1010 Church Street (60 story/750', 500 unit residential tower, 7 story/60,000 sq. ft. YMCA addition), $350 million

[yontu2]

2 hours ago, titanhog said:

Yeah…it’s kinda like Batman.  You basically have a 400’ building with 200’ antennas.  It’s going to get lost over time.  I think something like the YMCA building at 750’ could use something more distinctive up to…even if it’s just a slanted roof (appearance only).

If you look at some of the other cities that are booming right now, like Austin, few (if any) have crowns, but some do have interesting designs, including slanted roofs. Crowns seemed more common in the 1980s–1990s, and cities that boomed during that decade, like Atlanta, are full of that style of tower.

[Luvemtall]

SubKyle, agree. I know many might disagree with me, but I still hold out hope that some rendition of “Siggy” will eventually come back. I’m not saying it will be the same as the original, but will have a big influence from it. 

[jjbradleyBrooklyn]

I'd like to see Nashville do something like this skyscraper in Brooklyn, below. It's 1,073 feet and is just finishing up construction.

The style is sort of gothic meets classic meets modern. I really like the top of it.

https://thebrooklyntower.com/design

[henburg]

38 minutes ago, jjbradleyBrooklyn said:

I'd like to see Nashville do something like this skyscraper in Brooklyn, below. It's 1,073 feet and is just finishing up construction.

The style is sort of gothic meets classic meets modern. I really like the top of it.

https://thebrooklyntower.com/design

This building is a great case to prove that you don't need an extravagant, ornamental crown to create a tall building with great distinction. Small setbacks and great cladding make this one a real stunner, I love it. While I really feel that the 1010 design is great, I do feel that the design lacks some of those elevated details that this one has. What if the jeweled facade were to protrude from the top even just a tiny bit? What if the crown tapered in slightly? 

[subkyle]

14 minutes ago, henburg said:

This building is a great case to prove that you don't need an extravagant, ornamental crown to create a tall building with great distinction. Small setbacks and great cladding make this one a real stunner, I love it. While I really feel that the 1010 design is great, I do feel that the design lacks some of those elevated details that this one has. What if the jeweled facade were to protrude from the top even just a tiny bit? What if the crown tapered in slightly? 

I think that is a great idea! I think if you can make the crown portion be usable it can make the investment more palpable to a developer 

[titanhog]

11 hours ago, henburg said:

This building is a great case to prove that you don't need an extravagant, ornamental crown to create a tall building with great distinction. Small setbacks and great cladding make this one a real stunner, I love it. While I really feel that the 1010 design is great, I do feel that the design lacks some of those elevated details that this one has. What if the jeweled facade were to protrude from the top even just a tiny bit? What if the crown tapered in slightly? 

 

[Archibum]

As someone who has worked on a lot of buildings with crowns, particularly in the Middle East and China, I will echo the  statements that it is hard to justify the cost. To make it worth it, you really want to couple the crown with a use, but what? Observations deck is a go-to, but you need to have a view worth observing. And this use requires dedicated elevator service and takes up space not only at the top, but in the core and at the ground level as well, not to mention the occupancy of such a use will probably require increased stair size for egress. I've done towers with executive clubs at the top. And some where the hotel lobby is actually at the top. Even had some proposals with rock climbing walls and crazy unique observation/amusement ride experiences. 

All that to say it takes a culmination of stars to align to make a crown worthwhile:  developer, location, use, height, culture, tourism. Which is good, really, because you want crowns to be special and unique and few and far between. I bet we get get more towers with crowns in the future, especially as we continue to build up the core. Just wanted to throw my two cents in.

[PillowTalk4]

I don't think crowns and spires are necessary to make a skyline interesting.  There are other ways to finish the top floors of a building that will eliminate the static flat appearance.   I was in Philadelphia this past weekend and stayed on the 43rd floor of the W Hotel.  I had a corner room that faced east and south.  Unfortunately not on the side that would capture most of the high rise buildings in Philly.  But, there are examples of how a building can be topped out without using a crown/spire like that of the Empire State Bldg., or the Chrysler Bldg.  or even the formerly proposed Signature Tower.  Here are a few examples (forgive me for the background reflections)....

     

And, this picture below (not mine) shows that the top can have a crown appearance but actually have useable square footage on each floor in the crown.  This is what I'd like to see developers do in Nashville as opposed to just doing an ornamental crown of sorts...

[jjbradleyBrooklyn]

16 hours ago, henburg said:

This building is a great case to prove that you don't need an extravagant, ornamental crown to create a tall building with great distinction. Small setbacks and great cladding make this one a real stunner, I love it. While I really feel that the 1010 design is great, I do feel that the design lacks some of those elevated details that this one has. What if the jeweled facade were to protrude from the top even just a tiny bit? What if the crown tapered in slightly? 

Yeah, totally agree. As opposed to a box for 1010, at the top, taper it in or add a bit of ornamental elegance at the top--not too much, not tacky, but something to make it more interesting overall.

 

[Luvemtall]

I guess it all depends on the situation, and the way it’s perceived. Take for instance our beloved “Batman” , without the spires it would be just another 28 story office building, square glass box. But the spires and slanted roof make it sorta iconic, show anyone its picture, and they know its Nashville. 

PillowTalk4, the last picture above is a beautiful building. Something like that would be perfect for the parking lot site at KVB and 2nd . 

[Bos2Nash]

The other thing to consider is that outside investors see Nashville as a cheap place to build with high ROI. Investors from Boston, NYC, global locations see a cash cow here in Nashville and they can do it without the extra "glam" of a crown to standout from a leasability standpoint. 

[nashville born]

I am onboard with 1010 because of the height and, like TH said, I'm eager to see what it will look like in reality.  If I could get in Tony's ear, I'd ask him to add slanted parapet walls to reduce the appearance of another flat roof.  I just believe it shouldn't take a lot of investment in dollars or design to add prominence to a tower's top.  I'm nobody's architect, yet maybe arc some white pipes at intervals across the top from north to south and light them.   Something like that, even if not that exact idea, to add flair and visual interest.

[JustN82]

Some people have stated they’re okay without crowns but would just want to see more unique design; which I’m at a loss. We have JW Marriott, Alcove, Prime, One22One, Albion, Paseo South, Circle South, 805 Lea, 1100 Porter, with a tall skinny maybe proposed, maybe Buckingham comes back one day and many more down the pipeline. This all just makes me believe some people are impossible to please, no offense meant of course by that statement. 

[nashville born]

12 minutes ago, JustN82 said:

Some people have stated they’re okay without crowns but would just want to see more unique design; which I’m at a loss. We have JW Marriott, Alcove, Prime, One22One, Albion, Paseo South, Circle South, 805 Lea, 1100 Porter, with a tall skinny maybe proposed, maybe Buckingham comes back one day and many more down the pipeline. This all just makes me believe some people are impossible to please, no offense meant of course by that statement. 

I'm not speaking for others.  For me, it's not that we don't have some cool designs.  I'm specifically talking about how do we get away from the flat rooftops.  With regard to skylines, often it's a building's very top that helps it stand out.

[donNdonelson2]

Something that would help A LOT at night is more lighting on our buildings. Even simple outlines of rooftops, even FLAT rooftops, would be impactful. Nearly all of Houston’s big boys are outlined with lights, which often coordinate the colors for particular occasions. Really spices up a skyline that is impressive, if not super exciting. As the “Big Guy” is famous for saying…LET THERE BE LIGHT.

[Rick Dalton]

We can go back to crowns on our office towers if all of you go back to the office every day

the WFH issue will make this a difficult reality 

[PaulChinetti]

1 hour ago, natethegreat said:

We can go back to crowns on our office towers if all of you go back to the office every day

the WFH issue will make this a difficult reality 

I haven’t worked in an office since 2015. At this point it would take an obscene amount of money to get me back to the office and it would have to be really close to my house. 
 

I’m all about some crowns, every building, even non -skyscrapers are too boring these days. It makes all cities look the same and boring. Take McDonalds, I could show you a picture of one and you could never tell me why city it’s in. 
 

Bring on the personality!

[TNinVB]

2 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

Something that would help A LOT at night is more lighting on our buildings. Even simple outlines of rooftops, even FLAT rooftops, would be impactful. Nearly all of Houston’s big boys are outlined with lights, which often coordinate the colors for particular occasions. Really spices up a skyline that is impressive, if not super exciting. As the “Big Guy” is famous for saying…LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Yes!!!

[PillowTalk4]

16 hours ago, JustN82 said:

Some people have stated they’re okay without crowns but would just want to see more unique design; which I’m at a loss. We have JW Marriott, Alcove, Prime, One22One, Albion, Paseo South, Circle South, 805 Lea, 1100 Porter, with a tall skinny maybe proposed, maybe Buckingham comes back one day and many more down the pipeline. This all just makes me believe some people are impossible to please, no offense meant of course by that statement. 

I think you're missing that the conversation is about how "some" buildings are topped out.  I don't think any of the buildings you mentioned would call for a crown.  And, you're right they are unique designs that stand on their own.  Creative lighting would enhance those buildings at night.   But, 505 for instance would have been nicer if it had been finished in a way that wasn't just flat.  Clearly not every building in Nashville will or should have a unique top.  Most of us are hoping that there will be a few standouts just to break up the monotony of the flat appearance.   Atlanta's and Charlotte's skylines are enhanced by the way some of their buildings are finished at the top.  It gives their skylines flare.

People on this site probably know what city is in the picture below.  Most people probably would not because there is nothing to distinguish it minus the mountain range and while it is a world destination, it's not typically on the tip of most peoples tongue when deciding on a vacation destination.  I've had people tell me it's a city in China or Japan.  Some have said Rio or a South American City.  Most simply did not know.

Where as, I know people who have never been to the city pictured below, but they know it simply because of some of the buildings.  Especially those with unique tops.

Edited September 7, 2022 by PillowTalk4

[Archibum]

I for one absolutely hate the thin tube lighting such as the lighting on the Grand Hyatt and the 900 Church tower going up. Looks like a 24 hour liquor store window. But that just my lowly opinion and I can understand and respect why others like it.  And I love a good building lighting scheme in general. The challenge now is creatively light buildings under the new dark sky ordinance. Uplighting, the standard go-to of building lighting, is much more difficult to achieve when you have to worry about light pollution.

[titanhog]

39 minutes ago, Archibum said:

I for one absolutely hate the thin tube lighting such as the lighting on the Grand Hyatt and the 900 Church tower going up. Looks like a 24 hour liquor store window. But that just my lowly opinion and I can understand and respect why others like it.  And I love a good building lighting scheme in general. The challenge now is creatively light buildings under the new dark sky ordinance. Uplighting, the standard go-to of building lighting, is much more difficult to achieve when you have to worry about light pollution.

What’s wrong with a 24 hour liquor store window? 

[Luvemtall]

43 minutes ago, Archibum said:

Uplighting, the standard go-to of building lighting, is much more difficult to achieve when you have to worry about light pollution.

Yep, there’s another topic that just makes no sense to me. Cities are expected to be bright, exciting and lively!! This light pollution B.S is nonsense. If the bright lights of the city bother anyone, then they need to not be in the city. That’s what places like Wyoming are for, the reclusive.

[Nashvillain]

1 hour ago, PillowTalk4 said:

I think you're missing that the conversation is about how "some" buildings are topped out.  I don't think any of the buildings you mentioned would call for a crown.  And, you're right they are unique designs that stand on their own.  Creative lighting would enhance those buildings at night.   But, 505 for instance would have been nicer if it had been finished in a way that wasn't just flat.  Clearly not every building in Nashville will or should have a unique top.  Most of us are hoping that there will be a few standouts just to break up the monotony of the flat appearance.   Atlanta's and Charlotte's skylines are enhanced by the way some of their buildings are finished at the top.  It gives their skylines flare.

People on this site probably know what city is in the picture below.  Most people probably would not because there is nothing to distinguish it minus the mountain range and while it is a world destination, it's not typically on the tip of most peoples tongue when deciding on a vacation destination.  I've had people tell me it's a city in China or Japan.  Some have said Rio or a South American City.  Most simply did not know.

Where as, I know people who have never been to the city pictured below, but they know it simply because of some of the buildings.  Especially those with unique tops.

I'm guessing the top is Vancouver and I have no idea about the bottom one. Phoenix? (Just kidding)

[PillowTalk4]

3 hours ago, Nashvillain said:

I'm guessing the top is Vancouver and I have no idea about the bottom one. Phoenix? (Just kidding)

Yes, the top is Vancouver.  The bottom is Phoenix before the ocean dried up 

[FluffyP13]

for real though, what is the bottom?