Jump to content

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


MidTenn1

Recommended Posts


15 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Don't get me started on this one as I am already in a foul mood today, but Hinton is a little late in the game to want a design change. Paying tribute to the Ryman is something I care little for. If a few had  the chance in the early 70s, mainly Roy Acuff, the Ryman would be a pile of rubble a long time ago. Don't get me wrong, it is a great building and glad they saved it, but its like wanting the World Trade Center to pay homage to St Patrick's Cathedral in my book.

Best way to screw a project up is to get 40 Council people involved with the Mayor and trying to make a new deal after you have approved the first one. It is the fault of the NMAAM board members for wanting more space on one floor. Metro gov is a major hurdle in itself, which includes Planning and MDHA. If Metro has surplus property from now on, they just need to sale at market price and forfeit their say in the matter.

This is the never ending complaint in this city coming ultimately ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hinton knows this project is at its last extension, and he is trying to do everything he can to make the project go to another developer, given him an opportunity to be hired by the new developer. 

Where was this opposition previously? It's obvious what his intentions are, and he's hiding them with this Ryman "disrespect"

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure as hell hope they don't change the design at this late hour, though I don't necessarily mind the plaza alteration.  It is bizarre though that this is just now coming up.  The Ryman has existed for decades upon decades without some sort of memorial plaza around it to draw attention to it, and it's still held in high regard, so why the sudden need?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, titanhog said:

This is what you get when the city (and taxpayers) still have a say about a development.  As Smeagols said, it would have been better if the city had just sold the land at market value and let a developer(s) build what they want.

Do others cities have a group like the mdha? I see other cities (especially our peer cities) getting things built with no hassle, but we gotta go through height limits, the mdha, nimbys, etc all that bs.

 

Edited by Nashtitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nashtitans said:

Do others cities have a group like the mdha? I see other cities (especially our peer cities) getting things built with no hassle, but we gotta go through height limits, the mdha, nimbys, etc all that bs.

 

I thought Nashville was rather lax once some deregulation happened in could be built around downtown. A lot of midwestern cities have huge nimby problems; places like Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati have a hard time developing because of neighborhood associations. This info is from an article written by a visitor to Nashville who couldn't help but notice the growth and the different feel Nashville has as opposed to cities of similar size in the midwest.It was just from his personal observations, so it may not be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I think it is accurate.  Lots of places make it much harder to build than Nashville.  In a sense, I think we are lucky that our city got hit so hard by urban renewal in the mid-twentieth century (although I miss all the brick mansions with their oversize wood ornamentation).  Look at what happened to City Lights, having to reduce height due to a few old houses being nearby.  If we'd preserved the old houses that'd be happening everywhere.  

In other cities the fine old houses have been bought up by young bourgeois couples who are militantly anti-development to protect "the neighborhood" (they claim, but really all they care about is their property values.  It's so much nicer to make money by owning an appreciating asset rather than by doing something of value).  Cities like Santa Barbara are being turned into pristine museums rather than living cities, like Venice (Italy, not Venice CA). I hope that never happens to Nashville. 

Edited by Neigeville2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Neigeville2 said:

^I think it is accurate.  Lots of places make it much harder to build than Nashville.  In a sense, I think we are lucky that our city got hit so hard by urban renewal in the mid-twentieth century (although I miss all the brick mansions with their oversize wood ornamentation).  Look at what happened to City Lights, having to reduce height due to a few old houses being nearby.  If we'd preserved the old houses that'd be happening everywhere.  

In other cities the fine old houses have been bought up by young bourgeois couples who are militantly anti-development to protect "the neighborhood" (they claim, but really all they care about is their property values.  It's so much nicer to make money by owning an appreciating asset rather than by doing something of value).  Cities like Santa Barbara are being turned into pristine museums rather than living cities, like Venice (Italy, not Venice CA). I hope that never happens to Nashville. 

I don't see why a reduction in height for a project like City Lights is a bad thing; it's not like the height it had would be something significant. Historically, culturally and architecturally, those brick mansions will contribute much more to Nashville's urban integrity that 12 floors or brick, EIFS and stucco. Regardless of occupation or general interests, people are typically drawn to areas that give them something they aren't used to; given that urban renewal and tacky architecture has prevailed in our country, people usually are drawn to historic structures and places when they travel. 

In those other cities, those houses which are homes to the mega rich that are often appraised at anywhere from $750k to well into the millions actually do quite well for a community. Most municipalities aren't going to ignore crime, infrastructure and quality of life around these individuals (so that automatically increases the livability and walk-ability factors in the area) and they introduce additional homeowners to an urban area. In many cases, they are trying to protect the neighborhood; many of those houses in various cities are located within historic districts or have strict zoning overlays which not only protect existing structures, but also regulate new construction. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, markhollin said:

Metro Council demands answers from Emery about Music Museum with deadline looming:

Councilman Cooper says that the Museum has a disadvantage in negotiating with Pat Emery, so the Council has to step in on their behalf. Has someone from the Museum's leadership confided in the Council that they were pressured by the developer to accept the Fifth Avenue location? If so, what is the NMAAM's motive in announcing publicly that they agree with the location?

I agree with @ruraljuror. This is a hit job. Someone wants Emery to miss his last extension deadline and put his agreement with Metro in default, and not because the design and/or the location of the NMAAM are inadequate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

Councilman Cooper says that the Museum has a disadvantage in negotiating with Pat Emery, so the Council has to step in on their behalf. Has someone from the Museum's leadership confided in the Council that they were pressured by the developer to accept the Fifth Avenue location? If so, what is the NMAAM's motive in announcing publicly that they agree with the location?

I agree with @ruraljuror. This is a hit job. Someone wants Emery to miss his last extension deadline and put his agreement with Metro in default, and not because the design and/or the location of the NMAAM are inadequate.

Yep.  Something smells really fishy about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This illustrates the problem with 'sweet-heart' deals. Metro should have charged Spectrum (or anyone else competing) the market - rate for the land. It is disingenuous for Metro to claim that the 50K sq ft  buildout with no rent due, is not a giveaway. At the same-time, Spectrum should have clarified what exactly they were selling its soul for when it made the deal with the devil...a.k.a. Metro. All the government did was distort the outcome of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, markhollin said:

I think all of us UPers should get together and decide what we want to demand for the site.  I'm thinking Emery should leave a circular area open in the middle of the site and place the Red Grooms carousel there.  We should also demand a grocery store.  And...a mini IKEA.  And maybe there's room for the Polercoaster?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.