Bridgestone HQ 30 stories - 460' | Retail.U/C

[urbanplanet17]

7 hours ago, Skyscrapergeek said:

I don't know the actual height; however, my guess is 415'ish.  There is too much visual evidence combined with google earth elevations to rule out Bridgestone being 3-4 stories taller than Pinacle.  We've seen the stacking plan for Pinacle which shows it at 417'.  I won't believe Bridgestone is 460' unless someone shows me  construction docs or a stacking plan.  It's more likely that some reporter (we all know how accurate Nashville reporters are, WW notwithstanding) misunderstood when someone said 416' or it's 460' including the underground parking.  Another example right here on UP, 505 is not 545' as written in the thread title.  SSP lists it at 550'. The stacking plan shows 524'.  Which leads to 5/3 clearly not being 490' when compared to 505 and L&C which are all at the same elevation approximately.  I would love to have a drone company fly around and check the heights of all the major buildings downtown but hey, it's only height right?

Fair points, especially about the parking. Didn't consider that.

Ultimately though, as you said, it's pulling hairs. At least from what I can tell, Bridgestone is roughly neck and neck with the Pinnacle in height. At least they're not Hampton Inns or surface lots like before.

 

[donNdonelson2]

From WKRN's Adventure Science Center webcam Bridgestone appears slightly taller than Pinnacle, but that may be due to it being slightly closer to the camera. There would certainly appear to be little actual difference in height.

[Skyscrapergeek]

3 hours ago, urbanplanet17 said:

Fair points, especially about the parking. Didn't consider that.

Ultimately though, as you said, it's pulling hairs. At least from what I can tell, Bridgestone is roughly neck and neck with the Pinnacle in height. At least they're not Hampton Inns or surface lots like before.

 

Exactly, I totally agree, especially about your last comment and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Bridgestone being whatever height it is...ok well...I wish it were much taller  but that's beside the point.  I would just appreciate some accuracy.  Pet peeve thing but ultimately not the most important aspect in the grand scheme unless we're talking design and proportion and then it's the most important thing. 

[smeagolsfree]

According to Emporis, Encore is 267'. We need a math genius to figure this out. Well, maybe just an engineer.

[bhibbs]

8 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

According to Emporis, Encore is 267'. We need a math genius to figure this out. Well, maybe just an engineer.

I have a long tape measure, ill head down there tomorrow and report back!

[MidTenn1]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

According to Emporis, Encore is 267'. We need a math genius to figure this out. Well, maybe just an engineer.

There are usually plans filed with Metro Planning/Codes that have that detailed information. It would be tough to retrieve, I would think. I haven't done it in years decades.

[Skyscrapergeek]

I was thinking about taking John and a bucket of rocks to the top of each building and applying some good ol' fashioned Newton/Galileo. 

[PruneTracy]

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

According to Emporis, Encore is 267'. We need a math genius to figure this out. Well, maybe just an engineer.

Anyone have a transit laying around? Find a benchmark, angle to the top + distance to building + trigonometry = building height.

I'm tired of having these arguments about building height. I want to graduate to having arguments about what architectural elements define "tallest".

[bigeasy]

26 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

Anyone have a transit laying around? Find a benchmark, angle to the top + distance to building + trigonometry = building height.

I'm tired of having these arguments about building height. I want to graduate to having arguments about what architectural elements define "tallest".

Nashville doesn't allow anything that has the word transit in it.

[timmay143]

10 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Anyone have a transit laying around?

Yeah, I think there is one called the Amp.

[TNinVB]

On 7/21/2017 at 1:44 AM, titanhog said:

I agree with you.  Just like I don't think the JWM is going to be only 385'.  With the number or floors, including a 3-story crown and really tall floors below, it has to be over 400'.  Don't think we can always trust the numbers thrown out there.

Isn't the JWM also on one of the highest elevations downtown? I thought I read that somewhere. 

[Skyscrapergeek]

Elevations (give or take where you place the cursor on google earth).  I placed it at street level in front of the main entrance to the building

JWM - 482'

Bridgestone - 419'

Pinacle - 420'

505 - 504'

5/3 - 505'

AT&T - 442'

 

[bellinibean]

Height not withstanding, I really think this turned out to be a good looking building.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim29tn]

2 hours ago, bellinibean said:

Height not withstanding, I really think this turned out to be a good looking building.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, but this definitely should have been the company that broke at least 700' and absolutely had the money to do it. Oh well, still a good looking building. 

[titanhog]

^^Still wish they'd have that burnt-orange color in the gap, like in the original render.

[memphian]

It's underwhelming to me but I didn't pay for it so... here's to infill and [hopefully] street activation!

[japan]

4 hours ago, Tim29tn said:

I agree, but this definitely should have been the company that broke at least 700' and absolutely had the money to do it. Oh well, still a good looking building. 

The Bridgestone Americas CEO was forced to retire over the cost of this building. Doubt they would have been up for spending more money on height. 

[mirydi]

My guess for the LED lights being so dim is due to the Encore tower next door. They probably anticipated a lot of whining from the residents if they were too bright. 

[Tim29tn]

8 hours ago, mirydi said:

My guess for the LED lights being so dim is due to the Encore tower next door. They probably anticipated a lot of whining from the residents if they were too bright. 

That's what blackout shades are for.

[jmtunafish]

Considering Bridgestone's previous HQ building was a mid-rise out by the airport, this is a definite improvement.

[Guest]

The Bridgestone Americas CEO was forced to retire over the cost of this building. Doubt they would have been up for spending more money on height. 

They knew what the building would cost. It's been the same design since the beginning.

Are you certain this is true? I find this doubtful. There were many other factors at play.

[japan]

3 hours ago, NoChesterHester said:

 

They knew what the building would cost. It's been the same design since the beginning.

Are you certain this is true? I find this doubtful. There were many other factors at play.

 

That was the word from some people who work in corporate.  Cost coupled with it not being big enough.

[bigeasy]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:49 PM, japan said:

That was the word from some people who work in corporate.  Cost coupled with it not being big enough.

I talked to a current employee about this Saturday night. He pretty much said the same thing, but more so on the not being big enough. From what he said, they didn't' knowingly build it too small, but it was caused more by them having the wrong headcount. No clue how you screw that piece up. He mentioned that the CEO flew overseas to try and get more money once he realized his mistake, but by then it was too late to make the adjustments.

He almost mentioned his first day in the new building is Sept 5. They have to be out of the parking garage by 7pm on weekdays, and like 11 or 1pm on Saturday or they will be charged for parking. They also don't have enough spots for parking in the building, so they are leasing space at MCC. He also said that people are discussing the usage of the Music City Star, and that there is capacity concern for the last train that leaves at 5:45.

 

[TNinVB]

So basically we could have had a new tallest? Not really sure I would have wanted it to be this building in it's current design. 

[BnaBreaker]

10 hours ago, bigeasy said:

I talked to a current employee about this Saturday night. He pretty much said the same thing, but more so on the not being big enough. From what he said, they didn't' knowingly build it too small, but it was caused more by them having the wrong headcount. No clue how you screw that piece up. He mentioned that the CEO flew overseas to try and get more money once he realized his mistake, but by then it was too late to make the adjustments.

He almost mentioned his first day in the new building is Sept 5. They have to be out of the parking garage by 7pm on weekdays, and like 11 or 1pm on Saturday or they will be charged for parking. They also don't have enough spots for parking in the building, so they are leasing space at MCC. He also said that people are discussing the usage of the Music City Star, and that there is capacity concern for the last train that leaves at 5:45.

 

Pardon my French, but holy sh*t man, it really does sometimes feel like the gods themselves don't want us to get taller buildings.  It seems as though there is always some bizarre, only-in-Nashville, one-in-a-million type thing that happens to prevent us from cracking that 550-600 FT ceiling whether it's this or the economic downturn happening exactly when it did almost to the day to prevent us from getting Signature Tower, or other things.  We could've perhaps had a new tallest in Bridgestone, but the leadership at one of the largest companies in the world suddenly forgot how to count.  YOU CAN'T WRITE THIS STUFF MAN!!!!  

Edited July 31, 2017 by BnaBreaker