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

[Bos2Nash]

This is a preservation project for sure. This discussion seems to be getting into the semantics of what level of preservation. The building had not been maintained and as a result engineers and builders deemed the building structure unsalvageable. It was certainly the intent of the project to maintain the floors and and all, but do to the irresponsibility of previous property owners, only the facades along Broadway and 2nd were salvageable. Honestly, Historic is probably the only reason why the whole building did not come down. The approach that had to be taken here is still a very costly and quite admirable by parties involved to save the facade. 

[Baronakim]

3 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

I do not get your anger/frustration here. I said I understand demoing the building to just two walls. My problem  is people saying they restored a building when they renovated it. Just my opinion, is that restoring is what you do at the Hermitage, for instance. Renovating/new construction is what you're doing here. You can restore the walls in front, but the building is not restored, just my opinion. A frustration for just me is folks who say they restored an old house, but when you walk through the front door 99% is brand new with only the front wall being original.  That is just my opinion and I'm not trying to sway anyone else to it.  You want me to appreciate your point of view, don't pick apart mine.

Disagreement with a statement does not constute anger/ frustration.  if that were the case formal debates would be equipped with weapons and body bags.  This a is a forum.  By definition it is "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. "  Picking apart views presented in a nonmalicious manner is a proper function of this site.  In my opinion "restoration" in this case by your stated  point of view would mean returning the entirity to its as built condition and functions.  Most importantly, from my perspective as historic oriented architect, the best aspect of this project is that the detailing and openings of the original fascade are being rebuilt.  That does not mean that the orginal window sash and absense of wall insulation should be "restored.   In tat you are correct to criticize use of the term restoration as you have an issue with it.    As to restoration as you define it, Notre Dame is being fully restored.  I do not agree that this was a wise or good thing per se for the cathedral as a whole.  People gush over the exact repacement of Violett-le- Duc's steeple. but Violett-le-Duc designed a much more appropriately scaled and grand one for the cathedral.   Why not wipe out all of his work and "restore" the cathedral to it's  15th century or 13th century state?    In this case, the function of religion  is static IMO and the building is more of a tourist oriented museum than a place of worship.  At the time of Violett-le-Duc's redesign, the cathedral was unused and was relegated to storage, not so grand huh?  My proposal for the cathedral  was based on his concept, but the roof was replaced in titanium, not woor and lead.   here is a part of my proposal. 

Likewise, Second Avenue structures have drastically changed function in the last 50 years.  That is how a city evolves. Bos2Nash provides some excellent points and provides some clarity as to why this is not a "restoration" but rather a preservation of what could be saved, but with sensible modifications.  I'm sorry we seem to be using the term restoration inproperly.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Baronakim

[Nash_12South]

Again, you are reading so much more than I intended with my original statement. I think saving the 2 walls is a good thing, restoring the 2 walls to some semblance of what they looked like will be good. I have nothing against renovation/restoration  however you choose to define it.  I'm not sure that what is happening to Notre Dame would be comparable to this building unless this future bar was being taken back to it's original use, as a warehouse(?). Notre Dame is being restored to an updated version of what is was, my definition of restoration.  I also have a degree in architecture and have worked as an architect in Nashville for decades. I've worked in many very old buildings, renovating them to new uses, restoring as much as I could/as was practical. I just see a difference in renovation vs. restoration, when it comes to a building. And I'm not saying either one is bad, I make my living by it.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Nash_12South

[Baronakim]

1 hour ago, Nash_12South said:

Again, you are reading so much more than I intended with my original statement. I think saving the 2 walls is a good thing, restoring the 2 walls to some semblance of what they looked like will be good. I have nothing against renovation/restoration  however you choose to define it.  I'm not sure that what is happening to Notre Dame would be comparable to this building unless this future bar was being taken back to it's original use, as a warehouse(?). Notre Dame is being restored to an updated version of what is was, my definition of restoration.  I also have a degree in architecture and have worked as an architect in Nashville for decades. I've worked in many very old buildings, renovating them to new uses, restoring as much as I could/as was practical. I just see a difference in renovation vs. restoration, when it comes to a building. And I'm not saying either one is bad, I make my living by it.

I agree with you about 99%., but my response was triggered from your unfortunate assumption that I was either frustrated or angry for some reason.  I am sure that we have a tremendous  amount of common ground and I also agree with what Bos2Nash stated as a disagreement in semantics.  I think we are on the same page.

[UTgrad09]

13 hours ago, Baronakim said:

I would like to see the Christian interior of the Pantheon in Rome reverted to  the original pagan  Roman gods too, but museumism isn't my thing.  I am extremely impressed with this project in the extent of their preserving and especially RESTORING the originional exterior of this building.  Would you likewise be pleased with putting back the rough board flooring (or even the dirt ones) in most of the Second Avenue buildings?  I certainly remember what they were like back then and Second Avenue in the 1950s was only a place to visit if you wanted bulk goods.  Unless buildings like this one originally had a fabulously significant historic interior, I see no problem whatsoever with ripping it out for a new use relevant to our our times.  This rebuilding fairly assures this building will grace the corner for at least another century or two, wheras most of the buildings downtown built of steel and glass will be gone in the next 50 years.  They are built with planned obsolesence.

Re-read what I wrote.

[markhollin]

Nassau & Garfield Townhomes (3 & 4 stories, 3 units?) update: exterior nearly complete.

Looking NW from intersection of Garfield St. and Nassau St:

[Baronakim]

7 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Re-read what I wrote.

i did.  Sorry but subsequent posts have verified that the interior structure of this particular building was unsafe and unsalvagable.  As to preserving "historic' interiors, I suspect that there were none  left to  salvage if indeed there were any of worth as this apparenty was built largely as a warehouse.  Upper floors in buildings like this of this generally are poor candidates for rehab as they are rife with obsolete utilities and have been chopped up piecemeal over many decades of users until it became more logical to abandon use.  Also accessability  is a huge factor as the ADA no longer grants exemptions for existing older buildings as they did initially.  Authorities granted hardship cases, but now expect full compliance after many decades of accepting hardship exemptions.  I also suspect that most of the structure was designed primarily for dead loads rather than a substantial ly increased live loading due to the crowds expected for the new club function of Chief's.  Mainly, my responses subsequent to your post however have been to  Nash_12South's posts, not yours.  I did not see anything in your post that seeemed IMO upon which it was necessary to comment as your post presents  a rather straightforward opinion.  The only thing that perhaps I might take issue is "I would like to see as many historic interiors preserved as possible. ".   I can agree with that only if they are both worthy and still serve some meaningful purpose after preservation.  Such preservation should not to be intended simply for entertainment purposes. That is the legitimate funtion of a musuem.  That is also a huge part of my general disagreement with a huge  number of Nashvillians who bemoan any changes of their beloved city landscape.  Old buildings, while comfortably familiar as you drive by,  are not there to entertain  solely by their existance;  they are not eye candy.  They must adapt with the times or be swept into the dust bin of history IMO.

[UTgrad09]

2 hours ago, Baronakim said:

i did.  Sorry but subsequent posts have verified that the interior structure of this particular building was unsafe and unsalvagable.  As to preserving "historic' interiors, I suspect that there were none  left to  salvage if indeed there were any of worth as this apparenty was built largely as a warehouse.  Upper floors in buildings like this of this generally are poor candidates for rehab as they are rife with obsolete utilities and have been chopped up piecemeal over many decades of users until it became more logical to abandon use.  Also accessability  is a huge factor as the ADA no longer grants exemptions for existing older buildings as they did initially.  Authorities granted hardship cases, but now expect full compliance after many decades of accepting hardship exemptions.  I also suspect that most of the structure was designed primarily for dead loads rather than a substantial ly increased live loading due to the crowds expected for the new club function of Chief's.  Mainly, my responses subsequent to your post however have been to  Nash_12South's posts, not yours.  I did not see anything in your post that seeemed IMO upon which it was necessary to comment as your post presents  a rather straightforward opinion.  The only thing that perhaps I might take issue is "I would like to see as many historic interiors preserved as possible. ".   I can agree with that only if they are both worthy and still serve some meaningful purpose after preservation.  Such preservation should not to be intended simply for entertainment purposes. That is the legitimate funtion of a musuem.  That is also a huge part of my general disagreement with a huge  number of Nashvillians who bemoan any changes of their beloved city landscape.  Old buildings, while comfortably familiar as you drive by,  are not there to entertain  solely by their existance;  they are not eye candy.  They must adapt with the times or be swept into the dust bin of history IMO.

You are reading far more into that post than what is actually there. I wish I didn't have to explain my full position on architectural preservation like I'm giving a damn dissertation on the subject. 

I don't know the intimate details on this project or that particular building. I'm simply stating my desire to keep as much of the surviving structure intact as possible. I fully understand (as I stated in my original post) that it may not be structurally stable, due to years of non-use or neglect. I also stated that the facade is the most important thing to keep intact (though perhaps I didn't glowingly praise the developers enough to satisfy you). 

You could also spare me the smart ass history lesson. No one is talking about restoring buildings with dirt floors or gas lamps. I'm not sure what purpose that serves other than to try to insult my intelligence. 

 

Bos2Nash's post quite simply satisfied what I wanted to know. He managed to present it in a straightforward manner without the insult of condescention.

[Baronakim]

4 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

You are reading far more into that post than what is actually there. I wish I didn't have to explain my full position on architectural preservation like I'm giving a damn dissertation on the subject. 

I don't know the intimate details on this project or that particular building. I'm simply stating my desire to keep as much of the surviving structure intact as possible. I fully understand (as I stated in my original post) that it may not be structurally stable, due to years of non-use or neglect. I also stated that the facade is the most important thing to keep intact (though perhaps I didn't glowingly praise the developers enough to satisfy you). 

You could also spare me the smart ass history lesson. No one is talking about restoring buildings with dirt floors or gas lamps. I'm not sure what purpose that serves other than to try to insult my intelligence. 

 

Bos2Nash's post quite simply satisfied what I wanted to know. He managed to present it in a straightforward manner without the insult of condescention.

You being real pissy about this.  YOU asked me to read your post again.  if you don't want to read a dissertation, scroll past my posts.  If I intended to be condescending, you would know it by the first 5 words dude.  

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Baronakim

[UTgrad09]

39 minutes ago, Baronakim said:

You being real pissy about this.  YOU asked me to read your post again.  if you don't want to read a dissertation, scroll past my posts.  If I intended to be condescending, you would know it by the first 5 words dude.  

 

The lack of self-awareness is strong in this one. 

[Unicorn_Stampedee]

14 hours ago, markhollin said:

Nassau & Garfield Townhomes (3 & 4 stories, 3 units?) update: exterior nearly complete.

Looking NW from intersection of Garfield St. and Nassau St:

Crazy how fast that went up and then just stalled out when they got to the interior. I can't wait to see what happens to that sketchy bodega next door. Between this and the Towne, doesn't seem destined for that street anymore.

[markhollin]

1600 10th Ave. North, Church Lofts (2 stories, 7 units) update.

Looking NE from intersection of Garfield St. and 10th Ave. North:

Looking NW from Garfield St., 1/2 block east of 10th Ave. North:

[colemangaines]

3 hours ago, markhollin said:

1600 10th Ave. North, Church Lofts (2 stories, 7 units) update.

Looking NE from intersection of Garfield St. and 10th Ave. North:

Looking NW from Garfield St., 1/2 block east of 10th Ave. North:

I noticed the other day that this project is for sale on Zillow - looks like the current developer is trying to pass the baton to someone else. Hopefully it'll still get there. This'll be great for the area.

[MLBrumby]

I'd imagine they were late in discovering how expensive custom historical windows are to make. 

[Baronakim]

17 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

The lack of self-awareness is strong in this one. 

Ok.  I apologize  for anything I might have misconstrued or read more into.  Ron is the voice of reason here.  I did go a bit over the top, but i wasn't trying to be malicious.  i'll try to do better.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Baronakim

[UTgrad09]

1 hour ago, Baronakim said:

Ok.  I apologize  for anything I might have misconstrued or read more into.  Ron is the voice of reason here.  I did go a bit over the top, but i wasn't trying to be malicious.  i'll try to do better.

Fair enough. 

I apologize for getting defensive a quickly as I did and accusing you of being condescending. 

Water under the bridge. 

 

 

P.S. I do appreciate your insight on architecture and history. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by UTgrad09

[Brit_in_Gtown]

11 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

I'd imagine they were late in discovering how expensive custom historical windows are to make. 

If that is their issue they have bigger problems. Custom historical windows are expensive AF but in the scheme of things shouldn't kill a project. Some builders go automatically to Marvin or pella windows but jeld wen has a custom division. Marvin quoted me nearly 5k a window but jeld wen was 1.5k. 

[markhollin]

1803 5th Ave. North (1 & 2 stories,  4 townhomes, 1,900 sq. ft. of retail) update: erosion barriers up; some digging underway.

Looking north from intersection of Buchanan St. and 5th Ave. North:

[smeagolsfree]

An interesting permit this morning. I guess the owner of the Blue Parrott finally had enough. This is a permit for a change in contractor...canceled by the owner!

https://epermits.nashville.gov/#/permit/4253061?initial=1&searchType=permit&orderBy=fullAddress ASC,permitNumber ASC&searchText=&page=9&searchCode=ADDR

[markhollin]

Downtown retail and restaurant sales are up 79% since 2019, according to a fourth-quarter market report from Nashville Downtown Partnership. The area, which boasts 22 construction cranes in the sky, generates 8.8% of property taxes and 25.5% of retail taxes in Davidson County.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2023/01/20/deal-dash-office-market-covenant-capital-fund.html

[henburg]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:28 AM, smeagolsfree said:

An interesting permit this morning. I guess the owner of the Blue Parrott finally had enough. This is a permit for a change in contractor...canceled by the owner!

https://epermits.nashville.gov/#/permit/4253061?initial=1&searchType=permit&orderBy=fullAddress ASC,permitNumber ASC&searchText=&page=9&searchCode=ADDR

The fascinating thing about this project for me personally is that I drive by it nearly every morning and night and yet I have literally never seen one person working on it. There is slow progress that is visible on the exterior now but I have never seen anybody actually working on the building or even hanging out on the site. It's like their contractor was the tooth fairy or something, it baffles me.

[nashmoney]

1 hour ago, henburg said:

The fascinating thing about this project for me personally is that I drive by it nearly every morning and night and yet I have literally never seen one person working on it. There is slow progress that is visible on the exterior now but I have never seen anybody actually working on the building or even hanging out on the site. It's like their contractor was the tooth fairy or something, it baffles me.

Same lol. I worked in the bridgestone building for 3 years and never saw a soul. It's like they worked on it for 30 mins a day at midnight and that was it. 

The owner must have deep pockets and very good patience. Property taxes, building materials, and labor have all gone up considerably since they first started on this 10 years ago. 

[markhollin]

RMH House (6 stories, 33 room hotel, ground level retail, internal garage on the triangular lot at Hermitage Ave., First Ave, and Peabody St.) is getting closer to moving forward now that another investor has been added to the development group. 

Warren G. Farms LLC now owns a 16.7-percent interest in the property.  The transaction follows an LLC affiliated with Nashville-based Bodnar Investment Group — which paid $2.1 million for the property in April 2014 — having added Arkansas-based investor Dale Briggs via a $1 million transaction in October 2022 (read here). Briggs holds a 22.7-percent ownership stake in the 0.3-acre triangular site.   

The original plan for the building to be constructed on the site is expected to remain, however the team is not ready to announce a construction start date. 

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/project-eyed-for-rutledge-hill-adds-investor/article_4a0741ee-98fb-11ed-9ca1-bb782e8577eb.html
 

[markhollin]

Ballpark Village (8 stories, 356 units, 16,000 sq. ft. ground level retail, internal garage) update: Luff crane now fully up and operational.

Looking SW from 3rd Ave. North, 1/3 block north of Stockyard St:

[markhollin]

Chief's at 200 Broadway (5 story entertainment bar) update: a peek inside the gutted structure beyond the 2 remaining walls.

Looking SW from 2nd Ave. North, 1/8 block north of Broadway:

Two views looking inward from 2nd Ave. North: