Inside 440 - Berry Hill, Midtown, Vanderbilt, 12S, WeHo, Fairgrounds, etc.

[BnaBreaker]

I think Nashville needs a lot more projects like that.  As long as it fits into the neighborhood, doesn't look objectively terrible, and addresses the street properly, I welcome any new small affordable multi-family developments.  We've got a lot of un-utilized and under-utilized space here in Nashville.  It can't all be taken up by 400 unit luxury condo blocks.  

[markhollin]

According to Nashville Post this afternoon, the West End Circle Flats (30-unit apartment building) in WEst End Park is resuming construction at 3112 West End Circle after a several month delay.  "West End Circle Flats will offer an exterior of cement board siding, brick, synthetic stucco and corrugated metal panels. The building will have 24 two-bedroom two-bath units and six one-bedroom one-bath units."

 

[markhollin]

The re-groundbreaking for Millennium Music Row (formerly Music Square Flats) to be next month. The new rendering is nearly identical to the previous concept. 

http://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/20630529/midjune-start-set-for-music-row-project

 

[bnaflyer]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 1:51 AM, samsonh said:

It passed planning commission two months ago, I spoke at the meeting. It has to pass readings at council(it will). Will break ground in the fall. "Barely better" than the nursing home says you do not live in the neighborhood. 

Far lower rents is a far fetched claim from the developer though, I believe they are proposing 1200 base rent for a small studio. Not cheap, more like market rate.

Well, I DO live in the neighborhood, and have lived there for 20 years, so allow me to say that I have a lot of problems with this development.  It is overbuilt for the lot and the setback (which I do not believe the rendering accurately depicts) is not sufficient.  This is a classic example of how our planning process is broken (which I blame on the planning staff).  This developer could build 30 plus units on this property as of right, yet somehow has convinced planning that 76 units is just fine, with basically no setback.  As you admit, the "affordable" apartments are a joke and  just a ploy to make the project more palatable. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by bnaflyer

[BnaBreaker]

Setbacks are kind of pointless in cases like this in my opinion, and Nashville is in love with them for reasons I'll never understand.  What is it about that completely useless ten foot strip of grass that is plopped in front of so many of Nashville's urban developments that people love so much?  Is it a comfort thing?  Are some people still not 100% comfortable with the idea of urban living and look to the 'setback' as a way to not feel completely committed to that way of life?  I mean I get that in many environments it is not appropriate to have structures built up to the street, but having an urban structure in an urban neighborhood built up to the sidewalk is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to create a healthy, solid street wall and to have eyes (or the perception of eyes) on the public right of way, which is important in keeping street crime at a minimum, not to mention that it's simply a more efficient and responsible usage of space.  Another reason is that it simply helps to create a more vibrant atmosphere.  Imagine if the urban retail strip in Hillsboro Village was all set back from the street ten feet.  It would be a completely different neighborhood, and for the worse. 

[samsonh]

6 hours ago, bnaflyer said:

Well, I DO live in the neighborhood, and have lived there for 20 years, so allow me to say that I have a lot of problems with this development.  It is overbuilt for the lot and the setback (which I do not believe the rendering accurately depicts) is not sufficient.  This is a classic example of how our planning process is broken (which I blame on the planning staff).  This developer could build 30 plus units on this property as of right, yet somehow has convinced planning that 76 units is just fine, with basically no setback.  As you admit, the "affordable" apartments are a joke and  just a ploy to make the project more palatable. 

+1 to bnabreaker post. Sounds like you don't like the density for some reason. Too bad, that's what you get in a city that's becoming increasingly more urban. I don't care that the apartments aren't affordable. As a property owner in the area it behooves me if they get as much rent as possible.

 

How would a further setback make this project any different?

[bnaflyer]

Respect

17 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Setbacks are kind of pointless in cases like this in my opinion, and Nashville is in love with them for reasons I'll never understand.  What is it about that completely useless ten foot strip of grass that is plopped in front of so many of Nashville's urban developments that people love so much?  Is it a comfort thing?  Are some people still not 100% comfortable with the idea of urban living and look to the 'setback' as a way to not feel completely committed to that way of life?  I mean I get that in many environments it is not appropriate to have structures built up to the street, but having an urban structure in an urban neighborhood built up to the sidewalk is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to create a healthy, solid street wall and to have eyes (or the perception of eyes) on the public right of way, which is important in keeping street crime at a minimum, not to mention that it's simply a more efficient and responsible usage of space.  Another reason is that it simply helps to create a more vibrant atmosphere.  Imagine if the urban retail strip in Hillsboro Village was all set back from the street ten feet.  It would be a completely different neighborhood, and for the worse. 

Respectfully, I think you missed the class in urban planning on air and light.  Even Manhattan building codes have setbacks (although they vary by neighborhood).  Hillsboro Village is not downtown.  All "urban neighborhoods" do not have to consist of towering buildings built to the sidewalk.   This is one of the problems in Nashville today--neither the development staff nor a lot of interested amateurs has a very sophisticated understanding of urban planning.  They seem to think all "urban" built environments should look the same. 

 If you have any evidence that setbacks increase crime, let me know.  

But I guess the best evidence that our current development regime isn't working very well comes from the fact that every single day someone spontaneously comments about how unlivable this city is becoming.  If we are doing such a great job, why are so many people unhappy?  And let me add these are people (like me) who love urban living. 

 

[samsonh]

53 minutes ago, bnaflyer said:

Respect

Respectfully, I think you missed the class in urban planning on air and light.  Even Manhattan building codes have setbacks (although they vary by neighborhood).  Hillsboro Village is not downtown.  All "urban neighborhoods" do not have to consist of towering buildings built to the sidewalk.   This is one of the problems in Nashville today--neither the development staff nor a lot of interested amateurs has a very sophisticated understanding of urban planning.  They seem to think all "urban" built environments should look the same. 

 If you have any evidence that setbacks increase crime, let me know.  

But I guess the best evidence that our current development regime isn't working very well comes from the fact that every single day someone spontaneously comments about how unlivable this city is becoming.  If we are doing such a great job, why are so many people unhappy?  And let me add these are people (like me) who love urban living. 

 

We are doing a good job of managing fast growth. We need to continue to develop infrastructure to cope with the many new residents. I do not know who these unhappy people are though. If it is such a bad place to live growth wouldn't be so high. Life in Nashville has literally never been better for the vast majority of residents of all income levels.

 

Also, how would a setback change any of your grievances about quality of life?

Edited May 4, 2016 by samsonh

[CenterHill]

I'm not following the setback complaint about the GBT building.    The rendering shows what I would consider a more than generous setback from both streets and even from the sidewalks.     If I have any complaint, it's just that the building is bland and utilitarian, but in that respect it will fit in well with the two other newer apartments on that same corner.    And I agree it's an upgrade from the current use of the site.   

 

[bnaflyer]

7 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

I'm not following the setback complaint about the GBT building.    The rendering shows what I would consider a more than generous setback from both streets and even from the sidewalks.     If I have any complaint, it's just that the building is bland and utilitarian, but in that respect it will fit in well with the two other newer apartments on that same corner.    And I agree it's an upgrade from the current use of the site.   

 

 

I agree that the current site is nothing to be excited about and apartments are a much better use of the land.  I also agree that the design is totally uninspired and looks like every other building built in the last five years. But what are you going to do about that--you can't force people to build interesting buildings although it is disappointing when they don't try harder.

 With respect to the setback, what you don't see in the drawing is the context or a comparison with current setbacks.   This project is 10-15 feet closer to the sidewalk than the existing building and substantially closer to the sidewalk than the adjacent and nearby properties.  So it will look out of place and "oversized" for the lot.  This is not just my opinion--it was the opinion of the minority of the Planning Commission (I can't remember the vote, but it wasn't unanimous) and at the 2nd council reading it was announced that the developers and the council member are going to continue discussions to try to make the setback more consistent with the existing neighborhood.  Also I think the rendering is a little deceptive in terms of how it depicts the setback.  My earlier point about the number of units was that the developer has crammed 70 plus units onto a lot that really should hold about 30 units, and he does that in part by building closer to the sidewalk.

[samsonh]

37 minutes ago, bnaflyer said:

I agree that the current site is nothing to be excited about and apartments are a much better use of the land.  I also agree that the design is totally uninspired and looks like every other building built in the last five years. But what are you going to do about that--you can't force people to build interesting buildings although it is disappointing when they don't try harder.

 With respect to the setback, what you don't see in the drawing is the context or a comparison with current setbacks.   This project is 10-15 feet closer to the sidewalk than the existing building and substantially closer to the sidewalk than the adjacent and nearby properties.  So it will look out of place and "oversized" for the lot.  This is not just my opinion--it was the opinion of the minority of the Planning Commission (I can't remember the vote, but it wasn't unanimous) and at the 2nd council reading it was announced that the developers and the council member are going to continue discussions to try to make the setback more consistent with the existing neighborhood.  Also I think the rendering is a little deceptive in terms of how it depicts the setback.  My earlier point about the number of units was that the developer has crammed 70 plus units onto a lot that really should hold about 30 units, and he does that in part by building closer to the sidewalk.

Right now there is a driveway in front of the current building. It looks terrible but it sure is setback!

 

Interesting article in the Tennessean. Building as proposed is greater than required setback.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/05/04/76-unit-hillsboro-village-apartments-advance-council/83925438/

 

Also, I really encourage everyone on this board to attend a planning commission meeting at some point. Most of the members of this board are more than qualified to sit on that board imo.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by samsonh
Added link

[smeagolsfree]

As far as the stripe between the sidewalk and the street goes, I heard at one of the MDHA meetings that this is a priority from the mayor and it will be enforced.

[Neigeville2]

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

As far as the stripe between the sidewalk and the street goes, I heard at one of the MDHA meetings that this is a priority from the mayor and it will be enforced.

Glad to hear that.  I'm not a fan of front yards or more than minimal setbacks, but pedestrians shouldn't have to walk inches away from moving vehicles. Even when there's parallel parking it's just nicer with that little buffer.  The stripe, between a nice sturdy curb and a reasonably wide sidewalk, gives a more finished appearance to the street as well. And in this case it seems to make enough room for full size trees which could keep the sidewalk cool.

[BnaBreaker]

 

On 5/4/2016 at 0:19 PM, bnaflyer said:

Respect

Respectfully, I think you missed the class in urban planning on air and light.  Even Manhattan building codes have setbacks (although they vary by neighborhood).  Hillsboro Village is not downtown.  All "urban neighborhoods" do not have to consist of towering buildings built to the sidewalk.   This is one of the problems in Nashville today--neither the development staff nor a lot of interested amateurs has a very sophisticated understanding of urban planning.  They seem to think all "urban" built environments should look the same. 

 If you have any evidence that setbacks increase crime, let me know.  

But I guess the best evidence that our current development regime isn't working very well comes from the fact that every single day someone spontaneously comments about how unlivable this city is becoming.  If we are doing such a great job, why are so many people unhappy?  And let me add these are people (like me) who love urban living. 

 

Respectfully, if a nondescript, medium sized residential building is painting images in your head of Manhattan and causing you to fear that oxygen and sunlight might soon be endangered resources in Hillsboro Village, then I'm not sure you "love" urban living as much as you think you do.  I'm not trying to be rude, and I appreciate the fact that you've lived in the city proper for so long, and nobody is saying all neighborhoods have to look the same.  However, things like density, efficient usage of space, having buildings facing and built up to the street; This is pretty standard, base level stuff we're talking about here when it comes to urban multi-family residential development.  Given where you live, in a popular urban neighborhood two miles from the downtown core of one of the fastest growing cities in the country.  You should not only be comfortable with urban development and population density, but presumably, you should anticipate increasing levels of both, should you not?  Those are qualities that some cities would kill to be able to say about themselves, so I don't understand why you and your alleged 'someones' (not evidence of anything btw, sorry to say) interpret these things as contributing to an increasing level of unlivability, when they are such central parts of the way of life in neighborhoods such as yours.  I mean, even with all the new development, Nashville's population density is pretty much at the bottom of the ladder when compared to every other major city in this country, and yet you're still worried about it.  Again, I'm not sure you "love" urban living as much as you think you do.  

As far as the crime aspect is concerned, there are a lot of things I could point to, but the easiest most basic example is housing projects.  It's an admittedly extreme example, but it works.  Go check out the Sudekum Homes or the Cayce Homes in Nashville.  There's all kinds of 'air and sunshine' there.  So much greenery!  The 'city in the park' concept, which the concept of large setbacks are an offshoot of, was a pretty central part of pretty much every single housing project development built in the fifties and sixties.  Obviously there are other major factors at play as well when it comes to crime, and in a neighborhood like Hillsboro Village, the overall effect on crime levels would likely be minimal, but one can't just ignore the fact that orienting the buildings away from the street is a common denominator in every single one of those housing projects, and is a contributing factor to the crime levels found there.  Just as a general rule, the whole concept of public safety is very intimately tied to having the eyes of your neighbors (or the potential and perception of their eyes) watching over the street below.  As I said, in a neighborhood like Hillsboro Village the overall effect on crime levels would probably be negligible, but my point is, absolutely nothing is gained by pushing buildings back and away from the street. 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[Nashville Cliff]

Dueling BNAs!  

[bnaflyer]

4 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

 

Respectfully, if a nondescript, medium sized residential building being built in an urban neighborhood two miles from the downtown core of one of the fastest growing cities in the country in a manner very typical of urban multi-family residential is causing you to fear that oxygen and sunlight might soon be endangered resources in Hillsboro Village, and Nashville's last place population density increasing has lead you and your alleged 'someones' (not evidence of anything btw) to the conclusion that the city is 'becoming unlivable,' then I'm not sure you "love" urban living as much as you think you do.  If setbacks are central to your personal happiness, I suggest you might try the Cayce Homes or the Sudekum Homes.  Those neighborhoods are nothing but setbacks and isolation from the frightening changes going on throughout the city!  

 

 

OK OK I get it--you all just love buildings built all the way to the sidewalk, and anyone who feels differently should be exiled to the suburbs to wither away in lonely obscurity.  And anyone who thinks Nashville isn't doing a great job of planning is just a hick.  Message received.

[RonCamp]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

 

Respectfully, if a nondescript, medium sized residential building is painting images in your head of Manhattan and causing you to fear that oxygen and sunlight might soon be endangered resources in Hillsboro Village, then I'm not sure you "love" urban living as much as you think you do.  I'm not trying to be rude, and I appreciate the fact that you've lived in the city proper for so long, and nobody is saying all neighborhoods have to look the same.  However, things like density, efficient usage of space, strong and consistent street walls; This is pretty standard, base level stuff we're talking about here when it comes to urban multi-family residential development.  You're in a popular urban neighborhood two miles from the downtown core of one of the fastest growing cities in the country.  You should not only be comfortable with urban development and population density, but presumably, you should anticipate increasing levels of both, should you not?  Those are things some cities would kill to be able to say about themselves, so I don't understand why you and your alleged 'someones' (not evidence of anything btw) interpret these things as contributing to an increasing level of unlivability, when they are such central parts of the way of life in neighborhoods such as yours.  I mean, even with all the new development, Nashville's population density is pretty much at the bottom of the ladder when compared to every other major city in this country, and yet you're still worried about it.  Again, I'm not sure you "love" urban living as much as you think you do.  

As far as the crime aspect is concerned, there are a lot of things I could point to, but the easiest most basic example is housing projects.  It's an admittedly extreme example, but it works.  Go check out the Sudekum Homes or the Cayce Homes in Nashville.  There's all kinds of 'air and sunshine' there.  So much greenery!  The 'city in the park' concept, which setbacks are a cousin to, was a pretty central part of pretty much every single housing project development built in the fifties and sixties.  Obviously there are other major factors at play as well when it comes to crime, and in a neighborhood like Hillsboro Village, the overall effect would likely be minimal, but one can't just ignore the fact that orienting the buildings away from the street is a common denominator in every single one of those housing projects, and is a contributing factor to the crime levels found there.  Just as a general rule, the whole concept of public safety is very intimately tied to having the eyes of your neighbors (or again, the potential and perception of their eyes) watching over the street below.  As I said, in a neighborhood like Hillsboro Village the overall effect on crime levels would probably be negligible, but my point is, absolutely nothing is gained by pushing buildings back and away from the street. 

 

 

If light and air is the concern as mentioned in one of the above posts... don't worry, the 4 lane wide urban interstate designed for twice the appropriate speed and no crosswalks (also known as Wedgewood) should provide plenty, regardless of the building height or setback.  

[samsonh]

57 minutes ago, bnaflyer said:

OK OK I get it--you all just love buildings built all the way to the sidewalk, and anyone who feels differently should be exiled to the suburbs to wither away in lonely obscurity.  And anyone who thinks Nashville isn't doing a great job of planning is just a hick.  Message received.

This is not a great rebuttal. His points are valid and well thought out. If you don't like the density just because, just say so. But arguing over setbacks is comical in this case.

[bnaflyer]

5 minutes ago, samsonh said:

This is not a great rebuttal. His points are valid and well thought out. If you don't like the density just because, just say so. But arguing over setbacks is comical in this case.

Ha in my defense he edited his initial remarks and made them better reasoned!  

I don't dislike density per se.  I would argue you have an irrational preference for density above all else.  There is something to mass, scale, relationship to existing structures and yes, air and light, in an urban setting--particularly an area that consists of multifamily, single family, business and commercial uses coexisting in close proximity (as they have for decades in this part of town). 

Everything doesn't have to look like downtown and you can have setbacks and restrictions on height without becoming suburban!  Basically, you are arguing for no zoning at all because the current code contains all of these restrictions.  What the developer wants to do here is not permitted as of right and our willingness to excuse every developer of every uninspiring apartment complex from the requirements of the zoning code seems strange.  The zoning for this property is RM40 which would permit around 30 units on this fairly small parcel.  That's hardly suburban.  The 70+ units that are proposed are desirable only if you believe higher density is the sina qua non of all development.  I don't.

As for whether our current planning regime knows what it is doing, I simply point you to West End Park. 

[MLBrumby]

A bit of random rambling in response to this piece on West End from the NBJ: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/05/10/with-no-new-construction-there-investors-nab-west.html. 

I and others have noted how ugly West End looks with only a few redeeming structures (Cathedral, WEUMC, some Vandy buildings and Centennial Park) and the office buildings are just the same bland suburban crap you'll find in the ring counties (Cat Finance; 2525, Acklen Park) surrounded by parking lots, and of course the fast food establishments on both sides of the street. W.E.'s crappy appearance is especially noteworthy when you consider that it is the main avenue to/from the city's most affluent areas. Then there are the utility poles and mishmash of light/signal standards. I know W.E. is a legacy of decades of old Nashville zoning with commercial strips and piecemeal, cheap development, and higher land prices that presumably have hampered development. And the car lots are an eyesore, but they are technically on Broadway. However, it seems to me that Nashville could at least set up some zoning and streetscape standards that would ensure a better looking street in the future. On the other hand, I realize that the state of W.E. has probably helped downtown residential and office development. Rant over!  

[CenterHill]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

A bit of random rambling in response to this piece on West End from the NBJ: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/05/10/with-no-new-construction-there-investors-nab-west.html. 

I and others have noted how ugly West End looks with only a few redeeming structures (Cathedral, WEUMC, some Vandy buildings and Centennial Park) and the office buildings are just the same bland suburban crap you'll find in the ring counties (Cat Finance; 2525, Acklen Park) surrounded by parking lots, and of course the fast food establishments on both sides of the street. W.E.'s crappy appearance is especially noteworthy when you consider that it is the main avenue to/from the city's most affluent areas. Then there are the utility poles and mishmash of light/signal standards. I know W.E. is a legacy of decades of old Nashville zoning with commercial strips and piecemeal, cheap development, and higher land prices that presumably have hampered development. And the car lots are an eyesore, but they are technically on Broadway. However, it seems to me that Nashville could at least set up some zoning and streetscape standards that would ensure a better looking street in the future. On the other hand, I realize that the state of W.E. has probably helped downtown residential and office development. Rant over!  

So true.    Something is not aligned when developers continue to purchase properties directly fronting West End and put up 1-story AT&T stores, drive-through fast food chains and suburban bank branches.    

 

[markhollin]

Emery looking at developing an office building at site formerly looked at by Terwilliger Pappas for a residential project at 18th Avenue South and Chet Atkins Place. This new Emery building would apparently be similar to the new Panattoni office structure over in the eastern area of Music Row also in Midtown.  That would mean it might be in the 6-story range. Below is an aerial view of the site as it looks now.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/10/pat-emery-eyes-creative-offices-project-midtown/84197206/

 

[Hey_Hey]

It will be similar to the Pannatoni in that it will target creative types. I don't think anybody has seen a rendering.  The proposed Music Row plan allows for 8 stories at this site. An 8 story building on that lot could probably provide 200-250,000 sq ft of lease able office space.

[MLBrumby]

From everything reported about this Emery/Hall Capital project, it does not sound very impressive. But it will be infill. Would like to see Emery actually start something downtown before taking on other projects. 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/10/pat-emery-eyes-creative-offices-project-midtown/84197206/

[markhollin]

Music Row should be designated a “cultural industry district” by Metro government according to an ambitious new proposal from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the local Music Industry Coalition.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/industries/music/2016/05/15/sweeping-new-protections-urged-nashvilles-music-row/84378046/