Buckingham Gulch Tower 38 Floors, 450+ ft., 345 residential units, 4,900 sq. ft. retail

[Leif]

...and how many lawsuits from ICON, Terrazzo, and 1212 are we going to have to derail this project? Are we going to have a Green Hills Southern Land scenario where the tower gets reduced anyway?

terrazzo is conditionally for it from an HOA perspective, icon's HOA cares so much it didn't do anything

[titanhog]

Honestly...Icon residents should probably beg them to build the 38 story version.  The blob that would be the 28 story version will totally block any Vitamin D they'll be getting from the sun.

[japan]

The vitamin D deficiency defense is genius.  Now Icon is relegated to vampires only.

Edited October 15, 2015 by japan

[dmillsphoto]

The vitamin D deficiency defense is genius.  Now Icon is relegated to vampires only.

Chris Holman, it's time to get out while you still can!

[chris holman]

Lol I'm hoping it gets built just as its designed! I want to move into that building when completed

[Nathan_in_DC]

Adam Sichko ‏@NSHBIZSichko  50m50 minutes ago

Terrazzo deal with @BuckinghamCo doesn't pertain to Icon or Twelve Twelve. residents of both here mostly to complain (about 12-15 total)
 

Adam Sichko ‏@NSHBIZSichko  42m42 minutes ago

now we are digging into expanded sunlight studies requested by Metro, estimating shadows on pools of Terrazzo and Icon
 

Adam Sichko ‏@NSHBIZSichko  27m27 minutes ago

Tom White, lawyer for Terrazzo, says "perfectly obvious Terrazzo is most directly affected" & 38-story tower "dramatically better" for city
 

Adam Sichko ‏@NSHBIZSichko  15m15 minutes ago

Icon resident says he got 18 emails just yesterday from others who oppose. "you're trading benefit for Terrazzo for detriment to Icon"
 

Adam Sichko ‏@NSHBIZSichko  12m12 minutes ago

another opposed Icon resident says she has vitamin D deficiency and needs sunlight (which drew her to the specific unit she bought in Feb.)

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so frustrating. "HEY! Let's move in to an apartment in a booming neighborhood, in a building that was recently built, while others are being built or announced almost monthly. And then complain when another is built nearby because it means my personal access to sunlight is somewhat obscured. Because that makes sense, right?"

[MidTenn1]

Zoning appeals board OKs 38-story Gulch tower ...from the Tennessean

In a unanimous vote, the Metro Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday approved Buckingham Cos.' request for a special exception to allow its planned residential tower in the Gulch to rise 38 stories.

 

Edited October 16, 2015 by PHofKS

[CenterHill]

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so frustrating. "HEY! Let's move in to an apartment in a booming neighborhood, in a building that was recently built, while others are being built or announced almost monthly. And then complain when another is built nearby because it means my personal access to sunlight is somewhat obscured. Because that makes sense, right?"

And the Marketstreet master plan for the Gulch is published and widely available to anyone online.   I know we have a couple of realtors on the board, so I won't speak for them, but I would expect the subject of permissible zoning heights of surrounding properties is not a key part of the sales pitch for condo units.    My point is a buyer of a downtown condo unit is free to do the same due diligence on their property as the buyer of a house and quarter acre in the Nations, Salemtown, the east side or any other rapidly redeveloping neighborhood.              

[Nathan_in_DC]

And the Marketstreet master plan for the Gulch is published and widely available to anyone online.   I know we have a couple of realtors on the board, so I won't speak for them, but I would expect the subject of permissible zoning heights of surrounding properties is not a key part of the sales pitch for condo units.    My point is a buyer of a downtown condo unit is free to do the same due diligence on their property as the buyer of a house and quarter acre in the Nations, Salemtown, the east side or any other rapidly redeveloping neighborhood.              

What's this "due diligence" thing you speak of? Isn't it just easier to go on a diatribe at a city council meeting and make vague legal threats? #sarcsam

[bigeasy]

Is Vitamin D deficiency a thing? That is a serious question. Would someone actually buy a specific unit because of that? 

Edited October 16, 2015 by bigeasy

[Hey_Hey]

The problem with the "due diligence" argument in this case is that "due diligence" could not have foreseen a 38 story tower. For potential purchasers to complete due diligence that is actually meaningful they need to go to a source that is going to be reliable in almost every circumstance. A condo purchaser in Icon may very well have been told that a tower on the sliver lot could be no higher than 20 stories.  Of course, now that the BZA has (in good judgement) allowed the 38 story development, confidence in the system is eroded. 

That being said, I was in favor of the Buckingham design and want it to be built. The problem, in my opinion, is that the city's position seems to be a step late.  Looking at a 38 story tower on that lot makes sense to me given the trajectory of Nashville (and it appears the BZA agreed).  Why, then, was there a 20 (+4 or 8) story height limit in place? The city is sending mixed signals to everyone.  It is imposing a height limit that later on becomes moot when a developer goes in front of Planning or the BZA and gets granted a request.  How can anyone complete due diligence if the rules, as written, appear to have no meaning?  In my opinion, the appeals process shouldn't have to be undertaken for every development that comes along. How many major developments are building purely by right?  The only one I can think of is the Panatoni/SESAC development on 16th Ave S. 

It should also make development a little more predictable. Right now developers are purchasing options on lots that are priced assuming a zoning or appeals change is approved. If that zoning change or appeal is not approved then the project is likely no longer viable and it falls through.  I'm sure there are several developers that look at these height restrictions on paper and walk away because they don't want the hassle and risk of seeking a zoning change. Let's revisit height restrictions inside the 440 loop, and let's put in actual height restrictions that are realistic and reasonable.  Then stick to them. That could mean getting rid of height restrictions entirely in Sobro, the Gulch, and the CBD. The absence of a height restriction is far better than a height restriction that doesn't mean anything.  At least then potential purchaser understand that a 40, 60, 80, whatever story building could potentially be built there.

[Hey_Hey]

Is Vitamin D deficiency a thing? That is a serious question. Would something actually buy a specific unit because of that? 

It is a real thing, but I can't imagine they would a condo unit to treat it.  Even if they have vitamin D deficiency you really need direct sunlight to treat it (or just take Vitamin D supplements). Windows block a high percentage of UV light which is what is needed to convert the precursor of vitamin D to actual vitamin D, so sitting in a sunny room isn't going to do much. There's also dietary vitamin D that will supplement someone if they need additional amounts of it.

I think this was an argument that was short sighted and reeked of desperation.

BTW, I am a physician but don't treat vitamin D in my specialty, so this is coming from my memory of vitamin D from medical school.  That was a few years ago, so some specifics may be a little different.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Hey_Hey

[Leif]

The problem with the "due diligence" argument in this case is that "due diligence" could not have foreseen a 38 story tower. For potential purchasers to complete due diligence that is actually meaningful they need to go to a source that is going to be reliable in almost every circumstance. A condo purchaser in Icon may very well have been told that a tower on the sliver lot could be no higher than 20 stories.  Of course, now that the BZA has (in good judgement) allowed the 38 story development, confidence in the system is eroded. 

This was the gist of the arguments the 1212 owners I met made (what is the point of DTC if it is reasonably easy to circumvent) and when their HOA is established I'd expect them to be very vocal on future projects.

 I think this was an argument that was short sighted and reeked of desperation.

There was a post to the ICON building site on Wednesday that seems to have had an impact with a few people that missed the two mailings, three community meetings, and one prior BZA hearing before yesterday. I'm uncertain as to why the HOA didn't articulate any position.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Leif
triggered some emoji thing..

[PruneTracy]

The problem with the "due diligence" argument in this case is that "due diligence" could not have foreseen a 38 story tower. For potential purchasers to complete due diligence that is actually meaningful they need to go to a source that is going to be reliable in almost every circumstance. A condo purchaser in Icon may very well have been told that a tower on the sliver lot could be no higher than 20 stories.  Of course, now that the BZA has (in good judgement) allowed the 38 story development, confidence in the system is eroded.

While I agree that Metro should either be more consistent regarding enforcement of their zoning limits or more proactive in updating them, I don't think due diligence stops at what master plans or zoning overlays say. This project is far from the first to get BZA approval to deviate from the applicable code, and if our collective luck continues it won't be the last.

Anytime you're looking at a property you have to look at the actual growth trend, not the paper one. To return to my analogy from an earlier post, if you were buying a house in a new R40 development on the edge of town, and you looked up (or the agent told you) that the neighboring farms were AR2a and the neighborhood plan called for them to remain so, could you reasonably expect them to stay that way for perpetuity? The developer that built your house got a zoning change, there's no reason someone can't do the same next door. You could argue that the city should stick to its limits, or update them proactively to reflect demand, which are both true, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is that people want to live in a certain area and governments like to increase their tax base.

The Gulch is about to enter its tenth year of being the hottest neighborhood in one of the hottest cities in the country. While we were all pleasantly surprised to see this project pop up, I don't think anybody was surprised in the sense of "OMG I can't believe anyone would even want to build this". If I were buying down there I would expect owners of the dwindling underdeveloped lots to want to go big. Why wouldn't they? And pool insolation and endocrinological disorders aside, any current owner of a Gulch condo is going to see their property increase in value as the area continues to get built out, barring some major collapse in the economy. It's a very desirable neighborhood to live in, regardless of views or sunny pools.

I may be cynical from a career of developing plans that get ignored, but these sorts of things aren't set in stone by any stretch of the imagination. What matters is demand, and the Gulch, as well as the entire city, is (for now) very much in demand.

[Mr_Bond]

Here are some snippets from the email sent to Terrazzo residents by our Residential Board (Terrazzo has a Residential Board and a Commercial Board).

It seems clear to me that Terrazzo's attorney and board worked with Buckingham to iron out a few details while keeping their eyes on the prize, getting this beautiful building approved.  "The grant of the exception to allow a zoning change from a 20 floor building to a 38 floor building was approved and included the special considerations that the Terrazzo Board and our retained counsel Tom White worked diligently with Buckingham Properties to include."

"The board believes we were able to obtain considerations that are favorable to Terrazzo homeowners."  The considerations include:

- Limitations on the footprint to match closely what was shown in the public hearings,

- Height of the tallest tower not to exceed 476’, and

- Height of the podium (lower area where the parking garage is likely to go directly across from our swimming pool) limited to 113’.

The shadow studies of these limited footprints showed that Terrazzo's pool will not be shaded in the prime summer months.

"Additionally, Buckingham will have to seek final site and design approval from the MDHA which holds a series of detailed reviews and approvals over the next several months. These reviews help insure that the building is located, designed, and decorated well and offer us more opportunities to provide input and objections if necessary into the final look of the building."

There were some other considerations noted: respecting construction noise mitigation rules of Metro, respecting blasting rules, blast monitoring of Terrazzo's building, 2 free window cleanings for Terrazzo, building lighting placed to limit beaming into our windows, construction staging on Division Street to lessen the traffic impact to our residents, and monthly project updates to Terrazzo as the project progresses.

Sounds like Terrazzo got what it wanted and Buckingham gets the go-ahead.  I think a start date in the second half of 2016 sounds right.

[wmaddbb2018]

When could we start to hear some noise on this project? Early 2016?

[Paramount747]

When could we start to hear some noise on this project? Early 2016?

I would guess either after the holidays, or maybe after winter. I bet we hear something by March.

[Paramount747]

Let's hope this starts soon!

[farm_boy]

When could we start to hear some noise on this project? Early 2016?

I would guess either after the holidays, or maybe after winter. I bet we hear something by March.Let

let's be realistic. It should take a year to get the drawings, financing, materials, planning ...

But hoping excavation starts by Q4 2016

[Leif]

 

let's be realistic. It should take a year to get the drawings, financing, materials, planning ...
But hoping excavation starts by Q4 2016

They said in the ICON owners meeting that they were shooting for 'about this time next year' and that was in September before the deferral. So I wouldn't expect to see anything happen until at least September of 2016 if not October or November. They said they were self financing so arranging that wouldn't be an obstacle.

[arkitekte]

 

let's be realistic. It should take a year to get the drawings, financing, materials, planning ...
But hoping excavation starts by Q4 2016

This is along the lines of what I'm thinking. If they got the go ahead today to produce permit and bid construction document sets, for a building this size it would probably take at least 8 months or so. 

[titanhog]

On October 16, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Hey_Hey said:

Any new "news" on this one?  I know it will take a while to come up with the new renders...but just wondering if anyone has heard a peep?

[MLBrumby]

Nothing that I've heard, but given their timetable, which looks credible and feasible, they would be looking at breaking ground by spring of next year. 

[titanhog]

6 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

Nothing that I've heard, but given their timetable, which looks credible and feasible, they would be looking at breaking ground by spring of next year. 

I'm really excited about this development.  Where it will sit on the edge of the "loop" and with a 450+ height will significantly change our skyline...maybe even more than 505.  This thing will look like a behemoth and stretch the eye when viewing our skyline from certain perspectives.

[chris holman]

Especially if you're driving on I 65 the tower would almost. 500+ ft because the tower it's sitting on a bluff