Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 9/3/2021 at 9:03 AM, Nash_12South said:

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. 

I don't know why people say things and don't think that it should be questioned or challenged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • 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

2 hours ago, Licec said:

 

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.

Yes, of course. But there's a difference between preferring to drive and needing to drive. And I think it would be great if more people had a choice. The freedom to choose; isn't that what we're about? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

Yes, of course. But there's a difference between preferring to drive and needing to drive. And I think it would be great if more people had a choice. The freedom to choose; isn't that what we're about? 

Well put.  I do think it's odd that the argument from folks opposed to funding alternative forms of transit usually, in the end, boils down to a strawman about how they don't want to be 'forced' out of their cars and onto trains or have their freedom of movement limited, when in reality these pro transit measures are about providing MORE freedom of movement for everybody.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2021 at 12:35 AM, UTgrad09 said:

If there wasn't demand for parking downtown, would any development include it?

From an idealist point of view, I get what you are saying -- that why should something in this dense part of downtown have to include parking? 

But the argument you are making -- about the freedom of choice -- is it not the developer's choice to include parking? And is not not the freedom of the residents of the development to choose if they utilize parking? 

When there are enough amenities downtown to justify a non-car lifestyle, then you will see more people choosing to live a non-car lifestyle. I don't think you can just make it happen by restricting parking. Add the amenities. And when people stop paying for their parking spots in developments, you will see developments including less and less parking.

The developers are forced to include parking by the lenders and more often than not, by zoning. There is no free choice in the matter. Condo buyers and apartment renters are forced to pay for the parking spot in the building, whether they want to or not. So I don't understand what choice you're talking about. 

Edited by Nashvillain
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

 Condo buyers and apartment renters are forced to pay for the parking spot in the building, whether they want to or not. So I don't understand what choice you're talking about. 

Yeah, but they're choosing to live downtown, so that's still a choice.  But you do bring up a good point about zoning forcing the inclusion of parking - - that zoning (and all zoning) should be removed so builders can build exactly what buyers/renters want to live in and want to pay for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Yeah, but they're choosing to live downtown, so that's still a choice.  But you do bring up a good point about zoning forcing the inclusion of parking - - that zoning (and all zoning) should be removed so builders can build exactly what buyers/renters want to live in and want to pay for.

Regardless where you choose to live you're forced to pay for parking. What I'm trying to reinforce (beat into the ground) is that downtown is where the choice to drive or not to drive should be easiest to make because there should be compelling options. But as of now, there still are no options (without options, there is no choice). People keep insisting that parking is required because the transit infrastructure isn't there, but IMO, transit will never be viable so long as driving and parking is so convenient. Transit, walking, and biking--in the city--needs to be better options than driving 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

MDHA Design Review Committee today assessed the plan for Printer & Bank, but did not take a vote.   Huh.  No word on why. 

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here: 

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/mdha-committee-assesses-mixed-use-project-plan/article_e4cc75aa-25f2-11ec-8ffa-839bcdc79103.html

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, markhollin said:

MDHA Design Review Committee today assessed the plan for Printer & Bank, but did not take a vote.   Huh.  No word on why.

Do you know if it is common for them not to take a vote, and what that usually signifies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darwin said:

Do you know if it is common for them not to take a vote, and what that usually signifies?

It’s very common for them not to take a vote. I have sat in on a number of those meetings and they will see one thing they have a question on and have the developer come back. Again I say this should be a Historic Commission decision only and not MDHA. This group has outlived its purpose in the downtown area. I said that 10 years ago. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

It’s very common for them not to take a vote. I have sat in on a number of those meetings and they will see one thing they have a question on and have the developer come back. Again I say this should be a Historic Commission decision only and not MDHA. This group has outlived its purpose in the downtown area. I said that 10 years ago. 

Ahh ok, good to know, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.