Jump to content

Virgin Hotel on Music Row, 15 stories, 262 rooms, music club


leggy77

Recommended Posts

Well maybe there is no Nashville 'renovation' efforts in Nashville is because Virgin Hotels has experiences cost-overruns and delays on the Chicago rehab...

 

Good mention of Nashville.   The article describes Virgin's foray into hotels with a fairly cautionary tone.   

 

It does not escape us that the first Virgin hotel will be a painstaking renovation of the 1928 Dearborn Bank Building in Chicago.   No such preservation efforts in Nashville.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


We now know the other two old homes going down 17th will be demolished as well. The Tennessean is reporting that they paid  6.35 million for all three locations.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2014/04/21/developer-paid-m-planned-virgin-hotel-site/7968541/

 

There will also be 9 for sale penthouse units available

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We now know the other two old homes going down 17th will be demolished as well. The Tennessean is reporting that they paid  6.35 million for all three locations.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2014/04/21/developer-paid-m-planned-virgin-hotel-site/7968541/

 

There will also be 9 for sale penthouse units available

What a shame.  Virgin could have bought any of the parking lots at 17th/Broadway/West End.  Those spots would still be close enough to Music Row to go by that name.  If only Hamilton House et al had their addresses listed as being 1700 Division Street, etc, instead of 1 Music Square West, the Virgin team would have skipped those properties for more visible ones.  The trendy re-numbering system failed those buildings.

 

I almost wish that Music Square would be disassembled and the street grid reconnected. 

Edited by bwithers1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a shame.  Virgin could have bought any of the parking lots at 17th/Broadway/West End.  Those spots would still be close enough to Music Row to go by that name.  If only Hamilton House et al had their addresses listed as being 1700 Division Street, etc, instead of 1 Music Square West, the Virgin team would have skipped those properties for more visible ones.

 

So true.    If Sir Richard really wanted to make a splash, he would have bought the auto maintenance property at the Broadway/West End split.     But as you say, there are countless surface parking lots in mid-town that offer more visiblity, better access and could have come cheaper than $6.35M.  

Edited by CenterHill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an article on Channel 5 and they interviewed some Brits and they were shocked he would do such a thing as their historical structures are important to the history in the UK.

Evidently the Historical Commission knew this was going to happen. They are going to have an expanded segment a little later on at 5, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Metro Historical Commission has known for some time that the owner was having trouble maintaining the property and finding a buyer.    They've tried to work with the owner to find a buyer or tenant who would preserve the building, but remember, the property had no conservation zoning.    The Commission tried to get it listed on the National Register, but apparently it wasn't eligible due to the number of non-conforming modifications made to the original structure over the years (and Nat'l Register listing itself does not protect against sale, neglect or demolition).     The MHC has no powers, beyond advocacy, to prevent a property owner from doing whatever they please with their property within the allowed zoning.   The quick sale and demo permit last week appararently caught everyone by surprise.    The MHC is not happy about it.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man oh man I am so tired of being the contrarian but..........

I love history as much as anyone but there has been way too much much lamenting the loss of the 1 Music Sq West property, IMO. As long as it is malcontent noise there is no issue (everyone has an opinion) but when people start mentioning quasi-governmental boards "not being happy"  and zoning overlays I wonder if we are not implicitly advocating a type of eminent domain in reverse....

These property owner's felt that the money offered was a fair price and thus sold an asset ... that is all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And ordinarily, I'd agree. But I draw the line when said property is an irreplaceable piece of history, in this case, a beautiful antebellum house. If this were some mid-20th century house of no particular importance, it would scarcely matter. There's far too few houses left in Nashville that are from the 19th century, and as such, should enjoy special protections. The fact that this demolition process was ramrodded through without any public input (or even attempts to try to make a deal to save it, incorporate it into the new hotel, or move it) showed a visceral contempt by the owners for not only history, but for the neighborhood (if not the city as a whole).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should the 'public' have a say in a piece of property in which they have no financial risk? The public can get together and try to make a matching offer but when no one wanted this mansion where were these individuals to help the owners with upkeep, repairs, carrying costs? No, the public can not watch from afar and enjoy the property for free for what over 100 years and then cry foul when the rightful owners decide to sell. We can disagree with the decision the property owner made but really I would have taken the deal if no one stepped up willing to match the offer and preserve the property.

I am using the term public here to mean citizens and not government. 


 

^And ordinarily, I'd agree. But I draw the line when said property is an irreplaceable piece of history, in this case, a beautiful antebellum house. If this were some mid-20th century house of no particular importance, it would scarcely matter. There's far too few houses left in Nashville that are from the 19th century, and as such, should enjoy special protections. The fact that this demolition process was ramrodded through without any public input (or even attempts to try to make a deal to save it, incorporate it into the new hotel, or move it) showed a visceral contempt by the owners for not only history, but for the neighborhood (if not the city as a whole).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should the 'public' have a say in a piece of property in which they have no financial risk? The public can get together and try to make a matching offer but when no one wanted this mansion where were these individuals to help the owners with upkeep, repairs, carrying costs? No, the public can not watch from afar and enjoy the property for free for what over 100 years and then cry foul when the rightful owners decide to sell. We can disagree with the decision the property owner made but really I would have taken the deal if no one stepped up willing to match the offer and preserve the property.

I am using the term public here to mean citizens and not government. 

 

 

While you make a good point that the public does not have a financial tie to this antebellum property, the public still does have an emotional tie to it, and that does count for something. 

 

I assume (and would bet a lot of money) this Virgin Hotel would have a restaurant / bar in it. I don't know what the right solution is, I just wish the previous owners would have sold the property on the condition that the House would have been rehabbed / incorporated into the new Hotel. People love the old mixed in with the new, and a coffee shop or bar would have been a big hit IMO. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should the 'public' have a say in a piece of property in which they have no financial risk? The public can get together and try to make a matching offer but when no one wanted this mansion where were these individuals to help the owners with upkeep, repairs, carrying costs? No, the public can not watch from afar and enjoy the property for free for what over 100 years and then cry foul when the rightful owners decide to sell. We can disagree with the decision the property owner made but really I would have taken the deal if no one stepped up willing to match the offer and preserve the property.

I am using the term public here to mean citizens and not government. 

 

 

Let's take this to the extreme here...

 

At what point does the public have a say? For instance, say that Belle Meade Plantation was still privately owned and not a museum. And say, for some reason, that it was never put on the historic register. Would you support the right for the property owner to raze that property without any real discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, it does make us aware that maybe more should be done to protect our history...and maybe more should be done to find the owners of private, historical property and join them in a conversation of trying to secure a future for that history.  If we, the public, somehow decide it's worth helping that homeowner...and that homeowner agrees to accept that help with conditions that the property would always remain as part of the town's history (in whatever form they all can agree on)...that would be great.

 

Of course, the owner has every right to refuse and do what the Hamilton house owner did...but it would have been nice if we did have some type of organization that could actually find ways to do a better job of keeping more of our historic structures intact, if possible...and hopefully through donations and fundraisers and not tax money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask what "real discussion" means in this scenario? if it is code of coercive action by the state (or quasi-state agency) under color of law then I would oppose such action vigorously on principal.


IMO, it is short-sighted to force restrictions on property owners of older parcels... it is counter-productive if the stated goal is to increase the number of these properties. Once you start down that path you de-incentivize preservation and incentivize tear-downs... 

 

Let's take this to the extreme here...

 

At what point does the public have a say? For instance, say that Belle Meade Plantation was still privately owned and not a museum. And say, for some reason, that it was never put on the historic register. Would you support the right for the property owner to raze that property without any real discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner may have proposed such plan and Virgin might have rejected the restriction...who knows?? The property was in his family for 100 years so if there were happy memories maybe he would have proposed that... but if there were sad memories maybe he wanted the thing torn down for his own emotional reasons... again I have no clue ... an no right to know.

Everyone who cares can mourn the loss of the building....but what exactly does that count for? Does that so-named emotional attachment give them a seat at the negotiation table? I hope not...
 

While you make a good point that the public does not have a financial tie to this antebellum property, the public still does have an emotional tie to it, and that does count for something. 

 

I assume (and would bet a lot of money) this Virgin Hotel would have a restaurant / bar in it. I don't know what the right solution is, I just wish the previous owners would have sold the property on the condition that the House would have been rehabbed / incorporated into the new Hotel. People love the old mixed in with the new, and a coffee shop or bar would have been a big hit IMO. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am relatively new to this forum and I'm real hesitant to say anything, but I joined this forum to learn of developments and other things coming to Nashville, not continually read people arguing back and forth about off-topic issues. It's getting to the point where I really don't care to be a part of/read this forum any more. I'd rather stick to the Business Journal and the Post to get my info.

 

If anything, can we take this argument over to a different thread?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not observed any arguments in this thread. There was an announcement of a possible development, some members voiced their concerns over losing an historical property, some members discussed the merits of preservation vs. property rights. All of this is right and proper in a built environment thread. 

I am not saying that we never get off-track but this thread is an example of how a 'discussion' forum should flow... if you just want headlines then the local newspapers are pretty good at headlines...but not much else...

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am relatively new to this forum and I'm real hesitant to say anything, but I joined this forum to learn of developments and other things coming to Nashville, not continually read people arguing back and forth about off-topic issues. It's getting to the point where I really don't care to be a part of/read this forum any more. I'd rather stick to the Business Journal and the Post to get my info.

 

If anything, can we take this argument over to a different thread?

That is my point guys. Keep the discussion on track. Take the off subject matters to the coffee house.

  • 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.