Shuzilla

So, much of the concern stems for a wholy unsubstantiated yet quite tasty rumor. Nice. Or, would someone please post images of the bridge plans, if they even exist? Given there's so much detail discussed here with such certainty, they must be circulating quite freely. I'm genuinely curious. I can't see the need for more than two homes to be taken for the bridge and a "McEwen-type interchange", which is not a clover leaf but straight ramp runs paralleling the interstate. The southbound off ramp would definitely take out the nice old bungalow on the corner of Annex and Thunderbird, and maybe some other homes on T-bird would lose back yard to an expanded ROW if the existing is insufficiently narrow. Extending Annex from the north into a tee with the extended Old Hickory Boulevard would take the house on the corner of Cleeses Ferry and Annex. There looks to be sufficient length through that corner lot to achieve elevation. To preserve the most homes, the road out to the bend needs to veer south into the trees and away from the east-west section of Annex. (There are no homes on the south side of Annex for some distance of the interchange.) The eastern four or five homes might have to connect to the new road, but otherwise existing Annex would simply dead end at her east terminus, and none of those properties are affected. Thunderbird and Cabot would have to join and bridge over Annex/OHB because the existing (goofy) four-way is too close to the interchange. The corner of Marauder and Thunderbird is about 20 feet above Annex, so it's do-able. A connector through the trees from Cabot could then lead to a new intersection with Annex/OHB about 800 feet beyond the new interchange, giving ample space between. BTW, the houses in the area of the bridge are generally 30 feet above the river. It's the bend side that needs to be built up the most. Does anyone know how much higher a bridge would have to go to clear river traffic?

TG said $50 million to $80 million. Just say that out loud... $80 million. Having said that, didn't downtown just get a bridge to almost nowhere, the Gateway bridge? What did that cost, $25 million? I'd buy the first bridge to the bend before the sixth into downtown. Yeah, it will help future SoBro development, but right now there doesn't even seem to be a concrete concept of how or where Koeran Vets Boulevard terminates. And, as we all know, downtown just got a new convention center approved. Though not likely to pay for itself out of operations, it will hopefully boost tourist economy downtown enough to be a net positive cash flow for the city. But, like the proposed bridge to MTC, is pure speculation, but to the tune of $600 million. Say that out loud. $600 million. And change. A CC to nowhere? So, Neptune, why should the May familiy and the rest of Nashville wait for the owner of PCS Metals to decide to redevelop that site, have plans drawn up, get it approved AND get reqisite city funds in order to then have the city help out in Bells Bend? What's this pecking order for taxpayer funding you've come up with that suggests prioritizing yet-unannounced downtown projects over serious proposals outside of the CBD? Shouldn't the Johnny-come-latelys get in line and wait their turn, once they get their crap together? 450 developed acres at MTC is the current discussion, not PCS Metals. Not the fairgrounds. This bridge will be funded and constructed long before any serious move to redevelop either of those sites, and with a future expanded tax base (should MTC flesh out) and a current economic downturn they may be better off for having come along later than earlier. An argument between the suburbs and downtown over who gets the lesser tax dollar investment is just going to get really boring really fast. It's suburban Nashville's turn with Bell's Bend and the Bellevue Mall. Downtown has had some nice stuff done lately, places we can be proud of, like the Sommet and the library and public square at the couthouse and bicentennial mall... I posted some statistics on growth in Nashville/Davidson earlier and compared growth to the entire metro statistical area. There will be opportunities for growth all around, but recent history shows the surrounding counties are outpacing Nashville. It's not a given that $50 million spent on a Bells Bend Bridge will come at the expense of downtown projects. However, if growth continues to favor the out-of-Nashville exurbs, it's much more likely that downtown will have a to struggle even harder for a piece what little growth remains inside Davidson County.

No bluff at the ferry. It is somewhat swampy, probably floodplain. It may be - gasp - wetland, though bridge piers in lieu of a built-up roadbed would probably work.

Nice find!

You keep repeating the same conclusion, that the road is only a spur off I-40, no matter how mant times you are shown otherwise. I spoke with TG personally at the February 11 meeting to find out where the bridge would be. (This was before the renderings were released). He said behind Costco, in a little area with no homes. I asked would West Nashville have access or just I-40. he said West Nashville would connect, as that is where many people would come in from. He said that the bridge design was in other folk's hands and that's all he knew. So that's all we know. Later, the web site posted RTKL's vision, which is exactly TG's description but with some more detail. This was the rendering kept under their hats, as it still shows OHB connecting northward. It also shows a dogleg off Annex that goes through the trees, not over houses, as it achieves bridge elevation. I think it can't work in that exact configuration, but it's just a concept. Nobody knows anything else concrete about the bridge. Can we please just discuss the merits behind the concept of a bridge without counting the bolts in the bridge's moment connections? Do we need to see concrete cylinder test reports for the cable anchorages before we decide if a development the scale of MTC is good or bad for Nashville? The location of the bridge and its configuration are details. Paying a civil engineer to produce working drawings before any studies are done would be a bit premature, don't you think? The specifics of the bridge design are not nearly as important to the city, when determinin a change in land use, as the developer's wilingness to pay for studies and follow their recommendations. No bridge = no project, regardless of whatever approvals the developer has obtained. That bridge may or may not connect to 37205 traffic, and it may bridge to Annex or Davidson or Old Hickory or Centennial. Old Hickory Boulevard in the bend may or may not connect to the bridge. Someone will be upset regardless of which solution is persued. Let's don't argue the merits of MTC based on whether we think there will be a 14 foot clearance over Cabot Drive or only a mere 10 feet. We're not there yet.

From this website: http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Sou...on-Profile.html Nashville city population, 1980 - 455,651 Nashville city population, 2000 - 545,524 20-year growth - 90,000 Nashville MSA population, 1980 - 851,000 Nashville MSA population, 2000 - 1,231,331 20-year growth - 370,000 growth outside the city/metro area - 280,000 The Nashville MSA could easily grow anywhere from an additional 250,000 to 350,000 people in the next fifteen years, the time projected for the build out of May Town Center. There is enough growth to go around. I don't think a successful MTC, planned to house only 2% of that growth and employ less than 20%, would succeeed at the detrement of downtown, which will have its own success story to tell. Hopefully, the 5000 units proposed for a portion of 450 acres in MTC will come at the expense (or preservation) of several thousand acres of yet undeveloped countryside in surrounding counties. I think that's Hankster's point.

Well, of course the rendering is not fact. It is meant to convey a simple idea. That idea is to get a bridge into the bend from the south so Scottsboro is spared the traffic from development. Should the rezoning be approved, the bridge still needs approval and funding, the stormwater and wastewater managements need to be approved, each structure needs to be permitted, etc. It's far from a done deal. Whoever told you those trees are a "small slew" is misinformed. Check Google Earth. All RTKL did was paint a road through. Beacon Square and Charlotte Park are currently separated by about 800 feet of forest between the creek and Annex. I went down to the old ferry personally to look around, because I was skeptical of the location of the bridge, but I can see it is do-able. The road to the bridge will be on the side of Annex that for the most part has no homes. There seems to be an old road to the ferry that predates Annex, and perhaps it still retains its right-of-way. At most, one strip of homes, on the southeast side of Thunderbird, may be affected if the offramp cannot fit within the ROW. One could hardly find a better suited location for a new interchange, especially if Nashville West is made accessible to I-40. How many hard working families might gain from this enterprise? Why, in the opposition's view, is everyone the victim of this development, but only the developers are the beneficiaries? You know, cutting I-40 through the Nations and around Fisk was incredibly tragic and short-sighted. Put into perspective, losing one or two homes to eminent domain for a project that 50,000 people (your number) may drive to daily doesn't bother me so much.

I was thinking of an interchange as shown in the slideshow at maytowncenter.com. Of course, these images pre-date the decision to cut off access to the north, so who knows? This proposal seems to show an elevated road going through some trees and over the old ferry ramp, not houses. It doesn't look too intrusive to the neighborhood. However, local roads will have to be re-worked, contrary to the rendered access ramp network. Ultimately, the government at some level gets to decide the configuration. I guess that's why they get to pay for it. Thus, the Mays hired Tony G to pitch the idea that the south end of Bells Bend effectively become part of West Nashville, apart from the Scottsboro community, with Bells Bend Park as a common public space. The concept is to leave what is not May property, public park, or utility property just as it is. Taking your analogy, if I lived on the other side of a hill from my neighbors, and I moved my driveway from that neighborhood to a street on the other side of the hill having several body shops already, I'd be quite annoyed if folks who could no longer see nor hear me continued to try to shut my business down. Right now, the choices for bells bend are either 2 or 5 acre lots, arranged either in clusters or not. Planning is trying to reduce the amount of land that can be developed, and increase the lot size if the community is willing to live with the restrictions they are wanting to impose on others. Metro is not going to force landowners to grow grass forever. At the February 11 meeting, Planning said that even if the community was 100% in favor of 10 acre lots, then Planning would probably go against that recommendation. The community wants no developments and even more preservation of other folks' property. Planning wants to encourage growth but control it intelligently and allow conservation easements for property owners who want to preserve their own land. Concerns about organic farming, infrastructure tabs and FAA regulations are not at the core of the issue. The city has not come in to preserve Bells Bend, that's what Bells bend park is for, and they are getting frustrated at the community for not understanding that simple fact. Did this gentleman mention the number of successful developments of the scale of any of those projects he has under his belt? One of the reasons that these developers will go hat in hand to the taxpayers for a bridge is precisely because success is not guaranteed in such an endeavor. There is quite a lot of risk involved, and I personally apreciate risk-takers. But, I would agree that there's a lot of risk taking with our tax dollars in that new bridge.

Thoughts; 1. Was any new information forthcoming? For instance, the 5000 housing units has been published and discussed, but the 80/20 split between gov't and developer is something I've wanted to know. 2. How would a new interchange with I-40 at Annex Ave be anything but good for Nashville West? I'd say a fully developed N.W. requires a local interchange anyway. 3. Given the 900+ acre conservation easement that goes with the MTC, maybe Metro can be persuaded to give the 800 acres of Bells Bend Park over to the sustainable farming classroom that local activists want. Not a bad trade for Scottsville: concede 450 acres of development on private land for 800 acres of farming on public land. That's a good compromise... if folks have a mind to compromise. 4. Scottsboro needs to come to terms with the scale of development required to make funding a bridge feasable. They made it clear that even 800 units (one per two acres) was too much traffic northward. This is the alternative to access through Scottsboro. 5. If the Mays want Metro to play nice in Bells bend, perhaps they should play nice with Metro. The construction in Belle Meade by H G Hill and Tony G adheres to the urban design overlay and is coming along nicely. The May properties, Belle Meade Plaza and office park, were removed from that plan. Perhaps a little quid pro quo is in order? 6. The Mays may simply be getting a bridge built to their property to sell for a hefty premium to another developer. I have heard they are not developers, so a quick sell at ten times what they've got in it is a good day's wage. Would the Scottsboro community rather work with the Mays, Tony G, or whoever is standing behind door number three?

Remember, build-out is 15+ years. In fifteen years time, there may be two or even three bridges linking MTC to surrounding infrastructure.

That raises the question of how much city money will go into this project. If a lot, then I agree. However, MTC developers said they are swallowing the cost of the bridge and interchange, some $50 to $80 million, as the cost of opening their property to development. I suspect sewage and other utilities construction will be paid for by the development as well. If that's the case, then the city's sliding revenue and increasing indebtedness will be key in accelerating approval of this project. TG's agrument, which is music to metro's ears, is expansion of the tax base. That's the heart of development politics; regional concerns trump local ones. I was at the meeting Monday night. Once Tony took the floor and declared that the May family would honor the wishes of the Scottsboro community by denying access to the bridge and by hiding the development behind hills (effectively making MTC part of west Nashville), his sales pitch was to Metro. When he answered questions, he faced the planning commission members and the camera, not the audience.

Please share your concerns.

Specifically, in the home page photo of MTC website, it is on the left side of the hill in the center of the view. The creek runs through H20 and the straight tree/fenceline towards the Lowes/Wall Mart SS is the west border. That line of trees follows the path of the Kelly's Point Battlefield greenway.

I think Franktown is right on. Schools are the key to getting folks to live in Nashville instead of Williamson County or other places. Office space is going to WilCo because that's where folks have chosen to live for decades now, not the other way around. I wouldn't be suprised to hear this issue addressed in the near future, be it a city takeover of the schools, a new private campus south of OHB next to May Town Center, or even a special public or semi-public school system in Bells Bend that is a hybrid public-private entity. When a development is projected to bring in millions in future revenue, politicians are going to race to spend it now, before the first dollar rolls in!

The City Paper had this quote: " 'The more successful office developments are near affluent neighborhoods,' said Darwin Pankey, who runs the Grubb & Ellis/Centennial office. "That's true in any city." The pitch on Bells Bend is that it's within five miles of the highest-end executive housing in the area

Or, I could have just provided this link: ftp://ftp.nashville.gov/web/mpc/UDO/Hardi...tation_Plan.pdf I was wrong about Kenner stopping short of Harding, or else it was part of an earlier plan. That intersection just looses its signal.

The last I heard was that Kenner was going to cul-de-sac at the entrances to the Belle Meade Court and office tower parking garages. This was being done to remove the Kenner/Harding intersection so left turns from White Bridge Road onto Harding could empty. The WBR and Kenner lights are just too close to each other now. I wish I could be sure that will still happen. There will be a new road coming off of White Bridge Road from the other side of the tracks and will provide access to both the H.G. Hill Center and the Belle Meade Theatre/Harris Teeter project. A light will be placed at that new intersection with Harding. Most people going into town from WBR will use that intersection. Through traffic onto Woodmont still goes through the old intersection. (In case anyone was wondering, the newish bank at the south end of the old Belle Meade Theatre will be demolished for the new access road. The crane for that project sits on the new road bed. I wonder if the BP across from there will also have to go, or at least be reworked.) I'm hoping that hospital traffic from White Bridge/I40/Charlotte can get to St Thomas from this new road without having to enter Harding traffic, because that seems to slow down the left lane during morning rush hour(s). I really like how this area of town is shaping up. There were already several high-rise apartment/condos from decades ago, and now more are being built. There is a decent amount of office space, and more is being built. There's a lot of commercial development going on, and the bulk of it will be fronting roads crossing Harding, not running along Harding. That means less local traffic mixing with through traffic on Harding Pike (except by crossing at intersections); that is, folks living nearby can approach most places from White Bridge road, Woodmont and Woodlawn, and never have to travel Harding Pike. Even the old Belle Meade Shopping Center is accessible from the H.G. Hill center by driving underneath the WBR bridge, and from there one can enter Harding southward almost at Hillwood Blvd. It's going to be fairly walkable, and the old bridge is almost finished being renovated so there will be direct access to the greenway along Richland Creek that connects with Cherokee at one branch and to the White Bridge Road neighborhood past the college on the other end.

I have to disagree. I read about a builder talking about how his cost of home construction is less than in 2005, yet he couldn't build cheap enough to sell. Dimensional lumber is down from its peak, as is drywall. The overall impact on material from the housing bubble may well be regional, but what region has not been impacted? Concrete and iron ore are dirt. They exist in many places. Your statement that finished product will go from this country to other countries discounts the cost of moving it there and the cost of labor to process it here vs elsewhere. I'm sure it happens, but when it does it's not cheap and not the international builder's first choice. Steel and other metals have gone up mainly because China's rapid growth helped exhaust the world's scrap supply, making us rely more on costly fresh steel from here and abroad. And of course, the fear of a shortage caused frenzied buying which pushed metal prices even further. Some of that overpriced steel is still making its way through the system. China, who has added so much capacity lately, now has the ability to export steel themselves. And they need markets from which to recoup investments, so the steel market could glut with significant western slowdown in demand... if China's growth doesn't outpace her energy demand. I'd like to think our own steel industry can benefit from exchange rates, but I fear China will meat and beat any dollar-initiated advantage.

Devaluation affects international commodities like fuel and aluminum, but not domestic stuff like concrete, timber and drywall. Labor in general may go up with inflation, but construction labor wages will be depressed by the housing and soon-to-be commercial construction slowdown. National trends aside, if an ST and a CC and some other large projects are underway simultaneously, cost will stay high due to the localized strain on labor and material. Getting parts precast and prefabricated in slower areas would reduce material and ultimately erection costs.

If he sells the ST site to Westin developers, he's got capital. If he goes in with the CC hotel developer, all he need to do is pay his percentage of the construction of his condo units atop the hotel, and maybe the architecturals for the whole tower to retain creative control and sweeten the deal. Done this way, ST would be made rediculously, yet magnificiently, tall, having several hundred condos atop a 1000 room hotel. Though the CC site is 50 to 80 feet lower, but that would be made up easily in added height. I think it would be great to have a 1200+ foot tower in conjunction with the new CC, set apart from the other downtown towers. Again, better than nothing?

In the same vein, could he then build his high-end condos in conjunction with the new convention center hotel developer, occupying the top floors, effectively moving ST over to the CC? That way you get ST and Tall Westin and the new CC all at the same time. Man, if we were developers...

Understood. My point is that an under-occupied "Siggy" tower takes nothing away from the pride of this city or her inhabitants. Financing is a challenge world-wide. Looking at an economic downturn led by a burstng housing bubble, I don't think other cities are going to say that Nashville overreached, should ST be built but not succeed as planned. This same project would have a hard time flying anywhere else at this time. Besides, before all this blows over, a lot of cities across the US will be too busy licking their own wounds to point at our little heroic tower and laugh.

I seem to recall that the Empire State building was sort of a flop as office space from the outset. It's location away from other towers and the economic situation at the time left it with a high vacancy for years. If someone knows more about this, feel free to chime in. Nonetheless, no one can doubt the iconic status of tha building. As a Nashvillian, I don't mind ST being 25% empty, as if that's something to be embarrassed about in today's RE climate.

I don't think you can say that foreign investors have seen this project and passed on it in legion. The US RE market has been red hot up to two years ago, BUT primarily in places near coasts in cities and states with internationally recognised places. Looking at the US RE market in 2004, Nashville was not so much on the radar. Nashville's RE appreciation has been an also-ran... until now. Now the coastal/desert/rockies annual double-digit appreciations that foreign money has gone into have turned into disasters, while in Nashville prices have plateaued just at the time subprime lending lost favor, keeping this market from boiling over. And I don't think we have overbuilt the downtown condo market like in so many other cities, but what do I know? Nobody really knows Nashville's capacity to absorb condos. My guess is that residents of Signature Tower would be wealthy enough to live within their means. However, folks who would buy into ST are most likely to need equity from a property they are selling wherever they are moving from. Selling your $500k home to move into ST means your prospective buyer is in need to sell his $250K home to move up into your old diggs, and so on. The current illiquidity of RE is a major problem with selling high-end RE at this time, even if the ability for the buyer to make the mortgage is beyond questioning. Hopefully, the 2 to 4 year ST construction time may well see a RE turnaround. Tony should be actively courting foreigners who may be looking at the US because of the dollar's slide. Even moreso than any past attempts. This year may well see both RE and the dollar bottom, so the potential upswing for both thereafter would be a major selling point to investors. Add to that pitch that our RE is not overheated, money previously going to Vegas or Miami may look here. I'm just saying taylor a sales pitch to an interested audience and some will buy it. The world is changing. There are housing bubbles popping in Spain and Australlia, and others will follow. The Euro is falling almost with the dollar. Europe and China also import most of their oil; in fact, a greater percentage of consumption than we import. Will China de-peg, and what consequences await? The liquidity crisis is a challenge to most of the world's central banks; that being said, many folks don't want their money sitting in banks losing value from inflation. There will be investors in any climate in need to buy something to hold, and there's not enough gold for all the money that needs to be sheltered. RE investment in America isn't shooting fish in a barrel anymore, but it can provide a decent return for investors attuned to that game.

I'm thinking that the time to construct the tower might be sufficient for the domestic mortgage markets to recover. An international client attracted to US investments due to favorable exchange rates would also profit from a recovery in the (luxury) condo market should one happen to correspond to the completion of ST. If ST breaks ground at the end of the year, and completion is projected for spring of 2011, is it reasonable for an investor to speculate that a unit therein would sell for substantially more in 2011 than today? And, by 2011, is it reasonable to speculate that the dollar will be stronger than today, making a better selling climate for an overseas investor? Investment is risky. Buying US assets when the dollar is weak against your currency, selling when it strengthens, and betting for a moderate increase in the ability of Americans to obtain mortgages over the next three years may not be an unreasonable amount of risk to some.