smeagolsfree

East Nashville/Inglewood/Madison/Donelson/Hermitage/Old Hickory

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, WebberThomas4 said:

a large steaming pile of mulch, and an even larger steaming pile of trash that is mostly metallic in nature, AKA PSC metals.

Fixed that for you.  :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:28 PM, Nashville Cliff said:

I'm always tempted to throw the cones in the yards or gutter when I see them.

I have seen and am well aware of the cones and other items on Russell.  Please trust me on that :)

You are both correct that residents (or businesses or churches) cannot place cones in the street.  Public Works has to approve street closure permits for road repairs or utility work, and in those cases cones are approved for safety precautions.  The police department can also use cones to direct traffic safely for large events.  But otherwise personal property that is placed in the public right of way such as cones, chairs, tables, brooms, etc, are a violation of the law and can be removed from the public right of way or even discarded by anyone.  This has happened on occasion, and it has resulted in volatile reactions on both sides and has taken up vast amounts of my time responding to calls, emails, texts, Tweets, FaceBook Messenger posts, all-out FaceBook page tagging with all of the amounts of social media commenting that you might imagine, etc.  So please, for my sake, and for the sake of my ability to work a job, focus on truly important Metro Council matters, and occasionally sleep, please do not move someone's cones.  Just park somewhere else nearby. 

On a more serious note, I would say that there is some fault on both sides here:  residents should not place cones in the street, but also drivers should not move them.  "Can" and "should" are different things. 

There is plenty of surface parking in the Five Points area, and drivers should be using those pay lots on Woodland Street, et al, or riding a bus, biking or even walking.  But human nature often leans toward the path of least resistance, and so a nominal parking fee of a couple dollars prompts people to seek free parking in the residential areas, which means that the residential areas become default parking lots for the commercial areas nearby.  Then those residents or their service providers or guests cannot get to the residences because business employees are parked along the street for up to 8-10 hours at a time, and meanwhile the surface parking lots are empty or mostly empty. 

On the other hand, the pay lots issue tickets for overstaying a meter that are quite a bit higher than Metro can charge for a parking ticket on the street, and then to boot (pun intended) the pay lot operators hire companies who boot violators and this adds about another $60 on top of the pay lot meter violation.  So this means that someone parking in a pay lot can be charged about $60 for overstaying the meter by a few minutes or about $100 for overstaying a meter and getting booted or can be towed off of pay lots for $155.  So then what happens is that business employees in particular do not park in the parking lots (businesses discourage employees from parking in their parking lots), they park all day or all night long in residential areas instead.  And then, as I mentioned, the residents or their service providers (child or elder care givers, house cleaners, dog sitters, HVAC repair service providers, and on and on) cannot get close to the house.  This is even if the house has alley access and a garage or parking pad.  And houses that do not have a garage or parking pad and have had no parking challenges for decades can suddenly overnight find that a new restaurant or bar has opened and there is no street parking available at their house and that the cost of adding a parking pad with an alley gate is tens of thousands of dollars and the cost of constructing a garage or a DADU is six figures.  That is understandably a shock to someone to have to pay in an area that for decades was located close to a public park and commercially-zoned land that was vacant surface parking lots or warehouses or low-parking-generator businesses.  And then suddenly overnight those buildings become converted to office buildings that lack parking or restaurants, bars or entertainment centers that lack parking and that attract a large number of patrons who drive and park there at dinner time and into the late evening hours. It is great to have adaptive reuses of these buildings.  I live at Gallatin/Granada and having that portion of Gallatin be lined with restaurants, etc is great.  But look at the parking on the already very narrow streets nearby.  No, not everyone is taking the 26/56 bus lines, walking, biking or even taking ride share:  the visual evidence supports the conclusion that lots and lots of people working at or patronizing these great new businesses are driving cars and parking.

Part of the challenge on Russell in particular is that, yes, sometimes residents put out cones and can be frustrated by people who move the cones and that yes, sometimes young people in cars going to bars and restaurants move the cones in front of elderly peoples' houses and are rude to the residents as well.  These interactions can be volatile on both sides.  And then residential permit parking applications get filed to help strike a balance between resident and business parking needs.  If more people took public transportation, biked, scootered, walked, or even carpooled to the restaurant and entertainment venues, then the parking demand for those venues would be in line with what the zoning code requires.  But instead, people talk a lot about transit and carpooling but actually still drive everywhere and leave surface lots vacant while scouring the neighborhood for a residential spot where they can park for free.  So, theoretically, for every four people at a table in a restaurant, there could be four cars.   As an exercise, count the number of cars driven per attendee at the Urban Planet forum meets.  If the Urban Planet forum meetings result in something close to a 1:1 attendee/parked car ratio, then imagine the parking demand generated by attendees or participants of less urbanist events.  And then look at the maps where the three dozen or more residential permit parking zones are located in the city today and you will find Hillsboro Village, the Belmont area, Edgehill Village/Music Row and a few other areas heavily represented.  I am working with the Russell Street neighbors to look into a compromise residential permit parking solution that may work for most people so that neighbors will stop placing cones in the street and businesses will stop using the residential blocks as their default "free" parking lots.  Wish me luck!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:19 AM, WebberThomas4 said:

These apartments will have some interesting views...Downtown, Nissan Stadium, a large steaming pile of mulch and PSC metals. 

The mulch yard is a problem from a health perspective because of the amount of particulate matter that the operation stirs into the air and from the fires that start in the mulch.  PSC is much further away on the other side of the Interstate.  But the mulch yard is right next to where residences are being built.  It is a hindrance to further development on private property on South 5th Street.  South 5th is the one part of District 6 where I regularly ask the development community to make that property owner a good offer and let me know what they would like to build there.  I don't support most zone changes in established residential areas.  But zone changes in industrially-zoned or utilized areas near existing or emerging residential or mixed-use areas are worth discussing.  My phone number is on the Metro Council website . . .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a confession - I'm 'pro-cone'. I can 100% understand why folks want to do this. Right or wrong, I can certainly understand their frustration 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douglas Market Lofts (3 stories, 16 units, plus ground floor retail) update.

Looking NW from intersection of Douglas Ave. and Lischey Ave:

Douglas market Lofts, Nov 18, 2018.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2018 at 11:50 AM, bwithers1 said:

I have seen and am well aware of the cones and other items on Russell.  Please trust me on that :)

You are both correct that residents (or businesses or churches) cannot place cones in the street.  Public Works has to approve street closure permits for road repairs or utility work, and in those cases cones are approved for safety precautions.  The police department can also use cones to direct traffic safely for large events.  But otherwise personal property that is placed in the public right of way such as cones, chairs, tables, brooms, etc, are a violation of the law and can be removed from the public right of way or even discarded by anyone.  This has happened on occasion, and it has resulted in volatile reactions on both sides and has taken up vast amounts of my time responding to calls, emails, texts, Tweets, FaceBook Messenger posts, all-out FaceBook page tagging with all of the amounts of social media commenting that you might imagine, etc.  So please, for my sake, and for the sake of my ability to work a job, focus on truly important Metro Council matters, and occasionally sleep, please do not move someone's cones.  Just park somewhere else nearby. 

On a more serious note, I would say that there is some fault on both sides here:  residents should not place cones in the street, but also drivers should not move them.  "Can" and "should" are different things. 

There is plenty of surface parking in the Five Points area, and drivers should be using those pay lots on Woodland Street, et al, or riding a bus, biking or even walking.  But human nature often leans toward the path of least resistance, and so a nominal parking fee of a couple dollars prompts people to seek free parking in the residential areas, which means that the residential areas become default parking lots for the commercial areas nearby.  Then those residents or their service providers or guests cannot get to the residences because business employees are parked along the street for up to 8-10 hours at a time, and meanwhile the surface parking lots are empty or mostly empty. 

On the other hand, the pay lots issue tickets for overstaying a meter that are quite a bit higher than Metro can charge for a parking ticket on the street, and then to boot (pun intended) the pay lot operators hire companies who boot violators and this adds about another $60 on top of the pay lot meter violation.  So this means that someone parking in a pay lot can be charged about $60 for overstaying the meter by a few minutes or about $100 for overstaying a meter and getting booted or can be towed off of pay lots for $155.  So then what happens is that business employees in particular do not park in the parking lots (businesses discourage employees from parking in their parking lots), they park all day or all night long in residential areas instead.  And then, as I mentioned, the residents or their service providers (child or elder care givers, house cleaners, dog sitters, HVAC repair service providers, and on and on) cannot get close to the house.  This is even if the house has alley access and a garage or parking pad.  And houses that do not have a garage or parking pad and have had no parking challenges for decades can suddenly overnight find that a new restaurant or bar has opened and there is no street parking available at their house and that the cost of adding a parking pad with an alley gate is tens of thousands of dollars and the cost of constructing a garage or a DADU is six figures.  That is understandably a shock to someone to have to pay in an area that for decades was located close to a public park and commercially-zoned land that was vacant surface parking lots or warehouses or low-parking-generator businesses.  And then suddenly overnight those buildings become converted to office buildings that lack parking or restaurants, bars or entertainment centers that lack parking and that attract a large number of patrons who drive and park there at dinner time and into the late evening hours. It is great to have adaptive reuses of these buildings.  I live at Gallatin/Granada and having that portion of Gallatin be lined with restaurants, etc is great.  But look at the parking on the already very narrow streets nearby.  No, not everyone is taking the 26/56 bus lines, walking, biking or even taking ride share:  the visual evidence supports the conclusion that lots and lots of people working at or patronizing these great new businesses are driving cars and parking.

Part of the challenge on Russell in particular is that, yes, sometimes residents put out cones and can be frustrated by people who move the cones and that yes, sometimes young people in cars going to bars and restaurants move the cones in front of elderly peoples' houses and are rude to the residents as well.  These interactions can be volatile on both sides.  And then residential permit parking applications get filed to help strike a balance between resident and business parking needs.  If more people took public transportation, biked, scootered, walked, or even carpooled to the restaurant and entertainment venues, then the parking demand for those venues would be in line with what the zoning code requires.  But instead, people talk a lot about transit and carpooling but actually still drive everywhere and leave surface lots vacant while scouring the neighborhood for a residential spot where they can park for free.  So, theoretically, for every four people at a table in a restaurant, there could be four cars.   As an exercise, count the number of cars driven per attendee at the Urban Planet forum meets.  If the Urban Planet forum meetings result in something close to a 1:1 attendee/parked car ratio, then imagine the parking demand generated by attendees or participants of less urbanist events.  And then look at the maps where the three dozen or more residential permit parking zones are located in the city today and you will find Hillsboro Village, the Belmont area, Edgehill Village/Music Row and a few other areas heavily represented.  I am working with the Russell Street neighbors to look into a compromise residential permit parking solution that may work for most people so that neighbors will stop placing cones in the street and businesses will stop using the residential blocks as their default "free" parking lots.  Wish me luck!

Thanks for all you do Brett. I could not do your job, but appreciate that you are doing it. Having lived n Russell since 08...I get the frustration. I am fortunate that my partner and I were able to afford a garage ($70k later). I can’t say I used cones, but I know the people who do use them...all but one is elderly and has lived in the neighborhood for decades. It will all get worked out...that block of Russell will probably end up with permit parking.

l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the development in Riverside Village, a facebook post from councilman Davis:

Riverside and McGavock UPDATE: At this time, the applicant is withdrawing the request to move forward with the SP, and will build by right with their base zoning.

Although there was both support and opposition, being a community plan amendment AND a zoning change, the consensus support needed for the project did not materialize and facing potentially another deferral at planning commission, the applicant is withdrawing. I fully support and encouraged this, without consensus, planning staff and commission also would not support, especially with needing a community plan amendment. Thus, it just doesn't make sense to move forward.

I personally liked certain aspects of going the SP route, namely: Control of the parcels, and knowing exactly what we are getting, keeping the scale to one story and saving the McGavock building, sidewalk extension up Riverside to 2324, locking in zero AirBnb for the multi-family aspect in perpetuity, and commitment of double the required tree density returning to the site. There was an outside chance of Fond Object and the owners working something out for leasing the Bailey and Cato building, but I don't know if that would have materialized anyway (just in my conversations with both parties there). That could have been a nice compromise had it been feasible.

The big question I know you all have is what will happen going forward? I only can pass along what the owners told me: They would likely soon tear down the McGavock building, design and at some point build a new 3-story building on McGavock, with either retail ground floor and apartments above, or all apartments. The parcels behind on Riverside Drive, could be subdivided administratively at the planning department to potentially 7-8 houses, to be determined. I got the sense from my conversation with the owner, that the Riverside parcels maybe would be something to look at Phase 2, in other words, start on McGavock. Anything related to the building on McGavock would be approved administratively at codes. Anything regarding a subdivison on Riverside Drive would happen administratively at planning, or would potentially have a planning commission hearing (would not come to Council).

I appreciate so much everyone attending meetings, and I hope going at this a 2nd time didn't seem like a big "time waster." I wouldn't have brought it forward if I didn't think going the route of an SP was a valid alternative to the chips falling where they may with a base zoning build. I know in the end, we will get a good product, and we will all still love going there and hanging out there. I truly believe we will, and our growth in the area will be positive. I will continue to help working on any and all issues in Riverside Village, parking challenges for example that will undoubtedly come up, and anything else I can help with. (I'd like to push harder for an arrow/delay mechanism on the McGavock traffic light as another example). If you made it this far, thanks for being an engaged citizen of our great Inglewood! Happy to answer any questions, feel free to email me at [email protected]

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markhollin said:

900 Main Street (2 floors on top of former Fluffo Mattress Building) update.  Nearly finished.

Between Fluffo and the Wabash up the hill, my bud Dan Heller has done a lot to improve that stretch of East Nashville.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, etimer13 said:

Regarding the development in Riverside Village, a facebook post from councilman Davis:

So are any of the oppositions goals met by this?  I can't remember if they wanted nothing to change or if the dev was overreaching? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

So are any of the oppositions goals met by this?  I can't remember if they wanted nothing to change or if the dev was overreaching? 

Nope. They were unwilling to compromise on the SP, so they get the base zoning, which is more intensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

So are any of the oppositions goals met by this?  I can't remember if they wanted nothing to change or if the dev was overreaching? 

The opposition was at first mostly garden-variety resistance to anything and everything, in my opinion. The developers seemed like they were interested in trying to be responsive though, and with Anthony Davis' involvement I think they were going to succeed in making a deal to reshape it around some of the (nonsensical) feedback. Then the whole Fond Object thing blew up (it is pretty disappointing to lose Fond Object), and the pitchfork mob reached critical mass. Kudos to AD, most of our council members would have given up and demagogued this, but he's gone the whole way through acting like we're all able to talk about this stuff like adults. Possibly delusional, but inspiring.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More plans released regarding the 11 acre Donelson Plaza becoming a town center.  Newly released plans show future construction that could include apartments. Renovations to the existing retail buildings will create at least 15,000 square feet of office space, as well as new exteriors and courtyards. Demolition is imminent for part of the existing shopping center, clearing the way for a Metro Public Library branch that would open in 2020. A road that divides the property will be closed, once a new road is built.

More behind the NBJ paywall here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/11/27/construction-starts-on-town-center-for-rapidly.html

Donelson Plaza, Nov 27, 2018, render 1.png

Donelson Plaza, Nov 27, 2018, render 2.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AronG said:

The opposition was at first mostly garden-variety resistance to anything and everything, in my opinion. The developers seemed like they were interested in trying to be responsive though, and with Anthony Davis' involvement I think they were going to succeed in making a deal to reshape it around some of the (nonsensical) feedback. Then the whole Fond Object thing blew up (it is pretty disappointing to lose Fond Object), and the pitchfork mob reached critical mass. Kudos to AD, most of our council members would have given up and demagogued this, but he's gone the whole way through acting like we're all able to talk about this stuff like adults. Possibly delusional, but inspiring.

This is a very accurate portrayal of how it went down.  Every interaction with AD I've had has been positive, cool/good dude.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, markhollin said:

 

900 Main St, Fluffo Bldg, Nov 18, 2018, 1.jpg


I love the way building to the curb makes the streets look narrower and more hilly.  I used to perceive Sobro as kind of flat and now it's starting to look like San Francisco.  We are a hilly city.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Inglewood Lofts (4 stories, 12 condos) update. Starting 3rd floor.

Looking south along Gallatin Pike near intersection with Shelton Ave:

 

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.13.57 AM.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markhollin said:

 Inglewood Lofts (4 stories, 12 condos) update. Starting 3rd floor.

Looking south along Gallatin Pike near intersection with Shelton Ave:

 

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.13.57 AM.png

This one stalled for quite a few months but it has picked back up in the last few weeks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.