Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
* * * * * 6 votes

CBD/SoBro/RutledgeHill/Rolling Mill Hill Projects


  • Please log in to reply
2760 replies to this topic

#201 captainwjm

captainwjm

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Location:Midtown Nashville

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

I have some familiarity with the Hull building and question the "functionally obselete" designation.  The building is clean, and well-maintained by state standards.  It has been significnatly renovated at least once in the last 20 or so years.  As far as I know, all systems are up-to-date and functioning without undue expense.  According to the report, deferred maintenance was a significant factor in the designation, but more critically is a problem with the foundation that creates the excessive cost of continuing occupancy. Whether the dollars and cents analysis of the administration makes sense is something that needs to be closely looked at.  Too bad that the legislature - or at least the Davidson County delegation - is not inclined to challenge the assumption underlying the request to fund a $25 million demoltion and associated costs of relocation and rental space. One good aspect of this is that rumor has it that at least some of the building's offices will be relocated to vacant space in the regions Bank building, thus keeping those workers downtown.


Edited by captainwjm, 31 January 2013 - 12:05 PM.


 

#202 nashvillwill

nashvillwill

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • Location:you have nice furniture

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:48 PM

For a moment, I thought we were talking about the judicial building with the fountains on the lawn. I almost freaked out and was going to start protesting. Sheesh.

Edited by nashvillwill, 31 January 2013 - 01:14 PM.


#203 smeagolsfree

smeagolsfree

    City

  • Moderators
  • 6,339 posts
  • Location:Nashville Metro area

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

Final Plan for Sobro released.

 

http://nashvillepost...bro_master_plan

 

 

http://www.nashville...oMasterPlan.pdf


  • ariesjow and timmay143 like this

#204 timmay143

timmay143

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location:Jupiter, FL but born and raised in Nashville!

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

Final Plan for Sobro released.

 

http://nashvillepost...bro_master_plan

 

 

http://www.nashville...oMasterPlan.pdf

 

Giggity .



#205 Neigeville

Neigeville

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Location:Nashville

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:36 PM

That's a shame.  I understand the real world is dog eat dog, do whatever is best for you.  But I feel like that is what is wrong with many things today.  Why can't people simply do what is right instead of how they are going to benefit the most.  I also realize that everyone's "right" is different.  I guess it's a Utopian thinking.

Well what's right in cases like this is The Common Good, which is why governments, imperfect as they are, are ordained among men.  Right now, if we were to test the current state legislature on their knowledge of urban design issues (not to mention on how much they care about Nashville), I suspect the results would be more than disappointing.  As in, abysmal. 

 

The good news is that as our dynamic city continues to thrive, the state will have a motive to sell the many valuable pieces of land it probably owns.  The day will come when a developer will offer to build state employees parking structures in order to buy the land they're parking on.



#206 e-dub

e-dub

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Location:CBD

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Final Plan for Sobro released.

 

http://nashvillepost...bro_master_plan

 

 

http://www.nashville...oMasterPlan.pdf

 

as stupid as this is, the misspelling of the word "borders" on page 16 is really getting to me...

 

eric b



#207 bwithers1

bwithers1

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

I have only glanced through the report, but there are many ideas put forward that we have also talked about on UP.  Such as:  metro should form a parknig authority to construct structured parking in key spots with the bonds paid off by the modest parking fees that the parking authority would charge. 

 

One idea that is put forward is to improve the pedestrain bridge that goes from Lindslay Ave across I-40.  I would have to heartily disagree with this one in particular.  That is a drug dealer's runway to/from the Sudekum homes!



#208 BnaBreaker

BnaBreaker

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location:Chicago, but born and raised in Nashville

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

I have only glanced through the report, but there are many ideas put forward that we have also talked about on UP.  Such as:  metro should form a parknig authority to construct structured parking in key spots with the bonds paid off by the modest parking fees that the parking authority would charge. 

 

One idea that is put forward is to improve the pedestrain bridge that goes from Lindslay Ave across I-40.  I would have to heartily disagree with this one in particular.  That is a drug dealer's runway to/from the Sudekum homes

 

So poor people don't deserve a proper pedestrian connection to the center of town because a small handful of their neighbors sell drugs?  I would suggest that perhaps the fact that practically the entire neighborhood is sort of isolated and cut off from the rest of town geographically is part of the reason that it is somewhat of a haven for trouble makers.  The solution to that problem isn't to simply ignore it or to isolate the people that live there even further.  The solution is to begin to integrate their neighborhood back into the fabric of the surrounding neighborhoods. 



#209 timmay143

timmay143

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,735 posts
  • Location:Jupiter, FL but born and raised in Nashville!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

Just imagine the N Gulch and East Bank fully developed with SoBro

 



#210 UTgrad09

UTgrad09

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,893 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

One idea that is put forward is to improve the pedestrain bridge that goes from Lindslay Ave across I-40.  I would have to heartily disagree with this one in particular.  That is a drug dealer's runway to/from the Sudekum homes!

I generally like the idea of improving neighborhood connectivity, but this is one case where I absolutely oppose it. I know it isn't politically correct, but that bridge should be taken down. It is one thing that is holding that section of Rutledge Hill back.

So poor people don't deserve a proper pedestrian connection to the center of town because a small handful of their neighbors sell drugs?  I would suggest that perhaps the fact that practically the entire neighborhood is sort of isolated and cut off from the rest of town geographically is part of the reason that it is somewhat of a haven for trouble makers.  The solution to that problem isn't to simply ignore it or to isolate the people that live there even further.  The solution is to begin to integrate their neighborhood back into the fabric of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Integrating it into surrounding neighborhoods isn't going to improve it so long as it is a massive housing project.

No, not everyone that lives there is a bad apple...but there's a good reason why they are destroying those types of developments around the country. Isolation could very well be a factor in why it is not a good area. But it is not the root cause of it.

#211 bwithers1

bwithers1

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:39 PM

So poor people don't deserve a proper pedestrian connection to the center of town because a small handful of their neighbors sell drugs?  I would suggest that perhaps the fact that practically the entire neighborhood is sort of isolated and cut off from the rest of town geographically is part of the reason that it is somewhat of a haven for trouble makers.  The solution to that problem isn't to simply ignore it or to isolate the people that live there even further.  The solution is to begin to integrate their neighborhood back into the fabric of the surrounding neighborhoods. 

Actually, I agree with you on this.  The problem with the Sudekum homes is that gangbanger thugs/pimps/drug dealers who do not live there get back in those streets and threaten the people who do live there with their lives.  So the residents are kept prisoner by the drug dealers who patrol the area and use that pedestrian bridge.  From the police standpoint, the Sudekum Homes are patrolled by the Hermitage Precinct (at Central Pike and OHB), which also handles a lot of Antioch (everything from Murfreesboro Road north to the river) so the police can't even get there that quickly.  Maybe that will change once the new MidTown Hill precint comes online or something.  To me, the Sudekum homes really should be patrolled by the Central Precinct.

 

What I would say in terms of this pedestrian bridge is that the biggest "improvement" to it would be beefed up security.

 

I definitely agree that the Sudekum homes should be integrated with their community, but that community is the Lafayette Street corridor, not Sobro/Rutledge Hill.  Unfortunately, LaFayette Street isn't a lot better off than the Sudekum homes themselves.  That's a little slice of hell right there.  So improving that community really needs to happen south of I-40.  Making the pedestrian bridge more beautiful won't help the crime situation and the residents will still be afraid to use it.



#212 Neigeville

Neigeville

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Location:Nashville

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:01 PM

...

I definitely agree that the Sudekum homes should be integrated with their community, but that community is the Lafayette Street corridor, not Sobro/Rutledge Hill. Unfortunately, LaFayette Street isn't a lot better off than the Sudekum homes themselves. That's a little slice of hell right there. So improving that community really needs to happen south of I-40. Making the pedestrian bridge more beautiful won't help the crime situation and the residents will still be afraid to use it.

Actually making an area more beautiful probably helps, people do tend to trash an area once it begins to look derelict. The "broken windows" theory. The plan only mentions making the street in front of the bridge a bit less Mad Max, but I think lighting on the bridge, and the area leading to the bridge on the other side, should be dealt with as well. A coat of paint wouldn't hurt either.

 

The larger issue is do we deal with poor people by concentrating them, Nashville does need to do some work on that front. And these neighborhoods can be redisigned to create more of a sense of ownership of the space by the people who live there, more "eyes on the street" and fewer shadowy places for shadowy people to congregate.

 

But as far as the idea that downtown is only for people of a certain social class, no. I say improve the connection between the neighborhoods.



#213 BnaBreaker

BnaBreaker

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location:Chicago, but born and raised in Nashville

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

You know what, I actually don't know how it works when it comes to government housing projects.  Is organic reintegration even an option, legally?  I know that's probably a ricidulous question, but I honestly don't know.  I know that here in Chicago most of the projects have simply been torn down.  However, those are all just a collection of two or three huge apartment blocks.  Not really much you can do with that in terms of reuse or reintegration.  Sudekum, on the other hand, is really more of a neighborhood setting.  If it were simply a poor neighborhood, and perhaps this is what you were getting at UTGrad, I think that the proper course of action would be to integrate and reconnect it with it's surrounding neighborhood, pumping money into improving it, increasing the socio-economic diversity, and increasing the zoning uses...basically letting them know that they're a part of this too.  Telling the residents to 'get lost' and destroying the entire thing just seems a bit short-sighted, and counter-productive, but perhaps demolition is the only option when dealing with government housing projects?  Can anyone shed some light on that?


Edited by BnaBreaker, 01 February 2013 - 09:01 PM.


#214 UTgrad09

UTgrad09

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,893 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:00 PM

You know what, I actually don't know how it works when it comes to government housing projects.  Is organic reintegration even an option, legally?  I know that's probably a ricidulous question, but I honestly don't know.  I know that here in Chicago most of the projects have simply been torn down.  However, those are all just a collection of two or three huge apartment blocks.  Not really much you can do with that in terms of reuse or reintegration.  Sudekum, on the other hand, is really more of a neighborhood setting.  If it were simply a poor neighborhood, and perhaps this is what you were getting at UTGrad, I think that the proper course of action would be to integrate and reconnect it with it's surrounding neighborhood, pumping money into improving it, increasing the socio-economic diversity, and increasing the zoning uses...basically letting them know that they're a part of this too.  Telling the residents to 'get lost' and destroying the entire thing just seems a bit short-sighted, and counter-productive, but perhaps demolition is the only option when dealing with government housing projects?  Can anyone shed some light on that?

I know I probably came cross as a bit harsh and uncaring for the poor in my last post. I do think that ultimately neighborhood integration would be a good thing...and I think it would help with the overwhelmingly negative image of the area...but something needs to be done with the buildings themselves.

A lot of what hurts the projects is that image. It makes it difficult for anything to redevelop or gentrify nearby. Edgefield is a notable exception, but only due to it's unique housing stock. There is nothing even close to that sort of value anywhere down Lafayette. Simply put, it's a trashy area that some people are even afraid to drive through during daylight hours.


But anyways, I think the Napier projects nearby actually have a pretty cool "neighborhood" look. They are oriented to the street, and in my opinion, even attractive (for old school public housing). There's actually some potential with those (and a few others...Andrew Jackson Courts; Cheatham Place) to actually rehab what is there. Make a few aesthetic changes (but keep the mature trees), rehab the interiors, give them new windows. Yeah...I could see working with that. Excuse the phrase, but they're like a poor man's townhouse.

But these? These?? No way. The sooner they tear down these abominations the better. Replace it with some workforce housing....SOMETHING other than that. Just clean it up a bit.

I would invest in cleaning up the projects before pumping money into the surrounding neighborhood. If you leave the problem area a problem area...what is going to change? Who is going to take the financial risk to move their business to a notoriously bad neighborhood? Just throwing money at the area and saying "hey, you're a part of this, too" is a bit naive, I think.

#215 Neigeville

Neigeville

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Location:Nashville

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:21 PM

I know I probably came cross as a bit harsh and uncaring for the poor in my last post. I do think that ultimately neighborhood integration would be a good thing...and I think it would help with the overwhelmingly negative image of the area...but something needs to be done with the buildings themselves.

A lot of what hurts the projects is that image. It makes it difficult for anything to redevelop or gentrify nearby. Edgefield is a notable exception, but only due to it's unique housing stock. There is nothing even close to that sort of value anywhere down Lafayette. Simply put, it's a trashy area that some people are even afraid to drive through during daylight hours.


But anyways, I think the Napier projects nearby actually have a pretty cool "neighborhood" look. They are oriented to the street, and in my opinion, even attractive (for old school public housing). There's actually some potential with those (and a few others...Andrew Jackson Courts; Cheatham Place) to actually rehab what is there. Make a few aesthetic changes (but keep the mature trees), rehab the interiors, give them new windows. Yeah...I could see working with that. Excuse the phrase, but they're like a poor man's townhouse.

But these? These?? No way. The sooner they tear down these abominations the better. Replace it with some workforce housing....SOMETHING other than that. Just clean it up a bit.

I would invest in cleaning up the projects before pumping money into the surrounding neighborhood. If you leave the problem area a problem area...what is going to change? Who is going to take the financial risk to move their business to a notoriously bad neighborhood? Just throwing money at the area and saying "hey, you're a part of this, too" is a bit naive, I think.

 

These projects were an enormous improvement over the slums they replaced decades ago, but they definitely need a makeover.  I think it's probably a good idea to break up the subsidized housing and scatter it around the city, maybe send some to Brentwood or Belle Meade to increase the diversity there (social experiment).  I'd transplant some of these facilities to West End, it might increase ridership on the BRT.  Seriously, I think some cities have had some success scattering subsidized housing throughout the city.



#216 bigeasy

bigeasy

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:22 PM

I have done some police ride alongs with officers that were stationed in Zone 11, or the JC Napier area. Something def needs to be done there because it is awful. It felt like the movie Training Day. At the time it was one officer for that whole zone unless they had some flex support. Hermitage precinct is spread so thin that it easily would of been 10-15 min before help could of arrived. Just hearing the stories on how they use the bridge as an escape from the cops makes me want to see it demolished. It is also an easy access to sell drugs away from the projects.  Some are "banned" from being there so they can avoid any trouble by just staying on the other side. I knew it was going to be an interesting night when the first call was someone driving around with a gun out the window.



#217 smeagolsfree

smeagolsfree

    City

  • Moderators
  • 6,339 posts
  • Location:Nashville Metro area

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:38 AM

Event center opens in Bridge building.

 

http://www.fox17.com...vid_16259.shtml



#218 BnaBreaker

BnaBreaker

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location:Chicago, but born and raised in Nashville

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:55 AM

I know I probably came cross as a bit harsh and uncaring for the poor in my last post. I do think that ultimately neighborhood integration would be a good thing...and I think it would help with the overwhelmingly negative image of the area...but something needs to be done with the buildings themselves.

A lot of what hurts the projects is that image. It makes it difficult for anything to redevelop or gentrify nearby. Edgefield is a notable exception, but only due to it's unique housing stock. There is nothing even close to that sort of value anywhere down Lafayette. Simply put, it's a trashy area that some people are even afraid to drive through during daylight hours.


But anyways, I think the Napier projects nearby actually have a pretty cool "neighborhood" look. They are oriented to the street, and in my opinion, even attractive (for old school public housing). There's actually some potential with those (and a few others...Andrew Jackson Courts; Cheatham Place) to actually rehab what is there. Make a few aesthetic changes (but keep the mature trees), rehab the interiors, give them new windows. Yeah...I could see working with that. Excuse the phrase, but they're like a poor man's townhouse.

But these? These?? No way. The sooner they tear down these abominations the better. Replace it with some workforce housing....SOMETHING other than that. Just clean it up a bit.

I would invest in cleaning up the projects before pumping money into the surrounding neighborhood. If you leave the problem area a problem area...what is going to change? Who is going to take the financial risk to move their business to a notoriously bad neighborhood? Just throwing money at the area and saying "hey, you're a part of this, too" is a bit naive, I think.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I agree to a point.  But I guess I just feel like the city has essentially given people in this income bracket no legitimate choice on where to live other than these shoddy, poorly funded, ramshackle neighborhoods, which is degrading enough for these folks as it is.  But imagine what it might be like if the city then came in and told them that they have to get lost and find somewhere else to live, because they're going to bulldoze their entire neighborhood since they don't find it pleasing to the eye, which they had nothing to do with?  I just think that would be an incredibly irresponsible and inhumane course of action.  I think the proper course of action, challenging as it may be, is to reconnect, reintegrate, and encourage socio-economic diversity in the neighborhood by investing in it and adding to it, not to cut it off from the rest of the city even more than it already is and demolish anything that isn't aesthetically pleasing. 

 

I have done some police ride alongs with officers that were stationed in Zone 11, or the JC Napier area. Something def needs to be done there because it is awful. It felt like the movie Training Day. At the time it was one officer for that whole zone unless they had some flex support. Hermitage precinct is spread so thin that it easily would of been 10-15 min before help could of arrived. Just hearing the stories on how they use the bridge as an escape from the cops makes me want to see it demolished. It is also an easy access to sell drugs away from the projects.  Some are "banned" from being there so they can avoid any trouble by just staying on the other side. I knew it was going to be an interesting night when the first call was someone driving around with a gun out the window.

 

Hey, you know what would make them much easier to control, is if we just put a big wall around the entire neighborhood, and didn't allow them to exit without permission.  Okay, I know that's hyperbole, and I know that isn't what you were implying, but I'm saying it to make a point.  Despite how frustrating some of them can be, these are still human beings that live there, and they are Nashvillians.  They aren't a virus or a bunch of animals that should be isolated or corralled.  It might be a challenge to improve the situation there, but they deserve it just as much as people in Germantown or Sylvan Park or Rolling Mill Hill. 

 

I realize that it's easy to think that if we could only isolate the area more, then it would be increasingly difficult for them to get to where you are.  But to me, that's the reflexive response.  That's the irresponsible response.  That's the regressive response.  The attitude that 'they' should all just be isolated in some kind of pseudo human zoo so us 'normal' folk don't have to deal with them, is EXACTLY why that area developed into a troubled neighborhood to begin with. 

 

I'm not saying it would change over night, and I'm not saying it would be easy, but think about it.  It's not like being poor inherently causes people to behave badly.  It's psychological.  If we give these folks essentially no choice but to live in an isolated corner of the city that has almost no amenities or redeeming aesthetic qualities, with nobody else around except for people just like them from a demographic standpoint, I think it is being made pretty clear to those people that the rest of the city doesn't really give a rats ass about them.  I'm not trying to defend criminal activity, but how do you think people are going to behave and react to the realization that the rest of society apparently doesn't think they're worth even making an effort for?  Sometimes it's not as easy as people simply 'working themselves up by their bootstraps.'


Edited by BnaBreaker, 02 February 2013 - 09:04 AM.

  • producer2 and Neigeville like this

#219 UTgrad09

UTgrad09

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 1,893 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:30 AM

^^^
I'm not suggesting that we bulldoze all of the public housing and send these people to La Vergne...but I think we should be in the process of replacing a lot of the public/low income housing with something more updated, and something that doesn't foster such crime. Appearance means a lot these days...and the appearance of a vast neighborhood of dilapidated buildings downright scares a lot of people. Clearing and replacing some of the mess and heavily renovating the mess would give the neighborhood the "inclusion" or pride that you are talking about...but more importantly, it might help change the perception of others (along with doing some obvious things...like in this case, switching the police zone to the Central Precinct).

It's one of those "it looks like a scary place, therefore it is a scary place" things. And no, MDHA, putting colorful siding over parts of it will not change that perception.
  • bigeasy likes this

#220 BnaBreaker

BnaBreaker

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,719 posts
  • Location:Chicago, but born and raised in Nashville

Posted 02 February 2013 - 04:21 PM

^^^
I'm not suggesting that we bulldoze all of the public housing and send these people to La Vergne...but I think we should be in the process of replacing a lot of the public/low income housing with something more updated, and something that doesn't foster such crime. Appearance means a lot these days...and the appearance of a vast neighborhood of dilapidated buildings downright scares a lot of people. Clearing and replacing some of the mess and heavily renovating the mess would give the neighborhood the "inclusion" or pride that you are talking about...but more importantly, it might help change the perception of others (along with doing some obvious things...like in this case, switching the police zone to the Central Precinct).

It's one of those "it looks like a scary place, therefore it is a scary place" things. And no, MDHA, putting colorful siding over parts of it will not change that perception.

 

Understood, and I agree.  My apologies for misunderstanding your original point and for sounding a bit brash and aggressive in my above post.  I reread it and kind of cringed at my tone, but do know that almost none of it was directed specifically at either you or bigeasy.  When it comes to issues I'm passionate about I just have a bad habit of tending to go off on tangents.  haha






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users