I'm rushing out to buy shares of stock in concrete companies!

looks like mid-1980s MARTA design. looks like the design aesthetic will not be improved east of downtown, y'know, down around "Historic Preservation Drive."

all will be ass-ugly concrete.

This is just an extremely early conceptual drawing at the most basic form put together in response to a request from council for some idea of how it would mass on the site. It is not in any way a design for the structure. Also, Ben Garlington an architect with Second Presbyterian will be working with the design team if and when their work commences.

Bill, with all due respect, these early conceptual drawings...really stink. We had such an opportunity to reduce the concrete jungle east of downtown, and this does nothing to improve it. nothing at all. It's becoming its own walled city with the Marriott as the supreme Mayan temple over a hillside of ugly concrete road infrastructure with, regardless of what you call them, two parallel four lane highways (HOF and JWP) of equally dubious value.

Look at the staining and cracks of the massive concrete walls already present on the JWP near the Hall of Fame (and weedy outcroppings in the summer months.)

In addition, running off downtown businesses like American Accessories should be outlawed. I'll think about that every time I drive by HT Hackney in Roane County when I'm heading to Nashville.

what a shame. where's the vision? Instead of masterplanning this area, you're just sticking the next big thing wherever you could make it fit. The seduction of "free federal funds" used for SmartFix and for this transit center is going to cost downtown quite a lot--in both appearance and function.

I sure hope you guys think again about this. The convention center should have been stopped and wasn't. The function, value and location of this transit center really needs to be re-thought.

It'd be nice if we could hire this guy.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

Go, boy! I agree. While I admit that I am not, nor have I ever been referred to as, an architect, I commend the use of property already paved over and committed to transport. I, too, have wondered about the feasibility of monorail, or something similar, in a city this size. Regarding the prototype, I rather like the low-slung, low-profile look. At first glance, it would appear to be another overpass. Much better than paving over yet more precious ground (while increasing the air temp; think green), or providing another obstruction to the natural beauty downtown has to offer.
Regardless, we need a transit center and fast. Things are not getting better anytime soon, folks. Grab your bike or KAT pass and welcome to your future.

Sorry to harp, but I think transit users deserve dignity, too. The suckiness of the current site is relevant to me because I don't want to see construction of a new transfer center delayed.

I don't begrudge people's right to question or criticize the site or the selection process (I've criticized the latter myself), but I have a right to defend the site in the face of that criticism, and one of the reasons I do is that I want to see a new transfer station built sooner rather than later.

I've never defended the process that led to its selection, or the amount of money or time expended along the way. Obviously, that was seriously, seriously boned up.

But I still think it's a good site and I hope it doesn't get held up because it'd needed for the convenience and comfort of transit users.

And as for the rail canard, much as I would love for Knoxville to be a place where light rail was feasible, I don't see it ever coming here. Light rail needs density to function efficiently, and we don't have it, nor do we appear to have the political will change our land use patterns to support it in the future.

If that changes, then let's start the conversation about light rai.

Hey probiz, just curious. Did you make an outcry about all the businesses that were forced to relocate for the I40 and HOF expansion? Cause I don't recall hearing that from you about that.

Or are you just concerned about this particular business?

This facility does not have a fifteen year lifetime. It is much longer. The consultant was quoted out of context on this issue. The fifteen-eighteen year period mentioned to council during the workshop was in reference to the time period during which the system would evolve to the point where other satellite facilities would likely be built to supplement (not replace) this facility.

There is continued discussion of rail. Nobody sees this on the immediate horizon; few see it in the next twenty years. However it is always possible that the transportation world could change in a non-incremental manner that could alter all time projections. If that did happen the need for bus-rail connectivity would be served by a trolley running between this facility and a train facility. It was pointed out that there was no reason to run every city bus all throughout the day to a rail platform, but rather to provide the capability to connect the two facilities for that portion (certainly fairly small by any reasonable calculus of bus riders who would be connecting to rail service to another city if this service were to come to Knoxville.

The cost estimates all sites were provided by Johnson - Galyon, very well respected and clearly qualified to do so. The only option that was let go because of cost was the State St. site where costs are significantly higher because the nature of the slab that had to be constructed and the facility that would be built. As I have explained in previous posts, the other viable site, Southern Depot was not recommended mainly because of operations reasons - in order to keep the rail access was the raison d'etre of the concept the buses would have to line up both on Depot and around the structure at the base. Depot would have to widened and shored up. Along with access issues, people would have to make transfers along two levels in a very awkward and unsafe arrangement.

As much as the consultants tried, and they went at it from multiple angles, the Southern Depot site just did not work at all. Moreover a number of businesses would have go relocate from that location as well. We had been very hopeful that this site would work, but it just does not.

As the mayor said last night, the unfortunate events of last week have given good reason to revisit the area along Jackson between Gay and Broadway to see if there is any way that can work. That may or may not provide a viable alternative but is sure worth a fresh look. That is being done.

Every one of the sites has advantages and, most certainly has disadvantages. The Church Avenue bridge site has many advantages - proximity to downtown, connectivity to East Knoxville, use of space over a highway but has the obvious disadvantage of a business that would have to relocate. As the process continues the city is continuing to look for a location that works for the business and is in continuing discussions with the business owner to that end.

Personally, I feel there needs to be many adjustments to any law that allows government the power to cease private property at will.

Umm, I'm assuming you mean "seize."

You're a third-year law student? You do know you're talking about repealing or changing the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, don't you?

I swear I read "being a third year student" as "being a third year law student."

Sorry.

I guess maybe (not sure) I also misunderstood you when you said any law allowing govt to take property "at will" needed "adjustments."

But I know of no such law. The 5th amendment allows govt to take private property (I suppose one could say "at will") if it is for a public purpose and "just compensation" is paid.

And as you pointed out, state laws on this subject are designed to limit ED by elaborating on the public purpose and/or just compensation clauses (Kelo, like many ED cases, had to do with the definition of public purpose).

So help me understand. What law are you pointing to that allows govt to take property "at will"?

Thanks for the suggestions - repeated and numbered. "(1) Old News Sentinel Location and Land across State Street Empty building and unused land (2) 500 State Street/501 S. Central owned by city of Knoxville Full City Block (3) 400 BLock of State Street/Central/Union/Commerce Full City Block - Unused Land (4) 401 W. Jackson Ave Nearly Full City Block - Parking(5) Corner of Depot and Gay Street Possibly plenty of space next to Corporate Interiors, Land recently sold."

#1, the NS old site is owned by the county and it is a major site for future development. However the siting team did look closely at it and it did not work out well for a variety of reasons having to do with size and slope of the parcel. #2, unless I misunderstand, is the State Street Garage. #3 is also owned by the county and is the one that was tried but abandoned because the arriving at an arrangement with the county required constructing a platform over the site that would support major buildings. The cost of this became excessive.

This arrangement was necessary because downtown Knoxville has a small footprint and nobody, including the county wants to take very valuable prime land completely out of play for the foreseeable future. This has to be looked at as a fifty year facility. The beauty of the Church Avenue site is that most of it makes use of air rights over a highway. In essence it creates more usable land rather than taking it away. The downside has been discussed at length here. A successful business would have to move to another location.

#4 is the one that is getting a fresh look. #5 was part of the Southern Railway site to which I referred in previous posts.

I know many folks find this hard to accept, and I understand that, but every possible site around downtown Knoxville was given consideration by a group of transit and transportation experts and planners from the local area and beyond. This is not a case of their being brought in to validate something that was already chosen, preferred, on the table, or even a glimmer in some visor-obscured bureaucrat's eye. The team considered a number of factors that were fully vetted at a number of very well attended public meetings as were the reasons for all decisions along the way. There was tremendous public opposition to the main street site with some building on the green space of the CCB. I appreciate the opportunity to have been able to continue the discussion in this venue.

PS... the idea of suspending the site from balloons had some promise but was nixed by homeland security.

Unfortunately the existing Church Ave. Bridge proposal is estimated at bit under 24 million dollars and comes in toward the top end of the available funding. The structure noted in the post costs 70 million more for less capacity. See quote below. Moreover the Cobb center is not designed to be a transit center but part of a 600 million dollar system. And, once again, the Church Ave. sketches do not represent the "design." Finally, a design of this sort does not make the connections from east to downtown that the Church Bridge site does.

"In a bold experiment, Georgia transportation officials are planning to build a $93 million bus terminal in the sky above I-75, just south of the Perimeter in Cobb County... and has room for 18 bus bays."