Guest 5th & Main Urbanite

Federal Courthouse

Recommended Posts

Cliff,

 

No, it does not specifically include the lower lot. However, I can not see that there is a real project, given the requirement to reuse the existing building, without bundling that parcel. It may be wishful thinking on my part.

^But that doesn't include the large lot, right?


He has you on the ropes FMJ, ha.

 

 

So, you only like eminent domain and government intervention when it fits something you like ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^It's peculiar. You'd think they'd make a lot more money selling said lot for millions, because they certainly can't be making nowhere near that just on parking lot fees. Empty lots in the central core should come with a "use it or lose it" stipulation, meaning if said owner doesn't improve the lot within a certain period of time (say, 5 years), lot should then be sold to the city (or MDHA) for fair market value. It is utterly ludicrous that anyone should be able to sit on a lot as with Hotel Tulane's for now approaching 6 decades as they have without improving it.

 

 

Okay Davy, my brother, you opened the door so I am going to walk in it.  Your above comment is very Socialist of you. Turning land over to the government for sale or redevelopment after 5 years! How nice of you to join the team!

 

I knew you would drift back one day!

 

J/K bro!

 

Best, 

 

John

 

 

John, I really, really think that dj, very deep- down honestly does not truly believes the implications of what he expressed.  Now, I know that I am putting my own neck on the chop-block here, and I am in no way wanting to contradict either of you.

Let’s say that you’re both “right”, in a manner of speaking, or rather emotional sentiment.   I certainly can fully understand and concur with the substance of your retort.  I believe that dj simply might have done what many of us have, from time to time, occasionally conferring an intent under impulse, but unwittingly cloaked to the extent of conveying an unintended message, when emotions have been driven by frustration and hopelessness.  I believe that each of us who has ventured at least once or twice, beyond being a U-P lurker for this city sub-forum and its contained topics, has indirectly and silently communicated a desire for “progress” within the realm of redevelopment, even as expression within a post can come at a risk.

I say this in the most delicate manner as I can think of, and perhaps dj’s statement could have been spiced down from the Tobasco a bit, in terms of stout conviction.  To an extent, historically, the government has done just that, in a manner of speaking, much of which can be viewed for the good or the mad, depending on the vantage point.  The metrics of any progress, though, for past practices can remain subject to controversy decades later, and in this context, I am referring to the “reaper” of “urban renewal”.   That’s how Jas. Rob Pkway got built; that’s how Ellington Pkwy, I-40, I-440, I-65, and to a lesser extent Briley and I-24 materialized.  Sure, that the steam-rolling took place a generation or two ago, and that that might not occur now, in the manner in which it did back during the past administrations (on all levels).   All the massive urban dilapidation typically found in near reaches of CBD’s (particularly in the South) arguably had been destined one way or another to give way to clearing.   And even as of late, I-440 came which opened during the late ‘80s, had been conceived some 20 years prior to utilize the R.o.W. of a foreseen railroad’s bankruptcy as an opportunity to forge of its imminent construction, while nothing – not even activist groups – could sway the government from following through with its intent of creating the gigantic “Vege-matic” known as the inner loop.  The interstates, particularly I-40/24/65 have had a tremendous impact on the redevelopment with the CDB, the East bank, and Mid-town during the last 50 years.

I don’t believe that as a practice the government today would readily engage in wanton “urban removal” as it had done during the 30 years following the Korean War, even though the purported rationale sounded beneficial, since there had been an especially high amount of substandard property, in need of addressing.  Factors as segregation and other bastions of divisiveness, along with the absence of today’s formal citizens’ advisory forces, and a city council (albeit sometimes with questionable objectivity) for more distributed accountability and representation, were all constituent of a unilateral mentality back in those days.   It seems that eminent domain remains a mechanism for pre-empting property, and as we know, some rather recent and notable attempts to impose such compulsory turnovers have ended up successfully challenged.  Who knows what shenanigans can pop out next for property that someone wants but cannot have (or so it seems)?

Perhaps Dj’s comment likely seemed like a douse of crude oil, almost certain to be inflammatory, likely in too raw of a state to be ingested by most “engines”, but with an amount of “refining” or “distillation”, it can carry a vector of tamed benefit without the harsh elements.  Likewise, a “quo warranto” exception to his statement is almost certainly open for exception, so I fully understand why you say what you said.   Again, I think he meant only to vent a widely shared frustration with what appears to be obstruction of progress, and so perhaps it could have been toned differently.  As a bit of scenario magnification and exaggeration, I can imagine that more and more of us would be turning into pressure cookers, if the family owners of a given lot also had owned the lots of all the structures that Ron summed up just a day or so ago, underway or about to become.  Just what if that rich-a$$ family just would not budge an inch on all those properties?  Although this has not been the case, it for certain could have been, even if remotely.  The CBD (and the core) is now so active with projects, that during our lifetimes, none of us likely ever could see a stalwart chance of that ever happening in the CBD, even if it started now – if it ever could.  Hell, no disrespect to ol’ man H.G. Hill, for pioneering the case-and-carry grocery in this region , but when his family got out of the grocery business during the late ‘90s, just imagine the development impact that would not have ensued, had the Hill family held off to this day on unloading some of their largest properties, some of formidable size.   Although the Hill situation is not a comparable and fair comparison, undevelopable property likely would be of a more municipal concern if recent past and current developments in the CBD had been frozen by one family’s sheer will.

I know you mean well and dj means well.  Pls remember that the rooX, too, means well and he hopes that you concur.

-==-

 

Edited by rookzie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To emphasize, again, my proposal (or musing) would be an explicitly local action (not federal or state) directed solely within the CBD and applying to empty (or parking) lots. Obviously, I look more favorably on local actions to deal with said situations rather than state or federal, and certainly see no hypocrisy in that (while some others here have no hesitation with federally-imposed mandates that usually run counter to the Constitution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To emphasize, again, my proposal (or musing) would be an explicitly local action (not federal or state) directed solely within the CBD and applying to empty (or parking) lots. Obviously, I look more favorably on local actions to deal with said situations rather than state or federal, and certainly see no hypocrisy in that (while some others here have no hesitation with federally-imposed mandates that usually run counter to the Constitution).

 

Ha,

 

That takes some mental gymnastics to get there, but if it helps you sleep better I'll accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha,

 

That takes some mental gymnastics to get there, but if it helps you sleep better I'll accept it.

 

No, not at all. Just my personal take on a single issue. If you disagree with my notion, just say so. If you have another solution to the issue, feel free to offer one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would worry with a mandate such that proposed above, what would the end result be? Furthermore, how would that end result be policed to ensure we end up with results that we would be pleased with?

 

For instance, I feel that the city could potentially be out ----------illions of dollars and have to maintain a bunch of empty lots that stay exactly as they are because no one has expressed interest in developing them for their market price. Or, conversely, we would end up with a bunch of suburban crap that nobody likes simply because the land was cheap and the city had want (or need) to get it off of their hands.

 

I love the idea of (strongly?) encouraging the owners of said lots to do something with them, though.

Edited by Vrtigo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Thank you for the constructive criticism of my suggestion. I agree I would not want to see some cheap-looking suburban crap erected as an alternative to underutilized lots.

Edited by fieldmarshaldj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now we come to the heart of the matter. Government control of land is no better, and often times worse, than private ownership. The family/owner that wants to 'sit' on land has every right to do so as long as taxes are paid. Most, not all, property owners seek to maximize ROI and will seek the highest use for the property. Of course if they believe that the land will continue to appreciate they would be fools to sell too early ... especially of the carry costs were being covered by parking or other user fees. JMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, five months since this was placed in the budget, and still nothing. I am beginning to side with my friend Todd on this. This is an example of how inefficient government is. This was first proposed in 1993 and 22 years later.…NOTHING!

 

I am begging the Feds to sell this land to a private developer to build some high rise condos and retail. Let's axe this thing, and move on. I am tired of seeing this vacant and ugly surface lot that do nothing for the city.

 

Nashville is too hot right now for any surface lot, and this area is just as ugly as West End Summit.

Edited by Paramount747
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, five months since this was placed in the budget, and still nothing. I am beginning to side with my friend Todd on this. This is an example of how inefficient government is. This was first proposed in 1993 and 22 years later.…NOTHING!

 

I am begging the Feds to sell this land to a private developer to build some high rise condos and retail. Let's axe this thing, and move on. I am tired of seeing this vacant and ugly surface lot that do nothing for the city.

 

Nashville is too hot right now for any surface lot, and this area is just as ugly as West End Summit.

 

Hey, John, you're starting to sound like a Conservative ! :yahoo: I agree. A supertall on this site would be spectacular. I've hated that atrocious design (Hampton Inn Suites with a giant cherry picker on top) for a new federal courthouse. It has to be the ugliest I've ever seen, especially compared to almost every other design of the past 2 decades for our cities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, five months since this was placed in the budget, and still nothing. I am beginning to side with my friend Todd on this. This is an example of how inefficient government is. This was first proposed in 1993 and 22 years later.…NOTHING!

 

I am begging the Feds to sell this land to a private developer to build some high rise condos and retail. Let's axe this thing, and move on. I am tired of seeing this vacant and ugly surface lot that do nothing for the city.

 

Nashville is too hot right now for any surface lot, and this area is just as ugly as West End Summit.

The budget has not been approved yet. If you look at the pace of the Federal Government, five months is not very long at all. Nothing the Feds do is fast.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're lucky you'll be able to watch the new courthouse rise from the window of your luxury suite at the exclusive Trump Tower Retirement Palace...'cause with the pace of the Feds, this thing is still a ways off!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courthouse will be constructed, but when it is built, sad squaty Hampton Inn design completely unaltered from the initial proposal, Nashville will look like this...

 

ce433181500bcd1da1407d14fc36ceba.jpg

 

...and when that day comes, cyborg Jim Cooper, who will be at the beginning of his 324th consecutive term in office, will give a speech in front of the 1,000 foot tall Italian marble statue of Karl Dean (watch for the announcement on this one soon guys), and speak proudly of his momentous feat to all the martians and ewoks and robots and highly evolved opossums that populate the city. 

Lower Broad doesn't look quite as active anymore.  :shok:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find Will... I had no idea that was a current trend.  Really makes Michael Graves' cartoon-classical buildings look all the more ridiculous. My biggest beef with Graves was that his buildings were intentionally done out of proportion (oversized columns or pediments or undersized domes and windows).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently made aware of Thomas Beeby's recent Tuscaloosa Federal courthouse, which is unapologetically neoclassical and rather handsome. I haven't seen it in person but it's a magnificent example of a resurgence in the style. Further reading: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_urb-classical-architecture-revival.html

TUSC.jpg

I would take this building in Nashville RIGHT NOW and call it a day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TUSC.jpg

This ... would fit in nicely with this....

Future%20Nashville%20Berlin_zpssrydtols.

I am beginning to know what it is like to be a one-eyed man in the land of the blind. I am OK with the Graves design and eagerly wait to see it built. I want to see risks taken in the development of Nashville's skyline and this qualifies as one with potential high rewards. 

Please, enough with the glass boxes!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^A classically designed courthouse would fit in with Albert Speer & Hitler's redesign for a Nazi Berlin ? Whut ?

Sorry, but Graves' design remains as hideous and inappropriate as can be (befitting a suburban Hampton Inn). More class and less crass is what we need.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with FMDJ.  I fail to see what "risks" Graves took with his courthouse design.  It seems to me that most any schmuck with a pen and piece of paper could come up with something similar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^A classically designed courthouse would fit in with Albert Speer & Hitler's redesign for a Nazi Berlin ? Whut ?

Sorry, but Graves' design remains as hideous and inappropriate as can be (befitting a suburban Hampton Inn). More class and less crass is what we need.

Courthouse By Marriott

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.