Someone needs to kick this ballpark concept until it bleeds baseball

Practically no culture critics that I am aware of have weighed in on the Mayor's new Sulphur Dell ballpark design. That was not the case in 2006, when the Sounds and developers had a design for the Riverfront. I recall weeks of discussion about the design.

Christine Kreyling, co-author of The Plan of Nashville, wrote of the Sounds proposal at the time that it did not integrate the ballpark facility successfully with the other mixed-use development that was part of the project. Looking over the images released for Sulphur Dell, I wonder if Kreyling's opinion would be that different of Mayor Karl Dean's project for North Nashville. Rather than creating a cozy fit between ballpark, residential and parking garage, Sulphur Dell could be accused of repeating the "willy-nilly wedged blocks" of 2006 "Soundsville". Designers seemed to have fit the garage and the residential buildings more carefully along the greenway beyond the outfield wall, but the ballpark seems dropped down with little thought to continuity.

The ballpark in the Sulphur Dell plan itself looks like a low-profile afterthought, almost like the mission here is to express that this is strictly a real estate deal and not the resurrection of hollowed ground of primordial baseball diamonds of old (as went the marketing campaign went before the proposal was approved). In 2006, Kreyling reported that developers intended that residential and ballpark not strive for integration "in case at some point in the future the stadium is demolished." Is the same logic in effect at Sulphur Dell in 2014? Because the new ballpark seems to be strictly an expendable utility player on this field of dreams.

Kreyling also criticized the awkward way that the rounded shell of the 2006 grandstands "stuck on" a squared porch "diluted the strength of the building form." The Sulphur Dell proposal differs in that the rounded wall behind home plate is centered between blocks of its own squared porch instead of pulled toward a corner, but the style looks similar: the Dell's squared off porch seems to nullify the classic ballpark form.

Rather than emerging unmistakably streetside as a ballpark, the form seems to be swallowed into a blank stone wall. If you took the literal reference of the name of the place off the Jackson St. windows, would the building itself communicate "ballpark" or "baseball"? Or could the rounded shell that peeks out from its sandwich between blocks merely seem to be any building suiting any purpose at all? Indeed, the Jackson St. exterior looks like a hoary back wall to the development footprint to the degree that they could add to it a loading dock that would not appear to be out-of-place.

After the blight of Greer Stadium, Nashville may feel lucky to have any new ballpark design at all. But the one they are planning at Sulphur Dell seems to recede to the point of insignificance relative to the real estate around it. One reviewer of stadiums across the USA referred to the exterior of Titans' LP Field as "unspectacular", and I am struck by how the stone and glass skin of the new baseball park resemble points along the blasé hull of LP Field. If baseball in North Nashville history is as venerable, is as important as boosters of the Mayor's plan have insisted for weeks now, don't we deserve a more robust and unmistakable baseball aesthetic for the old ball game, befitting the history of Sulphur Dell?


UPDATE: one of the reasons that the ballpark part of the Sulphur Dell development is more utility than frontline may be because the Sounds club owner, Frank Ward, is more of a real estate mogul than a baseball guy. In a November interview, Mayor Karl Dean emphasized the Ward family's real estate credentials to insist that the real estate would succeed:

I think people need to remember that the current owners of the Sounds came into baseball with a background in real estate development. In fact, the son of Frank Ward, who's the principal owner of the Sounds, that's how he makes his living is real estate development and building student housing. So they have a lot of experience and we're very confident that they want this to move forward.

I don't have a problem with this family wanting to make some money on their real estate business, but the reality that the ballpark element in the development is downplayed and the appointments in the ballpark are meager suggests that baseball is not the focus that it should be.

When I look at Memphis's Autozone Park in contrast I think, "This looks like a park baseball people would build":

A problem looming on Salemtown's horizon

East Nashville reserves parking for neighbors.

West Nashville reserves parking for neighbors.

At the last Salemtown neighborhood association meeting a Metro Police officer told us about changes likely coming to Germantown streets. After spending some time working to persuade his superiors about the problem of traffic choking Taylor St. and overflowing onto 7th Av. N. and 6th Av. N. due to the wildly popular restaurant, Rolf and Daughters, he believes that the department is prepared to restrict parking on Taylor between 5th Av. N. and Rosa Parks Blvd. to one side of the road. That would be a welcome change to those of us who have tried to navigate the narrow road in our vehicles between a closely set gauntlet of parked vehicles. However, it is also bound to lead to increased parking challenges on the side streets as residents will vie with bar patrons for remaining open spots.

The parking problems caused on Taylor by inbound restaurant patrons should be a wake-up call for those of us who live north of Germantown: parking in a neighborhood that generally does not have driveways is going to become more problematic. We need to start working on solutions like other Nashville neighborhoods have.

The problems will be compounded if mixed-use retail and dining establishments spread into Salemtown. There is a plan for mixed use at the hulking new Werthan Flats development at the other end of the block from Rolf and Daughters, right on Salemtown's doorstep. The apartment dwellers of the Flats and their visitors will themselves surely overflow into Salemtown. I am aware of attempts already made to launch a new restaurant on 6th Ave in Salemtown, which will cause considerable congestion around the adjacent blocks. When I served on the citizen advisory committee for Salemtown's block grant, we recommended putting the same traffic calming bulb-outs that 5th and 7th enjoy on 6th, but Metro disapproved, saying that 6th is too narrow for bulb-outs. If it is too narrow for traffic calming features, it might just be too narrow for residents to park alongside the traffic congestion caused by restaurants. The northern part of Salemtown will not be spared as Salemtown Cottages, an urban-density development offering 2 dozen units north of Buchanan St., is set for launch.

Add to that the Mayor's plan for a ballpark a few blocks away set to open in 2015. We will be overrun by automobile traffic with no guarantees of places to park near our homes.

Opposes parking permits on public streets.

These problems are compounded by the fact that our council member Erica Gilmore has said that she opposes any reserved residential parking on public streets (or so she told me at a recent community meeting when I brought the question up to her). She enthusiastically supports the Mayor's ballpark, but she flatly opposes residential permits. Yet, permits could give residents who live near the ballpark a fighting chance for convenient parking spaces even when they come home from work or from picking their kids up from soccer practice late on a Sounds' game night. If CM Gilmore is going to reject residential permits out-of-hand, then she should propose alternative solutions to the looming problem.

In my opinion, Salemtown should be proactive about this problem before it overtakes us. We need to start planning parking provisions for the people who live here to balance the flood of people who would come in as we grow. We need to work together to persuade our council member that she should represent residents' interests and not just the interests of retail establishments that fill in the mixed-use and strive to pull in more customers in automobiles. We need to show up at planning meetings in order to make clear when developers want to rezone for restaurants--on 6th or anywhere else--that they need to make traffic mitigation, parking plans and support for reserved residential parking priorities in their plans in exchange for our support.

Above all, we need to ask out loud, "Why is reserved residential parking on public streets good for Nashvillians to the east and to the west, but bad for their neighbors to the north?"

Sale of Werthan Packaging to developer finalized

An Atlanta developer, who has proposed a huge mixed-use apartment complex with preservation of some of Werthan's historic structures, closed on the property:

SWH Residential Partners has closed on its $7 million purchase of a 13.75-acre site at the historic Werthan complex in Nashville's Germantown neighborhood. SWH Residential Partners plans to kick off a 282-unit, $40 million mixed-use apartment building on the site at 1515 5th Ave. North. The seller was Werthan Packaging Inc.

Werthan Packaging Mixed Use concept unveiled at community meeting

The site plan

SWH Residential Partners, Smith Gee Studio and Reno & Cavanaugh met with dozens of interested Salemtown and Germantown denizens at Morgan Park earlier tonight to introduce their proposal for the Werthan Packaging Plant property on 5th Avenue bordering the two neighborhoods.

The proposal includes an approximately 280-unit apartment complex (studio, 1 BR, 2BR; averaging 800 sq ft per unit) replacing the 1950s-style warehouse at 5th and Hume. It will also include retail space in a historic building at 5th and Taylor that developers hope will attract clients like the Turnip Truck market or a neighborhood pub. The Werthan Company will shrink to a smaller building farther away from 5th Avenue. The residential units of the main building will also clad a central parking garage for tenants and their guests. A green space will be installed along Hume that could be fit for townhouses farther out in the future.

Avenue elevation

The concept includes a dog park on the green space, a "European-style", pedestrian-oriented plaza with a water fountain on 5th, a sculpture garden with a water feature and small courtyards along Hume. Apartments along 5th will rise to an "industrial" 4 stories, with stoops to convey a "neighborhood-feel". As the building stretches toward Hume, the profile will drop to 3 stories with terraces to integrate with the smaller scale of Salemtown. Common spaces beyond the plaza would include a designated terrace for gatherings that developers told the group would be available for community meetings.

The part of the concept that made me sit up and take notice was a planned extension of 6th Avenue across Hume onto the Werthan property intended to shift large truck traffic serving the packaging plant out of the neighborhood and funnel it from Rosa Parks Boulevard to Hume and then to 6th inside the complex. In a few years when the plant moves totally off the property, the new 6th Avenue could be extended all the way to Taylor.

The apartments

Attorney David Kleinfelter emphasized to the group that the design had to be inspired by the internal design of the Werthan property itself and that developers took their cues from Werthan Lofts on Rosa Parks. Hunter Gee added that the project was also intended to weave or knit Salemtown and Germantown neighborhoods together. John Tirrill commented that the complex was intended to be marketed to various age groups and that they were not interested in merely pulling in party-oriented young people.

The meeting lasted a long time, but afterwards I told the development team that while I am not wild about apartments, I am a realist about what banks require in these times. I emphasized to them that I could support this concept if no drastic changes were made. What is particularly attractive to me about it is that they intentionally focused on street traffic and have what appears to me to be an effective strategy for limiting large truck traffic on our smaller streets. Extending 6th is an impressive solution because it creates residence fronts in the complex on four sides and it efficiently moves commercial traffic away from Salemtown. I did suggest to the team that converting the intersection of 5th and Hume to a 4-way stop (currently a 2-way stop that facilitates truck traffic) would compliment their transportation plan.

Hume elevation

Putting up more stop signs along 5th would also serve their goal to make the avenue more pedestrian-friendly. In my opinion, a number of people here support repurposing 5th away from an automobile pass-through avenue, making it more of a complete street. In turn, that would make Morgan Park across the avenue even more accessible.

I don't have a problem with the scale because Werthan is already industrial and it sits on the border of two smaller-scale residential areas. Their claim that the scale will integrate into the style of both neighborhoods seems convincing to me. If they pull off a tenant for their retail building on Taylor like the Turnip Truck or a pub a coffee house/cafe it would be a coup. But building high-density residential along 5th increases the chances of attracting businesses. There is still the gnawing fact that demand for retail space seems to be shrinking rather than moving in Germantown (excepting a few stalwarts like Germantown Cafe and newcomer Silo). Hopefully, the dog park will relieve Morgan Park of the crush of higher density dog owners who treat it almost exclusively as the place to take their pups for a poop.

Talking over the context

If the developers are indeed serious about the integration with the community, their commitment to providing public access to the plaza and meeting areas, smarter growth and sustainability, I can easily support this concept (unless, of course, it undergoes substantial changes unannounced earlier tonight). They effectively and assertively addressed any concerns I had about development of the Werthan site, which sits but a stone's throw from our home. I do not see any reason to oppose it.

Bells Bend farms live, May Town development is dead

I have steadfastly followed the prospects of the residents of Bells Bend for several years now. Including news last year that Nashville Yazoo micro-brewery had developed a partnership with local organic farmers to bring hops to local beer production.

Of course, what spurred my interest in Bells Bend long before that was the cause to save the farmland from May Town developers who wanted to flip it into a second downtown without regard for community planning or the wishes of Scottsboro-Bell Bend who would have been displaced by developers's sprawl. The developers put a full court press on North Nashville to try and convince us that the trickle-down jobs that would result would benefit us. Many of us here did not buy the pitch. West Nashvillians who would have been inundated by extra traffic resulting from three new state-built bridges across the Cumberland River also had something to say about the matter. And many, many other Nashvillians were sympathetic because they knew it could have just as easily been them facing bulldozers and unsmart growth. Opponents of May Town grew and galvanized to support the cause.

Now a whole lot of people beyond concerned neighborhood leaders are celebrating the partnership between Yazoo and Bells Bend. Check out Nashville Scene on the bandwagon:

In this autumn's batch of Yazoo Brewing Co.'s pale ale, one flavorful adjective will trump the rest: local. Because the bright-citrus-and-cilantro-scented hints of fresh-cut grass on the head of the limited edition Bells Bend Preservation Ale come courtesy of hops grown in the fertile fields of Davidson County ....

In recent years, the rural area, minutes from downtown, has been the target of development efforts, such as the proposed May Town project. Residents objected to the mixed-use development, fearing it would flood their quiet country roads with traffic and end life as they knew it in the bucolic acres near Scottsboro. They organized, branding their cause with the lyrical logo of whooping cranes, in honor of two endangered birds that took up residence in a Bells Bend field.

The May Town controversy subsided when city officials denied approval for the project, but the whooping crane remains a symbol of the community's commitment to preserving its open spaces and agriculture. This fall, the bird is also the symbol of Yazoo's dry-hopped beer.

The May Town drama did not just subside because of city officials who did not go along. It also ground to a halt because of the hard work and organizing of neighborhoods across Nashville who wrote letters, cajoled council members and commissioners, showed up for every public meeting, and held their own meetings to strategize against the public relations campaign conducted by wealthy developers, pitch men, and lawyers. I tried to document as much of the story as possible here on Enclave because I do not believe it should be forgotten.

I'll continue to watch the annual celebrations of Bells Bend--which now has a sustainable, self-perpetuating relationship with a successful local entrepreneur--content in the knowledge that I joined something larger than myself, a throng of other leaders whose conviction to save rural Bells Bend from urban sprawl made these days possible. I am thankful for that.


UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I remembered how proponents of protecting Bells Bend (agri)culture were labelled "NIMBY" ("Not In My Back Yard") and cast as negative for opposing May Town. It was always clear to me that the neighborhood leaders taking on the developers were positive, progressive actors in the story and that they were "QIMBY" ("Quality In My Back Yard"). Quality is exactly what they got in the organic production of hops for Yazoo to craft a new line of ale.

Plans being drawn up for the Werthan Packing Plant site

A couple of weeks ago City Paper reporter Joey Garrison asked me if I had heard of an Atlanta developer's proposal to demolish parts of the Werthan packing site (on 5th Avenue North between Taylor and Hume) and build a mixed-use development there. I told him that that I had not, and he referred me to a CP article on it quoting one SWH Residential Partners manager speaking of plans to go to the Planning Commission on August 15 with the intention of breaking ground in 2013 if approved. The CP also reported that while the exact use remains unclear, the building at the corner of 5th and Taylor (pictured above) will not be demolished, even though the staff seemed to recommend demolition of all buildings on the site. The large brick building farther down the block would be demolished under the plan.

I told Joey I had not heard anything about the plan, although I talked to a number of Salemtown neighbors who live near the Werthan plant with definite ideas about what should be done with the property. He asked if I knew of any concerns about tearing down historical structures on the property. I could think of none.

I could not attend the August 15 commission meeting, but after reading that the proposal was "partially approved with conditions", I did follow up with the planner overseeing it. She responded that the plan was partially approved because during the commission meeting SWH scaled back the number of buildings they were requesting to demolish. The condition required by the commission is that SWH provide photographic documentation of the site as-is, prior to demolition. She reiterated that Metro Planning has received no plans for construction or reorientation of the site and that an environmental study is being conducted at present.

I told the planner that, as a nearby neighbor of Werthan, I am not opposed to quality mixed-use construction at the old plant site. As I told the reporter, I cannot think of any reason why the buildings should not be demolished for something new that enhances our quality of life. My main concern about the Werthan facility has always been their heavy, large, highway-oriented traffic using Salemtown's narrow streets. The fact that the developer has an idea for mixed use at the site makes rezoning worth serious consideration. I could support it if traffic concerns are addressed in the reorientation. We need less rather than more 18-wheelers coming through Salemtown.


Related: the Nashville Civic Design Center's ambitious proposal for a governor's mansion and "green" down to the Cumberland River never really stood a chance at this site.


UPDATE: A Germantown resident tweets an outstanding idea for creating positive automobile traffic flow around the new development at the old Werthan site: flip Taylor on the south and Hume on the north one-way streets. This is an idea we should organize around and pursue with Metro Planning and Metro Traffic and Parking.

The Cocoa Tree in Germantown closes

A couple of weeks ago The Cocoa Tree announced on its website that it was closing for good on July 28, which is sad news for all of us in the North End who feel loyalty to our local businesses. The closing also further casts the haze of uncertainty on the capacity of Salemtown to plan for small mixed-use complexes without any specific demand from small business owners who look to locate here. Germantown is a mixed use bellwether for Salemtown's capacity to develop more than residential.

The Cocoa Tree is closed. Zackies hotdoggery shortened its hours a while back as did Drink Haus. The business space in Germantown's mixed used development at the corner of 4th Ave N and Monroe St. still sits empty with "for lease" signs in the window. All these trends suggest to me that we need to work harder on keeping the businesses that we have and on listening to serious new requests for rezoning as they arise rather than building it first in the hopes that they will come.

Meanwhile, I will miss The Cocoa Tree, and I wish the owner the best of luck.

A paler shade of green

CLARIFICATION (May 21, 2012): Mike Kenner finally got back with me with a request that I take scrub the original post below off the blog. He insists that he never mentioned LEED to Salemtown reps in August last year and that his company never planned on this development being LEED-certified. Freddie O'Connell, who was the Salemtown officer mentioned below who reported to the association that Mr. Kenner told him he was planning on LEED, responded to the developer's request that, while he acknowledges that it was his own interpretation of the August discussion, he stands by his original report to the association.

So, we are left with two different interpretations of what was said about the original discussion about the rezoning and plans for the development at 5th and Coffee. The issue is not the development itself (as I point out below, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Energy Star). The question remains, "What was communicated?" and that question causes me to want to be more diligent about combing over the details of future requests for rezoning by Kenner McLean in Salemtown. There is nothing sinister about my decision to pay closer attention if the development company seeks mixed use rezoning should they purchase more property. Rezoning requests involve a public process, which includes community feedback. I am simply trying to relate my views on planning and zoning as I always have here. Granted, developers have not always appreciated my views because they do not always share my priorities.

But with this update, you the readers can make your own judgments about what was said. The developer says he never intended nor introduced LEED. The former SNNA president interpreted the developer to say he planned on LEED-certification. You can make up your own mind.


Townhouses being built at the corner of 5th and Coffee seem to have become less green than originally described when developers made their pitch to get community support for rezoning.

Last August, a Salemtown officer met Kenner McLean Development executive Mike Kenner to discuss their proposal and reported back to the association:

While his plans aren't ideal, I do think they overall bring what was equivalent to a vacant lot forward a bit in terms of progress .... project planned to be LEED-certified, reasonable price points, one unit already pre-sold, designed to be owner-occupied (not a guarantee, mind you).

Between August and February of this year, developers apparently backed away from projections of LEED certification, actually choosing "Energy Star-rated" structures instead.

The difference between LEED and Energy Star, according to Green-Buildings.com:

Energy Star was created by the EPA in 1992 and provides commercial building owners with strategic energy management plans designed to benefit both the environment and the owner's bottom line. Energy Star is designed to measure a building's performance, create practical operating (energy use) benchmarks/goals, help monitor performance and also reward energy efficiency ....

LEED operates through the U.S. Green Building Council and takes a much broader "triple bottom line" approach considering people, planet and profit, not just energy use. The triple bottom line factors in the economic, environmental and social issues present throughout the entire building process from concept, design, development and future operation.

LEED is a highly quantified and systematic approach to buildings of all types. Because it has accomplished so much and been so broadly accepted, LEED is becoming the standard by which many green buildings are measured. LEED quantifies a building's performance in the following major categories:
* sustainable sites
* water efficiency
* energy and atmosphere
* materials and resources
* indoor environmental quality
* innovation in design and operations

I emailed Mike Kenner, who lives in West Nashville, the day before yesterday asking for clarification of the LEED vs. Energy Star question, and I have not heard back from him. I also raised the question of LEED in email correspondence on several questions last January without getting a reply on certification.

Besides a winter meeting where we chatted about the possibility of me blogging on his development, Mr. Kenner and I have not had contact since we expressed a difference of opinion on what the North Nashville Community Plan says about developments in Salemtown. However, he did tell me in the past that his company has approached some elderly Salemtown residents along 5th Av N about buying up their properties in order to rezone them for mixed use to make Salemtown more like Germantown.

If they are successful in snagging the properties of long-time residents, and then they seek rezoning (which requires public feedback), I will not forget that the "triple bottom line" build projected in 2011 for 5th and Coffee did not materialize as such in 2012 (there is nothing wrong with Energy Star as an energy saver, but it falls well short of LEED's sustainability principle). Should Kenner McLean achieve future Salemtown acquisitions, will the mixed use they initially propose to motivate rezoning eventually materialize?

Former Salemtown association president expresses opposition to SNNA mixed use proposal

Tuesday, Freddie O'Connell, recent past president of Salemtown Neighbors spoke out against the association's executive board plan to request rezoning of unspecified sections of Salemtown from residential to mixed use. He sent his feedback to association elist:

Here are the reasons I'd personally oppose additional MUN zoning in the neighborhood:

• Perhaps most importantly, it runs counter to the North Nashville Community Plan, which specifically recommends, after much community input, preserving commercial activity for corridors. Salemtown is recommended to be a residential neighborhood with part in maintenance and part evolving (basically, southern Salemtown is anticipated to benefit from slightly higher density of residential development). In fact, they recommend rezoning some existing MUN to conform to the plan. Dozens of meetings with Planning staff were held throughout last year, and erasing that plan would be a shame, especially since it involved many long-time residents who have not historically been involved in SNNA.
• The retail establishments that have existed in the almost 5 years I've lived here have not, in my opinion, strengthened the neighborhood. What is now Amin's Market (and has operated under two other names since I've lived here) continues to be a source of vice (one shooting, multiple incidents of sex crimes at the intersection, multiple reports of drug activity, and enough of a general nuisance that a police camera was installed). There was a closed door / closed shades beauty parlor at the corner of Garfield and Rosa L. Parks Boulevard when we moved here. It did not have the neighborly atmosphere that Germantown's Gloss does. And there's a BP. I know some people enjoyed the market near 4th and Coffee. I never got a chance to go there before it closed, in part because of its unusual operating hours. But it never struck me as the sort of anchor that the Germantown businesses at 5th and Madison have been for that area. Non-retail establishments (Plumbers of Nashville, Franklin Finishing) also do not do much to improve the quality of either character or life in Salemtown (This isn't a knock against the businesses themselves, just a suggestion that they are here in some cases against zoning).
• Nearby retail establishments of the variety bandied about when this topic comes up for discussion (e.g., "coffeshops") have had to curtail their operating hours as a result of a lack of business. Namely, both DrinkHaus (a coffeeshop I'd prefer to patronize over Starbucks, which is technically in Salemtown at Rosa L. Parks and Dominican) and Zackie's (whose owner, Mike, lives in Salemtown) have both cut back their hours over the past year. They're both in Germantown, which is closer to downtown, almost completely gentrified, and fully walkable from Salemtown. If we're not keeping good local businesses vibrant a few blocks away, how are we going to convince good businesses that Salemtown is a better bet? I suppose it's possible that Salemtown residents could consider Germantown "too far," but that position would make me more concerned, not less, that good businesses would fail here.
• I have yet to hear a plan about how we will prevent shady businesses that offer undesirable services from taking advantage of laxer zoning or, the positive alternative, how we will recruit good businesses. Beyond that, I haven't heard much other than generics about what exactly we want in Salemtown. Personally, most of the things I could want in a livable neighborhood (including good food and drinks) are in Germantown or at the Farmers' Market. So I'm interested in what's missing and why it makes sense to invite very broad commercial uses into our neighborhood without a strategic plan preceding the zoning.
• Werthan will continue to redevelop. Just across Salemtown's souther[n] border, Werthan packaging is slated for relocation and, ultimately, redevelopment. When this happens, it will bring mixed use to our border, under the purview of Germantown. I think waiting to see (and participate in) this redevelopment would be a much more reasonable time to consider whether MUN within Salemtown would be of benefit to the community.

I'm a former SNNA president myself. I echo everything Freddie wrote in his open email. I would also add that there is nothing, including the North Nashville Community Plan, that stops small businesses from requesting rezoning of houses to "Commercial" if they desire to start a coffeehouse or nail salon à la Berry Hill. Mixed use requests from businesses should be judged as they arise rather than jumped at prematurely. However, mixed use is not the only means of allowing commercial use in Salemtown, and any request should either be consistent with the community plan or have some ironclad, irrefutable reasons for altering the plan.

If we rezone it, they will come: about Salemtown's Field of Dreams myth

The Salemtown officers have been holding meetings during the first quarter of this year with developers and real estate people to leverage a mixed use plan for sections of our neighborhood. Recently, they decided to open the question to the membership and to other neighbors at the back-end of the process. Their survey is not the most objective information-seeker and members have not been prepared to respond with open consideration of all the facts--good, bad, and indifferent--before taking the survey.

For the record, in the half-a-dozen or mixed use requests that I have encountered in the 8 years I've lived here, I have supported some and opposed some, but I have never dismissed the idea of mixed use.

However, I have to say that I have never seen such enthusiastic, blind faith in mixed use as recently expressed by the Salemtown association's Executive Board. They seem prepared to embrace any and all mixed use around the neighborhood regardless of consequences that are clearly observable in other North End neighborhoods.

They sent out a survey that misleads about what will go into mixed use in Salemtown and that double loads mixed use with a conservation overlay, which itself opens a host of other problems and questions before the mixed use issue is even resolved. Here is the first 2/3rd's of the survey with some of my responses written in:

Yep. I called the survey exactly the way I see it: push-polling (a poll that does not really poll but instead biases people's responses).

Even the small amount of space for comments limits feedback. A couple of sentences in the comment section can barely express the empirical evidence around us weighted against claims that mixed use without businesses-at-hand will enhance our quality of life.

But I have this chronicle on Salemtown with all the space I require to cite the plain evidence that weighs against blind rezoning efforts.

Boarded- up retail space in mixed-use development, corner of
4th Av N & Monroe St.,  Germantown (Google Maps, 2009)

In the first place, you can plan mixed use--absent business demand for mixed use in Salemtown--but simply rezoning is a leap of faith that does not guarantee takers. In fact, even building mixed use ahead of time does not guarantee that a business will respond to the empty space. Germantown is often mentioned as a model of mixed use for Salemtown. And yet, not all of their mixed use is thriving as hoped. A corner shop at 4th Avenue North and Monroe Street constructed 4-5 years ago sat boarded up for years after completion. Only this year does it look like interior work is being done by the property owner, but there are still "for lease" signs up in the windows. I am aware of no demand for the space.

Given that a mixed use property can sit idle and boarded for years in Germantown (very near very popular City House restaurant), why should we assume that Salemtown would fare any better? In fact, I would assume that it would take us even longer than renowned Germantown to attract clients for any mixed use built here. Other small businesses in Germantown in mixed use properties (including a coffeeshop) have cut back their business hours for lack of customers. Why would we assume that Salemtown would provide enough foot traffic to keep such businesses open if Germantown cannot? It seems to me we should be supporting and patronizing struggling Germantown businesses, within walking distance of our homes, rather hoping that demand for businesses will pop up simply because we rezone properties here.

Bail bonds business will be mixed use
less than 5 blocks from Salemtown.

In the second place, there are no guarantees that when we set aside mixed use absent demand for it, we will get the kind of stores we want: the ones that enhance the overall quality of life beyond the simplistic calculus of property values. Hope Gardens is a cautionary tale for Salemtown. They have dense mixed use coming to the vacant corner of 10th Avenue North and Jefferson Street. The problem: the anchor of the development is a party-busing bail bonds business which profanes a noble idea of Martin Luther King, Jr. in its name. It's not the kind of small business I would feel a connection to if I lived in Hope Gardens regardless of the mixed use mantra. We can dream all we want to about building to attract "coffeehouses and nail salons" but then be slapped by the reality that it attracted payday loan merchants and tattoo parlors. If we rezone it, anyone can come.

Let's consider mixed use. But let's consider the merits of each request as they come from developers rather than putting the cart before the horse, as this "Salemtown Survey" does. And for Pete's sake, let's hope that our association officers can send us more objective and neutral future surveys to live up to the appearance of gathering information.

Council Passes Erica Gilmore's SP Request Despite Planning's Disapproval

Even though Metro Planners have declared that Erica Gilmore's proposed rezone of a Pearl Street residence to a mixed-use is inconsistent with the North Nashville Community plan's residential character, Metro Council approved the rezoning on first reading tonight. Planning also noted that the neighborhood in which the proposed development sits is "worthy of conservation" and that the property lays between two public schools.

This looks like another overuse, perhaps misuse, of SP zoning to me. Still no word on whether CM Gilmore has held any community meetings on this matter.

Federal Action Prompting Metro Action on "Livability"?

Might the Mayor's Office be seeing what's happening in the Obama administration and appointing a local livability task force to be in position for federal money if the national task force makes it available?

As the White House plots a long-term sustainability and resource-management course, with a "livable communities" initiative among top presidential priorities in the 2010 FY budget, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan will work through a joint task force to involve the public in planning, expand transportation alternatives and transit-oriented development, and provide less costly housing near jobs, while coordinated federal investments in livability will encourage urban regions to create and follow integrated housing, land-use and transportation plans.

"Livability incorporates the concept of collaborative decision-making," said Secretary LaHood in testimony before the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee, noting that the new congressional transportation funding act also opens up an opportunity to recast the federal transportation policy and address housing and land-use concerns.

Secretary Donovan, observes E & E Daily reporter Josh Voorhees, said the combined DOT-HUD task force will work out federal housing-affordability measures that will include transportation, energy and other costs, to inform consumers and enable the market to price housing accordingly

We should keep an eye on how pie-in-the-sky intentions about livability start to unfold in real local communities. A little vigilance over whether the local Livability Task Force really listens to neighborhoods or is merely an exercise in pumping federal money into developers' pockets wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Neighbors vs Neighbors vs Seniors?

So, Nina Cardona writes about this new Livability Task Force chaired by Diane Neighbors, who will be recommending zoning changes to make neighborhoods more livable for seniors, but not without some controversy:

The task force is recommending measures to make it easier for seniors to either remain in their homes or downsize without leaving their current communities. It set a goal of implementing zoning changes to allow a mixed-use developments and infill in a variety of housing sizes. Several parts of the city have a history of neighbors organizing to fight attempts to allow more dense housing developments of the sort proposed by the task force.

Sounds like Cardona is reporting on a noble effort except for what she leaves out. Generational diversity in neighborhoods is a good thing, but she neglects to acknowledge that organized neighbors are not some monolith preparing knee-jerk opposition to higher density. Neighborhoods face a planning and rezoning environment that tends to look like a free-for-all where developers enjoy a distinct advantage. Developers enter looking for exceptions and special conditions that will allow them the highest density possible because highest density equals most profits, and serving seniors matters little in the equation. They also demand the least resistance, and that generally means ignoring neighborhood feedback.

And speaking of developers, Cardona also fails to mention that Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors is married to a developer who stands to gain from more mixed-use, high-density developments. How is the task force prepared to protect balance between recreation/lifestyle consumers of all ages and older residents on fixed incomes in higher-density developments? Is the task force prepared to insure that developers won't use their recommendation as a way to drain communities of their character while they suck profits out? Did Cardona interview any neighborhood leaders the same way she interviewed Diane Neighbors (setting the Vice Mayor up in an adversarial role with neighbors while posing her the advocate for seniors)?

Entrepreneurbia: New Urbanist Folly of Zoning-Free Neighborhoods

Amy Traub looks at a suburban design competition winner based on a rather noxious mix of new urbanism and the unrealized myth of a "free" market:

And that idea is simple: get rid of the zoning regulations that prevent commercial businesses from operating in residential areas. Then, stand back and watch entrepreneurs transform suburban subdivisions into flourishing mixed-use areas.

As a serious proposal, this leaves a lot to be desired. Consider that the marquee business is a single-family home turned nightclub. I may be raising my family in Manhattan, but even I don't want thumping music next door until 3 a.m. every night. And who wants to wake up to find their neighbor's house suddenly transformed into a medical waste disposal firm, or a dog kennel? In general, it's a good thing zoning regulations exist. The answer isn't simply to "abolish poorly conceived zoning laws," but to conceive better ones, laws that allow for mixed use areas, denser development, and the infrastructure to handle it (a significant weakness of the Entrepreneurbia design, as several commenters pointed out) without necessarily letting a disco spring up on every corner.

I'm perpetually arguing with doctrinaire conservatives on one side and progressive urbanists on the other about the wisdom of easing residential zoning restrictions or boxing out neighborhood feedback in order to allow commercial enterprise in residential zones. The assumption from my opponents seems to be naive and overly optimistic: boutique shops, hip restaurants, and coffee bars will magically emerge as if every neighborhood could be Germantown or 5 Points.

The market reality is that every neighborhood cannot be trendy and otherwise innocuous. There will still be niches for unpalatable businesses like car washes, pawn shops, and convenience stores. I have yet to see new urbanists flocking to the idea of designing for those kinds of establishments. Yet, once zoning rules and public feedback requirements are relaxed, and as we open residential zoning to mixed-use and commercial development, the genie is out of the bottle. We have to accept any kind of business that chooses to locate next to our home. If its a used book store, great. If it's a quick-sacked, brown-bag liquor store, not so much.

Part of the problem with living in Salemtown is that we live right next to a neighborhood that already has an established restaurant line-up and a growing mixed-use boutique culture. Relaxing residential zoning here may promote the same. However, I believe that relaxation is just as likely to invite less than desirable lower tier businesses because the restaurant and boutique market is already saturated a few blocks down. Germantown's über-popular Monell's recently filed for bankruptcy, which reinforces my perception that there may not be much more room for new neighborhood restaurants, wishful thinking aside.

In the final analysis, developers and entrepreneurs who want to relax residential zoning to allow mixed-use should have to make their case to neighborhoods and under the strictures of sub-area plans. That is the only way to insure that undesirable businesses don't encroach on residential quality of life.

Fighting the Monotonous Box: Charrette Posse's Convention Center Plan Featured in CP Article

The City Paper has a piece this morning on the alternative vision that some members of the Nashville Charrette have for the proposed convention center. They advocate a retail- and residential-clad center of plazas that hides loading docks, has the main hall underground and converts the street grid to pedestrian thoroughfares. If the Downtown neighborhood has to have a new convention center, then it should be integrated into rather than imposed upon the urban fabric, and this concept is a good start.