Walking around Nashville, TN - Downtown & Germantown

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

Lots of areas close to downtown were destroyed 50/60 years ago, and they're now being replaced by the new "tall skinnies" you see. I'm not a fan of many of the new t/s but they bring lots of density and people with high disposable incomes, not to mention cleaning up the area.

I argue that the city isn't actually becoming much denser or walkable, even though there are often 2-4 houses standing where there was just one 10 years ago. Many of the new homes are occupied by childless couples or singles, so there is often only an incremental increase in population over the multi-generational households that occupied the neighborhoods in the past. What's more, all of the new residents are wealthy and own cars. They are unlikely to walk or use the bus system, so bus ridership has no doubt gone down in some areas that now have more residents than they did in the recent past.

The vast wave of tear-downs - indeed over 50% of the original homes in some neighborhoods have been torn down since 2010 - was enabled by revisions to the city's zoning. Here is a 2012 article on some of the changes: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/nas...orm-based-code

The tone of this and other 10 year-old articles seems naive in hindsight. You don't sense that any of these people anticipated the large-scale scraping of East Nashville, The Nations, Germantown, etc.

The limited switch to form-based code hasn't causes similar upheavals in the north because the prevailing lot sizes in first-ring suburbs are much smaller. Many SFH lots in established Nashville neighborhoods were roughly 50x150 to 50x200, which meant there was plenty of space to build 2-4 new homes.

By contrast, a common lot size in the Great Lakes area is 35 X 150, but many close to downtowns are more like 25x100. Replacing one old home with one new home is a completely different business situation as opposed to getting 2, 3, 4 new houses.

[Texcitement]

I've heard the point about less density based on smaller families/singles replacing larger families, and I just don't buy that across the core of the city. It's obviously not true downtown where there used to be virtually no residential (zoning actualy limited it at the time), not to mention the numerous multi-unit residential buildings that have replaced parking lots.

I've heard your point made convincingly about Salemtown, HBV and Nations. But that's certainly not the case where whole apartment buildings with 50-300 apartments have replaced empty blocks, and there are many of those buildings in G'town with more on the way. Werthan replaced an abandoned factory and the vacant lots surrounding it. Just a couple of examples are Ballpark Village and Stockyards which replaced parking lots with hundreds of residential unit. No fewer than 10 of such buildings have been built over the past decade and another half dozen are underway. Other areas where that's happened are the first ring neighborhoods where there was no residential at all, such as the "no man's land" between the Gulch and Midtown, and what's now We-Ho. Those were areas where light industrial businesses exist(ed). Just looking at what Capitol View replaced can only lead to the conclusion that there are far more people living along the 11th Avenue Corridor, even allowing for the STRs in the Gulch.

There's no question that overall density is greater, but walkability ranges from adequate to poor across the city. Additionally the second ring neighborhoods like 12 South, Richland, Woodlawn, Inglewood Dickerson/Brick Church, etc. are all being made more dense because they're building residential where there were empty lots, replacement houses with 2-3X size, and where low density businesses like car repair and other retail shops that line Dickerson and 4th Avenue, and even 8th Avenue just east of Edgehill. I have heard that Edgehill's population may not have increased dramatically because a large number of the new product there was/is dedicated to STRs.

Some things that are sure to increase density, and thus walkability, will be the Oracle Campus despite its comparatively low density and the highrises planned for Rutledge Hill/SoBro. The housing boom surrounding that area, especially east of there has already begun. In the past two weeks there have been six residential towers announced for two adjacent blocks that are currently mostly empty lots. The new apartments going up along Dickerson and 8th Avenue and in WeHo are replacing vacant lots or businesses in the vast majority of cases. One area that's obviously more dense just over the past five years is the Fern Street area north of downtown, across the river from Metrocenter. There were just a few houses where there are now hundreds of new ones.

Your point applies in some cases, but it overlooks just how low the density was in so many first and second ring areas. It's getting increasingly easy to forget the vast sea of parking lots that surrounded the CBD, just as recently as a decade ago. Now we're about to see a high density residential boom in midtown, especially around the State Street, Hayes Street and Church Street corridors.

Thanks again for the great pics and nice discussion. So do you live in Nashville or just visiting?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

Thanks again for the great pics and nice discussion. So do you live in Nashville or just visiting?

My parents moved there in 1996 and still live there. I visit about twice each year. My youngest brother moved back when he got engaged to a girl whose dad is a local developer. He has built number of small townhouse developments like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fa...!4d-86.7630393

This is an example of what I complained about in my earlier post - so-called "drive-to" urbanity in the suburbs. The layout is fairly dense but nobody really starts walking anywhere or taking the bus.

You are correct about downtown and SoBro - it was amazingly small-time in the 90s and nothing portended what has taken place since. Residential has obviously taken off there in a way that was completely non-existent before. My previous comment was with regards to East Nashville and the various other neighborhoods that have been completely transformed.

I drove through Belle Meade in July for the first time in maybe 10 years. Although the overall character hasn't changed, I was surprised to see how many individual homes have been demolished and replaced by new custom homes.

On the same trip I saw them setting up for the Nashville Grand Prix. Considering how bad traffic is downtown under ordinary circumstances, I can't believe that they completely shut down the Korean Vets bridge for 3-4 days.

[Texcitement]

That explains your deep knowledge of the city. I agree with your assessment of the overburdened infrastructure, especially the expressways. The city's leadership sucks. It's still a very spread-out city, and metro, and those formerly independent towns in the surrounding counties are now growing towards each other. Noticed that now Sumner is getting the boom that has been underway in Wilson and Rutherford. Williamson is a whole different animal. It is a bit sad to see the unique early 20 century houses in Belle Meade disappear. Those lots were already very large, and now they're getting houses that take up much of that land. Still beautiful.

And I get the perspectives expressed here. It's not a city for everyone; sort of a strange mashup of sunbelt boom town cum lazy southern river town cum midwestern industrial-city-meets-the-21st-Century. No doubt most midwestern cities have classic infrastructure and the old-style walkability. But I'd venture they'd "kill" to have the growth Nashville is seeing.

One of my favorite cities of all is Milwaukee, but I hate the weather. Nashville reminds me in some ways of a boomtown Milwaukee. Maybe it's the German heritage. I'm from Austin and feel right at home with the early German influence.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

I agree with your assessment of the overburdened infrastructure, especially the expressways. The city's leadership sucks. It's still a very spread-out city, and metro, and those formerly independent towns in the surrounding counties are now growing towards each other. Noticed that now Sumner is getting the boom that has been underway in Wilson and Rutherford. Williamson is a whole different animal.

Williamson passed a draconian zoning measure in 2019 or 2020 that limits new housing in unincorporated areas to one unit per 5 acres. This will tend to funnel more residential development into the other suburban counties like Rutherford. Also, the bulk of Cheatham County is physically cut off from the rest of the metro area. Even if I-840 is ever built through it, it's hard to imagine much development appearing there since a drive to anywhere else in the metro will be so far. This means that suburban development won't be free to spread in a full circle like an Indianapolis or Columbus, and in fact far from it.

I have remarked in other threads on how strange Nashville's downtown street layout is. It looks pretty normal on Google Earth but it's a stealth jigsaw puzzle. No one street travels through the downtown and comes out the other side. The fact that the main street - Broadway - doesn't have a bridge over the river is its greatest mystery, and it seems impossible to build one now given the way that an approach would hurt the aesthetics and tourist function of lower Broadway. The construction of Korean Vets Blvd and its bridge about 10 years ago seemed like too much at the time but now it doesn't seem like enough.

If the current rate of downtown development continues, we're facing total gridlock in the downtown and SoBro areas. It might turn into a situation where they have to more or less ban cars from the area most of the time like London.

[Texcitement]

Interesting observations, especially on the street grid. Jefferson is the only street that passes through, but even it meets up in a giant cluster f**k after it crosses the river at the Spring/Ellington spaghetti junction. An original proposal for what became the KVB and bridge called for a crosstown 'boulevard', but it met opposition from citizens who didn't want what they called an express route through the heart of the city. So the result was the KVB roundabout and the Division extension to Lafayette. So city planners actually wanted the disjointed/disconnected "jigsaw" (good word) grid. I think the strange layout has actually promoted a lot of the residential development downtown over the past decade. The crisscrossing (at different angles) of Sobro streets has created opportunities to consolidate abandoned/underutilized properties with convenient proximity to the CBD, Broadway and the Music City Center. Seems to be actually accelerating.

In the decade I've been here, I've learned a lot about the city's leadership and the growth that seems at times to defy them. Overall, I think Nashville's recent growth has been more accident than deliberate. I think the establishment tend to be scared of it, because it presents new challenges that their old solutions can't fix. You mentioned the choking traffic on the 1960s era Interstate 'loop' around the CBD. Instead of expanding them five years ago, TDOT actually announced that they would not do that immediately after expanding all the lanes on the Interstates outside the loop. Their absurd reasoning was they wanted to give commuters 'a break'. We've also seen how city planners seem to fear tall buildings with many proposals in recent years being cut down for no apparent reason other than somebody on planning or council thought it's too tall. There's a ridiculous limit of 30 stories in the CBD for no ostensible reason. The planning commission grants allowances to go taller in exchange for certain amenities, but their reasons seem random. There's still a small town mentality running a city of 700k. That's why I stated above that the leadership sucks.

Regarding the suburban ring, the topography of Middle TN won't allow them to grow together. So commercial and population development follows the transportation routes. That's why we have really dense areas near pockets of sparse development. There's farmland just 4 miles from downtown across the Cumberland, Bells Bend.

A bridge from Broadway over the Cumberland will never happen. It was deemed to be too difficult at the turn of the last century, as a western approach would have blocked the fronts of several blocks of established businesses. So the "Shelby Street" (now Seigenthaler) bridge was constructed from Demonbreun to Shelby Street on the east bank. I don't expect cars will ever be prohibited in the CBD, but I do expect that to happen on portions of Broadway during evening hours. I also expect downtown streets will be reconfigured somewhat to change the predominant flow/directions of some of the major streets. For example, the Broadway viaduct will be completely revamped in the next year, like the Demonbreun St. viaduct was a few years ago. Also, there will be a mass transit solution, as the current mayor has mentioned one is coming, most likely with an emphasis on BRT on dedicated lanes. Planning the future of traffic downtown is a job I don't envy.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

In the decade I've been here, I've learned a lot about the city's leadership and the growth that seems at times to defy them. Overall, I think Nashville's recent growth has been more accident than deliberate. I think the establishment tend to be scared of it, because it presents new challenges that their old solutions can't fix.

When I speak with knowledgeable people, nobody can figure out why Nashville suddenly took off. Republicans are quick to mention the low-tax environment - but Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are all in the same state and enjoy almost identical tax structures and none are experiencing similar growth. So there is a difference in Nashville, but nobody can figure out exactly what it is. I suspect that there is a ton of pro-Nashville programming on cable TV that none of us are privy to - home improvement shows, wedding planning shows, etc. - that are motivating a lot of the tourism and the thought that Nashville is an interesting place to relocate.

I do think that there have to have been some conversations about what it would take to get freight train switching activity out of the gulch. Building development pads over the tracks is technically possible but it would be way cheaper to remove the railroad yard and narrow the gulch from as many as 10 railroad tracks to just 2 or 3.

The other big ? is what is going to happen to the Nissan Stadium parking lot and all of the industry that still lines the Cumberland. 10-15 years ago there was a proposal to dig a second channel for the Cumberland River parallel to I-24, which would turn the stadium and its lot into an island. The proposal at that time was recreational:
https://governing.typepad.com/photos...shville1_4.jpg

Logic dictates that if the region maintains its current growth rate and gets to 2.5 million by 2030, if they can get 100,000 of those new residents within walking distance of downtown they can do a ton to mitigate the need for expensive highway expansion and public transportation improvements.

So the Nissan stadium parking lot is a very obvious place to build a lot of residential. I also think we'll see a push to rebuild the city's various low-rise public housing complexes as much higher density housing. These complexes now occupy comically desirable property, like the Shelby Ave. complex right next to the stadium.

At some point they decided that Lower Broadway was going to be DT Nashville's "square", since it doesn't really have another central focus, which precludes the installation of 24-hour dedicated bus lanes, surface light rail on a center reservation, or - gasp - a sloped approach between Second and Third Ave. to a bridge.

One more thing - Ellington Parkway has never made any sense to me. I drove it last month and think it could be removed and replaced by a typical surface street and light rail line lined by medium-density residential built in the reclaimed land.

[Texcitement]

I think media helped Nashville to be discovered. It had long been overlooked. I think getting professional sports also helped it become known by a whole new, younger crowd. Its location and being the capital of the 16th most populous state with a fairly small geographic area helped. I think that Atlanta had stolen the thunder of a lot of other Southeastern cities for decades until new 'upstarts' like Charlotte and Tampa, and now Nashville and Raleigh grew big enough to get noticed by corporations.

What I've learned about Nashville pre-2000 was that it had a few boomlets that fizzled for one reason or another, either the critical mass of population just wasn't enough to sustain or the national economy sagged. I discovered that Nashville always had a large creative population, and not only musicians. The technology required to produce music had advanced to a point that the talent base was there when technology companies (first Dell, then Amazon and Oracle) came calling. Then of course, the presence of Vandy cannot be overstated. The research dollars and innovation it brings to the state are on par with only the best universities in the world.

I think it was just time for Nashville to boom. I gather that Nashville has long known how to 'throw a party', like a mini New Orleans of a different nature. Much like Austin attracted young people away from larger, more expensive cities, and with a lot of activities to draw from across the country, Nashville beckoned. The central south had lagged its other southern peers and for it to catch fire, a city was going to need to anchor its desired growth. Memphis has its own share of problems. Louisville is a bit too far north. Birmingham had a lot of problems that it seems to be getting a handle on but it's a bit too far south. Arkansas and Mississippi weren't centrally located enough, and both were getting overshadowed by Texas' cities.

Nashville has also had a string of very good "pro growth" mayors, up till the last few ones. Bredesen, Purcell and Dean all brought big public projects to Nashville that helped spur its downtown development. Finally the airport has benefited from the growth in tourism, and that in turn has helped draw industry with new headquarters to the city.

Ellington Pkwy was originally designed to be 'the expressway' to the north when it was conceived in the late 1940s. Although it wasn't actually built/completed until the mid 1960s when the Interstates were already underway. I doubt it will be made into a parkway but I do expect it will have a slight reconfiguration to eliminate the cloverleaf and maybe expanded with additional lanes like was done to I-440. I also think it's probable that it will get Smartway technology like is being installed along I-24 to Murfreesboro. If rail ever comes, it may utilize the right of way to reach all the way to Rivergate. There's a lot of potential to Ellington, but it's languishing and very difficult to get onto during rush hour.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

There's a lot of potential to Ellington, but it's languishing and very difficult to get onto during rush hour.

It's difficult to get onto at any time. I have the impression that the mostly at-grade terminus at Main St. was built as a "temporary" solution 40+ years ago. I've never seen a more grandiose proposal but it's hard to imagine that how things exist today is exactly what was hoped for back in the 1960s.

If you're familiar with James White Parkway in Knoxville, it's the complete opposite situation. In that case, there is an extravagant downtown connection but a truncated highway feeing it. To this day the big bridge they built over the Tennessee River in the early 90s and the complicated ramp network that was completed around 1999 carries almost zero traffic.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

I think media helped Nashville to be discovered. It had long been overlooked.

What had been overlooked? The non-existent historic districts? The non-existent pre-2000 skyline (yes, Bob Dylan recorded an album titled Nashville Skyline back in the 60s, when the city had zero skyscrapers)? The non-existent dramatic natural setting?

I drove through Dayton, OH last week for the first time in many years. It reminded me of driving through Nashville in the 1990s - tiny skyline, no scenery, unremarkable river, nondescript cityscape, lots of billboards. Dayton, OH today is roughly the size that Nashville was in 1990. That someplace as banal as Nashville could suddenly become a place that people from California moved to is just really hard for those of us to mentally process who remember what it was like until very recently. I mean, imagine waves of Californians decamping for Dayton, OH. Imagine carloads of bachelorettes converging on Dayton, OH. It's like that.

[jkc2j]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What had been overlooked? The non-existent historic districts? The non-existent pre-2000 skyline (yes, Bob Dylan recorded an album titled Nashville Skyline back in the 60s, when the city had zero skyscrapers)? The non-existent dramatic natural setting?

I drove through Dayton, OH last week for the first time in many years. It reminded me of driving through Nashville in the 1990s - tiny skyline, no scenery, unremarkable river, nondescript cityscape, lots of billboards. Dayton, OH today is roughly the size that Nashville was in 1990. That someplace as banal as Nashville could suddenly become a place that people from California moved to is just really hard for those of us to mentally process who remember what it was like until very recently. I mean, imagine waves of Californians decamping for Dayton, OH. Imagine carloads of bachelorettes converging on Dayton, OH. It's like that.

Not sure you're correct in your observations. While Nashville may not have majestic mountains or a huge river, it is quite scenic, with the rolling hills (some in excess of 1,000 ft) lakes and forested vegetation, especially compared to a lot of midwestern cities that tend to be relatively flat with a few exceptions of course. The city is also very close to the Cumberland Plateau about an hour east, which while not as tall as the Appalachians, they're still very scenic with it's rocky peaks, waterfalls, rivers etc. Also, while you may not value the things in Nashville, many other people do, which is why it was indeed underrated for a long time. Having a city with a bunch of universities, pro sports, good night life and being relatively affordable was part of the reasons for it's growth.

Also, you're comparisons to Dayton are apples and oranges as Nashville surpassed Dayton in the 70's when it consolidated with Davidson County. The population of Nashville in 1990 was 488,374 (post consolidation) and Dayton was 182,044 which is more than double and with that brought more amenities, tourism, business etc. (The relocations of both Nissan North America and Bridgestone Americas HQ's are examples of this). Secondly, thanks to ambitious mayors in the past like Phil Bredesen that helped bring pro sports (Titans in 1997 and Preds in 1998) by investing in both the Titans stadium and the Bridgestone Arena, this helped to expand the cities brand and put the city more on the national stage. To add, Nashville has the advantage with being associated with a brand in country music, which gave it more name recognition, more so than Dayton, which is overshadowed by neighboring Cincinnati. The city's growth has been very intentional and planned, though I don't believe city leaders expected the amount of growth that's happened in the past 10 years and it seems to only be accelerating with recent corporate relocations and expansions.

[Texcitement]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What had been overlooked? The non-existent historic districts? The non-existent pre-2000 skyline (yes, Bob Dylan recorded an album titled Nashville Skyline back in the 60s, when the city had zero skyscrapers)? The non-existent dramatic natural setting?

I drove through Dayton, OH last week for the first time in many years. It reminded me of driving through Nashville in the 1990s - tiny skyline, no scenery, unremarkable river, nondescript cityscape, lots of billboards. Dayton, OH today is roughly the size that Nashville was in 1990. That someplace as banal as Nashville could suddenly become a place that people from California moved to is just really hard for those of us to mentally process who remember what it was like until very recently. I mean, imagine waves of Californians decamping for Dayton, OH. Imagine carloads of bachelorettes converging on Dayton, OH. It's like that.

Really not trying to be snarky, but IMHO you're overthinking things here. What I meant by "overlooked" is similar to what you noted about Dayton reminding you of Nashville in the 1990s. Back then it was a very different, somewhat ordinary place, but definitely on course to take advantage of the timing when it came a decade later. Starting in the 1980s, the city and state took advantage of a string of very big corporate relocations/expansions.

Far more than historic districts or natural beauty which tend to attract lower-wage, tourist related jobs, boomtowns capitalize on their business advantages. Nashville has long had more of that than its peers and grew steadily over the past 100 years because of it.

I grew up in the DFW area, and despite its enormity, it's one of the few large cities I find inhabitable. I went to college in Austin, my first true taste of a midsize (at the time) boomtown. Why did Austin become a boom town when DFW and Houston had overshadowed it for decades? Similarly Atlanta overshadowed the cities I mentioned above. That's all I meant by the comment. The answer is usually related to timing and opportunity.

Regarding the timing, national trends go a long way in determining which cities are teed up to boom next. Nashville hit the 'sweet spot' of a city's growth curve (size and skill of its labor force) around 2000, in time to take advantage of the national (global) boom in technology. To that point, Nashville has long had a large "creative class" and it's growing fast, 35% just in the first half of this year. Don't be too quick to dismiss the effect that personal income tax rates have on corporate relocations too. Remember who makes those decisions - senior executives to whom a state income tax can mean a pay cut of 50,000 and more.

To the second point (opportunity), I believe Nashville is more progressive than you think, but not in the overused political way. True, it is known to be "center left" politically, and that actually helps its image among the influential young adult demographic. Many of them have never lived in The South. So Nashville is a comfortable place to 'camp out' for a while. It's also affordable compared to where many come from. The state and local governments are pro-business too. That brings jobs, and jobs bring people.

When people get here they tend to fall to its easygoing charms, as I have. It's simple! Clean! Compact! Beautiful (most think so anyway)! And the people here are not snobby elitists. I don't want to raise my children in that sort of place. Part of the cycle of a boomtown is they attract young adults AND young families first. Like most midsize boomtowns, Nashville has all the amenities of a large city with few of the hassles. For the many who decide to settle here, there's a diverse array of affordable suburbs. Lest we kid ourselves, even Millennials want the "American dream" of a family and house in the burbs.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jkc2j

Having a city with a bunch of universities, pro sports, good night life and being relatively affordable was part of the reasons for it's growth.

Everything you mention already existed in many, many other US metros that haven't seen similar growth. That's why Nashville's recent growth is so confounding (although it does have more going for it that the completely nondescript Charlotte, NC).

People lazily point toward UT in Austin or OSU in Columbus as the prime engine of those cities but then ignore the cities like Nashville and Charlotte that don't have their flagship state universities. If flagship universities were the drivers that people claim they are, then Knoxville would be booming, not Nashville. If state capitols were the economic drivers that people think they are, then Lansing, MI would be booming.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Texcitement

Far more than historic districts or natural beauty which tend to attract lower-wage, tourist related jobs, boomtowns capitalize on their business advantages. Nashville has long had more of that than its peers and grew steadily over the past 100 years because of it.

What are these business advantages? It's located at the dead-end of a minor inland waterway, not as a hub of northbound or southbound traffic on the giant Mississippi, like Memphis. It's got a railroad named after it but so does Louisville. It has interstates fanning in several directions but...so does every other city. It has a major research university but so does Pittsburgh...and Cleveland...Ithaca, NY and other areas that aren't growing.

The other cities in Tennessee enjoy the same tax environment. Memphis is on the Mississippi and way closer to the big cities in Texas. Chattanooga is way closer to Atlanta. Knoxville has the flagship state university.

[jkc2j]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Everything you mention already existed in many, many other US metros that haven't seen similar growth. That's why Nashville's recent growth is so confounding (although it does have more going for it that the completely nondescript Charlotte, NC).

People lazily point toward UT in Austin or OSU in Columbus as the prime engine of those cities but then ignore the cities like Nashville and Charlotte that don't have their flagship state universities. If flagship universities were the drivers that people claim they are, then Knoxville would be booming, not Nashville. If state capitols were the economic drivers that people think they are, then Lansing, MI would be booming.

That's the point I think you're missing. Nashville has a combination of all the things listed plus the "Music City" brand that those other cities don't have, which have attributed to the cities growth. Memphis would be the closet but has the crime perception it's still dealing with, as well being more closely tied to the deep south being in the Mississippi Delta region which Nashville is not. Also, while Nashville lacks a flagship state school, it makes up for this by the sheer number of both public and private universities in the metro 3 being top HBCU's(TSU, Fisk and Meharry), one a top tier research university(Vanderbilt) and one in MTSU having the largest undergraduate enrollment in the state. This doesn't include the many smaller religious schools like Belmont, Trevecca, Lipscomb and schools in close vicinity like Austin Peay in Clarksville. Totaling the number of students in these schools this is over 85,000 and this is using old data, the number could be much higher in 2021. Not a lot of mid sized cities can claim this.

Also, one of the things you mentioned as being a disadvantage being far from any major cities, was actually an advantage as there aren't any sizable cities within 150 miles in any direction to impede growth.

As mentioned in my previous post Nashville had leaders whom were pro growth and pro business. City leaders in the 90's and early to mid 2000's sought to grow Nashville's economy through tourism and entertainment, capitalizing on the cities music history and promoted as a safer alternative to cities perceived as more dangerous such as Memphis and New Orleans. With the advent of the TV series "Nashville" on ABC in 2012 and the construction of the Music City Center in 2013 this was only exacerbated.

I'm sure similar stories of growth can apply to many southern cities that lack historic geographic advantages, Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, Raleigh, Austin are a few that come to mind.

[Texcitement]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What are these business advantages? It's located at the dead-end of a minor inland waterway, not as a hub of northbound or southbound traffic on the giant Mississippi, like Memphis. It's got a railroad named after it but so does Louisville. It has interstates fanning in several directions but...so does every other city. It has a major research university but so does Pittsburgh...and Cleveland...Ithaca, NY and other areas that aren't growing.

The other cities in Tennessee enjoy the same tax environment. Memphis is on the Mississippi and way closer to the big cities in Texas. Chattanooga is way closer to Atlanta. Knoxville has the flagship state university.

I don't know what else to say, but I think your concept of what makes a city boom is a bit out of date. The short answer is it's just critical mass at the right time for Nashville.

Those advantages you list certainly applied years ago, especially manufacturing bases, navigable water and rail lines. In their place arose the importance of being regional hubs for more 'white collar' (i.e. professional) jobs. Two of the earliest dominant industries in Nashville was insurance and publishing. Before Music City, we were (still are) known as Athens of the South. As the state's capital, Nashville has always been a 'white collar' hub, and Vandy's appearance in the 1870s cinched that direction for the city. During the second half of the 20th century, trucking products across country became feasible and more flexible than rail. Nashville being a hub of 3 Interstates is extremely attractive for that reason. Lots of logistics companies based here.

Most of the cities you named were late in moving away from their old style industrial base toward more modern industries that grew far faster after WW2. And that presented opportunities for other cities. Look at Charlotte, a small city 70 years ago that seized on its advantages in the Finance sector. Now it surpasses nearly all those traditional financial centers. Perhaps no city has languished in that time more than Louisville, which was a top 10 city at the beginning of the 19th Century. As a Southern city, it was one of the premier hubs right up to WW2. From what I know of the city, I don't think there was a whole lot they could have done to change their destiny. The great migration south had begun. Manufacturing changed and distribution of those goods changed with it. Those were what I referred to above a National Trends.

Maybe I haven't made the case for healthcare and media strongly enough. The quaint notion of "Music City" being boots and fiddles is no longer the bulk of that industry here. It's PRODUCTION and PUBLISHING and PROMOTING. Sure, the tourism is what outsiders associate out of their ignorance with Nashville because they have no clue as to its size and influence around the world. It's been called the "Third Coast" for decades because so much post-production was done here. If anything, Nashville has lagged in the Convention sector, but once again the timing may be on Nashville's side. I just saw yesterday that our city is a top contender for hosting the 2024 Republican Convention.

I named several advantages above that distinguish Nashville from its peers. With the most diverse economy in the South, we have more Fortune 500 companies than most of our peers and a thriving startup scene. Nearly all of those F500 Cos are homegrown, unlike so many in Atlanta and Dallas. Venture Capital is a huge factor in determining where companies locate or start, and Nashville's VC base took off around 2000. The innovation of Nashville's workforce has a long history of businesses founded here that became large corporations such as HCA, Equitable, American Express, Frito-Lay, Maxwell House, Martha White, Dollar General, and Several national restaurant chains. There was even a car manufacturer back in the early 20th century. Then there's new manufacturing. A study released last week noted that Tennessee leads the South in alternative energy development. Also the power of the healthcare industry (specifically the private sector) is enormous. Not only is it high-growth, but it spawns so many related businesses as it changes rapidly. I mentioned the music industry. Finally, don't underestimate the power of Vandy, especially when an institution like that provides billions in research each year. Not only does it bring bright young people to the city for school, more and more are deciding to stay in Nashville after graduation.

I apologize for the bit of stream-of-conscious nature of this post. (Can you tell I'm in music promotion LOL?) I typeid this fast, but if that doesn't lay out many advantages that our peers surely envy, I don't know what else to tell you. Remember that growth has potential of becoming a self-generating force. I remember the old saying in Dallas back in the 1980s was that growth was our top industry. Of course that was before the oil bust.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jkc2j

Also, while Nashville lacks a flagship state school, it makes up for this by the sheer number of both public and private universities in the metro 3 being top HBCU's(TSU, Fisk and Meharry), one a top tier research university(Vanderbilt) and one in MTSU having the largest undergraduate enrollment in the state. This doesn't include the many smaller religious schools like Belmont, Trevecca, Lipscomb and schools in close vicinity like Austin Peay in Clarksville. Totaling the number of students in these schools this is over 85,000 and this is using old data, the number could be much higher in 2021. Not a lot of mid sized cities can claim this.

Actually quite a number can. University of Central Florida in Orlando has 71,000 students by itself. There are a bunch of small colleges in Columbus, OH, aside from the OSU main campus.

Also, MTSU is in Murfreesboro, which is about 30 miles out, and so has a limited economic relationship with Nashville. By comparison, Cincinnati doesn't really claim Miami University, aka "Ohio's Public Ivy", aka J. Crew U, which similarly sits about 30 miles away, despite its large enrollment of 20,000 and fairly high US News ranking.

What's really crazy is that Cornelius Vanderbilt intended to establish his university on Staten Island. He was persuaded to send the money to the devastated South despite his never having been to Nashville.

[jkc2j]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Actually quite a number can. University of Central Florida in Orlando has 71,000 students by itself. There are a bunch of small colleges in Columbus, OH, aside from the OSU main campus.

Also, MTSU is in Murfreesboro, which is about 30 miles out, and so has a limited economic relationship with Nashville. By comparison, Cincinnati doesn't really claim Miami University, aka "Ohio's Public Ivy", aka J. Crew U, which similarly sits about 30 miles away, despite its large enrollment of 20,000 and fairly high US News ranking.

What's really crazy is that Cornelius Vanderbilt intended to establish his university on Staten Island. He was persuaded to send the money to the devastated South despite his never having been to Nashville.

You've actually just proved my point as the cities you've listed have all seen fast growth. You've also stated "quite a number can" claim this, but proceeded to name only two, which backs up my previous point that it's not common, especially amongst mid sized metros. The first you mentioned, Orlando was the 2nd fastest growing metro over one million metro percentage wise in the US after Austin. The second one you mentioned, Columbus is the fastest growing over one million metro in the Midwest. The only few that come to mind all have at least one major research university or one that's very large enrollment wise, and they're all some of the fastest growing in the country i.e. Austin, Orlando, Raleigh, Nashville, Columbus etc. Of course, having big name schools and large student populations is only part of the equation but it's a large part.

Also, MTSU is in Nashville's metro so it's definitely in it's sphere of influence, as you can see this in the amount of suitcase students that commute back and forth between Nashville and Murfreesboro and in the billboards for the school throughout Davidson County.

Not sure what naming Cornelius Vanderbilt has to do with anything, the school is in Nashville, can't change that.

[downtownNashville]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, MTSU is in Murfreesboro, which is about 30 miles out, and so has a limited economic relationship with Nashville.

The MSA is literally named the Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin Metropolitan Area. What MSA do you think most MTSU grads end up finding work in, and settling down in?

[jmecklenborg]

^There are many schools the size of MTSU that don't motivate much if any business/population attraction.

Lansing, MI is the capital of a state with significantly more people than Tennessee (meaning it ought to have more government jobs than Nashville) and it's home to Michigan State, a public university with about 30,000 students, yet Lansing's population has been level, around 400-450k, for about 50 years.

There are many gigantic universities in small cities and towns that never attract anything. Ithaca, NY has Cornell and Ithaca College, yet no growth company has ever taken root there. Nothing has ever happened in State College, PA or College Station, TX.