Jump to content

Dreamscape


downtown cliff

Recommended Posts

I simply don't share your view. Especially as you start going further away from Broadway, say south of Gateway Blvd, I would be shocked if there will be many highrises built there. I also fully expect the designs that will come from the 600 unit residential component of the Streuver Brothers Sounds project to be basically mid-rise throughout. As I said earlier, the same goes for the Rolling Mill Hill developments. We should get the detailed plans from the Sounds project fairly soon. That should give us a pretty good idea what to expect throughout SoBro for the near future, at least.

South of Peabody, properties are only zoned for 65' tall. It will be a challenge to go taller than that. Also, if you look at the block structure, you do not have the super blocks that you have between Gateway and Broadway, which allow/require larger buildings. Many of those parcels are 50,000-80,000 SF, vs very small lots south of Peabody. The parcels touching Gateway have unlimited height, but financing and market dynamics will keep buildings from going much taller than 30 floors.

As to Rolling Mill Hill, Parcels J and K, as well as the parcels on the southernmost side of the property could be tall. Parcels J and K, which front Gateway, could easily by 6-12 floors.

For the ballpark site, I would expect mid-rises from 5-20 floors spread throughout the site. It's a tight site and the developers have stated that they plan to place up to 500 units on the site around the ballpark. The only way to fit all those units in is to go verticle. This will also allow for the maximum amount of green space and public plaza space, and will do the most to protect the view sheds to and from Rolling Mill Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So the market will reign. Currently, the market dictates most development in the form of sprawl. Is that a good thing? Yes, people have a choice with sprawl, but no it's not a good thing on economic, environmental, transportation, social levels etc. etc.

Under the market as the all-knowing being, who's to dictate whether or not a big box retail comes into SoBro in its current form? For example, all these people now reside downtown. These residents want retail. Walmart sees this opportunity to provide retail, doesn't matter what kind of retail as their studies show the people want to shop downtown. Walmart, being the megastore it is, is able to move in and choke out a lot of the demand for varied retail as they provide everything. One stop shopping at its finest. Is this a good thing downtown? What prevents it from happening, other than the absurd parking requirements at which if they want to be there bad enough they'll build a garage?

I've always been curious if the studies by these developers are telling them people want high rise specifically. Or are they seeing the numbers put forth in the various studies saying X number of units downtown by 2010? My feeling is they're looking at the growth number in units and wanting the biggest piece of the pie for themselves based on what their property will allow. Kind of the Walmart in residential theory mentioned above.

I think we've already seen with sprawl that developers are interested in one thing, profit. Rarely has there been one who's civically responsible. Its always the bottom line/ max. profit or government restrictions that actually rule.

The things that would stop a downtown Walmart are the same things that would keep the neighborhood from ever becoming nothing but 20+ story towers: a set of guidelines that have already been set up as a vision for the future of the SoBro neighborhood and the Planning Commission/BZA/Metro Council to enforce those guidelines. That as well as a city, ready and willing to have open discourse on what is good and bad for such a neighborhood as in the CC debate.

Where am I incorrect here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that would stop a downtown Walmart are the same things that would keep the neighborhood from ever becoming nothing but 20+ story towers: a set of guidelines that have already been set up as a vision for the future of the SoBro neighborhood and the Planning Commission/BZA/Metro Council to enforce those guidelines. That as well as a city, ready and willing to have open discourse on what is good and bad for such a neighborhood as in the CC debate.

Where am I incorrect here?

Again, nothing that a variance can't push through. We've already seen this with Encore. The only thing that would stop it is the 3 story minimum at the street, but they can wrap it with residential. I'm not sure if the minimum applies to feet or not as their typical building now is almost 2-3 stories or if it has to be 3 stories. Again, variance away, the bars were set and then blown by on the first project. So much for vision and guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, nothing that a variance can't push through. We've already seen this with Encore. The only thing that would stop it is the 3 story minimum at the street, but they can wrap it with residential. I'm not sure if the minimum applies to feet or not as their typical building now is almost 2-3 stories or if it has to be 3 stories. Again, variance away, the bars were set and then blown by on the first project. So much for vision and guidelines.

I am going to foolishly hope and believe that the vision is alive and will come to fruition. One height variance hopefully doesn't have to mean many height variances. I am more concerned about the CC. I would be excited about the opportunities that would bring, but I am also weary about what a big box CC would do to SoBro.

Cdub--the pics of midrises that you posted earlier would be so cool for SoBro and I hope that some of that eventually shows up. I thought we we were going to be getting that sort of development in the Gulch too--but so far, nothing really. Don't get me wrong I am excited about ICON and Terrazo--can't wait--but I am wondering when these urban neighborhoods are going to start to look like what they were idealized as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I am more concerned about the CC. I would be excited about the opportunities that would bring, but I am also weary about what a big box CC would do to SoBro.

I think I remember something in the CC proposal about the possibility of incorporating some of the existing SoBro midrise buildings into the compound design. Does anybody else remember that, or am I delusional? If they were willing to incorporate existing buildings, that would seem to indicate a willingness to go beyond a big, ugly box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One scary thing about the "big (ugly?) box" that the convention center may well be is the fact that there should be included in the plans a way to grow the convention center even larger in the future. Any plan would be remiss if it doesn't address future expansion possibilities. Imagine an even bigger convention center footprint. The only palatable solution to that for me is a way to add another level, not to expand outward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not the only ones struggling with this issues. It looks like Seattle is dealing with redevelopment and height issues as well. Their plan is worth reading. "Heightaphiles" will like their recommendations. Though the guideline do ask for investments in affordable housing, parking underground, good ground level, and public space. In addition, they talk about the lack of additional space. Here are the links:

Aiming Higher Around SODO

High-rise boom coming to Seattle?

Livable SoDo Plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the ballpark site, I would expect mid-rises from 5-20 floors spread throughout the site. It's a tight site and the developers have stated that they plan to place up to 500 units on the site around the ballpark. The only way to fit all those units in is to go verticle. This will also allow for the maximum amount of green space and public plaza space, and will do the most to protect the view sheds to and from Rolling Mill Hill.

There you have it folks, more height for the stadium. I thought it would be a stretch to have that many units in such a small area with out going higher. We will just have to wait and see what happens but with Tony getting the approval for a higher building in SoBro, it will change the dynamics of what Streuver Brothers can do. Not to mention what the possibilities will be for all of the CB Ragland property there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard when Steuver Brothers plans to reveal their plans for the residential / retail part of the site? I'm assuming that they will go ahead with that part of the development even though the ballpafk has been delayed to an April 2008 opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who took an undergraduate degree in Social Work and completed hours at the graduate level in sociology, I have some thoughts on this subject based on that academic training.

First I will reaffirm that I love skyscrapers, buildings 300 feet or more. I would like to see them take up every available lot in downtown and Sobro! I see skyscrapers as art. Living sculpture that constantly changes and yet stays the same, but with subtle facade changes and filled with all aspects of human culture, life, and purpose.

With that being said, the tragedy of suburban sprawl is based on mainly one sociological factor. Racism. Now before Metro.M or Rural King delete the thread, I will explain myself and not with a lot of histrionics, but fact.

In the 1950's post WW2 America moved from the cities to explore the countryside and move into a new financial horizon. White America was experiencing a new economy. The Service and Technical age was upon us. More people were going to college and earning degrees, while poor blacks were left with industrial and sub-servant jobs in the inner cities, mostly manufacturing and railroad/shipping jobs. The main reason "white flight" took place was because after WW2 and the Depression, jobs were scarce, and there was unrest in the inner cities. As with the history of racism, blacks were blamed for for the unrest (just as Hitler blamed Jews for not hiring Germans before WW2 for jobs. Hitlers Nazi Party was a political organization first promising jobs to people born in Germany with full German heritage.) Educated whites were able to move away from the city and open businesses in what was the rural areas. Since businesses were now located there, they built schools, housing, entertainment, shopping and other amenities so a trip to the city was unecessary.

So now whites were in the suburbs, and blacks were in the inner cities. Some officials with a social conscience created the projects, or government assisted housing for unemployed blacks since jobs went to the suburbs. Little did they know this created a "prison system" for poor blacks who did not commit a crime except to be poor. If they found a job outside the income guidlelines, they were forced out.

Now the cities were in decay. Wealthy and middle class whites were living and working out of town, and by the 1970's, most retail and entertainment had moved to the suburbs. The urban myth of inner city crime had been realized because jobs were still scarce and many did not have adequate housing. Whites became scared of the inner city.

Back in the 1980's I was working on south 11th street in East Nashville, known as "cocaine Alley." I was a social work intern and I witnessed the horrors of "white flight." The inner city was in full blown decay.

I was warned by people not to work over there, and crime was rampant. The suburbs were safe for a young white man like me. I was told I was crazy for working in a "black area" of town.

The point being is that our inner city project success in East Nashville, Sobro, CBD, and North Nashville are contingent on social reform, culture change, and elimination of bias and racism. There is a reason why the suburbs continue to sprawl, and people continue to build away from the innercity. Fear of crime and fear of race and fear of culture that people do not understand.

I am guilty of fear. I bought a house in the suburbs because I was afraid of crime. I want to eventually move to the city when I retire.

The odd thing is now upper middle class blacks are moving to the suburbs, and wealthy whites are moving back to the city. Things are changing, but height variances, city ordinances, streetscape requirements, overlays, setbacks, and other design terminology do not fix the fear that has been ingrained in America since the 1950's. A country that was born out of the "melting pot" did its best to seperate the ingredients of that melting pot. Part of that seperation was the creation of the suburbs and Walmart.

America must reclaim it's cities for the right reasons. Not purely for economic reasons, but for cultural reasons. Our Suburbs are too crowded, crime is going up and they are ethnically stale and stagnant.

In the 1990's to the present day, The gay and lesbian community have been the front runners for rehabing the urban core. Since fundamentalist Christian America does not approve of their cohabiting in the suburbs, they have moved to the cities followed by the hip and tolerant white singles, artists, writers, and liberals who have let their fears of the city go. Now we see a renassiance happening in the inner cities. All cultures, races and sexual orientations are living together in what was once a barren wasteland. Unfortunately, Nashville is far behind the curve compared to cities like Seattle, Phoenix, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Charlotte, and other cities that are embracing their diversity

The future of Sobro is not skyscrapers, midrises, or townhomes, but the elimination of fear and prejudice. The acceptance of culture, art, (nude statues at the Schermerhorn), alternative lifestyle (not just sexual either) , and political and religious tolerance.

The staleness of wealthy white America must blend with people of color before the city can really grow ecomomically. Our city will become prosperous when the fear of the suburbs will give way to the love and compassion of my friends that live in the city.

May God forgive us for what we have done in fear and hatred in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's in our inner cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got SOOOOO many things I'd like to say in response to the previous post (mainly the fallacy that somehow liberalism and liberal-mindedness will be the "cure-all" to solving urban and race problems -- if anything, it has exacerbated the situation with deadly consequence and created an entire exploitative cottage industry -- liberal policies are what often caused a mass-exodus of people out of cities in the last 4-5 decades, blaming and vilifying productive citizens while they lived there for the perceived problems of the underclass, and continuing the blame and vilification after they left... simply outrageous ! You can hardly fault people for wanting to leave such a nightmare behind).

I'm not a fan of suburban sprawl myself, I think it's a damn mess, but I certainly trust the judgment, values, and good common-sense of the political leaders that tend to arise from it and more rural environs and their solutions to our problems today than I do the cynical, arrogant, intolerant (of those living clean and religious lifestyles -- families trying to raise their children in environments that aren't mocking and dismissive of their values), exploitative, corrupt, racist, and holier-than-thou pols that arise from the usual one-party system that infests virtually all of our major cities to the last.

Sorry, RK, I hope you don't perceive this post as a flame-war response ! I just had to put my two-cents in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The staleness of wealthy white America must blend with people of color before the city can really grow ecomomically. Our city will become prosperous when the fear of the suburbs will give way to the love and compassion of my friends that live in the city.

Maybe it's just me, but I find comments like the above shocking on so many levels. I'm sure you're sincere in your beliefs, but the problem here is that "wealthy White America" (or wealthy or middle class of whatever race) ought to be able to choose where they wish to live without being made to feel guilty for doing so. It's also similarly insulting to Blacks, Hispanics, et al, that "without" rich White folks in the city they will never be better off or better able to move up the economical ladder. That just reeks of the mantra of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I just fully reject that kind of thinking. I'm reminded today is the 150th anniversary of the birth of the great educator Booker T. Washington. Sadly, he is never celebrated and followed in the way he ought to be, since one of the grand old tenents of "classic" liberalism (now Conservatism) was rejected by modern liberals and those self-appointed leaders of the "current" Civil Rights leadership... that of personal responsibility and determining ones own destiny through hard work rather than by blaming society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

The Poet makes some very legitimate points in his post regarding the decline of urban America. Do note that he does not write that only conservative whites have moved to the suburbs. The Doorman makes clear that many people of all races and cultures (including himself) have fled out of (and few like to admit this) fear.

Suburbs would be much better if they were designed with higher standards and better planning. Sadly, most are not. And that is one, of many, reasons that when people vacation in a habitated place (that is, a place not in the mountains or on the beach or on a cruise ship) they go to places like Savannah, San Fransicso, New York and New Orleans. Or to a bed and breakfast in a charming small town. They don't vacation in Plano or Brentwood.

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

The Poet makes some very legitimate points in his post regarding the decline of urban America. Do note that he does not write that only conservative whites have moved to the suburbs. The Doorman makes clear that many people of all races and cultures (including himself) have fled out of (and few like to admit this) fear.

Suburbs would be much better if they were designed with higher standards and better planning. Sadly, most are not. And that is one, of many, reasons that when people vacation in a habitated place (that is, a place not in the mountains or on the beach or on a cruise ship) they go to places like Savannah, San Fransicso, New York and New Orleans. Or to a bed and breakfast in a charming small town. They don't vacation in Plano or Brentwood.

WW

The question is whether the fears are justified or not, in a lot of instances, they surely were. I don't think it's particularly fair to browbeat a group simply because they chose to leave, for whatever reasons. I don't want to reach a point like the old Soviet Russia where we are being dictated to where we can or can't live.

As for the point about the suburbs, that is true, many are very poorly planned, but that is the nature of our society (I'd say, too, that the overall development of Nashville-Davidson County, without going into our neighboring counties, has been exceptionally poor on so many levels). I'd also say one reason why folks would not choose to vacation in suburban locales is because the one thing they are not is historic and tend to lack for attractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cdub--the pics of midrises that you posted earlier would be so cool for SoBro and I hope that some of that eventually shows up. I thought we we were going to be getting that sort of development in the Gulch too--but so far, nothing really. Don't get me wrong I am excited about ICON and Terrazo--can't wait--but I am wondering when these urban neighborhoods are going to start to look like what they were idealized as.

Trust me, I want that too or I wouldn't have posted those photos. The problem is the blatant way in which visions for these districts have been ignored. Both the Gulch and SoBro have alway been viewed as the neighborhoods that will support the Downtown core. When I say support, that doesn't mean building types that compete with downtown core in terms of height. All studies shown wanted midrise (8-10 stories).

Developers see the demand and want to build as high as they can to capture as if as possible. Profit, profit.

I used Walmart as a metaphor for the high rise developments. These are moving in just like a Walmart would and sucking up available units and not adding to the urban fabric. Again, there's not unlimited demand like many think. And I've still not seen anything that says these units demanded all have to be highrise.

A few other things related to other posts:

I disagree with South of Peabody as being of smaller block size. Mapquest it and you'll see there are actually larger blocks in some areas. The only sections that don't are along Almond St., but we've already know you can go up if you want on a small block. So what for the height restriction, any developer can get by that.

20 stories at the corner of Gateway at the stadium will block views from RMH.

Doormanpoet, I thought you were on the midrise side? At least at the beginning of the Sobro debate? Bzorch and I thought we were gaining converts.

I'll avoid the race topic, but will get into economic divisions at a later time. Gotta get to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is walk into the library downtown and look at the murals on the walls that show what Nashville has looked like at different points over the past 100 years or so. Back in thirties and forties Nashville had a dense urban core. That was destroyed by white flight and suburban sprawl. Historic buildings were torn down in great numbers. Those murals provide undeniable physical evidence of what has happened in this city. Thankfully, now things are changing for the better.

I respect a difference of opinion and political preferences, but I do believe that racism is an aspect of the past disintegration of urban areas. And is still involved in suburban sprawl. I have friends that I grew up with here in Nashville who have since moved out to Rutherford County and they act like I'm crazy to live downtown. The reasons they give for moving away from the city are blatantly racist. Not to put a blanket over everyone in the suburbs, however. Living in the suburbs does not equal racism. It does seem that the suburbs have become a symbol of racism in many ways. Urban areas celebrate diversity, while suburbs celebrate something opposite to that. Its a good point that people should be able to live where they want. But communities also have the right to try and stop the destructive cycle of suburban sprawl. People will give many different legitimate reasons for wanting to live in the suburbs, but fear is probably the great unspoken one. Thanks for the post, Doorman Poet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, the touchy and sensitive topic of race/white flight and the urban environment. I must say I am proud of everyone for not making this into a more heated debate, not making it personal, and being respectful to one another (even if you disagree 180 degrees), thus I will not moderate the thread, as I see no need at the moment. However, I hope everyone had gotten this out of their system and we can get back to the principle topic. The longer the thread lingers on the "race" factors the more likely it will get heated and I will have to moderate. So I suggest that if folks would like to continue this race/white flight debate they do it via PM, as that will avoid the potential of this thread getting moderated and allow this thread to remain on topic.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it OK if I post this email from Streuver about the development here? This is the reply my friend received.

"Thank you for your interest. We are currently completing the master plan for the ballpark site. We hope to have it complete by the first week of May. At that time, we will take it to the public to review. Following that meeting, we

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in thirties and forties Nashville had a dense urban core. That was destroyed by white flight and suburban sprawl. Historic buildings were torn down in great numbers. Those murals provide undeniable physical evidence of what has happened in this city. Thankfully, now things are changing for the better.

I have to again vigorously disagree that the sole reason for the loss of so many of our historic buildings was entirely due to white flight/suburban sprawl, but more simply due to natural urban evolution. Nashville's central core, as with many other cities' was a constantly evolving process from decade to decade. In its earliest incarnation, the city was made up of largely wooden structures small in size, which would be demolished in turn to build houses and businesses of a more substantial size as the 19th century wore on. Along streets like Church and those in the shadow of the Capitol, many grand and slightly more modest townhouses and mansions arose (if you've seen the old photos or renderings, you see how beautiful they were). Most of what was the original CBD centered on the old town square. Over time, by the beginning of the 20th century, those businesses (in the first movement of "sprawl" for the city) spread out away from the town square and towards Church. Many of the grand old mansions and townhouses fell and were replaced with the beautiful Victorian and early 20th century business structures and those people would move farther out West End or elsewhere.

By the 1950s, most of the urban core ceased to be residential in the least, businesses taking over almost to the last. People preferred living out in more suburban environments with lawns and cars. Again, that had little to do with racism and more to do with wanting what was then defined as "the American dream" in post-WW2 America. Historical preservation was almost non-existent, and "modern" was the buzzword. Victorians were passe and demolished en masse, be it businesses or homes (as they had been for many decades already -- I mean, we demolished an astonishingly beautiful block of mansions including the Governor's home, for the War Memorial Plaza close to 80 years ago !), which, again, had nada to do with racism. Up until that time, most Blacks were not even occupying many of those structures, many living in horrific conditions in the dreadful "Hell's Half Acre" that encircled the bottom of the north end of Capitol Hill. That, too, would be demolished to the last, if not for its unsightly nature and the fact that it was one of the worst crime-ridden sections of the city, but to also accommodate the growing traffic problems (where the James Robertson Parkway was built).

In many instances, the city was a victim of its own success. In other towns and cities where (at that time) economic stagnation and outward migration was the rule, they avoided a lot of the mass-scale removals of historic structures. In fact, had Nashville not benefitted from the Metro merger, which would've potentially spelled disaster for the central core had it not passed, there might still be a fair more number of historic structures there today that wouldn't have been demolished for a number of reasons (i.e. to build new structures in their stead, for parking for neighboring businesses, et al), but in gaining those grand old buildings, the city itself would be in worse shape, because it's doubtful we'd have the skyline we have today or the "boom" we currently find ourselves in now. As I said, it has very little to do with racism, and just a natural urban evolution. Still, it's sad that we were never able to find a way to have kept or preserved so many of our beautiful structures that made up our old dense core of yore, but people then had a different set of priorities and what they believed to be "desireable" for a city (after all, who in their right mind today would consider a "step forward" for a city slapping horrific aluminum-siding panels over the facades of the grandest Victorian and early 20th century buildings ?). That's not racism, that's just bad taste !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect a difference of opinion and political preferences, but I do believe that racism is an aspect of the past disintegration of urban areas. And is still involved in suburban sprawl. I have friends that I grew up with here in Nashville who have since moved out to Rutherford County and they act like I'm crazy to live downtown. The reasons they give for moving away from the city are blatantly racist. Not to put a blanket over everyone in the suburbs, however. Living in the suburbs does not equal racism. It does seem that the suburbs have become a symbol of racism in many ways. Urban areas celebrate diversity, while suburbs celebrate something opposite to that. Its a good point that people should be able to live where they want. But communities also have the right to try and stop the destructive cycle of suburban sprawl. People will give many different legitimate reasons for wanting to live in the suburbs, but fear is probably the great unspoken one. Thanks for the post, Doorman Poet.

While I have no doubt that the reason some left the cities were due to race, I think it is also a bit more complex than that. We get back to issues of increasing crime, and another issue that hasn't been mentioned at all... taxes. When cities face the problem of outmigration, they usually turn to jacking up tax rates to maintain basic services, which in turn, causes even more people to leave. Though it hasn't been a dramatic situation in Davidson County, it has unquestionably caused some folks to pack up and move to the suburban ring. I can surely understand many who have had their fill of "diversity" (a highly loaded political term that can mean a whole lot of different things, some positive, some negative) and wish a calmer environment of safer neighborhoods, lower taxes and ostensibly better schools (though I have very strident positions on that latter issue which I won't address now). Whether we like to admit it or not, most folks tend to prefer to live with people that look like them, have similar income levels, similar interests and shared political and moral values. Only a minority of people seek to live in a urban melange of different "diverse" folks. It's not a scene out of Disney's "It's A Small World" that most folks choose to live in, but neither should we mock those who do want to live in such a place, or those that prefer not to.

In any event, I think most of us, even with differing political/social views, are on the same page regarding general urban development and better planning and controlling out-of-control and haphazard growth. We all want our cities, suburbs, and rural environs to all be the very best places we know they can be. And now I call on Doormanpoet to lead us in a chorus of "Kumbaya." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does natural urban evolution include the destruction of a dense urban core? Also, you seem to have given a pretty decent description of white flight that began a long time ago and continues today.

I think you are right that the issue at hand is more complex than just race, but I don't think you can deny its place in the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, I want that too or I wouldn't have posted those photos. The problem is the blatant way in which visions for these districts have been ignored. Both the Gulch and SoBro have alway been viewed as the neighborhoods that will support the Downtown core. When I say support, that doesn't mean building types that compete with downtown core in terms of height. All studies shown wanted midrise (8-10 stories).

Developers see the demand and want to build as high as they can to capture as if as possible. Profit, profit.

I used Walmart as a metaphor for the high rise developments. These are moving in just like a Walmart would and sucking up available units and not adding to the urban fabric. Again, there's not unlimited demand like many think. And I've still not seen anything that says these units demanded all have to be highrise.

A few other things related to other posts:

I disagree with South of Peabody as being of smaller block size. Mapquest it and you'll see there are actually larger blocks in some areas. The only sections that don't are along Almond St., but we've already know you can go up if you want on a small block. So what for the height restriction, any developer can get by that.

20 stories at the corner of Gateway at the stadium will block views from RMH.

Doormanpoet, I thought you were on the midrise side? At least at the beginning of the Sobro debate? Bzorch and I thought we were gaining converts.

I'll avoid the race topic, but will get into economic divisions at a later time. Gotta get to work.

I was refering to parcel size, not block size. There are many, many parcels with multiple owners. These parcels have not been combined into cohesive blocks as they have by and large in SoBro. That said, assemble is very difficult south of Peabody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does natural urban evolution include the destruction of a dense urban core? Also, you seem to have given a pretty decent description of white flight that began a long time ago and continues today.

I think you are right that the issue at hand is more complex than just race, but I don't think you can deny its place in the debate.

I don't agree with the destruction of the core, but it has been the "pattern" that many cities have followed, so hence I called it "natural urban evolution." Even Manhattan isn't as densely packed as it once was 100 years ago when nearly 2 million people were jam-packed on that one island (!) But the nice thing is that we're now in the evolutionary process of moving back again to repopulate the core and fill in the blanks. Alas, we can't get back most of that great old architecture, but perhaps we can replace it with some great NEW architecture. If I were in charge of planning and approving what architecture went up, I'd love to get my hands on a lot of the architectural plans of the beautiful old demolished 19th & early 20th century buildings that once was here in the city and attempt to replicate them, accommodating (of course) for current technology. I know some don't like that kind of replication, but I'm traditional in my architectural likes (with some exceptions, of course).

Hey, I think I got the convo back on topic again ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was refering to parcel size, not block size. There are many, many parcels with multiple owners. These parcels have not been combined into cohesive blocks as they have by and large in SoBro. That said, assemble is very difficult south of Peabody.

I apologize, I thought you were mentioning block structure. However, it doesn't seem its been much of a problem for the West End/ Long Blvd area for developers to gather up lots and combine to create a larger parcel that will accomplish their end goal. Once people are staring down the barrel of money and their property taxes increase, they'll be selling. In terms of parcel size, Encore doesn't need a large parcel in order to go up, and once restrictions are lifted and/ or variances begin to get approved south of Gateway Blvd, it's only a matter of time before heigh encroaches in that area.

The area south of Peabody will change as RMH and Sobro change. There will be tremendous development pressure on that area and hopefully the 65ft. max. ht. you mention stays in effect, though I have my doubts.

I'm already disappointed in the height happening in the Gulch. It's unfortunate height limitations weren't in place and now we have to suffer that fate in SoBro, and possibly beyond.

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.