bnaflyer

Vanderbilt announced today it will sell the Chancellor's Residence in Belle Meade and build a new one on 18th Avenue South https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2020/02/07/vanderbilt-to-develop-plans-for-new-on-campus-university-residence-as-part-of-futurevu/?utm_source=myvupreview&utm_medium=myvu_email&utm_campaign=myvupreview-2020-02-07

It looks as though Bricktop's will be building out in the restaurant space on the ground floor of this building. (Space FKA Watermark) Projected opening later this year. (Sorry for the duplicate posting in CBD Projects)

Not sure if this has already been reported somewhere on here, but it looks as though Bricktops will be taking the ground floor restaurant space lease in the Bridgestone Building for the newest location of that chain.

This has to win the award for Most Uninspired Architectural Effort Ever. A child could come up with a better design than this and the site is laughably overbuilt.

I'm sorry to agree that these are an abomination architecturally--a really, really bad mishmash of totally incompatible styles that couldn't look more fraudulent. As you say, they are like a studio set. It's a shame because they sit in the middle of one of our better in-town neighborhoods.....

I understand the likely long term use of the block on Broadway is for Vanderbilt graduate student housing of some sort.

The Chancellor has stated publicly that the ultimate use will be for graduate student housing. How quickly that will happen is unclear. But I don't think it will just be used for parking.

Just to clarify--Bernhardt was director of the Metro Planning Department, not MDHA. MDHA does not have responsibility for zoning.

Ha in my defense he edited his initial remarks and made them better reasoned! I don't dislike density per se. I would argue you have an irrational preference for density above all else. There is something to mass, scale, relationship to existing structures and yes, air and light, in an urban setting--particularly an area that consists of multifamily, single family, business and commercial uses coexisting in close proximity (as they have for decades in this part of town). Everything doesn't have to look like downtown and you can have setbacks and restrictions on height without becoming suburban! Basically, you are arguing for no zoning at all because the current code contains all of these restrictions. What the developer wants to do here is not permitted as of right and our willingness to excuse every developer of every uninspiring apartment complex from the requirements of the zoning code seems strange. The zoning for this property is RM40 which would permit around 30 units on this fairly small parcel. That's hardly suburban. The 70+ units that are proposed are desirable only if you believe higher density is the sina qua non of all development. I don't. As for whether our current planning regime knows what it is doing, I simply point you to West End Park.

OK OK I get it--you all just love buildings built all the way to the sidewalk, and anyone who feels differently should be exiled to the suburbs to wither away in lonely obscurity. And anyone who thinks Nashville isn't doing a great job of planning is just a hick. Message received.

I agree that the current site is nothing to be excited about and apartments are a much better use of the land. I also agree that the design is totally uninspired and looks like every other building built in the last five years. But what are you going to do about that--you can't force people to build interesting buildings although it is disappointing when they don't try harder. With respect to the setback, what you don't see in the drawing is the context or a comparison with current setbacks. This project is 10-15 feet closer to the sidewalk than the existing building and substantially closer to the sidewalk than the adjacent and nearby properties. So it will look out of place and "oversized" for the lot. This is not just my opinion--it was the opinion of the minority of the Planning Commission (I can't remember the vote, but it wasn't unanimous) and at the 2nd council reading it was announced that the developers and the council member are going to continue discussions to try to make the setback more consistent with the existing neighborhood. Also I think the rendering is a little deceptive in terms of how it depicts the setback. My earlier point about the number of units was that the developer has crammed 70 plus units onto a lot that really should hold about 30 units, and he does that in part by building closer to the sidewalk.

Respect Respectfully, I think you missed the class in urban planning on air and light. Even Manhattan building codes have setbacks (although they vary by neighborhood). Hillsboro Village is not downtown. All "urban neighborhoods" do not have to consist of towering buildings built to the sidewalk. This is one of the problems in Nashville today--neither the development staff nor a lot of interested amateurs has a very sophisticated understanding of urban planning. They seem to think all "urban" built environments should look the same. If you have any evidence that setbacks increase crime, let me know. But I guess the best evidence that our current development regime isn't working very well comes from the fact that every single day someone spontaneously comments about how unlivable this city is becoming. If we are doing such a great job, why are so many people unhappy? And let me add these are people (like me) who love urban living.

Well, I DO live in the neighborhood, and have lived there for 20 years, so allow me to say that I have a lot of problems with this development. It is overbuilt for the lot and the setback (which I do not believe the rendering accurately depicts) is not sufficient. This is a classic example of how our planning process is broken (which I blame on the planning staff). This developer could build 30 plus units on this property as of right, yet somehow has convinced planning that 76 units is just fine, with basically no setback. As you admit, the "affordable" apartments are a joke and just a ploy to make the project more palatable.

Doesn't this look more or less like every new apartment building constructed in Nashville over the last three years? I am glad they put the number on the side. Otherwise, it would be completely indistinguishable from the others. Will look better than the dilapidated nursing home (I suppose), but disappointing for a high traffic corridor.

Yes this is one of those designs that does not improve with age. At all. It actually looks worse now than it did when it was first released.

I don't think this comment is either fair or factual. I can't speak for others, but I am successful financially, and well-educated, and I live within a mile of this project, in a single-family house that has escalated in value beyond all imagining. But I understand what these commenters are lamenting. While Historic Nashville is sometimes guilty of painting with too broad a brush (every old building is not "historic"), people on this board often don't seem very discriminating about good development vs. mediocre development. Nashville has a lot of the latter and not that much of the former. Cheaply built crap that is just a rehash of other plans (e.g., the Encore building, the bottom of which already looks like something in Eastern Europe) is not necessarily something to get excited about when it replaces an early 20th century streetscape. Again, I agree that the preservationists sometimes go too far, but maybe some on this board should give some thought to the qualities that make a city memorable or even distinguishable from every other city in the world. These old buildings are a big part of the character of the city. There should be a way to encourage development (on empty lots, for example, which we have plenty of) while at least preserving some of our historic streetscapes. But anyway, regardless of where you stand on this issue, I don't think it's fair to say that these are just bitter po' folks.

I'm no expert on graphic design, but the signage at BNA looks extremely dated. As in 1980s.

FYI, BZA approved the sky plane variance for this 18th Avenue South project (across from Vanderbilt Commons) at yesterday's meeting. It is a high quality project (2000-3000 sf condos) with ESA as the architect. If it happens, it will be good for the neighborhood and certainly better than the burned-out, abandoned house that was on the property before being razed a few days ago.

Query: Has there ever been a real estate project in Nashville that was NOT a "luxury" project?....... It is funny how the paper always accepts and repeats that label without any explanation of what makes the development "luxurious."

Feel free to look back at my comments, postd here, when this project was announced. I did always think this project was a pipe dream. And a lot of people posting here were absolutely convinced that it would happen. I mean, a lot of people didn't seem to realize how ridiculous it was to believe that the tallest residential building in the world would be built in....Nashville. That's not just "ambitious." The exponential cost of such a tall building made it very questionable from the beginning yet a lot of posters reacted very angrily to any suggestion that this project might not succeed. The reason the project isn't goign to succeed is because it was unrealistic, amateurish and poorly conceived. I don't think that was obvious to a lot of people on here, who wanted it to succeed and therefore ignored its inherent flaws.

It is clear that Signature is very very unlikely to be built. It was always clear (to me at least) that this project was a reach, to put it charitably. The idea that the Nashville market was the right market for the tallest or one of the tallest residential buildings in the world was a little far fetched. The belief that there were enough buyers in an overheated condo market to snap these up was also farfetched. Tony G.'s limited experience as the junior partner in a couple of vastly smaller developments did not suggest that he was ready for this project either, or that he would be able to find lenders. And that was before the complete collapse of the credit markets for residential projects. No lender in its right mind would commit the money for this project in today's environment. It's just not going to happen. The condo boom is over. This project--like Tony's onetime proposal for the site of the horrible Cumberland--will join the ranks of the "concepts never built."

Incidentally, the SF Palomar is home to one of the city's great restaraunts (in fact, for a time, one of the country's leading restaurants), the Fifth Floor. I have had two really spectacular dinners there. This is a very attractive block, although if you look carefully you realize that's it a not so picturesque Old Navy on the first floor of the hotel and the surrounding block (on Market Street) is a little seedy.