Hideous Nashville Gentrification

[SIGSEGV]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1529...7i13312!8i6656

let's give credit where credit is due... Nashville has a few blocks that look alright if you look in the right directions. Now just need a few thousand more...

[The North One]

^ that's literally the same place as the pic lol

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by The North One

^ that's literally the same place as the pic lol

Yes, but you can explore the neighborhood!

[The North One]

What "neighborhood"? there's a highway, railroad tracks and some parking lots. It's a one street island.

[Vlajos]

The Gulch is terrible. Very artificial feeling. A somewhat tall suburb vibe.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by The North One

What "neighborhood"? there's a highway, railroad tracks and some parking lots. It's a one street island.

Who cares, you can frame a picture so that you can pretend you're in a real urban environment!

Reminds me of https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4042...7i13312!8i6656

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by The North One

It looks like the American postwar sunbelt, don't know where you're getting this "east of Rockies" nonsense from.

I don't know, but it looks like Kalamazoo did to me, though that was in the 90s. And parts of suburban Milwaukee. And pictures I've seen of upstate New York.

I didn't know Tennessee was part of the so-called Sunbelt. Doesn't look so sunny and warm to me.

Look at it:


If somebody told me that was Wauwatosa or Utica, I would believe it.

That image does not evoke Sunbelt to me.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Who cares, you can frame a picture so that you can pretend you're in a real urban environment!

Reminds me of https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4042...7i13312!8i6656

The big difference is that in Boston or NYC or Philly, one of these new urbanist developments is just a few blocks from real city neighborhoods. That is never the case in Nashville. There is hardly such thing as a prewar neighborhood business district anywhere in Nashville of the sort that are common in the north.

Nashville has somehow convinced the American public that it is some sort of charming Southern town when it's significantly more bland than Indianapolis. People are expecting Spanish Moss and Magnolia trees like Mobile and New Orleans. Instead it's a bunch of strip malls and a wild hodge-podge of infill. Lots of utility poles, lots of parking lots, lots of advertising. Lots of national chains.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yes, but you can explore the neighborhood!

This is what it looks like when you explore:
https://goo.gl/maps/ebEMwiVCbh72

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't know, but it looks like Kalamazoo did to me, though that was in the 90s. And parts of suburban Milwaukee. And pictures I've seen of upstate New York.

I didn't know Tennessee was part of the so-called Sunbelt. Doesn't look so sunny and warm to me.

Look at it:


If somebody told me that was Wauwatosa or Utica, I would believe it.

That image does not evoke Sunbelt to me.

Tennessee is sort of an Appalachia, midwest, Sunbelt hybrid.

[SIGSEGV]

I wonder what time this (the streetview above) was taken at... because there are like no people out.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Look at it:


If somebody told me that was Wauwatosa......... I would believe it.

then you don't know Wauwatosa very well at all. Tosa does not consist of treeless, cul-de-saced, vinyl-sided suburban tract housing like that.

it's an inner ring milwaukee burb with lots of pre-war housing stock, a fully interconnected street-grid, nice mature tree cover, and a charming town center.

here's the street in Tosa that my sister-in-law lives on: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0375...7i13312!8i6656

the photo above would much more likely be confused with a milwaukee exburb like oak creek: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8501...7i13312!8i6656

[austlar1]

The Nashville infill looks a lot like what has been built in Austin the past decade or so. Ditto for the more built up downtown adjacent areas.

[cityscapes]

I don't know how many of you here are simply urbanism / skyscraper fans and have no formal education in architecture or planning or work in the field, but as someone in the industry these pictures show either a weak zoning code, poor city infrastructure standards triggered by new development, no architectural or design review standards, or plans reviewers asleep at the wheel approving illogical development.

A lot of it is very sloppy and bad design, but it isn't that different from what is being built in other similar cities like Austin for example.

Building and Zoning departments cannot say no to development just because it's ugly. People have the right to develop their land within the parameters of the zoning code and development standards. If the development you get is crap then as a city you need to improve your development standards. Then you'd avoid the oddly placed mail boxes, out of context house design, trash and utility equipment not concealed from the public right-of-way, random gravel parking areas in front of the building line, and lack of trees on each property.

[llamaorama]

I'm a terrible person because I like this kind of development. Some of those houses look cute.

What was there before was junk. Nobody chose to live in a 2 bedroom house built in 1947 out of surplus army tongue depressers, that was just what was erected back when the nation and especially the south was significantly poorer. The buildings are quirky and eclectic, but I think that makes them interesting in the way that LA's dingbats can be interesting. This era of architecture will be remembered for its ideals and optimism.

It's unrealistic to demand aesthetics take precedent over practicality and not have a garage, or scale down features like windows or facades to the extent it prevents a modern floor plan. The alternative would be to either build nothing at all, or only build more expensive homes on full sized lots. These homes would be even less affordable and the density would be even lower.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Tennessee is sort of an Appalachia, midwest, Sunbelt hybrid.

Nashville's climate is very similar to Louisville or Indianapolis. It does not have kudzu. It typically has a few hard freezes each winter which prevent "southern" trees and other foliage.


Knoxville is at the same latitude but has a dramatically different climate because it's in between the Cumberland Plateau and the Smoky Mountains. Knoxville has many more mild, sunny days in January and February. It has much less gray sky and drizzle than the I-65 cities. The foliage is much more lush and exotic. Kudzu is all over the place including huge sheets of it visible right across the river from downtown.

[BrownTown]

I don't know why you people insist on comparing brand new construction to 100yr old developments in the NorthEast. This is a thread about how Nashville is growing rapidly and people are saying the stuff looks too new? That's the whole fucking point people, it IS all new. It's not like Nashville can go back in time and build a bunch of pre-war brownstones like everyone here apparently wants. The city is rapidly getting denser and people are complaining that it isn't dense enough. You're acting like you can just jump from A to Z and skip all the letters in-between. Maybe you can in some planned economy like China or Dubai, but that's just not how it works in the US. Even in the pics you're mocking there are new buildings now that weren't there a year ago when those pictures were taken.

Go on Google Maps and look at all the construction sites or use the feature that lets you go back to old pics and see how many parking lots and run-down areas have turned into new developments. If you're not excited about that much construction and densification because somewhere else did it better 100 years ago then whatever, but I am and I'd think people on a site about new developments should be too.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1529...7i13312!8i6656

let's give credit where credit is due... Nashville has a few blocks that look alright if you look in the right directions. Now just need a few thousand more...

Look the other way, and its parking lots galore as I expected.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I don't know why you people insist on comparing brand new construction to 100yr old developments in the NorthEast. This is a thread about how Nashville is growing rapidly and people are saying the stuff looks too new? That's the whole fucking point people, it IS all new. It's not like Nashville can go back in time and build a bunch of pre-war brownstones like everyone here apparently wants. The city is rapidly getting denser and people are complaining that it isn't dense enough. You're acting like you can just jump from A to Z and skip all the letters in-between. Maybe you can in some planned economy like China or Dubai, but that's just not how it works in the US. Even in the pics you're mocking there are new buildings now that weren't there a year ago when those pictures were taken.

Nashville voted down a transit initiative. There are limits to density when it all has to be supported by private vehicles.

This is a problem pretty well everywhere in North America, but a few cities are making a better effort to support density with transit even in new development.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't know, but it looks like Kalamazoo did to me, though that was in the 90s. And parts of suburban Milwaukee. And pictures I've seen of upstate New York.

I didn't know Tennessee was part of the so-called Sunbelt. Doesn't look so sunny and warm to me.

Look at it:


If somebody told me that was Wauwatosa or Utica, I would believe it.

That image does not evoke Sunbelt to me.

I do hope this is brand new development. Not a tree to be seen on any of the lots, to soften the ugliness.