28 Story Bldg for Bass, Berry?

[Skyscrapergeek]

Richard, when you say talk about the "box" and "base", does that mean it could change dramatically or it would just be tweaked over what has been designed to this point.

Also, I have seen 417' and 380' listed as the tower's height. Do you know which is correct and if it might change if the height restrictions are lifted. In other words, have the height restrictions already altered BBS's ideal design or did they lead with their ideal hoping to push it through despite the restrictions?

Thanks

[fieldmarshaldj]

I, for one, am happy that the Planning Commission is going to take some time to review the height limitation that they imposed just six months ago. There is little doubt in my mind that the height limitation will be increased.... hopefully eliminated..... but I don't think (like Dave) the relaxation needs to extend south of Gateway Boulevard. I think that would be enough increase in the size of the CBD to provide the necessary land for the inevitable increase in CBD development the city will experience. It would include land for a highrise convention Hotel to be built should that project go forward. The current height limitations should stay in effect south of Gateway Boulevard, IMO. That area will have lower land values and makes much more sense to develop as a midrise urban community.

I'd like to see the height limit lifted all the way south down to Lafayette & 2nd (but not to give carte blanche to bad tall architecture !).

[Richard Lawson]

Richard, when you say talk about the "box" and "base", does that mean it could change dramatically or it would just be tweaked over what has been designed to this point.

Also, I have seen 417' and 380' listed as the tower's height. Do you know which is correct and if it might change if the height restrictions are lifted. In other words, have the height restrictions already altered BBS's ideal design or did they lead with their ideal hoping to push it through despite the restrictions?

Thanks

Not sure about the exact height. My sense is that the base would change dramatically. In looking at the rendering, I can't imagine that Everton would have designed something so plain. The focus was on the tall building initially. Typically, developers lead with more than they probably need to give some negotiating room. Ask for the Moon and settle on the stars.

[barakat]

I'd like to see the height limit lifted all the way south down to Lafayette & 2nd (but not to give carte blanche to bad tall architecture !).

You know, I think I like some things about this idea. Consideration would need to be given to viewsheds from a few points, but if talls are going to be built the next 50-100 years, it must be decided where they should be built. Maybe that should have been thought out when the plan for SoBro was created. I can think of no reason why a mid-rise neighborhood would not be well-suited for the area south of Lafayette. Maybe highrises should be allowed in a good chunk of SoBro. So, given that talls will inevitably be desired and constructed, is there any specific consenus at all on where they belong? It goes without saying there are at most a handful of suitable sites in the traditional CBD.

This may not be very likely, but just for example say within 2 years, eight developers reveal plans for eight buildings from 20 to 50 stories. They all want to be close to the CBD as possible. Also assume that they have deep pockets, eager tenants, political muscle, and a very attractive/appropriate/considerate project on the boards. Two of the projects were designed for sites in the CBD [maybe the Tulane Hotel site and maybe the Harvey's lot at 6th and Church], but because of the obvious issues, the other six must go in SoBro. Well, maybe one of them is able to secure a very expensive site on West End and they build there. Are there other logical places to put talls, without tearing down existing downtown buildings? East bank? North Capital? North Gulch?

[frankliner]

You know, I think I like some things about this idea. Consideration would need to be given to viewsheds from a few points, but if talls are going to be built the next 50-100 years, it must be decided where they should be built. Maybe that should have been thought out when the plan for SoBro was created. I can think of no reason why a mid-rise neighborhood would not be well-suited for the area south of Lafayette. Maybe highrises should be allowed in a good chunk of SoBro. So, given that talls will inevitably be desired and constructed, is there any specific consenus at all on where they belong? It goes without saying there are at most a handful of suitable sites in the traditional CBD.

This may not be very likely, but just for example say within 2 years, eight developers reveal plans for eight buildings from 20 to 50 stories. They all want to be close to the CBD as possible. Also assume that they have deep pockets, eager tenants, political muscle, and a very attractive/appropriate/considerate project on the boards. Two of the projects were designed for sites in the CBD [maybe the Tulane Hotel site and maybe the Harvey's lot at 6th and Church], but because of the obvious issues, the other six must go in SoBro. Well, maybe one of them is able to secure a very expensive site on West End and they build there. Are there other logical places to put talls, without tearing down existing downtown buildings? East bank? North Capital? North Gulch?

When I went to Jacksonville, I always thought it was neat to see their skyscrapers on both sides of the river. I thought it actually helped to frame the river even better than most cities!! I definitely think some consideration should be given to allowing some on the East Bank in Nashville.

[hayesmw]

Not sure about the exact height. My sense is that the base would change dramatically. In looking at the rendering, I can't imagine that Everton would have designed something so plain. The focus was on the tall building initially. Typically, developers lead with more than they probably need to give some negotiating room. Ask for the Moon and settle on the stars.

Do you think Everton has done any of the design work to date? It looks all Pickard.

[smeagolsfree]

Mike Jameson looking for a compromise for the Weston DT. Here is the related article from the Tennessean today.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...4/1436/BUSINESS

[NewTowner]

NT, I would like to see your talents become more human scaled. Fight for the solutions for this areas yet to be decided upon. Forget whether the cornice or detailing on a $100 million building suits you or not. When it's your $100 million, maybe someone will listen. In the meantime, throw your 50-cents worth of genius into what will be best for the actual neighborhood of SoBro, not the CBD, of which the areas directly off Broad are very much a part. Proaction instead of reaction is a much more intelligent approach to the city's future. Get to it.

You make a very good point. It is true that SoBro is a large area, and contains many little spots with tons of potential, and that many of these are far enough away from our "CDB" that they are not threatened by high-rises the way Broadway's "watershed" is. I think if the civic struggle between shorties and scrapers became a pitched battle, I would definitely line up my force with this in mind.

But you are forgetting something: Broadway currently marks a border. It is a boundary, a skyscraper demilitarized zone--and as soon as it is crossed, even if another one is drawn a few blocks south of Broadway, SoBro's land will skyrocket in price because high-rises will suddenly appear not only possible but imminent and inevitable. Nashville's continued downtown Renaissance will begin to look less like a slow and steady winner and more like a 24-hour Bingo Parlor, as propery owners begin to horde their land in the hopes of landing another "mega-tall". The waiting will begin, the machine will clog, and the prize will both now and later will be an inferior product. We will have exactly what we don't want: towers and parking lots.

If mid-rises are not economic best-case scenarios, then we won't get any--and it would be immoral to force landowners to build them when the law and public concensus permits more profitable (in the short term!!) development schemes. We need to let the law lay as it is, for the public good, and for the long-term interests of our private citizens.

Of course...we mustn't forget that when the energy crisis hits the fan--and it will--all those high-rises are going to look like giant credit card statements: expensive and painful. But in the meantime, the fiesta will explode, while our city stagnates under the pressure of a few towers and acres of unbearably patient asphalt.

I vote to keep the height restrictions.

[Dale]

*covers head, runs from impending energy crisis*

[NewTowner]

*runs into the brick wall of reality, sheepishly grins and begs for soup, slurps through fresh hole in teeth*

[titanhog]

*begs to wonder why grown men must act like children*

[NewTowner]

*shrugs at boring statements, swallows spit, waits for everyone to leave, then picks up nickel "casually" hidden under left shoe after it had been spied so that Mikey wouldn't snatch it as usual*

[Hankster]

Mike Jameson looking for a compromise for the Weston DT. Here is the related article from the Tennessean today.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...4/1436/BUSINESS

I hoping that three months from now, the height restrictions will be either eased or eliminated from SoBro enabling the Bass, Berry, Sims project to be built. That along with compromise proposals such as the one offered by Mike Jameson, I hope will enable the Westin project to be built as well.

[bwithers1]

I hoping that three months from now, the height restrictions will be either eased or eliminated from SoBro enabling the Bass, Berry, Sims project to be built. That along with compromise proposals such as the one offered by Mike Jameson, I hope will enable the Westin project to be built as well.

I tend to agree with you, Hankster. It seems to me that the block of SoBro north of Gateway should be home to a variety of buildings tall and small. Demonbreun, et al, is is such a natural area for expansion with office buildings (pulling jobs back in from the suburban office parks) as well as hotels (especially if the convention center goes in Sobro, which is not my first choice). Those narrower, hilly streets in Sobro south of Gateway would be more ideal for a cool low-rise village of townhomes and similar developments mixing in retail and maybe a school. All of that would still be within walking distance to everything downtown, and depending on what kind of galleries, restaurants and music venues start going in, could attract the tourists as well as the locals. But it seems unrealistic that the entire area of SoBro be limited to one building height standard. Theoretically, that could lead to a mass of bland 20-story buildings and would actually run counter to the walkable village that seems to me is really at the heart of the original SoBro village in the first place.

[hayesmw]

You make a very good point. It is true that SoBro is a large area, and contains many little spots with tons of potential, and that many of these are far enough away from our "CDB" that they are not threatened by high-rises the way Broadway's "watershed" is. I think if the civic struggle between shorties and scrapers became a pitched battle, I would definitely line up my force with this in mind.

But you are forgetting something: Broadway currently marks a border. It is a boundary, a skyscraper demilitarized zone--and as soon as it is crossed, even if another one is drawn a few blocks south of Broadway, SoBro's land will skyrocket in price because high-rises will suddenly appear not only possible but imminent and inevitable. Nashville's continued downtown Renaissance will begin to look less like a slow and steady winner and more like a 24-hour Bingo Parlor, as propery owners begin to horde their land in the hopes of landing another "mega-tall". The waiting will begin, the machine will clog, and the prize will both now and later will be an inferior product. We will have exactly what we don't want: towers and parking lots.

If mid-rises are not economic best-case scenarios, then we won't get any--and it would be immoral to force landowners to build them when the law and public concensus permits more profitable (in the short term!!) development schemes. We need to let the law lay as it is, for the public good, and for the long-term interests of our private citizens.

Of course...we mustn't forget that when the energy crisis hits the fan--and it will--all those high-rises are going to look like giant credit card statements: expensive and painful. But in the meantime, the fiesta will explode, while our city stagnates under the pressure of a few towers and acres of unbearably patient asphalt.

I vote to keep the height restrictions.

As one of the major property owners in the neighborhood, and someone who knows all of the significant owners, I'd have to say I disagree with your comments completly regarding holding off. We all want to get going ASAP, either self develop or sell for many. Property values have already risen, due to a number of reasons, including the availability of TIF. Prices are way out of line with rents, but that's the way it is. We've been waiting for a decade for Gateway to come through. Some will have many more years to wait for Gateway to extend to 8th. Our problem has been one more of access and smell. Thermal stunk, literally. No one wanted to be close to it. The other problem with SoBro is that since the interestate was installed and roads convereted to one way streets, it's been a tough area to navigate. The east/west streets did not, and in most cases still do not line up from block south of Demonbreun. It's a complete pain. Unlimited height, like the CC is already in place along Gateway. The only area in question are parcels fronting Molloy, Clark and Demonbreun Streets. That's the 220' cap. Our limiting factors are really the marketplace. Development should occur from east to west, so you should see the area from 1st to 4th develop first, then move west along Demonbreun and south to Gateway all the way to 10th. It will take 10 years, but is very possible if the CC does not go in at 5th and Demonbreun.

If folks want a consistent neighorhood, a master plan should be put in place guiding the use of each block and master developers should be selected, similar to what has happend in the Gulch. This is, in my opinion, outside of 1 group buying most all the land in the open market, the only way we could hope to have something cohesive.

I'd also disagree with your last statement, unless you are refering to construction costs. If you are refering to occupancy costs, these buildings are much more efficient than 20 year old office buildings or single family homes. If you are refering to construction costs, then you are correct. Costs to build are sky rocketing. Luckily most developers insist on a GMP before starting.

[Dale]

Maybe NT is right and Jesus, Ralph Nader and Paul Erlich and Cindy Sheehan are all coming in glory with angels on Segways. But they can't make me drive a Prius. I'll just rot in hell.

[Hankster]

As one of the major property owners in the neighborhood, and someone who knows all of the significant owners, I'd have to say I disagree with your comments completly regarding holding off. We all want to get going ASAP, either self develop or sell for many. Property values have already risen, due to a number of reasons, including the availability of TIF. Prices are way out of line with rents, but that's the way it is. We've been waiting for a decade for Gateway to come through. Some will have many more years to wait for Gateway to extend to 8th. Our problem has been one more of access and smell. Thermal stunk, literally. No one wanted to be close to it. The other problem with SoBro is that since the interestate was installed and roads convereted to one way streets, it's been a tough area to navigate. The east/west streets did not, and in most cases still do not line up from block south of Demonbreun. It's a complete pain. Unlimited height, like the CC is already in place along Gateway. The only area in question are parcels fronting Molloy, Clark and Demonbreun Streets. That's the 220' cap. Our limiting factors are really the marketplace. Development should occur from east to west, so you should see the area from 1st to 4th develop first, then move west along Demonbreun and south to Gateway all the way to 10th. It will take 10 years, but is very possible if the CC does not go in at 5th and Demonbreun.

If folks want a consistent neighorhood, a master plan should be put in place guiding the use of each block and master developers should be selected, similar to what has happend in the Gulch. This is, in my opinion, outside of 1 group buying most all the land in the open market, the only way we could hope to have something cohesive.

I'd also disagree with your last statement, unless you are refering to construction costs. If you are refering to occupancy costs, these buildings are much more efficient than 20 year old office buildings or single family homes. If you are refering to construction costs, then you are correct. Costs to build are sky rocketing. Luckily most developers insist on a GMP before starting.

Thanks a for such an enlightening post. I find it fascinating to get the "real" low down on what the developers are doing, and why they are doing it. Also, thanks for rebuffing the contention that highrises are energy hogs. Being an Engineer myself, I knew that was pure bunk. The building materials being used today are far more energy efficient than ever before.

[NewTowner]

As one of the major property owners in the neighborhood, and someone who knows all of the significant owners, I'd have to say I disagree with your comments completly regarding holding off. We all want to get going ASAP, either self develop or sell for many. Property values have already risen, due to a number of reasons, including the availability of TIF. Prices are way out of line with rents, but that's the way it is. We've been waiting for a decade for Gateway to come through. Some will have many more years to wait for Gateway to extend to 8th. Our problem has been one more of access and smell. Thermal stunk, literally. No one wanted to be close to it. The other problem with SoBro is that since the interestate was installed and roads convereted to one way streets, it's been a tough area to navigate. The east/west streets did not, and in most cases still do not line up from block south of Demonbreun. It's a complete pain. Unlimited height, like the CC is already in place along Gateway. The only area in question are parcels fronting Molloy, Clark and Demonbreun Streets. That's the 220' cap. Our limiting factors are really the marketplace. Development should occur from east to west, so you should see the area from 1st to 4th develop first, then move west along Demonbreun and south to Gateway all the way to 10th. It will take 10 years, but is very possible if the CC does not go in at 5th and Demonbreun.

If folks want a consistent neighorhood, a master plan should be put in place guiding the use of each block and master developers should be selected, similar to what has happend in the Gulch. This is, in my opinion, outside of 1 group buying most all the land in the open market, the only way we could hope to have something cohesive.

I'd also disagree with your last statement, unless you are refering to construction costs. If you are refering to occupancy costs, these buildings are much more efficient than 20 year old office buildings or single family homes. If you are refering to construction costs, then you are correct. Costs to build are sky rocketing. Luckily most developers insist on a GMP before starting.

Your gauge of the players is certainly more tuned-in than mine, Mr. Hayes--what with you being one of them and all--and I certainly hope that you are right. It is just hard for me to believe that somebody would choose to build a 12-story building when 30-story buildings are going up one block away--and I think it would be hilariously impossible to fill SoBro completely with super-high-rises within the next couple of decades. Do you really think itchy developers, you notwithstanding, are going to unload on a mid-rise just because they are worried a few years are standing between them and twice the floorspace? What sort of civic spirit and public initiative have you been sewing in this hood? If I had a parcel of land down there, you can bet your baseball I'd build mid-rise...but I am a bit of an activist. I feel lonely a lot of the time, and it's not paranoia. I think most people will sit on a Golden Egg rather than give half of it away. But maybe I am wrong, and this would be good news for a change.

On the other field, you engineers and developers are always arguing that high-rises are more energy efficient than mid-rise buildings, but that is just good old-fashioned Goobers. In a pinch, a mid-rise can be stripped down and used by human beings without any electricity at all. The top two-thirds of high-rises, if and when electricity production costs start heading towards the moon, would only be usable to Condor-People. Guess what: Condor-People, while pretty awesome, don't exist and they definitely aren't mortgage-friendly.

Air conditioning and heating costs might be more efficient per unit in a high-rise, but they aren't more efficient per unit if you turn them off. I promise you, the seventh story of a building with openable windows is more pleasant on a Tennessee February afternoon than the top story of the Batman Building once the power has been shut off, or even rationed. And what about those ornery elevators? If you live on the 19th floor of something, those nimble pods are nearly as important to you as your small intestine. Mid-rises can use super-efficient counter-balance elevators--or no elevators at all--but high-rises need them like wine needs drinking. I can use a mid-rise on a couple of sandwiches and some orange juice...high-rises are rendered useful by massive electric grids, not human legs. I won't even go into window-cleaning or other routine maintenance...I cleaned off the skylights and washed the windows on top of my mid-rise apartment building the other day for about $2.45, give or take. Water pressure isn't made by fairies. Fires kill people. Trust me--there is a lot more crap that can go wrong in a high-rise than in a mid-rise. It works the same with all complex systems, you know.

Anyway, I am being a trouble-maker. I am sooo not about to get all up in a fuss about an energy crisis--I mentioned it earlier because it seems likely, and we would be lemmings not to consider the facts. But I know there are many people who think it is all Chicken Little nonsense and I don't want to get in a fight about it. And anyway, Dale seems to have figured out how to convert insulting diaper-based gibberish into pure hydrogen (what else could explain his latest generosity?) and so we are probably all sorted in the medium-to-long term. Until he and his swarthy teammate Captain Crunch work out the patent, however, we might want to consider a Plan B: build with reality in mind. Kisses, Dale.

Anyway, Mr. Hayes, I am not so foolish as to pretend I know more about SoBro's current property scene than you do. I just ask: what on earth will motivate people to build mid-rise when high-rise is possible--aside from construction costs, and aside from eagery beavery-ness (I gotta build it now man! I'm tired of waiting man! Screw that coupla million man! I'm gettin' all antsy and $#!+!) or an informed architectural aesthetic (ha ha, no offense, couldn't resist)? And if the answer is my previously proposed nothing!, then how long do you think we will enjoy watching lucky numbers shoot glass into the sky while other lots lay empty and waiting, like twenty schoolgirls at a prom with three boys? Will my children live to enter the Promised Land?

[Dale]

Your gauge of the players is certainly more tuned-in than mine, Mr. Hayes--what with you being one of them and all--and I certainly hope that you are right. It is just hard for me to believe that somebody would choose to build a 12-story building when 30-story buildings are going up one block away--and I think it would be hilariously impossible to fill SoBro completely with super-high-rises within the next couple of decades. Do you really think itchy developers, you notwithstanding, are going to unload on a mid-rise just because they are worried a few years are standing between them and twice the floorspace? What sort of civic spirit and public initiative have you been sewing in this hood? If I had a parcel of land down there, you can bet your baseball I'd build mid-rise...but I am a bit of an activist. I feel lonely a lot of the time, and it's not paranoia. I think most people will sit on a Golden Egg rather than give half of it away. But maybe I am wrong, and this would be good news for a change.

On the other field, you engineers and developers are always arguing that high-rises are more energy efficient than mid-rise buildings, but that is just good old-fashioned Goobers. In a pinch, a mid-rise can be stripped down and used by human beings without any electricity at all. The top two-thirds of high-rises, if and when electricity production costs start heading towards the moon, would only be usable to Condor-People. Guess what: Condor-People, while pretty awesome, don't exist and they definitely aren't mortgage-friendly.

Air conditioning and heating costs might be more efficient per unit in a high-rise, but they aren't more efficient per unit if you turn them off. I promise you, the seventh story of a building with openable windows is more pleasant on a Tennessee February afternoon than the top story of the Batman Building once the power has been shut off, or even rationed. And what about those ornery elevators? If you live on the 19th floor of something, those nimble pods are nearly as important to you as your small intestine. Mid-rises can use super-efficient counter-balance elevators--or no elevators at all--but high-rises need them like wine needs drinking. I can use a mid-rise on a couple of sandwiches and some orange juice...high-rises are rendered useful by massive electric grids, not human legs. I won't even go into window-cleaning or other routine maintenance...I cleaned off the skylights and washed the windows on top of my mid-rise apartment building the other day for about $2.45, give or take. Water pressure isn't made by fairies. Fires kill people. Trust me--there is a lot more crap that can go wrong in a high-rise than in a mid-rise. It works the same with all complex systems, you know.

Anyway, I am being a trouble-maker. I am sooo not about to get all up in a fuss about an energy crisis--I mentioned it earlier because it seems likely, and we would be lemmings not to consider the facts. But I know there are many people who think it is all Chicken Little nonsense and I don't want to get in a fight about it. And anyway, Dale seems to have figured out how to convert insulting diaper-based gibberish into pure hydrogen (what else could explain his latest generosity?) and so we are probably all sorted in the medium-to-long term. Until he and his swarthy teammate Captain Crunch work out the patent, however, we might want to consider a Plan B: build with reality in mind. Kisses, Dale.

Anyway, Mr. Hayes, I am not so foolish as to pretend I know more about SoBro's current property scene than you do. I just ask: what on earth will motivate people to build mid-rise when high-rise is possible--aside from construction costs, and aside from eagery beavery-ness (I gotta build it now man! I'm tired of waiting man! Screw that coupla million man! I'm gettin' all antsy and $#!+!) or an informed architectural aesthetic (ha ha, no offense, couldn't resist)? And if the answer is my previously proposed nothing!, then how long do you think we will enjoy watching lucky numbers shoot glass into the sky while other lots lay empty and waiting, like twenty schoolgirls at a prom with three boys? Will my children live to enter the Promised Land?

Please don't be bitter because I've conveyed the position that there is plenty of diaper-based gibberish (and fossil fuels, to boot) to luxuriantly skyscraper over every Olmstead park in North America with various-and-sundry soaring edifices left over for SoBro along with gas-a-plenty for that gargantuan SUV of yours that you'd hide in your garage were you to host a UP meet in your sprawling suburban home.

[bwithers1]

NT, I definitely think that you have some points about some property owners holding off on their land until the right price comes along. But I think that is already happening and raising prices. Here in Chicago, several warehouses near the Sears Tower were torn down in the hopes of building 150-story buildings that never materialized, and they did sit as surface parking lots for a long time. But now that the market has upturned, 40-50-story buildings have been built on those lots and those streets are lined with restaurants and retail for all of the office workers. The same thing is happening near Cabrini Green and some of the old public housing that is gradually being torn down and replaced: there are new buildings, and then there are some lots between them that are paved as landscaped, wrought-iron-fence-enclosed parking areas for the stores that are going in until that particular owner gets the right price. It's patchy for a while, but there is actually more organic growth than some of the sections where entire blocks are planned out with nearly identical 4-story townhomes that look more like Disney's pastel styrofoam vision of a Chicago neighborhood than the real thing.

So while it may not be ideal, even if some developments of various sizes in SoBro happen and others sit as surface parking lots for a while, that will only help to keep parking relatively affordable for a while, and most (but maybe not all) things that go up will be an improvement over most (but not all) things that presently exist in SoBro.

I do tend to agree with a lot of your aesthetic choices in terms of building details, so I hope that you keep speaking out about those and that the developers keep listening to various viewpoints including yours, which they seem to be doing.

[Dale]

NT, I definitely think that you have some points about some property owners holding off on their land until the right price comes along. But I think that is already happening and raising prices. Here in Chicago, several warehouses near the Sears Tower were torn down in the hopes of building 150-story buildings that never materialized, and they did sit as surface parking lots for a long time. But now that the market has upturned, 40-50-story buildings have been built on those lots and those streets are lined with restaurants and retail for all of the office workers. The same thing is happening near Cabrini Green and some of the old public housing that is gradually being torn down and replaced: there are new buildings, and then there are some lots between them that are paved as landscaped, wrought-iron-fence-enclosed parking areas for the stores that are going in until that particular owner gets the right price. It's patchy for a while, but there is actually more organic growth than some of the sections where entire blocks are planned out with nearly identical 4-story townhomes that look more like Disney's pastel styrofoam vision of a Chicago neighborhood than the real thing.

So while it may not be ideal, even if some developments of various sizes in SoBro happen and others sit as surface parking lots for a while, that will only help to keep parking relatively affordable for a while, and most (but maybe not all) things that go up will be an improvement over most (but not all) things that presently exist in SoBro.

I do tend to agree with a lot of your aesthetic choices in terms of building details, so I hope that you keep speaking out about those and that the developers keep listening to various viewpoints including yours, which they seem to be doing.

And as Chicago goes ... perhaps ?

[frankliner]

Maybe NT is right and Jesus, Ralph Nader and Paul Erlich and Cindy Sheehan are all coming in glory with angels on Segways. But they can't make me drive a Prius. I'll just rot in hell.

At least you can buy that Segway in Sobro now!!

[samsonh]

I wouldn't be too worried about those highrises not having power Newtowner. Coal reserves are estimated to last at least 200 years.

[Kheldane]

LOL @ Condor-People !!!

[NewTowner]

I wouldn't be too worried about those highrises not having power Newtowner. Coal reserves are estimated to last at least 200 years.

But that will kill all the Condor-People! Not to mention my grandkids!

I can just hear it now...

"Oh, mummy! Looky...Nashville looks like London in 1885! Why, I can't even see the tops of those veritably useless high-rises with all that lovely picturesque *cough cough* clean-coal produced smog! If only the rest of our neighborhood was still alive to see it..."

Naw, I'm just kidding. I am not an expert on energy. I just know that there are a lot of very well-informed people who say that we cannot continue running what we are running forever...nothing comes for free, and the end of the cheap-petroleum age will bring some big changes. Seems like common sense to me. I don't want to be a Chicken Little, but I don't want to be a Lemming, either.

Regardless, there are lots of reasons to build mid-rise aside from power consumption. And--to get back on thread--this particular high-rise is truly a 1980s gem...as in, it is bland, cheezy, and totally self-obsessed. Even I find elements of the Signature Tower compelling, but as high-rises go, this gigantic smokeless ashtray with parking garage/crush the Schermerhorn combo super-powers should be getting a lot more flack from 'round these parts.

But it won't, just because it's a high-rise, and because it might be built--two facts that shouldn't automatically equate "quality" in anybody's brain, but usually do because everyone gets so excited. I know all you people are really good people, and we have a lot in common, but I wonder when Nashville's aspirations will reach a little further than its underwear drawer. This building looks backwards and cheezy, and wouldn't even impress one of Mao Tse Tung's peasant futurists.

(NewTowner does not endorse Mao Tse Tung or futurist peasants)