Nashville's riverfront development

[titanhog]

One thing I love about the Riverwalk in San Antonio is how it's surrounded on both sides by quaint hotels, restaurants, condos, etc of midrise heighth that give it a "hidden" jungle river type feeling. Is there any way to get this feeling on the east side next to the interstate and Titans stadium? I always thought it would be great to have a riverwalk running through DT on the west side.

[smeagolsfree]

Here is the article from the Tennessean along with the renderings from the meeting last night. I will have to call the plan ambitious for sure.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...EWS01/608250418

[southsideJ]

I am very excited at the prospect of this project. I was a little disappointed when I say the price tag though. More than $300 million? That doesn't seem very realistic. The island idea is awesome--whatever specific direction is taken with it, but I wonder if it is just another great, "idea," like converting the interstate to a boulevard that will probably never happen.

[ATLBrain]

I agree with you, SouthsideJ. However, it is a very long range plan. Granted the price will also rise over the span of the project too. It's easy for me to overlook the price as I don't pay the local taxes. But I can understand the trepidations toward this project.

Nevertheless, with the limited amount of information I've seen, I think this project would be an absolute positive for the city that would far outweigh the stated costs (which are usually lower than the actual price tag). Sure there are some real issues that would need to be addressed. Some have been mentioned already. But the green space and the utilization of the river are so cool. I'm a bit unsettled on having the stadium right in the middle, but what are you going to do? I guess you need to treat it like the asset it can be. Also, if some taller buildings are built closest to I-24, then they can act as a sight/sound buffer from the parkland. Overall, IMO it's a nice proposal. Let's see how it plays with the public... and McMillan is correct that you shouldn't start with the price b/c then it will never get done. Think big, Nashville!!! Atlanta is way ahead of you there.

[linclink]

Personally,

I would rather see this park (with the island) funded by the city, than even a convention center funded by the city. The hotels, clubs and restaurants can fund the convention center, but the city should really invest in a park like this. It really would be a great thing to have for the city, and I am positive that if the island park were built, it would spark ALOT of new condo and housing development on the EAST side of the river..... and that would be AWESOME!

Can you imagine, a mid-rise neighborhood (12 stories max) ala that street from San Francisco that NewTowner posted, with the river, the island, park, maybe some fountains, and even the stadium itself, and then, beyond that, the Sounds Stadium, and Nashville Skyline as the view?!?!?!??!?!? Developers would FIGHT to build on that side!!! I'd say that would bring QUITE a bit of development, jobs and money to the city!!! Maybe even more so than the convention center (which I am for, but I think the private sector should fund for the largest chunck of).

Anyways... I think that if there ever was a cause for the UrbanPlanet forumers to take up, and lobby their local leaders for, and even their fellow citizens, THIS would be it!!!!

As for the park itself, (someone expressed concerns that its a little plain I guess), I think this is in the preliminary stages... I'm sure some fountains and cool little bridges, and maybe even some little "recreational boats" will be added to the created "Waterways" in future stages... I think this was just a rough sketch...

As for the idea that the park should be on the west side of the bank... who knows.. if this is a success, maybe in the future (think 10, 15 years after this one is done) they would build on on the west bank as well, and actually connect the two parks by bridge, then there'd be one for the east side and one for the west... that'd be pretty cool......

[southsideJ]

I agree with you, ATLBrain on the thinking big thing. I am glad there are people in our city who ARE willing to think big. That's why I would really like to get a mayor who is willing to walk out on a limb a bit--someone ambitious, who has a very forward vision for where this city can go. Someone with big and crazy dreams for this place--and who can get the people behind him.

Anyway, I agree this project could be one of the biggest and best things this city has done. The potential is massive.

linclink, I too, would give my vote to this riverfront proposal over the convention center based on what I've seen so far. Who knows, it could end up being a choice between the two.

[brownhound]

Yes, it's a great idea, but it's a lot like the "plan of Nashville"--a great, big pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will never materialize. Frankly, I don't see where the money will come from. We can talk about these projects ad nasuem, but until private developers step in, nothing of consequence will be done.

[rocky top buzz]

This all looks nice in renderings and such, but fact is, it isn't going to happen. The article talks about money spent in Louisville and Chattanooga redeveloping their riverfronts. But you know what we have that they don't? Pro sports. And I don't think a riverfront is going to bring national attention to Nashville like the NFL does, and now to a lesser extent, hockey.

If I were a Davidson county taxpayer, I don't think I could justify a $300 million park that would bring NO revenue. If they start talking about a river walk, etc. then maybe that would work. But right now, you are talking about adding a moate around LP Field, building a bunch of new bridges to go over that moate, and all for what, a park? A park should not cost $300 million.

I think Davidson county taxpayers should be furious that their money was wasted on this proposal. It's never going to happen.

[frankliner]

This all looks nice in renderings and such, but fact is, it isn't going to happen. The article talks about money spent in Louisville and Chattanooga redeveloping their riverfronts. But you know what we have that they don't? Pro sports. And I don't think a riverfront is going to bring national attention to Nashville like the NFL does, and now to a lesser extent, hockey.

If I were a Davidson county taxpayer, I don't think I could justify a $300 million park that would bring NO revenue. If they start talking about a river walk, etc. then maybe that would work. But right now, you are talking about adding a moate around LP Field, building a bunch of new bridges to go over that moate, and all for what, a park? A park should not cost $300 million.

I think Davidson county taxpayers should be furious that their money was wasted on this proposal. It's never going to happen.

Actually, in their presentation the consultants made a pretty persuasive case that the Riverfront is the largest draw of any attraction in Nashville even as it stands. The idea is that even if we invest a portion of the $300 million in it, it will boost incremental returns that will justify the pricetag. One of the reasons that I wanted more development paired with the proposal, though, is because this would allow for the burden to be shared more between private-public dollars. I think something will come out of these plans.

[rocky top buzz]

I made a comment along the lines of this in the Atlanta forum recently. The riverfront may be the largest draw right now, but how many people are actually planing trips from New York, LA, Florida, etc saying 'I HAVE to see the Nahville riverfront!' Answer: < 1% at best. My personal opinion is that most of the people who visit the riverfront are either locals or people drawn to the area by another event (Fan Fair, Titans Game, Music City Bowl, etc...).

You are right in that if there were a private AND public interest, this might work. But even still, the idea of turning LP Field into an island just seems ridiculous. If all this is part of the master plan of Nashville, In addition to no interstates, we'll also have no streets. We'll only be able to get around town in our Canoe's or on horseback. It's one thing to try and embrace our past, but this all seems like a waste of money to think anyof these idea's will be fully implemented.

[frankliner]

I made a comment along the lines of this in the Atlanta forum recently. The riverfront may be the largest draw right now, but how many people are actually planing trips from New York, LA, Florida, etc saying 'I HAVE to see the Nahville riverfront!' Answer: < 1% at best. My personal opinion is that most of the people who visit the riverfront are either locals or people drawn to the area by another event (Fan Fair, Titans Game, Music City Bowl, etc...).

You are right in that if there were a private AND public interest, this might work. But even still, the idea of turning LP Field into an island just seems ridiculous. If all this is part of the master plan of Nashville, In addition to no interstates, we'll also have no streets. We'll only be able to get around town in our Canoe's or on horseback. It's one thing to try and embrace our past, but this all seems like a waste of money to think anyof these idea's will be fully implemented.

Sure people don't come just for the riverfront now, we don't have a coherent area for them to come to. I certainly don't go to Boston to see the Patriots or Washington to see the Redskins though. I go there for their waterfronts above their pro-sports. And anyway, the fact that mostly locals are using the riverfront should actually justify MORE the use of public dollars to upgrade it.

[linclink]

I made a comment along the lines of this in the Atlanta forum recently. The riverfront may be the largest draw right now, but how many people are actually planing trips from New York, LA, Florida, etc saying 'I HAVE to see the Nahville riverfront!' Answer: < 1% at best. My personal opinion is that most of the people who visit the riverfront are either locals or people drawn to the area by another event (Fan Fair, Titans Game, Music City Bowl, etc...).

You are right in that if there were a private AND public interest, this might work. But even still, the idea of turning LP Field into an island just seems ridiculous. If all this is part of the master plan of Nashville, In addition to no interstates, we'll also have no streets. We'll only be able to get around town in our Canoe's or on horseback. It's one thing to try and embrace our past, but this all seems like a waste of money to think anyof these idea's will be fully implemented.

Well,

As a South Floridian (where 100's of waterways and peninsulas, and entire neighborhoods were constructed in much the same way as the idea for the island being proposed, with the ocean and bays being diverted so that there would be waterfront properties and better use of the natural resource/view) I can tell you that this means MONEY. It IS a good idea.

In fact, the article by the Tennessean mentions that the people behind the plan would like for the island to become a NEIGHBORHOOD, where people would actually live and play. I know of several such "Islands" in South Florida (Natural AND manmade), where you have both a GREAT park AND condos/housing. That seems to be the idea they are going for.

Now, if the city were to commit itself to building this thing, you can be SURE that developers would knock over eachother to build on the "moate" as well as on the East bank. Waterfront property sells for MUCH MUCH more than any other kind of property. And there is enough land in that rendering to have some condo's maybe to the right of the stadium (if you are on the west bank, facing the stadium), and more than enough Park land" to the left of the stadium. Or vice versa... And then, on the East bank you would have even more condo's facing the waterway, the park AND the Nashville Skyline. No developer in their right mind would pass up that kind of opportunity. You'd also get hotels, restaurants, shops and clubs interested in sitting on "the water" both ON the "Island" as well as on the East Bank facing the Island.

As for revenue, they could add a whole bunch of great "extras" to the park... ala what is found at Chicago's Navy Pier... they could charge you for those things and keep those funds. A park like the Navy Pier would be simply SPECTACULAR!!!!

Either way.. this idea is a WIN WIN for Nashville... I just hope enough Nashvillians catch the vision of what this could do and work to make it happen!!!! Trust me... it would look AWESOME... and people WOULD build and it would bring alot more money and jobs and taxes in to the city.

[ATLBrain]

As for the idea that the park should be on the west side of the bank... who knows.. if this is a success, maybe in the future (think 10, 15 years after this one is done) they would build on on the west bank as well, and actually connect the two parks by bridge, then there'd be one for the east side and one for the west... that'd be pretty cool......

There is already one on the west side (Bicentennial Park), but it doesn't go to the bank.

Also, I'm just a bit disappointed that this proposal didn't include possibilities for either a convention center, or an American Music Museum and HOF sitting between the Shelby and Gateway bridges.

[linclink]

Well,

I think this proposal was just for the park... If people find it expensive now... with the Convention Center tacked on, then it REALLY would never get done!!

[rocky top buzz]

do the man made islands in FL also have large stadiums as part of the draw? ANd do we really want to take that parking away from the Titans?

And I don't know about you all, but there are a lot of sports fans who visit a town just to see a game (esp. in Chicago and NYC). But my point was more that most of the tourists are here for the music draw. I think a $300 million theme park would generate a faster return than the riverfront.

[ATLBrain]

I think this proposal was just for the park... If people find it expensive now... with the Convention Center tacked on, then it REALLY would never get done!!

Am I reading the renderings correctly? Does the orange shading represent placement for future buildings? I would expect that this project wouldn't even begin to state the amount of private investment needed. Of course, I'm unclear on the details from that meeting, but the $300M is likely for land acquisition and development of park infrastructure.

Sure, including the CC would raise eyebrows for those who will go to the price tag first (and most ppl will). However, the funding would almost certainly come from two different sources. As such, there may even be a cost savings from building a CC on city-owned land. But the triangle b/n the bridges seems a perfect place for a multi-tiered, focal-point building (a'la Meiers or Schultz) housing a private museum right on the river bank.

Having said that, I really don't expect that to happen. The CC site planning committee seems determined to use the property on Demonbreun and there is no private museum looking for a new home. Oh well... as I said: Think big, Nashville!

Another thing... I know that there are creative ways to get Federal funds. Hell, our Congressional delegation is always bringing home bacon. So who's you guys' Congressman? Does I-24 need to be widened? Are there federal funds available for widening and land improvement? Get the gist?

[linclink]

Well, I understand your concerns RockyTopBuzz, in regards to the stadium... however, the fact is that the stadium with alll that parking around it is quite an eyesore... And if they were to try and build the Island, without the stadium, it would be pretty small and dinky... I don't get the idea that they are buiding the Island FOR the stadium... it's just there, and can't be moved (I'm sure if it could, they would.. hehehe)... but STILL... it is interesting.. you could live and work on an island with a stadium, park, boats, shops and restaurants... all sorts of great amenities, AND be on the waterfront with killer views of the skyline...

As for the Titans Parking lot... I for one would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see it reduced... Island or no Island... they should have been forced to limit the spaces from the start (why didn't they build a garage!?!?!?!?)... when one goes on the East side of the bank around the stadium all one sees is that parking lot!!! But that is something that could be easily fixed... if the Island were built there could be a couple of office towers with Parking on the first 5 or 6 floors that could be shared by the stadium (ala the SunTrust tower and the Ryman)... You could also have some parking off of the Island with some sort of "tram" to take those who don't want to walk over the bridge... heck, they could even ride a "water taxi" from the shores on the East Bank, to the Island (and hence, the Stadium). Now THAT would be an awesome way to start out an evening at the game!!!! I read the concerns voiced by the folks with the Titans in regards to parking and had to roll my eyes... these people would rather scrap an AWESOME plan in order to keep their concrete jungle, when, with a little imagination, they could still accomodate ALL their fans, AND give them an even better experience!!

[ATLBrain]

As I ponder this, I see something else that should be looked into. It would be a real asset to have a N-S parkway for local traffic from the Bordeaux/Trinity Lane area to help the morning jam at the I-65/24 & Trinity interchange. It could be a completely commercial-free parkway with reversible lanes for entering/exiting the stadium on Sundays for Titans games. Looking at the rendering, I can't help but think of major nightmarish traffic jams on those days.

[Kheldane]

The plans call for the stadium site to become an island by bringing part of the river along I-24. Almost all the industrial buildings on the east bank would be gone.

Stupidest .... Plan.... Ever....!!!

First of all,,,,seriously?! They can't think of anything better to spend the tax payer's money on than building an artificial island, that will be surrounded by putrid cumberland river water? And I absolutely LOVE how the proponents of the plan (as described in the City Paper) very conspicuously proclaim that they will not mention the price tag because people would surely object to it. I love that part .... oh god how I love that part of the article!!!

And then to see this thread, with the always predictable over-boosting of any project that changes downtown, wether to the better or worse. "Oh, we must get rid of the industry on the E.bank" "Oh, I so very much dislike E.Bank industry"... Meanwhile this plan involves taking on mountainous public debt, and simultaneously eroding a substantial part of the metro tax base (that industry pays taxes - an island won't).

My main concern is those poor business men, factory workers, and land owners on the east bank. Imagine the feeling they get when reading a story about what some architectual firm would like to do with their land. Imagine the feeling of having to read an article about some dickless urban planner who has cooked up a new scheme that involves turning your business and your livelyhood into a man-made river delta so high-end retail and condo's can rise from the dust of your former business. Socialists: Truely they are the scum of the earth!!!

[barakat]

Stupidest .... Plan.... Ever....!!!

First of all,,,,seriously?! They can't think of anything better to spend the tax payer's money on than building an artificial island, that will be surrounded by putrid cumberland river water? And I absolutely LOVE how the proponents of the plan (as described in the City Paper) very conspicuously proclaim that they will not mention the price tag because people would surely object to it. I love that part .... oh god how I love that part of the article!!!

And then to see this thread, with the always predictable over-boosting of any project that changes downtown, wether to the better or worse. "Oh, we must get rid of the industry on the E.bank" "Oh, I so very much dislike E.Bank industry"... Meanwhile this plan involves taking on mountainous public debt, and simultaneously eroding a substantial part of the metro tax base (that industry pays taxes - an island won't).

My main concern is those poor business men, factory workers, and land owners on the east bank. Imagine the feeling they get when reading a story about what some architectual firm would like to do with their land. Imagine the feeling of having to read an article about some dickless urban planner who has cooked up a new scheme that involves turning your business and your livelyhood into a man-made river delta so high-end retail and condo's can rise from the dust of your former business. Socialists: Truely they are the scum of the earth!!!

What is your vision for the east bank?

[Kheldane]

Actually, in their presentation the consultants made a pretty persuasive case ....The idea is that even if we invest a portion of the $300 million in it, it will boost incremental returns that will justify the pricetag.

You don't really believe that will happen do you? So the city can act as an economic development bank and make nashville businesses more profitable, huh? Well then, why not let the metro government make all the investment decisions around davidson county? - - This would be the richest city in the world!!!!

[Kheldane]

What is your vision for the east bank?

Thank you for asking Barakat! Here is my vision:

Auction the stadium and adjacent park to the highest bidder. Auction the shelby street bridge to the highest bidder. Remove all zoning restrictions on the entire east bank - whatever gets built there, gets built there.

Well, that's about it, but one more detail that would be kind of behind the scenes would be this: give the proceeds of the auctions back to the former-land owners of the east bank (if they can be located) as a small (but inadequate) means of apologizing and providing reparations for unlawful confiscation of their private property.

I also think the metro government should make a public apology (maybe broadcasted live on TV) to all nashvillians for violating private property rights, wasting scarce capital on money-loosing public works projects, and thereby lowering the standard of living for all nashvillians. They could have the press-conference on the east bank, along with a ceremony officially signing the land back over to private ownership.

[Guest]

Kheldane

As usual my friend you over-reach, lol

I completely agree that the 'island' is dead on arrival. WTH are they thinking with that idea? Plan one seems feasible but I need to see the costs and financing. Posted over on NC is the breakdown of a similar Ft Worth project is instructuve. Looks like the Feds picked-up 50% with a special TIF district at 25% and the city at 25%.

The 'island' is just a ballown to make Plan One seem like a 'deal' IMO.

[frankliner]

You don't really believe that will happen do you? So the city can act as an economic development bank and make nashville businesses more profitable, huh? Well then, why not let the metro government make all the investment decisions around davidson county? - - This would be the richest city in the world!!!!

Ever been to Baltimore, Boston, basically any big city in America? They used civic investments on their riverfront to spur private development, and then asked developers to help fund the upgrades. It does work, I would suggest looking into these precedents before criticising the professionals that have actually worked to see it happen.

[Kheldane]

Ever been to Baltimore, Boston, basically any big city in America? They used civic investments on their riverfront to spur private development, and then asked developers to help fund the upgrades. It does work, I would suggest looking into these precedents before criticising the professionals that have actually worked to see it happen.

Glad to see you're willing to take this issue on, frankliner. Let's see what you can do with it:

"Baltimore, Boston, basically any big city". Please tell me where you found the economic statistics that prove the investment made by these city governments resulted in a profitable return that was > than any other profitable return if the same amount of money had been invested in any other business or combination of businesses. Sorry, was that a bit too complicated? Let me break it down further with an example:

Consider city X, which has private citizens living in it and owning private property (cash and land). These citizens are putting their diverse resources (which total up to $Z) to various uses in order to receive the best profitable returns they know how to earn.

Consider the government of city X. You, frankliner, are telling me that in your examples, government has taken $Z from the citizens, and invested it in a new project. ------An investment that is different from the various investments that were previously made by the citizens of X. And you're also telling me that this new waterfront investment, costing $Z has resulted in a profit that is greater than what the combined profits of all the other pre-existing investments (which total to $Z in agregate) would have been? How in the heck would you or any government entity know that????

It would take a MAMMOTH statistical and market information gathering effort on the part of those city governments to measure the various profitabilities and profit projections of all the thousands of investments being made by the citizens of X - and I know that didn't happen! But without that happening, you basically have no idea whether you are better off or not.

So maybe a few new restaurants or hotels came to town - big whoop. If you invested $Z and only got a return of $500 in the form of new hotel profit, but you gave up $1000 in opportunity cost (what all those other investments profit would have been), then you haven't gained anything. You've lost wealth in total. Oh sure, a new hotel or strip of restaurants is a big feather in the cap of some politician who can point to that one district that has benefited from an artificial concentration of capital and say "look what I've accomplished".

But that ignores the fact that that same $Z would have been put to different uses by the citizens - better uses I say. Why do I say better uses? Because each private investor makes decision that result in the maximum benefit to themselves based on their knowledge of the market. That's literally hundreds of thousands of people evaluating all the market information they have available.

To "outperform" the investment making prowess of the public, you'd have to assume that some government committee or architectual thinktank has more market information than everyone else in the city combined!!! Which is impossible because no committee could ever even know that much market information! So it's a foregone conclusion that any investment decision they make will be inferior (being based on less information) to any decision that the market would have made, thus less profitable. Having sacraficed that opportunity cost - the new standard of living is comparatively lower than it would have been if the money had been left with the public to make better (more profitable) investment decisions.

Now what do the "professionals" have to say about that??? :D