vinemp

I'm not sure whether or not you're joking. (I mean, if you legitimately see Lenox Village reflected in this neighborhood, I sincerely want better resolution for your computer monitor.) In the case that you're not being cheeky, you realize you just let everyone who bothered to actually look around the neighborhood that you didn't, in fact, look around the neighborhood, right? This philosophy of New Urbanism that we enjoy bandying about includes a focus on denser cities as places for people...that walk...on sidewalks. Thus, the buildings come up to the sidewalk, not the street, as streets are for cars n' buses n' trams n' things. (Seriously, though: look before you leap.)

P.S. I forgot to mention that the green spaces around many of the buildings in this neighborhood are pulling double duty to conceal rather substantial underground parking structures. (BOOM, goes the city planning...for people!!! )

True story: I am legitimately thrilled that this building is next in line to become another option for people with the necessary dividends to spare. (And it's in the CBD, so let the tower reign, right?) Still, this Anglo-American strain of New Urbanism is so frustratingly dogmatic: it's not just that all architecture has to mean something (i.e. high, expensive, and exclusive). Perhaps my earlier argument for accessibility was too subtle (or just overshadowed by my aesthetic critique). When do decent (i.e. sans ostentatious luxury) residential buildings for middle-income urbanites get proposed? Do we really think that such moneyed persons are going to flood Nashville---Nashville?---in such numbers to support high rises like this ad nauseam? Should we begin a Kickstarter campaign to reserve some plots in and between Pie Town and Rutledge Hill for the folk who aren't six-figure singles? Given our current demographics and these new projections of Nashville's growth, developers would do better to go in another direction. Travel around this area and you may also see in these images something more relevant for Nashville's projected growth than some trophy skyscraper city: Sint-Jans-Molenbeek. Make special note of the rarity of imposing heights, the green spaces, the strollers, the public bikes, dedicated bike lanes, the buses, the streetcars, the specialty stores, the grocery stores, etc. This is urbanism with aplomb, my fellows! (This could---this should---be Nashville!)

I wonder if he so vehemently opposed the Bass Pro Shop's impending move into the Pyramid...

Actually, I'm not sure that platform seems so unreasonable. The push toward that Post WWII New Urbanism was particularly virulent in the abused and pitied South. Parking lots, in essence, became a symbol of wealth and progress. As in, the abused and pitied southerners could more widely afford cars, themselves a symbol of wealth and progress. Our current permutation of (Newer New?) Urbanism is still ultimately a movement showcasing the prerogative of wealth; however, there is an element of civic engagement that was not a feature of the 20th-century phenomenon. That civic engagement is naturally rooted in proximity, and parking lots were never meant to facilitate the close proximity of people. Thus, they are/have become lifeless storage deserts that detract from more than they promote civic engagement. Of course, that civic engagement is not wholly rainbows and gumdrops (i.e. There is still the problem of the color line), but it is making at least our built environments better to look at and live in.

(Being that the building is obviously active in this rendering, addressing the sidewalk n' such, that was most likely sarcasm.)

I'm not under the impression that Nashville is such a beggar. A little sister with bigger dreams than her inferiority complex can sometimes manage, maybe. But certainly no beggar. And I would encourage you to consider the distinction between complaint and critique. (There is, after all, a marked difference.) I understand the notion of yaytall, but I am far from a skyscraper enthusiast. (That's always seemed more SimCity than actual city.) I am, however, still a urban enthusiast, and I simply cringe at this (relatively simplistic) notion that taller means "more urban" and/or "progressive". There is an observable...trope in that zeal that overlooks the people element in urbanism, as if a skyline that looks good on post cards and in photos is synonymous with a lived-in and ideal urban environment. Yes, I am thrilled that one more surface parking lot is destined to become a tax revenue generating edifice for people to live/work/play in. Oh, I am! I just ain't thrilled by this design.

Sure, Tony G. is a veritable magician, but, what is he trying to prove with this woefully strident design? I mean, our beloved Batman building is interesting; this is a partially crushed paper towel core balancing on a shoe box. The previous design was a building that would have given Nashville a tasteful addition to its skyline, maintaining an established balance. It was art worthy of realization; this is a phallus...and a skinny one at that.

It's frustrating because, one one hand, his are very successful businesses that would probably be just as successful were they to move into Metro Center. But, on the other hand, his public persona and political machinations have been largely antagonistic toward, well, anything progressive. (I mean, his tone and manner are so revolting it's almost comical.) It's tempting to entertain the notion that, by leaving his business entities where they are, Lee Beaman himself is defying other development in the area. I've made peace with the fact that Beaman Automotive et al. won't be moving anywhere in my lifetime. His name has the perfect location and little (no?) competition.

Thank you, nashvillewill and dmillsphoto, for making my point for me: business can give people a reason to visit and linger. The success of Café Coco could not be solely attributed to the people who live around it. There has long been sufficient runoff from nearby events and patronage from the professional sector, as well. In my estimation, this diner fills an established niche; though, it will be a helluvalot more accessible to visitors (to the District and to SoBro) than our beloved Coco.

How has Café Coco survived all these years?

Oh, I had no idea who they were before that performance. (Lucky me, huh?) And, you should've seen how sleepy Nashville was back when I was in high school. I mean, as far as I could tell, all people did for fun was cruise around 2nd Ave. But, believe it or not, I loved the Batman Building and was really impressed with how few super tall buildings we had, And, even in the late 90s, I could envision the future spread of more lived-in buildings from the few that dotted the CBD out toward the I-40 loop. (I lived for that view from I-40!!!) I still have fond reveries of Nashville becoming something more unto itself than what we see happening in other cities---this conflation of urbanism and height. Now, with Rutledge Hill and the Riverfront on one side and the Gulch on the other---and Crescendo on the horizon---we may have developers clamoring to fill in the gap from the CBD to I-40 sooner than later (i.e. dream come true). But, my word! I am most excited about the Capitol View and Charlotte Pike developments. This could mean a more rapid spread of connected, radial development that none of Nashville's "competitors" can boast about.

Yeah, I saw Mutemath there years ago, and I remember thinking then how brilliantly City Hall complemented even Mercy Lounge and Cannery Ballroom across the railroad tracks, by virtue of location and size. Now, imagine what could've been had City Hall remained open to greet the Gulch-SoBro Bridge...

Leia was mistaken, as well.

Very good point. The Memphis Area population doesn't have nearly such high expectations. They/We are quite happy to have something going on in our city that doesn't make patrons feel too out of place, as most of the fun-chique fare it Nashville probably would. To give you an idea of what I mean: even the nicest bar/restaurant/lounges here have flat screens locked to the various ESPNs, hardly the picture of a mature cosmopolitan evening-/nightspot.

But you can only get a meal with your beer at Bosco's. And, even with the new restaurants opening up in the Square, they seem to be doing quite well.

Yayforus! That is a very encouraging read; though, I didn't miss the well-placed ifs...

Nope. I didn't even know it existed before viewing it here. (And, if I passed it on the road, I'm quite certain I didn't look twice.)

Ain't that the truth... <<swoon>>

Agreed. I think that, if skeptics viewed the accompanying PDF, they'd reconsider support of the Downtown and the Pikes conclusion Nashville Next It's near the bottom of the page near the three videos. ( Now, when viewing, consider that a majority of our population--and the grand swath of our consistent population growth--lives in Southwest Davidson Co. In each scenario, you can clearly see the routes to the known nuclei along the Pikes, but what's important to note is the addition of various "east-west" connections, most recognizably along OHB, Harding Place, Thompson Lane in the Centers and Adjacent Infill model. THIS general east-west movement is what Nashville has never sufficiently provided its residents. (And the interstates should not be allowed to continue to stand in place of city street thoroughfares for residents!) I don't mind iterating that connectivity is the real reason for the season. How quickly and efficiently Nashville's citizens will be able to move about the city is going to determine the nature of Nashville's growth and how that impending wealth is nurtured. And if access to that wealth (i.e. housing, jobs, transportation, amenities) is inadequate, developing future civic projects will become only more difficult to manage.

You kill me softly, ruraljuror, with your mention of specific elements in the Gulch and in SoBro that stand to benefit from greater connectivity. But, my fellow urbanplanet...ers, I'm a bit disgruntled that I didn't receive such emphatic accord when I (perhaps too subtly?) presented the very same argument earlier.

Yeah, I dunno what I was thinking. Louisville is also just around an hour from Georgetown, huh?

ATTEMPTED THREAD HIJACKING: Given the recent and impending developments along Franklin Pike (i.e. 8th Ave.), Charlotte Pike, and Gallatin Pike, I wonder if it would be in the best interest of the communities outside the city to focus on development along these existing routes, as tradition would hold. I mean, it's not the most attractive of daydreams, but... Of course, I am referring to the online survey that Nashville Next published some months ago. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the survey presented three scenarios for mapping future growth, and asked participants to rank them: 1.) Business as Usual 2.) Centers with Adjacent Infill 3.) Downtown and Pikes Yes, they pretty much telegraph Centers with Adjacent Infill being the most responsible and forward-looking option. Still, what did/do you think would be the best or more likely scenario?

Wow, I had no idea. That's kinda neat, huh? (And, yes, consulates do tend to be dedicated to larger areas, don't they?)

RIGHT to the point! (And, maybe, on to another point regarding the participants in this forum.) No one who's lived in Nashville for any significant amount of time should be under the delusion that the City is in any way pressed to expand the sidewalk network out onto all the pikes and the meandering (and unconnected) streets that exist between said pikes. My family moved to Nashville in 1996. I finished high school there, attended university there---I lived off and on in the city for over thirteen years. And, in that time, nary a single, solitary pike became easier to traverse. And, really, the refrain of "either...or" in this discussion is just tiresome. (At best it shows one of the more unattractive of the Anglo-American cultural ways of knowing. At worst, it's less than profound enough to be considered realistic.)