Nashville Bits and Pieces

[KJHburg]

How Nashville market compares to peer cities in the south and Austin.   Nashville is the 2nd most urban in looking at what percentage of total market is downtown  and in your case midtown. 

 

MARKET NAME         1. SIZE OF TOTAL OFFICE MARKET        2. TOTAL VACANCY INCLUDES SUBLEASE                    3. YEAR TO DATE ABSORP-TION %         4. AVG. YEARLY PER SQ FT RATE         

                                              1.                        2.                            3.                  4.                                                                           HIGHEST PRICED SUBMARKET                CENTRAL BUS. DIST VS SUBURBS 
                                                                    
CHARLOTTE        65.209 M            17.60%                1.00%        $34.45                                                               SOUTHEND AT $42.43 SQ FT                45/55
ATLANTA        176.3 M            21.40%                0.40%                 $32.63                                                                          MIDTOWN AT $43.60 SQ FT                37/63
AUSTIN        70.6 M            17.90%                -0.40%                   $54.78                                                                                DOWNTOWN AT $65.87                20/80
NASHVILLE        47.3 M            19.10%                -0.10%            $35.87                                                                       DOWNTOWN AT $43.11                39/61
RALEIGH DURHAM        58.0 M     13.20%                0.20%        $31.45                                                      DOWNTOWN RALEIGH AT $37.98                16/84
                                                                    
Year to date Charlotte is the best performing market in terms of absorption of office space as percentage of the market size.                                                                       
Charlotte is the most urban market in terms of its Uptown, Midtown, Southend all being part of the urban market.                                                                     
Then Nashville is 2nd most urban centric with Atlanta being the third.  (Atlanta urban market includes downtown, Midtown and Buckhead)                                                                    
Austin is by far the most expensive office market.  Raleigh Durham is the cheapest office market but does reflect that it has the most suburban office space as part of the total market.                                                                    
Highest vacancy is in the Atlanta market and all figures include sublease space.  Raleigh Durham has the lowest vacancy rate.            

Atlanta market is by far the largest in size at 176,300,000 sq ft with Austin 2nd largest and Charlotte 3rd but pretty close in market size of total square footage of office space.         

Southeast | Locations | JLL    you can download your own report here 

Edited October 6, 2022 by KJHburg

[MLBrumby]

They come up with more ways to slice the loaf in that industry.  I do know that Austin is killing it. Atlanta and Austin are at a point where they really shouldn't be considered in the same category with the others. 

[KJHburg]

1 minute ago, MLBrumby said:

They come up with more ways to slice the loaf in that industry.  I do know that Austin is killing it. Atlanta and Austin are at a point where they really shouldn't be considered in the same category with the others. 

True.  But with companies looking at Nashville that have considered maybe Atlanta or Charlotte or Austin it does make sense to look at them.  I hope this shows how expensive Austin is for a company compared to the others including Nashville which are very similar in price.  With the influx of companies coming to Austin from California may have something to do with it but it shows other cities might be much less expensive choices.  

[Pdt2f]

On 9/27/2022 at 1:27 PM, PostRural said:

I think “targeted to younger children” is the key here. I agree that Nashville doesn’t have a children’s museum that targets children under 6. I’ve heard great things about the adventure science center, but it also frequently comes with a comment like “you really need to wait until your kids are a little older for them to enjoy it.” The closest thing we have is the Discovery Center in Murfreesboro. I think a true Children’s Museum would do really well, but I get why it’s not popular on here as well. 

I have three kids under 5 years old and we had an adventure science center membership from the time our oldest was almost 2 until a couple of months ago (we just live too far away now to make it worth it), and they’ve always loved it. They have a ton of activities for all ages so they always found something to do. Just a few weeks ago we went there for a huge “touch-a-truck” event where all sorts of emergency, utility, and construction vehicles were available for the kids to climb into, crawl around, honk the horns, etc. During Covid they closed parts of it so it became a bit lamer but it was still worth the membership. 
 

That being said, I’d love for another childrens museum to open in Nashville. Lots of parents have memberships to these places, like the adventure science center, zoo, etc; and added to a yearly entertainment/education budget for youngsters a couple of hundred dollars for one more museum ain’t too bad. Just from my personal experience, there can always be more kids stuff available. Especially during the colder months when playing outside isn’t always a possibility.  

[nashville born]

Wasn't sure where best to put this so please move it if there's a more appropriate home.  Just having some fun and sharing it!

For context, didn't include projects already underway and under 11 stories.  (Just realized I omitted the Ritz project; added to my working document.  Let me know if you notice something I missed please.)

247303410_NashvilleProjects.xlsx

Edited October 13, 2022 by nashville born

[L. C. Ice]

On 10/5/2022 at 7:17 PM, KJHburg said:

How Nashville market compares to peer cities in the south and Austin.   Nashville is the 2nd most urban in looking at what percentage of total market is downtown  and in your case midtown. 

 

MARKET NAME         1. SIZE OF TOTAL OFFICE MARKET        2. TOTAL VACANCY INCLUDES SUBLEASE                    3. YEAR TO DATE ABSORP-TION %         4. AVG. YEARLY PER SQ FT RATE         

                                              1.                        2.                            3.                  4.                                                                           HIGHEST PRICED SUBMARKET                CENTRAL BUS. DIST VS SUBURBS 
                                                                    
CHARLOTTE        65.209 M            17.60%                1.00%        $34.45                                                               SOUTHEND AT $42.43 SQ FT                45/55
ATLANTA        176.3 M            21.40%                0.40%                 $32.63                                                                          MIDTOWN AT $43.60 SQ FT                37/63
AUSTIN        70.6 M            17.90%                -0.40%                   $54.78                                                                                DOWNTOWN AT $65.87                20/80
NASHVILLE        47.3 M            19.10%                -0.10%            $35.87                                                                       DOWNTOWN AT $43.11                39/61
RALEIGH DURHAM        58.0 M     13.20%                0.20%        $31.45                                                      DOWNTOWN RALEIGH AT $37.98                16/84
                                                                    
Year to date Charlotte is the best performing market in terms of absorption of office space as percentage of the market size.                                                                       
Charlotte is the most urban market in terms of its Uptown, Midtown, Southend all being part of the urban market.                                                                     
Then Nashville is 2nd most urban centric with Atlanta being the third.  (Atlanta urban market includes downtown, Midtown and Buckhead)                                                                    
Austin is by far the most expensive office market.  Raleigh Durham is the cheapest office market but does reflect that it has the most suburban office space as part of the total market.                                                                    
Highest vacancy is in the Atlanta market and all figures include sublease space.  Raleigh Durham has the lowest vacancy rate.            

Atlanta market is by far the largest in size at 176,300,000 sq ft with Austin 2nd largest and Charlotte 3rd but pretty close in market size of total square footage of office space.         

Southeast | Locations | JLL    you can download your own report here 

Nashville has built 16 office buildings at least 10 stories since 2016. Thanks.

[markhollin]

The Best 8 Hotels in Nashville according to Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/article/best-hotels-in-nashville/?sh=2502a05075a8

[Baronakim]

Since CSX has removed a number of yard tracks presumably to cash in on the potential real estate created,  I would think thata complete rethinking of the pedestrian bridge might be worth another thought.  If a narrow R.O,W. could be made over to the Gulch, a much less expensive bridge could be achieved without the complex Gulch end that had to be shoehorned a the small bit of land available.  Now it might even be possible to use ramps.  I think this would greatly enhance access on both sides.  Time to rethink this project IMO.

[markhollin]

Some interesting stats from NASHtoday:

 

[PaulChinetti]

1 hour ago, markhollin said:

Some interesting stats from NASHtoday:

 

That's a huge number for manufacturing, way more than I would have thought.

Thanks for this!

[rookzie]

On 10/14/2022 at 8:17 AM, markhollin said:

The Best 8 Hotels in Nashville according to Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/article/best-hotels-in-nashville/?sh=2502a05075a8

 

On 10/20/2022 at 9:02 AM, Baronakim said:

Since CSX has removed a number of yard tracks presumably to cash in on the potential real estate created,  I would think thata complete rethinking of the pedestrian bridge might be worth another thought.  If a narrow R.O,W. could be made over to the Gulch, a much less expensive bridge could be achieved without the complex Gulch end that had to be shoehorned a the small bit of land available.  Now it might even be possible to use ramps.  I think this would greatly enhance access on both sides.  Time to rethink this project IMO.

....

EDIT ─ 2022-10-22, 00:05
I just realized that I mistakenly had selected Mark Hollin's "The Best 8 Hotels in Nashville according to Forbes:" post, instead of the one intended ─ Baronakim's reference to the Gulch pedestrian bridge.  Blame on on age and dementia. (Sorry for the confusion, Mark...)

 

I think TWO ped bridges would be best ("give me an inch and I want a mile") ─ one in both North- and South Gulch.  That's likely surprising coming from me, of all peeps.

But my main reservation against any ped bridges right now is that, as proposed, the engineering of the one bridge last discussed needs to account for a presence for future commuter and/or light rail in the gulch track area.  If the city gets approval for air-rights from CSX, it's no doubt going to require the vertical clearance over a set number of tracks to allow passage of double-stack container flats, as well as AAR (Assn of Amer. RRs) "excessive-height" designated cars such as Hi-Cubes and auto racks.  That in itself isn't the issue.  Rather, once that bridge becomes constructed, it cannot be raised or relocated to accommodate any facilities for commuter or light rail that has yet to be conceived.  Options already have been reduced to slim pickin's for rail transit, primarily because the administration never has been proactive in procuring and securing prospective industrial real properties before it has become too late.  In some engineering plans, it might be desirable  to have grade separation among existing tracks and any additional tracks which might be needed in the case of light-rail, which by design can negotiate steeper grades than railroad trains.  That might be desired in the case of a needed Fly-over above an existing CSX track, in order to eliminate even minimally imposed interference with CSX operations at any time of a given day.

So, I'm all for the bridge thing(s), but an existing ped bridge ─ especially the fixed position of its piers as well as its approaches ─ could significantly limit remaining options for advanced-capacity rail transit.  Therefore any ped bridges discussion really should include the possibility of light rail, commuter rail, and even the proposed return of intercity passenger rail to the gulch, as well as include alternatives for a common station or terminal and related infrastructure.

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by rookzie

[MLBrumby]

@rookzie, utilizing the rail r-o-w seems like such a natural for LRT, but for some reason the powers running Metro don't want to even mention it as a first step to transit. Do you think it's even remotely likely to happen, notwithstanding the tough negotiations that would have to happen between metro and CSX.  Am I wrong to see their removing tracks as an open door for Metro to approach them for that purpose?  Where would the possible routes go from there north/south?  Those tracks have not been removed and are unlikely to be. 

[rookzie]

2 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

@rookzie, utilizing the rail r-o-w seems like such a natural for LRT, but for some reason the powers running Metro don't want to even mention it as a first step to transit. Do you think it's even remotely likely to happen, notwithstanding the tough negotiations that would have to happen between metro and CSX.  Am I wrong to see their removing tracks as an open door for Metro to approach them for that purpose?  Where would the possible routes go from there north/south?  Those tracks have not been removed and are unlikely to be. 

No, I don't foresee any of that happening, because in part it requires a collaborative exchange and resolution proposals among members of the administration.  As yet, none of that even shows a sign of having been a concept, much less a subject of forum discussion.  Almost every trace of that prospect petered out in late spring 2018, with no momentum regained since then.   Then the pandemic came, and for all practical purposes that sealed the coffin.

[Baronakim]

On 10/20/2022 at 5:57 PM, MLBrumby said:

@rookzie, utilizing the rail r-o-w seems like such a natural for LRT, but for some reason the powers running Metro don't want to even mention it as a first step to transit. Do you think it's even remotely likely to happen, notwithstanding the tough negotiations that would have to happen between metro and CSX.  Am I wrong to see their removing tracks as an open door for Metro to approach them for that purpose?  Where would the possible routes go from there north/south?  Those tracks have not been removed and are unlikely to be. 

I think using the existing track R.O.W. to  me is absolutely a non starter for light rail.  Crossing Bicentennial Mall and crossing the river to acesss East Nashville are 6 ways to impossible IMO.  The swing bridge over the Cumberland could  NOT be replaced as the gradient  of the tracks cannont be increased to install a non-swing bridge over the river with sufficient vertical clearences.  CSX might allow a light rail line in the newly vacant yard but they would never share the swing bridge which is already a bottleneck.  Likewise the span over 8th Avenue S. is not likely to be sharable.  There is just too much immovable infrastucture to make replacement feasable.   I think folks on this forum fixated on this pie-in-the sky concept  need to move on to other solutions that might actually work.

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Baronakim

[Luvemtall]

IMHO the thoughts of using anything that involves working with CSX and existing infrastructure, needs to be completely forgotten. Think a bit outside the box , and really consider a monorail system. It can be elevated where necessary, more efficient, quiet, all electric, and build trash to energy plant to power it , eliminating more polluting landfills. Their pylon structures can be put in medians in existing R.O.W  on both State and City owned Roads / Land, and as done at Disney they could go into buildings for stations , because there’s no emissions . Clean and effective.

[rookzie]

18 hours ago, Baronakim said:

I think using the existing track R.O.W. to  me is absolutely a non starter for light rail.  Crossing Bicentennial Mall and crossing the river to acesss East Nashville are 6 ways to impossible IMO.  The swing bridge over the Cumberland could  NOT be replaced as the gradient  of the tracks cannont be increased to install a non-swing bridge over the river with sufficient vertical clearences.  CSX might allow a light rail line in the newly vacant yard but they would never share the swing bridge which is already a bottleneck.  Likewise the span over 8th Avenue S. is not likely to be sharable.  There is just too much immovable infrastucture to make replacement feasable.   I think folks on this forum fixated on this pie-in-the sky concept  need to move on to sloutions that might actually work.

 

Thing is though, the Mid-State eventually will heighten its focus on expanding commuter-rail in the region, and most likely that could take the form of commuter rail combined with the use of light-rail for mid-range distance to the exurbs ─ most of which were outlined in the failed long-range plan outlined by the MPO.  Light-rail (LRT) is the primary mode or transport for Portland (Tri-Met MAX), the 2030 expansion concept for Charlotte (Lynx), and to an extent Dallas (DART, Trinity Metro) and Seattle (Link and Sounder), and Denver (RTD) ─ the latter three of which have full-FRA-compliant railroad equipment incorporated on at least portions of their networks.  Those latter three also have interchange points for light-rail with commuter rail, although Denver's system incorporates both LRT and FRA-compliant commuter-rail EMS ─ rather unusual for a relatively new transit network.

While there is not comparison between service needs of Middle Tennessee and those of the districts mentioned, indeed they all have long-range plans approved and prescribed ad-hoc for their respective regions.  Portland does have a single single commuter-rail line with FRA-waiver DMUs, but it only connects the western suburb of Beaverton in outlying Washington Cnty (west of Portland in Multnomah Cnty) with Wilsonville in Clackamas Cnty.  In Middle Tennessee, the Gulch very well might not end up as the preferred alternative for any future rail-bound commuting services, but it's not to say that its not possible or even not likely.

A river crossing doesn't even have to utilize or run alongside the existing 1910-built L&N (CSX) swing bridge.  To date, several river additional river crossings have been proposed during the last 5 years for surface roadway use ─ between the East Bank at S. 5th and Crutcher streets, and Willow Street on the opposite bank; and three separate crossings between the West Bank north of I-65 (formerly I-265) and the existing Clarksville Hywy (US-41A) to Bordeaux.  An additional river crossing would be needed for any common point of any combination of FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail with light rail, whether the light rail mode utilizes DMUs or standard LRT EMUs.   There exist several options for additional river crossings and new R-o-W, even if some routing might end up rather circuitous in path to a central interchange location.   One or more of these proposed river crossings could be built to also accommodate traffic and light-rail, or one or more parallel bridges could be constructed to support either light-rail or FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail.  The trick is to plan by concerted initiatives coordinated among local and regional decision-makers ─ something that perpetually seems to have run amiss.

That said, it might become concluded that more than one hub be constructed for interchanging between routes, but most likely at least some of those proposed routes ─ such as the West and South and Southeast proposed corridor routes ─ would have a significant advantage in utilizing the gulch in some form or fashion for a shared interchange.  All those can terminate on the west of the West Bank ─ most likely west of the CBD-downtown, that is.  There absolutely needs to be a planned Southeast that connects with Rutherford Cnty, as that has been deemed the most potentially densely utilized corridor of all.  These potentially all could utilize the CSX with R-o-W expansions along the entirety of the corridors, and these would be much less disruptive to the existing core structure than constructing entirely new R-o-W.  Also, it likely would be the least expensive alternative to tunneling along these corridors (and utilizing light-rail), as grade-separation would be necessary to provide unimpeded travel along these corridors.  Even with current tunnel boring machines and technology, the cost of constructing grade-separated infrastructure via tunneling along extended segments radiating from downtown likely would significantly exceed that of greasing the palms of CSX.  There is no freaking way that local districts that include the West End, Belle Meade, Berry Hill, Oak Hill, and Brentwood are going to allow light rail along the surface arterial ─ far too many NIMBYs ─ and they would have to vote as NIMBYs did in some other regions to finance subterranean infrastructure, whether for light-rail or heavy-rail transit (metro-style subway).

If not utilizing the Gulch, then an entirely new set-up, utilizing only a light-rail mode, would require some implementation of tunneling downtown and most likely beyond.   There’s no way the city can construct a dedicated FRA “railroad-quality” commuter-rail downtown presence that does not utilize the gulch, while providing at least some connectivity among different corridors, unless it goes primarily to tunneling for light rail only.   A separate terminal located on the east side of down could serve the proposed Northeast Corridor route and possibly the Northwest Corridor, if the latter is revised from its previous LPA (locally preferred alternative) through Bordeaux and North Nashville, and instead to follow a path concurrent or parallel with I-24 into East Nashville.  Even the current Riverfront station and station lead could be abandoned, and the current MCStar East service could be rerouted to a terminal in East Nashville, via a new bridge.   Either the current MCS FRA-compliant equipment would have to be replaced with FRA-waiver equipment, or the current FRA-compliant infrastructure would have to be rerouted to utilize an East Nashville (East Bank) terminal.

Just saying, the Gulch still remains a viable option for rail transit use, whether a terminal is built in the Gulch or away from it, as the Gulch would provide the only direct land-use connection for those particular corridors which could benefit from its use.

   

Edited October 22, 2022 by rookzie

[Baronakim]

1 hour ago, rookzie said:

 

A river crossing doesn't even have to utilize or run alongside the existing 1910-built L&N (CSX) swing bridge.  To date, several river additional river crossings have been proposed during the last 5 years for surface roadway use ─ between the East Bank at S. 5th and Crutcher streets, and Willow Street on the opposite bank; and three separate crossings between the West Bank north of I-65 (formerly I-265) and the existing Clarksville Hywy (US-41A) to Bordeaux.  An additional river crossing would be needed for any common point of any combination of FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail with light rail, whether the light rail mode utilizes DMUs or standard LRT EMUs.   There exist several options for additional river crossings and new R-o-W, even if some routing might end up rather circuitous in path to a central interchange location.   One or more of these proposed river crossings could be built to also accommodate traffic and light-rail, or one or more parallel bridges could be constructed to support either light-rail or FRA-compliant or FRA-waiver commuter rail.  The trick is to plan by concerted initiatives coordinated among local and regional decision-makers ─ something that perpetually seems to have run amiss.

That said, it might become concluded that more than one hub be constructed for interchanging between routes, but most likely at least some of those proposed routes ─ such as the West and South and Southeast proposed corridor routes ─ would have a significant advantage in utilizing the gulch in some form or fashion for a shared interchange.  All those can terminate on the west of the West Bank ─ most likely west of the CBD-downtown, that is.  There absolutely needs to be a planned Southeast that connects with Rutherford Cnty, as that has been deemed the most potentially densely utilized corridor of all.  These potentially all could utilize the CSX with R-o-W expansions along the entirety of the corridors, and these would be much less disruptive to the existing core structure than constructing entirely new R-o-W.  Also, it likely would be the least expensive alternative to tunneling along these corridors (and utilizing light-rail), as grade-separation would be necessary to provide unimpeded travel along these corridors.  Even with current tunnel boring machines and technology, the cost of constructing grade-separated infrastructure via tunneling along extended segments radiating from downtown likely would significantly exceed that of greasing the palms of CSX.  There is no freaking way that local districts that include the West End, Belle Meade, Berry Hill, Oak Hill, and Brentwood are going to allow light rail along the surface arterial ─ far too many NIMBYs ─ and they would have to vote as NIMBYs did in some other regions to finance subterranean infrastructure, whether for light-rail or heavy-rail transit (metro-style subway).

If not utilizing the Gulch, then an entirely new set-up, utilizing only a light-rail mode, would require some implementation of tunneling downtown and most likely beyond.   There’s no way the city can construct a dedicated FRA “railroad-quality” commuter-rail downtown presence that does not utilize the gulch, while providing at least some connectivity among different corridors, unless it goes primarily to tunneling for light rail only.  

Just saying, the Gulch still remains a viable option for rail transit use, whether or not a terminal is built in the Gulch or away from it, as the Gulch would provide the only direct land-use connection for those particular corridors which could benefit from its use.

   

Rookzie, I do appreciate your well thought out analysis.  However, I do not feel the crux of the problem involves the Gulch as the central component.  LTR on the surface is very unfeasible for Nashville on the whole.  I think that any system will have to be elevated to a large extent.  Tunneling is just too expensive overall... look at Boston's 'Big Dig".   There is no really viable route thorugh neighborhoods  for a  new rail route as it must be  relatively linear.  I recall that the location of 440 was made largely because of the existance of old secondary abandoned rail lines.  Rail systems also require fairly slight gradants a s well.  More than three decades ago, I was involved in proposals  for a large airport facility beyond city sized facilities.  The proposal was to construct a 'worldport' hub for the eastern US and connecting Chicago, Middle Tennessee, Atlanta and Miami  as an initial routing with an elevated maglev system connecting the airports.   The maglev  system was to be  completely elevated  above all existing surface transportation connecting at the airports with prefabricated longspan structure between pylons..  Speed was similar to the Japanesee bullet trains  I still think maglev to cental hubs in outlying suburban locations connecting to maybe 2 hubs in the core.   Multiple stops along the way just seems too excessively slow.  As you have stated, routing down existing arterials or with CSX is a nasty can of worms.  I don't think a system with stops like a bus route will serve  our city efficiently. rather outlying hubs directly connecting with the core without stops between is IMO the way to go.  Such a system could be  routed independantly of existing infrastructure routes.  I haven't relooked at the concepts in decades but surely the technolgy is much more developed than what we proposed back in the 1980s.   

Edited October 22, 2022 by Baronakim

[MagicPotato]

Music Genre Preference in Each U.S. State

Interesting that TN isn't country. Even more surprising is that country is popular in PA, VA, WI, and OH.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by MagicPotato

[jmtunafish]

7 hours ago, MagicPotato said:

Music Genre Preference in Each U.S. State

Interesting that TN isn't country. Even more surprising is that country is popular in PA, VA, WI, and OH.

 

 

 

 

Yup.  There are 18 radio stations in Cookeville, but only three are country.  My sister just moved to Cookeville from Wisconsin and was surprised that she heard more country music in Wisconsin than she does down here, either live or on the radio.

[titanhog]

Country music has almost always been one of the top 2 genres of radio stations in the US.

[Pdt2f]

9 hours ago, MagicPotato said:

Music Genre Preference in Each U.S. State

Interesting that TN isn't country. Even more surprising is that country is popular in PA, VA, WI, and OH.

 

 

 

 

Ah, those country music hotbeds of Delaware and New Hampshire!

This is fascinating, thank you for posting!

[KJHburg]

Nashville delivering some of the most apartments units among the US metros.  Here is a chart for the last 5 years.

https://www.wealthmanagement.com/multifamily/10-markets-will-reach-five-year-peak-apartment-deliveries-2022/gallery?slide=4

[downtownresident]

Parking Minimums Bill is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. 

[colemangaines]

1 hour ago, downtownresident said:

Parking Minimums Bill is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. 

Sorry I'm out of the loop - is this removing parking minimums in the downtown core?

[downtownresident]

48 minutes ago, colemangaines said:

Sorry I'm out of the loop - is this removing parking minimums in the downtown core?

Within the entire UZO, and instituting the old parking minimums as maximums. The DTC has not required parking for quite some time.