Jump to content

Office boom centers on Williamson County


jice

Recommended Posts

yet a plan should be in effect to allow development in an ajoining area, build the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, etc to support the development) and after that is completed, then and only then should developers be allowed to build the housing. If this process is planned, and executed in a timely manner so that there is always adequate areas for development to take place, the result would be a much more livable, less sprawled out city, with just as many options for everyone as there is today.

This line of reasoning seems to be headed down the same road as Jice's - Central Planning. Which is good, because it shows we're making progress.

I have a couple questions about your plan Hankster:

1) What if the farmers/land owners who find themselves on the "fringe" of the deveoped areas refuse to sell? You're saying all development should be contiguous, but what if a stubborn land owner stands in your way? Do you advocate the use of eminent domain to evict them? Do you advocate the use of government police power to throw people off their land so your vision of a liveable city can be realized?

2) What about farmers/land owners who find themselves miles away from the "fringe". Are you saying that they should not be allowed to subdivide their lots and sell them to create subdivisions - that their non-fringe land should remain "rural" until years down the road when maybe the city edge reaches them? Doesn't it bother you that you might have farmers saying "I wish to get out of the farming business and make it a subdivision" and you have eager home buyers saing "I want to live out here in the farmland, I don't care about the commute" and then you step in and point a gun (send the police :P ) at both of them and say "no, no, this doesn't match my vision, this is not smart growth"?

I ask you,sir, what is the greater offense: Puting a few McMansions in the "wrong" place, or using force to comandeer control of people's land that they paid for fair and square?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My familiarity with Franklin is limitted, but a quick visit to the city's Web site reveals that they have many plans. You can see them listed on the main page of the city's Web site:

http://www.franklin-gov.com/.

I guess this is just my opinion, but these plans are more of a statement of what exists plus what is proposed for west Franklin and Goose Creek area. But the problem I have with this is that there is no 'Williamson Co.' plan. IMO, that's why a metro gov't like Davidson-Nashville is superior to each little city laying claim to one little area. Brentwood plan, Franklin plan, how do they help Tompson Station??? Franklin's 'plan' almost denies the existence of any area except Franklin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be looking at this in the wrong way Jice. Gasoline, for example, is vital to your survival, yet it is 100% provided by private firms. Are you saying that it would be better for gasoline to be distributed by the government and subsidized by taxes to ensure there is always an affordable and continuous supply of it?

I'm not sure I would consider gasoline something needed for survival. Sure, in the sprawling suburban areas maybe. But nevertheless... of course it would be better for it to be in continuous supply and affordable... have you seen the prices lately? Surely the government could keep it more affordable than it is now... where the gas stations are allowed to charge whatever they want.

Anywayz... i'm not saying the government should control and be in charge of everything... privately owned food distributors, restaurants, hospitals... all good... but, they shouldn't be allowed to just buy a plot of land and throw what they want on them. There needs to be some planning involved... especially when it comes to infrastructure. Of course the government and urban planning is not perfect... but I venture to say it's better than allowing anybody to do anything they want w/their land.

You're saying all development should be contiguous, but what if a stubborn land owner stands in your way?

Are you saying that they should not be allowed to subdivide their lots and sell them to create subdivisions - that their non-fringe land should remain "rural" until years down the road when maybe the city edge reaches them?

I know this wasn't directed at me... but I say all this can be solved with good planning. If a landowner stands in your way... plan around them. If they want to subdivide their lot out of town... fine, just make sure you plan for the future first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brentwood plan, Franklin plan, how do they help Tompson Station??? Franklin's 'plan' almost denies the existence of any area except Franklin.

Well, Franklin really has no say in what Brentwood or any other city in Williamson County does. They can only plan for areas under their jurisdiction. Additionally, what's good for Franklin may not be good for Brentwood. They are different cities. If I lived in Williamson County outside of Franklin, I wouldn't want Franklin planning my area of the county.

For the above stated reasons I oppose consolidation here in Rutherford County as well. As you may know that came up recently and was voted down. I don't want Murfreesboro directing the future of Smyrna either. I live in Murfreesboro, Smyrnans live in Smyrna. It's one reason why I don't want the UN directing the U.S., but that's a whole other can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should all take a trip up to Owensboro, KY. It has 54,000 people and only two, count it....2, high-rises in the entire city. It is spread out all over what used to be Ohio River floodplains and farms.

Murfreesboro is pushing 100,000 people and only has one high rise. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Yes, but it's also growing rapidly. I think the city's having some difficulty keeping up with the growth.

LOL!! THAT'S the understatent of the year. Seriously though, you would think that they would DISCOURAGE growth patterns like Gateway if they realize they are having trouble with the growth. Boneheads! :thumbsup: That's how you grow the right way, just keep letting and encouraging it to be more unorganized and out of control. One of these days I may get my chance to slap the ignorant, redneck city officals in this town right in the face. And then I will tell them how stupid they are for ruining such a pretty corner of the world with their uncontrolled growth patterns. And lack of responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Do you ever write to your city leaders, Lexy? You have very strong oppinions on Murfreesboro's development choices. If you're as passionate about what you perceive as Murfreesboro's mistakes as you sound from the above post, I would strongly encourage you to let our leaders know how you feel.

On the topic of the Gateway, I think it's great for the city. The plan calls for it to be mixed use. It has underground utililties, so there are no powerlines ruining the beauty of the area. Speaking of the beauty, it's wonderfully landscaped with more landscape improvements to come if I understand their plan correctly. If the entire city looked like the Gateway, Murfreesboro would be the better for it in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I am the minority in this town. Haven't you been able to see that or is it just too smokey in here? LOL!!

If the entire city looked like the Gateway, Murfreesboro would be the better for it in my opinion.

This is an URBAN forum and comments like that are not welcome here. Nothing about that plan is urban and saying that the whole city should be like that is just plain stupid either way you look at it.

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life, no offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on an urban forum, you can only be interested in high rise buildings, apartments, and condo's??? And someone better tell "Rural King" to change his screen name, can't allow those with a rural mindset to post here. What's that all about?

Someone made a comment about why Nashville and Davidson County Merged are so wonderful, but I can tell you that Murfreesboro wanted to create a Murfreesboro-Rutherford County government, and most people I know in Smyrna and La Vergne opposed it for the same reason: We don't want people in Murfreesboro making decisions about our town. Think about Nashville: Is Antioch/Bell Road area better or worse because of the combined government? I'd be willing to bet that Hickory Hollow Mall wouldn't be in their mess if Antioch still had a city council. The city would be concerned with the business they are losing and would be making the neccesary moves (traffic improvement, crime reduction, city improvements) to keep that business around. Since Nashville-Davidson county runs Antioch, what do they care about Hickory Hollow Mall? The tax dollars that used to come from there just move to Opry Mills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on an urban forum, you can only be interested in high rise buildings, apartments, and condo's??? And someone better tell "Rural King" to change his screen name, can't allow those with a rural mindset to post here. What's that all about?

Someone made a comment about why Nashville and Davidson County Merged are so wonderful, but I can tell you that Murfreesboro wanted to create a Murfreesboro-Rutherford County government, and most people I know in Smyrna and La Vergne opposed it for the same reason: We don't want people in Murfreesboro making decisions about our town. Think about Nashville: Is Antioch/Bell Road area better or worse because of the combined government? I'd be willing to bet that Hickory Hollow Mall wouldn't be in their mess if Antioch still had a city council. The city would be concerned with the business they are losing and would be making the neccesary moves (traffic improvement, crime reduction, city improvements) to keep that business around. Since Nashville-Davidson county runs Antioch, what do they care about Hickory Hollow Mall? The tax dollars that used to come from there just move to Opry Mills.

I don't know if I'd call the Nashville-Davidson Metro merger "wonderful," but I probably would call it necessary. Without it, Nashville would be a vastly different place, at least with regards to its downtown. As one of the handful of people that can claim lifelong residency in Antioch (of 30+ years), I can say if Antioch were a separate entity (it never was at any point, prior to Metro, it was an unincorporated rural enclave, so it never had a city council), it may not have been in the "pickle" that it finds itself in now. Part of what changed Antioch, for better or worse, was when the Board of Ed demanded Antioch High School increase its share of non-White students, which transformed the racial makeup overall of the community. While this goal has been accomplished, it also accomplished chasing off most of my White neighbors to Rutherford County, and the crime rate increased as well. Unfortunately, the price to pay for bettering the city of Nashville may have come at the cost of diminishing Antioch. The only possible solution I can think of is some sort of neighborhood-controlled authority with decision-making autonomy, but that would probably be too little, too late now. :(

Lexy, I like you, but I think you were awfully rough on Relient J. Your attack was a bit over-the-top, don't you think ? I'm no fan of office parks myself, but RTB is entitled to voice his opinion, as you're entitled to yours (without going off the deep end !). :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I would consider gasoline something needed for survival. Sure, in the sprawling suburban areas maybe. But nevertheless... of course it would be better for it to be in continuous supply and affordable... have you seen the prices lately? Surely the government could keep it more affordable than it is now... where the gas stations are allowed to charge whatever they want.

Anywayz... i'm not saying the government should control and be in charge of everything... privately owned food distributors, restaurants, hospitals... all good... but, they shouldn't be allowed to just buy a plot of land and throw what they want on them. There needs to be some planning involved... especially when it comes to infrastructure.

Sorry I had to take a brief hiatus from this debate - I needed to get some wisdom teeth out (OUCH!!) :ph34r:

So, Jice - You're saying you are in favor of nationalizing the petroleum industry in the US? Don't be shy, man, say it plainly.

Why are you so willing to let food and healthcare be provided by private entities, but your running water and schools must be provided by the government? Many people don't even drink tap water anymore.

As for planning: Your justification for governent planning seems to be predicated on the idea that government will be providing all the infrastructure. You seem to be saying that since government is going to have to provide infrastructure for all these new businesses and houses, then there should be an orderly, government-controlled, method of planning the city that will be serviced by these infrastructures. I'm not challenging that idea (at this point).

What I'm advocating is a scenario in which government does not provide any infrastructure. If developers (business or residential) want to create business parks and subdivisions, they have to create their own infrastructure (roads, water, electricity) in my scenario. Now, electricity may be as simple as hooking up to a nearby grid and making a deal with the electrical co-op. Water may be as complex as purchasing a designated watershed and building a mini waste-processing facility. Roads are quite easy - build them where you want them and you pay the maintenance. Schools? Let the businesses and churches provide them. This kind of government planning (purposefully choosing not to build infrastructure) will necessarily result in a different city than the current model. Land will be used more efficiently. Developers will be forced (by the necessities of the market) to plan ahead for the long-term. Developers will be forced to work with the ruling community and business organizations that will determine everything from who gets to go to what schools to who gets to be part of XYZ water/sewage cooperative. There is nothing about building and planning cities that is so complicated and sacred that only the governemnt could even think about doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I am the minority in this town. Haven't you been able to see that or is it just too smokey in here? LOL!!

This is an URBAN forum and comments like that are not welcome here. Nothing about that plan is urban and saying that the whole city should be like that is just plain stupid either way you look at it.

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life, no offense.

Lexy, I respect your opinions about Murfreesboro. I even agree with some of them, but why insult me when we disagree? I forgive you, and I'd like to apologize if anything I said to you was personally offensive.

As for your comment on this being an urban forum, I agree. However, perhaps we are defining "urban" differently. According to the Oxford American Dictionaries, the word urban means, "in, relating to, or characteristic of a city or town." In that sense I think that Murfreesboro's Gateway project certainly falls within the concept of urbanity. Furthermore, as one of Murfreesboro's major initiatives, it certainly seems to me worth discussing.

Would you honestly like me to censor my views or leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Jice - You're saying you are in favor of nationalizing the petroleum industry in the US? Don't be shy, man, say it plainly.

Kheldane, are you saying the oil industries are completely private? You don't think this industry is subsidized in any way, shape or form? This is one industry that has benefited immensely from government assistance. Here are a couple of articles that point out the benefit through tax breaks/ incentives:

Taxpayers for Common Sense

Greenpeace

Take these articles how you will, I'm sure many will think these are very biased opinions, though I'd like to think the Taxpayers site would have some validity. Unfortunately, opinions usually depend on who's providing you funding to actually do the research. There was an interesting article in this month's Discovery magazine that went in depth on a new form of oil production using trash, animal waste, and just about anything else it seemed like. Can't remember the article title and the most recent is on the website yet, but very interesting read. Back on course, in the article it listed a report from 1998 that said if we didn't have the tax subsidies on oil, we'd be paying $15 per gallon, and that was at a time when gas was like a buck.

I agree with you to a point on developers carrying the cost of infrastructure. The only problem is, I don't know of any developers that would carry through with maintenance and build required infrastructure to specific standards. What incentive does the developer of an office park have when he's sold all the parcels?? I hate the fact that my tax money goes to provide interstate improvements equally with someone who lives in Smyrna, for example. Most days, I ride my bike to work. How is it fair for me to be paying for their 6 lane, 70 mph ride into work? That's where I can somewhat see your point on privitization.

I understand your points about market forces, etc, but I don't think privitization can occur in the utility/ infrastructure for the simple fact of the complexity of integrating various systems/ co-ops/ organizations.

Think of how complex the watershed rights would be to acquire? Who actually owns those? Whose going to regulate contamination?

Just a few thoughts, just didn't want people to think oil was a completely private enterprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely think you should stay Relient J and I would have to agree that Lexy was a bit harsh. I looked up the Gateway project and found the following website. I hope this is the right project. Gateway Plans

Which plan has the City gone with, A or B? Has this been discussed before?

After a cursory review, I have to say neither one successfully employs proven urban design principles. The problems I see with the plans are:

1. Buildings are not built to the streets and parking separates most if not all of the uses from the street

(public realm).

2. No connections between uses

3. Plan B has a discernable center near the transit station possibly based on a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words, bzorch. The Gateway project definitely is not a New Urbanist development, though I think it tips its hat in that direction (at least if it winds up being mixed use as planned). I honestly don't know which of the two plans the city has gone with. I'm not sure they've publicly announced the answer to that question. They may not have decided yet.

What I like about the Gateway area is that it features underground utilities. There are no ugly power lines choking out the sky. It also features beautiful landscaping. From what I read in the Rutherford A.M. section of The Tennesseean several months ago, we have only seen the beginning of the landcaping in the Gateway. Very specific guidelines are in place to assure consistency. From that same article I learned that at some point beautiful stone gates will be added to the area with the name Murfreesboro. This will serve as a great introduction to our city for visitors. I like the divided highway that is Medical Center Parkway. It's truly a joy to drive on. I like the lighting they chose for the area as well. They went with white lighting, which I think is more classy than the orange lighting found in other parts of town (such as along Broad St.).

I apologize for continuing to be off topic (I know this is a thread about Williamson County), but I'll give you a quick update on where I can see that the Gateway stands. Phase One of The Oaks shopping center is complete and fully occupied by retailers and restaurants, and Phase Two is underway. The first building in the proposed three-building Stonegate Corporate Center looks to be near completion as does another office building next to it, and one across a field along Wilkinson Pike. One stumbling block to the plan was the movement of the planned hotel and convention center from the Gateway to out near I-24. Though I voted against the use of taxpayer funds to support the convention center, I think it should be left where the voters were told it would be located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems we always get off topic. You never know what you will get in each topic. Hearing your reasons why you like the Gateway projects makes, sense. I just think you could have all of those things and build it a more efficient and urban friendly form. It would have beeen awesome if they could have somehow connected to the denser neighborhoods to the east. This is easier said than done I would imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ True. Plus, at this stage I really don't feel we totally know what the end result will be. For instance, we know the hotel and convention center will not reside in the Gateway as was originally planned (unless plans again change), so what will take their place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I am the minority in this town. Haven't you been able to see that or is it just too smokey in here? LOL!!

This is an URBAN forum and comments like that are not welcome here. Nothing about that plan is urban and saying that the whole city should be like that is just plain stupid either way you look at it.

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life, no offense.

I think you are being a bit overdramtic and unnecessarily mean in your comments. Why is it dumb for someone to wish their city to look better? Murfreesboro isn't going to become an urban city any time soon, so for the mean time wouldn't you wish for the city's developments to at least look nice with landscaping and some sort of plan (whether its a surburan plan or not)? While I'd certainly rather an urban community develop along the lines of what is planned for the gulch, if that wasn't a possibility i'd certainly rather developments look like cool springs as opposed to what is happening (or not happening) in antioch. Nice landscaping, underground utilities and sidewalks with crossguards are certainly favorable over mindless development.

Just because someone has a different opinion then yours doesn't mean their comments aren't welcome here. I'm sure you didn't mean things to sound as rude as they did, but I think it's important for people on this site to remember that not everyone always wants the same type of development for every part of the mid-state - and that's ok. All opinions should be welcome on a site like this - at least one would hope so. Hopefully I didn't just read the rules wrong......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stated that the metro gov't for Davidson Co. is a great thing for the city as a whole. I have seen what can happen without it and I can see LaVergne/Smyrna/Eagleville/Murfreesboro headed down this path. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but there's a reason why Mercury Blvd is not #1 area for new homes and that is the beginning of the end.

I am opposed to Murfreesboro (Franklin/etc.) residents driving 30+ miles to work each day. This increases gasoline demand causing higher gas prices and we (as taxpayers) are forced to pay for eight-lane roads that are used only once a day. I'm willing to bet the roads to tax collections ratio is much higher for counties like Rutherford/Wilson/etc. vs. Davidson/Cumberland/Henry/etc. If you want to live in Watertown/Murfreesboro/Franklin/etc. - then get a job there or move to a location close to your job so you're not wasting 30 gallons of gas each day. When W. said we were addicted to oil; was he referring to Franklin or Murfreesboro?

I-24 and I-65 should have been left as they were - 4 lanes total. I'm tired of paying higher gas prices and taxes just because people want to live 50 miles from work and drive a 5 mpg SUV.

Gateway is a very nice organized plan - for suburbia. The design is very nice, but it's aimed toward Nashville (for residents returning from work in the city?). And two, in true Murfreesboro style, this is yet another road designed to be a thru-fare into the city that will later be clogged w/ traffic due to the large amounts of retail in 'big-box' style. Choose one or the other, but it can't serve both functions as illustrated by Old Fart Prkwy.

Ironically, Murfreesboro has the potential to be nice town if it would function as an entity. It's the I-24 umbilical cord that's hurting it the most.

Hmmm... Live!! Lexy vs. RJ at the GEC, it does have a good 'ring' to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA_TN, first of all, I would very much like for this not to be a "Lexy vs. Relient J" fight. I just want to get my opinion out and make my case, that's all.

Secondly, I am a Murfreesboro resident who moved to Murfreesboro so that I can attend school at MTSU. It makes sense for me to live here for that reason. However, I have an awesome job which happens to be in Nashville. I feel no shame in living this way. I find it works well, and I'm satisfied with it. Perhaps one day I'll live in Nashville, but for now I like where I am and don't think I should feel the slightest bit guilty about where I live or work.

I know you were being very general in your post, but I'd like for you to know that I don't drive an SUV. I drive a relatively fuel efficient Volkswagen Golf. I'm with you on the SUV front. I think they're great if you really need them, but rediculous if you don't. However, I will defend anyone's right to buy one if they want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Murfreesboro. It has the potential to do some great things, but something has to be done now before it fades into the generic suburban abyss that so many other fast growing cities have done before it. It has a great downtown area that needs to be utilized more than it is. It's great that Murfreesboro is getting all of this retail and residential growth. I just wish they would go about building it in a more urban manner. The Gateway is the same old crap they are building all over, even if it is planned. I liken it to a gold-plated turd. It may be shiny and it's value has increased sizably, but it's still a turd. That being said. It won't discourage me from shopping at or eating at, any future generic chain store or restaurant they build there. As I have very little choice where I live and the Borro is close. :thumbsup:

And Lexy, you were a bit harsh to J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, I am a Murfreesboro resident who moved to Murfreesboro so that I can attend school at MTSU. It makes sense for me to live here for that reason. However, I have an awesome job which happens to be in Nashville. I feel no shame in living this way. I find it works well, and I'm satisfied with it. Perhaps one day I'll live in Nashville, but for now I like where I am and don't think I should feel the slightest bit guilty about where I live or work.

I'll use the typical American mindset, "What about me???" I don't know if you read my earlier post, but why should I be subsidizing your ability to live 30 miles away and commute into Nashville? Again, most days I ride my bike 3.5 miles into work, primarily for the excercise, but also because I can make it to work in the same amount of time. I choose to live in an urban area because of my design/ urban beliefs and to lessen my dependence on oil (except for the damn natural gas that was put in my house by the people who renovated before I bought it.) Do you think it is fair for someone who may use I24 from Nashville to the Boro once a year to be footing the bill for it? Now, if mass transit were somehow subsidized, I'd be all for my taxes going to that. The interesting thing about transit is you build it once. Do you see rail lines replaced every three years?

Would your lifestyle choice (and I understand your choice for school) be the same if you were taxed in proportion to your use of the interstate system or had to pay a per-use fee in order to get to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. But cdub, you have to realize that we are all over-taxed to subsidize all kind of things that don't affect us. For instance, right now we're all subsidizing the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. That really is wrong.

Your taxes go to pay for thousands of roads you never use, so I'm not sure this analogy holds up. Also, are you telling me you never use I-24? Ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.