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

[Ingram]

1 hour ago, 12Mouth said:

We also regularly promote tourism/tourist needs above residents.

 

What!!!!!!??????

What kind of statement is that? 

Look here guy, we can't have that kind of looking out for regular working citizens like that. It's so outrageous to look out for the working people.

This city is for the people who wake up everyday with a craving for craaaaaaaaft beeeeeeeeer.

You know what they say on this forum? If you and the peons don't like change, if you and the peons don't like growth.............LEEEEEAAAAAAVE!!!!!

[smeagolsfree]

Just FYI, as far as I know there was never a RFP issued for the park, so the entire discussion may be mute.

[Tennessine]

3 hours ago, Ingram said:

You know what they say on this forum? If you and the peons don't like change, if you and the peons don't like growth.............LEEEEEAAAAAAVE!!!!!

Which forum? This one? I have never read a single post on the Nashville board that said anything like that.

[markhollin]

Tony Giarratana is proposing an overhaul to Anne Dallas Dudley Blvd. into  a green space concept known as a "woonerf" originally implemented in The Netherlands. 

Even though the RFP regarding the land of the Church Street Pocket Park and his proposed Paramount Tower are on hold due to the Mayoral election in early September, Giarratana has decided to reveal his vision for the adjoining street.

Participants have been Nashville-based Barge Design Solutions (for design); Agora Partners, which has offices in Los Angeles and New York and devised the park’s activation plan; and Fletcher Ridge,

If Anne Dallas Dudley Park materializes as Giarratana envisions, it would offer one acre of green space. In contrast, Church Street Park covers 0.27 acres, according to Metro records. As planned, the future Anne Dallas Dudley Park could be closed for events. The street itself would function much like the segment of Fifth Avenue South between Korean Veterans Boulevard and Demonbreun Street, which has no curbs and sees pedestrians and motorists interacting in a relatively safe and distinctive manner. The park could offer, among others, movies, live music, free wi-fi, so-called technology smart benches, puppet shows, yoga and food carts.  You can see a proposal video here:
 

Giarratana said he is flexible as to the various scenarios that could unfold, including via a possible RFP. For example, Metro could undertake the complete street project and fund it itself (Giarratana said he is open to offering the city the plans with terms to be negotiated). Or the effort could be a public-private partnership, with Giarratana LLC — were it to be awarded the RFP — overseeing, paying the full cost and completing in one year. Under that scenario, and via the RFP, the company would be likely to then have the pocket park site for a skyscraper (either Paramount or a tower with a different design).

The proposed park website:

http://annedallasdudleypark.com/#home

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2019/08/15/tony-giarratana-pitches-new-vision-for-church.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

And behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/article/21082607/giarratana-offers-plan-to-reinvent-downtown-street

[chris holman]

Love the idea he can still build his tower with this plan and have urban interactive green space as well

[MontanaGuy]

2 hours ago, chris holman said:

Love the idea he can still build his tower with this plan and have urban interactive green space as well

I like this concept too.  I don't really know the details of this situation like a lot of you guys do, would the tower he wants to build border this park?  I'm assuming it would replace the smaller existing park where all of the controversy has stalled this project. 

[chris holman]

Location in question 

The proposed tower will rise to the right of this  

Tower site

[PillowTalk4]

In the first rendering it would have been nice to see how the base of his building would fit into the design instead of leaving the wall space empty that backs the current park.

But kudos for going beyond his original plan to show his commitment to appeal to those who want to see the "pocket" park stay.

[PaulChinetti]

11 minutes ago, PillowTalk4 said:

In the first rendering it would have been nice to see how the base of his building would fit into the design instead of leaving the wall space empty that backs the current park.

But kudos for going beyond his original plan to show his commitment to appeal to those who want to see the "pocket" park stay.

Agreed, if there was some serious street activation at the base of the tower that any and everyone could use, that would help a lot too I think.

[markhollin]

The Tennessean's coverage of Giarratana's proposal for Anne Dallas Dudley Park concept, as well as how the opposition is looking at it. Plus  another rendering.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/08/15/downtown-nashville-investor-presents-competing-plan-historic-corridor-tony-giarratana/2019285001/
 

[PillowTalk4]

Funny that the Tennessean mentioned NYC's Bryant Park because when I saw Tony's renderings for ADDB, I was thinking how it would be cool to change Legislative Plaza into more of a park setting like Bryant Park.  It's become a great gathering place for locals and some tourists.  The cool thing is how they change it up throughout the year.  It can go from being primarily a big green space to an ice skating and several local vendor shops in the winter.   ADDB is a bit too small to accomplish all of what they do in Bryant Park throughout the year.  But if Legislative Plaza is incorporated into a redesign, it would make for a great space for workers and residents in downtown.

[BnaBreaker]

2 hours ago, markhollin said:

The Tennessean's coverage of Giarratana's proposal for Anne Dallas Dudley Park concept, as well as how the opposition is looking at it. Plus  another rendering.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/08/15/downtown-nashville-investor-presents-competing-plan-historic-corridor-tony-giarratana/2019285001/
 

I am in love with this concept.  It achieves so much more than simply adding some new flowers to an already failed pocket park.  THIS is the type of forward thinking, cutting-edge urban design we need to be considering if we want to take this city to the next level

[subkyle]

Tony has great vision. He has really gotten out in front of the issues facing him. This idea of basically moving the park around the corner and into unused space addresses his opponents issues. Can someone please tell me why someone would be opposed to his plan now?

[Nash_12South]

20 minutes ago, subkyle said:

Tony has great vision. He has really gotten out in front of the issues facing him. This idea of basically moving the park around the corner and into unused space addresses his opponents issues. Can someone please tell me why someone would be opposed to his plan now?

Some will still see as taking a park and trading it to a developer. These renderings could also be viewed as "expanding" the existing park rather than erasing it. I'd like to see a building this tall get built, but pick another site and move on.

[Armacing]

40 minutes ago, subkyle said:

 Can someone please tell me why someone would be opposed to his plan now?

They will oppose this because it will be interpreted as a strategy to circumvent their opposition to the tower by removing one of their battle cries "we need more green space downtown".  Think about it.  Tony has no real reason or business suggesting street modifications and new parks for downtown.  I mean, any citizen can propose things like this, but Tony's submission is clearly aimed at paving the way for his tower to occupy the church street park.  The opponents are smart enough to realize this, and their main goal is not to improve the city, but to oppose someone who they perceive as an evil, rich, developer.  That's why I agree with Nash_12south who said Tony needs to write this off and select a new spot for his tower.  This is a lost cause now, in my opinion.

[Nash_12South]

I'll add that the site of this new park would be site Tony would need for staging the construction of his new tower, meaning there would be no park for 2-3 years. I think Tony likes creating drama for his projects. 

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

I'll add that the site of this new park would be site Tony would need for staging the construction of his new tower, meaning there would be no park for 2-3 years. I think Tony likes creating drama for his projects. 

I don't see Tony as the one creating the drama here and he's going to face opposition in some form or another almost anywhere he wants to build.  

The people organizing the opposition know that it's a pretense, but 'more green space downtown' and 'save our parks' sounds better than the truth  - which for the organizers is closer to 'Hinder my competition or NIMBY' and for the followers it's 'No more growth/tourists/people/change'.   It's no different than the law firm opposing 2nd ave partners because of traffic ingress/egress instead of just saying they didn't want to lose their views, or that 'grassroots' group claiming opposition to 5th and Broadway because the Ryman deserves a courtyard plaza, or the fairgrounds crew complaining about facilities despite getting better facilities in the proposal they opposed.

To be fair, we shouldn't just be giving away parks to developers, but Tony came up with some creative ways to better utilize city property that could work out to both his and the city's benefit.  Instead of rewarding him and us for his initiative and the money he spent trying to put all this together behind the scenes, now we're going to throw that effort/expense away - which will certainly discourage others from trying to come up with creative mutually beneficial public/private partnerships in the future.  No one was drawing up proposals to improve the pocket park before Tony came along with his scheme - sort of reminds me how we only see new ideas from Stop AMP/Transit groups whenever there's a pro-transit proposal on the table that they want to rally opposition against - then it's back to silence. 

The good news is -  Tony did such a good job with his new alternative park/greenway that he should be able to peel off some of the opposition who are genuinely interested in maximizing downtown park space.  But as others have also concluded, I won't be surprised when the percentage of those who drop their opposition in light of the new park proposal is a depressingly small fraction.

Edited August 16, 2019 by ruraljuror

[subkyle]

2 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

Some will still see as taking a park and trading it to a developer. These renderings could also be viewed as "expanding" the existing park rather than erasing it. I'd like to see a building this tall get built, but pick another site and move on.

Is there other viable options for him to build  this that has zero height restrictions? I’m really not sure.  People can come up with some back assward arguments, but taking emotion out of the equation I’m looking for a sensible opposition to this deal. He would be creating a larger park right next door, and utilizing a space that is truly not being utilized at all. In fact, it took this news for me to even realize the opportunity for this land. Kudos to Tony on that. 

Mira easy to say just move on when you haven’t significant money and time on a deal. A lot of deals that materialize in my business don’t haunt at the first No.

[Nash_12South]

I don’t have any opposition to this deal. I think it’s a fair trade too. But, the negativity that this deal generated hurt our current fairly pro development mayor and may inadvertently help another not so friendly to developers mayor get elected. Cooper may be secretly pro development but he’ll have a hard time supporting this in a first administration. I wonder how much Tony is giving both candidates. This site seems to worship Tony. I admire him too. I just try to give a little of the other side.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Nash_12South

[UTgrad09]

I think Tony is saying/doing all the right things to make this happen -- but I don't know if it will be enough.

I can understand why some people have an issue with the overall proposal. If this were a private lot, there would be little to stop it, IMO. But this is Metro land...and therefore any deals are subject to more scrutiny (even though Metro has proved time and again that they make poor decisions when it comes to land deals).

The biggest issue of this entire project is not displacing the homeless or taking away valuable downtown green space. It's that there isn't any competition. It's basically a no-bid deal that was proposed by the developer. So in terms of fairness, I can see how some may say "hey, I didn't realize THAT was available"....and they'd have a very legitimate complaint. This may not be the type of precedent that we want the city to establish with public land -- even if we like this project and find it to be beneficial to the city overall.

As ruraljuror alluded to, a lot of the opposition (aside from, perhaps, homeless advocates) simply don't want that tower there. For whatever reason. But I'm almost certain it's not that "it would be displacing the homeless!" or "we just don't have enough green space downtown!" I think a lot of us can see right through that charade. But people that just catch a simple news blurb or headline? They're probably more susceptible to something that tugs at their heart strings (only us development freaks let 65 story buildings tug at our heart strings). 

First it was about the homeless. And when the homeless services center was proposed, then it was about the green space, and how we need to just reimagine it (as if that is going to do jack $h!# to address why the current park isn't usable for anyone that isn't homeless).

 

 

Personally, I'm on the fence on how kosher this land swap deal is. I think the positives definitely outweigh the negatives, especially with this new Anne Dallas Dudley Park. I think Tony covers all of the bases, except the one where no one else is bidding on the land or submitting a competing proposal. Don't get me wrong, I like Tony, and everything he has done for downtown -- but I think we all know he wants to develop this property so he can basically own Church St. He's still looking for Signature, and that's not going to be found in SoBro or The Gulch.

Then again, Metro forced his hand in developing 505 because they wanted a garage (and they were planning to use eminent domain)...so I think he was very gracious to share his *prime* lot with them for the good of the city. So maybe you could argue Metro kind of owes him one.

[LA_TN]

11 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

I'll add that the site of this new park would be site Tony would need for staging the construction of his new tower, meaning there would be no park for 2-3 years. I think Tony likes creating drama for his projects. 

That's a great point. Use Anne Dallas Dudley Boulevard as a staging area during construction and then turn it into a park when done. And that would probably be cheaper than an off site staging area

@UTgrad09, well said

[titanhog]

1 hour ago, UTgrad09 said:

I can understand why some people have an issue with the overall proposal. If this were a private lot, there would be little to stop it, IMO. But this is Metro land...and therefore any deals are subject to more scrutiny (even though Metro has proved time and again that they make poor decisions when it comes to land deals).

But when it comes to Metro...it wasn't like they chose the "highest bidder" in regards to 5th & Broad or for the Trolley Barn area land.  For all we know, they already had someone picked out who would get the land and just went through with the process to seem "kosher."   At least with Tony, they're not going to waste our time with another "contest" to see who gets the land.

[musiczealot]

15 hours ago, titanhog said:

But when it comes to Metro...it wasn't like they chose the "highest bidder" in regards to 5th & Broad or for the Trolley Barn area land.  For all we know, they already had someone picked out who would get the land and just went through with the process to seem "kosher."   At least with Tony, they're not going to waste our time with another "contest" to see who gets the land.

Based on the designs released for the Trolley Barn area proposals, the only thing that makes sense is the "winning" bid was picked long before.  What a charade.

[Armacing]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 11:09 PM, UTgrad09 said:

Metro forced his hand in developing 505 because they wanted a garage (and they were planning to use eminent domain)

This is the first I heard of that.  Eminent domain on what grounds?  I really doubt that eminent domain could be used to take a private parking lot from a private business and use the land to build a public parking lot.  On the face of the issue it sounds ridiculous.  But if they truly were planning that, then we have much larger problems with corruption in this town that I first imagined!

[downtownresident]

After reading through John Coopers policy positions on his website, this project is likely DOA if he wins the runoff.