BROADWEST (former West End Summit), 36 story Conrad Hilton Hotel/condo tower, 22 story/510,000 sq. ft. office tower, 4 story/125,000 sq. ft. retail/office, 1 acre plaza, 2,500 car garage, $490 million

[rookzie]

This is one spot I'd hate to see a park.  The site basically doubles the gap between DT and midtown caused by the car dealerships. 

I don't mind the car dealer buildings that are built to the street, but the parking lots full of inventory make me sad.

Once this lot is built up to the sidewalk on West End, regardless of what goes there as long as it's fenestrated and not a blank wall, the whole area will seem much more pedestrian friendly.

Eventually they should cap the whole canyonized length of 40, that would be a great place for a park.

 

That's what UTgrad09 proposed and illustrated way-way-way back, and he even proposed it as far as Herman-Jefferson, since some of that also is canyonized as you say.

 

-==-

[ariesjow]

Palmer would almost certainly go with a fresher design if this ever comes to fruition, right? The renderings look hella dated now.

[Paramount747]

It still would not surprise me if he pulls this off for the following reasons:

 

1) Nashville is hot right now

 

2) West End and Midtown is even hotter

 

3) The Gulch is owned by Market Street and they are getting close to being built out

 

4) Location, Location, Location

 

5) Pre excavated

 

6) Access so close to the medical district

 

It may not be him, but something will start here in a year or so.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Urban Architecture

[fieldmarshaldj]

As much as we razz Palmer about WES, I believe we still want him to succeed in getting it (or something similar) completed.

[Nathan_in_DC]

As much as we razz Palmer about WES, I believe we still want him to succeed in getting it (or something similar) completed.

 

Agreed. I think he has bumbled his way through this project, and has done the city a disservice bordering on the criminal by leaving a gaping hole in one of the busiest areas of the city, a gaping hole that is nothing short of a public health hazard.

 

That being said, I hope he gets something here. I do not wish him to fail. I just don't think he's necessarily helping himself along much.

[satalac]

Any updates on this or dragging feet as usual?

[volsfanwill]

I noticed yesterday that while the Turner signs are new.  There are no other signs on the fencing.  Nothing that mentions wes

[BnaBreaker]

So how much time is Metro going to give Palmer to make something happen?  How long is too long?  It's hard to believe, but we are rapidly approaching two decades since this was initially proposed.  I hope Metro somehow has the authority to force him to sell.  I'm all for property rights of the individual, but in this case, I think an exception can be made.  I mean the guy took a massive chunk of prime urban real estate smack dab in the middle of a major american city, destroyed everything that was on it, and turned it into a giant hole in the ground.  Palmer in this case has more or less been about as beneficial to the city of Nashville as a meteor. 

Edited April 30, 2015 by BnaBreaker

[titanhog]

They should give him a deadline to either start construction or fill in the hole.

[troyboytn]

The hole should never have been allowed to be dug to begin with, without financing in place.

Edited April 30, 2015 by troyboytn

[titanhog]

What I don't understand is why the city allows developers to purchase a property with what many would consider a historic or significant structure on it...then the city gives them a demo permit before they have financing for the project.  Developers should not be allowed to demo and dig before they have the financing to build.

[NashvilleTaylor]

I dont think anyone will touch that site for at least another five years, not until Midtown heats up to the point where every other available lot has started development, including the car dealerships.

[smeagolsfree]

What I don't understand is why the city allows developers to purchase a property with what many would consider a historic or significant structure on it...then the city gives them a demo permit before they have financing for the project.  Developers should not be allowed to demo and dig before they have the financing to build.

I think that would have to do with property owner rights.

[titanhog]

I think that would have to do with property owner rights.

But...they have to get permits to demo or to dig.  I don't see how that would go against property rights if they have to get permits to do both.  Why not make it part of the permit that they can't just knock something down or dig a hole without proper funding to construct whatever it is that will replace the current structure(s)?

[PruneTracy]

Palmer in this case has more or less been about as beneficial to the city of Nashville as a meteor. 

 

Hey, c'mon now, that's pretty harsh. A meteor crater would at least serve as a decent tourism draw.

 

Drove by West End Sump this evening and it occurred to me that the excavation is so massive that even if the property were seized by Metro or sold to a willing developer it would require a substantial amount of construction (and cost) just to get it back to street level. So it's not as simple as just putting the property in different hands; anyone who throws money into it will have to go big to recoup the costs. He's not-quite-literally dug a hole he can't get out of.

Edited May 1, 2015 by PruneTracy

[SoundScan]

What I don't understand is why the city allows developers to purchase a property with what many would consider a historic or significant structure on it...then the city gives them a demo permit before they have financing for the project.  Developers should not be allowed to demo and dig before they have the financing to build.

 

Similar to what happened with the proposed Virgin Hotel property. D.F. Chase closed on the property on a Monday, received a demo permit on a Tuesday evening, and had crews knocking down an antebellum mansion at dawn on Wednesday morning. Now two years later we still have a lovely mud field at the entrance to Music Row, and there's a significant possibility that it could stay that way for some time--or become a parking lot...

[Hey_Hey]

This same thing in happening in Lexington, KY, right now with the CentrePointe project by the Webb Company.  Back in 2008 they purchased and razed a block of turn-of-the-century buildings in the middle of downtown. It sat empty for 5 years or so and then "financing" became available so they started digging. That financing then disappeared and there is a whole very reminiscent to Lake Palmer, although I would argue it is worse because it is quite literally in the middle of downtown.  Rupp Arena, UK's campus, office towers, mixed use, residential condos and apartments, and restaurants line the streets around it which provides for numerous pedestrians walking by the hole in the ground. 

 

For a history of Morton's Row that was razed:  http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/2008/06/22/theres-a-lot-of-history-on-centrepointe-block/

 

 

The Lexington/Fayette Urban Government is threatening to fill in the hole:  http://www.kentucky.com/2015/04/28/3824309_lexington-council-sends-webb-companies.html?rh=1

[uberkarnie]

Similar to what happened with the proposed Virgin Hotel property. D.F. Chase closed on the property on a Monday, received a demo permit on a Tuesday evening, and had crews knocking down an antebellum mansion at dawn on Wednesday morning. Now two years later we still have a lovely mud field at the entrance to Music Row, and there's a significant possibility that it could stay that way for some time--or become a parking lot...

I wish that building had been saved and that this project were proposed somewhere else but to be fair, it has only been one year since the demo.

[samsonh]

Soundscan,

It has been one year, not two on the virgin properties.

[titanhog]

Soundscan,

It has been one year, not two on the virgin properties.

But the point remains...why knock a building a down until you've got financing and are ready to build?

[MLBrumby]

Lots of activity for a dead project! 

[Paramount747]

They have the same issue with the Centerpoint project in Lexington. They stopped months ago and now they just have a giant hole in the middle of downtown. The city says they have to fill it up and put a park there until the developer of the 10 story apartment building and 11 story hotel get financing:

 

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/WKYT-Investigates-Whats-the-future-of-CentrePointe-project-300151321.html

 

Cranes are gone and nothing has been done since December.

[arkitekte]

But the point remains...why knock a building a down until you've got financing and are ready to build?

 

Here in San Antonio they can't demo a structure (historic) under demolition with new construction until their case for demolition has been approved (have to prove economic hardship redeveloping the existing structure; loss of structural and/or architectural integrity/significance; and that they've (developer or previous owner(s) have actively marketed the property with no one to purchase and rehab/redevelop). 

 

Once the case for demolition has been approved, they then get conceptual approval of a new design, then final approval later. Most of the time conceptual and case for demolition are at the same time (they'll show their economic ability in that).

 

Once that's taken care of, the actual demo permit isn't issued until they are ready for their actual foundation permit(s). 

 

It works pretty well and keeps the Palmers of the development world away from historic structures. 

 

 

But yeah, any property whether it be a completely derelict single family home or an old warehouse is worth much more with that structure than as an empty lot. Why kill your own equity in the hopes that financing will provide itself in the mean time? In some situations, developers (maybe Palmer) wanted to show his financial resources that he was for real and wanted to start construction to build anticipation and create a competitive market/domino effect with lenders within his development, but that's playing with fire as we all know. 

Edited May 2, 2015 by arkitekte

[Guest]

A property with a derelict structure on it is absolutely worth more without said structure on it. That just isn't true. Most people look at an existing building with issues as a detriment, not a benefit.

The definition of "historic" is being used loosely here. Any structure listed as "contributing" in Nashville can not be demolished without approval from the Historic Commission.

[arkitekte]

A property with a derelict structure on it is absolutely worth more without said structure on it. That just isn't true. Most people look at an existing building with issues as a detriment, not a benefit.

The definition of "historic" is being used loosely here. Any structure listed as "contributing" in Nashville can not be demolished without approval from the Historic Commission.

 

It might not be the case in Nashville, but as a planner in San Antonio that reviews projects in both River Improvement Overlay districts and historic districts in the core, particularly those downtown, I can assure you that properties with the structure in tact are worth more.  

 

I don't disagree that some view the structure as a burden, but that burden holds value...what they do with it determines what their planned development is and how much money they have. Most developers that can afford to rehab find the properties that will bring them the attention they want through that rehab. That situation keeps the development standard high. 

Edited May 2, 2015 by arkitekte