Jump to content

ruraljuror

Members+
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

ruraljuror last won the day on September 15 2014

ruraljuror had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

636 Excellent

About ruraljuror

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nashville

Recent Profile Visitors

1700 profile views
  1. Let's not forget that some of the opposition to the AMP was that it was too small. And after that plan was scrapped - when presented with three potential transit master plan outlines - the voters chose the most ambitious proposal. The referendum results provide good, recent data, but they're not the only data in terms of what the citizens of Nashville and Davidson Co. might support. Also, 4.5% of registered voters could've swung the referendum the other way, which is certainly within the margin that can be affected through better messaging, a better voter push, and/or (of course) a better plan that is just a little more inspiring or draws a little more consensus. Plus demographics keep changing and traffic keeps getting worse, so you never know when we'll reach the tipping point.
  2. I don't see Tony as the one creating the drama here and he's going to face opposition in some form or another almost anywhere he wants to build. The people organizing the opposition know that it's a pretense, but 'more green space downtown' and 'save our parks' sounds better than the truth - which for the organizers is closer to 'Hinder my competition or NIMBY' and for the followers it's 'No more growth/tourists/people/change'. It's no different than the law firm opposing 2nd ave partners because of traffic ingress/egress instead of just saying they didn't want to lose their views, or that 'grassroots' group claiming opposition to 5th and Broadway because the Ryman deserves a courtyard plaza, or the fairgrounds crew complaining about facilities despite getting better facilities in the proposal they opposed. To be fair, we shouldn't just be giving away parks to developers, but Tony came up with some creative ways to better utilize city property that could work out to both his and the city's benefit. Instead of rewarding him and us for his initiative and the money he spent trying to put all this together behind the scenes, now we're going to throw that effort/expense away - which will certainly discourage others from trying to come up with creative mutually beneficial public/private partnerships in the future. No one was drawing up proposals to improve the pocket park before Tony came along with his scheme - sort of reminds me how we only see new ideas from Stop AMP/Transit groups whenever there's a pro-transit proposal on the table that they want to rally opposition against - then it's back to silence. The good news is - Tony did such a good job with his new alternative park/greenway that he should be able to peel off some of the opposition who are genuinely interested in maximizing downtown park space. But as others have also concluded, I won't be surprised when the percentage of those who drop their opposition in light of the new park proposal is a depressingly small fraction.
  3. I wonder if that's what the good people of Bruges are saying about Nashville's inclusion in the list.
  4. The reflections/shadows on the pinnacle crown make it look like a mini-Batman building just trying to keep up with it's bigger sibling.
  5. "Poor stewardship" is not an emotionally charged phrase. On the other hand, believing or projecting that "poor stewardship" is an emotionally charged phrase is certainly more the result of an emotional reaction than a rational one. I think LA_TN is an essential poster and the board is much better off for his presence, but if we're not here in part to discuss the choices made by landowners as to how to utilize their property- taking into account not just what we imagine to be the landowner/developer's perspective, but also our own perspectives and what we think is best for the city - then I'm not sure what we're doing here.
  6. Mark gives a hypothetical example of what he believes would be poor stewardship, so you respond with your own hypothetical examples of even worse stewardship? We call out land owners and developers here for poor stewardship on a daily basis (see Eakin, Beaman, the city), so I'm not even sure what point you're tying to make unless it's a special case in your opinion because a church is involved.
  7. I think it's less about kindness (although we should all be kind to homeless people and I certainly hope that homeless advocates, and political officeholders apply whatever pressure they can to make sure police do the same) and more about practicality. Arresting everyone that the police caught sleeping in public, or loitering, or violating any other similar law aimed at the homeless would be a lot more expensive than just providing housing and food for the homeless population in the first place.
  8. Seems like you made some pretty big leaps here - there's obviously a huge difference between banning personal vehicles and having metro ease up on the parking requirements for new development. Even if there wasn't a government mandated parking requirement, developers would obviously still have the opportunity to construct whatever amount of parking they believed that their building would require and/or that the market would support. For those who broadly subscribe to the belief that government regulation is bad and free market solutions are good, then this is a cause to get behind. I've seriously never heard anyone propose banning personal vehicles or having government confiscate them, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but If a person simply wants to drive a car - that's totally cool. The issue isn't a given person's choice to drive - it's that we're all collectively subsidizing that person's choice to drive and in fact incentivizing that choice. I love driving too, but it's really inefficient and creates a lot of waste that we're all heavily subsidizing to clean up, as well. Does that mean we should all stop driving or that the government should confiscate cars? No, of course not - but let's not pretend that a gallon of gas costs 2.50 when we've spent a quadrillion dollars over the last 60 years providing financial aid and military support so that our oil companies could set up shop all over the world without fear that their rigs will get nationalized. And regardless what you think about the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere, anyone that's ever been parked in a sealed garage with the engine running can tell you the fumes aren't particularly good for people - so there are certainly some (non-climate change-related) pollution issues that haven't been accounted for in that per gallon price, which makes car inefficiencies an issue that affects everyone. Even given all that - banning cars would be ridiculous. Cars are an essential element built into our infrastructure and we'd be in a lot of trouble really quickly if we even suddenly stopped subsidizing them let alone if we tried to ban them altogether. BUT - maybe it's a good idea to also try to start subsidizing and incentivizing some more efficient transportation/communication/infrastructure options at the same time? At the very least, what's the problem with getting rid of the government regulation that requires parking and letting the market determine the value and cost/benefit ratio of parking instead of the city council? I'm genuinely curious why someone would oppose that.
  9. Their goal is to feel a little less powerless in a city/world that seems to have increasingly little use for them. Social evolution from one generation to the next makes just about everyone feel something similar eventually (and pretty much always has), but the technology to organize and collectively empower their grievances is somewhat new to the modern era, as well as an increasingly rapid rate of social change that makes it harder and harder for everyone to keep up. To your point, I think it's like dogs chasing cars - they probably won't catch it and they may actually get seriously hurt if they did, which some of them realize and some of them don't - but they're all in it for the chase. Signing petitions and joining facebook groups and going to council meetings in matching shirts first gives them a sense of usefulness, then a sense of community, and ultimately a sense of purpose and righteousness for the truly committed, while the majority stick around for the thrill that comes from rooting for the home team. What happens after your team wins the game? We celebrate! What happens after that? Who cares we won!!!
  10. Pure speculation on my part, but I think the distribution center is probably for gas stations, grocery stores, and fundraisers, etc. that obviously don't make fresh Krispy Kreme donuts on site. If the donut fryers and glazing conveyor belts they've got in their stores is all theater, that would seem like a pretty big waste of space and equipment to me.
  11. New Yorkers won't be getting their coffee and donuts from Times Square flagship stores. My guess is that KrispyKreme's strategy is more about positioning themselves as an/the iconic American donut in the minds of foreign (and also US) tourists.
  12. This post gives me deja vu to the post immediately preceding it, which literally opened with "stats can be misleading." It also gives me deja vu to about three weeks ago when y'all discussed the exact same issue ad nauseum.
  13. It's also possible that they're afraid of some sort of pushback against whatever they've got planned. Whether that be grassroots pushback from the community or just some astroturf operations by a competitor who may already be in (or planning to enter) our market. That said, my guess is still Apple. It probably takes a while to design a building with all the lines and angles complementing seams in the the sidewalks outside, etc.
  14. There's a leap frog fountain component planned for the park adjacent to the roundabout. Given how busy that roundabout is, putting any pedestrian access to the fountain would be a nightmare in my opinion. It's supposed to be more like the Bellagio fountain, i believe - observed but not interacted with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.