markhollin

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

Recommended Posts

How much of the building do those exposed columns (or whatever they're called) at the bottom actually support?  I know that design has been done many times before, and I have always liked the look of it, but I'm not gonna lie.  It does make me a little nervous.  I know there probably isn't reason to be nervous, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if, say, some person is texting and driving and accidentally plows into it?  Somebody tell me I'm being crazy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


14 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

How much of the building do those exposed columns (or whatever they're called) at the bottom actually support?  I know that design has been done many times before, and I have always liked the look of it, but I'm not gonna lie.  It does make me a little nervous.  I know there probably isn't reason to be nervous, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if, say, some person is texting and driving and accidentally plows into it?  Somebody tell me I'm being crazy.  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html

Well it can be a lot but hopefully we've progressed a little farther technologically since then!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html

Well it can be a lot but hopefully we've progressed a little farther technologically since then!

That is EXACTLY the story that comes to mind for me when I see buildings with that feature.  The Citicorp Building has always been one of my favorite towers on earth, but reading that story several years ago definitely spooked me a bit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

How much of the building do those exposed columns (or whatever they're called) at the bottom actually support?  I know that design has been done many times before, and I have always liked the look of it, but I'm not gonna lie.  It does make me a little nervous.  I know there probably isn't reason to be nervous, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if, say, some person is texting and driving and accidentally plows into it?  Somebody tell me I'm being crazy.  

I was think the exact same thing except I was also thinking what if someone hit it on purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html

Well it can be a lot but hopefully we've progressed a little farther technologically since then!

This building is now a case study for many architecture programs. Crazy how sometimes the easy things are missed. Luckily this project wasn't a catastrophe and they were able to fix it (with a lot of money of course!)

43 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

The Citicorp example is a bit of an outlier because of the nature of the design (not the stilts, but the fact that they supported the sides of the building). Most buildings, including Paramount it appears, are supported at the corners. If you want to worry about a downtown building then worry about James K. Polk which I am always half-expecting to see as a heap of rubble on the news one day.

Don't let the rendering fool you, these columns are stinking huge. Big enough so nothing that can roll down Church Street is going to take them out.

Plus, you have to consider that all buildings have these columns, they're just hidden behind cladding. If you have a vehicle that is big enough to do damage to a column supporting a skyscraper then it doesn't really matter if that column is exposed or has a few layers of brick or glass in front of it.

 

Spot on. Architects and engineers are now getting more creative with the bases of towers for city aesthetics and activation. 

Boston recently completed a tower with this design. The Paramount is a bit taller and the columns are further out, but the concept is the same. These suckers are tied into deep pyles and then protected with a lot of reinforcement or if they are steel, they are monster enough where it would probably take more than anything that Church Street can hold. 

Image result for 888 boylston street

 

23 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Somebody tell me I'm being crazy.  

Yes. A bit crazy. Not completely, but a bit 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though those columns will be very big, they are supporting a large portion of the building and will need protection. I would expect some type of bollard to be placed  along the street edge of the property as to not risk anything hitting them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't the building be designed like so many tallboys... as a cantilever from a core, thus making the huge supports only a second line of support?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metro Government plans to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) involving the Church Street =pocket park and Parmount Tower.

“The proposed swap elegantly addresses several important, lingering and compounding issues — such as on-street homelessness, accessible urban public space, and Metro cash flow — not to mention adding additional residential units and residents in a stunning new tower,” Giarratana emailed the Post on Tuesday. “We stand ready to execute the transaction but were recently informed that Metro intends to issue a request for proposal for the park parcel. As we have not yet received a copy of the RFP, we are unable to comment further.”

Giarratana did not noted in the email message if he plans to bid on the site, but he has told the Post in the past he is open to doing so.

Giarratana has stressed that his company has offered to develop Metro’s proposed Permanent Supportive Housing project without any fee or reimbursement of overhead.

“This negotiated bundle of consideration was conservatively valued at $12 million,” he emailed the Post. “Together with the $3 million in new, annual property taxes that our proposed condominium tower would generate, the land swap is a very compelling opportunity for Metro. For its part, Metro is to convey the park parcel to us with the same zoning we received for our 505 parcel back in 2014.”

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/21061523/metro-to-ask-for-proposals-for-pocket-park
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they note all the proposals that come in, incorporate them into other parks around the city. Then promptly chose the Giarrantana tower. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the current method of biding , Metro has to go through their e-bid site. That is the only way they can bid any Metro owned property according tot he way Bret explained it at the last meet up. Tony may end up saving money  by doing it this way if he does not have to the Anne Dudley Davis Blvd improvements and the Homeless center and not having to give Metro the other land he owns.

Tony will probably end up on the better end of the deal than Metro now. Metro is not going to get what they think is market value for that land I do not think. Its a very small parcel and you have to have something unique like Paramount to make it work .

 

If they do proposals as stated Tony has a huge head start.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be peak NIMBY/Activist/Complainer. They get nothing they wanted and the developer wins and ends up paying and doing less. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Yes..if those who oppose the land swap with Tony and demand the city put up the land for sale to the highest bidder get their way...they may end up with less value in the end than what Tony is willing to give them now.

If that happens, it is what is is. It’s better this way in the long run.

I don’t like the idea of developers making deals with the city... (Rolling Mill Hill)

Edited by nashvylle
  • Like 2

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.