Jump to content

markhollin

Nashville Pottery & Pipe Works, 12 & 11 story structures (490 residential units), 8 story boutique hotel (125 room), conversion massive factory into 160,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, restaurant space on 9.5 acres in Cleveland Park

Recommended Posts


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 by MLBrumby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by nashvylle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

image.thumb.png.98f757a2973b84e7f02e4e6f375a2de2.png

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

image.thumb.png.de1efc72fb34cfc0c1dfc43101cca12b.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.