I attended yesterday's meeting, and I took extensive notes so I can pass on the pertinent information to those of you who couldn't be there. This is a very interesting issue because it brings up a lot of other related city issues. A large majority of speakers described the proposal as "no silver bullet."
CCC President Jeff Sanford opened the discussion with a presentation explaining why opening the pedestrian/transit mall to cars is a proposed economic solution. He explained:
- While there are currently $3 billion in downtown development, only a small percentage of that is going toward any development on Main St, which still has a high ground floor vacancy rate of 35%.
- While there were about 200 U.S. ped/transit malls in the 60s and 70s, only about 30 remain.
- As comparisons, after re-opening such areas to vehicle traffic, Louisville, KY, experienced a vacancy rate decrease of 80 - 50% in one year. And Philly experienced an increase in interest from national chains.
The CCC met with national consultants who recommended allowing traffic, based on the above and what they consider keys to successful pedestrian malls. Those keys are:
- Mixed activity uses - Maybe
- Population of captive users - Yes
- Programmed activities - No
- Efficient public transit - Maybe
- Strong anchors - No
- Centralized/coordinated retail management - No
- Extensive parking - Yes (currently 22,600 spaces)
- High tourism area - Maybe
- College town or near college neighborhood - No
Now, take note that the "yes, no, maybe's" are the CCC's (and maybe the consultants') determinations (not mine). Jeff Sanford made a point to clarify that the decision is up to The City, that the CCC will only be making a suggestion. However, I believe the CCC took the initiative (which is their purpose) that brought the issue to this point.
There were probably close to 100 people in the room, and 30 people spoke. All of them were smart with good points to make. An older gentleman pointed out that there are three distinct neighborhoods along the trolley line with different transportation needs and asked that they consider all three.
Surprisingly, John Bragg (owner of Circa) pretty much changed his mind since being quoted in the CA, citing that the real solution hinges on the "pull of downtown" and getting rid of loiterers.
Majestic Grille Owner Patrick Riley voiced a concern about cruising and was the first to say he didn't buy vehicle traffic as the silver bullet.
Someone suggested allowing traffic but not at night. The owner of Yellow/Checker Cab asked that vehicles-for-hire be allowed for picking up and dropping off. One man asked for a trial period to see how it goes. And one very community-involved downtown resident and business owner replied that there's already a test - the cops drive on it all the time and use it as their personal parking lot. She was vehemently against the proposal, based on her firsthand experience through 24 years of different phases. She was one of many that expressed frustration with the trolleys.
A spokesperson for Carriage Tours of Memphis compared Main to surrounding streets, asking for proof that traffic makes any difference. A few people pointed out that if the answer was vehicle traffic, South Main and The Pinch District would be booming.
The owner of Leonard's BBQ Buffet (at Main and Adams) expressed almost desperation due to his derelict part of the street, though he didn't seem to be in favor of the proposal either. Adam Slovis, real estate agent, passed on the concern of potential tenants of no visibility. He and the few others who were in favor of the change (about 4 total, the others, architects) agreed with the first one's suggestion for running a test for a determined period of time.
Other mentions were: that we've been named one of the most obese cities, so people need to walk anyway, it's a crazy consideration and the wrong time with the current oil crisis, and one anonymous East Memphian complained (to Jeff Sanford) that the bums have been displaced to Poplar/Kirby, which everyone applauded.
So the crowd was overwhelmingly against the proposal, and those who spoke, repeatedly expressed, in different ways, that it was a "backward," ill-timed band-aid that will backfire. A friend of mine said, "we're not those other cities, and they shouldn't try to make us those cities or apply their solutions to us." Very true.
My thoughts are that we could more easily and less expensively turn some of those "nos" and "maybes" into the presumed keys of success. In fact, if you look at those again, I think we already have more "yeses."
Sanford mentioned their new Downtown Alive series in relation to a mixed activity use. Okay. So plan more of them. And what is the difference between that and programmed activities? Obviously, the trolleys need to improve. Make them efficient, and that's a "yes."
Strong anchors? I would say The Majestic Grille is one, and as for coordinated retail management, couldn't that easily be implemented by the CCC or a Main St. merchant's organization? The street between Peabody Place and Gayoso is already clean and attractive, and I guarantee it's not because the owners of those businesses wait for someone else to take care of things.
High tourism. Is this "maybe" relative to other cities? It's definitely a local high tourism area. And as for a college neighborhood, Sanford mentioned that the U of M Law School will soon be downtown but for some reason, dismissed it. So in my opinion, the CCC's determinations of these keys to success seem a little biased toward this proposal.
As I said, the point was made that the decision is up to The City. I hope that's not some kind of disclaimer. Sanford also said that concerned citizens can still email and call the CCC (901-575-0540) with their opinions. And he closed the meeting, saying, "If we knew then what we know now, would we do what we did, and what would we do differently?" Uuuh ... exactly? It will be interesting to see what they recommend.
