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

[nashwatcher]

11 minutes ago, DDIG said:

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.

Do we need to contact council members on this one? Would love to see 2nd and Peabody come to fruition, anything we can do to help support this project?

[DDIG]

3 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

Do we need to contact council members on this one? Would love to see 2nd and Peabody come to fruition, anything we can do to help support this project?

Bigger picture the downtown code needs to be updated. Freddie has referenced that many times. I haven't seen any real movement on the idea though and I assume that is a long timeframe project. 

For this project idk but for now it seems it is all about planning. If and when it comes back, the more support routed to them the merrier.

[nashville born]

GAME CHANGERS.

(Photos courtesy of Google searches and UP forums)

Edited May 11, 2021 by nashville born

[smeagolsfree]

The folks at City Lights do not realize a host of Six story buildings can be built all around them with no zoning change and if they are office buildings that can be almost a 100' building without any bonus height. The other thing they do not realize is Howell Place that were turned into short term rental is zoned for 30 stories I think, so there goes that view even if nothing is done with 2nd & Peabody. Trust me that STR is not going to stay an STR for ever.

With that being said the condo right across the street from them if they are condos as they may be apartments can be sold as well, further blocking the view. They really think they have a neighborhood there????? I wonder if they consider the homeless sleeping on the streets there neighbors too. In the Mr Rogers voice. Do you want to be my neighbor?

[Bos2Nash]

19 hours ago, DDIG said:

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.

Planning does, but so does the city as a whole. Planning isn't rejecting height willy nilly. They are held to the documents that the city and city council has commissioned and approved. That is there entire job is to hold developers accountable to the city's requirements. That being said, the Downtown Code is probably the most "modern" type of code in that it is a "Form-Based Code"  rather than the typical "Land-Use Code". These codes take zoning and make it 3-dimensional in order to create a harmonious built-environment where a number of uses are present. The reason the height is not approved is because the land is in a different "transect" of the Community Character Manual which was adopted in 2017, technically this parcel is not considered part of the actual "core". The intent of the CCM is to create a robust urban core where the biggest buidlings are located there. Obvioulsy developers are going to want to move out of that area because prices have climbed as a result of our boom. The CCM also was written in a way to promote growth in certain directions. Clearly that included not moving into the Rutledge Hill area. If developers want to move out of the perscribed areas that the city and planning office have detirmined to be the best areas for growth, there needs to be a larger discussion. This development is not going to get built without moving the transect boundary back to Lea (That discussion can be seen further up in the thread). It will need to be a neighborhood hollistic approach to get this parcel eligible for this development, because the city will not approve this as a one-off and nor should they. I emailed my support to the planning department because I believe the development is good for the city, but I also agree with the reasons for the CCM. 

The CCM is not an easily updated document, because it does truly represent the direction the wants to develop. To open one area up for discussion could open other areas up for discussion and that of course takes time to go through all those areas. It is not because the city dislikes height or because they are fighting develoeprs for the sake of developers, but rather they understand planning and city development way better than 90% of the folks on this board.  It is always easier to criticize from the outside when one does not fully understand the inner workings of things. Developers understand one thing really, MONEY. They are gonna build what they build for the cheapest they can do while hitting their ProForma and ROI targets. Some developers are better than others with understanding public use and public good, but they are fe and far between. Please remember to be patient.

off my soap box now. Thanks for putting up with it lol

[Licec]

If they want it built they either have to comply with the historic guidelines or build it somewhere else. A couple of options are bidding for the Rolling Mill Hill parking lot when it becomes available or see if they can purchase land from the owners of the stalled Liff Development.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Licec

[DDIG]

44 minutes ago, Licec said:

If they want it built they either have to comply with the historic guidelines or build it somewhere else. A couple of options are bidding for the Rolling Mill Hill parking lot when it becomes available or see if they can purchase land from the owners of the stalled Liff Development.

I think it was determined it isn't actually in the historic district? 

[titanhog]

3 minutes ago, DDIG said:

I think it was determined it isn't actually in the historic district? 

I'm not sure if Peabody or Lea is the “deciding” line.  It really should be Lea, just based on what’s left of “historic” Rutledge Hill…but I can understand them wanting to have a little buffer.  Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[nashwatcher]

8 minutes ago, titanhog said:

I'm not sure if Peabody or Lea is the “deciding” line.  It really should be Lea, just based on what’s left of “historic” Rutledge Hill…but I can understand them wanting to have a little buffer.  Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

All of 2nd Ave is pretty much in the Lafayette district all the way to the interstate...it's just weird how a couple parcels are cherry picked to be in Rutledge Hill with old, run down industrial buildings on them...definitely think 2nd and Peabody would be a great addition to this neighborhood and would spur other high quality development

[titanhog]

17 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

All of 2nd Ave is pretty much in the Lafayette district all the way to the interstate...it's just weird how a couple parcels are cherry picked to be in Rutledge Hill with old, run down industrial buildings on them...definitely think 2nd and Peabody would be a great addition to this neighborhood and would spur other high quality development

Plus…when you consider this proposal…and then you look at that behemoth of an interstate wall that is being built called the Haven at the Gulch…you understand that a lot of decisions being made on what is built where is not exactly good for the city.  They probably don’t want height along the interstate…but I’d much rather have a slender 1000’ tower along the interstate than an ugly, wide building like Haven that totally acts like a wall reducing views of downtown from the interstate.  I really think some of their “rules” are nonsensical when actually applied.

[Flatrock]

19 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

The folks at City Lights do not realize a host of Six story buildings can be built all around them with no zoning change

Yep. There are 7 units at City Lights currently for resale. That's a lot of units, given the fact that it's a relatively small development and the units were sold new just a couple of years ago. I think owners are figuring out their views are far from guaranteed. 

[CenterHill]

3 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Planning does, but so does the city as a whole. Planning isn't rejecting height willy nilly. They are held to the documents that the city and city council has commissioned and approved. That is there entire job is to hold developers accountable to the city's requirements. That being said, the Downtown Code is probably the most "modern" type of code in that it is a "Form-Based Code"  rather than the typical "Land-Use Code". These codes take zoning and make it 3-dimensional in order to create a harmonious built-environment where a number of uses are present. The reason the height is not approved is because the land is in a different "transect" of the Community Character Manual which was adopted in 2017, technically this parcel is not considered part of the actual "core". The intent of the CCM is to create a robust urban core where the biggest buidlings are located there. Obvioulsy developers are going to want to move out of that area because prices have climbed as a result of our boom. The CCM also was written in a way to promote growth in certain directions. Clearly that included not moving into the Rutledge Hill area. If developers want to move out of the perscribed areas that the city and planning office have detirmined to be the best areas for growth, there needs to be a larger discussion. This development is not going to get built without moving the transect boundary back to Lea (That discussion can be seen further up in the thread). It will need to be a neighborhood hollistic approach to get this parcel eligible for this development, because the city will not approve this as a one-off and nor should they. I emailed my support to the planning department because I believe the development is good for the city, but I also agree with the reasons for the CCM. 

The CCM is not an easily updated document, because it does truly represent the direction the wants to develop. To open one area up for discussion could open other areas up for discussion and that of course takes time to go through all those areas. It is not because the city dislikes height or because they are fighting develoeprs for the sake of developers, but rather they understand planning and city development way better than 90% of the folks on this board.  It is always easier to criticize from the outside when one does not fully understand the inner workings of things. Developers understand one thing really, MONEY. They are gonna build what they build for the cheapest they can do while hitting their ProForma and ROI targets. Some developers are better than others with understanding public use and public good, but they are fe and far between. Please remember to be patient.

off my soap box now. Thanks for putting up with it lol

Exactly.    Well said.    There is frequent chirping on the board about Nashville being "against height" or having a "fear of height", but those comments ignore the fact that all development must be done within the constraints of the existing zoning code, which was not adopted in a random or haphazard manner, as you point out.    And actually, the Planning Commission and Metro Council have been fairly liberal about granting exceptions and bonus height where the developer is willing to work within the zoning framework.    And as you also note, Nashville's current Downtown Code is much more progressive than the prior code it replaced, which restricted uses.   Under the prior code, areas designated for "office", for example, could not have "residential", which is why Nashville's central core developed with little to no residential until more recently.    The current code was designed to achieve more dense urban neighborhoods, clustering greater height around the Charlotte to Demonbreun core with a gradual tapering of height downward as you move north and south.   The screen cap below (from the drone video) shows roughly how the height form follows the zoning in SoBro.    

But, I also agree and am of the view that cities should revisit and update their zoning, where appropriate, as the character of certain neighborhoods evolves and as demand for larger developments increases and available land disappears.    With Nashville's pace of growth and rapid expansion of what is considered "the downtown core", the city is approaching that point sooner than probably anyone thought we would.     When it happens, it will be a thorough process, with multiple constituents who merit being heard from, but with intelligent land use principles still as the guiding factor.              

[Bos2Nash]

3 hours ago, nashwatcher said:

All of 2nd Ave is pretty much in the Lafayette district all the way to the interstate...it's just weird how a couple parcels are cherry picked to be in Rutledge Hill with old, run down industrial buildings on them...definitely think 2nd and Peabody would be a great addition to this neighborhood and would spur other high quality development

The properties on the north side of Peabody are considered "transitional parcels" between the SoBro and Lafayette districts (in the DTC). When comparing the Transects of T6-DC (Downtown Core) and T6-DN (Downtown Neighborhood) Peabody is the demising line as well. Nothing is really cherrypicked as Peabody is a pretty clear line. The reason it is Peabody really is a product of the development of KVB. If it wasn't for KVB, the demising line would probably be Demonbruen. Changing the boundaries of the T6-DC to what was discussed here would move some of the downtown development across Peabody, but we do need to maintain some context of Rutledge Hill, specifically around the Howard School Buildings. The definitions of Downtown Neighborhood versus Downtown Core are shown graphically below and currently, The south of KVB area represents the Neighborhood. To change that, is an exhaustive effort that a proposed developer knows going into a project. All of this is laid out specifcally with context in mind and "stepping down" the building intensity as mentioned by @CenterHill. 

 

Text definition of T6-DC and T6-DN. The Neighborhood definition fits the area currently south of Peabody. If the city wants to expand the core (which some may not want to at this time) they should. I agree whole heartedly that the city needs to evaluate their zoning laws probably every 5 to 10 years to help understand growth, but also promote accordingly. I say every 5 to 10 years specifically because there needs to be time for development to occur. For example the current CCM was adopted in 2017 and we are approaching 5 years next year. That will be a good time to evaluate the whole Downtown Area (T6 transect) based on what development has occured.  One example of this is the approach with the East Bank, The city is soliciting Perkins Eastman for a vision of the area and in my opinion they need to proactively zone the East Bank based on the vision. They should not wait for PSC to rezone or a prospective buyer come in and rezone it. 

[nashville born]

luvemtall had a great idea.  Now that the Fairmont project has been shelved, what are the chances this project moves to that location? 

[nashville born]

Perhaps it's a moot point now.  Yet I'm going to beat this dead horse just one more time.  I was just on Google Maps looking for the location of City Lights.  I'm not really understanding how their view of downtown would be obstructed by this development.

[downtownresident]

6 minutes ago, nashville born said:

Perhaps it's a moot point now.  Yet I'm going to beat this dead horse just one more time.  I was just on Google Maps looking for the location of City Lights.  I'm not really understanding how their view of downtown would be obstructed by this development.

It’s their views to the west. This will also impact evening sun on the west side of the building. The Congress Group is still pursuing a project here, so we may still see something significant.  

[Brichar4]

With this project at a stand still for now, and with the NBJ interviewing the congress group ceo Dean Stratouly mentioning possibly 2 other projects in town in the near future that have not been announced. Does anyone have any idea what they might aim for or a maybe a “realistic” wishlist of what they might entail? Just curious. 
 

[markhollin]

Implementing input from community groups and Metro Planning Dept., Congress Group has made some changes to the 2nd & Peabody development:

- One building will now be 36 story residential at 433' with a kite-shaped base.  No word on how many units.

- The second building will now by 32 story residential at 375', also with a kite-shaped base.  No word on how many units.

- A third structure will be added: an 18 story hotel at 234' of unknown brand.

- The ground levels of each structure will still offer retail/restaurant space.

- The public space will be expanded to 59,000 sq. ft. woven around the structures.  It will include a pocket park, playground, water features, a cafe,  and a bike shed. 

- There will still be extensive underground parking (no word on how many spaces).

- Cube3 out of Boston and Miami is now the primary architect.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/three-tower-project-eyed-for-sobro/article_6baabb5e-efc0-11eb-976f-33a81ec2cbd7.html


And at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/07/28/2nd-peabody-project-revised.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_34&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

[nashvylle]

I don't want to sound ungrateful because this is an absolutely fantastic project; however, the original proposal with Nashville's new tallest was just incredible. 

Will Metro Historic Commission and Rutledge Hill residents try and get this canned?

[AF-Nash]

We may have lost the height, but these buildings look stunning to me. Each building has  that Miami vibe to it. Something you may see in South Beach! We need a change from all the blue boxes we were accustomed to of late, methinks.

Edited July 28, 2021 by AF-Nash

[DDIG]

10 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I don't want to sound ungrateful because this is an absolutely fantastic project; however, the original proposal with Nashville's new tallest was just incredible. 

Will Metro Historic Commission and Rutledge Hill residents try and get this canned?

It wasn't Rutledge Hill residents, it was specifically City Lights condo owners. And from what I've been told they believe nothing should be built over 9 stories (or whatever the base zoning is) in that entire area or they will fight it. Historic has no serious argument, it is not in a historic district, if anything density nearby supports the viability of a historic district.

If there's a project to email planning with your support this is one to do it.

Edited July 28, 2021 by DDIG

[Skyscrapergeek]

Craig, looking forward to your comparison of original and new proposals. Thanks in advance!

[titanhog]

First of all…a tad sad to lose the height but ECSTATIC to see these awesome renders.  LOVE these buildings!

Secondly…City Lights is angry because they wanted to build taller and were made to build shorter…so they’re going to throw a fit, believing they got short-changed (no pun, intended).  They kinda have a point…because the height they wanted to build would not have made a difference to that community.  In other words, so many decisions are being made that really make little sense when it comes to height.

Thirdly…I can’t wait until the radio station sells their “parkland” and a developer announces more tall buildings…and City Lights actually falls through the Earth and is totally swallowed up by anger. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by titanhog

[downtownresident]

12 minutes ago, DDIG said:

It wasn't Rutledge Hill residents, it was specifically City Lights condo owners. And from what I've been told they believe nothing should be built over 9 stories (or whatever the base zoning is) in that entire area or they will fight it. Historic has no serious argument, it is not in a historic district, if anything density nearby supports the viability of a historic district.

If there's a project to email planning with your support this is one to do it.

Primary opposition to this was from City Lights residents. They feel as though the developer should present an 11 story version before asking for more height. I think they will continue to fight this. I dont think they’ll have much of a leg to stand on given the enhancements to the streets around this, as well as the public park along 2nd Ave. 

 

I will be sending an email in support to both Planning and Freddie. 

[nashwatcher]

Anyone have email addresses of those in power that we need to voice our support to??