Peabody Union (27 story residential, 354 units, 251,000 sq. ft. office, 50,000 sq. ft. retail), Peabody Plaza (9-story, 280,000 sq. ft. office), & 4 smaller buildings, MDHA Trolley Barn sites

[MidTenn1]

16 minutes ago, markhollin said:

From the what-could've-been files.  Here are renderings and brief notes on some of the other bids for the two MDHA Trolley Lots. In alphabetical order developer's names.  My favorites are Matthews, Giarratana, and both of the ideas by Platinum:

Cambridge Holdings: $475 million. 6 buildings, including 3 in the 15-story range. 528 residential units, 568,000 sq. ft. of office, 113,000 sq. ft. of retail, and 246-room hotel:

Every flippin' one of those is better by some degree than the one selected.

 

Edit; I'm only including the all pictures in this quote because we are on a new page.

Edited July 28, 2016 by PHofKS

[troyboytn]

MY philosophy has always been that any sort of infill is better than an empty lot, however,  an empty lot isn't much worse than this hot mess IMHO. If they do a major redesign of the "drive-in movie" tower it would be a drastically better proposal.

Edited July 28, 2016 by troyboytn

[tragenvol]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[BnaBreaker]

All I can say is, I hope all of you are emailing these brilliant comments to people who make these decisions, especially you MLBrumby!  What a brilliant breakdown of all that is wrong with this selection.

Here's the thing.  There isn't anything inherently wrong with the Eakin proposal, and in a vacuum, I'd be just content, possibly even somewhat excited upon hearing this was proposed for the city.  What makes this project a massive disappointment is 1. WHERE in the city it is being proposed, and 2. the fact that there were other better options available.  If this were located on property Eakin had purchased along, say, Charlotte Ave. then you'd better believe I would be happy to hear about this project.  But it isn't on private land and it isn't in an outer city neighborhood.  This is RIGHT smack in the middle of the city, on a city owned lot that, given it's location on one of the city's main gateways overlooking the river, is possibly the most prime lot in the entire city.  If there were ever a lot that you'd want an impressive 'STATEMENT' building, it would be this lot.  And if there were ever a lot you'd want to use to it's maximum potential, it'd be a lot like this.  This proposal is WOEFULLY inadequate for such a prominent and important site.  The fact that there were multiple better options that could have been selected is merely salt on the already gaping wound.    Out of all the proposals given, this one is objectively the one that makes the least efficient use of the site.  Design is a bit more subjective of course, but I think most would agree that every other proposal submitted is more aesthetically attractive than a box surrounded by a low rise office park.

I'm sure that when and if we hear back from city officials about this, they'll give some sort of justification that deals with cost effectiveness and/or number of affordable residential units.  Make no mistake, those are important qualities to consider.  But those are not qualities you should put at the top your list of priorities when dealing with a site of this magnitude.  I mean, it'd be like putting the design of the GPS and number of cupholders at the top of your list of criteria for purchasing a new car.  Wouldn't you want to consider overall performance and aesthetic beauty and fuel efficiency ahead of the cupholders when making such an important decision?  I feel like that's what happened here.  MDHA had some numbers on a piece of paper that focus on a couple relatively insignificant criteria that the mayor's office wanted to generally emphasize in future urban development, and based on some random formula, the numbers said this was the best proposal for addressing those criteria...but, oops, they forgot to actually look at how the proposals would actually address the street, or connect to the surrounding neighborhood, or affect traffic flow, or if it followed the city's urban design guidelines, or whether or not they made effective and efficient use of the property itself, or if they were aesthetically beautiful and something Nashvillians could feel proud of.  I just cannot adequately express how frustrated with and disgusted I am by this decision.  It's like MDHA went out of it's way to select the project that would be the least inspiring, the least efficient, the least beautiful etc.

Just because, here is the email address to MDHA I posted in the other thread.  For the record, I have yet to receive a response, but it doesn't hurt to try: 

Here is the email address for the Executive Office of MDHA:  [email protected]

It is listed on their "contact us" page on their website folks, don't be shy, tell them what you think!

Edited July 30, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[MidTenn1]

Trying my best to sort out how all this is arranged on those lots. This is as good as I could figure out right now...

 

[Vrtigo]

For what it's worth (and ignoring all other factors being discussed), the height of some of the other proposals does a poor job of transitioning from the single-story barns into a towering skyscraper. Not to say that this one does a better job at this than any others, but I can at least see a legitimate reason why they might not want something looming high in the sky.

[titanhog]

Love Tony's proposal.  Almost would create a new little "urban" pocket.  Too bad they didn't go with that.

Thing is, Nashville residents have a right to voice their opinion on this since it was city-owned land, right?  So, fire away, Nashvillians!

[ariesjow]

I liked the Giarratana proposal as well. Pretty much all of them are better than the chosen one. Let's cross our fingers that this ends up like the former convention center redevelopment and the design is gradually improved over time. 

[markhollin]

23 minutes ago, PHofKS said:

Trying my best to sort out how all this is arranged on those lots. This is as good as I could figure out right now...

 

 

Nice work on this rendering, Pete.  The building you have placed on the far left won't be part of the proposal, as that lot is currently held aside by MDHA for water run-off and overage parking for Rolling Mill Hill residents. Everything else seems to fit with what the renderings are showing from other angles.

 

[PaulChinetti]

5 minutes ago, ariesjow said:

I liked the Giarratana proposal as well. Pretty much all of them are better than the chosen one. Let's cross our fingers that this ends up like the former convention center redevelopment and the design is gradually improved over time. 

Off topic but could you or anyone point to the original plans for the convention center, all that was happening before I was interested in all of this =)

[ariesjow]

18 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Off topic but could you or anyone point to the original plans for the convention center, all that was happening before I was interested in all of this =)

 

The thread contains the other proposals as well:

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/116247-former-convention-center-site-development-5th-broadway/?page=5

 

[TNinVB]

I love Tony's and the Matthew's Co. proposal. Those would have been so nice. I swear MDHA must be a bunch of idiots when it comes to architecture and design. The design (if you want to call it that) is a travesty! Such a disgrace. 

[MLBrumby]

5 hours ago, ariesjow said:

 

The thread contains the other proposals as well:

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/116247-former-convention-center-site-development-5th-broadway/?page=5

 

Another MDHA disaster.  Good thing it was redesigned.  

[VSRJ]

^ So maybe there's hope for this development?

[bigeasy]

This better have an RIE or I will be pissed.

[UTgrad09]

There simply aren't enough curse words in the English language to convey my displeasure with this project. And I am quite fluent in curses.

[kc8501]

When I saw the other options the only two things I thought were, WTF, that's the worst design (except the J thing, that was... uck) and I wonder how much the payoff was to the committee?  I truly hope, as earlier mentioned, that the design gets changed (for the better) over time.

[smeagolsfree]

An REI would work and only if it is a flagship store, otherwise I continue going to Brentwood.

[Hey_Hey]

I wonder how much of this was the good ole boy network.  The only thing that makes sense in my mind is nepotism.  I would like to see the criteria and scoring they used to justify this decision.  Hopefully one of the media outlets will get their hands on these documents. 

[MLBrumby]

There is a story at the online NBJ about the "modesty" of the winning proposal. I let my subscription expire.  So don't know what the details are. http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2016/07/all-about-perspective-winning-bid-for-trolley.html

The Tennessean reported yesterday that Eakin and Hensler offered $22 million for the two lots; and Giarratana et.al. offered $50 million for the two plus the lot at the corner.  Turning down that offer seems very irresponsible to me.  Remember, MDHA is the agency that let three lots in the footprint of the Music City Center get bought/sold out from under their clueless noses. The result was that they were forced to pay a much higher cost for the land than if they had been smart and bought options on all the land. And as noted by someone here, they picked a really horribly rendered (planned) proposal by Emery for the old convention center site.  MDHA does not appear to be run by smart people. I can imagine a bunch of bureaucratic "lifers".  Makes the whole operation smell of political patronage. I have a close friend who writes for the political page at the Tennessean.  Think I'll point him to this one. Should get Getahn on this one too. 

 

[BnaBreaker]

It got points for modesty?!?!  Are you kidding me?  What is this, a 1920's beauty pageant?  Sholy Hucking Fit, these inept schmucks really did go out of their way to pick the worst one!  This is outrageous.  If someone had just proposed a barn with a flower garden next to it, would that have been the winning bid?

Edited July 30, 2016 by BnaBreaker

[timmay143]

Late to the game, but WTF?!?!

[UTgrad09]

8 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

There is a story at the online NBJ about the "modesty" of the winning proposal. I let my subscription expire.  So don't know what the details are. http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2016/07/all-about-perspective-winning-bid-for-trolley.html

The Tennessean reported yesterday that Eakin and Hensler offered $22 million for the two lots; and Giarratana et.al. offered $50 million for the two plus the lot at the corner.  Turning down that offer seems very irresponsible to me.  Remember, MDHA is the agency that let three lots in the footprint of the Music City Center get bought/sold out from under their clueless noses. The result was that they were forced to pay a much higher cost for the land than if they had been smart and bought options on all the land. And as noted by someone here, they picked a really horribly rendered (planned) proposal by Emery for the old convention center site.  MDHA does not appear to be run by smart people. I can imagine a bunch of bureaucratic "lifers".  Makes the whole operation smell of political patronage. I have a close friend who writes for the political page at the Tennessean.  Think I'll point him to this one. Should get Getahn on this one too. 

 

I want to punch a baby seal.

[fieldmarshaldj]

[smeagolsfree]

The NBJ article appears to be a subtle slam against the projects and comparisons of the office building made to Cool Springs buildings.

Adam has to be careful as all media folks, but I hope there is an uproar of public opposition to the project.

As far as MDHA goes, the D needs to be removed and their power taken away as far as development goes. The Metro Planning department needs to be put in charge  of development issues. This is a left over from last century and needs to change very soon.