Jump to content

markhollin

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

Recommended Posts

I’m just not even going to voice my opinion on all this... someone create a thread directly related to the homeless situation so everyone can argue. If someone comes to this thread to read about Paramount, it’s going to be completely full of unrelated blather between people who can’t agree on homelessness. The homeless in CSP are relevant, but the conversations about literally everything else to do with homelessness are nonsensical. Should there be discussion on the topic? Sure! But not on a topic that is about a proposed skyscraper, find a place where human development is the focus. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, PianoKing03 said:

I’m just not even going to voice my opinion on all this... someone create a thread directly related to the homeless situation so everyone can argue. If someone comes to this thread to read about Paramount, it’s going to be completely full of unrelated blather between people who can’t agree on homelessness. The homeless in CSP are relevant, but the conversations about literally everything else to do with homelessness are nonsensical. Should there be discussion on the topic? Sure! But not on a topic that is about a proposed skyscraper, find a place where human development is the focus. 

This small park and homelessness is tied directly to Paramount...as far as this possible development or some citizens fighting to keep it as a park (which will again, be a haven for the homeless).

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

This small park and homelessness is tied directly to Paramount...as far as this possible development or some citizens fighting to keep it as a park (which will again, be a haven for the homeless).

Yeah, normally he'd be right about getting off topic but this is a special case as the tower moving forward is intrinsically tied to the homeless issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you’ve all said is logical, yes... I do see your point that nothing new is coming out of Paramount until some sort of solution is found. Thanks for an actual revelation, as opposed to pointless harshness. 

In that case, I personally feel like many of the people I’ve seen don’t seem to be trying very hard. They’ll be about, smoking or eating while they sit there, clearly not looking for a job or trying to come up with any help.

I 100% with everyone who says affordable housing is an absolute must, but I also think that we can’t expect that to be the glorious end to all homelessness some optimists paint it to be.

Firstly, after bringing in some way for them to have a home, there’s going to have to be some rules laid. For the time, I can sympathize,  but if we can get the residences they need, they have no excuse to take over public areas.

We shouldn’t automatically lump them all in together as a bunch of bums, but that’s not to say that some don’t choose their lifestyle either.

When the government finally gets them homes, they’ll also need to put into law some sort of well-thought-out plan to keep them from taking over parks, sidewalks, and even tourist areas.

BUT... I also must clarify that said law should only be enacted, as I previously said, after there is a housing solution brought to the surface.

Admittedly, not that long ago, I would have said that I didn’t see much merit in housing for the homeless, but now, affordable announcements make me happy.

It was a very pleasant discovery when I found out about the veterans’ affordable housing. I truly do hope for the best propositions to begin coming, and maybe, just maybe, we can put an end to the ordeal that has become problematic to everyone in the city. 

Edited by PianoKing03
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UTgrad09 said:

If the park or open space was privately owned, and Tony G was attempting to purchase it from a private entity, I don't think the social aspects of homelessness would be as relevant. However, the park is owned by the city (and therefore, the people of Nashville), and there is a proposed sweetheart deal (the land is not being auctioned on the open market, or being subject to a bid or proposal process) that directly helps the developer, and it's hotly debated whether it helps the homeless or anyone else impacted in the vicinity.

I think most of us on here want to see this happen, but a lot of people in Nashville oppose it for a variety of reasons, some very valid. Some not.

I think the very symbol of this tower, catering to the very wealthy, displacing something that caters to some of the most vulnerable in our city, just doesn't sit well with some people. 

On the other hand, some question why one of the few green spaces in the CBD has been virtually taken over by the homeless. Why there? How can we make a green space that everyone could feel like they could use? What would be the real loss of the park be if 99% of Nashvillians can't use it, anyways?

And that is why there is discussion over the root causes of homelessness and what sort of ideas or solutions are available.

"displacing something that caters to some of the most vulnerable in our city"

I'd push back here as it would be one thing if we were knocking out affordable housing to build the tower. These people really aren't well served in this park. The landswap included the conditions to build a homelessness services center that would include showers and meal programs where they'd get actual help. This park that caters to the homeless is not a good situation for them or for the people who surround it. The status quo cannot remain, but I fear it will as we now will spend a couple years trying to reprogram a tiny pocket park that at its very best doesn't have that high of a ceiling.

Edited by DDIG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DDIG said:

"displacing something that caters to some of the most vulnerable in our city"

I'd push back here as it would be one thing if we were knocking out affordable housing to build the tower. These people really aren't well served in this park. The landswap included the conditions to build a homelessness services center that would include showers and meal programs where they'd get actual help. This park that caters to the homeless is not a good situation for them or for the people who surround it. The status quo cannot remain.

I don't disagree with any of that. I was trying to convey that there are a number of perspectives when it comes to the issue. For the homeless or the homeless advocates, this could be perceived as an attack on their rights, and more evidence that the cold-hearted city wants them out of sight, out of mind. For the downtown condo resident, this could be perceived as a win-win scenario where the ends justify the means, where the problem of the park is replaced by something more appealing, and the homeless benefit with a services center not far away. 

It just depends on who you talk to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2019 at 8:16 AM, PaulChinetti said:

Regardless of how everyone falls on the issues multiply cities have solved the homelessness in their city by giving homes to the homeless. It allows them to then get help for any of their problems be it drug abuse, mental illness or joblessness. 

Giving people homes that don't have them is the answer. 

 

There will always be a small % of our society that doesn't care to live the "normal" life and will be transient for whatever their personal reason is.

Some reading that I found real quick.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/cities-making-dent-homelessness-seattle-can-learn/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/united-states-cities-using-data-to-end-homelessness/

https://crosscut.com/2017/12/best-of-2017-the-city-that-solved-homelessness

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

Ask anyone living in Seattle if they think they have made a ‘dent’ in the homeless population. It’s unbelievably out of control there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Ask anyone living in Seattle if they think they have made a ‘dent’ in the homeless population. It’s unbelievably out of control there.

So give up and try nothing!

How about those other cities?

 

 

Share this post


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

So give up and try nothing!

How about those other cities?

 

 

I don’t have a connection to the other cities. Get your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you have any idea about the actual status of this project?  Some of you seem to have a lot of behind the scenes info about what's going on and after all of this delay I'm wondering if it's ever going to happen.  So is there any sort of time frame in which the issues may get resolved or do you think that the problems are insurmountable and the project might be dead?  This is the most exciting possible project in Nashville at the moment and if it isn't going to happen I'd sure like to know!  Thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, @Mr_Bond, that really means a lot to me! (I definitely think I err more towards verbose than concise though :tw_sweat_smile:.) I do feel badly for my role in continuing to derail this thread, but then again the titular character has been stalled for some time, so it isn't as though any big announcement were being drowned out in the meantime ... maybe saying that will conjure up some news?

Edited by AsianintheNations
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with Cooper winning it is safe to call this one dead. I worry about stuff like Oracle too if he keeps up his rhetoric. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's a forgone conclusion, it's crazy to me how many votes Swain got. So depending on where her and Clemmons' votes go. Briley could still win. 

But I agree with you @DDIG if Cooper wins it seems like it would be dead, but isn't he a developer by trade? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Well with Cooper winning it is safe to call this one dead. I worry about stuff like Oracle too if he keeps up his rhetoric. 

Yes, this project is likely dead. I don't think think Cooper will be anti growth, just anti appearing to be giving away the bank to achieve it. The optics on so many of these deals just looked bad. You can do things to lure companies more subtly.  We do need more funding for schools, police and affordable housing. Briley wasn't against those things but had been terrible at coming up with plans and working with others. I also think that the tone deaf downtown tourism folks and downtown business leaders didn't do Briley any favors. 

Edited by Nash_12South
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't know if it's a forgone conclusion, it's crazy to me how many votes Swain got. So depending on where her and Clemmons' votes go. Briley could still win. 

But I agree with you @DDIG if Cooper wins it seems like it would be dead, but isn't he a developer by trade? 

Swain voters most likely will go to Cooper I imagine. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, two predictions here. First, Cooper wins in a landslide. Second, despite lacking a single charismatic bone in his body, he turns out to be a wonky, but effective mayor. The more I have spoken with him and heard from him, the less it seems he is really anti growth/change. I think his big point is that we keep selling out without even trying to negotiate to get the best deals for the city. We also regularly promote tourism/tourist needs above residents. I disagree with him on the soccer deal and worry about funneling too much money to rural outlying areas of the county, but he is a smart guy who knows the issues and understands the metro budget inside and out. I’m cautiously optimistic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a developer by trade. 

I wonder what he would have done differently for say the Amazon deal, compared to other deals they made with cities, we got a pretty good deal. 

 

And to turn it back to the thread topic. If he's just going to put it out to an RFP and then we end up with another public parking garage or another tiny park that doesn't work, how does that help the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By putting the land out to RFP I would think it all but rules out another parking garage. If the city was up in arms about a tower, I would hope people would be more angry about a garage.

The RFP should be open ended in what should best utilize the space (my opinion is still a connecting green space), but if the best option is some form of structure, then they should pay market rate for the land based on what the land is valued at. We are seeing older buildings around downtown going for crazy amounts of money, I would think this land is more valuable than those because of the potential of it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put some kind of a homeless shelter on the site. Get imaginative be making it really "green". Elevate the structure 30/40 feet in the air, accessible by stairs/an elevator with an open green space under it that the homeless would be tasked with maintaining. No sleeping or loitering in the green space, beyond eating a lunch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.