1200 Broadway (27 stories, 313 residential units, 66,000 sq. ft. office, 46,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods, 485 capacity garage)

[smeagolsfree]

I will have to say that looks better than the first one. Guess it will grow on me.

[BnaBreaker]

That rendering does look better...or maybe it's just more shiny.  

On another note, will metro just get rid of the height limits for downtown/sobro/gulch already?  It seems like they just approve any height request anyway.  They'd be saving themselves the trouble!

Edited May 6, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[Guest]

Think this will add to the traffic congestion at Broadway in the afternoon???

[nashvillwill]

On May 5, 2016 at 8:49 AM, markhollin said:

TBT: L&C Tower around 1965.  The empty lot in foreground was site of the grand, century-old Maxwell House Hotel, which burned down in 1961 (may she RIP). The site was vacant until 1966 when construction began on the 20-story Service Source Building, which is still there today.

 

In the construction site along commerce, that looks like one of the old 48" water mains. Some of those are still in use around town. They are amazing to see. Built out of brick, laid by hand, they are the most perfect circle you've ever seen. We tapped into one recently on 3rd ave. Built a structure around it and made a small hold. The biggest fear was that the pipe would collapse, because there is no one alive anymore that would know how to fix it. 

[rookzie]

The last flics I went to see at that Loew's Crescent Theater, shown here next to the L&C, were in 1971: "Diamonds are Forever" and "Play Misty for Me", while on a visit to Nashville from Boston.

Edited May 7, 2016 by rookzie

[TommyMo]

from the developers that I have spoken to, Nashville's zoning discourages good architecture because density is regulated by # of floors where other cities regulate by total square footage of building as a % of total land size. And when developers ask Nashville Metro for additional floors, Nashville Metro expects the developer to include affordable housing which blows up the developer returns. So, instead of asking for more floors, the developers build within the approved # of floors and add square footage with a wide footprint.

[BnaBreaker]

2 minutes ago, TommyMo said:

from the developers that I have spoken to, Nashville's zoning discourages good architecture because density is regulated by # of floors where other cities regulate by total square footage of building as a % of total land size. And when developers ask Nashville Metro for additional floors, Nashville Metro expects the developer to include affordable housing which blows up the developer returns. So, instead of asking for more floors, the developers build within the approved # of floors and add square footage with a wide footprint.

How depressing.  It makes sense though.  Just one more example in a long line of examples of this city being incapable of getting out of it's own way.  Thank you for the inside info though, and welcome to the forum!

[TommyMo]

Thank you. I also understand that there are some cut-off points where if an apartment or condo developer builds above a certain # of residential floors, the costs to construct really start to rachet up. The examples that have been pointed out to me are buildings like 1212, Adelicia, M Residences (Lennar), Aertson and Element Music Row where they all seem to be around 17-19 residential floors (some above a garage). It has something to do with the type of air conditioning system theycan use as long as the residential floors arent taller than 170-200',

[rookzie]

20 minutes ago, TommyMo said:

from the developers that I have spoken to, Nashville's zoning discourages good architecture because density is regulated by # of floors where other cities regulate by total square footage of building as a % of total land size. And when developers ask Nashville Metro for additional floors, Nashville Metro expects the developer to include affordable housing which blows up the developer returns. So, instead of asking for more floors, the developers build within the approved # of floors and add square footage with a wide footprint.

Thanks for that quite pithy interjection, TommyMo.  I can't speak for others, but your posts definitely gives me a serious chunk of resolve, for a probable cause directly related to design.  At least it enables me to move on, to an extent, beyond a focus on "why" or "why not", and, in a manner of speaking, it's somewhat of a game-changer in what can be reasonably expected. 

[MLBrumby]

46 minutes ago, TommyMo said:

from the developers that I have spoken to, Nashville's zoning discourages good architecture because density is regulated by # of floors where other cities regulate by total square footage of building as a % of total land size. And when developers ask Nashville Metro for additional floors, Nashville Metro expects the developer to include affordable housing which blows up the developer returns. So, instead of asking for more floors, the developers build within the approved # of floors and add square footage with a wide footprint.

Yes... this is a quote from former MDHA director Rick Bernhardt from this recent Tennessean article:  http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/04/planned-towers-have-nashvilles-skyline-looking-up/83099818/

Rick Bernhardt, former director of the Metro Planning Department, said that cap was intended to create a trade-off where developers can incorporate amenities such as affordable housing and open spaces into designs in exchange for additional height.

"When you have lower buildings, you're able to spread out the development more and have more walkable cities and active street life," he said. "Long term, having a really active and vibrant downtown is absolutely critical to the growth of the region."

 

[nashwatcher]

9 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

Yes... this is a quote from former MDHA director Rick Bernhardt from this recent Tennessean article:  http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/04/planned-towers-have-nashvilles-skyline-looking-up/83099818/

Rick Bernhardt, former director of the Metro Planning Department, said that cap was intended to create a trade-off where developers can incorporate amenities such as affordable housing and open spaces into designs in exchange for additional height.

"When you have lower buildings, you're able to spread out the development more and have more walkable cities and active street life," he said. "Long term, having a really active and vibrant downtown is absolutely critical to the growth of the region."

 

The issue seems to be, when these different height limits were enacted throughout the inner loop, the intention was to spread out development and make the whole inner loop more vibrant and walkable. They probably didn't want it to take a century for the inner loop to fill in. 

What wasn't anticipated was how HOT Nashville would get, how developers from across the country would fight to invest, and that we're going to get to the objective of "filling in" in short order. With potentially incredible buildings over the next decade or so, or dumbed down proposals due to our own limits.

The height limits might have served a purpose at one point before we caught fire, but now that the dynamics have changed, they're a real hindrance to the investment potential in our downtown. We're like the fire department putting out our own bonfire. We've got an incredible opportunity with all these investors flocking here, I hope something changes in our regulations.

[Vrtigo]

On 5/8/2016 at 8:03 PM, MLBrumby said:

Yes... this is a quote from former MDHA director Rick Bernhardt from this recent Tennessean article:  http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/04/planned-towers-have-nashvilles-skyline-looking-up/83099818/

Rick Bernhardt, former director of the Metro Planning Department, said that cap was intended to create a trade-off where developers can incorporate amenities such as affordable housing and open spaces into designs in exchange for additional height.

"When you have lower buildings, you're able to spread out the development more and have more walkable cities and active street life," he said. "Long term, having a really active and vibrant downtown is absolutely critical to the growth of the region."

 

Like every other policy or restriction in existence, people inevitably find loopholes and ways around it that keep it from actually contributing the positive effect it was intended for. : sigh :

[Guest]

Vrtigo, 

With respect, I think the regulations cause the distortions and 'loopholes' are sough to bring back the equilibrium.

Though situations vary, in most cases the real estate investor's only motivation is to secure the highest return with the lowest risk (in fact for fund managers that is their lawful charge) .... social engineering does not come into play....leave that for charitable trusts and foundations. 

 

9 hours ago, Vrtigo said:

Like every other policy or restriction in existence, people inevitably find loopholes and ways around it that keep it from actually contributing the positive effect it was intended for. : sigh :

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Developers are willing to spend more money in Austin than in Nashville.

Renters are willing to spend more money in Austin than in Nashville.

Banks are willing to spend more money in Austin than in Nashville. 

 

It is way more about tenants willing to spend more on rent in Austin then Nashville then it has to do with some imaginary line by developers.

[Guest]

from the developers that I have spoken to, Nashville's zoning discourages good architecture because density is regulated by # of floors where other cities regulate by total square footage of building as a % of total land size. And when developers ask Nashville Metro for additional floors, Nashville Metro expects the developer to include affordable housing which blows up the developer returns. So, instead of asking for more floors, the developers build within the approved # of floors and add square footage with a wide footprint.

Sorry, but that is very bad information. Form based zoning is a far superior system. The older Nashville system of zoning, still in place in many parts of the city, is FAR or percentage zoning. You see the results that creates. Far less density. Far less walkable communities. Terrible design.

So if everyone here would love to go back to a city that develops like West End Avenue then yes... we should go back to an FAR zoning system.

On point #2 - wide footprints are about affordability and marketability. We are not yet a prime market city even as expensive as it is here. Construction costs have exploded at a quicker rate then even rental rates. A floor plate must be made larger to spread out cost of skin and be able to afford to build the building. Additionally, the current trend in open office necessitates very large floor plans to make it work.

[Vrtigo]

13 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

With respect, I think the regulations cause the distortions and 'loopholes' are sough to bring back the equilibrium.

Though situations vary, in most cases the real estate investor's only motivation is to secure the highest return with the lowest risk (in fact for fund managers that is their lawful charge) .... social engineering does not come into play....leave that for charitable trusts and foundations. 

I see your point. My only intention was to emphasize that in my (admittedly limited) understanding of these zoning requirements, it appears that they encourage these massive square-city-block pedestals (see: J.W. Marriott) as a means of getting around the zoning requirements. So we end up with dead space around an entire city block except for maybe the one corner which originally would have been activated anyway with entry and/or retail.

My impression is that our zoning tries to encourage positive change without being too specific in its requirements, but that just ends up creating a separate set of problems when it ends up permitting useless alternatives.

EDIT: Now, I realize there are valid points being made about the cost/benefit ratio of 'going higher' and how it just makes sense to have low-rise convention space, etc. when the height doesn't contribute to the value of the space, but I feel that is a separate issue. They are just using these low-cost scenarios to fill up the required horizontal space to satisfy the zoning requirements.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Vrtigo

[bnaflyer]

On May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, MLBrumby said:

Yes... this is a quote from former MDHA director Rick Bernhardt from this recent Tennessean article:  http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/05/04/planned-towers-have-nashvilles-skyline-looking-up/83099818/

Rick Bernhardt, former director of the Metro Planning Department, said that cap was intended to create a trade-off where developers can incorporate amenities such as affordable housing and open spaces into designs in exchange for additional height.

"When you have lower buildings, you're able to spread out the development more and have more walkable cities and active street life," he said. "Long term, having a really active and vibrant downtown is absolutely critical to the growth of the region."

 

Just to clarify--Bernhardt was director of the Metro Planning Department, not MDHA. MDHA does not have responsibility for zoning. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by bnaflyer

[TommyMo]

NoChesterHester. I don't think one can make a blanket statement that form-based zoning is far superior to using FAR. I think that form-based zoning can be superior IF AND ONLY IF the "form" isn't so limiting that it stifles good architecture. In the case of Nashville's form base code, because in many areas of downtown one is limited to 10-20 floors by right, it encourages short squatty buildings. I agree that larger wider floors are generally more cost effective to construct, but tenants also value good views and attractive architecture and if Nashville's code didn't penalize taller thinner buildings we would have a much more attractive skyline.

 

[Guest]

NoChesterHester. I don't think one can make a blanket statement that form-based zoning is far superior to using FAR. I think that form-based zoning can be superior IF AND ONLY IF the "form" isn't so limiting that it stifles good architecture. In the case of Nashville's form base code, because in many areas of downtown one is limited to 10-20 floors by right, it encourages short squatty buildings. I agree that larger wider floors are generally more cost effective to construct, but tenants also value good views and attractive architecture and if Nashville's code didn't penalize taller thinner buildings we would have a much more attractive skyline.

 

FAR zoning limits height as well -- through percentage of area. In a scenario where there are FAR zoning limits and one wants to build a tall building then one would have to purchase a huge lot and put a singular pencil tower on it to not use up their percentage. The rest of the land area would remain unbuilt. There is nothing attractive or good about that scenario.

The limitation you really seem to be against is the cap on floor levels. If you want to rail against Nashville's artificially low height limit versus current land value I'm with you.

[Vrtigo]

3 hours ago, NoChesterHester said:

FAR zoning limits height as well -- through percentage of area. In a scenario where there are FAR zoning limits and one wants to build a tall building then one would have to purchase a huge lot and put a singular pencil tower on it to not use up their percentage. The rest of the land area would remain unbuilt. There is nothing attractive or good about that scenario.

This specifically is what I was referring to above, except for that It seems like rather than leaving things unbuilt, they are putting this short, squatty pedestal across most of the site in order to satisfy this requirement. This strikes me as taking advantage of a loophole that gives way to these strange pedestal/tower combinations instead of real density.

[UTgrad09]

What kind of zoning would encourage underground garages and tall, beautiful towers with street level retail?

[titanhog]

36 minutes ago, UTgrad09 said:

What kind of zoning would encourage underground garages and tall, beautiful towers with street level retail?

That's what I would like to know.  

[samsonh]

45 minutes ago, UTgrad09 said:

What kind of zoning would encourage underground garages and tall, beautiful towers with street level retail?

More people willing to pay even higher prices, that's the type of zoning. We aren't there yet.

[CenterHill]

1 hour ago, UTgrad09 said:

What kind of zoning would encourage underground garages and tall, beautiful towers with street level retail?

Form based zoning, if it were written that way.   

[TommyMo]

form based zoning could require below grade parking. in theory, nashvilles version of form-based zoning should encourage below grade parking because by building above grade parking the developers are losing a floor of leaseable space. Even FAR based zoning where above grade (but not below grade) parking counts against your FAR could strongly encourage below grade parking. But, i agree with the prior comment that because below grade parking costs are so high, rents would have to increase significantly and land would need to be scarce before one could afford to build below grade parking. One way Nashville could encourage below grade parking is to abate property taxes on any below grade garage.