Westin on Lower Broad

[Lexy]

After reviewing the renderings that Richard Lawson posted, I give this my seal of approval. It may not be the best looking building, which I think it is quite attractive myself, but it is a DEFINATE improvement over what is currently there.

[barakat]

A huge improvement. The confusing jumble of over-articulation is gone. Huge emphasis on vertical blocks and lines to detract from it's bulkiness. Now the appearance of the tower is that of a pseudo-grouping of two or three seperate buildings. The tower portion relates in alignment with the ground level where possible. 3rd Ave. side at ground level looks good, as does the Broadway side. South side tower portion looks much better. The sign on top is nice; I wonder if that was a specific request/compromise. Some of the materials sound similar to L&C in appearance. Glad it was approved.

[smeagolsfree]

From the news report on channel 5, they said that the hotel has to get a height variance from the Planning commission. I take it that once that is done then it has to be approved by the Metro Council. Is that assumption correct. The variance is only for part of the property.

[Richard Lawson]

From the news report on channel 5, they said that the hotel has to get a height variance from the Planning commission. I take it that once that is done then it has to be approved by the Metro Council. Is that assumption correct. The variance is only for part of the property.

Variance comes from Board of Zoning Appeals not commission. A no vote there kills the deal. If 5 said that about the variance, they screwed up. If the developers go for specific plan zoning, which I believe they will do, that goes to planning commission. It very likely will get shot down there but then the Metro Council decides.

[smeagolsfree]

Its a very confusing process. Thanks for the insight Richard.

[urbanchick]

6 to 2 and 1 abstained... I'm going to post the latest renderings here shortly.

Richard, do you know who cast the abstaining vote?

[Richard Lawson]

Its a very confusing process. Thanks for the insight Richard.

That's why developers end of spending a good deal of money weaving through it. To go for the variance, the developer has to pay upwards of $100,000 for the application fee, adding another cost to the project. In terms of hotel rooms, that's about a third to a half the cost of constructing a hotel room, depending on average cost. Put that on top of the lobbyists and PR people to get a project like this through the process.

[Richard Lawson]

Richard, do you know who cast the abstaining vote?

Actually I was mistaken. What I heard was a call for anyone abstaining. The chairman mumbled it. It was 7 to 2.

[Skyscrapergeek]

Thanks for the links Richard. I like it. You're right Lexy, way better than what's there. I'll ramble with you if I have to.

[hayesmw]

Variance comes from Board of Zoning Appeals not commission. A no vote there kills the deal. If 5 said that about the variance, they screwed up. If the developers go for specific plan zoning, which I believe they will do, that goes to planning commission. It very likely will get shot down there but then the Metro Council decides.

They'll go for SP I'm sure.

[Guest]

Thanks for the updates Richard and FLiner.

I love the new renderings and look fwd to the green roof addition. As someone that is in that area daily this is leaps and bounds ahead of the current decay and surface lots on the property.

[titanhog]

I love the idea of a DT Westin. I'm ok with the project. But it still looks like a hospital.

[frankliner]

A huge improvement. The confusing jumble of over-articulation is gone. Huge emphasis on vertical blocks and lines to detract from it's bulkiness. Now the appearance of the tower is that of a pseudo-grouping of two or three seperate buildings. The tower portion relates in alignment with the ground level where possible. 3rd Ave. side at ground level looks good, as does the Broadway side. South side tower portion looks much better. The sign on top is nice; I wonder if that was a specific request/compromise. Some of the materials sound similar to L&C in appearance. Glad it was approved.

Actually, the Broadway and 2nd Ave renderings will change even more. The MDHA committee specifically asked that these issues be addressed and brought back to them for further review. I personally agree with the committee that the developers need to take another look at the shapes and orientations of the windows, especially on the Broadway side. I look forward to what the developers come up with though!!

[LA_TN]

A huge improvement. The confusing jumble of over-articulation is gone. Huge emphasis on vertical blocks and lines to detract from it's bulkiness. Now the appearance of the tower is that of a pseudo-grouping of two or three seperate buildings. The tower portion relates in alignment with the ground level where possible. 3rd Ave. side at ground level looks good, as does the Broadway side. South side tower portion looks much better. The sign on top is nice; I wonder if that was a specific request/compromise. Some of the materials sound similar to L&C in appearance. Glad it was approved.

Agreed. This thing gets better looking each time I see it, IMO. Too bad there's not room for 3rd ave trees as shown in rendering, but I feel improvements will be made to 3rd Ave. Also, I have been thinking L&C as well.

I love the idea of a DT Westin. I'm ok with the project. But it still looks like a hospital.

I'd love to see an example of the tile, would it be like L&C, etc.

I love the 'steel shading device'. 'Round here, dogs normally live under a 'wooden shading device' - called a porch

[frankliner]

Agreed. This thing gets better looking each time I see it, IMO. Too bad there's not room for 3rd ave trees as shown in rendering, but I feel improvements will be made to 3rd Ave. Also, I have been thinking L&C as well.

I'd love to see an example of the tile, would it be like L&C, etc.

I love the 'steel shading device'. 'Round here, dogs normally live under a 'wooden shading device' - called a porch

The developers actually testified the tile material they are proposing hasn't been used on any property in DT Nashville. That's part of the reason the committee asked for further review of the materials they are using.

[frankliner]

Thanks for the update, Frankliner. I share your skepticism about the appropriateness of the tower for Broadway as well as your optimism about the potential to revise the building to minimize any adverse impact that preservationists are fearing. Personally, I wish that the tower portion could be restrained to the very back end of the block as far as possible from Broadway, but we'll see. In the end, I am very glad that at this stage the Nashville community is able to make demands of developers and get a real dialogue going for quality developments. I look forward to seeing something nice go up on this block!

Good points, especially that we are engaging in a deeper dialogue with developers (notably on design) than ever before. In fact, I think the many of the most constructive points raised at this design oriented meeting were from the opponents (such as reassessing window alignments by Mr. Bernhardt).

Looking at the developers' presentation, they really have tried to "restrain" most of the mass to the back of the lot, but even with this obvious effort my aforementioned concerns remain.

[chris holman]

Westin hotel project gets city panel's OK. There's also a rendering of the hotel with the skyline.

Rick Bernhardt thinks its the beginning of the end for that area, I personally don't think so.

Link:Westin

[jcoop]

Personally my favorite rendering is from the Broadway elevation because the setback of the tower I think is very appropriate for the location and I think the people worried about Lower Broad should be fairly happy with their design.

Now I just want to see what it would look like with "The Crown" building right there.

[FromParkAveToTN]

I

[Richard Lawson]

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2006/8/1...pite_foul_water

Here is what I posted on the meeting yesterday. I also talked about it on News 2 this morning. That link is on our site as well and it's free too.

[NewTowner]

I

[smeagolsfree]

Thanks for the article Richard. Interesting how Ann Roberts may have tried to fudge a little thinking a threat of taking Lower Broad off the Historical Register would work. I dont think she would initiate a review to have it taken off either considering she would be adding to her own defeat then.

With a hundred million dollar project, I find it hard to believe they would be at the financial edge considering all they would have to do is raise the price on the condos. There are plenty of ways to cut cost on a project.

This seems to be a big game of five card stud with jokers wild, and everyone is holding their cards till the last.

[Hankster]

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2006/8/1...pite_foul_water

Here is what I posted on the meeting yesterday. I also talked about it on News 2 this morning. That link is on our site as well and it's free too.

Richard, do you have an idea how long the process should take for the developers to get a final approval?

[Richard Lawson]

You are right that this thing looks like a hospital--although hospitals don't even look like hospitals anymore--but how on earth is the city forcing the architect to produce this mediocre design? And how would the developer take this hotel "elsewhere"? This isn't a Monopoly Board--a Westin hotel slated for downtown Nashville can't just be moved over to Jackson Hole instead! Anyway, forget the second question, I just want to you know how you figure the city is producing a crap design--particularly when they are begging for a better one?

Indeed, the city has been wanting a better design but it has been dictating the parameters, for example, requiring that the different zones of the building be set apart more. The architects are designing within a box the city has created.

Richard, do you have an idea how long the process should take for the developers to get a final approval?

Months is about all I can say. Metro Council could be holding the cards.

[Richard Lawson]

Thanks for the article Richard. Interesting how Ann Roberts may have tried to fudge a little thinking a threat of taking Lower Broad off the Historical Register would work. I dont think she would initiate a review to have it taken off either considering she would be adding to her own defeat then.

With a hundred million dollar project, I find it hard to believe they would be at the financial edge considering all they would have to do is raise the price on the condos. There are plenty of ways to cut cost on a project.

This seems to be a big game of five card stud with jokers wild, and everyone is holding their cards till the last.

True about the condos. I don't think they've disclosed the condo prices. But you can only go so high on them. The condos are necessary apparently to help reduce the developer's and financial partners' cost basis in the project. Condo buyers effectively help the amount of equity needed from the developers and its partners. I think it also helps with the construction loans as well. So while the overall project is $100 million, the developers' stake in it would be much lower. Hopefully that makes sense.