LIBERADIO(!)

What if, after many, many years and almost a dozen studies, your community finally agrees upon a riverfront development plan [pdf]. And what if that plan – which took 16-months, countless community meetings and design workshops, $450,000 in consulting fees, and a 23-member steering committee – is smart, well-thought out, environmentally sound, and most importantly, already has $8 million committed to it by your Metro Council? And what if, out of nowhere and at the behest of your Mayor’s office, the agreed upon plan (“Plan A”) is dropped like a hot potato in favor of a “Plan B,” which is not really a “Plan B” at all but rather a “Plan C” in disguise? And what if you would have never known about “Plan B” or “Plan C Disguised as Plan B” if it wasn’t for your meddling councilman?

Last Saturday, a public meeting was called to discuss what everyone except the Mayor’s office believed to be a done deal – the redevelopment of Nashville’s waterfront. 48-hours before the meeting, Councilman Mike Jameson (The Fightin’ 6th!) received what MDHA and the Mayor’s office called “Plan B” for riverfront development. The new plan included everything in Phase 1 of the original plan except for the adventure park. Construction was to start on the east bank, as was originally scheduled, before shovels broke any ground on the downtown side.

But the “Plan B” presented at last Saturday’s meeting wasn’t the original “Plan B.” The original “Plan B” was given to Councilman Jameson by Ed Owens, MDHA’s riverfront development director, and Phil Ryan, MDHA’s Executive Director, on January 30 at a Nashville coffee house. This new plan did away with everything in Phase 1 that was most important to the East Nashville community – including the adventure park and the urban forest – and instead included every project for the downtown side. In other words, the downtown side of the re-development became the priority in Phase 1, with ground breaking there first. What remained in the plan for the east side were two lesser projects – call them callous afterthoughts or insufficient appeasement.

During the Jameson, Owens, Ryan coffee klatch, the Councilman was asked to keep the original “Plan B” to himself. His push back was palpable – an open process is an open process with time for review of any and all new plans in addition to appropriately scheduled public meetings.

More than one month and one false start later (the original public meeting was to be held on 2/19 at 5:30 PM at the Civic Design Center downtown), MDHA called the public meeting that was held last Saturday. Missing from the meeting? The original “Plan B,” which had been replaced a mere 48-hours earlier with “Plan C Disguised as Plan B.”

So it’s no big whoop, right? “Plan C Disguised as Plan B” simply moves adventure park and urban forest to the end of the list. But is is a big whoop, according to Councilman Mike Jameson, who was quoted on the Protect the Riverfront Plan blog:

Just 48 hours before the meeting, I received a new plan (the third version received in just 4 weeks) from MDHA. In a nutshell, in order to convince us NOT to ask for the Adventure Park & Pilot Urban Forest anymore, MDHA was now offering to construct every OTHER project on the East bank, and to do so first. (Those other projects are a Cove, an overlook with lawn, an esplanade, and improvements to the Woodland bridge). In the second year, MDHA would construct downtown-side projects. And then in the third year, curiously, MDHA claimed they would proceed with the Adventure Park & Pilot Urban Forest.

Protect the Riverfront Plan has more detail on the “blazing problems “and non-vialibity of the sequence of “Plan C Disguised as Plan B”:

1. The New Plan (let’s call it, “The Bright Shiny Plan” or BS Plan for short) promises to build all the East Bank projects except the Adventure Park and Pilot Urban Forest first. “See?” MDHA seems to be saying, “We’re building on the east side!” But NONE of those projects can be built, at least not the way they’re designed, WITHOUT the Adventure Park and Urban Forest. For example, the cove and esplanade must follow construction of the urban forest because the irrigation drip, water run-off, and foliage have to be coordinated. So, unless you’re not planning to ever do the Adventure Park, you better do it first or you’re going to have to undo all those other projects when you build it.

2. The BS Plan promises to build the Adventure Park in Year 3. “See?” MDHA seems to be saying, “It’s no big deal. You’ll get the Adventure Park. Just three years from now.” But NONE of the other projects that they’ve proposed to build first can be done without approval and permitting from the Corps of Engineers. The other folks who spoke on Saturday discussed four year long waits for those permits. Remember, the design firm prioritized the Adventure Park in part because we could build it while Metro was getting the permits for the other projects. And, when they are building over there [on the downtown side]…we’ll lose a public venue for exactly those downtown activities unless we already have the alternate staging area of the Adventure Park. In other words, have your downtown events at Riverfront while you build the Adventure Park. Have your downtown events at the Adventure Park while you rebuild Riverfront Park. OR, as MHDA recommends, have no events at all while you’re rebuilding Riverfront Park. Again, unless you’re not planning to ever do the Adventure Park, it makes no sense to delay the entire development and decrease the usability of downtown by not doing it first.

3. The BS Plan counters the recommendations of the Green Ribbon Committee and flies in the face of the Mayor’s repeated goal of making Nashville the “greenest city” in the South. There is one site – ONLY ONE – that would restore green space to land that is currently contaminated brown field. If we’re serious about addressing the contaminated areas of the riverfront (as the urgency of our storm-water plan and repeated pressers from the Mayor’s office suggest that we are), we need to address the brownfield.

4. Oh, wait, it’s about the money, right? Apparently not. The cost for the Adventure Park is comparable to the cost MDHA is perfectly happy to spend on other parts of the development. If it’s really about the economy, shouldn’t we start with the feature most likely to bring money downtown? Guess what? That’s one more reason the design firm prioritized the Adventure Park. It brings new visitors (with new money) into town. It gives tourists something to do with their families downtown. It gives (ahem) conventioneers someplace for their children to hang out while they’re at conventions. You start with the project that’s going to bring people to the development. You don’t put it on the backburner, unless you don’t intend to build it at all.

And speaking of money, although MDHA can promise all day long that they’re going to eventually install the features of the original plan, there is no money guaranteed after year two. Which means putting a project into Year Three is the same as putting it on the shelf for.ev.er….The only way this sequence makes sense is if the Mayor doesn’t intend to ever put in the Adventure Park. And given that he’s referring to the sequence designed over 16 months with the input of a thousand Nashvillians and a half-million of our tax dollars as “a kiddie park,” that’s exactly what his intent seems to be.

So, it’s not the economy. It’s not the environment. It’s not the tourism industry. It’s not the funding. It’s not the public will. What is driving this alternative plan?

Good questions all. And here’s another – where are the consultants?

Consultants are paid a lot of money – in the case of this riverfront redevelopment plan, upwards of $450,000 – to come up with innovative ideas on improving vastly underutilized and/or contaminated public lands. Hargreaves Associates, the company hired to develop Nashville’s riverfront redevelopment project, was charged with the task of establishing a plan that included a well-thought out sequencing of projects. A project sequence cannot solely be based on what a city might want to build first. Instead, it must take into consideration other specifics like cost and environmental impact. And when changes to a plan are considered, a consultant is usually the first person called to reevaluate the sequence, keeping in mind both the environmental impact and the potential for an increase in expense.

So it is surprising that, according to Councilman Jameson, Hargreaves’ Gavin McMillan, the lead project designer, has still not heard from anyone in the Mayor’s office or MDHA with a request to go back and look at the re-sequenced projects in either “Plan B” or “Plan C Disguised as Plan B,” to re-evaluate both the cost and the environmental impact. Contacting your consultant to reevaluate would seem particularly prudent if you are concerned with a budget and costs spiraling out during the construction process.

Both the “Plan A” and “Plan C Disguised as Plan B” can be found at Nashville.gov.

Also at Nashville.gov is an online Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment Feedback form. Or call MDHA at (615) 252-8400 or the Mayor’s office at (615) 862-6000.