Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smeagolsfree

May Town Center

Recommended Posts

As proposed, May Town appears to be one of the most green developments in the history of Tennessee. LEED, very very very dense, preserves over 900 acres of the 1500 as park land, and saves literally 1000's of acres of farmland that would be developed for all these office buildings somewhere else "but for" this project. Of course, IF your world view is the 25,000 acres and the 65 people in Bells Bend then perhaps one could differ, if however one takes a slightly larger view, oh say, Davidson County or heaven forbid all of Middle Tennessee then this is a winner in my opinion on the environmental front of biblical proportions.

The projections in the press are that at full build out in 15 years or so this project would generate in excess of $50,000,000/year in NEW property taxes alone and means that 1000's will work and shop in Davidson County vs. Williamson, Wilson or Sumner Co. The folks fighting this in my opinion could care less if we have enough tax revenue to pay for schools, sewers, police and fire for Woodbine, Inglewood, Lockeland Springs, Hedley Park, so long as Bells Bend stays "exactly" as it always " has been". "Has been" means that they live there and the rest of us don't. In the end, if everyone works, shops and lives in Williamson, Wilson or Sumner County, then all of us that can't afford to move to some toney Williamson Co. subdivision are screwed - no joke, totally and completely screwed. It is about time that we got our heads out of our collective backsides and simply acknowledge that we need to address this. This proposal appears to a way to start doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


As proposed, May Town appears to be one of the most green developments in the history of Tennessee. LEED, very very very dense, preserves over 900 acres of the 1500 as park land, and saves literally 1000's of acres of farmland that would be developed for all these office buildings somewhere else "but for" this project. Of course, IF your world view is the 25,000 acres and the 65 people in Bells Bend then perhaps one could differ, if however one takes a slightly larger view, oh say, Davidson County or heaven forbid all of Middle Tennessee then this is a winner in my opinion on the environmental front of biblical proportions.

The projections in the press are that at full build out in 15 years or so this project would generate in excess of $50,000,000/year in NEW property taxes alone and means that 1000's will work and shop in Davidson County vs. Williamson, Wilson or Sumner Co. The folks fighting this in my opinion could care less if we have enough tax revenue to pay for schools, sewers, police and fire for Woodbine, Inglewood, Lockeland Springs, Hedley Park, so long as Bells Bend stays "exactly" as it always " has been". "Has been" means that they live there and the rest of us don't. In the end, if everyone works, shops and lives in Williamson, Wilson or Sumner County, then all of us that can't afford to move to some toney Williamson Co. subdivision are screwed - no joke, totally and completely screwed. It is about time that we got our heads out of our collective backsides and simply acknowledge that we need to address this. This proposal appears to a way to start doing that.

The one thing you have to question is whether or not this 900 acres set aside will always remain green space, or whether the developer knows one day they'll be able to expand if needed. If the land is turned over to the Land Trust, I would feel alot better than if a developer is saying he will "set aside" the land for green space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing you have to question is whether or not this 900 acres set aside will always remain green space, or whether the developer knows one day they'll be able to expand if needed. If the land is turned over to the Land Trust, I would feel alot better than if a developer is saying he will "set aside" the land for green space.

I read where the developer has said they propose a "permanent" conservation easement and that he mentioned the land trust or some sort a permanent agreement with metro parks. I also understand that they proposed "connectivity" with the Bells Pend park thus increasing it from 800 to more than 1700 acres.

As an aside I would note that "connectivity" is an interesting idea for these parks given that no one is really using them now. I go all the time to Bells Bend park and NEVER, I mean NEVER, see anyone there. The idea, as I understand it, is to provide walking and bike access from west Nashville across the new bridge. I know that needs to fleshed out a lot, but if you look at Google Earth you will see that a lot of folks live really close to this site on the west side of the river. I know the neighbor's in the Bend likely don't want us over there but a 1700 acre park that I could get to on my bike would be really cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that factors in here is that the Mays won't be the ones doing the building. They are basically acting as land developers. They put into place all of the infrastructure and guidelines for development. That means, other developers come in to do the different pieces but do so under the guidelines established by the Mays.

Another interesting fact, Jack May is a vegetarian. It's a good bet if folks wanted to do some organic farming over there he'd be all for it. It certainly would make for an interesting mix... Corporate campus next to an organic farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking at those aerial pictures, is the H2O development in that heavily treed area in the left foreground? If so, I'm surprised by the amount of built-up area around it.

H20 is the slew area further west between the Lowes/Walmart complex and the Waffle House/Days Inn. It is connected to the greenway ... on of the bridge site was there into the bend. Of course ANAIR (Alliance for Native American Indian Rights) was heavily involved in the protections of what is now Bells Bend Park nearly 15 years ago.

:offtopic: I do have to work for several hours over the next couple of days so I will read and respond quickly as time and my workload permits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing you have to question is whether or not this 900 acres set aside will always remain green space, or whether the developer knows one day they'll be able to expand if needed. If the land is turned over to the Land Trust, I would feel a lot better than if a developer is saying he will "set aside" the land for green space.

Those set aside don't necessarily have to be land trusted, although that would be a tax advantage I think for the developer if he did. But the set aside could be codified with the city and what I'm told, that's what they will do.

The arguments for and against this projects are so predictable. Nearly every fight is the same. The challenge is the city needs development for the tax base to expand to meet the growing demands on services. Outlying countries grow at the expense of Nashville. On the other side, neighborhoods don't want the growth in their backyard. Grow but somewhere else. Developers always prefer raw open land. It's easier to develop because you don't have to demolish. Clean slate.

If the folks don't want growth in or near their neighborhoods, they should probably urge better mass transit to or even commuter rail and the density hub concept. Green in between the density.

Oh and I saw a comment on the only the rich people will benefit. Interesting comment. Another side of that is the Charlotte Park and Beacon folks probably will see their property values increase if they own and potentially sell the home for a nicer price than they could now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those set aside don't necessarily have to be land trusted, although that would be a tax advantage I think for the developer if he did. But the set aside could be codified with the city and what I'm told, that's what they will do.

The arguments for and against this projects are so predictable. Nearly every fight is the same. The challenge is the city needs development for the tax base to expand to meet the growing demands on services. Outlying countries grow at the expense of Nashville. On the other side, neighborhoods don't want the growth in their backyard. Grow but somewhere else. Developers always prefer raw open land. It's easier to develop because you don't have to demolish. Clean slate.

If the folks don't want growth in or near their neighborhoods, they should probably urge better mass transit to or even commuter rail and the density hub concept. Green in between the density.

Oh and I saw a comment on the only the rich people will benefit. Interesting comment. Another side of that is the Charlotte Park and Beacon folks probably will see their property values increase if they own and potentially sell the home for a nicer price than they could now.

You talk about outlying counties growing at the expense of Nashville...and I know we all hate sprawl...but isn't this all really based on how you look at it?

Places that we call "sprawl" like development in Williamson...Rutherford...Wilson..Sumner...etc are actually small cities growing just like Nashville. Why is it that Nashville expands and grows outward and it's ok, yet it's bad when Nashville's sattelite cities do the same?

I understand the growing problems with traffic and no sidewalks, but that's almost everywhere. Yes...I wish everything could be like downtown Franklin, with great low and mid rise architecture and walkable landscape, but it's not gonna happen everywhere.

May Town IS sprawl the same as Cool Springs, or the Avenue, or Mt. Juliet's new construction, etc. The fact that it's in Davidson County doesn't make it any less so.

By the way...it's not like Franklin, Murfreesboro, Lebanon, etc just sprouted up and became Nashville's "sprawl". Many of these towns have been around as long or nearly as long as Nashville and have just as much right to compete for business as Nashville does.

And most of these people who live in the "burbs" love Nashville and want it to succeed....but it should never really be Nashville VS. Cool Springs...it should be Nashville AND Cool Springs AND Murfressboro AND etc...all working together to bring in a healthy number of businesses to all the region.

OK...I'm off the soap box. Start with the bashing. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely you jest. we're going to save a farm 30 miles from town by paving one that's only 6 miles out ? there are so many reasons to be skeptical about this project i don't quite know where to begin. regardless of whether this farmland is in davidson county it is hardly urban so paving it over will only intensify the sprawl that already exists. ever drive around the perimeter of downtown or through sobro, the gulch, midtown or west end and wonder how long it will take for these areas to grow together ? i don't know what the answer is but it will surely take much longer if we divert resources several miles from town and try to steer absorbtion away from our core instead of to it. shouldn't we invest our infrastructure (streetscapes, sidewalks, overhead line removal, even light rail) dollars in these areas before we start chasing some pipedream on a farm in a floodplain 6 miles from town ?

we complain about crappy retail in downtown and the lack of a quality urban experience to lure companies to downtown. may town is no panacea and will just frustrate some of the recent progress we've seen within our core. and with all due respect to mr. tony and mr. may, neither have a demonstrated track record developing the type of project that they're proposing. i suspect that mayor dean will give this important detail due consideration before putting many or even any of his infrastructure eggs in the bells bend basket.

Surely, I do NOT jest. It's not just this land I'm talking about. I'm talking about this property and the other thousands and thousands of acres of undeveloped property that exists in nearer the downtown than other properties being developed. As for your contention that developing May Town will intensify sprawl, I've never heard such convoluted logic in my life. Surely you are kidding.

And May Town is no pipe dream. And thanks to Old Hickory Dam, it's no longer on a floodplain either. That land probably won't flood again for hundred's of years.

Those set aside don't necessarily have to be land trusted, although that would be a tax advantage I think for the developer if he did. But the set aside could be codified with the city and what I'm told, that's what they will do.

The arguments for and against this projects are so predictable. Nearly every fight is the same. The challenge is the city needs development for the tax base to expand to meet the growing demands on services. Outlying countries grow at the expense of Nashville. On the other side, neighborhoods don't want the growth in their backyard. Grow but somewhere else. Developers always prefer raw open land. It's easier to develop because you don't have to demolish. Clean slate.

If the folks don't want growth in or near their neighborhoods, they should probably urge better mass transit to or even commuter rail and the density hub concept. Green in between the density.

Oh and I saw a comment on the only the rich people will benefit. Interesting comment. Another side of that is the Charlotte Park and Beacon folks probably will see their property values increase if they own and potentially sell the home for a nicer price than they could now.

Great post, Richard! Well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, I do NOT jest. It's not just this land I'm talking about. I'm talking about this property and the other thousands and thousands of acres of undeveloped property that exists in nearer the downtown than other properties being developed. As for your contention that developing May Town will intensify sprawl, I've never heard such convoluted logic in my life. Surely you are kidding.

hankster, i suspect we may agree on more than you think. let me explain. sprawl is a relative term and it isn't a phenomenon limited only to land outside of davidson county. i've heard local architects and planners talk about how much sprawl we have even within our own downtown. ask most anyone that lives downtown and i'll bet they'd tell you they'd gladly give up half the buildings within downtown if only the remaining 50% could be better oriented or positioned to yield more walkable urbanity (better opportunities for clusters of retail beneath office and residential). now obviously we don't get a downtown development do-over, i'm just trying to illustrate the point that sprawl can and does exist downtown just as it exists in our suburbs (which imo aren't defined by county lines).

we've just concluded that we have mostly tourist oriented retail in our core (no surprise there) and have hired a retail coordinator to recruit high quality retailers and grocers to downtown. though i think these efforts are well intended i've never seen anyone have much success "recruiting" retailers anywhere. Good ones are good because they know where they want to be and they don't hesitate when conditions (demographics/psychographics etc) meet their criteria. i believe that if the city ends up getting behind the may development with big infrastructure subsidies any retailers paying attention will see this as more of a threat to the core than to willaimson county and will continue to stand down rather than take a chance on being too early investing in a downtown location.

again, i really don't think the threshold question is whether we like the master plan (which i do) or whether this farmland should be preserved, i think it's more a question of whether the city should risk getting distracted or spreading its limited infrastructure resources too thin, and too far from the center of town with so much opportunities remaining inside the loop. i think this is true even if one was certain that the may rendering promised would materialize (maybe it would be a success or maybe it would fail). and the $4b tax base arguments aren't persuasive to me either because they presume 2 things a) that we can't redirect city infrastructure dollars to other more urban areas of town and realize a similar or equivalent tax base, and b) that none of the presumed may development absorption would come at the expense of other davidson county projects. these presumptions ask us to accept a silly zero sum development scenario where may town competes only with big bad williamson county leaving the rest of davidson county to build and absorb as it would without the $4b maytown. pretty silly if you think about it but the pitch sure makes for impressive headline grabbing tax revenue projections (presumably to justify the big forthcoming ask of the city for infrastructure $'s).

i believe logic would suggest that since city resources are limited it should prioritize and fight sprawl (with dollars and policy) from inside out. there are still many needed projects inside the loop before we reach the sort of critical mass that could attract an rei, whole foods, nordstroms or the other quality retailers everyone understandably wants. there is still unfinished business in and around the core and to get preoccuppied trying to leapfrog a new downtown of sorts out in a davidson county suburb (if we can even call it that) would be a big mistake imo...just ask that new retail recruiter once she gets a chance to go call on a few of those retailers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this website: http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Sou...on-Profile.html

Nashville city population, 1980 - 455,651

Nashville city population, 2000 - 545,524

20-year growth - 90,000

Nashville MSA population, 1980 - 851,000

Nashville MSA population, 2000 - 1,231,331

20-year growth - 370,000

growth outside the city/metro area - 280,000

The Nashville MSA could easily grow anywhere from an additional 250,000 to 350,000 people in the next fifteen years, the time projected for the build out of May Town Center. There is enough growth to go around. I don't think a successful MTC, planned to house only 2% of that growth and employ less than 20%, would succeeed at the detrement of downtown, which will have its own success story to tell.

Hopefully, the 5000 units proposed for a portion of 450 acres in MTC will come at the expense (or preservation) of several thousand acres of yet undeveloped countryside in surrounding counties. I think that's Hankster's point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about outlying counties growing at the expense of Nashville...and I know we all hate sprawl...but isn't this all really based on how you look at it?

Places that we call "sprawl" like development in Williamson...Rutherford...Wilson..Sumner...etc are actually small cities growing just like Nashville. Why is it that Nashville expands and grows outward and it's ok, yet it's bad when Nashville's sattelite cities do the same?

I understand the growing problems with traffic and no sidewalks, but that's almost everywhere. Yes...I wish everything could be like downtown Franklin, with great low and mid rise architecture and walkable landscape, but it's not gonna happen everywhere.

May Town IS sprawl the same as Cool Springs, or the Avenue, or Mt. Juliet's new construction, etc. The fact that it's in Davidson County doesn't make it any less so.

By the way...it's not like Franklin, Murfreesboro, Lebanon, etc just sprouted up and became Nashville's "sprawl". Many of these towns have been around as long or nearly as long as Nashville and have just as much right to compete for business as Nashville does.

And most of these people who live in the "burbs" love Nashville and want it to succeed....but it should never really be Nashville VS. Cool Springs...it should be Nashville AND Cool Springs AND Murfressboro AND etc...all working together to bring in a healthy number of businesses to all the region.

OK...I'm off the soap box. Start with the bashing. :D

True about the sprawl definition. I think what folks consider the neighborhoods with winding streets and cul de sacs as sprawl. Downtown Franklin wouldn't be considered sprawl. Would May Town Center be sprawl or a dense node that potentially increases the tax base while having substantial green space? That's part of the debate it seems. What you mention is the point of regionalism. It's not us versus them. It's us and them. Problem is they are having a hard time defining it. MTC would seem to fall into the us versus them category. The pitch is we want Nashville to compete with Cool Springs. Very complicated argument ensues when the city is losing some of it's commercial tax base to an outlying county, making the regionalism a difficult goal to achieve. Many competing interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Richard.

I truly have no background in development or urban planning, which is probably evident in my posts, but it just started hitting me the other day that the Nashville MSA is a conglomerate of cities with their own downtowns, their own mini-suburbs and "sprawl."

I understand that each city, due to taxes needed for infrastructure, will fight for the next development to come to their neighborhood...and I realize that Cool Springs has won many of the battles over the past few years. I agree that Nashville needs to step up and compete...I just wish they could compete using downtown land instead of going out to Bells Bend (not that I'm opposed to this development).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hankster, i suspect we may agree on more than you think. let me explain. sprawl is a relative term and it isn't a phenomenon limited only to land outside of davidson county. i've heard local architects and planners talk about how much sprawl we have even within our own downtown. ask most anyone that lives downtown and i'll bet they'd tell you they'd gladly give up half the buildings within downtown if only the remaining 50% could be better oriented or positioned to yield more walkable urbanity (better opportunities for clusters of retail beneath office and residential). now obviously we don't get a downtown development do-over, i'm just trying to illustrate the point that sprawl can and does exist downtown just as it exists in our suburbs (which imo aren't defined by county lines).

we've just concluded that we have mostly tourist oriented retail in our core (no surprise there) and have hired a retail coordinator to recruit high quality retailers and grocers to downtown. though i think these efforts are well intended i've never seen anyone have much success "recruiting" retailers anywhere. Good ones are good because they know where they want to be and they don't hesitate when conditions (demographics/psychographics etc) meet their criteria. i believe that if the city ends up getting behind the may development with big infrastructure subsidies any retailers paying attention will see this as more of a threat to the core than to willaimson county and will continue to stand down rather than take a chance on being too early investing in a downtown location.

again, i really don't think the threshold question is whether we like the master plan (which i do) or whether this farmland should be preserved, i think it's more a question of whether the city should risk getting distracted or spreading its limited infrastructure resources too thin, and too far from the center of town with so much opportunities remaining inside the loop. i think this is true even if one was certain that the may rendering promised would materialize (maybe it would be a success or maybe it would fail). and the $4b tax base arguments aren't persuasive to me either because they presume 2 things a) that we can't redirect city infrastructure dollars to other more urban areas of town and realize a similar or equivalent tax base, and b) that none of the presumed may development absorption would come at the expense of other davidson county projects. these presumptions ask us to accept a silly zero sum development scenario where may town competes only with big bad williamson county leaving the rest of davidson county to build and absorb as it would without the $4b maytown. pretty silly if you think about it but the pitch sure makes for impressive headline grabbing tax revenue projections (presumably to justify the big forthcoming ask of the city for infrastructure $'s).

i believe logic would suggest that since city resources are limited it should prioritize and fight sprawl (with dollars and policy) from inside out. there are still many needed projects inside the loop before we reach the sort of critical mass that could attract an rei, whole foods, nordstroms or the other quality retailers everyone understandably wants. there is still unfinished business in and around the core and to get preoccuppied trying to leapfrog a new downtown of sorts out in a davidson county suburb (if we can even call it that) would be a big mistake imo...just ask that new retail recruiter once she gets a chance to go call on a few of those retailers.

Exactly! Sprawl is a term that means so many things that I'm not sure I totally understand it. One man's sprawl is another man's infill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Oh and I saw a comment on the only the rich people will benefit. Interesting comment. Another side of that is the Charlotte Park and Beacon folks probably will see their property values increase if they own and potentially sell the home for a nicer price than they could now.

Tony G said his bridge to Maytown was targeted for the 37205 zip code. And I would be very interested to know where an Interstate Spur that has totally gone over the top of a community as actually increased the value of that property. If you talk to the families in Charlotte Park/Beacon Square many are generational residents with no interest in moving.

Lets talk hypothetically about that for just a minute. Lets say that your Beacon Square home can be put on the market today for $235,000. Just where in Nashville would you move to which would put you in a community that even barely resembles the quality of life you have now?

Interestingly this is a piece of the same argument that the Beaman to Bells Bend land owners are making...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***I was thinking of an interchange as shown in the slideshow at maytowncenter.com. Of course, these images pre-date the decision to cut off access to the north, so who knows? This proposal seems to show an elevated road going through some trees and over the old ferry ramp, not houses. It doesn't look too intrusive to the neighborhood. However, local roads will have to be re-worked, contrary to the rendered access ramp network. Ultimately, the government at some level gets to decide the configuration. I guess that's why they get to pay for it....

###...The city has not come in to preserve Bells Bend, that's what Bells bend park is for, and they are getting frustrated at the community for not understanding that simple fact.

^^^Did this gentleman mention the number of successful developments of the scale of any of those projects he has under his belt?

***Tony G said at the last meeting that the BRIDGE would go OVER the Charlotte Park/Beacon Square community. It would be a continuous steel structure.

###Planning has done an excellent job gathering information from all parties. I think that they may need a more experienced facilitator - not that she hasn't done a patient and excellent job. A few Saturday "meeting on the grounds" with opportunities for an open mic with a set time / sign up so that more people can speak would be a very good thing to add to the methodology. The 'Sunday evening prayer meeting' type 2 hour timed out agenda is far to easy to manipulate. It seemed to me, many of the intrested parties at the last meeting felt like they were unheard

^^^He who... Oh. Tony G. Please enumerate those in a 100 mile radius and their track record of the last 15 years. Be sure to include residential property value change, crime, and educational statistics, and the area bond rating. Truly. I am open to the resume.

Risk taking - come in land grab make a bunch of money, leave the mess for others to deal with and move on to another project... OMG! That sounds like what Pedro Garcia just did to the Schools in Nashville. "It's all connected." - Karl Dean, Mayor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony G said his bridge to Maytown was targeted for the 37205 zip code. And I would be very interested to know where an Interstate Spur that has totally gone over the top of a community as actually increased the value of that property.

You keep repeating the same conclusion, that the road is only a spur off I-40, no matter how mant times you are shown otherwise. I spoke with TG personally at the February 11 meeting to find out where the bridge would be. (This was before the renderings were released). He said behind Costco, in a little area with no homes. I asked would West Nashville have access or just I-40. he said West Nashville would connect, as that is where many people would come in from. He said that the bridge design was in other folk's hands and that's all he knew.

So that's all we know.

Later, the web site posted RTKL's vision, which is exactly TG's description but with some more detail. This was the rendering kept under their hats, as it still shows OHB connecting northward. It also shows a dogleg off Annex that goes through the trees, not over houses, as it achieves bridge elevation. I think it can't work in that exact configuration, but it's just a concept. Nobody knows anything else concrete about the bridge.

Can we please just discuss the merits behind the concept of a bridge without counting the bolts in the bridge's moment connections? Do we need to see concrete cylinder test reports for the cable anchorages before we decide if a development the scale of MTC is good or bad for Nashville?

The location of the bridge and its configuration are details. Paying a civil engineer to produce working drawings before any studies are done would be a bit premature, don't you think? The specifics of the bridge design are not nearly as important to the city, when determinin a change in land use, as the developer's wilingness to pay for studies and follow their recommendations. No bridge = no project, regardless of whatever approvals the developer has obtained. That bridge may or may not connect to 37205 traffic, and it may bridge to Annex or Davidson or Old Hickory or Centennial. Old Hickory Boulevard in the bend may or may not connect to the bridge. Someone will be upset regardless of which solution is persued.

Let's don't argue the merits of MTC based on whether we think there will be a 14 foot clearance over Cabot Drive or only a mere 10 feet. We're not there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Maytown Development in BellsBend is wrong for Nashville. From that prospective, this entire conversation could be considered premature. In the words of the planning department facilitator ... we can have the conversation now or later. The trees... where the bridge begins or ends... Well several of my life time friends own homes that will be effected directly. Even I can sponge on some extra foliage in Photoshop. Just because 2 or three folks here want to continue to shove the concept of expansion/sprawl/development down the computer screens of others doesn't mean that the lowly rest of us should not stand up and be counted. :angry:

I have tried to as graciously as possible present my thoughts, ideas, report on what I have seen, etc. And the ire that has come back makes it even more obvious that the haves still want to make their name on the broken backs of the have less. I am still seething over the comments about the socioeconomic make up of some of the communitas that will be affected. I have chosen not to even address them

Human kind is the caretaker of the land that sustains - and stewardship of that sometimes is the harder battle to fight.

NOTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION SITE: (hyperlinks not shown)

Bells Bend meeting schedule changed

The Feb. 26 community meeting on the Scottsboro/Bells Bend Detailed Neighborhood Design Plan has been cancelled to give our planners more time to refine draft plans and respond to questions.

Meetings are currently planned on March 25 and April 29; more will be added as necessary.

Meeting schedule and map of the area

Related Links

Responses to questions from the Feb. 19 meeting are being prepared, and will be posted here soon.

Agenda of the Feb. 19 meeting

Draft concept plan shown at the Feb. 19 meeting

Powerpoint presentation from the Feb. 19 meeting

Land use policy comparison

Draft concept plan from the Feb. 11 meeting

Powerpoint presentation from the Feb. 11 meeting

The Planning Department presents the links below entirely for information and does not endorse any position or proposal.

Developer's proposal for May Town Center

Comments by May Town Center representative Tony Giarrantana from the February 11 meeting.

Beaman Park to Bells Bend: A Community Conservation Project

Tenn. Dept. of Enviornment & Conservation, Division of Archaeology

State law concerning removal and reburial of Native American Indian remains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Richard.

I truly have no background in development or urban planning, which is probably evident in my posts, but it just started hitting me the other day that the Nashville MSA is a conglomerate of cities with their own downtowns, their own mini-suburbs and "sprawl."

I understand that each city, due to taxes needed for infrastructure, will fight for the next development to come to their neighborhood...and I realize that Cool Springs has won many of the battles over the past few years. I agree that Nashville needs to step up and compete...I just wish they could compete using downtown land instead of going out to Bells Bend (not that I'm opposed to this development).

You just nailed the problem on the head. You can't use downtown property to compete with suburban property. Downtown is more expensive because of the parking requirements. So say rent downtown is $16 per square foot and $20 in the burbs. Sounds cheaper. But in the burbs parking is free. Downtown it may be $5 per foot taking the total to $21. That has been the complaint for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony G said his bridge to Maytown was targeted for the 37205 zip code. And I would be very interested to know where an Interstate Spur that has totally gone over the top of a community as actually increased the value of that property. If you talk to the families in Charlotte Park/Beacon Square many are generational residents with no interest in moving.

Lets talk hypothetically about that for just a minute. Lets say that your Beacon Square home can be put on the market today for $235,000. Just where in Nashville would you move to which would put you in a community that even barely resembles the quality of life you have now?

Interestingly this is a piece of the same argument that the Beaman to Bells Bend land owners are making...

For starters define over the communities. It would go over the area where the fairy pick up. I'm not sure there is anything there.

Secondly, based on the logic of not being able to move anywhere else if values increased, then values should never grow anywhere at all ever. No increase in property tax revenues. The world everywhere should stagnate for the purposes of keeping the value just where it is so they ca keep that lifestyle forever and ever and ever.

That's an exaggeration obviously. But the point is values increase all the time, it's a matter of how much. So if you get a 100% gain in three years. That good right? That exceeds the average pretty substantially. In which case, equity grows quickly and say you made 100K on that house. You roll that 100K plus whatever equity put into the house into a new place. Conservatively that's about $127,000 that could be rolled. So let's say you can only afford the 135K mortgage. By making 100k on the house, you just bumped the house you can afford to over $260,000. That could put you into some very good neighborhoods around Nashville. East Nashville for example, you can buy a good bit of house for 260. Shoot, Sylvan Park there can be houses had for that. I'm fairly sure Bellevue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Later, the web site posted RTKL's vision, which is exactly TG's description but with some more detail. This was the rendering kept under their hats, as it still shows OHB connecting northward. It also shows a dogleg off Annex that goes through the trees, not over houses, as it achieves bridge elevation. I think it can't work in that exact configuration, but it's just a concept. Nobody knows anything else concrete about the bridge.

The aerial photo posted on Newton Oldacre's website for Nashville West has a good view of the area where the bridge would go. Check it out here:

http://www.nomllc.com/projects/nashville_w...ite_5-17-07.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it flat there or is there a bluff... Tough to tell from the PDF

No bluff at the ferry. It is somewhat swampy, probably floodplain. It may be - gasp - wetland, though bridge piers in lieu of a built-up roadbed would probably work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly gives you a different perspective with the Nashville West Shopping Center. May Town Center is really not in a rural area, its just cut off from a more dense area. There should have been a bridge built there 30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hadn't heard a figure yet but $50 million for the bridge to nowhere doesn't surprise me. imagine what kind of activity the city could stimulate inside the core with just half of that kind of investment in infrastructure. to think that the city would speculate with that kind of money on such a speculative project is really hard to fathom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.