House of Blues/hotel/office space, 18 stories, 105-107 1st Ave. South

[Outskirts]

I agree Mark. If the design is done right it has the potential to really set off the Nashville skyline (looking east) and fade SoBro into Broadway.

[MLBrumby]

Hard to know, but looks like this has more to do with businesses on Broadway not wanting the "fun" to spill off the strip, Second Avenue notwithstanding. Sure would help HOB's case if they had renderings to show how this would look from various perspectives. 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2017/11/17/downtown-merchants-outcry-delays-key-vote-affects-nashvilles-house-blues/875965001/

[Neigeville2]

To my taste, the materials should match on the first 3 floors or so, preferably even with some traditional ornamentation.  I'm fine with glass and steel sprouting from traditional bases, however.

[madisonman]

On 11/18/2017 at 10:41 AM, Outskirts said:

I agree Mark. If the design is done right it has the potential to really set off the Nashville skyline (looking east) and fade SoBro into Broadway.

To gamble on the design being done right is a huge risk.  How are you going to make a building stepping up from 6 floors to 14 floors to 18 floors look right next to 4 story historic brick acme building and historic shelby street bridge.   Brick  glass none of it would be compatable on scale alone.   You are in La la land if you think this architect or any architect can make this look right.   HOB would be great to have here or somewhere else but let us not sell our soul or our most successful tourist area broadway historic district  to get it.  Bedsides if the developer gets the zoning change there is no garentee that HOB will locate there then.  Also why should a historic district "fade"  into the adjacent 40 story high rise neighborhood -it has to contrast.  Keep this and all future high rises out of broadway district.  district should stay protected all the way to the historic shelby bridge.   The shocking part of all of this is that the historic commission staff has sold it soul and integrity to political pressure-that is scary.  Next time at a zoning commission meeting when the staff says something is not compatible it is only dependent on who you know.  

Also to think that if 18 stories is not approved it will remain a parking lot forever is ridiculous.  Another building will be built instead. stop giving in to developers greed to make more money or make there deal easier.  The adjacent vacant lot on 2nd ave s. next to it is has gotten approved for a 6 story  mix use infill meeting the existing guidelines.  The success of the historic district will fill in all vacant lots-have faith and vision.

Edited November 23, 2017 by madisonman

[NashRugger]

I'm trying to figure out how this proposal would ruin the aura of that area. 

[Outskirts]

Well, I have been accused of being in "la- la land" before;  however, I do believe it could  be built to look great. Saying that no architect could make this look good is subjective and a bit incredulous.  I guess I don't see how this is disrupting the look of Broadway when it's not even fronting the street itself, but that's my opinion.  I admire your drive to preserve historical districts and I am all for that myself, but in this case, I don't believe this project is harming much.  Just out of curiosity; If you were a developer with this exact plot, what would you build here?

[madisonman]

1 hour ago, Outskirts said:

Well, I have been accused of being in "la- la land" before;  however, I do believe it could  be built to look great. Saying that no architect could make this look good is subjective and a bit incredulous.  I guess I don't see how this is disrupting the look of Broadway when it's not even fronting the street itself, but that's my opinion.  I admire your drive to preserve historical districts and I am all for that myself, but in this case, I don't believe this project is harming much.  Just out of curiosity; If you were a developer with this exact plot, what would you build here?

I would BUild a 6 story building mix use bldg.most likely retail on lower floors and roof and remainder could be residential.    In terms of architecture how does an 3  story brick look next to an 18 story new building loo-  It dominates it ,  there are no materials or way it is compatable due to scale alone.  You do not think that this project is "harming much".  I do not mean any disrespect for you about your point of view but preserving historic buildings and districts means just that preserving.  If you think an idea might is not harm much look just look at  that idea over time.  many of the bad things that architects and planners thought were good at the time -later we determined they were so wrong but it was too late.  They probably said that in the 60's during urban renewal when the tore down so much of our history to build parking lots for cars.  

Also we are not just preserving broadway but an area of town

There is a reason that the developer who is an architect does not show a picture of what it looks like because it does not look good and is not compatible.  there was a reason why the developer and the Historic comm staff did not let the public know about the revisions being proposed and tried to slide this approval process by without public scutiny.  that is because it is inconsistant with what the staff and comm have been doing in the historic district for the last 20 years. 

The reason the backside of the buildings were added to the historic district was to protect them from highrises  (at the time the weston was proposed on 2nd and broadway.)  If they allow one building of 18 story on broadway then a 18 story building could be built where the crab shack is located on 2nd ave south and on third and fourth ave south as well. If they allow one 18 story bldg then others in similar situations can be built.   

When dealing with historic districts one needs to look at the big picture over time-past our life times as well.  HOB is just an idea but one does not change the historic districts for one tenant there will be others.  Preservation is about consistency. what seems to make sense today ie HOB could be the change that starts the disruption of broadway.  Preservation is about respect not politics or short term solution for short term gains.  If you want to preserve something you have to make sacrifies if it is worth preserving.  Preserve the district to the shelby street bridge.  

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by madisonman

[titanhog]

I'm trying to understand what the big deal is regarding height off of Broadway.  I understand keeping the historic buildings on Broadway from 1st to 5th as they are...or at least build something to replicate the historic structures already in place.  But why does it really matter what is built behind these structures?  You already have Batman built really close to Broadway, and as far as I can tell, it does not detract from the historic district.  To me, Broadway is mostly about what is happening at street level.

[madisonman]

9 minutes ago, titanhog said:

I'm trying to understand what the big deal is regarding height off of Broadway.  I understand keeping the historic buildings on Broadway from 1st to 5th as they are...or at least build something to replicate the historic structures already in place.  But why does it really matter what is built behind these structures?  You already have Batman built really close to Broadway, and as far as I can tell, it does not detract from the historic district.  To me, Broadway is mostly about what is happening at street level.

Preservation is not only about how we see it today such as "To me, broadway is mostly about what is happening at street level"  what to you think people will think about this area in 25 years from now, 50 years 100 years from now.  If we truly protect historic area not just broadway level what would people say about district 100 or more years from now.  then that would be special and historic-when everywhere else is skyscrapers but this neighborhood stays small and historic in scale that would be something special.  nothing else will have been preserved in all of downtown but in 2117 people can go to lower broadeay and say wow this is what it qwas lioke 100's of years ago-thats preservation

[NashRugger]

The problem that I'm seeing is that while I am all for historic preservation, we have a multi-decade parking lot that FINALLY has a proposal on it and it's also the last property with unobstructed riverfront views. I am 100% all for this proposal because it removes that parking lot and activates 1st Ave South even more. You also have to realize economics here, because the property value likely makes it unfeasible to build just a 6-story building and expect to turn a profit on whatever may be there. 

I personally was for the Westin proposal because they were making some concerted effort to save and rehab the Trail West building, but instead it was fully knocked down and now another bar or restaurant, and you've completely lost what was there. This could very well be the only proposal this site sees in the biggest boom Nashville has ever seen, and if you tell me leaving it as is versus an 18-story building is better, then I'm stunned.

Edited November 23, 2017 by NashRugger

[titanhog]

11 minutes ago, madisonman said:

Preservation is not only about how we see it today such as "To me, broadway is mostly about what is happening at street level"  what to you think people will think about this area in 25 years from now, 50 years 100 years from now.  If we truly protect historic area not just broadway level what would people say about district 100 or more years from now.  then that would be special and historic-when everywhere else is skyscrapers but this neighborhood stays small and historic in scale that would be something special.  nothing else will have been preserved in all of downtown but in 2117 people can go to lower broadeay and say wow this is what it qwas lioke 100's of years ago-thats preservation

But the true question is whether or not there really is a historic reason to keep structures at a height restriction a half-block south of Broadway.  I mean, if there was an east/west street a block south of Broadway, I may agree with you that that complete block should be low-rise structures similar to Broadway...but we've already allowed the Hilton to build, what...10 stories?  We have Batman at nearly the same distance from Broadway at over 600'.  Personally, I don't think this possible 18 story building a half block from Broadway destroys any of the historic value of that area.  If it was built on Broadway...I'd agree with you.

[madisonman]

21 minutes ago, titanhog said:

But the true question is whether or not there really is a historic reason to keep structures at a height restriction a half-block south of Broadway.  I mean, if there was an east/west street a block south of Broadway, I may agree with you that that complete block should be low-rise structures similar to Broadway...but we've already allowed the Hilton to build, what...10 stories?  We have Batman at nearly the same distance from Broadway at over 600'.  Personally, I don't think this possible 18 story building a half block from Broadway destroys any of the historic value of that area.  If it was built on Broadway...I'd agree with you.

I guess you do not buy into the idea that the the broadway urban overly is presearving an area not just one street.  I think it is worth preserving the entire are from high rises not the broadway street.  

"but the true question is whether or not there really is a historic reason to keep structures at a height a half block south of broadway"  There is no for sure answer to that other than maybe no taller respects the older bldgs.   I wondered if they had that type of debate in the 60's during urban renewal and thought they new the answer and tore it down.  Ops they were wrong.  If you you allow high rises on back of broadway block (and you are talking about three sites not one) then if you are wrong you cannot fix it.  I know I do not know all the answers but if you are going to change things such as scale then one should be very careful.  it cannot be fixed once it is built and presedent is set for others to copy. If you can prove to me that it has no impact on area and broadway then I could become a believer.

To mention other tall buildings in the area is not relevent to the issue. Because they built the tall ugly bell telephone switching center on 2nd ave north does not make it ok to build an 18 to 30 story bldg on the old goodies parking lot on 2nd ave n in the historic district.  There is always a reason why a developer or a person who likes tall buildings can make an argument for tall buildings.  but if you want to preserve an area then all new and renovated buildings need to remain a similar scale to all the buildings an equal footing.  scale does matter

 

 

 

[NashRugger]

I've been to a lot of cities that have a myriad of older, historic buildings mixed with new, and it's quite nice and does nothing to affect what really goes on, at the street. And oh yes, mentioning other buildings is relevant because you can't pick and choose in this scenario. If you want to go that route, then we need not mention what was knocked out for the Arena and then also the redevelopment of the old convention center site. How is that now affecting the look and feel of the area?

And I have fully read the "new construction" guidelines for the Broadway overlay. These are guidelines, not requirements and can always be subject to change.

Edited November 23, 2017 by NashRugger

[madisonman]

10 minutes ago, NashRugger said:

I've been to a lot of cities that have a myriad of older, historic buildings mixed with new, and it's quite nice and does nothing to affect what really goes on, at the street. And oh yes, mentioning other buildings is relevant because you can't pick and choose in this scenario. If you want to go that route, then we need not mention what was knocked out for the Arena and then also the redevelopment of the old convention center site. How is that now affecting the look and feel of the area?

And I have fully read the "new construction" guidelines for the Broadway overlay. These are guidelines, not requirements and can always be subject to change.

I cannot convince many of you that like and want big new buildings that preserving an area for historic preservations means saying NO  to all buildings that are taller in scale than the historic buildings.  Or that it not Ok to build 18 story buildings towing over the historic shelby bridge.  The fact that there are other high rise buildings not in the district nearby does not change anything if you are trying to preserve an area going for ward in time.  Assume if you say yes to one 18 story bldg you are say yes to 4 to 6   18 story bldgs. 

Just a few years ago much of downtown had CF zoning and much of downtown property would only allow a 5 to 1 floor area ration to property.  So you could not build high rises in much of the downtown area.  With the recent downtown code most areas of downtown can now build high rises.  I do not understand that with almost all of downtown allowed to have high rises why there cannot be one area due to historic concerns and character that we are trying to preserve that there not be allowed high rises.  Not having high rises and having scattered historic building in one small area is something to preserve for the future.  When you are across the river and look at downtown you will see one small area with few high rises.  throughout  our country's history architects and city planners thought they knew what was best for the future and most of the time those trends turned out to be not so good.  Bigger is not always better.  

[donNdonelson2]

I will throw this tidbit out there regarding the “historic” Shelby Street Bridge. The building site in question here is adjacent to the ramp that leads up to the bridge. This ramp is NOT historic-it is a new ramp that was constructed after the demolition of the old ramp as the bridge was transformed to pedestrian only usage. Any building on this spot, whether three floors or eighteen, will not threaten the character of the bridge.

[titanhog]

58 minutes ago, madisonman said:

I cannot convince many of you that like and want big new buildings that preserving an area for historic preservations means saying NO  to all buildings that are taller in scale than the historic buildings.  Or that it not Ok to build 18 story buildings towing over the historic shelby bridge.  The fact that there are other high rise buildings not in the district nearby does not change anything if you are trying to preserve an area going for ward in time.  Assume if you say yes to one 18 story bldg you are say yes to 4 to 6   18 story bldgs. 

Just a few years ago much of downtown had CF zoning and much of downtown property would only allow a 5 to 1 floor area ration to property.  So you could not build high rises in much of the downtown area.  With the recent downtown code most areas of downtown can now build high rises.  I do not understand that with almost all of downtown allowed to have high rises why there cannot be one area due to historic concerns and character that we are trying to preserve that there not be allowed high rises.  Not having high rises and having scattered historic building in one small area is something to preserve for the future.  When you are across the river and look at downtown you will see one small area with few high rises.  throughout  our country's history architects and city planners thought they knew what was best for the future and most of the time those trends turned out to be not so good.  Bigger is not always better.  

I think what many of us may disagree with you on is what should be considered historical and not "messed with."  I think most of us don't want anything facing Broadway from the river to 5th Ave significantly changed...we don't want the buildings along the river from Broadway up towards the courthouse significantly changed (other than making that a Paris-style cafe district)...and we don't want 2nd Ave from Broadway  up towards the courthouse significantly changed unless it's one of the new buildings (like the ATT call center) being demolished with something more appropriate built there.

As far as south of Broadway...unless it is a historical structure, I'm not sure allowing height will damage the historical significance of those areas.  I do understand your concerns about what goes between the Shelby bridge and Broadway...so I will reserve final judgment until I see what the proposed 18 story building looks like and how it addresses the street.

[satalac]

On 10/30/2017 at 3:37 PM, NashvilleObserver said:

This was the Los Angeles House of Blues. Not kidding. 

This is what the  House of Blues looks like in Orlando too. I wouldn't be surprised if we get something similar.

[madisonman]

6 hours ago, titanhog said:

I think what many of us may disagree with you on is what should be considered historical and not "messed with."  I think most of us don't want anything facing Broadway from the river to 5th Ave significantly changed...we don't want the buildings along the river from Broadway up towards the courthouse significantly changed (other than making that a Paris-style cafe district)...and we don't want 2nd Ave from Broadway  up towards the courthouse significantly changed unless it's one of the new buildings (like the ATT call center) being demolished with something more appropriate built there.

As far as south of Broadway...unless it is a historical structure, I'm not sure allowing height will damage the historical significance of those areas.  I do understand your concerns about what goes between the Shelby bridge and Broadway...so I will reserve final judgment until I see what the proposed 18 story building looks like and how it addresses the street.

One of the difference I am having with many of you is I see the the district as an area with a few gaps that need to be filled in with buildings that are compatible in scale to make the district bigger and better.  I do not just see it as historic broadway and 2nd ave N having historic buildings so we need to only protect those two streets.  When the area was created 20 years ago it was discussed and treated as an area to historically protect and has been managed that way and it was not till the recent discussion of changing the guidelines that this has been considered differently.  That is one of my issues with the situation is the downgrading of the backside of the broadway bldgs to the south.    

i am somewhat more of a preservationist and think that it is best not think we are so smart that we can mess with historic districts.  throughout our cities history city planners think they are doing the right thing by making changes that do not impact buildings and  years latter are proven wrong

And Don you are right that at 4th and shelby across from the symphony the ramp is not historical but at third ave s and second ave s and 1st ave s adjacent to the the bridge that that is not good places for 18 story bldgs as the zoning is basically allowing.  

[japan]

11 hours ago, satalac said:

This is what the  House of Blues looks like in Orlando too. I wouldn't be surprised if we get something similar.

These aren't downtown HOB locations are they?  I would be shocked if we got something like this downtown.

[smeagolsfree]

Now it that were in Pigeon Forge, it would be fine, but not even Orlando deserves that.

[Pdt2f]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Now it that were in Pigeon Forge, it would be fine, but not even Orlando deserves that.

I was actually thinking that it looked like the Hatfield and McCoy dinner theater in Pigeon Forge 

[NashRugger]

We're just going to have to disagree. Show me a financially viable way to make a profit on this very distinct piece of property at only 6 stories and then maybe I'll change my thinking. I'm looking at it as an opportunity to develop a piece of crap parking lot that's at least 3 decades old that has not seen a proposal before that could activate the street level and also be incorporated into the bridge, which already abuts a skyscraper over 400ft anyways. 

I will ask the blunt question, would you rather still have this parking lot or an 18-story building that adds food/retail space and basically will seal the connection between Broadway and the amphitheater along with that proposal at 1st & Demonbreun? 

Edited November 24, 2017 by NashRugger

[madisonman]

8 minutes ago, NashRugger said:

We're just going to have to disagree. Show me a financially viable way to make a profit on this very distinct piece of property at only 6 stories and then maybe I'll change my thinking. I'm looking at it as an opportunity to develop a piece of crap parking lot that's at least 3 decades old that has not seen a proposal before that could activate the street level and also be incorporated into the bridge, which already abuts a skyscraper over 400ft anyways. 

I will ask the blunt question, would you rather still have this parking lot or an 18-story building that adds food/retail space and basically will seal the connection between Broadway and the amphitheater along with that proposal at 1st & Demonbreun? 

The adjacent property on 2nd ave s has just is about to start construction on a mix use bldg six stories tall it can be done.  with rents in the area at $50 to $70 sf for restaurants/bars it can be done.  the same owner did a deal on the very successful acme bldg it can be done.  the current owner has a long term inexpensive land lease -it can be done.  Most importantly we do not change historic zoning rules and heights so that developers and land owners can just make more money

Most of the lots in historic district if buildable will be infilled with new buildings at some point

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nashwatcher]

1 hour ago, NashRugger said:

We're just going to have to disagree. Show me a financially viable way to make a profit on this very distinct piece of property at only 6 stories and then maybe I'll change my thinking. I'm looking at it as an opportunity to develop a piece of crap parking lot that's at least 3 decades old that has not seen a proposal before that could activate the street level and also be incorporated into the bridge, which already abuts a skyscraper over 400ft anyways. 

I will ask the blunt question, would you rather still have this parking lot or an 18-story building that adds food/retail space and basically will seal the connection between Broadway and the amphitheater along with that proposal at 1st & Demonbreun? 

Agree completely. Only way I'd be against this thing is if it blocked my view, or I had some financial interest in it not going on this decades old parking lot. Otherwise it's a no brainer IMO.

[PruneTracy]

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎24 at 8:06 AM, smeagolsfree said:

Now it that were in Pigeon Forge, it would be fine, but not even Orlando deserves that.

It's in Disney Springs though. That's what happens when you bend the knee to the mouse.