Jump to content

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


Paramount747

Recommended Posts

Look at some cities that have really tall office buildings but have zero street activation, such as downtown Dallas and downtown Houston. Yes, they look pretty but they're dead after 5pm and so are the streets surrounding them. Both cities, particularly Dallas, are trying to entice enhancement and redevelopment at street level and while Dallas may have 1.3mil in the city and 7mil in the metro, they're downtown is nowhere near as active in any cluster like Nashville, except for maybe the Arts District during any big event near Klyde Warren Park. 

Designing for a budget, I don't care for, but designing for maximum efficiency and profit, that's what you're seeing here and wanting things to happen fast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

Ok ok. So you have these people put together these massive community building guidelines. Most everyone is on board, including a large % of this forum I am guessing. These guidelines state where certain buildings of certain height can and cannot be built. These guidelines are then followed. half the board is up in arms. There is a logical disconnect here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at some cities that have really tall office buildings but have zero street activation, such as downtown Dallas and downtown Houston. Yes, they look pretty but they're dead after 5pm and so are the streets surrounding them. Both cities, particularly Dallas, are trying to entice enhancement and redevelopment at street level and while Dallas may have 1.3mil in the city and 7mil in the metro, they're downtown is nowhere near as active in any cluster like Nashville, except for maybe the Arts District during any big event near Klyde Warren Park. 

Designing for a budget, I don't care for, but designing for maximum efficiency and profit, that's what you're seeing here and wanting things to happen fast. 

Let's be real here, density and street activation are not what comes to mind when I think of any Texas city.  They, like Atlanta and Brentwood, are pretty happy with sprawling neighborhoods of dead-end cul-de-sacs.  Oddly enough, Miami is the same thing.  It's a ghost town after 6pm.  I appreciate infill and all that warm and fuzzy stuff, but we don't have the land to play with like most cities do.  I'd like to see a nice piece of architecture built here that really stands out amongst our peers.  Peers meaning, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Kansas City, Raleigh (which isn't hard to do), etc.  If the NBJ is to be believed, there isn't anywhere near enough office space downtown to meet demand.  ON the flip side, I guess Nashville is content with Williamson County being our second downtown with it's grand tree lined boulevards that wind through the countryside so long as the people live here and can sip coffee at a new coffee shop on the ground floor of a fifteen story building.

Ok ok. So you have these people put together these massive community building guidelines. Most everyone is on board, including a large % of this forum I am guessing. These guidelines state where certain buildings of certain height can and cannot be built. These guidelines are then followed. half the board is up in arms. There is a logical disconnect here.

In part because I think these "guidelines" help cap the growth.  They are silly in that half of downtown (sobro) is being consumed by 20 story buildings sitting on top of 5 story parking pedestals.  There is little out of the box thinking from anyone and frankly, that's scary.  There's also the resistance to questioning the status quo here in Nashville.  People in this town are very afraid to step on any toes.  I applaud the horrific Westin and JW in their out of the box designs (by Nashville standards).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why there are height restrictions within the downtown loop.

Me either.  I have no clue why it's that big of a deal since the area within the loop is considered the CBD.  I NEVER thought the city would allow all the highrises being built in West End to happen, but look at it now.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be real here, density and street activation are not what comes to mind when I think of any Texas city.  They, like Atlanta and Brentwood, are pretty happy with sprawling neighborhoods of dead-end cul-de-sacs.  Oddly enough, Miami is the same thing.  It's a ghost town after 6pm.  I appreciate infill and all that warm and fuzzy stuff, but we don't have the land to play with like most cities do.  I'd like to see a nice piece of architecture built here that really stands out amongst our peers.  Peers meaning, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Kansas City, Raleigh (which isn't hard to do), etc.  If the NBJ is to be believed, there isn't anywhere near enough office space downtown to meet demand.  ON the flip side, I guess Nashville is content with Williamson County being our second downtown with it's grand tree lined boulevards that wind through the countryside so long as the people live here and can sip coffee at a new coffee shop on the ground floor of a fifteen story building.

In part because I think these "guidelines" help cap the growth.  They are silly in that half of downtown (sobro) is being consumed by 20 story buildings sitting on top of 5 story parking pedestals.  There is little out of the box thinking from anyone and frankly, that's scary.  There's also the resistance to questioning the status quo here in Nashville.  People in this town are very afraid to step on any toes.  I applaud the horrific Westin and JW in their out of the box designs (by Nashville standards).

As stated earlier, it comes down to money and financing. Health care companies are not going to build trophy towers, they just aren't. Back office operations are not going to build towers with a $10 million dollar crown. I mean, it is really that simple.

 

And I like it that way, hopefully Nashville will avoid some of the massive boom and bust cycles other cities have experienced because of the lack of excess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in 2015 this is still being discussed. In 1955 the L&C Tower started construction. It  first opened in 1957, and 58 years later we are still building towers in the CDB shorter than the L&C Tower! I guess that " Nashville thinking big, and Nashville is on the move" went out the window after that tower was built. 60 years later we still have barely broken the L&C's 409 foot height.

This is more than height and dollars. It's perception. As long as Nashville wants to preserve this 1950's small town persona, the more people like David Fox will promise to bring Nashville back to the "Nashville Way" and not build those "Big City" skyscraper of Atlantis, Houston or Dallas.

Nashville in many ways is a spoiled teenager just wanting to have it's way. Nashville does not quite have the fear of Birmingham, Memphis, Louisville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville which is that fear of being Atlanta nonsense, but its that fear that keeps a city stagnated.

Michael's Tower does not have to be larger than 24 stories and 305 feet, but someone needs to make a statement building. I am not looking for The Shard in London here, but I am looking for something that frankly does not keep reminding us that The L&C Tower is still after 60 years the most distinct skyscraper in Nashville!

Edited by Paramount747
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You don't buy it? Ask any architect what the first aspect of any design is and he'll tell you the budget. Why do we not have the Pinnacle Tower? Budget. Why do we not have 505 CST? Budget. There's a reason why these "Oh really, in Nashville?" designs don't happen here. 

It's good to be critical of design and press for better design, but taking a realistic approach is best. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they were wanting to go underground with parking, but the water. Tablet here is too unstable. That was brought up in the MDHA meeting. I encourage more of you guys to go to the meetings. You will get an education on what can and cannot be done. In this case they were limited going up and down. I remember years ago on this forum, most were concerned with the human scale and not as much height, now it's the opposite.

I think it's because developers are finally addressing the human scale.  We're not having to fight developers just building walls with no thought to people walking by.  They're actually including retail in almost all construction.  So...now...on to height! :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't buy it? Ask any architect what the first aspect of any design is and he'll tell you the budget. Why do we not have the Pinnacle Tower? Budget. Why do we not have 505 CST? Budget. There's a reason why these "Oh really, in Nashville?" designs don't happen here. 

It's good to be critical of design and press for better design, but taking a realistic approach is best. 

I guess what I really meant to say is that with their budget, a glass box is a bit disappointing.  I would've thought you could get something besides a bottom half that looks like a cold air return for your furnace and a top that looks like a modern day James K. Polk Tower.

Perhaps you guys are right.  I mean, think about the BofA Tower in Charlotte for example.  Try to walk inside it and you'll get pushed right back out.  But, it's also a single tenant building for the most part.  Anyone that would be a single tenant of a tower here in Nashville is more than happy to park their happy little butts in Williamson County instead of downtown.  And from what I've seen, the city of Nashville is okay with that.

I think it's because developers are finally addressing the human scale.  We're not having to fight developers just building walls with no thought to people walking by.  They're actually including retail in almost all construction.  So...now...on to height! :)

They don't even have to be tall, but for crying out loud make them easy on the eyes and less like a "Mad Men" film set.  I look at some of these and think smoking inside them is okay!

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

The weirdness not withstanding, my point being make it a box, but make it something to look at.  That's all I'm saying.  Who cares at this point how many floors it has.

Those "things" you are talking about cost lots of money. Nashville does not have the type of companies to make it economically feasible to do those things. Oil money does. Big banking does. Tech does. Healthcare not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those "things" you are talking about cost lots of money. Nashville does not have the type of companies to make it economically feasible to do those things. Oil money does. Big banking does. Tech does. Healthcare not so much.

I guess you're right.  Those companies that could, would much rather be in Franklin and Brentwood instead of downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is still no explanation for why the garage portion is a grey, blank-walled box. I don't care that the office portion is a box, I don't care that the parking garage is a box, what I care about is that there appears to have been no effort whatsoever to make the two appear to be a part of the same structure. People keep pointing to budget and that is fair, but please explain why Bridgestone, Pinnacle, and Eakin's 12th and Demonbreun (also built as spec!) have made the effort to wrap their above-ground parking decks in attractive glass facades while this building has not. Perhaps the development team is seeking an ROI beyond that of the developers of these other structures--even as they target per sq.ft. lease rates above these competing buildings. And obviously making money is priority one, but to have the developer go on record talking "postcard shots" and "taking that responsibility very seriously" regarding the building's architecture and prominent location, well, it rings pretty hollow after seeing the finished product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is still no explanation for why the garage portion is a grey, blank-walled box. I don't care that the office portion is a box, I don't care that the parking garage is a box, what I care about is that there appears to have been no effort whatsoever to make the two appear to be a part of the same structure. People keep pointing to budget and that is fair, but please explain why Bridgestone, Pinnacle, and Eakin's 12th and Demonbreun (also built as spec!) have made the effort to wrap their above-ground parking decks in attractive glass facades while this building has not. Perhaps the development team is seeking an ROI beyond that of the developers of these other structures--even as they target per sq.ft. lease rates above these competing buildings. And obviously making money is priority one, but to have the developer go on record talking "postcard shots" and "taking that responsibility very seriously" regarding the building's architecture and prominent location, well, it rings pretty hollow after seeing the finished product.

Thank you.  I agree.

The reason many of those choose Williamson County is two things, schools and the fact WillCo bends over backwards with tax incentives, which is ridiculous.

Point well taken, but that begs the question just who does Davidson County feel they are REALLY competing against?  Do they honestly look at WillCo as competition?  Or, are they too worried about other metros to really care what happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they honestly look at WillCo as competition?  Or, are they too worried about other metros to really care what happens?

Yes. It's not an either/or scenario. There's a reason the state adds tax incentives for certain clients. Nashville (both Metro and the region) competes with other large cities for the headquarters of the national and multinational companies, while the municipalities and counties therein fight over the back offices of smaller companies and some of the spec space.

The bottom line is that there are valid reasons for a given company or developer to choose downtown, Cool Springs, or anywhere in between that neither Metro nor the Franklin / Brentwood / Williamson County agglomeration are going to be able to counter without giving the farm away. 222 Second wouldn't be built in the 'burbs for the same reason it won't have a landmark design and a 100-foot crown in the CBD. It's catering to a specific customer, i.e., tenants who want or need to be in the urban core but can't afford to pay vanity rates for a vanity building.

GSP (a competitor of my firm) is a good example of this. They need to be downtown, to be close to clients such as the state and Metro and also to project the "smart growth" vibe that planners need when they write reports saying others should do the same thing. But overhead rates for public clients are capped and many others tend to be put off when they see you spending their money on a pimp office. So this sort of generic, relatively cheap and low-key space downtown has demand from this sort of tenant, among others, and supply has to, and will, meet it.

As I noted earlier I think there are missed opportunities for bonus ROI with this design, though in terms of space utilization, not aesthetics. And this building was called postcard-worthy for the same reasons every road I design is the most awesome ever in the history of the world (although that's objectively true, of course). But it has to be built in this way and in this location (specific real estate situations notwithstanding), or someone else is going to do it. If and when the market demands landmark buildings and is willing to pay for it, I'm sure there are plenty of developers who will be happy to go that direction as well.

As it stands, it's a highly-dense development, with street activation on all fronts and increased public parking, within walking distance of three bus circulator routes and a commuter rail station, that's replacing a surface lot. I'd call it a net positive.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weirdness not withstanding, my point being make it a box, but make it something to look at.  That's all I'm saying.  Who cares at this point how many floors it has.

Those "things" you are talking about cost lots of money. Nashville does not have the type of companies to make it economically feasible to do those things. Oil money does. Big banking does. Tech does. Healthcare not so much.

Both valid points. You can easily have a box and make it creative through glass, mullion design, fenestration patterns etc. that's overall substantially cheaper than curves generated through concrete or steel; we just haven't necessarily seen that yet in a finished product (outside of Gulch Crossing, IMO). I actually think 1212 holds it's own. Terrazzo does as well. Not too sure how Bridgestone will turn out, but we shall see.

All in all, I'm always excited to read y'alls thoughts and opinions. My mind has been warped into first thinking "Does it comply with design standards/guidelines?" then to "What is their budget?" and finally addressing how much wiggle room the architects and developers have regarding design shortcomings that realistically fall within their budget; so it's always good to get the accountant's opinion on street activation or the recreational pilot's opinion on fenestration and facade arrangement. 

I've had to learn the hard way with an architecture background having to incorporate interesting design within a budget that doesn't allow various elements to be incorporated (often times you have to drop them). In my current job, I have to realistically offer advice to architects and developers about what they need to incorporate all while walking a close line between "being difficult to work with" or "unrealistic". So I can honestly see it from both sides, however the practical side generally wins. Recently a developer here was approximately 4 million over budget. I'd made a stipulation to their approval that they add additional brick at the pedestrian level. They're over budget, but hell, what's 1,000 square feet of additional brick when you're already hitting up lenders for 4 mil? Then I had to step back and think "Will that additional brick actually improve the design? No." So that's that...no brick. Project moves forward. 

Honestly I think no developer or architect sits down and says, let's throw up a cheap concrete, glass box. If you want to find those (think stucco and concrete panels), look no further than the Hyatt and whatever that tacky condo is across I-40 from the Gulch (too many I can't keep track of them all...the old one...2008ish). It all comes down to what will produce a solid project that can be built. 

Anyways, long boring paragraph/rant over. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they were wanting to go underground with parking, but the water. Tablet here is too unstable. That was brought up in the MDHA meeting. I encourage more of you guys to go to the meetings. You will get an education on what can and cannot be done. In this case they were limited going up and down. I remember years ago on this forum, most were concerned with the human scale and not as much height, now it's the opposite.

Just want to highlight this. Guidelines are rewritten by the action stated above. If citizens are concerned, then planners and city leaders take note. If you guys don't make this known, then the no one with the ability to impact design will take the initiative to do so. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I like height, and would love to see a new tallest. However, I think 30 floor buildings is pretty much as tall as we're going to be seeing right now. Nashville has a lot of open space still available. If I were an investor, I'd rather hedge my bets a little bit by building slightly shorter, with the knowledge that many more competitors still have room to build.

I just try to be realistic about it all. At this juncture, a 20 story building that has good street activation and human-level architecture is okay with me. Not that this building in particular can't stand to be improved on a lot, as it can (something as to be done to liven up that parking garage), but I'd simply rather see more on the street side than the skyline side right now.

 

And trust me, just because a building is short, doesn't mean that they do well in street activation. In fact, much of DC has really terrible street activation, and is completely dead after 5:00.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parking structure will be screened by grey and white metal panels. The grey will have about 100 1" holes in it, so that at night, you are not going to really tell there is a parking garage there. The headlights of the cars will come through multiple hole to circumvent being able to tell that it is a car. At least that is sort of the way I understood it.

the one in the lower right is the one chosen

aL8Owox.png

Edited by smeagolsfree
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.