Nashville Pottery & Pipe Works, 11, 7 & 6 story residential structures (unknown units), 7 story boutique hotel (160 rooms), conversion massive factory into 160,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, restaurant space on 9.5 acres in Cleveland Park

[markhollin]

One of The Gulch's visionaries, Bill Barkley, has a large development in mind for the 9.5 acre Nashville Pottery & Pipe Works property at 515 Foster St. in Cleveland Park. It would entail a 12 story residential tower (490 units),  an 8 story boutique hotel (125 rooms), conversion of the massive 1890s-era former factory into 155,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, restaurant space.

He has formed Foster Street Partners with Emerald Real Estate Partners for the development.  Manuel Zeitlin will be the architect.  No renderings or diagrams yet. 

The site is bordered on its western edge by train tracks used to accept clay and coal to power two kilns, and to ship finished products that included jugs, jars, pitchers, flower pots and milk pans.

Today, Ellington Parkway runs along the property's east edge. A pedestrian bridge spanning the parkway is part of the property, and CSX gave its permission last month for Barkley's group to build a vehicular bridge over the train tracks, according to project plans filed with Metro.

Barkley bought the property last August for $6 million.

Key details remain unsettled, including what Metro will make of the rezoning Barkley is requesting. It will be May, at the earliest, when Metro's Planning Commission might begin formally vetting the proposed project.

"We're obviously in the very early stages. There's a lot more work to be done with the community," Barkley said. "It's been an isolated piece of land, cut off by the railroad tracks. We felt like it was an opportunity to integrate it into the community … and hopefully it creates some opportunities for people in the neighborhood."

More behind the NBJ paywall here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/03/30/gulch-pioneer-envisions-mixed-use-revival-of-130.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline
 

[21jump]

I'd love to see a couple of mid rises right up against Ellington there.

[MLBrumby]

Barkley has obviously made a fortune betting on old industrial... and I haven't.  But I have a hunch there's good industrial and bad industrial for redevelopment. That doesn't look like the good kind... dead-end site, densely packed buildings all of the same design (and not with a lot of outward character), possible blocked access from passing trains, just a bit 'too far' from the urban core.  I hope I'm wrong. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by MLBrumby

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, markhollin said:

Manuel Zeitlin will be the architect. 

Well then this oughta be a visual feast for the eyes... they do such phenomenal work... easily the best architect in Nashville in my opinion... just wish it was going in a more visible location!  

[Bos2Nash]

12 stories I feel is too tall for area. I'm all for building up especially along the highway, but the context beyond the railroad and highway is single family homes and a park. The highway is at least good separation from the park, but the single family homes basically right up against this 12 story (technically high rise) structure is too much. It's not like there are other plots that will be filled in to match this kind of density, so this development would end up being an outlier for a very long time. If they want to reconfigure the Ellington spaghetti junction, I'd be all for height there, but not here.

[nashvylle]

1 hour ago, Bos2Nash said:

12 stories I feel is too tall for area. I'm all for building up especially along the highway, but the context beyond the railroad and highway is single family homes and a park. The highway is at least good separation from the park, but the single family homes basically right up against this 12 story (technically high rise) structure is too much. It's not like there are other plots that will be filled in to match this kind of density, so this development would end up being an outlier for a very long time. If they want to reconfigure the Ellington spaghetti junction, I'd be all for height there, but not here.

I agree with you, but living in a city (NYC) that has a huge affordable housing crisis, I see the crisis exacerbated by contextual districts, height limits, density factors, etc.

Nashville also has an affordable housing crisis, and I will trade tall residential buildings looking out of place throughout the city if it leads to more housing stock and lower housing costs. 

[smeagolsfree]

If they build more mid-rise in an area it will only look out of place for so long. Besides there are a number of taller residential buildings dotting the landscape all over Davidson County.

Look at Gallatin Road, Nolensville Road, Hwy 70 in Bellevue, Hermitage, Bordeaux and they all have tall multi-story buildings that sit by themselves and that does not seem to bother anyone.

[MLBrumby]

33 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I agree with you, but living in a city (NYC) that has a huge affordable housing crisis, I see the crisis exacerbated by contextual districts, height limits, density factors, etc.

Nashville also has an affordable housing crisis, and I will trade tall residential buildings looking out of place throughout the city if it leads to more housing stock and lower housing costs. 

As mentioned above, I guess I'm incapable of seeing the potential for mid-rise residential buildings at that location, That said, the recently built suburban ranch/colonial style houses nearby are a bit out of place too for being that close to a large city's core. So maybe this is what happens when the transformation of a growing city happens this quickly. That said, a development that steps back (upward) from the residential toward the highway could lessen the severity of the contrast in building heights. If I were on the planning commission, I'd be far more concerned about access via that single street and grade crossing. I'd be inclined to deny any zoning to allow this one. 

[LA_TN]

I think it is too tall for that area, but it is next to Ellington, so go for it. As smeagolsfree pointed out, we have high rises in Hermitage, Antioch, and other places. You will get used to it. And it'll look cool coming down Ellington

Also, CSX has already granted approval to build a bridge over the tracks. It looks like all the major issues have been addressed 

[fishsticks176]

This development is essentially halfway between Five Points and River North. If they include the vehicular bridge that they mentioned, and with nearby areas like Douglas Corner being built up pretty fast, I can see this being part of the start of the transformation of this neighborhood. Wasn’t there talk of the Salvation Army property being sold/developed too? This is only a few blocks off of Dickerson and we all know the plans for that corridor.

[Bos2Nash]

4 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I agree with you, but living in a city (NYC) that has a huge affordable housing crisis, I see the crisis exacerbated by contextual districts, height limits, density factors, etc.

Nashville also has an affordable housing crisis, and I will trade tall residential buildings looking out of place throughout the city if it leads to more housing stock and lower housing costs. 

The big thing with NYC versus here is the inclusionary zoning that mandates affordable housing where here is it outlawed to mandate it. So unless the gulch visionary is purposefully adding affordable units, this development will not change

4 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

If they build more mid-rise in an area it will only look out of place for so long. Besides there are a number of taller residential buildings dotting the landscape all over Davidson County.

Look at Gallatin Road, Nolensville Road, Hwy 70 in Bellevue, Hermitage, Bordeaux and they all have tall multi-story buildings that sit by themselves and that does not seem to bother anyone.

You're right, those locations have grown into their developments. But what is going to grow around this one? The only buildable parcels around this property are either single family homes or MDHA land with single family homes on them. Unless we are starting to get into an urban renewal conversation here, there isn't room to develop around a 12 story and 8 story structure. It'll be an island for many years.

The way I see this project working is stepping back from the housing and building up a wall against Ellington. It's really the only way this wouldn't daunt over those existing homes. I can understand a mid-rise of 6 stories here, 8 is pushing it. I just do not believe from a design standpoint that 12 is responsible. I'll be interested to see how the new vehicle bridge crossing the tracks ties back into the grid. It'll be either a new extension of Marina or abandoning part of Foster. Getting the height requirement and then back down to those streets will be interesting. 

[nashvylle]

28 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

The big thing with NYC versus here is the inclusionary zoning that mandates affordable housing where here is it outlawed to mandate it. So unless the gulch visionary is purposefully adding affordable units, this development will not change

More overall housing,  whether it's fair market or MIH, helps reduce overall pricing.  More restrictions on fair market units, via height or FAR restrictions here in Nashville, will limit the supply and increase the cost of housing. 

There can be a happy balance between practically no zoning whatsoever (Texas) and too much zoning (San Fran, NYC)... as far as this development goes, taking away nearly 500 units because of height issues (it's only 12 stories, not 30) is not the right approach when it comes to making Nashville overall affordable housing, IMO. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by nashvylle

[Bos2Nash]

I tend to agree that housing stock drives down costs, but a major caveat that I am recently experiencing and seeing is that it drives down the housing cost for the sector in which it is built. Market rate housing does nothing to create affordable units, because it drives down the cost of older market rate homes. Adding market rate units does nothing to help people who are in the 35% AMI bracket or even the 50% AMI bracket. It's essentially a trickle down approach which never reaches the bottom tier of incomes. Flipping homes contribute to this because the bottom of market rate units get bought for cheap, renovated and sold high. That is why inclusonary zoning mandates are vital to a thriving economy. 

Zoning is a whole other thing. Zoning builds context so you don't end up with 30 stories (or even 12) next to 2. There are cities currently abolishing single family home zoning in order to add density and in some cases it is working. By eliminating zoning you increase the availability of predatory developments that could very quickly eliminate reasons for people moving to an area. I agree that some zoning laws are a bit overbearing, and there should be exemptions for financial hardships (that are never given to developers). 

[nashvylle]

24 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I tend to agree that housing stock drives down costs, but a major caveat that I am recently experiencing and seeing is that it drives down the housing cost for the sector in which it is built. Market rate housing does nothing to create affordable units, because it drives down the cost of older market rate homes. Adding market rate units does nothing to help people who are in the 35% AMI bracket or even the 50% AMI bracket. It's essentially a trickle down approach which never reaches the bottom tier of incomes. Flipping homes contribute to this because the bottom of market rate units get bought for cheap, renovated and sold high. That is why inclusonary zoning mandates are vital to a thriving economy. 

Zoning is a whole other thing. Zoning builds context so you don't end up with 30 stories (or even 12) next to 2. There are cities currently abolishing single family home zoning in order to add density and in some cases it is working. By eliminating zoning you increase the availability of predatory developments that could very quickly eliminate reasons for people moving to an area. I agree that some zoning laws are a bit overbearing, and there should be exemptions for financial hardships (that are never given to developers). 

Yep, valid points and I agree. However given inclusionary housing is not permitted by state law, and given how large Davidson County truly is and underutilized, I think we can reach a point where housing is much more affordable. Right now, housing is not affordable for people that are well above AMI and are not even looking for units in the 35-70% of AMI. 

As far as AMI, I like efforts by Envision projects like Cayce, Edgehill, and Sudekum, as well as the MLS development, although it's not nearly as much, 

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Yep, valid points and I agree. However given inclusionary housing is not permitted by state law, and given how large Davidson County truly is and underutilized, I think we can reach a point where housing is much more affordable. Right now, housing is not affordable for people that are well above AMI and are not even looking for units in the 35-70% of AMI. 

As far as AMI, I like efforts by Envision projects like Cayce, Edgehill, and Sudekum, as well as the MLS development, although it's not nearly as much, 

AMI for Davidson County is $68,500 for family of four, while MHI is $48,368 (2015). 120% of the AMI in Davidson County is $82,200 (this figure includes other counties including Williamson County) and 120% of MHI (median household income) is $58,042, still figure targets Davidson more closely (these figures are from NOAH's website). So obviously even the top tier of workforce housing cannot afford a home at the current real estate values, unless they were to look closely at pockets. The downside to the growth of Nashville over the last 10 years is just this. We cannot build quick enough to flood the market with enough homes to be considered affordable for even those slightly above the Workforce Housing levels. So I agree that adding no units would be a bad thing, adding supply is still adding supply. The context in which these units are added must be accounted for, I just feel this development doesn't do that.

This type of increase is not the fault of zoning. If anything the zoning requirements outside the downtown core (specifically the height requirements there) are not nearly as oppressive as some on this board make it out to be. Height restrictions exist in areas such as East Nashville because of context. And while yes someone needs to be the first one in an area to kick off the higher context, this site still isn't it. There is no room around this for the context to grow. Upon further review of Mark's summary (because I don't have access behind the paywall), if the warehouse is remaining, the possible locations for the two high-rises (yes I know it is silly to consider these high rises, but by code they are) is that much more restricted. If I had to guess, I would put the 8-story structure in the red outlined area below and the 12-story structure in the blue outlined area below. That would at least be the most respectful way to develop the site.

 

With regards to the Envision program, I agree that the Envision program is doing great things in terms of de-segregating low income housing. I just wish they were actually adding affordable units and not just doing a one-for-one replacement. I understand it's a funding issue, but more needs to be done, P3 partnerships are able to add more the affordable issues without infringing on the state's irrational fear of inclusonary zoning.

[Bos2Nash]

I dug around and found some information regarding site layout and massing. MZA is handling architecture, Hawkins Partners appears to be landscape and planning and Barge Cauthen are Civil.

Big ramp coming over MDHA land to get up and over RR tracks, connecting into Marina Street. Looks like select demo of existing warehouse structure with some existing structure relocation on site. The full link can be found here

Massing model shows majority of the height is up against the railroad tracks. This massing shows a 12 story structure at the southern most point of the site, 7 Stories of residential over 5 stories of parking, 11 story structure at the north side of the side, 6 stories of residential over 5 stories of parking. The 7 story hotel structure would be over the existing warehouse area, so 8 stories total if the hotel is on top of the one story warehouse. I do like the precedent imagery.

Phasing shows a five phase project. Phase 1 to be the office/hotel portion (Buildings 'D' & 'J' on Site plan above), Phase 2 to be north parking structure and residential (Buildings 'E' on Site plan above), Phase 3 to be the southern parking structure and residential (Buildings 'A' on Site plan above), Phase 4 to be mixed use/boardwalk area (Buildings 'G' on Site plan above) this phase would also abandon the Residential PUD that is currently in place for this area of the site, and Phase 5 would be the creative office/relocated warehouse structure (Buildings 'L' on Site plan above). I would think Phases 4 & 5 would be unlikely to happen, but it's a long game there. This page also shows 490 residential units, 500 seat event space, 125 room hotel with a grand total of 623,200 square feet. That square footage figure is dependent on the final SP approval as well. I find it interesting that they are not seeking to alleviate any parking requirements and are even suggesting that they will use MDHA land as off-site, surface parking.

  

Here is a zoomed version of the programmed space.

These next two images are pages showing traffic movement and wastewater collection around the proposed buildings.

South half of the site:

North half of the site:

Overall the layout from the existing warehouse north is fairly respectful. The new MDHA maintenance facility is kinda odd to have inbetween two residential portions, but it provides different use between the residentials so it really isn't an issue, so the north half really is not imposing. The southern portion, aka Building 'A' is imposing on the on other homes though. The sections they show are only for phases 1 & 2 so they don't share the story of Building 'A', which is the tallest and most imposing structure. Building'E' will be 65'6" taller than an existing structure 1/2" mile away and approximately 94'-0" taller than the houses on the other side of the MDHA maintenance facility, approximately 350'-0' away. Building 'A' will be a level taller it would be approximately 77'-6" taller than the structure 1/2 mile away, but the closest house is less than 100'-0" away (approximately 85'-0") and the structure would be upwards of 106'-6" taller than the house. Yes there are RR tracks inbetween, but that is a big difference for a otherwise small height area.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Bos2Nash
added document link

[LA_TN]

On 4/1/2020 at 2:22 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 

... so the north half really is not imposing. The southern portion, aka Building 'A' is imposing on the on other homes though. The sections they show are only for phases 1 & 2 so they don't share the story of Building 'A', which is the tallest and most imposing structure. Building'E' will be 65'6" taller than an existing structure 1/2" mile away and approximately 94'-0" taller than the houses on the other side of the MDHA maintenance facility, approximately 350'-0' away. Building 'A' will be a level taller it would be approximately 77'-6" taller than the structure 1/2 mile away, but the closest house is less than 100'-0" away (approximately 85'-0") and the structure would be upwards of 106'-6" taller than the house. Yes there are RR tracks inbetween, but that is a big difference for a otherwise small height area.

This is really not as imposing as first thought, because those homes are already a considerable height above this site, as can be referenced in this pic:

Doesn't look like a lot in the pic, but the homes on the first street are already higher than the current building on site. While I agree that it will be somewhat imposing for the few houses near Foster, I doubt they would ever be in the shadows and 2 highway billboard signs would be just as imposing as Building A

Not that I don't agree with @Bos2Nash, I'm just showing that it's not quite as drastic as it looks on paper

[Bos2Nash]

I'm not too worried about the house up on Lischey because you are right. It's the houses along Foster that I thought could be more respected (see expected footprint of Bldg-A below). Granted the second house clearly had a massively retaining wall built to elevate that one, the other one is still gonna be in the shadow of a big parking structure and residential building. Like why couldnt the building be closer to the highway and have open space towards the tracks? While CSX uses the tracks alot, its still than the highway.

[Bos2Nash]

Community Meeting (not a planning commission meeting) was held earlier this week on this project where Hawkins Partners presented this project to the community. Project has been in planning since summer 2018 with multiple community charettes and meetings with CSX and TDOT. Click here for the YouTube link to the virtual meeting. Hawkins starts around the 19 to 35 minute mark and then they dive into site uses, circulation and site access improvements. I've tried to hit some of the highlights below.

• The pedestrian bridge will be a TDOT project and the project team has been coordinating the development for a future upgrade of the bridge, but it would be a TDOT project in conjunction with the project design team. Does not sound like the developers would pay for a bridge improvement beyond a trail head at the base of the bridge.
• The primary land use change will be going from a T4 to a T5 Transect.
• Multiple plazas and courtyards throughout the site. Will take off some of the existing roofs to have open air areas within the walls of the existing structures.
• Not seeking any parking variances for the project. All parking required for the site will be on site, not make use of the MDHA land for off-site parking. Will be utilizing "shared parking" strategies to blend parking for office/residential/retail portions of the site.
• ADA Accessible sidewalks/paths over surface railroad crossing
• Existing warehouses will have creative office, food and beverage spots and event space - up to 3,000 SF of low cost office space that could be for local non-profit and community benefit
• Hotel will be 125 key boutique
• Goal of minimum 20% Affordable/Workforce - but only if the development team receives their zoning request and if they receive TIFF money from city/state
• Industrialist material palette and trying to tie in the railroad experience with the buildings.
• Highlighted the site sections for the northern portions of the site - avoided the site section that would highlight the relationship of Building A to the existing structures.
• Number of traffic trips will be 6,576 daily trips that is distributed in a variety of ways.
• Contact at Planning is Anna Grider ([email protected]). City Council member is Sean Parker ([email protected])
• Traffic Study suggest that traffic wont dramatically increase at the Cleveland/Ellington interchange, but rather traffic (path of least resistance) will be site access from Dickerson to Meridian. 
• Standing Water to the north of the pedestrian bridge was pointed out by the community, but the civil engineer said that they did not see standing water and suggested that additional drainage could be added to the area to reduce any standing water.
• Any condition of approval from public works (off-site upgrades) will ultimately be paid for by the developer. Public works has not requested traffic calming beyond what is mentioned in the slide below. Question was raised by a community member. (Sidenote, Metro requires 70% buy-in from the neighborhood prior to installing traffic cushions in neighborhoods)
• They did investigate the idea of direct access from Ellington Parkway, but required lengths for interchanges were not attainable on the site.

Timeline once approvals are received/Timing of the process

• Once rezoning in place, continuation of development of the design would continue for several months - including partnering for affordable/workforce housing.
• Warehouse components would be Phase 1A and the northern residential building would be Phase 1B.
• They would like to start the project within one year after receiving all zoning approvals.
• Unsure of build-out timeline. Too many variables for development team at this current moment. Estimated 1.5 years per phase on the project. Later phases would be brought along at later times as the market demands.

Snip from the video the presentation...

Character imagery:

 

Vehicle Circulation - new off-site improvements in the upper left corner:

 

Pedestrian Movement:

[bwithers1]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 1:53 PM, Bos2Nash said:

 

 

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 1:53 PM, Bos2Nash said:

With regards to the Envision program, I agree that the Envision program is doing great things in terms of de-segregating low income housing. I just wish they were actually adding affordable units and not just doing a one-for-one replacement. I understand it's a funding issue, but more needs to be done, P3 partnerships are able to add more the affordable issues without infringing on the state's irrational fear of inclusonary zoning.

@Bos2Nash Thanks for your advocacy of affordable housing in Nashville. MDHA's Envision Cayce project has already added a net increase of about 100 new affordable housing units at Cayce on top of the one-for-one replacement matrix.  The Barrett Manor project from 2015 and the Red Oak Townhomes project that is under construction add new affordable units over and above the one-for-one affordable housing unit replacements on the campus.  The Red Oak Townhomes affordable housing units were subsidized by Mayor David Briley's affordable housing line item in his Capital Spending Plan and were not initially included in the State grant funding for the main Red Oak Flats building.  The same Capital Spending Plan item also funded new, net increase affordable housing units at the Randee Rogers Apartments on Rosa Parks. 

Envision Cayce's affordable housing unit count has already increased by about 10% with the addition of Barrett Manor and Red Oak affordable housing units and we will continue to look for opportunities to add more affordable units in future construction phases as grant funding allows. The workforce housing units are the ones that we are struggling the most to fund at the moment. 

A good example of a P3 affordable housing partnership would be Curb Victory Hall on 12th Ave South, and yes, I agree that we need to continue to pursue those kinds of opportunities as well.

[WebberThomas4]

http://maps.nashville.gov/MPC/2020SP-021-002_plan.pdf
 

This popped up on the development tracker map today. Final site plan for the Foster Street SP.

[markhollin]

Some technical layouts of how road access will be changed for the site, including a new bridge over the CSX tracks from Marina Street.

Full schematics here:

http://maps.nashville.gov/MPC/2020SP-021-002_plan.pdf

 

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, WebberThomas4 said:

http://maps.nashville.gov/MPC/2020SP-021-002_plan.pdf
 

This popped up on the development tracker map today. Final site plan for the Foster Street SP.

This is for Phase I only. Based on the diagram below we are looking at the blue area. The parking garage appears to be engineered for phase two to be built above it. Looking at the drawings I am unsure the hotel (Building J) is still included as the plans dont appear to show the selective demolition of the warehouse that would create the open space in front of the hotel.

This snip from the original SP documents shows the open space (even with an extra wall appearing somewhat inadverently infront of the hotel).

This appears to be the footprint in the final SP documents (no architectural imagery in the PDF)

[smeagolsfree]

Yep, I think this one has been scaled way back. I am unsure if WW is going to be able to do the story. He has been trying to reach Bill Barkley for the longest as I knew something was coming about two weeks ago.

[smeagolsfree]

11 stories!