The Old Candy Factory @ World's Fair Park

[nashvol85]

I read in the Daily Beacon today that developers want to tear down the old Candy Factory and the "Painted Ladies" next to it to build condos/retail. It is less expensive to tear the buildings down and start over than it is to remodel them. Unfortunately, the city council voted 8-1 in favor of letting the development happen.

The Candy factory is currently being used as an art display gallery as far as I know.

I'll give y'all more details if I can find them.

[ATLBrain]

Pardon me, but "Typical Knoxville". Geez, what little bit is old and full of character, they tear down and replace. I really wish that place would wake up. They only need to drive 100 miles south to see how different things could be. As it is now, I think they're driving only as far as Turkey Creek.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Any pictures of the building ? I haven't walked around downtown Knoxville since the World's Fair of '82...

[HABANERO7]

I am East Tennesse born and raised. I've spent all of my life here with countless trips to Knoxville. It amazes me how a town so large can have such a narrow vision of development... Here is a comparison to think about using Chattanooga as a counterpart since both towns are close in size.

To me Chattanooga is a small, large city with a focus on saving and making the past better, Knoxville is a large small town with its eyes on tax growth no matter how reckless on the past it might be.

[Guest]

As a recent transplant to Nashville from Knoxville I can offer some insights on the situation.

While the above statements accurately describe Knoxville in the past, Knoxville since 2000 has been rapidly restoring and populating the 'core'. TIF and other incentives have been lavished upon both local and transplant developers. The Gay street corridor is revitalized from the river through the 100 block. The south bank has proposals for condos and retail and the Market Square revitalization is a big success. Yes Knoxville has lost a lot of historical structures of the years, as have most cities including Nashville. There is a balance that every city tries to attain between development and preservation and Knoxville is no better or worse than most.

The Candy Factory debate had been laughable and the 8-1 vote reflected the lack of support in the community for the city to continue to basically pay for the maintenance and upkeep on the structure while keeping it off the tax roles. The most vocal dissenters were members of fringe and cultural groups that used the rent free space for meetings, productions and office space. They were offered the opportunity to purchase the building from the city but were unable to secure the funds. I say preserve the building if you can but not at the expense of growth. There is a balance.

I must speak to Chattanooga's revitalization of downtown through the 90's and continuing today. My company was responsible for IT support to the CCVB and Chamber as well as Riverside Partners and the Ingram Group during the 90's and we were able to share in the excitement of the time. You are correct that there was a great stock of relatively dense urban fabric in the core. The reason for the great building stock was explained to me by the head of the CCVB. He stated that Chattanooga had been is such disrepair and the reputation was so bad from the 70's that there were minimal changes at all in the core. Few new developers wanted to build anything located in downtown and thus there was never a real threat to much of the building stock. Chattanooga also has numerous wealth residents that (to their credit) put their money where their heart were and started non-profit foundations to spur environmental and development organization to get the ball rolling. As we can all see today these enterprises were very successful! And finally Knoxville has developed along I-40/I-75 more so than Chattanooga has along its main arteries. The reason is evident; the massive hills that surround Chattanooga dictated to a large extend the density of the

[nashvol85]

The Candy Factory debate had been laughable and the 8-1 vote reflected the lack of support in the community for the city to continue to basically pay for the maintenance and upkeep on the structure while keeping it off the tax roles. The most vocal dissenters were members of fringe and cultural groups that used the rent free space for meetings, productions and office space. They were offered the opportunity to purchase the building from the city but were unable to secure the funds. I say preserve the building if you can but not at the expense of growth. There is a balance.

From what I understand, the Painted Ladies close by will also be razed...

I'll take some pictures of the area so people can catch a glimpse of what they'll be missing.

This building would be suitable for loft appartments, I believe...the city should try to offer incentives for a developer to do that.

[Hankster]

As a recent transplant to Nashville from Knoxville I can offer some insights on the situation.

While the above statements accurately describe Knoxville in the past, Knoxville since 2000 has been rapidly restoring and populating the 'core'. TIF and other incentives have been lavished upon both local and transplant developers. The Gay street corridor is revitalized from the river through the 100 block. The south bank has proposals for condos and retail and the Market Square revitalization is a big success. Yes Knoxville has lost a lot of historical structures of the years, as have most cities including Nashville. There is a balance that every city tries to attain between development and preservation and Knoxville is no better or worse than most.

The Candy Factory debate had been laughable and the 8-1 vote reflected the lack of support in the community for the city to continue to basically pay for the maintenance and upkeep on the structure while keeping it off the tax roles. The most vocal dissenters were members of fringe and cultural groups that used the rent free space for meetings, productions and office space. They were offered the opportunity to purchase the building from the city but were unable to secure the funds. I say preserve the building if you can but not at the expense of growth. There is a balance.

I must speak to Chattanooga's revitalization of downtown through the 90's and continuing today. My company was responsible for IT support to the CCVB and Chamber as well as Riverside Partners and the Ingram Group during the 90's and we were able to share in the excitement of the time. You are correct that there was a great stock of relatively dense urban fabric in the core. The reason for the great building stock was explained to me by the head of the CCVB. He stated that Chattanooga had been is such disrepair and the reputation was so bad from the 70's that there were minimal changes at all in the core. Few new developers wanted to build anything located in downtown and thus there was never a real threat to much of the building stock. Chattanooga also has numerous wealth residents that (to their credit) put their money where their heart were and started non-profit foundations to spur environmental and development organization to get the ball rolling. As we can all see today these enterprises were very successful! And finally Knoxville has developed along I-40/I-75 more so than Chattanooga has along its main arteries. The reason is evident; the massive hills that surround Chattanooga dictated to a large extend the density of the