Neigeville

I agree to an extent - in general there are so many checks and balances in our system from the federal level down, a few bad actors can block things to the point nothing gets done. And taxpayers aren't buying government like consumers or shareholders, because gov't's duty is to the common good. But I do feel this input process allows people to bring small, very local issues to the attention of planners that they might otherwise not learn about, such as the Aquinas entrance/exit issue. It also allows the public to feel vested in the AMP. After all, most of the people at the meetings have been in favor. Some of the notes people were writing on the maps were just like "Too expensive!" or whatever, but a lot of them were things like, "Sidewalk improvements should emphasize making it safer and more pleasant for pedestrians to cross 440", which is a good point. BTW once this is built I think the added trees and sidewalks and whatnot will make it a big hit with the people on the route, although they may not like sitting in traffic while two lanes sit empty beside. There's only going to be a bus every 10 minutes so the lanes are going to look really empty which could be a big PR problem.

Turns will be restricted to certain locations, so you will sometimes have to go past your destination and make a U turn. This is a change but since left turns on major streets are a prime cause of accidents (especially of cars hitting pedestrians) this is really a benefit IMO. I'm not sure the opponents completely understand the proposal.

I hate to get involved in this, but I must mention there is such a thing as class and it is not coterminous with race. Pet peeve of mine, our nation's endless public discussion of race is often used as an excuse to not talk about class. Interstates and other large capital projects unfortunately victimize poor neighborhoods for very practical reasons. Look what happens when you build thru affluent areas: 440 was incredibly expensive, 840 was delayed by lawyers for years. And it's unfair to take that pearl-wearing fool as typical of the entire district.

I'm very excited, this area has always seemed so underdeveloped. Hopefully we're going to see a rapid transformation, with all the land that has been rezoned for higher density and mixed use around there. Tony G alone is already bringing hundreds of new residents and at least one restaurant into an area of a few blocks. And I like the glass.

In the over-simplified mentality of some libertarian teenager, it is the customer's fault when they agree to the terms. Realistically, the question is how easy it is to understand the terms. If they're charging something no reasonable person would pay because they hope people won't figure it out until it's to late, that's not a legitimate business, it's a scam and they shouldn't be allowed to operate.

I'd take this with a grain of salt; it was written by Joel Kotkin, who always has an ideological axe to grind.

It's also exactly the kind of small, non-noxious industry that should be part of genuine mixed-use urban development. I hate to see downtown devolving into nothing but luxury housing and expensive restaurants. That's not a real city.

As far as the tower goes, it's got a little more going on than most of the boxy gray towers downtown; it could use some more color (maybe the glass will be bluer or greener than in the illo) but I like it and I like the terraces or balconies facing onto lower Broad, echoing the open windows and rooftops there. My only real concern is too much blank unfenestrated space filled with that orange lattice-y looking stuff, and not enough openings along Broadway. If that black box at the far end up the hill on Broadway is another opening (maybe that's the AA Music Museum? or an IMAX, an IMAX downtown would be cool), that's still a long uninviting gap you have to walk past. The setback at the corner seems too big, but maybe it can be filled with street food vendors or something. And if they are going to echo the orange-y stuff on the MCC, it wouldn't hurt to have just a touch of curvilinear form which is a theme at the MCC, CMHofF, and the Arena right across the street.

A comment visitors make is that Nashville seems to be just bars, bars and more bars. I'm hoping whatever this turns out to be, creates a sense of more variety in things to do and a more diverse crowd doing it. It needs to activate the hell out of the street, but I'd rather it was unabashedly modern and not try to echo the historic brick buildings of lower broad in any way. To me DT is about liveliness, diversity and the past living in the present rather than in some restrictive historical district. And if there's going to be tastefulness or restraint they need to keep that away from the street, confine it to the upper floors, the Broadway streetfront needs to signal fun, with some neon and whatnot. I don't really care what the upper part looks like but it is a good place for a tall hotel or a high rise housing component.

It's going to take a mixture of allies and ramming. There's almost always a fight over a rapid transit system when it first starts, and Nashville is reaching a phase where a lot of older people and longtime residents are suddenly figuring out the city is changing beyond recognition and it's alarming them. They don't want to think of Nashville as a big city with an urban character.

All 4 look good but for my money 505CST is way the best. I feel like if it gets built it would encourage more cutting edge design in Nashville. The view from Church street, with the glassed in bulge of trees about 10 stories above street level, is really striking.

Thanks for the info. Did they estimate a completion date?

They said they were looking for ways to make it cheaper. I think the 2nd mast would make it more visible from the Gulch side, easier for drunken conventioneers to find their way back. As far as bicycles, I thought I heard the Gulch side was going to have those grooves you put the bike wheels in to guide them down the ramp. I've seen this in Denver, and I think it's a good idea here. There's no way I want bikes divebombing at full speed into that narrow landing area and running over pedestrians.

I guess my reply wasn't very focused on parking, except in the general sense that the old neighborhoods function well with very little parking actually available. Most households in older parts of Chicago seem to only own one car, many own none, whereas if you can't walk (or if there's no center so destinations are scattered) you've got about 3 times as many cars to park because everyone who can drive has to. It occurs to me that from Atlanta we can learn not to build a big stadium cut off from neighborhoods by Interstates and huge sheets of surface parking, but, oops, we already did that. It seems obvious that the Braves stadium could never became an integral part of a vital neighborhood the way Wrigley Field is. I can't imagine the Cubs moving to the suburbs. Wrigley itself hardly has any parking-the Cubs website ( http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/transportation/index.jsp ) informs us: Cubs fans are strongly encouraged to use public transportation going to and from Cubs games. It looks to me like the Sounds stadium proposal will have structured parking and no surface lots, which is a good thing. I'd like to see the LP field area develop like a bigger version of that, with intense mixed use development on the East Bank, and flocks of commuters walking over the pedestrian bridge in the morning and evening.

A Chicago mistake I'm aware of: there is a large amount of recent high rise housing in downtown Chicago but what I've seen are essentially vertical suburbs: the buildings are set back a bit from the street, no retail or restaurant space on the ground and nothing adjacent in terms of food/drink/entertainment. I visited someone in one of these buildings and when it was time for the Indian buffet a few blocks up the street we took the elevator to the parking and drove the few hundred yards to the restaurant. The ground floor of this building is an aquarium housing a bored security/concierge person. There's nothing keeping you from walking except that psychological effect of empty streets, laziness, and habit, all forces stronger than reason. That was north and a ways from the lake, but once when I passed thru Chicago recently I had time to kill and strolled around the near south near the lake and found the same thing. They must have to walk a half mile for a cup of coffee. I think Nashville's complex building requirements already avoid most or all of this, we seem to do high rise housing pretty well although we have yet to develop a system of corner shops which Germantown and the Gulch obviously need. Another mistake Chicago has made in my opinion is putting trains in highway rights of way. The platform is already a 10 minute walk to/from the nearest possible destination. Obviously it's cheaper, but it reduces the usefulness. I've often heard this system admired by drivers who don't use public transportation. (I like elevated trains personally, I like the way they look although I guess that would be a hard sell in Green Hills where they would mar the view of the strip malls.) Even if we end up with nothing but BRT lite on West End, Charlotte, Nolensville, etc. it would be way better than a train running up the interstate. The old neighborhoods in Chicago are great with their three-flats and courtyard apartments, sidewalks, shopping within a few blocks of housing, etc. But much of suburban Chicago, even the most recent, is remarkably high density but still car dependent.