Davidson East: East Nashville, Inglewood, Madison, Donelson, Hermitage, Old Hickory

[bwithers1]

4 hours ago, Nashville Cliff said:

Excellent. That little strip is starting to gel on both sides of the street.  Now we need to figure out the best place for a signaled crosswalk.  Maybe even a pedestrian island in the middle of Gallatin to offer some safety.

Having recently asked this very question of Public Works, I have learned that a new signaled cross walk across Gallatin could take quite a while to install even if approved by Public Works and funded by an upcoming Capital Improvements Budget.  Other projects already in line in the East Nashville area are still a year or more out from being installed.  But advocacy certainly helps.

[Pyramid Scheme]

27 minutes ago, bwithers1 said:

Development entitlements follow base zoning and applicable Codes without opportunities for public input in most cases unless there is a Conservation Zoning Overlay present or unless the developer seeks an SP, which is technically a zone change.  While developers may have entitlements to more dense building rights for density on CS-, etc, zoned parcels, when a developer seeks a zone change neighbors do have a right to input through Planning Commission and Metro Council public hearings. The relative weight given to constituent input in those zone change decisions does have a political component. In these cases, East Nashville neighbors are often not supportive of zone changes for significant density increases in the interior residential neighborhoods.  Community sentiment about density along the corridors is mixed.  But that is where the 2006 Community Plan and the recent NashvilleNext public documents showed that there was consensus that density belonged.  Frankly, I am surprised by the number of adaptive reuses of properties along Main/Gallatin, including the Holt Brothers building four doors from my house, given what could otherwise be built there without a zone change requirement.

Having said that, much of the property that already has base zoning for density in East Nashville, or particularly Lower East, sits within an MDHA Redevelopment District with design guidelines, a Conservation Overlay with design guidelines, or along Gallatin or Dickerson Pikes, which have some degree of guidelines in UDOs.  For the most part, those UDO or Redevelopment District Guidelines are applied either by Planning Staff for UDOs or by the MDHA Design Review Committee for the redevelopment districts without public hearings.  Public input is factored into the crafting and adoption of those prescriptive design guidelines but not typically to the applications of those guidelines to particular projects.

Apparently in 2000 when the Five Points Redevelopment District design guidelines were written, East Nashvillians favored mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail and upstairs residential uses, possibly including third floors, at 11th/Woodland.  The fact that none of those buildings that were proposed and approved were ever built on those lots may be a testament to what lenders would have considered a risky investment area at the time, even as late as 2006-7.  How much times have changed in a short period of time.  The satisfaction of parking requirements is a common (and growing) challenge for meeting Codes requirements for mixed-use buildings on some of these properties since many Five Points-area lots are relatively small.

 

Sounds sort of like E. Nashville's in a catch 22. How can parking and development demands be balanced since transit is lacking.

All that community sentiment stuff sounds more like privilege than right to me. I feel bad for people who've lived out in the country, but find themselves suddenly surrounded by housing developments and strip malls. That being said, at the end of the day, they can either adjust or move; same goes with residents of city neighborhoods. Someone who does not own a piece of land should have no right to tell the owner what they can or can't do with it.

[Nashville Cliff]

17 hours ago, Philip said:

Sounds sort of like E. Nashville's in a catch 22. How can parking and development demands be balanced since transit is lacking.

All that community sentiment stuff sounds more like privilege than right to me. I feel bad for people who've lived out in the country, but find themselves suddenly surrounded by housing developments and strip malls. That being said, at the end of the day, they can either adjust or move; same goes with residents of city neighborhoods. Someone who does not own a piece of land should have no right to tell the owner what they can or can't do with it.

They absolutely should have a say if what the owner wants to do requires a zone change.  The zoning process was in part a reaction to "nuisances" and nuisance law suits in the late 1800s.  Without zoning, people could literally build anything, say even a rending plant, next to a residential neighborhood, and the only recourse was an expensive (for both parties) court case.  Not that zoning didn't go too far in its complete separation of functions, but I think our community has found a good compromise with its revisions to include mixed use and its application of transects.  If you want to build something next door to me that requires a change in the agreed upon use of a property, a change that could affect my own property value or my enjoyment of my property, I get a say.

[Pyramid Scheme]

I disagree. The change of your surroundings is a part of life and sometimes bad changes happen. If you don't want property next door being used for something you don't want then you could buy it yourself, of course even that's no guarantee because of eminent domain.

[markhollin]

Video production firm SnapShot Interactive to move offices to former Riverside Drive Church of Christ. Nice to see another old church building being preserved.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2015/12/30/east-nashville-church-site-fetches-85-gain-seller/78103060/

Edited December 31, 2015 by markhollin

[mundiejc]

Zoning is important. If you've ever been to Houston, TX you'll see. I was pretty libertarian about that whole deal until I visited houston and saw plumbing businesses with 10 vans being run from a .15 acre lot and residential home in the middle of a neighborhood. All the vans parked in the grass in the front yard. Gas stations and slummy mechanic shops situated in between single family homes. That sorta thing is detrimental to your use and enjoyment of your property and kills your property value. 

 

And even zoning doesn't save you. There is a Dollar General being built near my house in North Nashville on a commercial lot that abuts residential development. The neighborhood is mixed use generally, so the store itself is not the problem. But it was build below grade and its 90% metal with no windows or other architectural features. The poor people that live behind it will be staring at a metal wall for at least 15 years, devaluing their property.

[SoundScan]

6 hours ago, Philip said:

I disagree. The change of your surroundings is a part of life and sometimes bad changes happen. If you don't want property next door being used for something you don't want then you could buy it yourself, of course even that's no guarantee because of eminent domain.

Do you own property?

[bhibbs]

Tower Investments buys 3.8 acres in East Nashville http://tnne.ws/1OKCzAC  via @tennessean

Would love to see this area get cleaned up.

[Vrtigo]

3 hours ago, bhibbs said:

Tower Investments buys 3.8 acres in East Nashville http://tnne.ws/1OKCzAC  via @tennessean

Would love to see this area get cleaned up.

Kind of a desert down there... I have my doubts that it'll be anything particularly impressive until the lots in between see some action.

[FatherLand]

Hot Yoga going in 807 Main, where the Coop Ministery was...basement being rehabbed for different unidentified tenant 

[RonCamp]

On 12/29/2015 at 1:14 PM, bwithers1 said:

Development entitlements follow base zoning and applicable Codes without opportunities for public input in most cases unless there is a Conservation Zoning Overlay present or unless the developer seeks an SP, which is technically a zone change.  While developers may have existing entitlements for more dense building rights on CS-, etc, zoned parcels, it is generally only the case that public input through Planning Commission and Metro Council public hearings applies when a zone change request is made from lower-to-higher density. The relative weight given to constituent input in those zone change decisions does have a political component. In these cases, East Nashville neighbors are often not supportive of zone changes for significant density increases in the interior residential neighborhoods.  Community sentiment about density along the corridors is mixed.  But that is where the 2006 Community Plan and the recent NashvilleNext public documents showed that there was consensus that density belonged.

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of adaptive reuses of properties along Main/Gallatin, including the Holt Brothers building four doors from my house, given what could otherwise be built there without a zone change requirement.

Having said that, much of the property that already has base zoning for density in East Nashville, or particularly Lower East, sits within an MDHA Redevelopment District with design guidelines, a Conservation Overlay with design guidelines, or along Gallatin or Dickerson Pikes, which have some degree of guidelines in UDOs.  For the most part, those UDO or Redevelopment District Guidelines are applied either by Planning Staff for UDOs or by the MDHA Design Review Committee for the redevelopment districts without public hearings.  Public input is factored into the crafting and adoption of those prescriptive design guidelines but not typically to the applications of those guidelines to particular projects.

Apparently in 2000 when the Five Points Redevelopment District design guidelines were written, East Nashvillians favored mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail and upstairs residential uses, possibly including third floors, at 11th/Woodland.  The fact that none of those buildings that were proposed and approved were ever built on those lots may be a testament to what lenders would have considered a risky investment area at the time, even as late as 2006-7.  How much times have changed in a few short years.  The satisfaction of parking requirements is a common (and growing) challenge for meeting Codes requirements for mixed-use buildings on some of these properties since many Five Points-area lots are relatively small.

 

Regarding your last paragraph:

One important part of the solution is to significantly reduce or eliminate parking requirements in urban areas completely.  Downtown, the Gulch, Midtown, West End, 12South, etc. - and yes, Five Points.  Understanding of course that this has to be done in concert with changing on street parking requirements in residential areas so that residential streets and parking, where appropriate, are limited to those with permits (aka the residents) and actually enforced by parking officers.  In other words, there has to be a comprehensive solution.

The fact remains that if we as urban Nashvillians want dense, walkable areas, mandatory parking requirements are diametrically opposed to that goal.  They encourage underuse of land and discourage people from getting out of their cars.     

[grilled_cheese]

7 hours ago, RonCamp said:

Understanding of course that this has to be done in concert with changing on street parking requirements in residential areas so that residential streets and parking, where appropriate, are limited to those with permits (aka the residents) and actually enforced by parking officers. 

Disagree.  Park in your driveway or if you don't have one park on the street where there is an open space.

[FatherLand]

 What is everyone's opinion regarding the upcoming change to the STRP permits, short-term rental.  It is about DADU's  and would require owners to attempt to get a non-owner-occupied permit, which are basically all spoken for, and would have a serious impact on some people such as myself who hope to build a garage next year and move our Airbnb there. 

My proposal would be to grandfather those who already have a strp permit and allow a dadu to be covered under that permit. It would not impact/allow additional guests, additional cars parked on streets, actually would be less cars streetside as guests would be able to park in Dadu.

Brett are you there sir?

[CenterHill]

33 minutes ago, FatherLand said:

 What is everyone's opinion regarding the upcoming change to the STRP permits, short-term rental.  It is about DADU's  and would require owners to attempt to get a non-owner-occupied permit, which are basically all spoken for, and would have a serious impact on some people such as myself who hope to build a garage next year and move our Airbnb there. 

My proposal would be to grandfather those who already have a strp permit and allow a dadu to be covered under that permit. It would not impact/allow additional guests, additional cars parked on streets, actually would be less cars streetside as guests would be able to park in Dadu.

Brett are you there sir?

It's a good topic for discussion, but I'd suggest we have it in the CH.    There are VERY strong views on both sides of the DADU and STRP conversation.  I've been in many of them in our neighborhood.   

[Paramount747]

Please translate STRP and DADU's

[FatherLand]

16 minutes ago, Paramount747 said:

Please translate STRP and DADU's

Sorry, Short Term Rental Permit, basically an Airbnb permit

DADU - Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, basically a detached garage with living space / loft above

[markhollin]

Mayor Barry on PSC Metals eyesore: "How can we get rid of that?"

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/01/mayor-barry-on-carl-icahns-riverfront-eyesore-how.html

[bhibbs]

2 hours ago, markhollin said:

Mayor Barry on PSC Metals eyesore: "How can we get rid of that?"

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/01/mayor-barry-on-carl-icahns-riverfront-eyesore-how.html

I really hope something happens here within the next 10-20 years...sooner the better

[Pyramid Scheme]

11 hours ago, markhollin said:

Mayor Barry on PSC Metals eyesore: "How can we get rid of that?"

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/01/mayor-barry-on-carl-icahns-riverfront-eyesore-how.html

That seems like such underused real estate, like the gas stations and stand alone fast food restaurants in Midtown and Gulch. I don't see why they want to still be there.

[FatherLand]

914 Main St another burger joint, I like it

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2016/01/east-nashville-lands-boutique-burger-joint.html?ana=fbk

[Rockatansky]

9 hours ago, Philip said:

That seems like such underused real estate, like the gas stations and stand alone fast food restaurants in Midtown and Gulch. I don't see why they want to still be there.

PSC wants to be there because 1) Its a profitable operation. 2) The site has direct access to interstates, rail and water. 3) Finding another site of the proper size and with similar transpo access is very difficult.

[CenterHill]

1 hour ago, Rockatansky said:

PSC wants to be there because 1) Its a profitable operation. 2) The site has direct access to interstates, rail and water. 3) Finding another site of the proper size and with similar transpo access is very difficult.

and Icahn knows the value of this real estate is only going up.    He can afford to be patient and let the market come to him.  

[grilled_cheese]

Imminent domain them.  If the Gubment is willing to do it to families I sure as hell won't lose any sleep over them doing it to a corporation.

[SoundScan]

Using Emminent Domain would be a pretty major fight given the depth Carl Icahn's pockets. Regardless, the property has limited commercial value. It's a brownfield site that could cost nearly $100M just to clean up, and much of it falls within the floodplain. Public use is really the only option. Heck, Icahn is nearly 80, maybe he'll donate it to the city...ha!

[samsonh]

9 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

PSC wants to be there because 1) Its a profitable operation. 2) The site has direct access to interstates, rail and water. 3) Finding another site of the proper size and with similar transpo access is very difficult.

Fwiw if psc metals is profitable it is news to Carl Icahn. I see from the latest filing on September 30th that psc as a whole lost 39 million before an income tax benefit of 17 million for a net loss of 22 million YTD. Scrap prices are super low right now, and competition is fierce. If there is ever a time to go after the property it is now.