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

[Nashville Cliff]

2 hours ago, Baronakim said:

The Victorian era is long past and the neighborhood on Lindsey has deteriorated architecturally into a hodgepodge.  IMO the only structure worth preserving is the church at Second Avenue, the exterior of which has been beautifully restored recently.   Most of the remaining area on the crest of Rutledge Hill is a treasure to be respected and preserved, but dissociated small buildings like this one are not particularly good candidates for enshrinement. 

Setting aside the silliness of "The Victorian era is long past" part of your argument, are you saying that historic and architecturally attractive structures aren't worth preserving if they don't come in extant neighborhoods, or at least multiples?

[japan]

On 9/16/2019 at 12:31 PM, DeemonBruhn said:

 

That is not what is happening at all. I hope you don’t actually believe this.

70%+ of all the revenue is created in the commercial corridor from the riverfront out West End.

Every few years, the people here seem to forget that ParkAve is a shtick account.

[Baronakim]

2 hours ago, Nashville Cliff said:

Setting aside the silliness of "The Victorian era is long past" part of your argument, are you saying that historic and architecturally attractive structures aren't worth preserving if they don't come in extant neighborhoods, or at least multiples?

Yes in this case.  The building in question is neither historic nor particularly attractive.  All  of the homes on the street  it fronts  upon were removed decades ago.  It is a pathetic remnant of a once attractive and viable neighborhood.  I believe that my statement included the phrase " structure out of the context of the original neighborhood character of little historical value" still is valid.   Of course,  buildings with significant history or reasonable  architectural note should be preserved but NOT every one... as a museum piece.  There must be an adaptation of use relevant to the times.   There reaches a point in many such cases that restoration  or even repair of structures such as this one become onerous to its ownership.  This is particularly true when the ratio of land value to the value of the usable occupancy becomes disproportionate.  I can think of no likely use for this structure in a restored condition that would come close to the value of the proposed apartments...even though they are fairly bland.  Certainly Edgefield, Lockwood Springs and the many other historic neighborhoods are examples of successful preservation achievements.  And your statement about "silliness" is naive.  Victorian design elements are of an age where craftsmanship and labor were cheap, and I might say unfairly so, when addressing the pay of construction workers back then.  The era is not too far removed from the Antebellum where slave labor was used.   You  must have missed my intent... that Victorian construction is not in the architectural mainstream of this century... and not much of the last either.  Before you squawk,  see if you can view  or read "the Fountainhead" by Ann Rand or perhaps watch "Batteries Not Included"  to see examples of how silly inappropriate preservation  or superfluous detailing could be.   If you insist on prolonging your criticism of my architectural opinion,  I am sure you will have high praise for some of the ghastly housing projects in this forum which cut and paste  Victorian elements willy-nilly.  No offense, but you have your opinion and I have mine.  I am uninterested in flame war.

[PaulChinetti]

I have always just really like the front of that building. Just thought it would be cool if that could have been incorporated into the new building some way. It's nice infill. It could be even nicer if it wasn't the, in style architecture of the day and had an older feel to it. 

[musiczealot]

The asking price for that property was 2.35M and the inside (based on floorplan and pictures) was a weird hodgepodge that would have needed a ton of work to be useable.  Unfortunately, I think the asking price was just too high for it to be anything other than a tear down.

[DeemonBruhn]

Every few years, the people here seem to forget that ParkAve is a shtick account.

I was not aware.

[PruneTracy]

2 hours ago, japan said:

Every few years, the people here seem to forget that ParkAve is a shtick account.

Every few days, maybe

[BnaBreaker]

3 hours ago, japan said:

Every few years, the people here seem to forget that ParkAve is a shtick account.

I mean, obviously she is heavy on the jokes, but are you saying you don't think she ever posts a serious opinion?  I find that hard to believe.  

[FromParkAveToTN]

9 hours ago, japan said:

Every few years, the people here seem to forget that ParkAve is a shtick account.

And don't forget, ParkAve is absolutely  gorgeous.

[Nashvillain]

11 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

The airport is in Donelson. Try to keep the economic engine running without that, eh?

 

Typically, they put airports where there isn't crap else. And they never would have built an airport if it weren't for NASHVILLE, ya'll! Sorry, that response even annoyed me

6 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I mean, obviously she is heavy on the jokes, but are you saying you don't think she ever posts a serious opinion?  I find that hard to believe.  

I think she does, which is why I responded seriously to her comments re: the placement of NMAAM but I was also cautious to point out that she troll-y by nature. Possibly cliché, but sort of like the boy who cried wolf 

[Nashville Cliff]

15 hours ago, Baronakim said:

Yes in this case.  The building in question is neither historic nor particularly attractive.  All  of the homes on the street  it fronts  upon were removed decades ago.  It is a pathetic remnant of a once attractive and viable neighborhood.  I believe that my statement included the phrase " structure out of the context of the original neighborhood character of little historical value" still is valid.   Of course,  buildings with significant history or reasonable  architectural note should be preserved but NOT every one... as a museum piece.  There must be an adaptation of use relevant to the times.   There reaches a point in many such cases that restoration  or even repair of structures such as this one become onerous to its ownership.  This is particularly true when the ratio of land value to the value of the usable occupancy becomes disproportionate.  I can think of no likely use for this structure in a restored condition that would come close to the value of the proposed apartments...even though they are fairly bland.  Certainly Edgefield, Lockwood Springs and the many other historic neighborhoods are examples of successful preservation achievements.  And your statement about "silliness" is naive.  Victorian design elements are of an age where craftsmanship and labor were cheap, and I might say unfairly so, when addressing the pay of construction workers back then.  The era is not too far removed from the Antebellum where slave labor was used.   You  must have missed my intent... that Victorian construction is not in the architectural mainstream of this century... and not much of the last either.  Before you squawk,  see if you can view  or read "the Fountainhead" by Ann Rand or perhaps watch "Batteries Not Included"  to see examples of how silly inappropriate preservation  or superfluous detailing could be.   If you insist on prolonging your criticism of my architectural opinion,  I am sure you will have high praise for some of the ghastly housing projects in this forum which cut and paste  Victorian elements willy-nilly.  No offense, but you have your opinion and I have mine.  I am uninterested in flame war.

Not looking for a flame war. My "silliness" comment was about the patently . . . well, silly . . . apparent assertion that historic structures should be discounted because . . . wait for it . . . their era has long passed.  That's a big part of what makes them historic.  And I read the Fountainhead a long time ago, back when I was a naive teen; moved on since then. But, as you say, we are both entitled to our opinions.

[Nashville Cliff]

11 minutes ago, Nashville Cliff said:

Not looking for a flame war. My "silliness" comment was about the patently . . . well, silly . . . apparent assertion that historic structures should be discounted because . . . wait for it . . . their era has long passed.  That's a big part of what makes them historic.  And I read the Fountainhead a long time ago, back when I was a naive teen; moved on since then. But, as you say, we are both entitled to our opinions.

And, my surliness aside, I do actually appreciate your explaining your position.

[Baronakim]

3 hours ago, Nashville Cliff said:

And, my surliness aside, I do actually appreciate your explaining your position.

Thanks, Cliff.  Actually I was not thinking I asserted a thought about discounting existing historic structures for their era.  I had in more mind  about incorporating Victorian elements into this specific apartment proposal as being inappropriate.  I have no objection to appropriate aspects of design elements in period settings. As evidence of my respect for historic  preservation I offer the many projects in my career in which I have rescued and restored historic structures from very  early in my career.  In fact, my colleges consider me a go-to source for architectural history advice.   48 years ago, I restored the Old Russell County Courthouse c.1868 in Seale, Alabama.   While documenting and measuring  its abandoned condition, I fell through the attic rafters through a foot of pigeon crap eighteen feet to the floor below.  27 years ago, I had many projects in Columbia , Tennessee around the square.  They included replacing the cupola of the courthouse and  restoration work inside , the complete rebuilding of the facade of the Curley Furniture building (c.1950) into a replacement of the facade of the original Victorian building once there, the Jack and Jill building c. 1817.  More... the County Zoning offices, the Memorial Building  and many more around the city.  Most of these structures were in such poor condition as to be in danger of collapse at the time.  In the 1980s, I designed many period churches...here is one in Maryville TN and a small addition to Christ Church Cathedral on Broadway (far left on pic) for ADA access.  I specified stone to match from the original quarry in Crab Orchard which had to be reopened.  While plain, this addition used appropriate Gothic detailing like the arched doorway detailing.   I am no stranger to architectural preservation or reuse...did you miss my current proposal for rebuilding Notre Dame Cathedral?  I just felt this project (and the Rudy house) was a lost cause and any efforts on my part could be better spent elsewhere.  Sorry about any lack of clarity in my previous posts.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Baronakim
additional comments

[Rockatansky]

On 9/15/2019 at 3:20 PM, FromParkAveToTN said:

ur tax dollars should stay in our own communities and not used for downtown projects. 

Downtown generates a huge amount of revenue for Metro. Most residential neighborhoods fail to cover the cost of services provided.

On 9/16/2019 at 5:04 PM, AronG said:

hundreds of thousands of high-end jobs

About 75,000 not hundreds of thousands.

[smeagolsfree]

And folks that is how level headed, sane thinking folks should handle their disagreements on the board. Like the gentleman they are and a Mod never has to get involved.

[Baronakim]

Concerning the Muse proposal,  I really don't see very much parking even for the apartments, much less any  street level retail.  Have I missed a ramp down to a lower parking level underground?  I also don't think much of the layout of the one plan shown...fairly poor design.  For instance the door to the elevator core should not have the required door pull area squarely in a traffic lane and the parking spaces would be hell to get vehicles in and out...much too tight to squeeze in parking spaces.  Getting from parking into the retail spaces looks to suck too.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Baronakim
spelling

[PaulChinetti]

I'm guessing it's way down there past that last store based on this.

[Baronakim]

12 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'm guessing it's way down there past that last store based on this.

Codes will never allow a vehicular exit or entrance into an intersection...especially one as angled as this one..  Looking more closely at the parking spaces at that end, It would be almost impossible for the cars to get out except by backing all the way to the other end.  Who is the architect on this proposal or is there even one yet?  The layout looks very amateurish like maybe done by a marketing department of the developer?  This must be very preliminary.

[PaulChinetti]

I don’t think that’s parking at the end. I’m talking about this. 

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, Baronakim said:

Concerning the Muse proposal,  I really don't see very much parking even for the apartments, much less any  street level retail.  Have I missed a ramp down to a lower parking level underground?  I also don't think much of the layout of the one plan shown...fairly poor design.  For instance the door to the elevator core should not have the required door pull area squarely in a traffic lane and the parking spaces would be hell to get vehicles in and out...much too tight to squeeze in parking spaces.  Getting from parking into the retail spaces looks to suck too.

Honest question, do most Nashvilians have the expectation that every single apartment/condo building have it's own parking garage?

[Baronakim]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

Honest question, do most Nashvilians have the expectation that every single apartment/condo building have it's own parking garage?

No, I don't think they expect a garage per se.   Certainly surface parking would be adequate, but when land is as expensive as this, garage parking is probably more cost effective. What I question is that there seem to be fewer parking spaces than apartments and the retail potentially reduces even this number.  I mistook Paul's comment concerning the parking entrance location.  I thought that he possibly indicated an entrance to a lower deck on the intersection side of the parcel.  Obviously it does not, as he arrows the one obvious entrance in the plan.  Again obviously then there are no internal ramps, so no additional parking is indicated.  What bothers me as an architect is ... how does this work with so little parking, fewer than the apartments.? Where is the retail parking?   It was mentioned that some apartments will be rented as short term rentals, so where do those guests park?  Or have Metro requirements changed somewhat that I am unaware?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Baronakim
context

[PaulChinetti]

I’m wondering if there aren’t more levels to the parking garage as that’s just the first floor. 

A parking garage on the back would be a nice buffer from the interstate. 

[grilled_cheese]

8 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

And folks that is how level headed, sane thinking folks should handle their disagreements on the board. Like the gentleman they are and a Mod never has to get involved.

WTF DID YOU JUST SAY TO ME??????111

[markhollin]

Ludlow Flats (5 stories, 68 units) update. Foundation walls complete for underground garage.

Looking south from intersection of Scovel St. and 10th Ave. North:

Looking west from intersection of Scovel St. and 10th Ave. North:

[markhollin]

First Baptist Church addition (5 stories) update.  Pillars and elevator shaft/stairwell starting to rise.

Looking south from intersection of 6th Ave. South and Broadway:
 

Looking west from intersection of 6th Ave. South and Broadway: