vinemp

You'd love the 'Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a Great City'...

Wow, this is a simple kinda really lovely, huh? (I'm really impressed by all these smaller hotels popping up.)

If only the hardheaded folk wouldn't get in the way of public transportation, we'd actually [be] a major city. (And people would be able to get around the mess of pikes, limited actual thoroughfares, and highways-used-like-streets.)

Look, our city and the majority of its people are infamously poor, but this is, in fact, plum beggarly. How dare we stoop so for such pitiful favor! ("A man/building is better than no man/building at all" seems a shameful and deleterious transgression.) With what bona fide and [fine] early 20th-century architecture---and truly [urban] bones---that Memphis has managed to save from both fools and famine, this is wholly disgusting. And we have no reason to be generous either. The design is tedious and rife and provides precisely nothing of aesthetic value to the [beautiful] neighborhood or to the [beautiful] park. It. Is. Ugly.

Yes! We love it! Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Can't wait to see the new Vandy/Barnard Hall! Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Good piece! (I almost posted this last week. They also did a great series on public transit and highway removal!) Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

For an ostensibly bigger person, you seem unduly bothered by my easy-to-follow writing. Your behavior in this exchange reveals you in a very disappointing light. But we know you better now... Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I thank you for suggesting forebearance. But it's difficult to overlook offense where it isn't veiled. And, since we can offend without actually offending here, I can take some satisfaction in pointing out that your blatant appeal to ethos, while perhaps true, doesn't resolve evidence of wanting comprehension and communication skills. 1. "This looks like Nashville" is an unambiguous description of a photo of Nashville (i.e. elementary, not LSAT) and, because it is so obvious, a comically ironic rebuttal to the comparison you proposed. 2a. "Nice pic" could refer to the quality of the photograph(y) or to the subject of the photograph. You clarified (confused?) which you meant when you followed with a reference to cities and regions rather than filters and focus. But this isn't​ the only time you lose yourself, is it? 2b. "Nice" is an evaluative term: it implies evaluation. You write that I "incorrectly assumed...some evaluative statement" only to offer "[o]nce again...just an evaluative comment". Well, which is it? 3. My reference to urban decay---for which the formerly highly industrial Midwest is infamous---is pertinent to the lack of urban decay in this photo of Nashville (i.e. arguing that it doesn't, in fact, look Midwestern; spurring you to clarify the criteria that led to your not-so-clear initial evaluation). 4. You didn't bring up my typographical error because it neither hindered the comprehensibility of my message nor was it relevant to the exchange. It's telling that, instead of responding in kind to my message, you gleefully display the editing skills of a sixth grader and call it macaroni. 5a. Periods aren't the only punctuation by which ideas might be marked or separated. We generally learn to employ them around the time we learn to communicate more complex ideas---well before law school for most. 5b. Read your initial post before you wax Arbitor of Orthography. (Moreso than accusing me of poor communication, this is where you committed offense.) 6a. "Manhattan"---being outside the Midwest---actually supports my estimation of the grid pattern being "erroneously" associated solely with that one region in American popular culture. (A J.D., huh?) 6b. Indeed, even a broken clock is right twice a day. "Solely" is a bit strident; "primarily", for example, might have been more reasonable. 7a. Let's try to remember that, far more often than not, computer-mediated communication [requires] greater attention to detail and consideration of potential meaning than face-to-face communication. 7b. We can easily remedy misunderstandings and avoid resorting to ad hominem attacks here. Ask for clarification and/or explanation before jumping to conclusions about tone and intention. Certainly, do this before interjecting puerile flourishes of pride of place and pay where execution of skill is more appropriate! We (i.e. you) shouldn't slough off our (i.e. your) responsibility for understanding on others. That's not a promising method for maintaining our online community. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

It really is lovely! Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

You just presented industrial decay as a unifying rather than distinguishing feature of the regions, an entirely dissimilar projection from your initial statement. (We could say the same about the return to density that all the cities you mentioned share post 1990s.) Yes, the 90-degree grid pattern is very Americana, and is found in "newer", more westerly cities in the United States. It's culturally (though erroneously) associated with solely the Midwest. Obviously, Nashville and plenty more non-Midwestern, non-American cities have grid patterns. So, that alone couldn't very well serve to distinguish regions/countries very much either. I don't doubt that you were being perfectly candid, sharing your genuine impression. We share similar cultural cues; it's just that you overlooked the rather obvious (and in no way neutral) implication of your initial statement: Nice(-looking?) = non-Southern, easily mistaken for someplace else/nicer Tsk tsk. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That's not quite a compliment, is it? Let's not conflate the density of urban decay for which much diminished Midwestern industrial centers are known for currently with the [reclamation] of populated places in close proximity for which even our Southern cities were once known. ;-) This looks like Nashville. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Well, let's compare that parking to that of two stores in a similarly sized city (i.e. Brussels). Both are in areas that approach American suburb-like densities. The first is in the southwest and has a huge parking garage, as I recall. The second is up near the airport, way on the other side of town. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Regardless of political bent, our popular culture is too rigid and, as a rule, our way of knowing valorizes the (limited) benefit of individual effort/individual benefit at the expense of concern for the family/neighborhood/community/city/state/region/country. It isn't a stretch to propose that Americans prefer benefits from taxes and international borrowing to be in solely verbal or military-industrial form, filtered by myopic corporate interests.

Though I only stayed at the hotel once, I visited the first 21C quite a bit when I lived in Lexington (recurringly revelled at Proof on Main and ran into more than a few celebrities during Derby). Nashville is the right city for the brand. Y'all just wait...

I don't have a subscription, but I can go upstairs and grab one. TBC... Update: I failed. The papers had all be grabbed by the time I left work.

When I first moved to Nashville in '96 and went on a ride around that leg of I-40, I saw exactly the same thing in my mind's eye! Today, though, I see an even dreamier mix of residential and commercial spaces---primarily on the scale of the Hampton Inn & Suites---that keep Nashville's center going strong a full 24/7. (It makes an even prettier picture for residents, workers, visitors, and postcards, huh?) I'm afraid of what blocks of office towers would do to that city in our dreams besides create blocks of dead spaces after 6 o'clock and ruin those views from I-40. Maybe, those towers should be kept to Koreans and Lafayette?

Actually, the color-line is synonymous with all things Columbia and certainly remains the---pun intended with aplomb---white elephant in the room of Urban Renewal/New Urbanism. It's far from an interjection to discuss it, as it has always been an omnipresent undercurrent/counter melody in the popular discourse (e.g. the opposition to mass transit and other public services; the conflation of/contention between renewal, luxury, and affordability), made all the more conspicuous in the omission of direct mention. And, it could only be as unpleasant as aversions to reality allow. White people in need of and receiving a "leg up/handout" is not a part of the American mythos, inarguably the most dangerous omission in our national identity. It's allowed us to marginalize those with less potent voices and to convince the greater portion of us that we're fine in our lacking quality of life and, in case we begin to question money-power too much, righteous in our suffering.

Catch-22. That's still the nature of the South: we are the domestic Third World. (And we are still pitted against the Rest in so many minds.) These corporation-friendly incentives are the only way we're getting notice and spurring growth. Otherwise, traditional ideologies stand and we are the only place in the country where racism and obesity exceed civic development---a curious hinterland unworthy of our national, let alone international, concern.

Wait. When did we abandon indigo?

Well reasoned.

Oh, we never left 505. There is an easy connection to be made between investment in residential options that are accessible to a larger section of our cherished young talent and the allocation of TIF financing/funding options for 505, a project that may have a difficult time reaching capacity. (Wait. Was it decided that 505 wouldn't be completely residential?)

Playing the naïf card? I've never heard tell of a large, dense city that developed without public subsidy.

I well qualified what I characterize as an "expansion of how we define 'urbanism'". I never mentioned Europe (or any continent for that matter); I advocated a look at dense cities with a population similar to Nashville's. I didn't allude to a utopia; I referenced diversity. And, regarding architecture and amenities, there's a lot of room between luxury and austerity. You didn't really finish your thought on New Urbanism, but it may help to consider that contemporary New Urbanism is largely an attempt to reverse and remedy elements of 20th-century American Urban Renewal that proved antagonistic to Nashville's long-term development. C'mon, NB, its more than disingenuous to insinuate that "The Market" and/or developers, as opposed to and/also communities and governments, influence urban development. But, if you really think that "those that have the means" are in/will be in such significant numbers to populate every block between Broadway and I-40, I leave you to your reverie. I just think the cute-factor is one feature attracting development, but, if we are hoping for protracted growth, affordability is not something to disregard. Nashville is, in no way, channeling all ideas for growth. (I mean, I'd wager that more of our coveted young talent is moving into 37211 and 37013 than to anywhere around the CBD.)

Actually, both of your responses get to the crux of my argument: Anglo-American New Urbanism is too limited and unduly rigid. For example, it may help to point out that, despite the shrill commentary, the buildings with garage doors out front are hardly the rule and reflect a design element that, regardless of taste, in no way detracts from neighborhood's density or street-level activity. (It dawns on me that, to Middle Americans, garage doors code for "suburbia" rather than simply "cars go here". Urban garages, of course, have no doors at all. They are best realized as open mouth caves because...that's how they appear in conjunction with skyscrapers?) I advocate for a necessary expansion of how we define "urban"---beyond Hollywood-filtered images of New York or Chicago. Cities like that are understandably unique and few in number. Desirably dense cities like Brussels, however, are more like Nashville in terms of population size and there are more of them. Therefore, by not taking our inspiration from more people-scaled cities like Brussels, we have developed a puerile preoccupation with the built environment to the detriment of the people who would live and work in it. It is unreasonable to expect that cars should be exiled from the dense city of our dreams. It is unreasonable to think that every building should come with the same type of covered parking structure (if it has one at all). In Molenbeek, you can see that different approaches have been taken to include diverse residents, resulting in a dense, green, visually engaging environment. That is, people with cars are included; people who walk are included (with wide sidewalks between buildings and streets); people on bicycles are included (with their own dedicated bike paths); and people choosing to take public transit are included. Likewise, not every building needs to be "activated at the ground level" in the same manner. Not every building needs a commercial component on the ground floor. Not every building needs to showcase floor-to-ceiling windows into residents' homes/building lobbies/gyms/pools so passersby can somehow feel connected to the buildings as they pass. Still, it's safe to say that a zeal for inclusion would support developing density more so than our uncritical championing of "luxurious" residential amenities. But we, in the American school, seem to be satisfied with the overtly classist (and strangely uniform) bent of New Urbanism, which allows only a small segment of the population access to and a choice in how they would live in a denser Nashville---excluding the greater portion of the current and future population.