The Westin Music City - 27 Floors/320', 452 Rooms

[UTgrad09]

Who knew that a metro population gap of a couple hundred thousand people was the difference between getting tall buildings and not getting tall buildings?

 

Really though...though I more or less share UA's general dismay with Nashville's relative lack of creativity or a trailblazing attitude on the urban development and transit fronts, there really are a great deal of holes in his logic. 

 

I definitely understand the frustrations with not getting the skyscraper boom that cities like Charlotte and Austin have gotten (coming from a mid-large metro perspective)...but the difference between building skyscrapers has little to do with population itself. I mean, if a city is losing population, then it is generally pretty tough to build much of anything. 

 

I think it comes down to who is in charge in town. If developers want skyscrapers, and companies want skyscrapers, and residents want skyscrapers...and of course, if the city government wants to let them build them, then you're going to have skyscrapers.

 

With Nashville, as much as anything, I think there is a breakdown of one or several of those groups when it comes to skyscraper development.

 

Some developers obviously want skyscrapers....we've had quite a few proposals. But what about companies? You look at WES, Eakin (well, a high rise, at least), 505, and now Sheet Music and the convention center/Emery development and you think...wow...lots of proposals....very few bites. Perhaps it has to do with companies HQ'd here, relocating here, or having a regional office here preferring the office park to the skyscraper.

 

Residents have more or less embraced high rise living here...but there are very few options (so it was kind of under-built anyways). I think we would have a bit more right now had it not been for the housing bubble (my guess would be at least 2 towers the size of Laurel and SoBro already built....as condos -- and more U/C). Nevertheless, it appears that our best chances of adding to the skyline continue to be residential (and perhaps hotel or mixed use).

 

I don't think the city rolls out the red carpet for skyscraper construction...and there are some planning limitations that might hurt us from catching some of the skyscraper fire...but those limitations are also what will prevent us from having the sort of skyscrapersprawl that you see in Atlanta and especially Houston...which is a good thing. There are probably some things that they could do to make things easier, but I wouldn't say they are anti-skyscraper by any means. 

 

Now, of course, the big thing is financing. So no matter how much any of the above parties want to build up, unless they have the cash on hand, whether or not a building rises can be determined by a lender...and my personal feeling is that while the media, developers, and seemingly everyone else is bullish on Nashville development, lenders continue to be on the conservative side. I have nothing factual to back that up, so if someone has info to say otherwise, by all means, enlighten me. But that's the general feeling I get.

 

 

It's tough...but patience is a virtue. We don't want to let our "IT" time pass us by, but at the same time, I am starting to see some of this critical mass developing around our urban core. The more mid size developments go up...the more residents move there...the hotter the real estate becomes...the taller those buildings will get. Trust me, I, too, go through the cycle of excitement, anxiety, and frustration when all these proposals flying around...but when I keep an eye on the big picture, I see just how much this city is changing.

[NashRugger]

I'll leave it at this but say take it elsewhere. Look at what's driving Austin's economic boom versus what is driving Nashville's economic boom. That aspect alone will give you much of your answer.

[Paramount747]

. 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Urban Architecture

[BnaBreaker]

What are the holes? Please tell me.

 

 

I think there is a possibility I either misunderstood your argument, or over simplified it in my head.  Before I answer your question, would you mind summing up your argument again to make sure I understood it correctly? 

[Neigeville2]

Personally I think a lot of the reason we don't get super tall buildings (not that I care, I'm all about the street, not the skyline) is that they have more banks/finance and we have healthcare.  A luxurious bank tower says "We're stable because we have lots of money".  A luxurious healthcare tower says, "Ever wonder why Americans pay twice as much as everybody else for worse healthcare?--you should see our salaries!  Oh, and by the way, your claim is denied.  Keep those premiums coming!"

 

I think DT Nashville's changing reputation will attract a lot of creative companies (software, advertising, media, design-y stuff) in the future and this may lead to some cool buildings, but not really huge ones.  I sure hope our local economy doesn't remain dependent on healthcare and universities, because both those sectors are on unsustainable trajectories (as far as % of GDP they consume) and someday that goose is gonna quit laying golden eggs.

[nashvillwill]

A luxurious healthcare tower says, "Ever wonder why Americans pay twice as much as everybody else for worse healthcare?--you should see our salaries! Oh, and by the way, your claim is denied. Keep those premiums coming!"

.

Hahahahhahaahhhaahahhaha!!!!!

Well said! Bravo.

[Paramount747]

.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Urban Architecture

[Justiceham]

I find myself agreeing with you again ML. Weird!  I have architecture friends that say Nashville is a member of the "Flat Skyline Society." Unfortunately with our city population number 26 in the country, and our metro way behind many others, I don't think we will have the population base for structures higher than we have now. So many companies prefer the suburbs for various reasons including the  Ceo's of these companies wanting to live and work in the same area.

 

Since we are an automobile rich society, and with people admonishing public transportation as evidenced by the AMP debate, our city center in our lifetime won't support the 600-1000 foot skyscraper. I hope I am wrong because Nashville needs a true iconic piece of architecture.

 

Many have tried to compare Nashville to cities like Austin, TX which is an impossible task. Nashville has 630,000 people and Austin has 842,000 including a university with a population of 60,000. Nashville's metro is 1.5, Austin's is 1.8. That is why Austin has a 683 foot condo tower and we don't.

Nashville and Austin are great cities to compare. However, your logic about height really doesn't make sense. Cities like Oklahoma City and Mobile have towers over 700 feet and their populations are nowhere near the size. I'd much prefer Nashville work on infill and urban development (mass transit) than have an pseudo-inferiority complex about height. In addition, there many more universities in Nashville and its metro.

[BnaBreaker]

Nashville and Austin are great cities to compare. However, your logic about height really doesn't make sense. Cities like Oklahoma City and Mobile have towers over 700 feet and their populations are nowhere near the size. I'd much prefer Nashville work on infill and urban development (mass transit) than have an pseudo-inferiority complex about height. In addition, there many more universities in Nashville and its metro.

 

Because you asked UA, this is, more or less, what I was getting when I said that your logic was full of holes.  You could go the other way with it too and point out that there are quite a few cities that are larger than Nashville, that have shorter buildings.  I mean, it makes zero sense to say that 'Austin has a 683 foot condo tower because their metro is 1.8 million', whereas Nashville, at around 1.6 million is still decades off from a building that size due it's population.  Let's just forget for a second that a couple hundred thousand people really has nothing to do with some sort of skyscraper height threshold.  Even if it did, given current growth rates of both cities, Nashville itself will be Austin's current size in a few short years, and Austin's metro was the size of Nashville currently when the condo tower in question was proposed.  So, anyway, that was it.  I just don't really see what you were getting at other than to be cynical.

[Paramount747]

. 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Urban Architecture

[BnaBreaker]

haha its okay man, you can say whatever it is you said...i wont be offended.

[Paramount747]

haha its okay man, you can say whatever it is you said...i wont be offended.

I was going to edit my post, and decided to delete it. No big deal. I still want to see a rendering of this project before I believe it's a real proposal.

 

Nashville and Austin are great cities to compare. However, your logic about height really doesn't make sense. Cities like Oklahoma City and Mobile have towers over 700 feet and their populations are nowhere near the size. I'd much prefer Nashville work on infill and urban development (mass transit) than have an pseudo-inferiority complex about height. In addition, there many more universities in Nashville and its metro.

Agreed with most of this post. Ok City and Mobile are exceptions. The OK City tower is a bit ridiculous. I agree about the inferiority complex. They could have built three 20 story towers with some nice pedestrian friendly spaces and some green space. They poorly designed the project. The RSA Battlehouse Tower in Mobile at 750 feet is almost 200 feet of empty space and spire. Don't understand the logic about that one either.

[Paramount747]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2014/03/31/deal-closes-future-westin-site/7129117/

 

Let the discussions begin!

[satalac]

45 stories or bust!

[nashmoney]

This is huge news. I definitely think this will get built before Tony's Marriot. These out of town investors and developers are usually on their A game when it comes to getting things built the city.

 

I'm excited to see the design....I'm hoping tall, sleek, and modern - crown or spire, with lights on top. But more than likely it will be blocky. If it's going to be blocky....Tall, All Glass and blocky.

 

Regarding, the cokesbury headquarters building, since the bookstore and parking lots are to become the Westin, what should become of the headquarters site?

[fieldmarshaldj]

This is huge news. I definitely think this will get built before Tony's Marriot. These out of town investors and developers are usually on their A game when it comes to getting things built the city.

 

I'm excited to see the design....I'm hoping tall, sleek, and modern - crown or spire, with lights on top. But more than likely it will be blocky. If it's going to be blocky....Tall, All Glass and blocky.

 

Regarding, the cokesbury headquarters building, since the bookstore and parking lots are to become the Westin, what should become of the headquarters site?

I'm worried the HQ will be demolished. I hope that is not the case. It should be incorporated into any design at this site.

[ariesjow]

^ Agree with incorporating the structure into the design. If the Federal Reserve building can be converted into apartments, then I imagine the UMP building could as well.

 

I really hope they go tall for the hotel tower. At least 30 floors would be ideal. That's such a prominent location. It deserves a strong tower. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by ariesjow

[Paramount747]

Unfortunately 400 rooms is not very tall. The Renaissance has 673 rooms on 20 floors. 5 floors are meeting rooms and hotel offices, and the top 6 are for the office tower so rooms are on 5-25. They could go up depending on the footprint. I am safely guessing 15-20 stories. If I had to pick I would say 18. I would love 30 and 300 feet, so let the guessing begin!

[dmillsphoto]

24 stories. 275'. Impressive crown.

[smeagolsfree]

20

[CenterHill]

Does the remaining UMP property include the large warehouse with parking on the roof?    It says 6.13 acres so it must.    I'd like to see both the HQ and the warehouse preserved/reused. 

[NashRugger]

24 stories. 275'. Impressive crown.

Oh really now?

[dmillsphoto]

Oh really now?

 

Guesstimate.

[Vrtigo]

Does the remaining UMP property include the large warehouse with parking on the roof?    It says 6.13 acres so it must.    I'd like to see both the HQ and the warehouse preserved/reused. 

I can understand keeping the HQ, but what motivates your allegiance to the warehouse? I think that portion is pretty unattractive, myself. (I work in Cummins Station and have to look at the top of it regularly, so that may color my opinion.)

 

Surely it's very structurally sound if they can park a fleet of vehicles on top of it... Maybe they can add to the structure and build up? In that vicinity, any single-story structure's days are numbered, IMO.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Vrtigo

[MLBrumby]

For some reason, I think I heard that condos would be a part of this project.  If correct (IDK where I saw that), then a question would be if the condos will be going on top of the hotel... or in an adjacent building.  I am sure I read that retail is a part of this project... although I haven't seen anything about how much retail. Just an aside, this would be an incredible spot for a downtown mall like in San Antonio, as it would bridge the SoBro and Gulch areas.  We'll see about that. So all I can say is... "C'mon and get those renderings out!!!"