Inner Loop - CBD, Downtown, East Bank, Germantown, Gulch, Rutledge

[East Side Urbanite]

2 hours ago, Luvemtall said:

Seems to be some really good talking points , on both sides of this coin. I agree with Mark on a lot of his points, but I fully agree and understand what the opposite side is offering. But , and this is just my opinion on this. If anyone comes in and buys a property (and in this case, spends 29 million) and they decide to raze the current building and build whatever the zoning permits and the powers that be approved. Then that’s their business, regardless of what we might all think. It’s not our call, we don’t have a say. And if anyone here on this forum, was involved in a same kind of situation as a developer, or investor etc. you would want to exercise your right to do what best serves your intentions. So at this point, let’s wait and see what plans might come forth, maybe nothing… maybe something super nice and awesome that will completely change the way we look at this. 

 

I'm a capitalist (and rather hard-core,  too) who strongly believes in individual property rights.  For example, I strongly supported Joy Ford's right to NOT sell her building on the Music Row Roundabout, when some on this board wanted MDHA to take it from her. Your points are well made.

But I stand by my point: Nashville has only one brick and stone, art deco-era mixed-use (parking and retail) structure — and it is located in a node of our downtown with other "smaller" masonry buildings. As such, to lose this building would be very unfortunate on various levels.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by East Side Urbanite

[East Side Urbanite]

11 minutes ago, Baronakim said:

Oh well.  here is the two cent opinion of an old architect, guys.  From what I can tell, I must assume the  parking lot floors are not ramped. but have some internal ramping without parking on them.  These ramps would be rather steep which would be consistant with parking structures from that era.  I would think that the original garage had attendance servived parking.  For instance the Cain-Sloan Department Store built in 1964 was still attendant parking.  From the existing  window layouts, I see no reason to doubt this.  The windows are reasonably large and should  offer no problems for providing room windows for a quality botique hotel.  They wrap on threes sides offering windows onto Printer's Alley and 3rd Avenue.  I see NO reason for much necessity to modify the existing building very much beyond a good cleaning and signage.  It looks perfectly sound and in fair repair to me.  I think the street sloping towards the river would allow a very workable floor to floor height for a very nice hotel lobby function and I would assume  some parking retention accessed  as existing off Printer's Alley for the hotel.  Surely the hotel can function with many fewer parking spaces than currently exist.  Basically the parking on the upper levels can be converted to rooms.    If the existing parking access on Church can serve as automotive access, any additional parking can ce valet served off site if necessary.I think a competent design firm could very easily come up with a resonable layout retaining all of the exterior masonry.  Look at what ESa did with the Dream Hotel project on 4th Avenue.  The  glazing of the steel windows would surely have to be addressed with something  historically compatible, but I don't think that is a big issue.  I am going to assume that the half story window discontinuty on the 3rd Avenue fascade  house an exit stair and probably there is only one stair, so another would have to be designed exiting onto Printer's Alley.  As to the lack of windows on one side, I don't think that is a big issue either as the center side would be very practiclly need for an elevator core, room services and HVAC core.  I would assume that two rooms flanking could utilize some of the windowless space for luxury spa/bar or some such function too.  I am quite confident that I could design a layout that would work as a quality boutique hotel   I could easily see the existing roof having a great bar being built set back from the original fascade.    Of course there would have to be substantial study and probably some creative solutions to make it all come together, but from my POV, problems would not ne insurmountable.    I agree with Smeag that Nashville Historic Commission would be all over this and I see that good  design can satisfy the main historic nature of the building without resorting to demolition. As to Lonnie's, Ms Kellie's, MJ's, Daddy's Dogs... I think they must go as their Church Street storefronts are awful.  The building is going to have to be gutted and I do not see these businesses returning as the rent of the redesigned spacs would be too high.  I guess the argument is similar to those folks who would have Rotiers move into the new tower on West End.  Not gonna happen.

Always good to see you weigh in, Baronakim. Good stuff.

[Baronakim]

55 minutes ago, titanhog said:

IMO, as long as it stays a nice brick structure up to at least the height it is now…I’m ok with whatever they build there.  Looking at the garage…it’s not like it’s a masterpiece of Art Deco.  It’s nice…but I could see them building something more updated (like an apartment tower with retail)…with the first 5 stories being an exact replica of the current facade.  Even maybe use the same bricks or similar.  

Then…above 5 floors can be a glass box.

I see no need to "replicate" the existing fascade.  It appears perfectly sound as it is and this is not what the Nashville Historic Commission would likely consider.  As much of the original as possible should be retained IMO.   Conversion of interior could take place internally and additional floors  could possibly be added with Nashville Historic Commission approval.  I think a 'glass box' is a dreadful idea.  The kind of recent addition to the adjacent Noel Hotel would be more acceptable I would think.

[titanhog]

4 minutes ago, Baronakim said:

I see no need to "replicate" the existing fascade.  It appears perfectly sound as it is and this is not what the Nashville Historic Commission would likely consider.  As much of the original as possible should be retained IMO.   Conversion of interior could take place internally and additional floors  could possibly be added with Nashville Historic Commission approval.  I think a 'glass box' is a dreadful idea.  The kind of recent addition to the adjacent Noel Hotel would be more acceptable I would think.

I have no issue with them using the shell as is.  As far as “glass box”…I’m just making the comment that they can build something above the original that is “current trend.”   I guess next time I need to include a “sarcasm” signal so it won’t be so dreadful to you.

I agree with the Noel Hotel.  

[Luvemtall]

1 hour ago, East Side Urbanite said:

But I stand by my point: Nashville has only one brick and stone, art deco-era mixed-use (parking and retail) structure — and it is located in a node of our downtown with other "smaller" masonry buildings. As such, to lose this building would be very unfortunate on various levels

I do agree. but at the same time, I have a feeling that it’s not going to stay “as is” for very long. What intentions they have we don’t know , but I agree with Mark that it’s not just staying the way it is. Now turning it into a Hotel such as the Noelle, or Dream as Baronakim mentioned is probably spot on, but I would believe that they would add floors if possible. I do think the ground level retail will changing also,  conversion to hotel or residential will need some of that space, plus as mentioned the rent will become to expensive 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Luvemtall

[CandyAisles]

11 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

FWIW, Rockbridge is an investment company only and does not do development as far as I know.

They JV on development.

2 hours ago, East Side Urbanite said:

 

As such, to lose this building would be very unfortunate on various levels.

 

I'd bet that this is not the direction.

[CandyAisles]

2 hours ago, Baronakim said:

The kind of recent addition to the adjacent Noel Hotel would be more acceptable I would think.

Of note for everyone regarding this: https://www.hotelmanagement.net/openings/rockbridge-s-newest-nashville-project-noelle-officially-opens

[markhollin]

Rutledge Flats (8 stories, 174 units, ground level retail) update.

Looking SE from 3rd Ave. South, 1/2 block north of Elm St:

Looking NE from 3rd Ave. South, 1/4 block north of Elm St:

[smeagolsfree]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:02 PM, markhollin said:

1) Commerce and 4th  is 8 stories tall and was built 50 years ago.  It also has ground level retail. Is that historical? Would you protest if a developer bought that and wanted to build on that prime site?  And how about its sister garage that it joins at 144 5th Ave. North?  It was built in 1930 and has some ground level retail.  Would you fight for that one?

2) 201 Union is 67 years old, but I don't think you would fight to have that one saved.

3) 224 3rd Ave. North is 80 years old and is coming down for the Printer Bank development.  Why not fight for that one? 

4) How about the garages that stood at the NW corner of Commerce and 7th (where the Federal Courthouse is now) or the one that was at 801 Church (where Prime is being built now).  I didn't hear any defense of those.  Why? They were both 8 decades old when they were razed.

I will tackle these one by one:

Something built in the 70's is a far cry from something that is art deco in nature. There is nothing else like it in Nashville. Sorry but the garage at 144 5th Ave N was built in 1967. It is still a parcel of crap. If you look at the images those garages were not there prior to 1960.

201 Union is a 1 level garage, and nothing special.

224 3rd was not safe and deemed unsound and has to be taken down and that happens.

The garage at 7th & Commerce was falling apart due to lack of upkeep. If you were ever inside, you could see the concrete that had fallen off all the way through to the steel girders. I think the garage was built between 1940 & 1950, but I am unsure. The federal courthouse garage is just another 70's piece of crap garage.

 

On top of all of this, when a company pulls a loan on a property, most of the time they will pull a construction loan at the time they pull the loan for the loan on the property. They did not. They pulled a loan for 23.1 million for the project. They will sit on this property for 5 years and sell it for about 40 to 45 million.

I would be OK with a plan to build atop the garage, but they are limited as to how high they can go here. But they will have to do a lot of structural reinforcement to the structure which will not be cheap.

 

 

[markhollin]

In nearly every case one doesn't request a construction loan until you have plans in place and permits procedures are underway.

I'm not sure what all this "art deco" fuss is with this garage.  There is nothing that screams that style other than it was built in 1930.  

These are examples of Art Deco:

This is that garage in question: 

[titanhog]

Yeah…there’s not much about it that screams “Art Deco.”  I mean…I love the brick…and if they can either keep the shell and build something internally or tear it down and rebuild the bottom to look similar, great.

[Nashvillain]

1 hour ago, markhollin said:

In nearly every case one doesn't request a construction loan until you have plans in place and permits procedures are underway.

I'm not sure what all this "art deco" fuss is with this garage.  There is nothing that screams that style other than it was built in 1930.  

I was thinking the same thing. What is art deco about this garage? I do like the arches, though

An art deco example from Nashville (and maybe an art deco-lite homage right next door?): 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Nashvillain

[CandyAisles]

3 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

I was thinking the same thing. What is art deco about this garage? I do like the arches, though

An art deco example from Nashville (and maybe an art deco-lite homage right next door?): 

This was Marr and Holman's first Art Deco project...and if you've been inside, you'd know that the inside is NOT Art Deco at all.  Guess they were still figuring it all out in 1929.

[rookzie]

4 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

I was thinking the same thing. What is art deco about this garage? I do like the arches, though

An art deco example from Nashville (and maybe an art deco-lite homage right next door?): 

 

While others might beg to differ, I consider that structure more in line with the "Chicago School" architectural movement, which took on a form of Modernism during the turn of the 20th century.  This style generally had a minimum amount of ornamentation.

It's reported that Art Deco had its beginnings during the early 1910s, with the most salient and "de-facto" features having evolved into full blown identity by the mid-to-late 1920s.  While the interior might contain more outspoken expressions of Art Deco, Nashville was rather conservative in its transition to the burgeoning of Art Deco, particularly with the construction choices of this particular building.  On the exterior, the only thing that piques my interest at all would be the pilaster-like vertical projections along the east and south sides, particularly with the quoined brick feature extending from the ground to the top of the first story.  Other than that, noting really stands out as Art Deco.

Indeed, it does appear to be a rather sound structure, but it's existing structural plan may not readily lend itself to adaptive reuse, as we might prefer.

[BnaBreaker]

11 hours ago, markhollin said:

Rutledge Flats (8 stories, 174 units, ground level retail) update.

Looking SE from 3rd Ave. South, 1/2 block north of Elm St:

Looking NE from 3rd Ave. South, 1/4 block north of Elm St:

These look like quite a few of the newer highrise structures I saw in Reykjavik.  

[East Side Urbanite]

9 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I will tackle these one by one:

Something built in the 70's is a far cry from something that is art deco in nature. There is nothing else like it in Nashville. Sorry but the garage at 144 5th Ave N was built in 1967. It is still a parcel of crap. If you look at the images those garages were not there prior to 1960.

201 Union is a 1 level garage, and nothing special.

224 3rd was not safe and deemed unsound and has to be taken down and that happens.

The garage at 7th & Commerce was falling apart due to lack of upkeep. If you were ever inside, you could see the concrete that had fallen off all the way through to the steel girders. I think the garage was built between 1940 & 1950, but I am unsure. The federal courthouse garage is just another 70's piece of crap garage.

 

On top of all of this, when a company pulls a loan on a property, most of the time they will pull a construction loan at the time they pull the loan for the loan on the property. They did not. They pulled a loan for 23.1 million for the project. They will sit on this property for 5 years and sell it for about 40 to 45 million.

I would be OK with a plan to build atop the garage, but they are limited as to how high they can go here. But they will have to do a lot of structural reinforcement to the structure which will not be cheap.

 

 

Agree with your assessment of the lots Mark referenced. None is remotely close to worth saving compared to Noel Block Garage.

[East Side Urbanite]

Perhaps the better description for the Noel Block Garage is "art deco era" as opposed to "art deco design." Regardless, it is a handsome and old masonry building, the type that, for example, Pittsburgh has lots of and Nashville has few. Which is one reason I feel Pittsburgh is a more "tasteful" city (design wise) than our city.

Let the record show that I feel the Noel Garage building is a contributing element to the overall "old structure/old school urban  vibe" of that specific node of our CBD. So even if a "better" building replaces it, the "theme" of what we have there now with small brick and stone structures (with lots gone, sadly) will have been eroded even further with the possible razing of this building.

I cannot stress enough that context, history, distinctiveness, quirkiness, etc. must be considered with the razing of buildings. Just because a better/more suitable building can replace an older building ... that doesn't mean the older building does not have value.

Most of you were pleased when the four Carmichael towers on the Vanderbilt campus were felled. But as I noted at the time, and despite some of the horrendous elements of the buildings (I admit), the arrangement and setting of the towers was highly unusual. We simply didn't see that "wall of modernism" in many cities. For that alone, there was some value (though I greatly prefer what is there now).

Do many of you know the quirky Holiday Inn building in Raleigh is about to be razed? Take a look. Ugly in many respects. BUT ... it has value for its eye-catching form (despite its being in bad shape) and its history (was the tallest building in Raleigh from1969 to 1977).

I've lived in this city for about 40 of my 60 years, and my elderly parents were born here. So, yeah, I'm oddly protective of some of these buildings. Maybe I'm too sentimental. Too unrealistic. Too hard-assed.

But some of you seemingly are too quick to want to see buildings toppled just to see new stuff constructed in their place.

 

 

 

 

 

[bnacincy]

I've stayed at that Holiday Inn in Raleigh-it's a shame to see it go.

We have one similar to that one up here across the river in Covington, but I believe it's a Radisson now.

The Noel Block garage is the only above ground parking garage in the world I have ever liked-there is an intimacy to it that more modern buildings lack-I think because of the brickwork and the small windows.

The ground level retail is what makes it extra special and that has to be retained no matter what happens.

[titanhog]

8 hours ago, East Side Urbanite said:

Perhaps the better description for the Noel Block Garage is "art deco era" as opposed to "art deco design." Regardless, it is a handsome and old masonry building, the type that, for example, Pittsburgh has lots of and Nashville has few. Which is one reason I feel Pittsburgh is a more "tasteful" city (design wise) than our city.

Let the record show that I feel the Noel Garage building is a contributing element to the overall "old structure/old school urban  vibe" of that specific node of our CBD. So even if a "better" building replaces it, the "theme" of what we have there now with small brick and stone structures (with lots gone, sadly) will have been eroded even further with the possible razing of this building.

I cannot stress enough that context, history, distinctiveness, quirkiness, etc. must be considered with the razing of buildings. Just because a better/more suitable building can replace an older building ... that doesn't mean the older building does not have value.

Most of you were pleased when the four Carmichael towers on the Vanderbilt campus were felled. But as I noted at the time, and despite some of the horrendous elements of the buildings (I admit), the arrangement and setting of the towers was highly unusual. We simply didn't see that "wall of modernism" in many cities. For that alone, there was some value (though I greatly prefer what is there now).

Do many of you know the quirky Holiday Inn building in Raleigh is about to be razed? Take a look. Ugly in many respects. BUT ... it has value for its eye-catching form (despite its being in bad shape) and its history (was the tallest building in Raleigh from1969 to 1977).

I've lived in this city for about 40 of my 60 years, and my elderly parents were born here. So, yeah, I'm oddly protective of some of these buildings. Maybe I'm too sentimental. Too unrealistic. Too hard-assed.

But some of you seemingly are too quick to want to see buildings toppled just to see new stuff constructed in their place.

 

 

 

 

 

I get what you’re saying…but my personal opinion is that we have to take a “decision will be made on an individual basis” approach.  I know you have mentioned this garage…the Holiday Inn on Broadway…and those “milk tanks?” at Church and 15th…as old industrial / old stock we should save.  To me, each of these are in a lower tier of needing to be saved.  None of them, IMO, are architectural gems in this city.  When I think of things that need to be saved…or at least I hope they’re saved, I think of places like Marathon Motorworks…Neuhoff…the Gaddes Firehouse and the taller building next to it…some of the warehouse structures being converted in WeHo…the Masonic Lodge / Methodist Church? that was demolished in the footprint of Lake Palmer…etc.   

Even then…I can understand many of those warehouse facilities are a coin toss at best…and understandable.  I could see how if no one had come to the table with a great plan for Neuhoff, that would have eventually been demolished…and it again is somewhat understandable.  Even if no one had come forward to do what has been done at Marathon…that eventually would have just been a pile of bricks.

With this garage….I like the exterior.  It fits the neighborhood…so I agree that either that structure needs to remain and continually be checked to keep its structural integrity and then be possibly added onto (up top)…or gutted inside to become apartments.  I guess you could always keep it as a garage, but the price is getting up there where a garage may not make sense.  However…I don’t think it’s out of the realm that it could be replaced with something similar that is more 21st century (not in design) but in function.  I would definitely say the bottom floors need to be very similar to what is there now.  IF it can be gutted and repurposed…even better.

[Luvemtall]

This has definitely become a passionate “vocal” topic, and we don’t even know the plans or intentions of the owners! In some ways I’m hopeful that they just leave it as is, I wouldn’t want this forum with all our friends and neighbors, to become divided to the breaking point it seems is developing. It’s a hard call , both “sides” of this discussion are valuable points and both have merit. It’s a great feeling to see the passion everyone here has for both Nashville and it’s buildings . We are collectively a unique and special breed of individuals, that found each other  though that passion and to me feels like family. 
I thank you all . 

[smeagolsfree]

No, I think we are all still friends here. We are big boys and girls, and we can all agree to disagree on things and have our own opinions. You should here us on Saturday mornings at the meets going back and forward like Mama's Family.

[East Side Urbanite]

T-Hog makes some great points. There are "tiers" (her word and I like it) in terms of level of usefulness/attractiveness with buildings. I would much rather see, for example, the Noel Block Garage toppled than the Customs House. Clearly. And if Noel is bulldozed and a striking, charcoal brick neo-art deco eight-story mixed-used (hotel and retail) building that nicely address Third, Church and PAlley replaces it ... I can live with that.

What bothers me, as a native Nashvillian is this: A project or acquisition is announced/reported that will involve or could involve the razing of a solid building. And then a poster (or multiple posters) on this board post about the future reinvention of the site with no mention of the value of the structure to hypothetically be lost. Mark did it with his first post regarding this building and I've seen others do it too (not picking on you, Mark, because you know I love ya and HUGELY respect your contributions to this board, the Post and our city).

I saw it with the Carmichael towers. With the Keeble building that was felled at Eighth and Demonbreun (for JWMarriott), with the Imperial House next to Saint Thomas Hospital Midtown, with the Midtown milk tanks at the Country Delite site (and that Shay referenced), etc.

There is almost an "Out with the old and in with the new" mindset some posters sometimes exhibit that somewhat diminishes the importance of these structures.

And that is my main criticism.

And on an unrelated note, Luvemtall offers a very positive karma. Thanks for your posting, L-Tall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brit_in_Gtown]

Personally I think the garage is a prime example of architectural mediocrity. Unless you put on a whole new facade, it's never going to look particularly attractive in my opinion. 

[titanhog]

9 minutes ago, East Side Urbanite said:

T-Hog makes some great points. There are "tiers" (her word and I like it) in terms of level of usefulness/attractiveness with buildings. I would much rather see, for example, the Noel Block Garage toppled than the Customs House. Clearly. And if Noel is bulldozed and a striking, charcoal brick neo-art deco eight-story mixed-used (hotel and retail) building that nicely address Third, Church and PAlley replaces it ... I can live with that.

What bothers me, as a native Nashvillian is this: A project or acquisition is announced/reported that will involve or could involve the razing of a solid building. And then a poster (or multiple posters) on this board post about the future reinvention of the site with no mention of the value of the structure to hypothetically be lost. Mark did it with his first post regarding this building and I've seen others do it too (not picking on you, Mark, because you know I love ya and HUGELY respect your contributions to this board, the Post and our city).

I saw it with the Carmichael towers. With the Keeble building that was felled at Eighth and Demonbreun (for JWMarriott), with the Imperial House next to Saint Thomas Hospital Midtown, with the Midtown milk tanks at the Country Delite site (and that Shay referenced), etc.

There is almost an "Out with the old and in with the new" mindset some posters sometimes exhibit that somewhat diminishes the importance of these structures.

And that is my main criticism.

And on an unrelated note, Luvemtall offers a very positive karma. Thanks for your posting, L-Tall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much of it is subjective, though.  To me, the Carmichael Towers were no loss at all.  Just because they may be one of a kind in Nashville, I don’t think that’s necessarily a reason for them to stay.  To me, it’s bad architecture and almost an eye sore.  What they were replaced with are architecturally significant and 100 years from now will still be looked upon as superior stock.

I think most of us on this board do not want Nashville’s old stock to be demolished…but it’s all relative.  There are some things worth saving (and yes…we’ve lost a lot of stuff that should have been saved)…and some, not so much.  But even with this garage, as you can see, it’s probably not as high up the ladder.

Take the Garth Brooks building (the ugly blue-tinned building on Lower Broadway) with their horrible windows.  As much as I don’t want Lower Broadway’s building tinkered with, to me, this is one that you could knock down and rebuild in a 19th / early 20th century style and it would be 100% better than the current structure.  We have to remember that time is relative…and if we can tear down something old that is subpar and build something timeless in its place…100 years from now, everyone will be glad.

[East Side Urbanite]

1 minute ago, titanhog said:

So much of it is subjective, though.  To me, the Carmichael Towers were no loss at all.  Just because they may be one of a kind in Nashville, I don’t think that’s necessarily a reason for them to stay.  To me, it’s bad architecture and almost an eye sore.  What they were replaced with are architecturally significant and 100 years from now will still be looked upon as superior stock.

I think most of us on this board do not want Nashville’s old stock to be demolished…but it’s all relative.  There are some things worth saving (and yes…we’ve lost a lot of stuff that should have been saved)…and some, not so much.  But even with this garage, as you can see, it’s probably not as high up the ladder.

Take the Garth Brooks building (the ugly blue-tinned building on Lower Broadway) with their horrible windows.  As much as I don’t want Lower Broadway’s building tinkered with, to me, this is one that you could knock down and rebuild in a 19th / early 20th century style and it would be 100% better than the current structure.  We have to remember that time is relative…and if we can tear down something old that is subpar and build something timeless in its place…100 years from now, everyone will be glad.

Agree fully.