Read Closely

You can tell where the Commercial Appeal stands on the Promenade "makeover" in this editorial and their weasel words, worthy of a Milquetoast, are painfully transparent.

THERE'S STILL TIME to refine plans for developing the Downtown riverfront in ways that could significantly reduce public opposition.

Right away, it's not about what's best but what will "reduce public opposition."

Yet near the end of Sunday's forum at the Central Library, both sides said they were willing to talk about potential areas of compromise. It would be in everyone's best interests for those discussions to take place.

Compromise means the City's plan goes forward with some cosmetic changes that might get disappeared after everyone signs off on it. Compromise means the City and it's cabal of developers get their windfall and Memphians who find the plan revolting get pushed aside.

The most likely source of common ground might be on the so-called Promenade project, a four-block area of Front Street between Union and Adams.

Oddly enough, the source of the division! How about that fortunate bit of luck.

The RDC, a nonprofit organization created by city government to manage riverfront property, envisions a high-rise development of some sort -- condominiums, offices or whatever -- that would provide limited public access along outdoor promenade decks facing the river.

"Of some sort," as though it's all in the air right now, and not down on cold, hard paper just waiting for money and OKs. Like the way the Commercial Appeal describes the RDC? Pretty clever bit of compression, as though it's impartial and "feel good" like other non-profits and not a front for developers and City Hall to ruthlessly pursue the almighty dollar. I wonder how they'll describe the opposition?

Friends for Our Riverfront would prefer to see the area converted into parkland.

Oh. That was quick. No mention of the City Charter, the preferences of the descendants of James Overton. And City parks would be "converted" to parks?

Land that previous City Councils and Mayors had taken for non-Promenade use, although always with the "public good" in mind, I'm sure, will be returned to its original purpose and function.

But you don't hear anything about that. Notice as well that the RDC "envisions" while the Friends "prefer." More clever word choice. The RDC is the doer, the dreamer, the visionary, while the Friends are kibbitzers, people who express a preference for something over something else, choosers, and not doers.

For example, a high-rise development, no matter whether it's residential or commercial, would require a lot of parking. The RDC's plans call for two existing parking garages within the four-block area to be rebuilt as underground structures.

That might take care of the current needs for parking spaces. But a high-rise development would logically seem to require much more parking than the area currently has. And given the property's proximity to the river, there are limits on how far underground it's practical to put a garage.

Parking problems are endemic downtown. Relentless boosterism is packing that tiny space with people and events. Certainly the Commercial Appeal hasn't been worried up to this point with the FedUp Forum and other attractions. They actively encourage alternatives like trolleys, shuttle busses and walking. Now, suddenly, parking is a consideration? In a space they admit doesn't have room for it?

Maybe they'd like to help? Try proposing some alternatives for parking garages and more parking downtown. Go ahead, try it. It's better than falsely raising an issue you haven't otherwise cared about to look like you're fairly criticising the RDC plan.

RDC officials didn't make a clear and compelling case for the demand for new residential or office space, either. They say market conditions will determine what's best for the site. But if RDC officials are focused strictly on some type of high-rise, they're likely to overlook other possibilities that could be more practical and acceptable to the public.

Like mid-rise! Only twenty stories in several buildings instead of forty in two or three.

Note the way the Commercial Appeal is offering advice (the whole editorial is, really) on how to better market this fiasco to a skeptical public. It's not about what's right or best, but what sells. What kind of paper, and editorial staff, is it that finds this something to proudly put your name to?

"Market conditions" downtown are a bunch of empty old buildings; empty because developers say the cost of rehabbing them is too high with all the extra regulatory requirements (ADA, fire code, retaining "character," etc.). I guess giving them several brand spanking new buildings to market gets around that!

On the other hand, RDC officials raised some very valid concerns about the idea of converting those four blocks into parkland. Rick Masson, an RDC board member, noted that Confederate Park and the Mud Island River Park are seldom used by citizens. That being the case, simply adding more unimproved park space doesn't seem like a good solution.

Up to now, the Commercial Appeal just offered advice to the RDC, noting improvements to their plans that would make them palatable. Now, when they turn to the Friends, it's suddenly the RDC raising "valid concerns" and the Friends' plan isn't "a good solution."

It was the Commercial Appeal criticising, very mildy and with offers of help, the RDC, but they switch the voice against the Friends to the RDC and side with them, adding the weight of numbers, isolating the Friends. Clever again, if you didn't spot it.

Plus, do you really believe the idea of "wasted" park space downtown? Claiming underutilisation sounds an awful lot like developer-speak to me.

Virginia McLean, president of Friends, countered that parks don't have to be just empty patches of grass. She cited Overton Park as an example with multiple civic uses.

McLean said Friends wouldn't be opposed to some development on the Promenade, such as restaurants, sidewalk cafes and the like. It seems like there's still an opportunity to redesign the Promenade, perhaps using the same basic design with less-intensive retail uses.

Notice that the RDC didn't have a spokesman, but now the Friends do in Ms McLean. And notice how she "counters" and "opposes.

And once more I say, the Commercial Appeal's idea of compromise is still to side with the RDC, and with retail and office towers, but tweak it a bit.

That might prevent a court fight over use of the land. And it could produce one of those "win-win" situations that would make everybody feel better about the finished product.

Ahhhh.... Is that the nub, a court fight?

I swear, hearing "win-win" from this crew is to hear, "We screwed you, but you let us, so don't complain anymore."

Missing from the Commercial Appeal's analysis, no surprise, is one of those "bulls in the china shop" -- money. The RDC plan would require tens of millions in new City money just to start. Money we plain don't have; even the paper admitted this in a previous editorial (if obliquely). The Friends' plan is extremely low cost, and people friendly. Small wonder money never got a mention here. It's a project-stopper.

I will put forward once again my proposal, which is a variant of the Friends' view. We should offer the space of the Promenade as an open, juried design competition. Imagine urban planners, landscape architects and building architects being given a multi-block area in the downtown of a major American metropolis to create a next-generation Central Park. It would attract world-wide acclaim to this city. We would bring in top-tier ("world class" in Memphis-speak) members of the urban design world, which would spotlight Memphis in the best of all possible ways. It also honors the vision of the City's founders and what they intended to Promenade to be. It honors our riverfront, and innovative designs will find ways of connecting the downtown off Front to Main and the hurly-burly of the rest of the downtown.

Why no one else has put this idea forward -- it's so simple and obvious and brilliant -- is beyond me. There is no downside, except to the developers.

Which is no downside at all.