Memphis is aptly named “America’s Distribution Center.” It has the infrastructure to warrant the
claim. Major transportation corridors in
the form of interstates and US highways turn Memphis’s street grid into distribution
arteries for the nation. This is
problematic, as they should instead be less ambitious veins connecting
neighborhoods. The worst offender is a
railroad infrastructure that haphazardly slices the city into disjointed and far-flung
neighborhoods. The end result is an
inner urban core made up of neighborhoods that are dilapidated, poverty
stricken, unwalkable and externally disconnected. These neighborhoods form the makeup of a
city that as a whole fails to provide the sort of urban services and
experiences that attract the nation’s youngest and brightest talent.
In keeping with the trend towards urban renewal in today’s
major US cities, Memphis is trying to keep pace. The city recently painted bike lanes down
some of its most busy streets - East-West arteries that extend for a dozen
miles free to all those brave enough to share the roads with a population not
accustomed to the driving behaviors necessary to make roads pedestrian friendly. And like most US cities, it is aggressively
promoting, and even succeeding, in revitalizing its downtown corridor. But around that slowly growing downtown, is
an urban center that is one of the nation’s poorest. With a poverty rate of 19.1%, the Memphis
metropolitan area was ranked in the most recent census the poorest among US
cities with a population of over one million people. Statistics back up the
claims. According to Atlanticcities.com,
a website devoted to urban issues, Memphis is the country’s 3rd
least fit city, its 4th least Bohemian, and its citizens deal with
the 6th worst work place community.
Its walkability score – a popular metric by which to rate a city’s
livability in modern terms, is a 39.4 out of 100, good enough for 42nd
among America’s top 50 metropolitan areas.
Something isn’t working.
Memphis needs revitalizing. It
needs to become more urban. As a native
Memphian, I possess a devotion and affection for my home town. I want it to succeed and I see its potential
– which is probably why I find the current state of affairs so
frustrating. But how best to revitalize
a major American city isn’t the question.
Memphis is trying the traditional approaches – best practices even. It is experimenting with major development
projects such as a new riverfront and extending trolley lines north and south
of downtown. But its city government
isn’t exactly awash in cash. And these projects take time and cost money
the city frankly does not have. So the
question is instead, how do you revitalize a major American city quickly, and
cheaply?
As my paper topic, I would like to explore the role human centric
design can play in this process. But
seeing as how that’s a bit nebulous, given that human centric design is a key
protein the makes up the DNA of all modern urban planning techniques, I’d like
to instead explore the creation of a specific process, a series of design
thinking tactics and tools strung together in a logical and coherent way,
intended to help cities identify neighborhoods ripe for investment. And
unlike typical real estate development feasibility studies that can cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars and take years of planning and execution just
to determine a project’s investment worthiness, this tool would emphasize the
quick and inexpensive, though no less effective.
The process, as I envision it, involves the following three
key components:
§
Generative Research with citizens and a deep
dive into the past to fully understand a neighborhood’s history and culture to
develop insights into its “essence.”
§
Using the Business Model Canvas to convert a
neighborhood’s historical and cultural strengths into actual models to attract
the right kinds of “customers.”
§
Leveraging inexpensive urban solutions, commonly
referred to as “tactical urbanism,” to physically prototype neighborhood
renewal and investment plans before committing valuable financial
resources.
Generative Research
Struggling neighborhoods are nothing new, nor are the
tactics used to address the underlying issues causing urban decay. But generative research is not a community workshop. It is not a police department “reaching out
to concerned citizens” to discuss strategies for combating crime. At their worst, such endeavors are venting
sessions on crime. At best, they go one
step deeper into typical socio-economic issues such as “a lack of opportunity,”
“education,” or “the degeneration of the family unit.” But these are cultural American problems –
they aren’t a neighborhood’s problems.
Neighborhoods are living breathing organisms. People know each other, and a neighborhood’s
problems are specific to its history, culture, and identity. That same history, culture, and identity also
speaks to a neighborhood’s strengths, assets, and partnerships, elements that
will be important for the business model canvas. By swapping out the local community organizer
with individuals trained in generative research and adept at picking up on
insights, a neighborhood’s specific problems will begin to emerge. At this point, those insights can be used in
the next step, the business model canvas, to develop neighborhood specific
solutions.
Business Model Canvas
Generative research uncovers a neighborhood’s history,
culture, and essence. Together, these
form a value proposition for potential “customers.” As the main initiator of the canvas in this
instance would be the city, it would in essence have two different “customers”
– citizens, and businesses. This
multi-platform pattern may not be the only one available for a particular
neighborhood. Indeed there are likely
situations where, depending the value proposition and other elements of the
canvas, a neighborhood could pursue any one of the patterns outlines in
business model generation. Channels
could perhaps be thought of as the physical infrastructure itself – roads,
public transportation, bike lanes and other methods of bringing people to a
particular neighborhood. Even key
partners have a place, likely in the form of existing neighborhood organizations
such as churches or civic clubs.
Prototyping
Tactical Urbanism is a common practice used by individuals
to improve the walkability and urban feel of city blocks. It includes things such as painting parking
spots on a four lane road in the middle of the night, reducing the road to two
lanes, or blocking of sections of streets and turning them into impromptu
parks, cafes, or markets. The benefit is
that it allows you to cheaply and quickly, often in only a few hours, simulate
fully functioning urban environments. In
terms of research, there is an entire movement centered around tactical
urbanism, with three separate editions of a “handbook” to provide examples of
inexpensive and easy to replicate solutions that in this instance would serve
as “prototypes” for a neighborhoods proposed investments. Rather than forgo thousands of dollars in
subsidies for new businesses to move to a neighborhood without prior validation
of success, cities can instead run a series of experiments that recreate the
proposed environment, such as a block of cafes, restaurants, or bars. There would be no need to waste money on
graphic renderings that are only so useful in selling potential business
owners, as they instead can come and see the activity on a small, but no less
powerful scale first hand.
The benefits of such a model, were it to prove actionable
and successful are huge for city governments.
Rather than commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to development
feasibility studies on just one neighborhood that often lead to only more
feasibilities studies, it could spend far less and evaluate far more
neighborhoods, prioritizing them accordingly based upon an expected rate of
return. Timelines once measured in years can be reduced to months, and possibly
even weeks.
Though the outline above is an actual idea, the true merit
of which could only be tested through execution, I intend for this paper to be
an opening attempt to refine the idea to a point where it could be tested on an
actual neighborhood, preferably in Memphis itself. Though the steps in the process would be
specific, the paper would investigate existing examples, research, and best
practices to justify the process. IDEO recently used generative research to
help a struggling Kansas City neighborhood rebrand itself. The project, called “18th and
Vine,” involved creating a comprehensive strategy to help the neighborhood
reinvent its struggling business district. It also has a “Smart Spaces” practice with
toolkits of its own that will likely prove useful. But not every city can afford to hire IDEO to
address the growth prospects of every neighborhood within its jurisdiction, so
the goal is for the method above to be a low cost alternative that is just as
effective. Theatlanticcities.com, a
website devoted to urban planning, design, and renewal issues, has a wealth of
information on existing best practices.
Even the most recent US census uncovered a treasure trove of city data.
My main concern with the topic is, not surprisingly,
scope. Seeing as how human centric
design and urban planning today are so intertwined, one would be hard pressed
to distinguish where one ends and the other begins. It is why I have chosen to focus outlining a
specific, somewhat linear process, so that the topic has, as much as is
possible, a finite beginning and end.
I love Memphis. For
years I have been torn between a desire to not be there, given its problems,
and a desire to change those problems. I
would like for this paper to be my first attempt at contributing something of
value to where I am from.
