Inner Loop - CBD, Downtown, East Bank, Germantown, Gulch, Rutledge

[RonCamp]

http://nashville.eater.com/2015/9/21/9363049/maneet-chauhan-new-restaurants-gulch-nashville

The owner of Chauhan Ale and Masala confirms two new restaurant concepts coming to the North Gulch.

[smeagolsfree]

This article from the NBJ does a good job explaining everything.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/09/trail-west-building-demolished-owner-says-it-was.html

 

Im no engineer, but even I could tell this building had huge problems from the outside. Metro signed off on everything.

[chris holman]

I'm curious to know what makes a building historic ,? is it the age or just the architecture. or the purpose the building previously had before, 

Because I'm looking at old pictures of the Trail West building and it didn't have any type of architecture significance just the fact that it was old I'm pretty sure they're going to rebuild that lot to look better

[chris holman]

Reason why I ask because they tore  Fort Nashbro for similar reason if the building is protected by historic overlay it still gets tore down I know the city's not going to rebuild the trail West building exactly the way it was so what REALLY does protect these buildings

Edited September 22, 2015 by chris holman

[rookzie]

Reason why I ask because they tore  Fort Nashbro for similar reason if the building is protected by historic overlay it still gets tore down I know the city's not going to rebuild the trail West building exactly the way it was so what REALLY does protect these buildings

Fort Nashborough is a different animal, in that it is (was) only a smaller replica of the original fort.  According to the Daughters of the Am. Rev., Fort Nashborough Chapter, "...The present Fort Nashborough historic site was reconstructed in 1930 and then rebuilt in 1962 on a smaller scale than the initial two-acre enclosure."  A few of us got to ride an ancient Nashville city bus to the first replica of that fort, built in 1930.  I happened to have visited it in 1958 (the last time I had actually gone inside the thing).  I think the question to be answered is that, with the intention of rebuilding the fort as part of the ongoing flood-mitigation project, whether it should be rebuilt to the most recent (50-year-old) inaccurate size and location of the last (2nd) replica, or to a more authentic size and location, to the extent practical.  IMO, Metro could just throw up a large metal can of toy Lincoln Logs, and the public might go for it as the original " fort" [NOT!].

But I think the rationale underlying the fort makes much less Bull, than what has just transpired with Trail West (and it's entire situational debacle to boot), along with what's most likely imminent with the remaining current list of annually redesignated "Nashville Nine" endangered species, some labels of which arguably could be listed as hysterical jokes.  I'm not focusing so much on the historic significance of the Trail West buildng per se, as much as on a larger, fundamental issue belying the assumed initiative and purpose of preservationism.
-==-

Edited September 22, 2015 by rookzie

[RonCamp]

I'm curious to know what makes a building historic ,? is it the age or just the architecture. or the purpose the building previously had before, 

Because I'm looking at old pictures of the Trail West building and it didn't have any type of architecture significance just the fact that it was old I'm pretty sure they're going to rebuild that lot to look better

Chris, you've hit the nail on the head in terms of historic preservation in Nashville.  

This question is being heavily debated on Music Row in particular as we speak.  Is a building historic because of the structure itself?  Or because of significant things that took place there?

[chris holman]

I was just curious who decides what makes these building historic,  what are all the deciding factors, year ,the history of the building, or architecture elements

 

 I want Broadway to remain what it is and I know they would have saved the building if it was feasible,  even the diner site the building was torn down, when the development wasn't supposed to

Edited September 22, 2015 by chris holman

[smeagolsfree]

I always say that an old building is not necessarily historic and not all historic buildings are old.

[MidTenn1]

This is amusing...

NASHVILLE RHINESTONE

 

I know the guy who writes these. Clever.

 

 

[MLBrumby]

Sort of fascinating as I read up on how this transpired, and a little bit of the finger-pointing. I admit that I've really never paid much attention to this building, as the Trail West embellishments to the building really made it quite ugly. And last time I visited lower Broad that whole block appeared pretty dark and even dead.  As far as adding an establishment to draw people, that will be a net positive, but I don't expect it to look much better than the old building. I'm still astonished at the price Smith paid for that building (just that one on the corner?)... so I fear he will take the cheap way to putting up a structure to recoup his investment. 

Just noticed on the Channel 5 webcam that they had it trained on the demolition yesterday. 

 

And what is that on the roof of the adjacent building to the left?  

Edited September 22, 2015 by MLBrumby

[CenterHill]

I'm curious to know what makes a building historic ,? is it the age or just the architecture. or the purpose the building previously had before, 

Because I'm looking at old pictures of the Trail West building and it didn't have any type of architecture significance just the fact that it was old I'm pretty sure they're going to rebuild that lot to look better

It can be both.     In the case of Trail West, it was the age of the building itself (100 yrs approx) and the fact that it was situated in a contiguous row of buildings of similar age and design.  Hence the reason for the historic zoning overlay to protect all of the buildings on Lower Broad.     Historic designation can also be applied to buildings that are not necessarily old or even architecturally significant, but hold some greater significance for the events that occurred there, such that the community deems them worthy of preserving (e.g., Studio A on Music Row).    

Fort Nashborough was neither.   It was a replica tourist attraction. 

 

[bigeasy]

Are a lot of those buildings empty on the 2nd and 3rd floors? If not what are they used for? For example above Broadway Brewhouse, etc. I don't remember those places having 2nd floors to go up, but they have neon lighting in the windows. 

Also, I don't see why people would fight to keep this building. A new building could easily provide street activity on both broadway and 3rd ave. I kinda wish the building next to it was demolished also.  I feel like almost anything could be better than what was there. Good riddance.

Google Maps: Trail West

Edited September 22, 2015 by bigeasy

[chris holman]

This brings up an important question that I have. It's a building is protected by historic commission but

 

if the cost of the building to repair it cost more than the investment of a new developer does that cause the historic overlay to void the protection of the building , since the cost of repairing and restoring the building will cost more than the actual investment cost of the developer then the building is never really protected right. I mean that's what's been happening that's what happened to the trail West building

[Nashvilletitans]

The trail west bldg before it was done had the same typical historic significance as any other typical one hundred year old bldg in the broadway historic district.  Its facade, bldg scale were typical of broadway bldgs.  the building like most buildings on broadway are in average condition.  The trail west bldg structural condition was no worse than other buildings on broadway and could have been saved.  However the owners appear to have taken advantage of the loop hole that this buildings was in an sp for a hotel that was never built. so this buildings was not part of the broadway historic district.  The historic comm and staff did not get to review or approve this proposed project nor did they have a say if the building can be torn down.  

The fact the owner and his paid consultants said that the building is structural in to poor condition is very convienant.  And appears to be their rich to tear it down since it was not protected by broadway district guidelines.  The developers  drawings, floor elevations and exterior have shown a new building since they first proposed the idea,  the existing building did not have good floor to floor heights nor had window patterns to the liking of the developer.

I wonder if this proposed new building if not tectniquely in the broadway district will have to set there broadway facade and 3 rd ave facade  back a few feet to comply with the new sidewalk guidelines.

I also wonder if they will be able to have balconies on broadway and 3rd ave which are also no longer allowed in the district

 

 

 

[Nashvilletitans]

This brings up an important question that I have. It's a building is protected by historic commission but

 

if the cost of the building to repair it cost more than the investment of a new developer does that cause the historic overlay to void the protection of the building , since the cost of repairing and restoring the building will cost more than the actual investment cost of the developer then the building is never really protected right. I mean that's what's been happening that's what happened to the trail West building

I do not think the cost to repair was the real problem in this example.  Here we have a developer who bought his building for a high price who had a specific idea of what he wanted  and the building he bought was not able to do this and he had a loop hole where the building was not protected from demolition so he tore it down.  Now he gets to build what he wants.  The argument that the building was not structurally sound or could not be repaired is not really very truthful here.  the developer is trying to look like they made every effort to save the building - they wanted to tear it down the day they bought it and waited till they could tear it down. and that was sunday night.  The developer learned a little bit from there last illegal teardown at 3rd ave s.

[Paramount747]

He pulled this same stunt with the former building where his unfinished diner sits, over a year behind.

[donNdonelson2]

I was downtown near the courthouse this evening and noticed some very colorful new (to me anyway) lighting high atop the Hotel Indigo at 3rd & Union. A colorful display of lights flashing in various hues, in a practically flamboyant fashion (considering Nashville's somewhat conservative habit). Since I was driving, I did not get enough of a look to determine whether or not I like the display...but I will return for a repeat experience. 

[farm_boy]

I was downtown near the courthouse this evening and noticed some very colorful new (to me anyway) lighting high atop the Hotel Indigo at 3rd & Union. A colorful display of lights flashing in various hues, in a practically flamboyant fashion (considering Nashville's somewhat conservative habit). Since I was driving, I did not get enough of a look to determine whether or not I like the display...but I will return for a repeat experience. 

The colors really change a lot - very nice!!!

[NashRugger]

I noticed almost a month ago, a nice and subtle touch to lighten up, literally, that section of downtown.

[farm_boy]

 

Well, I was concerned they might build something with multiple stories here! Thankfully, this will not be another 20 story building fronting I-40

 

Seriously, put retail in the first 10 floors and build up from there

 

Gotta believe it will have some height so they can get their money back.  I envision something similar to the Eakin project in height.

Yes, I have a feeling this will have some height.  That's the only way they'll get a ROI on it.

I have the same feeling Michael.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/real-estate/2015/09/austin-developer-buys-more-prime-broadway-land.html

"This site is a gateway into and out of downtown. We liked the visibility and access ... and we think this site will have some spectacular views in all directions," wrote Jamil Alam, a managing principal of Endeavor, in an email last month.

The best news I read all day .....

[FromParkAveToTN]

I was very unfortunate to have made a wrong turn and ended up on lower Broadway last Saturday night. It was, by far, the loudest downtown I think I have ever been in. It was awful. The noise level was unbearable. I don't see how people can enjoy music that loud. The bars, with live bands, had their doors and windows open and the bands were competing with each other. I don't see how people are moving down there. It's horrible and not to mention the lack of diversity. Probably one to the most segregated down towns I think I've ever been in. Where's the diversity?

[titanhog]

 

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/real-estate/2015/09/austin-developer-buys-more-prime-broadway-land.html

"This site is a gateway into and out of downtown. We liked the visibility and access ... and we think this site will have some spectacular views in all directions," wrote Jamil Alam, a managing principal of Endeavor, in an email last month.

The best news I read all day .....

If they build it high enough, you can see Memphis from there. 

[MLBrumby]

That site is crying for a very tall building to bridge the downtown skyline with the growing midtown skyline. If done right, a Bowie-sized tower and the Buckingham tower would make the skyline from I-65 coming in from the north look quite large. Noticed the last time I came that way several months ago that the midtown skyline is looking very urban.

[dmillsphoto]

If they build it high enough, you can see Memphis Russia from there. 

FTFY 

[BnaBreaker]

You act like people are moving to downtown to live inside the live music venues.