Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nashvillain

  1. Regardless where you choose to live you're forced to pay for parking. What I'm trying to reinforce (beat into the ground) is that downtown is where the choice to drive or not to drive should be easiest to make because there should be compelling options. But as of now, there still are no options (without options, there is no choice). People keep insisting that parking is required because the transit infrastructure isn't there, but IMO, transit will never be viable so long as driving and parking is so convenient. Transit, walking, and biking--in the city--needs to be better options than driving
  2. The developers are forced to include parking by the lenders and more often than not, by zoning. There is no free choice in the matter. Condo buyers and apartment renters are forced to pay for the parking spot in the building, whether they want to or not. So I don't understand what choice you're talking about.
  3. Yes, of course. But there's a difference between preferring to drive and needing to drive. And I think it would be great if more people had a choice. The freedom to choose; isn't that what we're about?
  4. Let's hope Metro Nashville never looks like that
  5. It sucks that a development in probably the densest part of downtown needs a 6 story parking garage. Everything else about this proposal is great but why do we need an influx of cars in Printer's Alley/ "Banker's Alley?" (and adjacent areas). And I know this is a necessary measure on the developers part to get funding--but it's just so counterproductive and dumb. The Downtown Code abolished parking minimums but clearly that's not enough. Can we go a step further and legislate a way to punish lenders who insist on parking in new development downtown?
  6. Considering that China is busy manufacturing most of the world's consumer products, it's a bit unfair to point the finger at China and say that any discussion of global CO2 emissions that doesn't begin there is a counter-productive distraction
  7. ^ I don't think there was sarcasm, I didn't have any idea what DDI is either. Thanks!
  8. I couldn't imagine a more Nashville building. Also, it's much better for the environment to reuse existing buildings than it is to demolish and build anew.
  9. I thought there were some good discussions about zoning and parking at least
  10. Yeah, that's about right. The 40mph speed limit is more like a minimum and traffic engineers diabolically put the crosswalk from Haynes Middle at the apex of a curve, meaning any pedestrians are in the blind spot of traffic going both ways. New housing is turning into STRs and guests are parking their cars on the sidewalk. Among the many things Metro needs to figure out, is how it wants its roads and streets to function and how to align development appropriately because right now almost every road and street in Nashville is treated as though its primary function is to move vehicle traffi
  11. There isn't one because, you're right, lenders won't lend for buildings without parking. But again, this isn't a flip the switch solution either but part of the broader solution. Tony G's new residential tower going up on Church hopefully indicates that changing conservative lenders' mindset is possible. And the city can set the table by eliminating the minimum parking requirement. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet if Amazon or Oracle wanted to build office buildings with much reduced parking capacity and incentivize employees to other commuting modes, they'd be able to get it done.
  12. You're all for getting cars off the road but don't support changes to the built environment, zoning, and market based incentives to make it happen. Not every bus trip is a 2 hour bus trip. The bus isn't the only alternative to single occupancy vehicles. There are housing options close by or certainly closer than a 2 hour bus trip
  13. Sure but don't you think the cost of the parking facilities has been factored into the rent? My point is that the cost of building (whether residential, office, or commercial) is increased by the inclusion of parking and that cost gets passed onto the tenants, homebuyers, and customers. If a corporation had lower rent in a building without parking, theoretically it could pay higher wages and potential employees could decide if it's worth it to work in a building without parking.
  14. I agree SFH zoning protects home owners but would argue that it's not meant to protect people in distressed areas who may get pushed out, but rather to protect the wealth of homeowners in areas that have access to the levers of power. Which is why it's a racket that needs to be abolished. As an example, in Nashville areas of previously SFH zoning that have been upzoned tend to be in poor neighborhoods with a lot of renters rather than homeowners. Areas like Edgehill, North Nashville, and pockets of East Nashville for example. As a result, you see long time residents getting evicted and pushed
  15. If that CEO paid higher wages because they didn't have to budget for the cost, maintenance, or leasing of a parking garage, I'd bet they'd have a few employees willing to figure it out
  16. I just don't see how mandating SFH where there is actual demand and competition for housing ever results in lower prices. I'm aware of the concept of the missing middle and would at least support opening up SFH areas to multifamily on corner lots and larger streets while retaining single family character in between.
  17. TODs in the US have self-sabotaged by requiring parking within the development ensuring that people who live in the development are more likely to own a car and less likely to ride the transit. Side note, parking requirements increase the cost of housing
  18. All of this except the myth about Houston. Houston has restrictive covenants, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements which are things that other cities call zoning But I'm trying to understand is this a personal preference for tall buildings or something else?
  19. I'm not opposed to zoning as I advocated for an expansion of the form-based downtown code. I am opposed to most exclusionary zoning which is what we have in most places throughout the country--the result of which is a lack of choice and lack of affordability. For instance, as a resident in Nashville (which I am), I prefer to live in a walkable community with easy access to transit. I'd say that's a pretty common desire these days with a certain segment of the population. However, where is it currently possible for developers to build such developments? And where is it impossible/illegal? The f
  20. Hard to admit, but I agree with Armacing here. The zoning codes we have on the books are de facto over regulation with the intended effect of driving up the price of single family homes and therefore individual wealth and the opposite effect of depriving the market the ability to decide what kinds of buildings to build to meet demand. Which results in lack of inventory and high prices (and sprawl and lack of mobility and unsustainable infrastructure maintenance costs, etc., etc.).
  21. What about protecting and de-incentivizing development on undeveloped land and instead simplifying and modernizing zoning ordinances and reducing barriers to development on land with existing infrastructure?
  22. What is it that we'll be regretting actually? This I totally agree with. I would support extending the downtown code throughout the urban core. The downtown code is essentially a form based code rather than a use based code and doesn't have any parking requirements. I would also support a massive overhaul to zoning throughout the county, including outlawing single family zoning and updating development guidelines along the pikes to encourage transit oriented developments (with no parking)
  23. Improving amenities and services isn't a waste of money. The 22 route is in the top five in terms of overall ridership (even though Bordeaux is hardly a densely populated area) and the 9 and 42 lines are up there as well. Maybe you don't ride the bus because it's inconvenient or doesn't go where you want when you want, but thousands of Nashvillians rely on it (including children in MNPS). Certainly there are arguments to be made about the efficiency and service levels of the system as a whole, but I don't see the value in crapting on legitimate improvements that are being made within cu
  • 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.