madisonman

The proposed Urban Walgreens would have been much better than what we got with Kid Rock bar. In a similar concern Metro historic commission approved a zoning change allowing a 19 story building on first ave n. near broadway within the broadway historic district with the developer and councilman saying with was going to be a house of blues and a quality hotel. But in the end It too can be a kid rock bar and a ugly 19 story office bldg. Our councilman and commissioners are too political and do not understand the negative impact their decisions have on this city and its development.

Nothing like Maytown which was 1500 acres with 800 acres of development and 700 acres of green space. this concept is 50 acres

the street was widened in the 1920's so the facades are from the 20's however the buildings between broadway and commerce on west side of 2nd ave n are much older built in the 1870's to 1900. many of the buildings were three stories and converted to 2 floors when they widened the street

project is still the planning/design phase. construction has not started

I think we should come up wih an idea that will not take as long to build and deals wiht future technologies. I think we should stick to upgraded busses. More routes and dedicated bus lanes. Slicker non looking busses. I think with changing technologies in transportation we should stay away from expensive dated rail systems and not go underground. If we had dedicated lanes on main transit corridors with slick designed vehicles. In future we could have smaller transit vehicles that could also use dedicated lanes.(in future with self driving you could have many vehicles using the dedicated transit lanes since they could all be located and corrdinated by one system.) one day the didicated lanes might be hover crafts or what ever the future brings. The trick is to create lots of easements in the transit corridors for transportation. Nashville talks about sidewalks but we should be talking about creating transportation easements on certain roads.(could even do property zoning incentives or reductions to property taxes to help create the transportation easements. - This concepts cost money cut I think we should spent the money on aquiring the land not on the technology that will change. Example instead of the underground tunnel from downtown bus station to MCC for 1 Billion we close 4th? for busses only and pedestrians. (Use good technology to control the lights so transit busses do not have to stop-if we can dig a tunnel we can time lights)

The tennessean's job is to make news. But they are right that there is more recent developer interest in the madison area. With the rapid growth and success of east nashville it is only natural for madison to change like the rest of the city. It will take time but the potential is great especially if they complete rapid transit there first and extended. Much of the existing negative type of development is not offensive to me and can easily be bought out and moved. If developers pay existing car lot owners new higher market rates for the car lots......alot can happen. Large parcels at reasonable prices creats alot of market options. Nashville will continue to grow and madison has some of the most reasonable priced homes and commercial real estate in all of nashville. the negative issues pointed out in madison are not so bad. Madison prices, proximity, road access and potential transit make it one of the best future areas of fast growth. Madisons large area is not a negative. I hope it is not like green hills

The adjacent property on 2nd ave s has just is about to start construction on a mix use bldg six stories tall it can be done. with rents in the area at $50 to $70 sf for restaurants/bars it can be done. the same owner did a deal on the very successful acme bldg it can be done. the current owner has a long term inexpensive land lease -it can be done. Most importantly we do not change historic zoning rules and heights so that developers and land owners can just make more money Most of the lots in historic district if buildable will be infilled with new buildings at some point

One of the difference I am having with many of you is I see the the district as an area with a few gaps that need to be filled in with buildings that are compatible in scale to make the district bigger and better. I do not just see it as historic broadway and 2nd ave N having historic buildings so we need to only protect those two streets. When the area was created 20 years ago it was discussed and treated as an area to historically protect and has been managed that way and it was not till the recent discussion of changing the guidelines that this has been considered differently. That is one of my issues with the situation is the downgrading of the backside of the broadway bldgs to the south. i am somewhat more of a preservationist and think that it is best not think we are so smart that we can mess with historic districts. throughout our cities history city planners think they are doing the right thing by making changes that do not impact buildings and years latter are proven wrong And Don you are right that at 4th and shelby across from the symphony the ramp is not historical but at third ave s and second ave s and 1st ave s adjacent to the the bridge that that is not good places for 18 story bldgs as the zoning is basically allowing.

I cannot convince many of you that like and want big new buildings that preserving an area for historic preservations means saying NO to all buildings that are taller in scale than the historic buildings. Or that it not Ok to build 18 story buildings towing over the historic shelby bridge. The fact that there are other high rise buildings not in the district nearby does not change anything if you are trying to preserve an area going for ward in time. Assume if you say yes to one 18 story bldg you are say yes to 4 to 6 18 story bldgs. Just a few years ago much of downtown had CF zoning and much of downtown property would only allow a 5 to 1 floor area ration to property. So you could not build high rises in much of the downtown area. With the recent downtown code most areas of downtown can now build high rises. I do not understand that with almost all of downtown allowed to have high rises why there cannot be one area due to historic concerns and character that we are trying to preserve that there not be allowed high rises. Not having high rises and having scattered historic building in one small area is something to preserve for the future. When you are across the river and look at downtown you will see one small area with few high rises. throughout our country's history architects and city planners thought they knew what was best for the future and most of the time those trends turned out to be not so good. Bigger is not always better.

I guess you do not buy into the idea that the the broadway urban overly is presearving an area not just one street. I think it is worth preserving the entire are from high rises not the broadway street. "but the true question is whether or not there really is a historic reason to keep structures at a height a half block south of broadway" There is no for sure answer to that other than maybe no taller respects the older bldgs. I wondered if they had that type of debate in the 60's during urban renewal and thought they new the answer and tore it down. Ops they were wrong. If you you allow high rises on back of broadway block (and you are talking about three sites not one) then if you are wrong you cannot fix it. I know I do not know all the answers but if you are going to change things such as scale then one should be very careful. it cannot be fixed once it is built and presedent is set for others to copy. If you can prove to me that it has no impact on area and broadway then I could become a believer. To mention other tall buildings in the area is not relevent to the issue. Because they built the tall ugly bell telephone switching center on 2nd ave north does not make it ok to build an 18 to 30 story bldg on the old goodies parking lot on 2nd ave n in the historic district. There is always a reason why a developer or a person who likes tall buildings can make an argument for tall buildings. but if you want to preserve an area then all new and renovated buildings need to remain a similar scale to all the buildings an equal footing. scale does matter

Preservation is not only about how we see it today such as "To me, broadway is mostly about what is happening at street level" what to you think people will think about this area in 25 years from now, 50 years 100 years from now. If we truly protect historic area not just broadway level what would people say about district 100 or more years from now. then that would be special and historic-when everywhere else is skyscrapers but this neighborhood stays small and historic in scale that would be something special. nothing else will have been preserved in all of downtown but in 2117 people can go to lower broadeay and say wow this is what it qwas lioke 100's of years ago-thats preservation

I would BUild a 6 story building mix use bldg.most likely retail on lower floors and roof and remainder could be residential. In terms of architecture how does an 3 story brick look next to an 18 story new building loo- It dominates it , there are no materials or way it is compatable due to scale alone. You do not think that this project is "harming much". I do not mean any disrespect for you about your point of view but preserving historic buildings and districts means just that preserving. If you think an idea might is not harm much look just look at that idea over time. many of the bad things that architects and planners thought were good at the time -later we determined they were so wrong but it was too late. They probably said that in the 60's during urban renewal when the tore down so much of our history to build parking lots for cars. Also we are not just preserving broadway but an area of town There is a reason that the developer who is an architect does not show a picture of what it looks like because it does not look good and is not compatible. there was a reason why the developer and the Historic comm staff did not let the public know about the revisions being proposed and tried to slide this approval process by without public scutiny. that is because it is inconsistant with what the staff and comm have been doing in the historic district for the last 20 years. The reason the backside of the buildings were added to the historic district was to protect them from highrises (at the time the weston was proposed on 2nd and broadway.) If they allow one building of 18 story on broadway then a 18 story building could be built where the crab shack is located on 2nd ave south and on third and fourth ave south as well. If they allow one 18 story bldg then others in similar situations can be built. When dealing with historic districts one needs to look at the big picture over time-past our life times as well. HOB is just an idea but one does not change the historic districts for one tenant there will be others. Preservation is about consistency. what seems to make sense today ie HOB could be the change that starts the disruption of broadway. Preservation is about respect not politics or short term solution for short term gains. If you want to preserve something you have to make sacrifies if it is worth preserving. Preserve the district to the shelby street bridge.

I sure hope that Nashville leadership comes to their senses and protects and ultimately improves the historic Fort Negley Site. Nashville has only a few truely special historic sites this is one of them. I have nothing against the developer "wanting" to develop but it would be a huge mistake for the city to approve. The developer can do there idea somewhere else and not damage a one of a kind city property. If the development is kept away over time the city will spend the money to improve the site. We should all remember and think of the big picture when thinking of development and not look at the short term ideas that the developers are selling. They do not make historic civil war sites any more and you can make developments- but just somewhere else.

To gamble on the design being done right is a huge risk. How are you going to make a building stepping up from 6 floors to 14 floors to 18 floors look right next to 4 story historic brick acme building and historic shelby street bridge. Brick glass none of it would be compatable on scale alone. You are in La la land if you think this architect or any architect can make this look right. HOB would be great to have here or somewhere else but let us not sell our soul or our most successful tourist area broadway historic district to get it. Bedsides if the developer gets the zoning change there is no garentee that HOB will locate there then. Also why should a historic district "fade" into the adjacent 40 story high rise neighborhood -it has to contrast. Keep this and all future high rises out of broadway district. district should stay protected all the way to the historic shelby bridge. The shocking part of all of this is that the historic commission staff has sold it soul and integrity to political pressure-that is scary. Next time at a zoning commission meeting when the staff says something is not compatible it is only dependent on who you know. Also to think that if 18 stories is not approved it will remain a parking lot forever is ridiculous. Another building will be built instead. stop giving in to developers greed to make more money or make there deal easier. The adjacent vacant lot on 2nd ave s. next to it is has gotten approved for a 6 story mix use infill meeting the existing guidelines. The success of the historic district will fill in all vacant lots-have faith and vision.