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

[MontanaGuy]

13 hours ago, downtownresident said:

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

I'm afraid you might be right.  I was reading through some of his views on different issues and this is what he said about this particular situation: "As a council member, I opposed Mayor Briley’s effort to give Church Street Park to a preferred developer for a new high-rise, luxury condo tower." That sure doesn't sound promising and it sounds like he's ahead in the polls, is putting his own money into this election, and could very well be the next mayor.

[PaulChinetti]

5 minutes ago, MontanaGuy said:

I'm afraid you might be right.  I was reading through some of his views on different issues and this is what he said about this particular situation: "As a council member, I opposed Mayor Briley’s effort to give Church Street Park to a preferred developer for a new high-rise, luxury condo tower." That sure doesn't sound promising and it sounds like he's ahead in the polls, is putting his own money into this election, and could very well be the next mayor.

Did the rest of the council oppose it, I'm fuzzy on that. How does it work, does the mayor have veto power. What if the entire council votes for it?

[UTgrad09]

23 hours ago, Armacing said:

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!

I don't think it was necessarily an official declaration, but rather one of those strong-arm negotiating tactics -- but from what I can remember, Tony called their bluff. I doubt they would have actually gone through with it, because the lawsuits wouldn't make it worth it. It was worth it for acquiring the land for the MCC, but for a simple (but large) parking garage? No way.

As far as what grounds -- unfortunately the criteria needed to use eminent domain seem to be rather loose and ambiguous. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Armacing]

1 minute ago, UTgrad09 said:

As far as what grounds -- unfortunately the criteria needed to use eminent domain seem to be rather loose and ambiguous. 

Yeah, I remember that case.  But I think Tennesseans in general have a stronger commitment to private property rights than people in Connecticut do.  I don't think a case like that would make it very far in this state.

[UTgrad09]

1 minute ago, Armacing said:

Yeah, I remember that case.  But I think Tennesseans in general have a stronger commitment to private property rights than people in Connecticut do.  I don't think a case like that would make it very far in this state.

I tend to agree. But then again, we do need to build that new roadway through your house.

[Armacing]

Just now, UTgrad09 said:

I tend to agree. But then again, we do need to build that new roadway through your house.

Lol!  I'm ready for it.  Maybe it will cut down on my commute time to work!

[Bos2Nash]

*Applause* for this park design and for Tony for making the effort for it. I believe it is more of a strategic publicity move to get what he wants than anything else, but showing he is willing to go even beyond what his original deal stated he would do is applause worthy. I still believe even with this we would need the original Church Street Park to remain as part of the project though. If this design were to be implemented and then the Tower built, we would essentially just shift the current parks problems around the corner. All the programmable elements that make this park look good are what NCDC recommended for the current park and were put on blast for. They showed all the possibilities that could go on in the existing park, and Tony is essentially showing the same ideologies along the street rather than in the park. 

I honestly believe (and have been saying it right along) that ADDB and Church Street Park need to both be public green space. CSP because it would anchor the downtown green chain, and ADDB because it would connect to legislative plaza. Isolated areas really wont be all that successful. Think the High Line or the Emerald Necklace and how they have been so successful in their short and long lives. Connecting all the pieces together is really what drives the success. This beautiful park design will work great in a network, but right now it would just die at Church Street and we would start this same conversation all over again.

On another note, who is paying for the "year-round staff" that is mentioned in the video by the urban planner??

[Armacing]

4 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

I honestly believe (and have been saying it right along) that ADDB and Church Street Park need to both be public green space.

Can you help me out with something I have been wondering?  What is the primary purpose of "public green space"?

[Nash_12South]

50 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Can you help me out with something I have been wondering?  What is the primary purpose of "public green space"?

In bigger cities its a place to escape the usual concrete of city living. It's a space to walk your dog one day and hold a festival the next. Central Park in NYC. Atlanta's Piedmont Park. Centennial Park here. Think of it as multi purpose rather than single purpose. This little park was more a creative way to use a vacant lot than a truly thought out contributing type park.

At its creation, no one wanted a tiny parking lot (or vacant bldg) in front of the grand new library.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Nash_12South

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Can you help me out with something I have been wondering?  What is the primary purpose of "public green space"?

41 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

In bigger cities its a place to escape the usual concrete of city living. It's a space to walk your dog one day and hold a festival the next. Central Park in NYC. Atlanta's Piedmont Park. Centennial Park here. Think of it as multi purpose rather than single purpose. This little park was more a creative way to use a vacant lot than a truly thought out contributing type park.

At its creation, no one wanted a tiny parking lot (or vacant bldg) in front of the grand new library.

This is a good interpretation, but it is also a human health item. If cities were all hard surfaces there would be no way to reduce heat island effect or absorb all the carbon dioxide that buildings give off. Green space is imperative to this as all of our traditional building materials produce carbon dioxide, while greenery and softscapes retain this. The softscapes also bring a certain amount of comfort that you cant get from steel concrete and asphalt.

 

[DDIG]

6 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

*Applause* for this park design and for Tony for making the effort for it. I believe it is more of a strategic publicity move to get what he wants than anything else, but showing he is willing to go even beyond what his original deal stated he would do is applause worthy. I still believe even with this we would need the original Church Street Park to remain as part of the project though. If this design were to be implemented and then the Tower built, we would essentially just shift the current parks problems around the corner. All the programmable elements that make this park look good are what NCDC recommended for the current park and were put on blast for. They showed all the possibilities that could go on in the existing park, and Tony is essentially showing the same ideologies along the street rather than in the park. 

I honestly believe (and have been saying it right along) that ADDB and Church Street Park need to both be public green space. CSP because it would anchor the downtown green chain, and ADDB because it would connect to legislative plaza. Isolated areas really wont be all that successful. Think the High Line or the Emerald Necklace and how they have been so successful in their short and long lives. Connecting all the pieces together is really what drives the success. This beautiful park design will work great in a network, but right now it would just die at Church Street and we would start this same conversation all over again.

On another note, who is paying for the "year-round staff" that is mentioned in the video by the urban planner??

I suspect Tony isn't interested in making ADDB happen if Church Street Park is gonna remain. As someone else said, zero percent chance any land swap goes forward when Cooper wins in my opinion so its mostly moot. I predict the status quo will remain at the park for the foreseeable future. #DebbieDowner

[MontanaGuy]

This whole situation is such a big disappointment because this is the most exciting potential project in Nashville by far in my opinion.  I lived in Seattle for twenty years and got to watch so many impressive new skyscrapers taking shape when I was working downtown.  I realize that Nashville will never be in that league of skylines but this building would have been a game changer.  I'm looking forward to watching the Four Seasons go up but I'm such a skyscraper nerd that I really feel let down about this one!

[DDIG]

12 minutes ago, MontanaGuy said:

This whole situation is such a big disappointment because this is the most exciting potential project in Nashville by far in my opinion.  I lived in Seattle for twenty years and got to watch so many impressive new skyscrapers taking shape when I was working downtown.  I realize that Nashville will never be in that league of skylines but this building would have been a game changer.  I'm looking forward to watching the Four Seasons go up but I'm such a skyscraper nerd that I really feel let down about this one!

I'd imagine Tony will keep the tower dream alive, he'll just likely need to find a different piece of land somehow.

[titanhog]

Part of me feels like the actual park is not even the reason some people are opposing this.  They could probably knock down a whole city block's worth of buildings and replace them with parks...but some people would still oppose this one little park being replaced with a building.

[nashwatcher]

1 hour ago, DDIG said:

I'd imagine Tony will keep the tower dream alive, he'll just likely need to find a different piece of land somehow.

Doesn’t he have land at the KVB roundabout?

[DDIG]

18 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Part of me feels like the actual park is not even the reason some people are opposing this.  They could probably knock down a whole city block's worth of buildings and replace them with parks...but some people would still oppose this one little park being replaced with a building.

I drive by the park daily. Counted 21 homeless lounging in it the other morning. Nobody cares about that park, people were just motivated to stop the developer at a time where development has become a bad word for some even though creating more residential downtown is important for the city’s future on a lot of levels.

[fishsticks176]

This is true. It’s a symbolic fight. I had the misfortune of conversing with one of the old ladies in charge of the “Save The Rock Block” group that’s fighting to keep those Ellison apartments from getting demolished.  The conversation went something like this:

”They’re  going to destroy that whole neighborhood! These greedy developers are destroying any history Nashville has left! They’re trying to build *a hotel*! It’ll ruin everything!”

”But there are already hotels there”

”And this will be the final straw! It all started going to hell when they closed The Gold Rush! These developers don’t care!”

”Did that close because of a developer? It hasn’t been turned into anything.”

”Well I don’t know but probably! And there was so much history there! I used to hang out there in my younger days. And now The Exit/In and The End are going to close!”

”No they’re not. There aren’t any plans to close them.”

”Trust me. They’ll tear them down and build more hotels.”

”Did those properties sell too?”

”It’s all the same area!”

”Yeah but they’re different properties...”

”Are they though?”

”...yes .”

”Well ok maybe but these developers won’t stop until they tear down everything! They’re probably going to come for my apartment building next! I’m not going to let them get away with it!”

As we pulled up to her apartment building, she goes, “ You know there used to be a beautiful Victorian right here across the street. And they just tore it down!” I asked if there was something getting built there that I didn’t know about. She said, “No, it was just old and in ruins and had turned into a crackhouse. But can you believe that they would just tear down such a beautiful building that was always there?!”

 

That pretty much sums up the people in these groups. 

 

[subkyle]

3 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

Doesn’t he have land at the KVB roundabout?

I think some of the reason why he can’t move on to another site that easily is that there are few parcels around that have zero height restrictions (which is depressing). Even that roundabout has restrictions. I really wish Tony keeps trying and gets this done. Does anyone know the areas that have no height restrictions? I’m not positive but I think it’s small. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by subkyle

[Nash_12South]

The groups opposing this development as well as Elliston often don't have logic or common sense on their side, but they are passionate organizers and they are reliable voters, which gives them clout. When I think about it, they are a reflection of our national politics....

Edited August 23, 2019 by Nash_12South

[Armacing]

21 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

This little park was more a creative way to use a vacant lot than a truly thought out contributing type park.

At its creation, no one wanted a tiny parking lot (or vacant bldg) in front of the grand new library.

I thought there was a structure there when the city acquired the property?  Anyway, you are right about the "not truly though out" part of the story.  I bet those same visionaries are wishing they had a vacant building (although, it's hard to imagine it would be vacant) in front of their library now rather than an open-air homeless sanitarium.

I think Tony should take one last shot at developing the park:  A 60-story apartment complex for Nashville's homeless.  The tower would have like 300 units and feature a roof-top park with the exact dimensions as the existing park.  Therefore, no greenspace would be lost, and the homeless capacity of the lot would be dramatically increased.  With the right type of neon lighting the tower could be cool in a blade runner/dystopian kind of way.

[BnaBreaker]

9 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

The groups opposing this development as well as Elliston often don't have logic or common sense on their side, but they are passionate organizers and they are reliable voters, which gives them clout. When I think about it, they are a reflection of our national politics....

The debate over whether or not these particular properties are worthy of preservation or not is obviously one that relies heavily on subjectivity.  In my subjective view, there is a major value difference between wanting to kill the would-be tallest building in the state in order to preserve (but not really) a tiny failed pseudo park, and wanting to kill a mediocre chain motel in order to preserve an architectural gem that is something of an endangered species in the city.  

[titanhog]

46 minutes ago, BnaBreaker said:

The debate over whether or not these particular properties are worthy of preservation or not is obviously one that relies heavily on subjectivity.  In my subjective view, there is a major value difference between wanting to kill the would-be tallest building in the state in order to preserve (but not really) a tiny failed pseudo park, and wanting to kill a mediocre chain motel in order to preserve an architectural gem that is something of an endangered species in the city.  

Totally agree.  We often throw out the name "NIMBY" to describe people who oppose development at certain locations...but it really comes down to a case-by-case scenario.  Taking down the antebellum home on Music Row to build the Virgin Hotel was probably a worthy preservation attempt...but the fight against that development on Murphy Road was asinine.  

[Binbin98]

I know this might be random but I sometimes wonder why Giarrantana didn't just build this tower on a neighboring lot or something, I feel like it would have broken ground by now despite the MDHA's fear of building tall. Dealing with the headache of church street park just seems like a nightmare for any developer. Also, once a 700+ ft building is built in Nashville I don't doubt it will have an effect on how tall other developers build their buildings here. Cities like Austin and Charlotte didn't start building tall buildings from the beginnning of their boom, it happened over time and I feel that this will happen in Nashville in the future as well.

On an unrelated note I can't get away from Nashville here in London. Whether its in conversation with peers or seeing ads to travel here in the magazines Nashville is widely known within the UK, although I can't speak for other parts of Europe.

[MLBrumby]

There are two lots, at least as large as the sliver of land that is Church Street Park, just two blocks to the west. I wonder if he made an offer for the old Tulane site. 

[Bos2Nash]

So it’s gonna take some one with a lot of capital - Tony -  to build a 700’+ tower. But we have also talked about it at length before, until land becomes very scarce in the city, the added cost of going that tall will be a tremendous risk. The cost per sf once get above “x” height (typically 30 floors I believe) is exponentially more expensive.