Jump to content

Nashville's riverfront development


Skyscrapergeek

Recommended Posts

I don't think this is an "overnight" proposition. As such, you should put the plan to the public (by vote) to see how they would support it. It is just good civic leadership to have a plan for land use as the public usually don't get caught up in the "vision thing".

As a fan of Nashville's potential, I have said many times that the riverfront is woefully underused. In fact, it's pretty much ignored. Now, having said that, I believe the article mentioned that those industries not reliant on the river would be relocated. And I'm sure there would be a sweet incentive to move. Once again, that should be communicated to the public for their consideration. If they want a park there, then they'll support it.

Now regarding financing, I (a CPA and tax accountant) can attest to the plethora of financing options. Most of them are possible without even touching taxes. Once again, this is where leadership comes in. One side of the equation would be the auctioning of property to be developed by private concerns. Also, as someone has mentioned, TIF are very attractive supply-side incentives.

So I would encourage anybody whose initial reaction is "NO WAY" to give it more thought. Believe me when I tell you that the P&L isn't just in the immediate time and place.

OK, now my cheerleading is over... and of course, I'm not a taxpayer in davidson county. So put it up for a vote if you guys feel it's worth it.

Maybe Hankster can weigh in on how Chattanooga financed their waterfront. Now that's an impressive achievement.

Granted, Nashville doesn't have to dig a moat for their waterfront to become attractive. I'll even mention my American Museum of Music and HOF (once again) just for the whimsical hell of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nevver have I agreed more with Kheldane. If this project was going to have the enormous rate of return they claim it will, then someone would already be doing it, simple as that. Men like Tony G are not stupid. They go to where the most cash is.

Also this article is awesome when viewed at the same time as the recent articles about the poor level of achievement of Nashville's schools. Sure we graduate idiots, but at least we have a river full of nice brown water running thru the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things are more important than the profit margin of a particular project...

I don't think frankliner ever said anything related to this being the most profitable investment or "outperforming" all other investments. But if it's what the citizens of davidson county want... so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Hankster can weigh in on how Chattanooga financed their waterfront. Now that's an impressive achievement.

Granted, Nashville doesn't have to dig a moat for their waterfront to become attractive. I'll even mention my American Museum of Music and HOF (once again) just for the whimsical hell of it.

I'd be glad to. First of all, to all of you naysayers and "dead on arrival" people out there I say look at Chattanooga. We have recently completely a wildly successful $120 Million waterfront project down here, and you won't find too many people that wished the investment hadn't been made. If Chattanooga can spend $120 Million on it's waterfront, why can't Nashville (a city 3 times Chattanooga's size) spend $300 Million? The project can have an absolutely profound impact on Nashville and could spur private investment on an unprecendented scale. Check out this link for loads of information about Chattanooga's waterfront project, and keep in mind that Nashville's is being designed by the same firms as Chattanooga's.

Chattanooga's 21st Century Waterfront Project

As for funding here's the scoop:

Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker announced the creation of the Waterfront Trust in his State of the City address May 2002, and declared the funds would be raised and the projects completed in just 36 months. The ambitious fundraising timeframe began with the State legislature instituting a hotel/motel tax, with proceeds going to the riverfront's bonded debt service -- $56 million. Then Mayor Corker lead more than 70 fundraising meetings with individuals and groups from the civic, corporate and philanthropic communities, collecting pledges for $36 million.

The $120 million 21st Century Waterfront Trust is another outstanding example of Chattanooga's public/private partnerships, although the trust represents a unique level of public commitment.

Sources of funding for the 21st Century Waterfront Trust

Public funds *$66 million

Private funds

Pledged/raised to date $51 million

Yet to be raised $3 million

_____________________________________

Total $120 million

* Local government's share comes from a dedicated hotel occupancy tax, which will generate $54 million; the balance comes from state and federal sources, and land sales.

Public Space improvements $67.4 million

Hunter Museum of American Art $19.5 million

Creative Discovery Museum $ 3.1 million

Tennessee Aquarium $30 million

_____________________________________

Total $120 million

The 21st Century Plan is projected to serve as catalyst for an additional $50 million in private development along the river and downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

...

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

Well, the "professionals" would say that your scheme has never worked in galvinizing the redevelopment of a riverfront district...anywhere. If you talk to the development community, they are looking for opportunities that can provide interaction between their investments and public demands. I'll provide an economic impact study for your pleasure (just the executive summary) from Cincinnati.

First, an article on how much the initial public investment was:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stor...13/daily15.html

Then, an economic impact study by the University of Cincinnati that figures a $5.4 billion economic impact from the project and a resulting earnings gain of $165 million annually by workers.

Here's the link:

http://www.cob.uc.edu/EconCenter/pdf/2002-...Development.pdf

Now certainly, we cannot extrapolate what the private market could have done on it's own, but I feel safe to say that a system without a coherent redevelopment plan would not have filled both the goals of creating an entire redeveloped district coupled with economic gains.

EDIT- I think the example of Chattanooga is also great Hankster, I'm just trying to go to other areas to show that redevelopment plans really do create beneficial results elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now certainly, we cannot extrapolate what the private market could have done on it's own

:D Oh, certainly not...LOL!!! What would the point of that, except for maybe comparing the private sector performace to the public sector performance so you could reasonably justify taking money from private uses and putting it to public uses!!! That might be a worthwhile comparison, don't you think? If your going to arbitrarily re-direct $300 Million dollars into one large fixed capital asset - wouldn't you say there is a need to evaluate all alternatives (i.e. evaluate alternate profit returns)?

The studies you referenced are (as I think you know) useless in determining whether the government project is more profitable than private investment. Those studies just measure the impact of the government project after the fact. But that's not the issue. Of course if you arbitrarily direct a huge sum of $ into one project there will be related business growth; if you build a tourist attraction there will be growth in tourism related businesses. That is no revelation - it works the same in private industry: large investment often lead to the growth of supporting businesses. The question here is what is more profitable - because if the government option is not the most profitable, then what the hell are they doing?

...but I feel safe to say that a system without a coherent redevelopment plan would not have filled both the goals of creating an entire redeveloped district coupled with economic gains.

"Redevelopment" in the sense you're talking about is simply a codeword for "government confiscation and re-distribution of assets to politically well connected businessmen". Of course, you're right, "redevelopment" would hardly ever happen on a district-wide scale in the private market because that's not the way things work. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. If a group of rich nashvillians pooled their cash and bought the entire east bank (at fair market prices) and built the park themselves, then it would occur through private means, and be attended by all the related economic gains.

But that hasn't happened, and it won't happen because those rich people realize there are more profitable investments for their scarce cash - and they are right to shun inferior investments in favor of profitable investments. I don't see how you can "feel safe to say" that a city district could never by redeveloped outside of government intervention. A person or organization with adequate funds could do just about anything they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Redevelopment" in the sense you're talking about is simply a codeword for "government confiscation and re-distribution of assets to politically well connected businessmen".

Well... if thats the case then maybe the owners of the scrap metal yards facing Downtown should use their constitutional right to SELL their property, and do so. I am against governments confiscating personal property, but I am also against having a peoples trash in open view of my home. So maybe the owners of the scrap metal yards could do themselves a favor (and everyone else), and SELL their land, move to another, less expensive area, make some profit, and let the east side of Nashville thrive. At this point they are not only an eyesore, but a nuisance, who are hampering progress.

As for your feeling that this should be a Private initiative... you know that will never happen.

This is an awesome project, both in looks, function, and in the amount of jobs and homes that it will create. What Nashville needs right now are more leaders with the vision to see what can be done in their town, and not more people who sit around saying, "if you want to do it, fine... but we're just going to sit in office, mismanage the city, and not show anything for it". Half the time government just wastes our money anyways... if they actually BUILD something that can be used... I'm all for it. At least I can see my money at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So maybe the owners of the scrap metal yards could do themselves a favor (and everyone else), and SELL their land, move to another, less expensive area, make some profit, and let the east side of Nashville thrive. At this point they are not only an eyesore, but a nuisance, who are hampering progress.

If selling and moving were in their best interest they would have already done it. It would clearly be a blow to their business and impact them negatively. Those industrial sights are only an eyesore to people with sensitive eyes - who are afraid to see what real world economic production looks like. I can understand how the sight of a scrap steel recycling plant would be shocking to the senses of someone who spends all their time in green hills or belle meade - it's just not "pretty" or "sophisticated" or "european" looking enough for someone looking for a high-class experience wherever they go.

But that in no way changes the fact that those businesses are useful, and serve a purpose, and satisfy customer demands. They are owned and operated by law-abiding citizens who have a right to use their land as they see fit - regardless of whether it offends the delicate sensitivities of some people who happen to pass by on adjacent streets. They are not a nuisance! They do not stand in the way of east nashville thriving. If someone or some organization came in to offer a fair market price, plus a premium, to those companies, then I guarantee they would sell out immediately and re-locate. Those are not charities - they are there to make money. If someone offers to buy them out at a profit - they would surely accept.

It's too bad no one stood in the way of "progress" when they were building the arena and coliseum - those two landmarks to government spending loose millions every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add a wrinkle to the debate -

I have it on good authority that the land the scrap/recycling yard is on is actually leased to them by two land trusts. So in my mind anything that brings increased value to the land will quickly get the attention of the land owners. In this case it seems the parcels will be much more valuable (condos/retail) after Plan One is implimented and thus the scrap yards days are numbered. IMO

The beauty is there is no 'taking' by the govt and the community and land owners still benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupidest .... Plan.... Ever....!!! :rofl:

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!!!

That sounds exactly like what the naysayers in Chattanooga said back in the late '80's when the Tennessee Aquarium, Walnut Street Bridge/River Park were just proposals. I remember statements such as "Who would want to see fish from the nasty polluted Tennessee River", "Who would want to walk on a pedestrian bridge connecting abandoned buildings over a nasty river", "The aquarium will become a taxpayer burden after the donations stop",

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that the land the scrap/recycling yard is on is actually leased to them by two land trusts. So in my mind anything that brings increased value to the land will quickly get the attention of the land owners. In this case it seems the parcels will be much more valuable (condos/retail) after Plan One is implimented and thus the scrap yards days are numbered. IMO

The beauty is there is no 'taking' by the govt and the community and land owners still benefit.

That is interesting NB, thanks for adding that detail,,, it makes me even more sure that if this zone truely is ripe for development, the owners will be in favor of selling out to/ partnering with developers to bring whatever the market demands. I think it could very well happen just due to the proximity of the land to the booming downtown and SoBro areas - - - regardless of whether or not an "island" were ever built.

Now if the island plan envisions turning that land into a canal, that's another story. I'm sure the owners would object to that (or maybe not?). That aspect of the debat is kind of tangential to my other, more important objection to the project - which is that it's a waste of scarce capital, and a bad investment from a return on investment standpoint. Now if the land trust raised some capital and dug their own canal to improve the value of their own land - that would be sweet as hell and probably profitable (because why would they do it if it wasn't?).

Hopefully it's clear to all that I'm not opposed to E.Bank development or high-end retail/residential, or even man-made canals. I'm just opposed to unlawful confiscation of private property and massive government mal-investment that results in economic waste and a corresponding weakening of the nashville economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you don't know whether or not that money would have been better spent elsewhere because you have no way to measure (in quantitative terms) the demand for and consumption of those assets. Sure you pay a ticket fee to get into the aquarium - but it's a discounted fee. Each aquarium-goer is subsidized by the government since the government paid for the aquarium. We may never now how many people would visit an aquarium in chattanooga if they had to pay the full ticket price - but it's a safe assumption that it wouldn't be enough visitors to support a profitable aquarium. How do we know this? Because government funds were used to build the aquarium! If an aquarium had been a profitable business, private enterprise would have been beating down the door to build an aquarium.

Or look at the Walnut st. bridge - We have no way of knowing if it was a good investment or not because it's offered for free. Now maybe if you charged a fee for crossing it, then you could say how much profit is being made from it, but as it stands, you just have a collection of random people utilizing a commodity offered for free. Of course everyone will utilize the crap out of a product offered for free. But would the citizens of Chattanooga have voluntarily spent money to cross an improved bridge? By using tax money to fund it, the government essentially forced them to "consume" that product.

Honestly, I cannot imagine how the public money (some of which was mine) along with all the private donations, and business contributions from the good people of Chattanooga could have possibly been better spent. The majority of money spent was not public money, but it took a significant amount of public money to get the ball rolling. This has injected new life into Chattanooga in such a profound way that words can hardly describe. I hope the Nashville waterfront will be half as successful. If it is, nearly everyone in the city will enthusiastically pronounce the project a great success!

It took the vision of civic leaders to get this project off the ground. If we had waited for business to do it, it just would NEVER happen. In projects such as this, I cannot agree with you that government should never play a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

An article in the City Paper this morning saying the proposed island /eat bank project may be closer to start than realized. They are looking at a revised 390 million dollar project over the next 15 to 20 years but there could be a 40 million initial start soon even if the island plan is not approved. A lot of federal money is involved with this one (kheldane will love that).

Read more:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?se...p;news_id=52404

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does building an island... spur developement on the east bank?

what good is going to come from this?

i don't understand (plus.. i don't really wanna read all the long argumenative essays you kids write either..)

Land on both sides of the new recreational waterway would be open for residential and retail development. Presumably, a master plan/design guidelines would address asthetics, massing, access, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be able to help you out Tot Pack. I think the gist behind making an island is the fact that waterfront property is always a premium no matter where it is. In this case they will be adding a whole new area for waterfront development, hence higher dollars to be invested. The reasoning from my understanding is getting recreational water use in the area off the main barge routes. Then that opens up possibilities for a harbor, restaurants, condos, apartments and who knows what else.

I am not saying I am 100% for or against this, but I do see the reasoning behind it.

Part of the good is that old industrial property may be able to be reused as multi-use developments, parks and green-ways. I do agree that this is a lot of money to spent and wonder if this is the best use for the land and money. Guess we will all have to wait and see. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that has bothered the Engineer in me about this proposal is that all the new canals will be in 50 ft+ deep channels. They will not be easily accessible or viewable from remote locations unless huge amounts of dirt and rock are removed to make gentle slopes and small beaches.

The Fort Worth site seems to have a lot less difference in elevation on the site, better integrating the waterway features into the livable and recreational environment.

On the other hand, maybe they have figured out how to make water run uphill. I would like to know more about the technical feasibility of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I too have wondered about this. I'm worried the channel could be become a moat that is near the level of the current flood plain elev. This would be a pond of stagnant water which would be very bad.

The picture in the CP looked sooo nice today with the riverwalk, but I'd have to believe a few steps would be better. I can say that 1), most people would not want/need to be walking the river during high water or flood and 2) the river stage 'normally' fluctuates less than 3 ft

US Army Corp of Engineers - Nashville District

Cumberland River Stage at Nashville

Nashville District Water Management Information

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Another meeting tonight and the last one of the public forums. There is also an article from the Tennessean today.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...ESS02/610250412

Thought it was very interesting that the full blown "island" project is now expected to be a 1.8 Billion dollar project of public and private funds. That gives you an idea just how massive this project could become. I would say, it could be the largest project ever undertaken in Nashville history.

I second the statement that a fountain at the river's edge of Lower Broad is a good idea....a very good idea!

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.