Amazon: The Thread | 5,000 Jobs | 1M SQFT in Nashville Yards

[Bos2Nash]

On 12/12/2018 at 10:13 AM, Hey_Hey said:

The problem I have with the affordable housing crusaders isn't that they want affordable housing, it's that they go about it in a backwards manner.  The typical strategy is by mandating inclusion of affordable housing in new developments (inclusionary zoning) or through rent controls.  Neither of those strategies work for the majority of residents.  Those strategies will offer affordable housing to a very small number of people who are fortunate enough to live in one of those units, but it doesn't result in a change in affordability for the other 99% who aren't able to live in these new developments. Interestingly, these strategies of bringing affordable housing may actually backfire and cause rent increases because developers are less likely to invest in new projects. 

Affordable housing advocates need to do one thing: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS AVAILABLE

That's the only thing that is going to work for everyone and be sustainable.  The primary means of doing this is by welcoming developers into the city and allowing them to build units, as many as we can reasonably build.  This means instead of becoming NIMBYs, we need YIMBYs. We need to invest in the codes department to allow for a streamlined construction approval/permitting process, we need to increase height restrictions, and we need to increase density by changing zoning.  Our affordable housing advocates need to be going to Planning Commission meetings and encouraging increased scale when a project comes up and challenge neighborhoods when they try to push new projects out of their neighborhoods. 

So technically the advocates are wanting to increase the number of units available. Technically. The problem is with the solution you are speaking of is you want to build so much that we flood the market with soooo many units that the demand will drop enough for the prices to drop. Unfortunately that is more pie in the sky thinking than saying Kyle Busch comes close to Richard Petty in the Nascar world and I'll tell you why. Nashville is growing rapidly and has a very high ceiling in terms of demand for real estate and that ceiling will continue to climb until Nashville begins to have the "Manhattenization" conversation in terms of cost of living. It follows the line the thinking "invest in the rich and it will trickle down to everyone". Also it will take so long to flood the market that much that nothing would ever be affordable.

Developers MUST have affordable housing units included in their developments, otherwise they won't build any because they do not return any ROI. ROI is the oxygen of these developers, if it is not there they don't do it. Period. Affordable housing mandates aren't a penalty to developers for being rich or a penalty to rich folks who can afford the housing units. They are an equalizer for housing, just like transit is the equalizer for transportation. We should definitely be advocating for denser developments, we should also be advocating for denser affordability within those developments. Public housing is notorious for failing (i.e. Pruitt Igoe) and the idea of isolating low income families in separate dwellings has only proven to drop people further into poverty. I dont like the tactics of many of these organizations, but the intentions of affordable living are genuine and are essential to the survival and development of the city. 

Take a look at this development that Boston has recently undertaken (http://www.onecharlestown.com/). They are redeveloping many of their housing authority developments using private developers. They are REQUIRING developer to replace all units of affordability PLUS 25% (or so) more. In return the housing authority allows the developers to build and reap the rewards of the ROI on the other housing units. While some residents are fighting it, if executed correctly it makes alot of sense and could be a good example of Public/Private relations.

[nashvylle]

can we make an affordable housing discussion thread?

[Mr_Bond]

19 hours ago, nativetenn said:

@titanhog I knew a while ago you were a lady.

She was a lady?

[LA_TN]

13 minutes ago, Mr_Bond said:

She was a lady?

Correct. Now she is a geek! Hehehe!

Sorry @titanhog, I couldn't resist! 

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, Mr_Bond said:

She was a lady?

I checked.  I still am.  I was scared there for a moment. 

[bigeasy]

15 hours ago, titanhog said:

I checked.  I still am.  I was scared there for a moment. 

Did you just assume your own gender? 

[MidTenn1]

So....how about that Amazon HQ?  Ain't that just awesome?

[PillowTalk4]

43 minutes ago, PHofKS said:

So....how about that Amazon HQ?  Ain't that just awesome?

We now return to our original programming already in progress....

I'm disappointed in the 2 tower plan for Amazon.  I know some people believe two towers will help to increase street activation but I just don't believe that street activation is  dependent upon the height of a building.  It's dependent upon how the developer intends to create that activation.  You can have plaza's that border one or two sides of a building and create street activation.  With 5K employees in a building you really shouldn't have an issue with creating activity at street level.  With more residential and hotel development around your building, you should be able to create a small outdoor communal environment that attracts residents and travelers.  You can even do a Rockefeller Center type concept and have retail and dinning options that you enter from the street and then do a food court inside that also has other small retailers.  

[CenterHill]

1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

So....how about that Amazon HQ?  Ain't that just awesome?

Thank you.   Things were getting a little... weird. 

 

14 minutes ago, PillowTalk4 said:

I'm disappointed in the 2 tower plan for Amazon.  I know some people believe two towers will help to increase street activation but I just don't believe that street activation is  dependent upon the height of a building.  It's dependent upon how the developer intends to create that activation.  You can have plaza's that border one or two sides of a building and create street activation.  With 5K employees in a building you really shouldn't have an issue with creating activity at street level.  With more residential and hotel development around your building, you should be able to create a small outdoor communal environment that attracts residents and travelers.  You can even do a Rockefeller Center type concept and have retail and dinning options that you enter from the street and then do a food court inside that also has other small retailers.  

Exactly.     Any tower, whether 10 stories or 50 stories, can and should be designed to address and contribute to the urban fabric at the street level.     The Snodgrass tower has been one of downtown's most prominent towers for a generation, but it's a total fail at street level, surrounded by a medieval wall and a vast empty plaza.       I fear the Broadwest developers are about to commit the same architectural crimes for another generation by surrounding their city block with blank walls on 3 sides (if the renderings are accurate).     There is no excuse for designing this way.       Based on what we've seen, it appears the Amazon towers, and really the entire Nashville Yards campus, will create incredible, vibrant, active spaces at the pedestrian level.   

[dReAmWiELdEr]

We now return to our original programming already in progress....
I'm disappointed in the 2 tower plan for Amazon.  I know some people believe two towers will help to increase street activation but I just don't believe that street activation is  dependent upon the height of a building.  It's dependent upon how the developer intends to create that activation.  You can have plaza's that border one or two sides of a building and create street activation.  With 5K employees in a building you really shouldn't have an issue with creating activity at street level.  With more residential and hotel development around your building, you should be able to create a small outdoor communal environment that attracts residents and travelers.  You can even do a Rockefeller Center type concept and have retail and dinning options that you enter from the street and then do a food court inside that also has other small retailers.  

(For vanity,) I think it would be a lot better if they reach at least 300 feet.

[donNdonelson2]

17 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

Thank you.   Things were getting a little... weird. 

 

Exactly.     Any tower, whether 10 stories or 50 stories, can and should be designed to address and contribute to the urban fabric at the street level.     The Snodgrass tower has been one of downtown's most prominent towers for a generation, but it's a total fail at street level, surrounded by a medieval wall and a vast empty plaza.       I fear the Broadwest developers are about to commit the same architectural crimes for another generation by surrounding their city block with blank walls on 3 sides (if the renderings are accurate).     There is no excuse for designing this way.       Based on what we've seen, it appears the Amazon towers, and really the entire Nashville Yards campus, will create incredible, vibrant, active spaces at the pedestrian level.   

The Snodgrass Tower Plaza is actually a beautiful and inviting space now, with some great views of the surrounding area. Sharing a post and pics from a couple of years ago as evidence. It’s a great public space that is largely overlooked.

Here is the post from markhollin: 

A nice serenity space that most aren't aware of: The Plaza Park on the northeast corner of Snodgrass Tower site.

 

•  

[e-dub]

You're right, I didn't know about that space. The height of the wall as you walk down 7th is a big problem, as it really blocks that from view on the sidewalk... let alone how tall that wall is along Charlotte!

 

[Dale]

To each his own. I was hoping that Amazon would go tall if only to draw attention away from Snodgrass.

[MLBrumby]

Yes. I do NOT like that building. And adding to that dislike is knowing the company that built it (National Life) demolished the two beautiful HQ buildings that preceded this for (of all things) a parking lot for their executives. One was a beautiful example of 1920s neoclassical architecture. The other, a rare example of Art Deco architecture in Nashville from between the wars. The first one was actually historic in that it was the site of the first broadcasts of the Grand Ole Opry. But none of that mattered to the fools. The first building was destroyed right after the "new" building opened around 1970.  A few years after they demoed the art deco tower, the company was bought in a hostile takeover by American General. About 10 years later, they moved out to Brentwood. And this cold "tomb" of a building was the legacy of NLT. It'd be laughable if it weren't so disgraceful.

[e-dub]

Any photos of the Art Deco thing?

[Hey_Hey]

3 hours ago, PillowTalk4 said:

We now return to our original programming already in progress....

I'm disappointed in the 2 tower plan for Amazon.  I know some people believe two towers will help to increase street activation but I just don't believe that street activation is  dependent upon the height of a building.  It's dependent upon how the developer intends to create that activation.  You can have plaza's that border one or two sides of a building and create street activation.  With 5K employees in a building you really shouldn't have an issue with creating activity at street level.  With more residential and hotel development around your building, you should be able to create a small outdoor communal environment that attracts residents and travelers.  You can even do a Rockefeller Center type concept and have retail and dinning options that you enter from the street and then do a food court inside that also has other small retailers.  

I agree that street activation for the block that a building sits on isn't directly a result of the height of that particular building.  However, I would argue that we can package a given amount of leasable square footage in different ways to achieve different goals. 

For example, if amazon wanted 1 million square ft of leasable space these are some theoretical options:

           1.  One building of 1 million square feet and 700 ft high - One block occupied and ~15,000 sq feet of ground level retail.

           2. Two buildings of 500,000 sq feet and 350 ft high - Two blocks occupied and ~30,000 sq ft of ground level retail

           3. Four buildings of 250,000 sq ft, each 250 ft high - Four blocks occupied and ~60,000 sq ft of ground level retail

          4.  Ten buildings of 100,000 sq ft, each 70 ft high - Ten blocks occupied and ~150,000 sq ft of ground level retail. 

Obviously, economics play a huge role in this, so buying 10 blocks to create ten buildings isn't financially feasible.  However, I would argue that options 1, 2, and 3 are likely in the realm of feasibility.  Assuming all buildings activate the street at the base, then this becomes a matter of preference: Do we want signature skyline addition or do we want a broader improvement in the ground level experience for pedestrians. 

I tend to focus on the positive of each option: If a new tallest is proposed I'm going to be super pumped that we are getting a new tallest.  If multiple shorter buildings are proposed then I'm going to be super pumped that we are creating multiple contiguous blocks of pedestrian friendly vibrant developments.  I'll be honest, though.  I think I would have been more pumped if we had a new tallest coming.

[Dale]

I just don’t think that there is anything in Amazon’s dossier that suggests that they care about height. You think the Nashville plan is stubby ? Vancouver is stubbier still. You watch, they’ll go 30 stories in NYC.

[PillowTalk4]

11 minutes ago, Dale said:

I just don’t think that there is anything in Amazon’s dossier that suggests that they care about height. You think the Nashville plan is stubby ? Vancouver is stubbier still. You watch, they’ll go 30 stories in NYC.

Probably... but they chose Queens.  Not Manhattan.  Even though Queens has seen some growth over the past few years, they are lagging behind Brooklyn and Jersey City.  So a 30 story building there would be a gem for them.   The Long Island City area of Queens is where Amazon is going to locate.  This is the area of Queens that has some of their tallest buildings.  Mostly residential.  Developers have been eyeing Queens and some have made proposals for major office developments along the water front.  It's possible that Amazon may consider one of those developments just as they chose Nashville Yards.  On the residential side there are plans and permits filed in Queens for what was supposed to be a 900+ footer that has been reduced to about 778 feet.  It will still be the tallest building in Queens.  There a few more mixed use developments in the 20 - 30 story range.  So, I guess it's a matter of seeing what comes into fruition.

[KJHburg]

Actually Amazon is leasing  about 1 Million sq ft in this nearly empty 50 story 658 ft tall building in Queens.  Citicorp had offices in there but vacated it. 

https://commercialobserver.com/2018/11/amazon-finalizes-plans-for-1m-square-feet-at-one-court-square-in-long-island-city/

 

[Dale]

Additionally, Amazon is in no hurry to fill jobs in LIC and DC. Will build to half the 25,000 jobs over a decade or more.

Nashville looks to be the real winner in terms of short-term impact.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Dale

[bnacincy]

3 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

Yes. I do NOT like that building. And adding to that dislike is knowing the company that built it (National Life) demolished the two beautiful HQ buildings that preceded this for (of all things) a parking lot for their executives. One was a beautiful example of 1920s neoclassical architecture. The other, a rare example of Art Deco architecture in Nashville from between the wars. The first one was actually historic in that it was the site of the first broadcasts of the Grand Ole Opry. But none of that mattered to the fools. The first building was destroyed right after the "new" building opened around 1970.  A few years after they demoed the art deco tower, the company was bought in a hostile takeover by American General. About 10 years later, they moved out to Brentwood. And this cold "tomb" of a building was the legacy of NLT. It'd be laughable if it weren't so disgraceful.

I don't mind the plaza and the wall so much but I too don't care for this building-it would be nice if the State sold this building to an adventurous developer who could find a way to "redo" it somehow and maybe add some art decoish touches to it that would be a tip of the hat to the much older buildings that were on this site.

[CenterHill]

On 12/14/2018 at 10:58 AM, e-dub said:

You're right, I didn't know about that space. The height of the wall as you walk down 7th is a big problem, as it really blocks that from view on the sidewalk... let alone how tall that wall is along Charlotte!

 

That’s what I mean.   I agree the Snodgrass plaza landscaping improvements are nice,  but the plaza itself is elevated and physically cut off from the surrounding sidewalks.     Because of the design, there is nothing that invites a pedestrian to come up and enjoy the plaza.     Passersby view it as an outdoor space for tenants in the building and not something that is open to the public at large.       As a truly public space or civic space, it just doesn’t work.    Many studies have been done on the elements that make public spaces work or not work, and this one violates most of the rules.   

[nashvillwill]

4 hours ago, CenterHill said:

That’s what I mean.   I agree the Snodgrass plaza landscaping improvements are nice,  but the plaza itself is elevated and physically cut off from the surrounding sidewalks.     Because of the design, there is nothing that invites a pedestrian to come up and enjoy the plaza.     Passersby view it as an outdoor space for tenants in the building and not something that is open to the public at large.       As a truly public space or civic space, it just doesn’t work.    Many studies have been done on the elements that make public spaces work or not work, and this one violates most of the rules.   

I’m a lifelong Nashvillian. I take a certain measure of pride in my knowledge of every nook and crannie of our fine city. However, I can honestly say, I’ve never set foot on this plaza. I also don’t plan on going out of my way to do so. It’s extraordinarily uninviting. 

[Dale]

5 hours ago, nashvillwill said:

I’m a lifelong Nashvillian. I take a certain measure of pride in my knowledge of every nook and crannie of our fine city. However, I can honestly say, I’ve never set foot on this plaza. I also don’t plan on going out of my way to do so. It’s extraordinarily uninviting. 

From architecture’s bleakest era.

[subkyle]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:22 AM, nashvillwill said:

I’m a lifelong Nashvillian. I take a certain measure of pride in my knowledge of every nook and crannie of our fine city. However, I can honestly say, I’ve never set foot on this plaza. I also don’t plan on going out of my way to do so. It’s extraordinarily uninviting. 

I completely agree. I live in Hope Gardens and I run through this area six days a week. No one uses these ridiculous areas!!! I think the public areas like this are great to think about in planning meetings but they are mostly useless in this city. There are a couple of exceptions like the park next to the arena, but the average citizen doesn’t use these plazas.