Nashville Fairgrounds

[smeagolsfree]

I would not consider this DT as far as the Ball park goes. At least it would be a new ballpark for the Sounds. I hope I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. Forgive me in advance if so.

I still think a ball park DT would be much better than this location, but if included in an entertainment complex then it may work nicely. I would much rather the fairgrounds be used on the weekends for something other than a flea market or the monthly gun and knife show. Just a little boring to be nice.

[MidTenn1]

A little off the wall thought; what if the media village was built like a movie lot with 1890's street facades, NY street scenes, etc. Add a sound stage or two and you might have an instant movie industry develop.

Even add a wild west town. Make it a tourist attraction when not in use. Especially since the Universal lot in LA just burned down.

[timmay143]

^^^ I like!! Maybe a little too touristy for some, but I think that is a creative idea.

[nashvylle]

smealgolsfree we are agreeing with each other. I do not consider fairgrounds "downtown" and would much rather see a new ballpark built in downtown, not the fairgrounds.

[jice]

smealgolsfree we are agreeing with each other. I do not consider fairgrounds "downtown" and would much rather see a new ballpark built in downtown, not the fairgrounds.

Exactly.. that's what I was getting at in my post

The Motorplex's ideas are ok.. but I think we'd all prefer a ballpark be built downtown.

My vote is for the media village.. PHofKS's interpretation of this sounds great!

[theplanetsaved]

the metro council is presently considering changing the current use of the Nashville fairgrounds to a different use. Since there may be changes at the fairgrounds- What do you think Metro should do with the fairgrounds? Metro may not publicly debate what some of the options are but this web site is perhaps a good play to debate or discuss what some of the options are and why?

[timmay143]

Councilman Crafton stirring the pot.

Crafton Proposes Resolution To Dismiss State Fair Board

Some more interesting news.

City Paper: Dean to Keep State Fair at Fairgrounds, Scrap Expo Center Move?

Some more crazy stuff.

Fairgrounds Group Denied Rally Permit

Metro: Permit Denial A Misunderstanding

[jice]

Crazy... so now it sounds as if the only change would be demolishing the Motorplex?

Maybe this was their plan all along.. lol.

[timmay143]

The racetrack is the only thing I would like to stay!

[Richard Lawson]

Wow I haven't posted here in a long while ... Here are a couple of things on this subject, food for thought ... http://www.nashvillechatterclass.com/2010/12/03/tennessee-state-fairgrounds-who-won-who-lost/

http://www.nashvillechatterclass.com/2010/12/06/analysis-opposition-to-moving-fairgrounds-trumps-convention-center/

[Shuzilla]

Wow I haven't posted here in a long while ... Here are a couple of things on this subject, food for thought ... http://www.nashville...o-won-who-lost/

http://www.nashville...vention-center/

While it's true that getting rid of the track first will disengage most of those opponents, when one considers that the racetrack is the most offensive aspect to the neighborhood, with its demise we may see an exit of some redevelopment supporters as well. Without that redevelopment "support" the Mayor has no good reason to stop existing activites other than his own desire to create an economic wasteland from which any redevelopment is a no-brainer.

Why not not hold fairs and flea markets right up to the day actual construction begins on a real, economically-justifiable redevelopment? Even the locals don't see the point of living next to 117 acres of empty space if nothng concrete follows.

Nobody wants to see the fairgrounds become another Starwood Amphitheater site, going from a useful (even endearing) venue to recession victim wasteland.

[theplanetsaved]

If it is unclear what the future of the fairgrounds site is going to be-why is it a done deal that they are going to demolish one of the oldest racetracks in the country built in 1903. I know there are people who do not want the racetrack to remain but it does not make sense to demolish a it without knowing what will be done at the fair ground site. THe fair grounds site is a series of community facilities and the race track is a public facility and why do you demolish it with no plans to replace it.

[theplanetsaved]

Wow I haven't posted here in a long while ... Here are a couple of things on this subject, food for thought ... http://www.nashville...o-won-who-lost/

http://www.nashville...vention-center/

After reading the Tennessean newspaper the last few days and todays article "Companies check out fairgrounds." I know Nashville needs to create job opportunities and try to attract new businesses but do taxpayers need to be in the development business? Does government need to be competing with private development? What is most confusing is the mayors office is saying that nashville must have corporate campuses and that the fairgrounds is the only site left for corporate campuses. At the same time private developers are proposing development at buchanan point and may town center. May town had up to 7 corporate campuses -Maytown had supporters (interested in job opportunities) and some distant neighbors against. The planning commission said no to maytown and it's corporate locations. The mayor said nothing for two years about the need for corporate locations while that was all maytown spoke about. All projects have supporters and opposition. Now there are many people opposed to the mayors idea of closing the fairgrounds and racetrack and converting it to development.

Knowing that all development projects have supporters and opposition should our goverment leaders be proposing development and spin there development first and have a competitive edge with private developers. in the article "Companies check out fairgrounds" makes no mention that these companies also were shown campus sites at maytown or buchanan point. Buchanan point is already approved and maytown is as much approved for development as the current fairgrounds site. Yet the city shows there proposed development(not aporoved) and not the competition ie maytown or buchanan point. How are private developers going to compete in nashville for companies as long as our city leaders only promote their fairground project. I have to wonder if these same companies were shown several 50 acre campus at maytown and the fairgrounds campus which would they prefer.

[producer2]

After reading the Tennessean newspaper the last few days and todays article "Companies check out fairgrounds." I know Nashville needs to create job opportunities and try to attract new businesses but do taxpayers need to be in the development business? Does government need to be competing with private development? What is most confusing is the mayors office is saying that nashville must have corporate campuses and that the fairgrounds is the only site left for corporate campuses. At the same time private developers are proposing development at buchanan point and may town center. May town had up to 7 corporate campuses -Maytown had supporters (interested in job opportunities) and some distant neighbors against. The planning commission said no to maytown and it's corporate locations. The mayor said nothing for two years about the need for corporate locations while that was all maytown spoke about. All projects have supporters and opposition. Now there are many people opposed to the mayors idea of closing the fairgrounds and racetrack and converting it to development.

Knowing that all development projects have supporters and opposition should our goverment leaders be proposing development and spin there development first and have a competitive edge with private developers. in the article "Companies check out fairgrounds" makes no mention that these companies also were shown campus sites at maytown or buchanan point. Buchanan point is already approved and maytown is as much approved for development as the current fairgrounds site. Yet the city shows there proposed development(not aporoved) and not the competition ie maytown or buchanan point. How are private developers going to compete in nashville for companies as long as our city leaders only promote their fairground project. I have to wonder if these same companies were shown several 50 acre campus at maytown and the fairgrounds campus which would they prefer.

Let's not confuse the issues. ALL developments including Maytown would require participation by Metro. I am not saying Maytown is a bad idea, just not as easy as you make it sound. Second there is a time factor. Maytown only exists as a thought so why would those in economic development show something that isn't there and would take years to get started and have infrastructure and infill. The Fairgrounds site would take far less time and would create many new advantages for the neighborhood. Buchanan Point was strongly supported by this administration so I am not sure what your point is on that development.

[theplanetsaved]

Let's not confuse the issues. ALL developments including Maytown would require participation by Metro. I am not saying Maytown is a bad idea, just not as easy as you make it sound. Second there is a time factor. Maytown only exists as a thought so why would those in economic development show something that isn't there and would take years to get started and have infrastructure and infill. The Fairgrounds site would take far less time and would create many new advantages for the neighborhood. Buchanan Point was strongly supported by this administration so I am not sure what your point is on that development.

THe fairgrounds project is a "thought" also and not approved and has a lot of opposition. My Point was that the fairgrounds is just a thought by our government leaders and maytown is a thought by private developers. And does anyone know what infra-structure upgrades and cost are involved with the fairgrounds it may be a lot more than people think. And since when do city development with private developers happen so fast ie baseball staduim -these developments can also take a lot of time. It just seems like city leaders are pushing there own developments over private developments. I did not think that was the role of our local government.

[producer2]

They both have opposition and they both have proponents. The City owns the fairgrounds so I would guess that is there agenda.

[theplanetsaved]

They both have opposition and they both have proponents. The City owns the fairgrounds so I would guess that is there agenda.

Yes But did you vote for your city officials to act as a developer and to compete against private developers. Did you vote for officials to prevent private development so that government officials can then stand up say they the government must do development because they have the only site available for corporate campuses. Clearly the fairgrounds is not the only site available for corporate campuses.

Something else must be going on like close the race track after 107 years or I hate the state fair or the flee market or someone very special wants the state fair site.

[producer2]

Yes But did you vote for your city officials to act as a developer and to compete against private developers. Did you vote for officials to prevent private development so that government officials can then stand up say they the government must do development because they have the only site available for corporate campuses. Clearly the fairgrounds is not the only site available for corporate campuses.

Something else must be going on like close the race track after 107 years or I hate the state fair or the flee market or someone very special wants the state fair site.

First you would have to believe that government is "preventing private development" as you put it. I do not. Second I do think that a priority of government is to create economic development for it's constituents. To me that means attracting private developers as well as creating useful spaces where private developers are unwilling such as Rolling Mill Hill. What other viable campus is available and close to the City?

Yes But did you vote for your city officials to act as a developer and to compete against private developers. Did you vote for officials to prevent private development so that government officials can then stand up say they the government must do development because they have the only site available for corporate campuses. Clearly the fairgrounds is not the only site available for corporate campuses.

Something else must be going on like close the race track after 107 years or I hate the state fair or the flee market or someone very special wants the state fair site.

First you would have to believe that government is "preventing private development" as you put it. I do not. Second I do think that a priority of government is to create economic development for it's constituents. To me that means attracting private developers as well as creating useful spaces where private developers are unwilling such as Rolling Mill Hill. What other viable campus is available and close to the City?

[timmay143]

Well, I hate to see the racetrack go because it does have historical value (to me at least). I don't really care to much about the rest of the place. What they could/should do is fix up the racetrack and put a museum there detailing the history of the place. Since NASCAR is such a huge business/sporting event draw, I think it would be a good attraction.

As for the rest of the place they should either invest some money into it and make it more attractive or replace it something else such as ideas proposed early (mixed use etc.)

As for other areas for corporate campus type developments. I wish developers and others involved would use existing space, like Hickory Hollow Mall and the Crossings area, Bellevue Mall, and/or Rivergate Mall (not sure about that mall, but I hear it is struggling too). Also, (not sure about this area either) what about Metro Center, and I know Donelson has plenty of office park type developments (including the big one to go up yet). Plus not to mention the myriad of other areas around town (around the airport such as Murfreesboro Rd., Briley Parkway, and Harding Place, Green Hills, Grassmere, and all the other nooks and crannies.

Another remark I have made before was using all the empty space up downtown. They don't have to be tall buildings either. Shuzilla made the point of having to develop the downtown area to hold the capacity which would "burden" the taxpayers while the Maytown Center would fund a bridge etc. As a counter point, wouldn't the taxpayers/government have to pay to develop the area up to the Maytown center? Since downtown and other places already exist wouldn't it make better sense to upgrade services etc. that already need upgrading anyways? Many use downtown and the other areas for multiple purposes anyways (that is the idea anyways) so it would seem more fair to use taxpayer money to develop an existing area which needs or will needs upgrades where more people would "benefit." Especially with efforts to push a good mass transit system and plenty of things going on already to draw more people (riverfront, sports, concerts, commercial, jobs, MCC, residential, etc).

I mean, plus, taxes are for that purpose. To use to improve and pay for citizens services, work, and play. It just bugs me when people complain about paying taxes, then when "their" taxes aren't used for every single thing that they use or do all hell breaks loose. For example, if taxes are used to help pay for sports facilities (I mean I wish it would be paid for by private monies) and people don't go to games or whatever, then they say that it isn't fair. However, looking at the whole picture people who do go to games and spend money are pumping into the economy and sale tax revenue. Then tax revenue may be reissued to support a road system near their (non-gamers) house, or school, or sewer system, etc. Dunno, I am not a economic or political expert so it may just be me.

[MTSUBlueraider86]

Not that I am a sports junkie, but I happen to be listening to 104.5 The Zone yesterday and a booster for the fairgrounds was ranting on the Three Hour Lunch yesterday. He is vehemently opposed to the mayor and what he wants to do. This man wants to "preserve the fairgrounds culture." However; he does want to eliminate the Fair Board.

Several homeowners groups are for the racetrack and fairgrounds to be torn down. They see this as a continued devaluation of their residential property so look for residential groups to organize to get rid of the fairgrounds. I agree. This property is too valuable and it shows the land is worth more than the track can generate in revenue.

[jice]

An article about the fairgrounds debate, in the New York Times..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21racetrack.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

So now it sounds like nothing happens for at least 2 years? Aside from development of a master plan. Is that accurate?

[MTSUBlueraider86]

You don't see anyone with money wanting to preserve the track and buy the property outright. I recently saw a story online about the demise of NASCAR and how it is a dying sport because of the expense. The race tracks, especially the small regional facilities cannot host enough races to be profitable. Unless you are the NFL, MLB, NBA, you are going to have a tough time being profitable. Even the NHL is in serious trouble.

Its time to do something positive with this property.

BR

[Nashvillain]

There doesn't seem to be any reason the racetrack has to be in that location aside from tradition or history. At the time it was built, the area was probably more rural and sparsely populated. Now, it's in the middle of a big residential area and an area that could use more commercial development. There are other rural areas of Davidson county that could host a racetrack if a new one is needed.

However, I think MTSUblueraider is right, racing is expensive these days and the sport's popularity is waning. It's tough to hold that area hostage for the sake of a few diehards in a highly niche sport.

[timmay143]

Well it looks as if the State Fair will be held here for 2011 and 2012. The racetrack is also going to remain. However, a master plan for the fairgrounds and surrounding land is planning to be done by the end of this year. An outside research group will be hired by the Fairgrounds Board. The plan will take into consideration "important historical, recreational, and cultural uses."

http://www.tennessea...hville-Speedway

http://www.newschann...ate-fairgrounds

edit: I thought they already had ideas for the fairgrounds. What is the new study for then? Maybe since the scope of the project has changed because of the racetrack??

[timmay143]

I would like to see the race track be preserved due to its historical value. It has to be done right though. Would look into some sort of sound diminishing idea. Could put a museum dedicated to the history. Then I would like to see the relocation of the fair somewhere in Davidson Co., I think the HH area would be a nice benefit for both the fairgrounds and the area. Then as for the rest of the space at the fairgrounds?? I dunno. I did like the idea of a movie/film studio and school. Could be a nice draw for movie related industry.