Is previtalizing the Coliseum plausible? I listened to some dude on MSL podcast (I think) discussing it. While I think it's ridiculous that a building's ability to provide "sense of place" is sufficient alone to justify preservation, if there's a profitable purpose from it, I think it should be pursued; and I am skeptical of the fiscal wisdom of demolishing the Coliseum and then building a 4,999 seat arena in its place. Maybe a previtalization would work to visualize possibilities.

I would definitely attend the Taylor Berger discussion. I don't always agree with him, but he seems thoughtful and earnest in trying to find practical solutions for the area. My main concern is the lack of details and the sort of "trust us" position of Lipscomb/city makes me uneasy. Clarity should be a bare minimum necessity to support any redevelopment.

And the absence of an alternative (an absence I do not concede) is far from a convincing justification for any decision. Maybe Lipscomb's plan is the right one, but I have yet to be convinced that it won't just rearrange the chairs at the cultural smorgasborg of the region.

If previtalizing the Coliseum and/or implementing a MEMfix event in the area is possible, that would be a first step before some of these other legislative maneuverings.

(01-13-2015 01:41 PM)btiger Wrote:  NTR

Mods, please move this to one of the silly sections

I would venture any development in that area will have some effect on the Tigers. So it seems STR to me.

Other mods can come in and move if they see fit, but I'm okay with it's current placement. IMHO...

The issue beside the chance the U of M getting stuck having to pay for all the upgrades to the Libertybowl and cost for Tiger lane. Is that all of the things they want to put in place of the MSC have been tried before at the fairground and have failed. City is losing out on millions every year due to acts by passing the Memphis market or going to place like the DCC. The MSC could offer these acts a place to perform in the Memphis market without having to go to the Forum which is over sized for a lot of the events. The ADA cost is no where near the numbers they are throwing out. Under the latest ADA regulations you are talking about 66 seats in a 11,000 seat arena and adjacent seating for those assisting the handicapped person.

(01-13-2015 01:21 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:08 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  the main thing that would worry me is taxing cooper-young & overton square(depressing investment in one of the few growing areas inside the city limits) in order to help developers later on. if commercial redevelopment of some small portions of the fairgrounds isnt viable enough for that to happen out of their pockets, then it shouldnt happen. if they are looking to raise money to just tear down the coliseum, then the city should just cowboy up and do it and not put the onus on cooper-young/overton square only.

i would keep a weather eye on letting developers carve up the fairgrounds. they put out a plan one time that only left a parking garage to service the Liberty Bowl Stadium. imagine cars for 60000 people trying to get out of one garage.

Not saying it is a good or bad plan, but your worry is misplaced. A TDZ does NOT tax a district. It is a tax designation. Our state sales tax is 9.25%, 2.25% of which is the local option. The other 7% is the state portion, under normal circumstances the state portion flows to Nashville to be spent by Nashville. Under a TDZ, the 7% remains in the municipality BUT it can only be used on "qualified projects within the TDZ area". The application lists the qualified projects but beyond the Liberty Bowl, and repayment of the City for Tiger Lane, I can not provide a comprehensive list. The issue for Cooper Young and Overton Square is their revenue is pretty obviously the hedge if retail sales at the new site do not work out. But do you want to capture that areas growth and confine it to those qualified projects? How does that mathematically come out when you factor in the 7% you would retain from the State? The idea of a TDZ at the fairgrounds is not a bad one, this particular plan is somewhat of a gamble. But most of the info you get is amazingly biased. Either from Lipscomb's people or Henry Turley's people (the con side ie Taylor berger). A personal preference is for the University to present a TDZ plan that utilized the fairgrounds for their master plan. It would mean back to the drawing board, but ok...

Also, The Coliseum is not salvageable unless someone wants to spend OCS type money.

So is the issue of diversion of education funding a strawman? If the TDZ is wise for the taxpayer, I'd support it.

Edit: Within that 7% of state taxes would be expenditures that would theoretically go to that district for other purposes (assuming a number of things, but it's undeniable a certain portion, if not all of it, would otherwise return as part of state expenses). Is that the education they are concerned about? That the district will lose state funding for other projects or needs that parts if not all of that 7% would pay for? I don't think the districts would receive $0 of that 7% without a TDZ to recoup it. Maybe I'm over thinking it.

Edit 2: "When Shelby County Commissioner Steve Basar questioned Lipscomb about the point at a Cooper-Young Community Association meeting in October, Lipscomb was adamant that the only sales tax revenue pulled in would be revenue that would otherwise go to state government for possible distribution to other parts of the state.

Lipscomb repeated that several times as Basar said county attorneys had told him otherwise.

“None of that’s true,” Lipscomb said.

Shelby County Finance Director Mike Swift followed the exchange that same month by saying “In the existing TDZ today, it covers both the state sales tax and the local option sales tax. Half of that, off the top, goes to schools. Therefore there would be a reduction in what goes to schools.”" (http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/201...ds-zone/).

I'm not sure if there has been clarity, as a bystander on the sidelines, I'm kind of stuck in the middle. Attorneys mention one thing to the county, and Lipscomb says differently... Maybe Lipscomb's right, but maybe not...

(01-13-2015 01:28 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:55 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:39 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  There are two public meetings scheduled to discuss the proposed Fairgrounds development plan, which would tear down the Coliseum and the Pipkin Building, and tax Cooper-Young and Overton Square to pay for the new development. Many of us are concerned this is a half-baked plan, not in the best interests of either the Liberty Bowl or the neighborhoods or Memphis. It is politics as usual in Memphis.

This is very much Tiger related.

Please join us at the following meetings, find out what is up, and voice your opinions:

Wed. Jan 14th 7:00 at the Jay Etkin Gallery on S. Cooper. Hosted by Leigh Davis.

Wed. Jan 28th 6:00 pm at Circuit Playhouse. Hosted by Taylor Berger and moderated by Kyle Veazey of the Commercial Appeal.

Correct me if I am wrong but when you say tax Cooper-Young and Overton Square to pay for the new development that doesn't mean raise taxes. From what I have read they are trying to get those areas designated as Tourism Districts which means that a smaller percentage of money goes to the state but it's not an extra tax.

It does seem though that they have no real plan, just a general development plan with little specifics.

Bingo. Kind of, sort of. There is an 88 page plan that was published in the Daily News. I assume everyone commenting has read it?

I can't find it on a search, any idea around when they shared it?

I think it would've been here: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/201...t-driven/.
The link seems to be no longer valid.

(01-13-2015 01:47 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  The issue beside the chance the U of M getting stuck having to pay for all the upgrades to the Libertybowl and cost for Tiger lane. Is that all of the things they want to put in place of the MSC have been tried before at the fairground and have failed. City is losing out on millions every year due to acts by passing the Memphis market or going to place like the DCC. The MSC could offer these acts a place to perform in the Memphis market without having to go to the Forum which is over sized for a lot of the events. The ADA cost is no where near the numbers they are throwing out. Under the latest ADA regulations you are talking about 66 seats in a 11,000 seat arena and adjacent seating for those assisting the handicapped person.

And the bathrooms, and the ramps, and the turning radius, and the reconfiguring of the doors/clearances, etc, etc, etc, etc.

ADA compliance for a older venue is no joke.

(01-13-2015 01:40 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Like most "development" there are absolutely no guarantees. Anyone claiming that this will be a success or failure is just guessing. That being said I would put the biggest part of the risk on the private sector. They have the most to gain, let them shoulder the bulk of the risk.

When you have certain things in a complex and they are removed because of non use. Then it is very very likely that if you put the same things back in there that it will fail again. Almost everything they have planned has been in place in or around the fairgrounds and failed.

^ Which is not to say you don't do it. If it can be reused and there is a need for a venue that size, then a reworking makes sense.

I just thought that it was no longer a viable option...

(01-13-2015 01:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:40 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Like most "development" there are absolutely no guarantees. Anyone claiming that this will be a success or failure is just guessing. That being said I would put the biggest part of the risk on the private sector. They have the most to gain, let them shoulder the bulk of the risk.

When you have certain things in a complex and they are removed because of non use. Then it is very very likely that if you put the same things back in there that it will fail again. Almost everything they have planned has been in place in or around the fairgrounds and failed.

One of my major goals in 2015 is once I have my NYC market share completely on lock, to start looking into Memphis as a secondary practice. Gives me a chance to travel home more and get into it on urban issues with my home town. Really trying to make that a reality in the years to come...

This entire tread is typical Memphis mentality. The city & the university are NOT synonomous. The city interests are not the interests of the university. The city has for much too long drained university facilities funds that have worked to the benefit of UTK, OM, UA (directly or indirectly) & the city while keeping our university seen as a commuter school without facilities & unfit for the SEC - all the while the university paying the bills as the primary tenant which provides the means of the city obtaining financing. The city additionally has a history of corruption & mismanagement putting nothing back into the facilities until forced. Why continue to have our university finance facilities the city wants for activities that are not university related & in most cases compete with our university as the city has unsuccessfully since the construction of Crump Stadium. Our university needs OC facilties to grow & control its own destiny. Ironically it would be the best decision to benefit the city tax base in the long term too, by keeping the city's corruption completely out of the university facilities process.

(01-13-2015 01:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:47 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  The issue beside the chance the U of M getting stuck having to pay for all the upgrades to the Libertybowl and cost for Tiger lane. Is that all of the things they want to put in place of the MSC have been tried before at the fairground and have failed. City is losing out on millions every year due to acts by passing the Memphis market or going to place like the DCC. The MSC could offer these acts a place to perform in the Memphis market without having to go to the Forum which is over sized for a lot of the events. The ADA cost is no where near the numbers they are throwing out. Under the latest ADA regulations you are talking about 66 seats in a 11,000 seat arena and adjacent seating for those assisting the handicapped person.

And the bathrooms, and the ramps, and the turning radius, and the reconfiguring of the doors/clearances, etc, etc, etc, etc.

ADA compliance for a older venue is no joke.

Not a major issue at all. All you need is one concession stand in each quarter. The restrooms would require one stall to be widened and adding a low rise water closet and a lower basin. Ramps are the easiest item. Lower level already has handicapped entrance and restroom. Then just a simple two level ramp way from the two side entrances for the upper level. Then it would be easy to modify four entrance ways into the inner bowl area by removing the front row of seating and cutting back the side of the entrance tunnel. Biggest modifications needed would be asbestos removal.

(01-13-2015 02:02 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:47 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  The issue beside the chance the U of M getting stuck having to pay for all the upgrades to the Libertybowl and cost for Tiger lane. Is that all of the things they want to put in place of the MSC have been tried before at the fairground and have failed. City is losing out on millions every year due to acts by passing the Memphis market or going to place like the DCC. The MSC could offer these acts a place to perform in the Memphis market without having to go to the Forum which is over sized for a lot of the events. The ADA cost is no where near the numbers they are throwing out. Under the latest ADA regulations you are talking about 66 seats in a 11,000 seat arena and adjacent seating for those assisting the handicapped person.

And the bathrooms, and the ramps, and the turning radius, and the reconfiguring of the doors/clearances, etc, etc, etc, etc.

ADA compliance for a older venue is no joke.

Not a major issue at all. All you need is one concession stand in each quarter. The restrooms would require one stall to be widened and adding a low rise water closet and a lower basin. Ramps are the easiest item. Lower level already has handicapped entrance and restroom. Then just a simple two level ramp way from the two side entrances for the upper level. Then it would be easy to modify four entrance ways into the inner bowl area by removing the front row of seating and cutting back the side of the entrance tunnel. Biggest modifications needed would be asbestos removal.

Well, that actually sounds pretty close man. So, then it's just money, nothing structurally major.

Asbestos can get expensive however, but yeah, that sounds right.

(01-13-2015 02:02 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:47 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  The issue beside the chance the U of M getting stuck having to pay for all the upgrades to the Libertybowl and cost for Tiger lane. Is that all of the things they want to put in place of the MSC have been tried before at the fairground and have failed. City is losing out on millions every year due to acts by passing the Memphis market or going to place like the DCC. The MSC could offer these acts a place to perform in the Memphis market without having to go to the Forum which is over sized for a lot of the events. The ADA cost is no where near the numbers they are throwing out. Under the latest ADA regulations you are talking about 66 seats in a 11,000 seat arena and adjacent seating for those assisting the handicapped person.

And the bathrooms, and the ramps, and the turning radius, and the reconfiguring of the doors/clearances, etc, etc, etc, etc.

ADA compliance for a older venue is no joke.

Not a major issue at all. All you need is one concession stand in each quarter. The restrooms would require one stall to be widened and adding a low rise water closet and a lower basin. Ramps are the easiest item. Lower level already has handicapped entrance and restroom. Then just a simple two level ramp way from the two side entrances for the upper level. Then it would be easy to modify four entrance ways into the inner bowl area by removing the front row of seating and cutting back the side of the entrance tunnel. Biggest modifications needed would be asbestos removal.

Speaking from a design professional background (as is Sundance), it probably IS "close" to that simple, but it WILL NEVER be allowed to be viewed that simply.

You see, money has to be made.

(01-13-2015 01:48 PM)kabluey Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:21 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:08 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  the main thing that would worry me is taxing cooper-young & overton square(depressing investment in one of the few growing areas inside the city limits) in order to help developers later on. if commercial redevelopment of some small portions of the fairgrounds isnt viable enough for that to happen out of their pockets, then it shouldnt happen. if they are looking to raise money to just tear down the coliseum, then the city should just cowboy up and do it and not put the onus on cooper-young/overton square only.

i would keep a weather eye on letting developers carve up the fairgrounds. they put out a plan one time that only left a parking garage to service the Liberty Bowl Stadium. imagine cars for 60000 people trying to get out of one garage.

Not saying it is a good or bad plan, but your worry is misplaced. A TDZ does NOT tax a district. It is a tax designation. Our state sales tax is 9.25%, 2.25% of which is the local option. The other 7% is the state portion, under normal circumstances the state portion flows to Nashville to be spent by Nashville. Under a TDZ, the 7% remains in the municipality BUT it can only be used on "qualified projects within the TDZ area". The application lists the qualified projects but beyond the Liberty Bowl, and repayment of the City for Tiger Lane, I can not provide a comprehensive list. The issue for Cooper Young and Overton Square is their revenue is pretty obviously the hedge if retail sales at the new site do not work out. But do you want to capture that areas growth and confine it to those qualified projects? How does that mathematically come out when you factor in the 7% you would retain from the State? The idea of a TDZ at the fairgrounds is not a bad one, this particular plan is somewhat of a gamble. But most of the info you get is amazingly biased. Either from Lipscomb's people or Henry Turley's people (the con side ie Taylor berger). A personal preference is for the University to present a TDZ plan that utilized the fairgrounds for their master plan. It would mean back to the drawing board, but ok...

Also, The Coliseum is not salvageable unless someone wants to spend OCS type money.

So is the issue of diversion of education funding a strawman? If the TDZ is wise for the taxpayer, I'd support it.

Edit: Within that 7% of state taxes would be expenditures that would theoretically go to that district for other purposes (assuming a number of things, but it's undeniable a certain portion, if not all of it, would otherwise return as part of state expenses). Is that the education they are concerned about? That the district will lose state funding for other projects or needs that parts if not all of that 7% would pay for? I don't think the districts would receive $0 of that 7% without a TDZ to recoup it. Maybe I'm over thinking it.

Edit 2: "When Shelby County Commissioner Steve Basar questioned Lipscomb about the point at a Cooper-Young Community Association meeting in October, Lipscomb was adamant that the only sales tax revenue pulled in would be revenue that would otherwise go to state government for possible distribution to other parts of the state.

Lipscomb repeated that several times as Basar said county attorneys had told him otherwise.

“None of that’s true,” Lipscomb said.

Shelby County Finance Director Mike Swift followed the exchange that same month by saying “In the existing TDZ today, it covers both the state sales tax and the local option sales tax. Half of that, off the top, goes to schools. Therefore there would be a reduction in what goes to schools.”" (http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/201...ds-zone/).

I'm not sure if there has been clarity, as a bystander on the sidelines, I'm kind of stuck in the middle. Attorneys mention one thing to the county, and Lipscomb says differently... Maybe Lipscomb's right, but maybe not...

The Local option part WOULD BE restricted, to the best of my knowledge (as you state people say both) ie, it could only go to the qualified projects, thus would theoretically siphon funds from schools. Allegedly, they are working through this with the state.

Important for evaluating Mr. Berger's position in this is his allegiance business and otherwise with Henry Turley. Turley originally came up with this concept and pushed the TDZ potential for the area through the state in 2007. He and Lipscomb were working on it together until Turley's proposed management fees were determined to be too generous. At the time pre-recession the retail district was going to require a big box retailer (Target) but that would have necessitated the moving of Fairview to the space that the Kroc is and the Kroc center to the old Libertyland space. That ship has obviously sailed. But Since his ouster Turley has been highly critical of the project and therefore Berger"s motives are more...complex.

(01-13-2015 01:28 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:55 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:39 PM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  There are two public meetings scheduled to discuss the proposed Fairgrounds development plan, which would tear down the Coliseum and the Pipkin Building, and tax Cooper-Young and Overton Square to pay for the new development. Many of us are concerned this is a half-baked plan, not in the best interests of either the Liberty Bowl or the neighborhoods or Memphis. It is politics as usual in Memphis.

This is very much Tiger related.

Please join us at the following meetings, find out what is up, and voice your opinions:

Wed. Jan 14th 7:00 at the Jay Etkin Gallery on S. Cooper. Hosted by Leigh Davis.

Wed. Jan 28th 6:00 pm at Circuit Playhouse. Hosted by Taylor Berger and moderated by Kyle Veazey of the Commercial Appeal.

Correct me if I am wrong but when you say tax Cooper-Young and Overton Square to pay for the new development that doesn't mean raise taxes. From what I have read they are trying to get those areas designated as Tourism Districts which means that a smaller percentage of money goes to the state but it's not an extra tax.

It does seem though that they have no real plan, just a general development plan with little specifics.

Bingo. Kind of, sort of. There is an 88 page plan that was published in the Daily News. I assume everyone commenting has read it?

Have you read it? I assume not given that you think any of this taxes Cooper Young or Overton Square, which it doesn't.

Very thoughtful and intelligent post! OCS NOW!

(01-13-2015 02:01 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  This entire tread is typical Memphis mentality. The city & the university are NOT synonomous. The city interests are not the interests of the university. The city has for much too long drained university facilities funds that have worked to the benefit of UTK, OM, UA (directly or indirectly) & the city while keeping our university seen as a commuter school without facilities & unfit for the SEC - all the while the university paying the bills as the primary tenant which provides the means of the city obtaining financing. The city additionally has a history of corruption & mismanagement putting nothing back into the facilities until forced. Why continue to have our university finance facilities the city wants for activities that are not university related & in most cases compete with our university as the city has unsuccessfully since the construction of Crump Stadium. Our university needs OC facilties to grow & control its own destiny. Ironically it would be the best decision to benefit the city tax base in the long term too, by keeping the city's corruption completely out of the university facilities process.

(01-13-2015 02:59 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:48 PM)kabluey Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:21 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:08 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  the main thing that would worry me is taxing cooper-young & overton square(depressing investment in one of the few growing areas inside the city limits) in order to help developers later on. if commercial redevelopment of some small portions of the fairgrounds isnt viable enough for that to happen out of their pockets, then it shouldnt happen. if they are looking to raise money to just tear down the coliseum, then the city should just cowboy up and do it and not put the onus on cooper-young/overton square only.

i would keep a weather eye on letting developers carve up the fairgrounds. they put out a plan one time that only left a parking garage to service the Liberty Bowl Stadium. imagine cars for 60000 people trying to get out of one garage.

Not saying it is a good or bad plan, but your worry is misplaced. A TDZ does NOT tax a district. It is a tax designation. Our state sales tax is 9.25%, 2.25% of which is the local option. The other 7% is the state portion, under normal circumstances the state portion flows to Nashville to be spent by Nashville. Under a TDZ, the 7% remains in the municipality BUT it can only be used on "qualified projects within the TDZ area". The application lists the qualified projects but beyond the Liberty Bowl, and repayment of the City for Tiger Lane, I can not provide a comprehensive list. The issue for Cooper Young and Overton Square is their revenue is pretty obviously the hedge if retail sales at the new site do not work out. But do you want to capture that areas growth and confine it to those qualified projects? How does that mathematically come out when you factor in the 7% you would retain from the State? The idea of a TDZ at the fairgrounds is not a bad one, this particular plan is somewhat of a gamble. But most of the info you get is amazingly biased. Either from Lipscomb's people or Henry Turley's people (the con side ie Taylor berger). A personal preference is for the University to present a TDZ plan that utilized the fairgrounds for their master plan. It would mean back to the drawing board, but ok...

Also, The Coliseum is not salvageable unless someone wants to spend OCS type money.

So is the issue of diversion of education funding a strawman? If the TDZ is wise for the taxpayer, I'd support it.

Edit: Within that 7% of state taxes would be expenditures that would theoretically go to that district for other purposes (assuming a number of things, but it's undeniable a certain portion, if not all of it, would otherwise return as part of state expenses). Is that the education they are concerned about? That the district will lose state funding for other projects or needs that parts if not all of that 7% would pay for? I don't think the districts would receive $0 of that 7% without a TDZ to recoup it. Maybe I'm over thinking it.

Edit 2: "When Shelby County Commissioner Steve Basar questioned Lipscomb about the point at a Cooper-Young Community Association meeting in October, Lipscomb was adamant that the only sales tax revenue pulled in would be revenue that would otherwise go to state government for possible distribution to other parts of the state.

Lipscomb repeated that several times as Basar said county attorneys had told him otherwise.

“None of that’s true,” Lipscomb said.

Shelby County Finance Director Mike Swift followed the exchange that same month by saying “In the existing TDZ today, it covers both the state sales tax and the local option sales tax. Half of that, off the top, goes to schools. Therefore there would be a reduction in what goes to schools.”" (http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/201...ds-zone/).

I'm not sure if there has been clarity, as a bystander on the sidelines, I'm kind of stuck in the middle. Attorneys mention one thing to the county, and Lipscomb says differently... Maybe Lipscomb's right, but maybe not...

The Local option part WOULD BE restricted, to the best of my knowledge (as you state people say both) ie, it could only go to the qualified projects, thus would theoretically siphon funds from schools. Allegedly, they are working through this with the state.

Important for evaluating Mr. Berger's position in this is his allegiance business and otherwise with Henry Turley. Turley originally came up with this concept and pushed the TDZ potential for the area through the state in 2007. He and Lipscomb were working on it together until Turley's proposed management fees were determined to be too generous. At the time pre-recession the retail district was going to require a big box retailer (Target) but that would have necessitated the moving of Fairview to the space that the Kroc is and the Kroc center to the old Libertyland space. That ship has obviously sailed. But Since his ouster Turley has been highly critical of the project and therefore Berger"s motives are more...complex.

I nominate George Can'tStandYa to represent the MemphisTigers.org Board at the meeting. I also second my motion.

(01-13-2015 01:55 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:40 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Like most "development" there are absolutely no guarantees. Anyone claiming that this will be a success or failure is just guessing. That being said I would put the biggest part of the risk on the private sector. They have the most to gain, let them shoulder the bulk of the risk.

When you have certain things in a complex and they are removed because of non use. Then it is very very likely that if you put the same things back in there that it will fail again. Almost everything they have planned has been in place in or around the fairgrounds and failed.

One of my major goals in 2015 is once I have my NYC market share completely on lock, to start looking into Memphis as a secondary practice. Gives me a chance to travel home more and get into it on urban issues with my home town. Really trying to make that a reality in the years to come...

If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

we should let our all time favorite architect help us out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5StTXQofqs

(01-13-2015 10:12 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:55 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:40 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Like most "development" there are absolutely no guarantees. Anyone claiming that this will be a success or failure is just guessing. That being said I would put the biggest part of the risk on the private sector. They have the most to gain, let them shoulder the bulk of the risk.

When you have certain things in a complex and they are removed because of non use. Then it is very very likely that if you put the same things back in there that it will fail again. Almost everything they have planned has been in place in or around the fairgrounds and failed.

One of my major goals in 2015 is once I have my NYC market share completely on lock, to start looking into Memphis as a secondary practice. Gives me a chance to travel home more and get into it on urban issues with my home town. Really trying to make that a reality in the years to come...

If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

Start spreading the news