markhollin

Second Ave. Partners, 40 story condo (540 ft.) 5 star hotel (190 ft.) 9,500 sq. ft. of retail, $350 million

Recommended Posts


8 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

They've got funding in place.  No way this doesn't happen at this point...I hope!

 This was my biggest takeaway from that article too.  Agree with smeagolsfree that they'll get this sorted out somehow.  As long as it's not hung up in court too awful long, hopefully they'll get going on this by the end of next year!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone seen estimates on height for these two towers?  The shorter tower appears to be 34 stories on a 7 story base, also the equipment penthouse on top appears to be equivalent to three additional floors.  I'm guessing the shorter tower (34 floors + 3 floor penthouse x 10' per =370: base 12'-9" slab to slab x 7 = 89.25: 370+89.25=459.25') is about 440'-460' and the taller tower looks about 30' higher?

Edited by L'burgnative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, L'burgnative said:

Anyone seen estimates on height for these two towers?  The shorter tower appears to be 34 stories on a 7 story base, also the equipment penthouse on top appears to be equivalent to three additional floors.  I'm guessing the shorter tower (34 floors + 3 floor penthouse x 10' per =370: base 12'-9" slab to slab x 7 = 89.25: 370+89.25=459.25') is about 440'-460' and the taller tower looks about 30' higher?

The heights are listed in the title of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Dang; you're right it is in the title.  That would mean the apartment section of the shorter tower is 9' slab to slab; for "luxury apartments" 8' ceilings sounds low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I read the article as they have funding for the acquisition of the land, but not specifically for construction. Can anyone please clarify?

 Yeah, now that I've read it again I think you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second Avenue Partners announce they will slightly alter their designs in order to fit into the block if the .14 acre sliver is not sold to them.  IMO, they are calling the current owner's bluff.  They know that if he chooses NOT to sell to them, that his property will be basically worthless once the towers are built on the south, and the Seigenthaler Bridge has them hemmed-in to the north.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/08/22/developers-of-350m-sobro-skyscrapers-alter-plans.html

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markhollin said:

IMO, they are calling the current owner's bluff.  They know that if he chooses NOT to sell to them, that his property will be basically worthless once the towers are built on the south, and the Seigenthaler Bridge has them hemmed-in to the north.
 

My thoughts exactly.  I would think their only realistic option is to sell to SAP.  No one else will pay them much of anything for it after construction starts and everyone involved knows that.  Sounds like they're just being butt-holes just for the heck of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bmkTN said:

My thoughts exactly.  I would think their only realistic option is to sell to SAP.  No one else will pay them much of anything for it after construction starts and everyone involved knows that.  Sounds like they're just being butt-holes just for the heck of it.

Plus...that price for .14 acres is huge.  They should be thankful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One positive about all of this, they did mention that even if they were to modify the design that the changes would be "minor" and "not fundamentally change anything about the projects design". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some information I found in a Nashville Scene from 2008 that provides a "Cliff Notes" version of the dispute between the developers of the Third National Bank building (now 5th 3rd, I believe), and clothier Petway-Reavis.


"To Nashvillians of a certain vintage, this has a familiar ring. As the ever eloquent Yogi Berra once said, it’s “deja vu all over again.” A quarter century ago, another big developer from Houston asked Nashville to do exactly the same thing.

The Houston firm in that case was named Murphee. Back in the early eighties, they wanted to erect a new skyscraper on Church Street. It was to house the headquarters of Third National Bank, and promised to be the tallest building in Nashville.

But Murphee had the same problem then that Lionstone is facing now. There was one parcel of land they hadn’t been able to acquire. That parcel was occupied by a men’s clothing store, Petway Reavis. Its owner refused to sell it. And it stood squarely front and center of the proposed Third National tower.

When they were unable to purchase the property, Murphee asked the city of Nashville to use their power of eminent domain, seize it, and turn it over to them. Sound familiar? Deja vu all over again.

The Murphee/Third National case wound up in the Metro Council. After much debate and discussion, the Council determined that this was not an appropriate use of eminent domain. To its credit, the Council said no.

Having been turned down by the city, Murphee redesigned their building to wrap around the holdout parcel. By this time the property owner relented and decided to sell after all. But the revised design was judged better than the original, and the developer stuck with it.

And that is why the big building at Church and Fifth (now the Fifth Third Center) is built in a U-shape."

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see these tidbits of history on the former Third National Tower, aka 5th/3rd (It'll always be Third National to me, just as the Willis Tower in Chicago will always be "The Sears Tower"). While not as "iconic" as AT&T, It has always been my favorite tower in Nashville til this development or the JW changes  my favoritism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

That's a mighty nice tree, though.

I find myself a bit partial to the chain-link fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.