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

[LA_TN]

2 hours ago, TheRaglander said:

GAH!  My view.

 

My condolences to you, sir

[bigeasy]

Guess you should start looking for another job.

[TheRaglander]

2 minutes ago, bigeasy said:

Guess you should start looking for another job.

I dunno... hopefully all those rumors about us looking for 300,000 sq feet is true and we will have to move into a new tower soon.

[markhollin]

Looking north along 2nd Ave. South at intersection with Peabody St:

 

Looking NE from 3rd Ave. South just south of intersection with Molloy St:

[BnaBreaker]

I actually don't have a problem with the "zebra stripes." I think it's one of the more interesting garage camouflage schemes I've seen around town.  What I can't stand is the ratio of parking garage to building.  It's like half parking garage, and it just looks completely ridiculous.  

[NashRugger]

1 hour ago, BnaBreaker said:

I actually don't have a problem with the "zebra stripes." I think it's one of the more interesting garage camouflage schemes I've seen around town.  What I can't stand is the ratio of parking garage to building.  It's like half parking garage, and it just looks completely ridiculous.  

Right? If it was 1/3 parking to 2/3 office on top, it wouldn't look as oddly proportioned. 

[VSRJ]

It reminds me of this abandoned medical building/hotel hybrid in Memphis' Medical District.

Edited May 7, 2017 by VSRJ

[Nashtitans]

^yikes

[Nashvillain]

 

I actually don't have a problem with the "zebra stripes." I think it's one of the more interesting garage camouflage schemes I've seen around town.  What I can't stand is the ratio of parking garage to building.  It's like half parking garage, and it just looks completely ridiculous.

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Nashvillain

[wmaddbb2018]

1 hour ago, Nashvillain said:

 

I actually don't have a problem with the "zebra stripes." I think it's one of the more interesting garage camouflage schemes I've seen around town.  What I can't stand is the ratio of parking garage to building.  It's like half parking garage, and it just looks completely ridiculous.

 

I have to think as downtown fills up, parking garages/buildings like this will be torn down and something much, much more bigly will be built there folks.

[Flatrock]

1 hour ago, wreynol4 said:

have to think as downtown fills up, parking garages/buildings like this will be torn down and something much, much more bigly will be built there folks.

When I first read that - I actually read it as "ugly", not "bigly". Had a nice chuckle. :-)

[Jamie Hall]

On 5/6/2017 at 11:15 AM, BnaBreaker said:

I actually don't have a problem with the "zebra stripes." I think it's one of the more interesting garage camouflage schemes I've seen around town.  What I can't stand is the ratio of parking garage to building.  It's like half parking garage, and it just looks completely ridiculous.  

Agreed about the zebra stripes. I'd take that over no covering at all.

As for the parking, I'm going to guess (hope) that some of that parking will be paid parking available for public use? With more people and more things happening downtown, an abundance of public parking might not be an entirely bad thing -- especially in the form of a garage instead of an open lot.

Have they announced any of the retail tenants for the street level yet?

[BnaBreaker]

23 minutes ago, Jamie Hall said:

Agreed about the zebra stripes. I'd take that over no covering at all.

As for the parking, I'm going to guess (hope) that some of that parking will be paid parking available for public use? With more people and more things happening downtown, an abundance of public parking might not be an entirely bad thing -- especially in the form of a garage instead of an open lot.

Have they announced any of the retail tenants for the street level yet?

I hope you're right!  I can't imagine that what essentially amounts to a 12 story office building would require all of that parking space.  

I haven't heard anything in regards to the retail tenants as of yet.  That, to me, will really make or break this project in my eyes.  The renderings really talked a big game in terms of this building's street level retail presence, so if it is resembles the renderings then that alone could make up for all of this project's flaws, to me.  It'd be so great to have lively, high quality retail/restaurant/bar space fronting Riverfront Park. 

[Nash_12South]

30/40 years ago a typical downtown office building had maybe 30-40 staff per floor. Today that number is often 60-80. You need more parking. Most older downtown office buildings bus in from outer lots significant numbers of workers. Plus this building is across from Acsend. They will have no trouble filling the garage.

[VSRJ]

We shouldn't need more parking. That only encourages the use of more cars. What we need is a better mass transit system.

[Pyramid Scheme]

8 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

30/40 years ago

Wasn't that just last August?

[Nash_12South]

Yes - we need a better mass transit system. Form my work perspective, you can't sell mass transit to a parent with a child in daycare, or in a school system that closes for rain. Its a hard sell to the commuter from Spring Hill, Dickson, Lebanon. I have coworkers who tried the train from Lebanon. They couldn't leave work at 4:30 - everyday. It's a hard sell for our younger workers who want to go out for a drink after work. I know a couple in our office who were strong proponents of taking the bus. They sent out all kinds of useful information. But having to plan their work and after work lives around the bus schedule got old. For my coworkers, in a 45 minute drive to work, telling them to take the bus, and take longer to get to work and home, isn't a winning plan.

Living in 12 South, mass transit is an option, but it would take 20 minutes +/- to get to the hub on Charlotte and a 10 minute walk to the office. Not bad, but I can get in my car and drive door to door in 10 minutes.

How convenient will the bus center, on Charlotte, be for folks in 222 or Bridgestone?

I'm not knocking mass transit, just how well it translates to Nashville.

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Nash_12South

[kc8501]

1 hour ago, Nash_12South said:

Yes - we need a better mass transit system. Form my work perspective, you can't sell mass transit to a parent with a child in daycare, or in a school system that closes for rain. Its a hard sell to the commuter from Spring Hill, Dickson, Lebanon. I have coworkers who tried the train from Lebanon. They couldn't leave work at 4:30 - everyday. It's a hard sell for our younger workers who want to go out for a drink after work. I know a couple in our office who were strong proponents of taking the bus. They sent out all kinds of useful information. But having to plan their work and after work lives around the bus schedule got old. For my coworkers, in a 45 minute drive to work, telling them to take the bus, and take longer to get to work and home, isn't a winning plan.

...Not bad, but I can get in my car and drive door to door in 10 minutes.

I have to agree with all of this, and the last part most of all.  I no longer have a child in school, but several of the folks I work with do and that means they need to be able to leave if something comes up, not currently an option with the transit we have.  As for the Bus, I rode it for over a year, everyday.  It worked for me because I could have a very cut and dried work schedule,  but I WAS limited in what I could do otherwise. Also, it did take much longer on average than driving myself.  I now carpool to work with two others, however we all have the ability to work from home if someone needs to leave suddenly/early/etc.  

If transit is to work here, there will have to be trips available throughout the day; most people need far more flexibility than we currently have.

[AronG]

It is no doubt going to be a long time before mass transit in Nashville is an attractive option for parents commuting from Spring Hill. A reasonable question to ask, though, is: Are there employers who are interested in building office space that is primarily intended for employees who ride transit/ridesharing/walk/bike (obviously that would entail skewing towards those who choose to live closer and/or don't mind navigating the transit system, which will hopefully improve over time)?

Providing all those parking levels drastically changes the financial math on which projects are viable and how big they can be. It's incredible to look at a prime piece of real estate like the 222 site and imagine that they're basically making money on the ground-level retail, but above that they had to build ten stories of dead concrete before they could start creating usable space. You have to pay tens of millions of dollars just for the privilege of starting your real building 80 feet in the sky.

All I'm saying is, if there are employers (and residential developers, etc.) who are interested in targeting people who DON'T need parking, they could provide space for a substantially lower price per sq ft. If our codes allowed it. Which they generally don't, but I remember this exception from a few months ago.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/12/16/celebrity-company-adding-60-jobs-creatively-solves.html

[urbanplanet17]

In light of the discussion regarding parking, I have a question to ask out of ignorance.

In Detroit, offices / residential space sitting atop several stories of above-ground parking for high rises isn't really a thing. Instead, the developer will build a garage adjacent to the structure that houses workers / residents. There's only one instance of this I can recall (a project named "The Griswold").

My question is does Nashville's zoning laws require parking garages be integrated into the design of a structure? If so, that would explain (at least in part) why so many of the buildings recently built have been so tall in height.

Edited May 9, 2017 by urbanplanet17

[BnaBreaker]

2 hours ago, urbanplanet17 said:

In light of the discussion regarding parking, I have a question to ask out of ignorance.

In Detroit, offices / residential space sitting atop several stories of above-ground parking for high rises isn't really a thing. Instead, the developer will build a garage adjacent to the structure that houses workers / residents. There's only one instance of this I can recall (a project named "The Griswold").

My question is does Nashville's zoning laws require parking garages be integrated into the design of a structure? If so, that would explain (at least in part) why so many of the buildings recently built have been so tall in height.

No, it isn't a requirement as far as I know.  There are quite a few examples of adjacent parking structures.  The most prominent example right now is the 545 ft tall Paramount under construction downtown.  The city chipped in to build the parking garage/Paramount amenities deck next door to the tower itself, and so part of the garage is used as public parking space.  

[NashvilleObserver]

45 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

No, it isn't a requirement as far as I know.  There are quite a few examples of adjacent parking structures.  The most prominent example right now is the 545 ft tall Paramount under construction downtown.  The city chipped in to build the parking garage/Paramount amenities deck next door to the tower itself, and so part of the garage is used as public parking space.  

505CST (Paramount), the Sky House, and SoBro Tower, all have parking garages that are not a main base of the tower structure, but Aertson, the Adelicia, and many other have parking at PART of the base with amenities decks on the top of the parking structure 

[titanhog]

2 hours ago, NashvilleObserver said:

505CST (Paramount), the Sky House, and SoBro Tower, all have parking garages that are not a main base of the tower structure, but Aertson, the Adelicia, and many other have parking at PART of the base with amenities decks on the top of the parking structure 

I much prefer they build parking underneath rather than beside.  The parking deck next to Skyhouse is a waste of good land where another tower could have located.

[smeagolsfree]

7 hours ago, urbanplanet17 said:

In light of the discussion regarding parking, I have a question to ask out of ignorance.

In Detroit, offices / residential space sitting atop several stories of above-ground parking for high rises isn't really a thing. Instead, the developer will build a garage adjacent to the structure that houses workers / residents. There's only one instance of this I can recall (a project named "The Griswold").

My question is does Nashville's zoning laws require parking garages be integrated into the design of a structure? If so, that would explain (at least in part) why so many of the buildings recently built have been so tall in height.

There are regulations in place in the CBD and redevelopment districts requiring a certain ratio of parking based on the number of units, the type of unit, such as 1,2 or 3 BR, and if there is a commercial and or retail element involved. It does not have to be a garage, but it would be cost prohibitive to buy enough land for a surface lot.

[BnaBreaker]

2 hours ago, titanhog said:

I much prefer they build parking underneath rather than beside.  The parking deck next to Skyhouse is a waste of good land where another tower could have located.

I prefer it underneath as well, even if the design can be a little unsightly, at times.