Jump to content

Encore has to wait...


it's just dave

Recommended Posts

Please help me understand, why towers are such an important component to accomplish this. What do they offer? This is assuming that everyone in this discussion wants an urban mixed-use neighborhood. If that is not what you think SoBro should be, then what is your vision?

My personal vision is to not plan the development of SoBro at all. My preference is to let tony and others like him build whatever they think the market demands, without regard for an overall plan. Will wal-mart build a super-center in SoBro? Obviously not because that's not a good location for their type of business. Will Exxon buld an oil refinery in SoBro? Obviously not because there's no rail access and no oil pipeline on the downtown side. Will Nasa build a space shuttle launching facility in SoBro? Obviously not - the space is too crowded.

So what does the market demand from SoBro? What do future condo purchasers and shoppers demand of SoBro?? I say no one in nashville is better suited to answer those two questions than developers like tony and his peers. Why do I say this? Because they are the ones who do the math and research the market and put their necks on the line to create a new condo or shopping destinations, so they're going to try really hard to get maximum utility out of every square foot!

Why is this important? Because if you have a scare resource like downtown real-estate, you need to maximize utility. By not allowing 3 more floors, what does the government accomplish??? They know the market demands three floors because tony has done the math and there's no way in hell he's going to build 3 floors that will sit empty. So what does the govt. accomplish by denying consumers these condominiums??? I can't see any positive side to what they're doing.

Aesthetics?? - - HA! Since when does creating artificial shortages of downtown square-footage pass off as aesthetics. Who says mid-rises are more human scale? That's just opinion. I see humans walk by the bell south tower daily and they do not run and cower in fear. I say ESB in NY is human scale - - -who's going to prove me wrong? How could it not be human scale? It's built to house humans!!! What is it, elephant scale? Forget Paris. Paris is trash. Nashville doesn't need to block access to dowtown condo space just to pay homage to Paris. Paris is nothing. Let Paris be Paris and forget about copying it. Even if you had an exact replica of the whole city everyone would still say the real paris is better because of the french joi de vieve (spelling??:ph34r:).

My vision of SoBro is to let developers make it how ever the want to make it, regardless of my opinion. I just don't like to see these nobodies in the metro govt. come in and say "but what if you do this?...have you thought about that...?". Shut up zoning board!! Who are you? Nobody, that's who. I don't see any zoning board members building new towers, so who are they? They've built nothing - they know nothing. Their opinions are trivial and amateurish. ....and more importantly - their opinions are irrelevent to the condo-buying public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I simply want controlled growth so we don't become a Dallas or Atlanta. My experience in Canada opened my eyes to a few things. Canadians and Europeans have great repect for their natural environments. Sprawl is not a consideration to them. In Toronto, all the tall towers are in one place, and everything gets smaller the further out of the city you go.

I am not against growth in Sobro, West End or the Gulch, but I don't want 20 plus towers outside the CBD when the CBD needs development badly in some areas.

I thought West End Summit was too ambitious. 900,000 square feet is a lot to fill when some towers downtown are only 80 percent leased. I love Suntrust Plaza, but I wish it were 20 stories or more. I may not be knowledgeable enough, but it would seem to me that property taxes downtown are going to be high anyway, so why not build higher to get the most out of the land you are using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aesthetics?? - - HA! Since when does creating artificial shortages of downtown square-footage pass off as aesthetics. Who says mid-rises are more human scale? That's just opinion. I see humans walk by the bell south tower daily and they do not run and cower in fear. I say ESB in NY is human scale - - -who's going to prove me wrong? How could it not be human scale? It's built to house humans!!! What is it, elephant scale?

Geez. Look, we all want Nashville to be alive, vibrant, good lookin', and fun. I want that, Kheldane wants that, everybody wants that and we are all special.

But Kheldane, your reference to the Empire State Building in New York was a bit of a blunder. You don't know your history, despite the fact that you speak with the authoritative tones of one who has a big picture-approach rooted in knowledge and experience. You do not possess such an approach, though I have no doubt your passion will one day lead you to acquire one.

The Empire State Building is stepped back from the sidewalk after the first few stories. Then, it is stepped back again, and then again. And then, again and again and again. Why is it stepped back? Developer creativity and freedom? WRONG. There are laws in New York City designed to control the design of high-rise buildings. These laws demand that buildings past six stories or so withdraw their heavy mass from the public realm beneath...only 25% of any given building's footprint is allowed indefinite height. These laws were put into place after the Lower Manhattan disaster of the Equitable Building, designed by E. R. Graham in 1912. That building put the entire world beneath it into shadow, and was so poorly scaled that it offended the entire neighborhood.

It is not "elephant scaled," because it is so much bigger than that. The Empire State Building was coerced into a design which respected the public realm and the RELATIVE SIZE OF HUMAN BEINGS, which IS NOT SUBJECTIVE, because all humans SHARE IT. Otherwise, like the Equitable Building, it probably would have just been a solid block rising from a solid site. Developer creativity was created in an atmosphere of PUBLIC VISION for a city of glory and humanity.

As for your rabid rants about Paris...please. You obviously need to get out of Brentwood and experience the world. If you are prejudiced against the French, than allow me to list a small number of other cities which all kick Nashville's posterier into the Backyard of Old Backwards McJackwards and his Run-Down Pups: Dresden (despite being blown up), Salamanca, Charleston, Toronto, Amsterdam, Luzern, Krakow (despite being blown up), Siena, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, New York, Berlin, Large Parts of Chicago, Ancient Pompeii, and Oxford all come readily to mind. Everyone but you agrees that these cities offer more rewarding built environments than Nashville, despite the Cologne Cathedral-rivaling Batman Building and all of its inarticulate ramblings on the street level.

I love Nashville. I am fighting for Nashville...I am getting a Masters in Architectural History specifically because I hope to one day return to Nashville and join the fray. But please...don't be so aggressive and mean-spirited about this issue. You are passionate and committed to your Polis, which puts us in the same 1%, and that is a lot in common. Let us remember to respect each other, and show a little humility in these big arguments about the future of our home!

Great places are RARELY accidents, Kheldane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be knowledgeable enough, but it would seem to me that property taxes downtown are going to be high anyway, so why not build higher to get the most out of the land you are using?

Your question brings up the oft-cited issue of Badly Needed Property Tax Reform...but buildings themselves are taxed, not just land. The taller the building, the greater its supposed value, the higher the taxes.

But the economics of taxes and everything else certainly tend to encourage big buildings. And big buildings are not necessarily bad, in and of themselves...they just require the big following of big rules in order to control their impact on the street, skyline, sitelines, etc..

I personally don't care for big buildings, but I am also a realist and don't want to be a dictator. I just say they need to behave in a responsible way if we are going to invite these monsters to the wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice points Kheldane. Until someone else is building in SoBro then we as consumers have the choice to buy into what is there (or being built) or don't buy. There is nothing wrong with controlling growth but I will say again that limiting vertical growth to within a relatively small cbd is a bad decision. Yes, there are plenty of places within the cbd that could use a tower - but no one is building them. Why is that? My suggestion for those land owners/wanna be developers is to either poop or get off the pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Empire State Building is stepped back from the sidewalk after the first few stories. Then, it is stepped back again, and then again. And then, again and again and again. Why is it stepped back? Developer creativity and freedom? WRONG. There are laws in New York City designed to control the design of high-rise buildings.

I'm well aware of the step-backs on ESB - having been there twice. And I'm well aware of the step back laws in NYC. Perhaps I should have use the twin towers as an example. I really like the Chase Bank Building in Houston - no stepbacks there. Or how about the new Four Seasons Hotel in Miami? But listen, that's all beside the point. If all you saw was ESB and thought "ha, ESB has stepbacks, that proves kheldane is wrong", then you missed the point of my post completely. I'm saying the very term "Human Scale" is completely meaningless and of absolutely no use when describing buildings. The very concept that tall buildings are something dangerous that must be controlled is wrong-headed. What do I think about NYC's stepbacks? -- idiotic. Would NYC be any less of an awsome world-class metro if all buildings swept directly up to their roofline from the sidewalk? Heck no! Or at at least, my opinion is heck no. We can both agree that everyone has their own opinion. What I'm objecting to is the idea that anyone's opinion besides that of the land owner/developer matters (in terms of what actually gets built).

EDIT: One more thing: In terms of humility; I believe I'm way out ahead of you in that category. I'm arguing that everyone (especially the zoning board and anyone who goes before it to lobby) should respect the property rights of the rightful landowners. I consider it the height of arrogance for a non-land owner to presume to dictate design elements to the real owners. The future consumers of the proposed condos will be sufficient judges of the quality of those condos. If they find it lacking, then it will stand empty. But, considering the money invested, I doubt the design submitted has overlooked any major requirements that condo purchasers would require. As Memphian said, if you don't like the design, don't buy a condo in Encore. But don't misunderstand me: It's our luxury as forumers to be nay-sayers or over-boosters. I'm objecting to the zoning board - which uses (ultimately) the police power of the city to unilaterlally impose their will upon tony (to which I have no personal allegiance - he's simply a convenient example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To call the Planning Department nobody's because they do not agree with you is inappropriate. I very disappointed no one else has said this already. I thought this place was for discussions not disparaging people.

I find it funny that we still keep coming back about imposing controls on the Encore. I guess the problem is the title of the topic. If you look at the great urban neighborhoods in the United States and Abroad they are not typically composed of towers. This is about what is the most effective urban form that these great places embody.

If all the proposed development in SoBro was proposed as mid-rise by developers, would it then be consider a good idea? Would whatever developers dream up be a great idea? Our current state of affairs proves that this is not true for the majority of development. Would many of you argue that the developer should have to build higher? If so, what would your arguments be? I am desperately trying to understand what you like about towers.

If you look at the downtown the majority of the buildings are well under 20 stories. Second Avenue and Broadway are the more pedestrian-friendly areas of the downtown and they are 7 stories at the highest.

There is such a thing as human scale. It has been a guiding principle throughout history. One does stand in awe next to the Empire State Building, but it does make them feel small. As the winds rush down the sides and blow them down the street, they do not feel anymore comfortable. If a tower does acknowledge the pedestrian realm, then they can mitigate their impact at the street level.

How can you love Amsterdam and then say that European cities are not great examples? http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18105

These photos are great example of what I am talking about.

For those you want to explore some of these cities from their desktop, some great site are

Microsoft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm objecting to is the idea that anyone's opinion besides that of the land owner/developer matters (in terms of what actually gets built).

......

I'm objecting to the zoning board - which uses (ultimately) the police power of the city to unilaterlally impose their will upon tony (to which I have no personal allegiance - he's simply a convenient example).

So...according to your argument: if I buy the lot next to your house, I should be allowed to erect a building, made of fiberglass and paper-mache, which is designed to resemble an erect penis? Maybe I'm a porn mogul, and I want to live in some balls with a giant penis tower soaring into the sky? A fountain appropriately placed? Would you respect my rights as a landowner then, or would you think some civic accountability would be in order? Would you expect the zoning board to have something to say on the issue? Maybe I am not even violating a height restriction...maybe the penis is a little stubby.

Would you rather have the strong arm of the state (which can be wielded by a democratically elected body), or the giant phallus of anarchy and selfishness? Your argument sounds so black-and-white, but it isn't, and I am wondering where you draw the line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is such a thing as human scale. It has been a guiding principle throughout history. One does stand in awe next to the Empire State Building, but it does make them feel small. As the winds rush down the sides and blow them down the street, they do not feel anymore comfortable. If a tower does acknowledge the pedestrian realm, then they can mitigate their impact at the street level.

Ah, yes...throughout all of history, in every culture, independently developed principles regarding human scale have been the same. And this can only be because...

We are all essentially the same size and shape, though we are blessed with surface variation to keep things interesting.

Bzorch rulez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes...throughout all of history, in every culture, independently developed principles regarding human scale have been the same. And this can only be because...

We are all essentially the same size and shape, though we are blessed with surface variation to keep things interesting.

Bzorch rulez.

[/quote

Weren't those priniples of scale only relevent or binding because the technology had not been developed to create really tall buildings? The desire to build monumental buildings has always been present. As soon as people aquired the means to build massive buildings, they did. I've never been to Egypt but I would be willing to say that the great pyramids aren't very human in scale. The same with the gothic cathedrals. They were built as a testament to creation and as such they reached as far heavenward as they could. They're purpose was to inspire awe and wonder and in a sense overwhelm the senses of the individual viewer and remind them of their place in the cosmos. They serve as a metaphor for the creation of the universe. Certainly, in whatever culture and time period you wish to name, there has been an impulse by man to build massive and monumental buildings and I would argue that the impetus was not to build on a human scale but to try and compete with God and build things that are as awe inspiring and majestic as His creation. Maybe in our era, the theme has switched from building monuments to God to building monuments to ourselves and our vanity and percieved power and wealth, but the drive to create is the same.

Anyway, that's part of my argument in favor of towers.

And, to clarify, I speak of god in a general sense as a concept that relates across cultures and time that can include pre-christian or new world religions and cosmologies. I probably should not have capitalized the word which implies a jewish, christian or islamic tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To call the Planning Department nobody's because they do not agree with you is inappropriate. I very disappointed no one else has said this already. I thought this place was for discussions not disparaging people.

If all the proposed development in SoBro was proposed as mid-rise by developers, would it then be consider a good idea? Would whatever developers dream up be a great idea? .

How can you love Amsterdam and then say that European cities are not great examples? http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=18105

You seem awfully desparate to find or create some reason to question my credibility. The focus our little sub-discussion should remain on the issue that I've raised: What valid claims of control over land do non-land owners have over land owners? And secondary to this: What possible motivations might some over-bearing people have for attempting to impose their will and sense of taste upon others, who have wronged them in no way?

You've misquoted me above - I didn't call the planning department "nobodies" because I disagree with them, I'm calling them "nobodies" because they don't own the land encore is to be built on. That means (in my opinion) they have no say in what gets built. I'm saying the planning board is completely unnecessary in the process of buying land, building condos, and selling condos. They provide no worthwhile contribution to the process of supplying the public with condos that will satisfy their needs.

And to answer any doubts you may have about my taste in european cities: I love them all, Paris and Amsterdam being two of my favorites. But in the context of this discussion, I believe we owe them no deference in terms of designing buildings in nashville tennessee. My opinions about Amsterdam serve as a perfect example of this: The things that make amsterdam great like a freedom-loving populace and self-confident open-mindedness are what make amsterdam amsterdam. A silly little decoration on some bulding or a lack of tall buildings does not make amsterdam what it is - in my opinion. So when I say nashville should be like amsterdam in terms of tolerance and respect of social liberties - - -that in no way obligates me to say nashville's architecture should mirror that of amsterdam.

And to answer your question about SoBro - no I would like to see a mixed architectural finished product - with more retail and greater street activity - my goals for the area are probably similar yours. The only difference is that I'm quite willing to deal with whatever the property owners see fit to build and I'm also very eager to defend their right to build whatever they want because I'd expect them to do the same for me. I do not presume to compromise their property rights to satisfy my own tastes - do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...according to your argument: if I buy the lot next to your house, I should be allowed to erect a building, made of fiberglass and paper-mache, which is designed to resemble an erect penis? Maybe I'm a porn mogul, and I want to live in some balls with a giant penis tower soaring into the sky? A fountain appropriately placed? Would you respect my rights as a landowner then, or would you think some civic accountability would be in order? Would you expect the zoning board to have something to say on the issue? Maybe I am not even violating a height restriction...maybe the penis is a little stubby.

Would you rather have the strong arm of the state (which can be wielded by a democratically elected body), or the giant phallus of anarchy and selfishness? Your argument sounds so black-and-white, but it isn't, and I am wondering where you draw the line...

To answer your question, yes, I would respect your right to build your penis building. And I would help defend you against the neighbors on your other sides who would no-doubt try to impose on your right to build your penis dream house. One thing that's great about America: The persuit of happiness. Where do I draw the line, sir? Right on the property line between my lot and your lot !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question, yes, I would respect your right to build your penis building. And I would help defend you against the neighbors on your other sides who would no-doubt try to impose on your right to build your penis dream house. One thing that's great about America: The persuit of happiness. Where do I draw the line, sir? Right on the property line between my lot and your lot !!

LMAO at all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle with the idea of property rights. In the end, I must side on an individual's right for expression and choice. It is the American way though it can be frustrating at time. So many times, the results are disappointing. Greed, ignorance and lack of vision has squandered so many opportunities. I do believe I do not have to agree with their decision. Zoning and building codes have been proven to be consititutional, so I believe developers should have to abide by them. These codes are a result of a democratic process and we must respect them. I know first hand that codes can limit the creativity of developers. Unitl recently, mixed-use was frowned upon. Luckily this is changing. Do we want Nashville to look like Houston which has no zoning.

http://www.photohome.com/photos/texas-pict...-houston-4.html

I hope not.

Thinking about this issue reminds me of when I was in China and I visited the Shanghai Planning Department for a presentation of a model of the New Pudong District.

http://pudong.shanghaichina.org/

http://www.molon.de/galleries/China/Shanghai/NPudong/

It is amazing because of the magnitude of the plan. They were moving everyone out of an area the size of a large American city (130,000 acres) and demolishing it and starting a new. The power the Chinese government exercised was scary. It makes it much easier for planners to fulfill their vision by doing what they like, but it also takes away from the evolution of a place which often gives it character. The neighborhoods we have discussed did not happen overnight.

I am participating in this discussion because I believe that I may convince someone that the cities we have mentioned have a lot to offer, are worth aspiring to and that the large towers while they may be magnificent engineering feats and create a cool skyline, they may not ultimately create a great urban mixed-use neighborhood. I feel towers are often used to express power and to create a sculptural object. They may benefit the people in them, but do they create a neighborhood. The large McMansions are desirable to people and they buy them everyday, but I personally do not feel that they create a community. Unfortunately, as a citizen we do have to live with the consequences of others actions. If they effect the health safety and welfare of the community then they need to be regulated. However, this to can be interpreted broadly.

Of course, this is my opinion and I do have the right to express it. Just as you do yours. That is why I felt this discussion goes beyond Encore. It is not about controling the Encore, it about getting everyone to express their vision and to understand each other. I could never understand why everyone gets so excited over towers. I like them when I read an architectural magazine, but in person they are not a friendly place. Maybe I am missing something.

BTW Check out the new zoning category SP http://www.nashville.org/mpc/ordinances/bl2005_762.htm. It offers developers a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and Council must bless it, so you have to convince them. Basically, you can great your own zoning category and its parameters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle with the idea of property rights. In the end, I must side on an individual's right for expression and choice. It is the American way though it can be frustrating at time. So many times, the results are disappointing. Greed, ignorance and lack of vision has squandered so many opportunities. I do believe I do not have to agree with their decision. Zoning and building codes have been proven to be consititutional, so I believe developers should have to abide by them. These codes are a result of a democratic process and we must respect them. I know first hand that codes can limit the creativity of developers. Unitl recently, mixed-use was frowned upon. Luckily this is changing. Do we want Nashville to look like Houston which has no zoning.

http://www.photohome.com/photos/texas-pict...-houston-4.html

I hope not.

...

Here, here. Property rights are--of course--not to be taken lightly, just like every other Natural Right. These are, according to the American Revolution, best described as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and to serve our common point, the "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned in as "property" by the hand our hallowed framers.

But of course, the unlimited exercise of liberty by one citizen will invariably infringe upon the liberty of another, and so our individual freedoms are restricted in order to protect the larger body politic from tyranny both above, below, and beside.

Your "pursuit of happiness" does not permit you to steal a do-nut (no matter how yummy and scrumptious), and your right to freedom of expression does not suffer you to walk into a Kindergarten classroom at a public school and read aloud your Ode to Pornography. The thing is, architecture does not exist in a vacuum (unless it is built on the grounds of a villa or in Space itself) and has profound impacts on everyone who lives near it. Unhealthy and unpleasant architecture infringes on the rights of all others...and this is why there are restrictions placed on the use of property, just like there are on every other Natural Right.

But this debate about whether or not the Encore is complying with decorum cannot go any further without the establishment of a common foundation of understanding regarding decorum itself. Does it exist? Should it be followed? Should buildings be compelled to follow it? These questions have to be answered in the order given, and the chances of that happening are declining ever-faster in the face of the oft-repeated Police State Libertarian Dogma. It has reared its harnessed head again, and while it does have some interesting things to say about architecture, its clockwork-like predictability and obstinate grimace have rendered any further discussion about the Encore unlikely.

Three minor points before I say tsch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know first hand that codes can limit the creativity of developers. Unitl recently, mixed-use was frowned upon. Luckily this is changing. Do we want Nashville to look like Houston which has no zoning.

http://www.photohome.com/photos/texas-pict...-houston-4.html

I hope not.

The Houston example is an interesting one. One of my early childhood memories was when my uncle drove me around their Downtown on a Sunday morning early in 1977. At the time, perhaps 1/3rd to 1/2 that skyline was completed (the bulk of it would be finished before the building bust of the late '80s, same with Dallas), and as a 3-year old, I was mightily impressed at these behemoth structures... But, I also took notice of something also very dramatic, there was NOBODY around as we drove up block after block. I think this was (and even may still be) a problem the downtown faces on the weekends. I think they had gotten rid of a lot of the more human-scale buildings (and there still remains a HUGE number of empty parking lots where many of those structures used to stand). Mind you, Houston's lack of zoning in that instance allowed for one of America's most spectacular set of diverse skyscraper designs ("the sky's the limit !"). Unfortunately, it also came with the aforementioned cost. Having nothing but full-block-occupied behemoths surrounded by full-block parking and nothing much else is not much to crow about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slopes ahead.

Property rights are very difficult issue because when controls are congruent with your ideals then they are great, but they can quickly turn against you. As I said, until recently mixing uses was paramount to blasphemy. It was also difficult to build to the street. Parking requirements can be absurd because they do not account for shared parking in mixed use situations. There are many tools for urban designers that they can not employ because the codes do not allow them. Luckily they are evolving. Zoning codes have often lagged behind the trends of urban design. So, rules can be a double edge sword.

As for decorum, for me SoBro and other mixed use urban neighborhoods it is essential all buildings come to party with the following in mind:

1. Buildings should address all streets surrounding it. Built up to the sidewalk.

2. Use durable materials

3. Have enough detail to provide interest along the street.

4. If it is taller than 6 stories, all stories above six stories should be set back

5. The streetscape should include street trees, furnishing zone (i.e. benches, bike racks) and a frontage zone (i.e. outdoor dining, temporary sales area).

6. Parking should not be visible. It should be wrapped with inhabitable spaces and/or underground

7. All buildings should be at least 3 stories.

8. Heights of building should consider the width of the street. The wider the street the taller the buildings. I prefer buildings that did not exceed 15 stories. Ideally 6-12 stories

9. Include public space (i.e. parks, plazas)

10. Include a mix of uses, styles, and housing options.

I look forward to others list.

For the record, I hope no one thought I was suggesting Houston was a great example of urban design model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9. Include public space (i.e. parks, plazas)

The only problem you run with some parks and plazas is that they can turn into a bum haven (or if they're even used at all by anyone). Does anyone, for example, utilize the park fronting the Country Music Hall of Fame ? Sadly, the "plaza/park" they have in front of the library (where there ought to be some low-rise buildings) is a magnet for the homeless and you can't even walk on that side of the street without it being in your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem you run with some parks and plazas is that they can turn into a bum haven (or if they're even used at all by anyone). Does anyone, for example, utilize the park fronting the Country Music Hall of Fame ? Sadly, the "plaza/park" they have in front of the library (where there ought to be some low-rise buildings) is a magnet for the homeless and you can't even walk on that side of the street without it being in your face.

The success of public places depend upon their edges, and always have. If the edges are alive with activity and human traffic than the public space will be a natural venue for it as well. Modernist public spaces have always been, like their architecture, "objects", with little or no consideration going into how they tie into urban fabric and the communities that inhabit it. They have mostly been dismal failures.

Nashville has not yet seen a healthy public space since the city was gutted in the postwar Le Corbusierfest. The pocket park across from the Library is probably as close as it gets, but even that has an outrageous vagrant problem. The mini-plaza in the Gulch, in front of Mercury View lofts, is a good example of another healthy spot.

Hopefully when the Symphony Hall is finished, the plaza in front of the Country Music Hall of Fame will likely get a little more dignity out of its use. But don't let Nashville's previous failures with urban plazas and squares skew your thinking on the issue. Five minutes in any Tuscan town will make a Piazza Lover out of anyone. SoBro is the perfect place for it.

Bzorch, your list for SoBro is perfect. But I think there will have to be some good healthy codes if you want to see durable materials...not to mention, avoid materials which are designed to look like other materials. The problem is, American architectural practice has sunk to such childish lows that we now have to legislate common sense. But regardless, maybe all codes should have an expiration date, to help combat the tendency for design tyranny.

Bad codes are bad codes, just like bad police work is bad police work, but that doesn't mean we can't find a use for, or don't desperately need, either one. I've bad steaks, but that hasn't put me off steaks for keeps. You get my general point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the current issue of NBJ, the 40-story office tower rumored for the block immediately east of Schermerhorn and t/b anchored by BBS is apparently a real possibility.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stori.../06/story1.html

So if this happens, then the SSC will be covered on two sides by hi-rises. That's not bad though, because city planners had the foresight to build the plaza in front of the Hilton. Isn't there parking underneath the plaza? If so, how for how many cars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.