East Bank – I-24 to the Cumberland/I-24 Overpass up to Jefferson – 338 Acres, Nissan Stadium, "Imagine East Bank"

[nashvylle]

40 minutes ago, colemangaines said:

It's really frustrating to hear this guy frame an amenity like TPAC as "costing" tax revenue because something more profitable isn't going in there. Meanwhile he left out the new Titans stadium, which is costing the taxpayer actual money, where you could make the same argument and say that the stadium site could instead bring in much more tax revenue if used for 600ft+ mixed use skyscrapers.

That'd be true if we were bringing the Titans to Nashville right now from another city with the new stadium. The Titans are here now as everyone knows, and it was either use hotel/motel tax for a new stadium or general obligation/property taxes for a renovation. Titans had way too much leverage in existing lease to assume they would just leave and we could then put skyscrapers here, in my opinion. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by nashvylle

[Luvemtall]

Thing is that Metro needs to work real hard to get developers interested in finishing the buildout of any available space, after Nissan is demolished. The need for affordable housing and open green spaces is definitely there, but in order to capitalize on tax revenue from this area large and I mean LARGE scale development of remaining space needs to happen quickly.

[Bos2Nash]

4 hours ago, Luvemtall said:

Thing is that Metro needs to work real hard to get developers interested in finishing the buildout of any available space, after Nissan is demolished. The need for affordable housing and open green spaces is definitely there, but in order to capitalize on tax revenue from this area large and I mean LARGE scale development of remaining space needs to happen quickly.

I would presume once Nissan is demolished there will be another development RFP for development. What parcels that contains, I am not really sure. Looking at the remaining parcels, I would think It could theoretically be 3 different RFPs (the 3 red outlines) or as many as five RFPs (the blue dashed could the larger parcels up). All the land would be ground leases as well as Metro has repeatedly said they will not sell the land. I believe the Central Waterfront Park should/would be incorporated into any RFP for development so it would be built with private dollars. From what I have heard, the park is also part of the stormwater strategy for the stadium and EB as a whole so it should be incorporated into all the developments. If we are getting 1,100 affordable units in the first 30 acres, I can only imagine what these remaining parcels can bring!

With these parcels being ground lease, it would behoove the developers to get things built as quickly as possibly because the lease holder will be making annual ground lease payments.

I would imagine the parcel between Woodland and James Robertson will be the last parcel to be redeveloped to incorporate any future rebuild of James Robertson viaduct. Designs of which are included in the RFQ DeepDish mentioned on the previous page.

6 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Affordable housing and TPAC will cost 370 million in tax revenue if built on the East Bank. That is pretty much what the article says. 

Developer's winning East Bank bid forecasts Metro tax revenue, impacted by affordable housing and TPAC - Nashville Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

This is $370 million in projected tax revenue. Currently the land that would otherwise be fully market rate is parking lots and collecting nothing. So while yes, it nets out to $370 million less in total revenue (because it is tax and ground lease revenue - pure tax dollars it is about $230 million). We are still adding almost $630 million in the form of tax revenue and ground lease payments. That is in addition to adding almost 1,100 affordable units., 66% of which would be at the 60% AMI or below and 33% being in the 61%-80% AMI.

[smeagolsfree]

21 hours ago, colemangaines said:

It's really frustrating to hear this guy frame an amenity like TPAC as "costing" tax revenue because something more profitable isn't going in there. Meanwhile he left out the new Titans stadium, which is costing the taxpayer actual money, where you could make the same argument and say that the stadium site could instead bring in much more tax revenue if used for 600ft+ mixed use skyscrapers.

Edit: Just remembered the state allocated money for the new TPAC facility so that part of the comparison is unfair on my part.

It will cost tax revenue as the land will not be used to generate tax dollars. It is like putting a school or church on that land. They are a tax-exempt entity so no tax dollars will be generated from that parcel. It does not really belong on that site. The State bi-centennial mall is the perfect place for them to go where the services building is or one of those huge state parking lots is. Everyone is so hell bent for them to go to the East Bank for some reason and I just do not get it.

Just because the state allocated funds for TPAC does not mean it is going on that site. I think Cooper put his size 4 shoe in his mouth when he mentioned it. There is another site being considered as well and I will bet that is not the only site being considered. The powers at TPAC will have a say including Mother Martha.

[Rick Dalton]

I don’t care where there put it, as long as they keep that architect team in place.

[Luvemtall]

I’m willing to bet, that it’s more likely TPAC ends up on the East Bank. It’s clearly apparent that the push is on for that direction, think about it for a moment. Why would they waste time and money to include a spot for it in the advanced design , that Fallon has done? They just don’t go ahead and put that kind of stuff into a design , that’s based on a whim or hope. If TPAC wasn’t part of the plan it would change the way those designs were created. Basically the whole apex of the bridge is designed around TPAC, that to me speaks volumes.

[smeagolsfree]

I think the push came from Coopers office and things change when a new sheriff comes to town.  They have tome before things start to happen over there and a decision is made. When Freddie and others see how much it will cost them tax dollar wise, then they may rethink things. Cooper wanted his own "LITTLE" legacy. Freddie is a smart guy and will do what is best for Metro and not what looks good or what may be best for TPAC.

TPAC has other options and I know a lot of you want it over there, however that may not be the best location or the best solution for TPAC.  I agree it would look stunning on the river, but the logistics of Saturday or Sunday matinees may be a turn off to hard core TPAC attendees having to contend with football games or special events. They have all had their own special area to park by the state capital for decades with and easy in and out situation away from the madness that is lower broad or anything else that has to do with downtown Nashville. This location puts them back in the middle of hell. I occasionally would go see a show there and this would stop me. I have stopped going to the symphony because of the hell that is now SoBro. Too many hassles now. Parking, homeless, drunks, traffic, and the list goes on.

[Bos2Nash]

I was hesitant at first, but have embraced TPAC on the East Bank. While there are for sure other options, having a cultural piece such as TPAC in a location that will get constant attention when Nashville is on display is a great look for the city. It shows that we prioritize establishments like this over money. Yes we need housing, but there is a balance to these things that makes a city. Having TPAC and the Titans Stadium creates a nice entertainment hub on the East Bank that can compliment the commercial and people living around it. TPAC also brings a different crowd of people which can attract a different crowd of spenders to the commercial. Similar to how the racetrack and soccer stadium would create a great node, TPAC and the NFL is a nice pairing of opposites.

To me, TPAC on the East Bank is a great thing! TPAC would serve as a great gateway to the East Bank. It would be creating a landmark for the East Bank for pedestrians coming across the river rather than just another commercial building. 

Plus if we are looking at the overall size of the parcel TPAC would occupy (because there are a few approaches) it is very small in comparison to the entire East Bank as a whole. It is a small sacrifice for the greater good of our city. 

[go_outside]

25 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

To me, TPAC on the East Bank is a great thing! TPAC would serve as a great gateway to the East Bank. It would be creating a landmark for the East Bank for pedestrians coming across the river rather than just another commercial building. 

FWIW, as cool and sexy as they may be, I don't think we need more East Bank "landmarks."

The Titans stadium and the park facing the river are already huge landmarks for the East Bank. I would rather focus on vibrant, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods rather than more "landmarks." Residents want wide sidewalks, safe streets, shady tree canopies, grocery stores, shops, restaurants, convenient transportation, playgrounds for kids, dog parks, etc. "More landmarks" is far down the list of priorities.

Even if we wanted to, I agree with @smeagolsfree that we just can't afford to sacrifice more tax revenue for TPAC.  We genuinely need all the tax revenue we can get out the East Bank if we're going to come close to covering our stadium obligations.

[nashville born]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:29 PM, nashvylle said:

How many available parking spaces are in the downtown area on Sundays? 

Also, there will be some form of mass transit right next to the stadium. 

how novel would that be;  taking a train to the stadium...

[smeagolsfree]

4 minutes ago, nashville born said:

how novel would that be;  taking a train to the stadium...

They can already do that if the trains would only run on Sundays, but they can't do that because they are limited due to safety issues with the lack of PTC on the system. 

 

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

It shows that we prioritize establishments like this over money. Yes we need housing, but there is a balance to these things that makes a city. Having TPAC and the Titans Stadium creates a nice entertainment hub on the East Bank that can compliment the commercial and people living around it.

The priority was and is paying for the stadium. Not making politicians look good and not taking Metro further into debt. No Metro is not going to be paying for this, but they would be giving up valuable land and sacrificing tax dollars something I do not think the Metro council had in mind when they voted on the project. They were looking at the numbers to generate tax revenue to PAY for the stadium. If TPAC wants to go at the PSC metals site, then let the state work with Carl Ichan and Martha Ingram to make it happen there. Why do billionaires always want free crap for their pet projects along with the state wanting a free ticket as well. If the state really wants to build a nice facility, they have the prison site in the Nations. They could build a super nice state of the art, ARTs campus there. You could do TPAC, a nice arts museum, a sculpture garden and who knows what else there.

[Luvemtall]

This is turning into an  argument that I really don’t want to see. But I do think that TPAC will be part of the East Bank development process, regardless if we all agree or not. I think all the things 

52 minutes ago, go_outside said:

Residents want wide sidewalks, safe streets, shady tree canopies, grocery stores, shops, restaurants, convenient transportation, playgrounds for kids, dog parks, etc

Mentioned above can and will be part of the plan, remember there’s a lot of land to develop along the East Bank. And Metro’s portion is only a small part of the full picture, we will see the Station East, GBT, and multiple others evolve and there’s already plans for many hotels, plus we still haven’t seen what Oracle will offer. And I’m sure we will see the PSC site redeveloped in the near future, that’s just a matter of time. Maybe one of the other companies that bid on the Metro deal will decide to take the initiative to make a deal with PSC and build their vision there , one never knows.

[Argo]

1 hour ago, go_outside said:

FWIW, as cool and sexy as they may be, I don't think we need more East Bank "landmarks."

The Titans stadium and the park facing the river are already huge landmarks for the East Bank. I would rather focus on vibrant, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods rather than more "landmarks." Residents want wide sidewalks, safe streets, shady tree canopies, grocery stores, shops, restaurants, convenient transportation, playgrounds for kids, dog parks, etc. "More landmarks" is far down the list of priorities.

Even if we wanted to, I agree with @smeagolsfree that we just can't afford to sacrifice more tax revenue for TPAC.  We genuinely need all the tax revenue we can get out the East Bank if we're going to come close to covering our stadium obligations.

What are you talking about.

The State of Tennessee is the one putting up hundreds of millions dollars if not a billion dollars to help build this area.

It's their money so they have some input on what gets done with it.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Argo

[go_outside]

8 minutes ago, Argo said:

What are you talking about.

The State of Tennessee is the one putting up hundreds of millions dollars if not a billion dollars to help build this area.

It's their money so they have some input in what gets done with it.

Nashville would be essentially donating the (extremely valuable) land. We can't afford that because we need that land to help pay for the $2.1 billion(!) Titans stadium.

If the State wants Nashville to do things that will bankrupt the city, we need to politely decline.

Edited September 22, 2023 by go_outside

[markhollin]

Drift Hotel (6 & 7 stories, 110 rooms, renovation of former Stadium Inn) update.

Looking NW from intersection of Main St. and Interstate Drive:

Looking SW from Interstate Drive and Howerton Ave:

Looking SE from Howerton Ave., 1/2 block east of North 2nd St:

[markhollin]

Nashville's new mayor wants to strike a deal with the city's chosen East Bank real estate developer by the end of the year, calling that contract "the project of this quarter."

That developer, Boston-based The Fallon Co., won a bid in mid-September for the rights to an initial 30 acres of land neighboring the $2.1 billion domed stadium.

A focal point of contract talks with Fallon executives will be how the O'Connell administration weighs the competing desires of generating a lot of new property tax revenue while also ensuring priorities such as affordable housing.

"That will be the tension of the overall project," O'Connell said during a media availability on Sept. 29. "What are the various levers we are going to have? What is encumbered by the financial necessities of the overall deal?"

"I guess the good news here, this was a reclamation of public land, and so we get some choice about how we value that for things the city needs — including long-term affordable housing — but also for a potential expansion of our property tax base," O'Connell said.

"We're not at final facts and figures," he added. "The project of this quarter is to develop something that has the business and legal components to take a final contract to Metro Council."

The contract would be presented as an ordinance at Metro Council, which means it requires a hearing or discussion over three council meetings (a process that would take no less than six weeks).

O'Connell said he has reviewed Fallon's bid.

"I don't accept it as 'the East Bank ten years from now will look exactly like Fallon's submission' so much as they seem to be on the right track with the park elements, the infrastructure elements, the housing elements, the overall mix of uses," O'Connell said. "… But we still have a lot of work to do."

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2023/10/02/mayor-freddie-oconnell-east-bank-development-bid.html

[nashville born]

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, smeagolsfree said:

They can already do that if the trains would only run on Sundays, but they can't do that because they are limited due to safety issues with the lack of PTC on the system. 

 

I meant a  rail transit system that people in different parts of the city could take from their neighborhood and end up at the stadium.

[smeagolsfree]

17 hours ago, nashville born said:

I meant a  rail transit system that people in different parts of the city could take from their neighborhood and end up at the stadium.

That may never happen. It is something I think we all want to see but is in the realm of fantasy and science fiction until the robots take over.

[go_outside]

The Tennessee Lookout has a new article detailing the Fallon Co.'s proposals and the mathematical difficulty of meeting the rosy revenue projections that Mayor Cooper and Titans lobbyists used to sell the stadium deal. 

See East Bank developer proposal hints at potential struggle to keep revenue, housing promises.

[nashvylle]

1 minute ago, go_outside said:

The Tennessee Lookout has a new article detailing the Fallon Co.'s proposals and the mathematical difficulty of meeting the rosy revenue projections that Mayor Cooper and Titans lobbyists used to sell the stadium deal. 

See East Bank developer proposal hints at potential struggle to keep revenue, housing promises.

Isn't Fallon's proposal for just 30 acres, and not all the acres owned by Metro that will be developed? 

The article states that metro estimates the infrastructure costs to be $753MM, and Fallon would generate $1BN for all market rate units or just under $753MM for the trade of affordable housing and TPAC. So.. aren't we missing the ground lease income and RET for remaining acres? 

[Bos2Nash]

On 10/9/2023 at 5:53 PM, go_outside said:

The Tennessee Lookout has a new article detailing the Fallon Co.'s proposals and the mathematical difficulty of meeting the rosy revenue projections that Mayor Cooper and Titans lobbyists used to sell the stadium deal. 

See East Bank developer proposal hints at potential struggle to keep revenue, housing promises.

So it appears the "amended" proposal is actually just a different scheme in which TPAC is located at an alternative site and Parcel A & B is completely left out (presumably because those wouldn't change?). Keep in mind, Parcel A is fully affordable housing at 380 units on top of the mobility hub. Reading the two different plans, it seems like the "amended" proposal is Metro seeking different options. Presumably, Fallon would be able to make that call depending on how the finances work through. That is why they are the Master Developer.

Looking further at the amended proposal section, a big driver to some of the amended proposal is $75 million in "external infrastructure" that apparently Metro asked for the developers to explore. In order to make that expense pencil, Fallon is saying it would take 12.5 years to pay that additional expense versus a 10 year payoff by Metro.

To me, reading the "amended proposal" feels more like options than anything else. Maybe a develop here could help me understand a bit more or correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On 10/9/2023 at 5:56 PM, nashvylle said:

The article states that metro estimates the infrastructure costs to be $753MM, and Fallon would generate $1BN for all market rate units or just under $753MM for the trade of affordable housing and TPAC. So.. aren't we missing the ground lease income and RET for remaining acres? 

The Ground Lease and Real Estate Taxes if no TPAC and no Affordable Housing is included appears to equal just north of $1 billion dollars.

The Ground Lease and Real Estate Taxes when TPAC and affordable housing (based on the primary plan) appears to equal just shy of $630 million. 

Both figures are over 30 years.

*Deep Breath*

So to include almost 70% of all affordable housing - IN JUST THE FIRST 30 ACRES - Metro is able to cover all but $124 million (over 30 years, which is a typical repayment period on bonds). Obviously this doesn't include other costs (such as civil services, maintenance, etc), but we are talking about the primary bid covering almost 84% of infrastructure costs. We still have the red outlined areas (see below) to go that need to be developed and bring in tax revenue and presumably Ground Lease payments. 

On 9/20/2023 at 3:33 PM, Bos2Nash said:

I would presume once Nissan is demolished there will be another development RFP for development. What parcels that contains, I am not really sure. Looking at the remaining parcels, I would think It could theoretically be 3 different RFPs (the 3 red outlines) or as many as five RFPs (the blue dashed could the larger parcels up). All the land would be ground leases as well as Metro has repeatedly said they will not sell the land. I believe the Central Waterfront Park should/would be incorporated into any RFP for development so it would be built with private dollars. From what I have heard, the park is also part of the stormwater strategy for the stadium and EB as a whole so it should be incorporated into all the developments. If we are getting 1,100 affordable units in the first 30 acres, I can only imagine what these remaining parcels can bring!

With these parcels being ground lease, it would behoove the developers to get things built as quickly as possibly because the lease holder will be making annual ground lease payments.

I would imagine the parcel between Woodland and James Robertson will be the last parcel to be redeveloped to incorporate any future rebuild of James Robertson viaduct. Designs of which are included in the RFQ DeepDish mentioned on the previous page.

The article says itself "Metro Nashville estimated last year it would have to come up with $753 million to cover all the infrastructure costs necessary to build up the East Bank.". So if we cover the vast majority of those costs within the first 30 acres we absolutely should push for more "public wants". 

[smeagolsfree]

You can generate more money if you build higher and denser. Incorporate the park space much in the same way the Highline does in NYC and eliminate the open space or create space that cantilevers over the open space.

As we all know Cooper embellished the truth to get it passed. Planning needs to revisit the zoning for the area and give unlimited height to the buildings to encourage more and better uses. You do not need plazas, but the open space needs to be right along the river and you can be creative with your parks with the building you build as long as you have a master developer.

[Luvemtall]

I know that this will irk the majority, but the core of any major city needs to be dense , tall and purposeful. Leave the open green space to the outlying areas yes “some” green spaces are still required, But not suburban parks and plazas that take up acres of tax generating land. This is a transformation period for this city , it’s time to embrace the future and put them big city pants on. If you’re not into density or urban development, then consider moving to a more open suburban neighborhood. Sorry to come on as rude or uncompassionate , just realistic enough to know that the vision of that perfect utopian world doesn’t exist. 

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

You can generate more money if you build higher and denser. Incorporate the park space much in the same way the Highline does in NYC and eliminate the open space or create space that cantilevers over the open space.

As we all know Cooper embellished the truth to get it passed. Planning needs to revisit the zoning for the area and give unlimited height to the buildings to encourage more and better uses. You do not need plazas, but the open space needs to be right along the river and you can be creative with your parks with the building you build as long as you have a master developer.

Limiting open space to just the river would be an absolute failure from an urban planning perspective. Creating plazas and open space is a great way to make a space feel welcoming and comfortable. Urban development isn't all about what is on the inside of a building. If you design your entire city for the inside of a building then that is a failure. 

Mayor Cooper and the East Bank Vision hasn't limited the height of the buildings. One of the next steps is to design, write and implement a UDO to go through the zoning process for the East Bank. That process hasn't occurred yet. Unlimited height is also not appropriate here because we need to start looking at transitioning down from the Unlimited height of downtown into the established neighborhoods to the East. That transition shouldn't come all the way down to the SFH housing level, but down to a 10-6-3 transition sounds relatively appropriate. 

I do agree that some of the buildings in the Fallon plan could be taller, but that may also come down to financing and what their experience is telling them they would be able to build.

55 minutes ago, Luvemtall said:

I know that this will irk the majority, but the core of any major city needs to be dense , tall and purposeful. Leave the open green space to the outlying areas yes “some” green spaces are still required, But not suburban parks and plazas that take up acres of tax generating land. This is a transformation period for this city , it’s time to embrace the future and put them big city pants on. If you’re not into density or urban development, then consider moving to a more open suburban neighborhood. Sorry to come on as rude or uncompassionate , just realistic enough to know that the vision of that perfect utopian world doesn’t exist. 

Yes urban centers need to be dense, tall (relatively speaking *gasp* lol) and purposeful. A couple of these comments are making it seem like what open space is provided is absolutely killing the East Bank, when in fact it is actually making the East Bank great. You have to be able to enjoy the built environment, not just from the inside but also the outside of the buildings. The open space in the East Bank plan is also serving a purpose with stormwater and drainage for the East Bank. There is a balance between the verticality of the urban development and the horizontal aspect. By no means should the East Bank and suburban development be said together unless talking about how they are not the same thing.

I'll argue for open space just like I'll arguement against calling the Boulevard a "super highway". We ultimately need to move people and vehicles (along with the other modes) just like we need to be able to gather outside of buildings.

[Luvemtall]

I’m respectful of your opinion, and some aspects are required understandably. I’m just throwing my two cents out there, and as I mentioned I know it will draw criticism. I definitely am not a urban planner or engineer of any sort, just a person who loves the idea of a dense,tall urban landscape and feel that large parks and gardens should be left to suburban areas . And unfortunately unlimited height has a different meaning here in Nashville, unlimited to the limit of 750 feet.