222 2nd Ave. South, 25 Stories|305 Feet, 391,000 sq. ft., $100 million

[markhollin]

"Random question: is anything ever going to replace the lot at the corner of 4th and Demonbreun?"

That's the location of the Bridgestone Tower (38 stories and about 420 feet) being built right now.

"I think that particular one breaks up the urban fabric of downtown more than any other singular lot in the CBD, except for the one in front of the Schermerhorn."

I agree that the lot just to the north of the Schermerhorn (4th and Symphony Place) is prime for something quite impressive.  I can see a 35-40 story beauty going in there to help bring some significant presence and help draw the skyline from the AT&T Tower across Broadway to blend better with all the development in SoBro. The footprint is exactly the size of the Pinnacle Tower, so there is certainly the square footage to build a substantial structure.  It would also bring a wonderful symmetry when looking from the west side of Hall of Fame Park with the Symphony Hall flanked on the right side by The Bridgestone Building and a new, equally tall (or taller!) big boy with a stunning crown on the left. That park would become an even cooler hangout surrounded by so much strong architecture.  : )

[markhollin]

Sorry to burst the bubbles here but this is not the fault of the architect, but Metros height guidelines. They were trying to get as much as they could with the height allowed. If a change is needed, it will have to be done by Metro.

Yes---I agree Metro doesn't want to have anything too tall right along 1st Avenue on that stretch---they seem to want a stair-step kind of look going backward towards 2nd and 3rd Avenues, and there limit along there is set at about 300 feet.  The one exception appears to be the lot at the SW corner of 1st and KVB where a potential Hard Rock Hotel is slated that has the clearance to go 30 stories (which would be 325'-350' range).  I am really hoping that comes through---will look wonderful in the context of everything that is developing around there.  THAT would be a real statement piece if there ever was one.

[Lexy]

Yes---I agree Metro doesn't want to have anything too tall right along 1st Avenue on that stretch---they seem to want a stair-step kind of look going backward towards 2nd and 3rd Avenues, and there limit along there is set at about 300 feet.  The one exception appears to be the lot at the SW corner of 1st and KVB where a potential Hard Rock Hotel is slated that has the clearance to go 30 stories (which would be 325'-350' range).  I am really hoping that comes through---will look wonderful in the context of everything that is developing around there.  THAT would be a real statement piece if there ever was one.

I'm fine with the height.  It's the building I'm not a fan of.  You can make 300 feet look nice or look thrown together.

[BnaBreaker]

What arkitekte is saying is accurate, and wise, and I agree with him for the most part and very much appreciate his take on the matter.  As far as this particular building is concerned, as I stated before, I actually don't mind it, because what it may lack in architectural pizzazz it appears to more than make up for in street activation. 

That being said though, while I do very much respect and understand arkitekte's very pragmatic position based on actual experience within the industry, where I do slightly part ways with him on this is the notion that the development of highrises that are not penny-saving glass boxes is the norm everywhere save the largest, most economically robust metropolitan areas.  That simply is not the case as far as I can tell.  Cities like Milwaukee, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City and on and on have recently built or are in the process of building tall skyscrapers with highly unique designs that help to set their cities apart in that sense.  Aside from a couple proposals that have yet to show any actual signs of life, Nashville has yet to actually enjoy seeing such a structure rise, and it deserves that privilege as much if not more than any of those other cities. 

So while I am thrilled with the booming development and the urban renaissance Nashville is experiencing, which I would take every single day over one nice building design, I suppose I just fear that Nashville might miss out on perhaps it's greatest chance to build some truly grand, landmark architecture that will stand the test of time, all because certain people, be it developers or citizens or local politicians, are still in denial over the fact that Nashville is not a sleepy southern town any longer. 

Edited September 16, 2015 by BnaBreaker

[arkitekte]

with all due respect, I'm not happy with a status quo design in the single hottest real estate market in the country.  I'm not just "happy it's growing".  I seek a higher idea perhaps, but am I wrong to want something more?  Nope!  You realize our peer cities have towers under construction (or built) that makes us look silly in many ways, don't you?  Oh well...it engages the street so I should be happy.  Even if it looks like a joke 30 years from now.

 

Budget constraints not withstanding, it's a highly uninspired design.

Of course everyone wants a better design. I argue with developers every day of the week telling them what they can do to produce a better design, but all in all it comes down to what can be afforded. Nashville's real estate market is on fire, but someone has to pay for the additional form work, concrete, steel etc. that it takes to produce outside of the status quo design. When a developer rolls up and is charging 50% more than his 8 competitors in rent, where are people going to go rent space? Where we he get the money? Why would a bank roll out $40 Million for 250,000 square feet for curves when they can roll out $35 Million for 250,000 in a box? Until the Nashville market is saturated with people who developers know will pay a ridiculous amount for rent, you won't see anything over the top. 

I'm curious as to which peer cities you're referring to. Please don't use OKC and the Devon Tower. Oil is oxygen. They could have built 5 of those if they wanted. Want 750' with curves and spires? Oil and banks. 

On the other hand, I can name you numerous cities with pretty spires that lack street activation. I can also name you numerous cities with horrible skyline architecture with wonderful pedestrian experiences. Which Texas city do you think has the best pedestrian experience downtown? Which has the best skyline? Hell, which Tennessee city has the best urban infrastructure and urban feel downtown? Which has the best skyline. Neither city boasts both. 

I'll quote Lionel Hollins for a minute; "You can't have a champagne taste on a beer budget."

[MLBrumby]

I have heard Houston referred to as Box City.

Isn't that an old photo?  I don't see the Enron (whatever their names are now) towers in there, and they are curvy... if not swoopy. 

I'm fine with the height.  It's the building I'm not a fan of.  You can make 300 feet look nice or look thrown together.

Yes. I think it's blah!  I have seen Hines buildings in other cities that are far more attractive.  As I noted in a previous post, it will blend in with the other buildings. And by the way, if that external wall around the garage becomes a projector screen for advertising, then that's a double "Yuk!".  

[MLBrumby]

 

Of course everyone wants a better design. I argue with developers every day of the week telling them what they can do to produce a better design, but all in all it comes down to what can be afforded. Nashville's real estate market is on fire, but someone has to pay for the additional form work, concrete, steel etc. that it takes to produce outside of the status quo design. When a developer rolls up and is charging 50% more than his 8 competitors in rent, where are people going to go rent space? Where we he get the money? Why would a bank roll out $40 Million for 250,000 square feet for curves when they can roll out $35 Million for 250,000 in a box? Until the Nashville market is saturated with people who developers know will pay a ridiculous amount for rent, you won't see anything over the top. 

I'm curious as to which peer cities you're referring to. Please don't use OKC and the Devon Tower. Oil is oxygen. They could have built 5 of those if they wanted. Want 750' with curves and spires? Oil and banks. 

On the other hand, I can name you numerous cities with pretty spires that lack street activation. I can also name you numerous cities with horrible skyline architecture with wonderful pedestrian experiences. Which Texas city do you think has the best pedestrian experience downtown? Which has the best skyline? Hell, which Tennessee city has the best urban infrastructure and urban feel downtown? Which has the best skyline. Neither city boasts both. 

I'll quote Lionel Hollins for a minute; "You can't have a champagne taste on a beer budget."

"Beer budget"?!?   This box is going to cost $100 million. 

[titanhog]

Well...Nashville doesn't have much in the way of architecturally significant designed towers...nor do we have great street activation, until recent trends.  Thankfully we have LoBro, which is good street activation...and current trends have most developers including some street activation.

Would be great to get both.

[rookzie]

arkitekte, I have to agree with you, as disconcerting as the facts may be, and I have no reason or basis to question the clarity of your direct interaction with those who shape and scape the city's profile.  I'm convinced that this, along with smeagolsfree's reference to constraints of Metro guidelines, is an  indisputable factor in the dynamics underlying this perceived trend in generic construction designs.
-==-

[arkitekte]

"Beer budget"?!?   This box is going to cost $100 million. 

Analogy...or are you being sarcastic?

Hollins was actually referring to basketball talent in that quote. $100 million doesn't go very far these days.

[SoundScan]

Metro guidelines didn't force them to build a 10-story grey parking monolith with an actual building on top of it. It would be one thing if this was smack in the middle of the CBD surrounded (read: hidden) by other buildings, but it's not. It is right on 1st Ave, fronting our new riverfront park and amphitheater, and will be part of the de facto face of the city for years to come. I think that such a structure should be held to a higher standard. Perhaps I wouldn't be as upset if this building wasn't going to visually obscure other superior buildings (Pinnacle, Sobro, Bridgestone).

Could they not have a least faced the river-side garage facade with glass to give it some reflectivity? Even our latest spec building under construction (Eakin's 12th and Demonbreun) includes an integrated curtain wall which provides--at minimum--the semblance of a single cohesive structure. And yet Eakin's building doesn't have near the public visibility.

[Lexy]

Metro guidelines didn't force them to build a 10-story grey parking monolith with an actual building on top of it. It would be one thing if this was smack in the middle of the CBD surrounded (read: hidden) by other buildings, but it's not. It is right on 1st Ave, fronting our new riverfront park and amphitheater, and will be part of the de facto face of the city for years to come. I think that such a structure should be held to a higher standard. Perhaps I wouldn't be as upset if this building wasn't going to visually obscure other superior buildings (Pinnacle, Sobro, Bridgestone).

Could they not have a least faced the river-side garage facade with glass to give it some reflectivity? Even our latest spec building under construction (Eakin's 12th and Demonbreun) includes an integrated curtain wall which provides--at minimum--the semblance of a single cohesive structure. And yet Eakin's building doesn't have near the public visibility.

I agree.

[AUNash]

"Random question: is anything ever going to replace the lot at the corner of 4th and Demonbreun?"

That's the location of the Bridgestone Tower (38 stories and about 420 feet) being built right now.

"I think that particular one breaks up the urban fabric of downtown more than any other singular lot in the CBD, except for the one in front of the Schermerhorn."

I agree that the lot just to the north of the Schermerhorn (4th and Symphony Place) is prime for something quite impressive.  I can see a 35-40 story beauty going in there to help bring some significant presence and help draw the skyline from the AT&T Tower across Broadway to blend better with all the development in SoBro. The footprint is exactly the size of the Pinnacle Tower, so there is certainly the square footage to build a substantial structure.  It would also bring a wonderful symmetry when looking from the west side of Hall of Fame Park with the Symphony Hall flanked on the right side by The Bridgestone Building and a new, equally tall (or taller!) big boy with a stunning crown on the left. That park would become an even cooler hangout surrounded by so much strong architecture.  : )

I don't disagree with those points, but I've always hoped that lot in front of the Schermerhorn would be developed into a plaza/park space. I think it would complement the Schermerhorn and nicely tie into the Shelby bridge. Plus, the honky tonks fronting Broadway could have outdoor seating in the rear.

[titanhog]

Ok...with this building breaking ground in October...we will hopefully be able to add this...the JWM...and Paramount to the list of Under Construction projects by year's end.

Then...fingers crossed the old CC site will start in 2016...the new 38 story Gulch tower will start... and we get a render of what will happen at the old Lifeway site.

These next few years could really take us to another level.

[Vrtigo]

With apologies to the dead horse, I feel compelled to chime in on one objection of mine to these uninspired (literally?) boxes.

Namely, aren't there any architects working on buildings in Nashville that care to be remembered? I hear and can't argue with all of the comments about cost and usability of the space, etc., but if I was designing/funding one of these buildings, I would want my work to be remembered! What about simply taking some pride in your work? There are so many complaints about developers sticking cheaply built tall-and-skinnies all over East Nashville like pink flamingoes in the ground just because they can get away with it and I worry that downtown is getting similar treatment.

If I consider this city, in some small part "my own," I guess I don't want to feel like I'm being taken advantage of...

[MLBrumby]

Considering that the anchor tenant for this building is an architectural firm, I think your question is quite appropriate (the frustrated tone noted). Perhaps that is why I simply don't accept the "it's too expensive" argument.  While a fancy box with suburban overtones, Gulch Crossing creates a nice transition between the "upper grit" of Demonbreun and the sleek "lower" world of Yuppiedom that is the Gulch. It also affords great views of downtown, and ESa designed it from the inside-out.  Now that ESa has their shiny box, apparently GS&P is satisfied with nothing more than a bigger one with more parking.  Not sure they'll even have the views that ESa has.  

Back to your question, did GS&P have any say in this design?  If so, then what does it say about their work? 

[CenterHill]

Considering that the anchor tenant for this building is an architectural firm, I think your question is quite appropriate (the frustrated tone noted). Perhaps that is why I simply don't accept the "it's too expensive" argument.  While a fancy box with suburban overtones, Gulch Crossing creates a nice transition between the "upper grit" of Demonbreun and the sleek "lower" world of Yuppiedom that is the Gulch. It also affords great views of downtown, and ESa designed it from the inside-out.  Now that ESa has their shiny box, apparently GS&P is satisfied with nothing more than a bigger one with more parking.  Not sure they'll even have the views that ESa has.  

Back to your question, did GS&P have any say in this design?  If so, then what does it say about their work? 

Gresham designed it.    Gresham did not, however, finance it, so back to Arkitekt's point, they worked within the developers' budget to design a product the Nashville market could absorb.   As the NBJ article points out, 222 will likely set the bar for office rents in the downtown core (@$40/sq ft).         

As for the views, 222 will have similar views as Pinnacle, which are excellent looking up and down the river.    222 will partially usurp some of Pinnacle's prime views, in fact.      

 

[Nashville Cliff]

Namely, aren't there any architects working on buildings in Nashville that care to be remembered? .

I guess they don't want to be remembered as architects who went broke over-designing for the market.

[NashRugger]

And much of The SoBro's eastern facing units views. Oh well, welcome to a growing core.

[NashRugger]

Isn't that an old photo?  I don't see the Enron (whatever their names are now) towers in there, and they are curvy... if not swoopy. 

 

No, they're in that image on the far left beside Continental Airlines' former HQ tower. They're curvy on the facade but they're flat roofs as well. 

[PruneTracy]

Metro guidelines didn't force them to build a 10-story grey parking monolith with an actual building on top of it. It would be one thing if this was smack in the middle of the CBD surrounded (read: hidden) by other buildings, but it's not. It is right on 1st Ave, fronting our new riverfront park and amphitheater, and will be part of the de facto face of the city for years to come. I think that such a structure should be held to a higher standard. Perhaps I wouldn't be as upset if this building wasn't going to visually obscure other superior buildings (Pinnacle, Sobro, Bridgestone).

Could they not have a least faced the river-side garage facade with glass to give it some reflectivity? Even our latest spec building under construction (Eakin's 12th and Demonbreun) includes an integrated curtain wall which provides--at minimum--the semblance of a single cohesive structure. And yet Eakin's building doesn't have near the public visibility.

As I noted earlier in the thread, setting aside aesthetics, the 1st Avenue frontage at that height is much too valuable to squander on a car hole. There's practically permanent open space across the street, and those heights provide more of a human scale than higher floors.

The design is fine as-is and I like the street activation. But man, to be able to fill up those ten floors with offices or apartments would make it one of the best in town.

[titanhog]

^^Yeah...I don't mind the box so much...it's the "in-your-face...plastered on a Nashville postcard" garage that kills the design.  If you're going to do something in such a soon-to-be iconic place, please come up with a way make the garage disappear, at least in the mind's eye.

[Lexy]

Interesting takes on this.  I, too, don't buy the design within a budget idea.  I think that depends on the minds behind the design, but hey...who am I to judge.  I hope everyone enjoys their faux 60's "Mad Men" glass boxes 30 years from now just as long as it "activates the street" it sets on.  As long as it does that, to hell with the rest of it.  Oh, and don't cover up the neon of the L&P Tower too.

[samsonh]

I would gladly take a massive city of 4 or 5 story buildings with retail and office space and apartments. The obsession with tall buildings(when they really are not that tall compared to bigger cities) is bizarre to me.

[Lexy]

I would gladly take a massive city of 4 or 5 story buildings with retail and office space and apartments. The obsession with tall buildings(when they really are not that tall compared to bigger cities) is bizarre to me.

It's not an obsession, but rather a legitimate question as to the real motives.  If you want that type of city, then go to DC or Madison where that's the norm.  You can have tall buildings (taller than 20+ floors) and wonderful street level activation!  It's not a foreign concept.