Jump to content

May Town Center


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts

Sorry I'm a little behind on this project. I saw that there was a town meeting for the May Town Center, but is it approved?

I REALLY hope this development moves forward. I would love to read articles stating that large corporations are moving to DAVIDSON COUNTY instead of Williamson.

With gas prices (although i hope they eventually balance out), I just hope that Americans plan out their cities better, especially Nashville. It just makes more sense to keep development inside Davidson County for transportation and revenue reasons.

Hankster- I hope you're correct on the 400,000 population increase by 2020 is an understatement. I'd love a million haha (with great transportation and downtown development of course)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In the words of DMX: Here we go again. Controversial May Town Project Revived Developer Makes Project Smaller edit: I just say put this thing in one of our dilapidated malls (HH, Ri

Hankster- I hope you're correct on the 400,000 population increase by 2020 is an understatement. I'd love a million haha (with great transportation and downtown development of course)

Here's why I think it is an understatement:

1990 Nashville MSA - 985,026

2000 Nashville MSA - 1,231,311 ( 10 Yr Increase 25.0% - 2.26% annual increase compounded)

2000 Nashville MSA (adjusted for additional counties added to MSA) - 1,311,789

2007 Nashville MSA Estimate - 1,521,437 (7 Yr Increase 16.0% - 2.15% annual increase compounded)

2010 Nashville MSA Estimate - 1,621,695 (If 2.15% annual increase continues to 2010)

2020 Nashville MSA - 1,921,437 (If 400,000 people added between 2007 estimate and 2020 - 1.71% annual increase compounded from 2010)

2020 Nashville MSA - 2,006,100 (If 2.15% annual increase continues between 2007 and 2020)

At worst, I beleive the Nashville MSA growth is holding steady right now. Many believe it is accelerating. The current growth rate can actually drop a bit from current levels and Nashville will still add 400,000 residents to its MSA by 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this does not get built.

Nashville does not need this - why not focus on rebuilting blighted areas (Antioch, 4th Ave - the area between downtown and I-40 on the South side, etc, etc, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this does not get built.

Nashville does not need this - why not focus on rebuilting blighted areas (Antioch, 4th Ave - the area between downtown and I-40 on the South side, etc, etc, etc)

do you honestly think you can turn antioch into an area that competes with cool springs for $4 billion? not only would it be financially improbable, but there are also stigmas (unjust for the most part) about the area. why can't we have may town center and still not work on these other areas? it's not an either/or situation. you have to look at the bigger picture of what is for the greater good of nashville.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the greater good of Nashville..."

Why not build up instead of out? How about Ellington Pkwy, Dickerson Rd, Madison - close to downtown, space available, interstructure in place - 4B would build a very nice center there.

A bridge would remove HOMEOWNERS from, well, their homes. (Can someone start a Thread on what Metro is trying to do w. the Joy property on Music Row??)

Some will bring up added tax revenue - I can bring up wasted tax spending

I am for good growth but IMO I do not think Bells Bend area is a good area for this. I feel Mr. May is just looking for something he can put his name on.

I do understand this forum is geared to folks wanting buildings, concrete, expansion of a City, etc. Can anyone see once this land is gone it is gone forever. I do appreciate you allowing the other side to be heard

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the greater good of Nashville..."

Why not build up instead of out? How about Ellington Pkwy, Dickerson Rd, Madison - close to downtown, space available, interstructure in place - 4B would build a very nice center there.

A bridge would remove HOMEOWNERS from, well, their homes. (Can someone start a Thread on what Metro is trying to do w. the Joy property on Music Row??)

Some will bring up added tax revenue - I can bring up wasted tax spending

I am for good growth but IMO I do not think Bells Bend area is a good area for this. I feel Mr. May is just looking for something he can put his name on.

I do understand this forum is geared to folks wanting buildings, concrete, expansion of a City, etc. Can anyone see once this land is gone it is gone forever. I do appreciate you allowing the other side to be heard

points well taken. i do still disagree however. those areas mentioned would relocate even more people than in the bells bend area. may town center is not going to take the whole bend either. in the plans they have set aside over 800 acres for conservation. from a financial end, it is a lot easier to construct here because they are dealing with one land owner instead of multiple ones. i'm sure we see eye to eye on many other issues, but it appears that this may be one that we don't. i do respect your opinion and believe it or not, i hate to see open land taken for development(eagle scout and lover of the outdoors). i do however see the importance of this site for the growth of nashville. i believe that it can be done smartly and conservatively. hey, just be glad it's not bible land! :P feel free to respond to this. i always like to know the views of the opposing side of the issue. it helps me learn and sometimes even sway my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for the May Town Center, but also against developing natural land. For that reason, I support the May Town Center. I would much rather build up the population within Davidson County, rather than urban sprawl further developing the land in the surrounding counties, not to mention having to construct more interstates within those lands. May Town Center will get those large corporations within Davidson County and is much better than further developing Williamson County.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the May Town Center development is a true win-win situation for Metro Nashville. It provides space for concentrated, planned and quality growth AND secures the conservation of over 800 acres of the land FOREVER. Suburban sprawl deeper and deeper into rural Middle Tennessee is a much less desirable alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the May Town Center proposal there are stipulations in place to stop further growth beyond the boundaries of the project.

The immediate lands surrounding the building site 'have to' remain rural in nature with the possibility of residential development making up the remaining Bells Bend area. (Cluster housing can be a possibility).

Drive up and down the feeding streets into the city and see the long stretches of shops and strip malls that exist a few months and then is on the market; Dickerson Road, Gallatin Road, Charlotte Avenue and others.

The proximity of the 'Bend' with downtown and the Cumberland River can meet the needs for both conservation and the future economic development of Davidson County.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to read individuals who have stated statistics showing "this area", referring to Bells Bend, as having produced up to 75% of the produce for Nashville or Middle Tennessee. It gives the hint that development or 'progress' has eliminated the production of produce from the Bells Bend area.

I take issue with this. The majority of the land that is proposed for the MTC development has been open fields for what most of the current generation can remember.

Hundreds of acres have been mowed for hay with the idea to keep the land cleaned. This hay has been used to feed cattle but has not been a financial agreement. When the largest cattle farm sold out after the owner died, the land was then purchased by the May faimily.

Remember, we are talking about the "Lower End" of Bells Bend. There are natural land features that somewhat divide the 'Bend' into two parts. Most of the "Lower End" now consists of an existing park, substation for sewage, and sod farm. Looking at these together it seems the additional 900 acre conservation area and proposed site for the MTC is a good fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw something on the news last night that proposes the bridge be built over to Centennial Blvd instead of I-40

Yes. Here's an article in the City Paper confirming this.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61154

I don't know whether the development will be quite as attractive to companies considering relocation to Nashville as it would be if the the development were connected directly to I-40. Still, the developers felt ths was necessary to keep the project moving forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Here's an article in the City Paper confirming this.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61154

I don't know whether the development will be quite as attractive to companies considering relocation to Nashville as it would be if the the development were connected directly to I-40. Still, the developers felt ths was necessary to keep the project moving forward.

Doesn't this sound like what happened to 100 Oaks years ago? Where the freeway access to keep it alive was too little too late?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether the development will be quite as attractive to companies considering relocation to Nashville as it would be if the the development were connected directly to I-40. Still, the developers felt ths was necessary to keep the project moving forward.

I have felt the same way. However, I suspect Giarratana will have a better chance of getting the "powers that be" to back and fund the second access bridge in the favored location if he can make significant progress with the first access. If he and the Mays get at least a quarter of the master plan under construction, I think they'll be in the driver's seat in locating the next access.

If the development folds or otherwise fails to keep promises, a lot less taxpayer money will have been spent on a Cockrill Bend bridge than the original interstate spur over the old ferry site. I still fear that in such a case the bridge will have to pay for itself by letting Cockrill Bend industry/environment creep across the bridge to BB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as if the neighbors of this propossed project have an uphill battle to fight, to win the war. According to the City Paper and Richard Lawson's article, the burden of proof will be on the opponents to this project.

Again, after talking to residents around town, they do not seem to care what happens in the Bend because it will not adversely affect them, and many have not even heard of the project. Most of the folks I have spoken to, do not know anything about it, even after the media coverage. I am afraid that getting the rest of Nashville to care about this one is going to be the real battle here.

Here is the Article:

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61260

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article about the city planners touring the Bell's Bend area. I hope they are really taking there time to actually think about this project before they do it and hope that it isn't a publicity stunt. I am really on the fence with this one. I understand the need for a facility of this type, but I also understand some of the concerns of the neighbors. I hope something can be done to provide a medium for both parties.

Planners take firsthand look at possible Bells Bend development site

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is great to see the discussion has taken more of a compromise view than one than down grades any attempt to meet what will be our future. It is not easy to look into what the next decade will bring, but 'most' will agree that it will take somewhat of a visionary person or community to reach out and plan for what is ahead when times look so 'bleak', now.

In not any particular order consider:

1). One access, bridge, will attempt to meet the needs for the immediate future, but look for a second later, 15 yrs.

2). The industrial business now existing along Centennial Blvd. will not creep across the river! There would be no reasoning to do so and you can believe that with the building of MTC residents will DEMAND tougher restrictions to be followed governing the remaining land of Bells Bend. Current zoning would do so if not changed!

3). MTC will be sized down.

4). The idea of a corporate campus is to have most of those who work in the new corporate headquarters to also live within walking or shuttle distance. Most of which will be upper level jobs held by highly skilled individuals.

5). The shops or commercial businesses will be up-scale, probably specialty shops.

6). Old Hickory Blvd. will be rebuilt to meet current standards and will prove to be as scenic or more so than is now. The current road is narrow, curvey and has many blind access drives while seeing heavy traffic by tractor trailers, delivery trucks and boaters.

7). Any relocated corporation into MTC will pour big dollars into the non-profit sector of our community.

8). Minority business owners will be demanded as stakeholders in the construction of MTC.

These are thoughts by a neighbor of the May property and I am in support of trying to build a future for Nashville that is bright. Fighting to 'keeps things as they are' for the sake of being against change does not provide for the economic benefit of tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's Nashville Scene the cover story is about MTC (I would have posted a link but the Scene's website is behind their print copy)

The author covers both sides fairly and what could / might happen.

If MTC does not get passed the current zoning does allow for 600+ residences to be build on the May property. This would be better than 40k folks going in and out on ONE bridge.

Who will pay the 100M for the bridge and Brilery Pkwy work? Who pays for the services (school, fire, etc) for the residences?

Also - I found very interesting, most companies do not come from outside the area to relocate (20% or so) while most are from the County already. ie - what is to be gained if the MTC is built and then the vast majority of tenants move from other areas of Davidson Co?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's Nashville Scene the cover story is about MTC (I would have posted a link but the Scene's website is behind their print copy)

The author covers both sides fairly and what could / might happen.

If MTC does not get passed the current zoning does allow for 600+ residences to be build on the May property. This would be better than 40k folks going in and out on ONE bridge.

Who will pay the 100M for the bridge and Brilery Pkwy work? Who pays for the services (school, fire, etc) for the residences?

Also - I found very interesting, most companies do not come from outside the area to relocate (20% or so) while most are from the County already. ie - what is to be gained if the MTC is built and then the vast majority of tenants move from other areas of Davidson Co?

Here's the link to the Scene article. I read it yesterday and found it fascinating. It made fair points on both sides, but it was definitely against the MTC development. It describes it as an attempt to build a second downtown just miles from downtown.

I think Christine Kreyling sort of exaggerated to make her points. For example, the projection would be to have 40,000 people living/working in MTC . . . in 20 yrs. Its not like they would build it out and immdiately have 40k extra people and immediate overcrowding and all using one bridge, etc. It also states that it is one of the most rural areas in Davidson County but repeatedly points out it is just 5 miiles from downtown. So if it is only 5 miles from downtown Nashville, how rural can people expect it to stay? I mean realistically?

But the article does make some great points. I thought the best point was this thought, near the end of the article, which gets at the larger issue at hand:

In some other lucky parts of the country, government policy makers use a regional perspective to proactively plan for growth. Planner Peter Calthorpe, in books such as The Next American Metropolis and The Regional City, shows how governments have looked at their maps and decided where development should happen and where it shouldn't, and then laid plans for infrastructure accordingly. MTA's Paul Ballard points to North Carolina's Charlotte/Mecklenberg County, which levies a sales tax yielding $70 million a year strictly dedicated to funding transit. With the proceeds, Ballard says, "they're building light rail, not where density is but where they want density to develop."

This makes sense. What doesn't make sense is what Middle Tennessee does: county competing against county for corporate relocations and expansions, with speculators driving the direction our growth will take, and infrastructure playing catch up. This is May Town.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the link to the Scene article. I read it yesterday and found it fascinating. It made fair points on both sides, but it was definitely against the MTC development. It describes it as an attempt to build a second downtown just miles from downtown.

I think Christine Kreyling sort of exaggerated to make her points. For example, the projection would be to have 40,000 people living/working in MTC . . . in 20 yrs. Its not like they would build it out and immdiately have 40k extra people and immediate overcrowding and all using one bridge, etc. It also states that it is one of the most rural areas in Davidson County but repeatedly points out it is just 5 miiles from downtown. So if it is only 5 miles from downtown Nashville, how rural can people expect it to stay? I mean realistically?

But the article does make some great points. I thought the best point was this thought, near the end of the article, which gets at the larger issue at hand:

It is interesting to read questions that innocently draw attention and become topics of threads here while being off base. Whether it is 9 or 10 corporate campus sites planned it means the same, these are projected to be large corporates from other geographical regions of the country. They would bring highly educated trained people who will want to reside and shop within walking distance of their workplace. These stories are in the news daily!

There already exists two sod farms in Bells Bend plus an 800 acre park. When adding 900 more acres designated for conservation the area has or will have in place over 2,000 acres in green space.

Do you really think the planning commissioners will be easily persuaded to come back and allow anything other than what Bells Bend residents want the next time?!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

2). The industrial business now existing along Centennial Blvd. will not creep across the river! There would be no reasoning to do so and you can believe that with the building of MTC residents will DEMAND tougher restrictions to be followed governing the remaining land of Bells Bend. Current zoning would do so if not changed!

I think there is a big problem with this line of thinking, mainly because it is based on what I think is a false dichotomy: either corporate campuses or agriculture. Putting aside the inarguable fact that the two-thirds of the May property left undeveloped is good bottom land that would be prime for agriculture (the opposition doesn't seem to want to bite), many of the arguments for local agriculture also support local manufacturing; specifically, high transportation costs and a weakening dollar. Add to this the many thousands of idled immigrants who were building our houses before the bubble burst who now have nothing to do. MTC property is along a navigable waterway and in close proximity to other industry. Finally, the upper-middle class homes will not be built in the remaining Bells Bend/Scottsboro area due to local opposition, but working class homes aplenty are going up near several of the Briely exits just to the north.

It's not at all tinfoil-hat thinking to see a resurgence of our domestic manufacturing base now that, along with other economic stresses, the big Global Wage Arbitrage seems to have hit a wall and we just happen to have millions of third-world guests in the good ole USA who would be happy for a decent factory job. Ironic, isn't it, that after the huge number of jobs that have gone to Mexico we have a huge labor pool of Mexican nationals who would like those jobs to come back home to the USA!

That's why I think the location of the bridge at Cockrill is the tail wagging the dog, and can have unintended consequences. The Mays simply need a developer to find the highest and best use of their land in order to maximize their income; if that's industry, so be it. All that needs to happen for industry to fill up the bend is the following, IMHO:

1. Corporations do not find MTC to be competition to other Mid-South locales, namely Cool Springs.

2. There is an industrial upswing that parallels a contraction in white collar jobs during the years MTC is getting off the ground.

3. Either presidential candidate, once in office, gives illegal immigrants some form of amnesty that allows them to work freely and with certain minimal legal protections.

4. The bridge needs to pay for itself, making the state a partner in the development.

I'm afraid the bridge location through prison bend has taken care of #1. #2 is primed to happen, but maybe in some other cities or in other regions. #3 is almost a given and would lead to the exploitation of that labor force by industry. And #4 is a simple political calculation that is an unknown at this time, but if the state decides to support the continued attemps to develop the May property, that will make fighting off future developments much more tricky than the present battle (which seems to be going the May's way anyway). I don't see a buying opportunity for the city or state in a failure of MTC either, because if the developer of MTC goes bankrupt, the owners will simply shop for another developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your reasoning on these points. I think in our guessing games we play we can logically play out any ending we would like.

I could turn some of what you say to support the stand that industrial sites will not pop up along Old Hickory Blvd. as you would suggest. Neither will a commercial strip. Gallatin Road, Nolensville Road, etc.., be seen along the Blvd. This idea is absurd if you are familiar with the area. Once driving the 'Bend' and knowing the battles that played out against movement into this area it stands that the pristine land will still be seen along OHB. View sheds have been closely monitored in the over-all plan for the Beamon Park to Bells Bend Plan.

I drove the perimeter of the MTC property on Friday and saw a proposed path of the planned for bridge that will cross the Cumberland. It is amazing to be in the middle of 1500 acres and feel lost. The approximate 900 acres to be left untouched is immense in size because it is flat and open. The site can easily hold a 500 acre site and still remain in touch with nature, if properly planned for and the MTC proposal does exactly that. It is a detailed plan for the future.

If the Bend is left to be developed piece by piece it can be haphazard and show no fluid connection with other an over-all planned future.

Across OHB from the MTC property there is a sod farm, the manager of the sewage treatment plant lives on the next piece of property, then comes the sewage treatment plant, and lastly 800 acres of the Bells Bend Park.

Next to the MTC property there is one farm of nearly 700 acres between two ridges that will separate the MTC development with the rest of Bells Bend.

If you travel from this point back toward highway 12 there is not more than 50 acres of flat land along Old Hickory Blvd. Homes are built above the road and below road grade in some places making construction of any kind 'very' difficult.

If we will only look into the future(20 years) closely we possibly can see a 2nd bridge crossing the Cumberland connecting I-40 West that would open up River Road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could turn some of what you say to support the stand that industrial sites will not pop up along Old Hickory Blvd. as you would suggest. Neither will a commercial strip. Gallatin Road, Nolensville Road, etc.., be seen along the Blvd. This idea is absurd if you are familiar with the area. Once driving the 'Bend' and knowing the battles that played out against movement into this area it stands that the pristine land will still be seen along OHB. View sheds have been closely monitored in the over-all plan for the Beamon Park to Bells Bend Plan.

When I wrote "industry will fill up the bend" I only meant the May property and perhaps some adjacent properties, and only in the context of the MTC development falling through, leaving a bridge built and expected to produce the promised tax revenue. OHB cannot have industry or strip malls along it because of the neighborhood plan you referenced, but the east side of the bend along the river certainly could. I don't expect MTC to fail (though the bridge location hurts IMHO); I only caution against having a bridge to an industrial area from the bend in the event the intended purpose for that bridge, umm, unexpectedly changes.

Interestingly, the relocated bridge (assuming little to no connectivity between MTC and Old Hickory Boulevard as planned) puts Scottsboro much closer to MTC than the developable land in Bellevue, the tear downs of ranch homes in West Meade/Hillwood and the new urban centers going up in Green Hills, Belle Meade and Charlotte Pike. That would seem to put huge development pressure on the Scottsboro area if MTC succeeds. Just something to think about.

And the tail wags the dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very nice video - granted it is very one sided. Nice use of birds and green grass blowing in the wind

I thought MTC was geared toward the Belle Meade folks, in the video the state the MTC will help growth on Trinity Lane and Dickerson Rd (huh?)

I went for a motorcycle ride yesterday - there are plenty of spaces downtown to build a 4B development - the area below Jefferson St / Bicen Mall / Downtown - there are some new condos there but still block after block is underdeveloped. Intrastructure is in place, close to downtown, next door to a Park

We drove my TSU - I didnt know there was a large goat farm across the street. That is in Davidson Co, why not there?

If MTC is going to align itself w. the development of Dickerson Rd then a goat farm would be ok for development

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.