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

[nashville born]

^^^That looks dangerous!  Remind me to secure my seatbelt when I'm flying over Nashville!

[smeagolsfree]

1 hour ago, TheSound said:

I also noticed you took the Fairmont off the map.  I hate that, but surely something will take its place soon.

That one is dead as crud too.

[DDIG]

11 hours ago, titanhog said:

We already have the Eye of Sauron with the batman building, might as well build his crown too.

[smeagolsfree]

11 hours ago, titanhog said:

1000 Church, with a Bart Simpson cut, but I love it. It is a shame that we can’t go over 750’ because of the FAA. Stupid rule IMO, but this would be very cool!

We could call it The Bart.

[MontanaGuy]

39 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

1000 Church, with a Bart Simpson cut, but I love it. It is a shame that we can’t go over 750’ because of the FAA. Stupid rule IMO, but this would be very cool!

Would that be the height limit for that particular location?  Also, are there any locations in downtown Nashville that could go higher?  I remember that the proposed Signature Tower was much higher than this building! 

[PaulChinetti]

I thought the whole FAA thing was more of a suggestion than a rule. If a plane plane is that low over downtown, surely there are larger problems with it than worrying about one tall building, no?

[smeagolsfree]

There is a big brew ha ha in Arlington over an Amazon building that is 13’ over what the FAA allows.

 

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/amazons-hq2-helix-building-too-tall-for-location-by-national-airport/2674544/

 

 

 

 

 

[natethegreat]

Simply fly around downtown

[colemangaines]

Looks like this one will be just outside of the FAA restriction zone.

Scratch that; this is the wrong map. Still looking for more info though.

Edited October 5, 2021 by colemangaines
correcting info

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

I thought the whole FAA thing was more of a suggestion than a rule. If a plane plane is that low over downtown, surely there are larger problems with it than worrying about one tall building, no?

While it is not a zoning code, if the building is above the FAA limit it is basically uninsurable which is a no go for any high rise. So in reality, the FAA number is the ceiling.

[nashville born]

45 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

There is a big brew ha ha in Arlington over an Amazon building that is 13’ over what the FAA allows.

 

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/amazons-hq2-helix-building-too-tall-for-location-by-national-airport/2674544/

 

Well, at least we know it's not just us.  Safety first AND build 'em tall!

[Luvemtall]

Signature Tower was 1030 feet in original height and was approved, so how was that ? 

[dmillsphoto]

4 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I thought the whole FAA thing was more of a suggestion than a rule. If a plane plane is that low over downtown, surely there are larger problems with it than worrying about one tall building, no?

Once runway 2L is lengthened, I think the FAA rule will dissipate as the current reasoning is; Runway 31 for a take-off path takes heavy lifts (think, Atlas 747s, the occasional Antonov pitstop) toward downtown.

[markhollin]

According to an interview at NBJ, Chris Tointon of the CEO of YMCA of Middle Tennessee says this project has been under consideration for over a year.  They spoke with numerous developers as partners, and narrowed it down to five a few months ago before deciding on Tony Giarrantana. 

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/10/05/ymca-q-a-redevelopment.html

[PaulChinetti]

2 hours ago, colemangaines said:

Looks like this one will be just outside of the FAA restriction zone.

Scratch that; this is the wrong map. Still looking for more info though.

Yeah that's for drones and such. 

Ha, trying to look for what the limit would be and found a thread on here from 2013.

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/116033-faa-height-restrictions/

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by PaulChinetti
made link visible

[MontanaGuy]

If you've flown into NYC you sure can get close to all of the really tall skyscrapers there and La Guardia isn't very far from Manhattan.  It makes me wonder why that's not a problem and if they get special treatment.  If this gets cut down to just over 600 feet I'm really gonna be pissed!

[nashville born]

I'm neither a lawyer or engineer.  And I'm not a card carrying member of Mensa.  Yet, I like to think I have an adequate supply of common sense.   I get all parts of the FAA regulations for safety.  Will need someone's help in understanding the issue.  

[MagicPotato]

32 minutes ago, MontanaGuy said:

If you've flown into NYC you sure can get close to all of the really tall skyscrapers there and La Guardia isn't very far from Manhattan.  It makes me wonder why that's not a problem and if they get special treatment.  If this gets cut down to just over 600 feet I'm really gonna be pissed!

Same thing with Chicago, the Chicago Midway International Airport is probably about 25 mins from Downtown. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by MagicPotato

[PillowTalk4]

Charlotte's airport is about the same distance from downtown as BNA is to Nashville's downtown.  The flight patterns in Charlotte I've experienced have been similar to those in Nashville as well.  The Bank of America building is 60 stories and 871 feet.  I just can't imagine why Nashville's skyline would be a safety issue for flight patterns taking off towards or landing from the Northwest .  When I lived in Northwest Davidson County you could see the planes go over and most of the time they'd go just northeast of Metro Center.  Has the flight pattern changed?

[UTgrad09]

On 10/4/2021 at 12:12 PM, natethegreat said:

This part of town is so hot

[LA_TN]

3 hours ago, nashville born said:

I'm neither a lawyer or engineer.  And I'm not a card carrying member of Mensa.  Yet, I like to think I have an adequate supply of common sense.   I get all parts of the FAA regulations for safety.  Will need someone's help in understanding the issue.  

That'll be a hard 'no' from the FAA allowing usage of common sense 

[MagicPotato]

If the flight pattern to the northwest is really that cumbersome, why not fly around it and then make a turn westward?  It'll add at the most 10-20 mins? What I don't get is, Nashville doesn't have any buildings over 700 feet. But Chicago/New York has a bunch of 1000 footers and their airports are able to adjust?

[Sean blackdog]

7 hours ago, dmillsphoto said:

Once runway 2L is lengthened, I think the FAA rule will dissipate as the current reasoning is; Runway 31 for a take-off path takes heavy lifts (think, Atlas 747s, the occasional Antonov pitstop) toward downtown.

July 10th.  Antonov An-124 flew above of downtown. About 2,331 feet altitude. 

[dmillsphoto]

Was gonna chime in again but Sean just nailed it ahead of me.

The logic is this: traffic departing ahead needs to, based on destination, either clear immediate departure routes to the left or right at a designated altitude. In the example with the Antonov, because big, slow, and heavy, it's advisement from tower was to change heading toward town at 2500'.  747 would likely be closer to 3,000' elevation. 787-10 would be at about 4k, but then consider that 31 is also where the ANG planes depart, which often include C5, Globemaster, etc types. Again, big and slow.  

OHare gets heavy with 747s and 787-10s, but it's runways are not oriented toward the City (strong winds and you often have heave traffic going west rather than east especially for takeoff in Chicago). Also, 14.5 miles to get to altitude.

Midway... that airport scares the piss out of me me but, it only gets narrow-body aircraft by comparison. 7.5 miles to tall buildings, which gives most departing aircraft there ample time to hit 4k elevation.

BNA is only 4.5 miles away, by comparison to the Chicago examples.

[natethegreat]

Boston logan?