5th & Broadway | 501 Commerce | NMAAM | 34 story apt, 26 story office, + 183,000 sq. ft. of Retail

[Paramount747]

The Renaissance is connected and has use of the ballrooms. It is my understanding going back to when I worked there, the ballroom space is part of the hotel and will not be razed with the rest of the convention center. The hotel has too many large events in that space to raze it.

[UTgrad09]

The Renaissance is connected and has use of the ballrooms. It is my understanding going back to when I worked there, the ballroom space is part of the hotel and will not be razed with the rest of the convention center. The hotel has too many large events in that space to raze it.

 

That is my understanding as well. I'm also guessing that the new development will retain the connection to the Renaissance as well (via the same corridor that leads to the old CC and current ballrooms). 

[chelovek]

The Renaissance is connected and has use of the ballrooms. It is my understanding going back to when I worked there, the ballroom space is part of the hotel and will not be razed with the rest of the convention center. The hotel has too many large events in that space to raze it.

 

The ledger has a piece about this project in their current issue. Apparently the winning design had an edge because it included upgrades to the existing ballroom space for the hotel. Says Charlie Starks, CEO of convention center authority:

 

 

 

But the layout they presented also had a good feel to it, including an intriguing way to work with the Renaissance to repurpose the space they currently lease from the city and make it a much better working arrangement for the hotel. Some proposals just left that meeting space intact, not really dressing that up at all, and this took the whole site and made it work better for the hotel.

 

The ledger piece also includes an interior rendering of the retail component, which IMO looks like a crappy 80's mall and makes me puke in my mouth a little bit. WTF convention center authority? I can't believe that in 2014 architects are still turning buildings inward like this. Have these people learned nothing about the importance of a vibrant streetscape? My opinion of this project would instantly become positive if they turned this crappy courtyard inside out and activated the street with it.

 

Edited January 26, 2014 by chelovek

[BnaBreaker]

Wow, that looks...truly terrible.  And you know what, I wouldn't really have a problem with the sort of 'open-air urban shopping mall' concept, if there were also street entrances for stores lining the street as well, but it really does appear to be a completely inward facing retail fortress that gives pedestrians zero interest or incentive to keep on walking.

Edited January 26, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[titanhog]

If the exterior, along Broad and 5th, had the look of the "inside"...maybe this wouldn't be as bad.  

[TMcKay9]

Architects hanging on to past failed concepts need to hang up their license!  These renders almost make me mad.

[UTgrad09]

You can take the developer out of the Cool Springs, but you can't take the Cool Springs out of the developer.

[volsfanwill]

looks like some of the strip malls in gatlingburg 

[BnaBreaker]

looks like some of the strip malls in gatlingburg 

 

...and, also like Gatlinburg, as unsuccessful as this thing will probably be, you'll probably be able to find nothing but knife stores, and specialty popcorn shops, and cheap trinket huts inside.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The ledger piece also includes an interior rendering of the retail component, which IMO looks like a crappy 80's mall and makes me puke in my mouth a little bit. WTF convention center authority? I can't believe that in 2014 architects are still turning buildings inward like this. Have these people learned nothing about the importance of a vibrant streetscape? My opinion of this project would instantly become positive if they turned this crappy courtyard inside out and activated the street with it.

 

Oh, dear. Even worse is that the skyscraper above looks like a giant floating garage. Dreadful.

[BnaBreaker]

You can take the developer out of the Cool Springs, but you can't take the Cool Springs out of the developer.

 

It really is a shame that we couldn't get an experienced developer with a nationwide reputation for doing good work in an urban setting.  I'm all about supporting our local businesses and all, but why we decided to choose a Franklin based developer who's portfolio consists mostly of strip mall work in local suburbia to develop one of the prime urban swaths of land in the city is beyond me.  I mean, you can really tell that they tried hard on this proposal, so I guess you gotta give them that.  Unfortunately, you can also really tell that they had no idea what they were doing.

[henburg]

This is clearly an unpopular opinion, but I think that the interior rendering looks pretty nice. The orientation is certainly not preferred, and I definitely have a few issues with the appearance of the base, but I don't really understand all of the backlash its getting right now. Other than having a mall-like base, there isn't anything suburban, much less Gatlinburg-ish about it. 

 

It wasn't too long ago that everybody was reminiscing the Church Street Center and wanting a new downtown mall, and this project seems to be providing exactly that, yet now everybody is completely trashing it. If you look in the original rendering a street entrance is provided to the courtyard, and while it could be more open, it's not as isolated as everybody is making it out to be. 

[BnaBreaker]

This is clearly an unpopular opinion, but I think that the interior rendering looks pretty nice. The orientation is certainly not preferred, and I definitely have a few issues with the appearance of the base, but I don't really understand all of the backlash its getting right now. Other than having a mall-like base, there isn't anything suburban, much less Gatlinburg-ish about it. 

 

It wasn't too long ago that everybody was reminiscing the Church Street Center and wanting a new downtown mall, and this project seems to be providing exactly that, yet now everybody is completely trashing it. If you look in the original rendering a street entrance is provided to the courtyard, and while it could be more open, it's not as isolated as everybody is making it out to be. 

 

Like I said before, I personally have no issue with a large retail and entertainment complex being put here.  Actually, I quite like the idea.  What I have a problem with is the fact that aside from the one entrance (which, of course it would have, because people obviously have to have a way to get inside), the outside walls of this expansive project appear to be completely blank, which is a massive no-no, and a common characteristic of most "urban" malls that have failed.  I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my major issue with it. 

[UTgrad09]

This is clearly an unpopular opinion, but I think that the interior rendering looks pretty nice. The orientation is certainly not preferred, and I definitely have a few issues with the appearance of the base, but I don't really understand all of the backlash its getting right now. Other than having a mall-like base, there isn't anything suburban, much less Gatlinburg-ish about it. 

 

It wasn't too long ago that everybody was reminiscing the Church Street Center and wanting a new downtown mall, and this project seems to be providing exactly that, yet now everybody is completely trashing it. If you look in the original rendering a street entrance is provided to the courtyard, and while it could be more open, it's not as isolated as everybody is making it out to be. 

 

I think the issue with it being 'suburban' has to do with it having a very 'mall-like' look to it. Malls are on their way out. Even in the burbs, they are building the outdoor model (some of which are just glorified strip malls, but others try to incorporate more of a 'urban village' look). This is pretty much a throwback design to the 80s and 90s. The only thing it lacks is a glass roof.

 

I think people on this board are very happy that the proposal contains a lot of retail, but it is the way the retail is laid out that is the complaint. It would be better if most of the retail is outward facing, towards Broadway and 5th, to fit in with the rest of downtown. 

 

I am not opposed to a development having some interior retail, but the 3 tiered mall design is unbelievably dated, and shows that those who proposed it are not very keen on the market forces right now.

 

I know all of us seem to be taking turns whacking the pinata here, but this is one of those proposals where it is well-deserved, IMO. No part of that proposal looks like 2010s urban Nashville should look. 

[dmillsphoto]

Exactly, Kev. People here aren't opposed to the concept. Speaking for myself, I think the concept is great. The execution in the vision, however, is, well, gross. Every bit of it. The building down to the street.

[MLBrumby]

The thing I don't understand is how the rather attractive proposal for the Hyatt hotel met such resistance from historic preservationists... while this eyesore doesn't get one complaint.   Is it because it will be replacing an eyesore?   If so, then that's not consistent with their complaint about the Trail West building et. al.   Ann Reynolds (if still the Metro Historic chair) is really ineffective.  She always seems to be too little, too late....and of course, inconsistent.

[henburg]

Thanks for the clarification everyone, you all make great points. I definitely agree that the execution isn't perfect, and if the outside looked like the inside then I would like this project exponentially better. Personally, I'm a lot more dissapointed in the architect than Emery. At the very least, if the design goes as is then I believe that this would be a very successful project that would cater to a totally unprovided service in our downtown, and it would still activate the street much better than the current convention center ever did. 

Edited January 26, 2014 by henburg

[CenterHill]

The thing I don't understand is how the rather attractive proposal for the Hyatt hotel met such resistance from historic preservationists... while this eyesore doesn't get one complaint.   Is it because it will be replacing an eyesore?   If so, then that's not consistent with their complaint about the Trail West building et. al.   Ann Reynolds (if still the Metro Historic chair) is really ineffective.  She always seems to be too little, too late....and of course, inconsistent.

 

I don't think the former convention center site is in the Broadway historic overlay (and btw Ann Roberts retired 6 yrs ago as director of the MHC).    To my knowledge, there is no historic or conservation overlay that applies to the old CC property.    That said, there is a Downtown Community Plan that includes a number of specific guidelines/recommendations (not actual zoning ordinances) for the "Upper Broadway District" that inclues the former convention center.  The community plan recommends that infill construction "complement and not threaten the integrity" of the historic structures in the area along with other guidelines.     The Community Plan seems to have been largely ignored by the selection committee in choosing the Emery proposal.    But as we saw from the selection criteria, design elements were weighted very lightly overall, which is becoming painfully obvious.  

 

I'm, frankly, stunned by those renderings of the multi-level open air shopping mall.   I can't believe we're even considering going there.   Salt in the wound of the exterior block-long blank walls.    THIS CITY DESERVES SO MUCH BETTER! 

[Paramount747]

I don't think the former convention center site is in the Broadway historic overlay (and btw Ann Roberts retired 6 yrs ago as director of the MHC).    To my knowledge, there is no historic or conservation overlay that applies to the old CC property.    That said, there is a Downtown Community Plan that includes a number of specific guidelines/recommendations (not actual zoning ordinances) for the "Upper Broadway District" that inclues the former convention center.  The community plan recommends that infill construction "complement and not threaten the integrity" of the historic structures in the area along with other guidelines.     The Community Plan seems to have been largely ignored by the selection committee in choosing the Emery proposal.    But as we saw from the selection criteria, design elements were weighted very lightly overall, which is becoming painfully obvious.  

 

I'm, frankly, stunned by those renderings of the multi-level open air shopping mall.   I can't believe we're even considering going there.   Salt in the wound of the exterior block-long blank walls.    THIS CITY DESERVES SO MUCH BETTER! 

It is very funny that there are only certain projects that are worthy of public input and public forums. The AMP has a multitude of meetings as did the riverfront redevelopment plan, but this project does not? I find that odd.

[chelovek]

It is very funny that there are only certain projects that are worthy of public input and public forums. The AMP has a multitude of meetings as did the riverfront redevelopment plan, but this project does not? I find that odd.

 

Its because the Convention Center Authority is a quasigovernmental entity that doesn't have to play by the normal rules. They have quite a bit of power and not a lot of scrutiny.

[Paramount747]

I wonder how many architects and designers they have in the group, and do they really know what they are talking about? Are these the best minds to determine a project that may be around 50-100 years? The old convention center lasted about 25 years. Not very long for an expensive capital project. At least the Renaissance is not going anywhere.

[vinemp]

Wow. How did the REI design get the shaft? Surely, the NMAAM could be included, even in this fantasy version. (I mean, I can already see the H&M on the 5th Ave. corner.) 

 

Whatever the project, that entire end of Broadway would do so well to be opened up at the street level. Windows! Lights! People!

[ariesjow]

I came across this blog that appears to have some revised renderings for the old Nashville Convention Center redevelopment. No rendering of the full tower, but it looks like a cleaner design judging from the bottom portion. 

 

 

[MidTenn1]

Yes, this would be a big change.

 

However, the originally released rendering (below) is still posted on the Gresham Smith web site. The blog picture may have been an earlier proposal.

 

 

The rendering you found involves some unusual (costly) construction as it seems to look a lot like the James K. Polk State Office Building  which is supported above the Performing Arts Center through a central tower with a top down cable support system. Compare. 

 

 

(from Wikipedia)

 

 

Perhaps with a House of Blues auditorium going in, maybe the designers were faced with similar challenges. It would be interesting to see which rendering is the latest.

[smeagolsfree]

A little news for the old CC site in the NBJ today. There are several versions of the project being considered up to a 5oo million dollar project.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/real-estate/2014/08/price-tag-for-convention-center-site-rising.html