ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Dissertation: ASSESSING USER UNDERSTANDING OF 
HERITAGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT: 
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES FOR THE 
USE OF PLACE 
  
 Johnna Blythe Semmer, Doctor of Philosophy, 
2019 
  
Dissertation directed by: Professor Donald W. Linebaugh, Chair, School 
of Architecture, Planning and Preservation 
 
 
While places often derive associations with heritage from distinctive land uses or 
patterns of activity, the historic preservation planning tools commonly available in the 
U.S. are limited in their ability to sustain those associations. The active and evolving 
aspects of a location?s character are challenging to reflect in the point-in-time historic 
property documentation that typically serves as the basis for preservation planning 
decisions. This study explored methods to illuminate the qualities residents and users 
associate with a community?s distinctive local character, or sense of place, and how 
those qualities relate to local history and heritage. Two case studies in Nashville, 
Tennessee, the urban Music Row neighborhood and rural Bells Bend community, 
were examined through mixed research methods, including document-based research, 
field observation, online survey, and interviews, to achieve a more holistic 
understanding of sense of place and to ascertain which features and qualities 
  
meaningful to members of the community align with place characteristics that can be 
regulated by local planning tools.  
Older and historic places were among those associated with the sense of place 
of both cases. Continuity of locally-distinctive uses emerged as important, as did 
social interactions and relationships. Uses may be sustained with the help of planning 
tools beyond those commonly thought of as preservation strategies, such as land use 
zoning and economic incentives. Social aspects of place are harder to address but can 
be recognized through expanded definitions of heritage and interpretive efforts. 
Though a limited response rate constrained interpretation of some results, elements of 
the methodology show promise for enabling direct input from place users in practice. 
Defining what heritage-related qualities are most meaningful to community character 
can yield better informed preservation planning processes.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ASSESSING USER UNDERSTANDING OF HERITAGE IN THE 
ENVIRONMENT: PRESERVATION STRATEGIES FOR THE USE OF PLACE   
 
 
 
by 
 
 
Johnna Blythe Semmer 
 
 
 
 
 
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Donald W. Linebaugh, Chair 
Professor Paul A. Shackel 
Associate Professor Mary Corbin Sies 
Professor Emeritus Sidney N. Brower 
Senior Lecturer Emeritus James R. Cohen 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
Johnna Blythe Semmer 
2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Acknowledgements 
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the staff of the Metropolitan 
Historical Commission (Tim Walker, Scarlett Miles), the Metropolitan Planning 
Department (Jennifer Higgs, Lee Jones, Bob Leeman), and Bells Bend Park (LinnAnn 
Welch). Gratitude is also extended to Carolyn Brackett of the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation and David Price for valuable background in formulating this 
study. 
ii 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Acknowledgements?????????????????????????...ii 
 
Table of Contents?????????????????????????.... iii 
 
List of Tables????????????????????????????iv 
 
List of Figures????????????????????????????v 
 
Introduction and Research Context????????????????????1 
 
Chapter 1: Considering Heritage, Sense of Place, and Preservation Values????.9 
 
Chapter 2: Methodology???????????????????????..40 
 
Chapter 3: Case Studies??????????????????????...?56 
 
Chapter 4: Study Findings??????????????????????.112 
 
Chapter 5: Conclusions???????????????????????.158 
 
References????????????????????????????.190 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
 
 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1.  National Register of Historic Places significance criteria 
Table 2.  Electronic survey questions and answer formats 
Table 3.  Interview response sheet 
 
Table 4.  Responses to survey question: How would you describe the natural or 
manmade features that distinguish Music Row from other areas? 
 
Table 5.  Responses to survey question: What else contributes to making Music 
Row special or memorable? 
 
Table 6.  Responses to survey question: How would you describe the natural or 
manmade features that distinguish Bells Bend from other areas? 
 
Table 7.  Responses to survey question: What else contributes to making Bells 
Bend special or memorable? 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1.  Images used in interviews?Music Row. Photos by author. 
Figure 2.  Images used in interviews?Bells Bend. Photos by author. 
Figure 3.  Metropolitan Nashville ? Davidson County showing case study sites. 
Courtesy Metropolitan Planning Department. 
Figure 4.  Music Row area street map. Base map courtesy Metropolitan Planning 
Department. Detail source: Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission, 
1997, 2017. 
Figure 5.  17th Avenue South in the South Music Row Conservation Zone. Photo 
by author. 
Figure 6.  Music Square West, north end of Music Row. Photo by author. 
Figure 7.  Map of Bells Bend. Courtesy Metropolitan Planning Department. 
Figure 8.  Detail, topographic map of Bells Bend. USGS 7.5? series, Scottsboro 
quadrangle, 1997. 
Figure 9.  Old Hickory Boulevard with park outdoor center in the distance. View 
from the south. Photo by author. 
Figure 10.  Antique tractor display at Farm Day festival in Bells Bend Park, 
October 2018. Photo by author. 
Figure 11.  River view in Bells Bend Park. Photo by author. 
Figure 12.  Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building at 1117 17th Avenue 
South. Photo by author. 
Figure 13.  Former Quadrafonic Sound Studios, 1802-1804 Grand Avenue. Photo 
by author. 
Figure 14.  Fire Hall Engine No. 7, 16 Music Square West. Photo by author. 
Figure 15. Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) building. Photo by author. 
Figure 16.  West house. Photo by author. 
Figure 17.  Wade School. Photo by author. 
Figure 18.  Walter Hood, Witness Walls, 2017, downtown Nashville. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v 
 
 
 
Introduction and Research Context 
In 2016, the United States celebrated the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This milestone for the federal 
preservation program and for most of the programs that establish the framework for 
historic preservation in the U.S. occasioned reflection among practitioners on the 
accomplishments of the original legislation and discussion about how it could be 
improved in response to current issues, such as demographic shifts and changing 
development patterns (for example, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2016, 
Page and Miller 2016). Ideas such as expanding the definition of significance for the 
purposes of recognition programs like the National Register of Historic Places or 
expanding the scope of the NHPA to encompass elements of intangible heritage 
reflect a desire to more holistically recognize, appreciate, and maintain places of 
importance to diverse communities. Many of these communities do not fit the 
traditional notions of architectural or design distinction, historical importance 
established by written record, or archaeological study value that more easily comports 
with the way historic places are commonly understood and managed in existing 
programs.  
 In 2018, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nation?s leading 
preservation advocacy non-profit organization, devoted one of the major themes of its 
annual conference to intangible heritage. Another track focused on cultural 
landscapes and the ?culture-nature connection.? Recent government initiatives have 
made efforts to widen the scope of properties included in traditional recognition and 
1 
 
 
 
register programs and to broaden the involvement of the public in preservation 
activities (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2018). Preservationists have 
also worked toward recognition of places important to communities whose histories 
may have been invisible or less visible to the mainstream, such as through recent 
listings of sites associated with the gay rights movement and other aspects of LGBTQ 
history and context studies and other initiatives focused on Asian-American and 
Latino cultural heritage. These activities, along with evolving scholarship in the field, 
point toward an effort to expand preservation beyond the confines of national, state, 
and local register programs grounded in architectural history and archaeology, where 
regulation of change, if any, is often focused on aesthetic characteristics and 
information potential. They also evidence increasing awareness of the interconnected 
quality of the historic environment and community identity and a recognition that 
places associated with heritage are valued in diverse ways. While interpretive efforts 
with greater flexibility in recognizing and communicating heritage at many scales are 
a part of preservation work, regulatory tools, tax incentives, and local historic 
districting tend to get more attention in planning. 
 While a half-century of implementation marks an appropriate occasion to 
reexamine the provisions of the NHPA, it is also worthwhile to look beyond the 
confines of the federal preservation program for a more thorough understanding of 
history, heritage, and the physical environment from the perspective of communities. 
Though places may have historical significance in terms suited to formal preservation 
programs, they may also hold other values for those who live there, use the buildings 
and landscapes, or associate their past with a particular location. This study is 
2 
 
 
 
concerned with how places derive associations with history and heritage from 
distinctive land uses or patterns of activity and the challenges of preserving and 
maintaining those associations with the historic preservation and planning tools 
commonly available in American cities. San Francisco Heritage addressed examples 
of the limits of existing tools in a 2014 report broadly focused on conserving the 
city?s cultural heritage, including things like longstanding local businesses, festivals, 
and community cultural institutions (San Francisco Heritage, 2014). Though any of 
these might occupy a part of the historic built environment that could be regulated in 
terms of appearance, ensuring continuity of traditions and uses intertwined with 
community identity necessitates different strategies. In a rural context, the 
preservation of land or agricultural buildings retains important physical reminders of 
a farming past, but knowledge about the practices of cultivation and the functioning 
of an agricultural economy is lost when seasonal rhythms of planting, growth, and 
harvest fade from view (Sundermann c.1992). As Eric W. Allison and Mary Ann 
Allison write, ?Since the regulatory framework envisions the preservation of the 
physical building or site, even the most stringent design review of purely cultural sites 
will fail to address what is often most important: the ongoing activity associated with 
them? (Allison and Allison 2008, 32). 
 These aspects of a location?s character are difficult to reflect in the static, 
point-in-time documentation that often serves as the basis for preservation planning 
and management decisions. The views of users of places should inform decisions 
about significance and what aspects of the historic environment will be preserved. 
Preservation practitioners may need to embrace different methods of collecting 
3 
 
 
 
information about and describing such places in order to capture the full range of 
qualities that contribute to community history, character, and sense of place. Finding 
flexibility within existing programs is one strategy, but preservation practitioners may 
also need to explore opportunities for better integration with land use planning and 
growth management strategies that shape how neighborhoods and districts function.  
In local preservation agencies, the pitch for the enactment of historic preservation and 
conservation overlays often emphasizes that these preservation tools have no effect 
on land use, which is regulated through zoning. It is an excellent way of convincing 
property owners that their historic architecture could be adapted to new uses in the 
future, and it recognizes the inherent flexibility of many historic property types to 
serve a variety of uses. But such preservation tools can?t conserve the complete 
character of a historic place when its character is associated with a use like 
agriculture, or with intangible cultural qualities such as a traditional cultural practice 
or the persistence of an industry or trade. Preservation planning scholars Randall 
Mason and Marta De La Torre propose that the preservation field should move away 
from ?safeguarding things in and of themselves? toward consideration of the other 
diverse societal and cultural goals that conservation may serve (Mason and De La 
Torre 2000, 176). The ?ambient? heritage they describe poses challenges for 
traditional preservation practice when utility values are emphasized over aesthetics. 
There may be other avenues for combining preservation of historic physical fabric 
and land use that could emerge from additional integration of heritage values into 
contemporary growth management approaches. Cross-disciplinary awareness can 
flow in both directions, and preservation professionals should learn more about how 
4 
 
 
 
planning tools other than traditional preservation methods may ultimately retain the 
characteristics that define heritage for those who know a place best. 
This study explores how residents and users connect with their heritage 
through the environment, how those connections affect perceptions of local identity, 
and what role use plays in the importance of historic places. Specifically, it examines 
the features or characteristics residents and users of two areas in Nashville, 
Tennessee, associated with the heritage of those places in order to ascertain the 
degree to which such meaningful features align with place characteristics that can be 
regulated by local planning and preservation tools. The proposed case study areas are 
places where community identity tends to be associated with certain activities and 
land uses rather than historic architecture. As such, they present challenges to a 
traditional historic preservation approach to maintaining ?sense of place? through 
regulation of the appearance of the built environment. The study will also examine to 
what extent those user-identified characteristics are reflected in formal preservation 
and planning documentation and whether the heritage characteristics are or can be 
protected by preservation and planning tools available locally. 
The potential practice applications of this research include understanding how 
planning strategies for managing the historic environment may contribute to the 
preservation of places significant to community heritage and identity. Though the 
preservation ?canon? may ultimately be expanded, communities could benefit from 
the fullest range of tools with which to maintain those aspects of their history and 
heritage that contribute meaningfully to sense of place, whether or not they meet 
formal designation criteria. The preservation literature supports expanding the range 
5 
 
 
 
of places that are afforded consideration as significant to community heritage as well 
as techniques that involve a wider range of participants in defining significance. 
However, the literature does not appear to have widely explored methods of 
translating expanded recognition of community significance into additional (or 
modified) management approaches beyond general recommendations for 
participatory planning. At the same time, planners have embraced smart growth 
principles with little definition about how historic places and heritage contribute to 
community identity or sense of place beyond aesthetic qualities and heritage tourism. 
There appears to be a need for better examination of how heritage and community 
significance fare outside the boundaries of traditional preservation practice in 
response to planning interventions and land use transitions. 
The specific questions asked by the research are: In areas where historic 
significance is linked to particular uses or practices, what qualities do users associate 
with the community?s or district?s distinctive local character, or sense of place? How 
are these qualities related to heritage? Have planning and preservation tools 
succeeded in preserving such qualities? This study contributes to improving 
preservation practice by exploring methods to illuminate how residents and users 
connect with their heritage through the environment, how those connections affect 
perceptions of sense of place, and what role historic uses play in sustaining place 
identity. 
Chapter 1 explores the literature surrounding the concepts of sense of place 
and heritage, including the use of these terms in connection with sustainability, 
growth management, and place identity. It reviews current issues in preservation 
6 
 
 
 
practice in the United States to locate the research within debates about the reach and 
efficacy of preservation tools in capturing the full range of values that communities 
attach to places associated with heritage. Chapter 2 introduces the methodology and 
its sources in research influenced by cultural landscape studies, environment and 
behavior studies, and urban design and its orientation toward the logistical limitations 
of field research for development proposals. Chapter 3 describes each of the case 
study areas using a simplified cultural landscape assessment approach derived from a 
cultural studies model (Korr, 2002).  
The results of the survey and interview components of the project are 
presented in Chapter 4, which integrates information from oral histories and the 
cultural landscape descriptions into conclusions about the elements of sense of place 
that residents and users in both case study areas identified as most closely associated 
with their place?s heritage and character. Chapter 5 looks at local planning policies 
and preservation tools in terms of how they respond to the character-defining qualities 
identified in the study. The chapter discusses the effectiveness of the methodology 
and finds that, though it had limitations that would prevent consideration of this study 
as a model, open-ended survey questions and guided direct input from people who 
know places of heritage yield useful information about sense of place and heritage 
values to inform the planning process. Finally, the chapter concludes with a 
discussion about how integration of preservation and land use planning approaches 
can benefit both disciplines, and it proposes potential courses of action for historic 
preservation practice to either broaden its scope or ally with related disciplines to 
7 
 
 
 
sustain the historic environment as well as the social and cultural activity that often 
gives it meaning for community identity. 
  
8 
 
 
 
Chapter 1: Considering Heritage, Sense of Place, and 
Preservation Values 
 
 
Exploring the relationship between the physical and natural environment, heritage, 
and sense of place begins by reviewing the use of the latter two terms in scholarship 
and in preservation practice. Sense of place is part of an understanding of place that is 
distinguished from a simple geographic location in that places take on social meaning 
through human interaction and return sensory information through individual 
perception. In turn, they orient us to our environment and our position (physical and 
social) within it. Heritage, likewise, relates to the record of past events referred to as 
history but encompasses present-day meanings and uses of that record to shape 
individual, community, and national identity. This chapter considers these terms and 
how they have been used in preservation and planning practice. It further discusses 
the current context of historic preservation practice in the United States to locate this 
study within ongoing debates in the field and to position it to respond to current 
preservation challenges. 
Sense of Place 
Preservationists and planners find common ground in describing community 
identity through the concept of sense of place. For example, the ten principles of 
smart growth include an imperative to ?[f]oster distinctive, attractive communities 
with a strong sense of place.? (Smart Growth Network 2012). When historic 
preservation advocates seek to establish linkages with growth management strategies, 
9 
 
 
 
this principle is frequently cited as a natural connection between smart growth 
strategies and historic preservation. Definitions and professional approaches to 
maintaining and enhancing sense of place vary, however. The concept receives 
frequent mention in historic preservation texts as well as in planning practice, urban 
design, and economic development. Preservationists would be aided in their work by 
tools that allow them to assess and discuss sense of place in relationship to both 
physical aspects of the environment and to heritage and place identity as a broader 
concept encompassing intangible elements. Laurajane Smith provides the following 
starting point: ?Heritage, particularly in its material representation, provides not only 
a physical anchor or geographical sense of belonging, but also allows us to negotiate 
a sense of social ?place? or class/community identity, and a cultural place or sense of 
belonging? (Smith 2006, 75). Understanding the personal, emotional connections that 
develop between users and the historic environment would assist planners, architects, 
local officials, economic development specialists, and others in assessing the value of 
heritage to the maintenance and creation of community identity. 
 In order to understand how ?sense of place? is used to describe certain 
experiential qualities of historic places, it is worthwhile to look at the wider use of the 
term in diverse literature on historic preservation, urban design, cultural geography, 
environment and behavior studies, and growth management. While the concept of 
?sense of place? has filtered through the work of a wide range of scholars and 
observers of landscapes and the built environment, it entered the preservation 
planning vocabulary primarily through cultural geographers and landscape historians 
10 
 
 
 
working in the second half of the twentieth century (for examples of how the term 
shaped larger works, see Jackson 1994, and Feld and Basso 1996).  
 Sense of place includes experiential and social aspects tied to an individual?s 
or group?s interaction with the landscape and the people and other things within it. 
Sense of place, therefore, takes on social and communal meanings and is not simply 
contemplative (Basso 1996, 56-57). J.B. Jackson associates the following 
characteristics with the term: ?a lively awareness of the familiar environment, a ritual 
repetition, a sense of fellowship based on a shared experience? (Jackson 1994, 159). 
Sense of place is also reflective of how we orient ourselves in relationship to the 
world and to others. It is multisensory, requiring immersion or experience to 
appreciate. Places can be sensed, and thus the concept includes aspects of individual 
perception of location, direction, and time within a spatial context, as Kevin Lynch 
describes (Lynch 1960, 1972). Those perceptions draw on the physical senses of sight 
(in recognizing faces, places, buildings, views, symbols, and other things), hearing (in 
identifying sounds that are distinctive or that accompany an activity), smell (which 
may evoke awareness of elements both natural and man-made), taste, and touch (from 
sensations generated by walking, interacting with buildings and structures, or 
encountering natural phenomena like wind or humidity, for example). Finally, sense 
of place has been described in terms of its contribution to identity and orientation, 
echoing the language with which Congress articulated its reasons for enacting the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Tim Cresswell notes the moral 
connotations of place, home and roots, concepts that express connection and fixity in 
contrast to mobility (Cresswell, 2002, 14-15). Humans find and sense whether they 
11 
 
 
 
are ?in place? as well as when they are ?out of place.? Sense of place helps us grasp 
where we are in terms of location as well as social and economic structure, local 
customs and culture, and historical time.  
The Smart Growth movement?s definition of sense of place attempts to 
balance architectural beauty and distinctiveness with natural and intangible qualities. 
The description of sense of place included within the Ten Principles of Smart Growth 
refers to the natural environment and intangible qualities, such as feel, of 
communities that possess sense of place.  References to historic preservation are 
present, as the principle calls for ?natural and man-made boundaries and landmarks to 
define neighborhoods, towns, and regions. It encourages the construction and 
preservation of buildings that are assets to a community over time, not only because 
of the services provided within, but because of the unique contribution they make to 
the look and feel of a city? (Smart Growth Network, 2012). In this way it relates to 
the practice of physical planning through design standards and other aesthetic 
controls. Look is a quality that planners, architects, and historic preservation 
professionals have proven tools for regulating, while feeling is often acknowledged 
but not fully understood and even less consciously influenced. While appearance can 
be subjected to certain uniform controls through design guidelines, feeling, in the 
sense of the evocative quality ascribed to the concept in the National Register of 
Historic Place?s elements of integrity, is much more personal and subjective. 
Another angle on the role of history and heritage in enhancing community 
character comes courtesy of scholars examining the role that public history plays in 
urban revitalization (Hayden 1995; Hurley 2010; Foster 2013). Dolores Hayden 
12 
 
 
 
establishes a strong case for the importance of public history in reflecting and 
maintaining local identity through sense of place and for place-based 
acknowledgement of marginalized histories to reclaim ground literally and 
figuratively for those whose contributions to the urban landscape are often 
overlooked. She contends place is so powerful in connecting to memory and in 
developing personal attachment because of its multisensory aspect. Hayden sees the 
concept of place as a meeting point between the aesthetic and natural environments. 
In that intersection, humans imprint the history of their own life, work, and play on 
their environments, and so social history is also woven into the fabric of place, and 
urban landscapes are ?storehouses for social memories? (Hayden 1995, 9). Hayden 
uses the concept of the cultural landscape, pioneered and shaped by Carl Sauer, to 
describe and understand this area where ?[c]ultural identity, social history, and urban 
design are . . . intertwined? (Hayden 1995, 15).  Urban landscape history, as 
exemplified by the approach taken by public history projects profiled in The Power of 
Place, offers a means of strengthening ?links between disciplines that draw on public 
memory? (Hayden 1995, 46). 
Hayden?s approach contrasts with those of social scientists who have 
addressed the natural features of landscape or architectural historians who may study 
the aesthetic qualities of urban places without addressing how they take on meaning 
through being used and shaped by people. She proposes the urban landscape as a 
store of history that can be studied and yield information about those who lived there 
while also providing a medium for interpreting and sharing stories about the past 
through new urban design initiatives that reflect this heritage. Her approach 
13 
 
 
 
emphasizes the social and cultural meaning invested in urban landscapes and 
highlights the importance of these two qualities as contributing to ?a sense of place? 
(Hayden, 1995). 
Ned Kaufman takes a similar approach to the concept of sense of place in that 
he considers social and cultural meaning to be a large part of what makes places 
important to users (Kaufman, 2009). He goes further, however, to frame the 
relationship between users and their places to include issues of power and control that 
often trump values of emotional attachment and in which the central concern is ?a 
question of power and equity: of who gets to choose? what happens to a place or how 
and when it changes (Kaufman 2009, 32).  He contrasts the developer?s lens (?places 
are fundamentally blank pages on which to inscribe market calculations?) and 
statements about the community value of places, including as repositories of memory, 
culture, social capital, civic pride, historical knowledge, and educational potential, 
and as locations where all can ?exercise citizenship? (36-37). Kaufman?s vision is 
collective rather than capitalist and considers places to be social and cultural assets as 
opposed to simply real estate investments. Places that have value in these ways are 
not always protected by historic preservation or environmental laws or zoning 
regulations. Thus, such ?story sites? and their social value are at risk (Kaufman 2009, 
38). 
Kaufman calls for activists and scholars within environmental, planning, and 
historic preservation circles to develop language for discussing and assessing the 
value of places to communities as a step towards increasing community and user 
control over the fate of meaningful places. Development of better language to discuss 
14 
 
 
 
place could lead to the creation of new policies and tools (Kaufman 2009, 37). This 
study aims to help fill this void by exploring techniques that would allow those 
managing historic places to articulate characteristics of community significance that 
have associations with heritage, whether or not such features are typically captured in 
preservation documentation or regulated under local preservation ordinances. 
While sense of place or community character serves as a criterion for the 
evaluation of development plans and proposals, it remains inconsistently defined. 
Nor, as landscape architect Ray Green asserts (1999), has there been much research 
into how residents and users understand the concept. That void is being filled by 
studies that attempt to associate sense of place or community character qualities to 
characteristics of the natural or built environment (see for example Green 1995, 1999; 
Brehm 2007; Wells 2009; and Henry 2015) as they are more readily manipulated 
through planning and regulation. Hilary Orange asked local residents around a World 
Heritage Site what the term ?sense of place? meant to them and received diverse 
responses reflecting concern with ?the intrinsic character and atmosphere of place, a 
sense of belonging, emotional response, and knowledge and understanding?? 
(Orange 2011, 115).  
Focusing on the user experience of place is not a new strategy for planning 
and urban design scholarship. Previous work, such as that by planner and urban 
designer Sidney Brower (Brower 2000), has emphasized assessing the physical 
environment through the lens of how it meets users? needs and fosters well-being and 
community connections. Other studies in the design field have pursued community 
feedback about sense of place in order to make urban design more responsive. While 
15 
 
 
 
Randolph Hester, a community planner, asked residents about what places in Manteo, 
North Carolina, were most important to its town character, he found that observation 
of their behavior led to different conclusions about the places that were used most and 
that figured prominently in the town?s daily habits. These became what he calls the 
town?s ?sacred structures? that were to be protected when incorporated into a plan 
with economic development as one of its goals (Hester 1993). Archaeologist Thomas 
F. King proposes Hester?s assessment approach to places of community identity as a 
democratic alternative to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) 
(King 2016). More recently, architect Ming Hu and sustainability scholar Roger Chen 
employed user surveys combined with field study to examine whether architectural 
and urban design characteristics influence user perception of places (2018). Social 
aspects of community character, however, can be more difficult for planners to 
control (Green 1999, 314). One approach is to intensify community engagement 
efforts related to cultural resources. 
Ideas for increasing community engagement in planning processes are 
emerging in the area of cultural resources practice. Planning consultants Stephen 
Townend and Ken Whittaker posit that new methods of consultation can yield 
information about community values and sense of place in the environmental 
assessment process for proposed developments. Implementing such new methods 
changes standard practice for environmental assessments by shifting the expertise 
from consultants and professionals working with quantitative data to qualitative, 
community-generated data (Townend and Whittaker 2011). Thus, professionals take 
on a facilitation role rather than making independent judgments as experts. 
16 
 
 
 
Community input aimed at understanding sense of place and place identity in 
preservation planning efforts helps support social sustainability and resilience. Sense 
of place and community distinctiveness figure prominently in sources from the 
planning field concerned with sustainable growth. In describing resilient cities, or 
those best adapted to respond to shortages of natural resources and the effects of 
climate change, including natural disasters, planners Peter Newman, Timothy 
Beatley, and Heather Boyer describe the ?place-based city? among the characteristics 
of cities that meet the goal of resilience. In this terminology, place is associated with 
the utilization of local energy resources and economic development that keeps 
financial resources cycling within a community or region. However, the final 
imperative of the place-based city refers to a concept of place that is emotional and 
focused on social cohesion: ?Cities and regions will understand renewable energy 
more generally as a way to build local economy, nurture a high quality of life, and 
create a strong commitment to place? (Newman, Beatley, Boyer, 2009, 81). The 
authors propose that the success of locally focused development efforts, whether in 
terms of energy, economics, or other resources, will only succeed when they are 
supported by local culture (83). Thus, cultural or social sustainability is another 
critical aspect of resilience. Mary Corbin Sies, Isabelle Gournay, and Robert 
Freestone argue for the importance of cultural sustainability and resilience in 
relationship to historic planned communities, contending that such places are more 
likely to remain faithful to the intentions of their origins when residents come 
together in forming a shared understanding of what characteristics are most central to 
17 
 
 
 
community identity (2019). Change can thus be weathered with less risk of losing the 
essential elements of sense of place.  
Sustainability offers important connections with the direction of planning but 
raises other questions for preservation practice, as preservation scholar Erica Avrami 
has outlined (2010, 2012, 2016). Though the preservation field is quick to identify 
with principles of sustainability, she finds the connection between preservation and 
sustainability is not well established by data and merits further study, as well as an 
openness by preservation practitioners to work with results that may show 
preservation is not always synonymous with sustainability, and to alter policy 
accordingly (Avrami, 2016). Of particular concern to the purpose and goals of 
preservation are the less quantifiable but foundationally important issues of social 
sustainability, such as maintaining community identity (Avrami 2016). Architect and 
preservationist Richard Wagner echoes Avrami?s concerns about whether 
preservation as it is practiced in the U.S. is inherently compatible with sustainability 
(Wagner, 2011). He cites the continued emphasis on retaining and replicating original 
materials in restoration practice, even as the range of places considered eligible for 
the National Register has broadened, as a potential stumbling block to achieving 
environmental sustainability goals (Wagner 2011, 12). 
 ?Placemaking? has come into use as a term to describe the creation of 
locations, especially public spaces, which are vibrant, distinctive, and expressive of 
local character. The Project for Public Spaces defines placemaking as a process that 
?facilitates creative patterns of use, paying particular attention to the physical, 
cultural, and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution.? 
18 
 
 
 
(Project for Public Spaces 2007). This description acknowledges the social and 
cultural aspects of place and place identity. The organization describes the 
characteristics of great places in terms of four large-scale attributes: social, 
accessible, active, and attractive. The quality ?historic? is associated with the comfort 
and image quadrant on the organization?s circular diagram describing these attributes.  
Placemaking approaches have generated additional connections between 
heritage, place, and community identity. Planner and attorney Edward T. McMahon 
posits the economic benefits of placemaking in that distinctive communities attract 
more visitors, generate more spending, and retain residents who develop affection for 
their place (McMahon 2010).  He defines sense of place in terms of four general, but 
interrelated, categories of qualities: visual, cultural, social, and environmental 
(McMahon, 2010, 2). McMahon argues that sense of place contributes value to 
community and individual identity as well as social and economic factors. To develop 
sense of place, communities must design a built environment that is memorable and 
that also respects its natural environment rather than remaking it. Communities must 
also cultivate ?a feeling of belonging and stewardship by residents? (McMahon 2010, 
3). McMahon and the planning approach advanced by the Orton Family Foundation 
share a critique of traditional land-use planning techniques: too much reliance on 
quantitative measures at the expense of ?the values, customs, characteristics, and 
quirks that make a place worth caring about? (McMahon 2010, 2; Orton Family 
Foundation 2012). 
Although preservation practitioners have been quick to note the 
commonalities between historic preservation approaches and certain smart growth 
19 
 
 
 
strategies, the connections (and disconnections) between the two have not benefitted 
from much scholarly attention. Notable exceptions exist primarily at the master?s 
level, where students in the mid-Atlantic have looked at specific projects and 
development contexts to determine whether smart growth and historic places do or 
can exist in harmony. They have concluded that some, but not all preservation goals 
are also components of smart growth strategies for older neighborhoods (Grilli 2007). 
Preservation may correspond in the case of fostering distinctive communities with a 
sense of place, preserving open space, and directing development towards existing 
communities, but other aspects of smart growth harmonize with preservation 
approaches more or less by property type (Dorman 2009).  
 
Heritage 
In this study the term historic places or heritage is generally used instead of sites or 
historic properties in order to reflect a broader range of things that connect us, in the 
present, to the past in some way. The choice of ?heritage? frees the study from the 
administrative confines of the way particular terms are used in preservation practice 
in the United States, such as the definition of historic property codified in the 
National Historic Preservation Act, and, unlike ?historic architecture? or ?built 
environment,? can encompass natural features, archaeological sites, and intangibles 
such as practices, rituals, crafts, and arts. It reflects my intention to challenge the 
ability of traditional historic preservation documentation and planning approaches to 
address the full range of qualities identified as contributing to a sense of place by 
residents or users of those places. Although heritage has intangible components, as in 
20 
 
 
 
the practice of rituals, the passing down of skills and arts, or the telling of stories, this 
study focuses on human interaction with manmade or natural physical features.  
Heritage is a difficult term to define precisely since it can be nearly all 
encompassing. It has evolved after emerging as a concept in the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries via the work of antiquarians and enthusiasts who sought to 
celebrate locations and objects associated with national origin stories (West and 
Ansell 2010). The collection of artifacts and objects during this period also fostered 
the development of what archaeologist Laurajane Smith calls the ?authorized heritage 
discourse,? or AHD (Smith 2006), as collectors tended to view the monuments and 
material culture of the wider, often colonial, world against the standard of classical 
models and European masters (West and Ansell 2010). The role of professionals and 
experts in heritage was established during the nineteenth century at the same time that 
inventories and national listings of monuments emerged (West and Ansell 2010, 33). 
In the twentieth century, the definition of heritage expanded through the recognition 
of its social value, particularly following the adoption of the Burra Charter in 1979 
(West and Ansell 2010, 39). The Burra Charter was revised in 1999, and the focus on 
material culture, buildings, and archaeological sites expanded so that heritage may 
now encompass cultural landscapes and elements of intangible heritage, which was 
recognized in another UNESCO convention in 2003 (Harrison, 2011, West and 
Ansell, 2010, 41).  
Smith contends that all heritage is intangible, ?a cultural process that engages 
with acts of remembering that work to create ways to understand and engage with the 
present? (Smith 2006, 44), although physical manifestations and remnants of the past 
21 
 
 
 
may act as  mnemonic devices prompting or channeling engagement in this dialogue. 
Her critique of the term heritage challenges its dominant Western associations with 
material culture, sites, and aesthetically pleasing locations. In describing the 
?authorized heritage discourse,? or AHD, Smith points out how the selection of 
material culture to be preserved and passed down is a means of legitimizing certain 
narratives and values through the authority of expertise at the expense of others that 
may emanate from those who do not participate in, or are excluded from, the 
dominant national, community or group identity (Smith 2006, 29). Others have 
posited that the heritage discourse may not be as monolithic as the AHD implies, 
however (Koziol, 2008, 48). Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that heritage 
concerns not a purely factual representation of the past, but rather how we take 
elements of the past and shape them to address a range of social and cultural needs in 
the present (Smith, 2006, Little and Shackel, 2014). This view of heritage provides an 
opening to see it as a resource to be used constructively in sustaining communities 
and given consideration in planning processes.  
While the relationship between heritage and identity often has been taken for 
granted, its susceptibility to power dynamics has important implications for how 
preservation tools and policies are used and how their use can favor some agendas 
over others (Smith, 2006; Smith, 2010; Little and Shackel, 2014; Rico, 2015). The 
management of heritage itself becomes an avenue through which community identity 
is subjected to regulation in light of this relationship (Waterton and Smith, 2010, 11). 
Historic preservation interventions are influenced by the cultural patterns that 
produced the built resources they seek to conserve, as folklorist Douglas DeNatale 
22 
 
 
 
found in Lowell, Massachusetts, but they also contribute to new understandings of the 
past and of the social relationships in the subject community (DeNatale, 1994).  
Different understandings of heritage can be captured through innovative 
methodologies, as archaeologist Rodney Harrison demonstrates through a counter-
mapping approach to illuminate the experiences of indigenous and non-indigenous 
users of historic landscapes in Australia (Harrison, 2011). By employing methods 
beyond traditional historic property documentation, such as recording stories from 
those familiar with the landscape as they revisit it or having them draw points of 
interest on aerial maps or photographs, ?[t]he processes of counter-mapping allow 
minority groups to challenge some of the ?taken for granteds? of heritage 
management, but also encourages people to celebrate their experiences of the 
everyday? (Harrison, 2011, 91). The result is a more nuanced representation of 
features within the landscape and their use, delivering a better understanding of how 
historic places operate in the production of individual and community identity. 
 
 
Historic Preservation Practice in the United States 
Historic preservation in the United States has progressed over time from a focus on 
individual pieces of architecture or prehistoric archaeological sites to an increasingly 
holistic effort to retain and interpret the historical and cultural importance of a diverse 
range of properties. The current interest in the preservation of landscapes, ranging 
from traditional cultural landscapes sacred to Indian tribes to urban landscapes of the 
recent past, demonstrates the maturation of this trend. It has also exposed limitations 
23 
 
 
 
in the programs and tools used to ensure the longer-term survival of such important 
historic places. Many preservation tools were created during the period in which the 
preservation paradigm emphasized conservation of physical fabric of architectural 
treasures (Araoz, 1998; Lee, 2004). 
 The history of U.S. heritage and historic preservation laws illustrates this shift 
over the twentieth century. Federal involvement in historic site preservation began 
with the Antiquities Act of 1906, which gave the President the ability to designate 
National Monuments on federal lands.  Later, the Secretary of the Interior was 
empowered to designate National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) via the Historic Sites 
Act of 1935. For the first time, the federal government could recognize the 
importance of historic places in local, state, and private ownership in addition to those 
managed by the federal government. The emphasis remained, however, on individual 
properties of exceptional importance. By the time the National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966, preservation practice had begun to recognize that 
the significance of places could be derived collectively from properties that lacked 
individual distinction but together illustrated significant historical trends, 
development patterns, plans, or events. Hence, historic districts were included as one 
of five property types (buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts) that could be 
eligible for the National Register. The newly created National Register also defined 
significance more flexibly in offering recognition to places that derived importance 
from events, characteristics, or trends at the state and local levels. The creation of the 
National Register represented a democratic shift in the federal preservation program, 
allowing as it did the recognition of places important solely at the local or state levels 
24 
 
 
 
and in empowering State Historic Preservation Offices to take over most of the 
administration of the program. 
 The first section of the NHPA included among its goals to provide a ?sense of 
orientation? to the American people. During a period of dramatic change in American 
cities driven by suburbanization and urban renewal projects and major highway 
building initiatives, historic places were seen as key components of local identity that 
were under attack. However, the action strategies available to preservationists, such 
as rehabilitation tax credits and local historic districting, emphasized retention of 
historic architecture, which is only one aspect of place identity for long-term users or 
residents. As geographer Robin Datel notes, preservation approaches can 
inadvertently contribute to the destabilization of neighborhoods or their traditional 
identities when historic district designation invites outside investment or attracts new 
residents or users who prioritize the aesthetic or ambient qualities of the area over 
multi-layered social and cultural narratives (Datel 1985). Since the passage of the 
NHPA, preservation practice has often focused on maintaining physical and aesthetic 
qualities of historic places while explaining rationales for preservation activity in 
terms of economic benefits, aesthetic benefits, educational value, and local, state, or 
national pride. Less frequently have preservation practitioners or those working in 
related disciplines systematically examined the social and psychological value that 
historic preservation activity can generate, the sensory and emotional connections to 
place that proximity to historic sites and buildings may create. 
Globalization has precipitated another angle on the importance of sense of 
place in the context of historic preservation. What role do historic sites and buildings 
25 
 
 
 
play in distinguishing one place from another in an age when separation of time and 
space has been dramatically lessened by technology? Is there still a role for 
community importance to play amid recognition of historic places on a national or 
international scale? These are among questions addressed in a recent volume of 
essays from the United Kingdom (Schofield and Szymanski 2011) that describes 
techniques for identifying, maintaining, and enhancing place identity, albeit focused 
on British administrative models that have typically placed control of heritage assets 
at the national, rather than local, level. 
Randall Mason and Marta De La Torre, writing about the role that values-
based preservation has to play in sustainability and the conservation of heritage in a 
globalizing society, note that the pursuit of place attachment accompanies and 
counteracts some of the forces of globalization, such as a tendency toward 
homogenization (Mason and De La Torre 2000). They see globalization producing 
two interpretations about the importance of heritage places and objects. The first 
focuses on the uniqueness and irreplaceable quality of such things, while the other 
reflects the ongoing use and redefinition of history in current circumstances. They 
describe the latter as ?another, ambient kind of heritage that is continually 
reproduced, which stresses utility values (the constant stream of new museums in 
which the experiences if not the artifacts themselves are seen to be replaceable; 
innumerable ?Main Street? shopping districts) and can be seen as ?replaceable? or at 
least ?substitutable?? (Mason and De La Torre 2000, 171).  
U.S. preservationists are familiar with another definition of place in the form 
of the National Register. The National Register criteria specify five property types 
26 
 
 
 
that can be places for the purposes of the federal preservation program: buildings, 
structures, sites, objects, and districts, which are a combination of any of the other 
types. Place in this sense is physical and geographical?natural features may be 
included, but generally National Register listings reflect the hand of man on the land 
or in construction. However, in requiring that such properties remain intact enough to 
maintain ?integrity,? or the ability to communicate their significance to a viewer or 
user through their physical properties, the National Register criteria recognizes the 
highly tangible as well as more experiential qualities of place.  
Little research has been carried out to specifically assess strategies for 
maintaining or enhancing sense of place or place attachment with reference to historic 
resources. This void makes it difficult to demonstrate the cultural, social, and 
experiential benefits of preservation, as preservation scholar Jeremy Wells noted in 
his 2009 dissertation. Wells explored the importance of personal experience in 
assessing the significance of older and historic neighborhoods by comparing historic 
Charleston, South Carolina, with a neo-traditional neighborhood built to evoke the 
traditional architecture of historic Charleston. Specifically, he sought to determine 
whether the age of urban residential environments affected how residents felt 
attachment to their neighborhood and built environment. Personal and emotional 
connections to place are more difficult to categorize and grasp, and they lend 
themselves to qualitative, rather than quantitative, research methods. Wells and 
Elizabeth Baldwin show how the ?spontaneous fantasy? engendered by patina helps 
develop an emotional connection between everyday people and place. Such 
connections speak to the age value of historic environments and how it may differ 
27 
 
 
 
from established definitions of historical significance (Wells and Baldwin, 2012). The 
difficulty in developing analytical methods to examine place attachment to historic 
places has hindered the preservation community?s ability to speak to the relative 
value of these social benefits in determining what to save, how, and where.  
Social values and the role that historic places play in developing personal and 
community connections to heritage have received greater emphasis as preservation 
practitioners have turned to examine the multiple significances and values that can be 
contained in historic environments. Understanding the importance of historic places 
in terms of multiple?sometimes competing?values is a concept pioneered by Alois 
Riegl in his influential essay, ?The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its 
Origin,? first published early in the twentieth century (Riegl 1982).  Riegl explored 
the preservation of monuments from an art historical perspective that is also informed 
by an awareness of how old buildings have ?use value.?  He further recognized that a 
modern consciousness of age imbues historic monuments and other older structures 
with evocative power simply because they are old. Such places can conjure an 
association with a past even for those who have no knowledge of history.  
Gustavo Araoz, in considering the international evolution of preservation 
theory and where the United States fits into it, identifies a present phase of practice 
that includes an awareness of ritual values and processes that lead to material 
expression in vernacular architecture, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural 
properties (Araoz, 1998).  In spite of this broadened awareness of site significance, he 
argues, U.S. preservationists have not determined how to successfully manage 
historic places that have ?dynamic needs for permanent change.? In considering 
28 
 
 
 
locations where ongoing use is an aspect of significance, accommodating adaptation 
to the changing needs of an industry or practice presents a challenge to many 
traditional preservation methods that are grounded in an established period of 
significance and/or historic appearance. 
One possible approach to meeting the need to manage ongoing change within 
and around historic environments is offered by Randall Mason in his essay on 
?Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-Centered Preservation? (Mason 
2006). Mason argues for a changed paradigm that embraces community-centered 
participatory planning approaches. Values-centered preservation emphasizes the 
diverse values that a community can attach to a historic place and begins the process 
of determining how the property should be managed by identifying these values and 
then determining which should be prioritized in developing a treatment plan. Mason?s 
discussion of multiple values is informed by Riegl?s treatment of the complementary 
and competing historical, artistic, use, age, and intentional commemorative values 
that a monument may possess. Like Araoz, Mason identifies different approaches to 
preservation practice, but he classifies them in terms of being inward-focused and 
separated from social concerns (the curatorial impulse) or outward-focused on the 
connections that preservation work has to other social goals (the urbanistic impulse). 
The ?strategic/political mindset? that flows from the urbanistic approach follows a 
method of involving stakeholders and working collaboratively to find solutions to 
balancing history and preservation with other values. Specific examinations of how 
successfully American preservation planning tools and processes incorporate efforts 
to support social sustainability are few but growing in number over the last decade.  
29 
 
 
 
Historic preservation scholar Ned Kaufman?s work explores what he calls 
?story sites,? which are socially valuable even if they do not always qualify for the 
protections offered architecturally distinguished or more traditional historical places 
(Kaufman 2009, 38). Geographers Tim Cresswell and Gareth Hoskins have examined 
the differing degrees of success that advocates attained in seeking official designation 
on the National Register or list of National Historic Landmarks for places strongly 
associated with lived experience. They found that official designation criteria are 
often materially focused in a way that contrasts with advocates? perceptions of place. 
These criteria further emphasize physical integrity, potentially at the expense of 
community significance (Cresswell and Hoskins 2008). When community heritage 
concerns fall outside the influence of existing historic preservation programs, it is 
necessary to look for modifications of the programs or other tools to sustain those 
important aspects of community character. 
The trend toward recognition of multiple values in planning for the 
management of historic places is not confined to the United States. Townend and 
Whittaker propose qualitative methods to address the new challenges of assessing the 
cultural resources planning implications of the United Kingdom?s embrace of the 
European Landscape Convention, a treaty ?to promote landscape protection, 
management and planning? throughout Europe (Council of Europe 2000). 
Specifically, their methods seek to account for the role perception plays in the 
understanding of historic places, reflecting a trajectory in U.K. government heritage 
planning policy that treats place less as a geographically-bounded location or 
collection of features and more as a conceptual entity understood through experience 
30 
 
 
 
(Townend and Whittaker, 2011). The emphasis on perception and experience 
necessarily focus attention on the values and associations that those involved with the 
historic place ascribe to it. To assess the effects of development proposals, Townend 
and Whittaker propose gathering data from consultative processes and products such 
as oral and written commentary on historic places, mapping, and photography (71). 
Current debates over the federal preservation program indicate that it is an imperfect 
tool for recognizing and managing the full range of places that possess significance 
for American communities (for example, King 2009, 2016, Kaufman 2009, Allison 
and Allison 2008). The National Register criteria are characterized as too limiting to 
encompass all of the places that have historical meaning for Americans, with large 
landscapes and physically altered but still resonant places often cited as examples of 
what is difficult to fit into the National Register?s recognition ?box.? The National 
Register recognizes four broad areas of significance (Table 1). 
 
 
  
31 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. National Register of Historic Places significance criteria 
Criterion Recognizes properties that? 
A Are associated with events that have made a 
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our 
history  
B Are associated with the lives of persons significant in 
our past 
C Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, 
period, or method of construction, or that represent the 
work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, 
or that represent a significant and distinguishable 
entity whose components may lack individual 
distinction 
D Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 
important in prehistory or history 
Source: Quotation of 36 CFR Part 60 in National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to 
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Rev. ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
the Interior, 1997), 2. 
  
32 
 
 
 
 
These criteria are intentionally broad and have the ability to recognize a wide range of 
historical narratives and significances. Where the National Register faces particular 
criticism is on the matter of its requirements for physical intactness, called ?integrity? 
in the listing criteria. Integrity refers to the physical characteristics that allow a 
property to communicate its historic significance. Five are relatively easy to describe 
in terms of whether and how they have changed over time: location (?where the 
historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred?), 
design (?the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and 
style of a property?), setting (?the physical environment of a historic property?), 
materials (?the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular 
period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic 
property?), and workmanship (?evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people 
during any given period??) (National Park Service, 1990, 44-45). The final two 
aspects of integrity, feeling and association, are somewhat more subjective. Feeling 
refers to how a property expresses its period of significance and whether the totality 
of its physical characteristics can evoke that period for an observer. Association is 
?the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property? 
(National Park Service, 1990, 45). In part, it refers to the location being the place 
where in fact a historic event, for example, occurred, but the term also carries a 
connotation of limited change. A property that retains integrity of association cannot 
have experienced such extensive physical changes or intrusions as to no longer be 
recognizable as the place where the action occurred. The National Park Service?s 
33 
 
 
 
guidance on how to evaluate integrity acknowledges that these last two elements 
?depend on individual perceptions? (45) and, thus, must be present along with other 
aspects of integrity in order for the property to meet the criteria for listing. 
The elements of integrity tend to be harder to demonstrate when properties are 
constructed of poorer quality or found materials or are composed of natural features 
that inherently change over time. They can also be challenging to apply to places 
significant to populations that historically have lacked power over their environments 
and the ability to ensure their upkeep or to control the ways in which they change. 
However, those places may still maintain their associations with past events or people 
for the population that values them. A number of practitioners and academics have 
called for expansion of the National Register criteria, greater integration of natural 
and cultural heritage protections, or other means of recognizing landscapes and 
community landmarks that are dynamic by nature (Allison and Allison 2008; 
Cresswell and Hoskins 2008; Donaldson 2012; King 2009; Conard 2001; Nieves 
2007). Other authors have questioned whether preservation laws should be expanded 
to offer recognition and protection for intangible heritage, including community 
practices, craft, dances, stories, and other elements (Araoz 1998; Donaldson 2012; 
King 2009) or have criticized the narrow or inconsistent application of national 
designation standards, such as those for the National Register or the National Historic 
Landmarks Program, or local landmark programs (Cresswell and Hoskins 2008; 
Allison and Allison, 2008).  While changing specific laws and policies offers possible 
remedies to the immediate limitations of the federal preservation program, others 
have suggested approaching preservation decisions as a whole from a new angle, such 
34 
 
 
 
as emphasizing community involvement and discernment about the multiple values 
that historic places hold in a contemporary context in order to determine how or 
whether they should be preserved (Mason 2006; Avrami 2010; Little and Shackel 
2014).  
David Morgan, Nancy I.M. Morgan, and Brenda Barrett,  preservation 
professionals with experience in State Historic Preservation Offices and National 
Heritage Areas, assessed the existing limitations of the federal historic preservation 
program in recognizing and protecting places of community heritage significance in 
their reflection on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Morgan, Morgan, and Barrett 
2006). They contrast rebuilding responses and outcomes in Mississippi, where the 
assessment of the relationship between heritage and the affected communities was 
largely confined to the use of existing information about historic properties and those 
listed in the National Register, with Louisiana, where a state-sponsored rebuilding 
planning effort emphasized strong stakeholder participation. In Louisiana, 
maintaining and enhancing architectural and cultural heritage (?sense of place?) 
emerged as a primary goal. This critique of preservation practice defined narrowly by 
regulation or federal program authority is relevant to planners, policy makers, and 
preservation professionals who occupy positions to influence preservation policy but 
lack knowledge of how anthropological approaches and stakeholder involvement 
processes can broaden our appreciation of what constitutes a property worthy of 
preservation. 
 As Morgan, Morgan, and Barrett note, the use of planning, regulatory, or 
financial incentive tools to preserve historic places typically follow the 
35 
 
 
 
documentation, and sometimes registration, of a historic property. Thus, debates 
about significance and who has the ability to define it can translate directly into 
whether places may receive certain types of government assistance. Local regulatory 
tools for preservation typically follow the pattern of design review without regulation 
of uses. These mainstream preservation strategies leave potential gaps for places of 
community importance that do not easily fit the National Register significance criteria 
or that are important primarily for qualities and uses not recognized by traditional 
preservation criteria. 
 Avrami emphasizes the social value of historic preservation, generated 
through processes that involve communities in making decisions about how their 
heritage is used as well as through the retention and enhancement of places that serve 
modern needs while transmitting information about the past, observing that 
?[p]reservation is fundamentally a form of planning?both public and political?that 
seeks to codify collective memory in the built environment, so as to communicate the 
values of a community to future generations? (Avrami 2012, 204). She notes, 
however, that preservationists have not systematically investigated the social 
rationales that support preservation strategies and that can link the conservation of 
heritage to sustainable planning goals of equity and community involvement. Further, 
preservationists sometimes fail to consider social needs and benefits in management 
decisions about how or whether historic places should be changed. They may not 
grasp the importance of social values, or they may simply be working within the 
constraints of management systems that set goals based on an understanding of 
historic places simply as artifacts or objects. 
36 
 
 
 
 
Rural and Agricultural Landscapes 
Rural and agricultural landscapes pose a unique set of challenges for the 
retention of sense of place when land use transitions mark shifts in agricultural 
practice or a move away from agriculture altogether. A number of studies have 
acknowledged how changes to the rural landscape affect sense of place, including 
agriculture and its associated lifeways and other historical practices. Adam Nicolson 
evokes a vivid sense of place for Sissinghurst, the home and gardens of writer Vita 
Sackville-West and Harold Nicolson, spanning the earliest history of Kent to its 
twentieth-century literary fame, in describing efforts to return active farming to the 
estate after its management was taken over by Great Britain?s National Trust. 
Nicolson writes that ?a landscape is seen; a place is experienced and known? 
(Nicolson, 2010, 304), speaking to the importance of perception to sense of place. By 
restoring farming at Sissinghurst, it is prevented from becoming a narrowly-focused 
tourist site composed of a garden and literary shrine. Farming reflects the many users 
and occupants of the estate over its long history and demonstrates its connection to 
the common history of its surroundings. In contrast to presenting the estate solely 
from the view of its notable twentieth-century owners, the inclusion of agriculture 
offers opportunities for examining and interpreting the social relationships that 
existed between landowners and those who manage and work their land. Such 
relationships provide a window on the dynamics of status and power in this rural 
environment. In restoring farming to Sissinghurst, its economic heritage is also 
revived and honored. Farming reestablishes a significant connection to the livelihoods 
37 
 
 
 
of those who worked the land there as well as those who farmed and continue to farm 
in similar conditions around Kent. In both of these respects, farming reopens paths to 
shared experiences that Sissinghurst?s role as a literary shrine could not (Nicolson 
2010).  
The cessation of tobacco farming in Maryland in the wake of the tobacco 
buyout left behind farms and barns for which a variety of new uses have been sought, 
but it also discontinued certain longstanding practices and cycles associated with a 
particular kind of labor-intensive agriculture (Sundermann 1992). An innovative 
documentation effort in Calvert County organized by the Maryland Historical Trust 
and the Calvert County Historic District Commission (The Money Crop) captured the 
county at the point of change through a combination of oral histories, photography, 
and historical research. The project is an example of how a multi-disciplinary 
approach can be used to capture and convey a community?s understanding of the 
significance of its built and natural environment, i.e. of its sense of place. Such 
documentation is particularly important given the difficulty in finding new uses for 
distinctive property types like the tobacco barns, leading to their more rapid 
disappearance from the landscape.  The method reveals human connections to the 
land, barns, fields, and each other. It also acknowledges the significance of traditional 
use, which cannot always be preserved or maintained. 
In other areas, agriculture is among those uses connected to maintaining 
important cultural heritage. A study from Norway documents a link between the 
concept of cultural heritage and agriculture in Norwegian policy, finding that farmers 
are often portrayed as keepers of cultural heritage and that farming is valued for its 
38 
 
 
 
effect on the landscape as well as how it employs traditional knowledge (Daugstad, 
Ronningen, and Skar 2005). However, a nostalgic approach to the historic rural 
landscape can distort both the history of the place and its environment, as geographer 
T.Young finds in the National Park Service?s early management of Cades Cove in the 
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Young 2006). In this case, a distorted 
conception of the cove?s history motivated the preservation of certain buildings, 
especially log structures, aligned with the image of an isolated mountain settlement 
where people lived and farmed in harmony with the land even though residents had 
embraced modern technologies and engaged with nearby markets and educational 
institutions for years. At the same time, visitor affection for Cades Cove?s open vistas 
led to management practices that degraded the environment while trying to preserve 
its attractive visual qualities. The preservation of rural landscapes must balance the 
continuity of agricultural heritage with sustainable use of the land in order for the 
cultural heritage of such places to thrive into the future. On a positive note, 
agricultural historian Sally McMurry finds that agricultural land preservation and 
historic preservation can work in harmony, particularly in settings where farming 
includes small, sustainable farms, agritourism, or integration with natural resource 
conservation (McMurry 2016, 15-16). 
  
39 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2: Methodology 
 
This project utilizes a case study approach contrasting two areas within Metropolitan 
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. The case study method allowed close 
observation of specific places and direct interaction with their residents and users in 
order to access information about how those familiar with these places perceive the 
community?s historic qualities and distinctive character. The selection of two cases 
within the jurisdiction of the same local government allowed the different 
characteristics of the locations to emerge against a uniform set of available planning 
and preservation tools. Though located within the same municipality, they differ 
markedly in that one area is an urban, fairly densely developed business district easily 
accessible by multiple modes of transportation whereas the other is rural, accessible 
only by river or a two-lane road, and primarily residential with some areas of 
agricultural, recreational, or conservation use. 
 A mixed methods approach to examining the two case study areas was 
selected given the wide variety of qualities that can contribute to historic significance 
and sense of place. The methodology was also intended as a trial of potential 
techniques that could expand upon traditional architectural history documentation 
approaches comprised of documentary research, field observation, and physical 
description or drawings. These methods have been critiqued as relying too much on 
the role of an expert to evaluate the historical importance of places and for missing 
other values that may be attached to places by those who are intimately familiar with 
40 
 
 
 
them (Kaufman 2009, King 2009, 2016, Wells 2009). Querying residents and users 
on specific qualities they associate with places in the case study areas is based in 
studies of place attachment and how people form social and cultural meanings for 
place in interaction with the environment. The methodology integrated images to 
gauge individual perceptions of environmental qualities as in other studies based in 
geography, architecture, environmental psychology, and planning (e.g., Brower 1988, 
Green 1999, Green 2004, Wells 2009).  
 The two case study sites present interesting questions for traditional 
preservation planning approaches as understanding of their place identity is tied to 
historical patterns of use: music recording, production, and marketing and farming, 
respectively, rather than traditional notions of architectural style or landscape features 
characteristic of a period in the past. The availability of documentation and research 
on both case study areas influenced their selection. Music Row has been the topic of 
recent preservation debates and advocacy activity, including the development of a 
National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Multiple Property 
Submission (Jones and Brackett 2016) and three other individual nominations (Jones 
2016; Robison, Mielnik, and Rumble 2012; C. West 2015a). A master plan for the 
Bells Bend Park was developed in 2003 (Greenways, Inc. 2003), and the area was 
part of the development of a comprehensive conservation corridor plan written c.2007 
(Price and Coco [2007?]). Similarly, both have been the topic of recent oral history 
projects that offer another means of gathering first-person narratives about how local 
residents and users think about place and sense of place in connection with these 
areas (Music Row Oral History Collection, Nashville Public Library 2014, Bells 
41 
 
 
 
Bend Oral History Collection, Nashville Public Library 2012). Finally, both areas 
have experienced controversies over planning and development in connection with 
both public and private proposals that resulted in newspaper coverage and other 
sources of documentation about salient issues. Thus, a reasonably similar level of 
background and context could be established to support inquiry with residents and 
other users. 
 Initially, research established a background description and basic history of 
each case location, including current and historical land use information, geographical 
descriptive data, and local history. Documentary research also helped establish the 
land use and preservation planning history of the case study areas, including how land 
use policies have been applied over time, how the areas have been characterized in 
comprehensive and area plans, and how any major development or redevelopment 
proposals were received by the community and handled by local planning bodies. 
This research also established whether planning or preservation tools have been 
applied specifically to locations within the case study areas with a goal of preserving 
historic architecture, sites, or landscapes.  
 Documentation was supplemented by field observation to gather additional 
information about the physical characteristics and patterns of use at the case study 
sites. Each case study location was visited multiple times and on different days of the 
week and times of day. Photographs for in the image rating exercise (see below) were 
collected during field observation in April 2016, November 2017, and from 
September 2018 ? January 2019. For this phase of the research, the study followed a 
cultural landscape documentation methodology (Korr, 2002). This approach yields 
42 
 
 
 
information beyond the physical description and historical information usually 
collected in preservation documentation such as the National Register of Historic 
Places nomination form. In addition to providing more expansive descriptive 
information that is multisensory, as opposed to simply visual, the cultural landscape 
methodology challenges observers to consider perceptions of place and the agency of 
persons, nature, and the built environment in shaping the place and its associated 
meanings. This opens the documentation to include elements like social boundaries, 
power to influence change within the landscape, and cognitive landscapes. In 
addressing questions of sense of place and heritage, which are heavily dependent on 
how individuals and communities assign meaning to places, these aspects of a 
documentation approach were desirable. Korr?s full methodology is extensive, and 
the case descriptions attempt to cover his five main operations, or points of study, in 
an abridged approach that focuses on location and boundaries, natural and built 
environment and soundscape, shaping influences, and meanings. Additional 
information on cultural analysis of the landscapes is integrated into the findings 
(Chapter 4) and conclusions (Chapter 5).  
 The next phase of the research involved interaction with people familiar with 
each of the case study locations in order to understand their perceptions of sense of 
place and its potential connections to history and heritage. The methodology for this 
phase of the research was influenced by Ray Green?s work on community perception 
of town character in Australia (Green, 1999, 2010) and Sidney Brower?s study of 
resident and visitor criteria for evaluating neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland 
(Brower, 1988).  Information was gathered from text sources and a short online 
43 
 
 
 
survey to select a range of places or physical features that are commonly mentioned 
as characteristic of the case study locations. For Music Row, content analysis of the 
Music Row Oral History collection, information gathered from the Metro Nashville 
Planning Department?s Music Row Detailed Neighborhood Design Plan (2016-17), 
and two walking tours of Music Row supplied initial information about places, uses, 
and qualities mentioned in association with the history of the area. In Bells Bend, 
survey responses, along with content analysis of a conservation corridor planning 
study (Price and Coco, [2007?]), planning documents related to a mid-2000s 
development proposal, and the 2012 Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project 
collection were used to generate a list of community characteristics and places.  
An electronic survey with multiple choice and open-ended questions allowed 
respondents to volunteer their ideas about features or qualities that contribute to the 
case study site?s sense of place (Table 2). The survey and a protocol for follow-up 
interviews, described below, were submitted to the University of Maryland?s 
Institutional Review Board and approved on October 31, 2018. Provisions for 
maintaining the confidentiality of interview respondents? identities were incorporated 
in the research plan. Where interview responses are cited in this study, they are 
identified only by interview number. The survey used the University of Maryland?s 
Qualtrics survey platform and was distributed via a weblink. The content of the 
survey, including inquiry into the nature of personal association with the area and 
length of association, is similar to the short survey described by Hilary Orange in her 
study of historic mining sites in Cornwall (Orange, 2011). Those places are also 
appreciated as historic primarily for their use or evidence of past use above aesthetic 
44 
 
 
 
qualities. The survey yielded information about places and features residents and 
users identify with sense of place and helped indicate whether there is a link between 
perceptions of place as historic and perception of ?sense of place.? The efficiency of 
simple, accessible questions and a short survey format offer advantages for translating 
methods to the field.  
 Surveys were distributed to an initial group of contacts in the historic 
preservation and planning fields who were asked to share the link with their networks 
in the two case study areas. Other potential respondents were contacted directly. 
Surveys remained open for approximately three months. Data from the surveys? open-
ended questions was coded using the survey application?s text analysis capability. 
The researcher assigned text labels to features or places mentioned in responses. For 
example, when Music Row respondents described ?old historic homes,? ?bungalow-
style houses,? ?or ?historical houses,? they were all coded according to residential 
architecture, and the first and last examples would also be coded historic. Coding 
allowed analysis of the frequency with which particular places or features were 
mentioned in connection to the area?s distinctive character. 
  
45 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Electronic survey questions and answer formats 
 
QUESTION ANSWER FORMAT 
What is your personal association with [Music Row or Multiple choice 
Bells Bend]? 
How long have you had an association with [Music Multiple choice 
Row or Bells Bend]? 
[Music Row or Bells Bend] has a unique character Likert scale 
different from other parts of Nashville-Davidson 
County. 
[Music Row?s or Bells Bend?s] unique character has Likert scale 
changed during the time I have known it. 
[Music Row or Bells Bend] is historic. Likert scale 
[Music Row or Bells Bend] is a place I associate with Likert scale 
personal memories.  
How would you describe the natural or manmade Open-ended text box 
features that distinguish [Music Row or Bells Bend] 
from other areas? (For example, building types, the 
presence or absence of trees and other vegetation, 
topography, building materials, or street width.)  
What else contributes to making [Music Row or Bells Open-ended text box 
Bend] special or memorable?  
 
  
46 
 
 
 
Survey data substantially informed selection of 12 representative images for each 
case study area for use in follow-up interviews (Figures 1 and 2). The 12 images 
included places that were mentioned specifically in survey responses and oral 
histories as well as representative places or features that aligned with responses to the 
open-ended survey questions, such as ?hills? or ?recording studios.? Interview 
participants were recruited from an optional question on the survey that asked for 
respondents? willingness to participate. Participants met the researcher at public 
places, homes, or offices for 45 minutes to one hour. At the interview appointments, I 
explained my personal connection to the research as a Nashville resident. I also 
disclosed my husband?s employment in the city?s planning department and, in the 
case of interviews about Music Row, clarified the research was being carried out 
independent of current city-led planning efforts.  
  
47 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Images used in interviews?Music Row. Photos by author. 
 
 
  
Former fire hall    One-way street, 16th Avenue South 
 
 
  
Adaptively reused houses   Musica statue (Alan LeQuire, 2003)  
and roundabout 
 
 
  
Modern apartment building   Old apartment building 
 
48 
 
 
 
  
Modern office building   Recording studio 
  
 
   
Alley      Former location of coffee house 
 
 
  
BMI building     Office in adaptively reused house  
 
 
 
 
 
49 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Images used in interviews?Bells Bend. Photos by author. 
 
 
  
Hills      Farmhouse 
 
 
  
Community club    River and boat ramp 
 
 
  
Old Hickory Boulevard   Park outdoor center 
 
 
50 
 
 
 
  
Former Wade School    Field 
 
 
  
Sod farm Railroad overpass near highway 
intersection 
 
 
  
Large-lot suburban houses   Cattle  
  
51 
 
 
 
Participants were asked to view the 12 photographs of the case study area and rate 
each one on a five-point scale for 12 polar quality pairs, such as distinctive?
ordinary, beautiful?ugly, or natural?manmade, on a response sheet (Table 3).  
The qualities were selected based on survey responses and followed the model of 
Green?s work on town character (1999). The rating exercise was not as extensive as 
Green?s in terms of the number of polar quality pairs (12 versus 22) in order to keep 
interviews to a manageable length for volunteers. While several of the polar quality 
pairs were drawn directly from Green?s or Brower?s (1988) work, other descriptors 
were modified to reflect responses received in the two case study surveys. 
Respondents were asked which of the images and which of the qualities in the rating 
pairs they thought were most closely associated with the case study area?s sense of 
place. The researcher asked clarification questions to probe why specific images were 
selected. Finally, respondents were asked about characteristic activities and the 
boundaries of the study areas using maps generated by Metro Nashville?s publicly-
accessible GIS system. 
  
52 
 
 
 
Table 3. Interview response sheet 
 
Interview Number _________ 
 
Please view the images and rate each place on the qualities in the scale below.  
 
IMAGE #  
 
Varied        Uniform 
Natural                  Manmade 
Quiet, peaceful      Lively, busy 
Closed        Open 
With charm       Without charm 
Friendly       Unfriendly 
Familiar       Unfamiliar 
Distinctive       Ordinary 
Beautiful       Ugly 
Changing       Staying the same 
For locals       For tourists 
Historic       Not historic 
Accessible       Out-of-the-way 
 
  
53 
 
 
 
A primary goal of the project is to offer recommendations and improvements for 
historic preservation planning practice, so the study format attempted to model 
methods that could be adopted by professionals studying historic places for the 
purposes of documentation or regulation, by planners seeking community feedback 
on heritage values, or by community groups interested in exploring the historical 
associative aspects of neighborhood character. This approach led to choices such as 
limiting the number of images and polar quality pairs used in the rating exercise in 
order to keep the time burden for interview respondents to no more than one hour, as 
well as using a five-point rather than seven-point rating scale as in Green?s 1999 
study. It also motivated selection of an online survey format for ease of distribution, 
although this method may limit responses from residents or users lacking internet 
access or who tend not to interact online. While some larger-scale planning studies 
may come with a budget for surveys or public meetings, many assessments performed 
to support environmental decision-making for development proposals are carried out 
quickly and with budgets based on efficiency, or in which any assessment of 
historical associations and heritage values is based on what planners or preservation 
professionals in government can accomplish in their regular duties. For these reasons, 
testing the response to an electronic survey was integrated into the methodology to 
explore how such methods might allow greater access to community input when 
travel funds and time are limited. 
 Another goal of the methodology was to explore means of eliciting 
information about participants? experience of heritage in place in a way that reflects 
the multidimensional nature of ?sense of place.? The rating exercise with images of 
54 
 
 
 
places was designed to offer further insight into how specific places and features were 
experienced by interview participants (Stedman et. al., 2014). This aspect of the 
methodology is one step in a future research direction toward building opportunities 
for members of a community to describe their connections to history, heritage, and 
place in their own words and images via photographs, video, or narrative. Images can 
also help avoid limiting the discussion to features labeled ?historic? through local 
regulation or registration programs by focusing respondents? attention on their own 
experiences and associations. 
  
55 
 
 
 
Chapter 3: Case Studies 
 
Nashville, Tennessee, offers a pair of contrasting areas in which history, heritage, and 
use are intertwined. Both sites experienced a galvanization of community will to 
direct neighborhood change in response to development proposals representing land 
use shifts. While one, Music Row, is urban and primarily commercial?but on a 
neighborhood scale?and the other, Bells Bend, is rural and primarily agricultural and 
residential, they both offer opportunities to gauge community reactions to preserving 
distinctive place-based characteristics connected, respectively, to the recording, 
marketing, and distribution of music and to farming and rural life. 
 The following descriptions of the two case studies are based on American 
studies scholar Jeremy Korr?s Cultural Landscape Fieldwork Model (Korr, 2002). 
Korr?s methodology shares elements with historic properties documentation methods 
such as the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) nomination form, 
the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering 
Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey documentation standards, and 
guidelines for surveying historic properties. It differs in several respects relevant to 
this study, such as consideration of varying perceptions of the landscape, cultural 
analysis, and the explicit goal of multisensory, rather than solely visual, description. 
These elements of place description help support the consideration of intangible 
elements of heritage and use of place, and they allow additional room for 
56 
 
 
 
phenomenological consideration of resident and user connection to history in sense of 
place. 
 Nashville is a growing mid-size city and the capital of Tennessee. The city has 
had a metropolitan form of government since the city of Nashville and Davidson 
County formed the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County 
(Metro Nashville) in 1963. In 2017, U.S. Census estimates placed Davidson County?s 
(and therefore Nashville?s) population at 691,243 within a 14-county metropolitan 
statistical area of 1,903,045. The city?s population has grown rapidly in recent years, 
with a population increase of over 121,000 between 2000 and 2017 according to U.S. 
Census estimates. This growth has come as a result of factors including an upward 
trend in net migration, which has averaged over 24,000 in the five years from 2012 to 
2017 (Nashville Chamber, ?Regional Stats,? 2019). Even so, Metro Nashville?s 
growth is not as dramatic as some neighboring counties (Nashville Chamber, 2018). 
  
57 
 
 
 
 
N 
 
Figure 3. Metropolitan Nashville ? Davidson County showing case study sites. Courtesy Metropolitan 
Planning Department. 
  
58 
 
 
 
 
Music Row 
Location and boundaries 
Music Row is centered on a stretch of 16th and 17th Avenues South (renamed Music 
Square East and West, respectively, north of Music Square South/Grand Avenue) 
bounded by Demonbreun and Division Streets on the north and Wedgewood Avenue 
on the south. It is located southwest of downtown Nashville, Tennessee. The 
neighborhood earned its name in the second half of the twentieth century as a center 
for recording studios, music publishing houses, and other businesses associated with 
the music industry. Unlike other centers of industry, Music Row does not have iconic 
office towers or corporate campuses. However, a 2019 survey of Music Row 
businesses found that ?approximately half of the businesses in the area are music-
related, made up primarily of artist management, publishing, and recording and 
production studios? (Metropolitan Planning Department, Vision Plan, 2019, 8).  
 The businesses that populate the Row began in modestly-sized bungalows, 
four squares and other common house types of the early twentieth century that 
populated the area when it was a residential neighborhood constructed after the 
installation of a streetcar line in 1895 on what is now 16th Avenue South (Jones and 
Brackett, 2016, E30). Nashville?s music-related businesses began to proliferate 
downtown and in other commercial areas after World War II as the WSM radio show 
called the ?Grand Ole Opry,? broadcast from the city?s Ryman Auditorium, gained 
national popularity (Jones and Brackett 2016, E9). The first recording studio was 
established by Owen and Harold Bradley at 804 16th Avenue South after they 
59 
 
 
 
purchased and renovated a house in the area that would become Music Row in 1954. 
A Quonset hut, added to the rear of the building in 1955, created space for both film 
and audio recording, though demand for the latter quickly shaped the studio?s primary 
business (Jones and Brackett 2016, E11, E36). RCA Studio B followed on 17th 
Avenue South in 1957. (Robison, Mielnik, and Rumble 2012). When music 
businesses began moving into the neighborhood in the 1950s, the residential building 
stock offered affordable prices for adaptable space that was close to, but not within, 
downtown (Kreyling 1998, 310), and where city zoning policies allowed commercial 
uses (Jones and Brackett 2016, E33). Music-related business owners found it 
convenient to locate close to one another, and the area quickly developed into a 
cluster of studios, publishing houses, record labels, publicists, management 
companies, and other kinds of businesses that served the music industry. Music Row 
is often described as campus-like in terms of the proximity of many businesses 
related to the music industry (Gibson 2015; Knobloch 2015; Williams 2015; Brackett 
and Gross 2016, 8; Metropolitan Planning Department, Vision Plan, 2019). It is 
considered an important industry cluster for music businesses, boasting the highest 
concentration of music-industry jobs of any U.S. city according to a 2013 study, 
which described Nashville?s music industry presence as one of the largest and most 
dynamic industry clusters in the world (Harper, Cotton and Benefield 2013, 7-10). 
Another recent study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, examining 
whether Music Row could be constituted as a cultural industry district, posits the area 
likely contains ?more historic music-related buildings than the rest of the country? 
(Brackett and Gross 2016, 9). Music Row remains a renowned center of music 
60 
 
 
 
business activity closely associated with the history of country music but operating in 
other genres as well. 
The area is also a crossroads. The dual one-way street arrangement of 16th and 
17th Avenues South carries heavy through traffic from southwest Nashville to and 
from midtown and downtown. Business days bring a constant flow of cars through 
the area. The long and narrow shape of the area typically characterized as Music Row 
further connects a disparate group of Nashville neighborhoods and institutions. On 
the north end, Music Row?s office buildings blend into the increasing number of mid-
rise office, apartment, and condo towers in midtown. The two one-way streets now 
meet Demonbreun and Division Streets at a roundabout featuring a large bronze 
statue of dancing figures meant to represent the spirit of music. Downtown is several 
blocks east, across the I-40 interstate corridor and railroad lines in a redeveloping area 
known as the Gulch, referencing its past history as the railroad gulch alongside the 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad?s Union Station. To the south, an east-west arterial 
called Wedgewood Avenue forms the boundary between south Music Row and the 
campus of Belmont University.  
  
61 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Music Row area street map. Base map courtesy Metropolitan Planning Department. Detail 
source: Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission, 1997, 2017.  
  
62 
 
 
 
On the east, Music Row abuts a neighborhood of early twentieth-century bungalows, 
Tudor Revivals, and other minimally-detailed revival style houses that are slightly 
more modest than some of those converted to business use on the Row. This 
neighborhood, Edgehill, has a long and notable history encompassing growth as a late 
nineteenth-century African-American, middle- and working-class community, 
followed by streetcar development and white suburban migration, and later urban 
renewal. Segregated patterns of residential development in the early twentieth century 
defined 15th Avenue South and west (including the area that is now Music Row) as 
predominantly white, while Edgehill?s black population, which saw an influx of 
professionals in the 1940s and 1950s, located mostly between 10th and 14th Avenues 
(Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 2018). Once music businesses began 
clustering on 16th Avenue South in the 1950s and 60s, the city enacted zoning 
changes that facilitated conversion to commercial uses in the formerly residential 
neighborhood. The changes led to the departure of many residents on the west side of 
Edgehill (Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 2018).  
 Edgehill is once again redeveloping as Nashville?s growing population seeks 
housing close to the city center. Developers have recently replaced older houses with 
two larger ones on the same lot, a Nashville phenomenon known as the detached 
duplex, in this area as in many other inner-ring suburban areas that have residential, 
but not exclusively single-family, zoning. A contentious proposal to apply a type of 
historic preservation overlay known as conservation zoning to Edgehill passed in 
September 2018. Edgehill is home to a number of community institutions, including 
churches, a community garden, a library, and a neighborhood commercial node 
63 
 
 
 
located in a converted drycleaner building. The White Way Cleaners building, 
redeveloped with bars, restaurants, and boutique shops in the mid-2000s, is only one 
block away from 16th Avenue South but maintains an identity separate from Music 
Row. It is never identified within the boundaries of Music Row. A little farther east of 
Edgehill?s single-family homes lies a cluster of public housing developments, 
constructed during the urban renewal projects that dramatically altered 12th Avenue 
South in the 1950s and 1960s (Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 2018).  
 On the west, Music Row is bordered by a group of educational institutions 
with varied and distinguished histories. They include Vanderbilt University, including 
its major medical center, and the Scarritt-Bennett Center, a non-profit conference and 
retreat center located in the historic former collegiate gothic campus of the Scarritt 
College for Christian Workers (C. West 2015, 136). The George Peabody College for 
Teachers campus, now part of Vanderbilt University as its Peabody College of 
Education and Human Development, is a National Historic Landmark with a campus 
plan consciously modeled on the University of Virginia (C. West 2015, 137). 
Vanderbilt now makes a couple of incursions into the Row itself through its purchase 
of office buildings. Belmont University also has a presence on Music Row through 
studio and related facilities used by the university?s highly-regarded College of 
Entertainment and Music Business programs. Thus, in spite of Music Row?s enclave-
like quality with respect to music industry businesses, it is located in a section of the 
city where a diverse population passes through regularly. The connectivity of Music 
Row?s street grid provides access for university students and staff on their way to and 
from campuses, downtown and midtown office commuters, those traveling to work or 
64 
 
 
 
appointments at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and tourists riding sightseeing 
buses. Bike lanes on 16th and 17th Avenues South and sidewalks throughout the area 
allow for walking, biking, and?recently?electric scooters. 
 In the Multiple Property Documentation Form for ?Historic Music Industry 
Resources, Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee,? architectural historian Robbie 
D. Jones and preservationist Carolyn Brackett describe somewhat larger boundaries 
for the study area, extending Music Row to Broadway and Interstate 40 on the north 
and encompassing a larger area west of Music Square West and north of Grand 
Avenue extending to the point where 21st Avenue South meets Broadway and as far 
northeast as Interstate 40 (Jones and Brackett 2016, G212). This area corresponds to 
the area the Metropolitan Planning Commission used for recent neighborhood-level 
planning studies of Music Row. Participants in the current study, however, more 
narrowly limited Music Row?s extent to 16th and 17th Avenues South with occasional 
juts out to the east and west along cross streets like Grand Avenue, Chet Atkins, and 
Roy Acuff, and rarely crossing north of Division Street. Two interview participants 
limited it to only the area north of Grand Avenue, where 16th and 17th are known as 
Music Square East and West, respectively. The inclusion of sections of 18th and 19th 
Avenues South near Division Street was variable, as some participants contended this 
area had experienced too much recent change and demolition to still be called part of 
Music Row. 
 Music Row?s boundaries may expand when it is considered as a cultural 
landscape in an intellectual sense, representing its relationships with concentrations of 
music-making activities throughout the Nashville region or beyond. For example, one 
65 
 
 
 
oral history about the area notes a group of singers who considered certain studios in 
Hendersonville (a town in neighboring Sumner County where several country music 
stars settled about twenty miles northeast of the case study area) as ?sort of outposts 
of Music Row? (Cherry Sisters 2015). As another commented, ?[I]t?s really been a 
center of the universe for music? (Bell 2015). Music Row possesses an emotional 
component tied to its history that transcends geographical boundaries for some of its 
residents and users. In the words of one publicist, ?It?s still where this music is 
created. I don?t think that will ever change no matter where people move physically 
to create that music? (Campbell 2015). 
 
Natural and built landscape and soundscape 
Music Row offers an eclectic mix of building types, materials, and styles. Massing 
increases toward the northern end of the district and decreases toward the southern 
end, particularly south of Edgehill Avenue where the area retains its residential 
neighborhood quality. In general, building heights are low- to mid-rise. Higher rise 
office, apartment and condominium buildings are now located on the north and east 
sides of the roundabout where Music Squares East and West join Demonbreun Street 
at the northern boundary of Music Row. A controversial new luxury hotel, under 
construction at the northern tip of Music Square West just off the roundabout, will 
attain a height of 14 stories. The southern side of the roundabout remains a green 
space occupied by Owen Bradley Park, a small urban park dedicated to the man who, 
with his brother, established the first recording studio in the area and is considered a 
founder of Music Row. The statue of groundbreaking producer Bradley shows him 
66 
 
 
 
seated at a piano. Benches in a brick-paved semicircle surround Bradley?s statue, and 
paths through trees and small lawns join Music Squares East and West.  
 The northern end of the Row is home to the architectural statements of some 
of the more prominent record labels, performance rights organizations, and studios. 
These range in architectural style from expressions of mid-century modernism to 
exuberant post modernism to contemporary glass box offices. Interspersed with larger 
buildings in the northern end, however, are remnants of Music Row?s residential 
past?repurposed houses including brick Queen Anne-style Victorians, American 
Foursquares, Craftsman bungalows, and Tudor and Colonial Revivals representative 
of the middle-class suburb the area was when they were constructed in the late 
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The prevalence of these residential buildings 
increases as one travels south towards Wedgewood Avenue. Adaptively-reused early 
twentieth-century houses retain their original appearance to a varying degree. It is 
typical of Music Row to see additions and modifications of all shapes and materials. 
These changes occurred over time in response to the space and functional needs of 
office and business conversions and do not often adhere to preservation-based 
approaches for rehabilitation and the construction of additions outside the 
conservation zoning district. Also interspersed among the larger buildings of the north 
Row are numerous utilitarian commercial buildings. Most are of a scale 
representative of residential lot sizes and one to three stories tall. In some cases, lot 
consolidation has resulted in larger office complexes or larger-scale buildings, though 
most do not exceed four stories. Materials are highly diverse and include brick, 
stucco, stone, EIFS, wood siding, vinyl, and glass, though brick and glass are most 
67 
 
 
 
common in new construction. New construction of commercial buildings has 
generally followed the residential setback. Construction of a new apartment building 
on Music Square West in 2018, while in keeping with an urban design approach to 
activate streets, is noticeable in that the building envelope meets the sidewalk. 
 On the southern end of Music Row, a more residential feel has been retained 
south of Horton Avenue due in part to the enactment of conservation zoning, a type of 
historic preservation overlay, in 1997. The boundaries of the overlay include the 
entire block of 17th Avenue South between Horton and Wedgewood Avenue. Most of 
the corresponding block on 16th Avenue South is similarly included, with a cutout of 
six lots immediately south of Horton. Here the adaptive reuse of houses for 
businesses has retained the residential appearance of buildings to a greater degree. 
More lawns and mature trees remain to soften views within this section of the Row. 
The southern end of 16th Avenue South, in particular, retains a column of southern 
magnolia street trees so continuous it nearly obscures facades from passing traffic. 
Fewer magnolias survive on 17th Avenue South, but they are still prevalent as street 
trees. 
  
68 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. 17th Avenue South in the South Music Row Conservation Zone. Photo by author. 
  
69 
 
 
 
A local architecture critic describes Music Row as ?an amalgam of suburban office 
park, early twentieth-century neighborhood, and country kitsch, the architectural 
expression of a big business uncomfortable with the idea of big business? (Kreyling 
1998, 309). The tension between Music Row?s residential past and its commercial 
present is played out in architecture that occasionally makes bold corporate 
statements, such as the buildings housing performance rights organizations like the 
American Society of Composers, Authors and Producers (ASCAP) and Broadcast 
Music Incorporated (BMI), but elsewhere strives to maintain the home-like qualities 
of the area?s residential roots, even if it results in a certain amount of incongruity in 
larger corporate buildings (Kreyling 1998, 318). The symbolism of smaller, intimate, 
and home-like spaces also reflects an ethos of country music, which often celebrates 
home and family over materialist displays and urbanism (Kreyling 1998, 320). Recent 
construction that looks more urban elicits a negative reaction among those who have 
an attachment to that symbolism on Music Row. ?Now everything seems to be getting 
so sterile and so highfalutin?? remarked one studio manager in 2015 (Copeland 2015). 
  
70 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Music Square West, north end of Music Row. Photo by author. 
  
71 
 
 
 
 
 Sidewalks are a key characteristic of Music Row. On 16th and 17th Avenues 
South and on the cross streets that pass through the area (Horton, Edgehill, Grand, 
Chet Atkins, and Roy Acuff), sidewalks are separated from the street by a green strip. 
Walkability and the act of walking from office to office have strong significance for 
Music Row, as many stories about the sense of community engendered by the 
clustering of music-related businesses in this area include reminiscences of how 
people in the industry would walk to transact business, a characteristic that 
distinguishes it from other centers of the music industry. ?Nashville had a laid-back 
atmosphere where you could walk out of one door and go two doors down, walk in 
another door just by knocking and walking in? (Bishop 2015). One oral history 
participant recalled seeing well-known writers, producers, and musicians on the 
sidewalks: ?Music Row was so nice because you could walk outside. I remember 
seeing Owen Bradley walking across the parking lot. You saw Chet [Atkins] walking 
somewhere. Or Ray Stevens would be walking down the road of the RCA building? 
(Bryant 2015).  
 Throughout Music Row, parking is carefully claimed and allotted. Where 
businesses have small lots in front or to the sides of their buildings, signs typically 
warn that such spaces are reserved for building occupants or employees. Vanderbilt-
owned buildings in the area post signs requiring university parking permits on their 
lots. The small residential buildings in the area also mark resident parking clearly. 
Some larger firms have gated parking areas. Alleys offer access to rear-lot spaces. 
72 
 
 
 
Visitors without a specific destination that might offer a visitor space are left with 
finding street parking, which is in high demand during business hours.  
 The one-way orientation of 16th and 17th Avenues South has given rise to 
distinctive signage conventions on Music Row, such as the frequent placement of 
signs on a diagonal or perpendicular to the street for easier viewing by passing cars. 
This contrasts with downtown or walkable urban commercial areas, where signage 
tends to be placed on buildings, either flush or on attached projecting signs, for 
visibility to foot traffic. Music Row?s signage is oriented like an automobile strip in 
that it is typically placed out front, in the ?yard? of repurposed houses or in front of 
commercial buildings. There is also a local custom of erecting banners to announce 
new hit songs or top-selling albums to congratulate award-winning performers or 
writers affiliated with a particular record label, management or publishing company. 
Some businesses place multiple banners of this type, which often feature pictures of 
the songwriters or artists, in front of their buildings. It is a type of promotion that 
speaks to the proximity that Music Row still offers the music industry since the 
banners reach only a very local audience. The banners also serve as reminders to 
those passing through the area about the importance and accomplishment of the music 
industry. In this way, this ephemeral signage marks territory that is physical as well as 
social and economic.   
 During business days, Music Row is a bustling office district. Delivery trucks 
make their rounds, traffic is steady, and street parking is always in high demand. Tour 
buses frustrate through traffic as they slow on 16th and 17th Avenues to point out 
places of interest. Sidewalks carry regular, light foot traffic, though since the music 
73 
 
 
 
industry tends to have a more casual dress code those on their way to or from work or 
appointments may not appear like a business crowd to visitors. Students with 
backpacks pass through on foot, particularly on the western edge where Music Row 
adjoins Vanderbilt University. On weekends the pace slows noticeably. Cyclists and 
joggers use 16th and 17th Avenues South on weekend mornings, and area residents 
walk dogs. Street parking is generally available, and parking lots in front of 
businesses are noticeably empty or have just a few cars in them. Observations in the 
area on weekdays as well as weekends included users who were predominantly, but 
not exclusively, white and of a range of ages from young adulthood through late 
middle age. The very young and the very old are not often seen in the area, as there 
are not facilities catering to their care within Music Row, which remains principally a 
business district. Couples and groups of tourists also visit the area on foot to take 
photographs and see the music-related businesses, though many more pass through on 
one of the buses run by several companies offering tours of Nashville or country 
music-related sites. One tour company has recently launched a Music Row history-
themed walking tour (Let?s Go Travelin?). Groups of visitors are regularly bussed 
from the Country Music Hall of Fame downtown to RCA Studio B, a historic 
recording studio that has been preserved and is open for ticketed tours by the Hall of 
Fame.  
 Ironically, Music Row sounds just like many other urban neighborhoods?
automobile traffic. Though the area is almost totally connected to the making of 
music, it is not a neighborhood that has contained many formal performance spaces. 
While music spills out the doors of honky tonk bars on Lower Broadway in 
74 
 
 
 
downtown Nashville, Music Row operates to the sounds of nearby construction, 
passing cars, and the occasional mockingbird. One assumes there is an inside/outside 
contrast in this aspect of the cultural landscape, as a step inside one of the office 
buildings housing music labels or a recording studio might offer a taste of what?s 
being produced and marketed here, but it does not reach the street. 
 The concentration of music recording, production, and promotion-related 
activity on Music Row that characterized the industry in Nashville from the late 
1950s through several decades has changed, however, in ways that present a 
challenge to understanding the current meaning and significance of this landscape. 
Several interviewees for a 2015 oral history project noted the migration of music-
related businesses to other Nashville areas, such as East Nashville and Berry Hill, or 
neighboring counties (Williams 2015; Bryant 2015), as well as the trend for music to 
be recorded and produced digitally in home studios. Some sources mark the 1980s, a 
time when many independent labels were absorbed by larger firms, as the point at 
which Music Row began to change from its close-knit, family-like, improvised 
beginnings in converted houses to bigger businesses seeking bigger spaces 
(Buckingham 2015). One Music Row studio manager observed that some of the 
productivity engendered by close physical proximity, particularly through the 
development of social connections, has faded in the wake of these changes. He said 
the following about the effect:  
There?s been a major dissipation. When I got here in the 1970s, Music Row 
was Music Row. It was little publishing companies, little law offices, PR 
companies, management companies, all up and down the Row. And if you 
didn?t have an office on Music Row, you weren?t in the music business to 
some degree in Nashville. It was that important. (McMakin 2015)  
 
75 
 
 
 
While the Row has changed, many music-related businesses still identify with the 
area?s heritage and sense of place as an amenity. According to a Metropolitan 
Planning Department survey of businesses in the area, ?Almost all of the music-
related businesses said it is important to be located on Music Row, and cited the 
cluster, history, visibility, and atmosphere as their reasoning? (Metropolitan Planning 
Department 2019, 8). 
In oral histories, sidewalks, alleys, and porches are mentioned as places 
people would see and greet each other on Music Row. These interstitial spaces of 
urban form frame circulation in a highly walkable area. Alleys form an alternate 
circulation space within the area, accessing back entrances, off-street parking, and 
shortcuts while avoiding visibility out on the sidewalk. A small number of restaurants 
and bars are also mentioned, most of which are no longer operating. One bar, 
Bobby?s Idle Hour, became a preservation cause in 2018 when it became known that 
its lease would not be renewed to make way for a proposed office building. 
Lamentations about the loss of Nashville?s cultural identity to unchecked growth 
accompanied its closing (Renkl 2019). The lease was ending on a location that was 
home to Bobby?s since 2005 when other development caused it to move from the 
location on 16th Avenue South it had occupied since opening in 1948 (Renkl 2019). 
Though the bar ultimately closed in January 2019, the reincarnation of Bobby?s is 
already anticipated nearby on Music Square South, located between the two main 
streets of Music Row (Trageser 2019). The Bobby?s story is about cultural resilience 
as much as it is displacement by new development. The future of the bar as a Music 
Row ?third place? (Oldenburg 2001) seems assured. That has not been the case for 
76 
 
 
 
other restaurants and meeting places, such as Figlio?s, which was known to attract 
songwriters, music executives, and other regulars on the Row. The converted house 
that was home to the restaurant was torn down in 2017 by one of the large record 
labels after having sat vacant for several years, in spite of its inclusion in the local 
preservation non-profit?s most endangered list (Ward 2016; WSMV 2017). 
 
Shaping the landscape 
Proximity of related uses is a key neighborhood characteristic cited by community 
members now concerned about the future of Music Row. As Nashville booms 
economically and demographically, housing close to the amenities of downtown, 
revitalizing neighborhoods in the urban core, and campuses south and west of 
downtown (such as Vanderbilt University and Belmont University) is in high 
demand. Music Row?s convenient location near these things and between other 
residential areas of apartments and single-family homes has made it attractive for 
multifamily housing development. Conversion of properties to residential use, 
however, threatens to dilute the music industry-focused, campus-like quality that was 
a central concern of a 1990s planning visioning effort on the Row (Kreyling 1998, 
310-311). Though Nashville has worked to encourage mixed-use development and 
live-work opportunities, especially in the urban core and inner-ring neighborhoods, 
reaction when one of the most venerated recording studios (RCA Studio A) appeared 
on the brink of demolition for condos and other recent multifamily redevelopment 
proposals on Music Row have shown conversion to large-scale multifamily 
77 
 
 
 
residential use conflicts with Music Row?s identity as a music business district 
(Metropolitan Planning Department 2019, 21).  
 The Studio A controversy also landed the neighborhood in the national 
preservation spotlight. The proposed demolition of Studio A, an architecturally 
modest 1963 building at 30 Music Square West, for redevelopment as condominiums 
sparked media interest when musician Ben Folds, a tenant of the building and its 
recording studio, posted online in summer 2014 regarding the possible loss of the 
building, its history, and the spaces still used by musicians. The National Trust for 
Historic Preservation got involved shortly thereafter and named Music Row one of its 
?National Treasures? in early 2015 (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2015), 
after a preservation-minded local real estate investor stepped in to buy the building 
from the condominium developer (Gold 2015, 22). Shortly thereafter, the 
Metropolitan Planning Commission directed that new zone change applications may 
not be recommended for approval during the time in which planning staff would 
undertake a study to define development goals in consultation with stakeholders. 
Studio A was listed in the National Register in 2015 (C. West 2015a). The National 
Trust for Historic Preservation?s involvement led to preparation of a National 
Register Multiple Property Documentation Form to pave the way for nomination of 
music-related properties to the National Register (Jones and Brackett 2016) and a 
study of preservation, economic development and heritage tourism strategies titled, A 
New Vision for Music Row: Recommendations and Strategies to Create a Music Row 
Cultural Industry District (Brackett and Gross 2016). The Metropolitan Planning 
Department began to study its policies on Music Row in more detail and involve 
78 
 
 
 
Music Row community members in drafting a detailed neighborhood design plan, a 
small area plan supplement to the area?s community plan. While a detailed design 
plan was adopted in December 2016, the planning department and a stakeholders 
group continued work to refine an approach to managing growth in the area, 
exploring tools like transfer of development rights to manage the intensity of 
development pressure and new preservation tools like a cultural industry district 
focused on economic development of the music industry in this area (Metropolitan 
Planning Department 2019, 45; Brackett and Gross, 2016, 12-18). The ?Music Row 
Vision Plan,? which supersedes the detailed design plan, was approved by the 
Planning Commission in June 2019. Next steps include development of a tailored 
form-based code, economic development activities, and implementation of parking 
and open space recommendations. The vision plan also calls for creation of a non-
profit business association to manage related initiatives, such as tourism and 
promotion of music-related businesses (Metropolitan Planning Department 2019). 
 While these heightened concerns about the pace of change on Music Row 
have spurred new planning interventions, the area has been subject to a series of 
public planning initiatives over the years, including transportation proposals, tourism 
efforts, and past visioning efforts aimed at balancing Music Row?s growth with its 
campus-like character. These planning efforts have been described in other sources 
(Jones and Brackett, 2016; Kreyling, 1998) and will not be recounted in detail here. 
However, it is worth noting some key moments in Music Row?s evolution after it 
began to form a music-related neighborhood identity in the 1950s. In the 1960s an 
urban renewal scheme called ?the Boulevard Plan? was introduced, which would 
79 
 
 
 
have demolished all buildings on one side of 16th Avenue South to construct a six-
lane highway from near Vanderbilt University to downtown and purportedly giving 
the growing concentration of music businesses in this stretch a more ?prestigious 
address? (Kreyling, 1998, 314). Construction of high-rise towers on the new 
boulevard would further cultivate a modern, corporate image for the area (Jones and 
Brackett 2016, E80). Fortunately, the plan failed, but the compromise outcome was 
conversion of 16th and 17th Avenues South to one-way streets in 1970, a configuration 
that persists today (Jones and Brackett 2016, E85-86).  
 Tourism found a home on Music Row with the opening of the Country Music 
Hall of Fame at the north end of the row in the 1970s. It operated there until the late 
1990s, and the museum moved into a larger new facility downtown in 2001. The 
original barn-like museum building was demolished. Tourist-oriented business 
clustered around the Hall of Fame on Demonbreun Street, but the business 
community on Music Row had an uneasy relationship with t-shirt shops and the like 
near their offices (Kreyling 1998, 310-311). Once the Hall of Fame moved, there 
were no real activities geared for visitors on Music Row, so the tourist-oriented 
businesses moved away. Visitors come to Music Row in a limited fashion, largely on 
bus and walking tours and guided tours of Studio B. Unlike other Nashville 
neighborhoods and districts that cultivate tourism, Music Row has few entertainment, 
retail, or restaurant venues to attract visitors for more than passing through to witness 
the presence of music-related businesses. 
 
80 
 
 
 
Summary 
 
Music Row?s identity is influenced by the expression of adaptation and change in its 
built environment. It is an un-planned community. As oral history participants noted, 
Music Row?s existence is largely accidental (Bruce 2015, Knobloch 2015). The Row 
has undergone change throughout its 60-year history, in response to both private and 
public actors. Perceptions of the pace of this change have raised alarms in the past, as 
a 1985 survey form in the Metropolitan Historical Commission?s records noted, 
?Older structures are demolished weekly to make way for modern buildings? (Music 
Row Survey file, 1985). Studio modifications and porch enclosures to create 
additional office space are obvious alterations that help reveal the history of the area?s 
growth to viewers. More recently, a planning tool called Specific Plan zoning, which 
gives the Metropolitan Planning Department more detailed control over aspects of 
physical planning in exchange for site-specific development rezonings, has been 
blamed for facilitating demolitions and change on Music Row. According to the 2019 
Music Row Vision Plan, of 53 buildings demolished in the area between 2008 and 
2018, 23 were on sites developed through Specific Plans (Metropolitan Planning 
Department 2019, 15). These developments have tended to be near the north end of 
Music Row close to downtown and midtown. The ongoing evolution of the area since 
it first became home to recording studios has produced a highly eclectic mix of 
business identity, residential character, neighborhood feel, and institutional proximity.  
 Music Row is dynamic in character as well as its built environment. Though 
the area possesses a strong identity based on its association with the music industry, 
specific meanings within the landscape are complex and variable depending on the 
81 
 
 
 
user?s involvement with the music business and cognizance of its history. For those 
who know the area well, it is inscribed with a multitude of stories and personal 
connections, where collective memory intersects with personal place identity. ?I can 
go building to building down Music Row and tell you who I wrote what song in that 
building with, what recording session I attended in that building,? said one songwriter 
and producer (Bruce, 2015). For visitors arriving from out of town, it is a sometimes-
confusing experience that that doesn?t deliver on popular expectations about centers 
of industry. The adaptive reuse of residences, a defining feature of Music Row?s built 
environment, has similarly complex meanings. The houses are considered charming 
and well-suited to small businesses while eliciting nostalgic reminiscences about the 
neighborliness of Music Row?s past, but they can also be seen as old, quirky, and a 
poor fit for business, particularly when music-related uses demand accommodations 
for sophisticated technology and/or greater square footage (Gibson, 2015; Silver, 
2015; Metropolitan Planning Department 2019, 19). As Music Row continues its 
evolution, some of the buildings that once marked the arrival of the new in this 
formerly residential neighborhood, such as RCA Studio A, are now considered 
heritage resources that maintain the Row?s sense of place as a thriving center for 
music-related businesses in the late twentieth century. 
 Music Row?s heritage centers in its stories, which operate on levels ranging 
from the personal to the global. As an industry cluster it documents country music?s 
rise to international popularity and Nashville?s transformation into a national center 
for the music business. As a neighborhood it reveals the multiple forces that have 
shaped growth in Nashville?s near suburbs, from early streetcar development and 
82 
 
 
 
institutional influences to demographic and economic shifts, the adjustment of urban 
form for the convenience of automobiles, and now the desirability of walkable urban 
neighborhoods close to employment and entertainment. As a heritage site connected 
with music, it is the place where thousands of songs took shape, any one of which 
may have deep significance to those involved in their creation or a listener who 
discovers a connection to this place based on the common language of music. 
 
 
Bells Bend 
Location and boundaries 
Bells Bend, though it is located within Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County, 
still feels like the rural countryside. It is an area of approximately 10,000 acres 
located in a large oxbow of the Cumberland River just east of the Cheatham County 
line, one third of which is river bottomland (Graves 1975, 5). Historically home to 
several large family farms, Bells Bend is still primarily agricultural and residential in 
terms of land use. Since 2007, outdoor recreation has figured more prominently in the 
area with the opening of an 808-acre city park offering hiking, biking, and equestrian 
trails and an outdoor center. Bells Bend?s relative isolation within a metropolitan 
county is due largely to the fact that it is accessible on land only via a two-lane road, 
Old Hickory Boulevard, which runs approximately six miles south from the four-lane 
Ashland City Highway (Tennessee Highway 12), terminating in a boat ramp at the 
Cumberland River. A ferry at that location provided more direct access to west 
Nashville until it ceased operation in 1990.  
83 
 
 
 
 The southern end of the bend is flat river-bottom land. The land becomes 
more rolling as one moves north and is hilly at the northern end, approaching the 
community of Scottsboro. There the land forms of Tennessee?s Central Basin join the 
western Highland Rim, a group of ridges ringing the Central Basin area where Metro 
Nashville is located today. Other ridges rise on the east side of Old Hickory 
Boulevard in the midsection of the bend. A series of hollows and streams break up 
these ridges. The largest, Tidwell Hollow, has an east-west road of the same name 
running through it. Small ponds and wetlands dot the southern tip of the bend, and 
other wetlands pierce the northwestern edge of the area. A large section containing 50 
acres of wetlands was developed in this area of the bend in 1992 as part of 
environmental mitigation for a developer?s filling of wetlands in another area and 
now serves as wildlife habitat as well as recreational space for the landowner (Price 
and Coco [2007?], 94). 
  
84 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Map of Bells Bend. Courtesy Metropolitan Planning Department. 
  
85 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Detail, topographic map of Bells Bend. USGS 7.5? series, Scottsboro quadrangle, 1997. 
  
86 
 
 
 
A conservation corridor study completed in 2007, covering a region including Bells 
Bend and north through Scottsboro to the location of the city?s Beaman Park, 
characterizes the area as three communities: Scottsboro, northern Scottsboro, and 
Bells Bend (southern Scottsboro). Elevations in the corridor?s study area range from 
400 feet above sea level (amsl) in the river bottoms to 850 feel amsl in the higher 
ridges north of Bells Bend (Price and Coco [2007?], 3). The corridor study defines 
Bells Bend?s northern boundary as ?the south side of Scottsboro?s center along Hydes 
Ferry Pike? (Price and Coco [2007?], 5). Transportation corridors at Scottsboro help 
define the divide between Scottsboro/northern Scottsboro and Bells Bend. Old Hydes 
Ferry Pike, the older two-lane road, and Ashland City Highway, the four-lane 
highway, flank a railroad line. All three run east-west across the top of the oxbow that 
forms Bells Bend. Turn north on Old Hickory Boulevard at those corridors, and one is 
able to connect to other parts of Davidson and Cheatham Counties. Turn south down 
the oxbow, and all roads eventually dead end at or near the river. 
 The Cumberland River factors significantly into the shaping of Bells Bend?s 
landscape as it literally forms the area?s boundaries on all but one short (north) side. 
Before dams were constructed on the Cumberland River and flood control measures 
put into place in the mid-twentieth century, Bells Bend?s river bottoms were subject 
to regular flooding. The December 1926 ? January 1927 flood is remembered as the 
worst, cutting the bend off from all other surrounding communities for more than two 
weeks just before Christmas (Graves 1975, 9). Though ferries no longer cross the 
Cumberland, the history of river crossings survives in road names in the area such as 
Hydes Ferry Pike and Cleeces (Cleese?s) Ferry Road. 
87 
 
 
 
 
Natural and built landscape and soundscape 
Bells Bend varies from the ridges and curves of Old Hickory Boulevard on the north 
end, where driveways make their way up through woods to houses not visible from 
the road, to the more open vistas of the river bottoms at the south end of the bend, 
where views are broken by fencerows and clusters of trees. Small houses and a few 
trailers line the road in the shady hollow it travels south from Scottsboro, and an old 
dairy barn appears on the west side of the Old Hickory Boulevard as the road runs. 
Then, as Cleeces Ferry Road branches off to the west, a modern house reflecting rural 
vernacular architecture comes into view. Opposite Tidwell Hollow Road, a more 
diverse scene representing the variety of the Bend appears as the viewshed from the 
road begins to widen: a restored historic frame house, row crops in fields, an orchard, 
late twentieth-century ranch houses, and a sod farm with a barn and other 
outbuildings. Old Hickory Boulevard continues south with gentle curves over rolling 
hills, passing the two entrances to Bells Bend Park, which are marked by large carved 
stone signs. Fences on either side of the road delineate pastures. Just south of the 
Bells Bend Outdoor Center, which is a modern building echoing the forms of silos 
and barns, the 1842 Buchanan House is visible on the west side of the road. 
Continuing south, the topography flattens more as one approaches the river. Another 
large sod farm is located on the west side of the road. Other houses dot the east side, 
and fields are a mixture of pasture and cultivated crops. To the southwest, the 
openness of the landscape offers views to the opposite bank of the Cumberland, 
where modern apartments are rising on prominent river bluffs in west Nashville. 
88 
 
 
 
Finally, Old Hickory Boulevard ends at a boat ramp and small turnaround and 
parking area that is often unoccupied. Other than the concrete ramp into the river, 
there are no public or park-like facilities here; it is not a place that invites visitors to 
linger.  
 The abundance of woodland, cultivated fields, and pastures in Bells Bend 
means that the landscape changes through the course of the seasons in keeping with 
the cycle of growth, harvest, and winter dormancy. The visual quality of the 
landscape, particularly its colors, changes in response to the seasons. In summer, it is 
green and vibrant. During the early fall, the golden tones of wildflowers and tall 
grasses contrast with green leaves on deciduous trees and the multi colors of 
vegetables in gardens. In the winter, the brown, gray, and green of fencerows and 
turned fields is occasionally enlivened by red or purple berries or the russet hide of a 
cow. Winter, though less colorful, offers more glimpsed views of houses and 
outbuildings along Old Hickory Boulevard and of the river from trails within Bells 
Bend Park. The landscape is also animated by wildlife and farm animals. Cattle are 
most evident today, but hogs, sheep, chickens, and mules were historically part of the 
area?s livestock production (Price and Coco [2007?]). Residents mention wildlife in 
their reminiscences of life in the area, including turkeys, eagles, hawks, whooping 
cranes and kingfishers (Cantrell 2012, Whooping Crane Farm). The abundance of 
wildlife had scenic as well as practical and recreational significance to residents, who 
recall rabbit and squirrel hunting and, more recently, dove hunts (Barnes 2012, 
Graves 2012, Winfrey 2012) in the Bend. 
  
89 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Old Hickory Boulevard with park outdoor center in the distance. View from the south. Photo 
by author. 
  
90 
 
 
 
Bells Bend is noticeably quieter than Nashville?s urban and suburban areas. The very 
small amount of ambient road, railroad, or mechanical noise focuses the listener?s 
attention on the sounds of birds, other animals, and the wind in the grasses and trees. 
Small planes from the general aviation airport located on the next river bend to the 
east pass overhead occasionally. Cars tend to travel singly on Old Hickory Boulevard, 
allowing park users and residents to find silence in the lull between them. 
 Temporal rhythms are most perceptible in terms of the seasons of the year and 
the agricultural cycles that change the appearance of portions of the landscape. The 
day-night contrast is also worth noting. While the bend is quiet during the day, trucks 
head back and forth to the sod farms, and other traffic makes its way up and down 
Old Hickory Boulevard. The employees of the firm that makes the former Wade 
School its company headquarters and the Old School Farm fill the parking lot at the 
school, and occasional park users turn into the Outdoor Center lot. At night, however, 
Bells Bend is very quiet. It is possible to drive on Old Hickory Boulevard at night 
without meeting another car down or back until turning onto Ashland City Highway. 
Houses along Old Hickory Boulevard tend to have security lights or flood lights on, 
as there are no streetlights; high beams are necessary to drive with confidence. By 
about the midpoint of the Bend, it is almost completely dark on the north and west 
sides, while reflected light from the city lights the sky to the south and east. Bells 
Bend Park occasionally offers sky watching activities. It is one of few park locations 
in Metro Nashville that can provide such true darkness. 
 The prevalence of agricultural and residential land uses in Bells Bend mean 
that it is an area that is only selectively open to visitors or those who do not live or 
91 
 
 
 
work in the area and therefore challenging to study as a cultural landscape in its 
entirety. Most of the area is private land, and large portions of it are not visible from 
public right of way. The street network is limited, and private drives and roads 
provide access to many residences. Bells Bend Park welcomes visitors to its events, 
hiking trails, and nature programs, providing the most accessible way for outsiders to 
get to know the natural and cultural landscape of the area. The inaccessibility of much 
of Bells Bend?s land does not mean that the community is hostile to outsiders, 
however. The park, and its active friends group, host a number of festivals and events 
every year that celebrate the agricultural heritage of the area, such as an antique 
tractor show, an archaeology day with hands-on activities, and a Farm Day complete 
with wagon rides, horses and donkeys to pet, and a fiddle competition. The 
Scottsboro Community Club, formed in the mid-twentieth century, is known for a 
Labor Day weekend barbecue at the club?s location on Old Hydes Ferry Pike at the 
north end of the bend (McDonald 2012). On a more formal level, the Bells Bend 
Conservation Corridor organization hosts an annual fundraising dinner that invites 
donors to dine outdoors on one of the area farms. A common characteristic of these 
events is the way in which they offer ways to get to know Bells Bend in activities or 
environments clearly associated with its rural and agricultural heritage.  
  
92 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10. Antique tractor display at Farm Day festival in Bells Bend Park, October 2018. Photo by 
author. 
  
93 
 
 
 
 
 Other outsiders are introduced to the area at the Old School Farm to Table 
restaurant, which is an extension of the Old School Farm. The farm offers 
employment for developmentally disabled adults who help raise sustainably grown 
produce for area farmers? markets and the restaurant (Vienneau 2015). Old School 
Farm to Table is located in the former Wade School, a restored New Deal-era brick 
school house. Wade School is remembered as an important community institution and 
activity center by longtime residents (Brown and Langley 2012; Creekmur 2012; 
Graves 2012; McDonald 2012). Dining areas and bars are now housed in the former 
auditorium and a classroom, and the restaurant once again serves as a community 
gathering place. On a winter weekend in 2019, the dining room was lively but not 
completely full, mostly of white couples in their 30s and 40s. On this night as many 
others, the restaurant offered live music, creating an environment where patrons are 
welcome to sit and listen at the bar as well as dine. While a gas station and market at 
the northeast corner of Ashland City Highway and Old Hickory Boulevard has a grill, 
the Old School Farm to Table offers the only food service on the south side of 
Ashland City Highway. There are no retail stores in Bells Bend. 
 Bells Bend?s heritage is conveyed less through individual historic properties 
than through the interrelationship of natural and man-made features that can be 
viewed as a progression from Native American settlement evidenced by clusters of 
archaeological sites along the river, through European settlement and the 
establishment of family farms, to twentieth-century residential changes and shifts in 
land use for recreation or natural conservation rather than subsistence purposes. There 
94 
 
 
 
are two properties within the area described as Bells Bend in this study that have been 
determined to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 
in the opinion of the local historic preservation office, the Metropolitan Historical 
Commission: the Buchanan House, 4107 Old Hickory Boulevard within Bells Bend 
Park, and Wade School, 5022 Old Hydes Ferry Pike (Metropolitan Historical 
Commission files), which is discussed further in chapter four. Bells Bend Park has 
been designated a local historic landmark, a zoning overlay which triggers review of 
certain changes by the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission. The presence of 
the 1842 Buchanan House as well as a number of archaeological finds within park 
boundaries are noted in association with the park?s designation as a landmark 
(MHZC, Historic Landmark Overlays, 2018). The ensemble of Bells Bend?s built 
environment and natural landscape, as well as the archaeological resources there, 
have been suggested as a potential rural historic district and/or archaeological district 
under the National Register?s listing criteria, though a definitive assessment of 
eligibility has not been prepared (Price and Coco [2007?], 24, 127; Mielnik 2011).   
 
Shaping the landscape 
The earliest shaping of the landscape in Bells Bend was carried out by Native 
Americans who made use of the area?s rich natural resources and settled in the area. 
The conservation corridor study identified 67 previously-recorded archaeological 
sites in the area, all but three of which were located south of Ashland City Highway, 
in the area this study defines as Bells Bend. Of those 67 sites, 60 were prehistoric, 
95 
 
 
 
dating from the Paleoindian through Mississippian periods, and seven were historic 
(Price and Coco [2007?], 21).  
 The area?s rich natural resources later attracted Euro-American settlers. Bells 
Bend still contains some of Middle Tennessee?s best farmland, and agricultural 
practices and history have been primary shaping forces in the area. It was historically 
home to large family farms supplying Nashville with crops, dairy, and livestock 
(Price and Coco [2007?], 5). During the twentieth century, many farms in the area 
produced crops for cash value, such as tobacco, hay, corn, wheat, and soybeans. They 
also raised produce, such as turnip greens, tomatoes, peppers, and okra, for home 
consumption and sale at markets in Nashville (Price and Coco [2007?]; Barnes 2012; 
G. West 2012). As family farming became harder over the course of the twentieth 
century, agriculture in the Bend shifted when farm families found jobs outside of 
farming to provide steady income. Some continue to cultivate large vegetable gardens 
in a continuation of the agricultural tradition (Price and Coco [2007?]). Other younger 
farmers have moved to the area to try smaller-scale organic farming of produce for 
regional farmers markets or community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs. 
 Mechanization of agriculture introduced machines to the agricultural 
landscape. Local historian John P. Graves notes that the Cleese family, who also 
established the first ferry across the Cumberland from Bells Bend, owned one of the 
first grain threshers in the region, which would be taken from farm to farm at harvest 
time (Graves 1975, 87). Introduction of trucks in the 1920s also led to gradual 
changes in transportation routes, such as livestock drives, associated with farming in 
the bend. While Cleese?s Ferry had once been used to transport cattle, sheep, or hogs 
96 
 
 
 
across the river for driving them to market in Nashville, the rise in automobile traffic 
began to make drives harder, and trucks provided and alternate method for transport 
(Graves, 1975, 98). 
 Prohibition led to certain opportunistic variations in local agricultural 
practices. One local historian asserts that the northwest section of Davidson County, 
where Bells Bend is located, had over 40 percent of the whiskey stills in the county 
during Prohibition, even though it was only home to about seven percent of the 
population (Graves, 1975, 92). Undoubtedly some were operated by locals, but the 
area?s natural resources, corn production, river access, and proximity to Nashville 
appear to have attracted outsiders during this period. Graves recounts a raid in Bells 
Bend that turned up still operators from Cookeville, Tennessee, a town 80 miles away 
(Graves 1975, 93). Area residents recall seeing stills near springs that provided ample 
water for distillation (Cantrell 2012). 
 Changes in agriculture have contributed to the evolution of the Bells Bend 
landscape. Price and Coco document the changing fortunes of family farms from 
settlement in the mid-nineteenth century to periods of crop surpluses in the early 
twentieth century, which constrained farmers? livelihoods even before the Depression 
began. Post-World War II development and prosperity offered new opportunities for 
serving a growing urban market in Nashville, but ultimately the shift toward 
economies of scale in agriculture led to serious challenges for the kinds of diversified 
family farms that characterized Bells Bend and much of middle Tennessee. As 
children of farm families found other kinds of employment and the economics of 
family farming became harder to sustain, some families sold land. By the late 1960s, 
97 
 
 
 
a corporate manufacturer, Eastman Kodak, began purchasing tracts of the Buchanan 
Farm in Bells Bend, setting the stage for a development battle to come. In the next 
decade, subdivided land of five- to ten-acre parcels was sold for suburban-style 
housing on Tidwell Hollow Road, and other lots were subdivided for houses, 
introducing more residential land use into the area (Price and Coco [2007?], 41). In 
spite of these pressures, Bells Bend residents are proud of how many families there 
have deep roots in the area. This persistence has been achieved in the face of 
significant shifts in the rural economy during the late twentieth century and the 
increase in development pressure directed toward Bells Bend as Nashville has 
urbanized and grown. 
 By the 1980s, large-scale development proposals began a process of 
galvanizing area residents to advocate for the kind of neighborhood they wanted to 
maintain, which meant working to protect its rural and natural qualities. A major 
challenge developed in 1988, when two sites on the Cumberland River emerged as 
likely locations for Metro Nashville government to site a new sanitary landfill. One 
site was on the west bank of the river, and one was on the east bank in Bells Bend, 
including the 808 acres previously acquired by the Eastman Kodak company but 
never used for manufacturing purposes. Differing perceptions about the rural qualities 
of the area were apparent in debate about the site selection: ?These sites are remote,? 
the councilman who filed a bill related to landfill site selection commented at the time 
(Paine 1988). Residents, by contrast, saw the increased traffic from trash trucks and 
potential risks to water, wildlife, and other natural features as damaging to the 
essential qualities of quiet, agricultural use, and natural conservation that they 
98 
 
 
 
associated with life in the Bend. By 1990, debates about where to locate the landfill 
dragged on. Metro Nashville government was facing fines for not having closed its 
existing landfill. Another site in Bells Bend had entered the picture (Bouma 1990). In 
early February 1990, the Metro Council finally voted on site selection, choosing a 
location in the Bend on Old Hickory Boulevard (Floyd and McKnight, 1990).  
 Reaction from the community shifted from advocacy within Metro Nashville 
government proceedings to legal challenges, and the community began organizing to 
raise funds. (Floyd and McKnight 1990). Residents were committed to their goal of 
keeping Bells Bend rural and sought other avenues to demonstrate the incompatibility 
of the proposal with the area?s landscape and environmental features, including by 
forming a new watershed district that would have more control over the operation of a 
landfill (Gordon 1990), a move that was later challenged in court.  
 Bells Bend?s early history came into play in residents? efforts to stop the 
landfill project during the fall of 1990. The presence of Native American graves 
within the former Eastman Kodak site, which would be used for fill, led to protests by 
tribal activists who blocked access to core-drilling rigs sent to the property to conduct 
testing. Blockades dragged on for a month, from late September to October 29, 1990, 
when 30 Native American protesters and Bells Bend residents were arrested for trying 
to keep contractors from entering the landfill site (Floyd 1990, McCullough 1990). 
The next fall, however, Metro Nashville government?s involvement was resolved by 
the state?s denial of a solid waste management permit based on the proposal?s design, 
?questionable construction methods,? and risks to the environment (Majchrzak and 
Ritchie 1991). 
99 
 
 
 
 The Bells Bend/Scottsboro Defenders, as resident activists called their group, 
soon found they had to fight a dump on another front. A private operator applied to 
the state directly for a solid waste disposal facility permit for the site on the east side 
of Old Hickory Boulevard in 1992 (Nashville Banner, June 30, 1992) and on the 
former Eastman Kodak site. The city came back to the matter in a different posture, 
trying to acquire the site to allow city use and to prevent trash from coming in from 
outside Metro Nashville. By March 1995, the Metro Council voted to approve $12 
million to acquire the property (Ippolito 1995). The matter was finally laid to rest 
after 13 years, in 2001, when the mayor formally promised 808 acres of the former 
Eastman Kodak/landfill site as city park land (The Tennessean, December 22, 2001). 
As the focus of Metro Nashville?s involvement in Bells Bend land use shifted from 
waste disposal to park development, opportunities emerged for the wider community 
to appreciate this rural area as a community resource and a significant (agri-)cultural 
landscape. 
 While the community was still seeking closure of the landfill siting 
controversy, the Harpeth Valley Utilities District, which serves customers in the 
Metro Nashville neighborhood of Bellevue and neighboring Williamson County but 
not in Bells Bend, proposed a wastewater treatment facility in the Bend that would 
require a zone change from agricultural to industrial. The neighbors turned to the 
courts again, but the Tennessee Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the utility 
(Price and Coco [2007?], 116). The community did exact a promise that sewer service 
would not be installed in Bells Bend. As in portions of the landfill debate, the state of 
Tennessee emerged as a player in land use decision-making and in shaping the 
100 
 
 
 
cultural landscape of the area through its oversight of certain environmental laws and 
permits. 
 Through these development battles, residents of Bells Bend and Scottsboro 
and friends of the area organized as the Bells Bend Conservation Corridor. Its 
geographic area of interest reaches as far north as Beaman Park, in northern 
Scottsboro, another recent addition to the city parks inventory. At the suggestion of 
Metro Nashville?s planning director at the time, the group launched a project to 
outline its own affirmative vision of how the area should develop (Kreyling 2008). 
They enlisted help from experts in land conservation as well as the preservation of 
natural, cultural, and historic resources and began to document and articulate 
specifics about the kind of natural and cultural preservation they wanted to achieve. A 
well-researched conservation corridor plan released by the organization around 2007 
was prepared by a historic preservation consulting firm (Price and Coco [2007?]). It 
outlined the history of the area alongside descriptions of the rich natural resources, 
wildlife, historic standing structures, and archaeological sites found there. The 
publication concludes with recommendations for how the area can maintain its rural, 
agricultural, and forested qualities as well as its history and historic places. The 
corridor organization considers it a plan for their ?third vision??a term given by one 
of the community?s activists to a future including something other than large-scale 
industrial or mixed-use proposals or the acceptance that the whole Bend would be 
subdivided for residential lots (Price and Coco [2007?]). 
 Private entities have also had a role in shaping the Bells Bend landscape. A 
pair of major development proposals in the mid-2000s proved to be a defining 
101 
 
 
 
moment for the community in articulating a resident vision for Bells Bend?s future. 
The residents? vision contrasted with proposals by developers to build a 1,200-unit 
traditional neighborhood development at the southeastern end of the Bend or, later, a 
complex including residential, office, and commercial space and purporting to create 
a new type of downtown in the same area. Announcement of Bells Landing, the 
traditional neighborhood development proposed in 2005, promoted its embrace of 
new urbanism, maintenance of open space through clustered development, and energy 
efficiency. In a newspaper article, the developer was quoted as saying he was 
committed to keeping some acreage as working farms, while other areas would 
incorporate ?farmstead architecture,? which might include a single-family residence 
built to resemble a grain silo (Russell 2005). This is not the kind of rural character 
residents had in mind when they argued that Bells Bend should maintain a pattern of 
development that reflected its agricultural heritage. The new development?s potential 
to increase the population in an area that had only around 150 households in the last 
decade (Price and Coco [2017?], 116) left residents worried about being able to 
maintain their community?s character (MPC Minutes, February 23, 2006). A specific 
plan (SP) zoning application was filed for Bells Landing in January 2006. The zoning 
application required a plan amendment before the Metropolitan Planning Commission 
(MPC) would take a position on its consistency with land use policy. Ultimately, 
MPC disapproved the proposed plan amendment (MPC Minutes, February 23, 2006).  
 Not long after, a larger-scale new urbanist development proposal emerged for 
the same land area. In a damaging blow to community-planner relations, Bells Bend 
residents first learned of it while working with Metro Planning Department staff on a 
102 
 
 
 
detailed design plan. They were expecting to tailor planning policies toward long-
term maintenance of the area?s rural qualities following recent completion of the 
conservation corridor study and report. However, residents involved in the planning 
process saw a large area where proposed policies would support more intense 
development when planners came to present their draft concept plan (Kreyling 2008, 
Bells Bend Conservation Corridor n.d., ?Development Pressure?). The proposed May 
Town Center was more extensive than Bells Landing, constituting a mixed-use town 
center allowing up to 8,000 residential units, eight million square feet of office space, 
600,000 square feet of retail, and 600 hotel rooms, while preserving 900 acres of open 
space (MPC Minutes June 25, 2009, 23). While the planned town center may have 
been designed more progressively than traditional suburban development, it remained 
out of scale with Bells Bend. It would also have required significant infrastructure 
investments in new bridges across the Cumberland River, sewer service, and other 
upgrades. Some critics of the proposal worried that it would have a detrimental effect 
on downtown, since the development would include more office space than the 
entirety of downtown Nashville in 2008. One goal was attracting corporate 
relocations to Metro Nashville, many of which were presumed to prefer suburban 
locations (Kreyling 2008). The second development proposal also failed at the 
planning commission, by one vote, when the body did not approve a policy 
amendment for the ?Alternative Development Area? that would have aligned policy 
with rezoning for such uses in an area zoned for agriculture and large-lot residences at 
the time (MPC Minutes, June 25, 2009). Curiously, arguments for the development 
followed the logic that the existing zoning allowed large lot (two-acre) subdivision 
103 
 
 
 
throughout much of the Bend already, so the proposal represented a more 
environmentally-friendly, smarter growth alternative. Residents were taken aback that 
planners presumed development was inevitable in Bells Bend and that its farming, 
pasture, and woodlot uses could be preserved by allowing an area of such intense 
development, no matter how restrictive land use policies were in the rest of the bend. 
 The residential and town center proposals were cast in sharper relief with the 
development of Bells Bend Park, opened in 2007. A portion of the sites proposed for 
private development was located directly across Old Hickory Boulevard from the 
park property. The 2003 master plan for the park describes it as an environmental 
park, where scenic and natural qualities prevail, and with recreation activities limited 
to those requiring minimal modification of the land, such as hiking, horseback riding, 
and camping (Greenways Incorporated 2003). The master plan also addressed cultural 
resources protection as a goal of park development. Old houses, barns, and a 
concentration of archaeological sites were located within the park boundary, and one 
building, the Buchanan House, was later determined eligible for the National Register 
in the opinion of the Metropolitan Historical Commission (MHC files). The plan 
noted multiple archaeological sites had been identified within the park area, including 
cemeteries and Native American burials, warranting careful planning to avoid 
disturbance and the need to consult with the affiliated Indian tribe (Greenways 
Incorporated 2003).  
  
104 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. River view in Bells Bend Park. Photo by author. 
  
105 
 
 
 
Although Bells Bend Park developed to maintain habitat for plants and wildlife and 
offer recreational and outdoor learning opportunities in a natural setting, it is not cast 
as pristine or wilderness, and preservation of cultural heritage factors equally into 
park interpretation. The master plan treats the park area as ?the product of more than 
100 years of agricultural activity? (Greenways Incorporated 2003, 10) and proposes 
interpretation of the landscape as a cultural history record of settlement and use, 
including designing the outdoor center to resemble a dairy barn in keeping with the 
area?s agricultural heritage. The outdoor center was ultimately constructed with a 
tower resembling a silo and an arrangement echoing outbuilding complexes of the 
region. 
 In recent years, the agricultural heritage of Bells Bend has experienced a 
resurgence via the interest in organic farming and the growing market for local 
produce sold through CSA programs and at increasing numbers of local farmers? 
markets. Examples of this trend include the Old School Farm, Bells Bend Farms, and 
Whooping Crane Farm (Vienneau 2015, 2016; Whooping Crane Farm, n.d.). Other 
agricultural-related endeavors are reimagining farming in Bells Bend, such as the 
young local distiller who is growing grains and grapes for spirits on the 300-acre farm 
he inherited in Bells Bend. A malt house on the property now supplies a distillery 
near downtown Nashville (Myers 2015). One of the area organic farms supplies hops 
for a Nashville micro-brewery offering called Bells Bend Preservation Ale, inviting 
the public to participate in a hop picking party each August (Bells Bend Farms 2018). 
 The active interest many Bells Bend residents and friends take in its rural 
qualities and agricultural heritage has emerged as a key shaping force of the area?s 
106 
 
 
 
cultural landscape. However, there are other, less public forces that may exert a 
shaping influence on the area. The first is the prevalence of large tracts of land, 
especially in the southern section of the bend. Absent some sort of evidence of 
commitment to land conservation or agricultural use, such as the dedication of a 
conservation easement or investment in farming ventures, the future of those tracts is 
unknown and will depend on choices individual landowners make about how to use 
their land. The views of all landowners on the community?s sense of place were not 
comprehensively captured in the research for this study and may be unknown to all 
but themselves. However, their decisions about the use of their land in the future will 
have an effect on the extent to which Bells Bend maintains a sense of place strongly 
associated with agricultural heritage, rural lifeways, and conservation of the natural 
landscape. Under existing zoning, tracts in the AR2a zoning district, which covers 
land in Bells Bend that is not in floodplain or on steep slopes or other areas 
considered appropriate for natural conservation, can be subdivided into parcels of two 
acres or more, which means that most of the area could become large residential lots 
by right (Metropolitan Planning Department, n.d.). No subsequent development 
proposal has been introduced in the years following the rejection of the second 
proposal by the planning commission.  
 While Bells Bend residents and users hold its agricultural uses in high regard 
and celebrate the fact that this area contains some of Davidson County?s last 
remaining farmland, the area has been significantly shaped by the city, even though it 
maintains an identity separate from Metro Nashville?s urban and suburban one. 
Proximity to urban markets, combined with shifts in agriculture beginning in the 
107 
 
 
 
second half of the twentieth century, has allowed farms in the Bend to serve an urban 
constituency. Two sod farms in Bells Bend provide turf for development happening 
elsewhere in the region, and the small organic farms that have been established in the 
last decade serve CSA members and urban-dwelling farmers? market patrons. Other 
agricultural enterprises are growing for the needs of an urban market, including 
flowers for events and hops to supply a microbrewery. The tension of urban versus 
rural is currently generating agricultural innovation that takes advantage of the area?s 
proximity to a growing city while continuing traditional land uses. While farming in 
the Bend is different now from points in the past, it still takes advantage of the quality 
of the area?s farmland to serve its local market town. 
 
 
Shaping the landscape 
The meanings that Bells Bend?s landscape holds for residents and users today is in 
some ways defined by what it is not. The area serves as a visible contrast to the rapid 
urban growth around it in Metro Nashville. Bells Bend recalls Davidson County?s 
agrarian past, evidence of which has nearly disappeared within the city limits and is 
fading quickly in the wider metropolitan area. It has resisted wholesale change 
through the efforts of community members in opposition to development proposals 
led by local government and private entities. While the car is the only way to access 
the Bend except for the river, roads are narrow and parking lots are few, preventing it 
from being perceived as automobile-centric. Land uses are fairly limited. It is not the 
city, but it is in the city limits. Bells Bend allows residents, park users, and visitors to 
108 
 
 
 
see, hear, and feel the natural world in immersive ways that are not possible in 
suburban areas or smaller urban parks. This contrast?of Bells Bend being a green 
space where nature can be experienced in a developing urban area and where city 
residents could be educated about the value of rural life?was called out in the 2003 
master plan for the development of Bells Bend Park (Greenways Incorporated 2003). 
In maintaining environmental qualities that have characterized it for decades, Bells 
Bend stands in contrast to Metro Nashville, where the pace and quantity of change in 
the built environment has been astonishing to long-term residents in the last ten years. 
 Conservation of Bells Bend?s rural character currently benefits from 
community-based efforts to preserve its natural and cultural heritage and working 
farmland, and it remains a rare rural landscape within a rapidly growing city. Its 
historical importance is closely associated with its farming heritage. Current owners 
and residents are integrating farming into the future of the area, though in different 
ways than the subsistence or cash crop farming that characterized the bend in the 
nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries. The establishment of new, smaller 
organic farms represents a change in scale and methods for Bells Bend?s agricultural 
traditions, but in connecting to populations that are concerned about the sustainability 
of food production and how food is produced, the new farmers are developing another 
constituency for Bells Bend?s rural preservation efforts. As Adam Nicolson notes in 
his description of renewed farming and food production at his family?s famous house 
and garden at Sissinghurst, now in the care of the British National Trust, these 
activities can serve to reconnect both a landscape and its visitors to the agricultural 
practices that shaped it and the people who work(ed) the land (Nicolson, 2010). Bells 
109 
 
 
 
Bend?s landscape has developed recent associations with health, environmental 
sustainability, and the local food movement. CSA and farmers? market customers 
now have a direct connection to the area and an interest in seeing it maintained for 
agricultural uses. 
 The community spirit galvanized by years of fending off large development 
proposals prompted Bells Bend landowners and residents to develop their own 
statement about what they value most about their community?s character and heritage. 
Though residents had articulated their desire to keep the area?s rural character before, 
the conservation corridor study was an important step in neighborhood self-
determination, and its recommendations included steps the Bells Bend Conservation 
Corridor organization and interested residents could take themselves, such as 
pursuing conservation easements and developing educational opportunities to engage 
city residents with the natural environment and sustainable farming (Price and Coco 
[2007?], 119-131). It also offered an opportunity for those who live in the area to 
document what they think is most important about this place without relying on city 
planners, developers? consultants, or others who may be charged with making 
assessments of the Bend?s land and its value. 
Summary 
 Bells Bend?s heritage is representative of Metro Nashville as a whole in that it 
retains many of the landscape characteristics that once were prevalent throughout the 
county. As urbanization and land use shifts occurred in the late twentieth century, the 
history of development proposals in the area and the community?s organized 
resistance records a cultural shift in looking at farmland, pastures, and woodlots as 
110 
 
 
 
undeveloped rather than productive zones of an agricultural economy. Residents, 
however, ascribed other meanings to the natural and cultural features of Bells Bend, 
including as important links to shared rural heritage, the continuity of agriculture, and 
longstanding family and social connections. Those meanings have now found a larger 
constituency as a broader population connects with the natural environment and 
sustainability issues through the Bells Bend Park, the area?s produce, and its retention 
of historic landscape features. 
 
 
 
 
 
111 
 
 
 
Chapter 4:  Study Findings 
 
 
The case studies examined in this research are two neighborhoods in Nashville, 
Tennessee. Music Row is urban and primarily commercial while Bells Bend is rural 
and primarily residential with a mix of natural conservation and agricultural land 
uses. They are both places where community identity tends to be associated with 
certain activities and land uses rather than historic architecture. Residents and users in 
both areas have reacted to development proposals they considered incompatible with 
the area?s sense of place by calling attention to distinctive neighborhood qualities and 
features, often with a connection to heritage. Since both case study areas are located 
within the boundaries of Metro Nashville, they have access to the same set of 
planning and preservation tools at the municipal level. This chapter presents findings 
about the qualities residents and users of both areas most associate with the 
community?s sense of place and discusses how these qualities relate to heritage.  
As detailed in Chapter 2, the findings of this mixed methods study are derived 
from three sources: a cultural landscape description based on documentary research 
and observation presented in Chapter 3; an electronic survey; and face-to-face 
interviews and follow up questions involving an image rating exercise. The aim was 
to combine methods commonly used by preservation professionals to document 
historic structures and landscapes (documentary research and field observation) with 
structured input from individuals who are familiar with the study areas. The analysis 
moves from an overview of the neighborhood?s history and development to the 
identification of particular places, features, or qualities associated with its character or 
112 
 
 
 
sense of place, and then examines those qualities for their relationship to history and 
heritage. A picture of qualities most associated with each of the case study areas 
emerges from the open-ended survey questions, the image rating exercise, and what 
respondents mentioned when asked which of the qualities on the response sheets they 
most associate with the case study area?s sense of place. These findings form the 
basis for an assessment in the following chapter of how current local land use 
planning policies, historic preservation tools, and other efforts are positioned to 
preserve the qualities of sense of place that emerged as important to residents and 
users in this study.  
The average ratings of each photo in the polar quality pairs were averaged 
over all 12 images to produce a summary rating of each quality for each study area. 
Then, those summary ratings were assessed in terms of how far they diverged from 
the midpoint of the five-point assessment scale. Thus, a rough idea of strength of 
feeling about that quality emerges for the study area as a whole. This method has 
limitations in that it presumes the images constitute a well-rounded representation of 
the area and that they are all of equal importance. While those critiques are valid, the 
method offers one way to generalize about the qualities that residents and users 
associate most strongly with places within these areas as a starting point for 
identifying appropriate preservation and planning strategies. 
 
 
113 
 
 
 
 
Music Row 
Music Row is a cluster of music industry businesses and supporting 
enterprises located southwest of downtown Nashville. It continues to represent the 
most intense concentration of music industry businesses in the country (Jones and 
Brackett, 2016).  The area, centered on two one-way streets, 16th and 17th Avenues 
South, was first built out as a streetcar suburb in the early twentieth century. By mid-
century, new suburban development and the middle-class residents that drove it had 
begun moving farther out from downtown as houses in the area were converted to 
rental units serving students in the nearby colleges and universities (Jones and 
Brackett, 2016, E8).  With the accompanying drop in property values, some of the old 
houses began to be converted to recording studios and other music-related businesses 
in the mid-1950s. These houses provided affordable and flexible space for studios, 
music publishing houses, publicists, record label management and other offices in the 
early years of country music?s development as a popular genre of recorded music and 
Nashville?s growth as a center of activity in the industry. The converted houses had 
the benefit of being near downtown but not in downtown, making them affordable, 
and accommodated additions and modifications for the needs of small and growing 
firms. As the music industry consolidated and became more corporate, and as country 
music grew into a powerful and profitable industry, some businesses began replacing 
the old houses with purpose-built office buildings and studios. The resulting amalgam 
of new and old within an area that retains urban design elements of a low-rise, 
walkable, traditional neighborhood reflects the ongoing evolution of the industry that 
114 
 
 
 
overwhelmingly shaped this urban landscape. Music Row?s uniqueness in the city, 
state, and nation has inspired recent historic preservation efforts to protect its place 
identity in the face of rapid urbanization and demand for residential and office space 
in proximity to Nashville?s downtown and the two major universities on the district?s 
immediate boundary. The present study seeks new approaches for identifying and 
understanding place identity for unique locations like Music Row and Bells Bend. 
 
Survey Results 
Respondents returned 43 surveys overall for Music Row, out of which 35 
contained complete responses. Of those answering the question about whether Music 
Row has a distinctive character different than other parts of Davidson County, 27 
agreed strongly and six somewhat agreed (representing 94% of responses to this 
question). Of the same number, 30 strongly agreed and five agreed somewhat that 
Music Row is historic (100%). Fewer identified Music Row as a place of personal 
memories: 17 agreed strongly, and nine somewhat agreed (74%), while six were 
neutral and three others disagreed somewhat or strongly. The very strong response to 
the question about whether Music Row is historic could have been biased by the 
distribution pattern of the survey, as it was shared with a group formed to discuss 
historic preservation planning options in the area and others among the author?s 
preservation-related community contacts.  
 Text analysis of two open-ended survey questions designed to elicit 
information about sense of place yielded a wealth of information about the qualities 
and features that respondents associate with the study area. One question asked how 
115 
 
 
 
respondents would describe the natural or manmade features that distinguish Music 
Row from other areas. The following question asked about anything else that 
contributes to making Music Row special or memorable. Of those features or 
qualities that respondents mentioned most frequently, historic was used as a 
descriptor in nine responses, while aspects of intangible or cultural heritage were 
referenced 19 times across the two open-ended questions, which received a total of 67 
text responses in the Music Row survey. In total, historic character or associations 
with intangible or cultural heritage factored in 28 responses, reflecting a 42% rate of 
occurrence. Connections with history and heritage, therefore, are strongly represented 
in Music Row?s sense of place for participants in this study. It is notable that 
intangible heritage and cultural associations were mentioned twice as often as the 
descriptor historic, with its connotation of an official designation or determination 
based on age value. 
The use of buildings on Music Row figured prominently in survey responses. 
Music-industry uses were referenced 25 times across 67 text responses, representing a 
37% occurrence. Related comments, collected under the term creative activity, spoke 
to the importance of area as a site of artistic endeavor where the activity going on 
within the buildings and district?and the presence of recording artists, musicians, 
and songwriters?contributes directly to its distinctiveness (12 responses). These 
responses indicate that Music Row?s historical significance is tied to the continuity of 
these uses within the area and that the use of buildings for purposes unrelated to the 
music industry could diminish sense of place and place identity. Some respondents 
pointed out that the area is characterized as commercial (five responses) in addition to 
116 
 
 
 
the music industry-related uses discussed above. New, larger-scale construction of 
condominiums, apartments, or hotels was cited in six responses as a threat to the 
community?s character. Such comments point to questions of scale, since multifamily 
residential and hotel construction in the area in the last five years has tended to be 
taller than neighboring buildings, as well as the compatibility of increased residential 
use or visitor accommodations with this business district. 
  
117 
 
 
 
Table 4. Responses to survey question: How would you describe the natural or 
manmade features that distinguish Music Row from other areas? 
  
Quality or feature Number of responses mentioning 
the quality or feature 
 
Residential architecture 20 
Music industry uses 13 
Adaptive reuse 12 
Historic 9 
Varied 8 
Loss of character 7 
Trees/mature vegetation 7 
Walkable 6 
Commercial 5 
Intangible/cultural heritage 4 
Density/compactness 3 
Inaccessible (parking) 3 
Low-rise 3 
For locals 3 
One-way streets 3 
Proximity 3 
Small-scale 3 
Authentic 2 
Comfortable/friendly 2 
Quiet 2 
Additions 1 
Alleys 1 
Churches 1 
Lacking historical interpretation 1 
Open/accessible 1 
Restaurants 1 
Well-maintained 1 
118 
 
 
 
Table 5. Responses to survey question: What else contributes to making Music Row 
special or memorable? 
 
Quality or feature Number of responses mentioning 
the quality or feature 
 
Intangible/cultural heritage 15 
Creative activity 12 
Music industry uses 12 
Familiar/community 6 
Small-scale 4 
Proximity 3 
Rapid change 3 
Unique 3 
Authentic 2 
Comfortable/friendly 2 
Informal 2 
Organic, gradual development 2 
Affordable 1 
For locals 1 
Hard to define 1 
Mixture of building types 1 
  
119 
 
 
 
 
Twenty responses specifically referenced residential architecture as a 
characteristic of Music Row, and adaptive reuse of older buildings was specified in 
12. From a planning perspective, survey participants noted the compact (three 
responses), walkable (six responses) quality of the area inherited from its 
development as a streetcar suburb. Other amenities derived from its history as an 
early twentieth-century residential neighborhood garnered notice, including alleys 
(one response) and trees or mature vegetation (seven responses). The scale of 
buildings is unexpected for a business district and industry cluster. Music Row often 
defies expectations about the kind of built environment that houses a major industry, 
as most buildings are small scale (seven responses) and low-rise (three responses). 
These urban design considerations present challenges for the continued evolution of 
the area as a commercial district, since maintaining a sense of place based on 
traditional neighborhood characteristics would limit the bulk and density of new 
construction or additions.   
On a positive note for maintaining some qualities of sense of place mentioned 
in this study, the south end of the study area has been designated a conservation 
zoning district, requiring review of additions, demolition, and new construction by the 
Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission (MHZC) since 1997 (MHZC 1997). The 
overlay, encompassing the entire southern-most block on 17th Avenue South below 
Horton Avenue and most of the southern-most block on 16th Avenue South, is focused 
on the historic residential architectural styles found here. The design guidelines state 
that the overlay zone ?serves as record of the original residential development of 
120 
 
 
 
Music Row? (MHZC 1997), ensuring that a small concentration of the adaptively 
reused residential character of Music Row will continue. This end of the row is 
somewhat less affected by development pressure and has retained its residential feel 
with businesses in converted houses, some residential use, lawns, and mature trees. 
 
Interview Results 
In the image rating exercise, interview participants viewed a series of 12 images (see 
Chapter 2) selected by the researcher to capture features, specific places, or types of 
places mentioned frequently in survey responses as having a relationship to Music 
Row?s sense of place; they could be positive or negative relationships. The selection 
of images was also informed by a recent oral history project in which participants 
recalled places on Music Row that they thought were important and described their 
own experiences living or working there. During the interview, participants were 
asked which places shown in the 12 photos they most associated with Music Row?s 
sense of place (no limit was placed on the number they could choose, but no 
participant selected all of them). The place most frequently mentioned, by eight of 
twelve respondents, was the Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building at 1117 
17th Avenue South. 
  
121 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12. Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building at 1117 17th Avenue South. Photo by 
author. 
  
122 
 
 
 
This adaptively reused house is recommended as National Register-eligible in 
the multiple property documentation form (MPDF) prepared for ?Historic Resources 
on Music Row, Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee? in 2016 (Jones and Brackett 
2016). This discussion will refer to all places listed in the MPDF by the historic 
names included in that study. The Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building is 
typical of local music publishing houses in that ?[t]he vast majority of publishing 
houses are repurposed private residences that were altered with additions, 
renovations, and restructured floor plans in order to accommodate the new use as 
publishing house? (Jones and Brackett 2016, F196). The structure embodies many of 
the qualities of sense of place mentioned by survey respondents: residential 
architecture, adaptive reuse, music industry use, historic, low rise, small scale, with 
mature vegetation. It is also located at the corner of Grand Avenue and 17th Avenue 
South, capturing the walkable characteristic of the area. The specific qualities 
participants most strongly associated with this place in the image rating exercise were 
with charm, historic, and familiar.  
The adaptive reuse of a residence resonated for respondents in association 
with this place, and the fact that it had a history prior to its music industry-related use 
was mentioned by several as representative of the area (Interviews #1, 7, 14). One 
participant noted that its presence in the district, along with the fire hall discussed 
below, at the time that the first studios were established in the mid-1950s, contributed 
to its strong association with the area?s sense of place, since it is the kind of building 
that was here when Music Row took shape (Interview #16). Its individual residential 
history is also an interesting story, as the house served as the rectory for a stone 
123 
 
 
 
church located diagonally across the intersection that today functions as a recording 
studio. The evolution from church-related residence to music business home of 
Waylon Jennings, one of the ?outlaws? of country music, offers a pleasing 
juxtaposition for those who know the building?s history. Jennings added his signature 
flying W logo detail to one of the upstairs windows facing Grand Avenue during his 
tenure.  
 Three other places were mentioned almost as frequently, by seven participants 
each, as being most representative of Music Row?s sense of place. These include the 
former Quadrafonic Sound Studios at 1802-1804 Grand Avenue, Fire Hall Engine 
No. 7 (Tree/Sony Songwriter?s Studio) at 16 Music Square West, and the Broadcast 
Music, Inc. (BMI) building, 10 Music Square East, at the north end of Music Row. 
  
124 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13. Former Quadrafonic Sound Studios, 1802-1804 Grand Avenue. Photo by author. 
  
125 
 
 
 
The former Quadrafonic Sound Studios (Quad Studios) building continues to function 
as a recording studio under another name. Recordings at Quad Studios, which opened 
in 1969, were not confined to the country genre. The studio is best known for hosting 
sessions for pop acts like Joan Baez, Neil Young, who recorded his album ?Harvest? 
here in 1972, and the Pointer Sisters (Jones and Brackett 2016, E66). It is typical of 
the conversion of former residences into music recording spaces, an adaptation 
pioneered by Owen and Harold Bradley when they established the first recording 
studio in the area in 1954, setting the stage for the development of Music Row. While 
an older Colonial Revival house remains part of the studio complex, additions and 
modifications tailored to recording were not designed to be harmonious with the 
historic architecture. Rather, they were built to accommodate the specialized use 
inside.  
Additions like the windowless enclosures on the facades of these buildings 
would usually be considered incompatible with historic architecture if evaluated 
against preservation standards like the Secretary of the Interior?s Standards for 
Rehabilitation. In this context, however, the additions enabled the significant music 
history moments that happened in the building. Therefore, Quad Studios is 
recommended as National Register-eligible in the MPDF consistent with the thematic 
definition of significance for music recording studios under Criterion A for 
performing arts and commerce and Criterion C for architecture, although the MPDF 
does not specify whether the property might be considered eligible under one or both 
(Jones and Brackett 2016, 170-173). Among all the images of Music Row in the 
quality rating exercise, the former Quad Studios was second-most associated with the 
126 
 
 
 
quality historic after the Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building. This studio 
points to the difficulty in applying traditional preservation tools like the National 
Register or historic preservation districts to Music Row as a tool to maintain sense of 
place, since the historic significance and community meaning of radically adapted 
architecture requires a nuanced understanding of how physical form relates to music-
related functions. It also challenges preservation approaches based on the application 
of historical perspective, such as the National Register?s general requirement that 
properties achieved significance at least 50 years ago unless they are exceptionally 
important (National Park Service 1997). While the 50th anniversary of Quad Studios? 
opening occurs this year, many of the important recording sessions that took place 
there through succeeding decades, suggesting a likely period of significance 
extending into the very recent past. 
Respondents mentioned that they selected this place based on its independent 
studio function and continued use in music making (Interview #7, 17, 21). The 
specific qualities participants most strongly associated with this place were manmade, 
distinctive, and friendly. 
 
127 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Fire Hall Engine No. 7, 16 Music Square West. Photo by author. 
 
  
128 
 
 
 
The Tudor Revival fire hall at 16 Music Square West (formerly 17th Avenue South) 
was designed in 1930 by notable Nashville architect Christian Asmus, who lived in a 
Craftsman house on the same street (Jones and Brackett 2016). The city of Nashville 
commissioned a group of similar brick fire halls, designed in popular revival styles, 
during the same period to provide service to its expanding suburban neighborhoods. 
A similar fire hall is still in service on 21st Avenue South nearby (MHZC 1989). A 
music publishing company, Tree/Sony, purchased the building and renovated it for 
use as a songwriter?s space in 1991 as the business expanded (Jones and Brackett 
2016, F206).  
The fire hall exemplifies the tradition of adaptive reuse on Music Row and is a 
successful example of how very different uses can be accommodated in the same 
building in a manner sympathetic to its design and materials. One participant 
specifically pointed to how the fire hall demonstrates the adaptability of older 
buildings on Music Row (Interview #10). It recalls the neighborhood history of the 
area through a building form, particularly the bay door (now window) that speaks to 
its prior use. Today, it serves a core music business-related use in housing 
songwriting, one of the central creative processes of music making and one held in 
high esteem by the community. Finally, it is unique in being the only fire hall on 
Music Row and, as a former public building, stands out among the older residential 
buildings in the district. It has been recommended as eligible for the National Register 
(Jones and Brackett 2016, MHC survey notebooks). The specific qualities participants 
most strongly associated with this place were manmade, distinctive, beautiful and 
with charm. 
129 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15. Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) building. Photo by author. 
  
130 
 
 
 
The Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) building is a monumental, easily recognizable 
office building on the north end of Music Row. BMI is one of the three performance 
rights organizations, along with ASCAP and SESAC, with offices in Nashville on 
Music Row. Performance rights organizations help maintain copyrights by licensing 
music for performance or broadcast and distributing royalties back to performers, 
songwriters, and publishers. BMI represents country music performers and writers, 
but it also serves all other musical genres. The BMI Southern Regional Office opened 
in Nashville in 1958 and completed its first headquarters building at 710 16th Avenue 
South (10 Music Square East) in 1964. The headquarters was significantly expanded 
in 1974 in the mid-century modern style. Later, a six-story concrete and glass 
building with triangular elements designed by Nashville architect Earl Swensson was 
added in the mid-1990s (Jones and Brackett 2016). Figure 15 shows the 1990s 
brutalist concrete addition in the center of the frame, while the 1960s modernist brick 
portion of the complex appears to the far left. 
 BMI, unlike the other places selected by respondents, is not identified as 
historic. In fact, only two other places were considered less historic in the image 
rating exercise. The qualities respondents most associated with this place were 
manmade, familiar, and distinctive. BMI contrasts with many of the qualities survey 
respondents said they associated with Music Row?s sense of place?it is not historic 
in the preservation sense of meeting the National Register?s usual 50-year old 
threshold, an adaptively reused building, or small scale. It is a modernist corporate 
statement complete with an impressed logo on the side of the building. As a 
performance rights organization, BMI plays a key role in the functioning of the music 
131 
 
 
 
industry and in supporting the livelihoods of artists, writers, and publishers. BMI?s 
arrival and growth in Nashville under the leadership of Frances Preston is a local and 
national business success story (Binnicker 1998). The construction of the later wings 
are reminders of the changes that took place in the music industry in Nashville during 
these periods. The 1970s additions mark a new maturity, followed by consolidations 
and a transition to a more corporate, less personal mode of doing business by the time 
the large 1990s wing of the building was constructed. Two respondents mentioned 
those associations in selecting this place as one of the most characteristic of Music 
Row (Interview #14, 21). 
The building stands as a marker, visible from points downtown, of one corner 
of Music Row. One participant mentioned it as an example of how the larger, more 
intense office uses cluster at the north end of Music Row while the height tends to 
step down, and the building stock become more residential, as one moves south 
(Interview #9). The BMI building design may not be charming in the way that the old 
houses on Music Row are perceived by those who live and work there, but it is easily 
recognizable, distinctive, and unlike any other corporate headquarters in the city 
(Interview #15). Its business function is also closely associated with the creative 
endeavor of music making. For these reasons, participants found it strongly 
associated with the district?s character. This points to the importance of institutions 
that serve as anchors for related activities or that help the members of a community 
sustain a sense of place based on traditional practices within a community. In this 
case it is what?s inside that counts?by serving the community of music makers on 
Music Row, BMI is seen as closely linked to the perpetuation of the area?s identity.  
132 
 
 
 
While the Frost Specialty/Waylon Jennings Music building and the fire hall 
share common attributes of multilayered historical association emanating from their 
recognizability as artifacts of the early suburban development of this area, these four 
places present a varied picture of Music Row?s character. Where they harmonize is in 
their current use for music industry purposes, a theme that presented prominently 
throughout comments in all the interviews and emerges as one of the most important 
qualities associated with Music Row?s sense of place. Music history and ongoing use 
are tightly interwoven in participants? reactions to the place images as well as in 
open-ended comments submitted in the survey. While innovation and creativity are 
celebrated in the generation of new music, there remains a strong sense of connection 
to songwriters, performers, songs, and places where music was made in the past. This 
relationship to music heritage can be seen as a contributing factor in a number of 
other history and preservation-related phenomena in Nashville, such as designation of 
the Ryman Auditorium, which housed the Grand Ole Opry until the early 1970s (C. 
West 2015, 54), as a National Historic Landmark in 2001, the outpouring of public 
support for RCA Studio A when it was threatened with demolition in 2014, and other 
local initiatives, including the recent application of local preservation landmark 
overlays to the suburban homes of country music notables such as the Carter Family 
(2016) and Hank Snow (2018) by the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 
(MHZC 1989/2015/2018). 
133 
 
 
 
 
Prevailing Qualities of Sense of Place 
Music Row places, overall, were most strongly associated with the 
characteristics varied, manmade, and familiar in the image ratings exercise. Varied 
reflects the diversity in building types, materials, and styles found in the study area. 
While several respondents in the survey and interviews mentioned conceptualizing of 
Music Row as a neighborhood of converted single-family residences, it is also highly 
diverse, particularly outside the conservation zoning district and within the northern 
half, and includes many purpose-built offices and multifamily residential buildings. 
One interview respondent noted the lack of uniform character in citing the varied 
quality, especially in terms of how the area steps down in intensity and height from 
north to south (Interview #9). The remaining adaptively reused single-family 
residential architecture can also be thought of as varied, as it encompasses several 
turn-of-the-century and early twentieth-century architectural styles, including Queen 
Anne, Craftsman, and Tudor and Colonial Revival, and building heights from one to 
three stories.  
Varied also carries connotations of uniqueness and creativity. Some interview 
respondents noted that the creative aspect of the music industry should be housed in 
buildings and environments that are not uniform and that do not appear the same as 
those found in other places. By distinguishing the exteriors of buildings from other 
kinds of offices, the creative work of the music industry can be marked to outsiders 
and perpetuated to the extent the environment inspires those who work in music-
related fields. In the words of one survey respondent, the feature that makes Music 
134 
 
 
 
Row distinctive is ?[v]aried architecture where music is made, promoted and sold. 
Varied being the key word. Due to its creative nature, the lack of ?sameness? is 
essential.? An interview participant worried the music business might lose some of its 
?creative edge? in an environment other than adaptively reused properties (Interview 
#6). Others connected variety and creativity in architecture to the creative spirit of 
music making (Interview #15) and mentioned eclecticism as a characteristic of Music 
Row (Interview #10, 14, 15). Respondents also indicated that variation could 
appropriately include modern as well as historic architecture. Based on the image 
rating exercise, ?distinctive? on Music Row runs the gamut from old to new. The fire 
hall (1.5), former Quad Studios (1.58), Musica statue and roundabout (1.67), and BMI 
building (1.67) all averaged similar ratings on the five-point scale distinctive (1) ? 
ordinary (5).  
The presence of manmade as a common image rating reflects the urban 
qualities of the district. Though street trees are prevalent and a couple of small parks 
are located within the study area boundary, most of Music Row is built up or covered 
with concrete sidewalks or paved roads, alleys, or parking areas. It is an area where 
wildlife, topography, and vegetative cover are secondary to structures and 
transportation facilities. The features mentioned as characteristic of the area?s sense 
of place in the open-ended survey questions included mature trees and vegetation, but 
these are usually oriented around manmade features like streets, or structures in the 
form of foundation plantings or small yards. Music Row is clearly perceptible as a 
neighborhood within a city; it is not rural or a primarily natural environment. Visual 
clues identify its urban quality, where the built environment has been modified for 
135 
 
 
 
human convenience and accessibility through the addition of things like bike lanes, 
sidewalks, bus stops, fire hydrants, and street lights.  
In a highly-traveled district like Music Row, most of its area can be traversed 
by cars, pedestrians, or cyclists every day. Thus, the sight of buildings and other 
features in the district may be common for respondents, or familiar. The term also 
connotes an acquaintance or personal connection to place and may reflect the social 
connections that are frequently mentioned in connection with the music industry on 
Music Row and the strong sense of camaraderie.  Respondents with multiyear 
associations with the district may have personally used places included in the image 
rating exercise or maintained social connections with people who lived or worked in 
the places. 
 Respondents were also asked to flag the qualities on the rating sheet that they 
considered most closely associated with Music Row?s sense of place during the 
interviews. The summary qualities volunteered by respondents most often were 1) 
with charm, 2) historic, and 3) distinctive, none of which overlapped with the 
strongest quality associations emerging from the image rating exercise. There are 
several potential ways to account for the difference. First, in responding about the 
area as a whole, respondents may have selected qualities conveyed by the ensemble 
of buildings and features on Music Row rather than the particular qualities of any?
even a majority?of individual buildings. That is not inconsistent with the way 
National Register of Historic Places documentation for historic districts locates 
significance in the ensemble rather than individual components. A district ?may even 
be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided 
136 
 
 
 
that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within its historic context? 
(National Park Service 1997, 5). There could also be more direct associations 
between the varied character of Music Row?s appearance and mix of uses that is 
charming for those who know it or go there on a regular basis. The frequent mention 
of historic could have resulted from respondents being primed for that aspect of the 
area?s character based on a description of the research project. It may also reflect the 
current debates about future development on Music Row and recent, highly-
publicized losses or threatened losses of music heritage-related buildings in the area. 
In describing the area as historic overall, interview participants could also be pointing 
to the cultural and intangible heritage associations that were referenced in the 
electronic survey 19 times. Though Music Row has experienced continual change and 
evolution in the built environment since music-related businesses were first 
established there, those changes have followed the growth of the country music genre 
and the technological and business evolution of the music industry in general. Those 
who have a close association with that industry may see history in the changes 
themselves and in the locations where pivotal moments in music history occurred. 
Finally, the frequency of distinctive being mentioned as a quality most connected to 
Music Row?s sense of place speaks to respondent comments about the uniqueness of 
this district, not just in Nashville but throughout the country, as a music-related 
industry cluster, and reinforces the sentiment expressed in survey responses, wherein 
33 of 35 complete responses agreed Music Row has a distinctive character different 
from other parts of Davidson County.  
137 
 
 
 
Music Row?s sense of place is strongly tied to its history and continued use as 
a location where the creative work of music writing, performing, recording, 
publishing, and marketing is centered. All of the places selected as most associated 
with the neighborhood?s sense of place in this study have a current functional 
relationship to the music industry, and music industry uses were mentioned most 
frequently as a key characteristic of the neighborhood?s distinctiveness in responses 
to the online survey. Strong historical and heritage connections also emerged in both 
the survey and interview results, though cultural and intangible heritage themes were 
mentioned more frequently than artifacts of built heritage. Overall, the early 
twentieth-century neighborhood character, including residential architecture and 
urban design features like low-rise construction, street trees, and sidewalks that 
enable walkability, is another aspect of Music Row?s sense of place, though this 
character is retained more consistently in the southern half of the study area. Music 
Row?s sense of place is therefore rooted in a series of contrasts that exist in creative 
tension: it is a business district in the form of an old residential neighborhood; it has 
historical associations based on locations and stories as much as building form; and it 
serves as an international industry center that is often experienced with the familiarity 
and charm of a campus with a strong sense of camaraderie. 
 
Bells Bend 
Bells Bend is one of the last areas of farmland remaining within the 
boundaries of Metro Nashville. It is formed by an oxbow bend in the Cumberland 
River in the northwest section of Davidson County (see Figure 3). Because only one 
138 
 
 
 
two-lane road provides access, Bells Bend feels very remote and isolated despite its 
proximity to urban areas of Nashville. Area residents have worked steadily since the 
1980s to fend off a series of public and private development proposals that would 
have dramatically changed the Bend?s land use and character. They ultimately 
defeated a proposed landfill, and the site was subsequently converted by the city into 
an 808-acre natural park. In the mid-2000s, local activists worked with a group of 
consultants and advisors to prepare a conservation corridor plan that articulates the 
community?s vision for how the area can remain rural, continue agriculture, and 
preserve natural resources and wildlife habitat while becoming an outdoor recreation 
and nature education resource for the broader Nashville population. Residents and 
those who know the area celebrate how it remains unchanged, its strong sense of 
community, and the peace and tranquility of its natural environment surrounded by 
the river. Even though new houses have been built in the Bend over the years and the 
type of farming practiced there has evolved for a modern urban consumer market, the 
community is taking the initiative in defining an identity for their neighborhood that 
is rooted in its agrarian past, rural lifeways, and suitability for natural conservation 
and recreation. 
 
Survey Results 
Of 21 surveys returned for Bells Bend, 19 included complete responses. 
Response volume for Bells Bend was lower likely given the very small population. 
The area is home to a small number of households, and there are few sites of 
employment in the area, including farms, one human services firm, and a restaurant. 
139 
 
 
 
Responses were unanimous that Bells Bend has a distinctive character different from 
other parts of Nashville/Davidson County. All agreed strongly (17) or somewhat (2) 
that the area is historic. It was somewhat less strongly associated with personal 
memories, with 14 agreeing strongly (74%), four agreeing somewhat (21%), and one 
registering a neutral response (5%). Length of association was split between long-
term associations of 20 years or more (10 responses), 10-20 years (4), 5-10 years (3), 
and a newcomer of less than one year. 
 In response to the two open-ended questions about features or qualities that 
contribute to Bells Bend?s sense of place, participants highlighted elements of the 
natural landscape, including the Cumberland River, trees and woodland, the flat land 
of river bottoms, hills, fields, and high elevations, which totaled 32 occurrences over 
19 responses. Wildlife was also mentioned in five responses. Natural conservation 
has been identified with the area in recent years through the establishment of Bells 
Bend Park and the formation of the Bells Bend Conservation Corridor organization. 
Agricultural references occurred with similar frequency. In characterizing the 
area, respondents strongly associated Bells Bend with the presence of farmland and 
agricultural activities (10 responses) and with rural quality in general (8 responses). 
Structures or activities commonly found on farms were mentioned an additional 15 
times: barns and outbuildings, farm animals, farm houses, fences, cultivation, and 
local food production. Explicit references to historic character or historic places were 
much less common. The quality historic, archaeological sites, Native American 
occupation, historic buildings, Civil War history, and a specific historic building (the 
former Wade School), were mentioned a total of eight times.  
140 
 
 
 
Another theme emerging from the text exercise is the sense of isolation or 
inaccessibility presented by Bells Bend and its distinctive geography in a river bend. 
Eight responses specifically noted its isolation. Related features, such as a dispersed 
residential pattern, two-lane roads, and an undeveloped quality, were mentioned an 
additional 10 times. An interesting contrast emerges, however, as four respondents 
noted Bells Bend?s proximity to the city as a distinguishing feature. Interviewees for 
the Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project made similar observations about its 
being part of the country in the city in their descriptions of the area (McDonald 2012, 
Winfrey 2012). Maintaining its sense of place as a place apart, an oasis of rural life 
within the city limits, has been noted as a critical goal in the community?s 
conservation plan (Price and Coco [2007?], 1). The relative isolation sets Bells Bend 
and its community physically as well as mentally apart, aiding development of a 
neighborhood identity separate from that of Metro Nashville.  
 Responses to the second question, which asked what else makes Bells Bend 
special or memorable, clearly reflected the social component of community identity. 
Ten of 19 responses included a reference to community (53%), while four mentioned 
the preservation spirit upheld in the community, and two more called out friendships 
as something that makes the area special. Interview participants described locals as 
both ?tight-knit,? (Interviews #2, 13) and diverse (Interview #12). Respondents 
mentioned community-based social rituals and gathering places as they described 
what makes the area distinctive, including potluck dinners, sharing of farming 
equipment and maintenance, revivalist square dances for a younger generation at one 
141 
 
 
 
of the local organic farms, and festivals at the community club (Interviews #3, 4, 5, 
11, 12, 13). 
  
142 
 
 
 
Table 6. Responses to survey question: How would you describe the natural or 
manmade features that distinguish Bells Bend from other areas? 
 
Quality or feature Number of responses mentioning 
the quality or feature 
 
River 12 
Agricultural/farmland 10 
Rural 8 
Trees/woods 8 
Isolation 7 
Barns/outbuildings 4 
Dispersed residences 4 
Flat land/river bottoms 4 
Hills 4 
Two-lane roads 4 
Unchanging 4 
Wildlife 4 
Cultivation 3 
Diverse 3 
Fields 3 
Nature/natural 3 
Archaeology 2 
Farm animals 2 
Historic 2 
Outdoor recreation 2 
Trailers 2 
Undeveloped 2 
Vistas 2 
Beauty 1 
Community pride 1 
Farm houses 1 
Fences 1 
Gardens 1 
High elevations 1 
Historic buildings 1 
Peaceful 1 
Wade Elementary School 1 
 
 
  
143 
 
 
 
Table 7. Responses to survey question: What else contributes to making Bells Bend 
special or memorable? 
 
Quality or feature Number of responses mentioning 
the quality or feature 
 
Community 10 
Farming/local food production 4 
Preservation spirit 4 
Proximity to city 4 
Friendships 2 
Nature/natural 2 
Unchanging 2 
Civil War history 1 
Isolation 1 
Love of land 1 
Multi-generational 1 
Native American occupation 1 
Park 1 
Quiet 1 
Wildlife 1 
  
144 
 
 
 
 
Interview Results 
Interview participants for Bells Bend, when asked which of the 12 places in the image 
rating exercise they most associated with the area?s sense of place, selected a view of 
hills taken within Bells Bend Park in seven of nine responses. The hills were 
unanimously rated at the most natural end of the natural ? manmade scale. The 
absence of any houses or other structures in the view from this point in the park helps 
explain the very strong rating on that scale, as may the fact that it is a view within the 
park and thus protected from development within that boundary. The view also looks 
west, toward the river, which has a definitive shaping influence on the bend, and its 
western bluffs. Unlike the south end of the bend, where postwar and later suburban 
homes are visible and new multistory residential buildings now rise across the river in 
west Nashville, these western bluffs do not have visible development. This 
surrounding context may have influenced respondents who identified the direction of 
view and/or are sensitive to the effect of undisturbed viewsheds on the area?s rural 
character. The hills were also considered highly quiet, peaceful and with charm. 
These characteristics were also cited most often when respondents were asked to flag 
the qualities within the list of polar descriptive pairs they thought most characterized 
Bells Bend?s sense of place, although in the order quiet, peaceful, with charm, and 
natural. 
 While historic as a descriptor did not factor as frequently into qualities cited 
as most characteristic of Bells Bend (it was mentioned by two of nine respondents), 
historic properties occupy a space in participants? conception of the area?s distinctive 
145 
 
 
 
character. Two historic buildings, the West house and Wade School, were second-
most often mentioned as associated with Bells Bend?s sense of place, appearing in 
five of nine responses each. Both are relatively visible within the area, and each has a 
recent history of rehabilitation that has been celebrated in the community and by the 
Metropolitan Historical Commission, the city?s historic preservation agency. Both 
also reflect the recent trend toward outreach efforts to share the community?s farming 
past and present with a broader population through modern innovations in farming 
and agritourism. 
  
146 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16. West house. Photo by author. 
  
147 
 
 
 
The West house was acquired by the West family as part of a farm of approximately 
200 acres in 1918 or 1919. It is estimated to have been built in 1910, though that date 
may refer to a renovation that brought an earlier center hall structure into its present 
form. The house remained in family ownership when it won a local preservation 
award in 2008 (Price and Coco [2007?], 51; Metropolitan Historical Commission 
2008, Overstreet 2008). The house is a side-gable bungalow form used frequently for 
farm houses of the period. Its red roof is easily spotted on Old Hickory Boulevard and 
Cleeces Ferry Road. The house looks west over bottomland toward the Cumberland 
River, while a large barn on the east side of the property, at the rear of the house, can 
be seen from Old Hickory Boulevard. 
 The West house has associations with several Bells Bend heritage themes, 
including the persistence of family farms with long-time ownership. The qualities 
most strongly associated with this place in the image rating exercise were quiet, 
peaceful, with charm, and familiar. Familiar, in this case, could be understood in 
multiple ways?as an everyday sight for those traveling the main roads of Bells Bend, 
as a place known to respondents because they have visited the house or its 
surrounding farmland, and as a place that has a relationship to longstanding social 
connections in the area.  
  
148 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17. Wade School. Photo by author. 
  
149 
 
 
 
Wade School, 5022 Old Hydes Ferry Pike, was constructed by the Works 
Progress Administration (WPA), a Depression-era program that supported a large 
program of school construction in the city of Nashville as well as Davidson County, 
in 1936. The brick Classical Revival style, one-story school building replaced an 
older frame school building located on the opposite side of Old Hydes Ferry Pike 
(Price and Coco [2007?], 49). The 1936 design embodies characteristics of 
progressive school design of the period: large windows for ample natural light and 
ventilation, individual classroom spaces, and brick construction for safety and 
durability. A large addition added a cafeteria and two classrooms on the rear in 1953, 
and other smaller alterations were made before the school closed in 1999 (Price and 
Coco [2007?]; Semmer 2005). The Metropolitan Historical Commission has opined 
that Wade School is eligible for the National Register for its significance in the 
county?s educational history as an example of the influence of New Deal school 
building programs of the 1930s, consistent with Criterion A (Roberts 2005). 
 Wade School was remembered by long-term residents of Bells Bend as a 
community institution and landmark in a 2012 oral history project (for example, 
Creekmur 2012, Brown and Langley 2012). Located in the community of Scottsboro 
at the north end of the bend near the railroad tracks and modern Ashland City 
Highway, it was one point where families from Bells Bend were drawn together with 
those who lived in Scottsboro and nearby communities north of Bells Bend. Shared 
community institutions, like Wade School, the Scottsboro United Methodist Church, 
and the Scottsboro Community Club help link the history and identity of these areas 
together today. Interview participants noted the school is still the site of events that tie 
150 
 
 
 
the community together. Though it has changed uses, it is becoming another sort of 
gathering place (Interviews #8, 11). 
 Wade School?s future was in question after the school closed in 1999. A 
developer began, but did not complete, a renovation project in 2007 (Metropolitan 
Historical Commission 2015), having sought and received designation for the 
property as a neighborhood landmark district, a local zoning overlay that offers 
certain flexibilities in terms of land use in exchange for the retention of ?buildings, 
structures, objects, sites, and areas of historic, cultural, civic, neighborhood, or 
architectural value and/or importance to Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson 
County.? One stated purpose of the overlay is ?to enhance a neighborhood by 
providing a strong sense of place? (Metropolitan Zoning Code 17.36.400 ? 
17.36.420). Eventually, the school was acquired by a company that provides services 
to adults with intellectual and physical disabilities, which undertook an extensive 
renovation in 2013 to convert the deteriorated school building to use as office space. 
In 2014, the organization launched a non-profit organic farm, the Old School Farm, 
that provides work opportunities for persons with disabilities on the grounds to the 
rear and east of the building (Vienneau 2015). The farm supplies a community-
supported agriculture program (CSA), sells at local farmers? markets, and grows 
vegetables for the Old School Farm-to-Table, a restaurant opened in 2016 in the 
historic school building. The current incarnation of Wade School as the Old School 
Farm and restaurant has generated a new community institution based on respect for 
recollection of the area?s past. In addition to farm and food-related activities, the 
facility now hosts pottery classes, stargazing events, occasional live music, and other 
151 
 
 
 
reasons for people to gather. Wade School?s transformation was recognized by a 
preservation award granted by the Metropolitan Historical Commission in 2015. 
 In spite of its historic bona fides, the Wade School building was not 
particularly strongly associated with the quality historic by interview participants. 
Rather, it was most associated with the qualities with charm and familiar (1.33 
average on a scale of 1 to 5). It was nearly as strongly rated as friendly and accessible 
(1.56 average). This may reflect local identification of the place now in association 
with the Old School Farm and the restaurant, as well as the other events and activities 
that take place there since its rehabilitation. Its location at the top of the Bend, a short 
distance from Old Hickory Boulevard on Old Hydes Ferry Pike, makes it quicker and 
easier to get to than many of the other Bells Bend places included in the image rating 
exercise for those coming from outside the community. Community institutions and 
public buildings play an important role in the conception of community identity, 
particularly when they are tied to a shared history, as the school is through the 
memories of those who attended it. That legacy has been enhanced rather than 
overwritten by the adaptive reuse of the building in a way that highlights its history 
and historic architectural features. 
 
Prevailing Qualities of Sense of Place 
While quiet, peaceful, with charm, and natural were qualities most frequently 
mentioned as characteristic of Bells Bend sense of place by interview participants, the 
same group selected two historic buildings, the West house and Wade School, among 
the top three frequently cited places they considered most associated with the area?s 
152 
 
 
 
unique character. The West house was the place rated most strongly as historic in the 
image rating exercise, while the Scottsboro Community Club and the boat ramp at the 
Cumberland River followed. Notably, neither of these later two are historic buildings 
or sites in the traditional or obvious sense. The community club building, built in the 
early 1960s, is of utilitarian concrete block. It serves as a community gathering point 
for entertainment as well as meetings (McDonald 2012; Price and Coco [2007?], 52). 
The community club also played a role in volunteer-led efforts to preserve the Bend?s 
rural character in the face of development proposals. The boat ramp may have elicited 
associations with the river as a historical and cultural force shaping settlement 
patterns, boundary line, transportation corridor, or recreational site. Other old and 
historic buildings in the Bend resonated with interview participants, and one 
mentioned the Buchanan House (the historic house on park property) and the 
Scottsboro United Methodist Church as important contributors to sense of place that 
might have been candidates for the image rating exercise (Interview #8). 
In the results of the rating exercise, the qualities that participants associated 
most strongly with the places in the images, overall, were friendly, open, and with 
charm. With charm appears in both the top qualities selected by participants as 
characteristic of the area?s sense of place and in this measure. There is clearly a sense 
of affection and delight about Bells Bend among those who know the area. One 
interview respondent observed that the area may not appear ?especially unique or 
beautiful,? but it is ?special because of the sense of belonging? felt by residents 
(Interview #13). One response to the survey framed another facet of this affective 
quality in terms of ?love of the land.? Places that are valued for their heritage 
153 
 
 
 
associations can have the ability to ?enchant? or provoke a sense of connection in 
those who experience them, yet this aspect of heritage interpretation receives little 
emphasis compared to explaining sites in service of their educational value, argues 
cultural heritage scholar Russell Staiff (2013, 148-158). Responses selecting with 
charm point to this experiential quality of Bells Bend?s landscape. 
Bells Bend tended to show more consistency across responses in terms of 
those qualities most associated with its sense of place. The importance of natural 
environmental features, of quiet and tranquility, and of the continuation of small- or 
family-scale agriculture are apparent. One respondent mentioned that an organic farm 
should have been included as one of the important features or places in the rating 
exercise (Interview #11). Several interview participants said that for the area to 
maintain its sense of place, farming must be part of the mix of land uses (Interviews 
#2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 19). This emphasis on farming makes Bells Bend increasingly 
distinct from other areas of Metro Nashville, given the decline in the number of acres 
within Davidson County in farm operation, from 62,081 (18.44% of the total county 
land area) in 1997 to 34,447 (10.23%) by 2017 (USDA Census of Agriculture 2017). 
Another participant mentioned the importance of Bells Bend remaining a place where 
people earn a livelihood from the land (Interview #13), although there is some 
disagreement about the kind of agriculture that should be considered farming. As one 
participant asked, ?Is a sod farm a farm?? (Interview #19). Another participant noted 
the community connections of farming, since it takes the support of local produce 
buyers to keep small organic farms in business (Interview #2). The findings of this 
study show that Bells Bend?s sense of place is somewhat more sensitive than Music 
154 
 
 
 
Row to development and land use changes given how firmly its unique character is 
grounded in persistence?of rural practices, of families, of characteristic views, of 
well-known buildings that evolve new uses without changing the visual character of 
the area very much?and familiarity. 
 Sense of place in Bells Bend is most associated with its rural qualities and 
natural environmental features: the river, the topography of river bottoms and hills, 
the presence of wildlife, and trees and woodland. The long history of the area as a 
farming district is captured in survey responses that almost equally mentioned 
agricultural activities and features, like farm animals and outbuildings, as 
characteristic of this place. Responses to the electronic survey and interviews reflect 
that history in this area is understood in large part as continuity of environmental 
features, agricultural activities, and community relationships. This continuity is 
commented on by Thompson Mayes in his recent collection of essays on Why Old 
Places Matter. Mayes identifies the concept of continuity and its fundamental 
relationship to personal orientation and well-being as essential to understanding place 
attachment (Mayes 2018, 1-5). In Bells Bend, this connection to the past is facilitated 
by the persistence of natural environmental features and certain experiences and 
activities, such as participating in or observing at close hand farming and food 
production and engaging in social and community interactions that build familiarity 
within a small population. These elements of continuity relate to other concepts 
Mayes highlights in association with the roles that old places (and heritage) play in 
our lives, including community, memory, individual identity, as well as a connection 
to ancestors (Mayes 2018). 
155 
 
 
 
 While survey respondents identified Bells Bend as having historic character, 
the qualities and features most associated with its sense of place have an inherent 
evolutionary quality. The natural environment is subject to cycles of growth and 
dying back; community members change over time; and local farming has adapted, 
particularly in the period since World War II, to new technologies and markets. The 
two historic buildings flagged by interview participants as strongly associated with 
the area?s sense of place have also evolved new uses over time that still relate to the 
Bend?s rural quality. This concept of heritage allows flexibility and adaptation and 
can be thought of as resilient in the way Sies, Gournay, and Freestone (2019, 3) apply 
that concept to iconic planned communities, another kind of historic place in which 
sensitive, community-driven changes to accommodate the needs of current residents 
and users can make the difference for retaining essential elements of sense of place 
(5). 
 Bells Bend and Music Row share common characteristics of sense of place 
and heritage in that residents and users of both frequently mentioned continuity of 
traditional activities as an important component of the respective area?s distinctive 
character and intangible heritage. In an interesting contrast, the rural lifeways, river, 
and rolling hills of Bells Bend are often extolled in the lyrics of country music songs 
written, recorded, or produced on Music Row in its very urban setting. Though 
production on Bells Bend?s farms may have changed over the years, agriculture and 
natural conservation persist as land uses in the area, albeit now interspersed with large 
residential lots and in different forms than in the nineteenth century. Music Row?s 
sense of place, on the other hand, is significantly defined by markers of how its land 
156 
 
 
 
use changed over time, transitioning from residential to commercial. Music Row 
offers a juxtaposition of familiarity and hominess alongside the sophistication of large 
corporate music enterprises. That contrast captures cultural elements of country 
music, the origins of which have connections to traditional music made at home or as 
part of the community rituals of rural life and expresses the tension between country 
music?s cultural meanings and its modern existence in Nashville as an industry 
(Kreyling 1998). Music Row?s distinctive character is in many ways that of a 
changing neighborhood, with parts of both past and present visible on most blocks.  
 
 
157 
 
 
 
Chapter 5:  Conclusions 
 
Introduction 
This chapter expands upon the findings in the previous chapter about key 
characteristics of sense of place and heritage associations in both case study areas 
through a discussion of how existing planning policies and approaches in Metro 
Nashville either support or conflict with the preservation of such features. Each case 
will be examined in turn, followed by observations on the success of the 
methodological approach of this study and its potential applications to practice. The 
chapter concludes with a discussion about how current preservation planning practice 
in the U.S. attempts to sustain distinctive local character. This section will consider 
where adaptation of preservation planning tools or further study could offer 
improvements to current approaches.  
 
Fit Between Sense of Place, Heritage, and Planning Approaches 
The findings from the electronic survey and interview phases of this study led to 
conclusions about the features and qualities of sense of place that stand out as most 
important for residents, users, and others who know the two case study areas. Those 
features and qualities were examined for their connections to history and heritage. 
The following sections consider how local planning policies, including historic 
preservation-specific tools as well as more general land use and physical planning 
policies, can support the sustainability of those features of sense of place. The 
158 
 
 
 
discussion will also consider how other related strategies of heritage interpretation 
may have utility for conveying a sense of history in these neighborhoods. 
Music Row 
The prevailing qualities of sense of place on Music Row point to 
considerations in the planning process, such as how to maintain its historically 
residential neighborhood character in the face of rapidly increasing property values 
and how to maintain the eclecticism and variety in the built environment without 
sacrificing the organic quality of a business district that developed by accident. The 
importance of variety to the area appears to caution against planning tools that are 
highly prescriptive in terms of style or massing. It also indicates that planning 
interventions maintaining a strong sense of place on Music Row would encourage the 
tradition of adaptation and creative expression in its architecture that has made and 
continues to make Music Row?s built environment so diverse. One respondent 
commented about the modern apartment building in the photo exercise, saying that it 
could be found anywhere, in any city (Interview #17). By contrast, ?at least [the] BMI 
[building] is funky, trying to be different or unique? (Interview #7). The emphasis on 
variety also reflects design diversity within the study area. The shared urban design 
elements of the blocks where converted single-family residences predominate at the 
southern end contrasts with the interplay of early twentieth-century houses, 
midcentury office buildings, and statements of corporate identity like the BMI and 
ASCAP buildings at the north end. Music Row is inherently quirky and incompatible, 
a product of its organic evolution, not unlike the evolution of country music itself, 
and it is very difficult to replicate the unique circumstances that precipitated this kind 
159 
 
 
 
of development (Interview #9). Maintaining the characteristic transition from low-rise 
and residential scale at the south end to mid-rise, purpose-built offices on the north 
end and the eclectic transition in between would also embody Kevin Lynch?s ideas 
about how traveling a path through a city can be ?melodic,? a particularly apt 
description of Music Row?s imageability (Lynch 1960, 99) and linear form. The 2019 
Music Row Vision Plan calls for increased height and density at the north end of 
Music Row, while ?character areas? of decreasing height and progressively less 
intense use step down to the south end of the area (Metropolitan Planning Department 
2019). South of Grand Avenue, areas are ?generally residential in character? 
according to the plan?s recommendations for urban form (34).  
The importance of familiarity to the district indicates the risk of introducing 
changes to an area well known to users. The issue also calls into question how social 
relationships are affected by changes in the built environment on Music Row and how 
those relationships are changing as a result of dramatic shifts in recording technology 
and music distribution. Social behavior, culture, and place identity can be intertwined, 
as community planner Randolph Hester found in a planning study in Manteo, North 
Carolina. Through behavior mapping, the study revealed relationships between 
present-day social patterns and collective memory, often in connection with otherwise 
unremarkable places that had not been identified as important to retain through more 
straightforward public involvement efforts and planning analyses (Hester, 1993). A 
similar category, referred to as ?places of the heart,? is used in the Massachusetts 
Heritage Landscape Inventory planning process to elicit information about places 
with similar kinds of social or community significance (Berg 2011, 32). When 
160 
 
 
 
planning efforts fail to identify such places, ?the existing planning and design 
mechanisms developed precisely to preserve local cultural heritage ignored almost 
entirely the places most critical to the present lifestyles, most valued patterns, and 
local memory? of the town (Hester 1993, 280). Places with social and cultural 
significance to a community may also be difficult to fit into the protective coverage of 
existing, traditional zoning mechanisms, historic preservation ordinances, or related 
tools (Hester 1993; King 2011; Buckley and Graves 2016). A risk, as Hester notes, is 
that preservation of certain social rituals and cultural heritage in an inequitable 
environment could perpetuate social meanings that serve to bolster the power of one 
group while minimizing the needs or narratives of those who have been historically 
disadvantaged (Hester, 1993). Thus, thoughtful consideration of the use of heritage 
should inform planning processes. In the case of Music Row, it would take additional 
research to determine whether the familiarity extolled by multiple participants in this 
study is shared across demographic groups and types of users, as well as whether it is 
uniformly experienced as welcoming.  
The deep concern with stories about who wrote or recorded what song in what 
location, or respondents? personal experiences interacting with others who worked on 
Music Row (e.g. Interviews #16, 17, 18; Bell 2015; Bruce 2015; Williams 2015), 
points to the importance of collective memory in this district. Interpretive efforts to 
mark and share those stories could contribute meaningfully to sustaining the area?s 
sense of place. Though some participants in this study tended to advocate for the 
retention of buildings to convey heritage stories, others emphasized the importance of 
memory and celebrating the creative work that comes from Music Row as an 
161 
 
 
 
ensemble rather than the individual vessels (Interview #15). Interpretation, 
particularly through means that integrate art and music into the environment, could 
offer opportunities to bolster community identity and to help visitors understand the 
contributions of Music Row to local and national history. Collaborative efforts by arts 
and community organizations, public officials, and the private sector to energize 
places and shape neighborhood character using cultural activities have come into 
focus as a community revitalization strategy called creative placemaking (Markusen 
and Gadwa 2010). Creative placemaking approaches, by seeking to benefit livability 
through the celebration of distinctive local character, heritage, and culture, seem 
particularly well suited to Music Row, as does their encouragement of arts and culture 
activities as economic generators (Markusen and Gadwa 2010, 7).   
While there have been past efforts to celebrate the area?s music history via 
public art, not all connect with place-based stories that interpret its unique history. 
For example, the Musica statue (Alan LeQuire, 2003) addresses music in general 
without specific elements referencing country music, Nashville, or Music Row. One 
participant remarked it would be more meaningful if it had been a composition of 
notable figures in country music (Interview #16). A bronze of Owen Bradley at his 
piano sits near a historical marker in Owen Bradley Park at the north end of Music 
Row, which provide a direct reference to Bradley?s opening of the Quonset Hut 
studio in 1955. Other elements of the streetscape integrate more general references to 
music. A utilities box near the corner of Music Square West and Division Street, 
alongside Owen Bradley Park, plays country music, and a bike rack in the shape of a 
microphone and cord is part of recent streetscape improvements across the 
162 
 
 
 
roundabout. Seeking additional sites for public art in the area is another way to 
enhance the landscape with meaningful references to Music Row?s heritage (Brackett 
and Gross 2016, 66).  
Other aspects of Nashville?s history have benefitted from thoughtful 
interpretive treatment and placemaking activities. The 2017 Witness Walls installation 
by artist Walter Hood on the Davidson County Courthouse grounds interprets Civil 
Rights activism in Nashville with specific reference to the lunch counter sit-ins and 
marches in the 1950s and 1960s. Witness Walls obligates the visitor to move?to take 
action?in order to see the artist?s interpretation of sitting and marching. Distinctive 
concrete and aggregate graphic techniques reveal figures from historical newspaper 
images to the viewer at different times and different angles based on his or her 
position and the position of the sun. Music of the period plays once an hour. Its 
location next to the courthouse downtown reinforces the importance of place in Civil 
Rights history, as it was here Nashville?s mayor met marching students in 1960 and 
affirmed that lunch counters should not be segregated. The artwork is supported by a 
website and educational curriculum (Metro Nashville Arts Commission, n.d.). Similar 
placemaking activities drawing on the rich stories of Music Row history could help 
imprint past events on the landscape even when a standing structure no longer 
remains. 
 
  
163 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18. Walter Hood, Witness Walls, 2017, downtown Nashville. 
  
164 
 
 
 
Perpetuation of uses and activities that are part of or support the music 
industry should be part of any planning strategy to maintain the distinctive local 
character identified by participants in this study. That finding presents challenges for 
traditional preservation approaches, such as historic preservation districts, which 
generally leave the base zoning that regulates use untouched while achieving 
aesthetic control to maintain historic appearance through a set of design guidelines. It 
also raises questions about how compatible contemporary urban planning approaches 
are within this unique area. For example, the creation of compact, walkable urban 
neighborhoods that locate density where existing infrastructure (such as sidewalks, 
sewers, schools, and transit) is in place and that offer opportunities for living and 
working in close proximity are in tune with the principles of smart growth. Yet in this 
case, participants did not identify strong associations with established residential 
buildings as part of the district?s history and sense of place. The construction of new, 
large-scale condo and apartment buildings on Music Row, particularly when they 
supplanted music-related uses, was mentioned as a threat to neighborhood character. 
Thus, policies that work well elsewhere in Nashville to guide the development of 
mixed-use urban neighborhoods may need modification here to acknowledge Music 
Row?s status as a unique business district, a fact fortunately acknowledged by the 
2019 plan (Metropolitan Planning Department 2019). 
The residential qualities cited by survey respondents refer to the area?s past as 
a neighborhood and provide visual clues to its evolution over time. Maintaining 
features associated with historic neighborhoods like sidewalks and walkable streets, 
low-rise buildings, street trees, and lawns or set-backs even with the depth of lawns 
165 
 
 
 
could contribute to the continuity of heritage values in a number of ways. Where the 
urban form continues to read like a residential neighborhood with small-scale 
buildings providing a rhythm of walkways, porches, and windows to passers-by, 
Music Row reveals its past and how the neighborhood transitioned over time. Where 
adaptively reused older buildings are retained, residents and users are reminded of 
how offices, studios, and other uses were made to work in former residences. The 
continued existence of groups of adaptively reused older buildings, when viewed 
alongside newer, sleeker, purpose-built offices, speaks to the growth of the country 
music industry in Nashville over the last 60 years and to what the genre has achieved 
in terms of widespread popularity. It is music with a past, and thus relatable in unique 
ways to visitors who come to Nashville to seek out Music Row and identify with its 
songs and performers as part of their own personal histories. As Lynch notes, ?It is 
the signs of the near past which we connect with our own continuity as a living 
person?? (Lynch 1972, 61). Music Row?s story of evolution and growth can be told 
through selective retention of elements of its built environment if it is approached as a 
temporal collage (Lynch 1972), particularly since traditional preservation approaches 
like National Register district listing or local historic districting are a difficult fit. 
Planning policies that link interpretive efforts with physical changes could help 
explain the area?s complex heritage to users and visitors. 
Fortunately, the Metropolitan Planning Department?s efforts as of this writing 
to develop a new small area plan for Music Row are yielding draft recommendations 
that would support many of these characteristics. In concept, the policies in the Music 
Row Vision Plan (2019) would maintain variety of heights and intensity within the 
166 
 
 
 
area by stepping down from larger office buildings at the north end, through a 
transitional area with smaller-scale offices and supporting uses like bars and cafes, to 
the conservation zoning district where low-rise development on a residential scale 
would be maintained (Metropolitan Planning Department 2019). The framework for 
the plan also includes language about encouraging music industry-related uses and 
incentivizing preservation of certain ?historically and culturally significant? 
buildings, perhaps through a transfer of development rights (TDR) program 
(Metropolitan Planning Department 2019, 48-49). Though the tailored zoning code 
that would be enacted to implement these recommendations is yet to be developed 
and would still require adoption by the planning commission and council, the policy 
direction of the Music Row plan addresses several key elements associated with the 
area?s sense of place: residential scale and architecture, continuity of music-related 
uses, preservation of historic properties, and variety. The test now is for the 
community to come together to develop consensus around steps to implement the 
vision plan and related strategies like appropriate tourism and economic development 
incentives.  
 
Bells Bend 
Sense of place in Bells Bend is characterized by an emphasis on the affective 
quality of this area of natural beauty and community social relationships. Its quiet and 
peaceful quality, linked to its geographic isolation from urbanization in Metro 
Nashville, and its openness and natural quality were prominent in responses of 
interview participants in this study, aligning with the visual and environmental 
167 
 
 
 
components of sense of place (McMahon 2010). Study results indicated that sense of 
place in Bells Bend also encompasses social and cultural elements, rounding out 
McMahon?s four-part definition. A strong sense of community is expressed by the 
way many places in the image rating exercise were described as friendly and how 
interview participants mentioned various social rituals as part of their descriptions of 
the area?s distinctiveness. This connectedness also extends into the past, as continuity 
of farming, land tenure, and rural lifeways emerged as another facet of the Bend?s 
character. 
 The conservation plan developed by the organization that became the Bells 
Bend Conservation Corridor strategically recommends ways to open up knowledge of 
Bells Bend and its natural and cultural resources to a wider audience by framing the 
area as a resource for all Nashvillians. If Bells Bend is understood as a place that city 
dwellers are welcomed to experience nature, learn about farming and rural life, 
disconnect from urban hustle and bustle through outdoor recreation, and take a 
personal interest in where their food comes from, then preservation of its landscape, 
natural resources, and isolation becomes a goal shared with a much larger population. 
As one respondent observed, the more the area is known in greater Nashville, the 
more allies residents have in their conservation efforts (Interview #12). 
The degree to which Bells Bend?s sense of place is grounded in agricultural 
heritage points to the promotion of agriculture and education and interpretation of 
farm work and farm life as a focus of maintaining its sense of place. The conservation 
corridor organization links to local farms that run CSA programs from its website, 
and those farms are active in promoting their products at farmers markets, online 
168 
 
 
 
through website and social media presences, and in partnerships with local restaurants 
and other food and beverage producers (e.g., Bells Bend Farms 2018). Programming 
at Bells Bend Park further serves to educate the public about agriculture through a 
demonstration garden and an annual Farm Day festival. These activities maintain 
links between the area?s identity and agriculture, even if fewer acres are in production 
today than in the past.  
Land preservation for farming, wildlife and plant species habitat, and natural 
resources management is another emphasis of the conservation corridor plan and is 
similarly reflected in Bells Bend Park programming and interpretation. The park 
frequently offers guided hikes to see certain species of plants and animals. Members 
of the community have taken steps to preserve land, including farmland, for the long 
term through conservation easements held by the Land Trust for Tennessee. 
Currently, 350 acres are so preserved, according to the Bells Bend Conservation 
Corridor organization (Bells Bend Conservation Corridor n.d., ?Conservation 
Programs?). By maintaining land for conservation purposes inside and outside the 
park, the community increases its ability to maintain qualities strongly associated 
with its sense of place, including quiet and peacefulness, and natural characteristics. 
Agricultural historian Sally McMurry notes there can be conflicts between 
agricultural land preservation programs and historic preservation, but in 
circumstances with smaller scale or part-time farm operations, an interest in 
agritourism, or an emphasis on natural resource conservation, there tends to be greater 
chance for land preservation programs to successfully integrate farmland and historic 
169 
 
 
 
buildings (McMurry 2016, 15-16). These kinds of farming are more typical in Bells 
Bend than large-scale operations. 
Another aspect of heritage preservation dependent on land use decisions in 
this area involves archaeological preservation. The conservation corridor study 
recommended development of a predictive model as a tool to guide conservation 
efforts and future archaeological study as well as establishment of an archaeological 
survey requirement for new development in areas with a high potential for 
archaeological finds (Price and Coco [2007?], 58). While there is no city 
archaeological protection ordinance, the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission 
has taken steps to protect archaeological resources within Bells Bend Park via the 
historic landmark overlay that requires local preservation commission review of 
proposed work and calls out archaeology as one of the aspects of historic significance 
to which it responds (MHZC Historic Landmark Overlays 2018). In recent years, the 
park has hosted an annual archaeology day in partnership with the Tennessee Council 
for Professional Archaeology. Educating the public about this important aspect of the 
area?s long habitation should contribute to greater public awareness of the sensitivity 
of archaeological resources within the landscape and provide a fuller picture of its 
history of occupation and use.  
Current zoning and policy, as reflected in the Bordeaux-Whites Creek-Haynes 
Trinity Community Plan (Metropolitan Planning Commission 2015/2017), last 
updated in 2017, anticipates this area will remain rural and residential. Land use 
policies in Bells Bend stipulate that the area will retain similar development 
characteristics with a small area of slightly more intense use in a ?rural neighborhood 
170 
 
 
 
center? at the intersection of Old Hickory Boulevard and Ashland City Highway at 
the north end of the Bend. Due to slopes and floodplain or floodway, large areas of 
Bells Bend fall into conservation policy. Conservation policy is ?intended to preserve 
environmentally sensitive land features through protection and remediation? 
(Metropolitan Planning Commission 2015/2017, 28). It is applied to areas like steep 
slopes, wetlands, floodway and floodplains, and rare animal habitats. The remainder 
of the Bend is planned for open space, which includes public parks and private land in 
conservation easements, rural maintenance, or single-family residential use along Old 
Hydes Ferry Pike. Rural maintenance policy is intended for uses like low-density 
residential and agriculture. The policy description notes new residential development 
should come in the form of conservation subdivisions (Metropolitan Planning 
Commission 2015/2017, 28).  Land in Bells Bend is currently zoned AR2a, an 
agricultural zoning district allowing residences with a minimum two-acre lot 
(Metropolitan Planning Department, n.d.). Only AG, or agricultural zoning, requires 
larger lots in Metro Nashville?s zoning code, at five acres minimum. The two-acre 
minimum lot size still allows for a significant degree of subdivision, and it would not 
preserve tracts large enough for most agricultural activities. Thus, continuity of 
agricultural uses and large-scale natural conservation areas will likely require pairing 
existing zoning with the use of additional conservation tools or incentives to maintain 
the current level of natural environmental character in the area.  
Finally, Bells Bend?s isolation from transportation networks contributes to 
how it maintains a sense of separation from the urban areas of Metro Nashville. At 
present, the city?s Major and Collector Street Plan does not propose new river 
171 
 
 
 
crossings or new connections to Old Hickory Boulevard (Metropolitan Planning 
Department, Major and Collector Street Plan, 2015/2017). Any change to the degree 
of transportation connectivity from Bells Bend to west Nashville?s neighborhoods at 
its southern tip could have a dramatic effect on the area.  
While local planning policies reflect an intention for Bells Bend to remain 
much as it is today, community members have taken important steps to define the 
qualities that they see most associated with the area?s place identity by developing a 
consensus about what they value about their neighborhood in contrast to public and 
private development proposals and in the proactive development of a conservation 
corridor study. This community-led articulation of key characteristics has been linked 
to better preservation outcomes in other contexts. As Sies, Gournay, and Freestone 
observe, ?[O]nce residents determine the tangible or intangible heritage they most 
value in their communities, they find ways to sustain it, frequently for decades? 
(2019, 9). The qualities are often associated with natural features and the persistence 
of practices like farming and outdoor recreation rather than specific historic 
properties, although some of the Bend?s older and historic buildings emerged as 
places most associated with its sense of place in this study. With the amenity of the 
park providing a natural outlet for public engagement, interpretation of natural and 
cultural heritage is educating a wider population about the area?s past. The park still 
has other heritage resources to build on, such as a future restoration of the Buchanan 
House and research and interpretation of its archaeological resources, which offer 
additional opportunities to tell the story of Bells Bend?s cultural history. It serves as a 
focal point for heritage education as well as outdoor recreation and ecological 
172 
 
 
 
programming and will contribute to helping the community sustain a sense of place 
tied to the natural environment. Elsewhere in the Bend, land use choices that could 
shift the area away from its rural roots will depend largely on decisions made by 
individual landowners under current zoning and land use policies. 
The community-generated nature of the local conservation plan indicates a 
certain level of consensus about what is most important to retain within the Bells 
Bend landscape. The organizations in the neighborhood have been able to achieve 
two of the benefits cited of the Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory process, 
prioritization of important landscape features that are meaningful to local residents 
and validation of key issues for the planning process (Berg 2011, 40), without the 
assistance of a government-sponsored program. The establishment of a cohesive 
preservation vision through community involvement and initiative is likely to help 
Bells Bend sustain its distinctive character into the future, even though formal 
preservation tools like historic districting may play only a minor role in maintaining 
its connections to heritage. 
 
Rural and Urban 
Music Row and Bells Bend are very different neighborhoods with contrasting 
senses of place and defining characteristics. One is urban, busy, and in a highly 
sought-after location next to downtown, two universities and other amenities that 
intensify current development pressure. The focus of Music Row?s heritage 
associations began just over a half-century ago, and the area has experienced physical 
evolution ever since. Bells Bend, by contrast, is quiet, rural, isolated, and has a 
173 
 
 
 
history of continuity as well as a committed base of local activists who have shaped 
its recent development in favor of retention of rural and natural qualities. However, 
they have more in common than simply being within the confines of Metro Nashville. 
Both celebrate and seek to maintain continuity of activities that are deeply connected 
to the heritage of each place and intertwined with the place identities of those who 
live, work, or spend time there. Each has a few places that are or would be considered 
eligible for formal preservation recognition or protection programs among a larger 
group of others that might not meet such criteria but are equally important to the 
neighborhood?s sense of place. And in both areas, retention of distinctive place 
characteristics connected to heritage in the view of those who know the 
neighborhoods will require use of a combination of tools from historic preservation, 
local government land use planning, education and interpretation, as well as 
incentives and tools brought by community-based partners.  
Metro Nashville fortunately has a range of land use and preservation planning 
tools at the municipal level that can be directed at sustaining the sense of place of 
both case study areas. While Bells Bend has benefitted from interpretive work at 
Bells Bend Park, heritage-focused efforts on Music Row have so far been limited to 
private tours and historical markers and could be more fully integrated into planning 
strategies. The increased attention on Music Row?s history that has accompanied the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation?s involvement and the Metropolitan Planning 
Department?s multi-year effort to develop a new small area plan for the district have 
focused community attention on what makes this place unique. Hopefully, that 
interest and dialogue can be channeled into forming a strong community consensus 
174 
 
 
 
around what aspects of the area are most essential to its sense of place, as Bells Bend 
community members have done through their community conservation plan. Each 
area contributes significantly to Nashville?s identity and reflects its origins, growth, 
and recognition as a creative industry center and is worthy of the application of 
creative planning and preservation strategies to retain the meaningful associations 
rural life and the music industry have for the city?s residents. 
 
Methodological Considerations 
This project combined mixed research methods in an attempt to achieve a 
more holistic understanding of sense of place and how that concept relates to history 
and heritage in two case studies. Rather than extensively testing a single method, the 
combination of document-based research, field observation, survey, and interviews 
allowed resident and user perceptions to inform an understanding of what qualities 
contribute most to local character and what features and places are most associated 
with community heritage in the case study areas. This type of contextual 
understanding allows the diverse range of values that may be associated with place to 
emerge. Advancing that understanding is important in making planning decisions or 
reacting to development proposals that could affect historic environments (Townend 
and Whittaker 2011). 
While the survey and interview portions of the study produced interesting 
qualitative information about how consistent residents? and users? perception of sense 
of place is in each case study area and the interplay of old and new in those 
valuations, the sample size is too small to be considered statistically significant in 
175 
 
 
 
quantitative terms. It is also impossible to characterize the group of respondents as 
representative of community demographics since personally identifiable information 
was purposefully left off the survey instrument in order to encourage responses by 
maintaining anonymity unless respondents volunteered contact information. Response 
rate can also be a challenge in any survey method, and this proved true in this study. 
In preservation planning, survey response rate might improve if the query were 
related to a specific planning intervention or development proposal and respondents 
felt that their input would count toward influencing a decision. It might also rise if a 
survey or input opportunity were organized or endorsed by a community organization 
so that members were encouraged to participate. This study would have been 
improved by earlier and more thorough cultivation of local contacts, particularly in 
Bells Bend, where three resident community organizations engage with issues related 
to planning, land conservation, and preservation. Though outreach brought the online 
survey to the attention of two, and perhaps all three, an endorsement or group 
distribution was not sought, and the nature of the survey distribution did not allow the 
researcher to see whether or not it was shared with all members of an organization. 
On Music Row, the recent dissolution of two organizations formed in the midst of the 
Studio A demolition threat, the Music Industry Coalition and the Music Row 
Neighborhood Association, meant that there was not an organizational point of 
contact for a group with a focus on Music Row as a location or neighborhood. The 
stakeholder group working with local planners on a small area plan for Music Row 
was informed of the survey and encouraged to participate. This may have led to 
greater congruity between the study results and recommendations in the vision plan 
176 
 
 
 
recently developed for Music Row if there were a high degree of crossover 
participation. An inherent challenge of using an electronic survey is reaching 
individuals and organizations that do not maintain an online presence. Participation in 
similar research might be increased by face-to-face interaction and recruitment, such 
as at community events and festivals, membership meetings, or in a public place. 
Distribution of the surveys was carried out in a way that does not provide any 
information about the representativeness of the respondent pool, since survey links 
were originally shared by the researcher with contacts within the historic preservation 
field and local preservation agencies and organizations, among other personal 
contacts. Though participants were encouraged to share the survey link with others 
they knew who lived, worked, or spent time in the case areas, the limited response 
numbers show that this method did not reach as far as anticipated into populations 
familiar with the case study neighborhoods. Finally, it is possible that the bias of 
those responding, since they are likely to have had some connection to preservation 
organizations, may have influenced the results to magnify the importance of history, 
historic buildings, or other aspects of heritage to which they might be more sensitized 
than other residents or users. 
These limitations may not mean that the methodological experimentation in 
this project is in vain. As planning consultants Stephen Townend and Ken Whittaker 
(2011) observe about the challenges of translating community values about heritage 
and the perception of sense of place, structured surveys designed for random 
distribution to yield statistically significant samples are subject to forces that could 
skew their results, and the pursuit of quantitative analysis could so limit queries as to 
177 
 
 
 
miss information about the meanings and significance residents and users attach to 
places. Instead, they propose that ?any discursive or expressive representations,? 
ranging from written and spoken accounts to film and other media can be used as 
source material (71). They propose feedback in focus groups or public forums might 
be most useful for structured environmental review processes required by government 
regulation in the United Kingdom, but their suggestions about using open-ended 
responses that are then coded to discover patterns of meaning and relative 
significance have elements in common with the survey component of this study. 
The open-ended survey questions yielded diverse responses about participant 
associations with sense of place and called attention to a number of features through 
the frequency with which certain elements of the built and natural environment were 
mentioned. The ease of collecting such data electronically and analyzing it in this 
format have advantages for working within the confines of project planning 
timetables, though it would be challenging to validate that respondents are members 
of a specific community if establishing such credentials were required. The image 
rating exercise, while focusing attention on certain characteristics that emerged as 
having associations with sense of place in the two case study areas, needs further 
refinement. Some of the polar quality pairs, such as open ? closed and varied ? 
uniform, required additional explanation from the researcher. Just as researchers have 
developed standard lexicons for discussing environmental qualities (Kasmar 1988), 
additional work might be focused on refining standard sets of terms that work well in 
discussing heritage in the environment. Even without the descriptions afforded by the 
polar quality pairs, posing questions with images about why participants associate 
178 
 
 
 
certain places with the neighborhood?s sense of place or history is a useful tactic for 
researchers interested in capturing resident or user perspective on place. Images can 
focus attention and reaction, and an open-ended query offers an opportunity for 
participants to tell their own stories about what a place is, was, or means. The 
resulting narratives or visual information can be coded and aggregated to see if 
patterns of meaning emerge. 
While there are precedents for consultative processes in planning decision-
making related to heritage resources in the United States, such as the review process 
required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 
306108), planners are not always equipped with tools to carry out the dialogue and 
public input aspects of those processes effectively. The development of methods 
using online tools, images, and other means of eliciting community feedback without 
first applying the filter of professional evaluation (or regulatory language) should be a 
goal for preservation planners working in both public and private spheres. This study 
tests a couple of those methods in ways that produced useful information about what 
aspects of local character are valued in these neighborhoods and why. That 
information, used alongside the professional evaluations required by some historic 
preservation programs, can help tailor management and treatment strategies so that 
they direct preservation efforts in ways that will address community values. 
 
Preservation Practice and Sense of Place 
In order to take sense of place into account in management decisions about 
old and historic places, and to assess how elements of heritage contribute to a 
179 
 
 
 
community?s sense of place, preservation planners need additional tools to understand 
resident and user experience of place. Without a grasp of how meaning is attached to 
a landscape by those who spend time there, professional evaluations of landscape 
features, buildings, and design are likely to miss information relevant to making 
planning decisions appropriate in neighborhood or community context. While 
critiques of contemporary historic preservation practice stress how professionals have 
influenced the types of places designated as historic or otherwise selected for 
government-sanctioned benefits or recognition (e.g., King 2009, 2011; Pannekoek 
1998), professionals play a valuable facilitation role when applying their expertise to 
help match qualities communities say define their place with planning, historic 
preservation, and interpretive tools useful in sustaining those qualities. Existing laws, 
regulations, and planning systems can be a part of achieving community heritage 
preservation goals when they are employed thoughtfully, in ways that respect resident 
and user knowledge about the features that matter most. 
In practice, preservation planners are faced with the question of how to be 
more responsive to community understanding of heritage and sense of place using the 
tools available. In historic properties evaluations, they can strive toward fuller 
recognition of association and feeling in assessing the integrity of properties under the 
National Register of Historic Places listing criteria (Michael, 2016). While some 
property types are more sensitive to changes in association or feeling, these elements 
of integrity are often treated as of secondary importance because they are more 
subjective. Guidance on applying the National Register criteria clarify that feeling or 
association must be accompanied by one or more of the other elements (location, 
180 
 
 
 
design, materials, workmanship, and setting) for a historic property to retain integrity 
(National Park Service 1997). Feeling relates to the overall impression that a historic 
property makes. ?[Feeling] results from the presence of physical features that, taken 
together, convey the historic property?s character? (National Park Service 1997, 45). 
Association hinges on whether the property is still able to connect that character to 
physical evidence and on whether it still is the place where a historic event occurred 
or a pattern developed. These elements of integrity are responsive to a property?s 
historic significance, however, and certain aspects of integrity will be more important 
than others depending on why a property is considered important. Buildings 
significant for their architectural design or fine craftsmanship can tolerate less change 
in materials or workmanship than houses in a mill village considered significant for 
the story it tells about community planning or labor history, for instance.  
Certain resources on Music Row show how feeling has implications beyond 
conveying a sense of the past. A connection with heritage can inspire the present 
where continuity of use has meaning for the community that values the historic 
property. A Nashville newspaper article illustrated this point when it profiled the 
success producer Dave Cobb had in garnering 12 Grammy nominations in 2019 for 
albums or songs he produced in National Register-listed Studio A (Rau 2019). In the 
article, Cobb describes how the history of the studio was an incentive to work there, 
and how he feels a connection to those who built the studio and worked there before. 
In this sense, feeling conveys a sense of participating in a creative community that is 
both past and present. 
181 
 
 
 
Assessing feeling and association offers opportunities to more fully explore a 
historic property?s contributions to sense of place: what feeling does the community 
experience there? Is that experience of immersion in historical context dependent on 
factors or features that are not physically part of the property being assessed? Would 
a change in use alter feeling or association? How is the property valued in the 
community beyond its age or historical value? A potential modification to the 
guidance on application of feeling and association in the National Register evaluation 
procedure would be to include use as well as physical features in the definition of 
feeling and association. Does the persistence of historically associated uses of place, 
taken together with its physical features, convey the historic property?s character? Is a 
place still recognizable in its physical features by the community as the place an event 
occurred or a pattern developed, and is it still used in a way that acknowledges or is 
shaped by that event or pattern? This is not to imply that changes in the use of historic 
properties significant for their architecture, for example, would be detrimental to 
integrity, but rather that existing National Register guidance could be moderately 
broadened to also encompass aspects of heritage for which physical intactness has 
less importance. For example, a festival site where structures have been reconfigured 
through the years might retain integrity of association and feeling if the changes 
contributed to the perpetuation of arts or cultural traditions that now incorporate new 
technologies. Whether the guidance on applying the eligibility criteria is changed or 
not, raising the profile of these two aspects of how historic places communicate their 
importance to those who value them could help balance the National Register?s 
reliance on professional evaluations of physical form and historic significance. It 
182 
 
 
 
could also generate information for the future evaluation of planning proposals where 
sense of place has ties to heritage, including federal projects that must be assessed in 
terms of whether they could cause adverse effects (defined as changes that diminish 
the integrity of the historic property [36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)]) to historic properties to 
encourage better consideration of characteristics that contribute to sense of place. 
The importance of place and the sense of personal meaning and connection to 
community that some places provide has filtered into preservation planning and 
advocacy efforts following publication of Dolores Hayden?s influential book, The 
Power of Place (Hayden 1995) and other works that reveal the distance that 
sometimes exists between properties considered officially worthy of preservation, as 
in the ?authorized heritage discourse? (Smith 2006), and those that have importance 
for collective memory and community identity but do not fit designation or protection 
criteria (e.g., Kaufman 2009).   
The New York City-based initiative Place Matters, of which heritage 
conservation scholar Ned Kaufman was a founder, incorporates recognition of history 
alongside shared traditions and memories in recognizing places that are meaningful to 
New Yorkers and that contribute to making the city distinctive. This integrated 
approach to cultural heritage includes an identification effort, the Census of Places 
that Matter, that invites simple nominations from the public (Place Matters, 
?Mission,? 2019).  The organization uses this information to support educational 
efforts and advocacy aimed at ensuring places identified as meaningful are known 
and considered in planning and development. Other organizations have developed 
alternative heritage inventories based on public recognition of significant places. The 
183 
 
 
 
Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program, started in 2001, works to 
?expand the parameters of historic surveys to encompass neglected resources, 
especially those that have not been addressed in traditional surveys, that are valued by 
the community, and that are potentially threatened?  in part by asking participants to 
identify special places in their communities (Berg 2011, 30-32). The National Trust 
for Historic Preservation takes a similar approach in its social media campaign called 
This Place Matters, in which participants photograph themselves with places they 
care about and then post those images to Twitter or Instagram using the Trust?s 
#ThisPlaceMatters hashtag. (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2019). 
In encouraging members of the public to advocate for places to which they 
have an attachment, the Place Matters toolkit suggests three possible avenues for 
sustaining places: ?preserving the structure, retaining longstanding use, and 
interpreting the story? (Place Matters, ?Toolkit,? 2019). This represents an expansion 
of heritage management strategies over the preservation planning tools commonly 
available at the local level. Local preservation commissions often have the ability to 
require review of certain exterior physical changes to buildings within locally-
designated districts. Commissions, especially those that have Certified Local 
Government status through the National Historic Preservation Act program jointly 
managed by state historic preservation offices and the National Park Service, also 
carry out surveys to identify historic properties in their jurisdictions. While 
commissions may conduct other programs like history education efforts or heritage-
based events, interpretive work is less often standard practice, and programs focused 
on intangible heritage preservation are rarer still.  
184 
 
 
 
This is where Place Matters? toolkit approach offers a different practical 
paradigm for tailoring the heritage management strategy to qualities that mean the 
most to the users who ascribe value to a place: it can be physical preservation, 
sustaining distinctive uses, interpretation, or all three. The most responsive 
preservation strategy may need to be flexible, to accommodate a greater extent of 
physical change than a historic district might allow, and instead emphasize 
interpretation, as Hayden demonstrated through projects that brought the stories of 
women and minority populations into relief within the urban landscape (Hayden 
1998). In that case the preservation planning conversation could consider how much 
and what kind of marking, referencing, or identifying could help sustain heritage 
values in a living environment. More recently, San Francisco has found ways to 
recognize places that define community identity in a series of cultural heritage 
planning efforts for neighborhoods associated with ethnic minorities and other 
constituencies underserved by traditional preservation practice (Buckley and Graves, 
2016). 
When preservation planning assumes that all roads to sustaining sense of 
place and place meanings flow through established designation or protection 
processes, it misses opportunities to be responsive to a broader range of heritage 
values. Mayes? work (2018) helps define a vocabulary to serve a broadened concept 
of preservation, or heritage conservation, focused on place identity and sense of 
place. Preservation practitioners have a choice of strategies to avoid being too limited 
in approach. The field can take steps to alter the structure and criteria of programs 
that have served as the foundation for preservation practice in the U.S., including the 
185 
 
 
 
National Historic Preservation Act, to encompass a wider range of heritage values, 
including elements that are more intangible, or it can use existing programs focused 
on the preservation of the built and archaeological environments, like the National 
Register, as a complement to other heritage conservation strategies focused on 
landscapes, sustaining distinctive uses of place, identifying and preserving intangible 
heritage, or interpreting history and heritage in ways that are meaningful to 
communities. While some scholars have expressed anxiety about preservation?s 
relevance should it not be able to tackle all of these heritage concerns as a discipline 
(Allison and Allison 2008), a practical course probably combines both ways of 
modernizing the practice. Preservation can function as a component of planning while 
connecting its work with the tools related disciplines offer and can find alternative 
means of recognizing and sustaining places that may not meet the criteria for listing 
in register programs. At the same time, practitioners and policymakers should work to 
assess how the official benefits of designation, protection, and incentive programs run 
by units of government are distributed.  Integrating new tools may require 
preservation planning to embrace strategies drawn from the social sciences (Wells 
2015), the arts and placemaking, land use planning, and economic development.  
Making advances in preservation of sense of place and broader heritage values 
in the built and natural environment will require preservation planners to become 
more comfortable with imprecision in terms of strategies that are not purely 
regulatory (Allison and Allison 2008). Some strategies may depend more on 
education and persuasion, as planners and urban historians James Buckley and Donna 
Graves find with San Francisco?s experiment with a social heritage district (Buckley 
186 
 
 
 
and Graves 2016). Solutions may need to be tailored to the unique circumstances of a 
particular area or neighborhood, and they may lead to the creation of policies or tools 
new to the planning jurisdiction, as is occurring in Nashville through a proposal for a 
Music Row Cultural Industry District (Brackett and Gross 2016). Tools are needed to 
support assessment of heritage values and elements contributing to sense of place, 
community involvement in decision making, and evaluation of the effects of 
development proposals and planning policies on historic places and community 
character, recognizing that solutions may be location specific. This study represents 
one attempt to create and test methodologies for the first of these three operations.  
 
Conclusion 
The parameters of this study included case examples where history and 
heritage were likely to be linked to activities or practices more than architecture or 
design. The cases, therefore, did not fit neatly into historic preservation protection 
strategies that turn on designation criteria emphasizing physically intact remnants of 
past periods of significant events or patterns in development. The results of the study 
showed residents and users of both Bells Bend and Music Row mentioned uses?
historic, present, and those that bridge the divide between past and present, as part of 
their neighborhood?s sense of place. Both case study areas have experienced threats 
to place identity based on changes to land use and have sought to manage those 
threats through local planning processes as well as efforts led by community or 
national non-profit organizations.  
187 
 
 
 
Historic preservation practice has not ignored land use. Land use is 
interwoven with history and community heritage through its relationship to 
longstanding uses, traditional practices, and the production of urban form. But there is 
space to make cognizance of land use and land use planning decisions a better 
integrated part of planning for the historic environment, as well as to integrate 
consideration of heritage values into land use planning that is responsive to other 
community needs while sustaining sense of place. Preservation professionals and 
advocates should understand how land use is regulated and how policy decisions are 
made, often far in advance of specific development proposals, and how those 
decisions are balanced on scales at the city or regional level. When heritage, 
including historic places and intangible heritage that contributes to sense of place, is 
treated as a resource in planning processes, informed decisions can be made about its 
role in place identity and how the community will make use of its past. To inform 
those decisions, neighborhoods or whole communities can and should articulate what 
they see as the essential elements of sense of place in their place. Ideally, public 
planning processes will provide room for dialogue between planners and users of 
place, but when neighborhoods take the initiative to define the essential qualities of 
their own sense of place, they are even better equipped to advocate for the meaningful 
retention of local character. Planning policies, however, cannot guide or control every 
quality that contributes to sense of place or that maintains a community?s meaningful 
connection to its past, nor are all preservation planning tools appropriate to all 
expressions of heritage. Into this mix must step thoughtful planners and people who 
care about their places to find ways integrate community heritage in the environment 
188 
 
 
 
in ways the community finds meaningful. That process begins with methods to listen 
to those who value history and heritage in their surroundings. 
 
  
189 
 
 
 
References 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2016. The National Historic Preservation 
Program at 50: Priorities and Recommendations for the Future. Washington, 
D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.  
 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2018. ?Inclusiveness.? Accessed 
December 15, 2018. 
https://www.achp.gov/index.php/initiatives/inclusiveness.  
 
Alanen, Arnold R., and Robert Z. Melnick, eds. 2000. Preserving Cultural 
Landscapes in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 
 
Allison, Eric W. and Mary Ann Allison. 2008. ?Preserving Tangible Cultural Assets: 
A Framework for a New Dialog in Preservation.? Preservation Education and 
Research 1 (2008): 29-40. 
 
Araoz, Gustavo. 1998. ?International Preservation Theory.? Unpublished m.s., 
Association for Preservation Technology Conference, November 1998. 
 
Avrami, Erica. 2010. ?Preservation and Sustainability.? CRM 7 (Summer): 20-23. 
 
______. 2012. ?A Systems Approach to Historic Preservation in an Era of 
Sustainability Planning.? PhD diss., Rutgers University. 
 
______. 2016. ?Making Historic Preservation Sustainable.? Journal of the American 
Planning Association 82, no.2 (Spring): 104-112. 
 
Barnes, Wesley. Interview with Luke Herbst, February 27, 2012, Nashville, TN. Bells 
Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project. Special Collections Division, Nashville 
Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Basso, Keith. 1996. ?Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Landscape.? 
In Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, eds. Senses of Place. Santa Fe: School of 
American Research Press. 
 
Bell, Terry. Interview with Carolyn Brackett, July 11, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music 
Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview 
housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, 
TN. 
 
Bells Bend Farms. 2018. ?We grow hops!? Accessed February 16, 2019. 
https://www.bellsbendfarms.com/we-grow-hops 
 
190 
 
 
 
Bells Bend Conservation Corridor. N.d. ?Conservation Programs.? Accessed March 
23, 2019. https://bellsbend.squarespace.com/conservation-programs.  
 
Bells Bend Conservation Corridor. N.d. ?Development Pressure.? Accessed March 
23, 2019. https://bellsbend.squarespace.com/development-pressure.  
 
Berg, Shary Page. 2011. ?The Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory: A 
Community-based Approach to Identifying and Protecting Special Places.? In 
Richard Longstreth, ed., Sustainability and Historic Preservation: Toward a 
Holistic View. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 21-41. 
 
Binnicker, Margaret D. 1998. ?Frances Williams Preston.? In Tennessee 
Encyclopedia of History and Culture. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Historical 
Society/Rutledge Hill Press, 752. 
 
Bishop, Hayward. Interview by Carolyn Brackett, May 30, 2015, Nashville, TN. 
Music Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 
Interview housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, 
Nashville, TN. 
 
Bouma, Katherine. ?Metro has no ideas for dodging dump fine.? Nashville Banner, 
January 12, 1990.  
 
Brackett, Carolyn, and Randall Gross. 2016. A New Vision for Music Row: 
Recommendations and Strategies to Create a Music Row Cultural Industry 
District. Nashville, TN: National Trust for Historic Preservation and Randall 
Gross Development Economics. 
 
Brehm, Joan M. 2007. ?Community Attachment: The Complexity and Consequence 
of the Natural Environment Facet.? Human Ecology 35, no.4 (August): 477-
488. 
 
Brower, Sidney N. 1988. Design in Familiar Places: What Makes Home 
Environments Look Good. New York: Praeger. 
 
______. 2000. Good Neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Praeger. 
 
Brown, Helen, and Vincent Langley. Interview with Susannah Gibbons, February 27, 
2012, Nashville, TN. Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project, Special 
Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Bruce, Trey. Interview with Carolyn Brackett, May 29, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music 
Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview 
housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, 
TN. 
 
191 
 
 
 
Buckley, James Michael and Donna Graves. 2016. ?Tangible Benefits from 
Intangible Resources: Using Social and Cultural History to Plan 
Neighborhood Futures.? Journal of the American Planning Association 82:2, 
152-166. 
 
Campbell, Craig. Interview by Stacy Levine, July 10, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music 
Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview 
housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, 
TN. 
 
Cantrell, Denny. Interview by Luke Herbst, March 3, 2012, Nashville, TN. Bells 
Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project.  Special Collections Division, 
Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Chambers, Erve. 2006. Heritage Matters: Heritage, Culture, History, and 
Chesapeake Bay. College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant Publication. 
 
______. 2005. ?Whose Heritage Is It?: History, Culture, and Inheritance.? 
Anthropology News 46, no.4: 7-8. 
 
Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. Enacted October 20, 
2000. Accessed September 27, 2015. 
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/176.htm,  
 
Creekmur, Martha Jones. Interview with Andrea Blackman, March 3, 2012, 
Nashville, TN. Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project. Special 
Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Cresswell, Tim. 2002. ?Theorizing Place.? Introduction to Ginette Verstraete and Tim 
Cresswell, eds., Mobilizing Place, Placing Mobility: The Politics of 
Representation in A Globalized World. New York: Rodopi. 
 
Cresswell, Tim and Gareth Hoskins. 2008. ?Place, persistence, and practice: 
Evaluating historical significance at Angel Island, San Francisco, and 
Maxwell Street, Chicago.? Annals of the Association of American 
Geographers 98, no.2: 398-413.  
 
Datel, Robin Elizabeth. 1985. ?Preservation and a Sense of Orientation for American 
Cities.? Geographical Review 72, no.2 (April): 125-141. 
 
Daugstad, Karoline, Katrina Ronningen, and Birgitte Skar. 2006. ?Agriculture as an 
upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgments?A 
Norwegian perspective in international context.? Journal of Rural Studies 22: 
67-81. 
 
192 
 
 
 
DeNatale, Douglas. 1994. ?Federal and Neighborhood Notion of Place: Conflicts of 
Interest in Lowell, Massachusetts.? In Mary Hufford, ed., Conserving Culture: 
A New Discourse on Heritage. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 
 
Donaldson, Milford Wayne. 2012. ?To Whom Does Cultural Heritage Belong?? 
Preservation Matters (newsletter of California Office of Historic 
Preservation) 5 (Summer).  
 
Dorman, Alice M. 2009. ?Is Historic Preservation Really Smart Growth?: A Critical 
Examination of Historically Automobile-Oriented Suburbs Such as Silver 
Spring, Maryland.? HISP 700 final project, University of Maryland, College 
Park. 
 
Feld, Steven, and Keith H. Basso, eds. 1996. Senses of Place. Santa Fe: School of 
American Research Press. 
 
Floyd, Cynthia. 1990. ?Indians halt Metro?s second bid to sample soil near landfill 
site.? The Tennessean, September 28, 1990. 
 
_____ and Gail McKnight. 1990. ?Bells Bend getting landfill.? The Tennessean, 
February 9, 1990, 1A.  
 
Foster, Robin. 2013. ?Battle of the Port: Memory, Preservation, and Planning in the 
Creation of the South Street Seaport Museum.? Journal of Urban History, 8 
(March).  
 
Gold, Adam. 2015. ?2014 Nashvillians of the Year: Saluting the Saviors of Studio 
A.? Nashville Scene 33, no. 49 (8-14 January): 16-22. 
 
Gordon, Tam. ?Bells Bend vote may ruin landfill plans.? Nashville Banner, August 4, 
1990. 
 
Graves, John P. 1975. Northwest Davidson County: The Land, Its People, historical 
sketches of Bordeaux, Jordonia, Scottsboro, Bell's Bend, Joelton, White's 
Creek, Union Hill, Lickton, Bull Run and Marrowbone. Nashville, TN: 
Graves. 
 
Graves, Jerry. 2012. Interview with Andrea Blackman, March 3, 2012, Nashville, TN. 
Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, 
Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Green, Ray. 1999. ?Meaning and Form in Community Perception of Town 
Character,? Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1999), 311-329. 
 
193 
 
 
 
______. 2005. ?Community Perceptions of Environmental and Social Change and 
Tourism Development on the Island of Koh Samui, Thailand.? Journal of 
Environmental Psychology 25: 37?56.  
 
Greenways Incorporated. 2003. Bells Bend Environmental Park Master Plan. 
Prepared for City of Nashville Metropolitan Parks and Recreation. 
 
Grilli, Mary Lina Jacobs. 2007. An analysis of Maryland?s smart growth in two 
historic areas. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 2007. 
 
Harper, Garrett, Chris Cotton, and Zandra Benefield. 2013. ?Nashville Music 
Industry: Impact, Contribution and Cluster Analysis,? Music City Music 
Council, Nashville Chamber of Commerce.  
 
Harrison, Rodney. 2011. ??Counter Mapping? Heritage, Communities and Places in 
Australia and the U.K.? In Local Heritage, Global Context: Cultural 
Perspectives on Sense of Place, edited by John Schofield and Rosy 
Szymanski, 79-98.  Farnham, England: Ashgate. 
 
Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
 
Henry, Christine R. 2015. ?LeDroit Park, Portrait in Black and White: A Study of 
Historic Districts, Social Change, and the Process of Placemaking.? PhD 
diss., University of Maryland, College Park. 
 
Hester, Randolph T., Jr. 1993. ?Sacred Structures and Everyday Life: A Return to 
Manteo, North Carolina.? In Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a 
Phenomenological Ecology, edited by David Seamon, 271-297.  
 
Highland, Deborah. 1997. ?Road widening stirs Bells Bend.? The Tennessean, March 
13, 1997. 
 
Hurley, Andrew. 2010. Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize 
Inner Cities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.  
 
_____. 2016. ?Making Preservation Work for Struggling Communities.? In Bending 
the Future: 50 Ideas for the Next 50 Years of Historic Preservation in the 
United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 114-118. Amherst 
and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. 
 
Interview #1. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 8, 2019. 
 
Interview #2. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 10, 2019. 
 
Interview #3. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 12, 2019. 
194 
 
 
 
 
Interview #4. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 12, 2019. 
 
Interview #5. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 12, 2019. 
 
Interview #6. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 14, 2019. 
 
Interview #7. 2019. Interview by author. Murfreesboro, TN. January 17, 2019. 
 
Interview #8. 2019. Interview by author. Lebanon, TN. January 17, 2019. 
 
Interview #9. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 18, 2019. 
 
Interview #10. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 18, 2019. 
 
Interview #11. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 19, 2019. 
 
Interview #12. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 21, 2019. 
 
Interview #13. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 24, 2019. 
 
Interview #14. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 25, 2019. 
 
Interview #15. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. January 31, 2019. 
 
Interview #16. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. February 1, 2019. 
 
Interview #17. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. February 4, 2019. 
 
Interview #18. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. February 6, 2019. 
 
Interview #19. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. February 7, 2019. 
 
Interview #20. 2019. Interview by author. Franklin, TN. February 7, 2019. 
 
Interview #21. 2019. Interview by author. Nashville. February 8, 2019. 
 
Ippolito, Mark. 1995. ?Council settles on Bell?s Bend deal.? The Tennessean, March 
22, 1995. 
 
Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. 1994. A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time. New Haven: 
Yale University Press.  
 
Jones, Robbie D., and Carolyn Brackett. 2016. ?Historic Music Industry Resources, 
Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee,? National Register of Historic Places 
195 
 
 
 
Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, DC: National Park 
Service. 
 
Jones, Robbie D. 2016. ?House of David Recording Studio Complex.? Davidson 
County, Tennessee. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. 
Washington, DC: National Park Service. 
 
Kasmar, Joyce Vielhauer. 1988. ?The Development of a Usable Lexicon of 
Environmental Descriptors.? In Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, 
and Applications, edited by Jack L. Nasar. New York: Cambridge University 
Press. 
 
Kaufman, Ned. 2009. Place, Race, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of 
Historic Preservation. New York: Routledge. 
 
King, Thomas F. 2009. Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing the Destruction of 
Our Natural and Cultural Environment. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. 
 
______. 2011. ?Preservation, Sustainability, and Environmental Impact Assessment 
in Post-Colonial Developing Nations.? In Sustainability and Historic 
Preservation: Toward a Holistic View, edited by Richard Longstreth, 18-28. 
Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press. 
 
______. 2016. ?Repeal the National Historic Preservation Act.? In Bending the 
Future: 50 Ideas for the Next 50 Years of Historic Preservation in the United 
States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 128-131. Amherst: 
University of Massachusetts Press. 
 
Korr, Jeremy Louis. 2002. ?Washington's Main Street: Consensus and Conflict on the 
Capital Beltway, 1953-2001.? PhD diss. University of Maryland, College 
Park. 
 
Koziol, Christopher. 2008. ?Historic Preservation Ideology: A Critical Mapping of 
Contemporary Heritage Policy Discourse.? Preservation Education and 
Research 1: 41-50. 
 
Kreyling, Christine. 1998. ?Reading the Row.? In Reading Country Music: Steel 
Guitars, Opry Stars, and Honky-Tonk Bars, edited by Cecelia Tichi, 307-321. 
Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 
 
______. 2008. ?Road Kill.? Nashville Scene. July 10, 2008. 
 
Lawrence, Denise L. and Setha M. Low. 1990. ?The Built Environment and Spatial 
Form.? Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453-505. 
 
196 
 
 
 
Lee, Antoinette. 2004. ?From Historic Architecture to Cultural Heritage: A Journey 
Through Diversity, Identity, and Community.? Future Anterior 1:15-23. 
 
Little, Barbara J., and Paul A. Shackel. 2014. Archaeology, Heritage, and Public 
Engagement: Working Toward the Public Good. Walnut Creek, CA: Left 
Coast Press. 
 
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
 
______. 1972. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
 
Majchrzak, Steve, and L. Carol Ritchie. 1991. ?Bells Bend site dumped.? Nashville 
Banner, November 1991, A-1. 
 
Markusen, Ann, and Anne Gadwa. 2010. Creative Placemaking. National 
Endowment for the Arts, Mayors Institute on Community Design. 
 
Mason, Randall. 2004. "Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of 
?Significance?.? Places, A Forum of Environmental Design 16:1. 
 
______. 2006. ?Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-Centered 
Preservation.? CRM 3:2 (Summer): 21-48. 
 
Mason, Randall, and Marta De La Torre. 2000. ?Heritage Conservation and Values in 
Globalizing Societies.? In UNESCO World Culture Report. Paris: United 
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 
 
Mayes, Thompson M. 2018. Why Old Places Matter: How Historic Places Affect Our 
Identity and Well-Being. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, American 
Association for State and Local History Book Series. 
 
Mayes, Tom. ?Why Do Old Places Matter?? Posts on National Trust for Historic 
Preservation Leadership Forum. Accessed December 9, 2013. 
http://blog.preservationleadershipforum.org .  
 
McCullough, Leslie. 1990. ?Police arrest protesters.? Nashville Banner, October 29, 
1990. 
 
McDonald, Charles A. Interview with Andrea Blackman, February 27, 2012, 
Nashville, TN. Scottsboro/Bells Bend Oral History Project, Special 
Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN.  
 
McMahon, Edward T. 2010. ?The Place Making Dividend.? Planetizen. Posted 
December 22, 2010. Accessed August 19, 2012. 
www.planetizen.com/node/47402.  
 
197 
 
 
 
_____. 2012. ?The Distinctive City.? Posted April 2012. Accessed August 19, 2012. 
Urban Land Institute: 
urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/April/McMahonDistinctive.  
 
Metro Nashville Arts Commission. N.d. ?Witness Walls: Educational Curriculum.? 
Accessed March 24, 2019. https://www.witnesswalls.com/curriculum.  
 
Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission. Edgehill NCZO Design Guidelines. 
Adopted June 20, 2018. The Commission: 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/MHZC/docs/Design%20guidelines
%20and%20HB/Edgehill%20NCZO%20a.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2019. 
 
_____. Historic Landmark District Overlays. Adopted May 1989, revised 2015, 2018. 
The Commission: 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/MHZC/docs/Design%20guidelines
%20and%20HB/Landmark%202018a.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2019. 
 
_____. South Music Row Neighborhood Conservation Zoning. Adopted January 
1997, revised 2017. The Commission: 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/MHZC/docs/Design%20guidelines
%20and%20HB/SMR%202017.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2019. 
 
Metropolitan Historical Commission, survey notebooks. On file at the Metropolitan 
Historical Commission, Nashville, TN. 
 
Metropolitan Historical Commission. 2008. Preservation Awards 2008 nomination 
form, 4496 Cleeces Ferry Road. Metropolitan Historical Commission files, 
Nashville, TN. 
 
Metropolitan Historical Commission. 2015. Preservation Awards 2015 nomination 
form, 5022 Old Hydes Ferry Pike. Metropolitan Historical Commission files, 
Nashville, TN. 
 
Metropolitan Planning Commission. Minutes. February 23, 2006; June 25, 2009; 
December 8, 2016. 
 
Metropolitan Planning Department. 2017. Bordeaux-Whites Creek-Haynes Trinity 
Community Plan. Adopted June 22, 2015; Amended August 24, 2017. 
Accessed March 24, 2019. 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/subarea3/Bord
eaux-Whites%20Creek-
Haynes%20Trinity%20(Adopted%20and%20Updated).pdf.  
 
Metropolitan Planning Department. 2017. Major and Collector Street Plan: 
Implementing Complete Streets. Adopted June 22, 2015; Amended August 24, 
2017. Accessed March 24, 2019. 
198 
 
 
 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/NashvilleNext
/PlanVolumes/next-vol5_MCSP_Amended2017.pdf.  
 
 
_____. 2019. Music Row Vision Plan. Nashville: Metropolitan Government of 
Nashville and Davidson County Planning Department, 2019. 
 
_____. N.d. ?What Does Each Zoning District Allow?? Accessed March 24, 2019. 
https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/CouncilBooks/Zoning
Categories.pdf.  
 
McMakin, Pat. Interview with Carolyn Brackett, July 10, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music 
Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview 
housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, 
TN. 
 
McMurry, Sally. 2016. ?Preserving Agricultural History Through Land and 
Buildings.? Agricultural History 90:1 (Winter). 4-21. 
 
Michael, Vincent. 2016. Demographics panel presentation, Seventh National Forum 
on Historic Preservation, Goucher College, Towson, Maryland. March 18, 
2016. 
 
Mielnik, Tara. 2011. Letter to Jason Reynolds, November 3, 2011. Metropolitan 
Historical Commission files, Nashville, TN. 
 
Mitchell, Nora J. 1996. ?Cultural Landscapes: Concepts of Culture and Nature as a 
Paradigm for Historic Preservation.? PhD. diss., Tufts University. 
 
Morgan, David W., Nancy I.M. Morgan, and Brenda Barrett. 2006. ?Finding a Place 
for the Commonplace: Hurricane Katrina, Communities, and Preservation 
Law.? American Anthropologist 108, no. 4: 706-718. 
 
Myers, Jim. 2015. ?Corsair Distillery Goes Against the Grain.? The Tennessean, 
October 21, 2015. 
 
Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. 2018. 2018 Regional Economic Development 
Guide. Accessed January 16, 2019. 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/nashvillechamber.com/Economic-
Development/Resources+%26+Brochures+Page/2018+Regional+Profile/2018
+Nashville+Regional+Economic+Development+Guide.pdf.  
 
Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. 2019. ?Regional Stats.? Accessed January 16, 
2019. https://www.nashvillechamber.com/economic-development/data-
reports/regional-stats.  
 
199 
 
 
 
National Park Service. 1997. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National 
Register Criteria for Evaluation. Rev.ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of the Interior. 
 
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2015. News Release. ?National Trust for 
Historic Preservation Declares Nashville?s Music Row One of America?s 
National Treasures.? January 12, 2015.  
 
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2018. ?National Preservation Conference.? 
Accessed December 15, 2018. https://savingplaces.org/conference.  
 
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2019. ?Music Row on This Year?s 11 Most 
Endangered Places List.? May 30, 2019. 
https://savingplaces.org/places/nashvilles-music-row/updates/music-row-on-
this-years-11-most-endangered#.XTZzwpNKiqA. Accessed July 22, 2019. 
 
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2019. ?This Place Matters.? Accessed March 
20, 2019. https://savingplaces.org/this-place-matters#.XJKj1RNKg0o.  
 
Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. 2009. Resilient Cities: 
Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Island Press. 
 
Nicolson, Adam. 2010. Sissinghurst: An Unfinished History. New York: Viking. 
 
Nieves, Angel David. 2007. ?Memories of Africville: Urban Renewal, Reparations, 
and the African Diaspora.? In Katherine McKittrick and Clyde Woods, Black 
Geographies and the Politics of Place, 82-96. Cambridge, MA: South End 
Press. 
 
Oldenburg, Ray, ed. 2001. Celebrating the Third Place: Inspiring Stories About the 
"Great Good Places" at the Heart of Our Communities. First. New York: 
Marlowe. 
 
Orange, Hilary. 2011. ?Exploring Sense of Place: An Ethnography of the Cornish 
Mining World Heritage Site.? In Local Heritage, Global Context: Cultural 
Perspectives on Sense of Place, edited by John Schofield and Rosy 
Szymanski. Farnham, England: Ashgate. 
 
Orton Family Foundation. 2012. ?Heart & Soul.? 
http://www.orton.org/who/heart_soul. Accessed September 1, 2012. 
 
Overstreet, Lee Ann. 2008. ?Family rewarded for preservation in shadow of 
Nashville?s growth.? The Tennessean, 24 June 2008. 
 
200 
 
 
 
Page, Max and Marla R. Miller, eds. 2016. Bending the Future: 50 Ideas for the Next 
50 Years of Historic Preservation in the United States. Amherst and Boston: 
University of Massachusetts Press. 
 
Paine, Anne. ?River bend sites for dump draw fire.? The Tennessean, September 14, 
1988, 1A. 
 
Pannekoek, Frits. ?The Rise of a Heritage Priesthood.? In Preservation: Of What, for 
Whom, edited by Michael A. Tomlan, 29-56.  Ithaca, NY: National Council 
for Preservation Education. 
 
Place Matters. ?Mission.? https://www.placematters.net/mission. Accessed March 20, 
2019. 
 
Price, David, and Julie Coco. [2007?] Beaman Park to Bells Bend: A Community 
 Conservation Project. N.p: New South Assoc. 
 
Price, David L. 2005. ?City Planning and Historic Preservation in Nashville, 
Tennessee, 1931-1985.? M.A. Thesis, Middle Tennessee State University. 
 
Project for Public Spaces. 2007. ?What is Placemaking?? Accessed July 23, 2019.  
www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking.  
 
Rau, Nate. 2019. ?Saving a Studio.? The Tennessean, February 10, 2019, 1D. 
 
Reaven, Marci. n.d. ?Step 5: Formulate Goals.? The Place Matters Toolkit. 
https://www.placematters.net/node/13. Accessed March 20, 2019. 
 
Renkl, Margaret. 2019. ?The Day the Music Died.? The New York Times, January 21, 
2019. 
 
Rico, Trinidad. 2015. ?The Authority and Autonomy of a Dominant Preservation 
Framework.? In Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels and Trinidad Rico, eds., Heritage 
Keywords: Rhetoric and Redescription in Cultural Heritage. Boulder: 
University Press of Colorado: 147-162. 
 
Riegl, Alois. 1982. ?The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origins.? 
Trans. Diane Ghirardo and Kurt Forster. Oppositions 25: 21-51.   
 
Roberts, Ann. 2005. Memo to Rick Bernhardt, Metropolitan Planning Department, 
December 5, 2005. Metropolitan Historical Commission files, Nashville, TN. 
 
Robison, Julie, Tara Mitchell Mielnik, and John Rumble. 2012. ?RCA Studio B.? 
Davidson County, Tennessee. National Register of Historic Places 
Registration Form. Washington, DC: National Park Service. 
 
201 
 
 
 
Russell, Keith. 2005. ?Developers plan 1800 new homes in Davidson.? The 
Tennessean, October 4, 2005. 
 
Ryberg-Webster, Stephanie and Kelly L. Kinahan. 2014. ?Historic Preservation and 
Urban Revitalization in the Twenty-First Century.? Journal of Planning 
Literature 29:119-139. 
 
San Francisco Heritage. 2014. Sustaining San Francisco?s Living History: Strategies 
for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets. San Francisco: San Francisco 
Heritage. 
 
Schofield, John, and Rosy Szymanski, eds. 2011. Local Heritage, Global Context: 
Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place. Farnham, England, and Burlington, 
VT: Ashgate. 
 
Seamon, David. ed. 1993. Dwelling, Seeing and Designing: Toward a 
Phenomenological Ecology. Albany: State University of New York Press.  
 
______. 2014. ?Place Attachment and Phenomenology.? In Place Attachment: 
Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, edited by Lynne C. Manza 
and Patrick Devine-Wright. New York: Routledge. 
 
Semmer, Blythe. 2005. Memo dated December 5, 2005. Metropolitan Historical 
Commission files, Nashville, TN. 
 
Sies, Mary Corbin, Isabelle Gournay, and Robert Freestone, eds. 2019. Iconic 
Planned Communities and the Challenge of Change. Philadelphia: University 
of Pennsylvania Press.  
 
Silver, Lisa. Interview with Carolyn Brackett, July 11, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music 
Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview 
housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, 
TN. 
 
Smart Growth Network. 2012. Smart Growth Online. Accessed September 1, 2012. 
  http://smartgrowth.org/principles/place.php.  
 
Smith, Laurajane. 2006. The Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge. 
 
______. 2010. ?Ethics or Social Justice?: Heritage and the Politics of Recognition.? 
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 60-68.  
 
Staiff, Russell. 2013. Re-Imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Past-
Future. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing.  
 
202 
 
 
 
Stedman, Richard C., Benoni L. Amsden, Thomas M. Beckley, and Keith G. Tidball. 
2014. ?Photo-based Methods for Understanding Place Meanings as 
Foundations of Attachment.? In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, 
Methods and Applications, 112-124. New York: Routledge. 
 
Sundermann, Anne. C1992. The Money Crop: Calvert County After the Tobacco 
Buyout. Maryland Historical Trust Press/Calvert County Historic District 
Commission, 2005 Rev. ed. of Money Crop, Sally V. McGrath and Patricia J. 
McGuire, 1st ed. C1992. 
 
The Cherry Sisters (Lisa Silver, Diane Vannette, and Sherry Huffman). Interview 
with Mary Anne Bargin, July 11, 2015, Nashville, TN. Music Row Oral 
History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Interview housed at 
Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
Townend, Stephen, and Ken Whittaker. 2011. ?Being Accounted For: Qualitative 
Data Analysis in Assessing ?Place? and ?Value.?? In Local Heritage, Global 
Context: Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place, edited by John Schofield 
and Rosy Szymanski, 65-77.  Farnham, England, and Burlington, VT: 
Ashgate. 
 
Trageser, Stephen. ?Setting the Bar.? The Nashville Scene, February 28 ? March 6, 
2019. 
 
US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA 
NASS). 2017. Census of Agriculture. Davidson County Summary Highlights. 
www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/CDQT/chapter/2/table/1/state/TN/county/03
7, accessed July 20, 2019. 
 
Vienneau, Nancy. 2015. ?Old School Farm ?unearthing potential.?? The Tennessean, 
June 21, 2015. 
 
_____. 2016. ?The Unspoiled Rural Beauty of Bells Bend.? NashvilleLifestyles.com, 
originally published June 29, 2016, accessed February 16, 2019. 
https://nashvillelifestyles.com/living/community/the-unspoiled-rural-beauty-
of-bells-bend/. 
 
Wagner, Richard. 2011. ?Finding a Seat at the Table: Preservation and 
Sustainability.? In Sustainability and Historic Preservation: Toward a 
Holistic View, edited by Richard Longstreth, 1-16. Newark: University of 
Delaware Press. 
 
Ward, Getahn. 2016. ?The Endangered List: Historic Nashville Inc. names Music 
City?s most threatened endangered places.? The Tennessean. October 9, 2016. 
 
203 
 
 
 
Waterton, Emma, and Laurajane Smith. 2010. ?The Recognition and Misrecognition 
of Community Heritage.? International Journal of Heritage Studies 16: 4-15. 
 
Watson, A. Elizabeth. 2010. ?Lasting Landscapes.? Planning 76 (February): 14-19. 
 
Wells, Jeremy C. 2009. ?Attachment to the Physical Age of Urban Residential 
Neighborhoods: A Comparative Case Study of Historic Charleston and I?on.? 
Ph.D. diss., Clemson University. 
 
______. 2010. ?Our History is Not False: Perspectives from the Revitalisation 
Culture.? International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (November): 464-485. 
 
______. and Elizabeth D. Baldwin. 2012. ?Historic Preservation, significance, and 
age value: A comparative phenomenology of historic Charleston and the 
nearby new-urbanist community of I?on.? Journal of Environmental 
Psychology 32, 384-400. 
 
_____. 2015. ?Making a Case for Historic Place Conservation Based on People?s 
Values. National Trust for Historic Preservation Forum Journal (Spring), 44-
61. 
 
West, Carroll Van. 2015. Nashville Architecture: A Guide to the City. Knoxville: 
University of Tennessee Press. 
 
______. 2015a. ?RCA Victor Studios Building.? Davidson County, Tennessee. 
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Washington, DC: 
National Park Service. 
 
West, George. Interview with Luke Herbst, February 27, 2012, Nashville, TN. Bells 
Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville 
Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
 
West, Susie, ed. 2010. Understanding Heritage in Practice. Manchester, UK: 
Manchester University Press. 
 
Whooping Crane Farm. N.d. ?Welcome.? accessed February 16, 2019. 
https://www.whoopingcranefarm.com/welcome-pacific,. 
 
Williams, Jody. Interview with Carolyn Brackett, May 29, 2015, Nashville, TN. 
Music Row Oral History Project, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 
Interview housed at Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library, 
Nashville, TN. 
 
Winfrey, Buford. Interview with Luke Herbst, February 27, 2012, Nashville, TN. 
Bells Bend/Scottsboro Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, 
Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN. 
204 
 
 
 
 
WSMV. 2017. ?111-Year Old Music Row Building Demolished.? Posted October 31, 
2017. Accessed March 22, 2019. https://www.wsmv.com/news/year-old-
music-row-building-demolished/article_e17375e9-4ea6-5b6b-834c-
e4a9160c48e1.html.  
 
Young, T. 2006. ?False, Cheap, and Degraded: When History, Economy, and 
Environment Collided at Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park.? Journal of Historical Geography 32: 169-189. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
205 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
206 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
207