#9, I do know the answer to this one: publicly funded parking garages. Just like downtown. And yes, I feel your pain. But could you keep your comments on the short side as I'd like to hear from other blabbers.

Yes Gemini, I'm aware that developers CAN build parking spaces and probably will. But where's the incentive to build those costly spaces when your renters can park in front of the neighbors' house for free. No, even Joe Hultquist did not remember this being discussed at any meetings.

Umm, if you're trying to build an urban, pedestrian-friendly environment you incentivize (to use a non-word) shared parking, mandate parking maximums rather than minimums, build public garages, encourage transit etc.

As for developers not providing the parking, I strongly suspect that they would have a lot of trouble selling units w/o adequate parking (and that doesn't mean on the street).

Likewise retailers and restaurants won't attract customer w/o providing adequate parking.

So I've got no big beef about this. And yes, before either you or #9 say so, it's obviously because I live in the rich neighborhood. And because I'm a shill for the Haslam administration.

Oh yeah, we did get to keep our chain link fences and the SW-1 building height is 2 1/2 stories instead of 3 but that's about the extent of the public input.

Oh bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

And BTW, although you'd never know it from listening to Mamaw, these codes cover a lot more than the SW-1 district. Like SW-2 through SW-7, marinas, stream buffers, streetscapes, riverscapes, and administration.

Does all that stuff stink too? Or do you just not give a damn about it?

You know what really bothers me? It's one thing to fight - even fight passionately - for changes that you think are important. It's another thing to try to bring down this entire effort - which can mean a lot to south Knoxville and to the entire city. And that's certainly what it sounds like you're now trying to do.

I'm past the point of being able to stay civil, and that upsets me. So I'm really, truly going to stop talking with you about this now.

Umm, if you're trying to build an urban, pedestrian-friendly environment you incentivize (to use a non-word) shared parking, mandate parking maximums rather than minimums, build public garages, encourage transit etc.

This is what happens when New Urbanism tries to mandate social behavior.

After decades of de-incentivizing parking downtown the geniuses figured out that people wanted to use their cars.

139 million dollars and not enough convenient parking. Guess they will have to TIFFU some more garages. In the suburbs the developer includes the parking. Why have streets if there is no place to park the cars?

Apparently it is not possible to learn from the past.

Good luck selling those condos. Tell those folks from Ohio that only hipsters without cars may apply for residence. You do realize that segmenting the market so only New Urbanist will be the target audience will cause the entire project to fail.

I told you the marketing plan was unrealistic.

So the people that will shop at the quaint shops and dine at the quaint cafes, do they park across the river because all the parking is used by the New Urbanist condoites?

I know, call Cluster F*ck Jim Kunstler. He'll know what to do.

We are now in the humor stage of acceptance.

Oh, my, a conversation about the south waterfront that leaves me amused rather than frustrated and pissed off. Thanks, digit.

Jim Kunstler gave a lecture at UT this fall. He said the waterfront was best used for barge terminals and whorehouses/taverns to serve the barge workers.

So Mamaw and Nine, either of you think this is good idea? I don't. So I guess that means they'll kick me out of the Church of High New Urbanism.

gemini wrote the "marketing plan" was second to none and the greatest minds had been consulted.

Ah, the twisting of words again. Show me where I ever said either that the plan was "second to none" or that "the greatest minds had been consulted." I did say the plan was prepared by experts. But then we all know the digit knows more about marketing, finance, urban planning, tranportation, and zoning than any expert.

Downtown failed because it didn't have convenient affordable (free) parking.

I assume you're talking about downtown past, since it looks very much like it's on the road to success at the moment. As for why it declined, there a bunch of related reason - but the biggest one is sprawl, not parking.

Now at this late date we learn there is NO convenient parking?.....Any experiment to force people to walk or ride buses will fail.

Probably. But no one is doing that here. As you would know if you actually acknowledged what the codes and the plan said, instead of turning them into something to supply your daily rant.

Coal fueled cars and plenty of free parking.

Nine's idea of Nirvana

I think most Americans would prefer those options to living in concrete jungles where they can't afford to own a car and even if they could they could not find a parking place.

If you want to walk your fanny off good for you. If you enjoy the camaraderie of strangers on the bus good for you. If walking down dark alleys gives you a sense of adventure then good for you.

Some people aren't allergic to grass or mowing the lawn. They don't want to share a ceiling or wall with their neighbors. They don't want to be told to turn down the music or stop playing with their dog. When I walk I do so for exercise and enjoyment on a walking trail. Listening to some tunes or talking with the neighbors.

The real issue is choice. I tried the urban life for five years. It was fine. I just didn't like it as well as the suburban life. You may not know this but there are taverns in the suburbs. People in the suburbs do socialize with other people.

So I live in sprawl. It is my choice, why do you care? Still trying to make the argument that it costs you money? Of course then there is the Kunstler notion that Al Gore also subscribes to that cars are the greatest danger to our planet. Global warming and pollution and car accidents, can’t will all just live in an Urban Al Gore paradise?

You can live in an Urban paradise and I am happy for you. I just don’t buy the New Urbanist social agenda. Like most Americans I love the automobile. I have them in all sizes and shapes. One is a sporty sexy thing. Another for hauling stuff. Another for basic transportation. Am I single handily destroying the planet? No, actually I have a lower carbon index than most people. Ask Al Gore about his carbon index.

Where we disagree is on the role of government. I don’t like to see things like form-based codes used to engineer a social agenda that removes choice. There can be walkable communities that do allow the automobile. As far as the South Knox Waterfront is concerned I wouldn’t care if automobiles were forbidden if only developer dollars were used. But once you use taxpayer dollars there should be choice. This country is getting older. Not everyone can walk or ride the bus. They want to park in front of the store and some of them have a handicapped sticker in their car that lets them do just that.

New Urbanism doesn’t have to be anti-automobile. It doesn’t have to be anti-choice. But that is exactly the problem. It is largely anti-choice and it is costing taxpayers money for a form of social engineering that is not only unfair to the taxpayer but creates markets that most people will not shop at. Why should taxpayers pay for urban planning that is the opposite of what most people want? Trying to make part of Knoxville into San Francisco or Boston doesn’t make good business sense. Knoxville is Knoxville.

That doesn’t mean there cannot be a middle ground. My point is that if there were really a market for the South Knox Waterfront concept the cost would not be so high. Developers would share the cost instead of asking for so much corporate welfare. Good Lord, the developers aren’t even paying for the majority of the parking in this plan. It is left up to the City to use TIFFU’s to build parking garages. It is an unbalanced business plan where the developers scoop the cream off the top and the taxpayers do the heavy lifting.

The Old City was created almost entirely by private investors and it is successful. Why this new thinking where the taxpayers pay for everything but the actual buildings? Perhaps the discussion of opportunity costs of TIFFU's should occur now? Does anyone else see a big potential problem with this new thinking?

Rob Frost said it very well, there has to be a balance. I hope City Council will send the form-based codes back to the drawing board so that needed balance can be found.

Sounds to me like there is some disagreement in the process.

The KNS is reporting developer dissatisfaction with some of the guidelines/restrictions:

... The proposed 70-foot setback from the waterline, and plans for a 20-foot-wide continuous, paved walkway along the three-mile waterfront are both too excessive.

Building height and square-footage limitations on their properties are too restrictive. ...

And it begins. What was a plan is no longer acceptable. Individuals are told to trust the process, but I am not sure we individuals can hold that trust.

Infamous cross post below. Chastise at will.

They are having a discussion over on the Blab about parking. I just do not understand the new form-based codes. Maybe I am dense but when parking is restricted and limited why go to that place? Again, if private developers want to risk THEIR own money to take a chance in the market I have no problem with them doing so. When government and taxpayers are asked to invest in that risk I disagree.

In this society parking is a key component to success. If the condo's have 1.5 parking places per unit (extrapolated figure, argue if you must)where do visitors to the condos, shops, salons, offices, and restaurants park? No one has explained this. People have been snippy and snarky but no one has explained how this will not affect the success of the South Knox Waterfront. I want this project to be a success. What am I missing? 55 million dollars if TIF's and right off the bat there is a parking shortage. Aren't we smarter than this?

From the Blab:

Again, I don't mean to be cruel. And I don't mean to add insult to injury. But over time, I've watched "easy" parking slip away as more residents come in.

But I think it's worth mentioning most "downtown living" doesn't provide for your parking. And I think it is something that potential residents need to bear in mind. Even the annual pay-for residential passes in the CBID only allow for parking at the (designated) meters for the max time allowed (you just don't have to pay the meter -- but if it's a two hour meter, you only get two hours).

I'm really sorry for what happened with you. But I also hate to see the hospitality of Barley's being confused with responsibility, as some want to make it.

My suggestion to folks coming downtown is that you park in legal, paid (if necessary) designated parking spaces. KPD has gotten much more strict on enforcement and towing thoughout downtown. And if you're thinking of moving here, don't forget to add a parking budget to the mortgage and condo fees. There is not a parking shortage downtown. Just a predictable shortage of free, long-term parking.

Sometimes this can take a serious turn.

(link...)