Jump to content

Project Thread/New Construction/Photo du jour/Const. CAMs


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts


8 minutes ago, Nashville Cliff said:

That, and to a certain degree, topography.

From the map UTgrad09 shown, it's extremely hilly, but isn't the outlying suburbs like Franklin the same way? Sorry if I sound dumb haven't really gotten out in the city like that lol. You say topography as it that just limits growth in the area.

Edited by Nashtitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Nashtitans said:

From the map UTgrad09 shown, it's extremely hilly, but isn't the outlying suburbs like Franklin the same way? Sorry if I sound dumb haven't really gotten out in the city like that lol. You say topography as it that just limits growth in the area.

Go to Google Maps and turn on the satellite view and you can see the differences in the topography of settled areas versus non-settled areas. The pattern is fairly consistent, and densely ridged areas like northwest Nashville tend to remain wilderness all over the mid-state /metro Nashville area. But I'm no geographer/cartographer/settlement founder, either, so I could be way off base here. 

I'm glad that there is a large swath of Metro Nashville largely undeveloped. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several reasons for the area NW. Firstly the terrain is very hilly which limits some development but not all. There is also Beaman park which is sizable as well.

Also, the area  is not inside the urban services district which limits the growth as well. The comment above about the people in that area not wanting growth is dead on. If you will remember the outcry about Maytown. That stopped any growth around the Bells Bend area and the folks in the Scottsville area are pretty dead set against growth too.

The Plan of Nashville or rather Nashville Next also limits growth in the area and the residents fought for that.

 

Hope this helps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Several reasons for the area NW. Firstly the terrain is very hilly which limits some development but not all. There is also Beaman park which is sizable as well.

Also, the area  is not inside the urban services district which limits the growth as well. The comment above about the people in that area not wanting growth is dead on. If you will remember the outcry about Maytown. That stopped any growth around the Bells Bend area and the folks in the Scottsville area are pretty dead set against growth too.

The Plan of Nashville or rather Nashville Next also limits growth in the area and the residents fought for that.

 

Hope this helps.

Maytown would've been great. I watched a video of the overview and their number one goal was to preserve the natural beauty, forests, and hills that surround the area.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nashtitans said:

From the map UTgrad09 shown, it's extremely hilly, but isn't the outlying suburbs like Franklin the same way? Sorry if I sound dumb haven't really gotten out in the city like that lol. You say topography as it that just limits growth in the area.

Franklin is surrounded by hills....but the majority of the development is in relatively flat areas. 

Both Brentwood and Franklin DO have a bit of development in/around those steep hills (pretty low density development)...some of the more expensive/exclusive areas seem to be those with a more rugged landscape (same holds true for Oak Hill & Forest Hills)....so I do think desirability does play a role in the almost total lack of development. If there was a pricey suburb on that side of town, you'd probably see more development (not that there aren't some really nice areas tucked into NW Davidson already -- just not as prolific as on the south side). Heck, you may start to see more just because of the steep rise in housing prices elsewhere, along with the relative proximity to downtown compared to a lot of other nice areas.

But I'm with some of the others in this thread....I'd like to see that landscape preserved as much as possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2016 at 8:36 AM, Nashtitans said:

Maytown would've been great. I watched a video of the overview and their number one goal was to preserve the natural beauty, forests, and hills that surround the area.

Their number one goal was to make money.

Edited by Nashville Cliff
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

Maytown would've been great. I watched a video of the overview and their number one goal was to preserve the natural beauty, forests, and hills that surround the area.

Have you been out to Bells Bend? It's pretty great as it is. Trust me, the urban planner in me loved the Maytown proposal, but when you get out there you can't help but want to keep it the way it currently is. 

If I had money, I would be buying up as much of Hwy 12 as I could, but a part of me would hope that I never make a dime off of it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nashvillwill said:

Have you been out to Bells Bend? It's pretty great as it is. Trust me, the urban planner in me loved the Maytown proposal, but when you get out there you can't help but want to keep it the way it currently is. 

If I had money, I would be buying up as much of Hwy 12 as I could, but a part of me would hope that I never make a dime off of it. 

Couldn't agree more with your assessment.  In a vacuum, Maytown was a very high quality development.  But I just don't think there is any reason to be developing land out there en masse, especially when there is sooooooooooooooo much underutilized or simply flat out unused land in less natrual parts of Davidson County.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, markhollin said:

SoBro aerial shot from early August:

SoBro_neighborhood_aerial_shot,_Aug._2016.png

Never would have guessed that the Pinnacle had a boom permenatly affixed at the top. I suppose that saves them money in the long run on window cleaning costs. Or perhaps it's a necessity as you couldn't safely support rigging a lift over the glass curtain wall at the top of the building. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nashvillwill said:

Never would have guessed that the Pinnacle had a boom permenatly affixed at the top. I suppose that saves them money in the long run on window cleaning costs. Or perhaps it's a necessity as you couldn't safely support rigging a lift over the glass curtain wall at the top of the building. 

Actually, I assumed that it did, since I have observed evidence from the ground, within a quarter-to-half mile, that a gantry boom had been affixed atop that structure.  Occasionally one can see clearly something suspended from the end of that gantry and overhanging any one of those valances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.