Encore has to wait...

[cdub]

Nice pics of LoDo - I like the newer buildings there a lot. Nashville however doesn't have as many of those older type buildings in SoBro. And why should we limit towers to within someone's vision of the "official CBD?" Basically what you're saying is: "Here's a box, think inside of it" and "here's a line - don't cross it." Why?

No one expects that the "Plan of Nashville" is going to ever come into reality because then we'd be living in a Utopian Society. A guideline for development, yes but a strict rulebook, no.

The pics of the older structures are of NYC. Obviously we don't have that kind of building stock, just showing that the districts in which people live in NYC are of the lower scale typology. The other two pics are just west of the LoDo district in downtown Denver that is all new construction of the mid-rise residential. The interesting point is when these developers and planners were envisioning a neighborhood, they went with the mid-rise building type. This district is one in which SoBro could learn the most from as SoBro is pretty much a clean slate of parking lots and one-story manufacturing for the most part. The area in Denver was the same thing 5-10 years ago.

I listed the CDB outlines because someone had asked what the limits are. My point is the CBD doesn't cross Broadway and never should. Broadway currently has max 4 stories and will never change due to the historic nature of the existing structures. Do we create a canyon along Broadway because suddenly we want to build 20+ story towers in SoBro? I'm just arguing that the design guidelines/ utopian dreams were developed by the citizens and should be used to help guide development. 12-14 stories yes, 20+ as a variance, no. If someone wants to build a high-rise, build it in the CBD where there is plenty of open spaces yet to be developed. Enhancing the skyline should be the least important issue for people who drive by our downtown. Develop for the people who will be living in this district, creating a since of community and not the Post Card shot.

I still haven't heard a valid reason as to why I should want a tower rather than mid-rise. So far all I've gotten is 'because it will look good for passersby' and because 'I want height'. Not enough of a reason for me. Already stating that the Plan of Nashvillle is Utopian and will never be achieved means we shouldn't follow it in the first place. One step short of Utopian is way better than never trying in the first place.

[memphian]

But the only reason you have for no highrises is the same - because you don't want it. I think it could be argued that just about as many people would want a highrise as a midrise with just as many who just don't care.

Now I can meet you halfway on this point. Look at the Becaon Hill area in Boston. Becaon Hill fronts the Common and Gardens, is lowrise to midrise and then you get into the West End area. West End has some highrises. A good mixture of all building types works in many places. I just do not think it is wise to say that only within these boundaries can we have buildings of a certain height.

[FutureArchitect]

In terms of dollars, it makes sense to let developers develop in the CBD regardless of height. If people have a problem with living in an area with high rises, then don

[memphian]

You know, FutureArchitect, you do make a good point. Regardless of what height any development has it will bring construction jobs and eventually tax revenue. A taller building would house more condos and therfore have more opportunity to add more property taxes. On the other hand, taller developments (and some midrise ones too) tend to skew price ranges and affordability into areas that the normal person cannot afford. Having said that, a good base of midrise development in SoBro might lend itself to be more affordable. I just hope that the powers that be keep this in mind as we build our downtown communities (and Nashville does have some nice standards on this). In order for the area to truly be successful SoBro will need to be a place where everyone can afford to live, work and play. Hopefully we will see some development that will foster a very diverse community.

[southsideJ]

I think this is a great debate that is happening because it discusses the two (at least) possible paths that SoBro could take. One would have low to mid rises w/a real neighborhood feeling--the other would mix in some taller buildings as well. I don't disagree w/the comments on building out a neighborhood w/exclusively low to mid rises--I think great points have been made--and good examples shown. You can find examples of this type of development happening in our own city--you don't have to use Denver and NYC as examples. See Rolling Hill (and the Gulch will ultimately be built out like this as well, despite the existence of a few taller buildings--how do you all feel about the mix of height in this neighborhood?).

I still say it is a matter of taste--should Broadway be a dividing line for the CBD and for tall buildings or should the CBD be allowed to grow and expand? Living in a luxury high rise condo is obviously appealing to a lot people--it's part of what makes living in a dt area exciting and different. Towers aren't built just to add to the skyline's view from far away, but there is nothing wrong with improving the skyline--it has obvious benefits including a boost to the city's economy and appeal. I will admit I don't understand the generalized opposition to towers. I don't see an inherent problem with them. It seems to me that the reasoning for and against high rise towers is just opinion and taste.

What about the Convention Center issue? The number 1 site that seems to be mentioned is SoBro--how would this fit in? Again design would be a major issue either way, but if you are attempting to create a neighborhood w/low to mid rises--how will a convention center possibly fit in? Is there a better site for the CC? I think that the Plan of Nashville had the idea of putting it over the interstate near the Gulch. I like this idea except that it is too far from the CBD and arena. The city would have attracted an All-Star game by now except that there isn't sufficient CC space in the dt area. So it would seem to me that having it in the SoBro area makes sense.

It's good to see thoughtful discussion on the future of the city--hopefully someone important is taking it in.

[bzorch]

The idea of using mid-rise is not suggesting that we reduce the amount of development. The development would just be built over a larger area. So the taxes and wages spurred by the development would be the same. The revenue and jobs created for the city would be exponential. The amount of 1st floor retail/office opportunities would be a lot more. The first floors could be designed to accommodate both retail, office and residential uses. The flexibility would allow the area to change as needed. So it could be residential until the market was right for retail. If you took Encore

[Hankster]

In all of these talks I keep thinking back to NYC. When you look at where the height of structures are primarily, that's the Business/Tourist part of town. Look at the areas in which people live for what people want. Little Italy, China Town, Central Park West, all are typically of the mid-rise development type. Another place that reminds me specifically of SoBro is the LoDo district and new development taking off just west of downtown. This district was previously industrial and is now being built out with mid-rise/ low rise residential. It's relevance is how they've taken a blank slate and have still kept development low and at a neighborhood scale. I've got some photos and once I've figured out how to get them up, I'll post photos of both locales.

I have a daughter who lives in NYC on the lower east side. What you say about Little Italy, China Town, etc. is true that they are typically mid-rise. However, they are not only mid-rise. In everyone of the areas, there is a sprinkling of highrise as well, and the trend is to add more highrise when new construction does take place. These areas all have neighborhood appeal with this mixture of mid and highrise architecture. I personnaly like it as well. I expect thatwhat we will ultimately end up with in SoBro is just that as well.

If you look at Vancouver, you will see a city that is mostly highrise (15 to 20 stories) that has a very distinctive yet neighborhood feel as well. New construction there is going even higher as well.

[cdub]

Vancouver and NYC are different beasts in they're own right due to the density they already have. Nashville is far from those cities as we've got a central core for all intents and purposes surrounded by parking lot. In those situations(NYC and Vancouver), it somewhat makes sense to build higher because the land costs are astronomical. I would argue that over time this could have a negative affect on these neighborhoods as the lower scaled structures are wiped out to accommodate the high rises. For SoBro, it feels like we're putting the cart before the horse.

NYC's neighborhood scale is what brought people to those areas in the first place, not the high rises. Lay the foundation for a great neighborhood that is humanly scaled and speckled highrises can be accommodated in a less 'in your face' manner. Placing appropriate setbacks at certain heights help to maintain the pedestrian scaled feel while allowing the highrises (if they're deemed appropriate) to come in.

It seems a lot of this discussion with Encore could be resolved if the developers looked at placing the parking underground. Take away 7 levels of above ground parking structure and we're around the 13-15 story bldg ht. It seems the parking is being used to 'buy' additional height, raising the living units higher while giving an unarticulated lower section of building (except for 1st floor retail and one side on 3rd Ave that has condos as building skin.)

bzorch has a strong argument in 'spreading the wealth'. Why build up just because we can? We can also stay lower and create great neigborhoods. In Nashville alone, the precedents for creating neighborhoods from lower rise structures is happening - the Gulch(exception being the ICON) and Rolling Mill Hill. These developments will become the go-to place for people wanting to live downtown.

[bzorch]

I have always heard great things about Vancouver and hope to visit in the near future. While researching more about it, I found the following sites that are worth a look:

Great Discussion of Vancouver

[it's just dave]

Vancouver is a fascinating place and the aerials are nothing short of amazing. Unfortunately, with our population so often feeling the need to "spread out far and wide" I don't think we'll see that type of density in a long, long time, if ever. But, in our own way, I don't think allowing the "Vancouver Style" would be a bad thing in SoBro. A few towers on top of street level commerical/retail certainly wouldn't discourage a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Where are the pedestrians going to live anyway? Not everyone is going to drive into town to walk the streets...the people need to live there, and lots of them.

[Hankster]

Thanks Bzorch! Those were great pictures of Vancouver. It seems to me that if you're interested in living in downtown, there's a high probablity that you either want to live in a highrise with a view or a midrise with a nice street feel. I just don't see why we shouldn't want to have some of both (highrise and midrise) in SoBro. I think that would be the natural evolution of development there. It's so very highly unlikely that only highrise or only midrise would be constructed there. And let's not assume that people wouldn't want to live closely together in a similar fashion to Vancouver in the SoBro area. It's downtown, for Christ's sake! If people are interested in living downtown, they won't have an aversion to density. Besides, I think that by developing Nashville in a way that's different from many of the other cities in the Southeast, we separate ourselves from the others by offering something unique and desirable that others would only expect to find in larger cities such as New York, San Francisco, or Vancouver.

[NewTowner]

Thanks Bzorch! Those were great pictures of Vancouver. It seems to me that if you're interested in living in downtown, there's a high probablity that you either want to live in a highrise with a view or a midrise with a nice street feel. I just don't see why we shouldn't want to have some of both (highrise and midrise) in SoBro. I think that would be the natural evolution of development there. It's so very highly unlikely that only highrise or only midrise would be constructed there. And let's not assume that people wouldn't want to live closely together in a similar fashion to Vancouver in the SoBro area. It's downtown, for Christ's sake! If people are interested in living downtown, they won't have an aversion to density. Besides, I think that by developing Nashville in a way that's different from many of the other cities in the Southeast, we separate ourselves from the others by offering something unique and desirable that others would only expect to find in larger cities such as New York, San Francisco, or Vancouver.

Yes, but the Encore is inappropriately designed and massed for its site. The Schermerhorn is not "mid-rise" development. It is a totally different kind of building, and requires more sophisticated, or at least quieter, neighbors than a generic sheer-wall of glass and some anonymous cladding.

That is the point. It is about the Schermerhorn.

[Kheldane]

The revenue and jobs created for the city would be exponential.

^I don't see any way that could be possible. Exponential? The amount of jobs and revenue will be directly proportional to the size of the development. A 30-story development will provide 3 times the tax revenue as a 10-story development, and take 3 times as long to build, thus providing 3 times the employment.

[tomcampion]

^I don't see any way that could be possible. Exponential? The amount of jobs and revenue will be directly proportional to the size of the development. A 30-story development will provide 3 times the tax revenue as a 10-story development, and take 3 times as long to build, thus providing 3 times the employment.

Proportional seems about right, but instead of having one 30-story development imagine having three 10-story developments. Wouldn't the economic impact be the same?

[Hankster]

Yes, but the Encore is inappropriately designed and massed for its site. The Schermerhorn is not "mid-rise" development. It is a totally different kind of building, and requires more sophisticated, or at least quieter, neighbors than a generic sheer-wall of glass and some anonymous cladding.

That is the point. It is about the Schermerhorn.

That fact of the matter is that whatever view is made on this subject, it is one person's opinion. We don't see eye to eye on this one, because it is a subjective argument. I haven't got a problem at all with a massive wall of glass next to a building such as the Schermerhorn. I like the diversity and contrast. Sure, I wouldn't mind if the Encore is tweaked a bit, but I'm fine with design as it is. Basically, it's all a matter of opinion, and we all have one. I consider myself a believer in democracy. If the majority feels your way, then I'm OK with that because the majority gets what they like best. Still, when I look at the picture of Vancouver which I posted, I see a lot of the contrasting architectural styles that we would get by building the Encore as designed next to the Schermerhorn. I rather like what I see in that picture.

[Kheldane]

Proportional seems about right, but instead of having one 30-story development imagine having three 10-story developments. Wouldn't the economic impact be the same?

No, because i'm not talking about three 10-story developments, I'm talking about three 30-story developments. If this crazieness about height restrictions can be overcome, there's no telling how tall developers will see fit to build. I really need to vent my frustration about his whole issue:

Height restrictions? HA! If person X buys land next to person Y and person X builds a skyscraper 50-stories tall and person Y doesn't like it ----my response to person Y is "Who cares? It's not your property. If you really cared so much you would have bought the lot and made a parking lot or park." If person Y then complains that they didn't have the money to buy the lot and control its use then my further response would be "So you want to control someone else's land without paying for it? Why? Why should their property rights be thrown in the garbage? Why should their financial investment be jeapordized? Why should you be allowed to hijack their downtown lot and control it's usage? Why should the city utilize it's vast instutional powers to help you exercise control over a lot that you don't own and don't even have the potential to own? Why should your fellow tax-payer's money be diverted towards helping you exert control over property that you couldn't even purchase in the open market?" I would then expect person Y to rattle off some reasons like "that skyscraper affects the value of my land, and puts traffic on my street", or "that skyscraper blocks my sunlight", or "that skyscraper ruins the view of my building from xxx street", or "that skyscraper steals my customers" or any number of self-serving and ego-centric reasons. My third response to person Y is "You bought property downtown, you know that people build buildings downtown all the time, and you bought one lot with air-space extending directly upward. You did not purchase an expanding cone of air-space that guarantees you constant sunlight or a view of the sunset. You did not purchase a set amount of traffic on your fronting street. You did not purchase immunity from competition. You did not purchase a guarantee that the architechural integrity of your block will remain the same forever. I say, be glad you own the lot you do and work with it, and pay no attention to your neighbors unless they tresspass onto your lot or destroy your building."

Sorry - but I feel much better now!

[NewTowner]

Rome is better than Vancouver, although Vancouver has its moments. Florence is better than Las Vegas, which has none.

The current debate is not subjective argument, but rather the bitter clash of different urban design priorities based on different sets of experiences, some of which quite frankly appear more complete than others. While post-modern relativists would have us all express our opinions in the cooperative containment of our own broom closets, rather than pursue real change, I will be controversial by stating the obvious: one side of this fight is right, and one is wrong.

Florence is not better for SOME PEOPLE than Las Vegas. It is just better. Vitamins are good for you. Falling off your roof is dangerous. Paris is better for the human spirit than Detroit. These are just facts.

It is hard to imagine the beauty and comfort and dignity of a neighborhood full of mid-rises if the "imaginer" has never experienced one. But the sheer slam-bang bigness of skyscrapers requires little imagination to appreciate.

Expressed in the vocabulary of of a different artform (movies) which Americans actually tend to understand: Human-scaled urbanism can be compared to a "good plot and script", while super-sized object architecture is kind of like "computer-generated special effects." It is possible to have to have both in the same "film" (movie), but if one must choose between them--grown-ups pick the former, because there is meat and bone and real durable value...as opposed to the zing-bang pop of Pokemon toy-collecting which a city full of selfish and gigantic "objects" becomes (again, Las Vegas).

That said...

No one wants to force Tony to build a mid-rise building...at least, no one has said so. I personally am merely arguing that the Encore, worst-case scenario, should be massed in such a way to create a mid-rise street wall right up to the property line--and then after six stories be set back some feet from the sidewalk before climbing up the remaining high-rise portion. In the spirit of compromise, I am only suggesting that this should be done on THE SIDE WHICH FACES THE SCHERMERHORN. I also demand noble materials and embellishment, and I do do with the same vigor that I would demand a coat and tie at my brother's wedding. Decorum, my good folks! Read some Virtuvius or some Alberti, for crying out loud...

Die-hard fanboy skyscraper panic-love should not create a wall of "uh-uh!! uh-uh!!" whenever a high-rise's appropriateness is challenged by critics of monolithic design. The spirit of openness and dialogue which normally characterizes this forum has been painfully lacking on the part of those who seem unwilling to give even one inch of idealogical ground to those of us who want to see Nashville grow and develop in a more human-scaled way than giant towers permit. After all, we are only begging for the bit of Nashville which is south of Broadway. In my case, I am only begging for the amalgam of lots surrounding the Schermerhorn Symphony Center, which could end up being really, really special.

[ATLBrain]

Listen up guys. Tony will get his tower. The question is: Will it be 20 stories or 23?

[Guest]

NewTowner

I agree with some of your sentiments but to be once again Nashville is not Florence or Paris or for that matter Charleston, SC. Nashville is a relatively young city (growthwise) that is starting to spread her wings. Now if we can not but a 23 story tower in the central business district where can we build one? The spaces in the core (Broadway - James Robertson and 9th - 2nd Ave) will quickly be populates (say within the next 20 years) and Midtown seems to have its own development philosphy so really SoBro is the logical choice. With a Convention Center Debate about to begin that will occupy 6-8 blocks plus a HQ hotel tower (30-40 stories) and a new ballpark (please, please, please) and associated development planned I think that the growth in the area can sustain some tower develpment over the long haul. But I also agree that maybe a redesign would work better...it is just not my call.

[NewTowner]

NewTowner

I agree with some of your sentiments but to be once again Nashville is not Florence or Paris or for that matter Charleston, SC. Nashville is a relatively young city (growthwise) that is starting to spread her wings. Now if we can not but a 23 story tower in the central business district where can we build one? The spaces in the core (Broadway - James Robertson and 9th - 2nd Ave) will quickly be populates (say within the next 20 years) and Midtown seems to have its own development philosphy so really SoBro is the logical choice. With a Convention Center Debate about to begin that will occupy 6-8 blocks plus a HQ hotel tower (30-40 stories) and a new ballpark (please, please, please) and associated development planned I think that the growth in the area can sustain some tower develpment over the long haul. But I also agree that maybe a redesign would work better...it is just not my call.

I am not saying we cannot put a 23-story building next to the Schermerhorn. I am just saying that I think the building should be designed with finer detail, and set back from the sidewalk after the first six stories or so...this is commonly done with highrises, and I would be happy to give some examples if needed.

[it's just dave]

Maybe I'm the only one who watches the zoning meetings, but probably not. I may be the only one who watches the re-runs of the zoning meetings, but probably not. What I've gathered from this is that you can throw some of these renderings to the wind. Tony and his team have done much redesign on this building. In the photo, there is already a setback, a setback that he's increased since the renderings were done. Sure, the 3rd Avenue side will rise from the sidewalk, but 3rd is a street of a different personality...a back door if you will. The picture where the cars are parked show the Almond Street retail corridor, a new street when this project is built. Currently, the pictures have shown a garage rising to 6-7 floors, then the setback for the tower itself, which is quite narrow. What you don't see are the 60 condos that have been added to wrap the garage on the Almond Side above the retail. There couldn't possibly be setbacks on both sides of the tower because of the narrow nature of the tower already. Many changes have been made to this project to accomodate the concerns of various bodies of decision makers. The main sticking point is setting a precedent for three floors higher than the planning commission will recommend. There is no statutes currently to prevent this height, the commissions just want to be careful not to start something they can't stop. Just build the darn thing, this will never be Florence or Paris or Rome, and it never will be. But this tower will do nothing to prevent sensible and attractive development south of Broad. This is one of two major, much needed catalysts to propel this area into high gear. I'm with you, bound, ballpark, please, please, please.

[Nashvillain]

Lots of people on this forum are down with the aesthetically thoughtful building of a more urban Nashville. A lot of us are also, unfortunately, human, and we don't have hundreds of years to wait for Nashville to become Paris or Florence. Given contemporary values and priorities however, Nashville will probably more closely resemble L.A. in a hundred years than any ancient European cities.

Please forgive our lack of sophistication, we just want to see cool stuff get built while we're still relatively young. The good thing about the built environment is that it can be unbuilt, too. Future generations can make changes to what we do. I'm sure there has been a lot of stopping and starting, building and demolishing, adding on, etc. in places like Florence and NYC. That's the good thing about a vibrant urban environment, it's always changing. Any wrong moves aren't irrevocable mistakes. It's just exciting to see things being done in our humble little city.

[cdub]

There is no statutes currently to prevent this height, the commissions just want to be careful not to start something they can't stop.

Actually, there are restrictions/ guidelines on height in the Metro Zoning code. All along I've(and others) been presenting the benefits of mid-rise/ pedestrian friendly developments. Buildings can be manipulated so that you've got the best of both worlds. Take a look at the Vancouver pics again. They are high rises, yes, but look closely at the lower floors and how some have a relationship to the street. There was a great photo in this month's Architecture mag showing the Hearst Headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. I tried to find a link but their website had nothing. This photo illustrated this point to a 'T'. 4-6 stories of pedestrian scaled facade, then step back to 20-30+ high rise.

IPB Image

Now, if also done some research of my own to see what can actually be built in this area. Some of our issues have to deal with the height setbacks. Yes, there are some, but there are not setbacks directly abutting the Symphony. Here are some numbers done by looking into the zoning code(Kheldane, this is what keeps people from doing whatever they want, its been around for awhile.)

All info is based on the CF zoning district(again, not the CC which is the core, this area by definition is to support the CC, or call in the CBD if you'd like, regardless, this site isn't in the CBD)

Height- 65' at all setbacks

Since developers in this area can build to the property line, this 65' height would apply to all sides of the building because of the building being built to the sidewalk. This would translate into 5-6 story height.

At this point under current code, you must then take into account the sky plane. the slope for this district is 1.5' vertical for every 1' horizontal. Using the dimensions of the narrowest side (between Almond and 3rd) and taking into account the sky plane, the max. height I can get is 161' (13-16 stories depending on the floor to floor heights). This would also make the top floor only 24' wide, a point in which I would think a breach in skyplan would be warranted. It could be built, but would be quite restrictive from a developer's point of view.

I understand with some sites being narrow that some situations warrant breaching the sky plane. The are I don't agree with is not respecting the 65' max. height at setbacks. Dave, if you have any new links to the most recent renderings, would you mind posting them. All I've seen are what were presented at the BZA and in the paper. Has their website been updated?

I can meet in the middle on this issue if the setbacks are respected on all sides. After all, this is an urban area and at some point all sides will see development across from them. I still feel that mid-rise developments offer the most value when creating a great neighborhood, which is what I think we all want in the end.

If height is an issue, will losing a couple floors be that bad? Or worse yet, put the parking underground?!!(gasp) Let's say in order to make it work, the developer needs the 300 units. A rule of thumb on the economics of parking is $12,000 per space for above ground and $20,000 per space for below ground. If, to make his numbers work and potentially putting half, 250 of the proposed 500, of the parking below ground (3 levels if he was planning on seven or so), that would equate to:

above ground-250 spaces $3 million

below ground-250 spaces $5 million

Net loss of approximately $2 million. Is that a loss that will break the bank? Heck, most developers build in a contingency (roughly 10%) just for things that can(and usually will) go wrong. If losing $2 million on an $80 million development (2.5% for those interested) causes its demise, than maybe it wasn't such a good idea in the first place.

And hey, if he takes away 3 stories from the 20 that the Planning Dept. is considering, then we're looking at a height (16-17 stories) that's allowed. If they respect the 65' setback height, I think most of us are fine with allowing a variance in the sky plane to allow the building more floor plate area higher up.

The issue with setback is quite simple and gives a best of both worlds. From a distance, for you interstate users who'd like to see the skyline improve on your way to Cool Springs or Brentwood, you get your height. At the pedestrian level, for those of us who want to feel comfortable walking around downtown, a six story height when standing next to the building is much less overwhelming. Where do most people walk when downtown? 2nd Ave. I know some people enjoy walking near the Bellsouth Tower(especially along 3rd). I for one, want to get on Broadway or 2nd Ave as soon as possible to get back to something that feels comfortable.

[doormanpoet]

Brilliant post cdub!

I am under the belief that towers 20 stories and more belong in the CBD. One reason is purely aesthetic. Having a gradual slope up to a towering CBD is quite impressive. Atlanta lacks that due to the fact they have 600 foot buildings going up in mid-town when surface parking lots are numerous in downtown and the CBD.

I always knew West End Summit was due to fail for that reason. I can only imagine the skyplane variances Palmer needed to secure for that development. Palmer Plaza should have been downtown, not on West End next to one and two story buildings.

I love Tony's vision, but with the amount of surface parking lots in the CBD that are crying for development, it would behoove him to finish what he started on Church Street. Richard Fletcher of the 511 group needs to build NCC2 now, or sell the lot to Tony so he could put a development across from the Cumberland.

If Tony proceeds with Sobro development, than buildings of no more than 5-10 stories should be the max. Remember, the Hilton is 10 stories but 125 feet. That is tall enough. Downtowns greatest feature are the hills of 5th, 6th, and 7th Avenues and the views from Rolling Mill Hill. Towers in the Gulch, Adelicia Street, West End and Sobro are not appropriate untill the downtown core is filled in.

I am not against Icon, Adelicia etc., but I wish they were downtown say on the empty lots west of the Capitol rather than having crime ridden empty parking lots there.

[bzorch]

Thanks for the information Cdub. BTW here is a link the Hearst Building you mentioned. http://www.hearstcorp.com/tower/gallery/

If the Planning Commission decides to give Encore twenty-stories and the developer still wants to keep all of the leasable space then just build the 3-stories of parking underground. Other developers seem to be able to do it all over town.

In the end, I do not think one building will destroy SoBro