Haven at The Gulch, 11 stories, 299 apts, $100 million

[henburg]

I wouldn't really care about the view being blocked if I wasn't so confident that this is going to be an ugly building. I would love to be wrong, but I'm expecting an 11 story wall of nasty stucco in a very prominent location.

[LA_TN]

10 hours ago, nashville born said:

I'm with @nashvylleon the view blocking aspect of this project.  I was going through liking the construction photos and then saw this one.  Hard stop.  Single tear falls.  In quoting a line from the movie Boomerang, first the Fat Boys break up, now this.   Oh well, the only constant is change so, giddy up!

PS - If you want to be seen, get your weight up.  (and, in this instance, by weight I mean height)

Just remember, Albion is going up to the left! 

 

[downtownresident]

16 minutes ago, LA_TN said:

Just remember, Albion is going up to the left! 

 

Which will be quite a bit taller(and much more attractive) than Haven. 

[titanhog]

2 minutes ago, downtownresident said:

Which will be quite a bit taller(and much more attractive) than Haven. 

Still feels like they’ll let a developer build whatever they want against the interstate.

Want an open garage facing the interstate?  Sure.

All stucco against the interstate?  Sure…go ahead.

Ugly suburban hotel against the interstate?  Yeah…why not.

Block the entire view of downtown?  Of course!

[MLBrumby]

5 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Still feels like they’ll let a developer build whatever they want against the interstate.

Want an open garage facing the interstate?  Sure.

All stucco against the interstate?  Sure…go ahead.

Ugly suburban hotel against the interstate?  Yeah…why not.

Block the entire view of downtown?  Of course!

But don’t allow two of the most striking and tallest skyscrapers on a site presently occupied by (yep) a squat stucco building. Hmmmm ... I don’t get metro planning! 

[yontu2]

Still feels like they’ll let a developer build whatever they want against the interstate.
Want an open garage facing the interstate?  Sure.
All stucco against the interstate?  Sure…go ahead.
Ugly suburban hotel against the interstate?  Yeah…why not.
Block the entire view of downtown?  Of course!

If there’s one thing I think should never be factored into city planning, it’s views of the city from the interstate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[titanhog]

3 hours ago, yontu2 said:

If there’s one thing I think should never be factored into city planning, it’s views of the city from the interstate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you definitely don’t want a wall of average-at-best, nothing special, open-garage buildings lining that loop around downtown blocking the view of what is beautiful about Nashville’s skyline.  We spend time making sure we don’t block the views of people on Rutledge Hill or Rolling Mill Hill…we stick to historical standards in some areas…we have height limitations in most areas…but we seem to have very little thought to what should go along the outer rim of the “inner loop” of downtown.  For some, it’s the first time they really see Nashville up close when they drive through.  When I see what’s going up along the interstate (other than 3-4 buildings around the Broadway exit), I’m puzzled by the city’s lack of quality demands.

 

[smeagolsfree]

Devils advocate here!

Sorry to disappoint, but as much as we like our views from the interstate, there are no guidelines about views from the interstate in Nashville. I really have not heard it brought up at a planning meeting before.

Now if you want to attend a Planning Commission meeting and bring it up, more power to you, but my guess is you will be laughed at or at least there will be snickers in the room when you start talking about this issue. This is something that only a few people care about other than the folks here on the board, IMO and Planning will never spend the time and energy to do a study to change this,

I would like to get some opinions from others that have lived in other cities to get their take. Bos2 Nash for one. I know when driving through cities like Atlanta I am going so fast, I dont have time to look and see what kind of materials are used or if I can see this building or that building. Its sort of a mute issue because I am trying to stay alive in traffic.

[titanhog]

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Devils advocate here!

Sorry to disappoint, but as much as we like our views from the interstate, there are no guidelines about views from the interstate in Nashville. I really have not heard it brought up at a planning meeting before.

Now if you want to attend a Planning Commission meeting and bring it up, more power to you, but my guess is you will be laughed at or at least there will be snickers in the room when you start talking about this issue. This is something that only a few people care about other than the folks here on the board, IMO and Planning will never spend the time and energy to do a study to change this,

I would like to get some opinions from others that have lived in other cities to get their take. Bos2 Nash for one. I know when driving through cities like Atlanta I am going so fast, I dont have time to look and see what kind of materials are used or if I can see this building or that building. Its sort of a mute issue because I am trying to stay alive in traffic.

First of all, you’re believing that my mentioning “views from the interstate” to be my #1 reason for the city to enact better quality control over what goes along the inner loop…which is not the case.  More than anything, it’s about quality of materials, massing and cohesiveness.  It seems we act as if we can just turn our backs to the interstate…pretend it’s not there.  Have open garages.  Ugly finishing materials.  Massive footprint with little height.   At least 1212 and the Capstar building look nice, even though they were allowed to build open garages facing the interstate.  The Kelty structure is just bad, in so many ways.  And the Crossroads at the Gulch is another structure where the backside facing the interstate could have been finished better.

Overall…I’m just lamenting the fact the city doesn’t seem that concerned with the quality of what goes along the interstate loop downtown…whether that blocks someone’s view or not.  To me, it about a lack of quality compared to many other nicer structures nearby.

[yontu2]

2 hours ago, titanhog said:

First of all, you’re believing that my mentioning “views from the interstate” to be my #1 reason for the city to enact better quality control over what goes along the inner loop…which is not the case.  More than anything, it’s about quality of materials, massing and cohesiveness.  It seems we act as if we can just turn our backs to the interstate…pretend it’s not there.  Have open garages.  Ugly finishing materials.  Massive footprint with little height.   At least 1212 and the Capstar building look nice, even though they were allowed to build open garages facing the interstate.  The Kelty structure is just bad, in so many ways.  And the Crossroads at the Gulch is another structure where the backside facing the interstate could have been finished better.

Overall…I’m just lamenting the fact the city doesn’t seem that concerned with the quality of what goes along the interstate loop downtown…whether that blocks someone’s view or not.  To me, it about a lack of quality compared to many other nicer structures nearby.

That makes sense to me. I think I've seen comments elsewhere on this board before suggesting that views from interstates need to be preserved, which strikes me as an awful idea. But I totally agree that there shouldn't be lower standards for materials or design quality just because a building is going in next to a highway, and it does seem like several of the worst buildings being built right now happen to hug the interstate.

[smeagolsfree]

Right now with the cost of building materials I doubt there will be any interest in increasing the type of materials facing the interstate. 

One of you numbers crunchers throw out the percent increase in building costs over the last year.

Metro cant enforce what they have.

[titanhog]

7 hours ago, yontu2 said:

That makes sense to me. I think I've seen comments elsewhere on this board before suggesting that views from interstates need to be preserved, which strikes me as an awful idea. But I totally agree that there shouldn't be lower standards for materials or design quality just because a building is going in next to a highway, and it does seem like several of the worst buildings being built right now happen to hug the interstate.

Yeah…the “view from the interstate” mention by me is more of a local “well crap” comment more than they “need to keep our views.”  I’m not THAT crazy lady. 

[Bos2Nash]

On 5/28/2021 at 6:07 AM, smeagolsfree said:

I would like to get some opinions from others that have lived in other cities to get their take. Bos2 Nash for one. I know when driving through cities like Atlanta I am going so fast, I dont have time to look and see what kind of materials are used or if I can see this building or that building. Its sort of a mute issue because I am trying to stay alive in traffic.

I could care less if the interstate was lined with open garages. The point of a good urban system isn't about making it pretty to the vehicles going 65+ mph, but rather the humans that interact with the building on the street. With regards to Boston, when I think about I-93 passing through the city, it is elevated north and south of the city and then buried under the city through it. No buildings really interact with the interstate because the interstate came after all the buildings (mostly). I-90 (Mass Turnpike) have a few new buildings that interact with the highway, and none have open garages, but then again many garages are buried in Boston (if parking is even provided).

From an pure Urban Design standpoint, sure I can see the reason for wanting to cover the garages, but that is a lot of money for a facade that will literally never have any interaction. Pushing the garage back from the street (and up against the interstate), screening the garage from the street where walkability, rideability and driving is the primary concern is much more of a priority than the view from the interstate. I could care less what a view from the interstate is because quite honestly, people should be focused on the road. The quality of material thing is completely up to the developer. From my point of view, I would rather they spend bigger money on the facade(s) that interact with the human side of the building and save some money on the facades that don't. If that means brick, metal panel, rainscreen on the human side and stucco (which i feel is just the worst material) on the non-human side, that is a win for design. At that point it is all about maintenance for the building owner. Some could make the argument that the units that have balconies that look at the highway could be sold for less because the exterior isn't as nice or that side requires more maintenance, but really that won't happen because the residents prolly dont even care. 

Sure, we would love for developers to spend money on all sides of the building (look at the Greystar development), but that just really isn't a feasible solution, especially along the highway. The highway is government subsidized "get out of jail free card" for not caring as much about the final appearance. Just like having the parking part of the bonus height program is a government subsidized waste of valuable city space.

[smeagolsfree]

13 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I could care less if the interstate was lined with open garages. The point of a good urban system isn't about making it pretty to the vehicles going 65+ mph, but rather the humans that interact with the building on the street. With regards to Boston, when I think about I-93 passing through the city, it is elevated north and south of the city and then buried under the city through it. No buildings really interact with the interstate because the interstate came after all the buildings (mostly). I-90 (Mass Turnpike) have a few new buildings that interact with the highway, and none have open garages, but then again many garages are buried in Boston (if parking is even provided).

From an pure Urban Design standpoint, sure I can see the reason for wanting to cover the garages, but that is a lot of money for a facade that will literally never have any interaction. Pushing the garage back from the street (and up against the interstate), screening the garage from the street where walkability, rideability and driving is the primary concern is much more of a priority than the view from the interstate. I could care less what a view from the interstate is because quite honestly, people should be focused on the road. The quality of material thing is completely up to the developer. From my point of view, I would rather they spend bigger money on the facade(s) that interact with the human side of the building and save some money on the facades that don't. If that means brick, metal panel, rainscreen on the human side and stucco (which i feel is just the worst material) on the non-human side, that is a win for design. At that point it is all about maintenance for the building owner. Some could make the argument that the units that have balconies that look at the highway could be sold for less because the exterior isn't as nice or that side requires more maintenance, but really that won't happen because the residents prolly dont even care. 

Sure, we would love for developers to spend money on all sides of the building (look at the Greystar development), but that just really isn't a feasible solution, especially along the highway. The highway is government subsidized "get out of jail free card" for not caring as much about the final appearance. Just like having the parking part of the bonus height program is a government subsidized waste of valuable city space.

I was having this discussion with William and we were pretty much making the same point you are making here about the human scale and pedestrian side of the building being so much more important. Another point to consider is the fact that if the interstates were ever capped then this becomes such a mute point. Then what could happen is those same garages will be hidden by tree lined park-scape which makes the entire idea totally obsolete. Another thing to consider is the fact there is a remote possibility that the interstate will be double decked at some point. It really depends what lamed brained funding comes out of the legislature.

[titanhog]

51 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I could care less if the interstate was lined with open garages. The point of a good urban system isn't about making it pretty to the vehicles going 65+ mph, but rather the humans that interact with the building on the street. With regards to Boston, when I think about I-93 passing through the city, it is elevated north and south of the city and then buried under the city through it. No buildings really interact with the interstate because the interstate came after all the buildings (mostly). I-90 (Mass Turnpike) have a few new buildings that interact with the highway, and none have open garages, but then again many garages are buried in Boston (if parking is even provided).

From an pure Urban Design standpoint, sure I can see the reason for wanting to cover the garages, but that is a lot of money for a facade that will literally never have any interaction. Pushing the garage back from the street (and up against the interstate), screening the garage from the street where walkability, rideability and driving is the primary concern is much more of a priority than the view from the interstate. I could care less what a view from the interstate is because quite honestly, people should be focused on the road. The quality of material thing is completely up to the developer. From my point of view, I would rather they spend bigger money on the facade(s) that interact with the human side of the building and save some money on the facades that don't. If that means brick, metal panel, rainscreen on the human side and stucco (which i feel is just the worst material) on the non-human side, that is a win for design. At that point it is all about maintenance for the building owner. Some could make the argument that the units that have balconies that look at the highway could be sold for less because the exterior isn't as nice or that side requires more maintenance, but really that won't happen because the residents prolly dont even care. 

Sure, we would love for developers to spend money on all sides of the building (look at the Greystar development), but that just really isn't a feasible solution, especially along the highway. The highway is government subsidized "get out of jail free card" for not caring as much about the final appearance. Just like having the parking part of the bonus height program is a government subsidized waste of valuable city space.

Totally disagree with you.  Both sides are “human sides.”  Just because there’s an interstate there is not an excuse to use poor materials, open garages, etc.  It’s a bad look and it’s not that hard to do something with more quality in a downtown.  When we start acting like the interstate is basically the same thing as a developer building a blank wall on a building because he/she knows there could one day be another building built up against that wall, then we’re just taking the easy way out.  Just because there’s an interstate there doesn’t mean there aren’t people on the other side of the interstate.  For that matter, why not just allow any ol’ material and open garages everywhere?  Why is it a “I’m more worried about ____________” when we could actually care about ALL of it?  Why enforce nice materials in one part of the downtown loop…and then totally disregard in another part?  To me, they’re just taking the easy way out.

31 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

I was having this discussion with William and we were pretty much making the same point you are making here about the human scale and pedestrian side of the building being so much more important. Another point to consider is the fact that if the interstates were ever capped then this becomes such a mute point. Then what could happen is those same garages will be hidden by tree lined park-scape which makes the entire idea totally obsolete. Another thing to consider is the fact there is a remote possibility that the interstate will be double decked at some point. It really depends what lamed brained funding comes out of the legislature.

How about make the whole building nice instead of deciding “oh well…it’s facing the interstate, do whatever you want."

Heck…I guess Amazon should have just left their garage open facing the railroad tracks, since that’s not the “human” side.  Matter of fact, the other side of the garage should be left open, too, since it’s just on upper 10th and won’t be really be open to humans other than the people who work there.  Same goes for Assurion.  Why even worry about that side of the building facing the railroad tracks?  Should have just made that side a concrete wall since humans aren’t walking down the railroad tracks.

And…just so no one tries to paint me as a “Titan says all buildings facing an interstate should look as good on the interstate side as they do on the non-interstate side”…I’m talking specifically in Nashville’s downtown loop ONLY.  This is our city’s calling card.  This section of Nashville can do better than it’s done in the past.  It’s not that hard to require some better building codes within the loop.  If someone was building a tall skyscraper next to the interstate, I guarantee the city would demand the interstate side of that skyscraper look nice and not just be a blank wall…or have less-than-stellar features or materials on that side.  So…why not demand the same for a 10 story structure?  Why cheap out within the downtown loop?

Edited May 31, 2021 by titanhog

[markhollin]

I agree that there needs to be a better effort to make what faces the interstate look nice. Several reasons:

1) It is the gateway to the city in many cases.

2) During rush hours when traffic is crawling, there is plenty of opportunities to observe surroundings.

3) If people are coming in via shuttles, or busses, or as passengers of taxis, Ubers, etc. they are definitely looking around, with no need to keep their eyes straight ahead on the traffic in front of them. 

I believe one solution would be for the TDOT and/or each developer planting tall cedar or Italian Cyprus trees (can often grow to 30-40 ft. in height) next to exposed parking garages. Would not only look nice, but could also create some sound cushion from the highway. 

 

[MLBrumby]

It'll be more likely walls than caps in most places. After decades in suburban areas, they're starting to get built in city cores for sound barriers, and they've been shown to improve the attention of drivers with fewer things in view to distract drivers.  Atlanta has been putting them through the city for several years now. Trees are prone to dropping debris on pavement and can be a slip hazard. They are also more vulnerable to strong winds. I expect TDOT will have requirements for walls along many segments of the rebuild through Nashville. In Atlanta, they're being landscaped with low evergreen shrubs. 

[smeagolsfree]

Regardless of what we want or don’t want on the board, the back back side of these buildings are not consider important to be granted an important  development  element as far as Metro is concerned. It will never happen and if we are screaming for caps, quality architecture, taller buildings, while land prices continue to rise and then we require developers to waste money on the most unimportant side of the project, it will detract from all of the other elements of that project thus driving cost up even more.

Sorry to disagree, but I don’t think anyone at Metro will take this seriously and I doubt any developer would be happy to even here about this conversation even taking place.

I still love you Titan!

[PruneTracy]

5 hours ago, markhollin said:

I believe one solution would be for the TDOT and/or each developer planting tall cedar or Italian Cyprus trees (can often grow to 30-40 ft. in height) next to exposed parking garages. Would not only look nice, but could also create some sound cushion from the highway. 

I like this, next time someone cuts me off to get to the 2nd/4th exit I can be all like

[titanhog]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Regardless of what we want or don’t want on the board, the back back side of these buildings are not consider important to be granted an important  development  element as far as Metro is concerned. It will never happen and if we are screaming for caps, quality architecture, taller buildings, while land prices continue to rise and then we require developers to waste money on the most unimportant side of the project, it will detract from all of the other elements of that project thus driving cost up even more.

Sorry to disagree, but I don’t think anyone at Metro will take this seriously and I doubt any developer would be happy to even here about this conversation even taking place.

I still love you Titan!

That's my issue.  The fact there’s an “unimportant” side of a building within the downtown loop.  The fact the interstate within this loop is somehow considered a wall, thus no one must ever see the “unimportant” side of the buildings being built.  IMO, it’s nuts those are considered “unimportant.”  And yes…I agree…Metro doesn’t care and would laugh at the suggestion.  That…again…is part of the problem.

Love ya too, Smeags.

[smeagolsfree]

TDOT and Metro working together on any issue for the greater Good on two differing unrelated issues I’d a real pipe dream.

[nashville born]

I wish every available lot within the downtown loop would be reserved for projects  of a minimum 20 stories.    Then views would exist everywhere.  I know, unrealistic.  Just trying to inject some levity! 

[smeagolsfree]

37 minutes ago, nashville born said:

I wish every available lot within the downtown loop would be reserved for projects  of a minimum 20 stories.    Then views would exist everywhere.  I know, unrealistic.  Just trying to inject some levity! 

How about 40 stories so we really lock the views!

[markhollin]

Up to 9th floor.

Looking east from Division St. and 7th Ave. South:

Looking west from Division Street Connector where it crosses over CSX tracks:

Looking west from Division Street Connector where it crosses over Ewing Ave:




Looking south from intersection of Fogg St. and 7th Ave. South:

[Bos2Nash]

To put a period on my approach to the interstate discussion, Boston undertook one of the most aggressive infrastructure projects ever in the Big Dig to rid themselves of the interstate in the public eye. It created a public - Human - space that people now enjoy and that buildings can feasibly look out over. What about the before image below makes you want to spend what could be a multi-million dollar add to your project to look out over a nasty highway? We could make the logical argument that masonry, metal panel etc is a more durable material and longer lasting, and makes for a longer lasting building. Sure and I would agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately developers tend to think more based on ROI when they look at materials and when they VE them and they take on the burden of maintaining those lower quality materials when they are on the verge of failing. But to try and govern a private developer based on the "aesthetics" from the interstate is just not a realistic approach to me.

Saying the Interstate is human scale - to me - falls into the same argument that corporations are people. It is semantic, but when you boil it down to the minimum, interstates are designed for large volume, high-speed motor vehicle travel not individual human travel. If they were designed for humans there would be sidewalks, bike lanes, travel stations every mile and that just isn't the case. I am a true believer in developers being good urban citizens and would love for the money to be available to treat every single facade of a building like it is the "front" of the building, but it is just not realistic. Especially in the current construction economy with every element going up in price. So from a realistic, architectural approach, yes I am going to turn my back on the corridor that is designed for high-speed as a rule and low-speed (ie rush hour) as the exception. I am going to focus on the facades that humans can interact with while walking, riding and moving at a low speed. The government does this to a certain extent through Form-Based Codes (The Downtown Code is one of these) and the building facades are governed based on the streets in which they lie. The city does not view the interstate as a street (which is right in my opinion as they have no control over the interstate and cannot improve the human scale of it) so the form-based code does not apply to it.