Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

Westin on Lower Broad


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
955 replies to this topic

#461 nashville_bound

nashville_bound

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:18 PM

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.

 

#462 titanhog

titanhog

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:04 PM

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

#463 frankliner

frankliner

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:59 PM

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!!

#464 LA_TN

LA_TN

    Whistle-Stop

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:09 AM

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

Edited by LA_TN, 16 August 2006 - 12:09 AM.


#465 frankliner

frankliner

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:12 AM

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.

Edited by frankliner, 16 August 2006 - 12:33 AM.


#466 frankliner

frankliner

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:27 AM

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.

Edited by frankliner, 16 August 2006 - 12:34 AM.


#467 chris holman

chris holman

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 05:14 AM

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

Edited by chris holman, 16 August 2006 - 05:30 AM.


#468 jcoop

jcoop

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:33 AM

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.

#469 FromParkAveToTN

FromParkAveToTN

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:49 PM

Im not too fond of the look of this building. It reminds me of a hospital, not an upscale hotel. Id rather this project not get built just because of the citys limitations on it. To me, the city is destroying the potential of this project and Id rather the developer take their hotel elsewhere and do it the right way.

#470 Richard Lawson

Richard Lawson

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:05 PM

http://www.nashville...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.

#471 NewTowner

NewTowner

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 459 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:36 PM

Im not too fond of the look of this building. It reminds me of a hospital, not an upscale hotel. Id rather this project not get built just because of the citys limitations on it. To me, the city is destroying the potential of this project and Id rather the developer take their hotel elsewhere and do it the right way.


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?

#472 smeagolsfree

smeagolsfree

    City

  • Moderators
  • 5,916 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:50 PM

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.

Edited by smeagolsfree, 16 August 2006 - 03:50 PM.


#473 Hankster

Hankster

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:35 PM

http://www.nashville...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?

#474 Richard Lawson

Richard Lawson

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:41 PM

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.

#475 Richard Lawson

Richard Lawson

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:45 PM

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.

#476 Hankster

Hankster

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:46 PM

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


Thanks for your assessment. I'll be very patient about this one, and I suspect the developers will take this thing all the way until it is either approved or defeated.

#477 NewTowner

NewTowner

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 459 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 07:46 PM

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.


The rather abstract criteria imposed by the city could, I confess, be a little more proscriptive and specific, but that almost makes the architect's failure to "make the most of it" even more stupid, given the wild and ridiculous amount of options that have been left available to his/her incompetence. I just get the feeling that the bugger is lazy, and contemptuous of Nashville's desire to keep some sort of traditional aesthetic alive on Lower Broadway.

Metro, on their part, should quit applying what has amounted to the Socratic method of gentle design prodding and articulate exactly what sort of building they would rather have. Even if they don't know it, what they want is traditional design--and they sure haven't made that clear to anyone but those who already know it, and, perhaps more importantly, are willing to admit it.

In other words, perhaps Bernhardt should have brought a slideshow to the meeting of beautiful, human-scaled, well-detailed hotels around the world and said "This, This!!" But of course, I wasn't there. Maybe he did.

Regardless, a monkey in a cage is still a monkey. The design has improved, substantially, but the 2nd Avenue faade still looks like a cheap Duty-Free or a shopping mall and the tower itself is trying too damn hard to be "modern". The height issue seems to be the kicker, but I would almost be willing to compromise on that if I could just squeeze a little beauty out of the bottom portion of this sucker.

#478 LA_TN

LA_TN

    Whistle-Stop

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:25 PM

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.

Thanks, very interesting to hear this. I just somehow see (a modern) L&C bldg when I look at the renderings based on the style and colors. I, too, have been curious about the materials and some more details of the 2nd Ave facade

As for looking like a hospital:
1) then it should blend in well here
2) could be worse, soon they'll be drilling for oil in DT Louisville on their new platform, er, museum

#479 Lexy

Lexy

    Town

  • Members+
  • 2,640 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:40 PM

As for looking like a hospital:
1) then it should blend in well here
2) could be worse, soon they'll be drilling for oil in DT Louisville on their new platform, er, museum



Nice! LOL!!! :rofl:

#480 pturbo

pturbo

    Unincorporated Area

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 17 August 2006 - 06:24 PM

I'm glad the project is going forward, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Imagine every time you leave your place you are in the 2nd Ave mess/level of activity. Everytime you come home you face the same thing. I've done some urban living on busy streets, but this would be over the top for me. Maybe I'mjust getting old, but anyone with the money to buy one of these condos will have a few years on them(minus any trust fund 20 somethings).