Nashville Bits and Pieces

[UTgrad09]

Could they fit that many people at the amphitheater? I thought it was just being built for around 6,500. 

 

Probably more comfortably than they can in Riverfront Park.

 

I had to drive from the east side to Green Hills today at rush hour. Took me an 1:20 to get the ten miles there. This town is so FUBAR when it comes to traffic control, road design, signal coordination. As Jimi Hemdrix would say, it's "a frustrating mess".

I am honestly stupefied how people can continue to deny that we need mass transit.

We are getting ourselves into a mess that we won't be able to dig out of. It won't be long at all before people start abandoning the "It City" because of its inability to solve its own problems.

On a side note, I sat on the newly stripped Church street bridge for a solid ten minutes. Saw dozens of people whiz about 40mph down the center "turn lane" to race to the end of the bridge. It's the most dangerous, design encouraged, activity I've ever seen. Seriously, if I was a cop. I would sit on that bridge, make my quota in one day, and get fat the rest of the month.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5tOX6vA-0

^^^a more appropriate Hendrix song...

 

I agree that the crosstown commute is FUBAR...much more so E-W morning/W-E evening. Vanderbilt/West End is the reason for that. If not, 440 could probably survive as a 2 lane interstate.

 

The thing you mentioned that lit my eyes up is signal coordination. There are SOOO many congested areas that could benefit from better coordination. Nothing is more frustrating than sitting at a traffic light, seeing the light at the next intersection being green...then your light turns, and before you can get to the next intersection. Boom, red light. And sometimes this happens where the traffic ahead stops for a light, and you're stuck at a green light, unable to move. Then your light turns red, and the light ahead turns green, only to fill up and turn red before you are able to move. Makes me want to bang my head on the steering wheel.

 

I absolutely want mass transit, and increased public transit in general...but there's so much that could be done to alleviate the choke points.

[nashvillwill]

Thanks UTGrad on the lyrical catch. I had "manic depression" lyrics fused into "crosstown traffic" in my mind somehow. Maybe it was just the road rage.

The lack of signal timing is indeed one of the most frustrating things for me to deal with. One of the most obvious culprits I've seen lately is on KVB. Since it's all nice and shinny new, the lights seem to be perfectly timed.......all except for @ 1st, which is about 15 seconds out of sequence. Coming off the bridge, you can watch greens rolling all the way up the avenue from 2nd to the roundabout, while you sit at a red on first. The worst part of this is (and I'm guilty of it), when that light finally does turn green, a little voice in your head says "floor it!". Thankfully, the other little voice argues "pedestrians! Police precinct!".

I'm really curious though what TDOT's policy is on reviewing this subject. It seems like lights get out of sequence and stay that way for ages. In the Bay Area, timing is like clockwork (it would be apocalyptic if they are not). Is it a budget issue? Equipment issue? Or is it just a fundamental oversight, or lack of understanding, by the department?

And I'm sorry, I just can't let it go. Turn lanes on a bridge? WTF TDOT!?!

Edited August 20, 2014 by nashvillwill

[nashmoney]

I echo the same complaints with the traffic light timing issues.

 

I have submitted traffic signal requests through Metro using their online customer service form. They usually respond within a day or two and will tell you they have forwared it to either the state or the metro dept that handles it (not sure if it is public works).

 

They are definitley more responsive to things like graffitti, litter, paving, and potholes. I have seen most of these request completed withing a month or two.

 

Another issue I have is with MTA and them not having trash bins at their bus stops...especially the high usage bus stops. I see a lot of this on all of the major thoroughfares in Nashville. There is a bench or bus shelter and no trash bins. People leave their trash on the ground, it piles up, then blows all everywhere. And the stops that have trash bins pile up and goes everywhere (the rivergate mall bus stop). You think it would be common sense for MTA to put trash bins at their stops especially the high usuage stops. When I contacted them they said their crew picks up once a week and sometimes run behind. They said were aware of the issues and would forward it on. I'm sure we know where that went to

 

Here is the link to submit a request

 

https://www.nashville.gov/Public-Works/Forms/Request-Customer-Service.aspx

Edited August 20, 2014 by nashmoney

[bwithers1]

Hey, everybody:  we passed the Contextual Overlay bill last night!  Here is an article http://nashvillepublicradio.org/blog/2014/08/19/two-houses-one-lot-council-members-want-new-development-fit-neighborhood/ that was posted yesterday morning.  The photo is actually of 1118 Sharpe Ave in Eastwood.  This is one of the buildings that launched a couple dozen survey forms in support of our neighborhood's Conservation Zoning Overlay this past winter/spring.

 

I have worked closely with CM Walter Hunt on this bill by coordinating with neighborhood groups to get homeowner voices at the bargaining table so that we had at least as much sway as the developers in crafting the legislation and the amendments.  At last night's hearing, CM Hunt held up a couple of reams of e-mails (over 500) from constituents across the county urging the Council to pass that bill.  We needed 21 votes and we got 29.  Several of you on this board helped to marshall your neighbors to write in support and lobby your Council Members.  Thank you to everyone who did that. Your efforts have helped to give Nashville neighborhoods another option for taking control of shaping our built environment.

 

Next is the Duplex reform bill (BL2014-770), which has been deferred until September 9th.  The proposed amendments that were announced on Friday, August 15th are pretty strong from a neighborhood standpoint.  Which is good because we have already given up a lot in these negotiations.  The neighborhood leaders will need to stand together once again to get the zoning code text rewritten to something that we all can live with.  That will be a county-wide bill and would impact building permits effective the day the Mayor signs the bill.

Edited August 20, 2014 by bwithers1

[Hey_Hey]

Thank you for all the help on this Brett! I wish I could have been at the meeting to support this bill last night, but hopefully my emails to council members made a little difference. This is another tool that can be used to shape neighborhoods in a manner that the residents want as opposed to be stuck with whatever is economically most advantageous to the builder/developer.

In our emails and letters to council members regarding the duplex hill is there anything we should be asking for specifically or is it just passage as currently proposed?

[Will]

These bills seem to be an effort to legislate the aesthetic preferences of a vocal minority, and I think they will have unintended negative consequences. I wrote my councilmember to oppose them and am disappointed that Metro is meddling with homeowners' rights to deal with what is essentially a matter of taste. As most on this forum will agree, the benefits of urban and near-suburban infill are many, including: 

 

-More efficient use of land

-Reduced commuting distance and therefore reduced congestion and improved air quality

-More people contributing to the communities in which they live

-A larger property tax base

 

Do not these benefits outweigh the existential trauma of being exposed to a "umbilical" duplex or tall, skinny house when walking one's dog in the morning? 

 

I live near Belmont and am surrounded by many homes that are triple the size and value of my own, but I don't mind. If that's what developers want to build and they can find buyers on the open market, let them do so. I, for one, welcome my new neighbors and the effect their enormous and ill-proportioned homes have on my property value.

 

---

 

To address one point I often see in conversations surrounding this issue, the argument that longtime residents are being "forced" out of their homes in fast-growing neighborhoods is specious. The state offers a tax relief program for elderly and disabled citizens, and the city offers a property tax freeze benefit for residents over 65 years of age (http://www.nashville.gov/Trustee/Tax-Freeze-Program.aspx). Even as property values and tax assessments rise, there are provisions in place to protect elder neighborhood residents from onerous tax burdens. 

[Hey_Hey]

The Contextual Overlay cannot be implemented by a vocal minority.  As a recent example I would point to the Historic Overlay proposal for Sylvan Park. That overlay went down in flames because enough support couldn't be garnered. The contextual overlay, in my opinion, won't be implemented for at least a year and then it will be very limited in use. 

 

The duplex bill essentially corrects an interpretation of the law a few years ago that allowed the umbilical cords. Almost no one actually wants the umbilical cords to happen, but they are forced to do so because of market conditions. The more contentious portion of the bill has to do with the height to width ratios, and there are examples of this already on the books in other ways. There are already height restrictions for residential zoned properties (I believe it is 73 feet) and there are Floor Area Ratios all over the place. These types of restrictions are used in order to provide for some semblance of scaled development.  It is reasonable to put some restrictions on design and use for properties, otherwise there would be no such thing as zoning. 

 

As far as this affecting the redevelopment and revitalization of some neighborhoods, I doubt that it will. Already, most new houses that are being built would be compliant with this new law, and it hasn't affected the sale of these properties. This is protecting against the egregious examples that are happening around town. The height restriction still allows for a full two stories for each unit. 

[samsonh]

These bills seem to be an effort to legislate the aesthetic preferences of a vocal minority, and I think they will have unintended negative consequences. I wrote my councilmember to oppose them and am disappointed that Metro is meddling with homeowners' rights to deal with what is essentially a matter of taste. As most on this forum will agree, the benefits of urban and near-suburban infill are many, including: 

 

-More efficient use of land

-Reduced commuting distance and therefore reduced congestion and improved air quality

-More people contributing to the communities in which they live

-A larger property tax base

 

Do not these benefits outweigh the existential trauma of being exposed to a "umbilical" duplex or tall, skinny house when walking one's dog in the morning? 

 

I live near Belmont and am surrounded by many homes that are triple the size and value of my own, but I don't mind. If that's what developers want to build and they can find buyers on the open market, let them do so. I, for one, welcome my new neighbors and the effect their enormous and ill-proportioned homes have on my property value.

 

---

 

To address one point I often see in conversations surrounding this issue, the argument that longtime residents are being "forced" out of their homes in fast-growing neighborhoods is specious. The state offers a tax relief program for elderly and disabled citizens, and the city offers a property tax freeze benefit for residents over 65 years of age (http://www.nashville.gov/Trustee/Tax-Freeze-Program.aspx). Even as property values and tax assessments rise, there are provisions in place to protect elder neighborhood residents from onerous tax burdens. 

 

Completely agree. These bills will reduce property owner's rights, hurt property values, and reduce housing affordability over the long term. Not surprised so many on this board are in favor of them though.

[Vrtigo]

I feel most of the support for the "Contextual Overlay" comes from opposition to things like this:

 

(Chester & Chapel, East Nashville)

 

However, I rather enjoyed the design of the ones linked in the Nashville Public Radio article.

 

 

How to we help restrict the ugly ones while encouraging the positive density, etc. indicated by Will above?

[Rockatansky]

metro planning dept. should be taken out to the shed and spanked

This is the purview of Metro Public Works and/or TDOT, not planning.

 

I had to drive from the east side to Green Hills today at rush hour. Took me an 1:20 to get the ten miles there.

There was an event at LP Field. Did you not take than into account when planning your trip?

Edited August 20, 2014 by Rockatansky

[Hey_Hey]

Completely agree. These bills will reduce property owner's rights, hurt property values, and reduce housing affordability over the long term. Not surprised so many on this board are in favor of them though.

 

Just curious, how do they both hurt property values and reduce housing affordability?  Property values and affordability are inversely proportional, unless I'm missing something.

 

I would also tend to agree that the second of those pictures is actually fairly well done, and I doubt those would have to be changed at all to fit within a Contextual Overlay as the houses on either side of then have good height. 

[rookzie]

....

....

The thing you mentioned that lit my eyes up is signal coordination. There are SOOO many congested areas that could benefit from better coordination. Nothing is more frustrating than sitting at a traffic light, seeing the light at the next intersection being green...then your light turns, and before you can get to the next intersection. Boom, red light. And sometimes this happens where the traffic ahead stops for a light, and you're stuck at a green light, unable to move. Then your light turns red, and the light ahead turns green, only to fill up and turn red before you are able to move. Makes me want to bang my head on the steering wheel.

 

...but there's so much that could be done to alleviate the choke points.

 

 

The lack of signal timing is indeed one of the most frustrating things for me to deal with. One of the most obvious culprits I've seen lately is on KVB. Since it's all nice and shinny new, the lights seem to be perfectly timed.......all except for @ 1st, which is about 15 seconds out of sequence. Coming off the bridge, you can watch greens rolling all the way up the avenue from 2nd to the roundabout, while you sit at a red on first. The worst part of this is (and I'm guilty of it), when that light finally does turn green, a little voice in your head says "floor it!". Thankfully, the other little voice argues "pedestrians! Police precinct!".

I'm really curious though what TDOT's policy is on reviewing this subject. It seems like lights get out of sequence and stay that way for ages. In the Bay Area, timing is like clockwork (it would be apocalyptic if they are not). Is it a budget issue? Equipment issue? Or is it just a fundamental oversight, or lack of understanding, by the department?

And I'm sorry, I just can't let it go. Turn lanes on a bridge? WTF TDOT!?!

 

This is one thing that promotes the aggressive driving, rampant and perverse in this region (among others).   And I also hate that you drive along Rosa Parks Blvd, and the red light at Union St. catches you with nothing coming along Union.  Of course, this is only one of the 57,789 locations of these happenings county-wide (admittedly a hyperbolized figure made-up for dramatization).  While the engineers argue of pre-programmed movements for optimal flow along all the downtown grid streets. they can't convince the idler sitting there at the red light, that he's not wasting his gas, his brake pads, engine oil, and his tolerance for 35 seconds.

 

I know that it costs tons of money to make every traffic signal "intelligent", but some lights are just too dumb to be in service, period.  Even the lights controlled by sensors (hysteresis wire loops embedded in the pavement) and located at side streets are way too disruptive.  They really should be configured to respond in real-time to the conditions of traffic along the primary roadway as well the secondary, rather than to be triggered to change almost immediately upon the approach of a car from the secondary street.  And even the secondary is afflicted with allowing only vehicles located within 50 or so feet of the sensor to pass on a green, while any trailing vehicles approaching beyond that distance but "reasonably" close behind following (within 3 seconds) will get caught by a red.  This means that, unless cars are bunched up at the secondary side of the light, then any other car will not make it.

 

Except for the ones at the major intersections, it seems that traffic signals are installed as a reaction, rather than as a pro-action .

 

-==-

[UTgrad09]

Hurting property values AND reducing affordability seems to be some sort of paradox.

[UTgrad09]

I'd also like to add that I'm certainly not anti-infill or even anti-duplex. Some developers obviously know how to do it right. Their houses are obviously new, but they don't stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I realize that developers are out to make money -- and that is fine by me. But there are also standards that we should have in our neighborhoods. Let's be honest, some of the developments are total and complete crap. Not only are they behemoth and look out of place in a particular neighborhood, but the designs are awful. You see that with a lot of the umbilicals. Seriously, some of these things are so ugly, they remind me of the 90s suburban houses with odd combinations of brick and vinyl siding. 

 

It's really, really not that difficult to do it right. Just stop with the weird crap. Oh, and also stop tearing down century-old houses to do that. There are tons of 60s-80s turds that would be better targets.

[samsonh]

Hurting property values AND reducing affordability seems to be some sort of paradox.

 

Really? Think about why this may not be, particularly in this case.

[UTgrad09]

Really? Think about why this may not be, particularly in this case.

 

Do laws of supply and demand amazingly not work in inner city Nashville?

[samsonh]

Do laws of supply and demand amazingly not work in inner city Nashville?

 

No they work really well. A perfect example of what I am talking about if happening at 1301 Wade Ave as we speak. A not so great building was sold for $850k, torn down, and 8 or 9 townhomes are being built. The original property owner made much more than he would have had the new developers only been allowed to develop 1 home on the property, 7 or 8  extra families get to live in a great area undergoing a massive positive change, and this development will help speed the change happening in this area.

 

Had only one home been allowed where this older home had been, it would have been more expensive than the townhomes and the original homeowner would certainly not have gotten $850k.

 

Make sense? I'm pretty sure I have a decent grasp of economics

 

I know people may not like the skinny homes. But quite obviously a lot of people do, or else they wouldn't be selling!

Edited August 20, 2014 by samsonh

[UTgrad09]

Where do you draw the line in terms of urban infill? Because why stop at 9 units? You can make more money off of 15! Or 20! Is it OK to stick an apartment block in the middle of a SFH neighborhood?

[samsonh]

Where do you draw the line in terms of urban infill? Because why stop at 9 units? You can make more money off of 15! Or 20! Is it OK to stick an apartment block in the middle of a SFH neighborhood?

 

I suppose you concede your economics argument. Well the market would probably dictate that 15 units would be a bit much here.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[UTgrad09]

I suppose you concede your economics argument. Well the market would probably dictate that 15 units would be a bit much here.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

I figured with the economic argument, you were referring to lots being split from 1 unit to 2 (duplex), which I said I am fine with, as long as there are conditions.

 

Yet the example you used is a lot being split from 1 unit to 9.

 

My question is, what level of infill is appropriate for you on streets that are entirely SFH? 

 

I was under the impression the argument was more design based, not 'how many units can we stuff on an acre and laugh all the way to the bank'.

[samsonh]

I figured with the economic argument, you were referring to lots being split from 1 unit to 2 (duplex), which I said I am fine with, as long as there are conditions.

 

Yet the example you used is a lot being split from 1 unit to 9.

 

My question is, what level of infill is appropriate for you on streets that are entirely SFH? 

 

I was under the impression the argument was more design based, not 'how many units can we stuff on an acre and laugh all the way to the bank'.

 

 

I feel like the guidelines we currently have are fine, and walk a nice line between property owner's rights and preserving neighborhood character. Whether people like it or not density is coming everywhere.This board likes to make fun of Green Hills for opposing a tall building, but many also support these restrictions. There is a big logical inconsistency in that thought process in my opinion.

[UTgrad09]

I think the guidelines aren't too far off...but I feel like there is plenty of room to put density in the appropriate areas. And as far as infill goes, what works for Germantown is going to be different from Eastwood. What works for Edgehill is going to be different than Sylvan Park. What works for Midtown is going to be different than 5 Points.

 

I feel like if the community guidelines are laid out in a clear and thoughtful manner, then developers should be able to work well within those boundaries. Unfortunately, I feel like what we have with this 'It City' attention is a lot of developers that want to push the envelope and squeeze out more profit without any concern for the legacy they leave behind. 

 

I think I would have less of an issue with the "tall" or "skinny" houses if they were replacing larger empty lots (like you see with cities that have a lot of urban decay). That way, you could have blocks of them together, and the style itself would become the character for that neighborhood. That's the reason I don't have a big issue with some of the cottage developments that fill in at certain areas like Gale Park. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to see someone tear down a house and try to stick 3-4 of those things onto a lot on, say, Kirkwood.

 

There has to be at least some continuity. 

[Hey_Hey]

Samson,

I think you're mistaken about what the Contextual Overlay is and is not as well as what the duplex definition would allow and prohibit.  Your example of the Wade projects has no bearing on this discussion. The Wade property was not made up of a single house but instead two triplexes and was not a R or RS zoned piece of property. It was, and is, zone RM-20 which allows the number of units he built. The new overlay and the duplex definition would have absolutely nothing to do with what the developer on Wade did. Your economics argument made against these two changes really has no basis since the facts are totally different.  Even if the contextual overlay were in place over that piece of property it would not have changed a single thing. 

 

The two issues at stake here affect R and RS zoned areas, and the land use policy will not change with either of these new laws. The owner can still split an R zoned lot into two units. If they want to go above two units then they will have to seek a zoning change whether they are in a Contextual Overlay or not or whether the new duplex definition passes or not.

 

The argument about whether this will raise or lower property values and housing costs only applies to 2 for 1 splits, and the reality is that neither of these laws will affect a single person's ability to split a lot into two properties.  

[samsonh]

Samson,

I think you're mistaken about what the Contextual Overlay is and is not as well as what the duplex definition would allow and prohibit.  Your example of the Wade projects has no bearing on this discussion. The Wade property was not made up of a single house but instead two triplexes and was not a R or RS zoned piece of property. It was, and is, zone RM-20 which allows the number of units he built. The new overlay and the duplex definition would have absolutely nothing to do with what the developer on Wade did. Your economics argument made against these two changes really has no basis since the facts are totally different.  Even if the contextual overlay were in place over that piece of property it would not have changed a single thing. 

 

The two issues at stake here affect R and RS zoned areas, and the land use policy will not change with either of these new laws. The owner can still split an R zoned lot into two units. If they want to go above two units then they will have to seek a zoning change whether they are in a Contextual Overlay or not or whether the new duplex definition passes or not.

 

The argument about whether this will raise or lower property values and housing costs only applies to 2 for 1 splits, and the reality is that neither of these laws will affect a single person's ability to split a lot into two properties.  

Thanks for the correction on the Wade property, I thought it was multiple buildings but couldnt recall exactly.

 

When I look at the contextual overlays main points, it still trouble me that we are in effect telling property owners how they can build or modify their properties.

 

I agree that some continuity in neighborhoods is fine, but the developers are selling a lot of the skinny homes because that is what people want. They do not want the early/mid 1900s brick home that is present throughout Nashville's older neighborhoods, and I can't blame them. The economics argument still applies, reading through the regulations makes you realize this is just going to slow development towards a more dense Nashville where mass transit makes sense. I think that's what is most frustrating for me about this message board. This overlay seems like a step backwards.

[Hey_Hey]

When I look at the contextual overlays main points, it still trouble me that we are in effect telling property owners how they can build or modify their properties.

 

But so does all of zoning and overlays. If this is really a discussion over the appropriateness of zoning and overlays then that is a different discussion entirely. I personally think zoning is an appropriate means for a municipality to direct land use in a way that it deems fit. That does necessitate the removal of some rights from the homeowner, but I believe that is better than the alternative. Reasonable people may disagree on that point, and I'm not going to try to persuade you on that because it probably wouldn't do any good.

 

In terms of the economics of development and the move to more dense neighborhoods, these laws don't do anything to slow development. Developers and land owners will still be able to build two for one all they want, and this will in no way prevent the tear downs of historic homes or rundown homes.  This simply requires a couple additional rules for builders to abide by, just like they already have to abide by certain setbacks, safety codes, and use restrictions.