Memphis Cobblestones

Another Mississippi cruise idea is floated, but will it stay afloat?

2010-09-26T16:23:00.017-05:00

Guilford, Conn.-based American Cruise Lines says it will be offering week-long cruises on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Cumberland rivers, starting in August 2012. Six itineraries on the schedule would have Memphis as an end point. Prices for a seven-night trip range from $3,595 (single) to $6,285.

A schedule announcement and a web page doesn't guarantee that the cruises will actually happen. Earlier this year, Seattle-based Cruise West had said they would offer Mississippi cruises starting next spring, but that company has since suspended operations and shut down.

In a press release [PDF] the company says they are building a new five-deck stern-wheeler to accommodate these cruises. A sharp-eyed reader noticed this statement about the boat:

As on all true riverboats, a stage and bow ramp will give the ship access to the many interesting ports without docking facilities.

Real Mississippi riverboats are designed to load/unload passengers and cargo at sloped landings along the river's edge -- like our historic cobblestones, and the landing right across the harbor on Mud Island. The slope of these landings could easily accommodate the great fluctuations in the river's level. So, contrary to what the RDC has implied in their marketing, Beale Street Landing wasn't really needed. We have a perfectly good, authentic riverboat landing for the large boats, and the historic cobblestone landing for smaller ones.

Instead of budgeting over $37 million for a new dock, we could have spent a fraction of that upgrading the Mud Island facility, already used by the large boats, and rehabilitating the historic cobblestones for all other boating uses as was originally promised by the RDC.

For more, see this Commercial Appeal story.

CA: Overnight cruises on Mississippi River put on hold

2010-09-10T13:00:00.005-05:00

By Wayne Risher, The Commmercial Appeal [link]
September 10, 2010

A cruise company's troubles have cast doubt on plans to bring overnight cruises on the Mississippi River back to Memphis next year.

The small-ship cruise line Cruise West announced it had suspended new bookings while the company is restructured.

Cruise West posted a statement on its website that said it would continue to operate its U.S. flagships through October, but it gave no information about future offerings.

It said company executives would not respond to questions from the media.

The shutdown came less than three months after the Seattle-based company said it would launch cruises on the Mississippi stopping in Memphis starting next March.

In June the company began accepting advance bookings for two seven-day itineraries for the 102-passenger Spirit of America: New Orleans to Memphis and Memphis to Nashville.

The New Orleans-Memphis cruise was touted as spotlighting plantations, mansions and Civil War sites of the iconic South. The Memphis-Nashville cruise was to focus on the music heritage of destination cities. Prices started at $3,499 a person.

Memphis hasn't had overnight cruises since the Delta Queen stopped running in October 2008.

The Memphis Riverfront Development Corp. has a new docking facility under construction at the foot of Beale Street, but it won't be completed until late next year.

Cruise West said the first step in its restructuring was terminating its "Voyages of the Great Explorers" cruise when the Spirit of Oceanus docked in St. John's, Newfoundland, on Wednesday.

"Additional assets may be sold and other steps are being pursued toward a restructure," the statement added.

My remarks before City Council

2010-05-26T12:30:00.000-05:00

Below is the full text of my own remarks before the City Council last night.

I am the editor of the web site MemphisCobblestones.com.

I have followed the riverfront situation very closely for over six years.

You are being asked to appropriate $10.5 million for a restaurant and gift shop at Beale Street Landing.

The CIP Budget committee has already voted to recommend that you vote NO.

I'm sure you are aware that, even if you vote yes, Beale Street Landing will STILL be $6.8 million short.

I recommend you vote NO on the $10.5 million. You'll be doing the City and the Mayor a big favor.

In a recent letter to all of you, Mayor Wharton said he wants to update and finalize a Comprehensive Strategic Plan for the entire riverfront.

As I understand him, the Mayor wants to "re-imagine" the riverfront based on the realities of today, not of eight or ten years ago.

Eight years ago the Pyramid was a basketball arena.

Today we are looking forward to it becoming a Bass Pro retail and entertainment complex.

That facility would be ten times the riverfront destination that Beale Street Landing could ever hope to be.

Members of the Council, please hear me:

Beale Street Landing is not “world class.” Bass Pro Pyramid is world class.

It has inspired plans for an economic renaissance, particularly in the Pinch district.

So the Mayor wants to develop an updated Comprehensive Strategic Plan for the riverfront, based on these new REALITIES and on our aspirations for tomorrow.

Why saddle him with a relic of that ill-fated land bridge plan of 2002?

Does it make sense to commit $10.5 million to the past -- money that might be more wisely spent as part of the Mayor's new initiative?

Members of the City Council, don't be railroaded. Don't be hornswoggled.

You were hornswoggled last May at budget time. You were not told that Beale Street Landing was going over budget.

You were still not told last August. You were railroaded into appropriating over $10 million for a boat dock that We. Did. Not. Need.

Interim Mayor Myron Lowery was also kept in the dark.

They are trying to railroad you again, by saying that there are only two choices: Build it - or be stuck with the mess forever.

Not true. There is a third choice: Give the RDC just $2 million. Order them to clean up the mess and re-landscape the park.

If they refuse, then fire them.

Yes, we are stuck with that unneeded boat dock. Maybe it will someday be an "icon" we can put on a postcard.

But dadgum it: Let's give Mayor Wharton as clean a slate as we possibly can.

Please vote NO on the $10.5 million.

City Council action

2010-05-26T01:10:00.007-05:00

On Tuesday night the City Council voted to appropriate the $10.5 million to build a restaurant and gift shop at Beale Street Landing.

There were three NO votes (Shea Flinn, Reid Hedgepeth, Kemp Conrad) and one abstention (Wanda Halbert).

Opposition observers saw Conrad's vote as surprising and courageous, since he has been an RDC board member and supporter.

Though they ended up voting YES, several other council members seemed to be troubled and struggling with their decisions. Two of them, Jim Strickland and William C. Boyd, grilled Benny Lendermon at length on his claim that if the City didn't proceed with the project, it would forfeit $8.9 million of Federal money and possibly some State money, too.

Lendermon admitted that the Federal Transportation Department grants were for building the boat dock (the current Phase 3), but City money is being fronted and the Federal reimbursement needs to be applied for. The boat dock is mainly steel work and is being built off site.

But Lendermon seemed to be saying that if the City didn't proceed with Phase 4a (the restaurant), then it would be ineligible to receive the Federal payments on the boat dock. He didn't explain why the Department of Transportation considers a restaurant to be a necessary and essential part of a boat dock. Perhaps it was because no one asked him precisely that question -- and maybe that was his good fortune.

Myron Lowery, a YES vote, made a showy point of telling everyone that he was always in the loop on RDC's budget woes, even though Benny Lendermon had just told the CIP Budget Committee the opposite.

Further reading:

Council Approves Beale St. Landing and Tiger Lane Funding, Bill Dries, The Daily News
Council supports Beale Street funding, Amos Maki, Memphis Commercial Appeal

Tuesday's City Council Agenda (part 2)

2010-05-24T14:21:00.003-05:00

(Continued from part 1.) Tomorrow, the City Council is being asked to spend $11.5 million of taxpayer money to build a restaurant (and gift shop) business. When you strip away the hype and the bullying (and a boat dock we didn't need but are now stuck with) -- that's the essence of it.

Many might question, just on principle, the idea of taxpayer-funding and risk-taking for a restaurant business. But I think there are some serious business plan issues, not the least of which is this: There is no operator attached to this project.

FedEx Forum had the Grizzlies. But no one -- big name or otherwise -- who could show track record of success in the restaurant business, is associated with this project. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think City Council has even seen a business plan for the restaurant. On top of that, other restaurants in the riverfront area have closed up in recent years, haven't they?

Frankly, no bank would consider granting even a Small Business Administration loan in these circumstances.

Why is no operator named? I think there are two reasons.

First, a "restaurant" is not what people asked for. People wanted a snack bar. As Benny Lendermon and others have endlessly proclaimed, "There's no place on the riverfront where you can get a hot dog." If the point was to have just a nearby amenity where visitors could buy a drink and a snack, then the RDC probably didn't need to find a big name operator to lend credibility and experience to the project.

I think that was the original reason, maybe five years ago. But now there's another reason. I think the RDC intends for this to be a more upscale restaurant on the water, albeit a small one (60 seats). There's no name attached because the RDC actually intends to operate it themselves, and keep the hoped-for profits.

You see, the RDC has its five-year management contract coming up for renewal soon, and there's every possibility the City Council will refuse to continue paying a subsidy (as a management fee). The RDC needs to keep every nickel and dime they can make off the riverfront. They have even been shoving out their concessionaires and taking over on Mud Island.

Rent-free use of a $12.5 million*, taxpayer-owned facility to run a business is just another form of subsidy.

Here is the question City Council really ought to be asking themselves tomorrow: Should the taxpayers be asked to invest $11.5 million in John Stokes' restaurant dreams?

[*Including $1 million from the Hyde and Plough foundations.]

Further readings:

Tuesday's City Council Agenda

2010-05-22T23:15:00.023-05:00

Here's a summary of what is on the agenda for Tuesday's City Council meeting (May 25). First, look at this drawing:

Phase 3 is the steel boat dock (barges, actually) and the helical ramp. The contractor is building it offsite. It will be floated in and installed later.

Total of all costs through Phase 3: About $20 million.

Phase 4a (highlighted in yellow, on the right) is the restaurant, gift shop, and parking lot. Total cost: $12.5 million. This is the money the RDC is asking for on Tuesday.

Phase 4b (highlighted in red, on the left) is the park, with terraces and pods. Estimated cost: $6.8 million. The city has no money budgeted for this.

Total estimated cost of Beale Street Landing: $39.3 million.

What the RDC wants on Tuesday

The RDC wants $11.5 million released by the city so they can immediately sign the contract for the builders to begin Phase 4a -- the restaurant et al. There are two parts:

$10.5 million that was tentatively approved in a prior year's CIP budget ("reprogram money"). City Council has to give final approval before the bonds can be sold and the proceeds released to RDC. Note: The CIP Commmittee voted last week to recommend against this.
$1 million of Federal money to be transferred from the Housing and Community Development funding. City Council yet to approve the transfer.

The RDC actually needs another $1 million (a total of $12.5 million) for Phase 4a, but they have secured already commitments from the Hyde and Plough Foundations to cover the shortfall.

Phase 4b: The park.

The park has been reduced to three "pods" (or "islands") sitting on a terraced slope leading from a grassy area at Riverside Drive down to the river. In the original Argentinian design it was eight pods. It was redesigned down to five pods, and recently redesigned again (apparently for cost reasons) down to three.

Phase 4b's $6.8 million cost estimate has not been budgeted by the city. Along with the $2 million for Phase 4a, it's part of the $8.9 million shortfall the RDC has admitted to starting in November.

Mayor Wharton has not promised any city money for this last phase. RDC claims that they will look for private money to finish Beale Street Landing.

In last week's RDC board meeting, however, Chairman John Stokes made something clear: He is convinced that the city will cough up the money once they realize the RDC plans to leave an unholy mess in the park area. If you don't believe me, just listen to the audio recordings.

Here is a picture of the unholy mess they would leave -- and you should expect to see this picture deliberately flashed up on the screen on Tuesday:

Benny Lendermon has told his board [audio] that it might cost $1 million or so to clean up and landscape the park area. But Chairman Stokes doesn't want to entertain that notion, much less show it in a picture. He's afraid that if we see the area cleaned up and landscaped, we'll never spend the money to do the pods and terraces. [audio]

If you want more context for those two audio clips, you can listen to an unedited, 12.5 minute excerpt of the meeting by clicking here: [audio] You might detect a note of horror in some RDC board members' voices.

Continued in Part 2.

Further readings:

RDC Chairman John Stokes: It's my way or the highway.

2010-05-22T14:23:00.018-05:00

Here are his exact words to the RDC Board [my emphasis]:

STOKES: Because if we don't get the two [million dollars], we're stuck with the way it looks now. And dadgum it, that's going to be on the conscience, in my opinion, of the Council members that vote NO. I'm just telling you that, because it's gonna be there forever till somebody... And we're not gonna do it.

Click here to listen to the 22-seconds of MP3 audio.

Sound like a threat to you? It certainly does to me. But threat or not, it's supremely arrogant.

It's all part of a cynical deceit that the RDC apparently plans to use with the City Council this Tuesday. They want us all to believe that we have only two choices: (1) Build BSL completely, as designed; or (2) suffer with the big hole and scarred landscape -- a mess that the RDC itself created.

This is a falsehood, of course. There has always been a third choice: Spend a more modest amount of money -- $1-2 million -- to fill the hole and re-landscape the undeveloped area. But the RDC officials don't want anyone -- not even their own board -- to seriously consider the third option.

BSL's current design with 3 pods.

For several weeks, the RDC has been quietly spreading this strawman argument, indirectly, via friendly bloggers ("If Beale Street Landing is halted...Tom Lee Park and the Cobblestones will forever be separated by a crater") and their supporters' letters to the editor.

Lately, they've gotten bolder, pushing the false choice out to journalists -- complete with RDC-Photoshopped pictures of their latest design (above) compared to the unfinished mess (below). (See Memphis Flyer and Memphis Business Journal.)

This past Wednesday, the RDC held a board meeting to pre-test and polish their strategy for getting a $10.5 million dollar authorization from the City Council (which a Council committee has already recommended against) this coming Tuesday. It seems that a picture of the unfinished mess at Beale Street Landing will take center stage.

You can click here to listen to the 12.5 minute board discussion regarding Phase 4(b), but here's a summary:

Lendermon has the current 3-pod design on the boardroom video screen, explaining that the $10.5 million will pay for the restaurant building, gift shop and restrooms. Even if that money is approved, he explains, $6.8M has yet to be found for the final phase -- the park area, or what observers often call "the pods".

Presumably to show this, Lendermon flips to a slide (shown below) that's missing the pods and terraces -- with the scarred and ugly dirtscape where the park would be.

The ugly picture with Phase 4(b) missing -- and nothing done to clean up the mess.

At this point, a board member tries to ask a rather obvious question: What happens if they don't get the money to do the park? Do they really intend to leave that area scarred and unfinished, or are they going to clean it up.

Lendermon won't answer her question. He keeps talking as if it's all or nothing choice. John Stokes jumps in and claims that the there's no point in talking about it, because the 6.8 million will be found.

The board member tries again and again to get a straight answer to her question.

It takes close over eight minutes for the board to finally get an off-hand admission out of Benny Lendermon [audio]:

LENDERMON: I mean, you could go in there with maybe, you know, a million [dollars] and and fix everything and make it green and make the connections to Beale Street, and all...

But, as we heard, John Stokes insists the RDC won't do it. It's Beale Street Landing as designed -- or a hole in the ground [audio]:

STOKES: [The point is] what are we going to do now? ...and again, if they vote it down, who's going to fill up that hole that's there now? We're not. I told Benny I'm outa [here]. I'm not going to go back and...and fill that hole up.

And so this Tuesday the RDC will go before City Council, show them that ugly (but unreal) picture, because, as Stokes tells his board [audio]

STOKES: You don't really...want for this part on the left [the pods-Phase 4(b)] to look great right now. You don't want it to. Because then it stops the project.

They plan to scare the Council (as they've already done with the general public) by presenting a stark, binary, and false choice: It's got to be our way...or a hole in the ground.

Further readings:

Tuesday's City Council Agenda
RDC knew for over a year and kept Mayor Lowery in the dark.
Riverfront Develoment Corp. meets to garner city funding support, Andy Ashby, Memphis Business Journal

RDC knew for over a year and kept Mayor Lowery in the dark.

2010-05-11T15:26:00.011-05:00

Memphis City Council committee votes against 2010 Beale Street Landing appropriation

By Amos Maki, Memphis Commercial Appeal

A City Council committee voted this morning against appropriating $10.5 million for the Riverfront Development Corp.’s Beale Street Landing project.

The request for funds in the current Capital Improvement Program budget will now go to the full council in two weeks with a negative recommendation from the CIP committee.

But here's the more interesting part:

Under questioning from Councilman Shea Flinn, Lendermon said the RDC and administration of former mayor Willie Herenton were aware of financing problems as far back as February 2009, months before RDC officials told council members about potential problems in November.

And it gets better. Although Herenton was briefed, Lendermon admitted they deliberately kept Myron Lowery in the dark while he was Mayor. Apparently they didn't want to usurp the next Mayor (AC Wharton).

Listen to the audio.

The best part: Benny Lendermon and RDC Chair John Stokes quietly signed the $9.6 million contract for the steel boat dock and ramp while Lowery was still Mayor, on August 28. No City official countersigned that contract. NONE.

Why the rush? If they were going to save it for the next Mayor, why did they have to rush into signing the contract while Lowery was still Mayor? Sounds to me like they wanted to lock in the next Mayor (Wharton) and foreclose on his options.

Perhaps they anticipated something hitting the proverbial fan.

Further readings:

Council Learns More About Over-Budget Riverfront Project by Jeni DiPrizio, ABC24 WPTY
Funding Questions Haunt Beale Street Landing by Bill Dries, The Daily News

Comparison

2010-04-18T21:00:00.006-05:00

Afghanistan. Beale Street Landing.

Similarities? How about:

It seemed like a good idea in 2002.
The original need has long since gone away.*
It drags on and on, with costs mounting.
We've invested so much, we can't pull out now.
Our stubborn pride.

See more discussion in today's Commercial Appeal.

* OBL's hideout / Those big riverboat cruises.

CA reports, editorializes...and misses the point

2010-04-06T14:27:00.005-05:00

This past Sunday, April 4, a front-page story, "Troubled Memphis riverfront project going under budget knife: Cost concerns may radically alter Beale Street Landing."

Then, today, a followup editorial: "Major delay for Beale Street Landing: Money simply isn't available to complete a project whose cost has soared well beyond the estimate."

I'm glad to see that the Commercial Appeal is finally giving serious attention to this story, which has been burning quietly for months while giving RDC officials some time to try and build backfires, if not neutralize it completely.

But here's my question: Why does neither the Sunday story nor the Tuesday editorial mention perhaps the most salient point about this project? Which is this:

The riverboats aren't coming. This is an unneeded boat dock to nowhere.

The overnight riverboat cruises were the main reason for Beale Street Landing (BSL for short) in the first place...way back in 2002. Since they couldn't dock at the Cobblestone Landing (their thrusters did too much damage), and since the land bridge was going to obliterate the Mud Island Landing, we would eventually need a new place for the big riverboats.

But the land bridge has long since been canceled and the Mud Island landing remains viable. It was used up until 2007 when the last of the big riverboats came to Memphis.

But then the companies that operated those boats started going out of the business. They drydocked the boats and put them up for sale, with no takers. There are no big riverboats running any more.

Just a short economic downturn? I'm afraid not. Their market was dying off. Literally.

The RDC's intransigence I can understand, but it's a mystery to me why the Commercial Appeal and other key influencers seem to steadfastly avoid acknowledging the situation about those riverboats, or claim that it doesn't matter.

Example: A couple of months ago I got into an online argument with a well-known local blogger. He's a man who is respected for his pragmatism and realism, and willingness to buck the opinion tide when the facts are on his side. Unfortunately, not so much in this case. (It might have something to do with his associate, Carol Coletta, who was an RDC consultant and insider from the very beginning.)

Backed into a corner and unable to ignore my point any longer, he wrote (my emphasis):

You keep ignoring the essence. We don’t care if the boats aren’t coming. You’ve got your eye off the ball. We need it regardless."

Stunning. Also, a bit condescending, in that he claims BSL has an "essence" that I and other opponents are presumably just too dumb to understand. Like, it's a piece of (urban) art?

The CA editorial opines that we should just build the boat dock and snack bar, and wait a little longer for the money to build "some of the more inviting details, such as the terraced pods providing access to the river's edge."

Excuse me. Let me suggest another, more sensible, and pragmatic approach: Omit that unneeded boat dock! (And spare this city the embarrassment of hosting an empty red docking facility as a monument to our 10-year riverfront folly.)

The RDC will say that we took the about $7.5 million of Federal money with the promise of providing "transportation improvements." We'd have to pay it back.

No, we wouldn't. There's a simple answer to that problem, which the RDC won't tell you about: Put that Federal money into the beefing up the historic Cobblestone Landing -- which is where it should have gone in the first place.

WREG-TV: Memphis Riverfront Project Hits A Snag

2010-03-05T21:42:00.008-06:00

WREG Channel 3 has a report on the stalled Beale Street Landing project, with its hole and "mountain of dirt".

Continues...

Memphis Riverfront Project Hits A Snag
Part Of The Beale Street Landing Project Is Temporarily Put On Hold
Alex Coleman, WREG-TV
March 5, 2010

Fast Facts
* -Beale Street Landing Project Creates An Eyesore
* -Riverfront Project Runs Into Financial Problems
* -Developers Say Funds Will Be Found & Delays Won't Impact Memphis In May

No, it's not as as large or certainly not majestic like Mount Everest, but it's so big that it caught Cathy Norman's attention when she walks through downtown Memphis.

Norman said, "Yeah, it's not very attractive, so I'd like to see it finished or something done with it."

For some people who jog and walk along Tom Lee Park, a massive mound of dirt isn't the welcome mat they want to greet them.

Tracy Thompson works downtown and jogs in the area. Thompson said, "Actually it does bother me. It's been here for a year or so. So maybe they can level it and put grass or something on it for now."

Jamie Douglas also comes to Tom Lee Park for exercise. Douglas said, "I feel whatever it is they're doing they need to hurry up and get it over with."

It is the Beale Street Landing Project. It's designed to connect Memphis to the Mississippi River with boat access, improved park features, and even a restaurant, but it hit a snag.

Benny Lendermon is the president of the Riverfront Development Corporation.

Lendermon said, "It's no secret the landing has long term funding issues and there's a shortage of funds and we're working with the (mayor)Wharton Administration and try to look at how we deal with it in the future and allow our project to continue on and be constructed."

The project ran out of federal funding with about 8 million dollars worth of construction still needed.

Lendermon said, "There needs to be two million dollars additional funding that doesn't exist now to allow the contractors to keep working and not shutdown the construction project. If you shutdown the construction project costs go up."

But will the delay and the sight of the mountain of dirt impact Memphis in May this year? Festival organizers declined to be interviewed for this story Friday, but Lendermon says he's talked with them.

Lendermon said, "We met with Jim Holt and some of his board members this morning. There is nothing this year that affects the park any more than the park was affected last year. Yes, part of the park was taken away on the North end just like it was last year."

Lindermon says he's confident the project will get the necessary funding and will meet its 2011 completion target and the show will go on for Memphis In May.

Our CIP credit card

2010-02-13T23:38:00.008-06:00

John Branston has posted a column on the City's budget woes, "A Primer on Budgeting," in which he says "a government budget has a lot in common with a personal budget or a household budget." So true.

But I think he missed an important part of that analogy.

Just like you or I, the City has a revolving credit card. You might quip that it has been issued by the "CIP Bank." (CIP stands for "Capital Improvements Program.")

Whenever anything is charged to the CIP budget, the City has to go out and sell bonds to get the money. The bonds eventually have to be paid off, but the blow is softened because we're not paying cash.

You and I have figured out that credit cards can be dangerous. They make it all too easy for us to go out and buy things we think might give us an emotional gratification, but, truth be told, we don't really need.

In the current economy, many households are trying to get control over their credit card debt. We're charging less, not more. Many of us paying down our credit cards. Some of us are tearing them up.

But not the City of Memphis, it seems. With our handy CIP credit card, we're buying a new boat dock to nowhere, for riverboats that aren't even running any more. For tens of millions of dollars.

How silly is that?

Please email your City Council members.

Action News 5: Beale Street blunder?

2010-02-10T23:18:00.018-06:00

The video of Jason Miles' story on Action News 5 Wednesday night about Beale Street Landing's funding problems:

(If the above player doesn't work, here's a link to try. And here's the link to the text version.)

Note: At one point in the video, Lendermon said:

"Two million dollars, frankly, is what we're looking for to keep this project going and not slow down any construction."

While technically true, it may give you the mistaken impression that the shortfall is only $2 million. The whole truth is that RDC plans to come back at budget time in May and ask for an additional $7 million.

Worse, if this $2 million allows them to restart the project, they can proceed with Phase III and possibly Phase IV, plowing tens of millions of dollars more into the project and making it far more difficult for Mayor Wharton to reconsider.

Therefore, this $2 million might not seem like very much, but it's probably the last chance for Memphians to retake control over their own riverfront. Click here to read ten good reasons to vote against the funding -- putting a hold on the project until Mayor Wharton can give due consideration to all reasonable alternatives.

I've written about one alternative at this link.

Please email your City Council members.

Let's be strategic on our riverfront

2010-02-09T17:13:00.006-06:00

An open letter to Mayor Wharton and members of the Memphis City Council:

Mayor Wharton’s transition report recently concluded that "the City of Memphis has long suffered from not having an overarching sense of strategy in its planning and goal-setting."

That is perfectly evident on our riverfront, where the strategy now seems to be: "Keep on keepin' on."

And, "We have to use that 'free' Federal dollar, even if it costs us another $3.68 -- to build a boat dock to nowhere."

Good urban planning is usually represented by a strategic master plan, coupled with an ongoing process for adapting to changing realities.

It's time to be honest with ourselves: We don't have a master plan for the riverfront.

The $270 million, 2002 Riverfront Master Plan was gutted over four years ago, by removing 60% of it (the unworkable land bridge and lake). Without the guts, the rest made little sense. It was never redrawn. And the only project to come out of that plan? Beale Street Landing doesn't follow the plan at all. It merely keeps the name and location.

But that's also the good news: Other cities that started grand waterfront projects now have mountains of debt, and are struggling to figure out how to finish their projects. We spared ourselves from having to learn the hard way.

Let's take advantage of our good fortune. Let's learn some lessons from our experience. Let's be strategic again.

But before we can do so, we have to stop digging ourselves deeper into the hole at the bottom of Beale Street.

I ask that you freeze this project and gather the information necessary to make a long-term decision about its funding, maintenance, operation, and cost-effectiveness.

The phantom Master Plan

2010-02-05T12:27:00.030-06:00

A few days ago, a City Council member told me about their concern that, whatever we do, we should be guided by a master planning process. The member pointed out that other cities have created their riverfronts within the frameworks of multi-decade master plans.

I am sympathetic to that point of view. We do not need to have that debate.

Instead, what we all need to realize is very simple: Memphis does not have a Riverfront Master Plan.

It died and was officially declared dead by the previous City Council, in January, 2006. That was when the City Council ratified the decision to remove the infamous land bridge and lake from the Master Plan.

The land bridge itself accounted for about 60% of the development in the design. It wasn't just a feature and "signature" element — it was the guts of the plan. Without the land bridge, the rest of the RDC's development plan made little if any sense, save possibly for a privately-owned tract north of I-40.

For example, the Master Plan would have bulldozed Mud Island River Park (leaving only the river model). As you undoubtedly know, however, MIRP still exists. For months the RDC has been holding a public process to guide the future improvement of that park.

For all the projects RDC claims to have developed or started over the past ten years, only one was even suggested by the 2002 Master Plan: Beale Street Landing (BSL). And if you have been following this blog, I've made the case over and over that the BSL you know about today isn't the one in the Master Plan of 2002. It's radically different in its goals and design. Its remaining connection to the old plan is that it keeps the name and location.

The Master Plan has been an embarrassment for the RDC. When they were asked to come before the City Council Parks Committee and present it, RDC officials brought only three copies along. They didn't show pictures of it in their PowerPoint. They spent the hour convincing City Council members that the (unseen) plan was only a "vision."

Every time RDC's official business comes before City Council, the budget or resolution references the Master Plan. For example:

This [BSL] project provides funding for the first major project in the implementation of the Riverfront Master Plan approved by the City Council in May of 2002.

Why do they keep this pretense going, and why do others allow it to continue?

Very simple. The bulk of RDC's authority is based on their development contract (PDF, 5.68MB). That contract references the Riverfront Master Plan of 2002, binding the RDC to follow it. If we were to acknowledge that the Master Plan is no longer valid, the RDC would lose its authority and the contract would be meaningless. (Which raises the question: Has any RDC-related action since January 2006 been entirely legal?)

Thank goodness the land bridge is gone. But the previous City Council should have in 2006 directed the RDC to lead a new process to come up with its replacement.

Indeed, I believe that the current Mud Island planning process is no more than RDC's belated attempt to solve their contract problem. Soon, armed with pretty pictures, the RDC will claim that the MIRP plan is the new Master Plan for the riverfront. (Their contract is up for a renewal decision in 2012.)

Instead of redoing the Master Plan back in 2006, we took the cheap and easy route. By a one-sentence resolution, we "removed" the land bridge, and have since kept up the pretense that there still is a Master Plan.

Master planning is great. A master plan is like the tracks that the big train needs to run on. But the fact of the matter is that this riverfront train went off its tracks years ago — and it is now running over all of us.

What's it going to cost? An update.

2010-02-03T21:21:00.017-06:00

A few days ago I obtained a copy of the PowerPoint the RDC has been using to brief members of the City Council and other politicos. The key page is below (click to enlarge):

What we learn from this page, taking RDC's statements at face value:

Estimated cost of the project: $36,316,000 [Note 1]
Federal funding (after decreases): $7,932,215
Federal percentage: 21.8 %
Non-federal percentage: 78.2%
Non-federal ratio: 3.68 to 1

Total sunk costs through Phase II: $8,040,000 [Note 2]
...with remaining costs-to-completion of: $28,286,000

Phase III cost: $10,379,000
Total costs through Phase III: $18,419,000 [Note 3]
..with remaining costs-to-completion of: $17,907,000

My notes follow below. Continues...

Note 1: $36.3M is the sum of the construction estimate ($35M, which was reported in the media) and the cost of design ($1.3M). Frankly, I don't know of any project that doesn't get designed before it's built, but the RDC prefers to show them separately. And when the newspapers pick up the $35M and miss the other $1.3M, I'm sure that the RDC is happy to leave well enough alone. $35M sounds smaller. But I prefer to have the whole truth: $36.3M.

It's interesting, however, that the RDC calls all of this design cost "unanticipated." If that's the case, then can we assume that there are some more design costs that were anticipated, and these need to be added on top of $36.3M? As I said, any project I've ever heard of "anticipates" hiring some architects and engineers and getting a design. Or did the RDC think they would get a shovel-ready design from Argentina (on the cheap) and not have to do any more work to complete it?

So I strongly suspect that either there are more design costs not included on this page. Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that the folks at the RDC are rather foolish.

Speaking of Argentina: On another page of their PowerPoint, the RDC reports spending $126 thousand on an International Design Competition. Maybe I should include this too, but it's not very significant.

Note 2: To get total sunk costs through Phase II, I had to add in those pesky "unanticipated" design costs again. With Phases I and II, it comes to $8M, or about 22% of the total project cost.

But here's the odd part: In May, the RDC told the City Council it had already sunk $11M into the project, and that was before the RDC had even received all the bids for Phase III. What's going on? Are there some costs they were including then, but are neglecting to include on this page now?

Once again, I suspect we don't have the whole story. There may be some more costs out there, perhaps as much as $2 million. Possibly these would be design costs that the RDC conveniently omitted mention of because they don't help explain the point of the PowerPoint presentation: Why they are $8.9 million short and 3 years late with the project.

Note 3: I've simply added the bid price for Phase III ($10.4M) to the previous Phase II sunk costs total ($8M) to get $18.4M.

Phase III is the steelwork - the floating docks and the helical ramp. The public won't get to see this work-in-progress; the steel dock will be built somewhere else and then barged in.

At the conclusion of Phase III, the City would have sunk $18.4M into the project, and we'd then be over 50% invested. Thinking out loud: If I were trying to save my project, I'd want to get this Phase III done, pronto, in hopes that nobody would have the stomach to stop the project once it's half done!

This makes it important to figure out where the City actually stands on this Phase III. If we haven't started on Phase III, we're at 22% sunk cost, and to many people it would be reasonable to consider other alternatives. But if the RDC has gone ahead and built and paid for that steel boat dock...well, that's another matter. (We could save money by not building those pods, but we'd still be stuck with a "boat dock to nowhere.")

A couple of weeks ago, someone requested a search of the City records. There is an entry for the winning bidder on Phase III -- but no contract could be found.

This is why I am calling for a project freeze and an independent audit.

A bone picked

2010-02-03T13:26:00.037-06:00

Perpetuating the pretense about the Public Promenade

I said previously that Memphis Magazine (February issue) has blockbuster article about the riverfront that should be read by everyone, but that I do have a couple bones to pick.

Here's the main one. Branston opines:

4. Friends for Our Riverfront must compromise on the Promenade."

It's based on a mistaken premise that is, unfortunately, widely believed: That the Overton descendants actually have the legal standing to negotiate a compromise.

They only have the standing to block an illegal misuse of the Public Promenade easement, which they did 50 years ago, and were sustained by a Tennessee Supreme Court decision. They don't have the power to rewrite the easement, whether they want to or not.

Nevertheless, it is very useful (for the City's purposes) to allow the misunderstanding to continue, and even to encourage it. I explained why in a letter to the Commercial Appeal published a year ago. Continues...

At the Rotary Club luncheon Jan. 13, Mayor Willie Herenton was asked about the status of the riverfront. In response, he fibbed:
"The matter of ... the Overton heirs ... I don't know when that will ever be resolved satisfactorily, in terms of some of the real estate that the Riverfront Development is looking forward to for public purposes. That still remains an issue which we're still no closer to."

The truth is that the city hasn't held any meaningful negotiations with the descendants of the Proprietors (Memphis founders) in at least six years -- if ever.

Why? First, the city's lawyers have long known that the descendants don't have the power to agree to a modification of the terms of the Public Promenade easement.

Second, the city doesn't even want a modified easement. It wants to own the land outright, so it can lease or sell it to developers.

The city paid thousands of dollars to a powerful Washington law firm to research how to accomplish this goal. By May 2003, city lawyers had concluded that the way to do it was by eminent domain. In other words: They want to condemn the Public Promenade and eliminate the easement.

Why does Herenton (helped by this newspaper -- see "Time to move on the Promenade," Aug. 17, 2008) continue to perpetuate the myth that "Overton heirs" are obstacles to progress? Because taking property by eminent domain could inspire a public backlash.

The myth is part of a deliberate public relations strategy to demonize the "Overton heirs" -- the Promenade's supposed owners -- so that when the city goes to court to condemn the Promenade, the public has little or no sympathy for the heirs' loss. The city will claim, of course, that when the heirs wouldn't cooperate, officials had no choice but to take it by eminent domain.

But the descendants' "ownership" is the biggest fib. It's a legal technicality. As long as the property is subject to the easement, the descendants own nothing of any real value. The value is in the right to use the Promenade, which already belongs to the general public.

What Herenton hopes citizens never realize is that the city would be taking their property by eminent domain so it can sell, lease or even give the land to private commercial interests.

This above is as succinct an explanation of a very dense and complicated subject as it possible to write. In the interest of brevity, I simplify some wrinkles, but I promise you that they don't change the conclusion:

There is no practical way to modify the easement to allow the City to only partially misuse the Promenade -- just as there is no way to be just "partly pregnant" or "a little bit dead." The city's attorneys want to blow away the easement entirely, through eminent domain.

But here's the problem. The bulk of the Promenade's value already belongs to the citizens of Memphis, for public use. The City would be using eminent domain to take that use and value away from the public and hand it over to commercial developers.

After the national outcry over the Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2006 (involving some private property owners), no city would want to invite the outrage that might result if the general public realized that the property was been taken from them.

This is why there has been a calculated, multi-year strategy of:

1. avoiding the mention of eminent domain until the time comes,
2. perpetuating a myth that the land belongs to some "Overton heirs,"
3. painting those "heirs," sotto voce as uncompromising obstructionists,
4. so that the general public has no sympathy left when the City pulls the trigger.

With all due respect, Branston's opinion innocently plays right into the City's hands, and helps shorten the time until the City pulls the trigger -- which they have long had the paperwork ready to do.

If you do not believe I know what I'm talking about when I ascribe these nefarious motives to the City, then please read the minutes of the RDC's executive committee from back in 2003, obtained through Open Records request.

Do you remember those three supposed "public-input" meetings on the Promenade? They had a different purpose entirely: To help lay the groundwork (and seduce the public) in preparation for an eminent domain lawsuit. Here's what the RDC minutes say [my emphasis]:

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

Remarkable candor. It seems that the lawyers had far more input into the design than the public.

But that was then and this is now. The RDC now claims it doesn't have an executive committee, so they don't have to expose their decision-making to the public and bloggers.

Has the Promenade situation changed since 2003? No. When I wrote that letter to the CA just a year ago, Herenton was still avoiding the words eminent domain, and pretending that the "Overton heirs" were the obstacle to using the land for some "public purposes".

The truth: He knew exactly how the problem could be solved and how commercial developers would get their hands on the Public Promenade for condos and hotels. As he spoke, the papers for the eminent domain lawsuit were sitting on City Attorney Jefferson's desk.

I can assure you that the RDC hasn't forgotten the Promenade. Benny Lendermon has said so. Local developers have already drawn up pictures of what they'd like to develop on it. It's likely to be the next project after Beale Street Landing.

I also urge you to read a letter to City Council written by famed downtown developer Jack Belz, who was the one developer in Memphis to speak out against the RDC's Promenade Plan. His conclusion? Unwise, both financially and economically. (So much for those "economic development" claims.)

He further said:

Our community has only one front door and that is downtown. Our downtown has only one riverfront. The public promenade set aside by our founding fathers is the only publicly owned property on our city's high bluff that will ever exist. We must not let short term pressures override the long term best interest of our community.

Meanwhile, the Public Promenade continues to be held hostage by the City, the RDC, and its Promenade Land Use Plan, so we can't do anything with it -- even if our ideas would be fully compatible with what the founding founders really wanted.

Memphis Magazine

2010-02-03T12:00:00.005-06:00

I've been meaning to mention this: The February issue of Memphis Magazine has a blockbuster article, "Frozen" by John Branston, reviewing the history and the current situation with Memphis riverfront. If you don't subscribe, pick up a copy anywhere magazines are sold (Kroger, Walgreens to name two).

It's loaded with scoop, insight and perspective. I could pick a bone with a couple of his suggestions (and will address them in future posts), but I'd recommend it everyone without reservation.

Most cities have to wait until afterwards to read a good post-mortem of their big failures. We're luckier than most. We have John Branston and his publisher.

Update: Incorrect Memphis Magazine link fixed.

Still the "B.S." Landing

2010-01-29T23:00:00.010-06:00

As of this writing, the RDC's web page still says the following:

Because the Beale Street Landing project is under design, the former Delta Steamship Company has increased its dockings in Memphis by 40%. They are trying to build their market here in anticipation of the new docking facility, adding a strong economic development aspect to the project that benefits the City for years to come.

The truth? Those big riverboat companies have gone out of the business and have drydocked their boats. We are spending $36 million to build a boat dock to nowhere!

Learn some more truths about B.S. Landing. Tell your City Council how you feel.

Write your City Council representative

2010-01-29T22:50:00.004-06:00

If you want to make your feelings about "B.S." Landing known to city officials, here are their emails. Just click a name to send a message.

Mayor@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Morrison@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Boyd@memphistn.gov,
Wanda.Halbert@memphistn.gov,
Harold.Collins@memphistn.gov,
Jim.Strickland@memphistn.gov,
Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov,
Swearengen.Ware@memphistn.gov,
Joe.Brown@memphistn.gov,
Janis.Fullilove@memphistn.gov,
Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov,
Kemp.Conrad@memphistn.gov,
Shea.Flinn@memphistn.gov,
Reid.Hedgepeth@memphistn.gov

The real truth about B.S. Landing

2010-01-11T22:15:00.016-06:00

An open letter to members of the Memphis City Council:

The RDC will be asking for a $2 million to $9 million increase in its CIP (Capital Improvements) budget, to account for a loss of Federal funds and increases in steel costs for Beale Street Landing.

You should vote NAY and deny their request.

You should also ask Mayor Wharton to order a freeze on the RDC's projects, and obtain an independent audit, giving him the time and the facts he needs to re-evaluate our riverfront strategy and consider alternatives.

You will of course need a justification to cite with your NAY vote. Take your pick of any or all of the following:

1. In 2002, this project was supposed to be a feature enhancement to the restored Cobblestone Landing, at a cost of $10.4 million. Now it's a $37.6 million replacement for our historic landing. The City has more important priorities.

2. Its design has grown to more than twice the size envisioned in the Master Plan, extending deeply into and forcing the reconfiguration of Tom Lee Park.

3. When the land bridge was canceled in 2005, Beale Street Landing became unnecessary. We already had, and still have, Mud Island's riverboat landing. It could be spruced up at relatively small cost. (The RDC's website doesn't mention these alternatives.)

4. In any event, those big overnight riverboat cruises have since gone out of the business and dry-docked their boats. (The RDC's website doesn't mention that.)

5. The Memphis Queen Lines (daily cruise) operation doesn't need Beale Street Landing. All they need is for the City to properly restore and maintain the Cobblestone Landing -- something the RDC has deliberately avoided doing during the ten years since it has had responsibility. (The Memphis Queen Lines have had to maintain their small area at their own cost.)

6. The overblown and unneeded BSL project has sucked the funding and support away from our historic Cobblestones. For the latter project, RDC wants to get away with doing only half the job, or "cobbles under glass."

7. The overblown and unneeded BSL project is directly contrary to the recommendations in the Master Plan, which called for a full restoration of the Cobblestone Landing serving as a Union Avenue terminus. (The switch in plans wasn't pointed out to previous City Councils.)

8. When you discount the unneeded "boat dock to nowhere," the snack bar and a playground, what is left is just a huge and expensive example of urban art. (I'm not against art but frankly, that's a lot of money and real estate to expend on a piece of art.)

9. The RDC has never properly accounted for the ongoing operating costs of BSL, which is expected to be open 24/7. It's clearly a security risk. The police coverage alone would cost much more than the $100,000/year RDC officials casually estimated when asked about it at a CCC Design Review Board meeting, March 2008.

10. The RDC has never produced a business plan for Beale Street Landing, much less documented the claim they've been heard to make that it will "pay for itself in a year."

Letter to the editor: A vibrant riverfront -- for less

2010-01-02T08:51:00.008-06:00

The Commercial Appeal published my letter to the editor this morning:

As the mayor reconsiders whether to spend $26.6 million more after the $11 million we've sunk into Beale Street Landing, the question remains: What are the alternatives?

Here are five practical and affordable ideas to rejuvenate our riverfront area, with my estimates of the costs. These ideas aren't radical. Most have been suggested many times by others.

1. Filling the hole, landscaping, sidewalks and signage. At the very least we must clean up the mess down there and restore the area to something comparable to the rest of Tom Lee Park. My guesstimate: $3 million.

2. Add a snack bar, restrooms and visitors center. Riverfront Development Corp. supporters have long complained that you can't buy a Coke and hot dog on the riverfront. Let's fix that problem by adding a snack bar. Don't call it a restaurant; that just jacks up the cost. My guesstimate: $3 million.

3. Add a family playground. Beale Street Landing offered play areas within those strange pods. Maybe that's not such a bad idea, so let's include a playground in our new plan. My guesstimate: $1 million.

4. Provide a landing for the big riverboats, should they ever return to Memphis. We don't need a new dock because there is already a landing at Mud Island. Right nearby is a gift shop and a snack bar. Perhaps it needs a facelift and better facilities for the elderly and disabled. My guesstimate: $2 million.

5. Restore the historic cobblestone area as an active and vibrant riverboat landing. The RDC proposes to do half the job (preserve the cobblestones) for about $6 million, which they've already lined up as a federal grant. Let's double that to $12 million to do the whole job: Restore the Cobblestone Landing so that the Memphis Queen Lines can be proud to stay right where they've always been. Smaller boats can use and enjoy the landing too. Net cost: $6 million (floating restaurants extra).

The total comes to $15 million. For that, we get everything Beale Street Landing would have provided and more.

The RDC could have figured this out 10 years ago. By now the work would be done, at even less cost, and we'd all be enjoying it. But they refused to investigate any strategy but their own hallowed land bridge (now defunct) and later its replacement, the overblown Beale Street Landing.

Incapable of considering anything except grandiose plans involving millions of square feet of new development, the RDC has been a great obstacle to the improvement of our riverfront. We need to take back control over our own great riverfront.

How far is too far: The sunk cost fallacy

2009-12-30T13:56:00.015-06:00

"We've come too far and spent too much to turn back now."

That's the RDC's argument-of-last-resort for finishing Beale Street Landing. In the previous post, I tried to put a percentage on the descriptor "too far." One City Council person suggested that over 50% is "too far".

I believe he is not alone. Most people think of the halfway mark as a threshold -- since it is the point at which you are getting closer to the end than to the beginning.

In my calculation we are actually just reaching the 30% point, provided the steelwork contract hasn't been signed. But is 30% still "too far to turn back?" For many people, yes it is -- but not because they are thinking rationally.

It's a classic problem that is discussed in every business school and it has a name: The "sunk cost dilemma." "Sunk costs" are those that have already been incurred and are not recoverable.

Large pile of sunk costs at the foot of Beale Street, May 23, 2009. Photo by Michael Cromer.

In traditional micro-economic theory, you should not consider sunk costs when you make a decision about a future course of action. They are losses already incurred and have no relevance to the future. To make a strictly rational decision, you should only consider the prospective costs of your various options.

The question should not be "How much have we spent? ($11 million.)"

The question should only be whether spending $26 million more makes sense, given what we know today.

But people have emotional biases. One common bias is people's reluctance to accept the reality of their losses. People would rather proceed (even with a low probability of success) than to quit and have to acknowledge a 100% loss.

Therefore, people do consider sunk costs and allow them to influence their decision-making -- even though that kind of thinking is fallacious. The sunk cost fallacy results in too many "zombie" projects (and wars) that never seem to end.

To be continued...

How far is too far to turn back?

2009-12-30T12:37:00.010-06:00

The RDC's been quietly making the rounds, visiting your City Council representatives, Mayor Wharton, and others, to shore up support for the Beale Street Landing (BSL) project and convince the City to approve an $8.9 million budget increase. Their bottom-line argument for finishing BSL goes something like this:

"We've gone too far and spent too much to turn back now."

But that begs the question: How far, really, is "too far?"

One City Council person told me that he had been going along with this argument, assuming all along that we were "past the halfway mark." But now he says that it appears we may be less than a third of the way -- and that would change his thinking. Presumably, other Council persons might feel the same way.

Let's do some more math.

Our best guess is that BSL is now going to cost at least $37.6 million in total.

How much have we already spent? According to the RDC last May, about $11 million, with Phase II about "95% complete." (Click image at left.)

That means BSL as a whole would be about 30% complete (11 divided by 37.6 equals 0.2925), or less than a third, with $26.6 million remaining to be spent.

Phase III, the steelwork, would make a major difference, however. If we had gotten to the point of committing to that steelwork contract, itself worth about $17 million, the RDC could then argue that we had reached the 75% mark, rather than just 30% (11 plus 17, divided by 37.6 = 0.7447).

You can bet your bottom dollar that the RDC would like to make that 75% argument. Or even the earlier 68% argument (calculated before the price increase). Obviously, the RDC would like very much to get that contract signed.

That is why it is critically important for Mayor Wharton to establish whether or not the steelwork contract has actually been signed. Assuming it hasn't, he should order an immediate halt on the project so that the city can preserve all its options and can rationally decide whether and how to proceed.

To be continued...

What's it really going to cost?

2009-12-29T21:43:00.031-06:00

What is Beale Street Landing really going to cost?

Good question. Let's try and figure it out.

But you can't figure it out by checking the RDC's own website. Go ahead and look for yourself: Not here, not here, not here, nor even on this page. Nowhere is the total cost mentioned. Evidently, they don't want you to focus on that total-cost number.

But focus we should. It's a fair question because the argument RDC's been quietly making to your City Council representative goes something like this:

"We've gone too far and spent too much to turn back now."

All inquiring Memphis minds should want to know: How far, exactly, have we come? And how far, exactly, do we still have to go?

You can't figure it out by looking at the City's Capital Improvements budget (PDF). That's just a rolling, five-year budget plan, not a construction cost ledger. The actual expenditures may not occur in the same year as they are allocated in the budget. And when a project drags on beyond five years, the older years drop off the spreadsheet, without a reconciliation.

This project has already run six years, and has at least two more to go.

You really can't go by the the number you saw in the Commercial Appeal a couple weeks ago, which was $35 million. It's probably what the RDC told the reporter when he called and asked about it. It came from the RDC, so he had to take their word for it.

But as we already know, we can't take their word for it. Case in point. Here is what the RDC handed out to City Council members during the budget subcommittee hearings on May 11:

"Construction estimate=$33 million."

But when John Branston began citing the RDC's $33 million estimate a few days later, Benny Lendermon dashed off a huffy email clarification to the RDC's board and political friends, claiming Branston was wrong. The total cost, he said was $30.7 million. But Lendermon gave no explanation for why he had recently told the subcommittee $33 million. Which number do we believe?

Now we find out that the construction cost is going to be $6.9 million higher than planned. Do the math. It tells us that the total will be somewhere between $37.6 million (if we give Lendermon the benefit of the doubt) and nearly $40 million (if we believe his earlier representations to City Council).

What is certain: Mayor Wharton needs to have the RDC's projects independently audited -- before he allows any further work to be done. That's the only way we will know the full and true story. In the meantime, we have rely on our best guesses.

$37.6 to $40 million...for a boat dock to nowhere.

To be continued...

Boat dock to nowhere

2009-12-22T11:36:00.020-06:00

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?

It must be a failure of the media. We hadn't been told of this startling news. Oh, wait. John Branston told us a year ago [Away All Boats: Beale Street Landing is missing a key ingredient, December 18, 2008]:

Beale Street Landing, the Riverfront Development Corporation's $30 million project at Beale Street and Riverside Drive, has a serious problem before it even opens.

The riverboat cruise business is disappearing. The Majestic America Line steamboat company in Seattle is going out of business. Two years ago, Majestic America acquired the New Orleans-based Delta Steamship Company and three steamboats — the Delta Queen, the American Queen, and the Mississippi Queen — that docked in Memphis en route to Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge. That leaves RiverBarge Excursion Line and its floating barge hotel as the only overnight touring boat on the river.

The American Queen, loading passengers and supplies at the Mud Island River Park boat landing, July, 2005.

But we still have the RiverBarge Line, right? Oh, wait. Oops:

RiverBarge Excursion Lines, Inc. has been forced to curtail all operations for 2009 due to economic conditions. Rising costs and very soft bookings have forced this decision...

We want to assure our guests that RiverBarge Excursion Lines, Inc. deposits all payments for excursions in a special escrow account at the Whitney National Bank. This escrow account is overseen and regulated by the Federal Maritime Commission. As soon as these funds are made available to us, guest refunds will be processed.

RiverBarge Excursions would like to express our gratitude to all guests who have traveled with us in the last 10 years and thank you for your support and for being a part of the RiverBarge Family.

A huge floating hotel, the double-barge River Explorer docks at Mud Island in November, 2007. Photos by Michael Cromer.

Someone needs to clue in the RDC. According to their website they're still living in hope:

Because the Beale Street Landing project is under design, the former Delta Steamship Company has increased its dockings in Memphis by 40%. They are trying to build their market here in anticipation of the new docking facility, adding a strong economic development aspect to the project that benefits the City for years to come.

Obviously, the RDC hasn't updated their web page in two years.
But what if these riverboat companies actually do somehow come back to life? Won't we then need a place for them to dock?

Nope. We have a perfectly respectable, and more authentic, riverboat landing at Mud Island -- the one the cruise companies had been using for years. And there's a snack bar and gift shop right nearby!

Questions about the steel contract

2009-12-20T13:00:00.010-06:00

Updated December 22 (see below).

The RDC's bombshell raises more questions than it answers.

We now know that the cost of Phase III of Beale Street Landing -- the steelwork for that unnecessary boat dock and helical ramp -- has gone up by $6.9 million.

According the Benny Lendermon (in June), the total cost of the steelwork was then estimated at around $10 million. With this latest increase, the cost now seems to be close to $17 million. The steelwork is a very large part of the project, whose total cost has recently been reported to be $35 million. (My reckoning puts the total at closer to $37-40 million, but that's another story.)

According to a recent email, reproduced below, from City Administrator TuJuan Stout-Mitchell, the contract for the steelwork was "awarded August 2009".

In my opinion, that raises a lot of serious questions and I believe Mayor Wharton and the City Council ought to seek the answers.

-- Does "awarded August 2009" mean that Mayor Pro Tem Myron Lowery signed the contract?

-- If so, had the RDC advised him in August of the cost overrun of $6.9 million? Did he sign it and commit the City anyway, even though the City Council hadn't yet approved an increased CIP (capital improvements) budget for the project? Was he duped?

-- Or: Is the RDC now claiming that the steel prices have increased since August? (And if so, why wasn't a price protection clause included in the contract?)

-- Was the RDC's "Plan B" to take the money away from Phase IV if the CC didn't ultimately approve the increase? Or did they just assume that the City Council would inexorably feel compelled to approve it?

-- When exactly were City Council members told? After the contract was signed? Shouldn't they have been told before and given an opportunity to have a voice?

The RDC's bottom-line argument for continuing BSL amounts to this: We've gone too far and spent too much to turn back now. But Phase III is a huge portion of the cost ($17 million) and may itself be the tipping point (e.g. halfway).

-- What was the urgency to sign in August rather than wait for the new Mayor? Does this award amount to RDC backing the City into going "too far"? Was Lowery deceived into signing this contract?

-- Does the City still have the option to cancel this contract? Or at least put a hold on it? Does each day that goes by put the City deeper into the hole, and help foreclose on any other options?

People's jobs are at stake (not to mention reputations). In particular, the jobs of RDC officials and even those of the architects' and contractors' who advise and depend on the RDC for work.

-- Whether or not Lowery and City Council were deceived, doesn't this go to show that a private-public partnership operating without proper public oversight creates a situation with built-in conflicts of interest?

All these questions and more ought to be answered at the first City Council meeting in January. I respectfully suggest to Mayor Wharton that he have his personal staff start finding the answers. I mean personal staff -- and not anyone associated with RDC or with decisions made in the past.

Updated December 22, 2009: I've been told that officials of Friends for Our Riverfront asked the City to search for such a contract. I was told that that no such contract could be found, although there is a contractor's number assigned for LCI (the company that was supposedly awarded the job).

This suggests the high probability that the contact hasn't been signed yet. "Awarded" would have meant only that the bidder was chosen. If so, then that is very good news. It means that $17 million hasn't been spent yet on the steelwork, and if the project is cancelled then much or all of the cost is still recoverable. That gives the Mayor and City Council more flexibility in considering alternative courses of action.

Continues...The email [my bold emphasis]:

From: Stout-Mitchell, TaJuan
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Keplinger, Juaness
Subject:

All Federal funds for Beale Street Landing, with the exception of the FY 2009 grant, are included in Phase 3, which was awarded in August 2009. Approximately $800,000 has been expended. The FY 2009 grant is not yet available.

No awards have been made on the Cobblestone Restoration and Walkway project.

TaJuan Stout Mitchell
Administrator
City of Memphis
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
125 North Main Room 336
Memphis, TN 38103

-----
Addendum: If you want to make your thoughts known to City government, here are their emails:
Mayor@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Morrison@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Boyd@memphistn.gov,
Wanda.Halbert@memphistn.gov,
Harold.Collins@memphistn.gov,
Jim.Strickland@memphistn.gov,
Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov,
Swearengen.Ware@memphistn.gov,
Joe.Brown@memphistn.gov,
Janis.Fullilove@memphistn.gov,
Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov,
Kemp.Conrad@memphistn.gov,
Shea.Flinn@memphistn.gov,
Reid.Hedgepeth@memphistn.gov

RDC Bombshell

2009-12-16T11:59:00.027-06:00

The bombshell news is that the RDC has to go back to City Council for another $8.9 million in order to get Beale Street Landing finished by 2011. If it does not go still higher, the total cost will reportedly be $35 million for what was a $10 million feature in the original Master Plan.

A report appeared in this Sunday's Commercial Appeal, on the front page of the Local section. The next day the RDC confessed as much to the public, burying the $9M bombshell several paragraphs down after reminding us once again how much we need BSL to find our way to the river. On Tuesday, John Branston had some choice things to say in the Flyer. On Friday, he had much more to say. On Wednesday, an edited version appeared in the printed edition.

In short: Steel prices have gone up, adding $6.9 to the construction cost. The rest of the shortfall, about $2 million, is because they lost some Federal money they had counted on.

Frankly, it was a bit of a shock to me. I had taken Benny Lendermon's statement to his own Board of Directors at face value. On June 22 he told them that the bids for Phase III (the steelwork) were coming in at around budget, and that they were pleased. Three months earlier (the March meeting) he had been worried, but now things were just fine. You can listen to the audio of his June 22 report to the Board by clicking here.

I'm told by someone in City government that the bombshell news had already gotten around to the Mayor and the City Council by the time the CA article was published, which apparently forced the RDC to go public with it.

If Mr. Lendermon was being truthful to his Board in June, then the steel prices have jumped within the last five months or less. Presumably, the RDC hadn't protected itself against inflation in the contract they wrote less than five months ago. Something went wrong, but it clearly wasn't Katrina.

This project has major flaws, and has had them nearly from the start. I have been kicking myself for not having come out in strong opposition long ago. My excuse is that the full and true picture didn't really become clear until the RDC showed us their Cobblestones plan in early 2008. That's when I started my Web site. I suspect that the RDC's holding back the Cobblestones plan until BSL was locked in was very deliberate -- a key element in their bait-and-switch strategy.

What finally became clear: In the RDC's eyes, BSL was intended to replace, not just enhance, the historic Cobblestone Landing. This viewpoint was directly contrary to the RDC's 2002 Riverfront Master Plan, and the change in direction was never made very clear to previous City Councils. And when the land bridge was cancelled and the City wouldn't take the Promenade by eminent domain, Beale Street Landing was all the RDC had left to build.

After January 2006, BSL was no longer "just" an RDC project. It was do-or-die.

But the good news is this: Here is a opportunity for the City Council, the new Mayor, and the Memphis public to take a fresh look at the situation and devise a new plan, before the RDC digs the City into an even deeper hole between Tom Lee and the Cobblestones.

My recommendation: Stop the Beale Street Landing project immediately. Spend a couple million dollars cleaning up the mess and re-sodding. And then -- without the pressure of RDC officials coming hat-in-hand, spinning up a storm -- we can all take some time to rethink the process for managing and improving our riverfront.

Ten years of nothing ought to tell us something: The current process doesn't work.

To be continued...

-----
Addendum: If you want to make your thoughts known to City government, here are their emails:
Mayor@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Morrison@memphistn.gov,
Bill.Boyd@memphistn.gov,
Wanda.Halbert@memphistn.gov,
Harold.Collins@memphistn.gov,
Jim.Strickland@memphistn.gov,
Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov,
Swearengen.Ware@memphistn.gov,
Joe.Brown@memphistn.gov,
Janis.Fullilove@memphistn.gov,
Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov,
Kemp.Conrad@memphistn.gov,
Shea.Flinn@memphistn.gov,
Reid.Hedgepeth@memphistn.gov

FfOR wins 2009 Clearwater Award

2009-10-31T13:50:00.002-05:00

Since 1987, the Waterfront Center of Washington, DC, in an annual juried competition, has recognized excellence in waterfront projects, plans, citizen organizations, and student work - those that show sensitivity to the water, public spaces, unique historic and cultural features, human scale, civic pride, economic sustainability, and environmental values. Friends for Our Riverfront was honored with the 2009 Clearwater Award, given to citizen organizations that embrace these values for their waterfront.

FfOR secretary Renee Lartigue and president Virginia McLean accepted the prestigious international award on behalf of FfOR on Friday, Sept. 23 at the annual Waterfront Center conference, held this year in Seattle.

Editorial in Commercial Appeal

Article at FfOR's Web site

Waterfront Center

August 11 transcripts and comments

2009-10-29T12:16:00.003-05:00

Updated, March 25, 2010

The transcripts and comments from the TDOT/Army Corps public meeting on August 11 about the Cobblestone Landing have been published and can also be found at the links below. There are in several PDF documents, which I suggest you save to your hard drive for reading.

Public Meeting Transcript Part 1 (PDF, 12.7 MB)
Public Meeting Transcript Part 2 (PDF, 5.6 MB)
Public Meeting Transcript Part 3 (PDF, 11 MB)

All three parts combined into one file (PDF, 28.6 MB)

Post Meeting Public Comments 1 (PDF, 7 MB)
Post Meeting Public Comments 3* (PDF, 7.2 MB)

*probably misnumbered by TDOT/Corps.

Notable quotation

2009-10-29T11:48:00.000-05:00

"You need to make the heart, or center, of the city attractive, safe and lively. People help nourish and sustain the city. In the restoration of a city, you need to be sure that you restore that sense of people wanting to be active. It's not just about the tax base or the jobs. What the top cities in the world have is a happy, active public realm-the arts organizations, festivals and events that allow people to celebrate their city and love their city."

- Mayor Joe Riley of Charleston, SC (via Smart City Memphis)

Short and sweet: The real purpose of MILUP

2009-10-03T11:10:00.018-05:00

Below is the short-and-sweet version of my explanation of why the Mud Island Land Use Plan (MILUP) is bound to disappoint many of its public participants. (The long version is here.)

Continues...

The RDC has a contract with the City to be the exclusive developer for the riverfront, including Mud Island River Park.
The basis for this contract is the 2002 Cooper Robertson Riverfront Master plan.
The land bridge (and lake) in that plan turned out to be very bad ideas.
The land bridge was quietly taken out in 2005.
That effectively gutted the plan, making it obsolete and irrelevant.
If we admitted it and just threw plan away, we’d be admitting the RDC itself is obsolete and irrelevant.
(Not to mention incompetent, for proposing the land bridge in the first place.)
Jobs must be saved. Reputations must be preserved.
The RDC must come up with a new master plan before contract renewal.
The Mud Island Land Use Plan (MILUP) will arrive in time to save their contract.
To be credible, MILUP must involve the public in a “process” of some kind.
To avoid tying RDC's hands, MILUP can’t be too specific.
To be legally sufficient, MILUP need be little more than a zoning map.
When the public finds out they are getting little more than a zoning map, they will feel like they have been used.
They have been.
You won't be getting a skatepark, but maybe your children will.

The real purpose of the Mud Island Land Use Plan, explained in detail

2009-10-03T01:17:00.037-05:00

My sense is that many of the people who have been participating in the Mud Island Land Use Plan (MILUP) process are right now feeling a bit disappointed. I certainly was, and commented to that effect on Mary Cashiola’s article (see “Mike” at 10:06 PM.)

Just got back from the second meeting. My overall impression? This was a step backwards. They've got three versions of a color-coded zoning map, and that's all they wanted. The citizens' work is done. No specific plan, no theme, no unifying vision. Move on, somebody else will make the decisions from here on out.

But rest assured that the RDC will not be disappointed, because a “color-coded zoning map” is all they really needed out of the process. I will explain. (It's rather lengthy. You might prefer the short and sweet version.)

Continues...The RDC has a big problem and the MILUP is intended to solve it, but it’s not the problem you might think it is. To help you understand what the MILUP process is really about, I need to take you through some background and history.

Where RDC derives its authority

In reality, the RDC is not a public agency or commission* but a private corporation. Besides a bank account and some office furniture and equipment, it has one very big asset. It has exclusive authority for developing and exploiting the Memphis Riverfront, which is of tremendous value if it can be fully realized.

But the RDC only possesses this authority by way of a City contract that must be renewed from time to time.

In reality there are two contracts, one for management (renewable every 5 years), and one for development (renewable every ten years). To keep the management contract, it merely has to do a good job, at a reasonable net cost, and keep the public happy. In the RDC’s mind, the management contract is mainly tactical.

The development contract is the strategic one for which the RDC (middle name: Development) was really formed. That contract presupposes the existence of one other, very important thing: an approved master plan.

A master plan is the supposed to be an overall framework for the development projects the RDC will propose, get approved, and implement over the term of the contract and subsequent renewals.

To repeat: There cannot be a development contract without an approved master plan underlying it. Indeed, the contract specifically refers to it. Both are necessary conditions for the RDC’s continued existence as the riverfront developer.

Currently, the master plan of record is the one drawn up by Cooper Robertson and Partners in 2001 and approved by City Council in May, 2002. Call it the 2002 Master Plan (capital letters). The development contract based on that plan was executed in early 2004. It comes up for renewal in 2014, but requires two years' notice of non-renewal.

The problem

By 2005, high-level officials of the RDC and within the City administration had realized that the 2002 Master Plan was very deeply flawed. Even worse, word of its flaws had leaked into the community at large, thanks in large measure to the grassroots organization Friends for Our Riverfront, which had, on its own, figured out these problems.

The most obvious flaws had to do with the so-called “land bridge” and the lake it would create. If you want a refresher course, read this article. To summarize:

1. The lake would have been an environmental disaster, trapping the runoff and pollution from most of North Memphis.

2. The land bridge would have created a prestigious “new downtown” that competed with the old downtown, which by then was already languishing.

3. The plan would have cost taxpayers $300 million or more to implement.

Something had to be done, and swiftly, before things got too out of hand. The land bridge was the centerpiece of the 2002 Master Plan, so the proper thing to do would have been to go back to the drawing boards. But there wasn’t the time or money to draw up a new master plan.

Regardless, doing so would have been a major embarrassment, calling into question the RDC’s own competence for having proposed the 2002 Master Plan in the first place.

So in October of that year the RDC’s board decided to just delete the land bridge and lake from the plan. They got the City Council to ratify the decision in January, 2006. The Council’s resolution was a single sentence.

Looking busy

No pictures of the new, revised Master Plan (sans land bridge) were ever drawn up. That’s understandable because it would have been impossible if you really think about it. The erasure of the land bridge itself gutted more than half of the proposed development. Without the land bridge, much of the rest of the development made little, if any, sense. And if they didn’t develop the rest of it, Mud Island River Park would remain in place. (In the 2002 plan it was mostly bulldozed for new development.)

The RDC needed to look busy. The only two pieces they could conceivably start working on were the Public Promenade and Beale Street Landing. The Public Promenade was very problematic. To do that plan the City would have had to file an eminent domain lawsuit taking the land away from the public domain. Politically speaking, that wasn’t very palatable.

Therefore, Beale Street landing became the all-important project for RDC’s own continuing survival. It therefore took on a life of its own, and a direction that was markedly different from what was described the original 2002 Master Plan. In fact, it’s sucking the life out of the Cobblestone Landing right next to it.

Even still, the BSL project would only carry the RDC at most through 2012. Their development contract comes up for renewal in 2014 and requires two years’ advance notice of non-renewal. That is cutting it too close.

RDC tries to explain the Master Plan

Their predicament became all too obvious in 2008, when Wanda Halbert and other new City Council members asked RDC for an explanation of the Master Plan. The transcript of that Parks Committee meeting can be read here, here and here.

Hoping not to have to show the Master Plan’s drawings (which of course were obsolete), the RDC brought only three hard copies and produced them only when someone asked for them. Instead of showing pictures, they did a lot of hand waving and talked about the Master Plan being more of a “vision” than a specific plan.

An aside: If the Master Plan is only a vision, who’s in charge of that vision? Whose vision is it going to be? Who owns it? Wanda Halbert’s comment at the end of the meeting got to the crux of the issue:

HALBERT: I hope you all understand what I’m saying. This just does not appear to be a City project. This appears to be an RDC project. And the final comment that I have is, also during the budget hearing… I mean I asked the question because I didn’t know what this was. Who are you? Where did you come from? How long are you going to be here? How long are we going to be dealing with this? And you all said that the Master Plan was a 50 year plan, but we have five-year increments [of] contracts with RDC.

I can understand putting together a concept that we think may take up to 50 years. But we hire the experts to come in and, here’s our direction, this is what we need to do, whether we agree to it together… But if this is going to be going on for 50 years, I mean even though we’re approving it five years, to me the City needs show, where is your ownership of this? What is the CITY’S direction? It’s just…that to me is where some of the confusion is coming from. I don’t see…what I see in you, the leadership in you and the expertise; I need to be seeing that for the City. And I’m missing that. And I’m going to talk to the Mayor, and I hope his administration is listening. They need to have ownership of this, and they need to tell us, where are we going with this. I mean, I’m feeling like other entities OWN the City’s business. And that’s just how it looks to me.

Because this meeting was the RDC’s show-and-tell, Wanda Halbert and other City Council members did not get fully briefed on the quality of RDC’s “vision” e.g. the near-disastrous land bridge idea.

MILUP to the rescue

The RDC realized that sooner or later, the 2002 Master Plan would have to be put out to pasture, but, since their development authority rested upon it, that couldn’t be done until there was another plan to replace it. They needed a new plan that could serve as the basis of RDC’s development authority for the next 10 or 20 years, and could be turned into a pretty brochure for marketing purposes.

That was the real purpose and intended outcome of the Mud Island Land Use Plan process. It only needed to be specific enough to qualify as the “new master plan,” and to serve as the basis for renewing their development contract when it comes up for renewal. A color-coded zoning map is easily specific enough. Too much specificity would unnecessarily tie the RDC’s hands.

It was also important to be able to claim that this plan was the result of a true public process. That’s why the RDC held a six-month dog-and-pony show. But the public has been misled into thinking that the process would determine what will actually be built on Mud Island, if anything. In reality, the public was being used to legitimize the MILUP “zoning map,” which could then be used to re-legitimize the RDC itself.

The final step in the RDC’s process (not the public one) is to get the City Council to approve this color-coded zoning map. Then the RDC’s problem will be very neatly solved. They will have a new master plan as a basis upon which they can renew their development contract for ten or twenty more years.

* By the way, here’s an interesting factoid: Did you know that Benny Lendermon (president of the RDC) makes quite a bit more than the Mayor of the City? Lendermon’s cash salary is ~~well over~~ about $200,000, plus benefits. On top of that he also collects a City pension. The Mayor's base compensation is currently $171,500.

If the RDC were really an arm of the City government, not a private corporation, would that $200,000-plus salary package be possible?

Correction: According to the company's IRS filings for 2007-2008 (latest available to me), Mr. Lendermon's cash salary was $197,405, plus an employee pension plan contribution of $14,764.

Solution is simple and obvious

2009-09-02T08:41:00.011-05:00

My letter to the editor of the Commercial Appeal:

You're right. Everyone wants the cobblestones preserved (Sept. 1 editorial, "Inflexibility and the riverfront"). But that's only half the job the Riverfront Development Corp. was supposed to do. The other half — restoring the riverboat landing — went by the wayside, conveniently forgotten. So let me remind you.

The 2002 Riverfront Master Plan (approved unanimously by the City Council) said: "Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue...

"A full restoration and retro-fit of the Cobblestones into a contemporary state-of-the-art riverboat landing with dining and retail opportunities is essential to the success of the Harbor. ..."

Beale Street Landing was only part of the picture. In fact, it was needed for only the largest overnight riverboat cruises (no longer in business). But the RDC decided instead that the new dock would replace the historic Cobblestone Landing. They have already told the Memphis Queen Lines they'll have to use it.

RDC asked the city to spend a total of $30 million for an artificiality that completely overshadows the historic area and has no relationship to Memphis history. And now it doesn't want to ask for the money (over what the feds gave them) to restore the historic Cobblestone Landing.

When you and Jimmy Ogle say we are "inflexible" and ought to "compromise," you are ignoring the plain truth: With its half-baked plan, the RDC has already severely compromised the historic Cobblestone Landing — in favor of its new toy.

The solution is simple and obvious: Slim down the $30 million plan for Beale Street Landing by, for example, getting rid of those pointless "islands." That's how you'll find the $5 million savings needed to do the right thing for our historic Cobblestone Landing.

National Historic Landmark

2009-08-28T13:13:00.012-05:00

The authors of the Garrow Report and others have recommended that Memphis nominate the Cobblestone Landing for designation as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). What does that mean?

National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, fewer than 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction. Working with citizens throughout the nation, the National Historic Landmarks Program draws upon the expertise of National Park Service staff who work to nominate new landmarks and provide assistance to existing landmarks. [emphasis added]

The benefits of a National Historic Landmark include enhanced prestige and tourism, and special access to Federal grants.

Continues...Memphis currently has four National Historic Landmarks:

It should be noted that NHL status can be withdrawn, and that Beale Street Historic District (designated in 1966) is currently in jeopardy. From the NPS website:

Statement of Significance (as of designation - May 23, 1966):
This district is recognized for its importance in the development and influence of the "blues," a unique Black contribution to American music. This popular musical style was born on a Beale Street lined with saloons, gambling halls, and theaters. William Christopher Handy (1878-1958), a preeminent figure in the establishment of composed blues, wrote "Memphis Blues" here.

Deterioration, neglect of maintenance, and incompatible usage are threatening the landmark district.

Recommendation/Change since last report:
The city of Memphis should enforce maintenance of the historic buildings in the district by lease holders. The Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office has recommended an assessment of remaining cultural resources within the district.

My additional comments for the public record

2009-08-27T17:32:00.005-05:00

Click the "Continues..." link below to see the text of my additional comments, submitted by email today to the U.S. Army Corps. My original statement is at this link.

Continues...Public Information Meeting Comments - Cobblestone Landing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Memphis District
Attn: Mitch Elcon (James.M.Elcan@usace.army.mil)
167 North Main Street
Room B-202
Memphis, Tennessee 38103-1894

Dear Sir:

My additional comments, for the public record, are as follows:

1. The RDC's "Historic Cobblestone Landing Restoration and Walkway Project" (the Plan) is fatally flawed and must go back to the drawing boards, for the following reasons, among others.

2. Regardless of how they titled it, this Plan (by RDC's own statements) is clearly intended just to preserve the cobblestone-covered areas, not to preserve the historic Cobblestone Landing, which is today an active public wharf and landing for riverboat cruises.

3. When the RDC claims the Plan offers "improved boat docking," that is a misleading statement by the standards of ordinary English. They mean "to dock" only in the incomplete sense of "to park" -- not for the loading and unloading of passengers and baggage.

4. The Plan is directly contrary to the Riverfront Master Plan agreed to by City Council in 2002. It is questionable whether the RDC even has the authority to propose this Plan, much less to carry it out.

5. Rip-rap is for erosion control, not for boat landings. Any boater can tell you that. The use of rip-rap in this plan is compelling if not prima facie evidence that the RDC intends to de-commission an active boat landing.

6. The north-south walkway is inauthentic and obstructs the Cobblestone Landing's use as a boat landing.

7. The RDC told City Council over a year ago they planned for the Memphis Queen Lines to board and de-board passengers at the (to-be-built) Beale Street Landing, but because of the Queen II's historic status they would probably have to let it dock (park) at the Cobblestones in between boarding times. I can produce an audio record and transcript of those statements.

8. I question whether Federal transportation money can lawfully be used to shut down an active transportation facility, as is clearly the RDC's intention.

9. Because RDC is a private company, not a government entity, it should always be compelled to testify under oath and penalty of law. It is not sufficient for the public to listen to marketing promises while viewing PowerPoint presentations.

10. In 2007, TDOT allowed Beale Street Landing (BSL) to be approved over the strenuous objections of historic preservation specialists, such as TN-SHPO, following the questionable theory that BSL only impacted a small portion of the Cobblestone Landing where the two overlapped. If TDOT allows this Plan to decommission the Cobblestone Landing to go forward, it would amount to enshrining its own 2007 mistake, and would cause irreparable harm to Memphis historic preservation.

RDC bombshell: Misunderstanding — or bad faith?

2009-08-24T12:23:00.026-05:00

On August 11 at the public Cobblestone Landing meeting, the Riverfront Development Corporation (RDC) left a quietly-ticking time bomb. In their meeting handouts was a revelation that was so stunning that they had sat on the news for seventeen months. Even now, they had buried it on page 27 — the very last page.

This week, Memphis historic preservationists are coming to the realization that the RDC, it seems, had tried to usurp them all. The company had ignored the expert advice of the City’s consultants, and was even preparing to renege on a promise to City Council.

In their own words, the RDC had "decided not to pursue designation" of the Cobblestone Landing as a National Historic Landmark. Their justification? The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff had told them it wasn’t eligible, said the RDC.

But SHPO tells a somewhat different story about that meeting.

Continues...

The bombshell

August 11 attendees were given close to 40 pages of handouts when they arrived, and the meeting began promptly. Even if they had tried to read them while Mr. Lendermon and others gave presentations, no one in the audience would have gotten to page 27 that night.

There, on the last page, it said:

Designation of the Cobblestone Landing as a National Historic Landmark

The Historic Cobblestone Landing is currently on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Cotton Row Historic District. This objective was designed to give the landing increased status as a National Historic Landmark once it had been restored. However, in discussions with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] staff in March 2008, during a review of the conceptual design of the project, their staff stated that, in their opinions, the cobblestone area was not eligible as a National Historic Landmark. Thus, it was decided not to pursue such a designation. [emphasis added]

[You can download their handout here as a 2.6 MB PDF.]

Was SHPO giving RDC an advanced determination of the Cobblestones’ eligibility for listing? And if so, on what basis? They would apparently be contradicting the City-sponsored study in 1996 that had recommended pursuing Landmark status. What had changed?

Had the SHPO staff actually even said what the RDC now claims?

Not really — if you ask them. I contacted the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (TN-SHPO) myself. He replied with this statement.

Our National Register staff has stated that they believe doing a NHL nomination for the Memphis cobblestones will be difficult and may not be successful. However, I do not believe that we have been asked to make a formal determination about the cobblestones. The staff assessment is based on their discussions with the Southeast Region of the National Park Service (SERO) and their knowledge of what is necessary for a successful NHL nomination. [emphasis added]

Everybody in the business knows that the nomination process is lengthy and difficult, and not guaranteed to be successful, so that’s not really big news.

Furthermore, this wasn’t the proper forum to obtain such a determination. The nominating process starts and ends with the National Park Service. Tennessee’s SHPO staff would, in due course, be asked their opinion about the nomination, and there's no doubt their opinion would be very influential.

Would SHPO be privately telling the RDC, before anyone had officially asked, that their opinion at some future point would be negative? I don’t think so. It would be improper.

Could this all be a big misunderstanding on RDC’s part? After all, they don’t have a perfect track record when it comes to understanding history.

Possibly a misunderstanding — but I think you also have to consider the background and context that might have influenced their thinking.

Glass half empty

The RDC is quick to remind you these days that the Cobblestones are in deplorable shape. "Sadly," they say, "the historic cobblestones have fallen into disrepair as they settled and sloughed at the toe,” as they show you the photo after photo of the blighted Landing, and even a picture of a man sinking to his chest in mud. (No mention, however, that the RDC has been responsible for the Cobblestones' upkeep for the past nine years.)

On another page of their website entitled "The Need", they present a desolate photo of the Cobblestones and ask, “Is this how Memphis should greet her guests visiting from the river?” (In fact, it’s a page arguing the need for building Beale Street Landing — not for restoring the Cobblestones.)

But that’s only the glass-half-empty version of the story. There is another version from the experts.

The city-funded 1996 Garrow & Associates Memphis Landing Cultural Resources Assessment and Preservation Plan (the "Garrow Report," downloadable here) stated that the Memphis Landing — aka the Cobblestone Landing — is the best preserved of all the 19th century landings in the Mississippi River drainage basin.

Unlike landings in other major cities, our Cobblestone Landing remains largely intact in its historic dimensions and physical composition. Later changes have not severed its contact with the city that it continues to serve to the present time. Every day, season permitting, Memphians and tourists use the Landing to board a riverboat for scenic cruise on the Mississippi. Four nights a week, there is a dinner cruise. Private boats also use the landing.

On a national level, the Memphis Landing may best represent the significant national themes of 19th century river commerce and westward migration. As there are no resources listed as National Historic Landmarks (NHL) Garrow recommended that the nomination of the Cobblestone Landing as a National Historic Landmark be pursued.

In addition, the Garrow Plan prescribed treatments that would minimize adverse effects that currently exist on the site or that may be imposed or proposed in the future.

Promises made

Since that time it has been an accepted truth in the Memphis historic preservation community that the Cobblestone Landing would be restored in a sensitive manner and nominated for listing on the register of National Historic Landmarks by the City.

When the RDC took over the riverfront in 2000, the job of restoring the Cobblestones fell to them. But preservation wasn’t their biggest priority — they wanted to get busy building things. First they had to produce a Riverfront Master Plan. Then they immediately started on a plan for Beale Street Landing, then developed a Promenade Plan. So many millions of square feet to develop, so little time.

Seven years later: If there was a Cobblestones plan it hadn’t been seen by anybody outside the RDC.

In May 2007 — while still seeking final approvals for their Beale Street Landing design — RDC listed National Historic Register as their first objective when they presented their 5-year Capital Improvement Budget for the Cobblestones to City Council:

This project provides funding for restoration and improvements to the historic Cobblestone Landing including designation on the National Historic Register, restoration of the cobblestones, installing sidewalks to the riverbank, underground utilities, and floating walkway. [emphasis added]

Ten months later — having just locked in the last BSL approvals they needed — the RDC showed their plans and objectives to SHPO. Apparently a listing on the National Historic Register wasn’t one of them. Neither was the floating walkway.

Unveiled: "Half" a plan

The RDC went to SHPO in March 2008 with a “conceptual plan,” not very different than the one they presented to the public on August 11 of this year. (If you want, you can review that draft at this link.)

In their design, they wanted to split the cobblestones in half lengthwise with a sidewalk/retaining wall (underwater half the year). They wanted to fill in the waterside half of the landing with rip-rap — a cheap material that's used for erosion control but not for boat landings.

Half a plan — at half the cost?

Presumably they had estimates that this design would fit within the budget they already had in the bank, so to speak — about $5.5 million of Federal money and another million or so from the City.

By then, the RDC must also have had an inkling that any plan to restore the Landing properly (without the rip-rap) might cost several million more. It would require them either to raise more Federal money, or to go to the City Council for a larger budget for the Cobblestones project.

And that could endanger the budget they were counting on to finish Beale Street Landing — most of the balance of which, though budgeted, still has to be appropriated by the City Council.

If they already knew all of this by the end of 2007, they probably saw it as a Hobson’s choice: Finish Beale Street Landing, as designed, with all those “islands” — or put it at risk by restoring the Cobblestones properly. In that context, with that mindset, you might almost understand how they could be told one thing but hear something else.

What the RDC officials were actually told was not really such surprising news. The surprising part was the following stark assertion by the RDC on August 11 handout:

Thus, it was decided not to pursue such a designation.

"It was decided" by a private company whose middle name is “Development,” who quietly took it upon itself to make such a momentous choice on behalf of all Memphis, and then said nothing about it, even to stakeholders, for seventeen months.

Now that’s stunning news.

A new plan for our Great Memphis Landing

2009-08-17T19:00:00.016-05:00

For a little change of pace, I’m going to offer something positive. I am going to present a solution: A five-point plan to fix the riverfront problems, making the best of what we already have, and having a good shot at something we can enjoy and be proud of in the future.

More good news: We might be able to pay for it within the amount we’ve already budgeted.

My plan consists of five simple principles. I can’t give you drawings because I’m not a designer. But I think you can get the general picture from these five principles. I’m a great believer in working from principles and objectives. I know the importance of getting them right from the start, and then abiding by them.

1. Re-adopt the objectives and priorities of the Master Plan.

Our goal should be to

Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue.

More specifically,

A full restoration and retro-fit of the Cobblestones into a contemporary state-of-the-art riverboat landing with dining and retail opportunities is essential to the success of the Harbor. This Harbor is the place where river life will come to rest in Memphis.

It shouldn’t have been necessary to say that. The above words are quoted directly from the 2002 Riverfront Master Plan, as approved by City Council, and presumably still in effect. The Master Plan also defined quite clearly the proper relationship of Beale Street Landing (BSL) to our historic landmark: as an adjunct, not a replacement.

But the Riverfront Development Corporation (RDC) chose to ignore the Master Plan, before the ink was hardly dry, and steered the projects their own way. This time, the project's goals will need to be explicitly stated and explicitly agreed to. Otherwise, let the RDC itself go their own way, and let someone else take charge.

2. Redesign BSL and Cobblestone areas together, as one Great Memphis Landing.

Let's face reality: To accomplish these goals, both the Beale Street Landing and the Cobblestone Landing plans will require re-thinking and a fresh design. This time, however, let there be single, unified plan for a restored Great Memphis Landing, with historic and more modern (Beale Street Landing) areas.

Yes, we can re-design BSL, and now is the opportune moment. We might still be stuck with the red steel boat dock and helical ramp. But the “islands”, terraces, restaurant, gift shop, terminal, and parking lot have not yet been started, and depend on yet-to-be-appropriated City funding. They should all be on the table for re-consideration in the new design.

This time, we should use local designers. We are not lacking for professional talent and vision here in Memphis. Our problem is that we tie their hands with wrong-headed, misguided requirements.

3. We must rebuild the lower portion of the Cobblestone Landing properly.

As Benny Lendermon said in the August 11 public meeting, almost nobody objects to the repair and restoration of the Cobblestones themselves. But there is a huge difference between standing around looking at some old cobblestones, and actually using a historic Cobblestone Landing to board a riverboat for a cruise on the Mississippi, or to launch your own canoe.

The real objective should be to restore the Cobblestone Landing, hopefully for another 150 years of continuous use. That will entail rebuilding the lower portion with concrete and other materials – not cheap rip-rap – and the use of a coffer dam at an (alleged) $5 million of extra cost.

So be it – and here's how to get the money.

4. Remove those “islands” from the design, and recoup $5M.

The terraces might well remain in the new design, but those awful “islands”? They. Must. Go.

However you feel about them, the islands (or “pods” as they've been called) are the biggest part of the problem with the original Beale Street Landing design. They dominate the view, distort the riverscape, and overpower the historic Cobblestone Landing – while bearing no relationship whatsoever to the Memphis riverfront and its history.

By getting rid of them, we might also save the $5 million needed to restore the Cobblestone Landing properly.

Furthermore, we might avoid some significant security problems. Looking at the drawings gives me nightmares of falling children. One can see opportunities for late-night muggers and errant skateboarders. Do we need to bring those problems on ourselves?

5. Consider treating MIRP and its riverboat landing as resources and perhaps part of an integrated solution.

When BSL planning started in 2002, it was thought that Mud Island River Park (MIRP) and its own boat landing would eventually be gone, covered over by a land bridge, and that BSL was to be its replacement. That land bridge has since been aborted from the Master Plan.

Even though we knew in 2006 that it was no longer needed, the City stood passively by and allowed the RDC to redouble its efforts to get the $30 million Beale Street Landing built. RDC needed its big project to justify its continued existence.

Therefore, with this opportunity for a do-over, it makes sense that we now consider Mud Island River Park to be part of the resources we have to work with. Indeed, perhaps the current planning process for the future of MIRP should be suspended if necessary to dovetail with the Great Memphis Landing design.

Next steps for this plan

What can you do?

1. Submit a comment on the Cobblestone Landing proposal (click here for PDF form). Make a point of telling the Army Corps of Engineers and TDOT that you want it to continue as a fully-functioning riverboat landing. Therefore, the lower part of the landing must be rebuilt properly, not filled in with cheap rip-rap. The Landing must not be broken in two by a retaining wall and pointless underwater sidewalk. Get your comments postmarked by September 1 for them to be considered.

Note: Mitch Elcan of the Army Corps has told Friends for Our Riverfront that he will also accept emailed comments for the record. When you write him, I'd appreciate getting a copy, too.

The period for public comments is closed.

2. Contact your City Council person. Ask them to sponsor a resolution adopting the above five principles, and denying further funding until both projects are redesigned according to those principles.

3. Ask the Mayoral candidates what they intend to do about our 10-year riverfront fiasco. If they express strong support for the status quo (the RDC), it tells you something about who their friends really are, and how independent they'd really be if elected Mayor.

4. Forward this link to your friends. Recommend they read the other articles on this site. The best of the articles are linked in the sidebar under Important Questions.

5. Do you know any of these people? Ask them why they sit idly by and allow the RDC to decommission our historic Cobblestone Landing after 150 years of continuous use. Ask them why they think it's so much more important to have this instead.

The "islands"

2009-08-16T10:30:00.012-05:00

Whether you think they look like urban art, giant bustiers, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, or a championship skate park, those "pods" or "islands" are going to be the most prominent feature of the still-under-construction Beale Street Landing. They are also being paid for by you, with up to $20 million of your city taxes. (The red boat dock was mostly financed with $10.9 million of State and Federal grants.)

Continues...

Birds-eye view of main and second pods, at Riverside and Beale. A game of Putt-Putt golf, anyone?

Main pod is above and behind your left shoulder. You're looking south. Do you see any security risks?

Near the top of the helical ramp, looking north. Hanging Gardens of Babylon?

The helical ramp, as if seen from a big riverboat. Does the word "cheesy" come to mind?

I get a mention

2009-08-15T17:40:00.001-05:00

Cobblestones Under Glass, by John Branston:

5. The plain fact, as RDC critic and the riverfront's institutional memory Michael Cromer and others have noted, is that "development" is the RDC's middle name. Without a big project, there is little need for a quasi-public agency to beautify and maintain the riverfront parks and build a roundabout on Mud Island. The RDC's original big table had four legs: founder Kristi Jernigan, the master plan featuring the aborted land bridge, Beale Street Landing, and Mayor Willie Herenton and his buddies. Three of those are gone. But thanks to Beale Street Landing and the cobblestones, the RDC can probably hang on for a few more years.

My four take aways

2009-08-12T23:20:00.010-05:00

The audio and main handout from last night's meeting can be found at this earlier post. My initial thoughts? I think there were four main things I took away from the meeting.

1. You remember that silly sidewalk that runs along the western edge of the Cobblestone Landing -- and helps destroy its continued use as a boat landing? Mr. Lendermon confirms that the sidewalk will be under water about half the year. (He didn't say what part of the year that sidewalk will overlook a field of rip-rap.)

That silly, underwater sidewalk.

2. The bullet that suggests the plan will "Continuation of and improvements to the docking of boats?" Mr. Lendermon and Captain Lozier confirmed that the word "docking" should be parsed in a very narrow sense: Parking of the Memphis Queen Lines riverboats when they are not in use. They will board and unload at Beale Street Landing.

3. Mr. Lendermon confirmed that the two acres of cobblestones that the City carted away in 1994 haven't really been lost. They are stored on a City dump somewhere and will be brought back when their time comes.

Doing it on the cheap

The first three points were not the biggest news to me. But the fourth item was a great revelation. As a "take-away," it took my breath away.

It turns out that the RDC considered and dismissed the alternative of doing the job right. Restoring the lower part of the Landing with anything other than rip-rap would require building a coffer dam to dry the area out. That would cost an additional $5 million. Whereas, rip-rap can be applied "wet" (i.e., dumped into the water) and is itself much cheaper than concrete or other materials.

That $5 million savings could go into, say, building bustier-like "islands" for Beale Street Landing, which is a bigger priority since those islands will no doubt attract so many tourists to the City.

Artist's conception of the tourist magnets.

Audio and handouts from the meeting

2009-08-12T17:03:00.029-05:00

If you weren't able to attend Tuesday night's public meeting about the Cobblestone Landing, I've posted links below for you to listen to the audio and obtain some of the handouts.

Update: A warm welcome to visitors sent here from Memphis Heritage! Before you leave, please also see A new plan for our Great Memphis Landing, and do click on some of the Important Questions in the sidebar to your right.

RDC Handout

Click this link to download the RDC's handout from the meeting [PDF, 2.7 MB]. It's a 27-page document that appears to be an illustrated script for the RDC presentation of their plan. (Hardcopies were handed out at the meeting.)

Note that the document doesn't bear the logos or names of Tetra Tech (environmental engineers), Ritchie Smith Associates (urban landscape architects), or Clark Dixon Associates (architects), who have all been consultants to RDC on this project. If it had borne their "signatures", then you could be sure that those consultants would have reviewed this document before release.

Since their names do not appear, the document would seem to have been written internally by RDC, and may or may not be completely accurate. As we have already seen, the RDC's marketing department doesn't always read consultant reports with as much thoroughness as might be deserved. Indeed, the same historical mistake (cobblestones as ballast) reappeared on page 2 of this handout -- until someone at the RDC noticed my mention of it here, and edited the document.

It is the first time the general public has seen this level of detailed information. Other versions of the material have been circulating among the "stakeholders" for about 18 months, but haven't been on the RDC Web site or in the public's hands, until the people walked in the door of the meeting last night. So you can imagine that the public audience was already well-briefed and fully-prepared to discuss and debate the details of the Plan. Not.

One thing you will not find in the handout document is any discussion of the alternatives. By law and regulation, however, the permitting process does require the applicant to expose and discuss the alternatives. If you want to know about the alternatives, you'll have to listen to the audio below. They're mentioned in passing near the end of Part 3.

Audio recording

I recorded the entire meeting from my seat in the audience. Because the meeting was so long (almost two hours), I have broken the MP3 down into seven more convenient, logical sections.

1. Army Corps of Engineers presentation [10 mins., 2.4 MB]
2. TN Dept. of Transportation (TDOT) remarks [11 mins., 2.7 MB]
3. Riverfront Development Corp. (RDC) presentation [33 mins., 7.8 MB]
4. Audience Q&A and comments:

Part 1 of 4[18 mins., 4.2 MB]
Part 2 of 4[16 mins., 3.7 MB]
Part 3 of 4[16 mins., 3.7 MB]
Part 4 of 4[11 mins., 2.6 MB]

Official, pre-addressed comment form

There are still (as of 8/20) 11 days remaining in the comment period. If you get your comments postmarked by September 1, they will be included in the official transcript, and presumably considered by the regulators before issuing permits. I've scanned their official, pre-addressed comment form and made it into a PDF, which you can download at this link.

Note: Mitch Elcan of the Army Corps has told Friends for Our Riverfront that he will also accept emailed comments for the record. When you write him, I'd appreciate getting a copy, too.

Killer Rip-Rap

2009-08-12T17:00:00.008-05:00

Rip-rap (aka riprap) is used for erosion control, not boat landings. It is a layer of jagged rubble that absorbs and deflects the waves that would otherwise wear down the shoreline.

It is not used for boat landings. Any boater will tell you that you land on rip-rap at your own risk. Rip-rap can even sink barges, as happened in a recent incident at Tom Lee Park (below).

Memphis Flyer, August 13:

"Access for whom?" is a question that likely came up at the public meeting. Recreational boaters would like to land their canoes and kayaks at the cobblestones, but fear they will be excluded from them and Beale Street Landing. Expect to hear a lot about riprap in the coming days.

One recent boating event did not go well. The powerboat regatta hosted by the RDC July 31st through August 2nd was plagued by bad weather and spotty marketing. There was also the matter of a barge, owned by the Memphis Yacht Club and used for parties and Memphis in May activities. A spokesman for the club says the RDC borrowed a blacktop barge, approximately 30 feet by 12 feet, for the powerboat people to use as a platform to take pictures and movies. It was moved to the south tip of Mud Island, a muddy sandbar suitable for landing a barge. But for some reason, possibly to get a better vantage point, the barge was moved by a police boat to the other side of the harbor, along the riprap and cobblestones.

There it sat, until wave action pushed it over some sharp rocks. The barge sprang a leak and sank. No one was aboard. As of Monday afternoon, it was still at the bottom of the harbor. The yacht club is trying to work out responsibility for salvaging it with the RDC, the powerboat people, and the police department.

"There are so many hands in this darn thing that it's hard to figure out responsibility," said the yacht club spokesman. "All we know is that it wasn't us. We know how not to sink our barge. We're probably talking $5,000 to float and fix the thing."

What rip-rap looks like. Not healthy for boats.

My remarks at today's public meeting

2009-08-11T16:00:00.002-05:00

In 1994, the City was caught, red-handed, carting away over two acres of Cobblestones from the exact location that will soon be covered up by Beale Street Landing. By a Memorandum of Agreement, the City was forced to bring in archeologists and historians to study the situation, make an assessment, and give recommendations—lest there be any further carnage to our history.

The result was the Garrow Report. In their 1996 report, those historians said, and I quote:

Today, of all the great river landings on the Ohio, Missouri, and upper Mississippi rivers, the Memphis Landing is acknowledged to be the best preserved of these important commercial places.

Perceptively, these historians also noted that, from the 1930s on, "the City of Memphis saw the Landing as a nuisance rather than an asset." Those writers had hoped that their study would mark a change in the City's attitude, and a newfound respect for the greatest cultural landmark in this City.

Unfortunately that would not be the case, and so, here we stand today.

This is not an issue of preservation, per se. The City knows that it must preserve what remains of the Cobblestones, because they are a protected landmark and part of the Cotton Row Historic District. Nuisance or not, the City must finally live up to promises it has made for decades.

It is really an issue about preserving an historic, functioning riverboat landing, one which is still in use to this very day. That is what makes our Cobblestones different from similar cobblestones around the world.

It has been over 150 years since the first Cobblestones were laid. They've seen much wear and tear as thousands of riverboats have come to the Landing to load and unload both people and cargo. The City has done precious little in recent years to protect and preserve them. But in spite of that neglect, the Cobblestone Landing still remains in use by Memphians and visitors as they embark on cruises up and down the Mississippi.

The City's plan tells us, in essence, that to save the Cobblestones we must de-commission them as a boat landing. (Oh yes, and by the way they're building a new red steel boat dock down the river.)

To save the Cobblestones, they say we must build a sheetpile bulkhead retaining wall, and fill the lower area with rip-rap. Simple common sense tells you that retaining walls, sidewalks, and rip-rap will destroy its ability to continue as a functioning riverboat landing.

But it is pointless to argue those points, because they are based on a faulty assumption. What is really wrong with this plan is that it has the wrong objective to begin with.

This plan aims only to preserve the Cobblestones as if they were a museum relic—"cobbles under glass" if you will—something to be seen but not to be used. So long as that remains the plan's objective, then the City can hire a parade of consultants and experts to tell you all about the benefits of sheetpile bulkheads, retaining walls, and rip-rap.

The City knows full well what the objective should be. It was clearly stated in the 2002 Riverfront Master Plan:

Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue.

If those words aren't clear enough, I can quote more passages from that same Master Plan. They would leave no doubt in your mind about the importance of preserving the Cobblestone Landing as a boat landing. Importance seen, that is, by all but the City and their contractors, the RDC.

Some of us warned TDOT and SHPO about this two years ago, when the plan for Beale Street Landing was still under review. We said that you cannot properly consider the historical impact of the Beale Street Landing design without also having a Cobblestone Landing plan before you. But TDOT and SHPO chose to consider Beale Street Landing by itself, and to consider the Cobblestone area only at the margins.

And so here we are today. The City wants to shut the Landing down in favor of their new boat dock at Beale Street. "Who could have predicted?" I ask, sarcastically.

The solution is simple.

TDOT and SHPO must insist that the RDC explicitly re-adopt the goals and objectives that were stated in their own 2002 Riverfront Master Plan, and that were approved by the Memphis City Council in 2002. Then they, the RDC, must go back to the drawing boards. They must consult their experts again, giving them the correct objective, not the faulty one.

With the correct objective in mind, any competent expert will tell them exactly what they need to do. In all probability, much of the plan will remain unchanged. But I can assure you with confidence that that the rip-rap and the sheetpile bulkhead retaining wall will magically disappear from the plan.

APPENDIX

Today

2009-08-11T08:24:00.005-05:00

Notice of Public Meeting:

The Riverfront Development Corporation, on behalf of the City of Memphis, and in coordination with the Tennessee Department of Transportation, will conduct a Public Meeting that will be held on August 11, 2009 from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM at The Balinese Ballroom, 330 N. Main Street, Memphis, TN 38103.

The City of Memphis is proposing to construct the Cobblestone Landing and improvements project, located in Memphis, Shelby County, TN. The project is being constructed to stabilize the lower edge of the cobblestones, restore the cobblestone field, and provide improved accessibility to the Cobblestone Landing.

There will be a formal presentation, an opportunity to view various sketches, and a question and answer period. The public is invited to use this opportunity to express their opinions concerning this project as part of the public record or, if they prefer, to make comments directly to the court reporter. Representatives from Riverfront Development Corporation will be present to provide information relative to the general scope of the project, major design features, environmental and historic impacts of the project, tentative schedules for construction, and any other matters of public interest. TDOT representatives will be available to discuss the environmental documentation process. Questions or comments regarding this meeting may be directed to the following offices:

Continues...Mr. Joe W. Matlock, TDOT
Transportation Planner, Region IV
NEPA Documentation Office
James K Polk Bldg, Suite 900
505 Deaderick Street
Nashville, TN 37243
Joe.Matlock@tn.gov
(615) 741-5365

Mr. John Conroy, P.E.
Vice President, Project Development
Riverfront Development Corporation
22 North Front Street, Suite 960
Memphis, TN 38103
jconroy@memphisriverfront.com
(901) 312-9190

Persons having a disability that will require assistance to participate at the Public Meeting may contact Ms. Brenda Adair at (901) 312-9190, Fax (901) 312-9189, or by e-mail at Brenda@memphisriverfron.com, ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting.

Comment sheets will be available for attendees to submit written statements. A court reporter will also be available to receive oral statements to be included in the official project transcript. Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to these, to be included in the project transcript may be submitted within twenty-one (21) days after the meeting date to the address of Mr. John Conroy, P.E. [at Riverfront Development Corporation] stated above.

Dead Cobblestones Week

2009-08-10T16:02:00.010-05:00

It's Elvis week, when thousands of his fans come to Memphis each year to celebrate his memory.

Put yourself in their shoes and imagine this scenario: Suppose you arrive at Graceland only to find it locked up. You are unable to gain entrance, but you can walk around it on a sidewalk and view it from the perimeter. Signage tells you that the Mansion has been closed in order to better preserve it.

Instead going inside the mansion, you are redirected to a brand-new museum next door, where you will supposedly find replicas of Graceland's interiors.

Only they aren't actually replicas. They are interpretations of what Elvis's home might have looked like if it had been built today, using red steelwork and five, bustier-like "islands".

Even though it doesn't really look like Graceland Mansion, you are assured by your guides that it is a "world class" design. After all, it was conceived by some Argentinians, and selected by a jury* from among from many entries.

* The jury of seven included only three Memphians: Willie Herenton (a mayor), Diane Dixon (an architect), and Kristi Jernigan (a developer, who has since moved away).

The Scorpion and the Frog

2009-08-10T13:00:00.000-05:00

This is one of my favorite children's fables, but I did not learn it as a child. I first heard the story in the movie The Crying Game.

I believe there are very few people in the world who are truly the essence of evil and might deserve our hatred. There are many people who do things that hurt us, and if it seems intentional (not an accident or mistake), perhaps our natural reaction would be to hate them for it and call them "evil." But that so rarely accomplishes anything.

When someone hurts me and I don't know why, I try to think of the following story and consider whether it might apply to the situation.

The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

[Source: FROGLAND: All about Frogs]

About me

2009-08-10T12:00:00.002-05:00

In case you are interested...

Continues...I am a retired marketing and business development executive.

I moved to Memphis in 2003, after having visited here several times during the 1990s. One thing I was impressed with during those visits: I believed that Memphis had a good sense of, and respect for, its own history. I like that in a town. I am originally from another town with plenty of history: Washington, DC. I've also lived in historic capital cities in Europe, the Far East, and our northern neighbor.

Imagine my shock and consternation when, only two months after arriving, I attended that infamous riverfront meeting at the ballpark. The Bluff City was planning to replace what remained of its historic bluffs with sidewalks and skyscrapers. When I took a closer look at the rest of the riverfront plans, my concerns were only magnified.

I have since spent many, many hours following the situation and looking under the surface. I've attended more RDC Board meetings than some Memphis celebrities that have actually served on the board. I've spent days in RDC offices looking at documents the public has never seen. I helped a local grassroots organization, Friends for Our Riverfront, establish their Web presence and use technology to further their mission. I can also draw on my years of business experience, including some years as a CPA with clients in commercial real estate.

Last year, when I realized that Memphis was about to throw away its greatest cultural landmark, I decided to step forward and speak in my voice. I started this blog.

Sadly, after over ten years, the City's riverfront strategy is an epic failure. The trouble is, most Memphians don't even realize it. For reasons that seem to be structural, cultural, and political, Memphians want to and continue to believe in two myths: that developers are always their saviors, and that their riverfront is in capable hands.

I hope you will continue reading this blog and learn more of the truth. In future articles, I will explore more deeply some of the myths and realities that have made the Memphis riverfront almost the perfect archetype for what ails Memphis.

Michael Cromer

Parsing the public's requirements

2009-08-10T10:29:00.016-05:00

Gates of Memphis notices the fifth bullet on the RDC's Web page, which says, "Continuation of and improvements to the docking of boats." He still wants a straight answers to his question about RDC's intentions:

I want to land my boat on the Cobblestones. Will I be able to do this after the improvements?

Let's take a closer look and see if he might already have an answer.

Continues...First of all, from my point of view (and that of FfOR and others), he may be asking the wrong question. Here's what I mean.

As a boater, he may be concerned only about being able to "land" his own boat. That's a legitimate question, but as a Memphian, my own question is broader: Will the Memphis Queen Lines or other daily excursion cruises be able to land and board passengers for the larger riverboats--the way it has been done for over 150 years?

The answer is no, as was made clear in testimony before a City Council committees last year. The Memphis Queen Lines may be permitted park ("tie up") one or two of their riverboats in the harbor, in vicinity of the Cobblestones--because they have nowhere else to park--but they will no longer be boarding or deboarding passengers at the Cobblestones:

BOYD: Alright, the cobblestone use. I’ve received a lot of calls, a lot of correspondence I should say, will the excursion boats [portion inaudible]. Will they have an opportunity to tie up at the cobblestones?

LENDERMON: Yes. In fact they’d probably have to tie up there. They’ll probably have to tie their boats up there.

BOYD: And the Landing…

LENDERMON: They will pick up and drop off passengers at Beale Street Landing, in a safe environment that people can get to. They will quote “stage” their boats if you would at the Cobble…or at least SOME of their boats at the Cobblestones. So they’ll have a presence at the Cobblestones, but they’ll do picking up and dropping off of passengers from Beale Street Landing, in a safe manner in an ADA-acceptable manner.

There was another committee meeting last year dealing exclusively with the Cobblestones, and it's worth a read.

The disappearing boat dock

The RDC's objectives are also pretty clear if you take the trouble to review their Powerpoint presentation from last year. It has never been distributed to the general public (only "stakeholders"), but you can review it at this link, which is also in the sidebar. They've been unwilling to mail out the current version of their plan, but they've told me and others that little has changed..."maybe one or two pictures."

Go through those 30 pages from top to bottom. You'll find no mention of any objective to restore and preserve the Cobblestones as a functioning riverboat landing. That's because it wasn't their objective.

There was a mention of a boat dock on page 26 (of 30), tied in with the ADA ramp going down slope in Jefferson Davis Park:

The floating boat dock. (Click to enlarge in a separate window.)

The "floating dock" is at the right in this 2008 overview. (Click to enlarge in a separate window.)

I listened to the RDC president give this presentation to his board of directors early last year. I listened to him hesitate, hem and haw over this boat dock. It was something "under consideration" but he made it clear that it was in no way certain to be in the final plan. In any event, it would be small and suitable only for canoes and rowboats.

Here is the overview of the current design, as floated to City Council during the budget hearings a few weeks back.:

Current plan. (Click to enlarge.)

Look closely. Do you see a floating boat dock? Nope. Disappeared.

Evidently, this is why the RDC says "maybe one or two pictures" are different from the original draft 18 months ago.

The marketing checkoff

Now their Web page goes up announcing the public information meeting, and lo and behold a bullet appears (fifth on the list): "Continuation of and improvements to the docking of boats."

Did they decide add this bullet (which appears nowhere in their original plan) because they're getting heat from the stakeholder groups? Yes, I believe so. Are they bringing back the little floating boat dock? Very possibly.

As a former product marketing executive and a systems engineer, one who has helped bid on many government procurements for computer systems, I understand exactly what this bullet is. We used to call it a "check-off." It's a feature we added (usually with custom software or a third-party gadget) so that we could check off one of the government's requirements so as not to be disqualified.

A "check-off" isn't necessarily a useful, or even a usable, feature. It just needs to meet the carefully-parsed government requirement. If the government didn't state their requirement carefully enough, they got what they asked for. No more.

Which is why you need to attend the public information meeting Tuesday afternoon and ask for what you really want. Be very careful about your choice of words, e.g. "dock" versus "landing", and "boat" versus "riverboat." You can be certain that the RDC will be careful with their word choices. [Click here for TDOT notice (PDF)]

Updated, August 12, 2009: What I said above was re-confirmed at the meeting. Continued boat docking merely means that the Memphis Queen II will be allowed to "park" at the Cobblestones area, with utility hookups, when not in use.

Reminder

2009-08-07T13:29:00.013-05:00

Before you take off for the weekend, mark your calendars so that you'll be sure to remember to attend the public information meeting to held by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Tuesday, August 11, 2009, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m
330 North Main Street (The Balinese Ballroom)
Memphis 38103

My understanding is that the RDC will give a presentation of the plan, and then you will have an opportunity to ask questions and make your comments. [Click here for TDOT notice (PDF)]

My main question would be something like this:

When the RDC's own Memphis Riverfront Master Plan said to

Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue[,]

why are you [RDC] are saying this:

The purpose of the Historic Cobblestone Landing Restoration and Walkway Project is to stabilize and restore the Memphis Cobblestone Landing and provide limited usability, connectivity and accessibility improvements.

and presenting a plan that so clearly intends to shut the Cobblestone Landing down after 150 years of continuous use?

It will be interesting to see if they are honest about the real reasons, and if they mention this.

To put it more bluntly: The City administration has abdicated responsibility for our precious riverfront resource, leaving public policy in the hands of a private corporation whose middle name is "Development", and whose central purpose in life is to build things, whether needed or not. They've long ago gone rogue, and the City Council has so far failed to reign them in. You, the public, are Memphis' last hope.

You must reign them in.

To learn more about the issues with the Cobblestone Landing, Beale Street Landing, and our riverfront, just click some of the important questions in the sidebar at the right.

The Big Switch, Part 2: A land bridge too far

2009-08-06T16:00:00.011-05:00

In the earlier article, "The Big Switch: How the riverfront strategy quietly changed," we saw that with the Beale Street Landing (BSL) Project, RDC officials didn't wait very long to veer sharply from the vision and principles stated in the 2002 Riverfront Master Plan.

The first clear evidence of the shift appeared in the BSL design competition documents released January 2003--only eight months after the City Council had unanimously approved the Master Plan. In this article, we'll follow the events from that point until January, 2006, when the RDC found itself in an existential predicament. Read on.

Continues...

Exuberance unbounded

Clearly, their vision for Beale Street Landing was becoming far grander in scope than the Master Plan had envisioned. The competition guide asked for a boat dock that serviced all manner of boats, large and small, not just the big overnight cruisers as the Master Plan had recommended. The guide talked of Beale Street as the center of focus for the riverfront, whereas the Master Plan wanted the focus to be at Union Avenue. The design area allowed in the guide was much larger, and even encroached upon both Tom Lee Park and the historic Cobblestones.

Was all of this just the natural result result of RDC's exuberance? Just the symptom of their enthusiasm, now able to tackle their first big project? (After all, the much-bigger "land bridge" (and lake) project, later canceled, was going to be at least five to ten years away.)

Or was it an attempt to keep all options open, just in case the City might change its mind later about the Master Plan? Or was it part of a calculated strategy to re-write the principles of the Master Plan only months after it had been officially adopted?

We may never know.

One of the reasons we don't know is because there was no contemporaneous plan for the Cobblestone Landing--and there wouldn't be such a plan until at least five years later. Without seeing a written Cobblestone Landing plan, side-by-side with the BSL design, one couldn't know for certain if the value being added at Beale Street was newly-created--or value taken away from the Cobblestone Landing at Union Avenue.

And besides, who reads design competition documents, anyway? (Unless one plans to compete, of course.)

Two drawings from the original design submission. (Source: RDC)

The winning design from Argentina was chosen before the year 2003 ended. Whether you liked the design or not, it certainly measured up to the RDC's exuberance, using every inch of the allowed area, and then some.

But it was like a full-busted woman in a too-small bustier: It would require a bit of re-working and refining to tuck it into a manageable package.

Meanwhile, in 2004 the RDC went for City Council approval on its new Memphis Promenade Public Realm Plan. Unlike the Master Plan, however, the "Promenade Plan" (as the RDC likes to inaccurately call it) ran into some stiff resistance from grass-roots citizens groups and others.

For one thing, it claimed to remove a "barrier between the city and its river" [Introduction, p.2] by erecting even bigger barriers: skyscrapers. The plan finally passed, with an amendment limiting building heights to 150 feet, but it did not pass unanimously. The RDC may have then begun to sense that, despite all their exuberance, their riverfront strategy would not be a slam dunk.

Perhaps also by then the RDC's legal advisers had warned them of another disturbing problem: The Public Promenade land was protected by a conservation easement that had withstood challenge all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The only possible means to take over the public realm and develop it privately would have to be through eminent domain (condemnation). The political will to take such a drastic step might be difficult to come by, especially in the wake of the national backlash to Kelo decision the following year.

2005: The year of reckoning

By 2005, there still wasn't a Cobblestone Landing Plan while the Beale Street Landing design continued to be tucked and tweaked.

But even if the RDC didn't yet understand shift in the winds, 2005 would be the year of their reckoning. By then, Citizens groups had studied the Master Plan and had figured out the environmental and economic flaws in that land bridge and lake idea--problems that the RDC's own consultants should have already been telling them privately about.

Indeed, the much-touted Urban Land Institute report (see page 28 in the downloadable PDF) offered some ominous warnings about the economic risks:

The creation of the Land Bridge will bring with it many challenges. It will:
Redirect investment and growth away from downtown, in an economy that already is experiencing a modest velocity of land/building absorption;
Leave “unfinished business” in the downtown revitalization process;
Be an expensive way to create a new development opportunity;
Fracture the city's connection to the “Mighty Mississippi” and turn the Wolf River into an "urban lake."
Create yet another center of activity that will compete with those already in place and struggling.

One would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers was also doing its job. In its own in-depth study of the land bridge (never released to the public), had the Corps finally told RDC that creating the "urban lake" would probably turn the already-dicey Wolf River into a pollution stew?

(Oh, but who reads consultants' reports anyway?)

After a series of public information meetings, culminating in a well-attended, contentious showdown, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, the RDC had to rethink its strategy, In the fall they decided to remove the land bridge (and lake) from the Master Plan. Presumably it would be permanently, but at least it was "out of sight, out of mind." The City Council ratified that decision in January, 2006.

Now put yourself in the RDC's shoes, after seven years* of operations:

The Master Plan has been virtually gutted by the removal of its centerpiece land bridge (and lake) proposal;
The rest of the Master Plan's design no longer makes complete sense--but you can't just rip it up because you've claimed it as the authority for everything else you do;
The Promenade Plan is on indefinite hold until someone grows the guts to condemn historic public land to give it private developers.
"Development" is your middle name--but all you've built so far is a staircase and a roundabout.

What do you do?

Go for broke

It's my pretty safe guess that your decision is now set in concrete: With your jobs and reputations at stake, Beale Street Landing must rise from an overly-exuberant sideshow to being the center-ring attraction. Whether needed or not, the red steel boat dock becomes your do-or-die, bet-the-company project--Cobblestone Landing be "dammed" (or put under glass), as it were.

To keep this show going on for much longer, you're going to have to very carefully stage-manage the rest of the program. You're going to have to project your own fears upon the Memphis public, with dire scare-talk like this:

These federal funds are specifically earmarked for this project and cannot be reprogrammed. More than half these dollars will be lost by even delaying the project another year.

Additionally, the Beale Street Landing project is very high profile for our legislators. If it does not move forward, the City of Memphis looses (sic) face and will have a much more difficult time attracting funds for other future projects – even those not related to the riverfront. [emphasis added]

[...]

We must build Beale Street Landing. [emphasis in original]

And then a year later, as if your predicament isn't already bad enough: Those overnight riverboat companies start going out of business. You will soon have no customers for this red steel boat dock--unless you move the Memphis Queen Lines off the Cobblestone Landing.

Coming soon: The Big Switch, Part 3: The public is hornswoggled. Again.

* Including 1999, when RDC was organized as a "steering committee."

How stupid are we?

2009-08-06T02:21:00.008-05:00

Question: Why was Memphis put on the map? Why does Memphis even exist?

Some of you might believe that the City's founders were thinking, "Hey, wouldn't this be a great place to start a music revolution? Let's put a city here, and in a hundred years or so some blues and rockabilly singers will surely find us and make their homes here, and then produce some music, and then we'll be a famous city! We'll be the Home of the Blues, Rock & Roll, Soul, or all three. Maybe one of them singers will even be named Elvis."

Good try, but I'm afraid not. That's not the real reason Memphis was born. I'll give you a little hint.

I order electronics parts and gadgets over the Internet. I've finally learned that when I order something, I needn't ask and pay for next-day or two-day delivery, even if I want it in a hurry. I should simply choose ground. Why? Because the part will more than likely arrive in one or two days anyway.

Why is that? Because Memphis is a major hub and distribution center. So major, in fact, that a lot of companies put their inventories in warehouses right here, even if the rest of their operation is in California or India. It saves half the trip. And that means, for Memphians like me, the order will never even get on one of those blue airplanes. It will go straight onto a truck from South Memphis to my house.

But you know, Memphis didn't get to be a major distribution center just because FedEx came to town. It goes back a long way. Not just back to railroads, but all the way to the beginning of the City. The City's founders realized that here was a perfect spot, sitting high on a bluff and relatively safe from flooding, but still right next to the Mighty Mississippi, to be a great transportation hub and gateway to the west. Commercially, that's was a great thing to be. And so Memphis was born.

Where am I going with this? Hang in there.

If Memphis' raison d'être was to become a major distribution center, then what is the oldest and most important symbol of that fact? You guessed it: The Great Memphis Landing, all that is left of which today is the stretch that we now call the Cobblestone Landing.

But here's the coolest part: It's not just a museum relic. 150 years old (the Cobblestone part) and it's still in use to this very day. Riverboats still land and embark from there--carrying more tourists than cotton of course, but does that really matter? Does that make it less cool?

In spite of all its alleged hazards and disrepair, we have probably the best-preserved example of a still-in-service, still-active, still-enjoyed Cobblestone Riverboat Landing in the United States.

But not much longer. Some people think it's just a nuisance. Some people think it's ugly, and about only reason to keep it around is that it's on a historic register someplace, so we have to. Some people think we'd all be better off shutting it down and building a shiny new red boat dock to replace it.

And some people think that if we really have to be stuck with such a nuisance, we'd best put a sidewalk around the perimeter (with appropriate interpretive signage) so people can stand around it and look at those Cobblestones--if they really want to.

And maybe these same people are hoping that after twenty years or so, we'll be so bored with just looking at it, we'll finally move the signs and a few of the Cobbles into an air conditioned museum somewhere--and get rid of the rest of the darn thing altogether.

I say, how stupid is that? How stupid that we Memphians, who owe the very existence of our City to that Cobblestone Landing and what it represents, would ever even consider such a thing. For shame!

If you agree with me, then right now before you forget put August 11th, 5:30 to 7:30, 330 North Main Street, on your calendar. It may be your last chance to speak up and do your part to help stop some of us from doing something utterly, profoundly stupid.

Scare talk: Lawsuits

2009-08-05T14:00:00.005-05:00

The RDC's Web page tells us, "Sadly, the historic cobblestones have fallen into disrepair as they settled and sloughed at the toe."

Sadly, too, I'd have to agree with that. But then they drop the big scare-bomb:

The result is extremely unsafe walking conditions resulting in injuries, lawsuits and even one death from a fall. [my emphasis]

My initial reaction would be: "Okay, guys. Do what you gotta do. It's your job, anyway. Fix the darn things already. It should have been done decades ago."

But I'd still have to wonder: Why are they making such a big deal out of it? Is it really that big a deal?

A lawyer friend took the time to scour the District Court records and round up the filings for all those lawsuits.

All two of them.

On March 30, 1993, a musician named Michael Harbor fell on the cobblestones and fractured his left leg below his knee. It was 10:30 pm. He had just performed on a riverboat docked on the cobblestones. The case was dismissed after the parties announced that the matter had been settled.

On August 15, 1997, 83-year-old Catherine Sullivan took a cab from the Peabody Hotel to the foot of Beale Street where she intended to board the American Queen steamboat. As she walked down the cobblestones to the boat, she slipped and fractured her left ankle. At Baptist Hospital, a plate with screws was attached to her leg. She went through the operation well but suffered a heart attack at 12:25 a.m. on August 16, 1997. She was pronounced dead at 4:20 a.m. that day. The executrix of Sullivan’s estate sued the City of Memphis, the Delta Queen Steamboat Company, and others. On October 29, 2001, the court dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties announced that the matter had been settled.

(The public records do not include any mention of the settlement amounts.)

Updated: A reader of this site wrote me with more information. It appears that the first case was settled for 0 (zero) dollars. The second case was settled for $35,000.

Certainly, any City facility should be safe and well-maintained (and well lit if it's open at night). That's a given. Other cities maintain whole neighborhoods of cobblestoned streets without complaint. Perhaps it's surprising to me to find only two lawsuits in at least 16 years. For comparison, I wonder how many incidents might have occurred in other City locations in that period.

I also wonder this: How many lawsuits might the City be asking for when they open the facility pictured below? It's a question worth asking, but amazingly, it hasn't been asked yet.

Photo: Are trial lawyers eagerly waiting for this to be built?

Cobbles under glass, Part 3: Another look at the ADA question

2009-08-04T17:05:00.016-05:00

Continued from: [Part 1] [Part 2]

Since I posted article Scare talk: ADA, emails have apparently been flying around the town. There seems to be some concern that (and I'll quote from an email):

The writer of memphiscobblestones.com insists that the cobblestones are already ADA compliant since "The sidewalk along Riverside Drive provides an incomparable view of the entire length of the Cobblestone Landing -- and that sidewalk isn't going to be under water much of the time, like the one the RDC proposes."

That isn't quite the point I was intending to make, because I hadn't finished addressing the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] subject. But no matter, I will do so now.

The email flurry might have been triggered or encouraged by RDC officials because, as I said, they love to use scare-talk to achieve their purposes. ADA compliance is one of their favorite scare-topics, especially in this instance, as you may soon realize.

Figure: The sidewalk in question (see arrows above) would be ADA accessible, but would deny all of the use of a historic riverboat landing. Not only that, it would be underwater much of the time.

On the other hand, I'd prefer to take the writer's concerns very much at face value, and so I will. The writer raises a legitimate question. ADA is an extremely important subject, a national priority and not merely a requirement in the law.

It's a subject that always deserves concern, but often requires some careful thought and study, not just knee-jerk reactions as might be provoked with scare-talk. This is exactly one of those cases, and I welcome the opportunity to explore the issue with you.

The writer of the email goes on to say this:

I do not personally feel that the Riverside walkway will provide nearly the experience of the river or the cobblestones that the proposed walkway will [my emphasis]

I absolutely, unequivocally, applaud that sentiment!

I am thrilled that someone wants do more than just to "observe" the Cobblestones (with "appropriate interpretive signage"), as the RDC would have us do. The writer sincerely wants to experience them. It is the perfect word and it's right on point with an issue that needs to be thought about by all of us before it's too late.

It's the main issue. In fact, I started this web site precisely because I realized a bit over a year ago that the RDC's plans would deny all Memphians, not just those with disabilities, an authentic experience of the Cobblestone Landing. I and others warned the City about this problem, but to no avail.

How do people experience the cobblestones today?

They go down there by the busloads at around 2:30 pm, descend a ramp, walk across the cobbles, and board a riverboat via a gangplank -- just as it has been done by people and cargo for over 150 years. Since the founding of the City, in fact. Since well before the City got smart and paved the area with quarried cobbles, starting in 1859.

That was my first real experience of the Cobblestone Landing. (I'll bet it was yours, too.) I've been there many times since, for photography and other reasons, but I'll always remember my first riverboat trip on the Mississippi, embarking from the one best-preserved examples of a Cobblestone Landing in the USA.

But that opportunity to experience the Cobblestone Landing will end in a year, under the proposed plan.

So let me say without hesitation: If the problem to be addressed is to enable Americans, both with and without disabilities, the chance to authentically experience the Cobblestone Landing, just as it has been used and experienced continuously for well over 150 years (to this day, even), I welcome that problem with open arms. I want to solve that problem. Let's talk.

Surely there's a way to provide ADA access to the excursions without closing the Landing to riverboats, as the current plan would do.

Are you hearing my point?

You see, the RDC doesn't want to solve that problem. They want to solve the their own problem -- the problem of "those darn boats"*, and they are using you as an excuse and an unwitting ally. They are proposing to give you and I an alternative experience (cobblestone observer) in a way that denies all of us of the authentic experience of boarding a boat at the Cobblestones and taking a trip up and down the Mississippi. You are slyly being used, therefore, as a justification for decommissioning our great, historic, Cobblestone Landing.

I'm sorry, but I have to be brutally honest: Both you and I are being hornswoggled.

That is what concerns me. I hope you can applaud my sentiment. I hope you won't allow yourselves to be tricked into supporting this plan.

*If you want to learn how the RDC really feels about those darn boats, check out this article from last year's budget hearings (starting at the point when Council Member Boyd takes over the questioning). Listen to the audio I posted there. The RDC doesn't even try to suppress the disdainful sniggering. After that, read and listen to this hearing, which is all about the Cobblestones (with still more sniggering).

Cobbles under glass, Part 2: The "Connection"

2009-08-04T11:33:00.008-05:00

Continued from: [Part 1]

In my previous article, I neglected to make a point about the so-called "connection" that the RDC wants to build.

By the way, as a retired marketing executive, I am well aware that "connection" is one of those fuzzy marketing terms companies like to use when they don't want to (or can't) spell out all the facts. (Look through the RDC's Web site and count how many times the word is used.)

On the RDC's Web page, they call this the "Historic Cobblestone Restoration and Walkway Project." By "walkway," what they really mean is that nonsensical sidewalk along the supposed water's edge that will in reality be under water a third of the time and be looking out over an ugly field of rip-rap another third of the time. They say this feature will "become the critical north-south connection along the River" between Jefferson Davis Park and Beale Street Landing. They claim:

The current walking surface also creates a large barrier to pedestrian movement north and south along the Mississippi Riverfront at Memphis. However, the problems can be solved by restoring the landing, preventing further deterioration, making repairs throughout the cobblestones’ surface, and providing adequate walking surfaces constructed in a manner respectful of historical significance

In yesterday's posting, I pointed out that construction of the sidewalk, the rip-rap, and the possible sheetpile walls and/or terraces are not "in a manner respectful of the historical significance" of a cobblestone boat landing. Worse, it will make it impossible to use it as a riverboat landing any more (the RDC would prefer you to use their new red steel boat dock at Beale Street).

The truth is that the sidewalk destroys their historical significance, turning the Cobblestone Landing into a museum relic: as in, "Cobbles under glass." (But we already know that the RDC doesn't place much stock in history, don't we?)

Furthermore, the reader must surely have figured out by now that if the RDC restored the Cobblestone Landing properly, then there already is a walking surface along the river -- the Cobblestones themselves. After all, other cities proudly let their citizens walk along even older cobblestone-covered streets (and apparently without an inordinate fear of lawsuits).

So, here is the point I neglected to fully make in that article:

"The Connection" already exists, without the Cobblestone Project. There already is an ADA-compliant, smooth walking surface connecting between Beale Street Landing and Jefferson Davis Park, with a glorious view of the Cobblestone Landing: the sidewalk along Riverside Drive.

The ironic part is that the sidewalk was probably built with money the State of Tennessee gave the City in 1997 to (among other things) restore the Cobblestone Landing. The City didn't complete everything they promised the State back then. The RDC needs to finish the job.

Coming up next: Another look at ADA.

Cobbles under glass: A closer look

2009-08-02T21:43:00.029-05:00

As I said in an earlier article, the problem can be viewed in fairly simple terms: The RDC proposes a plan that was designed to meet the wrong objective. Their objective was to decommission the Cobblestone Landing, moving all riverboats to the Beale Street Boat Dock. They would repair and restore the Cobblestones themselves, but merely as a museum relic, to be seen but not used.

The plan is directly contrary to what was stated in the Riverfront Master Plan.

Until the RDC is forced to follow the principles and objectives of their own Master Plan, it is probably an exercise in futility to argue about the details of the current plan. Those design details are wrong simply because the design objective was wrong. Only a hard reset of the design objective (and of course a redesign to the proper objective) can really address the plan's multitude of problems.

Nevertheless, it is worth taking a closer look at some of the major design elements. In so doing, you might better understand how fundamentally flawed the concept actually is. Let's look at some pictures.

Continues...

Above is the proposed design, as published on the RDC Web site. The Cobblestone Landing area is gray. Along its lower edge is Riverside Drive. The upper edge, in blue, is the harbor. At the very left (south) is Beale Street. At the right (north) is Jefferson Davis Park.

Look closely and you will see some yellow strips. Those are the proposed sidewalks. When you include the existing walk along Riverside Drive (not in yellow), you see that sidewalks completely wrap the Cobblestone Landing area -- as if they were acting as a guide rope surrounding and protecting a museum exhibit.

Perhaps you can now understand why I call this concept "cobbles under glass". The sense you would have, as a visitor, is that you should walk along the perimeter of the Cobblestone area and observe...but not touch.

Which, of course, is exactly the objective. They even warn you on their Web site that those Cobbles are deadly. (But we know why they want you to stay away, don't we?)

But it's even worse. As you stand at the border and observe the "cobblestone field" (as they call it), you are being misled. Why? Because no authentic cobblestone landing -- not this one nor any other -- ever had to have special sidewalks built around or through it. The cobblestones themselves (properly maintained, of course) are the intended place to walk.

Those sidewalks make sense only if this is intended as an exhibit of "cobbles." It doesn't make sense if it is supposed to portray an actual cobblestone riverboat landing -- much less an active one.

Of course, as I have already said, that was their real objective. If this was still going to be a riverboat landing, you might expect to find people and boats actually using it -- and the RDC doesn't want that. They want to decommission the Cobblestone Landing and move all traffic to the Beale Street Boat Dock next door, leaving only "cobbles under glass."

But it gets even worse. Take a third look and notice the longer sidewalk I've marked with red arrows. That is where this plan goes from being misguided (at best) to downright silliness.

With a casual glance, it would appear that this sidewalk follows the harbor's edge. "Access to the river," the RDC likes to say. That sounds sensible, right?

Wrong.

Remember that the Mississippi River's level varies up to 30 feet in a typical year, and it varies up to 50 feet at the multi-year extremes. Remember, too, that the Cobblestone Landing was designed to accommodate this basic Mississippi fact of life, which is why it is on a gentle slope. No matter what level the river reaches, up or down, the Landing always has the same physical presentation to the riverboats.

How many days during the year do you suppose the water's level will reach, even approximately, to where that sidewalk is?

I don't know, but let's be generous and say one-third of the time. This means that the sidewalk will actually be under water and unusable another third of the time. And the remaining third? The person standing at the sidewalk will be looking out over...not water, but a field of rip-rap!

Which brings us to a still bigger problem. Look at the cross section above, taken from a more complete version the public hasn't seen. The idea here is that they will restore the "sloughed" lower portion of the landing, not with cobblestones but by filling the area with rip-rap. It's cheap and easy -- if you never intended to use it as a boat landing again. (Would you try to land your canoe or motorboat over a field of rip-rap?)

What rip-rap looks like. Not healthy for boats.

That's their intention: History be damned, Beale Street Boat Dock shall be the new Memphis Landing. (And we know why. Not to mention this.)

Have they considered alternatives? Certainly. How about this one, where they try to transform the Cobblestones from an authentic landing into a concrete-and-sheetpile wharf (so much for being "respectful of historical significance"):

Or this treatment, with "terraces" that look suspiciously like an extension of Beale Street Landing:

Between the rip-rap and that nonsensical sidewalk, it is abundantly clear that RDC has no intention of the Cobblestone area being a safe and secure place for pleasure boats or the excursion riverboats that use it now, much less an authentic Landing as it has been for 150-plus years.

If the proposed plan is implemented, the decommissioning of the great Cobblestone Landing will effectively become permanent. That's why you, the public, need to speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Suggested further readings:

The real champion for history

2009-08-02T14:22:00.003-05:00

It would have to be the late architect Jack Tucker. R.I.P.

With caretakers like these...

2009-08-02T10:39:00.009-05:00

The RDC's Web site would have you believe that they're being sensitive caretakers of our heritage, e.g., by "providing adequate walking surfaces [sidewalks] constructed in a manner respectful of historical significance."

Aside from the obvious fact that the Cobblestones themselves are the historical walking surface, how much does the RDC really know about the history of the Memphis Landing? Not much, it appears.

Continues...The RDC Web page tells us,

Located on Riverside Drive between Beale Street and Jefferson, the landing was created by the commerce of incoming ships using cobblestones as ballast, exchanging them for loads of cotton, lumber and other products.

Oops. The 1996 Garrow Report tells us something quite different:

The City of Memphis recognized that the surface of the Landing should be improved. Center Landing, between Adams and Poplar avenues, was paved before 1859. However, paving the portion of the Landing that remains today was not considered until 1859, when the opening of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad fueled a boom in activity at the Landing to connect river with rail transport. At that time, the City hired paving contractor John Loudon to initiate 'paving the wharf with limestone or granite" between Adams and Union avenues to cover a width of 100 feet and length of 3,300 feet. Amendments to Loudon's contract set the thickness of the paving at 12 inches and extended its length to Beale Street. The stone used in the project was quarried in Illinois; contrary to popular and longstanding myth, it did not originate as ballast stones in sailing ships.

Apparently, RDC officials did not bother to read and understand the Garrow Report, a study the City was forced to have prepared after they were caught carting away two acres of the stones at the foot of Beale Street.

But this should come as no surprise. After all, what they're building at the foot of Beale has no relationship whatsoever to Memphis history. It's about as historically accurate as something you'd find in Disneyland. It's even got the wrong name, and should really be called the Beale Street Boat Dock.

With caretakers like these, God help our history.

RDC's fractured history lesson, preserved in a screenshot. [PDF of full page preserved as of August 2, 2009]

Scare talk: ADA

2009-08-02T07:43:00.016-05:00

The RDC loves to punctuate their marketing with scare talk. Two of their favorite scare-issues are the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and the threat of personal-injury lawsuits. The Cobblestone Landing is no exception, and you can expect them to bring these topics up at the August 11 meeting. I'll deal with those lawsuits in another article. Let's talk about ADA.

Continues...This is from the government's ADA website:

Historically significant facilities are those facilities or properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or properties designated as historic under State or local law. Structural changes to these facilities that would threaten or destroy the historical significance of the property or would fundamentally change the program being offered at the historic facility need not be undertaken. Nevertheless, a city must consider alternatives to structural changes in these instances -- including using audio-visual materials to depict the inaccessible portions of the facility and other innovative solutions. [emphasis added]

To repeat: The ADA does not mandate structural changes that would threaten or destroy the historical significance of the property or fundamentally change the program being offered there.

But what would you call decommissioning the 150-year-old historic riverboat landing and replacing it with a red steel boat dock? What would you call creating a field of rip-rap and an unnecessary sidewalk at the so-called water's edge, making it impossible for boats to land, much less board passengers there?

I'd call it a fundamental change in the program. I'd call them structural changes that threaten and destroy the historic significance of the great Cobblestone Landing.

Already ADA-compliant

The truth of the matter is that the harbor and cobblestone areas are already ADA-compliant (or soon will be) within the meaning of the law:

As the RDC likes to tout, Beale Street Landing will offer not just one but several ADA-accessible paths to the water.

The sidewalk along Riverside Drive provides an incomparable view of the entire length of the Cobblestone Landing -- and that sidewalk isn't going to be under water much of the time, like the one the RDC proposes.

ADA simply isn't an issue. But the RDC wants you to think it's an issue because it would give them an apparent excuse to shut down our historic riverboat facility with unnecessary sidewalks, and then to turn our great Cobblestones into a mere museum relic, placing them metaphorically speaking "under glass" (with interpretive signage, of course).

When the RDC talks about ADA, don't listen to them. It's just scare talk and part of their shtick. (And we know why. Not to mention this.)

Artist's conception of Cobbles Under Glass.

Mark your calendars

2009-08-01T12:41:00.014-05:00

A joint public information meeting will be held by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at 330 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee (38103).

This will very likely be your last opportunity to set the Cobblestone Landing project back on its proper tracks. Be there. Speak up.

I will post some suggested talking points over the next few days. Many will be based on the detailed material you can already find on this site and elsewhere. But here is the main issue, boiled down to its very essence:

The RDC's cobblestone plan (as proposed) has only one high level objective: Repair and preserve the cobblestones as if they were merely a museum relic -- to be seen from afar (with "interpretive signage"), but not to be walked on or used as a landing. To quote them:

The purpose of the Historic Cobblestone Landing Restoration and Walkway Project is to stabilize and restore the Memphis Cobblestone Landing and provide limited usability, connectivity and accessibility improvements.

But that is not what they were supposed to do. That is not what the RDC's own Riverfront Master Plan says. The RDC was supposed to restore the Cobblestone Landing as a riverboat landing, to continue to be the boarding point for all but the largest boats. They were supposed to, as the Master Plan stated:

Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue.

If the RDC is allowed to ignore the Master Plan and if they proceed to decommission the Cobblestone Landing, Memphis will be henceforth be known for a red steel boat dock, along side what looks to be a giant Putt-Putt course. It will be a tragic loss not only to the City, but even at a national level, because ours was best preserved of the great cobblestone riverboat landings, and had been in continuous use for over 150 years.

There are many individual problems with the proposed design. But all of them are problems stemming from one, simple fact: The RDC and its consultants followed the wrong objective. (And we know why. Not to mention this.)

The solution, therefore, is also very simple: The public must force the RDC to go back to the drawing boards and come up with a new plan, designed to carry out the correct objective. We must force them to follow the Master Plan, just as they had promised to do, countless times, before the City Council.

You can help right this wrong by attending the Corps/TDOT public meeting on August 11 and making your voices heard. You can also help by asking your City Council representative whether he or she should allow the RDC to violate the dictates of the Riverfront Master Plan.

Artist's conception of Beale Street Boat Dock and Putt-Putt.

SHPO's comments on Beale Street Landing

2009-08-01T09:44:00.010-05:00

Any project that uses Federal money, and that might have an adverse effect on a historic property, must undergo a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Under the current Sec. 106 regulations, the job of making an assessment of the adverse effect is delegated to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which in Tennessee is the Tennessee Historical Commission under the Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC).

Below is the complete text of the SHPO report on Beale Street Landing (omitting one generic informational flowchart), dated two days before the Consulting Parties Meeting in October, 2007. These reports are generally prepared using a template that outlines the Section 106 regulations, and SHPO's comments are inserted under the appropriate regulation section. I have highlighted SHPO's comments in bold.

22 October 2007

SHPO Comments:

1. Step Four Consultation

36 CFR Part 800.6 conditions:

• continuing consultation to explore project alternatives or modifications to the proposed Beale Street Landing project that would avoid or minimize project effect

• notifying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and determining Council participation

• involving consulting parties to participate in further consultation

• providing all consulting parties with appropriate project documentation

• making project related information available to the public.

II. Review of Criteria of Adverse Effect

A. Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed takes a portion of the Cobblestones Area that is a contributing element within the National Register of Historic Places listed Cotton Row Historic District. This taking, combined with the current design of Beale Street Landing, constitutes an adverse effect.

B. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards For the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state that:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed contains significant elements that dramatically change the historical use of the property from that of a working riverfront to that of a recreational park and promenade. The various design features of this new use, particularly the cluster of very large vertical islands, the prominent stair step terraces, and the imposing helical transit ramp, are not minimal changes but rather are significant and impactful changes to the Cotton Row Historic District's historic materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed does not preserve the historic character of the Cobblestones Area and the riverfront of which it is a part, which is gradually sloping, primarily horizontal, and commercial in nature. Rather, it alters those features by substituting a series of bold stair step terraces combined with a primarily vertical treatment reflected in the design of the four river overlook islands whose use is primarily recreational and the helical transit ramp whose design is out of character with the historic appearance of the area. The design as currently proposed also takes a portion of a contributing element within the Cotton Row Historic District.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. (Not Applicable)

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. (Not Applicable)

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed does not preserve the construction materials, techniques, or craftsmanship of the Cobblestones Area upon which a portion of the project is located. Instead, it substitutes new construction materials and treatments that are out of character with the Cobblestones Area rather than replacing cobblestones that had been removed by an earlier project, thereby restoring the original features of the area.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed does not replace missing cobblestone features nor does it substitute new features that match the old ones in design, color, or texture. Instead, it covers up a portion of the Cotton Row Historic District's Cobblestones Area with new features that do not match the old ones in design, color, or texture.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. (Not Applicable)

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed will only require on¬site archaeological monitoring during any ground disturbance associated with the project. However, if the project changes or expands to include ground-disturbance in areas that have not been previously reviewed, we will need to consult further on those specific changes. In particular, any proposed removal or disturbance of the Cobblestones may affect significant archaeological resources.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed is not compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and massing of the Cobblestones Area. Instead, it proposes new construction materials, and design features that do not reflect the size, scale, proportions, and massing of the Cobblestones Area. The size, scale, proportions, and massing of the proposed design are in fact significantly more massive than the existing historical features associated with the Cobblestones Area.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Not Applicable)

These alterations that are inconsistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties constitute an adverse effect.

C. Removal of the property from its historic location; (Not Applicable)

D. Change in the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance;

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed dramatically changes the character of the historic property's use and the physical features within the historic property's setting that contribute to its historic significance. In the National Register of Historic Places nomination, Cotton Row Historic District is classified as a commercial historic district. Yet Beale Street Landing as currently proposed would change the use of the area from a commercial use to one that is primarily recreational through the creation of terraced promenades and overlook islands. While the riverfront was historically a steamboat landing, its use was primarily for the transshipment of freight from riverboats up the riverbank to warehouses at the top of the embankment. Beale Street Landing does reflect the historic use as a riverboat landing, but the current design reflects a primarily recreational use of boarding and disembarking pleasure boat and cruise ship passengers. In doing so, the design overwhelms any sense of the historic commercial use of the riverfront. This change in the character of the historic property's use constitutes an adverse effect.

E. Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features;

Beale Street Landing as currently proposed introduces strong visual elements that diminish the integrity of the Cobblestones Area of the Cotton Row Historic District. The Cobblestones Area is a gradually sloping shoreline covered in cobblestones that provided a solid and smooth transition from the water's edge to Riverside Drive. The Cobblestones Area is generally horizontal and measured in its incline from the waterline to the embankment. Contrariwise, Beale Street Landing as currently proposed is a cluster of four high, vertical islands connected to each other by a series of stair step terraces that proceed from the embankment down to the waterline. There is nothing gradual, horizontal, or gently sloping in the current design of Beale Street Landing. Installing it as currently proposed would therefore dramatically alter the feeling, character, and association of the Cobblestones Area. The introduction of out of character visual elements within the viewshed of the historic property constitutes an adverse effect.

F. Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; (Not Applicable)

G. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance. (Not Applicable)

III. Exploration of project alternatives or modifications to the proposed Beale Street Landing project that would avoid or minimize project effect .

(The section was left blank.)

Why are some Memphians afraid of our heritage?

2009-07-31T13:24:00.027-05:00

Reading what the RDC recently wrote about the Cobblestone Landing, you'd get the feeling that the Landing is just a big public nuisance:

The result is extremely unsafe walking conditions resulting in injuries, lawsuits and even one death from a fall. The current walking surface also creates a large barrier to pedestrian movement north and south along the Mississippi Riverfront at Memphis.

Other American cities aren't afraid of their historic cobblestones. They're proud of their heritage, and they encourage people to live, walk, play, and drive on the authentic cobblestone streets. Case in point: Fells Point in Baltimore.

Continues...While the 1980s-era Inner Harbor development may be more recognizable to outsiders, the Baltimore locals know that the real waterfront is actually one mile east. It's the historic Fells Point neighborhood, which was a major shipbuilding and commercial center from the 1700s until the Civil War.

Photo of a water taxi map showing both Fells Point (center) and the Inner Harbor (left).

In the early part of the 20th century Fells Point was a landing point for an influx of immigrants from all parts of the world, seeking jobs and a better life in America.

Now Fells Point is home to a diverse population of all income levels, and its picturesque streets are lined with rehabilitated row houses, restaurants, bars, galleries, and shops. No wonder it has also been the filming location of popular TV series and movies.

And most of the streets are still cobblestoned, with hundreds of vehicles driving and parking on them every day.

Entrance to the huge City Recreation Pier on Thames Street at Fells Point. Fans of the TV show Homicide will recognize it as the police station in that series.

Directly opposite the Pier are row houses, shops, and cafes. This is only a sample -- the entire Fells Point area covers dozens of blocks.

While on a trip to DC, I visited Fells Point last week to take a closer look. The cobbles are similar in size, shape, and variety to our own Cobblestone Landing. Our cobbles are often butted up against each other. The Baltimore stones, however, are spaced farther apart (about a thumb's width), and the gaps are variously filled with either sand, dirt, or cement grouting. Here is a closeup:

In some sections, though, whatever had filled those gaps has evidently washed away. (The entire waterfront area, by the way, was severely flooded during Hurricane Isabella.) Here is an example of empty gaps:

Like any other type of city street, cobblestones do require periodic repair and maintenance. At some point I would expect the City of Baltimore to work on this patch.

But the City of Memphis has done nothing about our Cobblestone Landing for decades (except tear up two acres of cobblestones in 1994), even though the City long made promises, and has had the money since at least 1997.

I can understand if former Memphis public works officials and city engineers might have considered the cobblestones a nuisance, treating them as low priority, and avoiding doing anything for them until they completely ran out of excuses. I realize that not everyone enjoys a personal experience of history.

But I also know that that the current RDC officials have another reason to disrespect the Cobblestone Landing: It competes with their fake new Beale Street Landing.

That's the real reason they'd like to move people and boats off the authentic Memphis Landing for good. All the bluster about barriers and lawsuits is just bluster. It's intended to convince you, the Memphis public, to fear and disrespect your heritage, and to not be sorry when you no longer have the ability to enjoy it the way it's been used for over 150 years--as a riverboat landing.

Click here to see more of my photos of Fells Point and the Baltimore Harbor.

Fells Point panoramas

2009-07-30T18:10:00.036-05:00

Here is a series of panoramic photos I shot last week near the center of historic Fells Point, Baltimore. (Click each photo to enlarge)

Thames Street, at the corner of S. Wolfe, facing northwest.

Continues...

Above is a good view of the historic City Recreation Pier, which was used as the set for the police station in the 1990s TV series Homicide: Life of the Street. At one time, it was the landing point for thousands of immigrants. It is now a parking garage, but there has been talk of making it into a hotel.

Looking west on Thames Street, the main drag, with the Recreation Pier's entrance (Homicide set) visible on the left.

These water taxis will whisk you from historic Fells Point over to the modern, more touristy Inner Harbor. In the background (right) of the photo you can see the home of Annie Reed (Meg Ryan) in the movie Sleepless in Seattle.

A closeup of "Annie's house" (the narrow one between the restaurant and the red building). If you want to check for yourself, watch for it immediately following the opening credits.

Looking north across Thames Street toward S. Broadway, with a little bit of Fells Point Square visible at the left.

In the photo above, looking south toward the harbor, you're seeing only half of Fells Point Square. (The other half is behind you.)

Baltimore's Inner Harbor

The next three panorama photos were taken at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, which is about a mile from Fells Point.

The angular modern buildings on the left are Baltimore's Aquarium.

Two of the ships permanently moored at the Inner Harbor. On the right you can see the bow of the USS Constellation, which was actually built at the shipyard in Fells Point. On the left a more modern vessel, the HMAS Ballarat a frigate in the Royal Australian Navy. At the far left, a sightseeing cruiser.

The visitor's center for the USS Constellation (left).

Federal Hill

The next two pictures are of a cobblestoned residential street in historic Federal Hill neighborhood across the harbor.

The Garrow Report

2009-07-13T22:00:00.030-05:00

In the summer of 1994, the City began digging up the Cobblestone Landing at the foot of Beale Street in preparation to move the Tom Lee Monument there. Before they were finally stopped by the Army Corps of Engineers, the City workers had destroyed a large section of the Landing and had unearthed artifacts from the beginnings of the City's history. Not only that, but the City hadn't secured the necessary permits and approvals.

Continues...A positive outcome of this unfortunate affair was that the City was forced to undertake a comprehensive study of the Cobblestone Landing area and produce an approved plan for preserving and enhancing the City's greatest landmark. (The City's memorandum of agreement with the Corps is downloadable here as a PDF [1.98 MB].)

The City hired Garrow & Associates to perform the study and prepare the plan. Their two-volume report is formally titled, Memphis Landing Cultural Resource Assessment and Preservation Plan (December 1995/January 1996). Informally, it is commonly known as the Garrow Report, Part 1 and Part 2.

The team who performed the study and authored the report consisted of:

Guy G. Weaver, team leader and principal investigator
John L. Hopkins, historical consultant
Marsha R. Oates, historical consultant
Gary Patterson, geological consultant

The Garrow Report is perhaps the best single reference resource and starting point for anyone who is interested in learning more about the history and significance of the Memphis Landing.

Furthermore, because Garrow's team was independent, the report's recommendations should carry much more weight than those of consultants chosen by the City (or the RDC) to support the City's objectives. As the report aptly noted in 1996, from the 1930s on, "the City of Memphis saw the Landing as a nuisance rather than an asset." They still see it that way.

Garrow Report downloadable as PDFs

I have scanned the Garrow Report, Part 1: Cultural Resource Assessment and Part 2: Preservation Plan, and made them into PDFs. The entire report is over 20 MB per volume. If you want to download the complete volumes, right-click the links below and click "Save link as..."

Garrow Report, Part 1: Cultural Resource Assessment [20.1 MB]
Garrow Report, Part 2: Preservation Plan [20.3 MB]

To make downloads more manageable, I've divided each volume of the report into seven sections. To download any section, right-click on its link and click "Save link as...".

Garrow Report, Part 1: Cultural Resource Assessment:

1: Front matter and Introduction [1.81 MB]
2: Environmental Setting [2.12 MB]
3: History of the Public Landings at Memphis [6.91 MB]
4: Lithology of the Cobblestone Landing [3.56 MB]
5: Cultural Features of the Memphis Landing [3.38 MB]
6: Summary and Conclusions [2.13 MB]
7: References Cited [0.79 MB]

Garrow Report, Part 2: Preservation Plan:

1: Front matter and Introduction [2.69 MB]
2: Historical Overview [1.44 MB]
3: Summary of Existing Conditions [1.38 MB]
4: Formulation of the Preservation Plan [1.10 MB]
5: Treatments for the Landing [5.98 MB]
6: Conclusions, References, Acknowledgments [1.11 MB]
7: Appendix: Treatments of Proposed Conceptual Projects [7.10 MB]

Urban dig: Getting down to the roots of history

2009-07-13T21:50:00.008-05:00

Here is a November 28, 1995 feature story from the Commercial Appeal about Guy Weaver, the archeologist who led the team that investigated the Cobblestone Landing and wrote the Garrow Report.

Continues...

Urban dig - Getting down to the roots of history
by Christine Arpe Gang

When Guy Weaver tells people he's an archeologist, they sometimes ask him how many dinosaurs he's found.

"We're not into dinosaurs; we're into people," said Weaver, senior archeologist in the Memphis branch of Garrow & Associates, an archeological firm with headquarters in Atlanta.

As an urban archeologist, Weaver is usually one step ahead of a bulldozer, surveying sites slated for construction involving federal funds or the transfer of state property.

The area he is currently excavating is at North Main and Auction and will be the site of MATA's North End Terminal, a transfer point for buses and trolleys and a parking facility for autos. A building will house MATA's information center and be available for lease to private businesses.

Any project in which federal funds are used must have an archeological survey done before construction begins. The survey involves analyzing artifacts from several test trenches to determined if the site is archeologically "significant." If it is, a full-scale dig may be ordered.

In recent days, Weaver has been standing in ditches as deep as he is tall, looking at layers of soil, determining their color and texture and calling out code numbers to an assistant who records them.

It's tedious work, not to mention damp and cold in the winter and hot and humid in the summer, but it's what Weaver thrives on.

"I can see 150 years of history compressed into 1/2 foot of soil," he said.

The terminal location was once the site of two train depots: one for the Memphis & Ohio line dating to 1855 and the other for the Louisville & Nashville line dating to 1888.

Weaver already knows where the stations were because there are maps detailing exactly their locations.

So why, one wonders, is it necessary to go to the work and expense of digging trenches and sifting through soil to search for clues to the past when it has already been recorded in books and documents?

"Historical documents don't tell the whole story because they can be incomplete and written from the viewpoint of social elites," Weaver said. "It's a 'great men, great events' type of approach.

"There was a whole segment of the population who couldn't write and were not written about. We're looking for evidence of what happened to ordinary people," he said.

"As we like to say, the dirt don't lie."

A little over a week ago, state archeologist Nick Fielder visited the MATA site to determine whether the building foundations, well filled with shoes, bottles and vegetable remains, as well as tags from luggage or mailbags are significant enough to warrant a full-scale dig.

"Under the foundation for the L & N station is one for the M & O," Fielder said. "We know very little about the M & O, so I decided they should open up the area a little more. We're looking for architectural and engineering-type information about the building."

After Weaver further explores the old foundation, Fielder will come back again to see what he has unearthed.

"We're not just looking for neat bottles and pottery," Fielder said. "We're looking for additional information that can't be gleaned from further research."

Weaver's report will help designers of the MATA project minimize the impact of construction on the artifacts underneath the site.

"Our first choice is to preserve the artifacts," Weaver said. "We'll record their location and maybe 200 to 300 years from now, some other archeologists might have cause to investigate."

If it's clear construction will destroy the artifacts, Weaver said his firm will try to recover whatever it can before construction begins.

"Some people think we are anti-development, but we're not," Weaver said. "We're against uninformed development."

Tom Fox, director of service development for MATA, said this is the first MATA construction project that required an archeological survey. It will cost $45,000. The entire project, including land acquisition, will cost $5.4 million. Construction is slated to start next March.

Archeology, Weaver says, is like detective work.

"We're not ivory tower scholars," Weaver said. "We're striving to retrive information that can be useful and to manage cultural resources."

During the building of the new AutoZone headquarters downtown, for example, construction crews ran into several wells that were the receptacles of trash from early inhabitants of the site.

Weaver and his staff found a 130-year-old pair of shoes, thousands of fragments of bottles and dishes, remnants of clothing and bones and vegetable matter that tell about the diets of the people who lived there.

Weaver's wife, Louella Whitson Weaver, is also an archeologist and conservator of artifacts for Garrow & Associates. Items from the AutoZone project were pieced together and photographed for the final report. They are the property of AutoZone.

It took 1 1/2 years to complete the AutoZone work - from excavation, artifact retrieval and conservation to preparing the written report.

"Some of the objects (from the AutoZone site) are museum quality," Weaver said. "Objects have a special quality to capture the past."

Weaver, 42, describes himself as an "Army brat" who lived in Europe and numerous cities in the United States before setting down his roots in Memphis. A graduate of Memphis State University, he said coming to Memphis was a logical choice because it was always "home" to his transient family. His father is from West Tennessee and his mother from North Mississippi.

While growing up in various places around the world, he was fascinated with the differences and similarities between people. He wanted to study primitive people in New Guinea or South America but said he was too late. The tribes have been studied or have disappeared. So he turned to the next best thing - archeology - a science that emcompasses anthropology, social sciences, geology and logic.

"You need to be curious and patient because it can be slow going," he said. "You need to be detail-oriented but in control of the big picture. And you need a perspective of time and understanding of events, trends and patterns that transcend your own generation."

He is working for the City of Memphis to assess the archeology, geology, history and design of the riverfront cobblestones, which he calls "the last great cobblestone landing in the country." And he is always on the lookout for evidence of Fort San Fernando, a Spanish fort dating to 1795 he believes to be about a block south of the MATA project.

Despite the fact that there are other archeologists working in Memphis, Weaver said there are "not enough archeologists to keep up with destruction in the Mid-South. So many Indian sites have been plowed away for shopping centers or dug out for ditches. Burial grounds are nonrenewable resources..."

Turn-of-century trash gives lowdown on life then, now

2009-07-13T21:40:00.007-05:00

This story of how City engineers clumsily started digging and stirred up a hornet's nest of trouble is reported in this October 8, 1994 story in the Commercial Appeal.

Continues...

Turn-of-century trash gives lowdown on life then, now
by Tom Charlier

By all indications, they lived high and ate well. Even their garbage was first-class.

Thanks to a troubled city park project, the soft mud of the Memphis riverfront these days is yielding what appears to be evidence of the city's blue-blood past. The finds so far include fragments of long-stemmed wine glasses, fine china, ornate serving bowls and the bones of butchered animals, all apparently from an exclusive home or restaurant.

"It's an historic site," said Jim McNeil, staff archeologist for the Corps of Engineers' Memphis district. "It gives a look into Memphis in the early 1900s."

The items were found in the bottom of a pit excavated at the mouth of the Downtown Harbor as part of the Tom Lee Park renovation project. They probably are relics of a trash heap on the riverbank dating back to the turn of the century, McNeil said.

But while the discovery has excited archeologists and historians, it is proving to be a major headache for city officials. It means more delays and red tape for a project involving the relocation of the Tom Lee statue and the construction of a plaza.

Last month, the corps ordered a halt to the excavation not long after it had begun because the city hadn't obtained the permit required by environmental laws. Because the work can only be done during the brief period when the Mississippi River is at its lowest, city officials tried to pursue an "emergency" permit allowing the project to resume quickly.

The discovery of the artifacts helped quash that idea.

"We've talked about it with the city, and because of these issues and because of other concerns about issuing an emergency permit after the fact, we felt like it wouldn't be appropriate," said Larry Watson, chief of regulatory functions for the corps.

Without the emergency permit, the city will have to wait at least a month for authorization for the work. The project calls for the placement of 23,350 cubic yards of sand, filter rock and stone riprap in the excavated area to form the foundation for the statue and plaza.

In addition to the permit requirements set by the corps, the Tennessee Historical Commission wants the city to conduct further archeological testing to more fully assess the site.

In a letter to the corps this week, the commission also said Memphis should be required to prepare a plan to "mitigate," or offset, damages to the historic cobblestone area caused by the project.

The cobblestones are part of the South Bluffs Warehouse Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. According to the commission, the newly found archeological site also might be eligible for the register.

City engineer James Collins said officials haven't given up their efforts to complete the project during the current low-water season.

"We're still trying to get everything done and hope the water stays down, but frankly it doesn't look very good," he said.

If the river rises much more before the city gets approval to proceed with the work, the project will have to wait until stages return to near zero on the Memphis gauge. That probably wouldn't be until at least next summer.

McNeil said the excavation appears to have uncovered a refuse heap. He's found parts of plates, glasses, bottles, medicine containers, sawed animal bones, a dinner knife handle, part of a urinal, an oyster shell, a planter and other items. A layer of ash, probably from a stove or furnace, is intermingled with the items.

McNeil dates the material to the late 1800s or early 1900s primarily because the bottles that have been found predate the screw-on caps that arrived in about the 1920s.

Most of the items remain unguarded in the excavated pit. However, McNeil pointed out that federal laws prescribe stiff penalties against anyone caught illegally disturbing historic and archeological sites.

McNeil said the site could provide valuable insights into the history of Memphis, including its commerce, food supply and medical services.

"That's why dumps are important," he said.

Next: Lode of past beckons under cobblestones

Lode of past beckons under cobblestones

2009-07-13T21:30:00.003-05:00

When the City brought in professional archeologists to assess the situation, they learned that it wasn't just a matter of a previous generation's trash. This November 14, 1994 article in the Commercial Appeal advances the story of the Tom Lee Monument that wasn't to be.

Continues...

Lode of past beckons under cobblestones
by Tom Charlier

Article Text:

Racing against time, looters and a rising Mississippi River, archeologists mined just enough of a rich vein of Memphis history last month to get an idea of the treasures that might lie uncovered.

A new report says an archeological dig beneath the cobblestones at Beale Street Landing turned up everything from an 1890 Indian head penny to 100-year-old tableware and tobacco pipes. Unremarkable by themselves, the artifacts together help illuminate a "complex mosaic" of local history, says the report by Garrow & Associates Inc. of Memphis.

The Garrow firm completed a survey at the riverfront as part of a nearly $14,000 contract with the city, which plans to relocate the Tom Lee monument to the top of the site. The work was done to see if the area was of ample cultural and archeological significance warranting protection during construction of the project.

The answer came back a resounding yes.

"The potential is there for some very significant finds," said Guy Weaver, senior archeologist for the Garrow firm. He added that only the upper few feet of the site were explored during the one week of field work.

The report, describing the dig site as a significant resource, recommends that it be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Further archeological work, it says, could shed light on more of 19th Century Memphis.

As a result, representatives of the firm, the city, the Corps of Engineers and perhaps the state will meet as early as today to discuss a possible agreement on steps that must be taken to minimize impacts during the monument relocation. The work is part of the expansion and overhaul of Tom Lee Park now under way.

"We'll have to work up an agreement between the city and state and us as to what is to be done when and if they (the city) get to do the work," said Jim McNeil, staff archeologist for the corps' Memphis district.

Weaver said he would like to see the city either avoid the Beale Landing site or redesign the project to minimize impacts. "If that isn't possible, then we'll probably push to go to some kind of major excavation" to obtain more artifacts, he said.

No one knows how much the archeological preservation work will add to the cost of the park project. City engineer James Collins said he hopes the city will be allowed to complete the monument work with a minimum of disruption.

"But if they tell us to find something else to do, we'll find something else to do," he said.

City officials want to move the obelisk because, "where it is now, you don't hardly notice it driving down Riverside (Drive)," Collins said.

But complications in the project arose this fall when a city contractor began excavating the riverbank so a foundation for the new monument site could be laid. Since Memphis had not received the federal Clean Water Act permit needed for the work, the corps shut the project down.

After old bottles and other artifacts were found in the hole, the city, as part of the permit process, commissioned the survey.

Archeologists and historians already were aware of the significance of the cobblestones. Fourteen years ago, low water on the river exposed high concentrations of glass, ceramics and other material.

Citing "available information," the report says the landing at Beale had been used by riverboats before 1840 and received heavy passenger traffic just after the Civil War. It was later the site of Vicksburg and St. Louis Anchor Line's huge freight elevator, which burned in 1878.

The landing served as a place to dump the city's refuse in the massive cleanup following the Yellow Fever epidemics of the 1870s, the report says. After that, in the early 1880s, the cobblestones were laid at the Beale site, it says.

The survey found ample evidence pointing to the presence of a dump beneath the cobblestones. In digging into the site, archeologists found a "rich 19th Century midden," or layer of debris, according to the report.

The various trenches dug during the survey yielded glass bottles made from molds, bottle closures that predated bottlecaps, porcelain doll fragments and toy dishes, buttons, ceramic tableware with backmarks identifying their makers, tobacco pipes, nails, oyster shells and other material.

Perhaps most interesting was the discovery of dozens of straight pins, Weaver said. He speculates that they might have held down cloth used during the laying of the cobblestones.

But the findings attracted the attention of local bottle-collectors, who "undermined" the site, the report says.

Weaver said archeologists arriving at the work trenches in the mornings would see signs that looters had been there overnight. "They haven't done a whole lot of damage, but they shouldn't be there," he said.

The area is now fenced, and officials point out that federal law prescribes tough penalties for illegally disturbing archeological sites.

When it comes to unearthing valuable information at the Beale site, the best may be yet to come, Weaver says. He thinks deposits beneath it could be stratified chronologically, meaning the deeper you dig, the further back in time you go. Shipwrecks, even relics from prehistoric Indians might lie 10 feet down, he said.

Weaver says further archeological work should involve "controlled excavations" at certain intervals extending all the way to the bottom of the debris.

Tennessee historical officials have concurred with the Garrow firm that the site is eligible for listing on the register, which automatically brings protection under the National Historic Preservation Act.

"This is a site that will tell us a fair number of things about what people were doing at that period of time," said Joe Garrison, review and compliance coordinator with the Tennessee Historical Commission. "It sort of reinforces some of the things we already knew, and it may call into question some of the things we thought we knew."

Garrow: Historical Summary of the Memphis Landings (Timeline)

2009-07-13T14:00:00.012-05:00

Reproduced below is a convenient historical timeline of the development of the Memphis Landings. It appears as a table in chapter 6 of the Garrow Report, Part 1.

Continues...

The following material is reproduced from The Memphis Landing Part 1: Cultural Resource Assessment, Garrow & Associates, January 1996, by Guy G. Weaver, John L. Hopkins, Marsha R. Oates, and Gary Patterson. The text below is identical, with only minor formatting changes. (To download scanned PDFs of the original document, go to this page.)

Table 3: Historical Summary of the Memphis Landings

1819	Public Promenade is established from the mouth of Bayou Gayoso to Beale Street. The Public Landing extends from Auction Street to Winchester Street.
1830s	A sandbar accretes across the west and southwest frontages of the Public Landing. A wooden walkway and wharf are built across the bar in 1837 at the end of Winchester Street.
1838	Captain William W. Hart, wharfmaster, moves the wharfbcat south to the vicinity of Union Street.
1844	The City formalizes the development of the Batture. Center Landing is established between the extensions of Poplar and Washington streets. A "public levee" extends along the frontage of the river on both sides of Center Landing. At least portions of Center Landing are paved before 1859.
1859	In March, the City "introduces a plan for paving the wharf with limestone or granite, of not less than four nor more than eight inches in surface, to be laid on gravel not less than five nor more than eight inches in depth; the width of the pavement to be 100 feet, the length 3300." Amendments establish a uniform grade and set the depth of the paving at 12 inches. The completed revetment is to stretch from the north end of Jefferson Street to the south line of Union Street at Howard's Row. In September, the first stones of the pavement at the city wharf are put down by the contractor, John Lowdon.
1860	Audit shows Lowdon has paved 12,428.88 square yards between Adams and Jefferson (Union?) streets and 7,129.39 square yards between Union and Beale streets. Also mentioned is the requirement for Loudon to "grade from the wharf" some 40,000 cubic yards of earth. Lowdon is already obliged to repair "that portion of the nine inch pavement between Union and Beale Streets which has given way and sunk." The settling of the grade is attributed to the lack of "sewers or drains underneath said pavement necessary to conduct all water beneath it to the river."
1861	Mayor and board receive proposals "for the sinking of a barge or other river craft with sufficient stone or other material to hold it in place at the landing below Poplar Street where the bank is now being washed away."
1862	In June, Federal forces arrive in Memphis.
1865-1886	Changes in the currents of the Mississippi slowly begin to erode the Batture. By 1886, the paved frontage flanking the open square of the landing slips into the river.
1866	The City awards a contract to John Loudon for new paving from Jefferson to Monroe streets, "to be one hundred feet in width, composed of square blocks of stone."
1868	Loudon calls attention to caving conditions of public landing northward from Jefferson Street; a strip 700 x 100 already had disappeared, carrying away $20,000 worth of paving. Caving could be stopped by sinking two or three old barges loaded with gravel opposite the head of "Old Hen." Resolution extends the contract of M. & J. Lowden to include unpaved portion of city wharf from Court to Union; the work is to be done within 60 days.
1869	City Engineer instructs J. & M. Loudon to pave Landing at the foot of Union Street.
1871-1872	The Vicksburg & St. Louis Anchor Line's massive freight elevator is constructed at the foot of Beale Street.
1878	Freight elevator is destroyed by fire.
1879	Ordinance requires "parties laying sewers to the River to use Iron pipe under the Landing." City Engineer recommends completing the levee south of Union Street. Contract is awarded to M. Larkin & Co. Material for the paving project is provided under a separate contract with James A. Loudon. In March, T. C. Betts is awarded the contract to construct a "dump or dredge boat" at the elevator site.
1880	In June, Grider begins paving, breaking ground at the lower end of the old elevator and working up to Beale Street." In July, newspapers report a renewed contract for Larkin & Company to finish "paving of the wharf & Landing from the north edge of the elevator to the south edge of Beale Street, a distance of about 400 feet by 200." Also in July, the City Engineer designs new specifications and advertises for bids to pave the area of the wharf from the elevator to Beale Street. A contract calling for "paving the wharf from N side of old elevator to S. side of Beale Street [with] the district reserving the right to do any or all of the grading" was awarded to O. H. P. Piper. The fire and police commissioners are authorized to insure more rapid progress by W. H. Grider & Co. to complete work. In August, a diver cuts away the burned pilings at the bottom of the river at the old St. Louis Packet Company elevator at the foot of Beale Street.
1881	In October, the contract with Grider & Co., "having done the paving and not the rip rap & repairing" because of the "stage of water and other reasons," is canceled. In December, a status report indicates the progress over the "past three years in grading and extending the wharf and landing southward from Union street and to the south side of Beale. About thirty thousand square yards of new pavement has been laid, making the new levee front some eleven hundred feet, by two hundred and fifty feet with the slope. Two-thirds of this work is of first-class block stone and the remainder first-class rubble-range work. About four thousand cubic yards of stone rip rap has been placed at this levee as a protection against washing and undermining of same." The city's paved landing surface extends in an unbroken line from Beale Street north to Jefferson Street, a distance of more than one-half mile, averaging 225 feet in width.
1881-1882	The uppermost (eastern) edge of the Landing pavement is altered during the construction of the Mississippi & Tennessee Railroad. These efforts also require the removal of "all of the bluffs out of their line between Beale and Jefferson (save that between Union and Monroe), amounting to over fifty thousand cubic yards."
ca. 1912	The massive Memphis Siphon storm sewer is constructed beneath the Landing between Union and Gayoso avenues.
1932-1937	Riverside Drive is constructed.

Garrow: Historical Overview of the Memphis Landing

2009-07-13T13:00:00.009-05:00

Here is a brief overview of the history and significance of the Cobblestone Landing (a.k.a. the Memphis Landing), taken from Part 2 of the Garrow Report (December 1995). See also the historical timeline.

Continues...

The following material is reproduced from The Memphis Landing Part 1: Cultural Resource Assessment, Garrow & Associates, January 1996, by Guy G. Weaver, John L. Hopkins, Marsha R. Oates, and Gary Patterson. The text below is identical, with only minor formatting changes. (To download scanned PDFs of the original document, go to this page.)

The following overview of the history of the Memphis Landing is drawn from a much more extensive summary in the first volume of this report (Weaver et al. 1995). The reader should consult that report for further information and bibliographic citations.

The present Memphis Landing is the surviving portion of a series of four river landings developed along Memphis' frontages with the Mississippi and Wolf rivers between 1819 and ca. 1881. Today's Landing includes portions of the South Memphis Landing, developed between Union Avenue and Beale Street beginning in 1838, and the southern portion of the great Memphis Landing, first developed in the 18405 between Jefferson and Union avenues.

Before 1859, the appearance of the great Memphis Landing and the South Memphis Landing were quite different from the existing vast but well-defined stone pavement. Printed images from the 1840s and 1850s show the Landing as an expanse of rough, exposed, eroded bluff terraces, divided by east-west road cuts through the terraces to reach a narrow strip of land at the water's edge. The river's edge, a much smoother plane of clay and silt, was subject to erosion by the currents of the Mississippi River and proved to be an unreliable place for river traffic to land. Falling water levels often revealed impassable sheer drops in the slope of the embankment, caused by erosion of the bank by river currents during high water levels. The vertical movement of the Mississippi River is astonishing, sometimes exceeding 50 feet between periods of high and low water and 30 feet between average annual high and low water. During periods of low water, river passengers and laborers were forced to traverse two hundred to three hundred feet of the unstable bank before reaching compacted ground. Newspaper descriptions from this period suggest that crossing this embankment of mud was usually difficult, and virtually impossible during rainy periods.

The City of Memphis recognized that the surface of the Landing should be improved. Center Landing, between Adams and Poplar avenues, was paved before 1859. However, paving the portion of the Landing that remains today was not considered until 1859, when the opening of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad fueled a boom in activity at the Landing to connect river with rail transport. At that time, the City hired paving contractor John Loudon to initiate 'paving the wharf with limestone or granite" between Adams and Union avenues to cover a width of 100 feet and length of 3,300 feet. Amendments to Loudon's contract set the thickness of the paving at 12 inches and extended its length to Beale Street. The stone used in the project was quarried in Illinois; contrary to popular and longstanding myth, it did not originate as ballast stones in sailing ships.

Loudon began the work in 1859; by August 1860 the City Engineer reported that Loudon had completed 19,558.27 square yards of paved surface. The project was halted soon after the outbreak of the Civil War. Loudon resumed the project in July 1866. Subsequent contracts with Loudon's sons and other contractors brought the Landing to completion in 1881. Analysis of the remaining pavement fabric on the Landing strongly suggests that at least portions of each of these paving projects remains in place today.

By the early 1880s, the original Memphis Landing at the mouth of Bayou Gayoso near Auction Avenue had been rendered obsolete by accretions of the river bank to the west. Center Landing was in the process of eroding away and was landlocked by the late 1880s. The focal point of commerce on the Memphis waterfront permanently shifted to the great Memphis Landing and the South Memphis Landing, then recognized as a single place.

The paving of the Memphis Landing between 1859 and 1881 was arguably the largest and most complex public works project undertaken by the City of Memphis in the nineteenth century, perhaps rivaled only by the construction of George Waring's revolutionary sanitary sewer system, which began in 1879. The completion of the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad line across the brow of the Landing in 1882 established a direct connection between the river and rail terminal.

For the next fifty years, the Landing bustled with activity. The growth of the nation's railroads slowly diminished the importance of the Landing for passenger traffic, especially after the completion of the Frisco Railroad Bridge in 1892. Still, the river remained a necessary connection between the rich cotton plantations of the Mississippi and Arkansas deltas and the industrialized North. The poor quality of the road systems in the Mid-South region guaranteed that the river would remain an important transportation route for agricultural crops well into the twentieth century. Local steamship lines like the Lee Line and national carriers like the Anchor Line originated service from the Memphis Landing and continued to make Memphis a port of call on their routes, with daily trips until the 1930s. Individual steamships such as the Lee Line's Kate Adams attained such status in the city's collective consciousness that their names are still familiar to most Memphians.

It is difficult to pinpoint when the Memphis Landing began to slip in commercial importance and prestige. Some argue that the completion of the Frisco Bridge started the decline of the Landing's commercial role; others point to the region's escalating agricultural depression that began in the 1910s. An important factor was the isolation of the Landing from the main channel of the Mississippi River by the growth of Mud Island beginning in the 1910s. In all likelihood, a combination of these and other factors changed the role of the Landing in city life.

Harland Bartholomew proposed altering the Landing for a new purpose in the city's first comprehensive city plan, completed in 1924. Since then, urban planners, architects, and city leaders have occasionally proposed a solution to the question, "What shall we do with the Memphis Landing?" To date, the complex terrain of the river bluffs and the Landing itself have combined with the formidable and fickle Mississippi River to render many proposals impractical or impossible. Riverside Drive was constructed across the brow of the Landing in the 1930s; apart from that road project, the other proposals, including the massive parking lots proposed by Bartholomew, the 17-lane interstate highway, the heliport, and the megalithic apartment building included in other plans have all been considered briefly but discarded.

One probable reason for the survival of the Memphis Landing into the 1990s is its special place in the collective memory of Memphians. At its peak, the Memphis Landing played a role as important to the commercial and civic life of the city as the FedEx "Hub" and Memphis International Airport are in our own times. Perhaps its preservation has been accomplished in recognition of its valued service to the Memphis community, not just for its place in the City's economic development over a century and a quarter, but also in memory of the thousands of unknown people who built it and moved the commerce of the city across its surface.

For a much larger group, those who might be in Memphis for only a few days or even a few hours, the Memphis Landing provides a rare opportunity to approach the edge of the waters of the Mississippi, to touch the water if they wish to. Though this may seem insignificant to Memphis residents, the powerful place held by the Mississippi River in our national heritage, our literature, and our music is a magnet for visitors who feel attracted to this mighty waterway. Along its entire route, there are few places where the topography allows one actually to reach the river easily. Keeping the Memphis Landing as one of a very few urban places to experience the Mississippi River may be enough to justify its preservation.

Level of Historical Significance

The Memphis Landing was recognized as a significant historic resource by its inclusion in the boundaries of the Cotton Row Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in August 1979. Although this form of recognition is adequate to afford it protection under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the listing does not provide a comparative context to evaluate the Landing on a larger scale.

In conjunction with this study, an effort was made to contact each of the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) in the 13 states that border the Mississippi and Ohio rivers to gather comparative information concerning the survival of historic landings in their states. Based on this informal survey, the Memphis Landing is likely the best preserved of all of the nineteenth century landings in the Mississippi River drainage basin. Unlike landings in other major cities (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St. Louis, New Orleans), the Memphis Landing remains largely intact in its historic dimensions and physical composition. Moreover, the construction of flood control measures, interstate highways, and other obstructions has not severed its contact with the city it served. On a national level, then, the Memphis Landing may best represent the significant national themes of river commerce in the nineteenth century, in addition to its significant role in westward migration. There are no resources listed as National Historic Landmarks that represent these themes. It is recommended that nomination of the Landing as a National Historic Landmark be pursued.

Facebook page for Memphis Cobblestones

2009-06-27T23:11:00.000-05:00

I've established new Facebook page as a companion to this site. If you are on Facebook, please become a fan.

BSL Phase II/III update

2009-06-24T15:22:00.000-05:00

The winning bid of $9.6 million for the Beale Street Landing steelwork was submitted by a local company, LCI Inc. The contract will be awareded in July or August. Work on Phase II should resume shortly as the Mississippi waters recede.

Beale Street Landing to be named after Willie Herenton?

2009-06-23T13:14:00.000-05:00

It was December 10, 2007. Benny Lendermon was giving the RDC's Executive Committee an update on the status of Beale Street Landing (BSL). Attendees included Chairman Greg Duckett, Pete Aviotti, John Pontius, Rick Masson, John Stokes, Angus McEachran, and Terry Lynch.

"A lot has happened since our last EC meeting," he told the assembled movers and shakers.

Continues... There had been meetings with Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). Lendermon and others had followed up by meeting with the Shelby County Historical Commission, the Memphis Landmarks Commission, and Memphis Heritage.

Based on the feedback, the RDC had agreed to three key alterations to BSL's design:

The steelwork (helical ramp and docking barges) would be a toned-down rust red instead of bright red.
There would be more historical interpretation (signs).
The largest "Pod A" at the foot of Beale Street would be moved 42 feet closer to Riverside Drive.

As to the southern-most portion of the Cobblestone Landing—an area that Lendermon termed an "unkempt wasteland"—he said there was agreement that BSL should cover over it.

The next steps: Wait for the letter approval from TDOT/SHPO, and obtain the pro forma approval of Landmarks. Benny predicted that they could ask for bids on Phase I of the project shortly after the the first of the new year.

John Stokes chimed in, pointing out that there had been the "rare direct involvement" of the Mayor and Pete Aviotti in lobbying Governor Bredeson. "Lots of behind-the-scenes activity," he said. "Senator Kyle pitched in and got involved, too."

Pete Aviotti, the Mayor's personal assistant and an ex officio member of the RDC Board, was present at this EC meeting. He now spoke up.

"I don't know, this may be a little early. If so, then take it as just a suggestion," he said to the group. "I think we should rename it the Willie Herenton Beale Street Landing."

Apparently it was indeed a little early, because Chairman mumbled a few nice words and then he punted on Aviotti's idea.

The Big Switch: How the riverfront strategy quietly changed

2009-06-18T17:45:00.001-05:00

The City Council authorizing resolution for Beale Street Landing and every annual budget proposal the RDC has placed before the City Council has included some variation of the the following language:

This project provides funding for the first major project in the implementation of the Riverfront Master Plan approved by the City Council in May of 2002. [1][Emphasis added]

What few people in and out of government yet realize is this: The project plan for Beale Street Landing (not to mention the draft plan for the historic Cobblestone Landing), actually deviates from the 2002 Master Plan in strategic ways.

Continues... The Master Plan's vision would have restored the Cobblestone Landing to what it has been for more than 150 years — an active, vibrant commercial boat landing and great civic space — with Beale Street Landing serving as an adjunct. The changed strategy makes BSL the center of all riverboat activity, and only plans to repair and preserve the Cobblestones as a museum relic. Current designs for the historic area would make it difficult if not impossible to ever again use it as a boat landing.

This change in strategy was never explicitly authorized by City Council, for the simple reason that the fact of the change was never pointed out to them. Council members were presented with a plan (footnoted as above), and they simply assumed that it followed the vision of the Riverfront Master Plan.

The Bait

In May, 2002, the City Council unanimously approved the Memphis Riverfront Master Plan. The seventh of Master Plan's ten design principles set this goal:

Restore the Cobblestones to their historic uniqueness, and establish them as a great commercial boat landing and civic square at the foot of Union Avenue.[2][Emphasis added]

Lest there be any doubt about its meaning, the Master Plan went on to say:

A full restoration and retro-fit of the Cobblestones into a contemporary state-of-the-art riverboat landing with dining and retail opportunities is essential to the success of the Harbor. This Harbor is the place where river life will come to rest in Memphis.[3]

The Master Plan said that a new boat dock would need to be built at south end, the foot of Beale Street, "to accommodate the largest commercial riverboats, and facilities for passengers with baggage and local transportation needs".

If you looked at the Master Plan's drawings, you could easily understand why a Beale Street Landing was deemed necessary in 2002: The land bridge component would have bulldozed the existing Mud Island landing used by the largest riverboats.

Nevertheless, the Master Plan assured us that the "[Cobblestone Landing at the] main body of the Harbor accommodates local, commercial, recreational, and private boat needs."[4] Beale Street Landing was necessary, but it was not intended to be a replacement for the historic Cobblestone Landing, which should be restored to its former glory and then some.

The land bridge has since long since been taken out of the Master Plan, and the Mud Island Landing is still in operable condition, though empty. Why is it empty? Because the large commercial riverboat operators have since gone out of the business.

Some might justifiably argue that Beale Street Landing is no longer necessary.

Drawing from the Master Plan, featuring the Cobblestone Landing. A pedestrian bridge is centrally located at Union avenue. Beale Street Landing (as then envisioned) on the lower right. The land bridge (upper left) fills in the upper harbor, and Mud Island River Park is mostly replaced (except for the river walk).

The Switch

The RDC released the Preliminary Design Competition Program for Beale Street Landing (BSL), a document that would tell the competitors what they needed to accomplish with their submitted designs, in January, 2003. This was only eight months after the City Council had approved the Master Plan, yet it could already be seen that RDC officials had veered sharply from the Master Plan in their thinking.

The stated goals for Beale Street Landing were the same as Master Plan's for the Cobblestone Landing, but it would be located at Beale Street instead of at Union Avenue. They were, to quote:

To create a unique public space and destination at the end of Beale Street linking the grid of the city to the riverfront and Tom Lee Park, Memphis' major event and festival venue.

To function as a world-class docking facility capable of accommodating large river cruise vessels, excursion boats, and pleasure craft.[5][Emphasis added].

In the Master Plan's vision, BSL would only be servicing the largest commercial riverboats, yet this document enumerated four types of boats that would need to be accommodated. They ranged from the largest, 700-foot river vessels (e.g. the now dry-docked Delta Queen), down to "pleasure craft" of under 50 feet.[6]

Between those extremes, BSL was also to be "a point of arrival and departure for local excursion boats such as those in the Memphis Queen Lines fleet" — which have long docked at the Cobblestones.

Borrowing from Cobblestone Landing ideas and language of the Master Plan, Beale Street Land was to be:

a civic plaza, forming an appropriate terminus for Beale Street, connecting Tom Lee Park and the Cobblestone Landing, creating a dramatic overlook for riverfront activities for walkers, joggers, cyclists, and casual river watchers; and to accommodate public gatherings and performances.[7][Emphasis added]

The land area made available to the project had more than doubled from what the Master Plan's drawings showed, and the winning design used every inch. It now included a portion of the Cobblestones area, as well as a significant piece of Tom Lee Park. The budget for the project had grown from $10.4 million to "$15-20 million." (The latest report from the RDC puts it at just over $30 million.)

If Beale Street Landing was to be all of the above-stated things, then what would become of the historic Cobblestone Landing? The Competition Program said this:

The [BSL] project site is adjacent to an expanse of cobblestones that was formed and used during the heyday of the cotton industry in Memphis. That cobblestone area is on the National Historic Register and the RDC has plans to commission a rehabilitation project for the cobblestones (which are in need of repair) in the near future.[8][Emphasis added]

Instead of being restored as "a great commercial boat landing and civic square," the Cobblestones would merely need to be "rehabilitated." And what of that "near future"? It would be five years before anyone outside of the RDC and its consultants would see an early draft of the Cobblestones project plan.

Outside exposure of this February, 2008 draft was limited to identified "stakeholders" -- organizations with a special interest, such as Memphis Heritage and Friends for Our Riverfront -- and other groups that would eventually have to approve the plan, such as the State Historic Preservation Organization (a part of TDOT).

Today, almost 18 months later, the general public still hasn't seen a draft of that plan.

Updated August 5, 2009: The RDC has recently posted a single page, with a single drawing from the latest version of the plan, apparently in anticipation of a public information meeting to be held August 11.

Halbert asks Lendermon about the Cobblestones

2009-06-17T18:25:00.001-05:00

At the full City Council Meeting on June 16, 2009, with respect to the final approval of the 2010 City budget, Councilperson Wanda Halbert had some questions for Benny Lendermon of the Riverfront Development Corporation regarding the Master Plan, the Cobblestones, and the use of Federal money.

Halbert's questions centered around two concerns: (1) Have there been changes between the original Master Plan, approved by City Council in 2002, and the current plan for the Cobblestones project? And, (2) Are there Federal monies involved and how might any such changes affect, or be affected by, such funding?

Continues... Below is a transcript of their exchange.

WANDA HALBERT: There's a Master Plan. And I've asked questions about that and at some point we're going to have to talk about that Master Plan, but there have been some changes that have occurred. With those changes, with that Master Plan have we collected federal monies for some of the projects that have been involved?

BENNY LENDERMON: The Master Plan includes a list of a number of possible projects that the City can opt to pursue or not pursue. And this Council has chosen to pursue some of those projects that have included Federal funds.

HALBERT: When we secure those Federal funds for the projects, if there is a change, are there any requirements?

LENDERMON: The Council totally dictates what we do or don't do. The Master Plan was approved by City Council, but the projects come individually to you and you choose to do the project or not. And to be perfectly honest, it doesn't make any difference. If you want to do a project in Master Plan or do a project not in Master Plan, you have the ability to do that.

HALBERT: The reason I asked the question: Normally when you receive funding from government, historically it's usually specified what you are going to use that funding for. The question came up to me and I didn't know how to answer it -- I think it was particularly the cobblestone project -- that we received some federal funding along with our local funding and some changes were made from the initial Master Plan, so the question then was asked of me, can you change a project that you have submitted to the Federal government to secure funding?

LENDERMON: I understand the question better. The Federal funds we receive are for...are targeted to specific projects, have nothing to do with what's in the Master Plan. Which you request. And you've received funds for specifically Beale Street Landing, you received funds for Cobblestones, we've recieved funds for a couple of other projects. The federal funds have certain stipulations tied to them. I don't think there's [unintelligible] within our original request from the fed. government, which dictates what those funds can be used for. Specifically on the cobblestones, understanding where the question is probably coming from now, there's some disagreement where...what is to be done on the cobblestones.

There will be, there's been a lot of discussion already. We were in Nashville 2-3 weeks ago meeting with the State Historic Preservation Office, Federal Highway, TN Department of Transportation. There will be at least one public meeting in this city, which we will talk about that again. There are some preliminary plans, which we [would] like to do, talking about how we deal with the cobblestones. Some people have issues with that. There will be a public forum for discussing that. The City Council will probably get a chance to review that at least twice before we move forward and give your input to make sure you are satisfied with what we are doing. And bottom line is whatever we do has to be in accordance with what the federal government gave us the money to do.

HALBERT: Correct. And just as a final caveat: I'm going to support this budget. But when there are changes in that Master Plan or any designs that the City Council has previously approved, we need to have in committee the specifics of those changes as a request to the Council, not necessarily tied up in the funding amount, because, being here relatively...a year and half, I'm not exactly sure what the history is all about, but there seems to be some external concerns and some decisions have been changing from the initial concept.

LENDERMON: That will all come back to...I guess it will be to Councilman Strickland's committee. At the point in time when this project goes forward and those changes will be there which some of you may want to embrace or not embrace or change or whatever, but we do nothing without Council approval.

Summary: As to the first question, Mr. Lendermon suggested that any differences between the Master Plan and the project plan(s) shouldn't matter, since the City Council has the opportunity to specifically approve each project plan.

As to the second question, Mr. Lendermon said that several projects have received Federal funding. He made it clear that Federal funding and any stipulations therein, would be tied to the project itself, not to the Master Plan. Therefore, changes if any from the Master Plan would have no bearing. It only matters whether the project plan itself meets the stipulations and requirements of such funding.

Ms. Halbert then made the point that City Council needs to be specifically informed about changes in plans, whether between the Master Plan and the project plan, or in subsequent versions of a previously-approved project plan. Mr. Lendermon assured her that City Council would have the opportunity to "embrace or not embrace change or whatever."

What is not clear from Mr. Lendermon's answer is whether there have been previous instances of projects that incorporated substantive changes vis-a-vis the 2002 Master Plan, and if so, whether City Council was specifically informed about the changes before approving them.

In this writer's opinion, Beale Street Landing is one such an instance. I do not believe it was ever pointed out to City Council that Beale Street Landing deviates in key respects from the Master Plan of 2002. Rather, the City Council was repeatedly told that the project carried out the vision of the Master Plan they had already approved.

Had these changes from the Master Plan been pointed out to the Council members, would they still have approved Beale Street Landing?

Furthermore, the "draft" plan for the Cobblestone area incorporates the same changes from the vision of the Master Plan, and gives finality to them. If City Council approves the plans substantially as they are now, the deviations from the Master Plan will be "cast in concrete" (pun intended).

Beale Street Landing Phase 2 begins

2008-07-22T10:49:00.001-05:00

John Branston writes in the Memphis Flyer:

Construction started this week on Beale Street Landing, the $30 million boat landing at the north end of Tom Lee Park.

Workers were moving building materials and a large crane on to the site. The project is scheduled for completion in 2010. It will cover a total of six acres and add four acres to Tom Lee Park by building a dam in the river and filling in behind it. A small wetlands area at the tip of the park will be eliminated.

Here are some photos I took yesterday.

Virtually all of the area to be occupied by Beale Street Landing - except the parking lot - has now been fenced off. Equipment and materials have been moved in. Looking north and south:

The goal of this phase is to drive a steel wall into the riverbed and fill in behind it with new land, replacing the trees and wetland. The wall will be created with long steel piles that have already been trucked in and stacked in upper Tom Lee Park. Here is a closeup photo of the piles:

Each girder-like "U"-piece is actually two "S"-pieces linked together. Along one edge is a groove. The other edge has a lip that fits into the groove and locks tightly when the pieces are turned. Likewise, the U-pieces are linked together to form a rippled wall. The piles are (I'd guess) close to 60 feet long:

This portion of Tom Lee Park has yet to be claimed by the proposed parking lot:

A section of fencing marks BSL's extension into the historic Cobblestones area: