There is often interesting discussion taking place between commenters on our posts and that was certainly the case in the last couple of days in response to the post about I-269 creating even more economic segregation for the metro area that is #1 among the top 51 metros.
We’re posting the discussion here since it’s been enlightening and interesting:
Tristan Hayes said:
“the task now is to apply smart growth principles to I-269. We’re not sure when we’ve heard such a contradiction of terms.”
I almost couldn’t get past that first sentence. Tax dollars are being spent on infrastructure, that we cannot afford, which will encourage further housing development outside of the city. The reason that cities exist is that they make life, and all the transactions related to it, more efficient. Commuting an hour each-way each day, is the equivalent of giving up one day of your weekend. This ‘solution’ will support ever increasing decentralization, making realistic mass-transit impossible. That is some stellar smart growth.
I must have been living in a bubble for the past decade, because I thought that most Memphians had grown tired of wasting their income and free time on long commutes. Oh well, there’s always hope for this decade.
Thank you for sharing, and thanks for reading this comment.
packrat says:
Memphis is not a growing city, nor is this metro area growing. We’re merely speading out.
Anonymous says:
Seeing how the anti-urban State legislature seems to be using every tool they can to punish Memphis, I don’t think that an I-269 toll road is in our future for awhile. I would think that the County Commission can help by not allowing zoning changes for sprawl around I-269 exits, which developers will inevitably clamor to get. there should be no more “The Avenue Carriage Crossing” type developments that erode Memphis’ tax base, no Walmarts, no large tract housing developments. They can’t do much in the Fayette County portions but at least restrict these developments in Shelby.
interested observer said:
can’t do much to stop it in shelby either, thank God. When the Road is open it will begat development pressures on the interchange locations, begatting demand for infrastructure improvements to support said development, begatting demands on the responsible suburban municipalities wherein these interchanges exist to annex said land, begatting private/public partnerships to extend public services to these areas,thus fueling most of the economic development (sprawl to the birkenstock crowd) on the horizon for Shelby, Fayette and DeSoto.
Of course the county (read memphis-it’s the same government nowadays) will still control the Eads area and some other vague parts where they hamstring their own interchange development all they wish.
I agree with you, the whole interstate US road system spurred huge econmic growth around the nation. To me and many others it’s a good positive thing, not something to be feared for chirst sake.
Memphis needs to get its head out of its own azz when it comes to trying to promote some inner city fantastic plan. Build the damn highway and watch the sprawl…lol…the sprawl will create jobs !
John said:
I know you guys have just been baiting some of us lately. Well, I’m falling for it again. I think regions that celebrate urban densities and the amenities that come with them while protecting rural areas and the benefits they provide are the most sought after places to live today. Some of you who think sprawl is the way to growth are flat wrong and here is why.
The Memphis METRO Area is not growing by any statistically significant rate in terms of economy or population when compared to other cities. Our growth has been a whopping 0.65% annually for the MSA or region. Since when is less than one percent considered good? Why on earth would anyone make an infrastructure commitment of over a quarter of a billion dollars in this environment? If the last loop didn’t fix this then why should we believe the next loop will?
The key tax paying age group has not been leaving just Memphis, they have been leaving the entire region. This population of 25 to 44 year olds consistently shrinks by 2,500 people EVERY YEAR. This is who drives the sales tax and property tax that pays for all of our government services. In no scenario is this decline good and again, certainly doesn’t justify an outer loop. Few people with any mobility want to live in the environment we are offering and they are voting with their feet… not by moving to Hernando or Marion or Oakland, TN. But by moving far, far away.
For comparison sake, here are the annual population growth rates for some other regions: Austin 4%, Atlanta 3.5%, Dallas 3%, Nashville 2%, Indianapolis 2%, Little Rock 2%, Knoxville 1%, Oklahoma City 1%, Chattanooga 1%. The Memphis Metro Area is barely topping ½%.
Memphis will soon have an outer loop larger than all of the above cities AND larger than other similar sized cities like Portland and Birmingham; major riverport cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Huntington and New Orleans; other airport cities like Anchorage, Louisville and Denver; railroad cities like Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis and Kansas City; and much larger cities like Los Angeles and Charlotte. Every one of these cities manage to move people and freight without an infrastructure commitment as large as this and every one of them appears more prosperous regionally than we are… speaking of getting our heads out of our behinds.
i/o you’re right about one thing, not much can be done to stop it. Notwithstanding that JOhn pretty much blew right out of the water (with actual facts) the idea that this kind of sprawl is good for this region. Sure it’s great for the adjacent property owners and developers, but since Memphis as a region isn’t growing, and in real terms is probably shrinking, it’s a pretty piss poor economic development strategy overall. We’ve been trying to road-build our way out of economic mediocrity for decades, hasn’t worked yet. Hasn’t kept people from leaving this region in droves has it?
The problem with John’s argument, one of them anyway, is that many of those metros he lists are not the high density locales that he claims everyone wants to move to. Have you driven in Atlanta lately? It is the opposite of dense. Dallas? I’m not saying this road is a great idea, but the idea that we all want to live in high rises in NYC just isn’t born out by the facts. What’s the fastest growing areas of the country – south and west. Areas not known for their density.
If we were more concerned about our housing price in Piperton over the next five years, is this road a good or bad thing? Beyond five years (and outside of Piperton) I do not care.
Smart City Memphis said:
We’re not particularly concerned about housing prices in Piperton. We think that the absolute lack of dependable county services should stunt any serious growth in Fayette County.
Sorry I/O, we cannot all be as brutally efficient as you. You have managed to fall for one of the oldest misuse of terms in the realm of city building- economic development. It only serves as economic development as long as economic growth is actually occurring. Relocating from one side of town to the other is not growing or developing the economy in anyway. It only serves to expend money that could be utilized in all sorts of ways that would either improve one’s personal/ organization’s competitive edge.
My actual response was going to be an agreement with a mix of the posts made thus far. The only waste I see in I-269 is in the expense of actually building an unnecessary roadway around the city. Aside from that, if no sprawling development were approved, then the road would simply serve as a bypass (with very low traffic counts). The “evil” is in the land use practices that accompany such highways.
I might be a little softer on the issue if the region was displaying the net positive population growth that suggested new residents were moving to the region as opposed to simply moving around within the region. As long as it is the latter, we are simply wasting resources and money that could be spent by individuals to further their education, improve their own financial situations or invest in their children’s future.
Anon 5:27 has a reasonable point. We can look around and see with our own eyes that sprawl isn’t exactly giving way to massive repopulation of most city cores. However, evidence does suggest that many of the nation’s favorite cities are, in fact, growing more dense.
I just took two lists simply because they came up quick when googled. Forbes Most Livable Cities (which actually looks at Metros not city limits) and Forbes Fastest Growing Cities (also a Metro assessment I think). Then I added Atlanta, Dallas and Little Rock because I mentioned them before. I then looked at the population density change in each of their core municipalities from 1990 to 2000 (I don’t have the 2010 numbers). This is calculated in terms of people per square mile.
It shows that some people do want to live in a more dense, inner city area. Perhaps not in NYC high-rises but certainly a lot closer to one another. This is relevant because this SCM column was originally about Economic Segregation.
The Memphis Metro is not on either list and the core city became less dense. Of the 22 other cities on our list… 16 are growing more dense in their core area, 3 are maintaining their population, 2 are losing population density and one I didn’t have info on.
Austin 22%, Ogden 18%, Dallas 18%, Provo 18%, Alexandria 16%, Oklahoma City 14%, Salt Lake City 14%, Nashville 12%, Little Rock 8%, Stamford 8%, Indianapolis 7%, Manchester 7%, Atlanta 6%, Columbus 2%, Raleigh 2%, Omaha 1%, Ann Arbor even, Lincoln even, San Antonio even, Memphis -2%, Trenton -3%, Pittsburgh -10%, Harrisburg N/A
I agree that these aren’t exactly known as centers for urban culture with elbow to elbow population. But, despite this, for some reason they are building more densely… while ten years later we are still trying very hard not to.
Anonymous said:
where is the evidence that Memphians actually want to live closer to each other ??
funny, everybody I talk with don’t wish to live on top of each other
The influx of new residents into downtown should be proof enough. Of course the continued evolution of Midtown and its diverse land uses along with certain older neighborhoods increasing in popularity such as High Point, Normal, Joffre and the University District also support the notion. All one must do as look at the new, increasingly dense nature of infill built within the city limits, specifically downtown and within the I-240 loop over the past decade to recognize the market driven pattern.
Perhaps the real need is to diversify the crowd with which you associate and you will find an increasingly diverse perspective on the matter.
Anonymous said:
I know very few families that wish to live on top of each other. That’s fine if you want to do that, but I think Memphis is big enough all over, not to have to do that. I mean there is nothing inherently superior for families to rush to live in Midtown for heavens’s sake.
However, if you wish to live in such a cluttered and tight enivornment, that should be available for you to choose for yourself, and not be ‘sold’ on the concept or design because some politico, developer or designer is selling snake oil as parfum.
One good thing is that Memphis has always been dispersed across the county and outside the county. That’s the history, not high density living. Neither choice for families should be demonized.
I simply see high quality family life and safety in dispersed and not highly concentrated urban-like areas.
If you don’t have children, this concept may escape you. Things like back yards, Swing sets, swimming pools, tree houses, bicycles, tricycles, neighborhood cookouts, block parties.
Memphis is not just the city ccenter or Midtown, and it will never be. Families will continue to choose way outside the center city and Midtown. That’s not reversing in the next 50 years. The bulk of family life will not be anywhere close to Midtown and downtown. If you think that will change with families who grow, and perhaps move to Memphis for business, etc, then you must be in a time warp of the near north Chicago/NYC/old Philly/Boston/ model.
Families will dictate the pace for Memphis, not young single professionals, empty nesters, or retirees either.
packrat said:
“Families will dictate the pace for Memphis, not young single professionals, empty nesters, or retirees either.”
Those young single professionals are the ones who start the families……I agree that living choices shouldn’t be demonized, but perhaps they shouldn’t be subsidized either, and when unnecessary and politically motivated road projects and sewer extensions are made to greenfield areas in a city and region that ISN’T GROWING AT ALL at the expense of existing taxpayers and citizens, then the sprawl is being subsidized. If the region of Memphis were actually growing in economic areas and in population, then these projects might be justified. But when an area is merely stagnating and spreading out, they aren’t. Moreover, plenty of studies show that density actually leads to safer communities, as you do not have police spread out over large areas for enforcement and for other reasons as well. You’ll feel much safer walking around Manhattan than walking around most of Memphis, and in fact, you’ll be safer.
John said:
I know I am going to regret saying this but perhaps soon what we want to do will not be at all relevant to anything. I WANT a 1,000 acre ranch with a giant mansion in the middle of it with bikini models serving me mimosas for breakfast by the pool. But I am not asking you to build a road to my mansion, connect my sewer, protect me from crime and fire or to pay for the models’ kids to go to a new school built just for them. That would be ridiculous.
Memphis, shelby county and the region are at a point of being unable to pay for the basic needs of its citizens. Yet we keep building infrastructure that makes it more expensive to provide basic services to its citizens.
I don’t care how anyone wants to live. But, I am sick and tired of paying extra for it. I live in the city, in a 100 year old house with neighbors 10 feet away. I pay a stupid high tax rate (when compared to other Tennessee cities) in order to pay for the service provided to me PLUS to the rest of the low density population that actually pays LESS for the same stuff.
I paid to build your sewers, roads and schools so you can move around willy nilly putting excessive stress on the police/sheriff’s departments, fire departments and school systems.
Now… cities that recognize that this is unsustainable, are reforming themselves in more livable places that are also cheaper to run and oddly bring in more tax revenue. This is the most basic of conservative political values, good city planning and nice, freindly placemaking.
If anybody wants to go build their home on a plot of land seperated from society, hot dog, go for it. Get a well, a septic tank and throw some gravel down for a road. But if you want the citizens of Memphis to keep paying extra so you can have nice new stuff while we hang on by a thread, I am afraid those days are over. If you are living in Memphis, then you are extra dillusional.
Part of living in a community is making compromises. I’m not suggesting that anyone set their car on fire and move into a 500 unit apartment building. I am asking our leaders to at least make some better urban living options available so we can start to turn the ship. Otherwise we all lose because no one will be around to pay for the stuff that makes a city a city.
Smart City Memphis said:
“One good thing is that Memphis has always been dispersed across the county and outside the county. That’s the history, not high density living. Neither choice for families should be demonized.”
Just for the record, that has not been the history of Memphis and Shelby County at all.
The decreases in density occurred directly because of government subsidies to sprawl. Nothing more, nothing less.
As we have written before, our polling of young professionals show us that they are the ones who prefer more urban lifestyles by a significant percentage.
Here is the study compliments of Google and the search string “young professionals brookings institution city.”
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0509_metro_america.aspx
And an article that distills the report you:
Enjoy.
John & others,
Very interesting re: the correlation between cities with healthy economies and central city population growth. It is such an easy concept to understand. Sprawling development is less efficient to service than sprawling low(est) density development. This inefficiency is reflected in the tax rates applied to both property and sales which of course effects the cost of doing business or locating in an area. It is such a simple concept, yet we sometimes need to be reminded of the relationship.
It underscores the primary assertion of the main post.
Pack- well noted, eyes on the street and such results in safer streets.
John- perhaps, as unlikely as it is to occur, it is time to reform our tax assessments to those that were imposed at the beginning of the 20th century. If a sidewalk was built, the properties directly affected were assessed the cost of the sidewalks construction. Perhaps the direct costs of sewers, roads, increased police and fire services and school expansion should be directly assessed on properties that these improvements benefit. That would include general assessments made to widen existing roads that serve the “traffic shed” of the roadway to be widened. When the market accurately reflects the cost of sprawl for an area with stagnant population growth, then perhaps we will see individuals begin to reevaluate their housing and options.
when gas goes to 5 bucks a gallon later this summer, we’ll all be doing some re-imagining, I imagine.
anybody want to buy an Escalade?
Urbanut said:
IO – I don’t know. At that price oil would be somewhere around $250 a barrel range(seeing as one estimate is that each additional $1 increase in oil per barrel equates to a 2.5 cent price increase at the pump range) and seeing as even bike tires utilize petroleum based products, I might be switching to a unicycle let alone purchasing a car.
I’ll bet I’m the only one here that was on TV in 1995 OPPOSING the I-69 and calling for consideration of all foreseeable cumulative and secondary impacts the economy and environment.
With the exception of the good ladies of Rosemark.
Nah, nah, nah, nah, I told you so 😉
This link is to a document produced for the Texas Department of Transportation by The Center for Transportation Research at The University of Texas.
Techniques for Mitigating Urban Sprawl
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_4420_2.pdf
Great answers to the question “What do we do now?”
It’s not only Memphis …
At 2,696,000, this takes Chicago to its lowest population since 1910, and nearly 1,000,000 fewer than its census population peak of 3,621,000 in 1950. In 1910, the city had a population of 2,185,000, and increased in 1920 to 2,702,000.
In general the suburban collar counties continued to grow, some spectacularly.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-new-census-data-show-
Remember folks … People will live where they want to live. I choose to live in Midtown because I like my old, small house and being close to things.
My son is grown so the local school is not an issue. If I had children, I’d have to rethink this or put them in private schools.
Midtowner:
What’s interesting that is happening in Chicago is that the big corporations that moved to the suburbs 15 years ago are returning to Chicago because that’s where the “talent” is living. It also is testament to the landlocked city that Rusk wrote about and why in the end we are better because of the options given by our annexation laws.
People can live where they want to live, but they shouldn’t expect people who have already paid for the infrastructure for their neighborhoods to subsidize them. That’s what took place for 25 years here as county government directly subsidized sprawl because of the way developers controlled county decision-making and directly subsidized the small cities because of the political patronage given to those small mayors.
Scott: You deserve a commendation for opposing I-269 early and often. It’s one of those tragic projects because it won’t be until its massive negative effects are felt that reality will sink in on most folks, but if will be too late. And those people won’t just live in Memphis, because I-269 will have serious negative effects on Germantown and Collierville as well.
I’m not looking for commendations, SCM. I did try, constrained by politics of the day, to engage the G-Town, Collierville and Eads/Arlington folks, but Smart Growth and New Urbanism weren’t in our collective vocabulary yet. My point is that bad planning tends to be a long term venture while good planning is more often than not a reaction to the realization that bad planning has been going on for so long behind the curtain. Our only recourse now is careful and determined decisions on land use along the corridor. I won’t hold my breath . . . nor my voice.
SB-
It’s a noble cause and a difficult case to make. I’m not sure New Urbansim, Smart Growth or any other vestige of good land use planning has necessarily entered the vocabulary at some of the most important levels of government. There is at least lip service, which I suppose is a start. Just know there are many of us ready to support and join you in voicing similar objections.
Along the lines of the situation as analyzed by the group is perhaps an obvious but unstated issue. As a planner/ architect even I recognize that ours can be a stubborn profession. Sometimes, as we all know, these projects can take on lives of their own and become personal to those involved. In some cases, such as I-269, it involves following through with a plan or project that has been “on the books” for decades. We follow through without necessarily stopping to ask ourselves if the conditions that may have indicated a need for certain projects many years ago are still with us. One issue is that the statement of need and justification for a project are usually the first step in the process, with actual construction occurring anywhere from 5 to 25 years later. Much can happen in that window of time that might remove the necessity of the project. I would hate to add what would be seen as yet another layer in the planning process, but perhaps there is a need to add a final step- a rejustification of a project- before ground is broken. Seeing as the span of time that can pass during the process, it might prove beneficial.
Some of you probably think it was a good idea to halt I40 through the city, thereby having in-bound city traffic and by-pass traffic (essentially all traffic) on the same road of I240..I thought that was a dumb dumb move.
Memphis has always been backwards. Heck for a long time, it could not time the traffic light in sync, like many many other cities. In some areas, that’s still the case…dumb dumb dumb.
Let the market forces determine the business component of the results of loop/bypass. Let them chime in, see what big land owners and entrepreneurs offer in feedback.
I suggest that the mere existence of additional choices of where to live, shop, conduct business, etc, will provide an expanse of suburban capital investment, and attract secondary investment over time.
Decentralization and remote development through private/public investment can give the residents of the region (not just the City of Memphis, TN) more options in establishing communities with various ‘feels’ and character around the entire loop.
The free market, not the government (especially not the City of Memphis, or Shelby County Government, or academics) should be the driving force it seems. Of course government has an important role, but people in the city of Memphis should not dictate what happens in roads, planning, development, etc for such a project that would affect other cities/towns/counties. It’s got to be a partnership. It’s not all about The City Of Memphis alone.
People are going to continue to look at living, working, playing outside of The City. Give them some intelligent options, and cease trying to corral them into urban thought or patterns exclusively. It won’t work in the longer term because many many of the residents already now live outside of the City itself. No body really is moving out of Collierville to move to the City of Memphis, nor do the residents of Collierville desire much identification with The City of Memphis and its attempts at some new urbanism. The same might be said about the residents of Germantown, Arlington, Bartlett, etc. That sentimet was loudly proclaimed when the some residents of Cordova were annexed by the City of Memphis. They didn’t like it then, and they STILL don’t like it. That’s why they moved out of the City of Memphis in the first place. That thought trend is still prevasive. Just ask any resident around Southwind/Hacks Cross and Collierville/Winchester corridor.
I think it would be desirable to provide the residents of the area a varirety of choices around the outside loop. Different onclaves of different character or themes could be developed to appeal to different lifestyles.
Those people who wish to live in an urban area could live Downtown. Those that what to live in a university artsy environment could choose Midtown, those that like suburbia could choose places like GTown, Collierville, parts of east memphis, and those who want to live in say a totally new quasi-township community would have several choices to consider, spread out around the loop. Market forces generally determine success or failure of those projects. Let the private sector determine their own risks., and share in the costs of infrastructure, and if they don’t want to contribute, then the question of viability answers itself. I have spoken to a lot of people even in my own suburb, and all have stated they would certainly consider living/moving in a planned unit development even if they had CDDs.
I tend to agree with Anon that Government should stay out of it. But they didn’t. They built the biggest welfare program in Tennessee’s history… I-269.
Also, just to make sure everyone is aware… some of the best urban planning going on in our entire region is going on IN COLLIERVILLE! Both their mixed-use/new-urbanist small area plan (for about 1,500 acres) and their Downtown area plan are (unfortunately for Memphis) great examples of how suburban towns are actively trying to increase density, save expenses and create identity through the ever insulted principles of good urban design.
Thanks to these two events coinciding, their future may be bright… still at the expense of Memphians who paid for the very infrastructure that is making this happen at a discounted price.
One of my points is that there can be other well-planned/designed “Colliervilles” incorporating various ‘themes’ and lifestyle choices….perhaps equestrian, perhaps cutting edge modern, perhaps old south/agrarian, perhaps ‘Rivertown-ish’, whereby they could be ‘linked’ through intelligent transportation, shared community services/facilities while maintaining their own distinct character. The purpose would be to offer people obvious choices, and various price points within those choices as well.
Clean slates have various advantages. Existing old Memphis presents real challenges and of course distinct rewards as well. This ‘us versus them’ dynamic needs to disappear from the political/community landscape if the region is going to prosper. There are elements in this community however that actually believe that they have all the answers for future intelligent growth of Memphis…….perhaps they do, for THE CITY OF MEMPHIS, but certainly don’t qualify for hegemony over regional planning that will invaribaly encompass far outside The City as a singular entity. Heterogeneity is a good thing for regional growth and planning.
The City of Collierville perhaps should look to more annexation or partnerships with nearby underused/developed smaller townships. I would suspest they are doing just that…LOLs
West TN could become quite a diverse economic powerhouse and engine, if that simple-minded ‘it’s us versus them’ is left in the past. The region has lost at least 25 years in realtime productive growth…mainly between the ears it seems.