Jump to content

smeagolsfree

505 CST - 545 feet - 45 Floors

Recommended Posts


P.S. I forgot to mention that the green spaces around many of the buildings in this neighborhood are pulling double duty to conceal rather substantial underground parking structures. (BOOM, goes the city planning...for people!!! :shok: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Nashville never looks like that. Both sides of the street have nothing but garage doors and parking. Plus, the buildings are not built up to the street. Looks like Lenox Village, except worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whether or not you're joking. (I mean, if you legitimately see Lenox Village reflected in this neighborhood, I sincerely want better resolution for your computer monitor.)

 

In the case that you're not being cheeky, you realize you just let everyone who bothered to actually look around the neighborhood that you didn't, in fact, look around the neighborhood, right? 

 

This philosophy of New Urbanism that we enjoy bandying about includes a focus on denser cities as places for people...that walk...on sidewalks. Thus, the buildings come up to the sidewalk, not the street, as streets are for cars n' buses n' trams n' things.

 

(Seriously, though: look before you leap.) :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whether or not you're joking. (I mean, if you legitimately see Lenox Village reflected in this neighborhood, I sincerely want better resolution for your computer monitor.)

 

In the case that you're not being cheeky, you realize you just let everyone who bothered to actually look around the neighborhood that you didn't, in fact, look around the neighborhood, right? 

 

This philosophy of New Urbanism that we enjoy bandying about includes a focus on denser cities as places for people...that walk...on sidewalks. Thus, the buildings come up to the sidewalk, not the street, as streets are for cars n' buses n' trams n' things.

 

(Seriously, though: look before you leap.) :thumbsup:

 

Actually quite a lot of the residential buildings in that neighborhood were lined with garage doors at their bases, so I actually do agree with him there, though, knowing what I know about your opinions on urban neighborhoods I'm quite sure those weren't what you intended to highlight. 

 

Everything else though looks great to me.  The street itself, and the urban environment in general in that Brussels neighborhood is simply so VASTLY complex and enriched compared to what you see anywhere in Nashville, where we're usually pretty lucky if there is even a flower pot or garbage can on the sidewalk which may or may not exist, to liven up the scene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Lenox Village doesn't have the streets lined with garage doors. Those are all hidden in the back :D

 

But I don't really see the comparison. I am not sure if that would be my favorite option for how Nashville would look, but I certainly would not be unhappy if our streets looked like that. I do think it does not represent what most people on the site seem to want, and that is more street level activity. It could just be that certain area, or maybe the camera, but the buildings look very far from the street. 

Edited by bigeasy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, both of your responses get to the crux of my argument: Anglo-American New Urbanism is too limited and unduly rigid. For example, it may help to point out that, despite the shrill commentary, the buildings with garage doors out front are hardly the rule and reflect a design element that, regardless of taste, in no way detracts from neighborhood's density or street-level activity. (It dawns on me that, to Middle Americans, garage doors code for "suburbia" rather than simply "cars go here". Urban garages, of course, have no doors at all. They are best realized as open mouth caves because...that's how they appear in conjunction with skyscrapers?) I advocate for a necessary expansion of how we define "urban"---beyond Hollywood-filtered images of New York or Chicago. Cities like that are understandably unique and few in number. Desirably dense cities like Brussels, however, are more like Nashville in terms of population size and there are more of them. Therefore, by not taking our inspiration from more people-scaled cities like Brussels, we have developed a puerile preoccupation with the built environment to the detriment of the people who would live and work in it. 

 

It is unreasonable to expect that cars should be exiled from the dense city of our dreams. It is unreasonable to think that every building should come with the same type of covered parking structure (if it has one at all). In Molenbeek, you can see that different approaches have been taken to include diverse residents, resulting in a dense, green, visually engaging environment. That is, people with cars are included; people who walk are included (with wide sidewalks between buildings and streets); people on bicycles are included (with their own dedicated bike paths); and people choosing to take public transit are included.

 

Likewise, not every building needs to be "activated at the ground level" in the same manner. Not every building needs a commercial component on the ground floor. Not every building needs to showcase floor-to-ceiling windows into residents' homes/building lobbies/gyms/pools so passersby can somehow feel connected to the buildings as they pass. 

 

Still, it's safe to say that a zeal for inclusion would support developing density more so than our uncritical championing of "luxurious" residential amenities.

 

But we, in the American school, seem to be satisfied with the overtly classist (and strangely uniform) bent of New Urbanism, which allows only a small segment of the population access to and a choice in how they would live in a denser Nashville---excluding the greater portion of the current and future population.

Edited by vinemp
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest

@Vinemp

I am not sure for what it is you are advocating. A new - new Euro urbanism? A classless housing system? Cheap Condos?

I am also confused exactly how "New Urbanism, which allows only a small segment of the population access to and a choice in how they would live in a denser Nashville---excluding the greater portion of the current and future population."
 

By 'choice' do you mean those that have the means to 'buy' into Nashville's urban resurgence ... and by 'excluding' do you mean that the builders that are maximizing their ROI?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I well qualified what I characterize as an "expansion of how we define 'urbanism'". I never mentioned Europe (or any continent for that matter); I advocated a look at dense cities with a population similar to Nashville's. I didn't allude to a utopia; I referenced diversity. And, regarding architecture and amenities, there's a lot of room between luxury and austerity.

 

You didn't really finish your thought on New Urbanism, but it may help to consider that contemporary New Urbanism is largely an attempt to reverse and remedy elements of 20th-century American Urban Renewal that proved antagonistic to Nashville's long-term development.

 

C'mon, NB, its more than disingenuous to insinuate that "The Market" and/or developers, as opposed to and/also communities and governments, influence urban development. But, if you really think that "those that have the means" are in/will be in such significant numbers to populate every block between Broadway and I-40, I leave you to your reverie. 

 

I just think the cute-factor is one feature attracting development, but, if we are hoping for protracted growth, affordability is not something to disregard. Nashville is, in no way, channeling all ideas for growth.

 

(I mean, I'd wager that more of our coveted young talent is moving into 37211 and 37013 than to anywhere around the CBD.)

Edited by vinemp
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Government plays a role - mostly negative - in growth. There are occasionally some sound policies but in the macro the government bureaucracy is an obstacle to be overcome to have economic growth. As you alluded to the death of the downtown was in large part a product of our lovely government and it's 'modern' zoning practices of the mid-century.

 

And I am all for diversity, but not for centrally-planned, publicly subsidize housing.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ha, I have been called many colorful names over the years but naive is a new one. 

To be clear, I never said that the government does not play a role - only that more times that not it is a hinderance to organic growth and it picks winners and thus losers. I am a proponent of judiciously applied TIF (in areas that need redevelopment - definitely not the present-day Gulch) and wise zoning. I consider that to be an investment. I am not a proponent of overly stringent 'Historic Districts' (unless the property owners are aboard), rent-control, or government-directed 'affordable' housing developments in hi-rent parts of a town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, we never left 505.

 

There is an easy connection to be made between investment in residential options that are accessible to a larger section of our cherished young talent and the allocation of TIF financing/funding options for 505, a project that may have a difficult time reaching capacity.

 

(Wait. Was it decided that 505 wouldn't be completely residential?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole purpose of 505 is that this project will be far above anything in terms of living alternatives in Nashville. This project like the Signature tower will cater to a much higher class of buyer and renter than anything in Nashville or currently planned. I see a great market for corporate rentals on the apartment side and on the condo side this will be where your higher paid athletes, entertainers, and professionals would buy. I also see this as a second home for some super wealthy that visit Nashville from time to time.

With that being said, the median income for downtown could rise, thus attracting high end retailers and could also act as a magnet for corporate relocations because those executives would have something comparable to what you would find in Larger cities. This is just speculation on my part, but I think it will end up being TIF money well spent.

 

Correct, business owners don't like to travel far to work. If they live downtown, then they will also have the office downtown. If they live in Cool Springs, then they will also have the office in Cool Springs.

Share this post


Link to post
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.