Park Place Nashville (2nd & Peabody), 36 story/433' and 32 story/375' residential towers; 18 story/234' hotel

[MLBrumby]

The only stated rationale I’ve read in planning’s statement on height south of KVB is they want a gradual stepping down to Lafayette. For what? Why is that alone so important? Once critical density is achieved how can someone on the street tell what’s an 8 story building and what’s a 38 story building? Especially where there’s such wide variation in the elevation of the land?  After the first wave of buildings are built  and assuming they give the desired stair-step effect, what then?  Is that all she wrote? No ability to grow beyond that? I will say it’s even possible that the few remaining unprotected  historic properties may be even more attractive to redevelopment. Like titanhog said, I just don’t see the connection between allowable heights and protecting historic buildings. Seems the people who live there think their little ‘mountain’ should be like Washington’s Georgetown. Well g’town was never stripped of its historical townhomes and replaced with squat commercial and industrial buildings for decades. Developers are not inclined to start building rows of low rise residential all over Rutledge hill anymore. The price of the land there is just too dang expensive now. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by MLBrumby

[downtownresident]

5 hours ago, chris holman said:

From the Four Seasons Hotel redesign, to Encore condos being reduced To Buckingham tower in the gulch being a problem. and the list continues with almost every building . Im just not getting it.

Four Seasons wasn’t redesigned due to planning, more so one stubborn landowner/rumors of local office tenants influencing said landowner. IIRC, planning did sign off on the updated two-tower design that didn’t include the small parking lot  

 

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

This is what it said before it was updated.

Yoo
Disapprove the proposed policy; or defer the proposed policy with guidance for staff to prepare an appropriate supplemental policy to guide future redevelopment

Now, I have never seen this before, so my guess is they are going to look at all of the zoning now. An indefinite deferral does not mean a project is dead. There is something else brewing here and as my guess is that goes back to Freddie’s comment during the meeting about a look at the DTC and zoning of all of downtown and SoBRo.

Taylor, as his constituent, you should reach out to him. This could end up being a good thing in the long run.

I plan on watching the meeting, and providing public comment. I’ll be collecting my thoughts and drafting my comments this weekend. I’ll email Freddie as well and see if he can shed light on what is going on. 
 

I’m curious to see what planning has to say on this case, and the reasoning behind planning staff is recommending indefinite deferral. If they are deferring so that they can study a larger area and revisit density in the greater Lafayette area, I’ll be substantially less concerned and excited to participate as a member of the public in that process.
 

The city would have the opportunity to change the base zoning that is allowing for wide mid rise structures that do very little in terms of additional green space and the street scape. The city could allow for greater density in those areas in return for exceptional design, green space/open space, underground parking, etc. 
 

They’re recommending deferral of the community plan agreement, but the developers also have a separate overall height modification that they’ve applied for.  I am unsure if the developers can still obtain the overall height modification without the community plan amendment. 
 

The original staff recommendation mentioned that this project went before MDHA on March 2nd. Does anyone know if MDHA posts their meetings/makes their minutes available? I’m curious to see how that meeting went. 

[downtownresident]

2 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

Who can we contact to express our support for this project? This is crazy to deny this one. We need to use our voice

You can email public comment to: [email protected]

Youll want to reference the case number: 2021CP-009-001. If you live in Davidson county, provide your address as well.
 

If you live/own property downtown, I’d state the building as well, and why you think this would benefit downtown as a whole. 

[nashwatcher]

Everyone make your voice heard. Otherwise you get what you get

[subkyle]

I just sent an email to the planning commission and I highly recommend others do as well

[smeagolsfree]

When an item is up for deferral it is usually on a consent reading with all of the other deferral items on the consent agenda , so there will probably be no comments. This goes for items for approval or items for deferral as well.

Many times an item is deferred at the request of the applicant, so this may be the situation here. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes than we can even guess.

[nashvylle]

2 hours ago, downtownresident said:

You can email public comment to: [email protected]

Youll want to reference the case number: 2021CP-009-001. If you live in Davidson county, provide your address as well.
 

If you live/own property downtown, I’d state the building as well, and why you think this would benefit downtown as a whole. 

I just emailed. 

I remember the finance committee recommended disapproval for the MLS stadium, and we know how the project was subsequently approved. I wonder if this is a similar case? Praying this gets approved. 

[DDIG]

On 3/20/2021 at 10:19 AM, downtownresident said:

Four Seasons wasn’t redesigned due to planning, more so one stubborn landowner/rumors of local office tenants influencing said landowner. IIRC, planning did sign off on the updated two-tower design that didn’t include the small parking lot  

 

I plan on watching the meeting, and providing public comment. I’ll be collecting my thoughts and drafting my comments this weekend. I’ll email Freddie as well and see if he can shed light on what is going on. 
 

I’m curious to see what planning has to say on this case, and the reasoning behind planning staff is recommending indefinite deferral. If they are deferring so that they can study a larger area and revisit density in the greater Lafayette area, I’ll be substantially less concerned and excited to participate as a member of the public in that process.
 

The city would have the opportunity to change the base zoning that is allowing for wide mid rise structures that do very little in terms of additional green space and the street scape. The city could allow for greater density in those areas in return for exceptional design, green space/open space, underground parking, etc. 
 

They’re recommending deferral of the community plan agreement, but the developers also have a separate overall height modification that they’ve applied for.  I am unsure if the developers can still obtain the overall height modification without the community plan amendment. 
 

The original staff recommendation mentioned that this project went before MDHA on March 2nd. Does anyone know if MDHA posts their meetings/makes their minutes available? I’m curious to see how that meeting went. 

Four Seasons got approval on the second tower again. They just decided to forego it to the benefit of the for sale units and they were spooked at the time because it was meant to be multi-family and there was a crazy amount of multi-family under construction.

[Bos2Nash]

While I am frustrated by the decision by planning. I understand what they are saying. This isnt a detriment of the design/development itself, but the request the change the Community Character Manual designation of T6 DN to a T6 DC. This is where I do agree with planning, because that type of change needs to be considered on a holistic approach rather than a project by project basis. The SP process is the project-by-project approach, but I do not think this project would be approved at that level, so that is probably why the planners recommended the approach of neighborhood planning amendment. While high-rises are considered a building type for the DN category, this buidling is VERY different from the current character and would drastically alter it. 

I am not entirely sure on the mechanism to push the boundry of the DC (and ultimately the Gateway Design Overlay) unfortunately, but I would say push it back to Lea Street. I recommend stopping there because if we were to go to Middleton/Elm that leaves very little transition of the T6 DN before we get to Napier area. If we were to extend the zoning and just stop at the Napier (al the highway), we begin to push the possibility that we are zoning our city with discrimination/segrgation in mind. We need to transition down to the Napier scale prior to actually getting to it. I forsee eventually the city needing to expand on the almost 1,800 acres that they consider the true Downtown Core and Rutledge Hill/Lafayette subdistricts will be in the crosshairs.

All that being said, no the project is not necessariliy dead, but as we had to anticipate it was not going to be as easy as a mid-rise project. I think it is possible, but only if a larger swath of land gets changed from the T6 DN to T6 DC. Currently T6 DC stops at the red line. My suggestion is to push it back to the blue line. This would allow Core level density to push closer to the historic structures and expand the downtown, while capitalizing on alot of open land. I would suspect we would also need to see certain stepbacks from historic structures as well. 

 

We may ultimately see a time when Lafayette needs to densify taller as well, and when that time comes I would forsee something like below occuring where the T6 DC extends down Lafayette, but retains the DN zoning for majoirty of Rutledge Hill. Rockettown land could go either way, but Rutledge Hill is a valid neighborhood to keep lower though.

Please remember that height is not the end all be all. Also remember that this is the same group working on the Four Seasons, so we know they have deep pockets to pursue this project. Hopefully they go the right way and move to be a partner to the city and take the holistic, neighborhood approach and change more than just their parcel.

[nashvylle]

I got a response from Bob Medes, and while this is not his district, he did say Planning is independent of Council, and anything Planning approves will need 21 votes from Council for final approval. Any item Planning does not approve, council needs 27 votes to override. 

With that being said, @Bos2Nash do you know if, as @downtownresident stated, this project can get approved without the community plan amendment if the developers get the height modification? 

[Bos2Nash]

5 hours ago, nashvylle said:

this project can get approved without the community plan amendment if the developers get the height modification? 

I cannot say without any confidence, no. But I do tend to doubt they would get the height modification approved without the community plan amendment. As the report initially said - before the indefinite deferral - originally the developer had planned to pursue both at the same time, but they decoupled that at the request of MDHA i believe. I think it would be unwise of city council to go around planning on this change personally. I think the developers should work with the council and their neighbors to change the community plan for multiple parcels before trying again. 

As smeags said though, the deferral is probably at the behest of the developer so they can regroup and approach the project from a different angle. There is A TON of behind the scenes stuff that is occurring even with a single approach to zoning elements, so I wouldn't say the project is dead at all, just working through some kinks.  

A really off the wall idea could be the developers scrap the plans at this site and purchase the Swerdling site and place their development there. It would be a loss for the city from the hotel standpoint, but would be quite the little maneuver haha.

[downtownresident]

2 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I cannot say without any confidence, no. But I do tend to doubt they would get the height modification approved without the community plan amendment. As the report initially said - before the indefinite deferral - originally the developer had planned to pursue both at the same time, but they decoupled that at the request of MDHA i believe. I think it would be unwise of city council to go around planning on this change personally. I think the developers should work with the council and their neighbors to change the community plan for multiple parcels before trying again. 

As smeags said though, the deferral is probably at the behest of the developer so they can regroup and approach the project from a different angle. There is A TON of behind the scenes stuff that is occurring even with a single approach to zoning elements, so I wouldn't say the project is dead at all, just working through some kinks.  

A really off the wall idea could be the developers scrap the plans at this site and purchase the Swerdling site and place their development there. It would be a loss for the city from the hotel standpoint, but would be quite the little maneuver haha.

They could also make a move for the Ragland site or Bode.

I think we'll see Planning look at the Cumulus site, this site, and others along Peabody street as a result. The original staff report stated that the Cumulus site is being marketed, so it would be wise to take a look at that parcel as well. 

I could also see them ponying up more money for traffic / infrastructure improvements throughout the Lafayette / Rutledge Hill subdistricts to help move this along. Hopefully they don't have to scale back the ground level of the development, the additional open space, retail, and revamped 3rd / Lea intersection would breath incredible life into that area. I'm ok with some height being taken off if they can make the ground level work. 

[nashvylle]

I really don’t want the developers to find another site. The height needs to be extended to this area. This development would do wonders for the city. 

[titanhog]

8 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

 

 

^^This is a good option.  All you have to do is drive around a few blocks and you’ll quickly understand where the line of demarcation is.   Lea feels like the change of neighborhood from Rutledge Hill to downtown / SoBro (with a little room left over and suburban-style apartment complex right along 2nd ave south of Lea).  Now…I’m sure the Rutledge Hill people want to keep that land between Lea and Peabody as a “buffer” zone to keep their views of downtown and keep encroachment away…but I personally believe it would be just as well suited for skyscrapers right up to Lea.  Everything north of Lea…height.  Everything south…keep the historic structures and encourage building brownstones and similar buildings…brick.  You’re still going to have a view of downtown…but closer up.

I would also just go to 4th and everything between 4th and Lafayette could height as well.  There may be a cool old building or two within some of that area…but that shouldn’t keep you from building a skyscraper right up next to it considering land prices.  It’s no different than like what Tony is building with Prime right up against a row of 150 year old brick buildings.

[downtownresident]

28 minutes ago, titanhog said:

^^This is a good option.  All you have to do is drive around a few blocks and you’ll quickly understand where the line of demarcation is.   Lea feels like the change of neighborhood from Rutledge Hill to downtown / SoBro (with a little room left over and suburban-style apartment complex right along 2nd ave south of Lea).  Now…I’m sure the Rutledge Hill people want to keep that land between Lea and Peabody as a “buffer” zone to keep their views of downtown and keep encroachment away…but I personally believe it would be just as well suited for skyscrapers right up to Lea.  Everything north of Lea…height.  Everything south…keep the historic structures and encourage building brownstones and similar buildings…brick.  You’re still going to have a view of downtown…but closer up.

I would also just go to 4th and everything between 4th and Lafayette could height as well.  There may be a cool old building or two within some of that area…but that shouldn’t keep you from building a skyscraper right up next to it considering land prices.  It’s no different than like what Tony is building with Prime right up against a row of 150 year old brick buildings.

Or the AT&T Building being built a block off of 2nd Ave. 

[Bos2Nash]

14 hours ago, downtownresident said:

I could also see them ponying up more money for traffic / infrastructure improvements throughout the Lafayette / Rutledge Hill subdistricts to help move this along. Hopefully they don't have to scale back the ground level of the development, the additional open space, retail, and revamped 3rd / Lea intersection would breath incredible life into that area.

I was a bit confused by this comment as well. I guess they would be looking for full road rebuild and sidewalk on both sides Leas, Peabody and 3rd Ave for the full perimeter of the development's block. I tend to doubt they would agree to rebuild 2nd beyond the sidewalk, planting strip and portion of the road they would be required to. That street is not going to have on street parking - nor should it - and honestly if they are already talking about the Cummulus site being offered the developers know they would need to do the new sidewalks and planting strips along 2nd Ave, so I would doubt the developer wants to give that project free work. 

Beyond that though, these streets have the same capacity of many of the streets in the actual core, so I am a bit confused as to what Planning is referring to. Maybe making 3rd Ave & Peabody intersection a signalized intersection?

[nashvylle]

Taken from @markhollin photo in Four Seasons thread. Praying this ugly building gets redeveloped into 2nd & Peabody:

[nashville born]

Who knew urban development was so gut wrenching.  You good folk know way more about the ins and outs of development.  I'm just the, look at that cool new tall building type with a HUGE affinity for such activity in Music City.   With that said, feeling incredibly dejected after reading through the comments.  Fell in love with this project the day it was posted in UP.  Was on cloud nine for days after even though it was merely a proposal.  Nashville is my FAVORITE  city hands down  AND IMO, this one felt like a project you would see in one of the major skyscraper centers in our country...and therefore would take our game to another level.  So disappointed if this one dies on the vine or has to be reduced in magnitude from outside pressures.  

[Bos2Nash]

Keep in mind that this proposal is a new tallest building in the city, these types of developments do not and really should not move as quickly as the city is used to. Very rarely do you see new tallest towers go up outside of the prescribed "core" of the city and when they are proposed, it is expected to take time to 1) extend the boundaries of the "core" 2) approved through community meetings. This is the type of development the city needs yes, but it is still a long game proposal because the developers had to know that it was not going to be as simple as building in the core.

Whether we call it the core on this board or not. The zoning of the city has a prescribed "core" and this is one of those instances of "first one in" has to do some of the bigger leg work. 

22 hours ago, titanhog said:

^^This is a good option.  All you have to do is drive around a few blocks and you’ll quickly understand where the line of demarcation is.   Lea feels like the change of neighborhood from Rutledge Hill to downtown / SoBro (with a little room left over and suburban-style apartment complex right along 2nd ave south of Lea).  Now…I’m sure the Rutledge Hill people want to keep that land between Lea and Peabody as a “buffer” zone to keep their views of downtown and keep encroachment away…but I personally believe it would be just as well suited for skyscrapers right up to Lea.  Everything north of Lea…height.  Everything south…keep the historic structures and encourage building brownstones and similar buildings…brick.  You’re still going to have a view of downtown…but closer up.

I would also just go to 4th and everything between 4th and Lafayette could height as well.  There may be a cool old building or two within some of that area…but that shouldn’t keep you from building a skyscraper right up next to it considering land prices.  It’s no different than like what Tony is building with Prime right up against a row of 150 year old brick buildings.

100% Agree! My thoughts when looking at the boundaries was more of Boston's South End, or even more appropriate based on size Bay Village (which is Boston's smallest recognized neighborhood). Where the design of new structures are highly scrutinized, real estate is incredibly valuable and the whole area is beautiful and sought after. I often compare Germantown to the South End, so Rutledge Hill will now be my Bay Village haha. Rutledge Hill doesn't need a massive swath of land to be a great pocket of the city, but I guess some will argue that size matters, so bigger is better.

[titanhog]

25 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

100% Agree! My thoughts when looking at the boundaries was more of Boston's South End, or even more appropriate based on size Bay Village (which is Boston's smallest recognized neighborhood). Where the design of new structures are highly scrutinized, real estate is incredibly valuable and the whole area is beautiful and sought after. I often compare Germantown to the South End, so Rutledge Hill will now be my Bay Village haha. Rutledge Hill doesn't need a massive swath of land to be a great pocket of the city, but I guess some will argue that size matters, so bigger is better.

Yeah…I think the land the two sides are going to fight over is the land between Peabody and Lea.  Just from appearance alone, it seems like the clear boundary.  Now it just depends on whether Rutledge Hill wins the land…or SoBro wins the land.  There’s not much historic (if anything at all historic) within this slice of land…but I think it begins the slope down to SoBro / DT…which is probably why Rutledge Hill (and Rolling Mill Hill) would probably like to keep it short structures so as to not block their views of DT.

I understand them wanting to protect the Rutledge Hill neighborhood…but once that suburban-style apartment complex was allowed south of Lea…to me…they’ve lost the battle on keeping everything north of Lea.  I’m also not even sure anything much west of 2nd Ave is worth keeping…even places like 3rd and Lindsley.  So much nondescript junk with an occasional old building that may be worth saving.  Most the historic stuff is along 2nd Ave down to Lea (except the apartment complex).

What I’m hopeful for is that they allow skyscrapers up to Lea and west of 4th Ave…THEN Rutledge Hill comes up with a plan and gets with developers to build brownstones…plant some trees…maybe a block or two of “Lower Broadway” style buildings closer to Lafayette for retail.  THEN…Rutledge Hill would be a VERY desirable place to live.

Edited March 24, 2021 by titanhog

[MLBrumby]

The Congress Group requested the deferral ("indefinitely") at Planning. So this one looks like it's being tabled for the time being. Hopefully things will move in the right direction to see this materialize. 

From NBJ:  https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/03/29/2nd-and-peabody.html

[downtownresident]

2 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

The Congress Group requested the deferral ("indefinitely") at Planning. So this one looks like it's being tabled for the time being. Hopefully things will move in the right direction to see this materialize. 

From NBJ:  https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/03/29/2nd-and-peabody.html

I would imagine they increase the study area and take another swing at it. I’d love for them to buy the Cumulus site across the street, build 20 stories right on top of City Lights, and then 30+ at 2nd and Peabody. 

[smeagolsfree]

16 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

The Congress Group requested the deferral ("indefinitely") at Planning. So this one looks like it's being tabled for the time being. Hopefully things will move in the right direction to see this materialize. 

From NBJ:  https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/03/29/2nd-and-peabody.html

This is something we already knew, so I do not think the project is dean by any means. It may be reduced, but I also think , as I said before they will be looking at all of SoBro for new height guidelines. A big hunch and reading the tea leaves that were thrown on the tables at the previous meeting. 

The one thing the folks at City Lights do not realize is that the views they enjoy can be gone next week due to by rights development allowed  at nearby parcels. I think it is six stories, but you can add bonus height to that and if it is an office building, 6 stories can be 80'  easily. Also the NBJ played the historic person up to big. Sorry, as much as I am into historic preservation, there are only 3 or 4 structures left and there is not historic character left in this area as it continues to be built up. Nashville Historic needs to be proactive and look ten years ahead instead of past the nose on their face. It is always with the Nashville Ten list that the structures that are in danger are already past saving or are already for sale.

If historic was so concerned they should have demanded a historic overlay 20 years ago. Sorry but those people haven't a clue as to what they are doing in this city and missed the bus 50 years ago. Unfortunately, most people just do not care about this area as there are only a handful of structures that are historic and Metro owns some of them. 

[nashville born]

Hoping Tony G's assertion about the impending building activity gives this project a boost.  With today's confirmation of the Ritz, last week's Highwoods announcement, and the 800 Lea announcement, hopefully all involved parties will have a new perspective on the 2nd & Peabody project.

[DDIG]

1 hour ago, nashville born said:

Hoping Tony G's assertion about the impending building activity gives this project a boost.  With today's confirmation of the Ritz, last week's Highwoods announcement, and the 800 Lea announcement, hopefully all involved parties will have a new perspective on the 2nd & Peabody project.

Planning needs to get comfortable with height in what is clearly the downtown core. It is absolutely crazy not to with the city's growth trajectory right now. We'll absolutely screw ourselves artificially capping buildings for an antiquated code that did not account for this level of growth.