Westin on Lower Broad

[NewTowner]

We disagree about the beauty of the building and that I can handle. Having just been in the Richards building I can say that it is a very good thing this building is being torn down for something that will add life to the street.

You don't have to restrict a fertilizer plant or prison from being built. They would never be built downtown because they can not afford the land. Capitalism at work. The argument you are making is that building regulations should be put in place and enforced which will affect the property owner's ability to do what he pleases with his land and therefore will cause his land to lose value. I don't care whether skyscrapers are built or an urban village is. I agree with you in that I would much rather see all of the underutilized properties turned into townhouses or retail. I would love to see Signature happen but at the same time I realize that those 400 units could be used to help create a cool neighborhood in Sobro. But I would never want to restrict Tony's ability to build his building. I am not accusing you of anything, but I do think it is interesting you used those words. Who are you proposing we protect? I am remembering a quote I saw once: You cannot protect the rights of a group by restricting the rights of the members of that group.

I agree that land prices are inflated. Imo the TIF Metro provides worsens the problem. But the developers and their investors are taking that risk. The banks who are lending to these developers are taking that risk. The market works. If they are wrong they will take a loss and property prices will correct themselves. It happens all the time all over the world in all sorts of markets. My hope for downtown is that the new residents of Viridian and Encore and all the other projects create a thriving retail market downtown. I think that if we come back in 15-20 years the entire core will look quite different and I think both skyscraper enthusiasts and NewTowner fans will be quite pleased.

Sorry for the hijack everyone.

It would be hard to disagree about the beauty of the Trail West since neither one of us has actually seen it. The building contains hints of 19th-century vernacular classical, and I believe the hokey siding is covering some nice detail. Once it has been removed, then we will disagree about it. Until then, we are just disagreeing about whether 19th-century vernacular classical storefronts are worth saving. I believe they are--particularly when nothing better is braced to take their place. For me this was simply a matter of going from something slightly good to something markedly worse, and much more permanent (AKA, the Westin). But now that the Westin team is willing to save the Trail West, the issue has shifted entirely. Now demolition of a good building is no longer part of the price--instead we must simply decide if we want to have to stare at this proposed new building for the next fifty years.

We mostly agree on the property-rights issue. We just disagree on whether high-rises are detriments to surrounding land. My travels and studies and the thoughts of better men than I have convinced me that skyscrapers are harmful to other property owners, so naturally I believe they should be limited. I honestly buy that your assertion that "You cannot protect the rights of a group by restricting the rights of the members of that group" is made in good faith, with good principles in play, but we both know it isn't true. Every member of society must have his or her freedom curtailed somewhat in order to prevent them from infringing on the rights of others. I, for example, am not allowed to steal your dog--even if I really want to, and even if am willing to pay fair market price to a professional dog-thief for the service of stealing your dog. You should not be allowed to build a high-rise and bathe my property in shadow.

But the debate about the Westin is not, thus far, really about the top twenty floors...though it probably should be. Thus far, we have not even managed to get above the ground floor, and with good reason: the building's contribution to the street is shockingly deficient. It is cheapness masquarading as "modernity." It will be bland, characterless, and a signal to everyone that Nashville is open for Business as Usual. Look at the Schermerhorn...the Westin could have put up a tiny fraction of the amount of interest in a beautiful, articulate facade that has been brought to Nashville's civic table by the new Symphony Hall, and its cartel would have a much easier time slipping it by. But they didn't. The ante was upped by the symphony, our town produced something of real merit, but these out-of-towners--rather than taking their cue from it and putting in their fair share of resources and talent into Nashville's civic realm, just want to profit off of the new Hall's draw. They probably haven't even seen it. They certainly haven't contemplated it long enough to realize that the bare Contemporary Minimum won't suffice anymore. Nashville is growing up, and I don't just mean literally up.

PR Guy, I really commend your clients for being willing to save the Trail West and the building just north of it. That is awesome. But they should also demand a better facade from their architect. A display of technology is no longer considered a worthy replacement for traditional beauty.

[prguy]

I'm reconfirming now. I may have gotten my buildings confused.

I was, indeed, wrong. My apologies. The Richards and Richards building would be taken down under this proposal.

[prguy]

PR Guy, I really commend your clients for being willing to save the Trail West and the building just north of it. That is awesome. But they should also demand a better facade from their architect. A display of technology is no longer considered a worthy replacement for traditional beauty.

I am told that MDHA was complimentary regarding the facade. However, I know there are a number of different philosphies about that approach. They are continuing to listen to all input and are making adjustments where possible.

[franktown]

Wow, lovin that rear facade. Is there a way to make it.....less ugly, less utilitarian, more pedestrian friendly? Eventually Sobro will grow as a neighborhood and I think the sheer wall as a rear facade would be detrimental to a community. The 3rd avenue facade.... could that be more useful i.e. something there other than service and a lobby? Random question: What's going on that podium style top of the hotel? Anything cool? Is it like a copter pad?

[franktown]

Did any of y'all see the story on Channel 4 tonight about Encore, Nashville's change, growth, the Westin and they had a picture of the new skyline.

[Skyscrapergeek]

Nope I missed it. Did it look like a story they would run at 10?

[Hankster]

Wow, lovin that rear facade. Is there a way to make it.....less ugly, less utilitarian, more pedestrian friendly? Eventually Sobro will grow as a neighborhood and I think the sheer wall as a rear facade would be detrimental to a community.

I agree. That's the only thing that I don't care for about this project. In the renderings, the developer states that the false facade that exists over the Trail West building will be removed and restored it to it's original glory. That by itself is a very positive thing.

[Skyscrapergeek]

You should not be allowed to build a high-rise and bathe my property in shadow.

Hmmmm, I guess my neighbor is mad that my very "human-scaled" two story condo casts a large, two story condo-shaped shadow on her one story condo. Orrrrrrrr, she is happy because my two story condo shadow keeps her one story condo a little cooler on 92 degree summer days. Then again, my dog does whiz on her shrubs sooooo I'm betting it's the former.

[jice]

maybe a House of Blues or something like that.

House of Blues would be awesome! Catty corner from the Hard Rock... how cool would that be!

[rocky top buzz]

There should be something like an 8 page limit on topics. I can't keep up!

[jice]

Wow, lovin that rear facade.

Isn't the rear partly covered by existing buildings though? I know 'Past Perfect' is back there, then the Shelby bridge. Maybe not much the Westin can do on the rear.

[bnaflyer]

I'm ok with the street level look on Broad, but the actual hotel looks like an outdated hospital.

I agree! I still think the scale will be a looming presence, but even with the preservation of the basic street level facade, this remains about as uninteresting a building as you can design for a prominent site in the middle of our city! If this was being built at Cool Springs Mall, I would say good luck, but I'm very sad that this is the best we can do in the center of our city. Unlike Newtowner, I actually appreciate good Modern and contemporary architechture. But this doesn't qualify, and Newtowner's comments are also right on point. This is just something somebody somewhere dashed off, rather unimaginatively, and without any concern for context. If it isn't built here, I'm sure it will be built in Omaha. Or Anywhere. As a city we should expect and insist upon more.

[Hankster]

Isn't the rear partly covered by existing buildings though? I know 'Past Perfect' is back there, then the Shelby bridge. Maybe not much the Westin can do on the rear.

Great. No wonder it looks like that in the rear. In that case I have no reservations at all about this project. As I've said before, let's build this thing!!!

[titanhog]

A few comments...

First...they've gotta redesign that hotel portion of the project...just WAY too bland.

Newtowner...I'm agreeing with 99% of what you're saying, but the remarks about skyscrapers infringing on others property rights is only partly correct. If I have a home out in the country and someone builds a 40 story scraper next to my house, that's infringement. Now...in a large metro area, in the cbd, I can't see why anyone, unless you have a historic reason, can scream about a skyscraper going up. That's what and where it is expected.

[frankliner]

I just watched the News Channel 4 report on the Encore groundbreaking from today. First of all, I have to give prguy props for getting his project in on the story, that was a good move (regardless of my feelings on the project).

However when I was watching the video on it, I felt like i was taking crazy pills or something. At the very end of the 2 minute 39 second clip I thought they used a picture that was generated by one of the guys on this website showing what the downtown skyline would look like with the baseball stadium, Sig Tower, and Encore. Am I remembering that right, was that picture generated by one of our very own forumers???

Here's a link to the front page where the video should be on the right if someone wants to try to verify that for me.

http://www.wsmv.com/index.html

[cheeriokid61]

No that was an official rendering made for the Signature Tower by gaushell and his company (sorry I forgot the name). That was interesting video, as was the one on Channel 5. It was nice to see the new rendering of Encore. It looks nice, and definately not too tall.

Oh, beat ya to it!

[Lukin]

^^Frankliner:

I think that image was one of the original renderings of the taller signature...i think someone found it on paradigm's(?) website or something like that

[LA_TN]

I've got elevation renderings from three sides here:

www.mpf.com/westin

they are 3-meg pdfs. sorry for the size.

let me know if you have problems saving.

The back of the bldg is fine (or at least I think so). The view from the Shelby St. bridge should present a good image.

I had hoped some windows would be put into the existing Trail West bldg on the 3rd Ave side. Walking from Broadway to Shelby on 3rd is a narrow sidewalk w/ mostly brick walls w/o windows. Today it is not impressive, so the Westin project is the only chance to change this. That's why others and myself are interested in this side of the bldg. No sheer 20 story wall - good. More windows would be great.

Other than that, the pdfs offer only concept and looks very promising. Broadway/2nd Ave facade I'd like historic, but tasteful modern is ok; the contrast would actually be nice. I agree with others that it would be a poor choice to build a Cool Springs 'glass box' facade (or tower) because it would be out-of-style in < 10 years. However, I do think the tower portion looks ok. A Jack Daniels museum would be nice in the old Trail West bldg...

I think an 11 story limit is a pile of bull.... and it would be nice to have $100 mil spent to improve this block. Fortunately, Thelma has no say in this and hopefully Ann has some Valium. All said and done; I'll bring my chain saw over and remove the Trail West siding for you guys to kick off the project!

[NewTowner]

Well, I am at least encouraged by the fact that everybody seems interested in the quality of the proposed Westin's ground floor. Previous discussions about high-rises (though they included different forumers) have often been completely limited to a discussion of how tall the building would be. You Tall Boys can enjoy your skyscrapers--as long as you are also willing to consider the feeling and experience on the street itself, you will all have enough in common with us Shorties that we can build a city together and enjoy the rip-roaring debate. I am still right about mid-rise, though.

I have seen many contemporary buildings that are impressive and even lovely. I am kind of a Renzo Piano fan, and I am also a sucker for contemporary Dutch mid-rise. I argue that the Westin should have a detailed and finely-scaled ground floor, but I am really not expecting a bunch of engaged Ionic columns or even a good cornice. I am not that optimistic. And anyway, if my expectations flew along these lines, I wouldn't be contributing to this particular debate because the building would have to start all over completely in order to get right with that kind of quality. But I do think--even if the design is strikingly "contemporary"--that it should have enough detail to visually interest and reward the passerby and user alike, to contribute to Nashville's increasingly wealthy public realm...and it should be well-proportioned in window and scale so as to make a fitting wall (or four) for some of Nashville's most important outdoor streetscapes. It can be both contemporary and good. So far, it just isn't.

Although I did notice that on the Channel 4 video, the Broadway facade is completely different than in the PDFs kindly provided to us by PRguy. The Art Deco restaurant "transition" between the old Trail West and the "contemporary" Broadway/2nd Avenue corner has been doubled in length. This is a step in the right direction...but clearly a grudging one on the part of an architect who is either frustrated with having his Artistic Genius entitlements questioned, or is too busy with other things to actually redesign the facade for one of Nashville's most sizable and prestigious proposed projects.

Lastly (whew!), the Shelby Street Bridge makes bollocks of an excuse for the Westin's rear wall to be so dangerously hostile. At the very least, some windows are in order, and one sizable transparent door at the minimum. What is planned for the Shelby Avenue side of this block?

[jice]

Lastly (whew!), the Shelby Street Bridge makes bollocks of an excuse for the Westin's rear wall to be so dangerously hostile. At the very least, some windows are in order, and one sizable transparent door at the minimum. What is planned for the Shelby Avenue side of this block?

I think if you want windows on the back side, you have to go talk to the owners of the other buildings on that block.... not the developers of the Westin.

The 3rd ave side (if I recall correctly) is the 'Past Perfect' restaurant. I believe that is the last building on that block before the Shelby bridge. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, though.

The other half, the 2nd ave side, is Joe's Crab Shack.

[prguy]

Well, I am at least encouraged by the fact that everybody seems interested in the quality of the proposed Westin's ground floor. Previous discussions about high-rises (though they included different forumers) have often been completely limited to a discussion of how tall the building would be. You Tall Boys can enjoy your skyscrapers--as long as you are also willing to consider the feeling and experience on the street itself, you will all have enough in common with us Shorties that we can build a city together and enjoy the rip-roaring debate. I am still right about mid-rise, though.

I have seen many contemporary buildings that are impressive and even lovely. I am kind of a Renzo Piano fan, and I am also a sucker for contemporary Dutch mid-rise. I argue that the Westin should have a detailed and finely-scaled ground floor, but I am really not expecting a bunch of engaged Ionic columns or even a good cornice. I am not that optimistic. And anyway, if my expectations flew along these lines, I wouldn't be contributing to this particular debate because the building would have to start all over completely in order to get right with that kind of quality. But I do think--even if the design is strikingly "contemporary"--that it should have enough detail to visually interest and reward the passerby and user alike, to contribute to Nashville's increasingly wealthy public realm...and it should be well-proportioned in window and scale so as to make a fitting wall (or four) for some of Nashville's most important outdoor streetscapes. It can be both contemporary and good. So far, it just isn't.

Although I did notice that on the Channel 4 video, the Broadway facade is completely different than in the PDFs kindly provided to us by PRguy. The Art Deco restaurant "transition" between the old Trail West and the "contemporary" Broadway/2nd Avenue corner has been doubled in length. This is a step in the right direction...but clearly a grudging one on the part of an architect who is either frustrated with having his Artistic Genius entitlements questioned, or is too busy with other things to actually redesign the facade for one of Nashville's most sizable and prestigious proposed projects.

Lastly (whew!), the Shelby Street Bridge makes bollocks of an excuse for the Westin's rear wall to be so dangerously hostile. At the very least, some windows are in order, and one sizable transparent door at the minimum. What is planned for the Shelby Avenue side of this block?

I'm pretty sure the pdfs i put up are the same as what the developer showed yesterday at the Partnership and CDC meetings. However, I have asked for copies and will repost if they are different.

As for the back of the building at street level -- what the renderings show are actually the buildings that are currently standing and will continue to stand. (They were colored out just to show the building mass.) There were some questions about what the developers could do about the back of the building (rear wall) and they indicated a willingness to continue discussions about possible changes.

As for the street level facades on Broadway and 2nd, my understanding is that those came at the suggestion of city officials, who asked for facades that blended in as opposed to mimicked the older buildings.

[prguy]

I think if you want windows on the back side, you have to go talk to the owners of the other buildings on that block.... not the developers of the Westin.

The 3rd ave side (if I recall correctly) is the 'Past Perfect' restaurant. I believe that is the last building on that block before the Shelby bridge. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, though.

The other half, the 2nd ave side, is Joe's Crab Shack.

You are correct. Those were existing buildings.

The developers have expressed a desire to make more window openings on the Trail West building on the Third Avenue side, but know that has to be done in close consultation with the historic folks so as not to jeopardize the historic nature of the building.

[titanhog]

prguy...any chance the hotel tower portion might be redesigned to add some spice? Take away some of the boxiness...the "old hospital" look...give it a little more class and historic look?

[barakat]

prguy...any chance the hotel tower portion might be redesigned to add some spice? Take away some of the boxiness...the "old hospital" look...give it a little more class and historic look?

After hearing recommendations from the audience at the Civic Design Center last night, I believe the architects will refine the tower portion, especially in regard to the competing visual elements [various colors of glass, expanses of stucco or other panel-type exterior] and the south face of the tower.

edit - i know the question wasn't for me.. it was just apparent that the developers were taking comments from last night. prguy - do you think we'll see changes?

[NewTowner]

I'm pretty sure the pdfs i put up are the same as what the developer showed yesterday at the Partnership and CDC meetings. However, I have asked for copies and will repost if they are different.

As for the back of the building at street level -- what the renderings show are actually the buildings that are currently standing and will continue to stand. (They were colored out just to show the building mass.) There were some questions about what the developers could do about the back of the building (rear wall) and they indicated a willingness to continue discussions about possible changes.

As for the street level facades on Broadway and 2nd, my understanding is that those came at the suggestion of city officials, who asked for facades that blended in as opposed to mimicked the older buildings.

I am glad that your clients are willing to continue thinking about the rear of the building. Perhaps I was wrong about how much of it will actually touch the sidewalk--if so, please accept my apologies. If the rear of the Westin is totally encased by other buildings, windows would not make much sense, would they?

In regards to the PDFs, I wouldn't blame you even if News Channel 4 did have completely different images of the proposed building--images that were more or less recent than the ones you gave us, because I know how nuts things can get once everyone tries to stick their thumb in a project. It was nice of you to offer us what you had. I just thought I should point out that progress had apprarently been made. You cannot be personally privy to every little new development unless your clients take the time and effort to inform you of them. Clients can be frustrating.

I would not be shocked if some city officials requested facades that "blended in as opposed to mimicked the older buildings," because that seems like common sense. Why copy a decent old building when you could create a beautiful (and appropriate) new one? But I would be surprised if the city officials requested that the Westin's new facades be markedly inferior to that of the Trail West, or even if their only demand was that it was "different", due to the fact that artistic uniqueness or modernity for its own sake is never preferable to comprehensive goodness...at least, I thought we had gotten over that kind of program. But maybe we haven't. I will still be surprised if those city officials who actually know architecture are satisfied with the lack of detail on the ground level of this fellow. Anybody can say "don't imitate the old." I know that at least a couple of Nashville's best and brightest are feeling ever bolder about their desire to see the old surpassed, or at least equalled, by some of the high-profile projects raining in--mimicking or no mimicking. Sometimes, after all, mimicking is a form of learning.