Westin on Lower Broad

[smeagolsfree]

Are you sure about this? There is currently a federal courthouse on Broadway--won't this just relocate the same people to a new facility? (I know that the courts will be the same--I'm not sure exactly what other offices are relocating.)

(By the way, I agree that another downtown hotel would be a good thing, although the renovation of the Hermitage a few years ago was so extensive I think it amounted to an effectively "new" hotel--and a great one at that. But it's relatively small.)

The Hampton isn't a full service hotel and so isn't in the same category as a Westin. While I'm sure there is some overlap in clientele, the market for each is very different.

To answer the question about the federal courthouse;

The current courthouse will remain and all of the offices the Federal Gov. have around town will be located downtown. There will be new courtrooms at the new courthouse and a lot of shuffling going on. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I think things are suppose to happen.

So, the current courthouse will remain a federal courthouse and the new one is in addition to it.

[Guest]

SF

You are correct except the The current Federal Courthouse will bedesignates a federal office building when the courts are moved.

[doormanpoet]

If Anne Roberts blows this, she cost's the city a 100 million dollar project at the expense of saving one or two buildings of which the owners don't care about anyway because they are poorly maintained.

If Nashville says no to the Westin, its all over the news media and the internet instantly. Nashville will be known as the wanna be's who wont make the sacrafice to get it done. You simply do not turn down the Westin. For God's sake don't blow this one.

[chris holman]

If Anne Roberts blows this, she cost's the city a 100 million dollar project at the expense of saving one or two buildings of which the owners don't care about anyway because they are poorly maintained.

If Nashville says no to the Westin, its all over the news media and the internet instantly. Nashville will be known as the wanna be's who wont make the sacrifice to get it done. You simply do not turn down the Westin. For God's sake don't blow this one.

I totally agree. The city is finally making better strides to fix up the downtown area, the Westin proposal is another sign of that.

What I don't understand is why the city could approve a 65 story building downtown that will be one of the tallest buildings in the country, and a couple blocks away a 19 story Westin is to tall for the area when its ALL DOWNTOWN ANYWAY!!!!! ? ?

Maybe I'm missing something, Why is any building that's proposed for area south of Broadway is so constructed

and built with limitations? I remember at onetime the city didnt want any building over 5 or 6 stories in SOBO. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Mybe someone could fill me in why SOBO is like this..

[Hankster]

I totally agree. The city is finally making better strides to fix up the downtown area, the Westin proposal is another sign of that.

What I don't understand is why the city could approve a 65 story building downtown that will be one of the tallest buildings in the country, and a couple blocks away a 19 story Westin is to tall for the area when its ALL DOWNTOWN ANYWAY!!!!! ? ?

Maybe I'm missing something, Why is any building that proposed for area south of Broadway so constructed

and built with limitations? I remember at onetime the city didnt want any building over 5 or 6 stories in SOBO. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Mybe someone could fill me in why SOBO is like this..

My sentiments exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[bnaflyer]

If Anne Roberts blows this, she cost's the city a 100 million dollar project at the expense of saving one or two buildings of which the owners don't care about anyway because they are poorly maintained.

If Nashville says no to the Westin, its all over the news media and the internet instantly. Nashville will be known as the wanna be's who wont make the sacrafice to get it done. You simply do not turn down the Westin. For God's sake don't blow this one.

With all respect, and I have a lot for you based on your posts here, that kind of attitude is pretty...well, bush league. Nashville is going to do just fine, with or without one chain hotel. I mean, really. This is the same sort of silliness that gave us Planet Hollywood and Nascar Cafe. Part of being a grown up city--which Nashville now is--means that you don't have to be so desperate as to take anything some company wants to foist on you. This isn't Spartanburg, South Carolina. Nashville's brand is a lot bigger than Westin's....

We can argue about the merits of this hotel, but please don't tell me that our city is somehow obligated to let a company build a hotel wherever it wants to!

[bnaflyer]

To answer the question about the federal courthouse;

The current courthouse will remain and all of the offices the Federal Gov. have around town will be located downtown. There will be new courtrooms at the new courthouse and a lot of shuffling going on. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I think things are suppose to happen.

So, the current courthouse will remain a federal courthouse and the new one is in addition to it.

Yes, there will be new courtrooms, but there are the same number of judges etc--they are just relocating. The space they open up at the old federal building (which actually is already a federal office building in addition to being the courhouse) will be filled with other federal workers from other locations, although I think some of those are already downtown (e.g., leasing space in the Customs House). So I'm just not sure how dramatic the impact will be. I don't remember ever seeing what the net gain to downtown will be, although I would guess there will be some gain.

[titanhog]

The reason why some think it may be a bad idea for such a tall building to go on lower broad is because of the historic classification of lower Broad. Whether the buildings are in disrepair or not, there still may be a heighth and structure variance that is a hurdle for that area. They've already ruined the look of the Ryman by building a tall structure in its parking lot...let's try to keep some type of "coolness" in certain areas. It adds to our charm.

[chris holman]

The reason why some think it may be a bad idea for such a tall building to go on lower broad is because of the historic classification of lower Broad. Whether the buildings are in disrepair or not, there still may be a heighth and structure variance that is a hurdle for that area. They've already ruined the look of the Ryman by building a tall structure in its parking lot...let's try to keep some type of "coolness" in certain areas. It adds to our charm.

But don't you think it limits the destiny in the core of the city. I know Nashville still has parking lots North of Broadway which I believe will see development soon enough.

Since SOBO is hot right why not embrace this proposal. With the tower's set backs and design of the lower portion of the building it gives respect to Broadway.

The choices are: A brand new Westin that people will shop, live, and stay the night and put more people on the streets!!!!, Or the run down very out dated honky tonks in that building.

ITS SUCH A HARD CHOICE!!!!!

[doormanpoet]

Thank you Chris! Exactly what I have been trying to say. Anne Roberts, are you reading?

[bnaflyer]

Thank you Chris! Exactly what I have been trying to say. Anne Roberts, are you reading?

I wish people would stop personalizing this debate by demonizing Anne Roberts. She is not the only person in town who is opposed to this hotel. In fact, just about every person who is involved in urban planning for the city is opposed to it. And people like me, who live and pay taxes in Nashville and work downtown and employ others who work downtown, oppose it. So it's not just Anne Roberts.

But while we're on the subject, Anne and people like her have done a lot to save what little of the historic environment that is left in this city. Not so long ago, boosters and shortsighted people were eager to tear down the Ryman, because it had been "replaced" by the Opryland facility. Not so long ago, boosters and shortsighted people allowed some now-bankrupt very bad tourist trap food chain completely destroy the facade of a historic downtown building.

In any event, people should lay off Anne Roberts. Blame me if you want, or the others who agree that this is the wrong location for this building.

[chris holman]

I wish people would stop personalizing this debate by demonizing Anne Roberts. She is not the only person in town who is opposed to this hotel. In fact, just about every person who is involved in urban planning for the city is opposed to it. And people like me, who live and pay taxes in Nashville and work downtown and employ others who work downtown, oppose it. So it's not just Anne Roberts.

But while we're on the subject, Anne and people like her have done a lot to save what little of the historic environment that is left in this city. Not so long ago, boosters and shortsighted people were eager to tear down the Ryman, because it had been "replaced" by the Opryland facility. Not so long ago, boosters and shortsighted people allowed some now-bankrupt very bad tourist trap food chain completely destroy the facade of a historic downtown building.

In any event, people should lay off Anne Roberts. Blame me if you want, or the others who agree that this is the wrong location for this building.

I love Nashville's history but am also excited about the city's future. Ms. Roberts and many others has stopped or helled back the city's true growth potential for far to long.

This is just my opinion, nothing against Ms. Roberts or anyone.

[cheeriokid61]

Bna, this is random, but what restaurant are you talking about?

I don't think I'm ready to join in this debate. So I'll let y'all go on, and I might join in later on.

[bnaflyer]

Bna, this is random, but what restaurant are you talking about?

I don't think I'm ready to join in this debate. So I'll let y'all go on, and I might join in later on.

Planet Hollywood--you know the 19th century building with a globe sticking out of the front of it on Broadway. The owner was given a special exception, in other words, a pass from the laws that would have applied to you or me if we owned that property, because people said Nashville really "needed' a Planet Hollywood and this would really put us on the map.

[Guest]

Not to disrespect anyone else but since we are declaring our stances I will just add that as a d'town Nashville resident and employer I am all for the Westin. As I have stated Trail West is a pit of a building. In my mind the Historic Commission and the other naysayers should purchase the site if they want to control the property (at the same price the Westin would pay). Once they buy the block they can open nice coffee houses and retail or offices or condos. If they are not willing or able to accomplish this then in my opinion they are just obstructionist. Have a solution or work with the only viable proposal for the property. The status Quo is not tenable!

And so what if Planet Hollywood only succeeded for several years and not in perpetuity? All restaurants fail eventually! They brought the building up to codes (and the next door building up to codes which now allows for a residential/retail component at 320 Broadway). For gosh sakes does anyone remember the people that tried to stop The Hard Rock because of the size of the neon guitar sign!

I have only been in Nashville for a year but in that limited time I have formed some strong opinions. One is that Nashville needs to decide if it wants to grow-up and prosper or continue to fight within and languish.

Some Examples:

We can start with the defeat of the Jack Daniels Facility on Broadway. This was the height of hubris as the local Representative felt slighted and decided to cut off her nose (or Nashville

[chris holman]

I feel the same way nashville bound the city should embrace the growth. Plus 20 stories is not that tall anyway.

I've been to cities like Chicago several times, after coming from a city like that 20 stories is more like a mid-rise to me.

[bnaflyer]

Are we talking about the same city?

Everyone who thinks that Nashville is full of "obstructionist" historic preservationists needs to take a good look around the city. For example, 40 years ago West End Avenue between Vanderbilt and downtown was lined with beautiful houses, including a house that had served as the Tennessee Governor's Mansion. All of that was scraped away, replaced mostly with alumiminum sided fast food buildings, parking lots and other transitory junk. The last house of President Polk was bulldozed (and his grave even moved!). Whole neighborhoods around the State Capitol and Vanderbilt were literally scraped clean and replaced with parking lots, expressways etc. Interstate highways were rammed through historic neighborhoods without any concern for their impact on either the established street grid or the community.

The fact of the matter is that Nashville has put virtually no priority on preserving the historic fabric of the city. Other than public buildings and a couple of blocks of warehouses on 2nd Avenue, 18th and 19th Century Nashville is mostly gone. Some of what has replaced it is great, much of it is terrible, but in any event the historic structures are long gone. There probably aren't 10 buildings standing in Nashville that Andrew Jackson walked in. So please don't talk about how historic preservationists have somehow limited Nashville! That's just a historically and demonstrably false argument.

(In fact, one of the main attractions in the city today, the Ryman Auditorium, was about to be bulldozed until the New York Times' architectural critic wrote a story about how shameful that was and people in Nashville became embarassed about the attention. Thank goodness we had "obstructionists" around to keep the Ryman from becoming a parking lot!)

But just so everyone understands--the Metro Historical Commission won't be deciding whether the Westin gets built. Other persons will--e.g., MDHA, the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, etc. These people aren't required to buy the property themselves if they decide this project is a bad idea. And they aren't required to accept a plan because it is the "only viable plan." I can assure you that if this plan isn't approved, other plans will come along in the future for this property. Perhaps those plans will be more apporpriate for the context.

Nashville isn't Houston, thank goodness--we have land use restrictions and we have extensive urban plans that was adopted after years of study and hard work by experts we have selected and paid. Fortunately, the decision makers will, I think, base their decision on what's best for our city in the long run and not just on filling the corporate coffers of Starwood.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I have to agree with most of your points, BNA. What's been lost in Nashville historically is ghastly, some were deliberate, some were acts of nature (the East Nashville Tornado of the early 20th century). For some to blame certain elements in the historic preservation community of obstruction is a bit over the top. If anything, they're usually powerless to stop a lot of what has gone on (with the exception of the Ryman, as mentioned -- and its loss would've probably been the nail in the coffin of downtown). It's sad that one has to travel to other cities, namely Richmond, Virginia, just to see all of what we once used to have. If only we had copied their methods of preserving our structures and neighborhoods.

As it stands, I'm not fully sold on the Westin, and it won't be the end of the world if it doesn't go up.

[Guest]

Starwood? Corporate Coffers? How about the coffers of the person(s) who have invested in the block in question. What do you think happens to the potential value of their land holdings after being told by a gov't entity sorry we are going to restrict your property without any compensation? Makes everyone want to go invest in growing the city doesn't it?

BNA, thank you for historic perspective. I in no way want to destroy a former presidents house (though saving every building he stepped-in seems a bit much) . I am not defending METRO's (or any quasi-governmental entity) action or lack thereof in the past. From your description it sounds like some in Nashville are overcompensating for past mistakes...trying to make amends for the sins of the past.

IMO it is injurious to the stated goals of the Historic Commission to expend any political capital (because that is what we are talking about) trying to save these buildings when there are probably more deserving structures still standing (Can anyone say James Robertson?).

- Can anyone name ANY historical significance to the buildings on the block in question? This includes the large surface parking lot, the brick-o-block bomb shelter that is Decades, the Trail West building with the 'barn' motif and the Richards and Richards warehouse.

Do we preserve what is essentially junk just to say we are preservationists; or worse to make up for tearing down an historic theatre two decades ago?

For a lark lets turn back the clock...Tony G never builds the Cumberland because he gets blocked form razing the historic structure that was currently on the site in disrepair. If the Cumberland is not built then we have no historical 'track record' for d'town residential towers. The market remains untested so when the latest building boom arrives Nashville is already a decade further behind other cities. Companies such as Novare (Viridian, Encore) are not interested. Bristol does not see the value in Mid-town, Adelicia is a scaled back 5 story building...you can see where this is going. But hey we have a (theatre I think on the site) that just needs a bunch of tax dollars to get refurbished and then is can spring back to it former glory and a premiere d'town movie house for al the masses. Oh, wait a minute there are no masses because the Cumberland was never built!

Simplistic but you see where the after-school special above was heading. I am a very strong advocate of the 'within reason' test. In the case of Westin you have a developer that is trying to modify a project to address the concerns of the local community and still justify the project on a ledger. It is not within reason to expect a low-rise development to cash-flow thus the opponents are effectively killing the project thus earning the obstructionist label.

Have to go to a party but I have much much more to add so keep the responses coming...

[bnaflyer]

Starwood? Corporate Coffers? How about the coffers of the person(s) who have invested in the block in question. What do you think happens to the potential value of their land holdings after being told by a gov't entity sorry we are going to restrict your property without any compensation? Makes everyone want to go invest in growing the city doesn't it?

No one is suggesting "restricting" property after the fact. The property is already subject to land use laws, including height restrictions, zoning, the subarea plan, etc etc. If I wanted to build a 10 story building on my property, I would have to get permission to do it also. What the developers want is to be permitted to violate the existing land use regulations so they can build a hotel. What city planners have to do is balance that desire with the existing city plans that were adopted after a great deal of study.

I'm not sure why everyone has the idea that the opposition is mainly from preservationists. This isn't about preserving particular buildings--it's about preserving the scale of a unique asset of the city as a whole--an urban neighborhood. Preservationists are bothered by this building, because it will be an uninspired, looming presence over its neighbors. But urban planners are equally concerned.

(As for the Cumberland...... I may be risking the wrath of Tony G's fans, but I think the Cumberland is as sad, uninteresting and cheaply constructed a building as we have downtown. I amsorry that a perfectly lovely and well built art deco theatre was demolished to build what looks like a housing block from East Germany. I mean, really, does anyone think the Cumberland is an attractive building?I also think that downtown residential was going to happen at this point in time (when it's a hot trend in virtually every city in America) whether the Cumberland existed or not. Assuming a connection between the two is, in my opinion, a case of post hoc, ergo procter hoc. )

But anyway, the issue at hand isn't the Cumberland or my personal aesthetics--it's the urban plan that we came up with as a city before Starwood and the owner(s) of this property decided to build this hotel.

[Hankster]

But don't you think it limits the destiny in the core of the city. I know Nashville still has parking lots North of Broadway which I believe will see development soon enough.

Since SOBO is hot right why not embrace this proposal. With the tower's set backs and design of the lower portion of the building it gives respect to Broadway.

The choices are: A brand new Westin that people will shop, live, and stay the night and put more people on the streets!!!!, Or the run down very out dated honky tonks in that building.

ITS SUCH A HARD CHOICE!!!!!

Yes! It's an OBVIOUS choice. People who want to keep the status quo on that particular block where the Westin would go, are favoring a very nondescipt, ugly, yet old structure over a new, vibrant hotel which brings more tourists and revenue to the city, creates jobs, and revitalizes the historic district without losing the historic nature of Broadway at the street level. What are we waiting for. Let's build this thing. Anne Roberts, "Why can't you see this?"

[frankliner]

As someone that has attended school in Richmond, I have to say that the contrast is very stark to Nashville. The most popular neighborhoods in the city are those in which preservationists FOUGHT to preserve a consistent feel. In my mind, this debate should be about Broadway and what sense of place one draws when they are there. I personally feel (and many urban markets across the United States confirm) that it is important to keep that architectural feel to establish a sense of place for that area. I also agree with bnaflyer's points on land use. Why establish plans if you have a person dangling the "Westin carrot" in your face and subsequently override what you have already established. There are PLENTY of places in Nashville that a Westin could be appropriate and would work very well, the intersection of Broadway and 2nd Avenue is not one of them IMHO.

[Hankster]

As someone that has attended school in Richmond, I have to say that the contrast is very stark to Nashville. The most popular neighborhoods in the city are those in which preservationists FOUGHT to preserve a consistent feel. In my mind, this debate should be about Broadway and what sense of place one draws when they are there. I personally feel (and many urban markets across the United States confirm) that it is important to keep that architectural feel to establish a sense of place for that area. I also agree with bnaflyer's points on land use. Why establish plans if you have a person dangling the "Westin carrot" in your face and subsequently override what you have already established. There are PLENTY of places in Nashville that a Westin could be appropriate and would work very well, the intersection of Broadway and 2nd Avenue is not one of them IMHO.

The Westin project is set back so far that people will not realize that it has anything to do with Broadway. People walking down the same side of the street as the Westin will not even be able to see the highrise part of it. People walking across the street will see the same Broadway profile as they always have with a highrise hotel that will seem to be on the next street over. Many other highrises will rise in SoBro to accompany the Westin such as the Encore, and the Bass Berry office building, etc. so that the Westin will not look out of place at all. Eventually the view to the south of Broadway will be similar to the view to the north of Broadway.....lots of highrises in the distance. This project will NOT affect to look or feel of the Broadway historical district at all IMO. I can't think of a better place for it both from a business or tourist perspective. It will enhance tourism by bringing the tourists right into the heart of this historic district and all it's many entertainment options. As I've stated before, let's build this thing!!!!!

[titanhog]

I have no problem with anyone building the Westin the way it is designed, as long as they take into consideration the historic look of the area. Just about anything will look better than the awful fake barn, but DO NOT take away the honky tonks. By the way...if I remember correctly, there are no honky tonks in the buildings Westin is looking at.

[ATLBrain]

It does seem that the developer has been as sensitive as he/she/they could be under the circumstances. At least based on what I've seen so far.