Inside 440 - Berry Hill, Midtown, Vanderbilt, 12S, WeHo, Fairgrounds, etc.

[BnaBreaker]

4 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

This is disappointing.  This is (was?) a nice project and a great replacement for that strip mall which is inappropriate for the area.

Agreed.  The 80's and 90's did a hell of a number on Elliston Place.  The strip malls, the stand alone chain restaurants with huge parking lots, and the ugly suburban style motels that don't face the street and have large drive up areas, have all got to go.  They are so out of step with what Nashville is today.

[Pyramid Scheme]

It's not totally canceled is it? Only postponed. What on earth was wrong with Nashville developers in the 80s and 90s? Maybe it was because the stripmall and stand alone with parking was not yet seen as totally lame.

[PruneTracy]

16 hours ago, Philip said:

It's not totally canceled is it? Only postponed.

This is just wild speculation, but I would guess that it comes back as a stick-frame on a concrete pedestal, in the vein of Elliston 23, The Dallas, and the Palms on Church. Which would be perfectly fine, from a density standpoint. Honestly I thought the original proposal was a bit ambitious for that specific area.

Edit:

5 minutes ago, SoundScan said:

Elliston 23 is all concrete and steel construction.

My bad. I was getting my projects mixed up. I should have known anyway; it's a little too tall for wood.

Anyway, the scale is what I was getting at. Five to seven stories, retail on the ground floor. It wouldn't be an 18-story tower but it would fit right in with the neighborhood (and not dwarf the Mayfair either).

Edited January 15, 2016 by PruneTracy

[SoundScan]

Elliston 23 is all concrete and steel construction.

[titanhog]

Anyone know if this land near Music Row / Demonbreun Hill has a chance to be bought and developed one day?  Great location!

 

[smeagolsfree]

It is a great spot and would be very expensive. I think there are multiple owners including a group of radio stations. I can't remember if it's cumulus, clear Chanel or what. I am sued someone will know.

 

i am just guessing, but I would say at least four owners and I will lay money on the table that a developer has already approached  them.

[BnaBreaker]

I'd love to see that group of parcels developed too, but one piece of land I'd love to see developed even more is the one directly across the street.  That damn suburban style Comfort Inn on Demonbreun is a complete relic of the seventies and eighties when that stretch was nothing but cowboy hat shops and wax museums.  It needs to go. 

[titanhog]

3 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I'd love to see that group of parcels developed too, but one piece of land I'd love to see developed even more is the one directly across the street.  That damn suburban style Comfort Inn on Demonbreun is a complete relic of the seventies and eighties when that stretch was nothing but cowboy hat shops and wax museums.  It needs to go. 

I agree...and add on Beaman to that list.

[MidTenn1]

I found it interesting that this lot was specifically zoned for a 20 story building under the proposed new Music Row overlay district. I always thought it would be a prime lot for some large development. Must be something going on, or they wouldn't box out this particular area.

The overlay...

[Hey_Hey]

I don't think they necessarily singled that lot out.  Every lot on both sides of Division St west of I-40 are allowed to build to 20 stories.

[MLBrumby]

LOL... what's the "magic" of 20 stories?  LOL... that sort of seems like the "top o' the world" in the minds of these planners.  If nothing else makes the point that Nashville's leaders want a short, squatty skyline that makes it loud and clear. 

[BnaBreaker]

43 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

LOL... what's the "magic" of 20 stories?  LOL... that sort of seems like the "top o' the world" in the minds of these planners.  If nothing else makes the point that Nashville's leaders want a short, squatty skyline that makes it loud and clear. 

Ya know, I totally get the whole height restriction thing in places like Charleston, Savannah, or Quebec City or Oaxaca or central Paris.  They've got beautiful, human scaled, pedestrian friendly streets and neighborhoods from a different era that are very much worth preserving, and the existence of modern highrise buildings places the unique, charming ambiance that makes those areas special destinations unto themselves into jeopardy somewhat.  Hell, even locally, I understand height restrictions in East Nashville and Germantown for the same reasons. 

But what on earth is Nashville trying to preserve by blanketing neighborhoods like Midtown and Sobro with height restrictions?  The city itself gleefully destroyed most of the history worth preserving in those areas long, long ago.  It's almost as if they feel that imposing height restrictions on those neighborhoods makes up for the mistakes of past generations.  But in my mind, not only is that nothing more than wishful thinking, but it actually does exactly the opposite of that.  By placing so many restrictions on development on areas of the city that now, as a result of the wanton destruction of historic properties in the past, are more or less nothing but empty lots and ragged aluminum warehouses, they actually help to cement that embarrassing legacy of destruction into place.  By lifting those restrictions we could at least have a chance at moving on from that past and hopefully create neighborhoods that might come close to making our past mistakes feel like the weren't all for naught. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[Pyramid Scheme]

I think there should be more builders coming out with old fashioned 19th century brick rowhouses like the ones that are long gone, but built to modern standards as far as codes and amenities. That way, short buildings would actually be cool instead of buildings like what's on 11th across from Capitol View. It seems like Jim Creason is dabbling in a little bit of that, I wish there were more.

[Neigeville2]

4 hours ago, PHofKS said:

I found it interesting that this lot was specifically zoned for a 20 story building under the proposed new Music Row overlay district. I always thought it would be a prime lot for some large development. Must be something going on, or they wouldn't box out this particular area.

The overlay...

 

I tend to agree, I've always thought that lot would be a great place for something fronting the street if you could cut a deal with the current owners to keep them supplied with parking (assuming they need it).  Maybe someone else has the same idea.

[Neigeville2]

34 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

Ya know, I totally get the whole height restriction thing in places like Charleston, Savannah, or Quebec City or Oaxaca or central Paris.  They've got beautiful, human scaled, pedestrian friendly streets and neighborhoods from a different era that are very much worth preserving, and the existence of modern highrise buildings places the unique, charming ambiance that makes those areas special destinations unto themselves into jeopardy somewhat.  Hell, even locally, I understand height restrictions in East Nashville and Germantown for the same reasons. 

But what on earth is Nashville trying to preserve by blanketing neighborhoods like Midtown and Sobro with height restrictions?  The city itself gleefully destroyed most of the history worth preserving in those areas long, long ago.  It's almost as if they feel that imposing height restrictions on those neighborhoods makes up for the mistakes of past generations.  But in my mind, not only is that nothing more than wishful thinking, but it actually does exactly the opposite of that.  By placing so many restrictions on development on areas of the city that now, as a result of the wanton destruction of historic properties in the past, are more or less nothing but empty lots and ragged aluminum warehouses, they actually help to cement that embarrassing legacy of destruction into place.  By lifting those restrictions we could at least have a chance at moving on from that past and hopefully create neighborhoods that might come close to making our past mistakes feel like the weren't all for naught. 

From the street level I'm not sure there's any difference between 20 stories and 50, but as someone who doesn't care about skylines, I'd rather not have a few giants dumping a glut of office space on the city a la World Trade Center before it got blown up.  And I don't think very tall buildings do anything to create neighborhoods.

That said, I think the rate of development in Sobro and Midtown has taken planners by surprise, Sobro in particular they seem to have thought would be something like 5 points when it's clearly headed toward a more downtown-y feel.

[BnaBreaker]

2 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

From the street level I'm not sure there's any difference between 20 stories and 50, but as someone who doesn't care about skylines, I'd rather not have a few giants dumping a glut of office space on the city a la World Trade Center before it got blown up.  And I don't think very tall buildings do anything to create neighborhoods.

Oh, I don't think there's anything special about tall buildings in regards to building neighborhoods, and having a nice skyline is pretty far down on my list of priorities for the city too, but my point is simply that since there is no real neighborhood in most of these places to preserve anyway, then what's the point of placing height restrictions on them?  I mean if there were any chance that Rutledge Hill or Sobro would become a beautiful neighborhood of tree-lined streets and stately brick and granite rowhouses, then sure, restrict height.  But we all know that's a pie-in-the-sky fantasy for this city, particularly this section.  In Sobro, if it isn't going to be highrise development it's very likely going to be some generic, squat four story stucco and wood blob that does as little or less than a highrise would to address the street and/or create a sense of place, a la Pollock Shores. 

[Hey_Hey]

I like 20 stories there. The reality is that development is a zero sum game based on demand, and I would like most of the space to be used in the CBD and Sobro.  A neighborhood full of 8-20 story buildings will be quite the urban neighborhood.  

[MLBrumby]

1 hour ago, Neigeville2 said:

I tend to agree, I've always thought that lot would be a great place for something fronting the street if you could cut a deal with the current owners to keep them supplied with parking (assuming they need it).  Maybe someone else has the same idea.

Anything to cover up that 1980s-McDonalds-cash-register-looking BMI building.  Yuck!  It's wasn't even attractive when it was new, but you know some company executive who had surrounded him/herself with Yes-men dreamed up that "design" on the back of a cocktail napkin, and the rest was history. 

[rookzie]

18 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Anything to cover up that 1980s-McDonalds-cash-register-looking BMI building.  Yuck!  It's wasn't even attractive when it was new, but you know some company executive who had surrounded him/herself with Yes-men dreamed up that "design" on the back of a cocktail napkin, and the rest was history. 

I say the same, to a lesser extent, on the Loews Vanderbilt Plaza, as well.  The both look like something that should be relegated to trite-looking oceanfront resort ads on Let's Make a Deal.

[MidTenn1]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

Anything to cover up that 1980s-McDonalds-cash-register-looking BMI building.  Yuck!  It's wasn't even attractive when it was new, but you know some company executive who had surrounded him/herself with Yes-men dreamed up that "design" on the back of a cocktail napkin, and the rest was history. 

That would be Barbara Mandrell. She provided a lot of financing for this project and was the primary owner. There is a heliport on the roof, also, which was controversial at the time because of the excessive noise and vibration that would be aimed at the recording studios.

 

....and you should have seen the proposal for the wedding cake designed building down the street that thankfully never was built. Something like this...

Edited January 24, 2016 by PHofKS

[arkitekte]

4 hours ago, Philip said:

I think there should be more builders coming out with old fashioned 19th century brick rowhouses like the ones that are long gone, but built to modern standards as far as codes and amenities. That way, short buildings would actually be cool instead of buildings like what's on 11th across from Capitol View. It seems like Jim Creason is dabbling in a little bit of that, I wish there were more.

That would be nice, but ridiculously expensive. One of the biggest problems with infill architecture is that you have people trying to build "historic" buildings with contemporary building materials. If brick and stone molding is going to be used, that's one thing, but for the most part, people will use concrete panels, EIFS, etc. to save money and make units affordable and the final product looks like Disney Land. 

[Neigeville2]

3 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

Anything to cover up that 1980s-McDonalds-cash-register-looking BMI building.  Yuck!  It's wasn't even attractive when it was new, but you know some company executive who had surrounded him/herself with Yes-men dreamed up that "design" on the back of a cocktail napkin, and the rest was history. 

I like it.  People complain about everything being boxes but almost any building that isn't a box is derided as a urinal, toilet paper rolls, cash register, etc.  Sure there are a few masterpiece designs with expensive materials which people may cite that they like even though it's not a box, but really, it irks me people seem unwilling to accept a degree of variety in the ordinary buildings around them.

[titanhog]

I'm pretty sure BMI owns that land...so I doubt they do anything with it unless they decide to add onto the current structure.

[Hey_Hey]

6 hours ago, Philip said:

I think there should be more builders coming out with old fashioned 19th century brick rowhouses like the ones that are long gone, but built to modern standards as far as codes and amenities. That way, short buildings would actually be cool instead of buildings like what's on 11th across from Capitol View. It seems like Jim Creason is dabbling in a little bit of that, I wish there were more.

I don't think our zoning really promotes that type of development, and it is hard to get multiple tracts of land in order to build something like that. Our R-zoned lots are all getting detached houses, and anything zoned higher seems to get an SP that targets a higher density than row houses or brownstones.  

That being said, there is a slightly higher density development going in along 13th Ave S between Sigler and Hawkins that will accomplish something similar to what you are describing, just a slightly higher density with modern design and building materials and rooftop living spaces. 

[MLBrumby]

I would say the chances of something like those row houses are better in areas like West End and Green Hills... but the builders of the most recent townhomes have used fine materials, but they just look like crap.  To wit:  The junky looking and very expensive houses at the corner of West End and Craighead Avenue.  U-G-L-Y!  You know they were not cheap either!