Jump to content

Printer & Bank (15 & 6 stories, 180', residential w/ ground level retail, internal and underground garage)


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Printer & Bank will be a 15 and 6 story residential/retail structure planned for 215-217 Third Ave. North.  215 is currently a surface lot and 217 is a 3 level parking garage of non-historic relev

Liquefy this proposal and inject it straight into my veins.

Now we're talkin architecture!! If I'm seeing this correctly this will mean more bars/clubs in Printers Alley in addition to 3rd Ave and Bankers Alley-that's important because Nashville needs an alter

Posted Images

  • markhollin changed the title to Bankers and Printers Alley (15 & 6 stories, 180', residential w/ ground level retail, underground garage)
  • markhollin changed the title to Printer & Bank (15 & 6 stories, 180', residential w/ ground level retail, internal and underground garage)

It sucks that a development in probably the densest part of downtown needs a 6 story parking garage. Everything else about this proposal is great but why do we need an influx of cars in Printer's Alley/ "Banker's Alley?" (and adjacent areas). And I know this is a necessary measure on the developers part to get funding--but it's just so counterproductive and dumb. The Downtown Code abolished parking minimums but clearly that's not enough. Can we go a step further and legislate a way to punish lenders who insist on parking in new development downtown? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

It sucks that a development in probably the densest part of downtown needs a 6 story parking garage. Everything else about this proposal is great but why do we need an influx of cars in Printer's Alley/ "Banker's Alley?" (and adjacent areas). And I know this is a necessary measure on the developers part to get funding--but it's just so counterproductive and dumb. The Downtown Code abolished parking minimums but clearly that's not enough. Can we go a step further and legislate a way to punish lenders who insist on parking in new development downtown? 

I think a consequence of this punishment, while motivated by good intentions to get rid of cars, will lead to no development at all and we are left with the ugly parking garage. 

DTC getting rid of parking minimums is what needed to happen. I would suggest adding more incentives than punishment to get rid of parking. Perhaps more height, tax abatements, etc. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When we have a workable, widely used, mass transit system, I'll be all for cutting back on downtown parking, but until then we need it. We also have a lot of tourists who will always drive here and expect to be able to have their cars reasonably close. I've spoken to a few new Amazon employees, female, who laughed when I suggested they walk, ride a bus or bike to work. How do we deal with folks, from outlying counties, coming to work or play in downtown, without sufficient parking? 

Edited by Nash_12South
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

It sucks that a development in probably the densest part of downtown needs a 6 story parking garage. Everything else about this proposal is great but why do we need an influx of cars in Printer's Alley/ "Banker's Alley?" (and adjacent areas). And I know this is a necessary measure on the developers part to get funding--but it's just so counterproductive and dumb. The Downtown Code abolished parking minimums but clearly that's not enough. Can we go a step further and legislate a way to punish lenders who insist on parking in new development downtown? 

The floor plans for this project  do not seem to have an appreciable amount of parking above ground.  it would have been beneficial to include the two underground levels. of parking in the post.  However, the number of  parking seems consistent with the eleven floors of fully residential use.  Is this going to be open for public parking?  The layout of the first floor seems to preclude that.  Automated lifts and similar mechanical systems are really not used for public parking very much as vehicle sizes vary considerably and extra large, tall or long vehicles that the public may attempt (There are few cures for stupid.) can damage the  systems.  It would have been beneficial if the initial post had included floor plans showing the parking and residential for the high rise portion of this project rather than just the six story total parking even though the above ground parking is fairly inconsequential.    I must assume that portion is what Nashvillain has issues with.  The area shown on the development map does not appear to be in sinc with the whole project. IMO, if this project really  intended promoting "an influx of cars", I would be charging the obscene parking fees prevalent in the area to the absolute hilt with as many extra parking levels and spaces as possible..   I applaud the designers of this proposal for their innovative  parking solution and an extremely exciting project.

 

Edited by Baronakim
Misunderstanding of the entire project proposal.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TelaEdificio said:

Baffling that folks can look at a proposal from a developer who appears to have bought parking-only facilities expressly to tear down, replace with less parking space than currently exists on the site (apparently using automated parking lifts to subordinate that use to a degree no other project has done in Nashville), throw in 266k square feet of new housing and retail, upgrade some iconic public spaces.... and come away thinking that LENDERS/DEVELOPERS should be punished, rather than whoever wrote the code that incentivizes parking three different ways while limiting other incentives to improve a historic subdistrict such that a project as clearly beneficial as this is only possible because it earns 2/3rds of its bonus height from adding that parking. 

Aside from the totally wrong premise that this represents "an influx of cars" in the area, it completely ignores the real causes to promote a meme with little basis in reality. 

My question to you is looking at the document, there is no mention of the number of parking spaces, so how do you know there will be less spaces unless you have more information than we do??????

Evidently you are privy to some info we do not have. Do you mind sharing!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez folks, why is there a perpetual chip on some shoulders in this forum? I'm almost afraid to post anything at this point for fear of being dragged through the dirt if I get a fact wrong or my opinion differs from those on high. 

Edited by Nash_12South
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. It’s a fair question! He made a statement and I am curious as to where the info came from as it is not in the docs.

If he were at a meet I would ask the same question.

The problem is with the written word, there is no emotion . It’s cold and harsh sounding. Enquiring minds want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

My question to you is looking at the document, there is no mention of the number of parking spaces, so how do you know there will be less spaces unless you have more information than we do??????

Evidently you are privy to some info we do not have. Do you mind sharing!

Space, not spaces. The bonus height matrix shows 55,400 sq. ft. of total parking area. Parcel records say the existing garage is 90,828 sq. ft. and the surface lot is 5,626 sq. ft. 
 

Math isn’t my thing, but seems like that’s a reduction by almost half. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TelaEdificio said:

Space, not spaces. The bonus height matrix shows 55,400 sq. ft. of total parking area. Parcel records say the existing garage is 90,828 sq. ft. and the surface lot is 5,626 sq. ft. 
 

Math isn’t my thing, but seems like that’s a reduction by almost half. 

Gotcha, thanks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nash_12South said:

When we have a workable, widely used, mass transit system, I'll be all for cutting back on downtown parking, but until then we need it. We also have a lot of tourists who will always drive here and expect to be able to have their cars reasonably close. I've spoken to a few new Amazon employees, female, who laughed when I suggested they walk, ride a bus or bike to work. How do we deal with folks, from outlying counties, coming to work or play in downtown, without sufficient parking? 

I completely agree with this statement.  If I go downtown I have to drive there because there simply isn't any alternative from where I live in Hendersonville so I need a place to park.  If parking became extremely expensive or hard to find I wouldn't even go downtown.  I'm sure that the planners of projects like this one are well aware of the necessity of parking for visitors and residents alike.  In the meantime I fully support an extensive mass transit system.  I lived in Seattle for many years and saw the hostility against light rail projects which were voted down by the public and took forever to finally get built and ended up costing far more than it would have if they would have started sooner.  I see the same thing happening here with so many uninformed bumpkins who oppose it but while we wait I'm enough of a realist to recognize that it makes no sense to oppose parking for the vehicles that most of us depend on. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

This project looks fantastic to me. I think Printers Alley is a great little spot, but the parking lot with the dumpster stinks and is an eyesore. Really love the archway,  really love the density. Great to see something like this there.

Edited by Darwin
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2021 at 11:35 PM, Nashvillain said:

It sucks that a development in probably the densest part of downtown needs a 6 story parking garage. Everything else about this proposal is great but why do we need an influx of cars in Printer's Alley/ "Banker's Alley?" (and adjacent areas). And I know this is a necessary measure on the developers part to get funding--but it's just so counterproductive and dumb. The Downtown Code abolished parking minimums but clearly that's not enough. Can we go a step further and legislate a way to punish lenders who insist on parking in new development downtown? 

 

Maybe it's because people prefer to drive a car instead of walking or riding a bike 2, 3, 4, 5 miles or having their life limited to a radius of 1 mile because of not having personal transportation. Most people don't want to live like that.

Edited by Licec
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.