Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Developer Postpones Overton Square Demolition Request
Posted by Mary Cashiola on Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Buildings on the north side of Overton Square got a 60-day reprieve Wednesday night.
Fisher Capital planned to ask the Memphis City Council for approval to demolish the buildings but, after a discussion with members of Memphis Heritage, Save Overton Square, and other community groups, decided to postpone the request for 60 days.
For those who want to see the buildings saved, however, it might not be enough.
"We are to the point that we could not make redevelopment of those buildings work," said Fisher Capital's Tom Lowe.
Lowe gave three options for the future of the property:
1. Sooner Investment and Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) would redevelop the property and build a new grocery store, but the grocery store is non-negotiable. ("The bottom line is that we have one tenant and it's AWG," Lowe said.)
2. Shutter the buildings indefinitely until another redevelopment plan comes along
3. Demolish the buildings because of blight and safety concerns and wait for another redevelopment plan
The fourth option would be for someone else to buy the property.
"If the buildings get shuttered, they're going to be torn down," said Councilman Shea Flinn. "Let's be realistic."
Lowe said the proposed development was to keep the rest of the area from falling into decline.
"We own both sides of Madison there. We thought, if we can't stabilize this area, the whole thing's going to go down," Lowe said. "It's in our best interest to see this area and this property prosper."
Many at the meeting said they weren't categorically opposed to brand new buildings at the site, but they would like to see a plan for the area before going forward.
"We're not anti-development. We want new money to come into the area," said Gordon Alexander with Save Overton Square. "We don't want to put the cart before the horse and demolish those buildings before we decide what to put there."
"I think it would be a mistake to let you demolish those buildings without you at least making an effort to show us what's going to go in their place," said former city councilman John Vergos.
The initial contract between Sooner Investment and Fisher Capital is set to expire shortly, and it seemed Lowe thought they were farther along in the process than they are. No final plans have been submitted to the office of planning and development, and Lowe pushed the city to be ready to make a yea or nay decision in two months.
"We're a year into this and [Sooner is] at square one," Lowe said. "I need information now. I can't wait another nine months."
In the meantime, the Memphis Regional Design Center is spearheading an effort to get the community's "wish list" for the redevelopment in the next 60 days.
"Everyone's first preference is to save the buildings, because we know those work the the character of the neighborhood," Flinn said. "Beyond that, we're veering into unknown territory."
Comments (12)
Showing 1-12 of 12
There has got to be a way to preserve the heritage of OS. I would rather see Culinaria - A Schnucks Market than the AWG Sun Fresh concept.
to compare:
http://www.culinariaschnucks.com/
vs.
http://www.awginc.com/sunfresh.html
like
dislike
I am proud that the "TEAM" has stood firm on the committment to get full disclosure before being bullied by the developers to rush things through; like the ELITE are trying to do in our Nation's Capitol.
This is our home and we need to stay in control; just like this is our Nation and we need to stay in control.
Stand firm, and apply Rotary International's Four-Way Test:
I. Is it the TRUTH?
II. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
III. Will it build GOOD WILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
IV. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Let's stay the course!
Curious about this.
Both Golden India and Memphis Pizza Cafe have ~2 years left on their leases.
Which buildings are you referring to? The old TGI Friday's? The old Le Chardonnay?
I really don't get it. There was plenty of community input and the one overwhelming theme was pedestrian friendly, urban setting.
The concerns over demolition are mostly because of the plan to put some suburban strip center there. That is most definitely not wanted, but apparently what they want to build come hell or high water.
I wish there was somebody else who could step up and offer to develop the property the right way.
If they presented some concrete plans that demonstrated they understand what the neighborhood needs in terms of design and layout, I doubt anyone would be that upset to see the buildings torn down.
It's what they want to put in their place that's the problem.
The CA article mentions that Looney Ricks Kiss is now involved in some way. Same lame developer, but at least with a local archetectual firm that might understand what locals are looking for.
It'a all about money & value. If you buy the property at value you'd have to build up 6-stories of commercial & residential to recoup & profit from your venture. At least that's what I've gleened from some of these meetings. That's why finding someone to step up is so hard.
Chris,
That's one of the issues here that amazes me. We have a valuable piece of land, a fact conceded by the developer and others, and we are looking at a proposal to build something for the least value possible in order to turn a maximum short term profit. They have to build "x" amount of square footage in order to recoup their expenditures on land, demolition and new construction. If they are already tapped out after the purchase of the property, then they should not have bought the parcel in the first place. It used to be that high value land was an asset and served as a place where a developer fought the community to build higher. Now we have developers trying to de-value property in order to build the least amount possible. Since when did owning land valuable land become such a burdensome punishment?
The neighborhood is fighting this battle on the wrong front. They shouldn't worry about saving those buildings, which are overrated in my book. They should allow the developer to tear them down and then focus efforts on making sure the incoming development fits the neighborhood (right types of materials and other concessions). The square has been under utilized or nearly vacant for more than a decade. It's time to let go, people. If a perfect buyer or developer was out there, it would have happened by now. We need to focus on historic buildings which are actually worth saving.
You let them demolish the current buildings without seeing the plans and you lose any leverage over controlling what goes into thos spots.
TDrew, I agree that the buildings are overrated, but once its all a parking lot the community is over a barrel. I don't think the fight is primarily to save the buildings--although it may look like that-- but it's really about saving the integrity of the neighborhood.
I can see how the neighborhood would want to see some more intricate plans before giving them permission to demolish it. In a perfect world, the developer would show nearly-completed plans, elevations and all, now and that might get people to consent to tear those buildings down. I don't think that would happen, although I wish it would.
That said, I think we should say, "Yeah, you can tear it down, but you need to hit these restrictions (certain types of brickwork, bike racks, etc.) before we'll give you permission."
I'm just afraid that if AWG gets away, then I'll have to look at these empty buildings for another 20 years.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
