Jump to content

Paramount Tower, 65-68 stories, approx. 750', 200 units, $240 million, Church Street Park


markhollin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, PHofKS said:

 

45424338202_81b48bdd03_z.jpg

May be referring to this....an 800 footer that might look good in Chicago, but not n Nashville.

That would look good now surrounded by other high-rises to make it not stick out so severely. 

That was my biggest issue with the 1,047ft Signature Tower proposal. I have no problem with a pinnacle on the skyline, but to be so out of sorts and balance with everything else, I would've hated it. Look at Devon Energy Tower in OKC, it's just obscene. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is anyone else greatly perplexed by this? The 505 is hardly selling but they think they can pull this off? No disrespect or “hating” at all, but I just don’t get it.  I’m rooting for Tony G, and really hope this comes together,  it just seems like a really long long shot. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wreynol4 said:

Is anyone else greatly perplexed by this? The 505 is hardly selling but they think they can pull this off? No disrespect or “hating” at all, but I just don’t get it.  I’m rooting for Tony G, and really hope this comes together,  it just seems like a really long long shot. 

I don't have any kind of inside knowledge or anything, but in my uneducated opinion I tend to think that this is almost a visionary-type project. I remember former Mayor Barry mentioning something about dense high rise living being integral to Nashville's future, so I tend to think that the city is looking ahead in regards to things like this. If more businesses like Alliance-Bernstein continue locating here, then developers are going to wish that they had invested more in legit high-rise living as Tony will be really the only major player. I also think that they may see it as a necessary feature in order to gain more corporate relocations like Amazon that are more accustomed to big city amenities. 

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

2 hours ago, wreynol4 said:

Is anyone else greatly perplexed by this? The 505 is hardly selling but they think they can pull this off? No disrespect or “hating” at all, but I just don’t get it.  I’m rooting for Tony G, and really hope this comes together,  it just seems like a really long long shot. 

He might of learned from the mistakes of 505. Small, not-luxurious units for a lot of money didn’t work since many of the buyers are 50+. Give the market what they want, actual luxury for luxury prices. Plus enough room to have houseguests, have room for your kids to move back in if they lose their jobs, etc. Not everyone wants to live like they’re in a dorm. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Pdt2f said:

He might of learned from the mistakes of 505. Small, not-luxurious units for a lot of money didn’t work since many of the buyers are 50+. Give the market what they want, actual luxury for luxury prices. Plus enough room to have houseguests, have room for your kids to move back in if they lose their jobs, etc. Not everyone wants to live like they’re in a dorm. 

I think this is the insight that he is moving on.  Nashville is ready for luxury condos on top of a Four Seasons Hotel and ready for the Paramount condos.  He's probably seen the luxury condos being snatched up in larger markets and knows that Music City is ready for the big time.

While doing a little research on Vancouver's 15% tax on foreign condo buyers (implemented two years ago), I found an interesting comment: The Vancouver tax drove these high-end foreign buyers to Toronto.  This type of buyer is not bound by geography.  They can fly wherever they want whenever they want.  Perhaps Paramount will attract these buyers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr_Bond said:

While doing a little research on Vancouver's 15% tax on foreign condo buyers (implemented two years ago), I found an interesting comment: The Vancouver tax drove these high-end foreign buyers to Toronto.  This type of buyer is not bound by geography.  They can fly wherever they want whenever they want.  Perhaps Paramount will attract these buyers.

Which, for the record, is not a good thing for Nashville.    That is, not a good thing for people who work here and want to live in Nashville. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 7:12 AM, smeagolsfree said:

Two hundred units I think is what the article said, however they will not be cheap. So if this project cost 240 million,  then the cost to build each unit is an average of 1.2 million. Remember that is cost. Maybe a realtor or builder on here can give us an idea of the sales pricebased on that. I just am not sure how much profit is normal.

 

A broker told me a few years ago that the developers shoot for 30% profit and are happy if they hit 20%.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CenterHill said:

Which, for the record, is not a good thing for Nashville.    That is, not a good thing for people who work here and want to live in Nashville. 

Very true, though downtown condos will always attract the "lock and leave" crowd.  I wouldn't want to be a business owner who is counting on every condo to be occupied every day.  If the developers are charging rents for their retail/restaurant space based on a high residential occupancy rate, the numbers won't add up for the businesses.  Sure, the tourist crowd can make up for the lower daily occupancy rates, but only select retailers and areas attract the tourists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2018 at 12:59 PM, PHofKS said:

 

45424338202_81b48bdd03_z.jpg

May be referring to this....an 800 footer that might look good in Chicago, but not n Nashville.

This is what I was looking for! Thank you. I think this would be a great addition to our skyline. It would look best in the SoBro area, however, to break up all those glassy boxes. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost certainly no one saw this but it might be in a way relevant to this project. Bank of the Ozarks has financed a few big projects in town(Westin, 505, Aertson come to mind). Turns out their lending standards and risk protocols may have been incorrect. The stock is down sharply recently. Reminds me of some of the aggressive banks during the financial crisis.

Edited by samsonh
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samsonh said:

Almost certainly no one saw this but it might be in a way relevant to this project. Bank of the Ozarks has financed a few big projects in town(Westin, 505, Aertson come to mind). Turns out their lending standards and risk protocols may have been incorrect. The stock is down sharply recently. Reminds me of some of the aggressive banks during the financial crisis.

Luckily Nashville was able to benefit from their financial insanity with a few great projects! And the Westin. 

D0FE79B1-6EAD-4B0B-B807-8B6E0EC2ABD7.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samsonh said:

Almost certainly no one saw this but it might be in a way relevant to this project. Bank of the Ozarks has financed a few big projects in town(Westin, 505, Aertson come to mind). Turns out their lending standards and risk protocols may have been incorrect. The stock is down sharply recently. Reminds me of some of the aggressive banks during the financial crisis.

They're definitely playing some risky games...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4213005-venture-ozarks

While we do not think that there is trouble in paradise based on the Q3 2018 financials, OZK will become a higher risk play in the next recession. As we are late in this cycle, this is the biggest thing investors must consider. We have no desire to own this one at present.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NashvilleObserver said:

Why the hell would people complain about taking that park away from the homeless when they could potentially getting a dedicated facility for assistance?

Two reasons.     

One, many people want the park to stay a park and deal with the over-utilization by the homeless in other ways.     The Metro Parks master plan (called Plan to Play) states that more urban pocket parks are needed.     The Church St park is a prime location for an urban park and the proposed replacement park on James Robertson by comparison is a poor location.   

And second, many people, including a number of Council, have a problem with how Tony's deal went down.     They see it as basically the mayor's sale of prime land on Church to a single developer without a customary bidding process, valuations, etc.  

True, there were representatives from the homeless community last night who complained about taking "their" park away, but that's not where the opposition from Council and citizens is coming from.   

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.