500 2nd Ave. South, 39 story residential; 29 story hotel; 32 story residential on full 3.4 acre block (Cumulus Radio site)

[smeagolsfree]

Cumulus site sold for $34 million to a local partnership and involving http://centrumrd.com/portfolio/. This will be going live soon on all media. 

The tallest thing they have done is a 31 story residential tower in Chicago. Most of their stuff is small, however they have to do a strong project to get good ROI.
_ _ _

Since this will ultimately be a significant development, I think it deserves its own thread. 

Centrum Development (out of Chicago) has partnered with Nashville Capital Group to pay $34 million for the full block (3.37 acres---one of the largest blocks in downtown) at 500 2nd Ave. South from Cumulus Radio Group. The latter paid $2 million for the sire 21 years ago. 

Centrum's experience is with 5-10 story residential projects in 6 states, but they do have one 31 story tower in Chicago. It would seem with the significant outlay to buy this land in such a key SoBro spot that they will build something more substantial. 

No word on their immediate plans, but the speculation should be intriguing. 

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/developer-buys-sobro-site-for-34m/article_f9e4f31c-f470-11eb-a862-7ff0e0f620b3.html
 

This screen shot from Smeagolfree's excellent development map shows the site highlighted in teal at the center of the frame:

[nashville born]

Any chance they build an office tower here?  The new 2nd & Peabody proposal would make for a very convenient partner with it's residential and hotel components.

[smeagolsfree]

This company has experience doing a little bit of everything. The Partnership involves,  Partnership of Nashville Capital Group (Roger Brown). He was behind the big Segway sale.

As I said they are going to have to do some type of mixed use project adn their website says they do retail, residential, office, hotel, industrial

Developer buys SoBro site for $34M | Development | nashvillepost.com

 

[MLBrumby]

In light of the surrounding development and the volume of office already underway (and this developer's portfolio), I'd expect residential over office.  Just looking at the large-ish size of this site, I wouldn't expect anything taller than 10-15 stories. Given the perceived opposition CG had to 2nd and Peabody, I'd also imagine the developer won't want to push too much beyond what's already allowed.  Even at the reported sales price, they could fill the whole site with hundreds of units without crossing over that point when a building's height causes the per-floor cost to shoot up. Looking at Nashville's latest residential towers, I get the impression there are several height "thresholds" over which there are substantial runs up in building costs. IDK... are they around 7 stories... 12... 18... and 25?  Any of our forumers with such knowledge care to chime in here?  

[Luvemtall]

3.37 acres will fit more then one tower. Having paid 34 million, I kinda agree with Smeagolsfree, that it will need to be on a grander scale to get the ROI that would make anything worth building. Having 2nd &Peabody right across from them with all that residential, I’m thinking more mixed-use with office, hotel, resi, and retail. But , hey this is Nashville and they have those idiots in City Lights to kneel down too, and the ridiculous height fears of the powers that be. So we might get a two story stucco nightclub with 20 units of condos on second floor! 

[nashvylle]

45 minutes ago, MLBrumby said:

In light of the surrounding development and the volume of office already underway (and this developer's portfolio), I'd expect residential over office.  Just looking at the large-ish size of this site, I wouldn't expect anything taller than 10-15 stories. Given the perceived opposition CG had to 2nd and Peabody, I'd also imagine the developer won't want to push too much beyond what's already allowed.  Even at the reported sales price, they could fill the whole site with hundreds of units without crossing over that point when a building's height causes the per-floor cost to shoot up. Looking at Nashville's latest residential towers, I get the impression there are several height "thresholds" over which there are substantial runs up in building costs. IDK... are they around 7 stories... 12... 18... and 25?  Any of our forumers with such knowledge care to chime in here?  

Cheapest is to do stick frame on top of concrete podium (think of the apartments behind First Horizon Park). The height threshold would be 7-8 stories on top of the concrete podium. If the building covered the entire 3 acre site, double-loaded corridors, you could approach 500+ units. 

[nashville born]

Fair points made by all.  I get it...the economics are the bottom line.  Still, just frustrating to think such a central/prime location might end up with an uninspiring development effort.  

Edited August 4, 2021 by nashville born

[samsonh]

17 minutes ago, nashville born said:

Fair points made by all.  I get it...the economics are the bottom line.  Still, just frustrating to think such a central/prime location might end up with an uninspiring development effort.  

I doubt they spent this much money to build a stick frame structure. 

[Bos2Nash]

Personally I hope they building something of similar scale to Congress Group (2nd and Peabody) with a step down that speaks to Rolling Mill Hill. I also want to see open space that correlates to the space developed by Congress Group so that area doesn't feel like an island.

[Skyscrapergeek]

I would like to see a 1000’ and a block wide named “City Shade”. 

[titanhog]

Can almost guarantee some of that space will have to be “green space” to make the locals happy…and there will be a major fight between the RMH,  City Lights and RH people over how much height is allowed and the placement of those structures.  Can’t imagine anything will be as tall as the 2nd & Peabody structures. 

[Rick Dalton]

Please don't squander this

[smeagolsfree]

You think there was a stink about the height at 2nd & Peabody. This is even more restrictive under the DTC. Base height here is 6 stories, with 7 stories of bonus height max because it is in the Rutledge Hill District and on a primary street. So under current rules 11 stories is the max!

 

If it were on a side street then 3 stories with 3 stories of Bonus.

[PostRural]

Just "activating" this block will be a huge win, regardless of height. Would be great to see something on the level of the shorty proposed in Gulch Central if it is in the shorter scale. 

Also, I'd be fine with "Burj Nashville" here if they wanted to build that instead...

[smeagolsfree]

Again the issue is ROI. How large is the project going to have to be in order to get the return they need when you spend 34 million on three and a third acres. That is about 10.13 million an acre. You will have to figure there will almost have to be open space which is dead space with no return. as in the 2nd & Peabody with 50k SQ FT. That is almost 1 acre of land, which is almost half of that project.

We do not know how much the Congress Group is paying as they have not bought it yet. These guys have bought the Cumulus land before it has been rezoned. Not really a risky move as they can land bank it if it does not pan out. The price will go up.

[MLBrumby]

I think you're right Smeags that it will be residential/retail mixed use. I'd like to see a significant volume of retail go up there. And rents for commercial are higher than for residential. @nashvyllenumber of 500 residential units also looks reasonable based on the parameters.   I'm not facil with the zoning "rubiks cube" of the DTC, but if 7 is the max allowable by rights, then that points to some "giveaways" in green space to reach (maybe) a couple of 12-story towers, and maybe on a retail podium of 2-3 stories of commercial space and (who knows?) how much parking. I'd expect that parking would also be a revenue generator if there's a retail component. 

That's a hefty price just for the land. So i'd expect part of the podium would be parking, if I correctly understand that underground parking costs more.  BTW: Is there anything in the DTC that gives "bonus height" (ugh, that term! only in Nashville?*) to having underground parking. Seems like there should be as it costs more to go underground and parking doesn't do a whole lot vertically for a building's asthetics. So even if it's just a 1-for-1 (underground parking to additional floor), it would seem to make sense.  No doubt, the challenge for the developers will be how much green space to appease the neighbhorhood, and how to make it look attractive if the development requires a big podium. 

* I'm not familiar with any of the DTC details, and I'm grateful for the explanations from this group. That said, I swear if you Google "bonus height", Nashville comes up among the first results! 

Having said all of the above, there's also the remote possibility that this developer (any developer) would be marketing the property to a corporate relocation candidate. I don't see that happening here, but there's always a chance. 

[nashvylle]

@MLBrumby yes underground parking is one way to achieve some bonus height. Look at Endeavor's proposed twin resi project in The Gulch. They achieved some bonus height via underground parking. 

[smeagolsfree]

My guess is there will be deals made and height Wavers granted. wavers seem to be getting handed out more like candy these days unlike days in the past where Metro would not budge on anything. This is why the districts and the bonus height system needs to be changed because of this. Its a little silly when you have a plan in place and you are not going by it and no one likes it anyway.

[downtownresident]

2 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

I think you're right Smeags that it will be residential/retail mixed use. I'd like to see a significant volume of retail go up there. And rents for commercial are higher than for residential. @nashvyllenumber of 500 residential units also looks reasonable based on the parameters.   I'm not facil with the zoning "rubiks cube" of the DTC, but if 7 is the max allowable by rights, then that points to some "giveaways" in green space to reach (maybe) a couple of 12-story towers, and maybe on a retail podium of 2-3 stories of commercial space and (who knows?) how much parking. I'd expect that parking would also be a revenue generator if there's a retail component. 

That's a hefty price just for the land. So i'd expect part of the podium would be parking, if I correctly understand that underground parking costs more.  BTW: Is there anything in the DTC that gives "bonus height" (ugh, that term! only in Nashville?*) to having underground parking. Seems like there should be as it costs more to go underground and parking doesn't do a whole lot vertically for a building's asthetics. So even if it's just a 1-for-1 (underground parking to additional floor), it would seem to make sense.  No doubt, the challenge for the developers will be how much green space to appease the neighbhorhood, and how to make it look attractive if the development requires a big podium. 

* I'm not familiar with any of the DTC details, and I'm grateful for the explanations from this group. That said, I swear if you Google "bonus height", Nashville comes up among the first results! 

Having said all of the above, there's also the remote possibility that this developer (any developer) would be marketing the property to a corporate relocation candidate. I don't see that happening here, but there's always a chance. 

You can obtain bonus height for underground parking, lined parking(with residential units/office space facing the street with parking on the interior), and public parking. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by downtownresident

[titanhog]

One thing to consider is that City Lights wanted to go taller and they were not allowed to.  This is right next to them…so I can’t imagine them allowing anything taller on this land (by much) without City Lights actually taking Nashville to court.

[smeagolsfree]

There is a  difference between  the owners of City Lights and the Developers of City Lights. Since the Owners of City Lights didn’t build the building and had no dog in the walk then they would probably have no way to sue in court for that reason.

I don’t think this particular developer has any interest is suing as he has already sold hid units and moved on. It would be like Tony trying to sue from back when Encore was built when they would not let him build taller than the 20 or so that it is now. Things change and so do the rules. Most of these developers know how the game is played and sure do not want to rock the boat. As for those residents the battle is lost. They will be fighting a whole sting of law suits every time a new development is announced. Then they have the issue of Metro just changing the rules so they can build 100 story skyscrapers on every side of them. We know that would not happen, but the rules could change to allow 20 story minimums in the sub district, then there is no basis for a law suit. They would have no legal standing. 

I for one knew those views would be gone in a matter of years and anyone that moved there and was a bit too much of an air head to realize there would be buildings built to block those views was a little foolish. People are always in so much of a rush to make the move into a place they do not take into account what is happening around them. I think most of us on this board would go into a situation knowing full well there is a chance of a high-rise going in almost anywhere inside the inner loop or in Midtown and the game is changes every month that goes by.

[Luvemtall]

^^ again , anyone who moves into the center of a city( a large and fast growing one at that) and expects to have endless views is fooling themselves. This whole nightmarish situation that shows it’s ugly head everytime a new development is announced is getting kinda old! These people need to face reality and move on or move out!! 

[thenorthchannel]

Forget who said this on the board years ago... there is a reason it's called City Lights and not City View.  Because everyone knew the view was going to be gone soon.

[smeagolsfree]

The only ways views can be guaranteed is if you buy up the air rights or you are at the top of the heap a far as high-rises go. Either way it is very expensive. You pay for what you get. 

That's why it is the old realtors saying location, location, location and not the view, the view, the view! 

[DDIG]

11 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

There is a  difference between  the owners of City Lights and the Developers of City Lights. Since the Owners of City Lights didn’t build the building and had no dog in the walk then they would probably have no way to sue in court for that reason.

I don’t think this particular developer has any interest is suing as he has already sold hid units and moved on. It would be like Tony trying to sue from back when Encore was built when they would not let him build taller than the 20 or so that it is now. Things change and so do the rules. Most of these developers know how the game is played and sure do not want to rock the boat. As for those residents the battle is lost. They will be fighting a whole sting of law suits every time a new development is announced. Then they have the issue of Metro just changing the rules so they can build 100 story skyscrapers on every side of them. We know that would not happen, but the rules could change to allow 20 story minimums in the sub district, then there is no basis for a law suit. They would have no legal standing. 

I for one knew those views would be gone in a matter of years and anyone that moved there and was a bit too much of an air head to realize there would be buildings built to block those views was a little foolish. People are always in so much of a rush to make the move into a place they do not take into account what is happening around them. I think most of us on this board would go into a situation knowing full well there is a chance of a high-rise going in almost anywhere inside the inner loop or in Midtown and the game is changes every month that goes by.

I haven't heard any buzz about the City Lights developer, the City Lights people owning who are opposed to neighboring development truly don't believe anything should ever be built in that area above base zoning (whatever that is) and they don't seem to understand that height modification requests are built into the downtown code, thus part of the zoning.

Edited August 5, 2021 by DDIG