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


17 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Eakin looking for office tenants... (behind paywall)

"We’re never going to start a building without sufficient pre-leasing," developer says of plans for 220,000-square-foot building near Ascend Amphitheater.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/02/14/eakin-hunting-for-office-tenants-to-kickstart-265m.html

"Or if we get several million dollars in TIF"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, markhollin said:

According to Paramount 747 (John), "core drilling equipment has been spotted on Rolling Mill Hill at the surface lot where Eakin would build the 4-6 story office building" that would face Hermitage Avenue.

Interesting. Side note, is John back!?!?! or was that from another site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Verily, I say unto you: I cannot open this thread again 'cause everytime I read it..... it just makes me PO'd. A do-over would be great. MDHA should just declare that indecipherable decision their 'mulligan' for 2016. I'm willing to give them another, better shot in '17.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

It's so hilarious to me how they'll have a community meeting for the public to give input about, say, a new neighborhood library, or a street being widened, but not about a gigantic project like this.  What gives?

Public input on a project of this size often produces nothing but "suggestions" from people who have no professional advice or experience in development that often have nothing to do with the project other than specifically living in the city where it's proposed. As a developer, what would you do with Ordinary Tom telling you to add whatever to your design (that's no required by a development code or design guidelines) that would add millions of dollars to your project? Would you seriously consider developing in a city that took those opinions from the general public who had no financial stake in the project and would not have to answer to private financers if your project stalled or produces more debt than originally agreed upon?

Sure, some could say that through the use of TIF or other public funding that all citizens have a stake in the project, but that's the case with almost every public or private development regardless of size, use or location. I've commented earlier in this thread that personally from experience in both the public and private sector that the selected project is probably one of two or so that actually has the ability to be developed. If we're getting ordinary designs on almost every other tower design, what makes this one any different other than the investment of public funds to redevelop public property? 

Many cities do allow for public input and comment on projects this size. I personally think it's good, but those comments often stray far from design and focus on issues that aren't in the purview of the approving board or commission. [Example - Hotel project goes through a public hearing project for approval of the design. Public comments focus on the decision (from a private developer) to not use a unionized hotel operator to run the hotel.] 

I will add those comments, related to or not to design, are usually not taken into consideration by those boards and commissions OR the public hearing is completely ignored and the public cries foul months after the approval process once construction has started. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love seeing Cooper harp on this and it will be interesting to see if the Council will pick this up as a major issue, but I doubt there will be any significant changes except maybe altering the TIF deal.  BTW, that Tony G. proposal never had a chance.  Way too big and ambitious for what MDHA wanted.  I think they should have gone with the Mathews one, which was runner-up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bmkTN said:

I love seeing Cooper harp on this and it will be interesting to see if the Council will pick this up as a major issue, but I doubt there will be any significant changes except maybe altering the TIF deal.  BTW, that Tony G. proposal never had a chance.  Way too big and ambitious for what MDHA wanted.  I think they should have gone with the Mathews one, which was runner-up.

Image result for off with their heads gif\

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Haha let me clarify that I personally think Tony G's proposal was amazing and I would have absolutely LOVED it.  I just wasn't surprised that they didn't go with it due to the fact that it would have taken years and years and years to build out.  I hate to say it, but I've pretty much made peace with what we're getting.  I'm just hoping the finished product somehow turns out better that the initial renderings.:wacko:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.