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

[Brichar4]

Just drove by and saw some Core drilling going on, did not get a pic but maybe someone else in town can grab one! (Or at-least my understanding of core drilling) 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Brichar4

[markhollin]

Core drilling in SE corner.

Looking north from intersection of Lea Ave. and 2nd Ave. South:
 

[Brichar4]

More core drilling it appears. Flipped corner to the last photo mark posted.

[smeagolsfree]

I was trying to determine if the City Lights folks appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals yesterday as that was the 30 day mark. I have not heard anything yet, do I suppose that is good news.

[nashville born]

This one and Centrum will will provide a trifecta of sorts by extending the north-south skyline view, increase the massing of downtown, and add a different aesthetic.  Super excited to see movement here.

[markhollin]

 

One of downtown’s biggest developers is attempting to keep his project on course by pursuing a zoning change that would hedge against delays stemming from nearby residents’ legal challenges.

Dean Stratouly, president and CEO of The Congress Group, is requesting that Metro grant him “specific plan” zoning for 2nd & Peabody, his three-tower project in SoBro.

This designation, commonly known as an SP, falls outside normal zoning requirements, allowing for more flexibility regardless of surrounding height, density and design restrictions.

The news follows a months-long legal challenge to the project from nearby CityLights condo owners. After the matter was dismissed in Davidson County Chancery Court earlier this year, the petitioners have now appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2022/06/16/2nd-peabody-zoning.html

[MLBrumby]

I thought Congress Group won that case!  Have I been asleep? 

[Argo]

They say in the article that the court case delays are costly. I wonder how many more court cases this project and 2nd ave south will take before one or both throw in the towel.

[downtownresident]

52 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

I thought Congress Group won that case!  Have I been asleep? 

They did but the homeowners at City Lights have apparently appealed to the Court of Appeals. 

[Bos2Nash]

We see very few SP policies enacted within the downtown area. This is because the DTC provides an exhaustive amount of flexibility for dense development. SP allow for flexibility, but are still built on a base zoning. In this case the DTC would still be a governing factor and the SP is essentially just another way to do an Overall Height Modification. The frustrating thing is an SP must go in front of Council rather than just the Design Review Committee. This seems like a silly game for the developer to be playing. Now granted, the legal fight for City Lights may be harder because they would have to sue Metro instead of just Planning, but this just seems odd. The SP would still need to work with the community character transects and policies of Downtown.

The map below indicates the project site and we can see how little SP policies there are.

[Luvemtall]

These developers should join together and buy City Lights, then turn it into STR’s 

[donNdonelson2]

3 minutes ago, Luvemtall said:

These developers should join together and buy City Lights, then turn it into STR’s 

Tear it down and build a 60 floor landmark building!

[nashville born]

On 6/16/2022 at 5:37 PM, Argo said:

They say in the article that the court case delays are costly. I wonder how many more court cases this project and 2nd ave south will take before one or both throw in the towel.

Please no!  I've been quiet about those residents.  At this point though, I'm really questioning their motivation and thought process.   With what they're spending in legal fees, couldn't they just move for less?  I don't get it and I really would love to hear their rationale.

[MLBrumby]

They need to just say that their second options is a 15-story block with no breaks... no sunshine after 4 pm... no central public plaza... nothing special to look out their windows and see. Just plain stucco like the Haven but twice as tall.  If I understand the height restrictions, they're mostly by floor-count and not by actual height.  If I were a cut-throat attorney (I left that behind), I'd have the ugliest 200' ft drawings drawn up and push that over to those people in "city lights" (or whatever the hell the building's called).  They need a big dose of reality... although I still expect the developers pockets are deeper than theirs are.  I could get nasty in the real world, but I never liked it. If their attorneys are like most of the attorneys I know, they'll eventually come up with something like I just said (I would have already done it);  however I realize as attorneys that they're getting paid more as this thing drags out. That's another thing I didn't like when I was doing client work. Don't miss that. 

[titanhog]

When you move into the city and demand your view be unobstructed, you become a special kind of NIMBY.  

Even if another tower over there is only 7 stories tall…you’re going to lose your view.  What does it really matter that it’s taller than that?

[BnaBreaker]

17 minutes ago, titanhog said:

When you move into the city and demand your view be unobstructed, you become a special kind of NIMBY.  

Even if another tower over there is only 7 stories tall…you’re going to lose your view.  What does it really matter that it’s taller than that?

Which kind of begs the question... if these people were so obsessed with preserving their views, why the hell did they move into a building that was only seven stories tall?  Like you said, it really wouldn't take much to obstruct the view of a seven story building.  Build a four story building across the street and there goes the view of 60% of the building.  It just makes no sense, and I get the feeling that at this point these people are just being difficult just to be difficult.  They're grumpy that they aren't getting their way, and now they're just going to make life difficult for as many people as possible.

[smeagolsfree]

14 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

They need to just say that their second options is a 15-story block with no breaks... no sunshine after 4 pm... no central public plaza... nothing special to look out their windows and see. Just plain stucco like the Haven but twice as tall.  If I understand the height restrictions, they're mostly by floor-count and not by actual height.  If I were a cut-throat attorney (I left that behind), I'd have the ugliest 200' ft drawings drawn up and push that over to those people in "city lights" (or whatever the hell the building's called).  They need a big dose of reality... although I still expect the developers pockets are deeper than theirs are.  I could get nasty in the real world, but I never liked it. If their attorneys are like most of the attorneys I know, they'll eventually come up with something like I just said (I would have already done it);  however I realize as attorneys that they're getting paid more as this thing drags out. That's another thing I didn't like when I was doing client work. Don't miss that. 

I have a legal question for you hypothetically speaking. Could Congress and Centrum countersue for construction delay damages like cost increases, interest rate hikes and win as these are tending to be seen as frivolous as they have lost in two courts now?  The further lawsuits can be seen as delaying tactics. Also, could the court of appeals refuse to hear the case based on the prior 2 rulings? Just speculation on your part.

[MLBrumby]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

I have a legal question for you hypothetically speaking. Could Congress and Centrum countersue for construction delay damages like cost increases, interest rate hikes and win as these are tending to be seen as frivolous as they have lost in two courts now?  The further lawsuits can be seen as delaying tactics. Also, could the court of appeals refuse to hear the case based on the prior 2 rulings? Just speculation on your part.

Started to answer on my phone, but decided this needed me at my desk. So the short answer to both questions is "Yes", but would that be the best strategy for the developers?  I suspect they're being careful to not look like a bully here. Plus, I don't know the details but I think only one of the developers is being sued at the moment. I'll try and get up to speed on this thread. 

My thoughts on your first question (regardless of which developers are being sued).  They can countersue, but ironically it would likely delay the projects further (see note on appeal below).  If they have canceled contracts and/or documented cost overruns, they can use that as leverage against the existing lawsuit. If that's the case here, I'd expect they've already outlined them in a threat to countersue, but again that would delay things. I don't think an "expected" start date for construction would be enough for grounds (much less a ruling in their favor); so I doubt they've told the court that they "would already be building" yet.  Then there's the whole question of whether or not the developers would get a sympathetic judge in a countsuit. Developers do not get a lot of love in court (LOL). A judge may look at a countsuit as a show that the developers are not serious about a quick resolution.  So that could inure to further delays that a judge would not like. I suspect the developers here want to  get this resolved asap; and that's where I weighed in with my previous comment (to show that they can build a far worse product if this continues).   To this point, it seems the CL residents may not be getting sound legal advice. It's possible their lawyers are milking the situation, but they're probably claiming to be "thorough" and showing intent to exhaust all possibilities. I'm sure the CL residents feel there's some leverge to be gained by dragging this out (I don't think I'd let them get this far). Granted, that's without knowing details here, but I simply don't see how the CL residents come away looking/feeling like winners. And the appearnce of spite can work against them on appeal. Those are the more subjective factors of court.

Appellate judges often refuse a case if the lower judgments are "sound and complete".  i haven't been following this case closely, but I suspect that will happen here too unless there are technicalities that keep it going (appeals judges tend to be very sensitive to technicalities).  My knowledge of R/E law is not deep, although this board keeps my fascination with it engaged. That said, property law is usually clearer-cut than other areas because zoning and development rights are usually codified based on time-tested law. Thorny issues arise when there are questions about the "conveyance" (sale of the property) or inconsistent ("unfair" or "deceptive") application of those rights, which I think is the challenge here. Short of any outright corruption, that's extremely tough to prove. As we've seen with the lower ruling here, the burden rests on the CL team to show any unfair application of the zoning laws. I think we have at least one property lawyer on this board, and I'd be surprised if Bret hasn't seen how similar lawsuits played out. I'd be curious what their thoughts are here. 

[smeagolsfree]

So, the appellate court may well be the end of this for the CL residents if, number one) the court refuses to hear it or, Number two) the court rules against them for the third time?

 

Thanks for your insight on this Scott!

[Argo]

If they lose the appeal against the congress group, could they repeat the same court case process against the centrum group?

[MLBrumby]

That's correct. From what I've read so far, I'd be very surprised if the appeals judge takes this. Do you know who's the judge? 

1 minute ago, Argo said:

If they lose the appeal against the congress group, could they repeat the same court case process against the centrum group?

Yes, but it wouldn't make sense based on the first case. Now, they might find another cause to sue Centrum,  and that's where my dearth of R/E law can't help much here. I'd be talking way out of school. 

[Baronakim]

My opinion of what the CL jackasses deserve is for the Centrum & Congress developers to offer to swap  with the Rescue Mission  property forit to be a site for a new Misson facility.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Baronakim

[smeagolsfree]

I have no idea who the judge is. I just hope he rules fast to get this resolved. They may get another shock when Tishman Speyer announce their project which is probably going to be within the zoning rules and further block their views.

That is not to mention whatever Essex Development has planned on the south and southwest side of them. I am surprised they did not take Ray Hensler to court and try to block his project that will block some of the upper views looking northeast and when MDHA develops the other first & KVB lot there will be another view gone as that is zoned for 30.

It's just a matter of time before someone comes in and buys the Rutledge House Condo's and redevelops those. There are 15 owners that live there, and the rest are LLC or investment companies. It only takes the right buyer to offer the magic price. To most of those residents a million each would be overpaying and yet a steal for a developer as it is about 1.20 acres and 23 units. 

[Argo]

I wonder do they know about the Centrum and Tishman-Speyer developments?

[downtownresident]

51 minutes ago, Argo said:

I wonder do they know about the Centrum and Tishman-Speyer developments?

They know about Centrum, they took the city to court over that one as well. 
 

They can’t do anything about Tishman-Speyer. Base zoning is 30 stories with unlimited bonus height available.