Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

IMO, The city has an obligation to return the property to the tax roles by allowing the market to instruct the value of the land.

 

I, personally, would not be happy to see this parcel become a commodity. Indirectly, it has a significant stake in the value of Fort Negley, a historic public landmark. 

Edited by claya91
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Is the city proposing to sell Ft. Neglect? 

I might agree with the athletic fields if a similar component had not just been proposed for the Fairgrounds-MLS stadium-Nolensville plan... 1 mile away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

Is the city proposing to sell Ft. Neglect? 

I might agree with the athletic fields if a similar component had not just been proposed for the Fairgrounds-MLS stadium-Nolensville plan... 1 mile away.

 

I'm not arguing what should and should not go there rather that Ft Negley and the Greer site are one of the same. Besides the fact that both lots are essentially landlocked by train tracks and 65/40, I think what you're suggesting is that city owned that land for the sole purpose of Minor League Baseball and now it's reached its useful life, so it's owed back to the market. The lot has been a park in some form dating back to the Reconstruction period. Even prior to Greer Stadium, the land was a municipal softball complex and the site Greer was built on was leased by the developer from the city. The interests of the land have never been solely private.



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard there is a proposal to turn the site into mostly green space with some retail. Does anyone have the details on that?

Ignore my last post... I didn't look at the previous posts before I replied. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw it, build an amusement park here with ziplines into the downtown core. Who needs BRT when you're flying through the air with your junk mashed into a harness?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Johnny-come-lately plan being proposed for the Greer site.  I wonder why these folks didn't make a pitch when everything was being considered in the first place?

What critics of the current plan seem to neglect is that there is already more additional park space downtown (Riverfront Park extensions on both sides, South Riverfront/Boat Park, Capitol View Park, and probably a park next to the Nuehoff Plant redevelopment). Additionally, over the past two decades there were more parks opened (Bicentennial Mall, Library Park, Walk of Fame Park, Riverfront Amphitheater Park, Cumberland Park, Rolling Mill Hill Overlook, and miles and miles of greenway, etc.). And, the massive overhaul of the Fairgrounds is going to create dozens more acres of public parkland just a mile or so south of Ft. Negley.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2017/07/15/alternative-vision-floated-greer-stadium-property-city-park/470274001/

 

Screen Shot 2017-07-15 at 5.50.35 AM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I actually like the idea of that land being just a park.  For some reason, the plan the city has chosen seems like a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together to try and make several groups happy but will end up with a less than desirable finish.  Of course, when it's done, I may change my mind...but I was underwhelmed when I viewed their renders and read about the plan in totality.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very typical response from the citizens of Nashville. Just like the uproar over Tony Rose Park. All of the neighbors are PO'ed because they said it was below board, but that was not the case. I saw the public meeting announced. The people are just stupid. They think Metro needs to knock on their door to get their opinion on everything and let them know by that knock there is a meeting.

 

PEOPLE, Do Your Homework and be involved.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, sadly.  A key difference here is a really big chunk of the neighborhood actually supports the Cloud Hill proposal.  The "Friends of Ft. Negley" group is not part of the actual neighborhood and is drumming up "opposition" and outrage on the back end.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

This is a very typical response from the citizens of Nashville. Just like the uproar over Tony Rose Park. All of the neighbors are PO'ed because they said it was below board, but that was not the case. I saw the public meeting announced. The people are just stupid. They think Metro needs to knock on their door to get their opinion on everything and let them know by that knock there is a meeting.

 

PEOPLE, Do Your Homework and be involved.

Ron, 

I have to vehemently disagree with you in regards to the Tony Rose Park fiasco (and yes, it rises to that level).  When I first saw that the fences went up, I assumed that Panattoni had spoken with the neighborhood about this because they had worked with the neighborhood very closely for weeks before this was ever made public . That wasn't the case (I no longer live in the neighborhood so was out of the loop). While Panattoni never mentioned they would be taking the park for their own private use, I place more blame on the parks board. The Parks Board is in place to the protect the parks for residents (remember, from a very philosophical, fundamental level all cities exist to benefit the citizenry first and foremost), which they clearly did not do.  Not only did they disrupt use of the land, the city won't actually make any money from it. The lease only requires that they spend $90,000 to make repairs of the damage to the park that they cause, which is absurd. Can you imagine a private landlord letting you rent a home for a couple years with a guarantee that you will only pay to make repairs to damage that you caused once you leave? So not only did they not perform their most basic function (protecting and preserving parks), they also suck at being business people. 

The thought that each resident has to regularly check in with the 30-40 different boards and commissions that make up city government is also absurd.  When a patient goes to the hospital to get a test done, they aren't responsible for following up on the results.  When a client hires an attorney to represent them, the attorney is expected to do the work of representing the client. While both patients and clients need to be engaged, that engagement has to be facilitated by the physician or attorney. Similarly, an engaged citizenry is a necessity (although many times an engaged citizenry is frowned upon here), but that engagement must be facilitated by the government who was hired by the citizenry. Putting a PDF of the agenda on the Parks Board website two days before the meeting does not constitute appropriate engagement.

Panattoni, while I don't blame them as much as the Parks Board, is going to pay the price for this as well. This may very well be the last project they do along Music Row with any type of zoning change required. There is a lot of distrust right now from Metro Council and from the people who actually reside in that area. If they are going to do another project, the negotiated terms to implement the zoning change for this project (the beautification of South St) may be pennies on the dollar to what it will cost next time. 

In regards to the community reaction to the Greer Stadium site, this is what an engaged citizenry looks like. Nothing is finalized in terms of the redevelopment, so citizens are absolutely free to push for their vision.  There has been a vision of park space at that site that began immediately after the Sounds moved to the new stadium. In fact, the idea of this being park space predates the proposal for development by at least a couple years. We can't have it both ways.  We can't say "The neighborhoods need to shut up" while we are also say, "The neighborhoods should have spoken up!" 

 

 

Edited by Hey_Hey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree in some respects, but the fencing went up 6 months after the meeting. Plenty of time to reflect and get some issues resolved. I will place some of the blame on Metro Parks as they have an interim director that obviously does not know what she is doing and probably would not be considered for the job based on what I have seen.

 

As far as Greer goes  lot of the land is either vacant (parking lot, stadium) or wooded. They are not really disturbing the large chunk of Fort Negley as some of those that oppose would make you think.

 

I will agree there is a lot of miscommunication and that goes back to Colby and Freddie as they should have done a better job of communicating. But that is there job to keep the community informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

 

As far as Greer goes  lot of the land is either vacant (parking lot, stadium) or wooded. They are not really disturbing the large chunk of Fort Negley as some of those that oppose would make you think.

A friend enlightened me to the potential historical significance of the land under the stadium and lots. She is a historic research consultant and GIS analyst. There may be more legs to the argument against the current proposal than we even know about yet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just leave it alone as the land has already been disturbed while building Greer. They those legs probably ended up in a land fill somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are renderings and descriptions from some of the rejected proposals for the redevelopment of Greer Stadium site from today's NBJ:

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.20.15 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.20.32 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.20.47 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.20.58 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.21.10 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.21.25 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.21.36 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.21.53 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.22.05 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.22.18 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.22.36 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.22.50 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-30 at 9.23.03 AM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of those proposals look better than the one selected. Such a missed opportunity to put a Natural History museum next to Adventure Science Center. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Many of those proposals look better than the one selected. Such a missed opportunity to put a Natural History museum next to Adventure Science Center. 

Would have been really cool if they had turned that entire area into a "museum" neighborhood.  You already have the science museum.  Add a natural history museum...a civil war museum...a "music triangle" museum...and any other museum that fits this area.  Provide green space and maybe some passive entertainment (like a lazy floating river similar to San Antonio River Walk) and retail / restaurants.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of another museum in that area, BUT finding the money to fund a new museum project is really tough! Without a few benefactors with really deep pockets, it is almost impossible to get a first class project of this nature.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, donNdonelson2 said:

I love the idea of another museum in that area, BUT finding the money to fund a new museum project is really tough! Without a few benefactors with really deep pockets, it is almost impossible to get a first class project of this nature.

I bet Aubrey Preston would help with getting funding for a music triangle museum...and I have a feeling we could get some kind of federal help and Civil War trust funding for a Nashville Civil War museum.  The Natural History museum would be the one where we'd probably need to have some kind of city / state help and a huge fundraising campaign.  But wouldn't that land be great for a museum district / park / restaurant area?!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I thought of a natural history museum... something every great city should have. And I guess it struck me for the lack of imagination from all these (and other) developers at least to take a lead in starting. Next door to the Adventure S.C. seemed like such a "natural" (sorry!) location to me too. A natural history museum is something that can be started without a tremendous endowment as it is based on lots of information in the public domain. Frankly, I'm surprised that one has not already been proposed by a wealthy benefactor in town. Tennessee has such interesting natural resources and land formations which frankly relate directly to the settlement of a millennia of populations. 

Heck, I know a man here in Chattanooga who has several hundred-year old "stuffed" species, a few that are extinct now. 

  • 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.