ONE22ONE, 25 stories, 356', 357,000 sq. ft. office space, 6,700 q. ft. ground floor retail

[nashvylle]

From the renderings, I was expecting the glass to be a lighter, almost white, shade of blue. 

[Luvemtall]

50 minutes ago, Licec said:

Does it make a difference, really.

YES, to some it really is important! And since this is the place to talk about development and buildings in Nashville and to voice our opinions on such matters , there’s no harm in wishing a building be taller. I can’t understand your negativity with almost every post on these pages. It’s all good, it’s just discussions .

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, Licec said:

Does it make a difference, really.

I would say it makes a huge difference. For example, if this building didn't have all the parking it would be a lot shorter. Height, for some, is the measuring stick for a city. To me the parking is a head scratcher because it seems like it is just an excuse to build a taller tower – aka ego. Parking is also such an older generation "amenity" for developers. 

[MontanaGuy]

26 minutes ago, Licec said:

Negativity? ...... Negativity?

HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

If that ain't Casper The Ghost calling Frosty The Snowman white.

Thanks for the laugh.

Dude you need to examine your own sordid posting history.

It looks like you just want to pick arguments and insult people.  It's too bad because this forum is generally a very positive and informative website which I look at and enjoy everyday.  

[Mr_Bond]

8 minutes ago, MontanaGuy said:

...this forum is generally a very positive and informative website which I look at and enjoy everyday.  

Spot on!  And each of us must play our part to keep it respectful and informative.  Grit and respect will keep UP a great place to hang out.

[nashvylle]

21 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I would say it makes a huge difference. For example, if this building didn't have all the parking it would be a lot shorter. Height, for some, is the measuring stick for a city. To me the parking is a head scratcher because it seems like it is just an excuse to build a taller tower – aka ego. Parking is also such an older generation "amenity" for developers. 

Height adds to developer's egos for sure. However, parking is an absolute necessity for Nashville. 

[Bos2Nash]

Just now, nashvylle said:

Height adds to developer's egos for sure. However, parking is an absolute necessity for Nashville. 

It currently is, 15 stories worth of parking though?

It really is a chicken or the egg type conversation. Many will say (and Houston is an example of this) if we continue to add car capacity all around the city, the number of cars coming into and around the city will only increase. The more cars coming into the city makes the argument for mass transit harder and harder because everybody wants to "keep the freedom" of having their car at beck and call. So if say the zoning laws (i know bad term for some) had parking maximums instead of parking minimums this would cap the old developer notion that parking is an "amenity" and would reduce the amount of overall parking in the city, thus making parking more expensive to those who will drive in, thus driving people to look for alternative means to get into the city. Call it "Trickle Down Transportation".

[nashvylle]

1 minute ago, Bos2Nash said:

It currently is, 15 stories worth of parking though?

It really is a chicken or the egg type conversation. Many will say (and Houston is an example of this) if we continue to add car capacity all around the city, the number of cars coming into and around the city will only increase. The more cars coming into the city makes the argument for mass transit harder and harder because everybody wants to "keep the freedom" of having their car at beck and call. So if say the zoning laws (i know bad term for some) had parking maximums instead of parking minimums this would cap the old developer notion that parking is an "amenity" and would reduce the amount of overall parking in the city, thus making parking more expensive to those who will drive in, thus driving people to look for alternative means to get into the city. Call it "Trickle Down Transportation".

I am all for getting cars off the road, but I don't think it's chicken or egg when the city/state have zero alternatives currently or anything remotely close to happening in 5 years. 

Any CEO that wants to be the guinea pig on no parking for its employees will soon find him having a lot fewer employees. 

[Nashvillain]

2 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I am all for getting cars off the road, but I don't think it's chicken or egg when the city/state have zero alternatives currently or anything remotely close to happening in 5 years. 

Any CEO that wants to be the guinea pig on no parking for its employees will soon find him having a lot fewer employees. 

If that CEO paid higher wages because they didn't have to budget for the cost, maintenance, or leasing of a parking garage, I'd bet they'd have a few employees willing to figure it out

[nashvylle]

28 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

If that CEO paid higher wages because they didn't have to budget for the cost, maintenance, or leasing of a parking garage, I'd bet they'd have a few employees willing to figure it out

what tenant pays for maintenance of a Landlord's parking garage? 

Edited August 18, 2021 by nashvylle

[Nashvillain]

Just now, nashvylle said:

what tenant pays for a Landlord's building's parking garage? 

Every single one

[nashvylle]

18 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

Every single one

That's just not true. Albeit, I meant to say "what tenant pays for a Landlord's maintenance of a parking garage" (I have edited). 

One22One and every other office building that isn't 100% leased has some portion of their garage not in use, and in order for the landlord to fill up its building 100% with tenants, deals have to be made. Sometimes those deals are made via free parking, and sadly, I bet most CEOs will only use those savings towards increased wages if it's absolutely necessary. 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by nashvylle

[Nashvillain]

4 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

That's just not true. Albeit, I meant to say "what tenant pays for a Landlord's maintenance of a parking garage" (I have edited). 

One22One and every other office building that isn't 100% leased has some portion of their garage not in use, and in order for the landlord to fill up its building 100% with tenants, deals have to be made. Sometimes those deals are made via free parking. 

 

Sure but don't you think the cost of the parking facilities has been factored into the rent? My point is that the cost of building (whether residential, office, or commercial) is increased by the inclusion of parking and that cost gets passed onto the tenants, homebuyers, and customers. If a corporation had lower rent in a building without parking, theoretically it could pay higher wages and potential employees could decide if it's worth it to work in a building without parking. 

 

[Mr_Bond]

37 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

Sometimes those deals are made via free parking...

 

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, there's no such thing as free parking.  The owner of the building looks at all the costs of owning and operating and charges lease rates accordingly.  He may tell the tenant, "If you move it, I'll give you free parking," but he knows his cost structure and will adjust his lease rates as needed.

[nashvylle]

1 hour ago, Nashvillain said:

Sure but don't you think the cost of the parking facilities has been factored into the rent? My point is that the cost of building (whether residential, office, or commercial) is increased by the inclusion of parking and that cost gets passed onto the tenants, homebuyers, and customers. If a corporation had lower rent in a building without parking, theoretically it could pay higher wages and potential employees could decide if it's worth it to work in a building without parking. 

 

I agree that lower rent leads to potentially higher salaries for employees (if CEO doesn't just keep to him/herself), but just my opinion I don't think that would work in Nashville even at the higher salaries if employees had to take a 2 hour bus to work. 

[Nashvillain]

6 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I agree that lower rent leads to potentially higher salaries for employees (if CEO doesn't just keep to him/herself), but just my opinion I don't think that would work in Nashville even at the higher salaries if employees had to take a 2 hour bus to work. 

You're all for getting cars off the road but don't support changes to the built environment, zoning, and market based incentives to make it happen. Not every bus trip is a 2 hour bus trip. The bus isn't the only alternative to single occupancy vehicles. There are housing options close by or certainly closer than a 2 hour bus trip

[nashvylle]

52 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

You're all for getting cars off the road but don't support changes to the built environment, zoning, and market based incentives to make it happen. Not every bus trip is a 2 hour bus trip. The bus isn't the only alternative to single occupancy vehicles. There are housing options close by or certainly closer than a 2 hour bus trip

I support actual paths to getting cars off the road - mass transit and building as much housing as possible. Read all my previous posts. 

Without legit mass transit, which something as simple as The Amp qualifies, all the zoning and other incentives won't make that much of a difference- unless you make enough to live in The Gulch and don't have a family yet. 

If there is a new office building downtown that has little to no parking and is full, please point it out to me (not trying to be a smart a$$, I just don't think it exists bc no lender would risk the $ for a project that doesn't make financial sense but is good for the city overall getting cars off the road). 

Edited August 18, 2021 by nashvylle

[Nashvillain]

20 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I support actual paths to getting cars off the road - mass transit and building as much housing as possible. Read all my previous posts. 

Without legit mass transit, which something as simple as The Amp qualifies, all the zoning and other incentives won't make that much of a difference- unless you make enough to live in The Gulch and don't have a family yet. 

If there is a new office building downtown that has little to no parking and is full, please point it out to me (not trying to be a smart a$$, I just don't think it exists bc no lender would risk the $ for the overall good a city getting cars off the road). 

There isn't one because, you're right, lenders won't lend for buildings without parking. But again, this isn't a flip the switch solution either but part of the broader solution. Tony G's new residential tower going up on Church hopefully indicates that changing conservative lenders' mindset is possible. And the city can set the table by eliminating the minimum parking requirement. 

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet if Amazon or Oracle wanted to build office buildings with much reduced parking capacity and incentivize employees to other commuting modes, they'd be able to get it done. 

Legit mass transit isn't possible in a city built for cars, so the transformation will have to come with the slow and steady buildout of smart transit improvements along with changes to zoning and elimination of parking requirements throughout the city

[nashvylle]

@Nashvillain agree. Another practical solution is for Amazon and Oracle to find out where the majority of their employees live and have private buses take their employees to directly locations throughout the city (with metro's help on traffic signals). 

[dmillsphoto]

5 hours ago, nashvylle said:

@Nashvillain agree. Another practical solution is for Amazon and Oracle to find out where the majority of their employees live and have private buses take their employees to directly locations throughout the city (with metro's help on traffic signals). 

lemme chime in from the purview of very very deep understanding of technology corporations, especially these two.

They already do know. There's a, albeit currently, slight difference between Amazon and Oracle. With Oracle, some employees won't have a choice BUT to live in their campus. Amazon would love this, but given that this is an ops HQ, they'll have less say in the matter.

But I find the idea detestable, overall. Handing that much control over to a corporate entity is, to me at least, sickening. 

 

[Mr_Bond]

54 minutes ago, dmillsphoto said:

lemme chime in from the purview of very very deep understanding of technology corporations, especially these two.

They already do know. There's a, albeit currently, slight difference between Amazon and Oracle. With Oracle, some employees won't have a choice BUT to live in their campus. Amazon would love this, but given that this is an ops HQ, they'll have less say in the matter.

But I find the idea detestable, overall. Handing that much control over to a corporate entity is, to me at least, sickening. 

 

It hearkens back to the days of the company town and the company store.

[andywildman]

10 hours ago, Mr_Bond said:

It hearkens back to the days of the company town and the company store.

Company towns were built because it gave control to the company, but also because the housing in the area wasn't sufficient for the need for workers.

That second reason is back as a significant factor, and is certainly part of why big tech companies have been moving towards more development-friendly cities. If Nashville wants to avoid the Seattle & Bay Area cost of living issues without the Texas sprawl, we're going to have to permit more housing density and stop mandating parking (developers will still build parking, but incrementally less as density grows - shoutout Tony G).

[nashvylle]

8 minutes ago, andywildman said:

If Nashville wants to avoid the Seattle & Bay Area cost of living issues without the Texas sprawl, we're going to have to permit more housing density and stop mandating parking (developers will still build parking, but incrementally less as density grows - shoutout Tony G).

Yes.... it's quite simple.... more housing. Even if the state bans inclusionary housing, build more fair market housing so richer renters/homeowners don't go after the poorer residents' lots. 

[Flatrock]

12 hours ago, Mr_Bond said:

It hearkens back to the days of the company town and the company store.

I do not see this as a fair comparison. With all respect. 

Company towns and company stores were neo-feudal systems, paying people barely subsistence poverty level wages, designed to keep them indebted to the company via a closed loop environment. No doubt Amazon and Oracle are huge entities with the potential for over-reach, but if they build dense housing for their people close to work, that sounds wonderful to me.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Flatrock
pendantic, self-righteous and preachy. Sorry.

[Bos2Nash]

19 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet if Amazon or Oracle wanted to build office buildings with much reduced parking capacity and incentivize employees to other commuting modes, they'd be able to get it done. 

Amazon is actually doing this for their ops center with a $175.00 per month stipend along with all bike costs for employees who choose that mode of transportation.

19 hours ago, nashvylle said:

@Nashvillain agree. Another practical solution is for Amazon and Oracle to find out where the majority of their employees live and have private buses take their employees to directly locations throughout the city (with metro's help on traffic signals). 

Rather than having these companies employee their own privatized bus fleet and the city bending over backwards to prioritize them in traffic, why not ask for that money to go towards funding a mass transit system and they get to market themselves as a great corporate citizen??

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

Yes.... it's quite simple.... more housing. Even if the state bans inclusionary housing, build more fair market housing so richer renters/homeowners don't go after the poorer residents' lots. 

So it won't be the richer renters/homeowners who go after the poorer residents lots directly, but rather the developers who will buy out a large number of parcels to then turnaround an rent/sell to the richer renters/homebuyers at a steep mark up?

I would argue that most developers go after the lowest costing land even more so than the individual buyer. They have the advantage of being able to construct a new, desirable neighborhood versus the individual buyer who is more than likely going to be trying to buy into an established, desirable neighborhood.