Federal Courthouse, 6 & 8 stories, 276,000 sq. ft.,

[fieldmarshaldj]

1 hour ago, markhollin said:

Lemme check... Yup, still garbage.

[BnaBreaker]

So when this is done the design, which looked outdated by 28 years when it was first released, will be 28 years old. So exciting!

Edited September 21, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[wmaddbb2018]

So if it opens in 2021, when would it break ground?  Mid 2018?

[Nashtitans]

all this time for this? lol

[markhollin]

From today's Nashville Post:

The federal government is targeting an early 2021 opening for its downtown Nashville courthouse, Nashville Business Journal reports.

Quoting U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger, NBJ reports demolition looms for a vacant five-story office building located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Eighth Avenue South. Environmental sample work is slated for Sept. 23, NBJ reports. A parking garage sitting within the footprint also will need razing.

The U.S. General Services Administration, which is overseeing the project, will request bids for various work and is hoping to award the design and construction contracts next year, according to NBJ.

The historic Berger Building that fronts Eighth will remain.

The project is expected to carry a price tag of $167.4 million.
 

Sounds as if the design is not finalized.  Would seem after all these years that there might be some significant modifications, if not out-and-out redesign. 

[bmkTN]

Yeah I noticed that too.  Interesting.

6 minutes ago, markhollin said:

 

Sounds as if the design is not finalized.  Would seem after all these years that there might be some significant modifications, if not out-and-out redesign. 

 

[bhibbs]

[bmkTN]

^^^^^ Awesome!!

Edited September 21, 2016 by bmkTN

[titanhog]

Fingers, toes and eyes crossed...hoping for something more like this...

[donNdonelson2]

I heard the new design would be inspired by this classical/modern mixup.

 

(oh please, all that is holy, don't let it be any worse than what we've seen in previous proposals!)

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by donNdonelson2
Remove double post of text

[markhollin]

More info from Tennessean: "Katmai Support Services of Smyrna will handle demolition services under the roughly $1.8 million contract that the U.S. General Services Administration announced on Wednesday." (Markhollin: I've heard this will start very soon).

"A joint venture of Michael Graves and Associates Inc. and Thomas Miller & Partners LLC are handling design services for the new U.S. Courthouse project under a $3.2 million contract that was awarded in July.  Upon completion of concept design by March, the General Services Administration will conduct a competition to award a design-build contract with that winner to complete the design and construction."

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/09/21/demolition-make-way-194m-new-nashville-federal-courthouse/90779072/

[titanhog]

4 hours ago, markhollin said:

More info from Tennessean: "Katmai Support Services of Smyrna will handle demolition services under the roughly $1.8 million contract that the U.S. General Services Administration announced on Wednesday." (Markhollin: I've heard this will start very soon).

"A joint venture of Michael Graves and Associates Inc. and Thomas Miller & Partners LLC are handling design services for the new U.S. Courthouse project under a $3.2 million contract that was awarded in July.  Upon completion of concept design by March, the General Services Administration will conduct a competition to award a design-build contract with that winner to complete the design and construction."

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/09/21/demolition-make-way-194m-new-nashville-federal-courthouse/90779072/

So...sounds like it could be 100% different than the current render?

[Nashtitans]

3 minutes ago, titanhog said:

So...sounds like it could be 100% different than the current render?

Nashville finally doing something right architecturally.

[AUNash]

I'm so excited we get a different design. Right now, that block is a little bit out-of-sight-out-of-mind. But whatever gets built there is going to make a big impact. With the James Robertson being redone, the Lifeway redevelopment, and the Commerce Street side of the convention center a couple of blocks down, this is an important site. I know there has been a school of thought that the site needs a much more active commercial presence, but I think we are going to end up with lots of activity in the area through those other developments, and I appreciate the contribution to the urban fabric that a graceful public building can have. Think about the old post office, the customs house, & the Davidson Co Courthouse. This block has the capacity to be something similarly impactful ... If we end up with a better, new design. Fingers crossed!

[MidTenn1]

9 hours ago, markhollin said:

"A joint venture of Michael Graves and Associates Inc. and Thomas Miller & Partners LLC are handling design services for the new U.S. Courthouse project under a $3.2 million contract that was awarded in July.  Upon completion of concept design by March, the General Services Administration will conduct a competition to award a design-build contract with that winner to complete the design and construction."
 

Michael Graves (deceased) was the original designer, so it sounds to me like the firm he founded may not necessarily stray too far from one of the three rendered iterations revealed over the past few years. The word 'design' has several applications in the construction world including connection with phrases such as architectural design, engineering design, and construction design (preparation of critical path charts, scheduling of construction phases, etc.).  So, design-build may mean in this case that the floor plans, elevations and some materials are presented and the builder decides how best to schedule and build the structural aspects of the building per general specifications. Thomas Miller may be only the local architects assigned with the construction management aspects of the project (i.e. bidding, bid documents, inspection, payments, plans changes, etc.).

[PruneTracy]

8 hours ago, PHofKS said:

Michael Graves (deceased) was the original designer, so it sounds to me like the firm he founded may not necessarily stray too far from one of the three rendered iterations revealed over the past few years. The word 'design' has several applications in the construction world including connection with phrases such as architectural design, engineering design, and construction design (preparation of critical path charts, scheduling of construction phases, etc.).  So, design-build may mean in this case that the floor plans, elevations and some materials are presented and the builder decides how best to schedule and build the structural aspects of the building per general specifications. Thomas Miller may be only the local architects assigned with the construction management aspects of the project (i.e. bidding, bid documents, inspection, payments, plans changes, etc.).

Here's the RFP (the GSA sole-sourced it, so no detailed scope of work):

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=bff9a91871a175315ea79689b129bc4f

It sounds like the team is serving as a bridging architect so it's entirely possible the design-build teams come out with a completely different design (in terms of the architectural look of the building; massing, orientation, space planning, etc. will be determined by the bridging architect). On the other hand this procurement method implies GSA is going to try to do it on the cheap so I wouldn't expect any miracles.

[Guest]

I agree there will be no architectural wonder created. I do have a question, why does "this procurement method"  lead you to conclude they will do the project on the cheap? Does the government not normally use this method? I saw where the project cost is now close to $200,000,000.... I hope that can buy a building with some architectural credibility. - Thanks

 

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

Here's the RFP (the GSA sole-sourced it, so no detailed scope of work):

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=bff9a91871a175315ea79689b129bc4f

It sounds like the team is serving as a bridging architect so it's entirely possible the design-build teams come out with a completely different design (in terms of the architectural look of the building; massing, orientation, space planning, etc. will be determined by the bridging architect). On the other hand this procurement method implies GSA is going to try to do it on the cheap so I wouldn't expect any miracles.

 

[PruneTracy]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

I do have a question, why does "this procurement method"  lead you to conclude they will do the project on the cheap? Does the government not normally use this method?

In the past, nearly all large-scale construction projects, particularly of the government variety, were design-bid-build or design-tender. What happens is an owner secures an architect/engineer and has them design the project all the way through, produce all the drawings, specs, and other construction documents to completion. The architect/engineer then hands the documents to the owner, and the owner secures a construction firm to build the project according to the documents. The architect/engineer is usually around to make minor revisions, clarify things, etc. but is usually not redesigning after submitting the final documents to the owner.

The new hotness is to get all members of the project team working together all the way through the planning, design, and construction of the project. For design-build, for example, the owner advertises the project and contractors, architects, and engineers will form joint ventures to develop a preliminary design for the project in response to the owner's advertisement requirements. The owner then chooses from those preliminary designs, usually on the basis of the lowest bid. TDOT used this most recently for the Interstate 40 widening in Wilson County. There are other arrangements too, like Fast Fix 8, which was CM/GC. But the idea is to have the contractors on board during the design process to look for ways to save money.

Don't misunderstand me, this is a good way to get project costs down, because it incentivizes value engineering by the teams and gets the owner away from construction methods that may be inefficient or overly costly. What I was getting at is that unless the GSA has the bridging architect really clamp down the details of the building, you'll see contractor teams come in with designs that are intended to save money, not necessarily look good. Of course, given the current state of the design that may not be a bad thing.

[markhollin]

From today's Tennessean:

"Nashville's planned new federal courthouse is expected to rise five stories tall and occupy roughly 339,000 square feet of space, according to the U.S. General Services Administration. A former state office building at 719 Church St. is expected to be demolished between Dec. 26 and Jan. 13 to make way for the $194 million project. The General Services Administration recently awarded Katmai Support Services a roughly $1.8 million demolition services contract. Concept design should be completed in March for the courthouse building, which is expected to be completed in spring 2021."

Since the ceilings in courtrooms are normally around 16-20 feet in height, it would be safe to say that this will appear to be more like 10 stories tall.  The previous rendering had it at about 6 stories, and roughly 400,000 sq. ft., on top of a garage pedestal of sorts.  My guess is there are going to be some revisions, if not complete overhaul, of the design.

This is the former TennCare Building at 719 Church Street that will demolished very soon, along with the old parking garage facing 7th Avenue:

 

[Nashtitans]

^damn thats an ugly building. Hope the courthouse actually gets a good design (doubt it knowing the track record of this city) but i still hold hope.

 

And 2021?? 5 years of construction, is that needed for a 5 story building?

Edited September 30, 2016 by Nashtitans

[kc8501]

2 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

^damn thats an ugly building. Hope the courthouse actually gets a good design (doubt it knowing the track record of this city) but i still hold hope.

 

And 2021?? 5 years of construction, is that needed for a 5 story building?

It is when you're talking about the government doing something! 

[smeagolsfree]

Started talking about it some 20 years ago, Took 15 years to purchase the land and demo started last year. Guess five years is on the fast track.

[Neigeville2]

12 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

^damn thats an ugly building...

Actually the two sides that face the street have a rather handsome modernist facade, brutal but with hints of classicism in the heavy (granite?) base, columnar ornamentation and fenestrated crown, like fascist architecture.  It's like Mussolini's version of the DMV.  One can easily imagine red black and white swastikas embedded at the tops of the outer columns.

[rookzie]

43 minutes ago, Neigeville2 said:

Actually the two sides that face the street have a rather handsome modernist facade, brutal but with hints of classicism in the heavy (granite?) base, columnar ornamentation and fenestrated crown, like fascist architecture.  It's like Mussolini's version of the DMV.  One can easily imagine red black and white swastikas embedded at the tops of the outer columns.

I'm thinking that the base actually might be terrazzo slab tiles, rather than granite.  When I walked by the thing a few years ago, before the scaffolding got erected, the finish gave me the impression of a milled and polished cementitious composite.  And BTW, I believe that the scaffolding was put up on the decorative sides of the buildings facing Church St. and Rosa Parks Blvd., because at least one of those tiles became totally separated from the rusted metal lath and any other clad-anchoring and eventually fell to the sidewalk in the not-too-distant past.  I don't believe that anyone got hurt though.  That's likely the only reason that the protection would been applied when it was.

Edited October 1, 2016 by rookzie

[rookzie]

Of course, back during the first half of last century, Memphis had been a much larger commercial and industrial base scale than had Nashville, as this Forum has discussed in the past.  Accordingly, the Sears, Roebuck, and Company had developed a much larger and unmistakably more grand structure in Memphis, compared to Church Street building in Nashville, which Sears had only leased as part of a 20-year contract by its builder, until it occupied its then-new department store in 1956 at LaFayette St. and Seventh Ave South.  Memphis and Nashville each had entirely purposes for their respective Sears facility.  While Nashville's Sears of was simply a retail store, in contrast, the Memphis operation (Sears Crosstown Distribution Center) was conceived as both a catalog order plant and retail store.

While not really relevant to this discussion, and without too much digression from the topic on-hand, the Memphis former Sears, which the city would have razed as late as 10 years ago, had the city not been so cash-strapped, fortunately and finally appears to be undergoing a massive, dramatic  re-purposing and redevelopment as a mixed-use urban village called "Crosstown Concourse", which also is to include a YMCA - Health Center partnership, as well as a 450-seat theater serving as home for the Memphis Symphony Orchestra. 

There actually is no fair comparison between the former Sears of Nashville and Memphis, and then I myself certainly will not miss the eyesore on Church St., which indeed has had structural (sinking foundation) issues for decades.

Former Sears Crosstown distribution center of Memphis, being transformed into "Crosstown Concourse"

Edited October 1, 2016 by rookzie