Jump to content

Peabody Union (27 story residential, 354 units, 251,000 sq. ft. office, 50,000 sq. ft. retail), Peabody Plaza (9-story, 280,000 sq. ft. office), & 4 smaller buildings, MDHA Trolley Barn sites


markhollin

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, Ingram said:

Ohhhhh the horror, no densayteeeeeeee!!!

These people know what they're doing and are preserving a quality of life. I didn't know ordinary citizens are supposed to be subservient to "elite" oligarchs and their mindless psycophants. I'm glad there's a system to keep them in check.

Uh.... I won't even pretend to understand the inner voices which inspired your little rant against so-called "elite oligarchs," or the ones that convinced you that a nerdy debate over building height was an appropriate place for it, but I digress.  I suppose that, given your political leanings, I should be applauding you for, evidently, rallying in support of the government clamping down on private entities?  At least... I think that's what your argument is?  It's really hard to tell, to be honest.  I mean, it sounds like you're mocking people for being 'afraid' of density and giving your support for height restrictions (i.e. limiting density)  in the same post... but anyway...

Edited by BnaBreaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Uh.... I won't even pretend to understand the inner voices which inspired your little rant against so-called "elite oligarchs," or the ones that convinced you that a nerdy debate over building height was an appropriate place for it, but I digress.  I suppose that, given your political leanings, I should be applauding you for, evidently, rallying in support of the government clamping down on private entities?  At least... I think that's what your argument is?  It's really hard to tell, to be honest.  I mean, it sounds like you're mocking people for being 'afraid' of density and giving your support for height restrictions (i.e. limiting density)  in the same post... but anyway...

 

I'm amused at the amount of wailing because everyone is obsessed with wanting people to be packed like sardines in confined areas. What's the obsession with densayteeeeeee? I've actually seen people write about forcing people to live in these "dense urban cores". Why? How does that improve their life?

Edited by Ingram
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/dtc/DTC_170531.pdf

Bonus Height stuff starts on page 93. Some of these height restrictions on this chart seem quite silly. Like they were definitely made many many years ago.

Also bonus height just rubs me the wrong way like you are building something in our fine city let us bestow a gift upon you, ha.

HeightRestrictions.png

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

More importantly, if you've "actually seen people write about forcing people to live in these "dense urban cores" but you've never seen anyone write about how density can improve people's lives, then maybe you ought to consider expanding your reading list and information sources.  

In his defense there are a number of people (including in the urban planning community) who treat density as a goal unto itself. I've been to several public meetings for long-range plans where one person or another has complained about the plan not promoting enough density in a city, town, or neighborhood (mostly in the form of not putting high-rise developments in areas scoped for low- or mid-rise). If you ask them what they are trying to realize by adding density they tend to start trailing off or offering up superficial or frankly unrealistic scenarios, such as "we'll have a restaurant scene like New York's" (yes, really happened) or "everyone will walk to work". Same thing happens with transit sometimes. It seems there are some at least who want density for the sake of density, or perhaps are not able to elucidate why they prefer it.

If living in dense urban cores were universally beneficial then it wouldn't be necessary to incentivize them or to combat sprawl, people would gravitate towards them naturally. We already see this from a geographic standpoint (in NYC and other mega-cities) as well as generational (millennials, particularly single and childless, preferring to live downtown). As a planner, if you find yourself in a position where you're spending a lot of time and energy coaxing people into doing something then it's worth asking whether you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/dtc/DTC_170531.pdf

Bonus Height stuff starts on page 93. Some of these height restrictions on this chart seem quite silly. Like they were definitely made many many years ago.

Also bonus height just rubs me the wrong way like you are building something in our fine city let us bestow a gift upon you, ha.

I think the bonus height is an OK way to encourage certain patterns that you don't want to point blank require in every development. My biggest beef with it is that it's used as another hidden subsidy for parking. If they would get rid of the two items related to parking and increase the starting floor limits it seems like it would be an OK tool for stuff like high-level LEED certification.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

In his defense there are a number of people (including in the urban planning community) who treat density as a goal unto itself. I've been to several public meetings for long-range plans where one person or another has complained about the plan not promoting enough density in a city, town, or neighborhood (mostly in the form of not putting high-rise developments in areas scoped for low- or mid-rise). If you ask them what they are trying to realize by adding density they tend to start trailing off or offering up superficial or frankly unrealistic scenarios, such as "we'll have a restaurant scene like New York's" (yes, really happened) or "everyone will walk to work". Same thing happens with transit sometimes. It seems there are some at least who want density for the sake of density, or perhaps are not able to elucidate why they prefer it.

If living in dense urban cores were universally beneficial then it wouldn't be necessary to incentivize them or to combat sprawl, people would gravitate towards them naturally. We already see this from a geographic standpoint (in NYC and other mega-cities) as well as generational (millennials, particularly single and childless, preferring to live downtown). As a planner, if you find yourself in a position where you're spending a lot of time and energy coaxing people into doing something then it's worth asking whether you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think it's a good argument. Yes there are people who promote density for the sake of density without really understanding how the benefits/detriments work out.  That said, increased density certainly does increase the number of people who walk/bike to work, and if they want to emulate NYC's restaurant scene in the sense of having more, smaller restaurants scattered among ground level retail at the base of a lot of mixed-use buildings, then suddenly it's not such a crazy statement.  

Further, your point about incentives to encourage density doesn't take into account the incentives and subsidies that have encouraged sprawl.  If everyone was responsible for paying for the infrastructure that they actually use pro rata, I doubt that suburbs would've ever existed in the first place.

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Suburbs have sort of blurred the lines between city and country living -- and while I can see its appeal, I think it ends up being pretty selfish overall, and costly to our resources. I feel like you need to either live in the city/town or live in a rural area. Not the hybrid of living in a subdivision on one acre lots outside of the city limits in the middle of farmland.

Even THAT blurs the lines.  Think of Nashville...and then consider all of the cities / towns that surround Nashville.  Each city / town has its own government, schools, businesses, industry, etc...just on different scales.  Over the years...people in Nashville have searched for different types of housing.  Some want to live in an apartment...some in a condo...some on a small piece of land...some on a bigger piece of land...etc...and in time, the boundaries of Nashville expanded. Same goes for all of these towns outside of Nashville.  Developers build housing on old farm land and the towns increase their boundaries and tax base.

Now...I agree...there are large developments that aren't really near a town's city limits that have taken up beautiful land for the sake of someone building mini-mansions...so I get what you're saying.  But...I also believe these towns that we all call "suburban" have as much right to grow and expand as Nashville has / had.  Heck...travel to the East Coast of the U.S. (Mid-Atlantic)...and it's like one town after another after another after another.  There was a time when that was all farmland...but now, certain sections are all basically urban / suburban for mile after mile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agreed with the rest of the post but not with this particular section.  I moved from the Inglewood area to Hendersonville last summer which I felt was a good move for me and not in any way selfish or costly to our resources.  A person looking for a place to live is faced with certain limitations dictated by their own income and don't always have the luxury of living wherever they want.  If I had loads of money I'd live in downtown Nashville close to all of the events and entertainment within walking distance but I don't.  I was tired of trying to fix up another outdated old house in an area that has high crime and quite a few run down areas and I looked to where I could buy a house I could afford that was newer, in a nice neighborhood, etc. and I found one.  I really love my new place and it took me a lifetime of working to be able to finally own it at 70 years old.  I'm retired, don't have to commute or add to the congestion but I can zip downtown on a weekend when it's quiet to enjoy what it has to offer.  There's countless legitimate reasons why people move from place to place and I wouldn't be too quick to judge them.

I wholly agree with this, including concordance with what UTgrad said, but minus the referenced excerpt. I also agree with the idea that Downtown should really have no height restrictions, with garishness being the exception. Perhaps it would be more advantageous to have a governing body or partnership for the purpose of balancing the scales between urban, suburban, and rural living for the area... an intermediary that would be able to identify key data to help everyone affected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.