Nashville Bits and Pieces

[Hey_Hey]

17 hours ago, bigeasy said:

I just don't understand how people still argue that Nashville is affordable. (Unless you are comparing to San Fran/NYC) Why is Atlanta so much cheaper? Wouldn't construction costs be the same, and aren't they growing as a similar pace? 

A couple thoughts on this:

1. We can't forget property taxes, especially when comparing Nashville and cities in Texas. Tennessee has dirt cheap property taxes while Texas has high property taxes. On average, Tennesseans pay roughly 0.6-0.7% of their house value in taxes every year while Texas pays 1.6-1.7%.  On a $750k house that equals $4875 annually ($406 monthly) in Tennessee and $12,375 ($1031 monthly)  in Texas.  (Truth be told, those rates for both states are likely lower now after the rapid run up in prices, but the difference in scale is the same.)  That $625 difference in monthly costs is pretty substantial and creates a situation where a house that costs $935k in Tennessee has the same cost of ownership on a 30 year mortgage as a house worth $750k in Texas.  Homebuyers may not even realize that this is happening, but over time the property tax difference is going to be priced into the market.   The same is true when comparing Tennessee to Georgia, although the difference between the states is less the difference between Texas and Tennessee.

2. The Nashville MSA grew at ~21% from 2010 to 2020. That compares to the Atlanta MSA at 15%.  At the same time, and likely more impactful, it seems Nashville's job mix went from a more equal blue collar/white collar mix from  to being more white collar/no collar.  That brought an influx of people with substantially higher incomes and net worths into the market which drives the prices up.  The biggest economic drivers in the 80s and 90s was likely automotive with the development and growth of the Nissan plant in Smyrna and Saturn plant in Spring Hill. Beginning in 2000-2010 we saw that shift to more finance, corporate headquarters, and healthcare administration as companies like Nissan relocated here and HCA, CHS, and other healthcare companies exploded and their headquarters grew. Beginning in 2015 or so we have seen the tech sector explode as well as the phenomenon of companies located in high cost of living area relocate their back office staff or their C-suite to Nashville (Alliance Bernstein, UBS, Amazon, Lyft, etc.).

Nashville is fundamentally a different place in 2020 as it was in 2000, and I would contend the change from 2010 to 2020 was greater than 2000-2010. With the exception of Austin, I can't think of a place that has shifted its economy more than Nashville. 

[markhollin]

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

[AsianintheNations]

On 1/26/2022 at 7:57 AM, markhollin said:

The typical rent in Nashville has increased to $1,788, up 18.9% since last year, according to a December 2021 Zillow report.

Redfin has also put out a rent summary that I think puts Nashville's numbers into the national context: https://www.redfin.com/news/redfin-rental-report-december-2021/

The numbers are similar to Zillow's, but not identical. Nashville is tracking very close to the national average, both in terms of average rent and year-over-year increase. Here's one of the tables in that post, ordered from lowest to highest rent:

Important caveat: "The amount shown as the average rent is not the average of what all renters are paying, but the average cost of apartments that were available for new renters during the report month." I would imagine that this skews higher than the average of what people are actually paying, as it would include a number of higher-priced units that are less likely to be filled, and people would probably be more likely to remain in apartments that have lower rents (and therefore not have these counted among available units). The analysis also lacks any control for apartment square footage, bedrooms, or location relative to downtown.

[dragonfly]

On 1/29/2022 at 2:49 AM, Hey_Hey said:

A couple thoughts on this:

1. We can't forget property taxes, especially when comparing Nashville and cities in Texas. Tennessee has dirt cheap property taxes while Texas has high property taxes. On average, Tennesseans pay roughly 0.6-0.7% of their house value in taxes every year while Texas pays 1.6-1.7%.  On a $750k house that equals $4875 annually ($406 monthly) in Tennessee and $12,375 ($1031 monthly)  in Texas.  

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.

[Baronakim]

I would like to take a little time and space to make observations concerning the explosion of growth here in our city and how we members of this forum comment on projects.   Last week I tried to explain that I feel criteria that we consider important may be being misunderstood or incorrectly interpreted.  My comment  on the preoccupation on height at the Hensler-Stiles Peabody Union project was just the beginning of my comments as an architect here in Nashville.   Now I address our interest in the terms "infill" and "density"  as they apply to our growth.   All of the threads for individual projects sometimes focus too much on the individual trees to the extent of not seeing the whole forest.    Things started out with MASSIVE demolitions fifty years or so ago.  This created vast tracts of  open land which is only now being properly utilized.  Any  aging warehouses, obsolete land use and buildings then which could be still used remained.   In the last couple of decades this was put to good and practical use in projects like One City and the Gulch.  Now we see many  new massive projects like Nashville Yards and the proposals for the Beaman, Reed and Tennessean sites.  But do we see this on this forum as a whole or just piecemeal?  Perhaps we rely too much on the pretty renderings of individual projects but do not visualize  the context of the whole.  I contend that what we are seeing is the building of the equivalent of a complete new city. very different from other large metropolitan cities.  This to me is miraculous.  We see individual projects but often miss the whole beyond our traditional scope of areas like "the nations" or  on arteries like West End.  I am seeing phenomenal growth in areas that have been ignored for decades with projects that are in process of completely transforming them.  I see several groups of new projects that are quite separate  but IMO will have impact close to NY.  Take Hayes Street for example.  Proposals from Church Street  around 17th  and on Hayes creates a node of huge residential  and hotel area of development, not merely "infill" which fills in spaces between existing larger developments.  No this is massively NEW in areas that have seen no substantial change for decades.  The same can be said for the area around Corkdorks new project...behind it, the old slums and vacant lots are being filled now.  The dairy property on Church and the vacant lots beside Hustler will soon do the same.   Across the river, Main Street is changing fast, as well as the streetscape of 8th Avenue from the inner loop to Melrose.  There are SO many clusters of projects that whole areas are becoming unrecognizable to long time residents.  This is of course alarming to many long time  residents that moan about it on nostalgia sites, but the juggernaut has arrived.   What is now being proposed and built is not going to be a "new city core" IMO, but essentially several of them.  I point out that adding lots of six story residential blocks is not "density" in my estimation, rather it is best viewed in the 20 to 60 story projects like that surrounding City Lights.  What an exciting time I live in here at the end of my career.  

 

Edited February 2 by Baronakim

[samsonh]

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.

[AsianintheNations]

Don't want to go off on too much of a tangent on other states' taxes or politics and will try to loop this sort of back to Tennessee. With the exception of public safety net hospitals (like Nashville General/Meharry), emergency room/hospitalization costs for illegal immigrants don't really have anything to do with taxes. Undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for public insurance like Medicaid/Medicare/VA benefits and usually end up going without insurance at all. Moreover, immigration status isn't the common denominator here - the typical private hospital has to eat the bill* for anyone who is uninsured and who can't afford to pay the full bill that they receive - there are plenty of U.S. citizens in Tennessee and Texas without insurance, which have among the highest rates in part due to not expanding Medicaid (in TN, the vast majority of those uninsured are non-Hispanic Whites, who are virtually all U.S. citizens; Tennessee Medicaid = Tenncare is about 2/3 funded by the federal government, 1/3 by the state; expansion would be 9/10 paid by federal funds). *With regard to this "eating the bill" statement -- the hospital then turns around and bills higher to insurance companies to make up for the loss, so it's the insured patients and their insurers who are ultimately having to pay (indirectly), but while this one problematic part of a ridiculously expensive healthcare system that needs to be fixed, it's not a tax issue.

As noted by @samsonh, everyone pays sales taxes, and it's a much larger proportion of income for those with lower incomes (i.e. regressive). Everyone who isn't homeless also pays property taxes, directly (as homeowners) or indirectly (as renters, whose rent is set to factor in the property taxes and mortgage that the landlord needs to pay). Thus, the effective state/local tax rate on undocumented immigrants is estimated to be ~8% (source: https://immigration.procon.org/questions/do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/ ), which is in line with typical effective state/local tax rates on the middle class in no-income-tax states like Texas (9.7%) and Tennessee (8.4%) and far greater than the rate levied on the top 1% in either state (source: https://itep.org/whopays/ ). And to be clear, in comparison to the rest of the U.S., Texas isn't a high-tax state (except for the bottom 20% of incomes) - it's average for the middle class and a bargain for the rich. Again, not making any political arguments here about what tax rates should/shouldn't be, or what undocumented immigrants should be entitled to.

Edited February 2 by AsianintheNations

[smeagolsfree]

12 hours ago, Baronakim said:

I would like to take a little time and space to make observations concerning the explosion of growth here in our city and how we members of this forum comment on projects.   Last week I tried to explain that I feel criteria that we consider important may be being misunderstood or incorrectly interpreted.  My comment  on the preoccupation on height at the Hensler-Stiles Peabody Union project was just the beginning of my comments as an architect here in Nashville.   Now I address our interest in the terms "infill" and "density"  as they apply to our growth.   All of the threads for individual projects sometimes focus too much on the individual trees to the extent of not seeing the whole forest.    Things started out with MASSIVE demolitions fifty years or so ago.  This created vast tracts of  open land which is only now being properly utilized.  Any  aging warehouses, obsolete land use and buildings then which could be still used remained.   In the last couple of decades this was put to good and practical use in projects like One City and the Gulch.  Now we see many  new massive projects like Nashville Yards and the proposals for the Beaman, Reed and Tennessean sites.  But do we see this on this forum as a whole or just piecemeal?  Perhaps we rely too much on the pretty renderings of individual projects but do not visualize  the context of the whole.  I contend that what we are seeing is the building of the equivalent of a complete new city. very different from other large metropolitan cities.  This to me is miraculous.  We see individual projects but often miss the whole beyond our traditional scope of areas like "the nations" or  on arteries like West End.  I am seeing phenomenal growth in areas that have been ignored for decades with projects that are in process of completely transforming them.  I see several groups of new projects that are quite separate  but IMO will have impact close to NY.  Take Hayes Street for example.  Proposals from Church Street  around 17th  and on Hayes creates a node of huge residential  and hotel area of development, not merely "infill" which fills in spaces between existing larger developments.  No this is massively NEW in areas that have seen no substantial change for decades.  The same can be said for the area around Corkdorks new project...behind it, the old slums and vacant lots are being filled now.  The dairy property on Church and the vacant lots beside Hustler will soon do the same.   Across the river, Main Street is changing fast, as well as the streetscape of 8th Avenue from the inner loop to Melrose.  There are SO many clusterssof projects that whole areas are becoming unrecognizable to long time residents.  This is of course alarming to many long time  residents that moan about it on nostalgia sites, but the juggernaut has arrived.   What is now being proposed and built is not going to be a "new city core" IMO, but essentially several of them.  I point out that adding lots of six story residential blocks is not "density" in my estimation, rather it is best viewed in the 20 to 60 story projects like that surrounding City Lights.  What an exciting time I live in here at the end of my career.  

 

This is all very well said Randy. Over the past number of years, I have come to the realization that we are not going to get tons of tall high-rises for various reasons. One being the sheer amount of available land for developers to build on and two, the restrictions from the FAA. It is just not going to happen! 

The best we can hope for is quality architecture, and a good amount of taller infill to get rid of all of the missing teeth that are all around the city. Nashville is not going to be Charlotte, Austin, or Atlanta. Nashville is going to be Nashville and everyone on here should just stop wanting to try and be and compete with the other cities. We will be what we will be! 

I do think that Metro Planning the Council needs to step up to the plate and get the zoning in place from I 24 from East Nashville all the way west to I-440 to get a more comprehensive zoning plan in place for better infill to happen and put some teeth into the zoning laws regarding minimum heights, materials used, and other standards we may not have thought about. You may know better than I do what could be done. I know stick frame is acceptable for 5 floors of construction, but I am unsure if that is good in a dense urban environment and maybe should be banned in certain areas of Nashville for safety concerns.

I don't know if any of that is feasible or not and if it has been done in other cities. Just throwing it out as food for thought.

[Mr_Bond]

@Baronakim, I really appreciate your perspective.  I have had the same feelings you shared but could not articulate them as much.  This forum leads us to talk about the trees, as you said, but the forest is really amazing.

To one of your points, @smeagolsfree, the FAA restrictions are really a gift to us.  They have forced developers to spread out a little and have pretty much eliminated the competitive spirit to build the next 'tallest' in Nashville.  Instead, the focus of developers seems to be on amenities, building a community, and now we're starting to see more green space.

As a 30-year resident, this city has always been special and unique.  Here is my theory as to why Nashville is so special.  Years ago, when the business and old money finally embraced the music community and agreed to work together to make Nashville "Music City", they changed the future.  They created a city where money and talent mix easily, where one can be proud to be a Nashvillian and be proud to move here to pursue your dreams, where all are welcome to join us and make this city a place of respect and fun.

[MLBrumby]

Does the FAA restriction extend across I-40 into Midtown?  Could Tomlin go taller than 750' at the Beaman site or Hines at the Reed site? And what are the boundaries from North to South? 

[Baronakim]

3 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

This is all very well said Randy. Over the past number of years, I have come to the realization that we are not going to get tons of tall high-rises for various reasons. One being the sheer amount of available land for developers to build on and two, the restrictions from the FAA. It is just not going to happen! 

The best we can hope for is quality architecture, and a good amount of taller infill to get rid of all of the missing teeth that are all around the city. Nashville is not going to be Charlotte, Austin, or Atlanta. Nashville is going to be Nashville and everyone on here should just stop wanting to try and be and compete with the other cities. We will be what we will be! 

I do think that Metro Planning the Council needs to step up to the plate and get the zoning in place from I 24 from East Nashville all the way west to I-440 to get a more comprehensive zoning plan in place for better infill to happen and put some teeth into the zoning laws regarding minimum heights, materials used, and other standards we may not have thought about. You may know better than I do what could be done. I know stick frame is acceptable for 5 floors of construction, but I am unsure if that is good in a dense urban environment and maybe should be banned in certain areas of Nashville for safety concerns.

I don't know if any of that is feasible or not and if it has been done in other cities. Just throwing it out as food for thought.

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.   

 

 

Edited February 2 by Baronakim

[PaulChinetti]

2 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

Does the FAA restriction extend across I-40 into Midtown?  Could Tomlin go taller than 750' at the Beaman site or Hines at the Reed site? And what are the boundaries from North to South? 

So I just decided to go right to the source. I emailed the FAA. Here is their response. 

Good Morning, Paul….

The FAA studies potential height impacts on aviation on a case-by-case basis. Variables include the location and proposed height of the project, and how that project might affect current and future flight paths in the area. The studies are extensive.

Each project is studied and determined before posting on our Obstruction Evaluation site. You can see the database here.

To learn more, see Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR Part 77.

 

 

Here is that map with a list of buildings in a 15 miles radius of BNA. Don't have time to dive into it now. Shows all kinds of info. 
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/oe3a/public/#/search/records

[MLBrumby]

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. 

[grilled_cheese]

Nice little hit piece.

https://www.wkrn.com/special-reports/nashville-forward/wonky-walkways-is-a-nashville-ordinance-to-blame/

[PaulChinetti]

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. 

[smeagolsfree]

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.

[markhollin]

4 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Huge tracts of land and non contributing buildings dot the landscape....

 

[PruneTracy]

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.

[MLBrumby]

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. 

[Pdt2f]

1 hour 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.

Drive on Lebanon Pike from Lindsley Avenue to Briley Pkwy. Probably several thousand acres of warehouse/garage space that could be developed into midrise housing. Direct river access for a lot of it. There’s still sooooooo much space for building in Nashville. 

[Licec]

11 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Nashville is not going to be Charlotte, Austin, or Atlanta. 

Most excellent. As that would be a step down.

Edited February 3 by Licec

[dragonfly]

On 2/1/2022 at 9:41 PM, samsonh said:

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.

Not so fast.

That $1 billion does not include educating non-citizen, parental accompanied children, so based on the non-accompanied, non-citizen children education costs, we could be talking another $250 million over that $1 billion, based on the page from the AG office (which list costs totaling way over $850 million indicated in the title): AG Paxton: Illegal Immigration Costs Texas Taxpayers Over $850 Million Each Year | Office of the Attorney General (texasattorneygeneral.gov)Houston-area deputy killed: The barrage of bullets was captured by his own dash and body-worn cameras, court records show - CNN

Also the county appraisal of my property is adjusted for homestead exemption. Apparently one way to assess this exemption is to list the value of the portion taxed. According to a couple of websites my house is estimated value of $514k . A house down the street with 200 sf less than mine sold for $504k in August. So going on a $514k the amount of property tax I paid portions out to 1.5% based on this sentence:   "Homestead exemptions remove part of your home's value from taxation, so they lower your taxes." from the comptroller's  site: Residence Homestead Exemption Frequently Asked Questions (texas.gov)

In the spirit of tribute I bring up:  So far as all the other costs accruing to a border state, we've lost 2 law enforcement officers in Texas this year, directly related to the flood of illegal immigration made de facto legal by extralegal fiat policy. They just buried a state trooper who was killed in an accident at the border trying to do what the border patrol doesn't do any more as the border patrol is now a processing agency. Then yesterday was the funeral of a Harris county constable who was murdered by an illegal alien from El Salvador. You know the country that bases MS-13 -- you can see the photos here: Houston-area deputy killed: The barrage of bullets was captured by his own dash and body-worn cameras, court records show - CNN  You can even find the video of the barrage of bullets ending this officers life, I've seen it on a cable network that shows stuff. Admittedly the perp was not a recent border crasher but a fugitive in the country for 25 years.

Somehow I missed that vote on whether or not vetting immigrants for criminal background is a good idea or not. 

 

[markhollin]

OK, folks---we're starting to wander pretty far from "Bits and Pieces" about Nashville development.  Perhaps you can find some forum that focuses on the ramifications of taxation in Texas elsewhere.   Thanks.  : )

[markhollin]

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.

[smeagolsfree]

Article from Politico about the rising chances of Nashville for the 2024 Republican convention. Nashville seems to be the favorite.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/04/nashville-2024-republican-convention-search-00005781