Issues Confronting Nashville's Growth & General Discussion

[PruneTracy]

1 minute ago, andywildman said:

If you only eliminate SFH in pockets, you would absolutely see that speculation in that area. But if every residential lot in the city became eligible for 4 or 6 homes, the displacement would not be drastic, because we'd have more supply of eligible lots than we'd have current demand. The resulting new construction units that do get built would be less expensive (per home) than the existing new construction in Nashville (which usually results in building 1 or 2 homes per residential lot.

The person behind the account at twitter.com/pushtheneedle illustrates this concept nicely:

It doesn't cost the same amount per square foot to build a single-family home as it does a mid-rise building, nor does the contractor take a flat $200,000 profit on either. I'm not necessarily arguing against the concept but the assumptions used to justify it aren't anywhere close to being realistic.

[Bos2Nash]

9 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

opening up SFH areas to multifamily on corner lots and larger streets while retaining single family character in between. 

This is what I would say is a viable solution. 

To me the SFH zoning in most cities aren't there to specifically build new housing, but to protect the existing, many times established neighbors from being gentrified out of the area. The city isn't promoting new SFH building so much as protecting those that already exist. It is attempting to work within the market. There is also a sort of hypocrisy within the SFH world, because the SFH is so engrained in the "American Dream" that many folks that have the money for bigger developments don't want their SFH neighborhood to be impacted by such a development. 

8 minutes ago, andywildman said:

If you only eliminate SFH in pockets, you would absolutely see that speculation in that area. But if every residential lot in the city became eligible for 4 or 6 homes, the displacement would not be drastic, because we'd have more supply of eligible lots than we'd have current demand. The resulting new construction units that do get built would be less expensive (per home) than the existing new construction in Nashville (which usually results in building 1 or 2 homes per residential lot.

The person behind the account at twitter.com/pushtheneedle illustrates this concept nicely:

Now we are getting into the "comfort" factor of the gentrification topic. Things need to evolve, yes, but consideration to established folks also need to be taken into account. Otherwise we just enable urban renewal and gentrification. Take East Nashville for instance, the whole reason the HPR laws went into effect is because developers were buying up neighborhood homes, demolishing them, spending months and months of construction time (which needs to be considered within these areas) only to building something that sticks out like a sore thumb. By allowing this type of development within established neighborhoods you are welcoming that kind of displacement. 

If we say walk a middle road where pockets of SFH homes are protected via zoning policies, and then places like thoroughfares, neighborhood corners are allowed to build bigger (say up to 10 units) we are balancing the world of development and resident. Also this pulls ridiculous construction out of the established neighborhoods and keeps it at smaller construction thus reducing discomfort. 

[Nashvillain]

3 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

This is what I would say is a viable solution. 

To me the SFH zoning in most cities aren't there to specifically build new housing, but to protect the existing, many times established neighbors from being gentrified out of the area. The city isn't promoting new SFH building so much as protecting those that already exist. It is attempting to work within the market. There is also a sort of hypocrisy within the SFH world, because the SFH is so engrained in the "American Dream" that many folks that have the money for bigger developments don't want their SFH neighborhood to be impacted by such a development. 

Now we are getting into the "comfort" factor of the gentrification topic. Things need to evolve, yes, but consideration to established folks also need to be taken into account. Otherwise we just enable urban renewal and gentrification. Take East Nashville for instance, the whole reason the HPR laws went into effect is because developers were buying up neighborhood homes, demolishing them, spending months and months of construction time (which needs to be considered within these areas) only to building something that sticks out like a sore thumb. By allowing this type of development within established neighborhoods you are welcoming that kind of displacement. 

If we say walk a middle road where pockets of SFH homes are protected via zoning policies, and then places like thoroughfares, neighborhood corners are allowed to build bigger (say up to 10 units) we are balancing the world of development and resident. Also this pulls ridiculous construction out of the established neighborhoods and keeps it at smaller construction thus reducing discomfort. 

I agree SFH zoning protects home owners but would argue that it's not meant to protect people in distressed areas who may get pushed out, but rather to protect the wealth of homeowners in areas that have access to the levers of power. Which is why it's a racket that needs to be abolished. As an example, in Nashville areas of previously SFH zoning that have been upzoned tend to be in poor neighborhoods with a lot of renters rather than homeowners. Areas like Edgehill, North Nashville, and pockets of East Nashville for example. As a result, you see long time residents getting evicted and pushed out of the area.

[andywildman]

15 minutes ago, Mr_Bond said:

Get rid of the 'small Southern city' regulations and let the builders build.

As long as they build sidewalks!

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, Nashvillain said:

I agree SFH zoning protects home owners but would argue that it's not meant to protect people in distressed areas who may get pushed out, but rather to protect the wealth of homeowners in areas that have access to the levers of power. Which is why it's a racket that needs to be abolished. As an example, in Nashville areas of previously SFH zoning that have been upzoned tend to be in poor neighborhoods with a lot of renters rather than homeowners. Areas like Edgehill, North Nashville, and pockets of East Nashville for example. As a result, you see long time residents getting evicted and pushed out of the area.

That may be your perception. I view it from the stance of eliminating it everywhere would only further harm distressed areas because that is where land will be cheapest in terms of the powers that finance construction. Wealthy parts of town would not be redeveloped because that land is much more valuable than the so called "distressed" land. 

for the most part, we are saying the same thing. Essentially what this comes back to is the archaic Land Use approach to zoning rather than a Form-Based use. With the form-based code it is very easy to outline where forms can be and integrate them into the neighborhoods. That being said, it's not like we will allow developers carte blanche and say allow a 10-story building at the corner of an area that has no more than 3 stories. the sub-districts and overlays within the form-based code protect all that.

[nashvylle]

4 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

That may be your perception. I view it from the stance of eliminating it everywhere would only further harm distressed areas because that is where land will be cheapest in terms of the powers that finance construction. Wealthy parts of town would not be redeveloped because that land is much more valuable than the so called "distressed" land. 

for the most part, we are saying the same thing. Essentially what this comes back to is the archaic Land Use approach to zoning rather than a Form-Based use. With the form-based code it is very easy to outline where forms can be and integrate them into the neighborhoods. That being said, it's not like we will allow developers carte blanche and say allow a 10-story building at the corner of an area that has no more than 3 stories. the sub-districts and overlays within the form-based code protect all that.

What is wrong with a 10-story building in district of 3-story buildings? shadows (I like them cuz it’s hot everywhere)? traffic (helps emphasize need for mass transit)?

[Bos2Nash]

18 hours ago, nashvylle said:

What is wrong with a 10-story building in district of 3-story buildings? shadows (I like them cuz it’s hot everywhere)? traffic (helps emphasize need for mass transit)?

It's all about context. In a world of 3-story structures – especially at a street corner within a neighborhood – it would stick out like a sore thumb and not work within the context of the built environment. If there are other building approaching 10 stories (like 6+ stories) then it is contextual. 

[Bos2Nash]

Not to change the subject, but healthcare is always an issue confronting any state/city. A study by WalletHub ranks Tennessee as the 35th best state for Healthcare. This is a culmination of scores based on being ranked 26th in Cost, 31st in Access and 44th in Outcomes. An interesting factoid that I also noticed in the results were ranked 51st for Dentists per Capita which plays a factor in being ranked 47th in the country for adults who had not visited the dentist in the last year.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-best-health-care/23457

[smeagolsfree]

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

Not to change the subject, but healthcare is always an issue confronting any state/city. A study by WalletHub ranks Tennessee as the 35th best state for Healthcare. This is a culmination of scores based on being ranked 26th in Cost, 31st in Access and 44th in Outcomes. An interesting factoid that I also noticed in the results were ranked 51st for Dentists per Capita which plays a factor in being ranked 47th in the country for adults who had not visited the dentist in the last year.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-best-health-care/23457

I guess that’s what they meant when they said “you sure do have a purdy mouth” in The Movie Deliverance. Never seen any good dental work. West VA/ TN KY not much difference I guess when it comes to dental care.

[Armacing]

On 8/18/2021 at 12:13 PM, Bos2Nash said:

All three of these cities also have massive sprawl, massive highways and massive traffic problems. Also, I wouldn't really say these are cities businesses and people are flocking to. 

The only reason you wouldn't say people are flocking to Atlanta/Dallas/Houston is because that would be admitting you are wrong.  But regardless of what you say, to argue that people and businesses have not been flocking to Atlanta/Dallas/Houston for the past 30 years is to deny the obvious.  Although the growth patterns of these cities might offend the sensibilities of someone such as yourself who believes in the divine omniscience of zoning regulators, the people living in these cities with affordable housing and minimal zoning are clearly satisfied with the situation.

On 8/18/2021 at 12:30 PM, Bos2Nash said:

but to me a risk that could very quickly be realized is the land speculation of buying up so many of the homes set off the thoroughfares and displacing those residents on top of pricing them out of the area because there are no affordable homes that are being built in their place.

Oh, heaven forbid the current residents of those houses would receive any benefit from rising property values (/sarcasm)! ...Because you're saying the land becomes more useful to developers when zoning is removed - which means the land has become more valuable due to increased economic utility.  I suppose you support the current system where developers buy out home owners at low prices and then get the zoning changed before they develop the land?  That way the developer gets the financial benefit of land with increased utility/value to the market, right?  We wouldn't want current home owners to be tempted to sell their land at inflated prices to developers if we remove zoning, would we?  Because then the home owners would get the money and not the developers - and that's a big No-No in your book, right?  

.... Also, since when can we describe someone who voluntarily sells their house because they received a good offer from a developer as a "displaced resident"?

....Also, if someone builds a mid-rise apartment next to a house, how does that "price them out of the area"?  How does that work exactly?  Because property valuations go up and property taxes go up?  Because if that's what you're going to say I have bad news for you:  That's not developers pricing people out of the area - that's the government taxing people out of the area.

[Armacing]

On 8/18/2021 at 12:36 PM, Nashvillain said:

I just don't see how mandating SFH where there is actual demand and competition for housing ever results in lower prices. 

You hit the nail on the head right there, Nashvillian.  The fact that zoning prohibits that high-density housing is proof that there is demand for it in the market.  When that demand is not met with supply, then we are in a restricted housing supply situation - - thus: prices go up.  Really not that hard to understand.

[Armacing]

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

It's all about context. In a world of 3-story structures – especially at a street corner within a neighborhood – it would stick out like a sore thumb and not work within the context of the built environment. If there are other building approaching 10 stories (like 6+ stories) then it is contextual. 

I strongly encourage you to go visit the guys living inside a cardboard box under the James Robertson Parkway bridge and inform them that their box "is out of context and sticks out like a sore thumb".

Observe, ladies and gentlemen, the philosophical nexus between zoning and nimbyism.  For them, aesthetic is reason enough to condemn their fellow citizens to poverty and homelessness.

In contrast, in a free market with respect for property rights, a person's opinion about what buildings "look good" ceases to have any bearing on the lives of others right at the property line.

[Bos2Nash]

It really is response like these three previous that make people not want to have conversations, because certain folks feel the need to try and attack posters personally about their beliefs in which they disagree with. 

I am very content with my knowledge, beliefs, career within the Planning/Design/Construction world and how my research within my chosen field has led me to those beliefs. I don't my political beliefs get in the way. I am VERY comfortable in how I am able to look at the entire life cycle/cost cycle of things and work to understand the ever evolving topic of gentrification. Zoning – whether folks like it or not – works towards reducing such effects. Is it perfect, absolutely not. Is it necessary? Abso-freakin-lutely! People who don't believe that can believe that, that isn't my problem, I'm comfortable enough in my stance to not go after your personal beliefs. 

[Armacing]

3 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

It really is response like these three previous that make people not want to have conversations, because certain folks feel the need to try and attack posters personally about their beliefs in which they disagree with. ...I'm comfortable enough in my stance to not go after your personal beliefs. 

Just to be clear, I never attacked you as a person, only your system of beliefs and the arguments you put forward.  But we can leave it at that and move on to the next topic.

Also, I welcome any and all critiques of my personal belief because *I* am comfortable enough to have my beliefs questioned without taking it personally.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Armacing

[andywildman]

6 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Not to change the subject, but healthcare is always an issue confronting any state/city. A study by WalletHub ranks Tennessee as the 35th best state for Healthcare. This is a culmination of scores based on being ranked 26th in Cost, 31st in Access and 44th in Outcomes. An interesting factoid that I also noticed in the results were ranked 51st for Dentists per Capita which plays a factor in being ranked 47th in the country for adults who had not visited the dentist in the last year.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-best-health-care/23457

Not sure if it’s Covid backlog or something else but my dentist has a 9+ month waitlist. Anecdotally, they were having trouble hiring hygienists back at the start of the year too.

[smeagolsfree]

I do think a lot of the fault of gentrification lies with the council members themselves in certain districts where this has happened. I do know in Craigs district the former council member seemed to be making deals with every developer that came along getting every project approved he could. So all of the blame is not with the developers it lies with the zoning as there are success stories around town where the council members stepped up and stopped gentrification by redevelopment, however they could not stop gentrification by property values going up. 

If someone wants to sell their home at what they think is a fair price then, no one is twisting their arm to do it. You are getting higher prices in real estate because it is closer to the core. It is simple economics regardless of how it is zoned. You can try to stop gentrification, but you can’t force someone to stay if they do not want to. If zoning is changed afterward then so be it.

I know you have your views and I have known most of you guys for a long time and know where you are politically , but there are always going to be guys, living in cardboard boxes under the bridge and unfair , unscrupulous developers, bad zoning laws, etc. You have had bad people, poor people, dishonest people from the very beginning and to think you can stop that now is a joke. It’s is human nature it seems to hateful and bad to one another and if we can’t see that after the past few years I guess we are all blind. WE can’t solve all of the problems here. Again, be nice like I said and keep it civil. This is not a debate on ethics. It is a question of what obstacles Nashville is going to face. Maybe you can suggest SOME SOLUTIONS instead of bickering.

Also some of the zoning overlays in Metro suck and are ass backwards, IMO. But I am old school and would rather see dense neighborhoods closer to these main roads with much higher less height restrictions. I don’t mind the 10 story next to the 3 story. It happens in much larger cities all the time, but I think there should be minimum height requirements.

[pkinpum]

On 8/18/2021 at 9:25 PM, smeagolsfree said:

The only logic is this; the state passed this in order to keep Nashville from doing something they wanted to do as a city to help with affordable housing, thus there is no logic to the state when they complain about the federal government interfering in their ability to govern their own affairs. slope unblocked 

So in reality the LOGIC = Hypocrisy!

I really love it. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by pkinpum

[markhollin]

41 minutes ago, pkinpum said:

I really love it. 

Welcome to the forum, pkinpum!  : )

[Bos2Nash]

10 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I do know in Craigs district the former council member seemed to be making deals with every developer that came along getting every project approved he could. So all of the blame is not with the developers it lies with the zoning as there are success stories around town where the council members stepped up and stopped gentrification by redevelopment, however they could not stop gentrification by property values going up. 

I never dealt with the previous council member, but I heard horror stories about how he would basically encourage every single development to go the SP route rather than possibly upzoning and would even go as far as recommending developments that had been recommended for denial. 

Sometimes I wonder if the SP zoning approach is a good or bad zoning avenue for the city. I think within the core and along major roadways, it is a great way for a city and developer to work hand in hand on what is actually feasible because both the developer and the planning department are not perfect in their approach. But as one moves away from those major roadways and the core I wonder how effective the SP is. Rather, if a parcel were to work to an upzone, it would create a precedant for the area and allow for a natural development of context to develop within that area.

10 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

If someone wants to sell their home at what they think is a fair price then, no one is twisting their arm to do it. You are getting higher prices in real estate because it is closer to the core. It is simple economics regardless of how it is zoned. You can try to stop gentrification, but you can’t force someone to stay if they do not want to. If zoning is changed afterward then so be it.

100% agree. And even though folks who sell their home and are priced out of the community are counted in displacement/gentrification numbers, it will always be 100% their choice. Honestly, that is the easy part of the discussion. The hard part to me, it is if they are doing it because they are moving because their life is leading them there or if they no longer feel comfortable in the neighborhood due to contextual changes. Obviously, this is a very subjective part of the gentrification conversation – which is why the conversation is not easily solved – but economics are not the end all be all of the conversation.

[smeagolsfree]

Unfortunately economics is  a lot of the problem when the poor are pushed out of the neighborhoods because they cannot afford the increase in taxes due to property tax increase due to increasing property values, but this is exactly the reverse of the opportunity they had when the “white flight” occurred in the 70s. However property values went down. I am not trying to place blame on any one group here. All I am say is that this is a cycle that repeats.

There are working class white neighborhoods that are being gentrified as well as African American neighborhoods so this is not a race issue but a class issue. The Nations is a prime example along with WeHo of working class neighborhoods being gentrified and there is no way to stop this process. The 12 South area kept their homes along with the 5 Points area without a lot of huge multi-family projects going in on every corner. The zoning was in place to keep the SFH there. Free market took over and the results were the same.

[smeagolsfree]

To further this conversation with the Nations and WeHo there are two different models. In the Nations there was no overlay at all, so developers came in and bought the SFH’s and pretty much built a new neighborhood. No one was forced out other than the renters. Now granted a lot of these residents were in rental homes, but that can’t be regulated by a government nor should it be. It is not the job of government to regulate what a property owner can do with their property and it has been debated over and over on this board. There are few exceptions to this rule. When the development first started in this area the council person at the time was only interested in working with the local collision repair businesses keeping them in business and pretty much ignoring the rest of the district.

WeHo, the area has changed in a different way as there is a lot of multi-family housing going in with a very active council person taking an active role and at least having a plan for better or worse.

The results are all the same. Resident displaced !

[smeagolsfree]

So in hindsight I am not sure anyone can do anything about the gentrification issues that are confronting Nashville. So I somewhat retract my statement about it being the council memebers fault! I don’t think any amount of zoning would help stop it. Now there are certain things they can do such as slow the STR in certain parts of those areas as those seem to be at the root cause of some of the problems. Right now the closer you area to the core the higher the property value is going to be.

When and if we ever get a VIABLE mass transit system, the closer you are to the main lines the higher the property values will be. It does not matter if it is SFH or what. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. SO when and if the routes of a new system are laid out those properties are going to be in high demand and the same will happen again regardless of where they are.

This is where zoning and mass transit will have to be working together to make housing options more affordable and plentiful.

[Armacing]

15 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

So in hindsight I am not sure anyone can do anything about the gentrification issues that are confronting Nashville. So I somewhat retract my statement about it being the council memebers fault! I don’t think any amount of zoning would help stop it. Now there are certain things they can do such as slow the STR in certain parts of those areas as those seem to be at the root cause of some of the problems. Right now the closer you area to the core the higher the property value is going to be.

I don't really see gentrification as an issue as long as the former residents (who are leaving) were fairly compensated for their land when they sold it.  My only issue is when those residents get screwed on the way out because they don't have the political/financial abilities to extract the maximum market price for their land.

So I 100% agree that you can't stop the gentrification.  Given that, the goal should be to ensure all parties come out as winners during the gentrification process, not have groups of winners and losers.  Right now the current low-income residents are the losers because of zoning and tax policies promulgated by Metro.  I will get off my soap box...

 

[smeagolsfree]

The tax issue is also compounded by the fact that the property value in the area they are living in has skyrocketed because of the location. For instance a lot alone in Lockland Springs from what I heard from a friend that lives there went for 300k. They could not afford to rebuild after the the tornado because insurance would not give them what they needed so they had to leave the area. Now the accessed property value is because of the property value around it, not because Metro rose the property values. 

They did get a fair price for the lot , but did have to leave the area because they could not rebuild, probably because they were underinsured.

[Bos2Nash]

I don't think anyone has ever implied that we can stop gentrification (that has certainly not been my point). Think like Climate Change, we cannot stop it, but we can make changes to reduce it or possibly slow it down. The idea within the analogy is eliminating zoning, would essentially be like eliminating the EPA – which I understand some folks may want just that. It is all about how can we as a society ease some of that burden and so far the solution has been through zoning policies. Whether that is SFH zoning, Inclusionary Zoning, or a lack of zoning they are all tactics working towards the same problem.

If we want to look from a sheerly economic standpoint, the SFH zoning probably helped many lower-income folks in this cycle because a SFH zoned house as close to the core as Lockeland Springs or Edgefield is a very desirable piece of land. Also, an upzoned piece of land is very valuable because a developer can extract a great ROI out of it. The problem then becomes that the folks making the choice to sell are now priced out of the community because everybody wants to be in a desirable neighborhood and then they move further out where their money can buy more of what they are looking for, so sure the Zoning can hurt them there, but also the desirable location and market for SFH close to the core hurts them. There is also economic machines in place that limit the property tax burden for elderly or fixed income folks, so the property tax discussion gets less important as we talked about the more established residents that have been in their houses for 30+ years.

Add in the social aspect (which is more subjective and that is why people go to school and study these very topics) of all this where developers – or individual families – buy a lot and build something that does not blend with the neighborhood (think size more than form) and the folks that have lived in the area feel like they are no longer living in a space they feel is home, that is part of the gentrification discussion. That is one of the reasons I say a Form-Based Zoning approach is alot better than the Land-Use Zoning we currently have. It is also much more realistic than saying remove all the zoning. A number of us on here have suggested it as alternative means to moving us forwards.

Lastly, while it wasn't brought up until Ron mentioned it. Race has always played a big part of gentrification. The "better neighborhoods" were desirable so their values would go up, leading to those parts of cities/towns gentrifying. Also, lenders and cities practiced "Redlining" that made tracts of land undevelopable because they were in less than desirable areas. These practices artificially suppressed property values because nobody could borrow money for that land. As we have come to realize these are atrocious practices, those tracts of land in what is actually very valuable (but weren't due to the racial populations) are being bought up at way under market value (now starting to balance off, but we aren't there, but also because infrastructure was less of a concern there) and those residents one are 1) not being able to extract the actual value of their property and 2) their neighborhood is no longer what they have known for most of their lives and is no longer comfortable. 

On a more pointed note, I personally find the Nations to basically be one big subdivision where the houses all look the same. There are definitely some pockets within it that are great to visit, but I just don't find living there desirable, and that's why I don't. It was a choice we made based on the feel of the area. We also chose East Nashville because we liked the feel and charm of the diversified styles that are in the area. That being said, there is a certain flair that WeHo has about it with it's brick style homes and renovations of the more industrial buildings.