Davidson Southeast: Antioch, Century Farms, East of Brentwood

[markhollin]

2407 12th Ave. South (conversion of former Katy K's clothing store into new breakfast restaurant) update: nearing completion both inside and out.

Looking NW from 12th Ave. South, 1/2 block north of Beechwood Ave:

Looking west from intersection of 12th Ave. South and Caruthers Ave:

[nashvylle]

7 hours ago, markhollin said:

The Residences at The Finery (6 stories, 338 units, 45,000 sq. ft. retail and office space, internal garage of 640 capacity) in WeHo has been granted a $5 million permit to begin work by Archer Construction.  Hines and Core Development are co-developers. 

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/permit-patrol-7-june-2021/article_f228e91e-c557-11eb-8562-77f294eac5f9.html

 

@Bos2Nash back to our earlier discussion on the density within Wedgewood Houston, I do not see why all of Wedgewood Houston cannot be maxed at 6-stories like shown above (if the developer purchases enough contiguous single-family lots). 

[PaulChinetti]

I'm sure developers can still apply for variances though right?

It's not like Nashville is big on rejecting many things developers ask for.

[nashvylle]

2 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'm sure developers can still apply for variances though right?

It's not like Nashville is big on rejecting many things developers ask for.

So far it's 3-stories as of right, and a 4th story can be added via variance. 

[Bos2Nash]

16 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

@Bos2Nash back to our earlier discussion on the density within Wedgewood Houston, I do not see why all of Wedgewood Houston cannot be maxed at 6-stories like shown above (if the developer purchases enough contiguous single-family lots). 

4 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

So far it's 3-stories as of right, and a 4th story can be added via variance. 

SPs were specifically stated as being an option within the overlay(s). This project is exactly that as well as being outside of the overlay areas. The Finery is Phase II of an SP that went into effect in 2014. If a developer wants to do something big and create a different context, sure, be my guest, but that does not mean that should be a by right of every single parcel in the neighborhood. Where these new overlays are in effect  is predominantly single family or two family housing (new and old). If a private developer came in a bought out a dozen or more of those parcels and went for a bigger different context, then sure an SP could be an appropriate avenue of development, but again that is the exception not the rule and as such should not be a "by-right" development.

The intent of the overlay is to help maintain the neighborhood character as it stands today. The overlays have allowed residents a say in their community and they have worked hard for it. Almost like how a developer would work hard to buy up land and to displace families and build a 6-story building to benefit their bottom line. You give "by-right" zoning to a developer and they will take it and the public has no say. This overlay makes for a much harder path for developers to come in and up-end a community that they have no interest in living in. If the residents have all come to a consensus that this overlay is what they want for their neighborhood, the city did the right thing in listening. 

[GregH]

I understand that people have feelings about neighborhood character and stuff but in a hypothetical where zoning prevents say, 10 SFHs from being converted to  six-story apartment building, that is hundreds of people not having the opportunity to live in the neighborhood. I think probably there should be a way for people to have input on development in their local area, but overlays that reduce potential density in close-in neighborhoods are absolutely contributing to higher housing costs in Nashville as a whole, more traffic, more sprawl, and more potential residents and tax revenue being lost to neighboring counties. 

[nashvylle]

16 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

SPs were specifically stated as being an option within the overlay(s). This project is exactly that as well as being outside of the overlay areas. The Finery is Phase II of an SP that went into effect in 2014. If a developer wants to do something big and create a different context, sure, be my guest, but that does not mean that should be a by right of every single parcel in the neighborhood. Where these new overlays are in effect  is predominantly single family or two family housing (new and old). If a private developer came in a bought out a dozen or more of those parcels and went for a bigger different context, then sure an SP could be an appropriate avenue of development, but again that is the exception not the rule and as such should not be a "by-right" development.

The intent of the overlay is to help maintain the neighborhood character as it stands today. The overlays have allowed residents a say in their community and they have worked hard for it. Almost like how a developer would work hard to buy up land and to displace families and build a 6-story building to benefit their bottom line. You give "by-right" zoning to a developer and they will take it and the public has no say. This overlay makes for a much harder path for developers to come in and up-end a community that they have no interest in living in. If the residents have all come to a consensus that this overlay is what they want for their neighborhood, the city did the right thing in listening. 

fair points, but some slight disagreements.

Where does a neighborhood go too far and it hurts the overall city? Can a neighborhood say no new construction, because they are fed up with the traffic? Can a neighborhood say only 1-floor for new construction because they don't want their views blocked? At some point, a negotiation is needed, and the negotiation made on wedgewood houston does not go far enough, IMO. 

It's entirely possible and common for developers to care about their bottom line and simultaneously care about the neighborhood. Even developers who don't care about the neighborhood are supplying much needed supply of residential units to a neighborhood that's part of a city that is undergoing an overall affordability crisis. Affordability is subjective and does not only affect the poorest residents. The 500 units that are now delayed from Merritt Mansion are making the similar product in the neighborhood for between T3 Finery, Fairgrounds, Warehouse, etc. more expensive. 

11 minutes ago, GregH said:

I understand that people have feelings about neighborhood character and stuff but in a hypothetical where zoning prevents say, 10 SFHs from being converted to  six-story apartment building, that is hundreds of people not having the opportunity to live in the neighborhood. I think probably there should be a way for people to have input on development in their local area, but overlays that reduce potential density in close-in neighborhoods are absolutely contributing to higher housing costs in Nashville as a whole, more traffic, more sprawl, and more potential residents and tax revenue being lost to neighboring counties. 

Well said. 

[Nash_12South]

I think you have to factor in the need for a comprehensive (workable/realistic) transportation plan into talks of increased density. You can't build 1000 affordable living units in a neighborhood like Wedgewood Houston without getting a couple of thousand cars included - as of today.  It's wonderful to assume they will take the bus, a scooter or ride a bike everywhere, but cynically I don't see it happening soon. I think traffic is a big deterrent to getting public support on density in many neighborhoods. I don't any of the hip young 20 or 30 somethings in my office that don't have cars, no matter how close they live to the office.

[Bos2Nash]

31 minutes ago, GregH said:

I understand that people have feelings about neighborhood character and stuff but in a hypothetical where zoning prevents say, 10 SFHs from being converted to  six-story apartment building, that is hundreds of people not having the opportunity to live in the neighborhood. I think probably there should be a way for people to have input on development in their local area, but overlays that reduce potential density in close-in neighborhoods are absolutely contributing to higher housing costs in Nashville as a whole, more traffic, more sprawl, and more potential residents and tax revenue being lost to neighboring counties. 

Absolutely it contributes to higher home values/cost-of-living, but it is their private property and if enough of the citizens come together to say they are okay with that, then that is the literal definition of community planning. This is the type of thing that creates neighborhoods like Beacon Hill and Bay Village in Boston where it becomes very hard to building and very expensive to live, yet those are still some of the most sought after neighborhoods in the city.  Those residents are already there and established and the even slight notion that they are shamed for being there instead of 6-story apartment building is hysterical. At that point it is the developers who are just crying about not being able to build a giant profit center in their ideal location.

23 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

fair points, but some slight disagreements.

Where does a neighborhood go too far and it hurts the overall city? Can a neighborhood say no new construction, because they are fed up with the traffic? Can a neighborhood say only 1-floor for new construction because they don't want their views blocked? At some point, a negotiation is needed, and the negotiation made on wedgewood houston does not go far enough, IMO. 

It's entirely possible and common for developers to care about their bottom line and simultaneously care about the neighborhood. Even developers who don't care about the neighborhood are supplying much needed supply of residential units to a neighborhood that's part of a city that is undergoing an overall affordability crisis. Affordability is subjective and does not only affect the poorest residents. The 500 units that are now delayed from Merritt Mansion are making the similar product in the neighborhood for between T3 Finery, Fairgrounds, Warehouse, etc. more expensive. 

That is why we have a planning department that understands planning and the concepts, so that they can actually lay out what is feasible and what is not. These overlays are feasible, a construction moratorium or 1 floor is clearly not. Nashville will never get as far down the road as say Boston where the neighborhood(s) has "veto" power over a development (even certain by-right developments), but SPs will still need to prove the benefit to the neighborhood (as they should). Planning still has approval powers on variances, exceptions, etc.

The fact that all of these properties got up-zoned to RM20-A-NS (over previous R6 mostly) was probably a huge negotiation as well as adding a third (and potentially 4th depending on where) floor in areas where the vast majority of the homes are maxed out a 2 floors. Both of these are huge for development, but clearly not big enough. The issue for developers is they need bigger because the land value is already high where it doesn't work for their ROI (so they should go elsewhere, but instead some piss and moan that they can't build where they want to). The Merritt Mansion, again, is a bad example because AJ Capital has the capital to do affordable units to SNAP of NOAH standards, but they just don't want to impact their bottom line enough to actually allow affordable units. Also, the stigma of affordability is it cannot mix with top of the market housing (just look at the Green Hills objection to a solid development on an empty supermarket parcel), and that is completely driven by developers and their ROI. Actually have good communication (which AJ apparently is inept at doing) with these groups and find some middle ground. Even if SNAP or NOAH don't get all the unit counts they want, AJ could be a good neighbor and provide these units even when they aren't required to. Supply alone is not going to get us out of our affordability crisis, because we don't have good enough neighborhood developers, government grant money and non-profit groups to build 1,500 units of truly affordable housing a year. 

Sure, developers are providing needed housing, but they are providing housing to populations that already have housing, while displacing populations that otherwise would not have housing - see the difference? There is plenty of available land in the city (part of the reason we don't have the height that so many wish for), but the developers buy where their bottom line is most benefited. I don't want to have to explain gentrification because I could go on way to long about it, but the developers should not be given an easy path to pave over established residents. If anything it should be much harder to move establish residents - hence this overlay.

2 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

I think you have to factor in the need for a comprehensive (workable/realistic) transportation plan into talks of increased density. You can't build 1000 affordable living units in a neighborhood like Wedgewood Houston without getting a couple of thousand cars included - as of today.  It's wonderful to assume they will take the bus, a scooter or ride a bike everywhere, but cynically I don't see it happening soon. I think traffic is a big deterrent to getting public support on density in many neighborhoods. I don't any of the hip young 20 or 30 somethings in my office that don't have cars, no matter how close they live to the office.

This is why land development and transportation need to be thought of together instead of through separate silos, but unfortunately that is just not the case. I think it was NATCO that posted something relatively funny in that we can pop traffic signals all along a "busy" road with barely any concerns, but as soon as a crosswalk is to go in there needs to be a pedestrian minimums and crossing counts to justify it. The currently "spoke" transportation layout of WeGo is also contributing to how little it gets used because it is literally useless. Transit needs to stop being looked at as a traffic minimizer, but as a cost-of-living equalizer. We get solid transit and some of these apartments getting built immediately get more affordable because the residents don't need to pay for a car and insurance and all the other costs associated with an automobile. So the question becomes what comes first, Housing or Transit? Which demand drives what? Cities everywhere always struggle with this.

[nashvylle]

34 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

Sure, developers are providing needed housing, but they are providing housing to populations that already have housing, while displacing populations that otherwise would not have housing - see the difference? There is plenty of available land in the city (part of the reason we don't have the height that so many wish for), but the developers buy where their bottom line is most benefited. I don't want to have to explain gentrification because I could go on way to long about it, but the developers should not be given an easy path to pave over established residents. If anything it should be much harder to move establish residents - hence this overlay.

Having lived in Texas and now the northeast I have seen two completely opposite ways of housing. One is build build build and the other is plan, plan, plan, and then build a little bit 5 years later. 

I pray Nashville has the happy medium balance, but I tend to witness most people will forego the plan plan plan approach IF AND ONLY IF they end up with a lot of affordable options. Putting Austin aside with it's truly unprecedented growth and influx of extremely rich workers, you don't have affordability issues in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio. Sure gentrification can happen and I don't want that, but gentrification can happen in Wedgewood Houston even if nothing is upzoned because taxes increase too high... and you end up leaving your neighborhood AND there is no other affordable options. 

I love the neighborhoods in Boston, DC, West Village, San Fran etc... but there is a reason why those cities are having affordability issues. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by nashvylle

[PaulChinetti]

Here are two houses that are used in the actual overlay document  as I think a bad example but can't find the doc currently).

Character/style/size etc. What do you do? 

Developers aren't going to make to small 1-2 bedroom cottages that are in the 1000-1500 square foot range because they can build much larger houses and sell them for way more.

Should a house like the size on the right be kept because of history even though it's so close to the core? Should the house on the left be the new norm because it's what people want? It's only one house so are you increasing density? Well sure because it's been an empty lot since at least 2007.

I don't really have a point, I just live in this neighborhood and definitely don't have the answers, but I'm sure like people have said you have to find the happy middle ground. 

[Nash_12South]

My thought is that it's unfair to the small house owner on the right to say it has to essentially stay. He may not make near the money the neighbor, that can tear down his house, can. You may actually hurt the ones needing the money most. (for what it's worth, the new house is pretty bad, in my opinion. It should be made to try to blend in)

Edited June 8, 2021 by Nash_12South

[PaulChinetti]

Yeah there is not accounting for style, some of the tall skinnies I love, some are horrendous. 

I can't say that WeHo or Chestnut Hill have much of an overall style though. Maybe 25, 50, 100 years ago they did, I think the interstate and various other projects really took care of that though.

The few old houses that remain a pretty nice, but to base an entire neighborhood overlay on them would be pretty tough I think. 

 

This old beauty is on 2nd Ave S right down from Chestnut St. and a block from the above picture. I mean if all tall skinnies looked like this, the stigma they have would be non-existent, haha.

Versus directly across the street. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by PaulChinetti
addition

[PaulChinetti]

An interesting thought I just had, I wonder what it cost to build that today, versus what it cost to build it when it was built.

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

An interesting thought I just had, I wonder what it cost to build that today, versus what it cost to build it when it was built.

I bet it would be hard to find the skilled labor to build that brick beauty without an absorbent amount of cost.

 

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

Here are two houses that are used in the actual overlay document  as I think a bad example but can't find the doc currently).

Character/style/size etc. What do you do? 

Developers aren't going to make to small 1-2 bedroom cottages that are in the 1000-1500 square foot range because they can build much larger houses and sell them for way more.

Should a house like the size on the right be kept because of history even though it's so close to the core? Should the house on the left be the new norm because it's what people want? It's only one house so are you increasing density? Well sure because it's been an empty lot since at least 2007.

I don't really have a point, I just live in this neighborhood and definitely don't have the answers, but I'm sure like people have said you have to find the happy middle ground. 

1 hour ago, Nash_12South said:

My thought is that it's unfair to the small house owner on the right to say it has to essentially stay. He may not make near the money the neighbor, that can tear down his house, can. You may actually hurt the ones needing the money most. (for what it's worth, the new house is pretty bad, in my opinion. It should be made to try to blend in)

This is exactly why zoning and these types of ordinances are so hard. there is no simple answer or model to follow.

 

[yontu2]

On 6/7/2021 at 4:19 PM, Nash_12South said:

I think you have to factor in the need for a comprehensive (workable/realistic) transportation plan into talks of increased density. You can't build 1000 affordable living units in a neighborhood like Wedgewood Houston without getting a couple of thousand cars included - as of today.  It's wonderful to assume they will take the bus, a scooter or ride a bike everywhere, but cynically I don't see it happening soon. I think traffic is a big deterrent to getting public support on density in many neighborhoods. I don't any of the hip young 20 or 30 somethings in my office that don't have cars, no matter how close they live to the office.

Good discussion! On most of these issues related to the overlay I agree with people saying that it's complicated and I can argue it both ways, but the one thing that doesn't seem complicated is that Wedgewood-Houston sorely lacks pedestrian and bike infrastructure. Good bike/ped infrastructure would help with adding density without equivalent congestion. The defeat of the proposed bike lanes on 8th Ave a few years ago was a major blow, and although there has been talk of bike lanes on Chestnut/ Edgehill, it seems like they recently repaved portions of this route and didn't change the striping. Key pieces of sidewalk infrastructure are also lacking. What's there in the neighborhood doesn't begin to account for the current level of density, much less what is on the way.

[PaulChinetti]

Looking like the start of the new Wedgewood Ave connection. 

[markhollin]

2500 12th Ave. South (conversion of former dry cleaners to restaurant) update: glass installed in large new patio.

Looking NE from 12th Ave. South at Beechwood Ave:

Looking SE from 12th Ave. South at Caruthers Ave:

[markhollin]

700 Hamilton (7 stories above Hamilton Ave., 9 stories above grade on lowest portion of lot, 300 units?) update from NashvilleNowNext: 

- EOA and Manuel Zeitlen are the architects

- There are several levels of below grade parking

- Some of the amenities being worked-on include a pool; fitness center; recreational lawn & dog park; courtyard;  on-site storage units;  co-working space;  sky lounge

- A Metro Council hearing date is set for July 15th.

More at NashvilleNowNext here:

https://nashvillenownext.com/2021/06/09/images-emerge-for-700-hamiltons-zoning-variance-in-weho-nashville/
 

This screen shot from Smegolsfree's excllent development map in 2018 shows the site highlighted in teal at the center of the frame:

[smeagolsfree]

Planning is recommending denying the height is what the doc says if I remember reading the Planning Doc correctly.So we will see what happens. Most of the time they go with the staff recommendations.

[nashvylle]

14 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Planning is recommending denying the height is what the doc says if I remember reading the Planning Doc correctly.So we will see what happens. Most of the time they go with the staff recommendations.

You have to be kidding me. We can't get out of our own way. If this project gets cancelled, that will be close to 1K units that could have been built, but weren't due to council and  planning. 

When 1K units aren't built, that makes the existing residential units in the city and specifically wedgewood-houston that more expensive, increasing the number of residents realizing they cannot afford to live here. 

Ironically, the members of SNAP could end up leaving wedgewood houston because they themselves are priced out. 

When the city blocks needed supply of units, those making the Area Median Income or more will be left wanting the housing stock currently used by those making less than Area Median Income... it's basic economics. Very frustrating. 

 

[smeagolsfree]

I am almost 100% sure it was on the June agenda and it is no longer there so they must have withdrawn it from the agenda.

[MLBrumby]

Um... calling LEADERSHIP!!!!  LEADERSHIP!!!!  Who would that be?  Mayor Whoziwhatzit?  

2 hours ago, nashvylle said:

You have to be kidding me. We can't get out of our own way. If this project gets cancelled, that will be close to 1K units that could have been built, but weren't due to council and  planning. 

When 1K units aren't built, that makes the existing residential units in the city and specifically wedgewood-houston that more expensive, increasing the number of residents realizing they cannot afford to live here. 

Ironically, the members of SNAP could end up leaving wedgewood houston because they themselves are priced out. 

When the city blocks needed supply of units, those making the Area Median Income or more will be left wanting the housing stock currently used by those making less than Area Median Income... it's basic economics. Very frustrating. 

 

 

[smeagolsfree]

OK I found it. It was on the BZA and the height was refused and this is an appeal to the BZA I think as a hardship. I see so many docs I so not remember where I see them!

 

 ePav-Viewer.aspx (nashville.gov)

[samsonh]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

OK I found it. It was on the BZA and the height was refused and this is an appeal to the BZA I think as a hardship. I see so many docs I so not remember where I see them!

 

 ePav-Viewer.aspx (nashville.gov)

If you live in the area you should email your support in and let them know more units = increased affordability, and more units = more customers for locally owned neighborhood businesses, and more denser units = what we need for an eventual mass transit plan.