60 story Four Seasons. 700+ feet.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

If we don't get an actual skyscraper now, we never will. Oklahoma City, Mobile, Austin, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and many other pier cities have taller buildings. I still wonder why. The reason is, Nashville has always been anti- high rise development. Nashville has tried it's best to keep out of town developers out of Nashville, but hopefully the naysayers are finally fading away.

[UTgrad09]

If we don't get an actual skyscraper now, we never will. Oklahoma City, Mobile, Austin, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and many other pier cities have taller buildings. I still wonder why. The reason is, Nashville has always been anti- high rise development. Nashville has tried it's best to keep out of town developers out of Nashville, but hopefully the naysayers are finally fading away.

Never?

 

And who cares if some of these other places have taller buildings? I'd still take our skyline over Mobile, Jacksonville, and OKC.

 

As for Nashville being 'anti-high rise'...that's laughable when you actually sit back and count the number of high rises we have. Even if you set the mark at 20 floors or 250 ft (which is more than ample for the definition), you can see a pretty consistent pattern of building.

 

12th & Laurel - *2014

Omni - 2013

Pinnacle - 2010

ICON - 2008

Encore - 2008

Viridian - 2006

Cumberland - 1999

AT&T - 1994

Palmer Plaza - 1993

City Center - 1988

Renaissance - 1987

Fifth Third - 1986

Nashville Place - 1985

Polk - 1981

BoA - 1977

Sheraton - 1975

Regions - 1974

Snodgrass - 1970

Andrew Jackson - 1969

Parkway Towers - 1968

Service Source - 1967

L&C - 1957

 

 

Even when downtown was basically dead in the 70s and 80s, we were adding on to the skyline. There have been some slow periods, but I don't see any particular time that says Nashville was 'anti-high rise'.

[bigeasy]

Has there been a spot this was proposed for? Because if it was in the business district it would dominate the skyline because of the elevation. It might of been mentioned on the first page, but that page will not load for me. The site has been giving me lots of problems the past week plus.

[dmillsphoto]

Has there been a spot this was proposed for? Because if it was in the business district it would dominate the skyline because of the elevation. It might of been mentioned on the first page, but that page will not load for me. The site has been giving me lots of problems the past week plus.

 

No, everything is speculation right now.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Never?

 

And who cares if some of these other places have taller buildings? I'd still take our skyline over Mobile, Jacksonville, and OKC.

 

As for Nashville being 'anti-high rise'...that's laughable when you actually sit back and count the number of high rises we have. Even if you set the mark at 20 floors or 250 ft (which is more than ample for the definition), you can see a pretty consistent pattern of building.

 

12th & Laurel - *2014

Omni - 2013

Pinnacle - 2010

ICON - 2008

Encore - 2008

Viridian - 2006

Cumberland - 1999

AT&T - 1994

Palmer Plaza - 1993

City Center - 1988

Renaissance - 1987

Fifth Third - 1986

Nashville Place - 1985

Polk - 1981

BoA - 1977

Sheraton - 1975

Regions - 1974

Snodgrass - 1970

Andrew Jackson - 1969

Parkway Towers - 1968

Service Source - 1967

L&C - 1957

 

 

Even when downtown was basically dead in the 70s and 80s, we were adding on to the skyline. There have been some slow periods, but I don't see any particular time that says Nashville was 'anti-high rise'.

The One Nashville Place was 1983 and Palmer Plaza was 1986. The Service Source Building was 1968. Emporis is wrong a large part of the time. Anyway, I had guests from Vandy Plaza who visited Palmer Plaza in 1988 for business purposes. But in any case, just because we have built some high rises over the past decades, it does not mean they were built to their full potential. Nashville has ALWAYS built shorter rather than taller. The only exception was the L&C Tower whose original height was to be 17 stories, not 31. The original height of the Renaissance was 43 stories, not the 31 we have now. The original height of the 5th Third Bank Tower was 38 stories and 600 feet, not the 30 story 492 foot version we have now. Nashville City Center built the 27 story version and not the 40 story version first.

 

So yes, Nashville has been anti-high rise. Nashville developers never take a chance. They never take a risk like they do in other cities.

 

You can also include Adelicia, Terazzo, Suntrust Plaza, The American Centers 1 and 2, and many others whose heights were cut in half over the years. The American Centers were to be one 24 story Tower on 31st Avenue. The neighborhood residents complained and stopped it. Since that time the West End Park neighborhood has completely overturned and such a building would not be questioned today.

Edited July 22, 2013 by 5th & Main Urbanite

[UTgrad09]

Speaking of speculation...just for fun, what sites do you think would be most likely for this sort of development?

 

Starting in the core Broadway/Charlotte, 1st/8th: 

 

-1st, 2nd, & Church -- the lot is likely large enough (surface parking) -- but it is adjacent to The District. While the communications building abominations were allowed to be built on the opposite corner, I have a feeling that Metro would rather not have a huge modern skyscraper there (though you could certainly make an argument that precedent has been set for modern skyscrapers to neighbor historic buildings both here and elsewhere, with it looking just fine).

 

-3rd & Church (two separate lots) -- likely too small of a footprint for that size of a tower. It would have to be nearly L&C skinny.

 

-5th & Church -- Tony's lot -- highly unlikely, since we would probably hear something if he was ready to scrap 505...plus he's already working on a hotel and a residential tower.

 

-5th & Commerce (northeast corner) -- this would be an intriguing spot. The surface lot wouldn't be big enough, but if the mid sized parking garage is in play, the site would be ample, and I don't think that there would be any issues with zoning restrictions or height setbacks.

 

-Convention Center (5th and Broad) -- unlikely. It doesn't fit Metros vision (as vague as it is) for the old site). I don't know if there are any height restrictions...but I think it would generally be frowned upon on that particular street.

 

-6th and Church (minus the older structures right on the corner)...two sites. One, on top of the parking garage that is U/C right now for the City Center. Two, on the surface lot that fronts Church to the mid-block alley. Not sure if feasible. Combined, it might work. Might. I sort of doubt it, though.

 

-Church & Polk (lot behind the Ben West Library) -- a bit of a stretch, but possible.

 

-7th/8th & Commerce/Church (aka the site of our new federal courthouse circa 2050) -- unlikely due to the courthouse plans It would likely have to pick a corner, because the rest of the block would be developed as something else. Church & 7th would be my early favorite.

 

-7th & Commerce (behind Hume Fogg) -- highly unlikely.

 

 

There are a number of potential lots in SoBro...perhaps near the roundabout or the UMPH site....but I think a 60 story tower would look badly out of place anywhere except for the CBD.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

8th and Church on the old Hotel Tulane lot. It's the highest lot in the city. That would be the perfect spot. One is also closer to West End and the Gulch. The 4 Seasons clientele are not the Lower Broadway crowd.

Speaking of speculation...just for fun, what sites do you think would be most likely for this sort of development?

 

Starting in the core Broadway/Charlotte, 1st/8th: 

 

-1st, 2nd, & Church -- the lot is likely large enough (surface parking) -- but it is adjacent to The District. While the communications building abominations were allowed to be built on the opposite corner, I have a feeling that Metro would rather not have a huge modern skyscraper there (though you could certainly make an argument that precedent has been set for modern skyscrapers to neighbor historic buildings both here and elsewhere, with it looking just fine).

 

-3rd & Church (two separate lots) -- likely too small of a footprint for that size of a tower. It would have to be nearly L&C skinny.

 

-5th & Church -- Tony's lot -- highly unlikely, since we would probably hear something if he was ready to scrap 505...plus he's already working on a hotel and a residential tower.

 

-5th & Commerce (northeast corner) -- this would be an intriguing spot. The surface lot wouldn't be big enough, but if the mid sized parking garage is in play, the site would be ample, and I don't think that there would be any issues with zoning restrictions or height setbacks.

 

-Convention Center (5th and Broad) -- unlikely. It doesn't fit Metros vision (as vague as it is) for the old site). I don't know if there are any height restrictions...but I think it would generally be frowned upon on that particular street.

 

-6th and Church (minus the older structures right on the corner)...two sites. One, on top of the parking garage that is U/C right now for the City Center. Two, on the surface lot that fronts Church to the mid-block alley. Not sure if feasible. Combined, it might work. Might. I sort of doubt it, though.

 

-Church & Polk (lot behind the Ben West Library) -- a bit of a stretch, but possible.

 

-7th/8th & Commerce/Church (aka the site of our new federal courthouse circa 2050) -- unlikely due to the courthouse plans It would likely have to pick a corner, because the rest of the block would be developed as something else. Church & 7th would be my early favorite.

 

-7th & Commerce (behind Hume Fogg) -- highly unlikely.

 

 

There are a number of potential lots in SoBro...perhaps near the roundabout or the UMPH site....but I think a 60 story tower would look badly out of place anywhere except for the CBD.

The lot on 1st, 2nd, and Church was to be a 22 story Glass and Steel Tower completed in 1990. Lamar Alexander and Anne Roberts of the Hysterical Commission had it stopped because THEY deemed it inappropriate to be built on Second Avenue and Washington Square. Free Market Republican Lamar Alexander would not let the free market work! Their opposition made the cover of USA Today. "Tennessee governor stands up to big developer." It was really embarrassing for the city. Yet, the same Hysterical Commission failed to stop the destruction of the Hotel Tulane, Sam Davis Hotel, the Genesco Tower, The Vauxhaul Building, The Sudakem Building, and many others over the past 50 or so years.

Edited July 22, 2013 by 5th & Main Urbanite

[UTgrad09]

 But in any case, just because we have built some high rises over the past decades, it does not mean they were built to their full potential. Nashville has ALWAYS built shorter rather than taller. The only exception was the L&C Tower whose original height was to be 17 stories, not 31. The original height of the Renaissance was 43 stories, not the 31 we have now. The original height of the 5th Third Bank Tower was 38 stories and 600 feet, not the 30 story 492 foot version we have now. Nashville City Center built the 27 story version and not the 40 story version first.

 

So yes, Nashville has been anti-high rise. Nashville developers never take a chance. They never take a risk like they do in other cities.

 

You can also include Adelicia, Terazzo, Suntrust Plaza, The American Centers 1 and 2, and many others whose heights were cut in half over the years. The American Centers were to be one 24 story Tower on 31st Avenue. The neighborhood residents complained and stopped it. Since that time the West End Park neighborhood has completely overturned and such a building would not be questioned today.

 

Do you know why those buildings were not built to their original planned heights? I doubt it has much to do with the city being 'anti-highrise' or something silly like that...it's more likely has to do with cost and the market. While it would be great if all of these buildings had fulfilled their original visions, were they feasible at the time? Each additional floor is thousands of square feet of office space. Is it not out of the question that there just wasn't enough demand for that much space?

 

Nashville used to be a decent sized banking and insurance center, but it was by no means a national center of activity where demands for million square foot office buildings were common (like, say, Atlanta). 

 

Are developers not taking a chance? I don't know. But if there was money to be made off of building extra height, I would almost guarantee they would've been doing it.

 

Also -- which other cities are they taking a chance in? OKC has Devon, Mobile has RSA (and a puny skyline to go with it), Charlotte has several beautiful tall buildings, and Austin has several condo towers (and both cities have been growing considerably faster than us).

 

What other cities are or have recently taken risks that are at least close to our size?

[fieldmarshaldj]

As I've reminded John before, if many of those structures had been built, and to full height (the pre-1995), we'd have been stuck with a glut of office space that would've taken years to absorb (look at Dallas as a premier example of an overbuilt environment during the '80s). As a result, we'd likely have had next to nothing being constructed in the post-1995 period (including starting with the Batman Building -- then South Central Bell, which probably would've gone to one of the existing '80s buildings instead, if at all -- and the whole kick-off for revitalization in that area towards Lower Broad might never have occurred).

[timmay143]

Again, flogging my dead horse.  Just back from San Jose.  No skyscrapers, yet plenty of midrise and a very urban city, in places of course.  One height limiter is the airport, I believe.  Pics to come, I hope!

[bwithers1]

"The lot on 1st, 2nd, and Church was to be a 22 story Glass and Steel Tower completed in 1990. Lamar Alexander and Anne Roberts of the Hysterical Commission had it stopped because THEY deemed it inappropriate to be built on Second Avenue and Washington Square. Free Market Republican Lamar Alexander would not let the free market work! Their opposition made the cover of USA Today. "Tennessee governor stands up to big developer." It was really embarrassing for the city. Yet, the same Hysterical Commission failed to stop the destruction of the Hotel Tulane, Sam Davis Hotel, the Genesco Tower, The Vauxhaul Building, The Sudakem Building, and many others over the past 50 or so years."

 

John: 

 

Metro Historic Commission:  Metro Government did not form until 1963.  The Metro Historical Commission was not chartered until 1966, and the Metro Historic Zoning Commission - the one that handles demolition requests - sometime after that.  The first Historic District in Nashville, and maybe in Tennessee (?) - was East Nashville's Edgefield neighborhood Historic Preservation District that was enacted in the mid-1970s. So pretty much every building that you mention here was demolished before the Metro Historic Commission even existed or had any authority other than raising awareness.  Even today, the MHZC does not have the power to stop the demolition of any structure unless that power is granted to them first by the property owner (it becomes part of the deed) and then by the Metro Council.  I would love for the Vauxhall building to be there today as much as you would.  But even if it did and the MHZC had authority over that property, the construction of a Federal Courthouse through eminent domain would supersede the local preservation authority anyway.

 

Lamar Alexander:  Yes, Lamar Alexander is a Republican.  But the truth is that even most Republicans do not truly believe in letting the free market run wild, as much as they might talk about that.  That would be Libertarians.  Extreme Libertarians.  As a Republican, Lamar Alexander has shown some interest in historical and environmental preservation in Tennessee.  I would have thought that you would tend to be more in agreement than disagreement with these particular stances of his.

[volsfanwill]

 

Lamar Alexander:  Yes, Lamar Alexander is a Republican.  But the truth is that even most Republicans do not truly believe in letting the free market run wild, as much as they might talk about that.  That would be Libertarians.  Extreme Libertarians.  As a Republican, Lamar Alexander has shown some interest in historical and environmental preservation in Tennessee.  I would have thought that you would tend to be more in agreement than disagreement with these particular stances of his.

 

 

I agree, except the libertarian part, that is tea party libertarians which are not real libertarians.  most I know are very down to earth and know the realities of the way things work. 

 

back on topic.

I also agree with what was said earlier that we need a super tall (I use this in reference to current structures here not in the literal 100 story plus sense) building to be built sooner rather than later. Nashville really needs to break that 30somethingfloor limit that we seem to be stuck in.  

 

maybe something like the renaissance was supposed to be, hotel office and condos.

so maybe a 60 story building isnt too outlandish to think of.

Im still holding out hope that Signature will go up though.

[Justiceham]

I think we need to start looking at Nashville a little different now. I know there has been a lot of let down over the years, but I think we are in a new era. With all of the focus recently on Nashville Next, we need to realize that Nashville is going to grow a lot over the next 25 years or so. With changing demographics and many new people and jobs coming here, we will need the hotel rooms, office space, condos, apartments, retail, and so on to meet demand.

As far as demographics go, there will be a lot more single person households. If estimates of a million people moving into the area are correct over the next 20 to 25 years, then there will be a need for thousands of new housing units. So if we are conservative and say 4 people per unit, then we need 250,000 units over the next two decades and that equates to between 20,000 and 25,000 housing units per year. If you look at the new demographic estimates, then 500,000 units would not be out of the question. That would be on the low end 40,000 units per years and we are no where near even a third of that number. Now all of those units would not be in the core, a lot will, with many younger and single adults moving here.

So, with all of that being said, the odds of projects such as this 60 story building go up. We could go to boom, but we could go to explosion. Just pray the economy does not go bust because that would be a game changer. I think a good indication is the fact that Aramark is adding a 1000 jobs. Right now, Nashville is a magnet and under a magnifying glass, as many companies are looking here for expansion opportunities.

I don't think the project in question is just a hotel. I think there are high end residential units included. This would give individuals an option over a McMansion in Williamson County.

Well said. This is not the same Nashville of 1990. The broader picture is that more people demand more services. 

[MLBrumby]

I completely agree.  One fact about me that isn't well-known is that I grew up in Atlanta.  The Atlanta of the 1970s-80s (aka HOTlanta... do you remember that billboard on I-75 sometime around 1979?).   Atlanta was on fire (sts).  There is no doubt in my mind that the boom of the 1980s was rooted in the daring developers of the 1970s.  Anyway, Nashville is at a similar point in its growth.  The question: Will there be some daring developers who go that extra ____ ?  We wait to see.

Edited July 24, 2013 by MLBrumby

[Nashville Cliff]

If we don't get an actual skyscraper now, we never will. Oklahoma City, Mobile, Austin, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and many other pier cities have taller buildings. I still wonder why. The reason is, Nashville has always been anti- high rise development. Nashville has tried it's best to keep out of town developers out of Nashville, but hopefully the naysayers are finally fading away.

 

I was in downtown Jacksonville last November.  It may be tall, but it was dead.  Tumbleweed dead.  Not something to aspire to.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Been to Jacksonville myself. The suburbs were much more vibrant, but it was January in Florida. Not sure how much of a difference that makes. St. Augustine was busy however.

[NashRugger]

Been to Jacksonville myself. The suburbs were much more vibrant, but it was January in Florida. Not sure how much of a difference that makes. St. Augustine was busy however.

Being from Jax myself, downtown is so far behind that it is ridiculous and it will take decades for it to turn around fully. That said, it appears some seeds have been planted and may be about ready to grow. Of course those "suburbs" are still the city itself if within the boundaries of Duval County and west of the Intracoastal Waterway, aka, The Ditch.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

If this is built, and I think a big if, I can see this go on the Federal Courthouse site, the Hotel Tulane site, The UMPH site, or the Michael Hayes lot in Sobro. The Convention Center site if I am not mistaken already has a contract with Marriott for the existing convention center. I could be wrong, but I doubt the Four Seasons and the Renaissance would share basically the same footprint.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Well, we can move this to the 5%-10% category of actually happening. It is in the rumor mill now that this project was to be developed by Mark Bloom on the old Griffin Plaza site. (Grant Hammond probably got the rendering from Mark Bloom.) Mark is a real estate investor, not a developer. He was an owner of the Nashville Kats franchise, and a minority partner in the Downtown Hilton. Since then he has not developed any projects I am aware of, especially a 70 story tower. It was reported this week that his company IS NOT going to redevelop the Griffin Plaza site at this time. It would have been pretty amazing to see The Four Seasons in The Gulch however. 

 

So with that being said, I had succumb to my optimism, and now I shall retreat back to my ever present pessimism and caution. Nashville is not and will not be a skyscraper city. We don't have the population nor density issues like many other cities.

 

Mobile, AL and Oklahoma City may be exceptions, and their 750 foot and 900 foot towers respectively look out of place and in some ways ridiculous. Nashville is 50 years behind Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and other southern cities with skyscrapers of this magnitude.

 

Nashville is cool large town with great music, cuisine, and artistic vibe. Charlotte may have large skyscrapers, but all they have is NASCAR and Banking. (I am sure they have more, but that is what they are known for.)

 

It's time for me to appreciate what Nashville is: The most bad-ass cool city of it's size in the country! Sorry Austin, you are a cool city too, but Austin does not have the Nashville vibe. (Plus Austin is in Texas! Other comments withheld.)

 

I let my optimism get the best of me. Now its back to reality.

Edited August 1, 2013 by 5th & Main Urbanite

[NashRugger]

I love how the cities you mention that are "50 years ahead of us" are all cities with metros over 6 million and are world cities. I mean anybody would see that as a "no s**t" comment. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Forget it, he's rolling.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

I love how the cities you mention that are "50 years ahead of us" are all cities with metros over 6 million and are world cities. I mean anybody would see that as a "no s**t" comment. 

Nash, I don't think you have ever had anything nice to say about anyone. That is sad. I was simply making a point. You are actually incorrect in your assessment. At one time Nashville had the tallest building in the southeast, and one of the larger populations with more universities per capita than most cities in the country.

 

50 years ago, the cities I mentioned were not world class cities. (Some would argue Miami and Atlanta are, while Dallas and Houston are southern American boomtowns with no real world presence.) 50 years ago, those cities mentioned were in the heat of Jim Crow and the battle for Civil Rights in the south. They were hardly world class cities. Dallas and Houston exploded due to oil, not being world class. Miami exploded due to the beaches, resorts and tourists. Atlanta exploded because of it's rail system. So your No SHi* comment does not hold water, it is simply the inability to make an educated response to a post, and a way to bash me for some reason.

 

Enough of that.

 

Have a blessed day!

Edited August 2, 2013 by 5th & Main Urbanite

[smeagolsfree]

That site was not zoned for a tall boy anyway. Under current zoning, the only places you can build it is KVB and the CBD. Someday it will happen.

[NashRugger]

Nash, I don't think you have ever had anything nice to say about anyone. That is sad. I was simply making a point. You are actually incorrect in your assessment. At one time Nashville had the tallest building in the southeast, and one of the larger populations with more universities per capita than most cities in the country.

 

50 years ago, the cities I mentioned were not world class cities. (Some would argue Miami and Atlanta are, while Dallas and Houston are southern American boomtowns with no real world presence.) 50 years ago, those cities mentioned were in the heat of Jim Crow and the battle for Civil Rights in the south. They were hardly world class cities. Dallas and Houston exploded due to oil, not being world class. Miami exploded due to the beaches, resorts and tourists. Atlanta exploded because of it's rail system. So your No SHi* comment does not hold water, it is simply the inability to make an educated response to a post, and a way to bash me for some reason.

 

Enough of that.

 

Have a blessed day!

Actually I have but your repeated pessimism and own bashing of Nashville has gotten so old that I truly wonder if you yourself have anything positive to say about the city.

 

Yes, 50 years ago blah, blah, blah, ok it's 2013 and realizing what they are now is what you need to look at. You almost exclusively focus on skyscrapers and others have said what needed, they look great from afar but when you get down to street activation I'd rather have a 5-10 story building with excellent street frontage and actual usage beyond 5pm than another office tower. You and ML both sort of dissed the proposal of 505CST because it wasn't over 40 floors or a new tallest and that baffles me. You've got one of the most cutting edge proposals, it doesn't matter if it comes to fruition or not, in Nashville of all places and folks on other sites from across the globe say it looks more like something you'd see in London, Melbourne, or the like. 

 

If I bashed, sorry, but not fully because your outright pessimism is old and is beating a long dead horse.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Actually I have but your repeated pessimism and own bashing of Nashville has gotten so old that I truly wonder if you yourself have anything positive to say about the city.

 

Yes, 50 years ago blah, blah, blah, ok it's 2013 and realizing what they are now is what you need to look at. You almost exclusively focus on skyscrapers and others have said what needed, they look great from afar but when you get down to street activation I'd rather have a 5-10 story building with excellent street frontage and actual usage beyond 5pm than another office tower. You and ML both sort of dissed the proposal of 505CST because it wasn't over 40 floors or a new tallest and that baffles me. You've got one of the most cutting edge proposals, it doesn't matter if it comes to fruition or not, in Nashville of all places and folks on other sites from across the globe say it looks more like something you'd see in London, Melbourne, or the like. 

 

If I bashed, sorry, but not fully because your outright pessimism is old and is beating a long dead horse.

I was kidding, and so was ML. I love 505 CST and Tony and I are friends. Yes, I love the design. My pessimism is actually caution. Why? Because I have lived in this city most of my 50 years, except for school and travel, and I have seen at least 100 proposals never come to fruition. I used to be the cockeyed optimist who wanted everything built, and I was always disappointed. When I lived in Murfreesboro for school, all the city ever talked about was the City Center was going to be the first of at least a half a dozen 15-20 story towers that were going to be built downtown. Murfreesboro was going to rival Nashville, and the skyline was going to be a modern metropolis and on and on. Since 1988, nothing has happened and the 10 story hotel was built out near the mall. I have heard it all, so I get pessimistic and even upset with developers who promise the world and deliver an anthill instead.

 

My apologies for perceived pessimism and negativism, but when I have seen other cities fly right by us in a lot of ways, it gets to be too much. Chattanooga did a better job with their riverfront than we have done, and Knoxville has two downtown movies theaters and a new Federal Courthouse of which we did not get. Memphis has 30,000 living in their downtown core. We have maybe 5000? After the hurricane, downtown Mobile Alabama did some amazing things.

 

So yes it gets disappointing when we have so many regulations that prevent this or that. It's depressing to see miles of surface parking lots in Nashville that could have buildings on them if the Historical (Hysterical) Commission and others had not put a stop to them. It's a shame we have so many height restrictions, because sometimes taller buildings lead to a mass of low rise buildings being built around them.

 

You will meet no-one, especially if you came to a meet, that is more passionate about Nashville than myself. Sometimes my pessimism and negativism is my disappointment clouded in anger of what we could be, and what was lost. I love this city, and sometimes the one's you love disappoint you.

 

Best, 

 

John