Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jice

Office boom centers on Williamson County

Recommended Posts

In the Tennessean today: Office boom centers on Williamson County

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../603010378/1044

Be sure to check out the 'Related Media' on the side.

This really kinda aggravates me... there is more office space under construction in the Cool Springs/Brentwood area than all the rest of the Nashville area combined, according to the chart.

Not to mention... there is more office space already existing in the Cool Springs/Brentwood area than there exists in downtown, but yet downtown office space is actually cheaper.

Why do developers target the CS/Brentwood area? How do we get them to target downtown instead?

EDIT: Sorry smeagolsfree, didnt realize you had already posted this lol... oh well... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In the Tennessean today: Office boom centers on Williamson County

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../603010378/1044

Be sure to check out the 'Related Media' on the side.

This really kinda aggravates me... there is more office space under construction in the Cool Springs/Brentwood area than all the rest of the Nashville area combined, according to the chart.

Not to mention... there is more office space already existing in the Cool Springs/Brentwood area than there exists in downtown, but yet downtown office space is actually cheaper.

Why do developers target the CS/Brentwood area? How do we get them to target downtown instead?

DeJaVu! :wacko:

It seems I posted this earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops lol... sorry.

LOL, it wasn't on this site

anyways, i take this story as good and bad. The good is that I am heppy Nashville is getting si much office space. The bas is that its going to places like Williamson County and the burbs. It needs to be in Nashville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyways, i take this story as good and bad. The good is that I am heppy Nashville is getting si much office space. The bas is that its going to places like Williamson County and the burbs. It needs to be in Nashville.

I completely agree... it is definitely good that the demand for office space is so high. I just don't understand why more developers don't give downtown a shot. Maybe SunTrust will start somethin? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, it wasn't on this site

anyways, i take this story as good and bad. The good is that I am heppy Nashville is getting si much office space. The bas is that its going to places like Williamson County and the burbs. It needs to be in Nashville.

I agree totally. It great that the Metro office market is growing so much, but I think that suburban office construction is possibly the greatest attributor to suburban sprawl that there is. Look what happened in Atlanta when they built all those office complexes along I-285. I see exactly the same thing happening in Nashville. I think it's the main reason why cities such as Spring Hill are growing like crazy! How distressing! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Sorry smeagolsfree, didnt realize you had already posted this lol... oh well...

Doesnt bother me. I just want to keep the thread going in that Williamson County Thread that had everyone so upset. :lol::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally. It great that the Metro office market is growing so much, but I think that suburban office construction is possibly the greatest attributor to suburban sprawl that there is. Look what happened in Atlanta when they built all those office complexes along I-285. I see exactly the same thing happening in Nashville. I think it's the main reason why cities such as Spring Hill are growing like crazy! How distressing! :w00t:

Exactly! And unless something is done, before you know it there will be office parks in Columbia and Manchester spread all the way out. It just annoys me that some suburbs are so desparate for attention and economic success that they are willing to basically whore themselves out to whoever wants to come and build there, no matter what the consequences to that city or surrounding cities (or natural areas) are. It's almost as if they are saying 'Yes, PLEASE come build here instead of Nashville! We don't have the standards and self-respect that Nashville does! We'll let you do anything you want as long as you pick us!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! And unless something is done, before you know it there will be office parks in Columbia and Manchester spread all the way out. It just annoys me that some suburbs are so desparate for attention and economic success that they are willing to basically whore themselves out to whoever wants to come and build there, no matter what the consequences to that city or surrounding cities (or natural areas) are. It's almost as if they are saying 'Yes, PLEASE come build here instead of Nashville! We don't have the standards and self-respect that Nashville does! We'll let you do anything you want as long as you pick us!'

[/quote

'Xactly, forget about preserving history or protecting wildlife, it's a competition for quantity not quality... especially between the burbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite sad to destroy more rural landscape. ALL of these companies need to be located in the CBD! They could never get away with this in Chicago or NYC. Land is way to expensive. Where is all of the wildlife going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this thread has gone from bad to worse. Listen it is a simple case of economics. Why does a company move from Los Angeles to Franklin, from NYC to Houston, from West End to Franklin? Not to destroy nature, not to destroy history, not to cause global warming but to help their company grow by lower total business costs (real estate, taxes, labor...). The answer is not to be found by demonizing them. I agree with Jice that we need to have incentives to bring large companies back into the core. But it is a little silly to suggest that the outlying cities and counties should not do whatever they can to recruit industry and corporations when that is exactly what Nashville is doing nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this thread has gone from bad to worse. Listen it is a simple case of economics. Why does a company move from Los Angeles to Franklin, from NYC to Houston, from West End to Franklin? Not to destroy nature, not to destroy history, not to cause global warming but to help their company grow by lower total business costs (real estate, taxes, labor...). The answer is not to be found by demonizing them. I agree with Jice that we need to have incentives to bring large companies back into the core. But it is a little silly to suggest that the outlying cities and counties should not do whatever they can to recruit industry and corporations when that is exactly what Nashville is doing nationally.

Nobody is suggesting suburban communities should be barred from trying to achieve economic success. They just shouldn't blatantly try to conflict so directly with their mother city. Furthermore, nobody said that companies move to the suburbs in order to destroy nature. But, regardless of whether they mean to do it or not, that is what happens when they build these sprawling campuses. If someone accidently hits someone with their car, they shouldn't get off the hook just because they didn't intend to do it. If they're going to move to suburbia the least they could do is build green structures and buildings that don't require massive expanses of open space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite sad to destroy more rural landscape. ALL of these companies need to be located in the CBD! They could never get away with this in Chicago or NYC. Land is way to expensive. Where is all of the wildlife going?

Actually, this has been going on in Chicago for a long time and still does. In fact, Chicago is usually cited as being near the top in terms of suburban sprawl, too. For example, just about all of the big Chicago companies that you can think of - Sears, Walgreens, McDonalds, Ballys, etc - left downtown for suburban office parks years ago, and now those office parks are getting way, way, way out west where land is cheaper and where they are closer to new housing that people can actually afford, which we jokingly call Iowa. Sara Lee recently relocated from downtown to a suburban park way out west despite the risk of losing a whole bunch of their employees, who, like a fair number of Chicagoans, did not own cars. Fortunately for Chicago, the mayor's office works very closely with businesses to keep them in the city or to have them move into the city to stem the tide. Mayor Daley took some gambles with TIF districts, and they seem to be paying off now. I think that having a strong mayor and chamber of commerce that are not afraid to take gambles and that actually fight for business would help Nashville to land some companies downtown or at least in Davidson county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why Nashville has to be considered as Franklin's "mother" city. Nashville was founded in 1796, Franklin in 1799 as completely separate towns. While Nashville has certainly come to dominate the Mid-state, I see no reason why Franklin owes anything to Nashville. I honestly don't think that Franklin relies on Nashville anymore than Nashville relies on Franklin. While I am certainly no fan of sprawl - and hate the way it looks as much as anyone else here - I really don't understand why everyone must be so adamant in their hostility towards suburbia. Franklin doesn't steal from Nashville anymore than Nashville steals from Los Angeles or Atlanta or wherever.

And while Franklin might not be as nice looking as nashville (although I've said before and I'll say it again: Downtown franklin is one of the prettiest parts of the Mid-state...I'd say it could easily compete with any smaller neighborhood in Nashville), it is a city in its own right. It has its own government, police force, transportation system (yes the trolley does count), and its own people. I just think its absurd to suggest that franklin or murfreesboro or brentwood or wherever should be dependent on nashville as its mother city. What you're saying is that these outlying cities should grow only as much as nashville lets it and instead of developing its own identity as a city, it shouldn't fight to get any jobs, businesses, or retail because nashville has first call.

It really seems to me that alot of you are saying its ok for Nashville to grow as much as possible - but any sort of growth in suburbia shouldn't be allowed since it takes jobs and businesses (and thus office towers in CBD) away from nashville. Franklin and maryland farms have as much right to entice businesses as nashville does - it's not their fault that they are better and more successful at it than nashville. If nashville had enough to offer maybe it would have gotten nissan - but cool springs just had more, so it won. I've asked this question before, but would rather have nissan in cool springs or a dallas suburb?

Please don't get me wrong, I really dislike alot of aspects of the suburbs. I especially hate the way they look - I'm all for downtown growth in nashville and would absolutely love to see new office towers. But I really just fail to see why the suburbs shouldn't be allowed to compete and somehow owe something to nashville simply because its bigger.

Los Angeles and San Diego are about an hour - hour and a half away depending on traffic (about the distance to murfreesboro). Now obviously Los Angeles is much bigger than San Diego, but is there anyone in LA crying about how San Diego should let the good companies come to LA first because its bigger? Absolutely not. San Diego developed into a city in its own right and while much of it outside of downtown could be defined as sprawl, it has its own booming economy and has become a nationally player. Or look at Orange County, CA which is very clearly a suburb of LA but has a population of nearly 3 million. Orange county developed because people who worked in LA wanted to get away from the Crime, pollution, traffic, and raise families in a more family-oriented area. Now Orange County has one of the strongest economies in the country and claims some of the most powerful businesses in the country as its residents. If Orange County wasn't allowed to grow and entice businesses, I think that LA would have very visibily have been negatively affected. But growth in OC usually translates into growth in LA because their economies are intertwined.

Sorry for the long rambling post. I just wish people wouldn't feel the need to be so angry about every business that relocates to williamson county. I just don't see how a relocation to the Nashville metro is anything but good for the nashville metro. If they relocate from out of state than that is an obvious big plus - if the relocate from within the metro, then it is probably because they weren't doing as good business where they were located - and now that they moved, they can probably do it better. So another plus for the metro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem. Would I like to see more downtown office space utilized and eventually built, yes. However, I think its every county for themselves when it comes to economic development. If Columbia, Manchester, Murfreesboro, Franklin, whoever can be attractive enough to land a corporate HQ or offices moving into the state or expanding, good for them. I would rather them not lure stuff from downtown unless those firms are going to move out of state otherwise, but as far as stuff coming in new to the state, I think its all fair game.

I mean should Maury, Wiliamson, or Rutherford pass on corporate offices with all the tax base and jobs they would bring to their counties just to let Davidson County have a better filled office market (assuming they would even pick Nashville instead)? I personally don't think so, since IMO that is going against the economic self interest of the citizens of those counties, and I don't think many folks would argue Nashville should pass on those jobs so metro counties could have them if the roles were reversed. Jobs and economic growth are good for the state, no matter where they are, and thats is what I am concerned about, people having economic opportunity here in Tennessee instead of having to leave the state to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have see no problem with other surrounding counties growing. I live in nashville and I believe at this turning point in our city, we are focused more on getting residential buildings downtown. I dont hear people bad mouthing nashville for trying to bring people from the suburban areas to live downtown. We should just except that the state and the region is growing at alarming rates and live with it. We all represent Middle Tennessee and should support each area in our efforts to become a better region and state :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh brother...it's as if some people don't even read what i'm saying. How me saying 'I wish suburbs like Franklin would have some standards and try to control the growth they do get' morphs into 'we should blow up all suburbs and not allow them to grow!' is beyond me completely. I don't know how I can explain my position any clearer. Perhaps it has to do with a problem in the way I stated it, but I don't see how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pro-Sububia crowd on here thinks this is about towers, but that is hardly what the argument is about. It is fundamental beliefs in a built urban enriched enviroment that drives me to the conclusions that I have, as do others on here. You see, I could care less if we have more towers, I just want a livable, walkable, enjoyable, properly planned out enviroment for me and my kids in the future. Franklin, Murfreesboro, Mt. Juliet are the anti-urban towns that stray away from a built urban core (or enviroment) and embrace a culture of excessivness, chaos, and a false sense of security. It is this BS that these city leaders from these respective towns spew out to the newspapers and the developers that I think is horrible and detremental to the future of Nashville. At some point it has GOT to stop, it WILL choke the core city and will encourage a quality of life that is very low. Even in the suburbs. Take a look at Detroit, it is a great example of what happens when everyone pursues the "American Dream".

I encourage all of those in favor of Franklin and other sprawl cities to educate yourself as to the effects of cities like this on their core Central Cities in a metro. See the effects of sprawl on a metropolitan area and how that negativly affects its growth in the future. If you honestly can continue to believe that growth at any cost is the way to go, I encourage you to personally ask yourself if that is what you want to deal with 20 years from now. I have made my decision, and I don't want to deal with the headaches of a non-urban, unplanned enviroment.

Funny thing. There is an old saying that says, "Don't mess with a bull, or you'll get the horns."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people actually thinking I'm arguing for sprawl? All I'm arguing for is the right for counties to lure and attract business to their counties by offering what those businesses want. If they don't somebody else will, I'd rather that economic activity with its jobs and tax base be in Tennessee than lets say North Carolina, Georgia, or Kentucky.

I think the difference some folks are looking at this more on the economic development side, while others are looking at it more on the urban development side. Both are valid concerns, I personally tend to side more on the economic development side and think overtime the urban development and better planning/redevelopment will come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people actually thinking I'm arguing for sprawl? All I'm arguing for is the right for counties to lure and attract business to their counties by offering what those businesses want. If they don't somebody else will, I'd rather that economic activity with its jobs and tax base be in Tennessee than lets say North Carolina, Georgia, or Kentucky.

I think the difference some folks are looking at this more on the economic development side, while others are looking at it more on the urban development side. Both are valid concerns, I personally tend to side more on the economic development side and think overtime the urban development and better planning/redevelopment will come.

I understand your point of view and agree to a point.

I personally tend to side more on the economic development side and think overtime the urban development and better planning/redevelopment will come.

But that involves millions of dollars to retrofit development that was built with reckless abandon in the past. I can think of a thousand things that money could be better spent on than retrofitting our planning mistakes. Anyways, by the time the "learning curve" cathces up, the damage has already been done. Capture the moment and plan it right the first time. Don't just let develpers do what they want and in twenty or thirty years come in behind them and change things for the so-called better. In the grand scheme of things, that is a waste of time, money, and energy. Some people would call that going backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody here mentioned how utterly messed up cul de sacs make things like traffic flow, walkability, and even a sense of community across the whole neighborhood?

I do understand why families love them, but I think they do more bad than good. My neighborhood in Dallas didn't have many cul de sacs, but it did have a lot of curvy roads and at about every third curve there was a widened area with an island in it. It sort of served the purpose of a cul de sac for that section of the neighborhood (like providing an area for basketball, roller hockey, etc.), but it didn't cut off the flow of access through the neighborhood. The multiple curves helped keep people seeking mischief out of the neighborhood and definitely would hamper any quick exit.

Finally, the neighborhood had sidewalks along both sides of every street.

That neighborhood was built in the 60s and 70s. I wonder why we don't see this more in other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas has a lot of great urbanist ideas for its suburbs though. You gotta admit that. LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that involves millions of dollars to retrofit development that was built with reckless abandon in the past. I can think of a thousand things that money could be better spent on than retrofitting our planning mistakes. Anyways, by the time the "learning curve" cathces up, the damage has already been done. Capture the moment and plan it right the first time. Don't just let develpers do what they want and in twenty or thirty years come in behind them and change things for the so-called better. In the grand scheme of things, that is a waste of time, money, and energy. Some people would call that going backwards.

True. However if the businesses want sprawl producing campus like developments to locate in, cities are going to offer it to them, or those businesses will go to states or regions that will. I look at Jackson all the time and curse its horrible urban planning north of I-40, but on the other hand I am a big supporter of its successful efforts to lure industry, jobs, and economic development to the city and region, which in the big scheme of things means the most. Without jobs and commerce all the well layed urban planning will mean little to the average person, jobs and growth means positive benefits to them, so if that means initial sprawl to gain them and momentum, well thats just part of the deal IMO. Its not the greatest or most efficient way to go about things for sure, but its just how the current economic development model works, and mandating growth away from sprawl in any signficant degree threatens the ability to boom cities like Mufreesboro, Clarksville, Jackson, etc from continuing to grow and attract jobs at the fast rates they currently are. Thats not to say that some cities are NOT doing a horrible job of urban planning even in sprawl format and could do things that would not effect their ability to attract jobs that would ease the effects of sprawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am jsut saying, don't do anything to get something when it will cost you in the long run. Think of the here and now, but keep an eye on the future. That's all. I don't think that is being done here in the metro right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.