captainwjm

I was told that South Street, Bound'ry, and Giovanni's were told they would have 60 days notice before they lose their parking to Buckingham construction, and that as of this week, they have heard nothing further. That's not surprising to me, but thought I'd pass it along FWIW.

I beg to differ.

I'd like to see Kroger, it's a union shop.

FWIW, the twin hotels [spring Hill Suites and Marriott residence Inn] on West End @ 18th have a banner proclaiming "Open Falll 2014."

Actually he started the hole years ago, project stalled/failed, years pass, he gets HCA, restarts digging, project stalled/failed. Rinse, repeat.

Remember that Vandy stadium hosted Dave Matthews, U2 and some other large concert [was it Pink Floyd?]

Anybody heard about potential development of the MasterMix studio on Division, across from the Hill development housing Two Boots Pizza? Although the new owner announced that the tenant would remain, it appears that they may be moving out, and the dumpster has been removed.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree, but will you be consistent where projects are proposed that don't fit into the recent overlay, such as the proposed project at 19th and Chet Atkins which need variances for both height and use? I have no sympathy or empathy with those who seek the variance - for the same reasons.

Yawn.

Sure, that's the solution. But how do you make that happen? And can you make that happen in time so that the current businesses in Cummins Station are not severely impacted by the sudden loss of so much parking? These are problems that affect real people now and cannot be wished away by utopian dreams of Nashville suddenly becoming Portland. As much as the Turnberry [or Buckingham or the Demonbruen buildings . . . . . ] is exciting and an indicator of growth, there are consequences for the existing businesses - some of which will not make it.

Erica [my council member] is a strong supporter of the bridge, as she was of the ball park. But, read the Scene's discussion of the issues that caused the Council revolt to the bridge. I think they are more problematic than merely balking at the costs.

The law firm [mine] was across the street. I find this discussion interesting when juxtaposed to the concurrent discussion on the proposed 17 story mixed-use project just down the street at 19th and Division. The attitude there is that opposition is NIMBY-ism, despite the property being covered by an overlay/ This is not to say that that opinion is wrong, but I can't quite distinguish the basis for the difference in attitude.

I always admired that house, although the one-way street and the mish-mash of the 17th and Division intersection made it a difficult property.

Expect construction fencing and demo in late May or June is the last I heard from developer's rep.

Council has already rejected the pedestrian bridge. The Scene had a nice article discussing the Council's action.

It will take more than that. Realignment of 19th and Division, elimination of on-street parking on 19th and Chet Atkins, elimination of the one-way section of Chet Atkins all would be necessary. Add to that traffic lights at either 19th or 18th and Division.

The only concerns I've heard so far are that the proposal is off any major through-fare, creating severe traffic concerns [in an area already packed with local and through traffic]. 19th is too narrow as it is and only runs between Division and Grand. The angle at Division makes it almost impossible to navigate onto Division westbound or to continue on 19th northbound towards Broadway and West End. Chet Akins is one-way between 17th and 16th [each also one-way] making travel southbound towards Demonbruen a circuitious route with multiple left turns, and CA westbound only puts you at 20th with its own problems [soon to be worsened by Buckingham]. If this project were on Broadway, 21st or even Division, these concerns wouldn't exist.

Good points. If I remember correctly, Los Angeles has only 5 council members. Not an optimal situation. The trade off is a part-time, constituent friendly, relatively low-cost for campaigns large council versus a smaller council which would entail more professional [if not full-time] members, more expensive campaigns [including the probability of non-local issues invading, ie partisan elections], being further removed from constituents. For me, I'll vote to keep the number as is. If we could also get rid of term limits, we'd come closer to a professional class in the council.

A "little maintenance"? LOL! One does not prove the other.

Given the usage of that lot, I bet the evening prices are going up soon. Especially when the old Mario's lot is fenced off for Buckingham construction in the next several weeks.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the benefit of the certification other than recognition of the design/build, and the obvious advantages of energy efficiency? Are there grants or programs that a building so certified can receive that others cannot? In other words, why would a building owner care?

Your original comment said that it would be worthless to downtown residents. Obviously that's not what you really meant to say.

It is usually included in the master deed along with a statement that the view might change with neighboring development. That won't stop complaints, nor should it. Neighbors need to be respectful of each other. Bars and restaurants generally are unaware of how much noise they produce, and most, but not all, make some effort to limit it after being called on it.

Why?