More Sounds fallout

[Richard Lawson]

Alright! Plan B then.

A soccer stadium.

If Nashville could support Major League Soccer (it works in Columbus, Kansas City and Salt Lake City) we could fill 20,000 seats 18 times a year. Dallas has a good example of what might be an affordable stadium.

There is minor league soccer to consider, also. Charleston has what some consider to be the best minor league venue (at about 5,000 seats):

A soccer stadium could be built more cheaply, I would assume. The stadium could also be used for concerts, college soccer, political rallies, etc. You could even allow it to be used as a park where downtown intramural leagues play a lunchtime or early afternoon game.

I could just as easily sit in the sun and take in a soccer game if no baseball was available.

[Hankster]

Was just listening to someone from the Milwaukee Brewers (the Sounds are their triple A affiliate) on 1045 the Zone saying that he hasn't completely given up hope on a new stadium being built at the Riverfront site. Honestly, that just depresses me because I held out hope and held out hope and now that just sounds ridiculous. But it would be nice if somehow they could regoup and pull together the stadium plan.

[southsideJ]

Haven't we all heard the fat lady singing?

[producer2]

Or maybe Milwaukee is interested in having a new group of owners for their farm club...........

[Evergrey]

Pittsburgh Pirates might be available, in spite of their new stadium (in my opinion, the best).

[Richard Lawson]

The Pirates are locked into a 30 year lease at PNC Park. Despite their legendary failure over the past 14 years... the team is quite profitable for its owners... mostly because they're a bunch of crooked cheapskates. They got their cash cow stadium from the taxpayers but they've never reciprocated by investing in a competetive on-field product.

[producer2]

The team does pay a portion of some players salaries, depending upon that players deal with the major league club. Also they pay for al travel expenses, etc. so ther is some cash outlay. Having said that the fact that we have never heard a response from them regarding the allegations from the city and SBER makes me think they were only in it to see what others would pay.

[Richard Lawson]

The team does pay a portion of some players salaries, depending upon that players deal with the major league club. Also they pay for al travel expenses, etc. so ther is some cash outlay. Having said that the fact that we have never heard a response from them regarding the allegations from the city and SBER makes me think they were only in it to see what others would pay.

[nashvol85]

Alright! Plan B then.

A soccer stadium.

If Nashville could support Major League Soccer (it works in Columbus, Kansas City and Salt Lake City) we could fill 20,000 seats 18 times a year. Dallas has a good example of what might be an affordable stadium.

There is minor league soccer to consider, also. Charleston has what some consider to be the best minor league venue (at about 5,000 seats):

A soccer stadium could be built more cheaply, I would assume. The stadium could also be used for concerts, college soccer, political rallies, etc. You could even allow it to be used as a park where downtown intramural leagues play a lunchtime or early afternoon game.

I could just as easily sit in the sun and take in a soccer game if no baseball was available.

[Hankster]

I thought SBER was going to present a new plan for development of the site. As anything come of that? I haven't heard a thing.

[bwithers1]

Well, that's a good idea....except for the fact that soccer is about the least cool sport on the planet. If we build a soccer stadium, I'd rather watch the grass grow. JMO

[ATLBrain]

Looks like my prediction above could come true with a proposal from Councilman Summers to give this property to Metro Parks Dept. Developers are sniffing around (including SBER), but a bill is being mulled/deferred(?) to make this a park.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=56250

Now, I think this would be a big mistake for Nashville. Reason is that if the river will ever be integrated into the fabric of the DT community, then buildings (of whatever size) need to reach the edge at parts. I believe DT is the best candidate for this kind of development. As far as a wide swatch of green space along the riverside, that is in the plan for the East side. If Metro Parks takes over, then what would the river look like? Some no-man's land that looks like a protected watershed that is to be looked at only? Also it would use up more (otherwise) tax generating land, valuable land at that.

The more I look at Nashville and compare with other cities, the more signs I see that there is a deficient/inept(?) understanding among its public officials about how private/public partnerships are supposed to work. I believe Purcell has shown absolutely no leadership in this (and other) key DT developments.

[dfwtiger]

The more I look at Nashville and compare with other cities, the more signs I see that there is a deficient/inept(?) understanding among its public officials about how private/public partnerships are supposed to work. I believe Purcell has shown absolutely no leadership in this (and other) key DT developments.

[southsideJ]

Looks like my prediction above could come true with a proposal from Councilman Summers to give this property to Metro Parks Dept. Developers are sniffing around (including SBER), but a bill is being mulled/deferred(?) to make this a park.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=56250

Now, I think this would be a big mistake for Nashville. Reason is that if the river will ever be integrated into the fabric of the DT community, then buildings (of whatever size) need to reach the edge at parts. I believe DT is the best candidate for this kind of development. As far as a wide swatch of green space along the riverside, that is in the plan for the East side. If Metro Parks takes over, then what would the river look like? Some no-man's land that looks like a protected watershed that is to be looked at only? Also it would use up more (otherwise) tax generating land, valuable land at that.

The more I look at Nashville and compare with other cities, the more signs I see that there is a deficient/inept(?) understanding among its public officials about how private/public partnerships are supposed to work. I believe Purcell has shown absolutely no leadership in this (and other) key DT developments.

[ATLBrain]

I'll have to split up my reply...

You speak of key developments......key to what? Perhaps the market is deficient/inept? When is it a good idea to give public money for private projects?

[ATLBrain]

Part 2...

Option one does not provide guarantee to the public. In the end, too much public money dumped into private development in downtown can hurt the city. It makes projects that were not feasible under current market conditions feasible. Therefore, you could tip the office market...or residential market. This would flatten prices of force prices down. If a market has 90% of the office occupied....someone will build more space with no help from the government. If the rate is 75%...they will shy away from the market...if government puts up some cash for a new building....the rate slips lower.