Archived

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

Plasticman

Signature Tower 2nd tallest in Southeast?

Recommended Posts

I was looking at the diagram of the Signature Tower on S'page.com and when listed in meters it appears to rise 270 meters. I believe previously it had stopped at 259 meters so somebody seems to have purposefully altered the drawing. It does show 850 feet if you list it in feet. But if it is indeed 270 meters,then that puts it at 886 feet and the new number two in the Southeast behind only BOA Atlanta.

I would say Skyscraperpage is not terribly accurate though but I wouldn't put it past the developer to at least be taller than BOA Charlotte.

Ah well. Who knows? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I was looking at the diagram of the Signature Tower on S'page.com and when listed in meters it appears to rise 270 meters. I believe previously it had stopped at 259 meters so somebody seems to have purposefully altered the drawing. It does show 850 feet if you list it in feet. But if it is indeed 270 meters,then that puts it at 886 feet and the new number two in the Southeast behind only BOA Atlanta.

I would say Skyscraperpage is not terribly accurate though but I wouldn't put it past the developer to at least be taller than BOA Charlotte.

Ah well. Who knows? :huh:

Yeah, you are right. They are not terribly accurate at all. The diagram on SP is wrong too, at least compared to Tony's latest plans. His shows the top of the crown at roughly 750' with a 100' spire while theirs shows the top of the crown at 700' with a 150' spire. It's just sloppy detective work on their part. However, because the real design work will be done this year, who knows exactly how tall it will be. It wouldn't surprise me though if it was 850'+. Why not just make it an even 900'? After all, what's another 50' going to hurt? It's going to be an exciting year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if Sig's height is very important to Tony G..

Actually, I think it is important to him. The couple of times I've heard him speak and briefly talked to him left me with the impression that the height is part of the "Signature" of the whole project. So far he has been very protective of the exact height of ST and I think he has very good reason to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nashville needs more skyscrapers deperately - for a city of its size and economic status its really lacking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nashville needs more skyscrapers deperately - for a city of its size and economic status its really lacking

I must respectfully disagree. I think Nashville has quite a respectable skyline for it's size and plenty of towers. What Nashville really needs is towers with more height. Most of the towers in Nashville are mid-rises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nashville needs more skyscrapers deperately - for a city of its size and economic status its really lacking

I totally disagree. First of all, most people will tell you that Nashville already has a respectable skyline for its size, and all the new buildings will only put it over the top. Also, no city, particularly Nashville "needs" skyscrapers...much less needs them "desparately". I don't understand where people get the notion that skyscrapers make or brake a city. Beyond postcard images a city's skyline is really pretty meaningless when you think about it. Skyline has little if anything to do with the life and overall success of a city. A "skyline" is purely asthetic and does not make a good city. If that were true we'd all be aspiring to be Atlanta. Don't get me wrong, that isn't a knock on Atlanta...I like many things about it...but it isn't exactly the model city, lets face it. Some of the best cities in the world have short and in some cases non-existant skylines. San Diego, Portland, Vancouver, Washington DC, Santiago, Lima, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, Rome, Beruit, Istanbul, Casablanca, Havana, Beijing...I could go on.

I apologize if it sounds like i'm getting on your case...that isn't my intention. You just kind of set me off on a little tangent. haha :) In my opinion, striving for a great skyline can be compared to a woman putting on alot of expensive make-up, while striving for solid urban fabric made up of vibrant and diverse neighborhoods can be compared to building a wonderful personality and character that draws people to a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must respectfully disagree. I think Nashville has quite a respectable skyline for it's size and plenty of towers. What Nashville really needs is towers with more height. Most of the towers in Nashville are mid-rises.

I couldn't have said this^ better myself, there are plenty of towers, just not tall ones. But the question is do you want towers that are tall and bland and me-too styling or do you want towers lacking height but are aesthetically in a category of their own. Take for example, Durham Centre, while at only 18 stories it's presence has a dramatic effect on the skyline there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nashville needs more skyscrapers deperately - for a city of its size and economic status its really lacking

I live outside of Atlanta and like me, you are just used to cities in that caliber. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, even Miami (especially in a couple years). But those are apples and oranges.

Nashville compares very well with Jacksonville and Tampa and is ahead of cities like Louisville, Birmingham, and Memphis (although Louisville has Aegon and that buiding is nothing but cool). Charlotte is clearly the mid-sized leader but only because of BOA. Take that out and it falls back into the Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa category.

But it certainly be a lift to get Signature built. The first really tall one but not the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nashville compares very well with Jacksonville and Tampa and is ahead of cities like Louisville, Birmingham, and Memphis (although Louisville has Aegon and that buiding is nothing but cool). Charlotte is clearly the mid-sized leader but only because of BOA. Take that out and it falls back into the Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa category.

I couldn't agree more. On density, I'd even say that Nashville beats all of those mentioned.

Yeah, I don't see any problems with their skyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Friends, I would agree that Nashville has a respectable skyline and density. The argument that many wonderful, world-class cities do not possess noticeable skylines is also valid. However, in JB04s defense, I would venture to guess that he is not entirely criticizing the current skyline as he is just mentioning it lacks "power". "Bigger is better" is a common mentality. Even many of the great cities mentioned were subject to this idea at one point. Roman emperors embarked on vast building programs. Khufu the great commissioned his pyramid to be the biggest. Inevitably, the common goal of building big was to exhibit wealth and power. So, once again, I do not believe he is saying Nashville lacks a beautiful skyline; what it lacks is an exhibition of our economic status and international standing (thanks to our most popular export :thumbsup: ). One way of accomplishing this is to build a monster of a building, though I will admit it is only one method of achieving renown. But hey, it worked for Charlotte. And Atlanta, they are constantly building the world's biggest whatever. :silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Friends, I would agree that Nashville has a respectable skyline and density. The argument that many wonderful, world-class cities do not possess noticeable skylines is also valid. However, in JB04s defense, I would venture to guess that he is not entirely criticizing the current skyline as he is just mentioning it lacks "power". "Bigger is better" is a common mentality. Even many of the great cities mentioned were subject to this idea at one point. Roman emperors embarked on vast building programs. Khufu the great commissioned his pyramid to be the biggest. Inevitably, the common goal of building big was to exhibit wealth and power. So, once again, I do not believe he is saying Nashville lacks a beautiful skyline; what it lacks is an exhibition of our economic status and international standing (thanks to our most popular export :thumbsup: ). One way of accomplishing this is to build a monster of a building, though I will admit it is only one method of achieving renown. But hey, it worked for Charlotte. And Atlanta, they are constantly building the world's biggest whatever. :silly:

You have many very good points. After thinking it over a second time i'd say I have to agree. I simply disagree with the asertion that achieving a tall skyline is an important goal that a city should strive for. Having a good skyline definitely doesn't hurt. That's for sure. It ranks far below striving for good schools, good mass transit, walkable neighborhoods, efficient infrastructure, quality greenspace etc. etc. etc. That's all i'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a great skyline do for Nashville, unless you are selling postcards? Why is everyone so hung up on which one is the largest? Quality not quantity! We can not use a skyline. Though, I have to say Lexy's photos from the 31st floor today were impressive, but come on there is more to the City than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skylines really don't make a city, but they do get a city attention. Many cities that were mentioned, like Paris and Rome, don't need a skyline to get attention because they already have it. Some cities, though, just want a skyline to get more attention, which could eventually bring (maybe) a little business. People see a great skyline and think "Wow, that city looks big. It would be cool to live there." That, IMO, is the significance of a skyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's much more of a whoa, that's big. We say that it has great architecture, everyone else says it looks cool, and I would say that both would be good reactions to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live outside of Atlanta and like me, you are just used to cities in that caliber. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, even Miami (especially in a couple years). But those are apples and oranges.

Nashville compares very well with Jacksonville and Tampa and is ahead of cities like Louisville, Birmingham, and Memphis (although Louisville has Aegon and that buiding is nothing but cool). Charlotte is clearly the mid-sized leader but only because of BOA. Take that out and it falls back into the Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa category.

But it certainly be a lift to get Signature built. The first really tall one but not the last.

I totally disagree Nashville has a better skyline than Louisville. I would say they are about equal, and it will all depend on who's mega tower ends up looking better--Museum Plaza and its 61 floors in Louisville and Sig Tower's 55 floors in Nashville. I think at this point, Nashville, Jacksonville, and Louisville are damn near equal in skylines. We'll see if any can pull away from the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Well, by shear size, length, impressiveness, and everything else that matters to geeks like us...I think Louisville gets beat by Nashville. Especially in another three years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Nashville forum ppassafi.

You can not be serious. We are now are arguing who has the better skyline. The argument sounds like some kids arguing over the size of their genitalia. It doesn't matter.

I stopped participating in the Museum Plaza thread because of this. It seems if you can not defend the MP on its own merits, then you start bashing the cities of those that do not agree with it and accuse them of jealousy. Both Louisville and Nashville are better than this. They are great places to live. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SKYLINE. It is all about quality of life. Are we going to start arguing who has the best schools, economy, public space, and great neighborhoods? That would at least matter to the quality of life. You can not use a skyline. Basing the quality of the city based on its skyline is shallow and baseless. In the end we accomplish nothing when we tear each other down.

Wedo know one thing Louisvilles's Convention Center is probably better than Nashville's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think many people outside of geeks like us get too hung up on skylines.

Well said! We are a group that very much is hung up on this issue. I love tall buildings and think it is great to see a tallest whatever built here. Skyscrapers are not what makes a city and they do help the tourist go "ooooh, ahhhh, wowwww. Then their attention is taken away because they look across the street and say, "Damn , there's George Jones".

I think a solid infill of the urban core is just as impressive if not more so than height. Don't forget gang, there are some exciting things about to happen in downtown Nashville and Rome nor New York was built in a day. We are very fortunate to be in the position we are today considering the emergence of the third world countries economic power. Nashville is just now starting to get the respect it deserves but I would rather see a bunch of world class buildings like the Symphony Hall built than the tallest Lego land building in the world like Louisville is planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the most important part of any city is that a diverse mass of people live in it's core and contribute that local the economy, assuming most or all of your needs are met in the vicinity. It also needs healthy cultural offerings, which Nashville has. Buildings are nice, but downtown sucks if people don't live and work in them in a 24-hour environment. Especially when we're talking about small cities in the first place. For me, skylines are superficial and are way down the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are the same group that bought 2525 West End. They normally but existing properties so this is a little different unless thaty are planning on flipping the property to a developer.

From their website

"The Lionstone Group is a privately owned real estate investment firm. Founded in 2001 by partners Tom Bacon, Dan Dubrowski, and Glenn Lowenstein, Lionstone specializes in researching, conceptualizing and executing national investment strategies based on proprietary data and ideas. Each Lionstone real estate strategy is implemented by a dedicated team with discretionary capital.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.