Jump to content

Nashville Bits and Pieces


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts


Nashville’s housing market is worth $169 billion more than it was a decade ago, according to a recent report from Zillow Group.  Music City is ranked as the 29th most valuable metro in the country, with homes worth a total of $267 billion.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2022/01/31/nashville-housing-market-reaches-record-high-value.html

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dragonfly said:

My home in Houston is appraised at $423k and my tax is $7,629.50 or 1.8%. Sales tax here is 8.25% and not levied on food. Also it should be said the the burden of educating, social services and treatment in emergency rooms of non-citizens comes out of our hides down here. In other words because of our location we pay an outsized share of the cost of the government failure to treat the border as a border and the associated wink and nod to the third world.

According to AG Paxton the cost you mentioned is a bit under 1% of the state budget. Also non citizens pay sales tax.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-illegal-immigration-costs-texas-taxpayers-over-850-million-each-year

 

The Texas state budget is over $100 billion.

 

Something else is causing Texas to be a high tax state. My guess is the biggest driver is the pure geographic size and providing services to citizens in far flung areas.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nice job, Paul. Just skimmed it. So there is no firm cap. And any developer who proposes a building may/must (depending on location) get the clearance from the FAA, done on a case-by-case. Looks like all of Nashville's downtown and midtown fall in that required range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Boucek sounds like a delight. Constitutional rights, easy easy. Last time I looked there was not shortage of houses being built. 

"Braden Boucek, Litigation Director at Southeastern Legal Foundation, said it’s robbing homeowners of their constitutional rights and is nothing short of a funding scheme."

"Boucek disagreed and added that he is concerned about the effect this rule has on new home construction, which Nashville desperately needs."

The crooked sidewalks I always took as a developer following the letter of the law by making a sidewalk but doing it as a middle finger to the city. It usually makes the house it's in front of have a smaller yard and I've never seen a reason for it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, Baronakim said:

Yes that is what I expect.  One of the things that may turn out to be surprising for even some of us keeping up closely on this forum is that IMO, Nashville will fast become one of the most modern cities in the USA.  Oh, there will be architectural faux pas's for sure, but our city will be very different from other large metros.   I think this is because Nashville has some fairly well defined zones of development (or in process of redefining them) and the bulk of the residential areas are outside of the core.   Nashville was the first city to go metro  back 50 years or so ago and tore down tons of obsolete city blocks in a way New York or Boston never could.   What remained of our historic core has fairly good overlay protections   Old areas from 4th Avenue to the river will stay pretty much  recognizable.   2nd Avenue will look like 2nd Avenue 50 years from now and lower Broad will still be honkytonk central.  However, Nashville has more in common with Los Vegas with lots of open land than the lot by urban lot projects in cities like Chicago and New York.   A great many of all of our new core growth is being built together on land that was severely underutilized.  Essentially it is not changing established neighborhoods so much as creating new ones...with some of the better buildings remaining in the mix.   Much complaint is made about McMansions and tall skinnys, but these IMO are going to remain pretty much where they are being built now.  I don't expect them to spread to historic neighborhoods already protected by overlay, nor do I see them in significant numbers in Inglewood, Madison, Oak Hill,  Bordeaux , Dalewood or other well established and largely architecturally homogenous neighborhoods.  The reason we so much of this over in Edgehill, Wedgewood and other close in burbs is that we have no remaining unprotected elegant Victorian neighborhoods... a great deal of this is purchase and replacement of post WW2 ranch houses close in.   Rutledge Hill could have been a Victorian showplace  but the few remaining significant structures worth saving  do not IMO constitute a neighborhood.  There will always be exceptions with sad losses, but overall growth will  be very transformative and for the most part good.    I am quite pleased that there is a great deal of new multifamily residential  developing along the major arterials, especially 8th Avenue and Dickerson Pike.   I think that soon we will see similar close in growth on Donaldson Pike and Nolensville  too, but not so much further out.  Certainly we are not going to see the Music Row small houses/ offices remain  as they are toward Belmont, they will be largely gone in the next decade or so in favor of the larger projects we see being built now.  I don't particularly mourn then as an architect as there are plenty of 1920s and 30s era  structures in other areas of the city.     

I do definitely agree that Metro Planning is key to getting some much need zoning plans  and  for Metro to play far less politics (like for the "park" for the homeless on Church Street).  The stick frame construction in the inner loop must come to an end; likewise stucco exteriors (especially like Dryvit on foam insulation).   I always thought the apartments that Tony G. built on the site of the Tennessee Theatre Sudekum tower was a very unwise choice of cladding.  Exteriors in  Fire Zone 1 should be noncombustible.  Likewise the Haven never should have been allowed as it was designed.    I think one of the more serious errors that will eventually surface is in seismic design. Steel framed towers and the new timber structures should perform well when (and if)  the big quakes that our region is subject to, occur.     Unfortunately, steel framed towers perform better in taller structures; what we have coming are not optimal.   There will be pancaking of  a lot of concrete  midrise structures.  All of this is of course beyond Metro to regulate... it is a problem on a state and national levels.  Like the Januar6y 6 insurrection, the attitude for disaster remains "It can't happen here." (until it does).    As to transportation, it appears to me,  making all of these new developments is to make them as walkable as possible NOW where mass transportation systems may or may not be developed anytime soon.   Grocery, shopping  and entertainment  must be integral  with all of this urban growth.  New residents are NOT going to give up their cars, pay $700,000+ plus for living in the core and ride the bus!  No matter how nice that bus may be.  It is time to ELIMINATE on street parking on most streets to maximize the existing traffic infrastructure.  We can not widen our arterials further.  I have ideas about rail and interstate problems as well but that is beyond Metro to solve.  Hopefully I will live long enough to see some good solutions.  Speaking of long enough,,, I think I have expounded my thoughts sufficiently for now.   

 

 

This is one thing I have said a long time ago. Our blessing and our curse is Nashville has so much open space that can be built on that we may not get the height we all want. Huge tracts of land and non contributing buildings dot the landscape that it will be decades before we can achieve a reasonable buildout.

Many of the corridors that come into the downtown area are far from reaching the potential they can have. Dickerson Pike & Murfreesboro Pike are two that have a long way to go. Charlotte Ave is a disaster IMO, and has been handled poorly by planning. The other corridors are still developing, so there is still hope.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

The crooked sidewalks I always took as a developer following the letter of the law by making a sidewalk but doing it as a middle finger to the city. It usually makes the house it's in front of have a smaller yard and I've never seen a reason for it. 

The main issue I think regarding the crooked sidewalks is that Metro's guiding documents for sidewalks (i.e., walk/bike plan, major thoroughfare plan, etc.) are contradictory and/or open to interpretation. For example, on a specific Metro sidewalk project we did a couple of years ago, we could have used a 10' sidewalk with no furnishing zone or bike lane, an 8' sidewalk with a 5' furnishing zone and no bike lane, or a 5' sidewalk with a 5' furnishing zone and a bike lane. In this case, neither the back of sidewalk, curb/gutter, nor edge of traveled way line up with another option. This is not a big deal for NDOT (née Public Works) projects, where the typical section can be coordinated for several adjoining projects (although even this seems to be difficult such as on Harding Place), but individual developers are bound to choose the cheapest option for their respective projects. It also doesn't help matters that anything that comes in front of Planning, the Council, or other groups are liable to change based on personal or contemporaneous preferences.

I'm not sure there is a good answer. The private developers can build sidewalk much cheaper than Metro, who turns most sidewalk projects into stormwater infrastructure rebuilds. It's not really practical for Metro to create very specific guidelines, as there are always going to be site-specific constraints that mess up the plan. Creating street-by-street (though it would really need to be block-by-block) guidelines is a cumbersome task and one with a short shelf life given changing conditions of local streets; many of the specific sections given in the thoroughfare plan don't work well as anything but general statements of design intent.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

This is one thing I have said a long time ago. Our blessing and our curse is Nashville has so much open space that can be built on that we may not get the height we all want. Huge tracts of land and non contributing buildings dot the landscape that it will be decades before we can achieve a reasonable buildout.

Many of the corridors that come into the downtown area are far from reaching the potential they can have. Dickerson Pike & Murfreesboro Pike are two that have a long way to go. Charlotte Ave is a disaster IMO, and has been handled poorly by planning. The other corridors are still developing, so there is still hope.

The supply is one big key piece of the development puzzle, but as we've seen in Nashville the price of developable land has been rising at an unnaturally fast clip. Will that become a bubble?  Remains to be seen. No doubt, there's been a land rush, and the key driver has been and still is Broadway.  I even read in the NBJ today that developers are doing more "land banking".  So even with lots of vacant parking lots, if the price of developable sites and their proximity to the key nodes of activity warrant it, developers will build tall.  I don't know exactly the math at which point a parcel of land gets to a certain prices that it makes more economic sense to go taller. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From NBJ today:

Around 67% of Nashville’s office inventory from the last 20 years was built in the suburbs, according to a study by real estate listing platform Commercial Cafe. The city has increased its office buildings by 35% since 2002, adding 219 new offices totaling 21.7 square feet. Commercial Cafe attributes suburban office growth, which is also a nationwide trend, to cheaper land and more room for work campuses outside of the urban core.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • 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.