 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The Community Compact: A Comprehensive Plan For Memphis And Shelby County, Tennessee
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Session:Comprehensive Planning for Large Southern Cities (March 11, 1:00pm) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract: The Memphis and Shelby County comprehensive plan process began with a visioning survey through public meetings and affinity groups. Four major themes were produced. Ten broad policy statements called Guiding Principles were developed to define the Vision Statement. Three alternative scenarios were also developed for land use patterns, transportation networks, public facilities and environmental factors. The plan encourages growth in the core city, while existing developed areas are to be stabilized with infill to reduce the amount of land consumed. More compact development will reduce the need for extensive new services. A rail transportation system is also proposed.
IntroductionBased on a concern for the rapid suburban growth and loss of a sense of community, the City of Memphis and Shelby County decided to update the comprehensive plan several years ago. Planners began the effort with a version of old-fashioned town meetings, a year-long process of the governments seeking public opinion. Involving civic groups, business and government officials, we sought a consensus on the future of our community. The method used was a Visual Preference Survey, using photographs to determine what people liked and disliked about the physical environment. This survey was the first step in the Community Compact process and began a dialogue with the community that was continued through citizen affinity groups. Staff, consultants and the affinity groups discussed the survey results, producing four themes to organize the declared inclinations of the community. ThemesThe Memphis area has had a history of focusing on our differences. That is, how South Memphians are different from North Memphians, people of one municipality are different from another municipality, city versus county residents, race differences and so on. The emphasis of this process was to highlight ways in which all Memphis area citizens are alike. Evidence from the community meetings showed that different groups shared a vision for the future of the community. So, these shared views were reflected by the themes. We want safe neighborhoods that offer a sense of community... We want to use our tax dollars efficiently... We want to expand our green spaces and protect our natural resources... We want to create more transportation options... Changes in Population DistributionIn looking at past trends, the demographic data was critical. Between 1980 and 1990, the Memphis population declined by 36,000 while the county population outside of the city limits increased by 85,000. Like other American metropolitan areas, the shifts in population, coupled with continued growth, were recognized as indicators of the problems ahead. This trend was the basis for considering alternatives for the plan. The rapid growth outside of the city results in a burden on county resources for schools, fire protection, libraries and other services. At the same time, we were seeing the decay of the urban core. Implications of TrendsImplications of the trends were itemized as we communicated with the public. While facilities and services in the City of Memphis are underutilized, Shelby County has become the primary service provider for a much larger population. As population shifts to the suburbs, people are more separated from their jobs. Lower income households often find it difficult to get to the new employment locations. A major issue is the demand for new schools in the County. With rapid suburban growth, the need for schools is out pacing the capability of providing them Alternative Scenarios for Future GrowthWith this background, the study began to focus on other future scenarios. We developed three alternatives and tried to use descriptive names rather than numbers: One, Stable City/Expanding Suburbs, is a minimal variation on the trends. The other two, Neighborhood Renewal and Light Rail Corridor Development, look at affecting the development patterns in a more balance growth between the city and the suburbs. Each of these alternatives has important differences, but contained some common elements. All Alternatives: We didn’t want to lose sight of the public opinions, so all alternatives needed to have basic features that: build neighborhoods and a sense of community; strengthen downtown as the core of the metropolitan area and protect unique assets and features—cultural and natural. A key distinction of the alternatives is the different distribution of population. These shifts can only occur with policies to encourage development in certain areas. Stable City/ Expanding Suburbs This alternative looks to "stop the bleeding." It is a modest attempt to show a future that at least maintains a stable city core. Policies would be implemented to encourage infill development while allowing continued low-density suburban developments but at a slower pace. No new transportation strategies are proposed, but there would be a continued dependence on a system of major roads with improvements and expansion as needed. It is expected that infrastructure and services will still be strained. Obviously, this alternative offers little beyond a trends scenario without planning. We used this alternative to carry on the illustration in public about the dangers of current trends. The message is, even if we do a little, many of the problems will persist. Neighborhood Renewal This alternative focuses new development and public investment in existing neighborhoods and areas next to already developed areas. With an aggressive policy toward urban infill, especially for housing, we show a reverse of the trend of losing population to the unincorporated county. The incentives focus on existing assets and efficient utilization of infrastructure and improvements to public transit service. At the same time, policies would curb growth in fringe areas by more orderly extensions of roads and sewers. This alternative features infill strategies for inner city neighborhoods, especially focusing on community assets. We considered assets to be unique neighborhoods, historical sites, parks and established community centers. Development would be encouraged where infrastructure and services exist. The public bus transit system would be improved as a way to reduce auto dependence in the inner city. The benefits for this scenario are based mainly on better use of existing infrastructure. With more new housing available in the core city, there should be less demand for schools and services in the county. Most new growth is contiguous to existing services. This would include more timely extensions of urban services. There would be policies to encourage significant employment centers in the city and reduce dependence on auto travel. Light Rail Corridor Development The third alternative builds on the Neighborhood Renewal model by adding a light rail transit system. With this transit service, more growth is organized around these rail corridors. The development distribution between city and county is really the same. The rail system would not displace the other necessary bus transit improvements. It is intended that rail transit would connect residential areas to employment centers. More dense and efficient development is encouraged along corridors. And urban level services along growth corridors and nodes would be emphasized. The planning process did not identify a selected alternative. These were left as descriptions, but the staff recommended that policies be developed to support a combination of the Neighborhood Renewal and Light Rail Corridor Development. It seemed reasonable to avoid depending on light rail, since the implementation of such a system is not secure. However, we feel strongly that the rail system should not be impeded nor precluded by any plans or policies. The alternative scenarios provided a technique for illustrating the reality of future growth and issues with both the public and elected officials. The physical land use plans associated with such alternatives were not developed. As a final product of this planning process, a policy plan was produced. The policies were organized around the four themes and included Guiding Principles as well as strategies. Policies and StrategiesThe policies and strategies that support the preferred development alternative were given substantial consideration by the staff. These policies address such issues as neighborhood design, neighborhood safety, environmental protection, road design and size, parks and other public facilities, signs and urban design. Guiding PrinciplesThe citizens of Memphis and Shelby County described clear goals and new patterns of development, which determine how we can realize a new scenario for growth. Through the citizens groups, they came up with 10 principles to guide our future policies and strategies.
These 10 principles are supported in the plan by policies and strategies. Growth Plan Purpose and ScopeTennessee enacted a law in 1998 that requires counties and their associated municipalities to develop countywide growth plans. These plans, establishing growth boundaries, are recommended by committees representing the local governments and submitted to the legislative bodies for approval. The municipalities of Shelby County are authorized to base their urban growth boundaries on negotiated annexation reserve agreements, which have been used over the last 25 years to allow each community to grow in an orderly and timed fashion. The mayors of all of the communities agreed on new reserve areas in June of 1999, and these served as the basis for the urban growth boundaries of each city. The recommendations are a result of an analysis of environmental conditions, demographic trends, economic trends, transportation policies, community facilities/infrastructure policies and land use factors. Besides the municipalities’ urban growth boundaries, Shelby County Government is responsible for designating "planned growth" and "rural" areas. Planned Growth Areas are territory that is reasonably compact, yet sufficiently large enough to accommodate high or moderate density residential, commercial and industrial development over the next 20 years. Rural Areas are territory that is not within urban growth boundaries or planned growth areas and is to be preserved as agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas. Some rural areas are identified as a component of the Shelby County Growth Plan as a first step. The most critical phase lies ahead as other issues are addressed as part of wise management of growth over the next several years. ConclusionThe Memphis area has a sound basis for planning with the Community Compact. The policies in this plan are applied to district plans, development cases, neighborhood plans and community development initiatives. Although the plan was not adopted by the legislative bodies of the city and county, planners do take advantage of this valuable resource. It represents the principles and goals that are important to the future quality of life in the metropolitan area. The growth plan offers an extra tool that planners can use in developing plans.
Author and Copyright InformationCopyright 2001 by Author Terry J. Langlois, AICP is a Principal Planner for the Memphis & Shelby County Office of Planning, responsible for comprehensive planning. He has over 20 years of experience in local, regional, state and federal government planning. He has a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture from Louisiana State University and a Masters of Planning from the University of Virginia. |
