Creating a Memphis Brand

Using Memphis-themed artwork to create a sense of place

The Memphis metropolitan area lags behind peer cities in several key benchmarks of administrative and economic development concern: population growth, job growth, and educational attainment of citizens. Economic development efforts often focus on luring manufacturing jobs through infrastructure improvements and tax incentives and the Memphis area has had mild success in that regard. Other local efforts have focused on physical structural improvements through the development of libraries, convention centers, arenas, stadiums, and museums, and again, Memphis has arguably reaped the benefits of these investments. However, quality of life concerns tend to be more of a political issue than an economic development tool and this has hindered Memphis’s growth opportunities, reduced the return on its infrastructure and capital investments, and made the metropolitan area less competitive than peer cities like Nashville, Austin, and Jacksonville.

A good quality of life is integral to attracting and maintaining a qualified and vibrant workforce, which in turn invites potential employers and stimulates the economy. It also encourages homegrown talent and intellect to remain in Memphis and invest themselves locally. Memphis’s efforts at capitalizing on its cultural, physical, geographical, and historical uniqueness to improve residents’ quality of life have been underwhelming at best and nonexistent at worst. Memphis is a unique city in many ways, but it is not unique in the fact that it must adapt itself to attract economic development by promoting a quality place talented individuals desire. Clearly the failure of manufacturing cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis – cities not too unlike Memphis – should be a harbinger of things to come if Memphis does not seriously consider its duty to encourage, attract, and retain talent through investments aimed at enhancing the area’s quality of life.

A globally competitive city does three things: they protect their glowing reputation, they differentiate themselves, and they meet the needs of their citizens (Pooley 2005). Toronto, Ontario understands that formula by investing directly and indirectly in cultural activities that both differentiates the city and helps meet the needs of their citizens. Investing in public space artwork, public amenities, and cultural and creative outlets, they see a $3.20 return in economic activity for each $1 invested (Pooley 2005). Cultural investments that acknowledge and respect the culture of the city become investments by the residents. “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody only because, and only when, they are created by everybody,” (Curtis 2006). This inclusive approach involves members of the community creating the streets and neighborhoods of their city to mirror themselves, their values, and their culture. Many cities have undertaken projects to make their streetscapes “more enticing, thereby adding to the quality of hidden places,” because they understand that attractive streets strengthen the neighborhoods they connect, and a city’s neighborhoods are the defining units of that city (Curtis 2006).

What would be useful, therefore, is a way to create public art that improves the streetscape, strengthens the neighborhoods around it, and creates a city “brand” for Memphis. Many existing city-owned facets of public life are prime candidates for works of public art. University of Memphis art students, alumni, and other area artists could easily be commissioned to develop artwork, murals, or sculptures that reflect the Memphis culture and adhere to a theme reflecting something unique about the city. This art would then be placed at noticeable and heavily trafficked locations, both public and private, and would communicate to passersby that Memphis is a unique place that is different from other cities, knows itself, is proud of itself, and has something to offer everyone. Many other cities already have a similar program in place - Anchorage, Alaska dots its downtown with grizzly bear sculptures; New Orleans, Louisiana uses the fleur de lis symbol; and Omaha, Nebraska (naturally!) uses "O!" to represent its tagline, "O! So Surprising". Each city gives its artists creative license to develop the sculpture, but still remain true to the overall desired theme.

Anything Memphis can do to create a unique and viable brand that is not a cotton boll, a riverboat, or Elvis would be arguably useful in creating a place that talented people and employers want to be. And anything Memphis can do to strengthen its neighborhoods, aesthetically improve its streetscapes, and help residents have a reason to be proud of Memphis is something all city leaders should aspire to.

An alternative explanation for the decline in crime in the 1990s

Many theories have been posited to explain the steep decline in crime in the 1990s. Theories have ranged from innovative policing to an aging population to a strong economy to tougher gun control laws. I would like to add an alternative theory to the mounds of research on crime. My theory is that the steep decrease in crime can be attributed to the decline of concentration of poverty.

Poverty became more and more concentrated in inner city neighborhoods in the late 1960s through the 1980s. This trend directly correlates with the rise in violent crime in the US. Before that, the poor often resided in the back alleys and the side streets of the rich or in the many rural farms through the American countryside. Then after World War II, the federal government began putting low-income people into urban high-rise public housing complexes and encouraged suburbanization through federal assistance to highway construction. This coupled with the move of employment from central cities to the suburbs and general racial division in American culture, created an inner city of high poverty, high crime, and an overall deterioration of the central city.

In the 1990s this trend began to reverse. The Brookings Institute explored this issue in the paper “Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s.” The number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods (HPV) – where the poverty rate is 40 percent of higher – declined by a dramatic 24 percent, or 2.5 million people in the 1990s.

The social costs of concentrated poverty are well documented. Researchers at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University devoted a 68 page papers on the costs of concentrated poverty in the paper: “The Social Costs of Concentrated Poverty: Externalities to Neighboring Households and Property Owners and the Dynamics of Decline”. Their research showed that residents in high poverty areas suffered from poorer health, lower levels of academic achievement, fewer employment opportunities, heightened vulnerability to gang recruitment, and greater exposure to violence relative to other comparable people living in more advantaged neighborhoods.

Some may argue that this theory is not sufficient because the rate of change in the concentration of poverty did not linearly follow the rate of change in the decline of poverty. I would argue that the reason behind this is that there is not a linear relationship between these two elements but an exponential relationship. Much like the images of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are enough to keep the middle class in a structured and motivated existence, the image of residents in poor neighborhoods being able to improve their conditions is enough to motivate the poor to want to participate in the mainstream economy. So the residents that move out are less likely to commit crime because their position in society has increased and the residents still in the neighborhood are less likely to commit crimes because they see hope through the progress of their neighbors.

While this theory is at this stage just that- a theory, I believe that it is one worth exploring. I certainly find it more credible than the controversial and unproven theory of Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics) that relates crime to unwanted pregnancies. Whether one agrees or disagrees, there is certainly enough research out that proves that concentrated poverty is not good for either the residents of these neighborhoods or society in general.

Are You a MetroNational?

Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program recently unveiled its Blueprint for American Prosperity, an initiative that seeks to insure America's global economic success by capitalizing upon resources inherent in its metropolitan areas through a more responsive and strategic federal government role. Brookings argues that in the 21st century's global economy, metropolitan areas are our best source of innovation, knowledge creation and other drivers of economic success. America is fast becoming a "MetroNation" and the federal government must reconfigure its role to support and encourage the success of our metropolitan areas.

MetroNation: How U.S. Metropolitan Areas Fuel American Prosperity describes America's metropolitan areas as holding 65% of the nation's population, 68% of its jobs, 78% of its patent activity--a measure of innovation, 75% of its graduate degreed workforce and generating 75% of the U.S. GDP (MetroNation, 7). They host and encourage "agglomeration economies...that enhance productive growth" and "foster the quality places...that by virtue of their density and diversity help speed the acquisition of human capital and contribute to resource-efficient sustainable growth" (MetroNation, 7). These attributes are key drivers in a global economy because they facilitate the sharing of information and tacit knowledge, encourage innovation and knowledge spillovers, grow human capital and maximize our investments in infrastructure (MetroNation, 36-44).

Although our metropolitan areas hold the keys to American prosperity, they are increasingly threatened by changes resulting from global competition, a widening income gap in the U.S. labor market, shifting demographic trends and increasing environmental and natural resource pressures. MetroNation argues that America's ability to address these challenges is hindered by a federal government who is out of tune with globalization and whose policies are ill-equipped to facilitate the success of metropolitan areas. The Blueprint Policy Series "will argue for specific reforms in selected areas of federal policy including innovation and economic development, transportation, education, housing, income support, energy and immigration" (MetroNation, 47).

Brookings' Blueprint is clearly an aggressive, well-timed proposal. At a minimum, it should prompt serious conversation on a variety of issues including America's economic competitiveness in a global economy; the urbanization of America and how we respond to both the challenges and the opportunities that it presents; and the changing demographics of our nation. It drags the issue of increasing globalization out of the corporate halls and ivory towers and onto America’s doorstep where it is joined with local urban issues that our cities face. If nothing else, it reminds us that while our cities emphasize place-based, supply-side approaches to local economic development and compete against one another to attract human capital, as a nation we are competing in the global marketplace. Should our local and state leadership be forced to address global issues when their focus should be on local issues?

Some will be inclined to dismiss it as another attempt by a liberal institution to expand the role of the federal government. But is this really the case? Brookings notes that "nine federal departments and five independent agencies collectively carry out 180 disparate federal economic development programs" (MetroNation, 54). The problem is that the federal government is not responsive to the dual demands of metropolitan areas and global competition, and it is not strategic in its application of policy and resources.

Oddly enough, there appears to be little reaction to Brookings' Blueprint. Neal Peirce of The Washington Post Writers Group and The Citistates Group was naturally inclined to support the Brookings Initiative; however, he did question whether or not our federal government is capable of "flipping the pyramid" and effectively challenging and responding to U.S. metropolitan areas. To do so would require a federal government that is innovative and responsive to change, concepts that seem to be quite foreign to our current federal government.

Greening the Economy

Earlier this week the Commercial Appeal had an article about growth of "green collar" workers. These people are working in new fields that have just been developed with jobs in bio-fuel development, energy-efficient buildings, renewable power and repairing energy-efficient cars.

The green economy is described as a $341 billion industry which creates 5.3 million jobs, according to a 2006 study by Management Information Systems Inc. Earlier this fall, Washington D. C. Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the launch of a green-jobs initiative through the development of renewable-energy solutions and of green buildings. D.C. has can see that the economy is in transition with rising energy costs and demand for a greener economy is coming.

Many cities throughout the country are recognizing this green trend and developing incentives to encourage green buildings which in turn can develop and support green industry in cities. Incentives for green building include expedited permit review and reduced permit fees, tax incentives and property tax abatements for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings, tax credits for green built affordable housing, and density bonuses among others.

Sustainable construction is one of the fastest-growing segments of the commercial building industry. The annual market for green building products and services is estimated to be $12 billion in 2007 according to the U.S. Green Building Council. Green building is defined as “design and construction practices that meet specified standards, resolving much of the negative impacts of buildings on their occupants and on the environment.” The LEED Green Building Rating System is the widely accepted standard for the design and performance of green buildings. Levels of voluntary LEED certification are based on the number of points awarded to a building project. Points are based on standards in six areas: site planning, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material use, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process.

Mayors around the country are advancing bold visions for making their cities more environmentally sustainable through strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage water and energy resources and create more livable communities. Ensuring new and existing buildings are healthy and efficient should be a key strategy for any green city. Governments at all levels see many long-term cost savings in sustainable building technologies as major property owners with large capital and maintenance budgets. 46 percent of LEED-certified projects in the U.S. are owned by federal, state, and local governments and 681 mayors have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which pledges that their city will meet or beat the U.S. target of the Kyoto Treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The economic and environmental goals of cities can be met through an environmental sustainable agenda that concentrates on attracting and developing the green economic sector. The green economic sector includes all businesses that provide environmental goods and services such as alternative sources of energy and pollution prevention technology. This burgeoning sector offers opportunities for revenue generation and job growth within the city.

Unlike traditional forms of economic development, green economic development, if practiced equitably, is uniquely positioned to present solutions for some of the conditions that disproportionately impact low-income communities: environmental degradation, lack of quality jobs, and economic decline. Equitable green economic development offers the potential for living-wage jobs in non-polluting industries that provide a clear career ladder for low-income residents.

Are green collar jobs the future? Should Memphis be investing in this new industry rather than trying to recruit manufacturing and distribution jobs that may require little education or skill? With rising energy costs and growing environmental awareness it should be interesting to see whether green incentives will be the new economic development tool used by cities.

The Problem in Omaha

Rosenblatt Stadium - the home of the College World Series

Omaha, of course, has been the annual host of the College World Series since 1950. Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium, 5 miles south of downtown Omaha, is the country's largest minor league baseball stadium. It seats 23,145 and for 57 years has been the site of the annual College World Series. The Omaha Royals (triple-A affiliate of the Kansas City Royals) and Creighton University also use the facility. The city of Omaha is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the stadium and in 2001 alone, spent more than $7 million in repairs.

But more than $25 million in repairs are needed because of the aging of the structure and because of the changing needs of the CWS for a larger concessions area, more parking, newer locker rooms, concourses with views of the field, closer hotels, and alcohol-free zones. The city, hostile to the idea of pouring more money into Rosenblatt, has floated the idea of an entirely new stadium for $50 million, in exchange for a 10-year contract with the College World Series, Inc. in lieu of the traditional 5-year one. The new stadium would be build adjacent to the Qwest Center and Creighton University in downtown Omaha. It would be close to the amenities of downtown and have 9,000 permanent seats (all that's needed for the Royals and Creighton), but have 14,000 expandable seats for a capacity of 25,000 for the annual College World Series. Currently, Rosenblatt is mostly empty at Royals and Creighton games because of the massive size of the stadium.

The entire concept of a new stadium - and leaving Rosenblatt - has stirred a lot of criticism and served as the impetus for the creation of grass roots efforts aimed at preventing efforts to move the site downtown. A new non-profit entitled Save Rosenblatt has sprung up with the motto "Improve it, don't remove it". Former players and coaches from all over the country have been particularly vocal against a new stadium and Kevin Costner, a regular at CWS games, has even joined the fray by shooting TV commercials and giving vocal support for saving Rosenblatt. And many Omahans who do not feel a vital emotional connection to the history of Rosenblatt also oppose the cost of a new stadium because of already-high property, wheel, and income taxes.

But on the other hand...

But other locals and Mayor Fahey and the City Council are concerned that if expensive upgrades aren't made, the CWS will leave Omaha altogether, and take their money and $35 million economic impact with them [here is a podcast of Mayor Fahey discussing the options]. The experience of Kansas City several years ago is fresh on city leader's minds. It served as the headquarters for the CWS, but after failing to offer fiscally attractive options, the CWS moved its headquarters to Indianapolis.

The CWS is in agreement that a new stadium may be in its best interests, but has committed no money for its construction. Additionally, the city's contract to host the CWS expires in 2010, and rumors are floating that Indianapolis will also make a bid to host the series (however, Omaha gets first options at proposing any new contract).

So Omaha is left with 2 sticky options:

1). Save Rosenblatt and risk losing the CWS and it's annual $35 million economic impact

2). Build a new stadium and pay for it, but keep the CWS

The city absolutely cannot afford to maintain two stadiums, so if a new stadium is built, Rosenblatt will be bulldozed and the site sold to the Henry Doorly Zoo to pay off bonds for a new stadium. The cost for a new stadium, however, is projected to exceed the $50 million pricetag originally proposed by the city, and funding for it almost certainly cannot come from increased taxes.

What does Omaha do? Spend a ridiculous amount of money rehabbing an old facility and risk losing the CWS, with empty seats for the Royals and Creighton? Or build a new one, lose the memories and sentimentality from Rosenblatt, and dance on a political landmine with possible tax increases or failure to fund other projects?

Conservation in the Cumberland Plateau

Over 127,000 acres of the northern Cumberland Plateau in eastern Tennessee entered into conservation status last week when Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed documents preserving the land for public use. The $135M cost was funded by a public-private partnership between the State of Tennesee ($82M from the State’s surplus revenue fund), the Nature Conservancy ($13M), and Conservation Forestry, LLC and Lyme Timbers companies ($40M). The complex deal includes State-purchased land, as well as the purchase of timber easements that allow the State to enforce sustainable forest management practices, conservation easements purchased by the Nature Conservancy to prevent development of some privately held land, and long-term acquisition plans for other properties. The announcement prompted some thoughts about how might translate to our understanding of cities.

First, innovation is a key element in our ability to address issues, whether it is stimulating economic growth, confronting "wicked" urban problems, or preserving our environment. The Cumberland Plateau's public-private partnership was an innovative first-step in preserving a complex eco-system that neither the State nor the Nature Conservancy could accomplish single-handedly. Do we demand the same level of innovation from the public sector as we seek from the private sector? What are the challenges presented by public-private partnerships and what level of understanding do we have of those challenges?

Second, our perspectives about sustainable urban growth should encompass non-urban areas. While we are conscious of the negative effects of sprawl and pollution, we also have to consider the effects of our urban growth on those areas that provide the resources necessary for growth. Central city revitalization is not just good for the city itself, but it also helps conserve resources and protect environments in other areas. How effectively do we connect urban growth issues to concepts of conservation and preservation of natural resources located far away from urban areas?

Finally, it seems that there is a question of which government entity should be responsible for establishing and managing conservations areas. The public benefits derived from conservation areas cannot be confined to political boundaries such as states; however, as we see in the Cumberland Plateau conservation area, $82 million of state surplus funds were invested in just the initial stages of establishing the conservation areas. Should the federal government have played the role of public partner in this instance?

Conservation, preservation and other elements of sustainability will most likely gain in popularity and importance due to increasing concern for the environment. It seems that urban scholars need to be aware of, and interact with, the non-urban environment through a variety of channels in order to advance their understanding of and ability to develop sustainable urban spaces.