Jump to content

Rebuilding Second Avenue


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Wow! How do you really feel? And yet it actually just happened last week. Um, just sayin'. 

And how long has that building been there, over 40 years? What're the actual chances of this happening in the grand scheme before, better yet, the actual chances of a bombing at any given point within the city limits of Nashville? Well below 1%, because this isn't Afghanistan. 

Also, the last highlighted part was in reference to my bit on other counties & municipalities  paying for public assistance relocation of something not within their boundaries. That literally will not happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

An interesting little mention in this Tennesseean article about the city wanting to possibly close down 1st Avenue parts of the day to allow pedestrians to meander around riverfront businesses (which

I haven't seen any pictures like this, so I thought I would share them here...

The City should absolutely invest in the restoration of Second Avenue because of the important role it has in contributing to the 'brand' that is Music City USA. Nashville's Broadway district is the e

Posted Images

Can you guarantee that? I'd venture that those whose offices were in the World Trade Towers also were sure they weren't in Afghanistan.  So now that it's happened, it won't happen again? Hmmm... sorry, it'd be foolish to think that. This man proved just how destructive a single RV bomb can do to the telecom infrastructure in a large swath of the USA.  Predictably, there's always the knee jerk opposition to corporate welfare in situations. And of course, let's not overlook the liability to ATT if they stay there. I can already imagine over a dozen lawsuits they're likely see in the coming weeks as a result of this crime. So this is what's called "opportunity" in the political and corporate world. 

When public safety is an issue, people should not be so set against public/private funding for mitigating solutions. I'm sure there are many people who wish they'd taken the safe of the World Trade towers seriously after the first attempt to bomb it in 1993. 

Edited by MLBrumby
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Can you guarantee that? I'd venture that those whose offices were in the World Trade Towers also were sure they weren't in Afghanistan.  So now that it's happened, it won't happen again? Hmmm... sorry, it'd be foolish to think that. 

When public safety is an issue, people should not be so set against public/private funding for mitigating solutions. I'm sure there are many people who wish they'd taken the safe of the World Trade towers seriously after the first attempt to bomb it in 1993. 

And the response to the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

03DB2B33-5EA6-4C61-B7B8-AA592A55B407.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Can you guarantee that? I'd venture that those whose offices were in the World Trade Towers also were sure they weren't in Afghanistan.  So now that it's happened, it won't happen again? Hmmm... sorry, it'd be foolish to think that. 

When public safety is an issue, people should not be so set against public/private funding for mitigating solutions. I'm sure there are many people who wish they'd taken the safe of the World Trade towers seriously after the first attempt to bomb it in 1993. 

Did I say it was a guarantee? Pretty sure I didn't, but the chances or infinitely lower than a country like Afghanistan, let's be real here. Also, we're really going to use the World Trade Center, one of the most recognizable complexes, former, in the world versus a nondescript telecommunications high-rise in downtown Nashville? That's what we're really going to compare as terrorism targets? The VW plant in Chattanooga likely had a higher probability chance versus this building. Almost no place is zero but you have to real here that >99% of folks never knew what that structure was before Christmas Day. 

You legitimately think a government like the City of Chattanooga or Hamilton County are going to pony up cash for AT&T to move their switching/data center in Davidson County for their benefit? 

The building's overall superstructure likely has not been compromised, so you'll see it shored up with security enhancements, likely removal of on-street parking downtown, & the rebuild & renovation of buildings on this block.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure the point you're trying to make above, but ATT will make their decision in their interest... which you can bet will be financial. 

I can hear it now. When the next bomb goes off next to one of the many downtown ATT switching hubs because of some nut (no need to be in Afghanistan), the public reactions will be generally along the following lines, depending on ATT's response to this crime. Pretty simple to envision the options here. Remember, we're not just talking about the Nashville facility here. Although an effort to move to a more secure location would be a good faith signal they're addressing their risks. When a suit gets into the realm of perceived loss and actual loss, the sky is the limit. And justice is always HARSH in the case where a defendant is perceived to callously disregard the risks. The risks here have already been spelled out in a very public way. Some of what ATT decides to do with this facility will almost certainly come in response to any judgments against them. The lawsuits are coming! 

1. Why did they stay in that location and make themselves and neighbors vulnerable? High liability! 

2. Why didn't they move fast enough in response to the clear threat? This doesn't have to be in Afghanistan!

3. Why did they leave the neighborhood and expose the businesses remaining?  This one absolves them of liability in nearly all incidents. 

There are perhaps a couple other scenarios, but they're really on the stay vs. move propositions. I deal in risk mitigation for a living. So I have to anticipate (in a make believe world) future litigation against my client. Can you imagine how many times a week I hear the 'criticism' that lawyers always choose the option that avoids the problem... as if we want the confrontation. In this case, I'm quite certain that ATT is already weighing the benefits of staying in that building. As noted above it would cost tens of millions ($) to move. And the benefits would not show at present to such a move. It's clear that the real estate at that location is worth a lot of money. Conservatives who support limited government (and I count myself among them) would criticize a giveaway. YOu didn't see me argue in favor of a giveaway to ATT, one of the largest beneficiaries of government largesse in modern history. But the liability of NOT moving is a cost in itself. I'm sure Mayor Bush Brows or his successor would agree that they don't want to see another attempt to bomb that facility. And I doubt Afghanistan ever crosses their mind in such considerations. 

In short, to ignore the opportunity for helping a corporate citizen to make a move in the interest of public safety would be completely an abdication of their responsibility. And I guarantee you (if they haven't already begun talks) they will be discussing a move to a location that's more secure. Yes, there are always going to be the usual snipers who will lash out against what they call 'corporate welfare', but what will you say the next time a crazy bombs Second Avenue and actually kills other people?   

Edited by MLBrumby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this, no matter where you put something, there is always a way to find  the soft under belly. Nothing is safe. Look at at the Pentagon on 9/11.

No tax dollars for AT T to move a building.

Back on track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you guys, but there's more than "tax dollars".  There's what already exists for relocation assistance in the form of low interest loans and let's not overlook the value of that property. There's even a possible property swap to metro along the lines of what HCA and Metro did for the Lentz public health building on Charlotte. 

Until last week, I'd guess ATT had not considered moving from that location. In the next few months/years, there will be lawsuits and internal discussions about what they should do.  For the sake of public interest, a responsible mayor would take a hard-ass approach immediately to ATT. Such as, "What are you planning to do to ensure you don't remain a target?" "What's your security plan in response to this bombing."  Granted, this all hinges on an FBI conclusion that the facility was in fact a target (we'll have to see).  After some time passes, ATT feels the heat of lawsuits, future liability and the mayor/City Hall breathing down their necks to make  a move. I refered to this above as "Opportunity".  I have little faith that anyone in the Mayor's office is smart enough to wait out the earliest discussions at ATT, because (we all know) politicians have to get their faces out in front of the camera early and often to make their points.... as though they're "on top of the matter."  

Smeags, you're right that no place is 100% secure, but let's face the fact that this facility is 'low hanging fruit'.  Forget the fact that I personally don't find the building attractive. That doesn't matter. But who here can say that this incident didn't hurt the telecom infrastructure to the tune of XXX dollars?  So what to do?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Not sure the point you're trying to make above, but ATT will make their decision in their interest... which you can bet will be financial. 

I can hear it now. When the next bomb goes off next to one of the many downtown ATT switching hubs because of some nut (no need to be in Afghanistan), the public reactions will be generally along the following lines, depending on ATT's response to this crime. Pretty simple to envision the options here. 

1. Why did they stay in that location and make themselves and neighbors vulnerable? High liability! 

2. Why didn't they move fast enough in response to the clear threat? This doesn't have to be in Afghanistan!

3. Why did they leave the neighborhood and expose the businesses remaining?  This one absolves them of liability in nearly all incidents. 

There are perhaps a couple other scenarios, but they're really on the stay vs. move propositions. I deal in risk mitigation for a living. So I have to anticipate (in a make believe world) future litigation against my client. Can you imagine how many times a week I hear the 'criticism' that lawyers always choose the option that avoids the problem... as if we want the confrontation. In this case, I'm quite certain that ATT is already weighing the benefits of staying in that building. As noted above it would cost tens of millions ($) to move. And the benefits would not show at present to such a move. It's clear that the real estate at that location is worth a lot of money. Conservatives who support limited government (and I count myself among them) would criticize a giveaway. YOu didn't see me argue in favor of a giveaway to ATT, one of the largest beneficiaries of government largesse in modern history. But the liability of NOT moving is a cost in itself. I'm sure Mayor Bush Brows or his successor would agree that they don't want to see another attempt to bomb that facility. And I doubt Afghanistan ever crosses their mind in such considerations. 

In short, to ignore the opportunity for helping a corporate citizen to make a move in the interest of public safety would be completely an abdication of their responsibility. And I guarantee you (if they haven't already begun talks) they will be discussing a move to a location that's more secure. Yes, there are always going to be the usual snipers who will lash out against what they call 'corporate welfare', but what will you say the next time a crazy bombs Second Avenue and actually kills other people?   

And guess who makes probability forecasts regarding weather, I do. 

Again, why would AT&T have moved locations even prior to this when all infrastructure is in place and relatively safe? This bombing knocked things offline for a few days but the building itself sounds pretty sound despite inflicted damage. I just don't see it happening, not when the risk is still low and was already incredible low prior to. But you also did say a page before that you would be "all-in" on governments giving money to do so.  This is also where local governments & agencies need to have redundancies that aren't reliant on that system as well, so that's not all on AT&T

Most locations aren't exactly in financial shape to help a titan in the telecomm world move. Even if they were, the process would take many, many years and you're completely vulnerable the entire time anyways. Doing this would require a ton of construction across many  areas to varying degrees of difficulty, as we may be about to see with water & sewer lines because of this incident. 

The risk of another bombing on 2nd Avenue is ridiculously low, just like you getting hit & killed going to check your mail any given day. You can try to defend & fortify until there's nothing left, and the risk STILL would not be zero to another occurrence. 

 

Now, back on to non-terrorism regarding AT&T

This block of 2nd Avenue North will be rebuilt & be just fine, with the AT&T station still there across the street. You'll likely see AT&T build some sort of redundant facility somewhere else, or they may do nothing at all. When the risk is so inherently low, the costs can not & will not be incurred because it's makes no business sense & does nothing in terms of profit. It's really awful for this to have happened, but knowing the capital & actual ability to rebuild as close to prior-to is available at some point, brings a native like me some solace. granted I see stuff getting blown to bits every day, so i may be a touch numb to it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Don's point above... Yes... that may be a big problem. It would still not relieve any heat from ATT. 

If I were a betting man, I'd put some serious Benjamins down on the likelihood that the company has already begun an assessment of all facilities in CBDs. I know they're in crisis mode already. 

To Nashruggers point... I'd love to go against you in court based on the arguments you've made. Dude, weather is what's considered an Act of God. A nut with a bomb is not. 

Edited by MLBrumby
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

To Don's point above... Yes... that may be a big problem. It would still not relieve any heat from ATT. 

If I were a betting man, I'd put some serious Benjamins down on the likelihood that the company has already begun an assessment of all facilities in CBDs. I know they're in crisis mode already. 

To Nashruggers point... I'd love to go against you in court based on the arguments you've made. Dude, weather is what's considered an Act of God. A nut with a bomb is not. 

Okay, that's a cute take about wanting to go to court and all, but what I do is still risk mitigation because I hold some form of liability & responsibility. So AT&T is liable for some crazy dude blowing stuff up? Yeah, good luck trying to litigate that because unless they had actual & substantial lapses in safeguards & security for their structure, it would be very hard to win that case.  If that's your line of thinking, then that would apply to the designers & builders of the WTC not taking into account fully-fueled jet liners crashing into their buildings & the resulting collapse-related fatalities being their fault. That literally makes zero sense. It seems like you're trying to blame AT&T for their location, then being bombed, that leads to this city block looking like Kabul on a bad day. 

Edited by NashRugger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictably a comment on a public/private solution to enhancing public safety has been criticized as corporate welfare, as if there's nothing but handouts in the offing (that was addressed above).  Can't blame you though, as that's too often the method used by municipalities. And there's understandably a lack of imagination among people who don't assess risk as a practice or profession. I assure you the lawsuits are being filed as we speak, and not all against ATT. Liability is of course a specific matter. The lawsuit alone would open certain records to "discovery" to certain discussions on security of this and/or similar facilities. ATT does not want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, enough

There will always be a a low hanging fruit (vulnerability)

Many people want compensation for the 3 days without internet; businesses have a much bigger argument

A decision will be made regarding the AT&T building. We can debate all we want, but we will not affect the outcome. But we will need to support it

Second Avenue will be back, just need some time and TLC

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Tennessean. 

The Tennessean: Nashville bombing: Two buildings destroyed, several more unsafe

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2021/01/01/nashville-bombing-second-avenue-two-buildings-destroyed-several-more-unsafe/4105835001/

There article has specific addresses listed in the article.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has a federal disaster area *still* not been declared?

Risking delving too much into politics, is this part of the Trump administration's declared vendetta against Democrat controlled cities, a decision that this doesn't meet the criteria, or just neglect? Didn't Gov. Lee, one of the President's political allies, submit the request?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nathan_in_the_UK said:

Has a federal disaster area *still* not been declared?

Risking delving too much into politics, is this part of the Trump administration's declared vendetta against Democrat controlled cities, a decision that this doesn't meet the criteria, or just neglect? Didn't Gov. Lee, one of the President's political allies, submit the request?

He did, and Marsha Blackburn, another one of his political allies allegedly talked to him directly about it.
 

Outside of the initial statement put out by the WH on the day of the bombing, Trump hasn’t said anything at all about it, which is just absolutely bizarre. 

Edited by downtownresident
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert but I as said before as first glance, best case is two buildings coming down and worst case is four, IMO. The Lofts at 160 where the blue and white columns are look to be structurally sound from the outside, but there is no way of telling what kind of water damage they sustained from broken pipes. 

The building at 166 Second where Rodizio and the Melting Pot were, looks to have bad damage on the top floor and again there is no way of telling how bad the interior damage is. This is one of the four that may have to come down. The next building going north is a total loss and will have to be brought down as is the next building going north. I think the addresses on those two buildings are 176 &178 Second. The next building has top floor damage that may have to be brought down.

Again we have no idea what the interiors look like, so it could be a lot worse.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is depressing. Those pictures look like a war zone. I hope that the buildings that are knocked down can be rebuilt. I’d hate to see an empty lot like the one across from Hooters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TNinVB said:

This is depressing. Those pictures look like a war zone. I hope that the buildings that are knocked down can be rebuilt. I’d hate to see an empty lot like the one across from Hooters. 

One would think Metro will provide incentives for that lot to be redeveloped simultaneously, or at least we could all hope. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NashRugger said:

One would think Metro will provide incentives for that lot to be redeveloped simultaneously, or at least we could all hope. 

I’d bet that the empty lot will end up being a staging area for the rebuilding process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.