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

[rookzie]

Just face it with resolve.  Nashville's simply going to have a lot of old buildings one day that are all going to look "period"-oriented, as if they were an excavated layer formed from some "Mesozoic Era".  Then the urban planning analysts can all look back and figure out again what we all have been knowing as contemporaries.

[MLBrumby]

It's a really bland building... bland, but in an ugly way.  It just looms over the park.  Good thing the park is there, or there'd be these things all the way to the river. 

[Tim29tn]

I don't understand why the developer couldn't at least just put in the same glass around the garage portion and tinted it.  There's no way they could've looked at this final product design and came away impressed with themselves. Its a cheap way out and a slap in the face to the beautiful developing SoBro skyline. 

[japan]

7 minutes ago, Tim29tn said:

I don't understand why the developer couldn't at least just put in the same glass around the garage portion and tinted it.  There's no way they could've looked at this final product design and came away impressed with themselves. Its a cheap way out and a slap in the face to the beautiful developing SoBro skyline. 

At least it has something around the garage portion.  Unlike some buildings in the Gulch.

[Tim29tn]

45 minutes ago, japan said:

At least it has something around the garage portion.  Unlike some buildings in the Gulch.

True, but make it look decent if the garage is above ground. Especially right there facing 1st.

[titanhog]

Merrill-Lynch negotiating for office space... (behind the paywall)

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/01/30/exclusive-growing-financial-giant-hunts-for.html

 

[markhollin]

This in from Paramount 747 (John) today: "I spoke to a foreman on the 222 2nd Ave. South building on Saturday. The final height is 27 floors which includes a penthouse. That places it almost up to where the Sobro Tower is at 345'. I am guessing this building will be 320' including the bonus height they got to go from 298' to 305'"

[L'burgnative]

^ So am I understanding this right; 222 which was to be 24 stories and 305' is now adding 3 more floors to 27 stories, and roughly be the same height as SoBro?

Edited February 15, 2017 by L'burgnative

[titanhog]

14 minutes ago, L'burgnative said:

^ So am I understanding this right; 222 which was to be 24 stories and 305' is now adding 3 more floors to 27 stories, and roughly be the same height as SoBro?

If they could add about 15 more floors, I may actually begin to like the design. 

[markhollin]

Up to the 21st floor now.  6 more to go (if the latest revision to 27 stories is correct).

Looking NE from 3rd Ave. South just north of KVB:

 

Looking south along First Avenue South from underneath Seigenthaler Bridge:

[titanhog]

^^I really wish the glass was going to be covering the garage as well.

[MLBrumby]

I sort of think of this building as the beach house which all the college kids rent because it's large, cheaply built, on the water, and ugly. That unattractive parking garage is also like the barren yard where cars are haphazardly parked at all times of the day/night. And that's quite some party deck overlooking the amphitheater. I guess that will be sold as one of the perks to would-be tenants. I wonder if "free tickets" to the annual 7/4 fireworks are still part of the deal... now that they've been moved to the 200 Mall. 

[L'burgnative]

Heck; if they can add 3 floors to this building and be structurally okay then why can't that be done to Bridgestone?

[Nash_12South]

You have to park the cars somewhere and underground isn't practical by the river.

How well you can hide a garage gets down to budget.

[titanhog]

3 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

You have to park the cars somewhere and underground isn't practical by the river.

How well you can hide a garage gets down to budget.

Or...how much the city is willing to let you get away with when it comes to design.

[Nash_12South]

Yes, the city could crack down a lot harder on garage design. There are cities where a garage must blend into the overall design more and look just like the office floors, like  Bridgestone.

[donNdonelson2]

1 hour ago, L'burgnative said:

Heck; if they can add 3 floors to this building and be structurally okay then why can't that be done to Bridgestone?

Perhaps this building's original design included the "option" of three additional floors.

[markhollin]

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

I wonder if "free tickets" to the annual 7/4 fireworks are still part of the deal... now that they've been moved to the 200 Mall. 

Fourth of July fireworks show is still downtown along the river.  It's the New Year's Eve show that was moved to Bicentennial Mall.  

[PruneTracy]

1 hour ago, titanhog said:

Or...how much the city is willing to let you get away with when it comes to design.

I agree that the above-ground car holes are less-than-ideal, especially when lazily-covered (or not at all in the case of Twelve|Twelve and 1201 Demonbreun), but one wonders at what point stipulations on aesthetic design reduce the financial motive to the point of infeasibility.

222 Second isn't going to be the prettiest building, but it is going to add 361,000 square feet of office and 25,000 square feet of retail (there is ground-floor retail, don't forget) where there was previously a parking lot. Were Metro to push the issue of the cladding design too far, it's entirely possible it would still be a parking lot today, along with several other locations around the CBD. One could argue whether the city should accept uninspired and, frankly, cheap design for the sake of growth but simply as a matter of practicality I'll take ~2,400 more office workers downtown, within walking distance of several residential buildings and a rail transit station, over a parking lot any day of the week. Honestly, as long as buildings of this configuration have ground-floor retail or other street-level activation it doesn't really have much of an impact on the urban fabric.

I do still think Ragland dropped the ball on the park frontage, I would have made sure every portion of the building facing the amphitheater had occupied floor area, either residential or office. That's guaranteed view preservation.

[NashvilleObserver]

41 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

222 Second isn't going to be the prettiest building, but it is going to add 361,000 square feet of office and 25,000 square feet of retail (there is ground-floor retail, don't forget) where there was previously a parking lot. Were Metro to push the issue of the cladding design too far, it's entirely possible it would still be a parking lot today, along with several other locations around the CBD. One could argue whether the city should accept uninspired and, frankly, cheap design for the sake of growth but simply as a matter of practicality I'll take ~2,400 more office workers downtown, within walking distance of several residential buildings and a rail transit station, over a parking lot any day of the week. Honestly, as long as buildings of this configuration have ground-floor retail or other street-level activation it doesn't really have much of an impact on the urban fabric.

I do still think Ragland dropped the ball on the park frontage, I would have made sure every portion of the building facing the amphitheater had occupied floor area, either residential or office. That's guaranteed view preservation.

I agree. It may not be the prettiest option for that lot, or the tallest, but it is development plain and simple, and it takes up the entire property rather than leaving empty space. It means more jobs, more office space, and another tower downtown. I would be very angry if Metro were stopping or hindering development on office towers because they felt the side of the parking garage "wasn't pretty enough." We may get to the point where Nashville is so developed that we can afford to cancel an ugly project or two, but we are NOT at that stage yet, which is why I'm glad 222 was built.

However the Hensler/Eakins plan for the lots near the Trolley Barns is absolutely ridiculous. THIS is a project I can support being canceled. These lots are a prime development area and they settle for a 4-story office building, open "green space" and a tacky, short, white residential building. 

[titanhog]

I disagree with you guys on this project because of its location.  A prime spot along the river (practically) should be held to a fairly high design standard.  This building just about anywhere else in SoBro as filler?  Perfect.  As a postcard spot filler along the river? Not so much.

I love the added office space, but I doubt seriously they would have just thrown up their hands and gone home if the city had demanded just a little more in the way of style or substance.  If they did "go home"...there would have been 10 more developers ready to swoop in and build something there.

[RonCamp]

Some great retail is slated for the bottom of 222.  I agree the garage wrap leaves much to be desired, but I am excited about the fact that the streetscape is activated almost all the way around the building.  

[Nashtitans]

22 minutes ago, RonCamp said:

Some great retail is slated for the bottom of 222.  I agree the garage wrap leaves much to be desired, but I am excited about the fact that the streetscape is activated almost all the way around the building.  

Is it gonna be a lot of retail? and what kind?

[titanhog]

If we can activate the street with this project and then the 2nd Ave Partners two-tower development, suddenly 1st Ave may pull some people from Broadway.

[RonCamp]

On 2/17/2017 at 11:05 AM, Nashtitans said:

Is it gonna be a lot of retail? and what kind?

Can't say too much yet, but there are two separate F&B concepts in the works, one which will connect into the lobby.