Printer & Bank (16 & 6 stories, 193'; 265 residential units; 33,637 sq. ft. retail; 3 level underground garage)

[markhollin]

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 relevance built in the 1950s. Gabe Coltea of Rubicon Equities is the developer. No word on how many residential units, how much square footage of retail, or the capacity of the garage (which will have 4 internal levels above grade, and 2 underground). STG is handling the architecture.

One of the coolest elements of the concept is the archway over Bankers Alley along 3rd Ave. North leading back to Printers Alley. The existing garage at 217 3rd Ave. North, which the Rubicon purchased in 2017 for $13.4 million,  will be torn down (thank the gods!).  Rubicon still needs to buy the surface lot at 215 3rd Ave. North along Bankers Alley.

This looks to fit very nicely on a contextual basis with the height and brick work of all area structures. 

An October Metro Planning Commission meeting for a vote on height modification to the city's existing downtown code is expected. The Metro Development and Housing Agency Design Review Committee will need to approve it also.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/mixed-use-building-to-interact-with-downtown-alleys/article_23eda83e-0b69-11ec-99da-1762ed388139.html

And at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/09/02/printers-alley-project-pitched.html

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

[downtownresident]

This is very handsome, love the Bankers Alley archway. Would love to see something like on the surface lots at Church and 2nd Ave. 

[MagicPotato]

I can see this area being something similar to Bourbon street in New Orleans. 

[Rick Dalton]

Very cool, this part of deep downtown needs some development. I work a couple streets away and the homeless outnumber us.

[bnacincy]

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 alternative entertainment area for locals and newcomers who are not so taken with the scene on Lower Broad.

If possible Banker's Alley needs "street activation" all the way to 2nd Ave.

Nashville needs to get more serious and this is a pretty serious well thought out proposal unlike the potential fiasco we could see at the other end of Broadway.

Edited September 2, 2021 by bnacincy
Content

[UTgrad09]

Liquefy this proposal and inject it straight into my veins.

[bnacincy]

It would be nice if the same folks did something similar with the parking garage on 3rd just south of Church Street-it would have the same effect of adding more clubs/bars on the south part of Printers Alley-but let's not get ahead of ourselves!

Hopefully this project will see the light of day-these guys have put a lot of thought into this (unlike some other "developers") so maybe they've done their financials thoughtfully as well.

[NashRugger]

Approve, NOW!

[Nashvillain]

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? 

[TelaEdificio]

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? 

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. 

[nashvylle]

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. 

[Nash_12South]

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 September 3, 2021 by Nash_12South

[Baronakim]

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 September 3, 2021 by Baronakim
Misunderstanding of the entire project proposal.

[markhollin]

Welcome to the forum, TelaEdificio!  : )

[smeagolsfree]

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!

[Nash_12South]

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 September 3, 2021 by Nash_12South

[smeagolsfree]

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.

[TelaEdificio]

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. 

[smeagolsfree]

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

[MontanaGuy]

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. 

[Mr_Bond]

Welcome to the forum, @TelaEdificio!

[Darwin]

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 September 3, 2021 by Darwin

[rolly]

So sharp! Glad to see some action in the old part of downtown.   Would be great to see some development around the Municipal Auditorium area.

[Armacing]

I really hope this happens along with the addition to Indigo next door and the Federal Reserve hotel across the street, and the Radisson around the corner at 4th & union.  Taken together all of those developments would be a significant increase in density for the Union Street neighborhood.  Hopefully one day that leads to high-rise developments on the surface parking at 3rd & Church and even 2nd & Church.   We need unlimited height restrictions at those two intersections!

[Licec]

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 September 4, 2021 by Licec