Shuzilla

True dat, but Nashville suburban schools are generally not considered very good either. The suburbs they relocate to for quality schools are not in Nashville/Davidson. Again, again, and again... please define "sprawl." The term is always used in a prejorative manner without the used having to describe exactly what is bad about a specific proposal. It's just like identifying a development as "green" without imparting what the heck is green about it so others can come to their own conclusion of "greenness". If the program for MTC was scattered throughout places like Belle Meade, Green Hills, Hermitage and Madison (where it will go otherwise), would it still be sprawl? I mean, if no matter where you put projects in the suburbs you are contributing to "sprawl" then that argues for Bells Bend being as good a place as any for a MTC outside of a downtown location.

Jice, I have to disagree, mainly because competition and choice are good things to have. In this day and age, city and rural life are touted as ideals while suburbia is thrown under the bus. Look at the May Town debate. Sprawl is everything between downtown and where you can park a tractor. If the surrounding counties were considered as part of the Nashville region long ago, there would be no Cool Springs or McEwen or Providence because those concepts would still be languishing between the two jaws of the anti-suburbia vice: preserving green space and retaining vertical corporate offices in downtown Nashville. Nashville proper would control the debate and choice would be out the window. Nashville is and most likely will continue to be a suburban city. The majority of her citizens live, shop and work in the suburbs. Yet, there are damn few advovates for suburban lifestyle. The tragety in that, while people can see a trend toward the creation of dense nodes as workspace moves or locates in the 'burbs, we can't see that growth as the opportunity to transform suburbia toward a more sustainable model, and do so without the loss of anything that is enjoyable about suburban living. Nashvillians aren't going to board up their Bellevue residences and camp out downtown to be close to work after all; no, work is moving out to them as the city grows. Abandoning suburbia and rebuilding downtown is simply far less sustainable than working within the built environment that exists today. Ideally (for me anyway), one should be able to walk a half hour or so from any point in Nashville to get to a town center with shopping and employment opportunities. In fact you can walk between 100 Oaks and Green Hills within an hour, from Green Hills to Belle Meade / White Bridge commercial area, and from there to either mid town or Nashville West or Sylvan Park also within an hour, meaning a tweener has less than 30 minutes to walk either way between those locations. That's good bones to build on should gas get to be ten bucks and it's too wet to cycle. So, once we accept that the majority of employment can and should occur in the suburbs where most of us live, there is no need for complex regional transportation to get from the exurbs to downtown; folks can live in the suburbs and be near work. I sense I'm alone on this . I mean, no bullitt trains and sh*t! No cool factor! A May Town (not neccesarily the exact plan or size) represents to me a better way to plan for developing in the suburbs, because the proposed density will decellerate the consumption of open spaces while allowing for continued and indefinite economic expansion within Metro Nashville. But to get to a May Town you have to A) build upon the successful Williamson County development model that shows how to attract business and B) at the same time be repulsed at the boundless spread of development over fertile farmland that model costs, and want to achieve better for Davidson County.

I agree completely, and have said as much several times in this thread. However, a bridge to the airport that doubles as construction access is necessary, so it makes sense that it gets proposed and constructed first. Hopefully, prospective clients will see beyond the immediate surroundings and the school redistricting wars that are about to start. It is my contention that if the MTC developers can get their first bridge built and get the first couple million square feet leased, the politicians and power brokers that have either been on the fence or absent from the discussion will swiftly board the bandwagon. Once MTC is perceived as successful, though, politicians willl approve and fund a bridge through the Wallmart if need be to get access to the 37205 and 37221 areas. May Town's weakness is not environmental damage and it's not the additional burden on county services (the oppositions's stances on those issues would result in MUCH much worse problems). It's the lack of access to space in county to put 35,000 more dwellings. Bellevue has space that can be accessed from Old Hickory Boulevard, but the Cockril Bend bridge empties closest to Scottsboro where homes on two acre lots will wipe out Northwest Davidson. There's not much flat land up there. It's the city's job to plan for expansion, and tens of thousands of dwellings will be needed each decade to absorb projected growth, even without MTC. If I were in planning, I'd welcome the opportunity to know where a good portion of that growth will be for certain.

Please explain said "absurdity" of May Town? Please explain "sprawl"?

I agree. With the projected several hundred thousands population growth in the Nashville MSA by 2025, and MTC only acommodating 40,000 to 45,000 workspaces, both projects would be filled to capacity. If the Riverfront development outdoes May Town, it may slow down the suburban project and protect the land for a while. But if the markets are different, then ultimately neither with hurt the other and Nashville will offer business the best of both worlds. I think the owners and developers of downtown Nashville commercial space should band together to create a May Town-like vision for downtown, complete with master plan from RTKL or similar and fly-over video knock-em-dead sales pitch, and "internally" fund property acquisition, parking structures that have commercial/retail wraps, a trolley system to convey workers from parking to the office, and even trains out the main spokes to the suburbs. If the parking lot operators won't sell out, condemn their property. If Richard Lawson is right, downtown commercial space will have a ten-bucks-per-square-foot higher asking price with free and convenient parking, which may translate into all the downtown commercial property value increasing better than 50%, repaying all their investments. If we're going to compare the sizes of MTC and downtown, we should also inquire what downtown can do for itself to compete with MTC without having government 1) spend tax dollars to spruce up downtown to compete or 2) deny the existence of MTC, and by doing so kill off the in-county competition with downtown.

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.

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.

"B) The gap in logic has been pointed out, it is the entire argument for rail. The users of roads are paying a far larger share for roads than users of rail are for rail. In fact, in TN drivers get screwed since we are a 'donor' state and pay more in gas taxes than we receive back from the federal government. What I also find humorous is that some are proposing to tax gasoline even more and use that money to help pay for mass transit projects like this one. " Good points. Add to these that the user of roads pays just about 100% of the cost of the carriage, fuel, maintenance and insurance; only a small portion of the total cost of getting from A to B in a car is the cost of road construction and maintenance. To compare, it would be as if the public rail ticket cost included the actual cost per rider of the equipment, fuel and employees, but enjoyed only a small government subsidy that covered a portion of the cost of the rails. I've always wondered why public transportation can't charge what it actually costs to run, though I think I've come around finally to an answer. Everyone needs food, too, but the economically disadvantaged individual receives the subsidy, not the grocery item. It wouldn't be be fair for a middle-class person pay 50 cents for a $1.50 box of cereal, and let the government pitch in a buck subsidy, just because 50 cents is all the poor or a student could afford to pay.

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.

One persistent thought I have had is to extend 6th and 7th through the CC as huge bridge structures that would support the convention hall roof almost column free while allowing pedestrians to cross through the uppermost part of the hall, only clearing the floor as required. These bridge structures could also be used to support operable partitions that subdivide the hall into three smaller spaces.

I think the Gibson Showcase would be a good fit, if brought over from Opry Mills.

WSMV reports that the city is planning a service road from John C Tune airport to Bells Bend: http://www.wsmv.com/news/16696025/detail.html Looks like grapa called this one. Still, without an exact bridge location, there's not much to plan for yet. I wonder who their source was for this report?

Making money is the point of virtually every project that is of topic on UP. None of the developments we're geeking on would happen without the desire for profit by developers, the financial industry, and future tenants. The truth is, one day all of the space in MTC will be needed. If the MTC project were developed as a half-dozen smaller developments and placed on the edges of the MSA where land is cheap and plentiful, they would each consume as much land as all of MTC (probably all having surface parking lots). They would face much less opposition, and would not have to "go green" to sell to the PTB. Eventually, even more residential and commercial development of the suburban kind would pop up around those developments, taking even more land. Farmland is gone once taken by development no matter where that development happens. The proposed density and the site's abrupt geographical confines are what make Bells Bend development the better deal for Middle Tennessee. Without MTC, corporate HQ locations have one less choice in Davidson. Without MTC, there still won't be organic farming on that land unless as a temporary income generator while the next development schemes are debated. Without MTC, when the state connects Old Hickory Boulevard by bridge, agriculture will be priced out of Bells Bend anyway. The central point is compromise. The land owners have changed their master plan and bridge location to address residents' concerns. There is room for both buildings and 900 acres for agricultural opportunity. The 800 homes in the Zeitlin compromise may prove to have been the Bend's best deal. The 900 undeveloped acres in the May proposal might prove to be agriculture's best deal. Anyone holding out for the development behind door number three?

Bells Bend is just space for a portion of future growth. Nothing will be available for several years, and once it gets started the build-out will take a generation to complete the master plan. Just look at the Nashville MSA as it was a generation ago to see what kind of growth we're in for. Despite the emergence of Cool Springs, or more likely because of it, downtown Nashville is much better now than 25 years ago.

The DT condo market may not be saturated, but at what price point can condos still be sold? The ST spaces seem awfully expensive. Part of the RE bubble was folks overextending themselves to get double-digit returns on as expensive a property as one could get financing for. A 10% appreciation on $500K is twice that of $250K, right? Unfortunately, a 10% depreciation is twice as much of a hit on the more expensive property, as millions are learning. The real question is, if you buy it, will someone be there to buy it form you at a price reasonably close to what you paid? For me, the trend to living downtown is not the same as living downtown long enough to make buying smarter than renting. I think that Nashville is and will be for some time a suburban city, and folks will migrate to the suburbs to raise families more often than not. For the prices of many of these condominums, there are lots of choices in the nice old suburbs within 20 minutes of downtown. We need $150K condos that 20-somethings can afford without having to sacrifice the lifestyle that draws them downtown.

"Residents say they embarked on the community plan process to protect the area from development." There's the money quote from the CP article. There is no compromise desired by the opposition, only total victory is acceptable. This has become a personal battle between the Mays and those who have chased out previous developments. The reason that the planning commission was brought into Scottboro/Bells Bend neighborhood in the first place was for preservation, not planning, which is why the wheels have come off of the process. I suspect that the reason May Town was put together as it is was for the May's to get their foot in the door before preservationists locked it shut. Again, I'm left wondering how serious the redesign and alternate bridge proposal is. Was it a serious attempt at placating critics while keeping the overall concept viable? Or, was it simply an exercise to show planning and the PTB the obvious, that no amount of compromise will satisfy critics? If planning really wants corporate office space in Davidson, and they favor the Bend for its location, then they need to sprout a pair and remove the May property, the Park and the treatment plant from the current neighborhood discussion. Place the south tip of the Bend in the same neighborhood across the river for planning purposes, for gosh sake. Free the folks of Scottsboro to consider whats best for them, their family and neighbors without having to first consider whether what they desire helps or hurts the preservationists' crusade, which has been the real hijacking of the planning process. Opponents have squandered excelent opportunities to get some of the concessions they have requested, such as organic farming on someone else's property, and have done so as far as I can tell because those concerns were insincere attempts at obstruction.

"If the discussion over the May Town Center proposals indeed becomes about the urban core, then perhaps one idea would be to swap land the city owns in the urban core with the Bells Bend property the May family owns." Sounds like, rather than compromise, it's another special intrest piglet wanting to eat from the Bells Bend trough. Folks who want to see the urban core more dense, folks who consider anything not built on a street grid laid out prior to the great depression as eeeeeeeeeeeeee-vile sprawl, now want a piece of the action! I am assuming that the speedway would not make it's way to the bend in this swap, nor will the fair and flea markets because of the same access problems the Mays are facing. Hmmm... exactly why are the relatively few people who want Bells Bend to come to a complete standstill soooo much more important than the thousands who go to the fair grounds to watch car racing, the tens of thousands who attend the monthly flea markets, and the many thosands who come to the state fair? Is it because the Bells Bend opponents are nature-loving right thinking people and the fairground patrons are knuckle-dragging rednecks? That's a serious question, by the way, because I don't see those thousands of people included in this deal. Now, since the fairgrounds are only a couple hundred acres, if that, and the Mays are giving 900 acres over to a conservation easement, then may I suggest swapping acre for acre, giving the Mays the fairground site to develop and putting the fairground site in a fraction of the 900 acre conservation easement? That would get the fairgrounds redeveloped AND take only a small fraction of the park space in the Bells Bend/Scottsboro area away to do it. But, no racing and no flea market - the "rednecks" would have to take a hike, I guess. If folks want something from the Mays, you have to give them something in return. Let the Mays have their Town and they might have to pay for some of that bridge that's been planned for years. Let them build, and in return require several hundred public acres for organic farming along the river as part of the deal. Let them have their zoning variance, but in return require them to be part of the Belle Mead UDO that they got out of, and initiate UDO's for their remaining city properties.

I'll make this suggestion again. Since neither the utility property nor Bells Bend Park are going to be developed, and since the May properties are proposed to be developed in a way incongruous with the Bells Bend/Scottsboro neighborhood, why don't the city planners simply redefine the neighborhood plan as being north of the park and the May property? That way, the neighborhood can concentrate on developments north of the park and not be so distracted/divided by the May Town Center proposal. Everything south of the park and the ridges should be part of West Nashville, where MTC will have the most impact, assuming Old Hickory Boulevard is rerouted to a different part of the river but does not connect. I sent an e-mail to planning with this suggestion. It is not one they are considering at this time. However, now that BOTH sides of the river are involved (as they should be), I think it is time for Planning to seriously consider placing the south lobe of the bend into West Nashville for planning purposes. Otherwise, they have put thimselves into a political vise, getting pressure from both neighborhoods.

Now that I've looked at the idea of a bridge to Cockrill Bend, I am against it (sorry grapa). Just look at a map: the resulting route to West Nashville would be longer and slower than just staying on Ashland City Highway to Briley Parkway. What a waste! If the bridge is to have public funding it needs to contribute to more than MTC. At least where it is currently planned at Annex there is potential for an additional I-40 access and access to BB Park and Ashland City (I suspect OHB will connect eventually). Again, folks in the Bend need to think really clearly about connecting to Cockrill Bend. You may not like the kind of development that follows once that bridge has to pay for itself with tax revenue. Regarding landscaping and other improvements on that side, there's not enough lipstick at Macy's to pretty up that pig. Look for salt sheds and concrete plants if MTC fails to develop as planned. Any growth will cause these problems. Maybe not here, but somewhere else, wherever growth will occur. Look for 300,000 to 500,000 more people living in the midstate by the time May Town Center wraps up in 20 years. All sorts of undeveloped spaces, greenfield and brownfield, will need to be utilized; it's not an "either-or" proposition. This is really a planning issue, not a preservation issue. Land has been and will be preserved in the Bend. Compromise dictates letting that 450 acres go so that 900 private acres may be made publicly accessible, maybe even for use as an agricultural classroom. Certainly, burn-yer-bridges obstruction will not bring organic farming to property the opposition will never own. Besides, has anyone thought about how much ecological damage pets, chemicals of all kinds, and overflowing septic fields can be wrought by the hundreds of houses that will be allowed on even 5-acre lots? If the Bend is a place so rural that folks are free to "pee off their porch" and "shoot guns," then would country folk live with the rules imposed on new home owners requiring, for example, fencing and leashes for their pets to protect the whooping crane nest? A compact development like the one proposed here means less roads, shorter utility runs and better all-around planning than if the same amount of housing, office and commercial was distributed among a hundred smaller and more suburban developments on the periphery. Again, Middle Tennessee will grow somewhere, and what is not built intensely on 450 acres of Bells Bend farmland will probably end up sprawled over 2000 acres of Williamson or Robertson County farmland in the usual piecemeal fashion.

Another thing to consider when contemplating a primary bridge access from Centennial Boulevard is the position Nashville would be in if the bridge is built but MTC fails to materialize, for whatever reason. Having spent money for the bridge, something will be allowed to be built there. That something would most likely be a natural extension of what is already on Centennial: industry, warehousing, prisons and junkyards. Not at all a comforting thought! If the same happened with a bridge in the planned location, the next proposal would be more housing and some retail, a natural extension of the 37205 area. Maybe even a school. Maybe a brand-spanking-new Hellwood Comprehensive High School!

I'm not against a bridge there per se, but I think it would kill the development, or at best create another Metro Center. Have you seen what is out there at Centennial Boulevard? Prisons and industry, as was the plan. As you said, the primary drive for MTC is to land corporate headquarters in Davidson. I don't think one will lure national and international corporations to Nashville driving their search team through prison bend. As a secondary access/airport access, yes. But the primary access should be from the West Nashville or Bellevue area. Something also to consider is that, should a bridge go to Centennial, there won't be another bridge built to the Bend for decades, or until growth in MTC warrants (which, if the bridge is improperly sighted, may never grow enough to need a third access point). The first, best shot is to go for all the marbles, which is the $50 to $80 million bridge/interchange proposal.

Perhaps, but the OHB bridge connecting into Bellevue is on hold indefinitely, or at least that is what someone posted a while back. The Scottsboro community has made it known that they do not want an increase in traffic that comes with either a bridge or a Bells Bend development of any size. The people who show up for planning meetings are against a bridge. That is what Metro is hearing. Metro needs to hear the other side of that argument from Bells Bend residents. Now, has the highway department really handed the keys to the future of a bride across the Cumberland to one small community? I can't say, but being short of funding, opposition is a rather convenient excuse. You mentioned acces to the park. Most likely, Bells Bend Park will be accessible from the north and from the south but will not allow a connection through. The proposal to cut the north off was stated by the developer to be in response to community interests. I think it was also a calculated move to divide the opposition between those who are against any development and those who don't like it but know it will come and will have some benefit to themselves and their heirs. The corporate campus idea is, IMO, mainly to entice public money into this project. I may be mistaken, but I think a private entity can build its own bridge across a navigable river provided the proper Corps of Engineers permits are issued and the state legislature passes a bill to allow it. A less ambitious development would still more than pay for a two-lane $20 to $30 million bridge in land appreciation alone, but why pay from your own pocket when you can get the same state and federal dollars for your development as others have gotten? Who paid for the recent McEwen interchange on I-65? I agree with you that the bridge would be worth more to the taxpayer if it connected to hwy 12, and thus the developer would be in a better position to get public construction funding approved if OHB went through. That's why he needs to divide and/or dilute local opposition in such a way that a connection northward is still in the cards. If you go to the May Town Center website and read Tony Giarrantina's address to the February 11 planning meeting attendants, you will see how his argument addresses many of the issues opponents have had with previous developments and anticipated a few others. (That is all I mean by dividing and diluting the opposition.)

grapa, how do you think the residents of Scottsboro/Bells Bend would take to the idea to move the disputed area of the bend, May property southward and treatment plant eastward, to the council district across the river? How about allowing the planning commission to move that area out of the Scottsboro community and into the West Nashville community for planning purposes? Should OHB stop at the park and a bridge be built from West Nashville, such moves would best reflect the actual political and planning boundaries, IMO.

1. Please define local. 2. Yes, there's nothing to oppose until a bridge is approved and funded. The impacts of this kind of development can still be discussed without bridge particulars. HH and the Bellevue malls HAD their day. They did work for a time. Circumstances changed their viability. But the commercial part of May Town Center is as much, if not more, for the population living and working there as it is to draw shoppers into MTC like a shopping mall would. The main emphasis will be for corporate campuses (campi?) and needed office space in the '05. I don't think that anyone disagrees with the assertion that it is better to build on brownfields than on greenfields, but rather with the assertion that it is imparative to do so. The May property is in question, and it is underdeveloped. I do not believe that every brownfield must be developed prior to the May property. Future growth (numbers I posted earlierr) pretty much guarantee the need to develop both brownfields and greenfields at some time in the future. When that time comes, there will still be 800 + 900 acres in Bells Bend untouched, plus Beaman Park to the north, plus Percy and Edwin warner parks to the South, etc. If you would, please offer up the source who stated 40 homes, and I will be happy to call him/her immediately and get a firm quote from that person to put in this thread. However, your broader point is well taken about the impact across the river from the bend. I think that, for the opposition, there will be much more resistance to be found in Hillwood, West Meade, Belle Meade as well as Charlotte Park, than many may think. Perhaps even a more solid resistance than from Bells Bend and Scottsboro. Not just from property condemnation, but also from increased traffic flow through existing infrastructure for which it was not designed.

No cut and paste. Those were just my thoughts. I deemed them sufficiently boring to require a smaller font . I've hoped we could get away from the particulars of the bridge, but then there I went...