Tag: Design

And now for the hard part…

Rob Morris 0 Comment CentrePointe, Local , , , , , ,

Critics have identified three interrelated categories of problems for CentrePointe since it was introduced to the public in 2008:

  1. Context.  Will it ‘fit’ with downtown Lexington?
  2. Financing.  Will it be built?
  3. Viability.  If built, will it work?

And CentrePointe has consistently failed across all three dimensions.  It didn’t fit Lexington.  It couldn’t be financed.  And it wasn’t viable.

As the project has changed trajectory in the past few months, it is worth re-examining these critiques.

Context
The first three iterations of CentrePointe were uninspired and uninspiring.  The designs seemed devoid of place – as though they could be plopped down on any block in any random city – Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Detroit.  There was nothing about the designs which was particular to Lexington.

The bland and imposing structures were also the architectural equivalents of bullies – crowding Main Street, unwelcoming to pedestrians, overshadowing nearby buildings, and oblivious to the surrounding fabric of downtown.

The heavy-handed designs seemed to mirror the developers’ if-you-don’t-like-it-well-that’s-just-too-damn-bad demeanor.

In recent weeks, however, we have begun to see much more hope for CentrePointe.  With help from the mayor, the developers engaged Chicago’s Studio Gang Architects (SGA) to reconceive the site. And the developers have interacted much more with the public and the press – including a quasi-interview with the developer which utilized our questions from an earlier post. (We’d like to ask some follow-ups!)

Jeanne Gang presented her firm’s initial architectural concept for the CentrePointe block to a packed crowd at the Kentucky Theatre last week.

It was a great design.

GangCP And like most great designs, it poses elegant solutions to several problems at once.  Here are a few highlights which caught our attention:

  • Mass.  SGA departed from previous monolithic designs, and redistributed the mass of the project across the site.  The new asymmetric distribution allows the design to accomplish a number of goals.  Breaking the project into components also opens the possibility that the site might be developed in phases – perhaps as financing becomes available.
  • Main Street.  Along Main Street, SGA proposes having 6 distinct building designs which would mirror the varied designs across the street and which would also help maintain the organic, eclectic feeling of a typical Main Street.
  • Inclusiveness.  To help ensure distinct building designs along Main Street, SGA has selected five local architects to design 5 of the 6 buildings on that side of CentrePointe.
  • Plays Nice.  Unlike the earlier “bully” designs, this one seems to play nicely with the surrounding city. SGA used “shadow studies” to assess how the 30-story tower might throw shadows over nearby buildings.  Those studies helped them decide to place the tower near the corner of Upper and Vine Streets, where the building would be less overpowering on the surrounding blocks.
  • Circulation.  This design also departs from earlier versions in that it promotes pedestrian circulation with the surrounding city and within the site, with ample open spaces and public areas.  It is able to accommodate parking access for cars without significantly disrupting pedestrian access.
  • Lexington.  Studio Gang are trying to give the project local meaning – connecting it to our history, stories, and environment.   And while I’m skeptical of the real utility of “the connected separateness of paddocks” or “the porosity of limestone” as sources of inspiration for the new design, SGA is the first CentrePointe architect who seems to realize that it will be built in a unique setting within our unique city.

Studio Gang have crafted this particular design to this particular spot in Lexington, and the result is very encouraging.  Lexington may finally have a signature project worthy of the center of our city.

Financing
The changes in the nature of the CentrePointe project don’t alter the economic environment for getting the project funded.

While now armed with a world-class architect and a world-class design, the developers are still faced with the enormous challenge of finding funding while the commercial real estate market remains in severe recession.

Investors will be far less interested in the aesthetics of the project than its financial viability as an investment vehicle…

Viability
Our central criticism of CentrePointe over the past few years has been its economic viability.  We’ve spent a lot of time deconstructing the economics of CentrePointe, and whether it can ‘work’ as an economic entity.

In short, the project wasn’t – and still isn’t – realistic.

Each of the four components of the project (condominiums, hotel, retail, and office) demanded exceptionally high prices and required exceptionally high occupancy to be successful.

Despite the inclusion of SGA in the design of CentrePointe, the developers won’t be able to achieve the levels of occupancy needed to make the project successful.  (Both prices and occupancy were far in excess of the Lexington market.)

The project also needed the infusion of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) from the state and city to help pay for ‘public’ improvements to the site (including sidewalks, parking garage, storm sewers, and other infrastructure).

The city and state would issue TIF bonds (debt) to pay for today’s improvements, and would pay them back with interest by harvesting future tax revenues coming out of the CentrePointe site.

And, as we have shown before, the CentrePointe TIF – based on incredibly optimistic assumptions – never pays back the city or state for their investment.  In essence, TIF amounts to corporate welfare for the developers.

And no knowledgeable bond analyst would ever recommend the CentrePointe TIF to his or her investors.  It would never pay them back.

::

Over the past three years, CentrePointe seemed like a lose-lose for Lexington: We lost if the project wasn’t built; we lost if it was built, too.

CentrePointe was a bad idea.  And it was badly executed.

The new approach to designing CentrePointe is different: This new design incorporates so many great ideas, and it seems to function so well with downtown Lexington.

Studio Gang has helped transform the threefold criticism of CentrePointe – It doesn’t fit Lexington; It can’t be financed; It isn’t viable – into a twofold critique.  CentrePointe still can’t be financed.  It still isn’t viable.

While still deeply skeptical about the project’s economic viability (and its value for Lexington), we find ourselves pulling for this vision of the project – just a little.

This CentrePointe seems like a good idea – maybe even a great one.  And that’s the first time we can legitimately say that about CentrePointe.

But great ideas are the easy part.

Now, the community’s attention must turn to the hard part of CentrePointe: Execution.

The transition to execution poses new challenges for the developers and for Studio Gang.

How will the project find funding?  Can they conceive a more realistic plan which pulls back from today’s more ambitious design?  Can they make a 20-story tower work, for instance?  Can they craft an economic model which doesn’t rely so heavily on TIF?  Can they build smaller parts of the project today, and finance the rest when the economy improves?

The future of downtown might rest on the answers.

UPDATE 7/18/2011: Jeff Fugate has an excellent post on what the new design of CentrePointe accomplishes over at ProgressLex.

The Promise (and Predicament) of CentrePointe

Rob Morris 3 Comments CentrePointe, Local , , , , ,

Since CentrePointe was initially proposed over three years ago, the project has been marked by fantastical bluster, broken promises, poor designs, and, ultimately, a failure to build.  All of which was compounded by the developers’ riteously indignant, arrogant, and combative attitude when challenged on the wisdom of CentrePointe.

A couple of years ago, after declaring CentrePointe an impossible-to-build failure, we outlined some basic principles for reconceiving the (still) empty block in the heart of our city.  Here’s an abbreviated excerpt from that post:

  • Create a vibrant destination which attracts residents, workers, and tourists.
  • Make that destination a distinctive place which no other city has.
  • Create public and private spaces within the destination.
  • Balance the types of uses within the development.
  • Ensure local businesses have significant presence.
  • Ensure that the space is well-integrated with the surrounding community.
  • Build it soon.

After three years of apparent tone-deafness by CentrePointe’s developers, the prospects for such a “signature place” seemed quite dim.

::

On the sweltering third floor of the old courthouse yesterday, an overflow crowd of some 300 Lexingtonians received a tantalizing glimpse of a new approach to the CentrePointe project.

And that approach represented an enormous (and refreshing) step in the right direction.

With the encouragement of Lexington’s new mayor, the developers engaged Jeanne Gang of Chicago’s Studio Gang Architects (SGA) to rethink the CentrePointe block.

On Thursday, she present preliminary site design concepts for the CentrePointe block.  And she presented a marked departure from the old approach to CentrePointe.

NewCPDesign Gang’s presentation and the developers’ new approach are refreshing in a number of ways:

  • Design. SGA abandons the “Fortress Lexington” approach of the old CentrePointe.  By breaking the project into independent components with different volumes and designs, SGA will avoid the imposing and monolithic designs offered in previous iterations of CentrePointe.
  • Openness. By showing preliminary design concepts and inviting public input on them, CentrePointe promises to be a much more open project.  The developers are even inviting local architects to design the Main Street components of the project.
  • Humility. Gang showed her work and her thinking while it was still in progress, while it was still incomplete.  Exposing this level of uncertainty takes a striking degree of humility and confidence – for both the architect and the developer.  Whereas previous iterations of CentrePointe were presented as a fait accompli to be adored by a passive audience, SGA’s version promises to be a shared community treasure which we might be able to design together.  In this more humble regime, once-adversarial relationships might transform into more-cooperative ones.

The mayor and the developers and SGA are to be commended for crafting this new approach to CentrePointe.

The chances for creating a unique, signature place for Lexington went way up yesterday. And the developers deserve some credit for allowing that to happen.

::

Despite the new approach to designing CentrePointe, a number of nagging issues remain for the tortuous project.

While Gang’s site design breaks up the monolithic tower of previous CentrePointe concepts, it appears to maintain the overall square footage and volume of the last iteration of the project.  If the project is roughly the same size, it should be roughly the same cost – around $200 million.

And if the developers have had difficulty lining up financing for the past three years, what will allow them to line it up now?  The commercial real estate market remains deeply depressed, and it isn’t clear that such abundant premium space would find tenants in Lexington.  The business model issues we identified early in the project haven’t fundamentally changed.

Is it possible that the new design will be so revolutionary, so inspirational, so great that investors and tenants will line up around the CentrePointe block to get in?  Perhaps.  We’d be thrilled.  But we doubt it.

The $200 million price tag is also important because that is the minimum required to qualify for tax increment financing (TIF).  TIF allows cities and states to allocate future incremental tax revenues to finance today’s public improvements related to new economic development initiatives.

In CentrePointe’s case, the city and state would finance about $50 million in improvements – a parking garage, sidewalks, storm sewers, etc. – around the project, and they would hope to recoup that investment from new taxes generated by CentrePointe.  In previous analysis, we’ve found that the CentrePointe TIF is highly problematic, and that it is doubtful that the city or state would ever get their money back.

Even though the new design direction is encouraging, several other aspects of the project are still unresolved.  Is the project the appropriate scale for Lexington?  Can it find willing tenants? Can the developers nail down financing?  Is the TIF worth the up-front expense?

The developers find themselves in a dilemma: If their project falls below the $200 million mark, it will be much more realistic to finance and to find occupants.  But it will lose the $50 million boost from TIF financing.

If the project comes in over $200 million, it is much more difficult to finance and occupy, and the opportunity for financing the project in the next 5 to 6 years looks grim.  (The TIF agreement between the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the city specifies that the $200 million be spent by January 2015).

::

We applaud the developers’ new, more-open approach to designing CentrePointe.  Bringing Jeanne Gang and SGA in to rethink the site is a welcome departure from the past three years. As frequent critics of CentrePointe and its developers, we’re very encouraged by the new direction of the project.

But because the economic challenges to the project linger on, we’d like to see a more open, more flexible approach applied to the execution of the project as well.  Perhaps the project could be built progressively or in stages, to allow for further construction as new financing becomes available. Perhaps it could be downsized to multiply financing options.

If – and this is a big ‘if’ – the developers can rethink their business model the way they’ve begun to rethink the design, the future of CentrePointe may be bright indeed.

UPDATE 6/6/2011: Graham Pohl now has a fine post up on an architect’s perspective of the new CentrePointe design and process over at ProgressLex.

The Tombstone at CentrePointe

Rob Morris 3 Comments CentrePointe , , , , , , ,

We last wrote about CentrePointe one year ago this week.

In Tangled Webb, we wrote about the folly of the CentrePointe development, capping a series of posts chronicling our growing skepticism about the downtown Lexington project’s financing and viability.

We then stopped writing about CentrePointe because there wasn’t much left to say.

Four months later, Business Lexington reprinted Tangled Webb, prompting an aggressive and condescending response from CentrePointe’s developer, in which he simultaneously attacked us, bloggers in general, and Business Lexington.  He asserted that we knew “little about commercial real estate development or the potential and viability of this project”.

Time would tell.

NewCP
New v. old CentrePointe designs

A New CentrePointe?
Yesterday, finally admitting that his financial backing had failed and that his initial design wasn’t viable, the developer submitted a smaller design for CentrePointe to the Courthouse Area Design Review Board (CADRB).

The new tombstone-shaped design (shown at right, superimposed over the older design) is 210 feet shorter than the one that the CADRB had previously approved.

The project still proposes a 237-room J.W. Marriott, along with office and retail space.  The upper tiers of the project would house 63 high-end condominiums (scaled back from the originally-proposed 91).

The developer asserts that “progress is being made” on “more conventional financing”.

What is the CADRB?
Within Lexington’s crazy-quilt of planning bodies and agencies, the CADRB is a five-person board commissioned by the Urban County Council to oversee a small portion of downtown called the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone.  The CentrePointe site falls within this irregularly-shaped zone.

In 2008, the CADRB approved the developer’s demolition of several long-neglected-but-historic buildings on the site – including Morton’s Row, which had some of Lexington’s oldest commercial buildings.  In June 2008, the CADRB approved an initial design for CentrePointe, issuing an “authorization permit” good for one year.  The CADRB  then approved a modified design again in November 2008.

On July 8th, 2009 the developers sought – and received – an early extension to their November 2008 authorization permit.   That third permit expires less than 30 days from today.

The Overlay Zone is intended to “encourage growth and redevelopment in the downtown area, while preserving and protecting the unique features and characteristics of the area.”  As outlined in its bylaws, the CADRB has 5 mandates:

  • promote those qualities in the environment which bring value to the community;
  • foster the attractiveness and functional utility of the community as a place to live and work;
  • preserve the character and quality of Lexington’s heritage by maintaining those areas which have special historic significance;
  • protect investment in those areas;
  • raise the level of community expectations for the quality of its environment.

Since initial approval, the CentrePointe site has been, by turns, a pit of rubble, a dust bowl, a pond, and, now, a horseless horse pasture with huge signs heralding how CentrePointe is “Coming Soon”.

By issuing demolition and construction permits for the CentrePointe site, the CADRB failed on every one of its own mandates.  The development has failed to bring value to the community.  It has failed to deliver the promised 900 jobs.  It has failed to preserve the character and quality of Lexington’s heritage.  The fantastical proposal never had the right scale or proportion for the Overlay Zone. Along every dimension, CentrePointe has been a collossal failure.

In light of that multidimensional failure, now is the time for the CADRB to take corrective action.

New design, same old problems
NewCP2While scaled back in height, the new ‘Pointe-less’ design for CentrePointe is no less problematic than the old one.  It fails to address some of the project’s deep, long-standing flaws. These include:

Financing: While the developer asserts that progress is being made on new funding, this is actually a step back from previous assertions that funding was already in hand.  On June 4th, 2009, the developer assured the Lexington Forum that he had two ready sources of funding if his dead mystery financier’s estate didn’t come through.  Yesterday’s application for extension made it clear that those sources failed as well – if they ever existed at all.

Capital flows to the most promising investments, even in a difficult economic environment.  The fact that the developer has yet to secure funding for CentrePointe speaks volumes about its quality as an investment.

Business Model: The developer has continually asserted that he has a ready list of tenants for the property.

But there are enough problems with his business model assumptions to call the viability of the entire project into question.

  • Analysts hired by the developer assumed that the J.W. Marriott hotel could achieve higher occupancy rates – at start-up – than surrounding hotels even though the Marriott would charge 50% higher room rates.
  • While the number of million-dollar condomimiums has now been scaled back to 63, that is still far too many for the Lexington market to absorb (when only 10 million-dollar properties sold in all of Lexington in 2008).
  • The one retail prospect that the developer has named as ‘interested’ in the project wasn’t really that interested.

Vague Assurances & Broken Promises: The developer has offered many claims – but little substance – with regard to the project’s viability.  He has repeatedly decommitted from previous promises.  When challenged, the developer usually responds by playing either victim or bully – and, sometimes, both at once.

It is time to openly challenge the developer’s overreaching claims and blithe assurances.

Scale: CentrePointe’s proposed tower has never had the appropriate scale for the historic character of the Overlay Zone.  The CADRB’s approval of the initial designs and subsequent re-approvals were mistakes.

Now is their chance to undo those mistakes.

Accountability for CentrePointe
Before issuing a fourth permit, the CADRB needs to require the kinds of accountability for this iteration of CentrePointe that was missing in the project’s earlier phases.

They have a responsibility to ensure that our community does not end up with – in the words of former Councilmember Don Blevins Jr. – a “vertical Lexington Mall”.

When the developer presents CentrePointe’s new design to the CADRB on June 30th, the board should do the following:

Ask the tough questions.  Especially the ones which weren’t answered the first time.

  • Does the developer have financing in hand, or is he just ‘working on it’?
  • What, exactly, happened to CentrePointe’s previously ‘rock-solid’ financing?
  • Can the developer really build the design being considered?
  • What is the business model for this property?  Will that model really work?
  • Is this design really consistent with the unique character of our downtown?

Require documentation.  Don’t accept the developer’s word at face value.  His proven inability to deliver on previous promises mean that he should be required to document the stability of his financing and his business model before any design is approved.

Rethink prior approvals. As mentioned above, the CADRB made a mistake by approving the old design of CentrePointe.  Don’t just rubber-stamp the new ‘tombstone’ design.  Make sure it works with the surrounding community.

The Overlay Zone exists for a reason.  On June 30th, The CADRB should fulfill their duty to ensure responsible economic development within the Zone which preserves the unique character of our downtown.

The old design of CentrePointe didn’t do that.

The new one still doesn’t.

The CADRB should reject the application for extension.

It is time to put a stop to the empty promises.  It is time to stop enabling this kind of overreaching incompetence.  It is time to end the delusional fantasy of CentrePointe.

To-Do List for Lexington: 9. Do!

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Checklist Throughout this To-Do List series, we’ve talked about the kinds of things we need to do to make Lexington a better city, especially with regard to improving our city’s economic development.

In Get Real, we talked about the need to curtail boosterism – the compulsive promotion of our city at the expense of real, substantive economic initiatives.  Lexington needs to get a lot more realistic about what kinds of civic activity drive true prosperity.

We talked about promoting growth at home as the best way to attract new growth from the outside in Stop Seeking Saviors.  Rather than spending huge, speculative amounts to draw in new firms from outside the city, Lexington should target spending on growing its economy from within.

We talked about the multiplier benefits of buying products and services from local providers in Local First.  Lexington should prioritize local purchasing, development, and investing in order to supercharge its growth.

In Embrace Openness, we talked about the need for our city to adopt an open approach to serving citizens, including open access to data about our city.  Lexington should find new, more transparent ways of serving and communicating with its citizens.

We talked about how to grow, keep, and attract educated talent – talent which is currently bleeding from Lexington – in Leverage Intellectual Capital.  We must find ways to keep experienced and specialized workers – who contribute enormously to our economy – in our city.

We talked about taking advantage of Lexington’s uniqueness – including the promise of the Distillery District – in Be Original.  We must leverage that uniqueness to make Lexington a city worth visiting and worth living in.

We talked about the need for intermediate-term strategic planning as a way to connect action to vision in Plan Well.  Lexington must make thoughtful, strategic investments with its public dollars.

Then, in Demand Accountability, we talked about how good initiatives get derailed and about how we must step up to make our leaders – and ourselves – responsible for keeping such initiatives on track.

While the list covers a lot of ground, it isn’t comprehensive by any means.  For instance, we didn’t delve into the importance of the arts in our community.  We didn’t talk about becoming more environmentally responsible, and building a sustainable Lexington.  We didn’t talk about how to improve conditions for Lexington’s poor.

Our To-Do List for Lexington isn’t complete.  We’ll continue to add to it in the months ahead.  There’s a lot more to talk about…

But it is time to stop talking.  Stop complaining.  Stop whining.  Stop planning.  Stop theorizing.  We need to shift from analysis to execution.  This is a To-Do List, not a list of discussion items.

Lexington must start to do these things.

We need to ensure that leaders from across the community understand and implement these principles.  If they disagree, that’s fine, but they need to articulate why they disagree in open, democratic debate.

And if they don’t, we need to get new leaders.

We need to commit our time, money, and effort to applying these principles for the betterment of our community.

We need to go build a prosperous, beautiful, livable city.  We need to go make Lexington better.

Who’s in?

Next: Postscript

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 8. Demand Accountability

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Why don’t more good things happen?

Throughout my career, I’ve had the all-too-frequent opportunity to observe how things don’t work out – in academics, in business, and in local politics.

A good share of the blame resides with ‘bad actors’ – folks who gum up the decision-making process and derail worthy initiatives.  For fun, I’ve begun a typology of these people.

  • There’s the Smug Know-It-All, who pretends to have all of the answers, and therefore doesn’t need or seek input from experts or the public.  The Smug Know-It-All just wants to be ‘right’.
  • There’s the Intentionally Clueless, who lacks sufficient information or sound principles for making strategic decisions, and who instead makes those decisions based upon personalities of the people involved.  The Intentionally Clueless just wants to be liked.
  • There’s the Do-Nothing, who struggles mightily to rationalize the status quo, and who hunkers down and defers decisions in the face of any initiative which promises change.  The Do-Nothing just wants to avoid doing anything.
  • And, there’s the Obstructionist, who actively blocks initiatives by constructing elaborate hurdles for an initiative, often by invoking process-related parliamentary maneuvers.

B2sstonewallweed001What is common to all of these bad actors is an unwillingness to enter into an open, rational, democratic debate on an initiative’s merits.

Notice that none of these folks are engaged in solving problems.  Instead, they pour their energy toward squelching debate, often by exhausting or diverting their opponents’ ability to continue the fight.

Attend an Urban County Council session – or watch one on GTV3 – and it is surprising to see how many of these bad actors are on the council or work for city government.   We were able to see versions of all of these bad actors on display during the Parsons Affair, when the council decided whether or not to bond the Distillery District.

Throughout Lexington’s leadership, we can see these bad actors.  We see them among our elected representatives, among public employees, in publicly-supported agencies (like Commerce Lexington or the Downtown Development Authority), and in local businesses.

More troubling, we see this behavior among our own citizens – amongst ourselves.  We know it all.  We remain clueless.  We do nothing.  We obstruct. 

We are the bad actors, too.

If we are to build a better Lexington, we must declare such behavior
unacceptable.  Then, we must make bad actors answer for their actions.

Lexington must demand accountability.  From its leaders.  And from its citizens.

::

How do we begin to make good things happen in Lexington?

By making Lexington’s leaders and citizens accountable for doing good things.  Reward them when they do the right things; punish them when they don’t.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  But what, exactly, do we do?  How do we really demand accountability?

Here’s a partial list of what I think we need to do.  I hope you will expand on these ideas in the comments below:

  • Speak up.  Let your representatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens know what matters to you.  Write letters.  Make phone calls.  Send emails.
  • Show up.  Make time to attend council meetings or local neighborhood meetings, especially when they address issues which matter to you.
  • Inform yourself.  Find out what is happening in our city.
  • Join together.  Actively look for people with similar viewpoints, and unite your voices.  One voice is too easy to ignore; a movement is not.
  • Campaign.  Fight for your causes, and recruit others to them.  Lobby for your point of view.
  • Call ’em out.  When you see bad actors squelching public discussion, don’t let them get away with it.  Call out their anti-democratic behavior for being anti-democratic.  Make them think twice before they do it again.
  • Vote ’em out.  When representatives, public employees, organizations, or businesses continue to act in bad faith, deprive them of what they need most: Votes, jobs, or funds.
  • Persist.  Bad actors are betting that you’ll give up.  Make them lose that bet.

Gandhi urged us to “be the change you wish to see in the world”.  William Johnsen offered this pithier 18th-century version, in 10 two-letter words: “If it is to be, it is up to me.”  Both of them recognized that real, productive change takes place when we stop waiting for someone else to fix things.

If Lexington is to reach its full potential – if we are to build a better, more livable, more prosperous city – we must demand accountability from our leaders and from ourselves.  Especially from ourselves.

Next: 9. Do!

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 7. Plan Well

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Last week, Lexington’s Urban County Council deliberated on the projects the city would issue bonds for.  When we issue bonds, we are borrowing money from bond investors – Bonds are new debt that we will pay off at some point in the future to fund today’s projects.

In that bond deliberation process, one word kept coming up: Streetscapes.

The council has earmarked some $30 million in new bonds for four streetscape projects.  In addition to funding the ongoing project on South Limestone (whose ever-escalating price tag now stands at $17 million), the council will fund new streetscape projects on Cheapside, West Main, and West Vine for $12.7 million.

All four projects are slated for completion by July 1st, 2010 – less than 7 months from now.

::

Barely two weeks earlier, the Mayor announced a $12 to $13 million shortfall in the current year’s budget, noting that – after several previous rounds of cuts – the city would likely have to cut services to balance its budget this time.

Yet, in this economically-strapped environment, the Mayor pushed for (and council approved) a disruptive $30 million spending spree to make streets look pretty.

Why the rush?  The World Equestrian Games are coming to Lexington in September 2010, and we must look our best for “the world”.

This is boosterism run amok: In the mad scramble to make Lexington ‘pretty’ for out-of-town visitors next fall, the city is simultaneously 1) spending $30 million to make streets look better, 2) incurring $30 million in new bond debt, and 3) destroying $90 million of economic value by disrupting local business operations.

And the next 6 months promise to be even more disruptive, as the four separate street projects further entangle downtown Lexington.

In the face of financial crisis, massive spending on discretionary aesthetic projects – especially ones which disrupt commerce – seems wildly irresponsible.  It is the urban equivalent of not being able to make the mortgage payment, yet getting a new loan to redesign the landscaping.

::

Last January, at the request of Lexington’s Mayor, a group of citizens delivered a long-term vision for our city to the Mayor and to the Urban County Council.  Dubbed Destination 2040, the document outlined strategies and initiatives for maintaining “great city life in a productive rural paradise” for the next 30 years in Lexington.

I have previously written that I believe that Destination 2040 is destined to fail.  I make that assessment not because there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Destination 2040 vision, but because Lexington lacks the mechanisms and processes to realize such a vision.

::

Together, streetscapes and Destination 2040 provide a snapshot of Lexington’s inability to implement strategic economic and urban development plans.

At the scale of decades, Destination 2040‘s objectives are too distant to grapple with in a systematic fashion.  It is too difficult to tangibly connect today’s initiatives to the distant future.

At the scale of months, the scramble for streetscapes is ripped from a broader strategic context: Are these really the wisest investments for our city to make while facing a very distressed economic environment?  What emerges from such short-term focus is a series of disconnected, momentarily-important initiatives with spotty results.

Lexington needs t0 better connect its near-term projects to its long-term vision.  We need to invest in projects which fit within well-defined urban development goals.  We need to clearly articulate a coherent strategy for sustainable growth.

Lexington needs to learn to plan well.

Planning isn’t very exciting to talk about, but it is critical that we do it well – especially when we are incurring public debt that we’ll be paying back over several years.  So here are some thoughts on how Lexington can better plan its future.

Choose big, specific, near-term goals. 
Lexington needs to choose audacious goals, and then work diligently to make those goals happen.  Ideally, those audacious goals would connect to our long-term vision (such as that outlined in Destination 2040).  Then, instead of thinking in terms of months (like streetscapes) or decades (Destination 2040), we need to think in 3- to 5-year “chunks” and establish deadlines and accountability accordingly.

Some examples:

  • Aggressive growth of high-paying new jobs:  “10,000 net new jobs by 2014, adding $1 billion to the local economy”.
  • Dramatic increases in urban density through incentives which promote responsible infill and redevelopment: “10% greater residential and commercial density in downtown Lexington by 2015”.
  • Reclaim blighted areas of Lexington.  Encourage new growth and investment in those areas.  Capitalize on our originality: “Make the Distillery District one of Lexington’s signature, must-visit places.  Target getting 20 stories about the District in national or regional media.”

Don’t just spend; make investments.
Public money is a resource to be invested for public benefit, not a handout or slush fund to be spent.  We must evaluate discretionary public spending based upon what that investment returns (or fails to return) to the public.

This was the massive failure of the South Limestone streetscape project – A simple analysis would have revealed the tremendous costs associated with closing a major artery to downtown for a year.

If we begin adopting an investor’s mentality to urban development, we will ensure that our tax dollars are more wisely spent.

Invest selectively and intensively.
To maximize the returns on Lexington’s tax dollars, we should concentrate our investments in select strategic areas (job growth, for instance), and then allocate disproportionate amounts toward those investments.

This strategy yields two major benefits when compared to spreading public investment to multiple, disconnected projects.

  • It creates a self-imposed discipline on the ways in which we will spend public money.
  • It lets us leverage previous investments, as concentrated cumulative investing can compound the desired effect.

Invest in factories, not fish. 
We can give someone a fish.  We can teach someone to fish.  Or we can invest in an infrastructure – “boat factories”, if you will – to create the conditions in which they can reliably and efficiently feed millions.

Hopefully you get my metaphor.  If not, here’s how my favorite charity, Acumen Fund, puts it with regard to generosity:

 

All too often, boosters promote one-time wins which give our city a short-term economic ‘pop’, but the hoped-for lasting effect never materializes.  Boosters usually hand us a dead fish.   Occasionally, they teach a few of us to fish.  That isn’t enough.

When it comes to investing the public dollar, we must plan smart, sustainable investments – ones which keep growing and keep repaying the public for its investment many times over.  We need to identify gifts which keep on giving, and maximize our investments.

::

By better connecting its short-term projects to its long-term vision, Lexington can begin to make smarter, more effective decisions about its future.  We can begin to invest public money wisely and productively toward crafting a better Lexington. 

Next: 8. Demand Accountability

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 6. Be Original

Rob Morris 3 Comments Local , , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Quick!  Think of a city you love (outside of Lexington).  Really savor that mental image.  Let your positive thoughts run for a bit.

Got it? OK.

If you’re like most folks, when you think of your favorite city, you think of one (or a combination) of a few key types of memories:

  • Places.  You remember neighborhoods, buildings, parks, alleys, establishments, etc.
  • History.  You remember important things that happened there.
  • Products.  You remember things that they have or that they produce there.
  • People.  You remember who you met and how they treated you there.

I have the wonderful affliction of loving nearly every place I visit – but always for different reasons.

I loved crawling through the historic back alleys (and patronizing the restaurants and bars) of Boston’s North End.  I had the fortune of being there in a little Italian restaurant while Italy won the World Cup in 2006.  I remember the flags, the honking, the cheering, the flavors and smells…

I loved going to Tokyo with a couple guys I worked with in my last job, and visiting the temples at Asakusa and seeing the bewildering variety of Japanese people at the temple and at surrounding neighborhoods and markets.  In one of those inexplicable cultural moments, I remember 3 separate families awkwardly approaching me to take pictures with their sons (and giving me their sons’ “business card” afterward).

I love Portland.  I love Austin.  I love Boulder.

More than anything else, I love the utter originality of those cities’ places, history, products, and people.

But Lexington is the city I chose.

::

Our city leaders often go on tours of “model cities” which Lexington might be able to learn from, including Boulder, Austin, and Madison.  In the process, they see many unique things to love about those cities.

But too often, rather than focus on what original qualities Lexington should leverage, our leadership focuses on what those cities have that Lexington does not: “If Madison has bike trails, so should we!”  (No, I’m not opposed to bike trails; I am opposed to the mindless parroting of other cities’ actions.)

Lexington must be original.

What impressions do we make on people when they visit Lexington?  What impressions do we make upon our own citizens?  What unique experiences do we create?

Here are a few which jump out at me.  I’m sure there are more I missed.  (Add your own in the comments below!)

There are the memorable places like no other – Keeneland, Ashland, Gratz Park, the UK campus, the Transy campus, Victorian Square, and the downtown pasture at CentrePointe, just to name a few.  (OK, I’m joking on the last one.)  I love the North Limestone neighborhood that Lowell’s is privileged to be a part of.

There are the memorable histories of Henry Clay, Town Branch, the East End, and the Carnegie Center.

There are the memorable world’s-best products – basketball, Camrys, horses, and bourbon.

There are the incredible people of our city – smart, thoughtful, hard-working, and funny.

When we’re looking to influence how people – tourists, visitors, job applicants, investors, business owners, our own citizens – view our city, we need to amplify our best assets.

And, when we are presented with the rare opportunity to leverage all four memorable assets  – original places, original history, original products, and original people – at the same time, we must jump on those opportunities.

Oldtarr2 Right now, we have such an opportunity with Lexington’s Distillery District and Town Branch Trail. Many people still don’t know that Lexington even has a Distillery District, so I’ll offer a brief overview.  On Manchester Street, there are several old, historic, and distinctive distillery buildings and warehouses which were last used last century to make bourbon in downtown Lexington.  They used the water supply from nearby Town Branch, a stream which used to run through the center of Lexington, but is now buried under Vine Street.  Several of Lexington’s best and brightest people want to transform the largely abandoned district into a vibrant neighborhood with entertainment, arts, shops, restaurants, and – for the first time in nearly a century – distilling.  Businesses are already beginning to open in the district, and one – Buster’s – is an entertainment venue which is already attracting notable new talent to Lexington.  The Distillery District would also be the starting point for Kentucky’s Bourbon Trail.

This afternoon (at 4 PM), Lexington’s Urban County Council is voting on whether to issue $3.2 in infrastructure bonds for the Distillery District.  Issuing the bonds would not be a handout – the funds would be reimbursed through taxes on the new commerce that takes place within the District.  Also, the funds would be released incrementally – as new commerce takes place, more funds would be available for needed infrastructure improvements.

Ddimage027 The bonds would be used to create parts of Town Branch Trail (a greenspace and walkway along historic Town Branch), to improve pedestrian access along Manchester Street, and to look at how to improve utilities, roadways, and streetscapes along Manchester as well.

Lexington is in a financial pinch at present, and there are many on the council who just want to “wait a while” for things to get better in the economy.  The trouble with waiting is that – often – waiting turns into permanent deferral, and projects never get done.  Unlike CentrePointe – of which I have been highly critical – the Distillery District has active businesses and active investors who are ready to utilize the improvements that this bond offers.  These businesses are poised to contribute far more than $3.2 million back to our city’s coffers over the coming years.

::

Lexington has the all-too-rare opportunity to create a unique place in our city – the kind of place which ultimately would stand next to Keeneland, Gratz Park, and Ashland as one of Lexington’s “signature” locations.  We should leverage our our originality – our unique and memorable places, history, products, and people – to craft a better Lexington.

That’s why we should support the Distillery District, even in difficult financial times.

Let’s be original.

(This post is awfully late in getting up – If you don’t have time to contact your council person prior to their 4 PM vote, please do take the time to see how they voted.  And remember that for the next election.)

Postscript: The backroom intrigue as the council vote approached.

Next: 7. Plan Well

LowellsSquare

What presenting to LFUCG is like

Rob Morris 4 Comments Local , , , , , , ,

Prologue
It all started with a testy weekend exchange on Twitter with LFUCG council member Doug Martin.

That Twitter exchange started with me posting multiple sarcastic complaints about traffic and then morphed into a conversation on leadership.

Throughout the day on Friday, I saw a series of ‘tweets’ on how bogged down Lexington’s traffic had become.  As new street closures on West Main Street and Old Frankfort Pike were added to the long-term closure on South Limestone, traffic in many parts of the city came to a standstill. This was exacerbated by a multi-vehicle wreck on Versailles Road Friday night. Essentially, the entire west and south side of Lexington was impassable.

I then made my sarcastic assessment of the chaotic state of our streets.

Without going into details, CM Martin objected to my flippant tone, and urged me to complain less and lead more.  It was a point that he reiterated as other folks jumped into the conversation throughout the weekend.  I pulled back from the discussion – stewing a little that CM Martin felt I wasn’t leading already.

I should clarify that Doug Martin is one of my favorite council members.  He’s engaged and approachable – by far the most active Twitterer in LFUCG – and he genuinely wants more citizen participation and a better city.  Although he and I frequently disagree on specific tactics that we should use as we approach the important issues in Lexington, I feel that we’re on the same team.

But as the weekend progressed I couldn’t get over how he seemed to think I wasn’t a leader.

::

Preparation
As I stewed about the conversation with CM Martin, I was simultaneously stewing about the state of our city’s traffic.

I have written a few times about the streetscape project and the resulting impacts to downtown.   Most recently, I wrote about the “true costs” of the South Limestone project – lost customers, lost productivity, lost services – and estimated the total loss of business to be between $84 and $92 million, far in excess of the approximately $17 million being spent on construction.

Meanwhile, there seemed to be no sense of urgency at LFUCG about accelerating the project.

On Monday, I learned that the next LFUCG work session included a “Downtown Streetscape Update” on the agenda.  I decided that I would make a presentation on my findings – and perhaps demonstrate some “leadership”.

Trouble is, I had never even been to council chambers, let alone participated in a meeting.  I asked my informal network of friends on Twitter, email, and South Limestone what I needed to do to make a presentation at the beginning of the session.

And the responses I got were great, but a bit intimidating.  I only had about 24 hours to get my act together.

Citizens are only allowed 3 minutes to comment on issues on the agenda.  But other citizens can donate their time.  I figured that I had at least 10 minutes worth of material, which would mean that I needed 3 (or more) other folks to donate their time to me.  Everyone has to sign in before the 3 PM meeting starts.  Getting 3 other people to come to council chambers at 3 PM on a Tuesday is a daunting task.

At the same time as I was searching for supporters, I was also trying to throw together a presentation.  I am a presentation perfectionist – I like to have every slide “just so”, and I want to know precisely what I’m going to say with each slide.  (I’m the same way with writing, by the way.)  Normally, crafting a presentation that I am happy and comfortable with takes a week or more.

But I had one day.  Time to buckle down.

By early Tuesday, I had only one other person committed to showing up, giving me a grand total of 6 minutes.  I was beginning to think I’d have to miss this opportunity to present to council.  As I was preparing the presentation, I was also mentally noting the parts I’d have to slash if I didn’t have enough supporters donating their time.

But as my network kicked in on Tuesday afternoon, I saw that I’d have at least 12 minutes.

With that, I “locked in” the content of my presentation, and downloaded a few different versions of it to a thumb drive.  I didn’t know which version of PowerPoint to bring (PP 2003 is the best bet).  I also didn’t know if I’d have control of the ‘clicker’ to transition between slides (it turns out that I did).

::

Presentation
I showed up to city hall at about 2:45 PM, hoping to see my “supporters”.  I checked in at the front desk by giving them my driver’s license and getting a visitor’s badge (a sticker, really).  Then, one by one, I started to see the other folks who were donating their time to my presentation.  There were 4 others, which should have given me 15 minutes – more than enough time for what I had to say.

I gave my thumb drive to the LFUCG’s technical coordinator, and had a moment of panic – the thumb drive had an “autorun” file on it which the LFUCG computers saw as malware.  I was starting to look like I couldn’t even load up the presentation.  After a reboot, we were able to transfer it, and the coordinator showed me the way to navigate through my presentation while up at the podium.

Mayor Newberry started the work session at 3 PM (sharp!), and public comment (for items that are on the agenda) is usually the first item.  But Tuesday was also the day that council recognized Lexington’s Junior Fire Chief, and so council made time for that first.

Then, it was time for public comment.  Mayor Newberry called my name and, as I approached the podium, he mentioned that I had 12 minutes.  My mind scrambled a bit, as I tried to figure out where the other 3 minutes went.  Did someone not sign up?  Did they do so incorrectly?  Since I didn’t know, and since I designed the presentation for about 10 minutes, I decided to go ahead without making a big scene.

I was atypically nervous as I approached the podium.  I’m normally a pretty confident public speaker, but I was shaking.  What was that all about?

I’ve been suffering from a cold for the past few weeks, and the constant coughing has meant that I haven’t been sleeping well.  On top of that, I didn’t feel fully prepared – I didn’t have every detail down pat.  Then, there was minute-gate.  And, finally, when my presentation showed on screen, it jumped ahead a couple of slides.

Streetscapes

View more documents from Rob Morris.

Then, I started talking.  My voice wavered a bit.  As I got a couple of slides in, I started to feel my normal presentation rhythm.  I usually flip through 6 to 10 slides per minute, and I was starting to get into the flow of the presentation.  And, yet, I was still shaking…

For the most part, the presentation flowed as I planned.  For the most part.  The least well-thought-out section (the one where I shared my Twitter conversation with CM Martin) was where I temporarily lost track.  I struggled for what seemed like an eternity, and then finally got control of the presentation again.

In the process of bungling that one section, I fear I may have given the unfortunate impression that CM Martin was some sort of “bad guy” in the South Limestone closure.  He most certainly isn’t.  (Sorry, Doug.)

As I approached the end of my presentation, Mayor Newberry interrupted me.  “You have 30 seconds.”  I felt like asking if I got more time because of his interruption.  But I knew that I had only 9 more rapid-fire slides, and I knew what I was going to say, so I charged ahead, wrapping up the presentation before he could interrupt again.

GTV3 Video of Presentation (My presentation starts to 6m 30s).

::

Post Mortem
As I sat down, a few of those around me quietly praised the presentation.  Mayor Newberry called the next speaker – who was actually one of my “supporters”.  So I could have had 15 minutes after all.

As the council transitioned to their business, it wasn’t at all clear that my presentation had any impact.  After I finished, there was no further discussion of South Lime, and no questions for me.

I knew I had some good points, but it wasn’t clear that any of them had connected with the council members.  Then, several minutes after my presentation, CM Diane Lawless came by and told me how well I did.  But Diane is such a nice person that I wasn’t sure her sentiments reflected the council as a whole.

When the “Downtown Streetscape” item finally came up on the agenda, CM Lawless ripped into the way in which the South Lime portion was executed.  And then, an amazing thing happened.  One by one, previously staid council members chimed in with comments about the urgency of accelerating South Limestone.

First, CM Kevin Stinnett made a motion for getting an update on what it takes to speed things along.  Seconded (loudly) by CM Lawless, I then watched as CMs Jay McChord and Julian Beard reiterated their support for the motion.

In the end, the presentation did connect with a large portion of the council, and – next Tuesday – the issue of jump-starting the South Limestone project is back on the docket.

GTV3 Video of Presentation (Council discussion starts at 1h 33m.  Takes a while, but it gets interesting).