Making Place: Finding the 'Right' Development for Overton Square

For a community to effectively voice their concern over the potential demise of a piece of history and nostalgic memories, they must be open-minded, willing and knowledgeable about what it is needed to “make place” in the community

In an earlier blog, “A Community’s Fight for Overton Square,” informs the readers of the significance of Overton Square and the Community’s cry for something different. What the meeting did not offer the community was a clear path to helping save Overton Square with viable alternative for a better suited development.

The Basics to Urban Design

There are two basic elements that are essential to getting the urban design to be a place where experience happens. The first is making public and private conversations mandatory and the second is paying attention to the details. Without places for people to “bump” into each other; without controlling vehicular flow and parking; and without the local community’s personality infused in the development; the essence of place is lost in the bricks and mortar. In the case of Overton Square, the community’s approach to public/private conversation was met with silent treatment from the developer. At this moment it could be determined that this is not the developer for Overton Square.

The Current Design and Its Shortcomings

The Overton Square meeting held November 11th was mostly a call for support and an updated response to the current Sooner Investment Corporation’s (an Oklahoma based company) push to ‘revitalize’ Overton Square. The meeting was open to the public and was led by June West of Memphis Heritage Memphis Heritage. Chooch Pickard, of Memphis Regional Design MRDC, fielded questions from the group as the ‘neutral’ party to the development company and the best interest of Overton Square. This plan, along with highlighted improvements needed, shows the preliminary thinking by Sooner Investments and their idea of “New Urbanism.”

If we look closely at this proposed development, we will see that it neglects the three important rules to urban development according to David Sucher, author of “City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village.” The highlighted areas of the plan demonstrate the breakdown in these three rules. 1. Build to the sidewalk (highlighted orange) 2. Make the building front permeable, no blank walls (highlighted blue) 3. Prohibit parking in front of the building (highlighted yellow)

It is also important to understand that even with government aid in protecting community landmarks, the zoning laws are skewed in the favor of development; therefore, it is up to the community to argue for the “value” inherent in the development. In the case of Overton Square it is the existing buildings along Madison and Cooper. The proposed Sooner development will demolish the existing historical buildings (highlighted green) and replace them with new infill construction.

As June West clearly stated in the meeting, there is no question of the value of the existing buildings and their rich history and nostalgic quality. However, the role of Memphis Heritage is to save historic buildings, not to design urban blocks. Memphis Heritage would like to see a different plan that incorporates the existing buildings with added density and complimentary to the infill of the rest of the square. They are willing to hire outside consultants to investigate the structural integrity of the buildings to ensure the feasibility of their reuse.

On the other hand, Sooner Investments is adamant about not saving the existing buildings in order to create new retail development from scratch. They are in the business of new development, not saving buildings. They are also not going to adhere to the three rules outlined above. This should call into question if Sooner is the right developer.

What Next: give alternatives

What are good alternatives? They are usually products of professionally guided charrettes that involve architects, developers, neighbors of the community and planners. These design meetings will take into consideration the unique qualities of the community and couple them with examples of what is successful in other communities. Rather than talk esoterically about the big idea of what an urban village is, show a visual example of what works and fits and then implement that into the design. The following, taken from City Comforts, is a list of things that can, in harmony, make place:

• Re-introduce public transportation: why not bring back the trolley?
• Create spaces that promote “bumping into neighbors and strangers”
• Follow the three rules: Build to the Sidewalk, No Parking in Front, and Permeable Buildings.
• Calm Traffic
• Make way finding spots
• Create a feeling of safeness
• A place for Children
• Provide necessity elements: telephone shelters, water fountains, public toilets, places of shelter, etc.
• Fit new construction into the existing fabric
• Provide pleasant buffers
• Preservation of Historic Buildings
• Personalize with local art
  

The original Overton Square embodied many of these principles. It was a place that magnetized the street so that a passerby would feel inclined to stop and stroll and at the same time gave the community a place to gather.

Memphis Regional Design held a design charrette open to community to develop designs as a reaction to what was being proposed or in this case, not disclosed. Follow this link to view these alternatives Overton Square Charrette. The question is whether or not these designs provide an alternative that works and if so, who is right developer to implement the plan?

There is an important rule in architecture; if the client or project does not fit, don’t pursue the relationship. Although new life in Overton Square is needed, Sooner Investments is not providing the right proposal for the community.

Community Revitalization and the Designer's Role

“In order to carry forward a vision of aspiration, architects need to find a compliant client with lots of money.” While this statement, by Michael Dobbins author of Urban Design and People, is true; there is a lack of connection between design vision and the community development programs. By adding involvement in community as the best way to carry forward a vision of aspiration, designers acknowledge the need to “dig down” and discover what is truly needed within the community being revitalized. More often than not, community developments are left up to the developers and contractors and design follows purpose in implementation.

Dobbins states, “The outcome of work done by ordinary people cooperating with each other, using the means available to them, will inevitably produce forms, shapes, materials and decorative expressions that embody the human spirit.” Take this belief and add design professionals, egos checked at the door, and the educated outcome would be unprecedented.

The aspirations of great architects and planners throughout the years, whose utopian ideas were mostly only realized on paper, are shared by most designers. All of which highlight the “melting pot” of ideas that could be formulated a la carte for specific needs of a community. Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Corbusier are just a few that have blazed a path of grand ideas for urban developments that better a community’s quality of life.

Le Corbusier envisioned the “Radiant City” concept which unfortunately removed historic cityscapes to develop housing for all types of demographics. He incorporated advanced environmental systems and pre-fabricated modern methods of building and design. To preserve land, he elevated the structures approximately 15’ above ground. Utilitarian activities were removed from the individual living spaces and grouped together on their own floor to promote community development within each living tower. But as Dobbins so eloquently points out, “While modernism did achieve improvements for many people, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, the movement suffered from its omission of consideration of all those human values that fall outside of the technical problem solving.”

Corbusier, compared to the other visionaries, completely disassociated his design from the input of the community. The omission of the community was the greatest folly in an otherwise materially progressive and environmentally well thought out concept.

Value added social responsibility: Passion - Collaboration - Implementation

How does the designer fit into the community development equation? The first value is at the heart of specific designers whose passion for creating leads them to make a difference in the community, not just for the sake of making a name.

The second value, collaboration, resides in designers, planners and developers working together with Community Development Corporations (CDC). There are many to choose from. In general, a CDC is a non-profit, housing and commercial developer. Within neglected neighborhoods, they try to instill empowerment and hope through reintroducing employment opportunities and home ownership. For a list of local CDC’s, please follow the following link and select Community Development Council from the resource links on the right. http://www.memphiscommunitydevelopment.com/.

There is a lack of designers involved at the level of inception and maintaining a presence through completion. Planners and developers exist but often are at odds and the planner’s vision for the community, developed with the community’s approval, falls short because the developer is thinking with the economic wand and not the best interest in the client, which is the community.

Traditionally, in the commercial world, the design professional keeps the integrity of the design intact while at the same time accommodating the developer/client desires to meet a certain price matrix. This constant flux of communication generally achieves the closest resemblance to what was originally designed.

In community development schemes, without the mediator of design present from start to finish, almost inevitably, the design concept is dissolved in “value engineering” processes. Proof of how this can be mitigated, with synergistic side affects, lies in my own personal experience with a volunteer based design group.

InsFire, a newly formed design volunteer group moving toward 501c3 status, is working closely with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Memphis. Although they are not a CDC, this is an example of what can be done if applied to CDC’s. Habitat approached my partner with the concept of engaging architects in the design model for habitat homes. In the past, they were largely designed by retired contractors. The emphasis was on purpose and less about design quality and aesthetics. The proposed partnership challenged us to compose a group of under utilized eager intern-design volunteers, design students and philanthropic design professionals.

The outcome, thus far, is a collective that embodies volunteerism, education and collaboration at all levels within the community of Habitat for Humanity and the individuals we come in contact with. As a critique, I would argue there is too much separation between the designers and the home owners. However, there is great opportunity for improvement embodied in this group’s model at the level of community connectivity. As a positive critique, there are invaluable educational synergies created from the designer/contractor perspective to the owner’s understanding of quality home design.

The next push for InsFire will be to expand on the first critique and connect with the owner and to expand on a broader community development project with Habitat. Currently, they contribute “spot” housing development. Their next effort will be a full community neighborhood development and InsFire plans to be involved.

This proactive movement of getting involved is not a suggestion to design professionals, as a whole, to abandon practice at a profit based commercial development level. It is for those who want to step outside their comfort zone of doing what they do because that’s how it’s done.