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

[Bos2Nash]

5 hours ago, downtownresident said:

I emailed [email protected]. Nora is the point of contact for questions ahead of time.

I reached out to Nora as well as Eric Hammer ([email protected]). Eric is the member of planning who is specifically assigned to Rutledge Hill. He knows the very ins and outs of the neighborhood and his opinion goes a long way when Rutledge Hill is concerned. He is also very open to progress and developments when presented with logical arguments. I have had a couple meetings/interactions with him and am always impressed with his depth of knowledge.

[downtownresident]

42 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

I reached out to Nora as well as Eric Hammer ([email protected]). Eric is the member of planning who is specifically assigned to Rutledge Hill. He knows the very ins and outs of the neighborhood and his opinion goes a long way when Rutledge Hill is concerned. He is also very open to progress and developments when presented with logical arguments. I have had a couple meetings/interactions with him and am always impressed with his depth of knowledge.

Thanks! I forwarded my email to Nora to Eric Hammer as well. 

[PillowTalk4]

The developer could agree to use the stones from the wall in the project or to donate them to some project else where that could use them appropriately.  Move them to Historic Church Street Park   

Move on people.  If the walls were that important you wouldn't have let them crumble.

I too will never understand people who move into a downtown area and think they are entitled to stop any project that blocks their view.  Hey, sell your low level condo and buy at the higher level of one of the taller buildings if a view is that important to you.

[nashwatcher]

Everyone email these people to show your support if you want this project. We don’t want to lose out on such beautiful buildings bc people who are afraid they’ll lose their view out voice us 

[DDIG]

8 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

"Like the idea of 38-story development on historic Rutledge Hill?"

Why yes -- I do very much like that idea.

I don't think this project location is in the technical historic Rutledge Hill area. Am I wrong?

[downtownresident]

2 minutes ago, DDIG said:

I don't think this project location is in the technical historic Rutledge Hill area. Am I wrong?

It’s not, it’s in the Lafayette sub district. 

[DDIG]

1 minute ago, downtownresident said:

It’s not, it’s in the Lafayette sub district. 

Ahh so Historic Nashville doesn't even know what it is talking about.

[BnaBreaker]

A few rich people getting their britches in a bunch because their view might be made arguably less appealing several years into the future by a certain project is usually a pretty uncompelling argument against progress that benefits the entire community as a whole, including the people complaining. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by BnaBreaker

[nashvylle]

So when is this amendment going to be voted on?

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, DDIG said:

I don't think this project location is in the technical historic Rutledge Hill area. Am I wrong?

1 hour ago, downtownresident said:

It’s not, it’s in the Lafayette sub district. 

But it does fall into the Rutledge Hill Redevelopment District for MDHA. The Lafayette sub district is for the Downtown Code which does no jive with MDHA's zones.

[downtownresident]

6 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

But it does fall into the Rutledge Hill Redevelopment District for MDHA. The Lafayette sub district is for the Downtown Code which does no jive with MDHA's zones.

If we're going by that map, MDHA already green lit a 40 story building in Rolling Mill Hill, sooo...

[Bos2Nash]

1 minute ago, downtownresident said:

If we're going by that map, MDHA already green lit a 40 story building in Rolling Mill Hill, sooo...

Very true. Just pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, Historic Nashville is not entirely wrong. Possibly senile with a bit of other altered mental status, yes. But not completely wrong haha

It's important to note that while all these neighborhoods pop up and are referred to at certain demarcations, Metro will look to the Downtown Code & MDHA for these matters. Why architects and planners make the big bucks (HA, I wish!)

[DDIG]

51 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

Very true. Just pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, Historic Nashville is not entirely wrong. Possibly senile with a bit of other altered mental status, yes. But not completely wrong haha

It's important to note that while all these neighborhoods pop up and are referred to at certain demarcations, Metro will look to the Downtown Code & MDHA for these matters. Why architects and planners make the big bucks (HA, I wish!)

At the end of the day if you are looking for density in a booming urban core, and you don't want it somewhere like there where you don't lose anything in the process... well where are you going to put it?

[smeagolsfree]

I think all of this zoning goes back to when Rick Bernhardt was head of Planning. I have said it before and I will say it again, the D of MDHA should be dropped as they have no business in the development arm of Metro. It should be handled by Planning and planning alone. There is not even a need for a DTC, as this should be done through planning. All of these development districts should be dissolved as there is no longer a need for them. There is no need for TIFF in these areas. It should all be market driven.

This is just another way Metro makes it difficult on developers to do a project. The zoning for all of downtown and SoBro need to be uniform with the exception of the historic district and developers should be allowed to build what they want. I am in favor of contextual overlays in certain districts to enhance to materials used and limit the use of Hardee board and other cheap material in the core. If the contextual overlays were used, you can have distinct districts within the major core areas of Nashville. I think we have missed the boat though due to lack of planning on the part of the Planning Dept. and the lack of vision by the numerous mayors over the last several years. We needed one mayor to guide us through this huge time of growth but instead we have had three that, IMO, have been less than desirable with none showing any true leadership. 

I will step off my  bully pulpit and shut up, but Nashville has missed so many opportunities over the last 8 years. If they say they could not have seen the growth coming, all they had to do was to come to this board and they would have seen the writing on the wall and known that it was coming. The people on this board truly have their fingertips on the pulse of the city better than any group of planner or politicians.

[Bos2Nash]

While many people don't like MDHA and have criticized Planning, both departments have been integral with the develompent of Nashville. It's not like an MDHA type department is isolated to Nashville. The thing that is redundant is it the fact that MDHA and Planning arent one entitiy. The roles and approvals would all still be there, but they would be under one roof rather than two. A perfect example is a city like Boston where they have The Boston Planning and Development Authority (BPDA). They are essentially MDHA and Planning combined. The added fold to Boston is that the neighborhood associations has veto power over development. Imagine if that neighborhood power was here in Nashville? Nothing would ever change in this city.

Additionally the DTC is a Planning document and is essential to the continuing development of the city. Zoning is an incredibly important part of the development of any city as it play s a certain equalizer. Just like mass transit is the transportation equalizer - rather then traffic solving issue - Zoning is the development equalizer. Zoning does nothing to dictate the market and Nashville has proven with it's SP process that it is pretty easy to circumvent that equalizer. Not to mention the state's hand in the cookie jar in outlawing incentivizing inclusonary zoning. We talk about gentrification and the "old" nashville and all these other topics within the development world, and you want to know helps alleviate the impact of these elements? Zoning through the MDHA and Planning. 

Lastly, I respect everyone on this forum for the information we are able to suss out and find and discuss freely, but to think we have a better idea of what is happening in the city is pretty arrogant. Folks like Eric Hammer in Planning's entire career is based around understand what his sub district's character is and working with the DTC to ensure the neighborhood moves forward. MDHA is also part of his process as his opinon gets inputted into MDHA decisions. Having a single point of contact for a section of the city is pretty efficient in my opionn. I would much rather be able to talk to comeone who has an intricit understanding of Rutledge Hill then someone who has to cover the entire Inner Loop, that is just too much area to cover for one person.  So I would say someone like Eric Hammer has a pretty strong idea of what is happening in his portion of the city and is much more qualified to make official decisions then anyone on the board.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Bos2Nash

[smeagolsfree]

I stand by my comments about Rick Bernhardt as he was a mistake for planning in Nashville in so many ways. I am sure he is a nice enough guy but his ideas for the city were outdated and did not meet the needs of a growing city. Much before the time you moved here Craig. I know he was well respected, but never on this board. 

The majority of folks here including (Bos2Nash) know things could have been , should have been, and still should be run better by Metro. This includes Codes to Planning, and I realize they have to work within the guidelines set forward by the council, but many of the codes are outdated  because of the current growth that has happened over the past 10 years.

Again the folks in Planning are just working within the rules set by Metro council. The zoning in the city is well outdated in the core for what it has become and you and many others on here including a number of professionals in the field would probably agree. Yes, we can criticize Metro and the poor leadership and  shortsightedness  shown by the leaders of this city and we have been since 2005 when the board was formed. It is a broken record and some of the things we have said, Metro has slowly done, but they kick the can down the road on so many items that it will cost the city triple what it would have if they had done some of these things 20 or 30 years ago.

This is a place to initiate change and to make a difference and maybe the louder  we can complain the more people will notice. The height limitations are the one thing I think we can all agree are so stupid in the SoBro area. The more you give in this area the less sprawl in the long run you will have. A densely packed core with people help reduce sprawl and is much better for the environment. More transportation in the core is needed along with a good master plan which there is none, again because of poor leadership. The current mayors plan to be frank, sucks.

 

[MLBrumby]

The only thing that comes to my mind regarding Rick Barnhardt is that he sure did seem afraid of tall buildings. It seemed he was always negotiating the height of proposed buildings down in size. 

[smeagolsfree]

Anyone planning on being on the meeting? I am zoomed out this week and just do not have the energy.

If there are new images or news just keep us posted here.

[DDIG]

Listened in some. These City Lights people are amazing. They don't believe anything around them should be granted anything. One guy said they were early adopters of the area and bought in on the belief nothing would change. Lol. You've lived there for two years and are in the middle of the urban core of a city.

[gannman]

you have a link?

[DDIG]

4 minutes ago, gannman said:

you have a link?

I got it from here. I think the page before this one.

[smeagolsfree]

They are absolutely the last group that has arrived. The folks on RMH were here before them and the folks that sold all of the condos on KVB for STR’s were there and gone before they ever arrived. These folks are transplants from the burbs or other cities. If you do not want to live in a mid-rise basically downtown, then I would suggest you move. 

The real estate is going to go up not down in value. This will help that and they do not understand that. All I can say is they are clueless. Anyone that expects things not to change has their head buried in the sand. Things change as quickly as the mayors change folks.

I heard the same thing from the crazy lady in the 1212 saying her view was getting blocked by all the new buildings. WTH are these folks thinking? Must have peas for brains.

[downtownresident]

1 hour ago, DDIG said:

Listened in some. These City Lights people are amazing. They don't believe anything around them should be granted anything. One guy said they were early adopters of the area and bought in on the belief nothing would change. Lol. You've lived there for two years and are in the middle of the urban core of a city.

I listened in as well. The City Lights opposition is unfounded. The city has updated zoning as far as height is concerned multiple times in the past. Additionally, the Gresham architect implied that 11 stories doesn’t work as far ROI is concerned. I can see this passing through planning easily. 

[FrankNash]

It's City Lights not City View.

[chris holman]

The project goes in front of the Metro Planning Commission later this month

 

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/groups-worry-about-proposed-rutledge-hill-development