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

[Vrtigo]

I hope you guys make these jabs at each other in good fun. Sometimes I wonder...

 

I enjoy the less-politically polarized version of this board from months ago and hope we can continue to operate in such a manner.

[volsfanwill]

I hope you guys make these jabs at each other in good fun. Sometimes I wonder...

 

I enjoy the less-politically polarized version of this board from months ago and hope we can continue to operate in such a manner.

but not from last month when I had to stop reading a couple threads because I thought a couple people were going to climb through the internets and kill each other

Edited November 12, 2014 by volsfanwill

[UTgrad09]

Group hug, y'all.

[ruraljuror]

Not even close vinemp...

The incentives are dolled out by NYC, Chicago, London, etc... Your self-immolation (or worse, prejudice if you are not from the South) has created myopia. Bridgestone itself announced why it choose Nashville, low-taxes, low-cost...same as Nissan....

From the Nashville Business Journal Article -

 

 

I don't think that you and vinemp or (UA for that matter) are actually disagreeing all that much here.  Yes Bridgestone chose us because of lower costs and lower taxes, but why are the costs lower here and at what expense is that low tax rate maintained?  That's what Vinemp was getting at, I think. 

 

Our costs are low because Tennessee has historically lagged in terms of development compared to many other states over the years which has suppressed big cost of living spikes.  Also, we have a low corporate tax rate, but the trade off is underfunding (or not funding at all) things like public education and improved mass transit systems. 

 

In a capitalistic society, there is no greater incentive than cold hard cash and there is no better regulatory mechanism than competition.  That's pure capitalism by definition.  The problem comes when states and cities start competing against each other.  Some have innate advantages like geography and natural resources, but things like a local well-educated labor pool become less important as efficiency and interconnectedness have increased and peoples' aversion to moving away from where they grew up has decreased. 

 

More importantly, no matter what else a city/state brings to the table in an attempt to lure (or keep) a corporate headquarters, there is still no greater incentive available than money, which is why London, and Chicago also dole out huge amounts in these situations.  This is what's called a race to the bottom--we're all undercutting each other at the expense of the taxpayers and it's chalked up as the price of admission for playing the game.  Best case scenario, it's a net positive ROI in terms of the amount of money and future development that these kind of deals generate over the next 20 years or so, but what's the good of bringing more money into the state if less and less of that money goes to the people of the state for improved state services?  We'd probably just spend it all to attract another big corporate relocation and the cycle would continue.

 

If it was illegal for cities and states to give money to encourage a corporate relocation--let's call it, I don't know, how about anti-bribery law--then companies might be less inclined to move around so often, which could help increase economic stability and might even encourage those companies to be better corporate citizens and entice more investment back into the local community.  As it stands however, companies are like pro sports teams with losing records and an aging stadium--itching to find a new home wherever/whenever they can pad their bottom line a little more, meanwhile cities and states all over the world are lowering tax rates and offering up hefty relocation incentive packages to sweeten the deal.

 

All that said, if we (Nashville) don't play this game, we will lose out on opportunities like Bridgestone, which I for one am excited about.  For me, this scenario perfectly exemplifies the appropriate time to hate the game not the playa, but the game very seriously needs to be reevaluated. 

[Guest]

RJ , I could quibble with some finer points in your post (education spending for instance) but I know that was not issue. I do disagree that we should tie the hands of economic recruiters or even characterize economic incentives in a negative way. I personally am all for relocation incentives be they monetary, tax abatement, infrastructure if the benefit is sufficiently grand. When they pay off, they can pay off in a big way...see Nissan deal circa 1982.

[ruraljuror]

RJ , I could quibble with some finer points in your post (education spending for instance) but I know that was not issue. I do disagree that we should tie the hands of economic recruiters or even characterize economic incentives in a negative way. I personally am all for relocation incentives be they monetary, tax abatement, infrastructure if the benefit is sufficiently grand. When they pay off, they can pay off in a big way...see Nissan deal circa 1982.

 

I don't disagree with anything you just said.  I recognize that tax abatements, etc. can be crucial to luring Nissan, etc, and I also understand how bringing these new big industries to town majorly pays off. 

 

My point is that these incentives don't come without a cost as well, and it would be a better policy to prohibit certain incentives, or at the very least there should be limits (e.g. think salary caps).  Let's say tomorrow North Dakota decided it was going to lower it's corporate and income tax rates down to the bare minimum necessary to fund whatever social services are federally required, reduce all regulation standards (workplace, environmental, etc.) to the federal minimum, and generally make the state as corporate friendly as possible.  How long would it take before there was a flood of companies trying to relocate and reincorporate there?  The next year Nevada creates an even more corporate friendly environment by doing everything ND did but also offering up a small cut of the total state revenue for the next 10 years whether said relocating company had moved again already or not?  Where does it end?  How much money can a state give away for a corporate relocation?  How many services can be cut to cover the abatement?  How much are voters willing to sacrifice when they are desperate to bring more jobs to their area--a distinct negotiating advantage to those companies bringing the jobs when there are a lot more people in need of work than there is work to go around.  Also, corporate locations don't always pay off--somebody could invent a cheaper, more durable oil-free tire next year that puts Bridgestone out of business, and we could be out a significant chunk of change. 

 

All that to say, in a race to the bottom, there's nothing to stop the momentum but hitting the floor.  In the meantime, we'll just keep undercutting each other til we get there. 

[Paramount747]

I don't think that you and vinemp or (UA for that matter) are actually disagreeing all that much here.  Yes Bridgestone chose us because of lower costs and lower taxes, but why are the costs lower here and at what expense is that low tax rate maintained?  That's what Vinemp was getting at, I think. 

 

Our costs are low because Tennessee has historically lagged in terms of development compared to many other states over the years which has suppressed big cost of living spikes.  Also, we have a low corporate tax rate, but the trade off is underfunding (or not funding at all) things like public education and improved mass transit systems. 

 

In a capitalistic society, there is no greater incentive than cold hard cash and there is no better regulatory mechanism than competition.  That's pure capitalism by definition.  The problem comes when states and cities start competing against each other.  Some have innate advantages like geography and natural resources, but things like a local well-educated labor pool become less important as efficiency and interconnectedness have increased and peoples' aversion to moving away from where they grew up has decreased. 

 

More importantly, no matter what else a city/state brings to the table in an attempt to lure (or keep) a corporate headquarters, there is still no greater incentive available than money, which is why London, and Chicago also dole out huge amounts in these situations.  This is what's called a race to the bottom--we're all undercutting each other at the expense of the taxpayers and it's chalked up as the price of admission for playing the game.  Best case scenario, it's a net positive ROI in terms of the amount of money and future development that these kind of deals generate over the next 20 years or so, but what's the good of bringing more money into the state if less and less of that money goes to the people of the state for improved state services?  We'd probably just spend it all to attract another big corporate relocation and the cycle would continue.

 

If it was illegal for cities and states to give money to encourage a corporate relocation--let's call it, I don't know, how about anti-bribery law--then companies might be less inclined to move around so often, which could help increase economic stability and might even encourage those companies to be better corporate citizens and entice more investment back into the local community.  As it stands however, companies are like pro sports teams with losing records and an aging stadium--itching to find a new home wherever/whenever they can pad their bottom line a little more, meanwhile cities and states all over the world are lowering tax rates and offering up hefty relocation incentive packages to sweeten the deal.

 

All that said, if we (Nashville) don't play this game, we will lose out on opportunities like Bridgestone, which I for one am excited about.  For me, this scenario perfectly exemplifies the appropriate time to hate the game not the playa, but the game very seriously needs to be reevaluated. 

A freakin' men!  Corporations are the 47% Mitt Romney was so eloquent about talking about in 2012.

I don't disagree with anything you just said.  I recognize that tax abatements, etc. can be crucial to luring Nissan, etc, and I also understand how bringing these new big industries to town majorly pays off. 

 

My point is that these incentives don't come without a cost as well, and it would be a better policy to prohibit certain incentives, or at the very least there should be limits (e.g. think salary caps).  Let's say tomorrow North Dakota decided it was going to lower it's corporate and income tax rates down to the bare minimum necessary to fund whatever social services are federally required, reduce all regulation standards (workplace, environmental, etc.) to the federal minimum, and generally make the state as corporate friendly as possible.  How long would it take before there was a flood of companies trying to relocate and reincorporate there?  The next year Nevada creates an even more corporate friendly environment by doing everything ND did but also offering up a small cut of the total state revenue for the next 10 years whether said relocating company had moved again already or not?  Where does it end?  How much money can a state give away for a corporate relocation?  How many services can be cut to cover the abatement?  How much are voters willing to sacrifice when they are desperate to bring more jobs to their area--a distinct negotiating advantage to those companies bringing the jobs when there are a lot more people in need of work than there is work to go around.  Also, corporate locations don't always pay off--somebody could invent a cheaper, more durable oil-free tire next year that puts Bridgestone out of business, and we could be out a significant chunk of change. 

 

All that to say, in a race to the bottom, there's nothing to stop the momentum but hitting the floor.  In the meantime, we'll just keep undercutting each other til we get there. 

Look how much Williamson County gave away to get business out of Davidson County. Maryland Farms and Cool Springs only exist because companies were incentivized away from downtown where they should be.

[volsfanwill]

A freakin' men!  Corporations are the 47% Mitt Romney was so eloquent about talking about in 2012.

Look how much Williamson County gave away to get business out of Davidson County. Maryland Farms and Cool Springs only exist because companies were incentivized away from downtown where they should be.

yes, because it is such a horrible place that no one would ever on their own choose to move their company there. Or choose to locate there at all without incentives. 

You are leaving out the fact that some companies just prefer suburban office parks.  that is why metro center exists.

[Paramount747]

yes, because it is such a horrible place that no one would ever on their own choose to move their company there. Or choose to locate there at all without incentives. 

You are leaving out the fact that some companies just prefer suburban office parks.  that is why metro center exists.

Metro Center almost failed back in the late 1990's.

[UTgrad09]

 

You are leaving out the fact that some companies just prefer suburban office parks.  that is why metro center exists.

And there are tons of examples across the country of campus style suburban office parks, or even psuedo-urban tower developments like those in Atlanta.

Some companies want to avoid the hustle and bustle.

[ruraljuror]

And there are tons of examples across the country of campus style suburban office parks, or even psuedo-urban tower developments like those in Atlanta.

Some companies want to avoid the hustle and bustle.

 

The point is that Williamson county and the other areas promoting suburban office parks are also playing the same race to the bottom game.  Yes, some companies (or company managers) wish to be in the suburbs to avoid the hustle, or for lower rent, or because their business doesn't require their name on a tower or a big public presence.  Similarly, some companies do need their name on a tower, or they need to be by a port, or they need to be near an airport with a direct flight to Oslo. 

 

Using the example at hand, Williamson county provided enough incentives to beat out whatever other similarly situated suburban office park communities were offering.  The race to the bottom isn't about city vs. suburbs, it's about city vs. city, suburb vs. suburb, state vs. state, and we're all losing. 

[dmillsphoto]

Let's uh... take this conversation elsewhere guys. None of this is Gulch related anymore.

[farm_boy]

I hope you guys make these jabs at each other in good fun. Sometimes I wonder...

 

I enjoy the less-politically polarized version of this board from months ago and hope we can continue to operate in such a manner.

 

 

but not from last month when I had to stop reading a couple threads because I thought a couple people were going to climb through the internets and kill each other

 

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

[Nashville Cliff]

I hope you guys make these jabs at each other in good fun. Sometimes I wonder...

 

I enjoy the less-politically polarized version of this board from months ago and hope we can continue to operate in such a manner.

 

Hear, hear!

[think365]

If the city ever did anything with the Cheatham Place public housing that would be a big boost to that area going through Bucanan in addition to Salemtown and Germantown. Investors are building all around Cheatham Place, it seems like it would be a prime area for a planned mixed income community as opposed to just nice looking housing projects like the city has done in the past. I don't understand why the city does not invest in that instead of building that project on Jefferson and 10th.

[HGMIII]

If the city ever did anything with the Cheatham Place public housing that would be a big boost to that area going through Bucanan in addition to Salemtown and Germantown. Investors are building all around Cheatham Place, it seems like it would be a prime area for a planned mixed income community as opposed to just nice looking housing projects like the city has done in the past. I don't understand why the city does not invest in that instead of building that project on Jefferson and 10th.

I wish they would build a new development outside of the inner core to move those folks out.  The cottages across the street on 9th are going for $190/sq ft and that elementary school could be a gem.

 

http://www.trulia.com/property/3161574260-1501F-9th-Ave-N-Nashville-TN-37208   

Edited November 13, 2014 by HGMIII

[Nashville Cliff]

I wish they would build a new development outside of the inner core to move those folks out.

 

Heaven forbid poor people be able to live close to jobs, public transportation, services, and rich-folk amenities.

[rookzie]

Heaven forbid poor people be able to live close to jobs, public transportation, services, and rich-folk amenities.

 

In nearly every situation of project renewal, the MDHA, either has gutted the units and replaced utilities, windows, doors and roofs, or it has razed the units and rebuilt on the same land parcels.  The latter is what occurred during the recent 12 or so years at Preston Taylor, John Henry Hale, and Sam Levy Homes, each of which are is considered within the current "core", although not as close in as Cheatham Place.

Like other public housing projects, Cheatham Place was built with the intent of removing the most deplorable urban dwelling conditions which had existed typically within the urban core.  Many were begun during the late 1930s, under the management of the local governments granted funding from an enactment of Congress during that time, and projects were almost always built through regeneration of older slum neighborhoods.  As unpleasant as this might sound, Cheatham was Nashv’l’s first public housing project for white people, many of whom had been concentrated within the near reaches of North Nashville, even as far north as Clay St. and beyond on the north and the low 20-numbered streets to the northwest.  The one other project built at that time was the Andrew Jackson Court (for the “coloreds” as it was commonly termed), needed to comply with the doctrine “separate but equal”.  I recall that Cheatham had remained almost entirely (if not absolutely) white-inhabited as late as 1964, during my year-long stint at North High School, which until September of that same year also had been all white (preceding President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Bill).

Presently, Cheatham Place is almost entirely occupied with blacks, just as Andrew Jackson Court remains to this day (along the 1400-1600 blocks between Jackson and Herman Streets).  At the very least, the Cheatham Place current location provides much needed proximity to the MCCentral city-bus terminal (accessible via the MTA Nº42 Cumberland-St. Cecilia bus), a rather short hop for transit-dependent dwellers to get to employment centers throughout the city, since the original larger local employer sites previously serving Cheatham and other communities (such as Werthan Industries [then a rather large textile mill, now Werthan Lofts], where I myself had worked during summers of the early 1970s) as a whole no longer remain in the North Nashville sector.  Werthan (which had been right across the road from Cheatham Place) and R.D. Herbert had been among the primary working-class “providers” for the Cheatham community prior to 1970.

Getting rid of Cheatham Place would amount to nothing more than engendering (and “perpetrating”) the idealistic philosophy of urban renewal, which controversially has ended up being more of a mechanism of displacement and a legislative precedent for eminent domain, more than a facility to advance the commonweal of the indigent and other “hard-knocks”.  When I hatched out into this worId here in Nashv’l 1951, the foot of Capitol Hill had been one of the worse poor neighborhoods of the region (known as Hell’s Half Acre).  Consisting primarily of the straight-running grid streets of Charlotte, Cedar, Jo Johnston, and most of the area northward to Jefferson, this had been nothing but a shantytown of tenement flats, without basic services such as running water and sewage.  It eventually was cleared during those early-mid ‘50s to make way for open greenspace, and what is now Jas. Robertson Pkwy, commercial buildings, and most recently, the State Bi-Centennial Mall.  Other public housing projects listed above, along with the likes of Cayce-, Sudekum-, Napier-, and Edgehill Homes had followed suit, mainly during the postwar era, to handle the sub-standard and unsanitary living conditions commonly “native” to the cores.

 

Slums located probably along Cedar St. Jo Johnston Ave. (circa 1952)

Not as an attempt to interject color-line in this discussion, but I don’t believe that Cheatham is going to be moved anytime in the projected future ─ that’s how I see it.  The urban renewal of what had been primarily the Black entertainment and commercial district on the eastern fringe within the immediate CBD during the late ’50s and well into the late 1970s (site of current day MCC Music City Central (MTA), Municipal Auditorium, and Citizens' Plaza), likely won’t be easily allowed by the city council to be echoed with Cheatham.

-==-

Edited November 14, 2014 by rookzie

[vinemp]

 ...As unpleasant as this might sound, Cheatham was Nashv’l’s first publish housing project for white people...

 

...Not as an attempt to interject color-line in this discussion...

-==-

 

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. 

Edited November 19, 2014 by vinemp

[HGMIII]

Heaven forbid poor people be able to live close to jobs, public transportation, services, and rich-folk amenities.

You stop with that crap right now.  The condition of Cheatham Place is deplorable and on the entire complex is on the path to being condemned.

[bwithers1]

You stop with that crap right now.  The condition of Cheatham Place is deplorable and on the entire complex is on the path to being condemned.

Saying that the Cheatham Place apartments are in a state of poor repair and need better management from MDHA and some investment to correct deferred maintenance is one thing.  But specifying that "those folks" need to be relocated outside the urban core is another.  Cliff is right:  affordable/workforce housing needs to be located close to job opportunities, transportation and services, not strung out in Joelton.  This is not a moral position, it is a logical statement.  These developments were in place long before Werthan was converted to luxury lofts.  The new residents buying the luxury lofts knew what was down the street when they bought in Germantown, et al.  To imply that poor people need to be displaced simply to make room for new, more expensive housing is to validate concerns about gentrification. 

[UTgrad09]

I think there can be a balanced approach to this.

 

I definitely think there should be a range of housing options in the core...not just penthouses and projects, but something for the middle income earners as well.

 

I also think that one of the major problems with public housing has been how concentrated it tends to be. For years, large public housing projects have been anchors (in the negative way) for the redevelopment of an area. Crime is one aspect, yes. But as much as we hate to admit it, image plays a big role. It doesn't matter how much or little crime there is in a public housing development...most of the residents could be little law abiding angels...but pretty much everyone that drives by can immediately recognize what public housing looks like, and it's hard for all of the stereotypes associated with it not to surface..."it's dangerous, I don't want to be here, I don't want to park here" etc.

 

A lot of these developments have been around for 50-75 years. There have been a lot of problems associated with them. Some have been subbed out for single family homes/duplexes that are more colorful and attractive. I think it's probably time that we do start thinking about what we do with public housing for future generations. I agree that people shouldn't be displaced for the purposes of gentrification, but temporary displacement is probably a good idea so some of these complexes can be fixed or torn down and replaced.

 

 

 

**sidenote: some of the "projects", especially the older ones, have some oddly endearing traits that make me want to see them remodeled, rather than torn down. Cheatham Place, JC Napier, and Andrew Jackson all have better layouts than a lot of the other developments, and the little things -- the chimneys with copper around the base at JC Napier, the way Andrew Jackson is sort of terraced down the hillside, with steps and a stone wall facing the street, and the sort of low-profile, cottage type look of Cheatham Place are all interesting to me. Also...the mature trees....something lacking in the houses that have replaced older public housing.

[Nashville Cliff]

You stop with that crap right now.  The condition of Cheatham Place is deplorable and on the entire complex is on the path to being condemned.

 

My issue was not with the contention that Cheatham Place should be repaired or even replaced, but with your stated wish that they "build a new development outside of the inner core to move those folks out."

[mirydi]

Has anybody seen this?  http://longopark.com/design

 

• Project Name: Nashville Convention Center Hotel (designed while at Gensler)
• Location: Nashville, TN
• Size: 1.2 million SF
• Client: Mesirow Stein
• Project Type: Hotel

 

 

[fieldmarshaldj]

^If I have, I've forgotten. Anything to fill in those ugly parking lot blocks.