⬚ figure

Memphis 3.0

Comprehensive Plan

⬚ figure

2021 Update

Prepared by the City of Memphis Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development

⬚ figure Recipient of the 2020 Daniel Burnham Award for a Comprehensive Plan American Planning Association

⬚ figure Recipient of the 2019 Outstanding Plan Award Tennessee Chapter, American Planning Association

⬚ figure Recipient of the 2021 Charter Award in the Metropolis, City, and Town Category Congress for New Urbanism

Adopted By: Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board ⬚ figure Jon McCreery, Chairman February 14, 2019

Executive Order ⬚ figure Jim Strickland, Mayor May 14, 2019

Memphis City Council ⬚ figure Kemp Conrad, Chairman December 3, 2019 As amended, April 20, 2021

⬚ figure ⬚ figure

Memphis 3.0

The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Memphis, Tennessee

(blank page)

Foreword by Mayor Jim Strickland

In 2016, we took office on a promise to lead city government to be "brilliant at the basics." We believed that day-to-day excellence of city government was essential to positive growth of our City and over the last three years, we have made significant progress in so many areas that Memphians see and feel every day. In the same year, we also committed ourselves to building our future. And specifically, building a future that means greater population and economic growth in the City. In order to cast this vision for our future, we embarked on the Memphis 3.0 planning process, the first comprehensive plan for the City since 1981.

It doesn’t take long to look around and see so much positive momentum in Memphis. Some $15 billion in recent, current, and future development is happening in the Greater Memphis area, and for the first time in decades, more of that is happening inside our city limits than in the suburbs. A large portion of this investment is centered around our Downtown. And that’s good — Downtown is everyone’s neighborhood, and it’s the soul and core of our city. But as much as we celebrate what’s happening Downtown, it’s just as important what’s happening down the street.

Ours is a neighborhoods-first administration and that is a philosophy incorporated into Memphis 3.0, the long-term plan for our City. Over two years and nearly 200 public meetings and events, our staff working on Memphis 3.0 heard from 15,000 Memphians, and came up with a new strategy for our growth: Build Up, Not Out.

The Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan is a road map to better transportation and transit, investment in our core and our neighborhoods, and investment in opportunities for Memphians. By focusing on centers of activity identified as "anchors," the City’s future will be built on the assets of Downtown and neighborhoods across Memphis. We believe that by focusing on improving the heart of a neighborhood, we can improve the health all around it.

I encourage you to spend time with the Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan. The focus on anchors, emphasis on greater transit frequency, and targeted actions for areas across the City, among many recommendations, provide both high level vision and on-the-ground detail for how the City can Build Up, Not Out over the next 20 years. As we celebrate our City’s bicentennial, it’s up to all of us to work together on building our future in the third century, guided by the Memphis 3.0 plan.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Jim Strickland, Mayor

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the support of many dedicated individuals and organizations this plan would not be possible. We thank them for their hard work, expertise and encouragement throughout the Comprehensive Planning process.

CITY OF MEMPHIS

SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY LAND USE CONTROL BOARD

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

Abby Miller Abram Lueders – Working Group Co-Chair Alex Turley Allison Donald Alonzo Weaver Amelia Mayahi Amy Schaftlein Andre Gibson – Working Group Co-Chair Andre Jones Andrew Murray Andy Cates Angela Garrone Ann Meadors Anthony Anderson Antoine Hawkins Antonio Adams Antonio Raciti – Working Group Co-Chair April Simmons Archie Willis Avery Cunningham Ben Ledsinger Benny Lendermon III Beverleye Orr Bill Bullock Bob Rogers Bob Wenner Brent Nair Brett Roler Brian Crooks Brian Waldron – Working Group Co-Chair Bridget McCall Brittany J. Williams Brown Gill Bruce Harber Calvin Abram Cardell Orrin Carla Ryan Carol Miller Carter Gray Chad Bowman Charia Jackson Charlie Newman Charlie Santo – Working Group Co-Chair Chelsea Glass Christina Clift Christine Donhardt Clint Richardson Cody Behles Colin McDonald Connie Binkowitz Cynthia Ham Dane Forlines Daniel Ashworth Daniel Pallme Daniel Ward Dave Gramm David Howell Davida Cruthird Dawn Kinard DeAndre Brown Dennis Lynch Dermot Murray Deron Hall Derwin Sisnet Donnell Cobbins Dr. Martin Lipinski Eddie Jacobs Eldra White Elizabeth Ennis Elizabeth Rouse Ellen Roberds Emily Trenholm Eric Bridges Erik Swindle Frank Colvett, Jr. Frank Ricks George Cates Greg Woods Haley Simmons Ham Smythe IV Henry Minor Jackson McNeil James Collins James Simpson James Wells Janet Boscarino – Working Group Co-Chair Janice Banks Jason Jackson Jen Andrews Jenna Thompson – Working Group Co-Chair Jennfier Oswalt Jennifer Marshall Jessica Buttermore Jim Belles Jim Vazquez Jimmie Tucker Joann Massey – Working Group Co-Chair Joe Ozegovich Joel Jassu Joellyn Brazile John Cameron John Cameron John Hochstein John Jackson, III John Lancaster John Lawrence – Working Group Co-Chair John Paul Shaffer – Working Group Co-Chair Johnathan Flynt Jonathan Lombardo Jordan Rudolph Jordan Smith Josh Whitehead – Working Group Co-Chair JT Malasri Juan Self Juanita Ford Boothe Julie Ellis Justin Entzminger Kate Haywood Kathy Cowan Keith Cole Kelly Rayne Ken Milman Kenny Monroe Kerry Roy Kevin Woods – Working Group Co-Chair Kim Grant Brown Kirk Bobo Lan Wang Lar'Juanette Williams Larkin Myers Larry Jensen Larry Smith Lauren Kennedy Lauren Taylor Leo Liriano Les Binkley Levell Blanchard Linda Steele – Working Group Co-Chair Lissa Thompson Lou Conley Luke Yancy Mac Bruce Mack Martin Madeleine Savage-Townes Marcia Lewis Maria Fuhrmann – Working Group Co-Chair Maria Munoz Blanco – Working Group Co-Chair Mark Fleischer Marsha Raus Martin Edwards Mary Wilder Matt Seltzer Megan Higgins Melanie Blakeney Meredith Duvall Mia Madison Michael Boyd Michael Jones – Working Group Co-Chair Michael Shelton Michael Taylor Michelle Stuart Michelle Ye Mihalis (Mike) Golias Mike Fahy Mitchell Lloyd Nabil Bayakly Nathan Ron-Ferguson

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

Nick Oyler
Nicole Heckman
Nicole Seymour
Nnaemeka (Meka) Eguekwe
Noah Grey
Nora Boone
Patrick Dandridge – Working Group Co-Chair
Paul Schmidt
Paul Young – Working Group Co-Chair
Paula Middlebrooks
Pauline Vernon
Penelope Huston
Peter Nelson
Peter Pace
Phil Coop
Philip Davis
Pragati Srivastava – Working Group Co-Chair
Priyanka Chatterjee
Quincy Jones
Rachel Knox
Randy Richardson – Working Group Co-Chair
Randall Tatum – Working Group Co-Chair
Randy Womack
Ray Brown
Rebecca Hutchinson
Richard Keith
Rita Harris
Ritchie Smith
Robert Knecht
Ronne Adkins – Working Group Co-Chair
Ronnie Brooks
Roshun Austin – Working Group Co-Chair
Rusty Bloodworth
Sabya Mishra
Sajid Hossain
Sandi Klink
Sandra Upchurch
Sara Studdard
Scarlet Ponder
Scott Banbury
Scott Schoefernacker
Sean Healy
Shante Avant
Sheila Cunningham
Siobhan Whitlock
Sonja Owens
Stephanie Ivey
Stephen Edwards – Working Group Co-Chair
Steve Barlow – Working Group Co-Chair
Steve Lockwood
Susan Steffenhagen
Suzanne Carlson – Working Group Co-Chair
Tasha King Davis
Terrence Patterson
Tina Sullivan
Tom Jones
Tom Needham
Tommy Pacello – Working Group Co-Chair
Tony Pellicciotti
Tosha Downey
Tracy Buckley
Tyler Zerwekh
Vaughn Cassidy
Verna Hawkins Lambert
Victoria Van Cleef
Vivian Ekstrom
Yolanda Manning
Youngsang Kwon
Zylavian Watley

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

Alexandra Fountain
Alexandra Harris
Amanda Hill
Amber Adell
Andrea Neely
Andrew Hart
Andrew Mathewes
Angela Hill
Angela McDowell-Baines
Angelica Farmer
Angelica Woods-Smith
Anita Bishop-Anderson
April Avery
Arielle Bryant
Ashley McCall
Ashley Robinson
Alisa Haushalter
Audrey May
Bonnie Good
Brad Rust
Brandon Brooks
Brandon Morrison
Briana Lane
Bridget McCall
Bridgett Bradley
Brittany Petties
Bryden Ward
Byron Cook
Candace Mays
Cari Harris
Carl Garrett
Carnita Atwater
Carolyn Malone
Charles J. Finkley
Chase Thoms
Chee Chew
Chelsea Glass
Chelsea Howard
Cheryl Heard
Chiquita Driver
Connie Binkowitz
Courtney Jones
Daniel Wakefield
Danyelle Carnes
Darah Patterson
Darrin Martin
Daryl Payton
David Groce
Dean Moore
DeAndrea Stone
Deborah Stevens
Deborah Wade
DeQuan Curry
Destinee Hall
Diane Young
Don Autry
Donnell Johnson
Stacy Spencer
Dynesha Clayborne
Eldra White
Elizabeth Burriss
Elvy Rory
Ethan Ferguson
Evan Boulanger
Gremesha Crump
Halima Ingabire
Helen Anderson
Hope Lloyd
Humberto Coronado
Ian Hunter
Iesha Marshall
Jackie Trenthem
Jackson McNeil
Jamal Whitlow
James Kendrick
James Nelson
James Simpson
Jamie Griffin
Jaques Hamilton
Jared Myers

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

Javon McKinnon
Jen Andrews
Jen Krause
Jennifer George
Jeremy Scott
Jeremy Williams
Jessica Mason
Jianyin Roachell
Jimmie Tucker
John Freeman
John Hamilton
John Haynes
John Minervini
John Mitchell
Jonathan Mosley
John Paul Shaffer
Joyce Cox
Joyce Crutcher
Justin Entzminger
Justin Hopson
Kaitlin Grove
Kaje Simpson
Karen Hodges-Hines
Karol Hogan
Kartik Dave
Katrina Kimble
Katrina Robinson- Lee
Keith Staples
Kelvin Bonds
Ken Burns
Kenya Johnson
Kevin Brown
Kristen Schebler
Lamonda Jones
Lavada Wheatley
Lenita Winfrey
Leo Liriano
Libby Ellman
Linda Malone
Lindsay Jackson
Liren Truong
Lisa Dillard
Loretta Owens
Maddy Hirsch
MaEasha Eubanks
Mairi Albertson
Major McNeil
Manny Belen
Margot Alemon
Maria Fuhrmann
Mark Fleischer
Mary Carnes
Maryam Acklin
Matthew Dukes
Matthew Grant
Meagan Rayford
Megan Higgans
Mia Madison
Mickell Lowery
Michaih LeyBayani
Michalyn Easter-Thomas
Molly Lancaster
Myia Nealy
Nadine Smith
Natyl Martinez
Nicholas Oyler
Nidia Logan-Robinson
Nikki Lekhy
Olivia Wilmot
Olor Hughes
Pamela Kiestler
Pat Myers
Patrice Christopher
Patrice Thomas
Patrice Woods
Paul Young
Quincey Morris
Rachel Knox
Ramona Dukes
Randall Thomas
Rayle Hudson
Reagan Drake
Rebecca Hutchison
Rick Abuan
Rick Middlebrook
Robert Hicks
Ryan Mathis
Sally Parrish
Sara Burnett
Scott Guidry
Sharon Evrard
Sheldon Dan
Shelia Massey
Shreya Rangampally
Sophie Kennedy
Sophorn Kuoy
Stacee Zebb
Stacey Smith
Stacy Spencer
Stephanie Bobo
Stephen Edwards
Steve Lockwood
Students of the University of Memphis City and Regional Planning Department
Suzanne Carlson
Syntrell Tate
Tanja Mitchell
Tenisha Harris
Theresa Perkins
Tiffany Casey
TK Buchanan
Tonya Sevion-Cole
Tracey Goodman
Ty Georgeadis
Valentina Henao
Vanessa Braggs
Verlinda Henning
Virgie Banks
Virginia Oceguera
Wesley Williams
Whitney Sykes
Willie Ward Jr.
Yvonne B Acey
Zachary Brian
Zylavian Watley

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

COMMUNITY AND CITYWIDE PARTNERS

Agape Child & Family Services

Alcy Ball Development Corporation

BLDG Memphis

Boys & Girls Club of Greater Memphis (BGCM)

Bridges USA

Center for Transforming Communities

Community Alliance for the Homeless

Frayser CDC

Gestalt Community Schools

Girl 24

Greater Whitehaven Economic Development Corporation

Heights CDC

Hillcrest Mitchell Heights Neighborhood Association

J.E.S. Community Development Corporation

Juice Orange Mound

Klondike-Smokey City CDC

Knowledge Quest

Latino Memphis

Leadership Memphis/ Volunteer Memphis

Mallory Heights CDC

Memphis Center for Independent Living (MCIL)

Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association (MIFA)

Memphis Medical District Collaborative

Memphis Urban League

Midtown Memphis Development Corporation

Mt. Vernon Baptist Church

Neighborhood Christian Center (NCC)

New Chicago Community Partnership Revitalization CDC

New Memphis Institute

Power Center CDC

Raleigh CDC

RedZone Memphis Inc.

Soulsville Neighborhood Association

Southeast Memphis CDC

Street Ministries

The Stone CDC

The Works CDC

University of Memphis Design Collaborative

Uptown Community Association

Urban Art Commission (UAC)

Urban Land Institute (ULI)

Vollintine Evergreen Community Association

Westwood High School PTSA

WITH SUPPORT FROM

City of Memphis 311

City of Memphis Division of Housing and Community Development

City of Memphis Office of Community Affairs

City of Memphis Division of Engineering

City of Memphis Office of Performance Management

City of Memphis Division of Public Works

Innovate Memphis

Memphis and Shelby County Department of Regional Services (Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Neighborhood Preservation Inc.

Memphis and Shelby County Office of Planning and Development

Memphis and Shelby County Office of Sustainability and Resilience

Memphis Area Transit Authority

Economic Development Growth Engine for Memphis and Shelby County

Memphis and Shelby County Community Redevelopment Agency

Downtown Memphis Commission

City of Memphis Division of Parks and Neighborhoods

CITY AND COUNTY STAFF

John Zeanah, AICP Director Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development

Nidia Logan-Robinson Deputy Director Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development

Ashley Cash Administrator Office of Comprehensive Planning

Antoine Hawkins

Angelica Carey Municipal Planner

Bradyn Carson Municipal Planner

Faria Naz Urmy Intern Masters Candidate Dept. of City and Regional Planning University of Memphis

Jennifer Brady Municipal Planner

Melanie Batke Municipal Planner

Roger Ekstrom Municipal Planner

Shepperson Wilbun III

Vivian Ekstrom, AICP Planning Manager Memphis-Shelby County Office of Sustainability

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT

OPTICOS DESIGN INC.

CONSULTANTS

TECHNICAL ADVISORS

IN MEMORIAM

FUNDERS

LOCAL DESIGN & PLANNING ASSISTANCE

⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure e M ⬚ figure p ⬚ figure m ⬚ figure

h ⬚ figure ⬚ figure s 3.0 i ⬚ figure

Contents

Acknowledgments 2

Our Third Century 10 Introduction 11 Plan Overview 14 Our History Shapes Our Future 16 Memphis Today 24 The Community Speaks 32

Our Framework For Change 46 Creating Places for People 47 Our Strategy: Focus on Anchors 52 Cultivating Change 62 Using The Plan 72 Land Use Categories 74 Street Typology and Design 122 Implementation 151 Measuring Success 153

Plan Elements 154

District Priorities 242

Sustaining Our Future 400 Conclusion 401

Appendix A: Transit Vision Report A-1

Appendix B: Small Area Plans B-1

Appendix C: System Plans C-1

⬚ figure

PART ONE:

Our Third Century

Introduction

VISION STATEMENT

IN OUR THIRD CENTURY, MEMPHIS WILL BUILD UP, NOT OUT.

Memphis will be a city that anchors growth on strengths of the core and neighborhoods; a city of greater connectivity and access; a city of opportunity for all.

Memphis can be described in many ways: A city of hard-working, multi-cultural, dedicated people. A city of historical slow growth. A city of giving. A city of grit and struggle. A city with historic significance. A city with a will for greatness. A city of sprawl and low density. A city determined to change. A city with momentum.

Change in a city is inevitable, but residents have the ability to shape the future through participation in the Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan. Much of the way Memphis functions and looks today is a result of actions taken in its second century, from racial segregation and suburban sprawl, to low population growth. But today, Memphis turns the page to its third century with a historic momentum and focus on growth and change.

Since 1970, the City added only 4% more people, but nearly doubled in physical size, resulting in more land and infrastructure like roads, and sewers to maintain, and a lack of population and revenue to support it. Memphis 3.0 provides a comprehensive vision to support existing residents, attract new residents and visitors, and reduce some of the inequities the City has faced since the last general plan was completed in 1981.

For a city that has historically developed based on a growth policy of physical expansion through suburban sprawl and annexation, creating a collaborative vision and following a strategic plan to support the growth and reinvestment of the core city and neighborhoods is a bold step forward. This underscores the importance of the robust and authentic community engagement conducted through the planning process that involved more than 15,000 Memphians.

The Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for how the City can grow over the next 20 years and in our third century. The plan calls for redevelopment and reinvestment in anchor areas in the core city and neighborhoods, connectivity of people, jobs, businesses, and infrastructure, and expanding equity and opportunity to communities across the City.

To realize the vision of Memphis 3.0, the Comprehensive Plan, it will take everyone.

Comprehensive plan, a general plan designed to guide future growth and actions of a city.

INTRODUCTION

Making of the Plan

For almost 40 years, Memphis has not had a comprehensive plan that sets the City's vision for the future and provides a roadmap for development and improvement. The lack of an updated comprehensive plan allowed Memphis to drift through this period, following an outdated model of growth by physical expansion and annexation. The results are flat population supported only by rapidly growing land area, disinvestment in older areas of the City, and the thinning of resources across a larger physical footprint. Under the leadership of Mayor Jim Strickland, residents, leaders, and stakeholders have developed ambitious, but realistic, strategies for improvement.

The distinctive benefit of a comprehensive plan is that it provides a guide to tackle major issues identified through research, trends, and conversations with stakeholders and residents. In 2019, Memphis will enter its third century with an adopted plan for growth, development, and prosperity.

Memphis 3.0 is a comprehensive plan that aims to transform Memphis into a more prosperous and inclusive city by guiding growth and policy for the next 20 years.

⬚ figure

Desired Outcomes

• The future growth strategy based on anchors and future land use that predicts where investments like housing, infrastructure, and transportation should be made;
• A future land use planning framework aligning development types with neighborhood context, investment potential, and community desires;
• A strategic framework to meet aspirational goals with actions to achieve those goals;
• District plans that recommend opportunities for action;
• A guiding framework for investment in infrastructure, public transit, and civic space that supports efforts to attract and guide growth and investment;
• A guide for City divisions, public agencies, and nongovernmental partners to focus resources and effort in coordination to achieve the plan's vision.

Legal Basis

Under Section 13-4-201 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (the "TCA"), it is the function and duty of a city's planning commission to make and adopt an official general plan for the physical development of the City. Under Joint Resolution and Ordinance Number 2524 approved by the Memphis City Council (the "Council") and Shelby County Quarterly Court on November 15, 1976, the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board (the "Board") serves as the planning commission for the City of Memphis and the County of Shelby.

TCA Section 13-4-202 provides for the manner in which a general plan is adopted by the Board and the Council. TCA Section 13-4-202(B)(2)(B)(iii) states that, once the general plan is adopted by the Council, all land use decisions in the City shall thereafter be consistent with the plan. For the purposes of defining "consistency," only those elements of the plan related to land use decisions become effective pursuant to the guidance on Pages 72 and 73 of this document. All other sections of the plan are intended as a guide and only for planning purposes. Planning documents adopted into the appendices of the Comprehensive Plan are advisory only and not subject to consistency review.

Due to the time and effort involved in the Memphis 3.0 planning process and the importance of the content, the City desires the plan be adopted by the Land Use Control Board and the Memphis City Council.

Guiding Values

The three plan elements: land, connectivity, and opportunity represent the articulation and culmination of community values that set the foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. The Build Up, Not Out, vision aims to cultivate a sustainable and thriving City that is connected and provides opportunity for all. As plan implementation and land use decisions are enacted, the City should emphasize these core themes to ensure that the recommendations related to growth, sustainability, land development, transportation, and opportunity are positively impacting the City's future. The values expressed by the community through the planning process served as the basis for the plan's vision statement and three plan elements.

⬚ figure

Memphis is a city that VALUES LAND AS AN ASSET. Memphis cannot continue its growth policy of the past. The City will succeed by creating compact communities where land use and density support walkable, active, and transit-served communities.

• Growth in priority redevelopment areas supporting higher density, infill, and mix of uses
• Growth in areas with better transit access
• Growth in business, retail, services, and employment
• Reduced blight and vacancy
• Improved park and greenspace access
• Safe and walkable neighborhoods
• Enhanced neighborhood character
• Protection and enhancement of natural resources and environmental systems

⬚ figure

Memphis is a city of CONNECTED COMMUNITIES. Memphis communities desire greater connectivity and access. For Memphis to thrive, it must expand residents' ability to connect to mobility options, opportunity, and one another.

• Greater access to jobs and businesses for all
• Better access to efficient and reliable public transportation
• Greater access to greenways, bikeways, sidewalks, and other modes of active transportation
• Greater use of existing infrastructure capacity to service growth in development and density
• Readiness for change in technology in City infrastructure

⬚ figure

Memphis is a city of EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY. Through actions, investments, and citizen-led neighborhood interventions, historically disadvantaged communities must gain greater access to resources and opportunities to succeed and prosper.

• Improved quality of life and economic competitiveness to attract, retain, create, and expand businesses
• Improved access to quality employment, education, and training
• Increased support and resources for small developers and emerging entrepreneurs
• Improvement in middle-class wages and wealth building
• Development without displacement for communities with infill opportunity
• Greater mix of housing types to ensure households at all income levels have affordable, quality options
• Reduced energy burden, especially for those with fewer means

Plan Overview

How the Plan is Structured The Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan is structured into four distinct parts that synthesize the major findings and recommendations. Throughout the two-year planning process, technical studies were generated to provide baseline information related to employment and population projections, neighborhood investment, market potential, and more. Additional studies were conducted to provide detailed information on topics such as housing or transit. The major findings from all studies are included throughout the Comprehensive Plan document.

Plan elements includes goals and objectives based on community values.

Part One: Our Third Century This section discusses the historic development of the City and delivers background context relating to Memphis' demographics and projections needed for recommendations of future growth. Also included in this section is the summary of the two year planning process with details on community engagement and outreach.

Part Two: Our Framework for Change This section presents the plan's theory of change: concentration of density and investment focused in the core and neighborhood anchor areas provides the greatest opportunity for growth and strategic community improvement. The land use framework and street typology should serve to guide future decisions on land use and transportation. Page 46

Part Three: Plan Elements This section includes the major elements that guided public decision-making. The section is comprised of the three elements - Land, Connectivity, and Opportunity. It encompasses Citywide goals, objectives, and recommended actions that support the Build Up, Not Out vision. Page 154

Part Four: District Priorities Each community has unique strengths to build on and major priorities to address. This section shares the community-developed vision and priorities for each of the 14 planning districts, recommendations for land use, and implementation priorities. Page 242

Special Appendix: The Memphis 3.0 Transit Vision (Jarrett Walker and Associates, MATA, Innovate Memphis) was developed to study the current transit network. Through a public process, a revised network was developed that promotes higher frequency. The investment needed to implement the new network was identified as well.

Available on the web, the Market Analysis for Comprehensive Plan (RCLCo, Universal Commercial) provided household, employment, and growth outlook through 2040. The report evaluated housing market strengths to project future housing needs and provided market outlook (or demand) based on land use. A supplementary Fair Share Housing Comparison was conducted to analyze the share of households in Memphis by age range and income relative to all households in Shelby County. The Memphis Technical Report (Strategic Economics) presented a detailed analysis of household change over time, neighborhood reinvestment, employment trends and job access, and commercial land use investment. This report also compared the spatial distribution of public infrastructure investments. The Memphis Residential Market Potential Report (Zimmerman Volk and Associates) includes a migration and mobility analysis to project housing demand based on market potential, income and life stage.

Who will use the plan?

The success of the Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan comes from community-wide adoption, use, and support. Stakeholder groups that helped to create and inform the plan include elected officials, City and County divisions and agencies, developers and investors, community-based organizations, philanthropic organizations, and the public. Continued support and use of the plan by these stakeholder groups is essential to the plan's impact on the future of Memphis.

⬚ figure

Elected Officials

City of Memphis and Shelby County Government leadership should continue to demonstrate commitment to the plan's principles and recommended actions. Legislative bodies of the City and County should adopt the plan and ensure consistency in applying the plan to land use decisions.

⬚ figure

Divisions & Agencies

City and County Division and Agency directors should familiarize themselves with the plan recommendations. Policy and investment decisions should be guided by the plan, and implementation should be carried out through systems planning or participation in small area planning.

⬚ figure

Developers & Investors

For-profit and non-profit developers should consult the plan regarding recommendations for land, connectivity, and opportunity. The plan provides guidance on desired forms, uses, and character of development in and around anchors, in addition to other areas of the City.

⬚ figure

Community-Based Organizations

Community organizations can use the plan to advocate for the recommendations in the plan framework, including the land use plan, the plan elements, and the district priorities. Community organizations will be key partners in implementing many of the recommendations in the district priorities.

⬚ figure

Philanthropy

Philanthropic and charitable organizations are key partners in investing in community development, particularly in areas with low market potential. These organizations will be important partners with the public sector in supporting recommendations in Nurture and Accelerate anchors of the City.

⬚ figure

Public

Our greatest asset, over 15,000 Memphians contributed to the creation of the Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan. The people of Memphis are the experts on their neighborhoods and should continue to shape implementation through their advocacy, actions, and partnership with the City.

OUR HISTORY SHAPES OUR FUTURE

The timeline shows notable events over the City's first two hundred years, capturing the major eras of economic development and population growth.

1819

1819 Memphis is founded by John Overton, James Winchester, and Andrew Jackson. Memphis was one of the first planning communities west of the Alleghenies

1826 Memphis is incorporated.

1857 The Memphis and Charleston railroad is completed, connecting the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean.

⬚ figure

1862 Battle of Memphis: two-hour naval battle after which Memphis surrenders to federal forces.

1873 Alexander H. Dickerson is the first African American elected to the Memphis City Council.

1878 25,000 flee Memphis and 5,000 killed from the City's latest Yellow Fever Epidemic, later initiating a major sanitation reform.

1880 Memphis loses its charter and becomes a taxing district as a result of yellow fever epidemics. It regained home rule in 1883.

1899 Memphis annexed the town of Idlewild as part of "Greater Memphis Movement."

1900 First automobile introduced in Memphis. Commercial Appeal editorializes about this "new danger."

1901 George Kessler plans Riverside Park, Overton Park, and the Parkway system.

⬚ figure

1910 Commission form of City government established.

1916 Harahan Bridge opens, connecting Memphis to the west.

1919

1922 Memphis adopts first zoning code in the state.

1924 Memphis adopts first comprehensive city plan from Harland Bartholomew.

⬚ figure

1935 Riverside Drive opens.

1949 Memphis and Arkansas Bridge completed.

1962 St. Jude Children's Research Hospital established by entertainer Danny Thomas.

1965 Memphis establishes Mayor-Council form of government.

1968 Two sanitation workers are crushed leading to the sanitation workers' strike. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated at the Lorraine Motel after giving his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech at the Mason Temple the day before.

⬚ figure

1971 Memphians save Overton Park.

1972 Buses are ordered by Federal Judge to ensure full desegregation of Memphis City Schools.

1973 FedEx Corporation moves its operations to Memphis.

1819 308 population ⬚ figure 0.44 square miles

1869 40,226 population ⬚ figure 4.6 square miles

1920 162,351 population ⬚ figure 24 square miles

2019 Our History, Our Future

1979 First AutoZone opens.

1981 Memphis 2000 Policy Plan adopted.

1991 The National Civil Rights Museum opens.

2016 Memphis 3.0 planning process commences.

⬚ figure

Starting in 1851, the City of Memphis began annexing land adjacent to its city limits. This pattern continued over the next 150 years, adding considerable population growth to the City through the 1970s. Since that time, population has generally remained flat, growing only 4% over the last five decades. In order to sustain the population of approximately 640,000 residents, Memphis continued annexation through the 21st century. Today, the City is approximately 324 square miles – 55% larger than the City's size in 1970.

Cotton and Transportation (1850-1890)

During the mid to late 19th century, Memphis served as the major economic and political center for the upper Mississippi Valley. The key drivers for this economic activity were the City’s prime intersection at three states (Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee), major rail and water transportation options, and the region's large cotton plantations and slave trade that supported the plantations. Transportation improvements in the 1850s through the 1880s, including the development of the interstate railroad system and the local streetcar system, helped consolidate the City's economic importance into a grid pattern set out by the City's founders, establishing the City's Downtown.

The Civil War had a major impact on Memphis, resulting in a migration into the City of thousands of former slaves fleeing plantations and farms. Memphis also got its start as a major medical center during this period with the establishment of one of the first hospitals for military veterans in the U.S.

Industrial Expansion Fosters Growth within the Parkways (1890-1920s)

Starting in the early 1890s, Memphis solidified its position as a regional powerhouse for production and trade by the addition of manufacturing of wood products and continuing to expand cotton processing. A large part of this success was due to the City's excellent transportation connections

to the rest of the U.S. and the world. By 1920, Memphis also had one of the largest medical complexes that included several thriving hospitals. Throughout this period, the City experienced steady population growth, largely within the boundaries defined by the original parkway system designed by George Kessler in 1903. Neighborhood development during this period was generally characterized by a walkable street network focused around the streetcar system.

Rapid Outward Expansion (1920s through late 1960s)

During this time, the City experienced significant employment growth in the industry and institution sectors. The Firestone Plant opened in 1936, which employed 3,000 workers at its peak; the Defense Depot opened in 1942, employing 5,000; International Harvester opened in 1958, employing 2,000; and in 1962, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, which today employs more than 4,000 people. Robust employment opportunities drove population growth out of the traditional city parkway system and included annexation of new suburban neighborhoods. As the City’s boundaries spread outward, new neighborhoods were increasingly built to be more auto-oriented and included large lots, cul-de-sacs, and retail limited to shopping centers and major arterials.

The late 1950s also saw the beginning of urban renewal, resulting in the demolition of “slum” housing (and in some cases middle or upper income African American neighborhoods and cultural centers like Beale Street). These were replaced with public housing, businesses, and parking lots or sometimes left vacant. Building on a long history of struggles for racial equity in Memphis, the Civil Rights Movement also came to the forefront during this period, propelled by the fight for school desegregation, the sanitation workers strike, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968.

Post-Industrial Memphis (1970 through 2008)

Like many other cities in the U.S., Memphis saw a decline of manufacturing employment beginning in the 1970s. While manufacturing remained an important part of the economy, new job growth was increasingly driven by other sectors. Most notably, the City emerged as a transportation and logistics hub, starting with the opening of FedEx near the Memphis International Airport in 1973. As in previous eras, the City’s central location within the U.S. and transportation infrastructure continued to be key assets driving growth. With the shift away from river and rail-based trade toward air-based shipping, jobs moved from the Mississippi River, the Port, and the railroads to the airport in the City’s southeast.

⬚ figure

Image shows a bustling Madison Avenue in the 1920s. Historic-Memphis.com.

Employment in retail and the service sectors also increased rapidly during this period, with new office and retail space increasingly located to the south and east.

This shift in Memphis’ economy was accompanied by changing neighborhood dynamics. Many older neighborhoods lost population and households, while growth continued to occur in the suburbs. Continued annexations of new suburban neighborhoods helped maintain the City’s population at around 650,000 from the 1970s on. In addition to economic factors, this pattern of outward expansion accompanied by disinvestment in existing neighborhoods was also related to complex social and political factors. Some of these factors include the demolition of housing in the core due to urban renewal (which continued into the 1970s), City and County Government policies that facilitated suburban development and annexation by expanding urban services to undeveloped land, and the departure of many white households to the suburbs in response to school and neighborhood desegregation. It was during this time-period that the City’s last comprehensive plan,

OUR HISTORY SHAPES OUR FUTURE

⬚ figure

Memphis 2000 Policy Plan Map. Blue outline shows urban service boundary recommended by the 1981 Comprehensive Plan.

the Memphis 2000 Policy Plan, was adopted in 1981 by the Memphis City Council and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners. Memphis 2000 recommended a series of policies relating to economic development, land use, housing, transportation, and public facilities. One of the core recommendations that drove policy development in the Memphis 2000 Plan was the creation of the Urban Service Boundary (USB) which allowed for outward, sprawling growth beyond the City's current jurisdiction. From 1995 to 2007, nearly 60,000 new single family homes were built in Memphis and unincorporated Shelby County. Of those built in unincorporated areas, many were annexed into the City during this period.

Throughout this time period, civic and community leaders began to set the stage for the revival of the City center, with historic preservation efforts and infrastructure projects like the development of the Downtown trolley system, tourism and entertainment projects like Mud Island and the Pyramid, and the redevelopment of Beale Street. Beginning in the 1990s, the Memphis Housing Authority began to redevelop the City's public housing as mixed-income developments under HUD's HOPE VI Program, resulting in renewed interest in living in and around Downtown, and the relocation of some of the original low-income residents.

⬚ figure

Map from City of Memphis 2017 presentation on "Right-sizing Memphis." The map identified areas that could potentially be de-annexed based on their original year of annexation.

Great Recession and the End to Annexation (2008-2016)

The 2000s saw an acceleration of de-industrialization, culminating in the Great Recession (2008-2011) which resulted in major job losses in manufacturing, transportation and logistics, as well as in other sectors. While the overall Memphis economy has regained the jobs lost during the recession, the recovery was driven by the service sector (including health care, accommodation and food services, and administrative and support services). Transportation and logistics employment has grown since 2011, but total employment in this sector remains below pre-recession levels. At the same time, manufacturing employment has continued to decline.

The Great Recession also saw a dramatic slowdown in the pace of Memphis' outward growth. Since the end of the recession in 2011, local and state policy changes have made it much more difficult to continue the pattern of growth through annexation. As annexations have slowed, Memphis' population has increased slightly - reaching a high point of 657,000 in 2015, with much of the recent growth occurring within the City's existing boundaries. While new single family home development has slowed considerably from an annual average of more than 4,000 between 1995 and 2007 to an average of 900 between 2008 and 2016, multifamily and mixed-use development has rebounded.

OUR HISTORY SHAPES OUR FUTURE

De-annexation and a New Era of Development (2016 to present) In 2013, the City's ability to easily annex land became more difficult with the passage by the Tennessee State Legislature of Public Chapter 441, Acts of 2013, which established an annexation moratorium through May of 2014. Following that, Public Chapter 707, Acts of 2014 was enacted which voided the City's authority to annex land without written consent from property owners in the affected area or without holding a referendum. Since then, the City has evaluated the financial impact of de-annexation in an effort to respond to community desire and to promote sustainable, urban growth.

At the time of the production of this plan, the City has moved forward with the deannexation of the Eads and River Bottoms areas effective January 1, 2020, and the Southwind-Windyke, Rocky Point, and South Cordova areas effective January 1, 2021. The net result of these deannexations is a decrease in population by 1% and a reduction in land area by 10%. Alongside these actions, in 2017, the City discontinued the extension of sanitary sewer infrastructure outside the City of Memphis corporate boundaries, aligning with the Build Up, Not Out vision of this plan.

This effort to strategically shrink the City's physical footprint coincides with historically high reinvestment and construction activity. In 2018, Memphis saw over $1.5 Billion invested in combined residential and commercial construction, marking the fourth straight year of over $1 Billion in construction activity. With more in the pipeline, the early years of implementation of Memphis 3.0 will be part of the City's recent development boom.

⬚ figure

The map above shows the chronology of annexations for the City of Memphis, with darkest being the oldest annexation areas and lighter colors representing the newer annexation areas.

Photo: David Roseberry

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

633,104

Population in 2020

US Census Bureau 2020

I love Memphis' soul and genuine authenticity. Low cost of living. Opportunity! -survey respondent

⬚ figure

12.4

Visitors per year (in millions)

Memphis Convention & Visitors Bureau Annual Report 2019

Memphis is a green city and there is so much to do. -survey respondent

100

Miles of Greenways

MidSouth Greenprint

46%

Home Ownership

ACS 2019, 5-Year

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

The people - it’s Memphis’ greatest strength. There are a lot of people that really want the best in this city.. -stakeholder respondent

⬚ figure

#1

City for Black Entrepreneurs

Fast Company Magazine

⬚ figure

44

Daily Transit Routes

MATA

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

15,000

People engaged in 3.0 process

Office of Comprehensive Planning

"The best things about Memphis are the climate, trees, water quality, overall cost of living, a revitalized downtown. -survey respondent

Memphis 3.0

⬚ figure

"I live right next to the University of Memphis and the best thing is the walkability. -survey respondent

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

41,700

Number of Minority Owned Businesses

The 800 Initiative

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

9,145

Acres of Park land

The Trust for Public Land

⬚ figure

34

Median Age

ACS 2019, 5-Year

⬚ figure

"Memphis has smart, genuine people. -survey respondent

Our Third Century

Memphis Today

Population and Households The City's current population is approximately 650,000 residents (251,000 households). The City's population increased from 646,000 to 660,000 since the last comprehensive plan was developed in 1981, falling to its lowest population during that period in 1990 at 610,000. Memphis' population is projected to increase 10% by 2040, representing the largest increase since 1960. Household growth is projected at 0.4% per year for Shelby County, with Memphis' share of that equating to approximately 74% by 2040. On average, that is about 1,300 new households per year in the City between now and 2040. This provides the opportunity to direct population growth in a way that supports existing neighborhoods, employment centers, available infrastructure, and the transit system.

Memphis’ population is projected to increase 10% by 2040.

Age and Population Although there are a lot of young people in Memphis, nearly 70% of all households have no children under the age of 18. While many families make housing decisions based on proximity to a preferred school, this data is evidence that most people make housing decisions based on other preferences. A study conducted for the Comprehensive Plan by Zimmerman Volk & Associates estimates that 52,000 households, or one-fifth of all Memphis households, move within the City annually, representing significant churn within the market. Demand exists within the City, but preference and quality to meet the needs of housing consumers must be addressed by existing and new supply of housing.

The City has historically lagged behind surrounding communities in Shelby County in attracting and retaining middle-age and middle-income households. Memphis attracts more than a fair share of households of individuals under 35, but as residents age, many choose to move elsewhere. Providing a broad range of housing types and addressing quality of life factors, particularly in areas that succeed in attracting households of individuals under 35, will be important for Memphis to maintain a fair share across age and income segments.

Fair Share Analysis. Shown above is the share of households in Memphis compared to all of Shelby County by age and income segments. Chart Source: ESRI, RCLCo.

The population of Memphis is aging. Nearly 23% of Memphians are 55 or older. As the 2040 plan horizon approaches, individuals 35 years and older today will begin to shift toward retirement age. Research shows, on average, men and women in the U.S. live five years longer than in 1980. There is demand today for different housing options to address accessibility needs of older adults. As preference grows for people to live in smaller units, redevelopment of existing housing stock and new development should include more townhomes, condominiums, or apartments. Zoning changes that encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs), multi-family housing, and mixed use are critical in supporting older adults to remain in existing communities or live near family. Development should be encouraged in areas with greater walkability and access to transit to accommodate a range of population groups, including an aging population.

⬚ figure

Educational Attainment. Shown above is educational attainment for the population 25 and older in the City of Memphis in 2015. Most of the population 25 and older has at least a high school diploma or equivalent. Chart Source: ACS 2015 5 Year 2015.

Educational Attainment The education levels of Memphis residents have increased significantly over the past decade and a half, although overall educational attainment is low compared to national averages and peer cities. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of Memphians with less than a high school degree decreased by 28%, while those with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased by 21%. Despite the gains in educational attainment, Memphis still had a relatively smaller number of college-educated workers compared to the U.S. in 2015 and lower wages relative to national wages. Of the top 20 occupations in the Memphis region, fewer than half of Memphians are paid a median wage of $30,000 or higher in 2016.

Poverty/Low Income Levels High foreclosure and bankruptcy rates, low household incomes, and other factors have created a situation in which many households in Memphis struggle with financial instability. Compared to the State of Tennessee and Nashville, the poverty rate is ten percentage points higher and median incomes are almost $15,000 lower in Memphis. Demographics in areas of highest vacancy show incomes lower than the median household income for the City. This underscores the need for policies and actions addressing equitable economic development, decreasing household costs, improved transit service, and increased access to opportunity.

⬚ figure

Social Equity. The map shows poverty and social inequity. The lighter the color, fewer jobs available and social equity is a concern. (Source: ESRI; Greenprint 2014).

Existing Land Use and Density The City’s development patterns have led to segregated land uses with a significant amount of land used for single family residential. About 60% of all housing within the City is single family detached. The City’s zoning and segregated uses has put more burden on the average resident attempting to conduct his or her day-to-day business. According to the 2015 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, on average, it takes a Memphian 22 minutes to travel to work, putting more of a financial and quality of life burden on individuals. For those that use public transit, most have a commute of 60 minutes or more.

Low density and sprawl in Memphis have left the City and its 650,000 residents with infrastructure challenges related to maintenance and upgrades. Compact building design within existing communities can take advantage of existing infrastructure like roads, sewers, and public assets (like parks, schools, etc.). By increasing density and reducing land consumption, the City can reduce municipal capital spending. Even as the City explores de-annexation for certain areas, the population density remains low when compared to other major cities. Other associated costs of density are social in nature, people spend more time traveling from place to place as opposed to enjoying spaces and time with their friends, colleagues, and family members.

In some planning districts where density is higher than the City average (like Lamar, Jackson and Core districts), infrastructure could

⬚ figure

Population Density. The above map represents people per square mile for the City of Memphis from 1990 to 2015. As the City grew and spread out over the years, density has decreased. Chart Source: US Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2010; ACS 2015 5 Year 2015.

Existing Land Use

The map below shows existing land use by parcel.

• Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Institutional/Civic
• Recreation/Natural Resources
• Transportation/RR/Utilities
• Vacant Land

⬚ figure

be improved by additional investments that support walkability, multimodal transportation options, and compact development. In more suburban areas with small pockets of medium to high density (like Frayser and Hickory Hill), more significant interventions would need to occur to improve connectivity and support transit access.

The built environment, including public spaces, can shape and support health outcomes. These amenities can come in the form of parks, open spaces, cultural institutions, and public art. However, not all are accessible for all Memphians nor are they the same quality in every neighborhood. It is essential that all Memphians have equitable access and high quality vibrant civic spaces to support health outcomes and social cohesion.

Housing Stock

More than 52% of the City’s housing stock (this includes single family and multi-family residences) was built before 1969. As the number of housing units in Memphis increased over time, household growth was too slow to generate sufficient demand for the older houses in older parts of the City. Costly housing maintenance and resulting neighborhood deterioration prompted individuals with the financial means to move to newer neighborhoods in the eastern part of the City. This is especially true along the North and South corridors of the core city where home repairs have become too costly without financial assistance for those with lower incomes.

Research shows a correlation between aging housing stock and energy burden. Individuals who live in areas with homes built in the 1950s and earlier face higher energy burdens, or pay more for utilities and water usage, than others in the City. A report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that Memphis households pay 6% of their annual income on energy costs, higher than any major city in the nation. In lower income communities, average energy costs equate to 13% of annual income.

⬚ figure

Vacant land by land use. The map above shows vacant land by land use based on existing zoning districts (78 square miles of vacant land). This excludes open space zoning like floodways, conservation, agriculture, etc. Source: Shelby County Assessor Parcel Data, 2016; Bluff City Snap Shot 2015.

⬚ figure

Land Use by Land Area. The chart above shows land use by land area in the City of Memphis. Over half of all land in the City is either residential or vacant land.

⬚ figure

Year Built. The above chart represents the year built for homes in the City of Memphis. The majority of homes in the City were built between 1950 and 1979.

Vacancy and Blight As homes were built and occupied in newer subdivisions in the ever-expanding fringe of the City, many of Memphis' older neighborhoods experienced significant vacancy and blight. Most unoccupied buildings of various uses (residential, commercial, and industrial) throughout the City are suffering from structural issues and deferred maintenance further contributing to the overwhelming number of vacant and blighted structures. A vacancy rate of 16% for housing units, 10% for other uses (office, industrial, and retail space), and 56 square miles of vacant land has left the City with areas with weak housing markets and low demand. Blight comes not only in the form of unoccupied, unmaintained structures, it can include vacant lots, high weeds and grass, substantial amounts of trash scattered in a neighborhood, or illegal dumping. In the fall of 2016, it was reported that 48,452 parcels (about 13%) in the City have an indicator of blight.

Housing Affordability Nearly half of households spends more than 30% of their incomes on housing (the standard measure for housing affordability), indicating a need for not only more affordable housing, but a balanced market approach with a focus on housing affordability, type, and quality. Often, people with disabilities will require affordable housing options with universal design to meet their needs. Memphis can expect about 1,300 new households per year between now and 2040. Of the new households projected to choose Memphis as their

Universal Design, the design of buildings, products, or environment to make them accessible to all people, regardless of age, disability, or other factors

⬚ figure

Housing Value. Housing value is the ACS respondent's estimate of how much the owner-occupied property (house and lot, mobile home and lot, or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale or the "price asked" if it is on sale. Source: ESRI; ACS, 2015)

home, research shows an overwhelming preference for multifamily units (47%) followed by a split demand for renovated single family housing stock and new single family construction (24% and 23% respectively). A market analysis completed for the plan indicates a surge in interest for single-family attached housing, creating room in the market for missing middle housing and increasing density and affordability in strategic areas of the City. Missing middle housing is a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. Examples include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts similar to the mix of building types that can be found in older areas of the City.

With more than half of Memphians being renters, it is pertinent that renters and their needs are included within the market approach. According to a 2016 Report by the Memphis Division of Housing and Community Development, there are 4,200 rental units in the City that are considered substandard housing.

Homeownership

Homeownership, a key mechanism for building and transferring wealth, has declined in most parts of the City. The overall share of Memphis households who own their home was 46% in 2019 (a 3% decrease from 2015) while homeownership rates for the U.S. were nearly 64% during that same time period. The decline in homeownership was not uniform across the City; it was experienced primarily by African-American households and located more in certain districts than others such as Frayser, South, Jackson, and Oakhaven-Parkway Village. These factors increase the difficulty for the majority of Memphis’ population (African-Americans and other people of color) to build and transfer wealth and move out of poverty.

Economic Outlook

Memphis is home to FedEx World Headquarters, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, AutoZone World Headquarters, and International Paper World Headquarters, among other business and industry leaders. Today, the transportation and warehousing sector is the major industry driving the Memphis economy, with additional specializations in health care, medical technology manufacturing, other selected manufacturing industries, and tourism. For many decades, Shelby County has held a dominant position in the transportation and warehousing sector as compared to the U.S. and peer regions; however, in recent years, other regions have outpaced Memphis in job growth in this sector. Memphis also has specializations in administrative and support services, specialized medicine, medical technology manufacturing, resource-intensive manufacturing and materials processing and manufacturing.

⬚ figure

Median Household Income. The chart above represents the median household income for the City of Memphis from 1980 to 2015 compared to the national median household income. The income amounts are adjusted to reflect 2015 dollar values. Chart Source: US Census Bureau 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010; ACS 2015 5 Year

⬚ figure

Transportation, Warehouse, and Wholesale Employment, 2014. The map above shows concentrations of the current transportation and warehousing industry. Source: Strategic Economics, 2017; Longitudinal Household Employment Dynamics, 2014.

MEMPHIS TODAY

⬚ figure

Market-Driven Residential Investment Shed. The map above highlights the potential population and employment growth area (in yellow) based on past trends. Blue and red dotted lines illustrate where industrial and office development is likely to occur. Green dotted lines indicate areas of potential residential stabilization.

food and beverage manufacturing, and tourism and entertainment.

In addition, the City is taking steps to diversify its economy by attracting knowledge-based jobs. Compared to the U.S. and peer regions, Memphis has a relatively low percentage of jobs in professional services, information, finance, and management, but there have been signs of progress in recent years. These knowledge-based sectors are projected to drive economic growth nationally in the coming years. Efforts by University of Memphis, EpiCenter, StartCo, and others have poised Memphis to take advantage of this growth.

In recent years, Memphis' market has experienced a trend of movement of existing households and jobs among competing areas of the City. While there have been some significant developments, particularly development of new housing units and movement of industry leaders to Downtown Memphis, market forecasts anticipate that market-driven residential, retail, and office development will concentrate in a "cone" from Downtown, along the Poplar corridor, edging out to Germantown Parkway. Areas south of Downtown, near the Memphis International Airport, along the Lamar Avenue Corridor, and areas in the northeast portion of the City show potential for new industrial development and redevelopment.

While the City has spread to 324 square miles, the City is strategically moving to target imited infrastructure resources. Short-term City and regional infrastructure plans are focused on directing resources to address critical needs in existing neighborhoods and economic development target areas. This includes major road improvements, repaving existing streets, bridge maintenance, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements and refocusing on the maintenance of the existing sewer system, rather than continuing the historic pattern of

The City has 82 square feet of retail per person – compared to 23.5 square feet nationally.

outward expansion.

Retail and Industrial Land

Job growth is projected to be slow and steady through 2040, amounting to about 26,000 new jobs. The greatest job gains are forecasted in leisure and hospitality, construction, and education and health. The City's retail supply has grown faster than the population. Between 2000 and 2017, the City's total retail inventory grew by an estimated 17%. In comparison, the population grew by 1% between 2000 and 2015. New development will be necessary to replace older strip malls and shopping centers, which may not meet the preferences of modern retailers (especially national chains). Overall, however, the City of Memphis has an estimated 82 square feet of retail space per person, compared to a national average of 23.5 square feet per person, which is considered an oversupply.

Projections show industrial and flex jobs will likely be developed in areas where there is existing industrial activity and new or modified buildings such as the Oakhaven area, Pidgeon Industrial Park, President's Island, and on the borders of Frayser and Raleigh. It is unlikely that new industrial operations will inhabit areas with vacant and outdated industrial space due to the age of infrastructure and the distance from other industrial activity without targeted investments.

Transportation and Related Costs

As employment growth and commercial investment shifted from the core, this created accessibility challenges for workers. More than 50% of jobs in Memphis are concentrated in three general areas: the Core City (Downtown and Midtown), East Memphis, and the area east of the Memphis International Airport. On average, it takes Memphians 22 minutes to travel to work by car and 60 minutes or more by public transportation.

The Center for Neighborhood Technology reports that the average cost of car ownership in Memphis is $11,465 a year, including insurance, maintenance, and gas. For households that earn less than the median household income ($41,228), this cost can be nearly one-third of their gross income. By aligning land use and transportation planning, better decisions can be made to connect the community to support access to jobs and businesses by all modes and create a more frequent and connected transit system.

Improved transit can help address financial burden on residents by better supporting Memphians who have no vehicle available and reducing their need for automobile ownership. The Memphis Area

⬚ figure

Average Housing and Transportation Costs. The chart above represents the average housing and transportation costs for the typical Memphian. The Center for Neighborhood Technology identifies transportation as typically the second highest expense for a household next to the cost of housing. Source: Adapted from https://htaindex.cnt.org/fact-sheets/ for Memphis, TN

⬚ figure

Local Transit Funding. The above chart shows the local transit funding per capita for Memphis' peer cities from 2009 to 2013. Source: Adapted from Innovate Memphis: Transit Funding Working Group White Paper 2016, page 12

Transit Authority (MATA) has faced declining ridership, service cuts, and maintenance issues in recent years while still trying to provide reliable transit service. The City's land use and growth patterns have hindered the ability of MATA to operate frequent service and the agency has prioritized providing coverage to all areas of the City. A network of low-frequency routes limits people's ability to quickly travel from their homes to their jobs. As a part of the plan, a short and long-range Transit Vision was developed and which increases frequency and provides

The Community Speaks

⬚ figure

A priority of the Memphis 3.0 planning process was to reflect the needs and desires of Memphians by seeking contributions from as much of the community as possible, transparently and authentically. The multi-phase participatory process included multiple avenues for Memphians to share opinions and make recommendations on city and district-level strategic actions. Planners worked with local organization partners, artists, architects, and nonprofits to identify and understand the assets and issues of Memphis from the people who interact with the City daily, shaping the plan's guiding principles and leading to the City's vision: BUILD UP, NOT OUT.

Citywide Input

The Memphis 3.0 planning process was grounded in a commitment to community involvement where a fair, equitable, and accessible process gave every resident a chance to speak up about the future of Memphis. The Comprehensive Plan guides growth and seeks to reverse negative outcomes related to sprawl and disinvestment. Through an understanding of the assets and issues of Memphis from the people who interact with the City daily, the Build Up, Not Out vision was developed.

To sustain the plan and ensure that it states the vision of the future as decided by the people, the plan set out to reflect the true needs and desires for Memphis by seeking contributions from as much of the community as possible, and as authentically and transparently as possible. The participatory process included multiple avenues for people to share their voices, view findings, and make recommendations on City priorities and district-level strategies and actions.

The engagement from residents throughout the two-year planning process provided major takeaways for the planning team that informed future initiatives and Comprehensive Plan updates. Relationships between the City and its residents require a foundation built on trust and commitment to continuous improvement. This includes a transparent and honest government responsive to the needs and requests of a neighborhood, along with the understanding engagement is not a one-time transaction but an ongoing commitment.

Before the planning process was underway, a nine-question electronic survey was administered through the Memphis 3.0 website and Facebook and taken by 524 individuals. In the survey, people were asked about their likes and dislikes of Memphis, ideas for improving the City, and thoughts on what it would take for Memphis 3.0 to be a success. The survey also polled individuals on the best ways to obtain their input. Overwhelmingly, people said social media/online tools or community meetings were the best ways to involve them in the planning process. The planning process kicked off November, 2016, with 14 public meetings in 14 days, debuting a robust, standard-setting community involvement approach. Throughout the process, the Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) of the Division of Planning and Development (DPD) worked with technical advisors with unique perspectives on community engagement. OCP and local partners received training and assistance with strategy development to aid in reaching a multitude of audiences throughout Memphis.

Throughout the process, OCP and its partners engaged more than 15,000 individuals (which included almost 5,000 surveys), partnered

More than 15,000 Memphians participated in the planning process.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

with 44 Citywide and neighborhood organizations and enlisted over 60 Memphis 3.0 Ambassadors who volunteered to assist in event coordination and recruitment during the Comprehensive Plan. With every public event, a primary goal was to gain as much knowledge of residents' experiences in Memphis to fuel research of effective strategies and policies from other cities, along with funding opportunities. It was equally important to educate participants on existing conditions in the City and how the intervention of planning for the future could positively impact the City.

Phase 1: Background

From December, 2016, through February, 2017, the engagement efforts of Phase One: Background were aimed at understanding, through community discussion, what the public considered as strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities of the City. At the start of 2017, OCP held 14 public meetings, attended by nearly 1,400 residents. Simultaneously, OCP conducted an online survey with 524 people between the ages of 17 and 89 (the median age was 53). OCP created four core commitments that came out of the initial meeting discussions to guide the engagement process: Transparent, Responsive, Flexible and Community-Oriented. The planners developed an inventory of current conditions in the City of Memphis based on the responses. This helped planners see where issues like blight, vacancy, and lack of opportunities/access to employment occur the most and how insufficient transit was contributing to them. Lack of quality transit prompted the planning initiative to create a Transit Vision with Innovate Memphis and Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). This inventory later led to a list of 44 best practices that were presented to residents in the second phase.

OCP received more than 15,000 comments over the three months of Phase One. The comments highlighted assets in Memphis: what keeps them here and what they appreciate about them. Participants also identified a multitude of challenges and issues. Those challenges and issues can be summarized in 10 Common Themes as shown on the bottom of the page.

Phase 2: Vision and Goal Setting

Phase Two was centered around visioning and goal setting, aiming toward a set of shared priorities for the City over the next 20 years. By narrowing down the 10 Common Themes, the team identified draft goals for the Comprehensive Plan and gained feedback from residents on how they shape the future vision of Memphis.

From March through August, 2017, OCP held 11 public meetings, gave six presentations with an opportunity for questions and answers, and attended five community events with other partners. Later, these findings were reported back to the public through four Citywide presentations. Approximately 880 residents attended. Ages of individuals ranged from 12 years old to 91 years old (the median age was 45). After funding was raised to conduct the Transit Vision planning process, collaborative efforts between OCP, Innovate Memphis, MATA, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and community partners began to survey and gain feedback from residents.

Many of the comments reiterated what was previously stated in the first phase, presenting specific issues and opportunities for change that were most valuable to residents. People generally wanted to see the Comprehensive Plan work toward the following issues, which later became early goals of the plan: additional transportation

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

options; increasing reliability and frequency of bus service; streets and neighborhood redevelopment to support density and schools; increase access to healthy food, quality parks and public facilities; strategically reuse empty lots for neighborhood redevelopment or address environmental concerns like flooding; create more programs for youth; promote programs to renew blighted properties; protect the Memphis Sand Aquifer; and implement programs to reduce waste; and to explore and promote renewable energy resources.

Phase 3: Future Growth and Scenario Planning Phase Three was to better understand Memphians' values and how they translate into the future growth and redevelopment of the City's neighborhoods. This phase aided the final refinement of the vision and goals and established a preferred growth scenario for the next 20 years.

Four workshops were held across the City between September and November 2017 to discuss where new housing, jobs, and redevelopment should be prioritized based on three growth frameworks: following the trend pattern of growth, growth in the core and along major corridors, or growth around neighborhood centers. This round of engagement was challenging as it involved asking more than 2,000 residents to discuss trade-offs and to select one value over other values to determine a growth framework for the City. OCP conducted eight engagements at other events, worked with six partners to engage their stakeholders, hosted three presentations, and conducted online and paper surveys. Ages of individuals engaged ranged from 12 years old to 91 years old (the median age was 45).

Participants spoke out against following growth trends and favored a balanced approach to growth with half expressing a preference for increased growth in the core and along major corridors and the other half expressing a preference for growth focused in neighborhood centers of activity.

Phase 4: District Planning and Plan Development Phase Four, the largest engagement phase, involved dividing the City into 14 geographic districts and assigning planners to each district to develop district-based visions, strategies, and guiding actions for the next 20 years. This phase involved extensive outreach and publicity, along with balancing different modes of engagement from large public meetings to individual interviews or focus groups.

Between November, 2017, through August, 2018, the planning team combined its efforts with various organizations, artists, and architects/designers. In all 14 districts, a series of three workshops were conducted to envision the future of the neighborhoods. Workshop One asked community members to identify assets, challenges, and places of opportunity in their neighborhood. Workshop Two involved coordinating neighborhood tours based on feedback from the first workshop as a way to invite more residents to solidify their ideas and community goals. At Workshop Three, the planning team shared a draft vision and objectives based on the feedback heard in the district and worked with community members to amend or affirm those objectives and develop future actions.

With the help of local artsists selected by the Urban Art Commission, outreach expanded and 4,500 residents were part of the process. Participation varied by districts, ranging from 10 people to 100 people at each of the district workshops. As a part of the process, OCP promoted building capacity and supporting

⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure

THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

the local economy. With support from BLDG Memphis, neighborhood partners were selected and funded $1,500 to $2,000 to help support the work of the Comprehensive Plan. Of those funds, only $500 was dedicated to supplies and the remainder was used to compensate for time. Twenty-eight neighborhood partners were contracted for the process and paid a total amount of $62,000. OCP also identified caterers and tour operators from the local districts to support by providing food and transportation for district meetings. During the same time period, $9,200 was paid to food service providers and $8,100 to local tour operators.

District outcomes varied based on the geography, people, and issues relevant to the area. Generally, participants identified a common vision that supports the needs and desires within a district. Individuals and stakeholders identified current and potential places of activity, referred to as anchors in the planning process. These anchors would be the priorities within districts and would focus future efforts on creating mixed-use centers and areas of opportunity.

Youth Engagement

OCP worked with different community involvement partners such as Boys & Girls Club, Bridges, Streets Ministries, and schools to include youth voices throughout the process. Twenty-five percent of Memphis' total population is below the age of 17 (ACS 2011-2015). With a quarter of the population needing jobs, homes, and places to connect as they age, it is in the best interest of Memphis to continue improving youth services and creating assets throughout the City in order to create the types of communities where residents want to remain.

OCP held four workshops with youth to discuss location preferences for new housing, new jobs, and redevelopment. OCP conducted eight pop-up engagements at other events, gave three presentations and conducted an online and paper survey at events to gain participation of youth. In most engagements, youth identified places they wanted to see change, future growth, and development in the City. The information gathered from these youth exercises informed the plan's goals and objectives, along with identifying community assets and places of importance throughout the districts. Nearly 500 young people were engaged in youth-specific workshops, with the majority of ages between middle and high school.

Most of the public comments from youth were incorporated into the district plans as their feedback was more specific to geography. Generally, youth had many ideas and suggestions for improving public spaces. Some mentioned small parks in areas that are vacant, adding lakes in flood zone/prone areas, and decreasing block lengths to make walking more appealing and pleasurable. Many discussed safety and gave planners the opportunity to share complete streets design techniques that increase safety and activity in the area.

BLDG Memphis

The Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) directed the community engagement during the Memphis 3.0 planning process and sought collaboration with local organizations to assist in gathering input from the Memphis community. OCP partnered with BLDG Memphis, a non-profit coalition that provides capacity building through its network of involved community development corporations (CDCs) and other organizations. The agency has been on the forefront of incremental urbanism and policy development to improve communities in the City, supporting neighborhood planning efforts for several years. BLDG Memphis supported the 3.0 effort by developing and refining community engagement strategies, coordinating site logistics, and identifying and supporting neighborhood partners.

In collaboration with BLDG Memphis, OCP posted Requests for Proposals (RFP) that encouraged leaders or organizations to apply for a small grant ($1,500 to $2,000) to assist in educational outreach. These neighborhood partners were integral in helping with events and information distribution such as publishing ads in newspapers, airing ads on local radio stations, and designing community t-shirts. BLDG Memphis hosted ‘partner orientations’ for community groups, planning staff, architects, and artists to identify engagement strategies that were specific to the district. BLDG Memphis also co-facilitated planning workshops throughout the process.

Artists and Planning

In a unique partnership, OCP contracted with the UrbanArt Commission (UAC) to broaden the representation of community voices by embedding artists in the district planning process. UAC has expertise in the creation of public art and project management. Through the partnership, UAC commissioned three artists: a documentarian/storyteller, a musician and writer, and a visual artist to support Memphis 3.0. Each artist worked with a team of planners and architects to enhance communication and outreach to Memphians across 14 districts.

Over the course of the planning process, the artists engaged approximately 1,600 residents. These numbers, but more importantly, anecdotal accounts were made possible through sound recordings, focus groups, youth arts collaboration, and individual storytelling or interviews. The information gained from working with UAC artists provided a unique way to view urban planning issues and reflects the different engagement methods of individual artists and their styles.

Yancy Villa-Calvo

⬚ figure

Yancy Villa-Calvo worked in the Core, Lamar, Oakhaven-Parkway Village, East, and Jackson districts. Yancy created GEMS (Go Explore Memphis Soul) to explore, share, and dream about the City. Yancy travelled around neighborhoods with the GEMS mobile, a traveling art piece loaded with eye-catching tools for people to record, draw, and write down what they love, dislike, and hope for their neighborhoods. She met with business owners, assisted in translation for events and documents, and worked with youth in schools to write essays that were glazed to pottery pieces. Yancy held more than 110 group interviews with over 1,000 individuals, and over 522 GEMS.

Alex Greene

⬚ figure

Alex Greene's ReMix Memphis project conducted 55 engagement events in the North, Core, University, Westwood, and Southeast Districts. Greene recorded sounds around the City, capturing residential, transportation, and natural environments. Participants rated their reactions to each field recording (positive, negative, or neutral). Participants supplied answers to the prompt, "The sound of __ is so Memphis." A sampling of public opinion on noises common to Memphis life, and a poll of sounds evoking the City's identity, emerges from more than 4,000 responses. Finally, Greene solicited tracks from 24 producers and musicians in the City who mixed his field recordings creatively with their own music.

Neili Jones

⬚ figure

Neili Jones was hired to work with staff planners in the districts of Frayser, South Memphis, Whitehaven, Raleigh, and Cordova. Her work during the Memphis 3.0 process was to collect stories from individuals and groups to understand the experiences in their neighborhoods and during their time in Memphis. She utilized photographs to probe residents on their thoughts, hopes, complaints, and general questions on the City and their districts. Neili held 70 interviews with different community organizations and leaders from around the City.

Growth Scenario Exercise

Phase 3 of the plan's engagement process began with a series of community discussions around key findings on the history of growth, forecasted growth patterns and its effect on communities, and determination of community values for future growth. To guide the community discussions, three examples of future growth were developed - Trend, Core and Corridors, and Neighborhood Centers - to engage the community in the conversation on patterns of how the City could grow.

Land across the City was evaluated on several factors that influence development capacity. Parcels of land were assigned one of five categories: open space, agriculture, developed, undeveloped and under-developed. Development status was further analyzed by growth controls, such as zoning and land suitability factors, including density levels, environmental constraints, land use, and availability of infrastructure, to arrive at scenarios allocating new residential, commercial, and industrial growth forecasted for the City.

Trend: building off a market forecast, this scenario assigns new growth within the forecasted trending area and adjacent areas. This scenario generally follows the theory that growth should be focused in or near areas of existing market strength.

Core and Corridors: this scenario assigns new growth first in the Downtown area and radiates in all directions along corridors of greatest concentrations of residential, commercial, and industrial density.

Neighborhood Centers: this scenario assigns new growth in neighborhood-centered clusters throughout the City with less consideration for existing market strength or activity.

Key outcomes of each scenario were organized into value-based statements. In Phase 3 of the plan's community outreach, participants identified the values most important to them by thinking and discussing about future growth in the City. Once values were discussed and agreed upon among table members, participants reviewed growth allocations by individual planning district. Participants then reviewed a map of their selected scenario. Scenario maps organized growth allocations in each planning district into four tiers: very low, low, medium, and high. This allowed for input on an area-by-area basis. Tables made group recommendations on how they would change allocations based on their selected scenario.

⬚ figure

Growth Scenario Exercise. Residents were able to adjust the intensity of growth allocations per district.

⬚ figure

Ability To Develop. Areas of currently developed, undeveloped and under-developed were modeled and mapped above.

Growth Scenario Exercise

Based on approximately 2,000 responses in public workshops, online interactions, community meetings, and pop-ups, the public preference in the growth scenario exercise was split between the Core and Corridors and Neighborhood Centers scenarios, but clear on the community's values that the Comprehensive Plan should focus on smarter use of land, on providing greater connectivity and access, and by prioritizing opportunity and equity.

The growth scenario exercise provided a guiding framework for the manner in which the plan process initiated the development of the focus on anchors and the Future Land Use Planning Map, the Comprehensive Plan's guide for future growth.

On the maps below and to the right, projected new activity in office and retail (in square feet) in shown in red, residential (in dwelling units) shown in yellow/brown, and industrial (in square feet) shown in purple. The darker the color the more intense the development.

⬚ figure

Neighborhood Centers: this scenario assigns new growth in neighborhood-centered clusters throughout the City with less consideration for existing market strength or activity.

⬚ figure

Trend: building off a market forecast, this scenario assigns new growth within the forecasted trending area and areas adjacent. This scenario generally follows the theory that growth should be focused in or near areas of existing market strength.

⬚ figure

Core and Corridors: this scenario assigns new growth first in the Downtown area and radiates in all directions along corridors of greatest concentrations of residential, commercial, and industrial density.

Other Partners

OCP worked closely with the City's Office of Community Affairs to share plan information and identify neighborhood partners. The University of Memphis Design Collaborative (UMDC) and University Neighborhood Development Corporation (UNDC) were instrumental in involving students, planners, and volunteers along with publicizing events and gathering attendees.

Although 3.0 workshops and meetings are open to all members of the public, OCP made special considerations to ensure that people from all walks of life had equal opportunity to participate. OCP identified 12 local social service organizations that serve many hard-to-reach populations daily in order to expand collaboration, outreach, and opportunities for plan input across the City.

Citywide involvement partners were selected due to their extensive networks with populations like those who live at or below poverty or are homeless, people with disabilities, non-English speakers, families and youth, young professionals, and seniors. These partners played a crucial role in mobilizing their networks and creating the circumstances required to hear directly from groups on the key issues that affect them.

The principal involvement methods used by partners included focus groups, stakeholder interviews, surveys, and presentations. Community feedback through the partners was used to inform Citywide goals and objectives and district priorities for the plan. Each partner had participation goals unique to their network and organization. Community involvement partners used a myriad of tactics to achieve their outreach goals and often surpassed engagement with their service recipients due to their persistent efforts. Each partner was unique, as were their choices used to interact with diverse Memphian populations.

Agape Child and Family Services: Supports parents and children through a two-generation poverty reduction model, aiming to provide healing for family units and the community through school-based initiatives, workforce development, early childhood services, community safety, and trauma-focused support. Agape engaged its staff and site directors into this process by posting flyers of upcoming Memphis 3.0 events and through more detailed engagements at community cafés at their four sites. In total, Agape surveyed 274 Memphians.

Boys and Girls Club of Greater Memphis (BGCM): Enables young people to reach their full potential by providing various resources, training, and support groups in healthy lifestyles, good character and citizenship, academic success and career success. BGCM shared information through their youth and senior meals program and allowed OCP team to conduct two-day urban design workshops at eight of their sites. 480 youth were engaged in the process.

Bridges USA: Provides students experiential learning activities to empower diverse relationships, prepare them for secondary educational opportunities and careers while engaging them in civic affairs in their communities. Staff co-developed a curriculum to engage youth around urban planning values, including what they wish to see come from the 3.0 planning process. Youth also completed a visual survey of places they love and places they want to change in Memphis. 120 youth were engaged in the process.

Community Alliance for the Homeless: Provides planning, technical assistance and service coordination to public and private agencies that are working to end homelessness in Memphis and Shelby County. Community Alliance hosted seven presentations and focus groups with its network of partners around issues and policy change to address and decrease homelessness. Community Alliance allowed OCP to survey more than 200 homeless individuals to better understand their situations and where systematic change should be prioritized during the annual Homelessness Connect event. They invited OCP to host focus groups and conduct surveys with network partners, reaching 675 Memphians in total.

Latino Memphis: Connects clients to needed services and educational/career advancement opportunities while ensuring that Latinos become an integral part of Memphis. Latino Memphis provided translations of documents, surveys, and public meetings in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic and conducted many surveys and focus groups in Spanish.

Leadership Memphis/Volunteer Memphis: Mobilizes volunteers to make a difference and assists community organizations and businesses in developing successful employee engagement programs for volunteer opportunities. Working with Volunteer Memphis, OCP developed a Volunteer Ambassador Board (VAB) with more than 60 trained members and assisted at popup engagements and recording or facilitating community meetings.

Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association (MIFA): Offers a variety of scheduled programs and assistance to support the independence of vulnerable seniors and families in crisis. Presentations by OCP were made at MIFA's Senior Companion luncheons. MIFA also hosted its own engagement events, held stakeholder interviews and assisted in recording and facilitating meetings held at six community centers, engaging 785 Memphians.

Memphis Center for Independent Living (MCIL): Supports people with disabilities to live or transition to living on their own by offering comprehensive independent living programs, including advocacy, training, resources, and peer support. Through focus groups and accessibility scavenger hunts, MCIL staff and volunteers surveyed 177 Memphians with disabilities and asked about their experiences in Memphis.

Memphis Urban League (MUL): An interracial, nonprofit organization that provides direct services and policy advocacy to help individuals and communities reach their full potential. These programs include employment preparation, job placement, youth development, and educational support. MUL staff administered surveys at job training events that helped refine plan goals and objectives.

Neighborhood Christian Center, Inc. (NCC): Guides families toward stability and sustainability through ministries and empowerment programs, including employment education for women, early childhood and youth programs, marital support, ministry groups, and food/service assistance. Together, OCP and NCC staff conducted transit vision surveys at NCC events such as toy and heater drives; educated individuals on the Memphis 3.0 process, including posting flyers in 10,000 Christmas food boxes; and facilitated three stakeholder group interviews. NCC offered its space where the planning team and artists worked during the district planning phase, and engaged 500 Memphians in total.

New Memphis Institute: Works to attract, develop and retain talented young professionals in Memphis. New Memphis Institute administered surveys and education on the Memphis 3.0 process at two annual events, meeting with 140 young professionals.

Streets Ministries: Recruits staff and trains mentors to develop authentic relationships with youth and help them in academic, spiritual, and physical achievement. Streets Ministries invited the OCP team to conduct two-day urban design workshops at their two sites and allowed planners and artists to work out of their facility during the district planning phase.

Advisory Board

Early in 2017, OCP established a 17-member Advisory Board for oversight related to the quality of the plan and process. This board was primarily composed of foundations who supported the Memphis 3.0 plan, City leadership, nonprofit leaders, and leaders in the development community. The advisory board ensured the vision and priorities of the plan were driven by the community and recommendations would result in benefits for communities across Memphis. The advisory board was essential in providing aid to working group structure, ensuring meaningful community involvement, and ensuring that research and reports produced for the plan were of high quality and use.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

Working Groups

At the beginning of the planning process, a working group structure was developed to provide technical assistance and research support for prioritized topical issues. These groups, made predominately of practitioners and subject matter experts, studied issues relevant to the City, reported on trends, and offered best practices. Each working group consisted of 12 to 30 professionals with a wide range of subject matter expertise. The members of working groups were representatives of state and local government agencies, private sector leaders and employees, planning practitioners, architects, non-profit agencies, students, and individuals from institutions of higher learning. These groups were regularly involved during the early phases of the plan and helped to identify significant issues, refine objectives, and inform policy development for the plan. Shown below are the twelve working groups and the topics they studied.

The breadth of information that is covered in the plan makes it critical to include a range of professionals throughout the development phase. Political will must also be developed to ensure broad implementation. Many recommendations made in the plan cannot be achieved by government alone; therefore, it is pertinent to include other leaders, decision-makers, and individuals with varying viewpoints to ultimately support research, adoption, and implementation.

01 Art Design Preservation: Topics included cultural resources, historic preservation, public art, and design guidelines

02 Blight and Neighborhood Improvement: Topics included transitional land use, reclamation and reuse of vacant land, code enforcement, parcel surveying and monitoring, and multifamily development barriers

03 Civic Common Areas and Open Spaces: Topics included parks, community centers, libraries, open spaces, and other City-owned facilities

04 Complete Streets: Topics included bike and pedestrian infrastructure and design, accessibility, and mobility

05 Efficiency and Conservation: Topics included renewable energy, alternative fuel vehicles, sustainable procurement, green buildings, and solid waste reduction

06 Freight: Members of the MPO's Freight Advisory Committee addressed recommendations for aligning the Regional Freight Plan with policy direction for automobile, air, water, and rail

07 Housing and Infill Development: Topics included affordability and cost burden, rental housing, homeownership, public housing, neighborhood preservation, growth, and development

08 Land Use and Development: Topics included land use, zoning, Unified Development Code, mixed-use communities, transit-oriented development, infrastructure, and incentives

09 Next Generation: Topics included autonomous vehicles, expanded fiber network, cybersecurity, smart grid technology, and smart parking

10 Resilience and Adaptation: Topics included green infrastructure, climate change adaptation, mitigation of natural hazards, post-disaster economic recovery, and other environmental protection issues

11 Transit and Demand Management: Topics included multi-modal transit and access, regional transportation and jobs, parking

12 Workforce and Entrepreneurial Development: Topics included attracting minorities, underrepresented sectors, entrepreneurship support, and institutions

THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

Planning Districts

Each of the districts was assigned a team of planners, architects, and artists to work with residents in creating a unified vision with shared goals and strategic actions. Please see individual plans in the District Priorities section of the document.

⬚ figure

I am a Memphis GEM

“ The people - it’s Memphis’ greatest strength. There are a lot of people that really want the best in this city and want to see the City moving in the right direction. And that’s what it’s going to take to move the City in the right direction, is the people.

⬚ figure

4,903 survey responses

⬚ figure

“ People need to stop apologizing and feeling embarrassed of being from Memphis. We do have a great legacy. There’s a lot of good things that happened here and are happening.

⬚ figure

217 Stakeholder Interviews

⬚ figure

183

public events held

⬚ figure

UP TO $2,000

funded for community partners

Memphis 3.0

⬚ figure

Newspapers

Radio ads

T-shirts

Marketing Materials Used

⬚ figure

The community is at a tipping point and direction, the schools are improving, and the community is becoming even more diverse, especially through the Hispanic population.

⬚ figure

1,674

people reached by artists

⬚ figure

PART TWO:

Our Framework For Change

Creating Places for People

As Memphis celebrates its bicentennial and turns the page to its third century, it is clear a new framework for growth is needed to change the trajectory of the core city, neighborhoods, and the City. The vision of Build Up, Not Out guides that path and supports investments in communities, people, and access to shape the third century.

Population growth in Memphis peaked in the 1970s, reaching just shy of 650,000 residents in the 1980 Census. Since that time, the population of the City has been maintained at that level by continuing a policy of aggressive annexation consistent with the recommendations of the last comprehensive plan, the Memphis 2000 Policy Plan. That plan signaled a new urban service boundary beyond the limits of the City, leading to extension of sewers and roads, and ultimately new development that was settled and eventually annexed into the City. While this growth policy was successful in maintaining the population levels of the City, it expanded the City’s geographic footprint by nearly 100 square miles, reaching its largest size in 2013 of 324 square miles at a population density below 2,000 persons per square mile.

The net result of these growth policies included destabilization and disinvestment of older neighborhoods in the central city, areas such as North and South Memphis, as a stable population shifted into other areas of an expanding region. Many of these communities today, while rich with history, neighborhood pride, and social and physical assets, experience high percentages of land and building vacancy and depressed markets.

If this trend is continued in future years, modest growth is forecasted for Memphis, primarily focused in a “cone” spanning along the Poplar Corridor from Downtown Memphis to the eastern edge of the City. Areas that attract new growth and investment are expected to be places with good access to jobs, but the City will continue to see high rates of residential and commercial oversaturation of land, and thus high rates of vacancy.

Recent years have shown a shift in the pattern in which development and investment is occurring in the City. Regionally, approximately $15 billion in investments have taken place or been announced, with the majority occurring in the City of Memphis. Of that, a larger share of growth is taking place in the City’s core, including Downtown and the Medical District.

To sustain this momentum and expand opportunity to neighborhoods across Memphis, the City must embrace a new growth policy that targets investment and growth in defined areas rather than continuing attempts to spread resources with no strategic guidance.

CREATING PLACES FOR PEOPLE

A city exists for the people who call it home. The character and quality of the places where those people live, work, play, and gather play a large role in the quality of the lives lived there. The Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan lays out a vision for how Memphis and the diverse places within it will evolve during its next century. This vision supports places that are safe, beautiful, and accessible, and which offer opportunities for learning, livelihood, investment, and community. It is these places that can improve the lives of the people who inhabit them. Different places fill different roles in the lives of Memphians, but taken together, the palette of places found in Memphis defines the physical character of the City and provides the settings for daily life in the City they call home.

In order to create goals and actions for places in Memphis, it is necessary to understand what patterns and similarities exist between different places. While Memphis is made up of a countless number of different places, all of them are categorized in different place types to make it easier to understand the physical form and character that make up the City.

Place types are categories to capture the unique characteristics and contribute to making a "place" — a location that is distinct from the areas around it. Although many different factors influence an area's

Place types are categories that attempt to capture the unique characteristics that contribute to making a “place” — a location that is distinct from the areas around it.

Place Types

Citywide Anchors

⬚ figure

Walkable, mixed-use hubs of activity that bring the City together, accessible by multiple modes of transportation. These places are where people from throughout the region gather to do things.

Community Anchors

⬚ figure

Walkable, mixed-use hubs of activity located at the heart of well-connected residential communities, accessible by multiple modes of transportation. These places are where neighbors gather to do things.

Communities

⬚ figure

Residential areas that make up the majority of the City. These may be areas near Downtown with small blocks and narrow streets, or suburban locations with large lots and winding streets.

CREATING PLACES FOR PEOPLE

unique sense of place, the place types in this plan focus primarily on the physical characteristics of a place.

Similar patterns of physical form can be observed across the City. Street networks can be well-connected grids or winding cul-de-sacs. Buildings can be located close together or spaced farther apart. Front yards can be large, small, or non-existent. Land uses can be mixed vertically or horizontally or separated. Analyzing these characteristics in different places across the City helps to establish place types.

Land uses are the types of activities that are allowed to occur in a particular location.

Place types make it easier to identify and understand the physical building blocks that make up the City of Memphis. This in turn helps to make standards and regulations more effective by making it possible to tailor them to the types of places that exist throughout the City.

Corridors

⬚ figure

Auto-oriented commercial strips along major streets. These areas have mostly retail and service uses that rely on automobile traffic for access and visibility.

Special Use Areas

⬚ figure

Places where industrial, logistical, and transportation activities define the physical form. These are generally single-use economic centers with long blocks and few intersections.

Parks and Civic Spaces

⬚ figure

Natural areas, civic and institutional uses, parks, greenways, and recreational areas that may be defined by topography and waterways more than street networks.

CREATING PLACES FOR PEOPLE

Characteristics of

Walkable Neighborhoods

Walkable describes places where a person can (easily) walk or bike to fulfill most daily needs. These environments allow for use of automobiles, but do not require one for most trips.

Building up, not out, means creating more places where people can and want to walk from their homes to everyday destinations such as school, work, shopping, and recreation. A combination of infrastructure improvements and amenities can help to make a walkable environment where walking is safer and more comfortable. Solutions should be context-sensitive and tailored to what makes the most sense in different parts of Memphis.

Greenline connections and multi-use paths can provide pedestrian and cyclist connectivity between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other amenities in parts of the City where streets don’t yet accommodate multi-modal users.

Transit use can be promoted through more comfortable walking environments that make it safer and more pleasant to walk to and from transit stops.

Signage, lighting, markings on the street, and pedestrian refuges in medians can help make pedestrian crossings more visible and safer. Street lights scaled for both automobiles and pedestrians help to make streets safer and more comfortable for all users.

⬚ figure

Pedestrian pathways help make cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets better connected to surrounding amenities in areas with limited street network connectivity.

Bike share stations near schools, jobs, shopping, and other amenities provide more options to get around without a car.

CREATING PLACES FOR PEOPLE

Smaller block sizes allow for better street network connectivity which encourages walkability by providing more route choices and reducing walking distance to get between destinations.

Density makes it possible to locate more services close by to where people live. Even small increases in density can make neighborhood businesses more viable.

⬚ figure

Locating businesses near neighborhoods makes it easier for neighbors to run errands and satisfy daily needs without needing to drive. A reliable pool of customers also makes it easier for small businesses to enter the market.

Traffic-calming strategies like roundabouts and painted curb bump-outs at intersections help to slow traffic and make streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike.

Storefronts encourage walking by providing visual interest that’s always changing.

Mixed-Use A mix of uses in close proximity to one another helps to reduce travel distances between jobs, school, shopping and residences, making it more attractive to walk or bike between destinations.

Walkable places look different, but they all facilitate better access and more options for how to get around.

Our Strategy:

Focus on Anchors

Anchors are the places where communities do things together. In some cases, they are places where Memphians from across the City gather to work, shop, learn, play, and celebrate. In others, anchors might serve primarily the people who live nearby. Anchors are where the action is or has been, and where it will be in the future.

Just as an anchor steadies a ship, community and Citywide Anchors in Memphis are meant to provide steady support for the neighborhoods around them. Anchors may be places of unique historic and cultural significance, or they might just be the place where neighbors rub elbows while buying a gallon of milk or stopping by an event at the local community center. In any case, they are places that support and empower surrounding communities by providing vital daily goods and services while reinforcing the unique identity of Memphis communities.

By focusing on these places, Memphis 3.0 can positively impact the largest number of Memphians.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

OUR STRATEGY: FOCUS ON ANCHORS

Why focus on Anchors?

Anchors are not just places where people come together, they are also where commerce, services, and civic activities intersect. They are where both residential density and density of activity are highest in Memphis. As such, they provide an opportunity for new investments and services to positively impact the largest number of Memphians.

Building up, not out, means reinvesting in existing places. In order to realize this vision, vacant lots will need to become sites for infill, disinvested places will need to receive investment and redevelopment, and underutilized land will need to be repurposed for higher and better uses that improve the quality of life in Memphis.

Infill is when development occurs in vacant or underutilized sites within an existing developed area.

Adding housing, jobs, and services in places where these uses already exist, or where they have existed in the past, can be a cost-effective way for the City to grow its population and jobs without growing its footprint. Focusing growth and reinvestment on infill locations makes it possible to better use existing infrastructure. Where infrastructure already exists, there can be less need to invest in new infrastructure to accommodate growth.

⬚ figure

Anchors. This anchor is a destination for walkable services, retail, and leisure.

In instances where existing infrastructure does need to be upgraded to accommodate growth, nearby residents and businesses relying on that infrastructure receive an improved level of service and reliability, benefiting both new and existing residents and businesses.

Infill development also helps the City of Memphis provide services and conduct maintenance more cost-effectively. The City’s low population density makes it difficult to operate utilities and services. Higher densities allow more people to be served within a smaller geographic area. This means fewer miles of pipes and roads need to be maintained in order to provide service to the same number of people.

Similarly, by locating housing near jobs and services, Memphis residents can save time and money by avoiding long trips to access everyday services. Anchors are places that are or could become the kind of environments that encourage walking, cycling, transit, and other alternatives to driving a car. They are places where driving is one of several options rather than a requirement for getting around in a safe and convenient manner.

Density of housing, jobs, and activities will also help transit in Memphis operate more effectively. Buses and trains work best when they pickup and dropoff more people at fewer stops. Since people prefer not to travel far to get to a transit stop, it makes sense to locate many destinations within close proximity. Many anchors are located in places where transit exists or has been proposed, so focusing new investment and redevelopment at these locations will help to support a more convenient and effective transit system for Memphis.

The benefits from investments made in anchor locations impact more than just the people living and working in the anchor. Because anchors are centers of activity for entire communities, strengthening an anchor helps to strengthen the communities around it. Anchors are often where people go to visit community centers, libraries, civic and religious institutions, shops, restaurants, and other frequent destinations. As places that bring people together, anchors help to stabilize the identity of Memphis communities.

In the past Memphis has grown by creating new places. Memphis 3.0 provides a vision for growth that instead focuses on investing in existing places to help them evolve to reach their full potential as centers of life for Memphis communities.