A Vote on Unified Development Code This Thursday

In what could be the most important civic breakthrough for Memphis' built environment in 100 years, the Land Use Control Board will vote on the revised and long-awaited Unified Development Code this Thursday, May 28th, at 5 p.m., in the Memphis City Council chambers at 125 N Main – City Hall.

If you, as a citizen, neighborhood, developer and/or leader, want better tools to rebuild a greater Memphis, or just want a better built Memphis, please show up to show your support.

If you're not up to inspecting the toolkit, 424 pages of development code, the Office of Planning and Development has created a short document which lists the organizing principles of the UDC. Given the importance of citizens and neighborhood groups to its real success, how-to's, case studies, mailing lists, websites, etc. would also be very useful auxiliary tools moving forward.

Crib Notes for Sustainable Shelby

Mayor A.C. Wharton launched the Sustainable Shelby initiative a week ago. Hopefully it will give a strong and sustainable political voice for walkability, mass transit, increased density and other means to sustainable neighborhoods and urbanism.

However, besides its brief website and this Memphis Flyer article (read the last paragraph for a huge challenge to real sustainability -- the gap between earnest words and oblivious action) I can't find much of an online voice for the initiative.

I do know that Doug Farr's book Sustainable Urbanism will be the official text for the initiative and I also know that Portland economist Joe Cortright spoke at the kickoff. Unfortunately, Sustainable Urbanism costs $75 and the kickoff has passed.

Luckily there are several online sources that might give us an idea where Sustainable Shelby is heading:

• This interview with Doug Farr on Smart City Radio, where he talks about his book and the key LEED-ND (ND for neighborhood development) rating system. Since I fear the word "green" will be used as PR cover for business-as-usual -- whether regressive (white-flight, sprawl) or destructive (demolition, clearcutting) -- I'm glad that host Carol Coletta questions him whether LEED-ND favors greenfield development over infill and brownfield development.
• The slides from Joe Cortright's presentation. I understand they weren't actually presented at the kickoff because the projector didn't work, so you can see something the attendees couldn't.
  

Questions about the "Zipper Zone"

Here are some questions I have about the zipper zone idea of Frank Ricks, profiled in Sunday's Commercial Appeal:

• How were the outlines of the zipper zone determined? Most notably, why was the major part of Union Avenue (it appears from Watkins to Cooper) in Midtown left out? Why develop smart on Poplar but develop stupid 2 blocks away on Union (by perhaps knocking down more character-rich buildings)?
• If "special design and zoning guidelines -- possibly similar to the Medical Center zoning overlay -- should be established to promote smarter, more sustainable growth", then why shouldn't they be applied city-wide? If this is indeed smarter growth (and I believe it is), it stands to reason we would have stupider growth everywhere else. I believe Memphis should be smart everywhere.
• Why would the "new guidelines spook some developers"? Are there extra development costs associated with the special design and zoning guidelines proposed? And anyway, should we really care about a developer spooked by smarter growth? Considering our present pockmarked commercial landscape, with vacancies and random ugliness easy to find, it looks like someone more important -- the retail entrepeneur and customer -- is already spooked. Stupid growth doesn't seem to be working.
  

These are not rhetorical questions.

Well, maybe one or two rhetorical questions.

south of Southern

The Commercial Appeal ran a story Saturday morning about the University of Memphis' plans for a new nursing building. The University's choice of location -- the South Campus.

The University has owned that huge underused parcel, formerly known as the Kennedy Hospital, since 1966. (See photo outlined in green -- lots o' space).


Yet during this time it's expanded primarily north across Central into an established, architecturally sound neighborhood. They acquired, then demolished, many fine homes for this northward push. (See photo with red outline. The outline marks what the university has acquired and with a few exceptions, bulldozed).
And with nary an exception, they replaced each house with something far, far, far away uglier. This includes the Central surface parking lots, the banal student dormitories that border Poplar and the hyper-bland Holiday Inn. They did save many of the mature trees, but everything else -- "kaboom!"

Meanwhile, the South Campus has remained largely unused. And the area surrounding has declined. Crime has increased, in the commercial areas especially. The University, by finally turning their interest southward, can really help stabilize the area. They have a lot of undeveloped land that doesn't have to be seized or bulldozed. The presence of more students, faculty and staff will give adjoining neighborhoods confidence about the future. And a beautiful structure would be a catalyst for other improvements.

If we can diminish the Central neighborhood with bad architecture, we can improve the Sherwood Forest, Audubon Park and Cherry/Quince neighborhoods with great architecture.