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

[BnaBreaker]

Hearing Nashvillians complain about "too much residential density" makes me laugh to the point of peeing.  It's like hearing a member of Whitesnake complain about how their dining room is just becoming far too cluttered with Grammy awards.  

Edited August 30, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[Rockatansky]

15 hours ago, WebberThomas4 said:

Horse hockey. I've lived not far from Riverside Village for over a decade. The (very) few times I've experienced congestion on either Riverside or McGavock it was due to the at-grade train crossing on McG.

[AronG]

15 hours ago, WebberThomas4 said:

Well, this guy is at it again on NextDoor..

I guess congestion is a pretty flexible word, but 99% of the time this intersection looks like it did when the google maps people went through there:

Adding 33 apartments is going to release an apocalyptic 100 or 200 trips through this intersection every 24 hours. Maybe t will become a Manhattan of congestion. It will also provide at least 33 residents who can WALK to the dozen local businesses without getting into a car at all.

I'm convinced that most of these complaints stem from the strange brain imbalance that we all have from being constantly vaguely annoyed by our car commute. When you drive down Riverside every single day going to and from work with a subconscious grumpiness because it's boring, wasted, socially isolated time, you start to view anything that makes you slow down as an injustice and a grievance. Then you carry that grievance into community meetings and it feels good to beat developers over the head with it. The problem is, maintaining Riverside as a mini-interstate so people can rocket to the interstate marginally faster is objectively terrible for quality of life in Inglewood and all the houses and neighborhoods along the way. It ruins things for actual humans that aren't in a car, jogging, walking somewhere, playing with kids, riding a bike, etc. Then we all have to get in our cars *even more* and drive around looking for parking etc. 

I know they're nice people who are just trying to do something positive, but I dearly wish there was a way to convince them to look at it differently.

[grilled_cheese]

There's more traffic in that area due to the noob suburbanites who don't know where to park for Mitchell's.  And I would really like to know what these phrases mean using actual data and fact:

"jam this through"

"zero regard"

"massive effect"

"traffic increase"

"too many"

"congested"

What a moran.  By that logic then one extra person moving into the neighborhood results in all of the above.

4 minutes ago, AronG said:

I guess congestion is a pretty flexible word, but 99% of the time this intersection looks like it did when the google maps people went through there:

Adding 33 apartments is going to release an apocalyptic 100 or 200 trips through this intersection every 24 hours. Maybe t will become a Manhattan of congestion. It will also provide at least 33 residents who can WALK to the dozen local businesses without getting into a car at all.

I'm convinced that most of these complaints stem from the strange brain imbalance that we all have from being constantly vaguely annoyed by our car commute. When you drive down Riverside every single day going to and from work with a subconscious grumpiness because it's boring, wasted, socially isolated time, you start to view anything that makes you slow down as an injustice and a grievance. Then you carry that grievance into community meetings and it feels good to beat developers over the head with it. The problem is, maintaining Riverside as a mini-interstate so people can rocket to the interstate marginally faster is objectively terrible for quality of life in Inglewood and all the houses and neighborhoods along the way. It ruins things for actual humans that aren't in a car, jogging, walking somewhere, playing with kids, riding a bike, etc. Then we all have to get in our cars *even more* and drive around looking for parking etc. 

I know they're nice people who are just trying to do something positive, but I dearly wish there was a way to convince them to look at it differently. 

I will go out of my way to end my commute with a drive up Riverside Dr.  I love driving all over that part of Inglewood

[bigeasy]

You can't fit a 5lb car in a 1lb bag. 

 

 

Did I do that right?

[Bos2Nash]

Traffic is not a concern here for me. The concern would be the context of the homes and the size compared to what is around (I am actually working through my thesis right now and the entire topic is densification of neighborhoods). I would not know where to look for further information on this project (and I do not have subscriptions to behind any paywalls), could someone DM me a link to where I could look at this project?

[Nashville Cliff]

Here's my take. I'm pro-development (mostly) and pro-density (mostly), but I find it condescending when folks dismiss any opposition to new development as NIMBYism.  I think most of us choose where we live, within our limits, based in part on how comfortable and attractive we find the neighborhood.  Look and feel, if you will.  There is nothing small-minded or Luddite about wanting to maintain as much as that look and feel as one can.  I'm not saying neighbors should have an automatic veto over new construction or new development, but I don't think their opinions should be dismissed just because they "stand in the way of progress."  I'm reminded of former UP and Nashville Charrette poster Nathan Walker's research on the history of Savannah.  His deep dive into that city's history found that if not for the efforts of those wishing to preserve their city's neighborhood fabric, many or most of that city's iconic public squares would have been wiped away in the interest of "modern," "progressive" thoroughfares to make it easier for motorists to fly from point A to point B.  All of that said, I think the Riverside project looks pretty good, but all of us need to spend less time on our high horses.  

[grilled_cheese]

24 of the 33 apartments will be micro.  I really think he's overstating the density and traffic impact.

[BnaBreaker]

2 hours ago, Nashville Cliff said:

Here's my take. I'm pro-development (mostly) and pro-density (mostly), but I find it condescending when folks dismiss any opposition to new development as NIMBYism.  I think most of us choose where we live, within our limits, based in part on how comfortable and attractive we find the neighborhood.  Look and feel, if you will.  There is nothing small-minded or Luddite about wanting to maintain as much as that look and feel as one can.  I'm not saying neighbors should have an automatic veto over new construction or new development, but I don't think their opinions should be dismissed just because they "stand in the way of progress."  I'm reminded of former UP and Nashville Charrette poster Nathan Walker's research on the history of Savannah.  His deep dive into that city's history found that if not for the efforts of those wishing to preserve their city's neighborhood fabric, many or most of that city's iconic public squares would have been wiped away in the interest of "modern," "progressive" thoroughfares to make it easier for motorists to fly from point A to point B.  All of that said, I think the Riverside project looks pretty good, but all of us need to spend less time on our high horses.  

A well written and fair assessment... but I think it is worth noting that the person you described is more or less the textbook definition of what is not-so-affectionately known as a "NIMBY."  I mean, even if one's motivations are admirable, if they are someone who is consistently opposed to change by way of development in their neighborhood, for whatever reason, then a NIMBY is a pretty accurate descriptor in my book rather than an insult.  

[fishsticks176]

Skyline hotel is making good progress

 

[PruneTracy]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

A well written and fair assessment... but I think it is worth noting that the person you described is more or less the textbook definition of what is not-so-affectionately known as a "NIMBY."  I mean, even if one's motivations are admirable, if they are someone who is consistently opposed to change by way of development in their neighborhood, for whatever reason, then a NIMBY is a pretty accurate descriptor in my book rather than an insult.  

The distinction is in the type of development being proposed.

• A lot of people who live in detached houses in suburban and rural areas wouldn't appreciate someone building a 50-story skyscraper next door (present company probably excluded). That's not really NIMBYism.
• Most of those same people wouldn't have an issue if the 50-story skyscraper was built in the middle of downtown instead. This is the most common usage, but it's not really NIMBYism either. Different neighborhoods have different expected levels of development and what fits in one won't in another.
• Many people in all areas would have an issue if a landfill, power plant, or similar development were built close to their house. This is the original definition of NIMBYism (i.e., emphasis on the "my"). These things have to go somewhere and unfortunately people sometimes live near where the best locations are.

We do need a new word for the following groups of people (I have a lot of four-letter ones):

• People who move into a neighborhood and start complaining about things that existed in that neighborhood before they were there (cf. Fairgrounds Speedway)
• People who move into new subdivisions in small towns or rural areas and start complaining about newer subdivisions being built, as if they are magically the last person allowed into the area before it transforms from a quaint country hideaway to a spawling exurb

[Pdt2f]

2 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

People who move into new subdivisions in small towns or rural areas and start complaining about newer subdivisions being built, as if they are magically the last person allowed into the area before it transforms from a quaint country hideaway to a spawling exurb

Otherwise known as Atlanta-itis. 

[Bos2Nash]

On 8/20/2018 at 6:29 AM, markhollin said:

Fieldhouse Jones Hotel (4 stories, 100 rooms) update.   3rd floor complete.

Looking NE from Main St., 1/2 block west of 9th St:

Looking NW from intersection of Main St. and 9th Street:

This building has topped out it appears. During the week they constructed what appeared to be mechanical penthouses and roof access penthouse. I’ve also been seeing more day-to-day work on ground floor during my commutes

[Nashville Cliff]

On 8/31/2018 at 2:46 PM, PruneTracy said:

 

• People who move into a neighborhood and start complaining about things that existed in that neighborhood before they were there (cf. Fairgrounds Speedway)

Or the train in East Nashville.

[AronG]

On 8/31/2018 at 9:48 AM, Nashville Cliff said:

Here's my take. I'm pro-development (mostly) and pro-density (mostly), but I find it condescending when folks dismiss any opposition to new development as NIMBYism.  I think most of us choose where we live, within our limits, based in part on how comfortable and attractive we find the neighborhood.  Look and feel, if you will.  There is nothing small-minded or Luddite about wanting to maintain as much as that look and feel as one can.  I'm not saying neighbors should have an automatic veto over new construction or new development, but I don't think their opinions should be dismissed just because they "stand in the way of progress."  I'm reminded of former UP and Nashville Charrette poster Nathan Walker's research on the history of Savannah.  His deep dive into that city's history found that if not for the efforts of those wishing to preserve their city's neighborhood fabric, many or most of that city's iconic public squares would have been wiped away in the interest of "modern," "progressive" thoroughfares to make it easier for motorists to fly from point A to point B.  All of that said, I think the Riverside project looks pretty good, but all of us need to spend less time on our high horses.  

This is a very eloquent representation of the status quo in EN as I've experienced it, but it's kind of baffling to me. Who dismissed anyone for "standing in the way of progress"? Who dismissed *all* opposition to development as NIMBYism? The conversation on this thread was about a specific proposal for a development on Riverside that has spent years being vetted, has been cut in half, and can now potentially get started with a size of 33 units. That's one of very few similar scale developments that have even gone to the trouble because of our track record in EN. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you comparing those of us that are frustrated with that process with the horrible decisions in previous decades to run giant highways and interstates through urban neighborhoods? What?

We have a wild mismatch right now between the supply and demand for housing (particularly family-friendly housing) within a few miles of downtown. Development money is pouring in to take advantage of the demand, but because of our restrictions 95% of it currently goes into (A) renovating detached houses into mcmansions (no net additional housing), and (B) putting up mid-rise apartments along the arterials. This is actively remaking our neighborhoods into something different than they were or have ever been. If you aren't in the ever-shrinking wealthy sliver who can outbid everyone else for a house, and you aren't a young professional who wants to live in a mid-rise on an arterial, you are being pushed out.

I know people that don't have a problem with EN neighborhoods becoming enclaves for the wealthy. To me, we have too many friends that only live in the neighborhood because they bought 10 years ago. Our neighbors that are public school teachers and police officers would have to look much further out if they were buying today. Racial and income diversity is falling off a cliff. Maybe some of that is inevitable, but decreasing the friction on medium density (townhome/multiplex/courtyard, etc.) developments like this one would go a long ways toward providing a few more price points and keeping a modicum of diversity in our neighborhoods.

The typical homeowner that weighed in on that Riverside development has seen their home value double in the last 5 years. This is because of the proximity they have to the amenities of EN and the economic dynamism of Nashville. It's not high horse condescension to make the case that we should make those amenities available to more people instead of hording them to ourselves.

[grilled_cheese]

Second Substitute Bill BL2016-414

Disapproved by the Planning Commission (6-0)
Referred to the Planning, Zoning, and Historical Committee
Map & Parcel No./Owner: Map 072-05, Parcels 061-068, 164; Map 072-06, Parcel 046 Various Property Owners
Requested by: Councilman Scott Davis

An ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the Zoning Ordinance of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, by changing from R6 to SP zoning for various properties along Elvira Avenue, Maynor Avenue, and Keeling Avenue, approximately 600 feet west of Anderson Place (4.86 acres), to permit a maximum of 180 residential units, all of which is described herein (Proposal No. 2016SP-087-001).

Sponsor(s): Scott Davis

 

Passed

[Nashville Cliff]

15 hours ago, AronG said:

This is a very eloquent representation of the status quo in EN as I've experienced it, but it's kind of baffling to me. Who dismissed anyone for "standing in the way of progress"? Who dismissed *all* opposition to development as NIMBYism? The conversation on this thread was about a specific proposal for a development on Riverside that has spent years being vetted, has been cut in half, and can now potentially get started with a size of 33 units. That's one of very few similar scale developments that have even gone to the trouble because of our track record in EN. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you comparing those of us that are frustrated with that process with the horrible decisions in previous decades to run giant highways and interstates through urban neighborhoods? What?

We have a wild mismatch right now between the supply and demand for housing (particularly family-friendly housing) within a few miles of downtown. Development money is pouring in to take advantage of the demand, but because of our restrictions 95% of it currently goes into (A) renovating detached houses into mcmansions (no net additional housing), and (B) putting up mid-rise apartments along the arterials. This is actively remaking our neighborhoods into something different than they were or have ever been. If you aren't in the ever-shrinking wealthy sliver who can outbid everyone else for a house, and you aren't a young professional who wants to live in a mid-rise on an arterial, you are being pushed out.

I know people that don't have a problem with EN neighborhoods becoming enclaves for the wealthy. To me, we have too many friends that only live in the neighborhood because they bought 10 years ago. Our neighbors that are public school teachers and police officers would have to look much further out if they were buying today. Racial and income diversity is falling off a cliff. Maybe some of that is inevitable, but decreasing the friction on medium density (townhome/multiplex/courtyard, etc.) developments like this one would go a long ways toward providing a few more price points and keeping a modicum of diversity in our neighborhoods.

The typical homeowner that weighed in on that Riverside development has seen their home value double in the last 5 years. This is because of the proximity they have to the amenities of EN and the economic dynamism of Nashville. It's not high horse condescension to make the case that we should make those amenities available to more people instead of hording them to ourselves.

First, my apologies if I made it sound as if my comments on anti-NIMBYism were limited to this thread. UP posters are generally more thoughtful than what you find in a lot of forums and comment sections.  That said, one can't pretend that NIMBY is thrown up derisively by developers and development-proponents every time there is push back to a development.  And, yes, I've seen it used that way even on the UP.  Hell, I'm guilty of doing so in the past.

I agree that something has to be done to increase affordability in Nashville, and I think there are plenty of places along and near the corridors to build more density.  And I'm a huge fan of allowing accessory dwellings in historic neighborhoods; ours breaks ground soon.  Further, I'd just assume all cul-de-sac and mcmansion suburbs were replaced by higher uses, but that isn't my decision alone to make. What I find condescending is those who dismiss people who want to maintain the amenities that attracted them to a neighborhood as selfish NIMBYs.  I guarantee you if some developer wanted to tear down the historic bungalows on my street to build denser housing, I'd be the loudest damn NIMBY you had ever heard. At what point when one plows under an existing neighborhood to build more density does the neighborhood lose the very qualities that made it attractive?

[WebberThomas4]

I do not have a link to the listing, but I have heard that the old Hobson church (corner of Chapel and Greenwood) has been listed for sale for $4.6 million.  I assume the sale would include the already approved SP plans and stormwater plans, and any sort of preliminary design drawings from DAAD. It seems like a hefty asking price considering the condition of the buildings and the fact that they paid around $1.2 million for it 4 years ago. Hopefully it lands in the right hands. 

More here: https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/20493489/fall-start-eyed-for-east-nashville-mixeduse-project

And here: http://www.eastwoodvillagenashville.com/#welcome

[Nashville Cliff]

1 hour ago, WebberThomas4 said:

I do not have a link to the listing, but I have heard that the old Hobson church (corner of Chapel and Greenwood) has been listed for sale for $4.6 million.  I assume the sale would include the already approved SP plans and stormwater plans, and any sort of preliminary design drawings from DAAD. It seems like a hefty asking price considering the condition of the buildings and the fact that they paid around $1.2 million for it 4 years ago. Hopefully it lands in the right hands. 

More here: https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/20493489/fall-start-eyed-for-east-nashville-mixeduse-project

And here: http://www.eastwoodvillagenashville.com/#welcome

Disappointing, but I'm not surprised.  Have only heard crickets it the last couple of years from the development team that was going to renovate.  They had spent a lot of time talking with the community about the project; sad to think that the process will probably have to start all over again.

And thankful that it is within the overlay.

[Bos2Nash]

 

13 hours ago, WebberThomas4 said:

I do not have a link to the listing, but I have heard that the old Hobson church (corner of Chapel and Greenwood) has been listed for sale for $4.6 million.  I assume the sale would include the already approved SP plans and stormwater plans, and any sort of preliminary design drawings from DAAD. It seems like a hefty asking price considering the condition of the buildings and the fact that they paid around $1.2 million for it 4 years ago. Hopefully it lands in the right hands. 

More here: https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/20493489/fall-start-eyed-for-east-nashville-mixeduse-project

And here: http://www.eastwoodvillagenashville.com/#welcome

So my assumption on the jump in asking price would be due to the time/money/effort that went into that SP. It surprises me how valuable that "up-zoning" can be within in city developments. I would hope whatever group does buy this keeps the old structure (providing it is still viable). I also realllly like the amount of open green space that they maintain with the original site plan.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Bos2Nash
removed SP zoning argument

[MLBrumby]

But it was disapproved, right? 

[Rockatansky]

36 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

But it was disapproved, right? 

No, it was approved by council. 70 units total.

[Bos2Nash]

realized my main argument was replaced by a third subsitute site plan. Most of the argument still stands, but felt I should remove for misinformation reasons. 

[Nashville Cliff]

19 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

 

So my assumption on the jump in asking price would be due to the time/money/effort that went into that SP. It surprises me how valuable that "up-zoning" can be within in city developments. I would hope whatever group does buy this keeps the old structure (providing it is still viable). I also realllly like the amount of open green space that they maintain with the original site plan.

I believe the historic structure is protected. The current owner already did some work, like removing asbestos, if I remember correctly.  But knowing Nashville, they'll find an excuse to tear it down.

[markhollin]

Construction continues moving forward on the 111,000 sq. ft. , $90 million SoundWaves waterpark at Opryland Hotel.  On schedule to open in early December.

More at The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2018/09/06/soundwaves-water-park-gaylord-opryland-first-look/1202078002/