Jump to content

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


Paramount747

Recommended Posts

Gresham Smith is the architect on this one. Man, this is worse than I thought. So much for creativity. A first year architectural student could do better. Again, let's scrap this and build some  20th century masonry brick buildings that face the park and fill it with retail and restaurants. Not this sugar cube shaped building. Some low rise density is what is needed here.

 

Geez, they propose this box for their hometown, but design this beauty for Shanghai?

 

1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


^Agreed. I never thought I'd say this, but it's just too tall. At least for that location anyway. 150'-200' tops should all that be allowed there IMO. I don't like how it will block out the SoBro, Encore and Bridgestone towers. The office tower itself would have been fine. Other than that it looks very boring, bland, cheap...you name it. I'm very disappointed with this tower to say the least. Going back into hibernation now...Peace!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, was working all day and just logged on.    Yep, very disappointing (went from surprise and excitement this morning to, well, sort of stunned disbelief).      I get it that underground parking doesn't work on that side of SoBro, flood wall or no,   If you look at Encore, Pinnacle, Hyatt Place, SoBro, Bridgestone, all have the bulk of their parking in a pedestal base, and all do an ok job trying to minimize the visual impact of their parking components.     This one (do we have a name?) just looks so... out there with the parking structure.   Yeah, and standing right there front and center on the skyline.      That location carries a huge responsibility for how this city will be photographed for the next 50 years or more!         

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Facebook friend who's an architect with Gresham Smith:

"The renderings are intentionally vague. The cartoon nature of them was intentional.

There is a lot of subtlety in the facade that people will be pleased with. The parking will be clad in

some really awesome panels. The ground floor is all retail and entertainment. The sky deck overlooking the

the amphitheater will be a hot ticket."

"Above grade parking is the norm on this side of town. Besides, since we have no real alternative

transportation whatsoever we necessitate huge parking demand at any office.

Square office buildings are leasable and market driven. You aren't going to get curved zoomy stuff right now

because sites that allow large plate buildings are still available."

Edited by bruceman73
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, none of this was intended to be "design." Today was Concept Review, not Design Review.  The images shown today were contextual massing images, not architectural renderings.  That's it.  Hang tight.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I was holding comment myself because this is the first look.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it straight out: that design is utter garbage. It's a step above Parkway Towers mediocrity. This city deserves better.

 

...and I worked in Pkwy Twrs for 4-1/2 yrs until my agency moved me to another bldg.  I've always hated that bldg, and even though the owner has a huge racket with leasing to the state, Metro Public Defender and other operations, and private defense attorneys, since it's quite convenient to the CJC.  Its tenant base is highly stable, therefore, so It's there for the long run until it burns down.  But it's a seriously outdated eyesore, maybe just one notch below that of Vandy's Baker Bldg.  Although I still have to visit it about 4 times a year for interdepartmental business, the only thing I miss about it is the 15th-floor view it afforded me of the hills of Bordeaux, Brick Church/Bellshire, and Donelson, and especially the CSX/L&N swing bridge opening hourly during winter and spring months for the river tugs.

 

But at least Pkwy Twrs might have been perhaps a step above being mediocrity for its day in 1968, but it's the kind of structure that would have been long imploded by now, save for its enduring lessee occupancy.  For its size, though, it's not quite as plain as National Life Center (later American General; currently Wm. T. Snodgrass State Office Bldg.) when opened around 1970, although Snodgrass uses far more attractive cladding materials inside and out.  Then too, most of the more conservative designs of the 1960s in general are somewhat passé and trite this late in time.  Even the '50s city boxes of Kefauver, Sullivan, and L&C loom in stark contrast to Pkwy Twrs., right this minute.

-==-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, none of this was intended to be "design." Today was Concept Review, not Design Review.  The images shown today were contextual massing images, not architectural renderings.  That's it.  Hang tight.

Thanks for clearing that up.  I think that makes all of us feel better.  Best of luck with the final design...and construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nashville can ever develop a truly useful mass transit system in the future we'll look at these developments and wonder why we required so much parking. The fundamental problem is that we (as a populace and workforce in nashville) demand that we must park in the same building in which we work.  This building has 10 floors of parking for 14 floors of office.  If we ever get a 750,000 sq ft office tower then we're going to be looking at 20-25 floors of parking, which is crazy.  You can't have great design of a building when over half the sq footage that you build is for parking.  It also has to eat up funds that could be used to make architectural statements.  Right now, it seems like money is spent on building enough parking that everyone has ready access to parking. In the future, hopefully buildings will be built that compete on design and amenities for office workers instead of competing on how close they can park for work.

 

As I contemplated this situation, I realized that our lack of transit options won't be the reality forever. Once they come to fruition and our lack of reliance on a single-person-single-car mode of transportation is lessened, we will end up with plenty of parking to accommodate the needs of new structures as well. Ideally, we may even get to the point where new structures won't need to build in parking at all!

 

I think it's still far to early to say that we would have a glut of excess parking when its all said and done. Yes, Nashville's current overabundance of surface parking gives us all the shivers, but I like to think that this city has learned something over the last 75 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this image on globalflare, which is different from images released by the local papers. Not an official image, just a different one. 

 

222-2nd-Street-downtown-nashville-222x30

 

http://globalflare.com/nashvilles-new-24-story-skyscraper-will-forever-change-our-skyline/

That actually looks like 3 boxes for the price of 1. 

 

Wonder what the view would look like across from the park?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That proposal is in San Francisco, not Nashville.

 

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/08/222_2nd_street_seeks_certification_and_exceptions_this.html

 

 

Found this image on globalflare, which is different from images released by the local papers. Not an official image, just a different one. 

 

222-2nd-Street-downtown-nashville-222x30

 

http://globalflare.com/nashvilles-new-24-story-skyscraper-will-forever-change-our-skyline/

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.