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

[PaulChinetti]

I would think they get their deliveries late at night/early morning. There could easily be bulkheads that can be lowered/removed to allow deliveries and then go back up once they are done.

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, satalac said:

Why not have the tower AND shut off Anne Dallas Dudley to traffic? We'd expand our usable green space, and still have a tower to bring more people living downtown (people with a lot of money who will drive more retail downtown)? What can really be done with this small space, even connected to a pedestrian boulevard? I don't see the homeless situation changing as it will still be a park right next to a building with public bathroom access. While I don't want to make things harder on the homeless, I don't see keeping this park as a benefit to them, or to downtown. If this was a better park, then yes, I would have an issue with it being removed, but it's location and size simply isn't a good one, at least not to be used as it is intended. I'm not advocating replacing a park simply because another green space is being opened nearby. I'm advocating getting rid of a park that has failed for something more beneficial to the downtown core, and the green space nearby that will be built at Nashville Yards can help absorb the need for outdoor space. 

So that was an option proposed in my earlier (very prolonged) response, but it is not something that is being proposed. The NCDC proposed it as part of extending the park as an effective redesign. It is clear that this park has failed, and it failed for many reasons. Nashville Yards is far enough away where those working in the general area will not walk there. Nashville Yards green space will not benefit the downtown worker on a daily basis because it is too far to walk on an hour lunch break. Having a green space in the actual core (not on the peripheral) is wise urban sense. Again, having big money downtown does not bring retail. Having an area downtown that benefits people being out and about benefits retail. The biggest shopping corridor in Boston is a pedestrian only street and the main shops are TJMaxx, Old Navy, Marshalls, and Macys, with smaller retailers mixed in. It doesn't have to be big money for those to succeed, just people friendly places. If the proposed development did that, I would be a little less vocal about it, but it doesn't. 

44 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

The Hermitage Hotel and the Sheraton currently both use Dudley/Capitol Blvd as a loading/service entrance.      Not that those uses should forever have priority, but I'm sure both would object to the street being closed to traffic.      

True. Even with a pedestrian only street there could still be access to the garage. Integrate the paver of the corridor design into the driveway and extend access over to Church using bollards for protection.

[PruneTracy]

33 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

I would think they get their deliveries late at night/early morning. There could easily be bulkheads that can be lowered/removed to allow deliveries and then go back up once they are done.

16 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

True. Even with a pedestrian only street there could still be access to the garage. Integrate the paver of the corridor design into the driveway and extend access over to Church using bollards for protection.

Another option, though it's not limited to this application and in fact would be a good general design for urban streets throughout the city, is a shared-space street.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

[Bos2Nash]

45 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

Another option, though it's not limited to this application and in fact would be a good general design for urban streets throughout the city, is a shared-space street.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Nashville sort of already has one of these along 5th avenue between Demonbruen and Korea Veterans. I would argue that it is not really successful in terms of being a pedestrian friendly zone, but rather a confusing area for drivers as they do not know who really has the right of way. 

[PruneTracy]

12 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Nashville sort of already has one of these along 5th avenue between Demonbruen and Korea Veterans. I would argue that it is not really successful in terms of being a pedestrian friendly zone, but rather a confusing area for drivers as they do not know who really has the right of way. 

That's the point. Confused drivers = slow drivers. Instead of relying on signs and other devices to clearly delineate right-of-way and spaces for each mode, you get people to be conscious of where they are relative to other users. It kind of goes against the existing philosophy of traffic engineering, but it works.

Although the problem with Fifth in this regard is that it's still wide and straight so physically there's not anything stopping a driver from just blowing through the area.

[satalac]

16 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

So that was an option proposed in my earlier (very prolonged) response, but it is not something that is being proposed. The NCDC proposed it as part of extending the park as an effective redesign. It is clear that this park has failed, and it failed for many reasons. Nashville Yards is far enough away where those working in the general area will not walk there. Nashville Yards green space will not benefit the downtown worker on a daily basis because it is too far to walk on an hour lunch break. Having a green space in the actual core (not on the peripheral) is wise urban sense. Again, having big money downtown does not bring retail. Having an area downtown that benefits people being out and about benefits retail. The biggest shopping corridor in Boston is a pedestrian only street and the main shops are TJMaxx, Old Navy, Marshalls, and Macys, with smaller retailers mixed in. It doesn't have to be big money for those to succeed, just people friendly places. If the proposed development did that, I would be a little less vocal about it, but it doesn't. 

 

I agree that Nashville Yards will not benefit some downtown, but keep in mind, the park isn't benefiting anyone (other than as a homeless gathering spot) downtown currently. Plus, the center of Downtown is about to move in a major way. I'd much rather see some other surface lots be turned into green spaces (oh what could be done around City Center...) but I know they aren't city owned. I still disagree that having wealthy people living downtown, especially in this proposed tower, (that's what I meant by having big money downtown) would not generate any retail. I think we're on the same page however as far as having a pedestrian only area helping bring in retail.  

So I guess basically, long story short, I'm for green spaces, I don't think the current pocket park is a good location for one, and I think the tower would be a better use of the space. 

[MLBrumby]

I think that's how a majority of Metro Council sees it. The city parks commission already voted to approve it. 

[Bos2Nash]

Hopefully most people on this board are pro-green space in downtown. Tower will look better and will benefit Tony and its residents, but I don't think it will have that much of a benefit impact on residents of the city other than the glory of a skyline altering project. The parcel is too small to have a grand street activation because so much will be dedicated to utilities, resident valet, loading and service space and other aspects that a tower of this size needs. And look, Parks has approved it, Library has approved it. Really the wheels are already moving so much on this one that there really is no real way to stop it outside of the courtroom. I don't think it will go that far, or should. But, being that it is a city owned parcel it probably should've been a bit more transparent and an involved process (shame on the city). The lack of green space downtown is glaring, and quite honestly, unhealthy for our city. This park is the best chance the city has at a downtown green space because of its current state and current ownership. 

[PaulChinetti]

11 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

But, being that it is a city owned parcel it probably should've been a bit more transparent and an involved process (shame on the city).

I'll claim ignorance on this but if Parks (whose responsibility is the land) and the Library have approved it. How else would you have liked the city to be transparent?

[Bos2Nash]

I will say that I also did not attend any public meetings about this (I will blame finishing my thesis for that lol)

It was discussed either upthread or at the meet up, but it has been discussed about how much of this process started behind closed doors. This deal doesn't come out of thin air, it is a lot of time at the negotiating table and one would think as soon as a publicly owned parcel becomes a topic of discussion in regards to sale of land swap the public should be aware, even it is just a heads up that the city is speaking with a developer. Granted it may have been killed by NIMBYism quickly, but it is taxpayer funded land.

People complain about the outraged mob coming out too late to discuss against this. Well a well-informed argument takes time to craft and point to factual faults and factual benefits. The reason NCDC is only coming out now with their alternates is because it takes time to go through all the info of the development and what it would and would not do for the city. The planning diagrams are not thrown together overnight. If I were the city - and possibly even Tony - I would at least look at what the "outraged mob" is saying and try to find a way to compromise for the betterment of the city.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Bos2Nash

[Guest]

Let’s see .... I think we have plenty of green space downtown.....

Riverfront Park

Public Square Park

Walk of Fame Park

West Riverfront Park

Cumberland Park

Bicentennial Park

Shelby Park

First Tennessee Park

Nashville Park (coming)

greenways all around.....

 

https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/pw/docs/projects/gulch/Parks-and-Greenways-20141010.pdf

Edited December 19, 2018 by Guest

[Bos2Nash]

And I am being generous... When you look at the actual business core of downtown, we have essentially six green space. Three of which are on the peripheral and none of which are connected to one another (okay maybe riverfront portion is connected to itself). Only the Church Street, AT&T Building and maybe public square park has potential to work with the retail around it to actually activate it. That link provided shows a very big hole of green space that will have additions on the peripheral. 

[Guest]

In your picture above I see I omitted Victory Park from my previous list. Ascend is only closed off for concerts so that double the green space in that area. There is also ample, though unlisted, green space behind the Frist.

looks like no one in the core is more than 4 or 5 blocks away from nature.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Guest

[Bos2Nash]

Where (which one) is Victory Park ? 

I initially included Ascend in the circle, but I have never seen people using Ascend outside of concerts or events there. Only ever in the park just north of the actual amphitheater. I should've included the workout are along korea vets probably too

I also disagree with "ample" green space behind Frist. There are a couple street trees scattered along the entry boulevard and the parking lot, but the green space is more aesthetic landscaping then programmed green space.

I would challenge that even some of the green spaces listed above are programmed correctly, because of the usage that they get. One could argue that Church Street is one of the MOST successful parks, because people (albeit homeless) use it daily and very frequently. 

[AronG]

We definitely have a lot of areas that need better access to real parks, especially as we start to add the residential density to pay for them. Here's us vs lower Manhattan at similar zoom levels:

 

[CenterHill]

3 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'll claim ignorance on this but if Parks (whose responsibility is the land) and the Library have approved it. How else would you have liked the city to be transparent?

The transparency issue being raised is that when the city sells city land it is customary to put it out for bid.     There was no bid process here, it was a deal negotiated with a single private developer and was announced after terms had been agreed.     The Parks and Library approvals were after the fact.      Almost no one disagrees that something needs to be done about the current condition of the park, it's just the process that was followed (or not followed) to get to this particular solution that has some people and council members asking questions.       

[TNinVB]

So with things appearing to be moving forward, has anyone seen renderings of this tower? 

[BnaBreaker]

7 hours ago, AronG said:

We definitely have a lot of areas that need better access to real parks, especially as we start to add the residential density to pay for them. Here's us vs lower Manhattan at similar zoom levels:

 

 

To be fair though, there's also probably about fifteen times more people living in that bottom map, so there would obviously be a much greater need for public gathering spaces there.

Edited December 20, 2018 by BnaBreaker

[markhollin]

Nashville Civic Design Center Wednesday released its third of three articles addressing research and potential visions of for the Church Street Pocket Park:

https://www.civicdesigncenter.org/news/2018/12/19/dreaming-big-for-public-space-part-3.3395474

More coverage behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/21038001/design-center-finalizes-aritcles-on-updating-pocket-park

It would seem that in these new renderings that they might want to feature some GRASS in their attempts for urban greenery.   Ugh.  And the random football goalposts  seem especially out of place. If you were to take out the random trees, this would be garish.  And it's not much better WITH them.  

At least they are making proposals to activate Anne Dallas Dudley Blvd. into a park area with some kiosks on the sides and vines to cover some of the blank walls.

 

[DDIG]

14 hours ago, CenterHill said:

The transparency issue being raised is that when the city sells city land it is customary to put it out for bid.     There was no bid process here, it was a deal negotiated with a single private developer and was announced after terms had been agreed.     The Parks and Library approvals were after the fact.      Almost no one disagrees that something needs to be done about the current condition of the park, it's just the process that was followed (or not followed) to get to this particular solution that has some people and council members asking questions.       

This is a fair argument - however, I'd counter argue that if you put it up for open bid that Giarattana would potentially win the site and actually win it pledging LESS to the city than he is currently giving up.

[Guest]

Ha, what is up with that design? I had to put on sunglasses to keep from having a more adverse reaction. Garish is the word and the trees do not soften the blow. The entire ‘place’ reminds one of a kindergarten romper room. This only bolsters Tony’s plans, IMO.

[DDIG]

12 minutes ago, markhollin said:

Nashville Civic Design Center Wednesday released its third of three articles addressing research and potential visions of for the Church Street Pocket Park:

https://www.civicdesigncenter.org/news/2018/12/19/dreaming-big-for-public-space-part-3.3395474

More coverage behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/21038001/design-center-finalizes-aritcles-on-updating-pocket-park

It would seem that in these new renderings that they might want to feature some GRASS in their attempts for urban greenery.   Ugh.  And the random football goalposts  seem especially out of place. If you were to take out the random trees, this would be garish.  And it's not much better WITH them.  

At least they are making proposals to activate Anne Dallas Dudley Blvd. into a park area with some kiosks on the sides and vines to cover some of the blank walls.

 

 

I am all-in pro-Tony's tower so I'm biased, and I appreciate the Civic Design Center for coming up with something, but this design seems super absurd to me. LOL at the goalposts. Also there are office buildings on Anne Dallas right? I'm not sure how they'd feel about giving up the entire street for giant chess matches. and bright red concrete. I think it says a lot that the Civic Design Center has to completely take over Anne Dallas to make something interesting of Church Street Park.

[Bos2Nash]

16 minutes ago, DDIG said:

This is a fair argument - however, I'd counter argue that if you put it up for open bid that Giarattana would potentially win the site and actually win it pledging LESS to the city than he is currently giving up.

That is a possibility, but being that it is a public parcel if the city does not get what they are looking for, they can pull back and not accept any bids. 

4 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

Ha, what is up with that design? I had to put on sunglasses to keep from having a more adverse reaction. Garish is the word and the trees do not soften the blow. The entire ‘place’ reminds one of a kindergarten romper room. This only bolsters Tony’s plans, IMO.

4 minutes ago, DDIG said:

I am all-in pro-Tony's tower so I'm biased, and I appreciate the Civic Design Center for coming up with something, but this design seems super absurd to me. LOL at the goalposts. Also there are office buildings on Anne Dallas right? I'm not sure how they'd feel about giving up the entire street for giant chess matches. and bright red concrete. I think it says a lot that the Civic Design Center has to completely take over Anne Dallas to make something interesting of Church Street Park.

So while the NCDC design is not great, it is showing the range of possibility (hence a whacky goalpost) of an open gathering (in need of more green) space. Some of the most successful public spaces around the world have little to now grass (also some of the worst so it is important it is programmed correctly). FYI, this design is not intended to be THE design of the space, it is the intent of the NCDC to open people's minds to just how flexible this space can be and show a wide variety of options in regards to what can happen here. Its amazing how less flexible a space becomes when a structure with zero lot lines covers a parcel....

It does say alot that the NCDC has the thought to make Anne Dallas Dudley a pedestrian zone because many people are saying that Church Street is "too small" to be a successful space. Their counter is to remove one of the many roads that our city can do without and make this space larger and in turn make more sensible for a public space. 

 

[DDIG]

11 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

 

It does say alot that the NCDC has the thought to make Anne Dallas Dudley a pedestrian zone because many people are saying that Church Street is "too small" to be a successful space. Their counter is to remove one of the many roads that our city can do without and make this space larger and in turn make more sensible for a public space. 

 

Fair enough, but correct me if I'm wrong but I think Anne Dallas Dudley has a parking garage on it and several other office entrances / exits. The city on the whole may be able to do without, but I think the idea that those property owners are going to let that road be taken away is not realistic.

Edited December 20, 2018 by DDIG

[Bos2Nash]

3 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Fair enough, but correct me if I'm wrong but I think Anne Dallas Dudley has a parking garage on it and several other office entrances / exits. The city on the whole may be able to do without, but I think the idea that those property owners are going to let that road be taken away is not realistic.

That has been mentioned, and pedestrian zones around this country have dealt with those scenarios. whether through paver design and safety bollards (aesthetically pleasing ones) or valet services that have access to the garages. Something like that is not insurmountable in terms of this. Also remember that while this would be a pedestrian corridor, it should still be designed to allowed emergency vehicles down it for safety and patrols, so maybe by allowing those vehicles access it would be the same allowances for vehicles accessing other spaces. Either way, no more traditional street parking or common vehicular use.