markhollin

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

Recommended Posts


Fear not fellow posters, the comments were not deleted.  They have been moved to the coffee house and I re-named the thread "Zoning and Affordable Housing".  I actually found an interesting article about the relationship between zoning and the cost of raising young families that I linked in that thread.  Even the "news feed purists" might like that article.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to take the time to respond to the posts where I was quoted; however, I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I have. Some poor soul is getting tricked into thinking all of these posts are directly related to the development of this tower. 

We can resume in the coffee house, if y'all want. As always, thanks for the dialogue and for providing a different view or opinion. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PHofKS said:

A diagram by yours truly of the Paramount..

46889137842_52ae2fbe07_b.jpg

That's the best depiction of Paramount I've seen so far. And you're damn amazing with the shading on your renderings. 

So now that we have lots of images, what do folks here think of the design?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

That's the best depiction of Paramount I've seen so far. And you're damn amazing with the shading on your renderings. 

So now that we have lots of images, what do folks here think of the design?

I would be the actual tower will keep the top and bottom look, but the mid section will look just like 505 CST (no angles). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

We can resume in the coffee house, if y'all want. As always, thanks for the dialogue and for providing a different view or opinion. 

We're waiting for you in the coffee house, friend.  Hurry up and get in here, my coffee is getting cold  :tw_grin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLBrumby said:

That's the best depiction of Paramount I've seen so far. And you're damn amazing with the shading on your renderings. 

So now that we have lots of images, what do folks here think of the design?

Earth shattering? No. A good addition to our skyline? Yes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

That's the best depiction of Paramount I've seen so far. And you're damn amazing with the shading on your renderings. 

So now that we have lots of images, what do folks here think of the design?

Cool little design at street level, which will be interesting.  Height is great.  Angled indentions are a nice touch and could be stunning...or could be barely noticeable (will have to wait and see the end result).  Straight up rectangle is very boring.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who want a quicker and more focused Urban Planet experience, why not just follow Smeagol's and Mark's feeds directly and skip the project pages entirely?  I guarantee there isn't a single major announcement that you're going to miss.  Also, this strategy could not only save you time, but has the added benefit of allowing you to address the issue by changing your own behavior instead of requesting that other people change their behavior to suit your preferences, which tends to be less effective.

As Vrtigo said, different people come here for different reasons and everyone is going to have a different opinion about what qualifies as on or off topic in any given instance.  That's why we have moderators who've typically been around for awhile and get to make those judgement calls. 

If any of y'all want to become moderators and further limit the parameters of the conversations in the project page threads, so be it.  But if your goal here is to simply lobby the current moderators to tighten the reins on these threads, why not do so in the form of private messages directly to the moderators in the future, since - unlike zoning discussions - meta arguments about forum tangent policy are unquestionably off topic, which seems counterproductive if the goal is to be more considerate of those who have limited time and don't want to waste any of it scrolling past posts unrelated to Nashville development.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time you can just follow Mark as I get the info to William that I have, and he puts it in news from and then we ask Mark to post it. I put info on the map. There are surprises on there all the time. Most of the time they dont have titles other than a numbered polygon. All I ask is you dont put it on the board.

If it is something major, then it may go on a little before but not much, but there are a few things that linger there. I do have knowledge of a few projects that only a few folks know about and they may or may not be on the board. Lips are sealed on those.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ruraljuror That is a phenomenal suggestion.  I had completely forgotten about the follow feature, so thank you for bringing it to our attention.  Also, to be fair, I was the one who brought us down this road this time, so I take full responsibility for the thread being where it is currently.  However, I only did that because I thought this should be hashed out for once and for all and wanted input from all sides.  Something tells me we will still have people complaining, but so be it. 

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

@ruraljuror That is a phenomenal suggestion.  I had completely forgotten about the follow feature, so thank you for bringing it to our attention.  Also, to be fair, I was the one who brought us down this road this time, so I take full responsibility for the thread being where it is currently.  However, I only did that because I thought this should be hashed out for once and for all and wanted input from all sides.  Something tells me we will still have people complaining, but so be it. 

Only thing I take issue with are political p***ing matches and flame baiting troll posts.  The rest...go for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, titanhog said:

Only thing I take issue with are political p***ing matches and flame baiting troll posts.  The rest...go for it.

I'd say that's a pretty reasonable stance.  Like I said, I'm not saying people should just be able to talk about absolutely anything in any way for any length of time in any thread... obviously where the line should be drawn is subjective... but I think when one is complaining about zoning of all things being discussed on a city planning message board, they might want to loosen up on the reins a bit a bit. haha

Anyway, sorry folks... I got what I wanted out of that exchange, thank you for indulging me.  Now we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming.  

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do get on here to get the news but I do it religiously. I’ve been looking at UP for about 7 or 8 years. Very seldom does a day go by that I don’t get on here to catch up even on vacation I’m on here every night.  My job has me in different parts of the city and county every day so I see a lot and try to snap picture to post when I get a chance. One of the things I like is when pictures get posted of the areas I haven’t  been In lately. It’s nice to see what I’m missing.

I’m really looking forward to seeing this one rise ( finger crossed ). I’m not that crazy about the design as much as I am for the height, but If this is going to be all glass how about a colored glass that we don’t have like maybe Copper or maybe a yellow or even red. 

Orange and white checker board glasss pattern would would look nice too with a big orange T on top for tony of course. 

Edited by Buildtall
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buildtall said:

Orange and white checker board glasss pattern would would look nice too with a big orange T on top for tony of course. 

I suppose this kind of design would be a perfect representation of “didn’t live up to expectations.” Maybe they can call it the “5-7 Tower”? Dooley-Jones Plaza? ;):rofl:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Buildtall said:

Yes I do get on here to get the news but I do it religiously. I’ve been looking at UP for about 7 or 8 years. Very seldom does a day go by that I don’t get on here to catch up even on vacation I’m on here every night.  My job has me in different parts of the city and county every day so I see a lot and try to snap picture to post when I get a chance. One of the things I like is when pictures get posted of the areas I haven’t  been In lately. It’s nice to see what I’m missing.

I’m really looking forward to seeing this one rise ( finger crossed ). I’m not that crazy about the design as much as I am for the height, but If this is going to be all glass how about a colored glass that we don’t have like maybe Copper or maybe a yellow or even red. 

Orange and white checker board glasss pattern would would look nice too with a big orange T on top for tony of course. 

Agreed!  It is very rare that I actually get to see most of these construction sites with my own two eyes, so I am VERY appreciative when fine folks such as yourself snap pictures to share!  So thank you for that as well!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markhollin said:

Another article showing both sides of the Church Street Park/Paramount Tower debate:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2019/02/11/nashville-church-street-park-downtown-homeless-tony-giarratana/2711899002/

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 7.12.18 AM.png

Yeah, putting tables out there will really change that park for the better. Homeless people wouldn't dare sit at tables intended for dinning. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep this park in historical perspective:  Metro paid $1 million to acquire the land, and they also demolished existing buildings there to build this park.  So that was mistake # 2.  They should have left the land in private hands.  Supposedly the purpose of the park was to "revitalize Church Street".  Yeah... how's that working out?  As it exists today, the park doesn't convey a sense of revitalization in my opinion, but rather it creates an atmosphere of urban decay.

Why do I say the park was mistake # 2?  Because Church Street Center was mistake # 1.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.