Sounds like a bit of land shuffling going on. What's to interpret?

I figure the riverfront park is a prime candidate for Obamanomics. The plans are well on their way and about ready to put shovels in the ground and people to work.

____________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Asked Tuesday if the idea of leverage for a sale was in his mind when he announced plans for RiverWalk, Conley said no.

Shorter version: yes.

Longer version: The park and the accompanying riverwalk, as well as adjacent street improvements, are City infastructure projects going forward as the (Mike) Conley private development goes forward. Brian owned some property in the vicinity. He announced plans to do something with it. (Whether anybody actually expected him to follow through is another question). Now he's sold the land at a tidy profit.

I hope all involved have the stamina to see this project through to the end. This includes government entities with the grand ideas for parks, etc. I hope a need for money does not end up with a decision to ruin the bright future for a, hopefully, nice riverfront project.

Mister Conley clarifies at 3am:

(anyone able to provide a map of these transactions?)

(link...)

"Posted by brianconley on January 7, 2009 at 3:01 a.m.

One point of clarification: With regard to the sell of th property, we dealt with Alvin Nance of KCDC- not Dave Hill. And what we told KCDC was that "If" we sold the portion of the property the city wanted (the property bordering the river), then we would prefer to sell all the property due to the fact that we would not be left with enough to develop.

As I told Josh Flory yesterday, I have no complaints regarding the sell of the land because the administration felt strongly that this was in the city's best interest, and - given the circumstances - we felt the price was fair. However, I find Mr. Hill's quote regarding our eagerness to sell more than a bit perplexing.

We would have preferred to develop the property, and he is well aware of that."

Still isn't very clear. The City played hardball and screwed up the project? Is that what the double speak means?

In the end the City buys the land at a somewhat high price?

Are condos and parks and restaurants going to be built or not?

Are condos and parks and restaurants going to be built or not?

This is not a rhetorical question, but wouldn't the prospect of this being developed be based on real demand for it all, now more than ever?

Isn't the real estate industry finally accepting the fact that there may be a problem with over capacity and over building?

One would certainly wonder about launching such a project in these economic times, especially given the housing and mortgage situation.

Unfortunately for the developer of this project, it was finished just in time to land in the middle of the perfect storm. Last I heard the developer was bankrupt and the project is in bank receivership and the condos are sitting there empty.

It sure sounds like a risky proposition right now, and you also have to wonder about how a developer would go about getting financing in the current credit markets.

Also in keeping with the developmentís name, villas will be named after Waterford crystal patterns. The street into The Gazebo at Waterford Cove is Crystal Lane.

Villas will start at $439,000 and go to...

(link...)

These days a dormitory for homeless people might meet a greater demand. It probably wouldn't make for the most family-friendly area, though.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Maybe Conley should buy the Knoxville Voice. Whatever his faults the MP and Knox mag were much better under him than Scripps.

Maybe one good thing about this recession is stuff like mtn. top condos or demolishing the UC at UT will slow down.

demolishing the UC at UT will slow down

or speed up, depending on which public projects are funded. We'll have to wait and see if
Pres. Obama's ban on earmarks in the stimulus package holds.

Mike Conley's project, AFAIK, is still on. It's condos. There may be some mixed use planned on the ground floor. The City is doing the park and part of the riverwalk in conjunction with that development. That's the way the south waterfront development is supposed to go - developers do private space; the City provides associated infrastructure improvements.

Brian's "project" is not happening. Please note the quotation marks.

It's condos.

I hope demand improves.

Over building is over building, whether it's urban or suburban.

With 4.2 million unsold existing homes will he keep delaying construction?

CNN article
(link...)