Jump to content

Nashvillain

Members+
  • Content Count

    932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Nashvillain

  1. 34 minutes ago, LA_TN said:

    MNPD is currently short about 100 police officers. Because of the shortage of people, decisions must be made on how to best allocate resources (officers)

    With that said, I'm sure that is what @nashscanwas referring to with 'limited resources'

    Do you know what the 20% for safety includes? I would assume police and fire; what about ambulance, animal control, etc? Are they part of Safety or other? 

    Decisions must always be made how best to allocate finite public resources. I don't know what nashcan is referring to, but I figured I could at least provide a bit of data as opposed to anecdotes and hearsay. 

    The link I provided is to the current fiscal year budget. It has all the details you could want about where the money goes. 

    • Thanks 1
  2. 43 minutes ago, nashscan said:

    MPD has very limited resources.  Every time they arrest (someone it takes an officer off the streets for two hours.   The pending calls then start backing up, and people wonder why it takes so long for an officer to respond when their car is broken into.  Nashville needs to start keeping actual violent  criminals behind bars.  

    Limited compared to what? The only other service that receives more of Metro Nashville's budget is Metro Nashville Public Schools. Of a total $2,646,580,300 budget, 20.40% goes to Public Safety & Justice. 38.33% to education. 13.61% to debt service. 12.86% to general government. 4.67% to infrastructure and transportation. 4.37% to health and social services. 4.08% to recreation and culture. And finally, 1.69% to other. source: https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/FY-2022-Operating-Budget-Book-linked.pdf?ct=1632767380

     I can't do math but 20.40% of more than 2 and a half billion dollars is, like, a lot. 

  3. 28 minutes ago, Armacing said:

    Yeah, but they're choosing to live downtown, so that's still a choice.  But you do bring up a good point about zoning forcing the inclusion of parking - - that zoning (and all zoning) should be removed so builders can build exactly what buyers/renters want to live in and want to pay for.

    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 

    • Like 1
  4. On 9/5/2021 at 12:35 AM, UTgrad09 said:

    If there wasn't demand for parking downtown, would any development include it?

    From an idealist point of view, I get what you are saying -- that why should something in this dense part of downtown have to include parking? 

    But the argument you are making -- about the freedom of choice -- is it not the developer's choice to include parking? And is not not the freedom of the residents of the development to choose if they utilize parking? 

    When there are enough amenities downtown to justify a non-car lifestyle, then you will see more people choosing to live a non-car lifestyle. I don't think you can just make it happen by restricting parking. Add the amenities. And when people stop paying for their parking spots in developments, you will see developments including less and less parking.

    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. 

  5. 2 hours ago, Licec said:

     

    Maybe it's because people prefer to drive a car instead of walking or riding a bike 2, 3, 4, 5 miles or having their life limited to a radius of 1 mile because of not having personal transportation. Most people don't want to live like that.

    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? 

    • Thanks 1
  6. 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? 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  7. 1 hour ago, Armacing said:

    I doubt there is an organize effort to hide China's impact.  I think it has more to do with editorial narrative where if the story is about a coal plant in Illinois (hypothetically speaking), the journalist decides to not bring up China because that would detract from the focus on the given coal plant in the story, and in fact lessen the significance of the coal plant in the mind of the reader.  If a journalist is trying to tell a compelling story about a coal plant, after all, they need to hype up the importance of that coal plant to keep the reader engaged. 

    But when the journalist brings up CO2 emissions and global warming, then, in my opinion, they enter a realm of intellectual dishonesty - deception by omission in this case - by not bringing up China at that point.  Because if one discusses the issue of global CO2 and its affect on the climate, one must disclose whether the Illinois coal plant in question is insignificant with regards to the issue of global climate change.  The reader should be made aware of the relative significance of any given environment-related story so their understanding of the global issue is properly calibrated.  And it seems to me it would be in the interest of environmentally-conscious journalists to focus the most attention on the issue that has the biggest impact on the environment, which for basically all environmental issues is the pollution pumped out by China.

    In conclusion, it's hard for me to see an environmentally-focused news article that does not relate to China as anything but a waste of time and a counter-productive distraction.  If one endeavors to credibly discuss environmental protection in any capacity, one must start the discussion with China and then later mention all other polluters as problems of lesser concern.  Such is the scale of China's pollution in comparison to all other nations around the world.

    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

    • Like 1
  8. On 8/24/2021 at 9:24 AM, donNdonelson2 said:

    I really wish they had demolished the entire building and replaced with a new design. That thing will always look like a 1960s motel with a thick layer of stage makeup and a bad wig!

    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. 

    • Like 2
  9. 6 hours ago, LA_TN said:

    The past week has been a real low point for our forum. I'm sure we drove away several people from this site. We should really be proud of the show (sarcasm)

    I thought there were some good discussions about zoning and parking at least

    • Like 3
  10. 2 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

    I'm really not a fan of the walls that create a very harsh division between the development and the street. With the current slate of development up there, W Trinity Lane should be renamed to W Trinity Highway as that is all the road is at this point beyond Whites Creek Pike.

    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 traffic as fast as possible.

     

    • Like 3
  11. 6 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

    I agree that lower rent leads to potentially higher salaries for employees (if CEO doesn't just keep to him/herself), but just my opinion I don't think that would work in Nashville even at the higher salaries if employees had to take a 2 hour bus to work. 

    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

    • Like 2
  12. 4 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

    That's just not true. Albeit, I meant to say "what tenant pays for a Landlord's maintenance of a parking garage" (I have edited). 

    One22One and every other office building that isn't 100% leased has some portion of their garage not in use, and in order for the landlord to fill up its building 100% with tenants, deals have to be made. Sometimes those deals are made via free parking. 

     

    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. 

     

    • Like 3
  13. 3 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

    This is what I would say is a viable solution. 

    To me the SFH zoning in most cities aren't there to specifically build new housing, but to protect the existing, many times established neighbors from being gentrified out of the area. The city isn't promoting new SFH building so much as protecting those that already exist. It is attempting to work within the market. There is also a sort of hypocrisy within the SFH world, because the SFH is so engrained in the "American Dream" that many folks that have the money for bigger developments don't want their SFH neighborhood to be impacted by such a development. 

    Now we are getting into the "comfort" factor of the gentrification topic. Things need to evolve, yes, but consideration to established folks also need to be taken into account. Otherwise we just enable urban renewal and gentrification. Take East Nashville for instance, the whole reason the HPR laws went into effect is because developers were buying up neighborhood homes, demolishing them, spending months and months of construction time (which needs to be considered within these areas) only to building something that sticks out like a sore thumb. By allowing this type of development within established neighborhoods you are welcoming that kind of displacement. 

    If we say walk a middle road where pockets of SFH homes are protected via zoning policies, and then places like thoroughfares, neighborhood corners are allowed to build bigger (say up to 10 units) we are balancing the world of development and resident. Also this pulls ridiculous construction out of the established neighborhoods and keeps it at smaller construction thus reducing discomfort. 

    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 out of the area.

  14. 2 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

    I am all for getting cars off the road, but I don't think it's chicken or egg when the city/state have zero alternatives currently or anything remotely close to happening in 5 years. 

    Any CEO that wants to be the guinea pig on no parking for its employees will soon find him having a lot fewer employees. 

    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

    • Like 3
  15. 2 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

    I agree with you. The form-based code should be extended out and sub districts created. My entire grad school thesis was developing a form-based overlay for East Nashville (test area was E. Trinity Lane) that utilized this approach while working with the notion that established residents have more capability to add density and profit for themselves. 

    Currently under the Land Use zoning approach, the amount of density for such developments varies from parcel to parcel. Also having a larger, dense development along a main thoroughfare (such as Gallatin or Dickerson) should be welcomed with open arms (sometimes this is the case sometimes it is not, which to me is wrong), but also step down to the existing homes that are not directly on the thoroughfare. Sure, eliminating SFH zoning could be a solution, but to me a risk that could very quickly be realized is the land speculation of buying up so many of the homes set off the thoroughfares and displacing those residents on top of pricing them out of the area because there are no affordable homes that are being built in their place.

    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. 

  16. 24 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

    My neighbor has never had his driver's license and walks literally everywhere. Everyone agrees that the current bus system doesn't work. What we disagree on is the fact that some feel the only way to solve the issue is taking a massive proposal (like Amp or the Transit Referendum) which clearly doesn't work here. This transit center for this area will potentially allow for this to become a hub of a revised bus system where transfers could be made. As the bus system grows and evolves, these transit hubs will become essential.

    True, but similar to the height discussion we have soooo much available land that would allowable for walkable neighborhoods makes pushing out further and further isn't realistic.... yet. TOD is a very easy term to throw around (similar to folks using "Sustainable"), but in realty are much harder to achieve. When we combine the past failures of transportation initiatives in Nashville with the current bus system, TODs really are not realistic for the current Nashville. Additionally the size of our roadways (not the interstate) is a contributing factor to all this. Having so many 5 lane roads (four travel and the center turn) that have so much car capacity makes transit less and less likely. 

    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

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  17. 7 minutes ago, andywildman said:

    This is the real answer - wish I could like it more than once. Midrise apartments on the pikes are good, but we need to be allowed to build neighborhoods of density, not just spiderwebs of it. Middle Tennessee (and Nashville specifically) is adding too many jobs to not allow more homes.

    Think the optimal mix is somewhere in the range of what we see in The Nations (2-for-1s with HPRs and commercial turning into mixed use) and in Wedgewood-Houston (industrial and commercial turning into walkable midrise neighborhoods).

    In my opinion, the whole UZO should have no parking minimums and re-legalize fourplexes (by-right zoning). (Obviously, we'd have to reduce the setback requirements from 20 feet and increase lot coverage ratio from its current 50% to actually build that way.)

    Just because the city allows for certain zoning doesn't mean it will pop up everywhere - but I'll support just about anything that gives people the right to build more homes on the land that they own.

    I think Houston disproves this. Sure, it sprawls in a way that only an oil baron could love, but because they allow people to build (basically) whatever they want, houses in Houston are not expensive, even as population booms.

    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

    35 minutes ago, downtownresident said:

    I’d like to see less developments like Sixth South / Hyatt Place along Lea Ave and more along the lines of 2nd and Peabody / Cumulus proposals. It would be a missed opportunity to limit ourselves to 10-16 stories along Lafayette / The Gulch. 

    But I'm trying to understand is this a personal preference for tall buildings or something else? 

×
×
  • 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.