings. Property built, it would draw from a wide area. As an occasional skater, I can tell you it stinks having to drive to Cordova or Collierville to skate at a rink. My ortho hates to hear me say this, but I would go to a skatepark pretty often if it had an area for quad skaters. Skating at Tom Lee or Harbor Town is too difficult for me because of the dips and seams in the sidewalks and having to dodge the pedestrians. There is an interest.
Here we have a city that is, for example, waaaaaaay oversupplied with municipal golf courses (MLK/riverside and Whitehaven, at the very least, should be shut down and converted to parkland/ballfields of some sort). Yet we have people crying b/c some folks want to build one skatepark at city expense. I don't skate, but I'm willing to bet that park will get a ton of use if built correctly (big "if" in Memphis).
Sherman,
There was no way there was 18-25 people at each table seeing as the tables did not seat that many people. Citing successful riverfronts in other cities is called precedent study: look it up- so your point is well, rather pointless. I wish our riverfront and downtown were as vibrant as Pittsburgh’s, but seeing that the potential of developing a consensus on the issue in this town is nearly impossible, I doubt it will occur anytime soon. I have no issue with locating a skate park on Mud Island- I just ask that it is not located on the tip of the island.
It is amazing the number of special interests in play here. “I want a skate park, I want a place to put my kayak in, I want preservation, I want green space, I want it to fail, I want it to succeed, I want nothing, I want everything…oh and we are not willing to pay any more in taxes to build any of it” seems to summarize all the comments concerning the topic. In any other city, this would be the norm and a well designed park could easily be created. However, seeing the "all or nothing" attitude that has been expressed by so many, I am not convinced Memphis is capable of creating such a space especially considering its very limited resources.
In the end, being fairly new to the area, this series of posts has convinced me that many here are correct, construction of the BSL should halt immediately. The missing sidewalks should be completed and sod laid on the construction site. Little more should be done to the cobblestones than preventing the weeds from taking hold and posting numerous signs stating “enter at your own risk”. Underutilized Mud Island should be turned over to the skate boarders of Memphis and severed from the city financially, enabling them to do whatever they want with the space. This should accomplish some of the overriding ideas presented: minimal expenditure on anything beyond what is currently located on the riverfront, a skate park on what should be the most valuable real estate in the city (but is not) and finally preservation of the cobblestones as they have historically existed so that tourists can see the real thing- not a Disney version of what we wish they were.
Barnes,
You are right on with the comment: " why can we not levy a Downtown redevelopment surcharge for those that live down there. . Places that I have lived at in NY and DC have done the same thing." As a NYC and an architect/ planner transplant, the main reason this would not work here is that the price per square foot in those 2 cities (and many others) is much higher than anything you see in Memphis which enables developers to do far more without becoming addicted to public investment. In order to see the type of re-investment that has occurred downtown, you must hit the breakeven point for the investment in terms of profit/square foot in order to win financing from a private source (aka a bank). It actually requires a square foot value higher than what we see in real estate downtown, so the public is asked to make up the difference in the value/ square foot. One of the reasons (among many) that the square foot values are so much higher in other cities (such as DC and NYC) is there is very high demand to live/ work in those cities (compared to Memphis) and the overall wealth in those cities is much greater. The anemic population growth of the Memphis metropolitan area combined with a decreasing demand for office space downtown results in stagnant square foot values and makes it nearly impossible to build a project based totally on private financing.
Boat dock to nowhere:
Why are people still surprised to learn that we’re building a $37-40 million boat dock for riverboat cruises that have long been out of the business?
http://www.memphiscobblestones.com/2009/12…
But urbanut, Memphis doesn't need residents! We don't need liveable urban space downtown. What downtown needs are tourists! And parking lots for tourists to park in. So they can look down Beale Street see our giant, empty, $40 million boat dock, which is being built to balance our giant, empty, $40 million entertainment facility at the other end of the river bend. Bull Shit Landing will bring balance and harmony to the feng shui of the city. We literally can't spend too much on it!
Urbanut: The south end of mud island has been sitting empty--save for fireworks once a year & a few cub scouts' sleepouts--since 1915. I don't think it is too much to ask the city to spend $1 million to build a skatepark there since the city obviously has $25 million for an unwanted floating boat dock. The RDC opened up to the community for input for several meetings this year to hear what the people wanted--all over the city at inconvenient times. The overwhelming public response was asking for a skatepark.
Since you just came to Memphis in August, I'll assume you missed the April meeting on Mud Island at 4:30 on a Thursday afternoon. How easy do you think it was for teenagers to get their parents there at that time for a community meeting? Out of at least 150 people, I would say 120 were there specifically to speak for a skatepark. At my table of 13, 11 were there just for a skatepark. Most tables were like that. At the October meeting at the Botanic Gardens, the percentages were similar. In Memphis, this kind of gung-ho turnout is tremendous, as you are learning. The skatepark enthusiasts came out to all the meetings with such strength.
There were other people at these meetings interested in other specific ideas, but the majority of people who showed up were interested in some form of outdoor skatepark recreation. The people came & spoke. The RDC (specifically the overpaid head guy) did not like what the people had to say. The RDC does not appear to be moving forward in the skatepark direction with any interest or alacrity.
As far as barnes' rambling, I am one of those zany downtowners who would skate at the skatepark, but there are others as well. If you think the skatepark is just for downtowners, then you are missing the boat. A well-done skatepark would appeal to many people from all over the world as well as all over the region--just like Tom Lee Park appeals to people from everywhere--and all over Shelby County.
Yes, it would be a foreign thing in Memphis turning the "most valuable real estate" over to an unbelievably popular outdoor skate park. Perish the thought of throwing a bone to the citizen's of this city who have seen this property sit empty & unused for 95 years and have asked for a very affordable amenity that currently does not exist in the city's park system. The skatepark enthusiasts have offered to help raise money for the skatepark, and Lendermon has never even responded. He obviously does not want a skatepark on Mud Island, will not fight for one, and does not want what the citizen's have asked for in this process that has been, in my opinion, quite the joke.
Time for a new RDC leader with a bit of a more ear for what the people want.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
