Jump to content

McGavock Mixed-Use at Beaman Midtown (8 acres on Broadway, three 9 story office buildings at 200,000 sq. ft. each; 5 story residential with 420 units/80,000 sq. ft. of retail, parking pedestals for all 4 buildings)


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

BEAMAN!

The 8.05 acre Beaman site at 1501-1530 Broadway and 1512-1532 McGavock appears to have a buyer.  Permits requesting a water/sewer study suggest redevelopment by a prospective client.  No word on who t

McGavock Mixed-Use is the working moniker with an address of 1525 Broadway for the 8 acres of the Beaman site that faces Broadway between 14th Ave. South on the east and 16th Ave. South on the west, w

Posted Images

After a night of good sleep, I've come back to this string...and I'm just as ticked about this as I was yesterday.  At this point I'm desperately hoping that some of the alternate ideas shared will play out...like major changes announced, changes to increase the ROI, etc.  As is, this is some Rod Serling type mess.

56 minutes ago, TheSound said:

I'm curious if there's any chance that this is a corporate relocation and they're just building themselves a new HQ (at least regionally) and it's all very tight-lipped.  As others have mentioned, I just can't see the ROI on this for a private developer at the cost Beaman is surely charging them for the land.

Great thought and welcome to the forum!  Wish it had been something spectacularly grand that sparked your first comment instead of something spectacularly boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thenorthchannel said:

<<puts tinfoil hat on>>

I toured Broadwest condos a few weeks back.   Realtor stated that the developer of this property had reached an agreement with the developer of Broadwest to preserve the Broadwest sightlines of downtown.   Of course, I was immediately skeptical.   

This leak seems like the kind of leak that perpetuates that narrative.   Broadwest can continue to sell their condos as 'locked in views.' 

 However, money talks and this proposal leaves too much money on the table.    At some point, another plan will emerge or property sale will happen.  

My issue with that premise is twofold.  First, who makes a deal like that...where you agree to lose money so someone else can make money.  Second, am I missing something.  This not-even-reasonable-facsimile-of-a-development is on the south side of Broadway.  How would it interrupt Broadwest's sightlines?  

I'm with you tnc, skeptical at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, downtownresident said:

Edit: A thought, could this possibly be Propst developing this spot to lock in views for Broadwest? 

If this turns out to be the case, their firm likely takes a major reputational hit with some.  Especially within the UP community.   

Half a Haven and three Peabody Plazas.    @$&!%

Edited by nashville born
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luvemtall said:

Welcome, TheSound . That’s a very good and logical idea! Never thought of it that way, sorta hope that’s the case, if it’s going to be short buildings then make it a MAJOR company with exceptional architecture.

Or a crappy company with cruddy architecture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downtownresident said:

Wouldn’t the proposed Reed Development affect the site lines even more? There was a deal reached between Hines and Propst, but that mainly dealt with setbacks and parking garages along 16th Ave. 

 

Edit: A thought, could this possibly be Propst developing this spot to lock in views for Broadwest? 

They have the capital to do something like this? 
it would seam that in order not to worry so much about ROI the developers would need to fund this themselves, banks would be to nervous to lend if they didn’t have a sure thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading the analysis on the Shades Urban Hospitality proposal from the 9/2 Downtown Code DRC Meeting.  These excerpts from that analysis give me hope that this Beaman proposal might not pass muster.  I don't believe in luck, yet fingers crossed.

The intent of this standard is to frame important intersections with additional height. The property does not touch the intersection of 8th Avenue South and Division Street and has a mere 4.25’ of frontage is within the 150’ radius from that intersection. Expanding the amount of applicable frontage from 4.25’ to 123.05’ on the basis that the height is marking the important intersection is not consistent with the intent.  Additionally, the proposed design has significant issues, including a bulky massing with four levels of unlined structured parking with a ubiquitous use of “synthetic stucco.”   While it has been noted that other tall buildings are planned within the general area, those projects are either utilizing the bonus height program or have received an overall height modification as part of the intense design process where additional height is earned by going above and beyond the bonus height program and providing truly exceptional architecture and site design.

Never have I been happier to see that these proposals are actually looked at and held to codes.   Thank you @smeagolsfreefor posting that report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nashville born said:

I was just reading the analysis on the Shades Urban Hospitality proposal from the 9/2 Downtown Code DRC Meeting.  These excerpts from that analysis give me hope that this Beaman proposal might not pass muster.  I don't believe in luck, yet fingers crossed.

The intent of this standard is to frame important intersections with additional height. The property does not touch the intersection of 8th Avenue South and Division Street and has a mere 4.25’ of frontage is within the 150’ radius from that intersection. Expanding the amount of applicable frontage from 4.25’ to 123.05’ on the basis that the height is marking the important intersection is not consistent with the intent.  Additionally, the proposed design has significant issues, including a bulky massing with four levels of unlined structured parking with a ubiquitous use of “synthetic stucco.”   While it has been noted that other tall buildings are planned within the general area, those projects are either utilizing the bonus height program or have received an overall height modification as part of the intense design process where additional height is earned by going above and beyond the bonus height program and providing truly exceptional architecture and site design.

Never have I been happier to see that these proposals are actually looked at and held to codes.   Thank you @smeagolsfreefor posting that report.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of DTC oversight (even if it was within the oversight) if the proposed development is within the zoning requirements and not seeking any variances then the city does not really have any grounds to deny it. Disclaimer, I have not looked into the property's zoning so I have no idea if they would require any such variances.

Extremely unfortunate, but a by right development is within a developers power. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We need this kind of energy at the Beaman site...

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/east-bank-redesign-meets-criticism-from-community-activists/article_a19c3ff0-0c29-11ec-b745-2373048b60c9.html

East Bank redesign meets criticism from community activists

Metro relies on MDHA, affordable housing grants to address concerns

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Unfortunately, due to the lack of DTC oversight (even if it was within the oversight) if the proposed development is within the zoning requirements and not seeking any variances then the city does not really have any grounds to deny it. Disclaimer, I have not looked into the property's zoning so I have no idea if they would require any such variances.

Extremely unfortunate, but a by right development is within a developers power. 

We thought the same way about The Gossett (by NES). It's a head scratcher, for sure 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shared a theory at the meet that could explain this and that is this is phase I. Phase II is the section on McGavock that would be high-rise for sale condos and the reason that Phase I is short is to preserve views (air rights) for future condos at that location. Just a thought.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
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.