Buckingham Gulch Tower 38 Floors, 450+ ft., 345 residential units, 4,900 sq. ft. retail

[Lexy]

This is so silly.  No wonder large (tall) projects don't happen here.

[samsonh]

This is so silly.  No wonder large (tall) projects don't happen here.

Important to read articles before making judgements:

 

"Crucially, White said he wouldn't have agreed to represent the Terrazzo homeowners association if the group was trying to stymie the project.

"I'm optimistic good business judgment will prevail," White told me."

[Leif]

Important to read articles before making judgements:

 

"Crucially, White said he wouldn't have agreed to represent the Terrazzo homeowners association if the group was trying to stymie the project.

"I'm optimistic good business judgment will prevail," White told me."

Seconded, Terrazzo has been incredibly sanguine about this. 

[chris holman]

The odds are improving that Metro will grant a developer permission to build a 38-story skyscraper in the Gulch, even though condo owners across the street have hired a lawyer.

 

^^ This was the very first paragraph of the article.

[Paramount747]

It's ridiculous  it's even an issue. This just shows how small time and small town Nashville still is and its embarrassing to say the least.

[chris holman]

Your not lying ! it's is ridiculous!  I've always said this  IF YOU CANT BUILD A HIGHRISE DOWNTOWN WERE ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD ONE !! 

[Leif]

It's ridiculous  it's even an issue. This just shows how small time and small town Nashville still is and its embarrassing to say the least.

I'm pretty sure in comparison to Manhattan any sort of zoning appeal here is a breeze.

[samsonh]

Again, folks read the article before being outraged. Common problem on this board.

[Pyramid Scheme]

The odds are improving that Metro will grant a developer permission to build a 38-story skyscraper in the Gulch, even though condo owners across the street have hired a lawyer.

 

^^ This was the very first paragraph of the article.

It's like this is the gateway skyscraper. Are we going to confine all tall buildings to just the small area of Church-KVB-3rd-7th, or is the skyline going to expand and become like a real city.

[rookzie]

Again, folks read the article before being outraged. Common problem on this board.

Thanks, samsonh, I had to do a head-scratching, after I read some responses.  I would think that "...,but it's not what you think" in the title would have cast a reservation against what normally would have been assumed, prior to reading the content.  Whether or not deference shouldn't be given to those naysayers or to any interest not directly related to stake-holders in a development, the content as even hinted by its title almost can be considered a chronicled and welcome departure from that norm.
-==-

[Pyramid Scheme]

Thanks, samsonh, I had to do a head-scratching, after I read some responses.  I would think that "...,but it's not what you think" in the title would have cast a reservation against what normally would have been assumed, prior to reading the content.  Whether or not deference shouldn't be given to those naysayers or to any interest not directly related to stake-holders in a development, the content as even hinted by its title almost can be considered a chronicled and welcome departure from that norm.
-==-

I think it's just the fact that there's such strong resistance based on some stupid shadows that get the responses. If these people don't like tall buildings, then why'd they move downtown? The increased chances of it being built ought to be a foregone conclusion because it's such an obviously great project.

[Lexy]

You guys missed my point.

 

While I did read the article, I still have to wonder why does it have to take so long?  I'm with John on this.

[MidTenn1]

I can't believe anyone in 1212 would object.  It's a ¼ mile away from them.  Next thing you know, they'll want the Batman building knocked down because they can't see the Titans' stadium from their windows.

And they are not concerned about the 15 story, 240ft +/- Eakin/Capstar Building going up right next door?

[CenterHill]

And they are not concerned about the 15 story, 240ft +/- Eakin/Capstar Building going up right next door?

I'm sure they would be griping about that if they were in a north-facing unit (even though pre-construction renderings of 1212 showed a future Eakin building) .    These are people who thought they were safe buying on the south side of 1212.  I still don't see that they have a dog in this hunt.   

[rookzie]

You guys missed my point.

 

While I did read the article, I still have to wonder why does it have to take so long?  I'm with John on this.

I probably had missed your point because of indirect association of you disgust with the gist of the article itself ─ the abnormally high sentiment for the skinny, taller version.  I wholeheartedly agree, while previously abstaining from direct opinion for a developer having to sell itself to the public and to a commission and appeals board who predicate decisions on popularity and often on what frequently has suspiciously appeared as special interests.

So after qualification of the implicit, I now do see you point, in regard to the stupidity and ever-mounting frustration with these agencies trying to cater to too many conflicting interests, to the usual extents such that doing so impedes progress measurably and predictably.  Some processes of evaluation and methodical assessment are necessary, of course, especially in cases of egregiously conceived and senseless proposals for outlandish site locations, while no single review of any proposal is elastic enough to fit all.
-==-

[samsonh]

You guys missed my point.

 

While I did read the article, I still have to wonder why does it have to take so long?  I'm with John on this.

Even if it was approved at the first BZA meeting, this building probably doesn't break ground until next summer I am guessing. I mean, the Buckingham project was 1.5 to 2 years from announcement to groundbreaking

[Leif]

Even if it was approved at the first BZA meeting, this building probably doesn't break ground until next summer I am guessing. I mean, the Buckingham project was 1.5 to 2 years from announcement to groundbreaking

They were shooting for late Q3 early Q4 2016, unclear if they are approved what this month or so would do to that timeline. 

[Lexy]

Even if it was approved at the first BZA meeting, this building probably doesn't break ground until next summer I am guessing. I mean, the Buckingham project was 1.5 to 2 years from announcement to groundbreaking

Still not my point.

I probably had missed your point because of indirect association of you disgust with the gist of the article itself ─ the abnormally high sentiment for the skinny, taller version.  I wholeheartedly agree, while previously abstaining from direct opinion for a developer having to sell itself to the public and to a commission and appeals board who predicate decisions on popularity and often on what frequently has suspiciously appeared as special interests.

So after qualification of the implicit, I now do see you point, in regard to the stupidity and ever-mounting frustration with these agencies trying to cater to too many conflicting interests, to the usual extents such that doing so impedes progress measurably and predictably.  Some processes of evaluation and methodical assessment are necessary, of course, especially in cases of egregiously conceived and senseless proposals for outlandish site locations, while no single review of any proposal is elastic enough to fit all.
-==-

Thank you.  That's exactly my point.

[samsonh]

Still not my point.

Thank you.  That's exactly my point.

Yes I can see your point here, but think about just the varying opinions on this board in regards to height, historic preservation, TIF, etc. I am very pro property rights, but I completely understand why we have the systems we have. Especially when it is regarding a building that will be landmark building for decades to come.

[Hey_Hey]

I think the process is moving just as it should.  These buildings need to be closely looked at in order to protect other people's property. Zoning is the law and it is what potential owners use to ensure their property value is what it is.  The last thing Nashville needs is existing or potential property owners questioning the long term value of their property because the adjacent property owner has too much freedom in what is out there.  The same laws that limit height, setbacks, etc are also the same laws that prevent someone from building a residential single family home in the Gulch. 

I am all for the tall Buckingham project but adjacent property owners must have an outlet to voice objections and concerns to the city.  After all, this is a democracy, the city is built for its residents primarily, and those residents pay the bulk of property taxes that fund the city. 

As with all things, balance is the key, and right now the balance is where it should be, in my opinion. 

[rookzie]

We have a good constitution of check-and-balance systems.  They are not ideal or even as effectively consistent in multi-lateral judgment for today's demands, as they likely were upon inception, however, even though I believe we are far better with them than without.  This is the reason I mentioned "...evaluation and methodical assessment are necessary, of course, especially in cases of egregiously conceived and senseless proposals for outlandish site locations.".  Conversely, I also don't suggest that structures such as the lonely Albert Samuel Warren House should not be granted case-by-case sanctions, within the wake of imminent progress in the midst of compound and complex structured development sector.-==-
-==-

[Paramount747]

Oh well, it is what it is. This is Nashville and most people still want this to be a low rise town instead of a high rise city.

[Lexy]

I think the process is moving just as it should.  These buildings need to be closely looked at in order to protect other people's property. Zoning is the law and it is what potential owners use to ensure their property value is what it is.  The last thing Nashville needs is existing or potential property owners questioning the long term value of their property because the adjacent property owner has too much freedom in what is out there.  The same laws that limit height, setbacks, etc are also the same laws that prevent someone from building a residential single family home in the Gulch. 

I am all for the tall Buckingham project but adjacent property owners must have an outlet to voice objections and concerns to the city.  After all, this is a democracy, the city is built for its residents primarily, and those residents pay the bulk of property taxes that fund the city. 

As with all things, balance is the key, and right now the balance is where it should be, in my opinion. 

I agree (for the most part), but this is their (Buckingham) property.  A shadow cast on a midrise residential building next door should be expected, not dissected to the point of exhaustion just because some women a 1/4 mile away hates the proposal.  Yes, it's a "democracy", but some of this is just silly.

[fieldmarshaldj]

After all, this is a democracy

No, this is a republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. 

[Leif]

I agree (for the most part), but this is their (Buckingham) property.  A shadow cast on a midrise residential building next door should be expected, not dissected to the point of exhaustion just because some women a 1/4 mile away hates the proposal.  Yes, it's a "democracy", but some of this is just silly.

Just wait for the Bloom site to appeal and see what rage she goes into.