The NY Times article on readjusting globalization that I quoted earlier today referenced the economist idea of "the neighborhood effect," which is reducing transportation costs by moving industry closer to component suppliers and to target consumers.
That idea got me to wondering about how these shifts in globalization and the probable movements of American companies closer to home will change the supply and demand equation for development in Nashville. It seems to me that American companies no longer have the luxury of telling Nashville leaders that they get what they want or they go any where else they want. If they're going to be targeting cost effective locations between suppliers and consumers, then it seems to me that the companies are going to be looking at least more regionally, and perhaps even narrowly at specific communities. They probably will be coming to Nashville because of low transportation costs rather than other factors (like a "campus" of at least 50 acres).
Given the transitional phase of global business, is it really wise to rush Tony Giarratana's May Town Center concept given that the risk of losing Bells Bend may be too high in such an unstable economic condition?
"Given the transitional phase of global business, is it really wise to rush Tony Giarratana's May Town Center concept given that the risk of losing Bells Bend may be too high in such an unstable economic condition?"
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the May Town concept should be shot down so that home-grown industry can locate in Bells Bend instead?
Of course, I'm not saying that. Tony G.'s house of cards rests on the idea a 50-acre campus is needed. There is plenty of "undeveloped" space around Downtown and other urbanized places in Davidson Co. to attract businesses for whom the campus won't be as important as the "neighborhood effect." So, it makes more sense to conserve Bells Bend now rather than rush to give May Town advocates what they want based on claims that are seriously open to question.
ReplyDelete