Inner Loop - CBD, Downtown, East Bank, Germantown, Gulch, Rutledge

[Hey_Hey]

Is Erica Gilmore simply a shill for developers? Is seems that everything she pushes at and through the Council is for the benefit of private developers and literally no one else.

I have worked with CM Gilmore on several occasions in the past year or so in regards to developments with certain neighborhood concerns. She has been pro neighborhood in each of those instances, but not to the point of killing any development. She has always helped facilitate getting the developers and neighborhood into the same room to knock out a compromise, and it has been successful each time. She was very open to our concerns as a neighborhood. For example, we had a developer who wanted to build a large apartment project on Music Row without any ground floor retail.we were concerned it would be a blank wall and voiced those concerns. She was able to bring us together, and under threat that she wouldn't support the SP she applied pressure to the developer to include a minimum square footage of leaseable retail space.

[Leif]

What ever happened to the MDHA requiring a specific number of affordable units when TIF was involved in a project? I know there are/were units in Adelicia and Encore but not sure about any others since then?

They only stayed below market for 5 years or something, I think most (all?) have adjusted up now.

[SoundScan]

I think it was 5-7 years actually, varying by project. I know there are still some remaining in the Encore. Regardless, my questions remains: have there been any more recent MDHA TIF-backed projects that have some sort of affordable component? Rolling Mill Hill is the latest I can think of, but I imagine the lack of units may have more to do with the dearth of recent condo projects.

[Hey_Hey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the recent residential projects have used TIF money for part of their financing package. All of the original TIF funds were used for projects whose developers were sort of pioneers (Encore, Mercury View) for their respective neighborhoods.  Now that those neighborhoods are established there is no motivation for developers to use TIF.

 

I think the other issue is that these buildings simply cost more to build. For example, Sobro's per unit cost is around $288,000.  Instead of looking at this as developers are ignoring the low end of the market, I see this as our market supporting types of buildings that would otherwise be infeasible without strong real estate prices.  

[mirydi]

I just don't understand this notion that people want/expect to live in these uber-prime locations (such as downtown somewhere) and expect it to be affordable at the same time. Unless your willing to live in a micro-unit, and living in a closet sized home doesn't bother you, it's going to cost you...period. It's not just a Nashville thing, it's every city, or anywhere that's considered a prime location really. Heck, I'd love to live in a nice lake-front home out in Mt. Juliet, but can't afford 500K+ to buy a house. Does that mean they should start building 'affordable' lake-front homes for the...less fortunate? 

 

Anyway's, home prices near the core will always be sky-high as long as the demand is outpacing supply. In Nashville's case, unfortunately, the demand is far exceeding supply. As long as that's the case, living downtown will continue to be a luxury that not everyone will be able to afford. Like samsonh said, that's just way it is...

 

 

 

[smeagolsfree]

Embrey groundbreaking happening now. I did see the rendering and it will be released a little later on today. It will be four stories with 300 plus units and no retail.

[smeagolsfree]

Developer drops plans for the Trail West building. From the Tennessean.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2014/10/22/developer-abandons-plan-steakhouse-trail-west-site/17723489/

[Bezoar]

Embrey groundbreaking happening now. I did see the rendering and it will be released a little later on today. It will be four stories with 300 plus units and no retail.

 

Rendering and story here:  https://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2014/10/22/image_released_for_ballpark_area_apartment_buildling

Edited October 22, 2014 by Bezoar

[smeagolsfree]

The rendering for Carillon

 

[SoundScan]

I'm not advocating that we build affordable housing everywhere, I was just wondering if there were any active developments that came under MDHA affordability restrictions. I know that Twelve Twelve used $5M in TIF for utility and streetscape improvements, and Tony Giarratana is receiving $12.5M for his 505CST development downtown. The Sobro is an apartment building and I've noticed a reluctance by the MDHA of supplying TIF support to private apartment developments given the differences in financing (as compared to condos) and profitability metrics. 

 

The MDHA is shifting its focus to more nacent redevelopment districts around the core, such as Capital Mall and Rutledge Hill. I know the Capital Mall district (around the new Sounds stadium) has a TIF capacity exceeding $200M, so I would expect to see some affordable units pop up around there over the next several years.

[Nashville Cliff]

Developer drops plans for the Trail West building. From the Tennessean.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2014/10/22/developer-abandons-plan-steakhouse-trail-west-site/17723489/

 

"Karr blamed his Metro Council defeat on the Metro Historic Zoning Commission's unwillingness to compromise. Commission officials had raised concerns that changes Karr proposed would've essentially resulted in demolishing the building.  "For some reason, they think it has historical value, but if you look at that building, there's nothing significant about (it)," Karr said. "We were going to remodel that building, but certainly not going to tear it down. We were going to have more open-air windows."

 

Which makes me glad Mr. Karr is moving on.

[bwithers1]

 

Which makes me glad Mr. Karr is moving on.

Agreed.  Mr. Karr is trying to get around pending legislation.  His comments are reminiscent of the 24-hour diner project, whose "renovation" of an existing building pretty much did involve demolishing it and trying to get around guidelines.

 

If Mr. Karr is not up to the task of renovating this structure in keeping with the Broadway HPZ design guidelines, he is more than welcome to build a new structure with lots of open-air windows on pretty much any surface parking lot whose owner will sell to him.

Edited October 22, 2014 by bwithers1

[smeagolsfree]

I am in total agreement here guys. We don't need anymore developers trashing what is left of our historic structures. One problem with the Trail West building is it seems to be in horrid shape.

[MLBrumby]

Still, I wonder what it looks like under that plain sheathing, no doubt added in the 1950s for a "modern" look. This Karr character mentioned in the story sounds rather angry about having his zoning variance rejected. 

Edited October 22, 2014 by MLBrumby

[Jamie Hall]

One problem with the Trail West building is it seems to be in horrid shape.

With that in mind, it would seem that the building will need the type of massive renovation that Karr proposed. My hope is that the Metro Council realizes that the building will require more than just a coat of fresh paint to really make it a viable restaurant, nightclub or other attraction. Otherwise, it'll remain a crumbling, historic building that sells boots and has little appeal to tourists.

[MidTenn1]

Its nice, but it still looks like every other apartment being built, which is a waste here. For 70 nights a year, 8,000 people will stroll by on their way to a Sounds game . There should be some sort of food and beverage capability for those that would like to have something other than ballpark food.

 

We all like dense residential, but a ballpark needs a different kind of neighborhood development.

Edited October 23, 2014 by PHofKS

[bwithers1]

With that in mind, it would seem that the building will need the type of massive renovation that Karr proposed. My hope is that the Metro Council realizes that the building will require more than just a coat of fresh paint to really make it a viable restaurant, nightclub or other attraction. Otherwise, it'll remain a crumbling, historic building that sells boots and has little appeal to tourists.

Yes, this building is in bad shape.  So was the Seanachie building that now houses Honky Tonk Central or whatever it is called, which is also in the Broadway HPZ district.  That building sat vacant for a long time and has since been rehabbed.  The truth is that most of the buildings on Broadway are in poor shape to this day, but those property owners who are investing in them are currently working within the guidlines to rehab them on the interior, restore the exterior, and in many cases add rooftop decks.  (See 312 Broadway for a recent example, not to mention Acme.) Why is this building any different?

 

My interpretation is that Mr. Karr isn't seeking to demolish the building, he is trying to modify it in a way that is contrary to the HPZ design guidelines.  Some of those guidelines are based on federal standards and cannot be adjusted.  So rather than work within those guidelines, he is seeking to exempt the property from the HPZ district. 

Edited October 22, 2014 by bwithers1

[MLBrumby]

Is that not commercial space at the corner in the rendering?   I do agree there should be lots of commercial space.  So I wonder if Embrey was restricted because the Sounds want to build that in their portion of the complex.  Didn't they control this parcel before Embrey acquired it?   And is the garage already under construction?   That area of downtown would really become a great walkable area with the State Library and Museum there.

[CenterHill]

Is that not commercial space at the corner in the rendering?   I do agree there should be lots of commercial space.  So I wonder if Embrey was restricted because the Sounds want to build that in their portion of the complex.  Didn't they control this parcel before Embrey acquired it?   And is the garage already under construction?   That area of downtown would really become a great walkable area with the State Library and Museum there.

No mention of retail in the article. I think MDHA controlled the entire site and sold the portion to Embrey. I don't know if there was any stipulation not to have retail. My guess is that was the developer's preference to build residential only.

The garage site is fenced but not under construction yet.

[CenterHill]

The irony to me is that the Walgreens folks were talking about reusing the existing Trail West building and voiced no objection to the HPZ; rather, they were concerned about the Cultural Heritage Overlay district that would have placed limitations on uses. But it seemed feasible that the Walgreens proposed for that corner could have maintained that building and followed the existing DTC signage requirements.

As I recall, Walgreens was proposing to preserve and renovate the Trail West building within the guidelines and I was in favor of the Walgreens proposal for that reason. Plus I think a drugstore/convenience store would do very well in that location.

[Hey_Hey]

This same issue came up in our neighborhood association with the Forestar Group's Music City Flats project at 17th Ave S and Grand. They wanted to have exclusively residential with no retail. We had already seen how that adds nothing to the neighborhood when Note 16 was built a couple blocks away and was a blank wall facing 16th Ave.  Fortunately, we negotiated with them a compromise that set a minimum square footage of retail space that was spelled out in the SP.  They were very candid with us as to the reasons for this. When they approach lenders it is much easier to get financing for one type of space.  In their case and this one that one use is residential.  As soon as you add in retail space they have to go through underwriting again with more supporting documents.  In our case they said that they were going to count on $0 of rental income from their retail space to keep from having to go through underwriting again (if they had included any retail revenue they would have had to change their financing package).  Basically, this is saying that the residential only projects have worked in the past and financiers are lining up to fund those project.  Throw a wrinkle into things and they start to get a little nervous since it deviates from the proven path. 

 

Clearly, in terms of walkability, amenities, and contribution to the fabric of a neighborhood retail space is vital.  I wish Planning staff would stand up and make them have retail from the outset.  Make it clear to the developers that 5% of space (or whatever) needs to be retail for them to recommend passage by the Planning Commission.  Staff meets with these developers early on in the process, and if they made it known that retail is critical then we would start seeing retail more prominently featured in these buildings.

[CenterHill]

It really is too bad that Jefferson St between the bridge and Rosa Parks will have essentially no retail. The Geist may be the exception. HG Hill's plans are unknown, although they do have a decided preference for mixed use in their other projects.

[donNdonelson2]

I agree that the Walgreens proposal would have provided goods and services that would have proved beneficial to tourists and locals alike. Sad to me that the buildings continue to decline after years of numerous redevelopment plans falling aside. Hope they do not decline to the point where they are beyond reuse in a future incarnation.

[Brownfield]

No mention of retail in the article. I think MDHA controlled the entire site and sold the portion to Embrey. I don't know if there was any stipulation not to have retail. My guess is that was the developer's preference to build residential only.

The garage site is fenced but not under construction yet.

 

My understanding is that the development is enirely residential, though I have no information on the terms of the contract between Metro and Embrey. 

 

On the parking garage, environmental and geotechnical work are underway, my understanding is that the design/cost of the structure have been in flux.

[Nashville Cliff]

Another building that a developer originally said would be too expensive to try and save.  Thank goodness historic called bullcrap.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1741416,-86.750484,3a,75y,193.28h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSagKrn1e07MS_WhKy4n63g!2e0?hl=en

Believe me, I did not type bullcrap.  Auto-censoring?

Edited October 23, 2014 by Nashville Cliff