May Town Center

[Shuzilla]

I can see it now.. the news headline reads.. "Extreme Makeover: City Edition, Bells Bend residents help demo blighted areas for new location of May Town Center."

But seriously.. I think the big issue here that is not being discussed in all of this is... regionalization.

All this talk of counties competing against other counties for new office relocations.. we need campus style offices in Davidson... etc etc... what we really need to be talking about is how to get the counties to help one another, for the better of the entire region as a whole. None of the articles that i've read regarding May Town Center ever touch this subject, but it's really at the heart and soul of it.

If we had better collaboration between counties, we could better compete with other cities across the nation.. and provide regional planning for things such as mass transit, which we all want. I'm no expert on this, by any means, but it sounds like a better focus of our time and energy than focusing on competition between counties.

Once an answer is figured out for the topic of regionalization, then we can talk about whether or not May Town Center is a necessity...

Jice, I have to disagree, mainly because competition and choice are good things to have. In this day and age, city and rural life are touted as ideals while suburbia is thrown under the bus. Look at the May Town debate. Sprawl is everything between downtown and where you can park a tractor. If the surrounding counties were considered as part of the Nashville region long ago, there would be no Cool Springs or McEwen or Providence because those concepts would still be languishing between the two jaws of the anti-suburbia vice: preserving green space and retaining vertical corporate offices in downtown Nashville. Nashville proper would control the debate and choice would be out the window.

Nashville is and most likely will continue to be a suburban city. The majority of her citizens live, shop and work in the suburbs. Yet, there are damn few advovates for suburban lifestyle. The tragety in that, while people can see a trend toward the creation of dense nodes as workspace moves or locates in the 'burbs, we can't see that growth as the opportunity to transform suburbia toward a more sustainable model, and do so without the loss of anything that is enjoyable about suburban living. Nashvillians aren't going to board up their Bellevue residences and camp out downtown to be close to work after all; no, work is moving out to them as the city grows. Abandoning suburbia and rebuilding downtown is simply far less sustainable than working within the built environment that exists today.

Ideally (for me anyway), one should be able to walk a half hour or so from any point in Nashville to get to a town center with shopping and employment opportunities. In fact you can walk between 100 Oaks and Green Hills within an hour, from Green Hills to Belle Meade / White Bridge commercial area, and from there to either mid town or Nashville West or Sylvan Park also within an hour, meaning a tweener has less than 30 minutes to walk either way between those locations. That's good bones to build on should gas get to be ten bucks and it's too wet to cycle. So, once we accept that the majority of employment can and should occur in the suburbs where most of us live, there is no need for complex regional transportation to get from the exurbs to downtown; folks can live in the suburbs and be near work.

I sense I'm alone on this . I mean, no bullitt trains and sh*t! No cool factor!

A May Town (not neccesarily the exact plan or size) represents to me a better way to plan for developing in the suburbs, because the proposed density will decellerate the consumption of open spaces while allowing for continued and indefinite economic expansion within Metro Nashville. But to get to a May Town you have to A) build upon the successful Williamson County development model that shows how to attract business and B) at the same time be repulsed at the boundless spread of development over fertile farmland that model costs, and want to achieve better for Davidson County.

[jice]

^ I wasn't suggesting that May Town is a bad thing.. in fact, what you mention is more or less along the lines of what I had in mind, regarding the distance between Town Center's and what not.

Not all corporations are going to want space in downtown Nashville, that's a given.. and in a well planned city, there would be choices for various potential office locations... be it in a high rise or a campus type building.

What I am suggesting.. is that we take a look at this from more of a regional planning standpoint. Cool Springs, MTC, and all the others are just fine, as long as they fit into the regional picture. I'm just saying that all the counties should come together and decide... these are the places where campus type offices (town center's) will go, these areas will be residential, high rises will go downtown, there will be mass transit connecting them all, etc.

We can build upon what is already in place, if we do it soon enough. Cool Springs could become one of the prime town center's of regional Nashville, if planned appropriately starting now.

[southsideJ]

But seriously.. I think the big issue here that is not being discussed in all of this is... regionalization.

All this talk of counties competing against other counties for new office relocations.. we need campus style offices in Davidson... etc etc... what we really need to be talking about is how to get the counties to help one another, for the better of the entire region as a whole. None of the articles that i've read regarding May Town Center ever touch this subject, but it's really at the heart and soul of it.

I agree about the regionalization. Christine Kreyling did mention it in one of her earlier articles on MTC. I quoted the part on regionalization and linked to the article in a post several weeks ago:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=993907

[jice]

I agree about the regionalization. Christine Kreyling did mention it in one of her earlier articles on MTC. I quoted the part on regionalization and linked to the article in a post several weeks ago:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=993907

Oh sorry.. guess I missed that part regarding regionalization.. I remember skimming through your post and the article though.. trying to play catch-up on the past several months of posts on this subject

What I read of the article was pretty interesting.. haven't had time to read all 7 pages yet

[Nashvillain]

I don't consider what I'm saying a slippery slope at all. I think what has happened over the past several decades provides substantiation to my statements.

Let's look at it this way. If Nashville does not come up with a truly attractive alternative to Cool Springs and other surburban office development areas, then we will most likely continue to see the the majority of new office, retail and housing developed outside Davidson County just as been happening for the last twenty years or so. I think few will argue that these suburban office developments contribute to sprawl in a big, big way. If Nashville were to be successful in attracting these companies back inside Davidson County, that would help put the breaks on this trend and help to reduce future sprawl. These companies are looking for value, and a high quality of life in the areas in which they locate. MTC can offer this, but downtown Nashville and areas near downtown may not. Costs will always be higher there, and crime and other inner city ills may always be a perceived threat, whether real or not.

Your arguments ignore the fact that Nashville has suburban, campus type office developments. New and old, in Green Hills, Metro Center, in the South East around the airport, West End, etc. It has new urban office developments in downtown, midtown and Music Row. There is plenty of available brown field and developed land left for more. I think you over sell your point when you say the vast majority of companies choose the surrounding counties. I think, with the exception of Nissan, most new businesses that start up in the surrounding counties are made up of people from those very counties. It's not a question of relocation, it's staying in the same place. Nashville has grown along with the surrounding counties, of course the percentage of increase is not as high because Nashville was bigger to begin with and would take a really substantial increase to match the increase in growth of the surrounding counties.

You mention this in your reply above, but many companies will continue to choose suburbia because of better schools, cheaper rents and lower taxes. May Town will not change any of that. Plus, the lure of suburbia is ingrained in our culture, we are conditioned to regard it as a sort of ideal. However, I think that attitude is beginning to shift back the other way with the price of energy, long commutes, etc.

I think, the number one negative factor against companies relocating to Nashville is the public schools. Even if some people in a relocated company could afford to place their children in private schools, the majority of people cannot bare that expense so companies choose suburban school districts.

Whats more, sprawl is sprawl whether it happens in a supposedly "urban" county like Davidson or out in Williamson, Sumner, etc. May Town, if built will be sprawl, no better or worse than any in the surrounding counties.

[Shuzilla]

I think, the number one negative factor against companies relocating to Nashville is the public schools. Even if some people in a relocated company could afford to place their children in private schools, the majority of people cannot bare that expense so companies choose suburban school districts.

True dat, but Nashville suburban schools are generally not considered very good either. The suburbs they relocate to for quality schools are not in Nashville/Davidson.

Whats more, sprawl is sprawl whether it happens in a supposedly "urban" county like Davidson or out in Williamson, Sumner, etc. May Town, if built will be sprawl, no better or worse than any in the surrounding counties.

Again, again, and again... please define "sprawl." The term is always used in a prejorative manner without the used having to describe exactly what is bad about a specific proposal. It's just like identifying a development as "green" without imparting what the heck is green about it so others can come to their own conclusion of "greenness".

If the program for MTC was scattered throughout places like Belle Meade, Green Hills, Hermitage and Madison (where it will go otherwise), would it still be sprawl? I mean, if no matter where you put projects in the suburbs you are contributing to "sprawl" then that argues for Bells Bend being as good a place as any for a MTC outside of a downtown location.

[Nashvillain]

True dat, but Nashville suburban schools are generally not considered very good either. The suburbs they relocate to for quality schools are not in Nashville/Davidson.

Agreed, I didn't distinguish between inner city and suburban Nashville schools because, even with suburban style office parks within Davidson County, the problem of quality schools remains throughout the county. I thought this would be clear when I stated MTC wouldn't change that fact and this stigma would remain a barrier for attracting re locations.

Again, again, and again... please define "sprawl." The term is always used in a prejorative manner without the used having to describe exactly what is bad about a specific proposal. It's just like identifying a development as "green" without imparting what the heck is green about it so others can come to their own conclusion of "greenness".

If the program for MTC was scattered throughout places like Belle Meade, Green Hills, Hermitage and Madison (where it will go otherwise), would it still be sprawl? I mean, if no matter where you put projects in the suburbs you are contributing to "sprawl" then that argues for Bells Bend being as good a place as any for a MTC outside of a downtown location.

Okay, I think a good definition of sprawl would be development on green fields. Places with no or limited infrastructure already in place. Developments that would require a complete outlay of new infrastructure: sewers, roads (traffic signals, ramps, cross walks, etc.), electricity, bridges, schools, other municipal services (fire, police, etc.). If MTC were scattered about in Belle Meade, Green Hills or Madison for example it would depend on where in those cities it was built. Is there existing infrastructure? If yes, then it wouldn't be sprawl. If no, then yes, it would still be sprawl.

Is that an acceptable definition? What would you add or subtract?

[Shuzilla]

Agreed, I didn't distinguish between inner city and suburban Nashville schools because, even with suburban style office parks within Davidson County, the problem of quality schools remains throughout the county. I thought this would be clear when I stated MTC wouldn't change that fact and this stigma would remain a barrier for attracting re locations.

Among the few Nashville public schools that are often compared with WilCo facilities is Harpeth Valley Elementary, even though it's overcrowded. These students feed into Bellevue Middle, which performs a bit above par also. These reasonably good schools are located in the area of the county most ripe for development, which happens to be in close proximity to Bells Bend via a future Old Hickory Blvd bridge. Now, if you've been paying any attention to the big redistricting row, Marcia Warden has gotten Hillwood half empty and closed Brookmeade Elementary (very close to the Bend) and the nearly-new Martha Vaught Middle, which is right off White Bridge/Briley Parkway. This was said to have been done in anticipation of future growth. Only a few hundred more students would bring the Hillwood cluster to capacity, then afterward the Hillwood cluster would have to split and a new high school emerge further SW

Okay, I think a good definition of sprawl would be development on green fields. Places with no or limited infrastructure already in place. Developments that would require a complete outlay of new infrastructure: sewers, roads (traffic signals, ramps, cross walks, etc.), electricity, bridges, schools, other municipal services (fire, police, etc.). If MTC were scattered about in Belle Meade, Green Hills or Madison for example it would depend on where in those cities it was built. Is there existing infrastructure? If yes, then it wouldn't be sprawl. If no, then yes, it would still be sprawl.

Is that an acceptable definition? What would you add or subtract?

It's a very broad definition. Belle Meade itself, built on a stud farm, would be sprawl. Green Hills would be also. I like and appreciate both for certain unique characteristics, and would rather drive down Belle Meade Boulevard than drive through a horse farm. In fact Nashville herself is sprawl from other cities if one considers the establishment of infrastructure and consumption of green fields are any part of the definition of "sprawl."

[barakat]

Can MetroCenter not attract corporate campuses? I'm pretty sure some already exist there. There's still vacant land too. Problems with MetroCenter, i'll admit, are the industrial uses, lack of retail [McDonald's and Taco Bell don't count], lack of housing [tho Germantown, Salemtown, and other 'hoods are nearby], and the lack of sidewalks. It may seem isolated from Nashville, but not nearly as much as Bells Bend. I wish the Fountain Square mall could be redeveloped into a real mixed use town center with better access to the lakes.

[Nashvillain]

It's a very broad definition. Belle Meade itself, built on a stud farm, would be sprawl. Green Hills would be also. I like and appreciate both for certain unique characteristics, and would rather drive down Belle Meade Boulevard than drive through a horse farm. In fact Nashville herself is sprawl from other cities if one considers the establishment of infrastructure and consumption of green fields are any part of the definition of "sprawl."

Can we follow this brilliant line of reasoning to include everything ever built by man, since obviously, we had to start initially building on otherwise pristine wilderness or farmland? Unless that is, there's a missing verse in Genesis including a passage about God creating the urban developments fully formed. Thanks, Shuzilla, that was helpful.

Instead of being obstinate for the sake of it, how about refining the definition in a helpful way.

[Hankster]

Can MetroCenter not attract corporate campuses? I'm pretty sure some already exist there. There's still vacant land too. Problems with MetroCenter, i'll admit, are the industrial uses, lack of retail [McDonald's and Taco Bell don't count], lack of housing [tho Germantown, Salemtown, and other 'hoods are nearby], and the lack of sidewalks. It may seem isolated from Nashville, but not nearly as much as Bells Bend. I wish the Fountain Square mall could be redeveloped into a real mixed use town center with better access to the lakes.

The answer is yes, but it's getting increasing hard for developments like MetroCenter to compete with Cool Springs. Since Cool Springs has developed, I would guess that little, if any, corporate relocation has occurred in MetroCenter. When MetroCenter was successful in attacting corporate relocations, it was basically competing only with downtown and some other smaller office areas in Davidson County. The game has changed, and Davidson County needs to bring something better that can be perceived as offering a higher quality of life than can be found elsewhere in Davidson County. May Town Center, surrounded by 1000 acres of parks, and offering excellent housing and retail options in addition to corporate campuses all in a walkable, clean setting is what I believe is needed to compete with Cool Springs. In many ways, I think companies thinking of relocating to the Nashville area will see MayTown Center as superior to Cool Springs. No where else in Davidson County will look as attractive.

[satalac]

Can we follow this brilliant line of reasoning to include everything ever built by man, since obviously, we had to start initially building on otherwise pristine wilderness or farmland? Unless that is, there's a missing verse in Genesis including a passage about God creating the urban developments fully formed. Thanks, Shuzilla, that was helpful.

Instead of being obstinate for the sake of it, how about refining the definition in a helpful way.

i don't think he was being obstinate for the sake of it. he raises a good point. at one time, all of these places were considered to be "green", yet they have been developed on. these areas however do not get called sprawl. why is that? i wouldn't jump his case for raising a question simply because you don't like the way he raised it. instead of leaving a snide remark, why not help answer the question you just raised with him? what should we call sprawl and what should we call part of the city? is it based upon how long the development has been there? the proximity to the city center?

[Shuzilla]

Can we follow this brilliant line of reasoning to include everything ever built by man, since obviously, we had to start initially building on otherwise pristine wilderness or farmland? Unless that is, there's a missing verse in Genesis including a passage about God creating the urban developments fully formed. Thanks, Shuzilla, that was helpful.

Instead of being obstinate for the sake of it, how about refining the definition in a helpful way.

I'm not being obstinate; I'm asking for a definition of a word that is used to speak of developments like the "N" word is used in speaking of black people. They say,"It's just sprawl. Nothing but sprawl." Irrefutable. You can just see such people moving to the opposite side of the road as sprawl gets closer, avoiding eye contact, pulling their younguns towards their bosoms...

Refinement: I think there has to be a difference between what is today considered "sprawl" and the more established speculative developments not considered "sprawl." Take downtown. At some point people crossed the river to live and to get away from town yet still be near their businesses. Then East Nashville burned, so many residents packed up and went upwind to a horse farm out west to build their mansions. Finally, to avoid bussing and forced integration, people moved even farther to get just over the county line. Of the establishments of East Nashville, Belle Meade and Brentwood, which are sprawl, if any, and why?

[smeagolsfree]

Can MetroCenter not attract corporate campuses? I'm pretty sure some already exist there. There's still vacant land too. Problems with MetroCenter, i'll admit, are the industrial uses, lack of retail [McDonald's and Taco Bell don't count], lack of housing [tho Germantown, Salemtown, and other 'hoods are nearby], and the lack of sidewalks. It may seem isolated from Nashville, but not nearly as much as Bells Bend. I wish the Fountain Square mall could be redeveloped into a real mixed use town center with better access to the lakes.

There is not a lot of vacant land in Metro Center now. You need to take a drive by there if you have not lately. No large tracks of land exist there any longer. Metro Center is 95% leased.

For a corporate campus they are talking about, you would need a minimum of 30 to 60 acres just to match the Meridian development in Cool Springs. Very Nice project as sprawl goes.

[satalac]

wow, i didn't realize it was that high. i remember back in my delivery boy days having to go to metro center a lot. i was surprised to deliver to so many buildings. i had figured it was vacant at most of the places. i had no idea that it was 95% now though. quite impressive.

[GID]

Refinement: I think there has to be a difference between what is today considered "sprawl" and the more established speculative developments not considered "sprawl." Take downtown. At some point people crossed the river to live and to get away from town yet still be near their businesses. Then East Nashville burned, so many residents packed up and went upwind to a horse farm out west to build their mansions. Finally, to avoid bussing and forced integration, people moved even farther to get just over the county line. Of the establishments of East Nashville, Belle Meade and Brentwood, which are sprawl, if any, and why?

Sooo, I guess to the Indians when James Robertson showed up to build a log cabin on the Cumberland River it was sprawl to them?

I read somewhere where Nash still has over 100k zoned Ag...Starwood would have made a nice campus for MTC. How about the Fairgrounds? Stiner Lift (or whatever the metal place is downtown) We have touched on Metro Center.

I searched Realtracs.com for land within Davidson Co within 50-70 acres. There were seven shown, most expensive was 1.2M, least was 500k. I am sure there are more properties out there. Given this, MTC does not need to be placed where it is; if the whole objective is to bring HQ's, jobs and growth to compete with Cool Springs there are plenty of other places do build - intrastructure already in place, no bridge needed.

[satalac]

Sooo, I guess to the Indians when James Robertson showed up to build a log cabin on the Cumberland River it was sprawl to them?

I read somewhere where Nash still has over 100k zoned Ag...Starwood would have made a nice campus for MTC. How about the Fairgrounds? Stiner Lift (or whatever the metal place is downtown) We have touched on Metro Center.

I searched Realtracs.com for land within Davidson Co within 50-70 acres. There were seven shown, most expensive was 1.2M, least was 500k. I am sure there are more properties out there. Given this, MTC does not need to be placed where it is; if the whole objective is to bring HQ's, jobs and growth to compete with Cool Springs there are plenty of other places do build - intrastructure already in place, no bridge needed.

but doesn't mtc have 600 acres planned? 50-70 acres isn't going to meet those needs in the least bit. i have a hard time believing that a developer for a project of this magnitude hasn't checked around for places that wouldn't require a $100 million bridge. it's not like they are using the land at bells bend just to spite the locals.

[Nashvillain]

but doesn't mtc have 600 acres planned? 50-70 acres isn't going to meet those needs in the least bit. i have a hard time believing that a developer for a project of this magnitude hasn't checked around for places that wouldn't require a $100 million bridge. it's not like they are using the land at bells bend just to spite the locals.

Richard Lawson is on record saying that not all 600 acres will be developed at once but rather as tenants are signed or as demand demands. Could you imagine the folly of building the entire complex on spec all at once without having tenants to fill it up? What a fiasco that would be. Of course, the pretty pictures and videos with the idyllic sounds of nature and the fully built out magnificence are all part of the sales presentation, but will it ever get there is the question.

[Nashvillain]

I'm not being obstinate; I'm asking for a definition of a word that is used to speak of developments like the "N" word is used in speaking of black people. They say,"It's just sprawl. Nothing but sprawl." Irrefutable. You can just see such people moving to the opposite side of the road as sprawl gets closer, avoiding eye contact, pulling their younguns towards their bosoms...

Refinement: I think there has to be a difference between what is today considered "sprawl" and the more established speculative developments not considered "sprawl." Take downtown. At some point people crossed the river to live and to get away from town yet still be near their businesses. Then East Nashville burned, so many residents packed up and went upwind to a horse farm out west to build their mansions. Finally, to avoid bussing and forced integration, people moved even farther to get just over the county line. Of the establishments of East Nashville, Belle Meade and Brentwood, which are sprawl, if any, and why?

Like with anything, it's a matter of degree I'm sure with miles of gray area to get lost in and ensure that no common understanding or compromise can ever be reached.

We could also throw into our/my definition something about zoning and usage. Single use zoning encourages development on more land rather than less. I would consider those areas you have mentioned sprawl, yes, because they are single use and require additional land to build more single use services, retail and office rather than incorporating those uses into the residential mix or vice versa. I would consider any area of single use zoning especially egregious examples of sprawl. Take a look at all the arterial pikes leading into and out of Nashville with their miles of strip centers, gas stations and fast food joints. Even if only a mile or so from downtown, this kind of development is no doubt sprawl because it requires driving and additional land to be used for living space.

We can add that any development that requires some form of mechanical transportation to make it effective or useful to be sprawl. This is where the concept of degrees comes in. No doubt you have heard of urban sprawl (as opposed to suburban or exurban sprawl)? Even in cities with vastly superior land use policies and zoning than Nashville--with compact and dense development--at some point become too large for people to traverse all districts by foot where they might have a need to go and some form of transportation becomes necessary; whether it's metro, bus, car, horse and buggy, whatever. On the other hand, a truly successful city would minimize the need for this type of trans district automated travel and provide the maximum amount of daily services and uses within a walkable distance to ones dwelling.

Maybe we could make sure to use helpful adjectives such as urban and suburban to clarify exactly what type of sprawl we're talking about. Hopefully more terminology won't confuse the issue though.

Back to Nashville/Davidson and the suburban areas we have been discussing: The saving grace about all of these sprawly type places is that they already exist, have infrastructure (water, police, schools, libraries, post offices, etc.), lots of people live around them and zoning regulations can be and are being changed to increase usage and density making them more functional urban spaces.

So, Shuzilla, Satalac or anyone, I have added to the definition. Are these acceptable, do they make sense? Is sprawl a term that has any currency or relevance that can be used when discussing our built environment or not?

[GID]

There is another point to bring up; flood plane.

Is MTC in a flood plane or flood way? If so, the Corp and FEMA will have to sign off on this and that is a big hurdle. I know in Ashland City there are several pending lawsuits involving the City, FEMA and citizens over floodplane issues.

[Shuzilla]

We could also throw into our/my definition something about zoning and usage. Single use zoning encourages development on more land rather than less. I would consider those areas you have mentioned sprawl, yes, because they are single use and require additional land to build more single use services, retail and office rather than incorporating those uses into the residential mix or vice versa. I would consider any area of single use zoning especially egregious examples of sprawl. Take a look at all the arterial pikes leading into and out of Nashville with their miles of strip centers, gas stations and fast food joints. Even if only a mile or so from downtown, this kind of development is no doubt sprawl because it requires driving and additional land to be used for living space.

We can add that any development that requires some form of mechanical transportation to make it effective or useful to be sprawl. This is where the concept of degrees comes in. No doubt you have heard of urban sprawl (as opposed to suburban or exurban sprawl)? Even in cities with vastly superior land use policies and zoning than Nashville--with compact and dense development--at some point become too large for people to traverse all districts by foot where they might have a need to go and some form of transportation becomes necessary; whether it's metro, bus, car, horse and buggy, whatever. On the other hand, a truly successful city would minimize the need for this type of trans district automated travel and provide the maximum amount of daily services and uses within a walkable distance to ones dwelling.

I can accept single-use zoning and car-dependent development as major components of what people currently refer to as sprawl. However, this definition, along with the development of open land discussed earlier, covers and condemns just about all suburban developments in Nashville since the Model T. And as I've stated earlier, Nashville is a suburban city and most people live, shop and work in the suburbs. There are probably a lot of folks who like it that way.

"Sprawl" can only have the negative connotation most users of the word wish to impart if the reader shares the contempt for and condemnation of suburban living. I think there are well done suburban developments as well as very poorly executed ones, so I think "sprawl" is not really an effective word to describe the built environment without knowing what kind(s) of suburban development the user of that word dislikes. It may be some, most, or all of them; I can't tell from the statement, "It's just sprawl". Saying "it's just sprawl" comes across as a cop-out, an avoidance of listing grievances against a specific idea to avoid a conversation that would include rebuttals and refutations of those grievances. I think "sprawl" is best used in a generic context (i.e look at how far southward Nashville has sprawled) while specific concepts should be discussed about specific proposals (i.e. May Town).

[Shuzilla]

There is another point to bring up; flood plane.

Is MTC in a flood plane or flood way? If so, the Corp and FEMA will have to sign off on this and that is a big hurdle. I know in Ashland City there are several pending lawsuits involving the City, FEMA and citizens over floodplane issues.

Most of the two-thirds of the MTC master plan that remains undeveloped is either flood plain and flood way or steep slopes, according to one map I've seen. The MTC structures seem to have been carefully placed above the flood elevation.

What... you thought they were just giving that land over to conservation out of the goodness of their hearts?

[satalac]

Richard Lawson is on record saying that not all 600 acres will be developed at once but rather as tenants are signed or as demand demands. Could you imagine the folly of building the entire complex on spec all at once without having tenants to fill it up? What a fiasco that would be. Of course, the pretty pictures and videos with the idyllic sounds of nature and the fully built out magnificence are all part of the sales presentation, but will it ever get there is the question.

i agree, they would be crazy to build on all 600 acres at once, which i doubt they are likely to do. the point i was trying to make was that they need the 600 acres for the plan that they have, which happens to stretch over a quite long period of time in order to grow with demand.

you do raise good points about sprawl, but along with shuzilla, what connotation is that word being used? is it a negative word? every time i hear about sprawl, i hear it being used negatively. i myself typically use the word in a negative light. that could be why i have issue with it being used. could zoning be the concrete definition of sprawl? i'm not sure. i believe this will always be an issue without a set definition to go by.

[jice]

I think one of the keys to the term "sprawl" has to do with planning. A very loose definition of the term that i've always heard/used is simply "unplanned development."

So I guess we have to ask.. was/is there a plan in place for this area to be developed or not? Not only a plan by the developer, but also by the city and region as well.

For instance.. many of the "suburbs" that you guys speak of which may or may not have been categorized as sprawl at one point in time.. actually started off as "streetcar suburbs" to the city of Nashville. Streetcar suburbs were normally highly planned areas.. due to the fact that rail lines also required a lot of planning. One of the most popular of these in Nashville is Hillsboro Village.

[Nashvillain]

Here's an editorial from Pith in the Wind discussing why the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce has suddenly decided to take a hands off approach to the MTC. Take a look at the comments for some discussion about vacancy rates and economic development strategies.

Thanks to S-Town Mike over at Enclave-Nashville for posting this on his blog.