Jump to content

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


markhollin

Recommended Posts


Amazing work mark, thank you so much for the rundown.  It gives me piece of mind to know that there was much more consideration involved in the process than simply 'its cheaper.'  Still though, perhaps this is unfair, but the cynic in me reads all of that talk about redesigns etc. and the only thing I really come away with is there will be a fin plopped onto the top.  I mean, it is still Eakin we are talking about here, after all.

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure hope he's right about them giving the land to someone who'll build a 30 floor tower on the corner lot.  That's what I was hoping they were aiming for with that piece.  A 450-foot office tower on that lot would definitely help ease the pain of the rest of this.  I'm also anticipating seeing more detailed renderings of everything because he makes it sound like they could change (stylistically at least) a decent amount. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bmkTN said:

I sure hope he's right about them giving the land to someone who'll build a 30 floor tower on the corner lot.  That's what I was hoping they were aiming for with that piece.  A 450-foot office tower on that lot would definitely help ease the pain of the rest of this.  I'm also anticipating seeing more detailed renderings of everything because he makes it sound like they could change (stylistically at least) a decent amount. 

Yeah it sounds like that. If they do build a 450-footer then I can't really be mad. But if they try to really change it and make it dense I wouldn't hate the MDHA anymore lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, arkitekte said:

Some of those other proposals are pie in the sky, to be honest. 

I definitely agree with this sentiment.  Some folks were bummed by Tony G not being picked, but his proposal (while very cool) was a bit much, especially for that site.  But Matthews and Emery and Cambridge were still realistic and better than what we're getting though, unfortunately.  At this point I've just accepted fate and I'm going into wait-and-see mode on how it turns out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2016 at 8:01 PM, arkitekte said:

I'm not for sure if any guidelines were established, but let's pretend they weren't. Each of the developers would (in theory) have different ...

It just smells like a set up. It looks like like MDHA raised the limit to 30 stories so the bidders would have bold, large proposals. BUT, their only intention was always to have smaller buildings, scaling to the Trolley Barns

This looks like: please design me a big, fancy 3-story mansion! Then say, no, I just wanted my best buddy to set up a trailer house

This is a huge black eye for our city. After the old CC fiasco, and now this, how many out-of-town developers will dare to waste bidding resources on Nashville ever again????

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LA_TN said:

It just smells like a set up. It looks like like MDHA raised the limit to 30 stories so the bidders would have bold, large proposals. BUT, their only intention was always to have smaller buildings, scaling to the Trolley Barns

This looks like: please design me a big, fancy 3-story mansion! Then say, no, I just wanted my best buddy to set up a trailer house

This is a huge black eye for our city. After the old CC fiasco, and now this, how many out-of-town developers will dare to waste bidding resources on Nashville ever again????

This is what I worry about too.  After this debacle, why would any out of town development have an attitude that is anything other than 'why should we ever waste our time on this city again?'

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LA_TN said:

It just smells like a set up. It looks like like MDHA raised the limit to 30 stories so the bidders would have bold, large proposals. BUT, their only intention was always to have smaller buildings, scaling to the Trolley Barns

This looks like: please design me a big, fancy 3-story mansion! Then say, no, I just wanted my best buddy to set up a trailer house

This is a huge black eye for our city. After the old CC fiasco, and now this, how many out-of-town developers will dare to waste bidding resources on Nashville ever again????

So what's the issue if they did? It's certainly not illegal. Cities do this all the time and most actually pick the project that has the highest probability of being constructed, not just what looks good from preliminary renderings. 

Again, as I posted earlier, the feasibility of a lot of those proposals is slim to none. They're pie in the sky. The purpose here is the successfully develop the land, not hold an architecture school design studio critique that wastes money over the course of 3 years with nothing being developed (that's sure where Tony G's and Platinum were headed). They look nice, tall and shiny on a presentation board, but once those projects go to bid, you get results similar to West End Summit, Signature Tower, 505, etc. Some offer awesome pedestrian scaled massing (Eakin's does this as well), but literally all some do is offer inappropriate height adjacent to the river and existing historic structures. 

Out of town developers will continue to dare to waste bidding resources in Nashville as long as there's money to be made. That's how the market works. Most will also stay away from projects like this regardless of previous history and will only work with a municipal government when it comes to an incentive package and the approval/permitting process.

Would a bigger black eye for the city be if they had chosen the Flying J proposal and wound up with another urban lake? Then the general public would say: "They wasted millions on a project that obviously wasn't feasible! We're a box city, for goodness sake!"

One variable that I've missed in this entire situation are existing downtown stakeholders' weigh on all of this; that is the people who actually have a financial investment in the immediate area. I'd assume they would be more appreciative of one of the smaller scaled projects. 

Edited by arkitekte
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just as Joe Cain from MDHA had told me in September, the lot on the SE corner of KVB and Hermitage Ave. will, indeed, be converted into surface parking for the short term to honor the contract with Asurion.  This will make up for parking lost when the other lots are developed for Hensler and Matthews' buildings once construction gets underway.  Then, when the development is finished, that prime corner lot will start receiving bids.  Joe seemed to think it will get keen interest for a substantial structure.  Of course, this may be 3-5 years in the future.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2016/12/16/mdha-eyes-125-new-parking-spots-across-ascend-amphitheater/95532206/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
7 minutes ago, SoundScan said:

Trolley Barns a "blighted area?" There is no reason to hand out $7.9 million in public aid for this project. If there are excess TIF funds remaining for this MDHA redevelopment district then they should be redirected to an area that actually needs help.

Especially with the crap designs.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really!!!  Metro should demand better designs... but after all, they chose the developer, didn't they.  

But my confusion stems from this passage from the article:   The parking lot Eakin would redevelop contains roughly 170 spaces today, which are used by tenants of the Trolley Barns and people visiting those companies and organizations. The parking garage for Eakin's building would contain 165 replacement spaces, according to the development agreement with MDHA.

So what am I missing?  With 170 spaces now... then an office building with xxx more cars brought in each day; and Eakin is replacing only 165 spaces?!?!  Is there something I'm missing in this information, or is it just confirmed that MDHA really is run by a bunch of morons? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NashRugger said:

It's probably buried in here, but the "rendering" Eakin put out is not the actual design of whatever building they may construct there, it's simply a place holder. 

We can hope.  Think of how the convention center redevelopment design improved.  

Still, this deal stinks.  Millions in subsidies for a prime piece of land to go to a pretty well-off developer for the least ambitious proposal, when other suitable candidates were lined up with cool ideas.  At least they're not buying the corner lot, maybe someone with a great idea will buy that one.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of TIF and I think that its a really effective tool for urban renewal when used correctly. However, this project is not suited for TIF at all. I am not even a huge conspiracy theorist or anything, but I cant help but think that dreamwielder may be on to something with his post. 

Edited by henburg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.