Jump to content

Signature Tower 2nd tallest in Southeast?


Plasticman

Recommended Posts

I'm really glad this thread's slide was brought up. I was beginning to wonder if we slipped back into the style of the other places, one of which has thread entitled, "Waffle House now accepting credit cards."

I'm all for highrises; they do excite me, don't get me wrong, but if we never built another one and just created urban spaces to fillup the inner loop in a collection of varying residential, services, stores, etc. I'd be just as happy. I've always said large skyscrapers are just generally places that won't let you in. Street level activity is where it's at.

I think I've also bowed out of Louisville's 15 minutes. It did remind me that I'm ready for a day trip there, but I'd rather we just get back to our own business and pleasures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm going to put myself out on a limb and predict the final height of the Signature Tower as it will be announced sometime within the next two months when the final architectural drawings are completed. Thanks the fanstastic market that currently exists for condos in Nashville, and due to the fact that I beleive Tony G. really does CARE how high the Signature Tower is and wants to build it as tall as he can, I think it will come in at exactly 900 Ft to the top of the spire, have more than the previously announced 55 stories, and really will be the 2nd tallest tower in the Southeast when completed. Does anybody out there think I may be in the ballpark? I 'm also predicting a groundbreaking in late 2006 instead of in 2007(also due to skyrocketing condo demand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Hank, I think we were at the same ballgame. ;)

Transit is coming along well, I think. With the new buses, the new routes, Music City Central transit center coming online before too long, I think we can handle the current pace of increased density. If we were going to explode over night into Vancouver or Chicago, well, no we couldn't handle that, but this is Nashville. I think transit will keep up proportionately to the growth. At least that's what we hope. No one is sitting on their hands ... they're working on it.

Link to comment
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.

The thing is, though, that Signature will not only look great and bring some more well-deserved respect to Nashville, it will also bring tons of diverse people to live in the core AND fill up an ugly parking lot. It's like the best of all worlds. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hank, I think you are on to something. I was saying the other day that he should just make ST an even 900. You think Tony wonders if he could have gotten more out of the Viridian as well? I bet he wishes he had more product to sell there which is why he is so ready to start Encore. Does anyone know if Encore is going after the same market as Viridian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Plasticman @ Feb 21 2006, 01:37 PM)

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.

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.

Whoaaaa buddy. Someone said Nashville had a much better skyline than Louisville. I merely came here to say that simply was NOT true. I never bashed Nashville, or said it sucked, or its skyline sucked, etc. Where are you getting that? I merely responded to someone who was talking about Nashville's skyline being better. They mentioned it first, and I said I think that is just not true. No city bashing was done by me.

I also agree that skyline has very little to do with the quality of life of a city. I think Louisville is better, you guys think Nashville is better, so lets leave it at that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do forget how text can not translate tone of voice. I should have chosen my words more carefully. The first part was intended to be light hearted. I had asked earlier in the thread why everyone was so hung up on the skyline when what mattered was the place where we actually enjoy the city. To design cities based on the views from the highway seems alien to me.

I reread what I posted, and I do apologize for the MP comment. I was frustrated that the MP discussion in the Kentucky forum had degraded into a discussion of who was better (i.e. skyline, population statistics, 5 star restaurants) instead of focusing on the specifics of the proposal. I felt that this thread was getting ready to spiral into the same discussion.

As I said before, Louisville and Nashville are qreat cities. Though I have to say to argue who is better seems ridiculous because there are better cities than both of us. They are both evolving hopefully for the better. I think we are all here because we care how it does evolve. I sometimes feel like the party crasher in these skyscraper discussions, but I am trying to understand the fascination with them but also balancing the discussion by pointing out that there are more elements to a successful urban envrionment that we should not forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do forget how text can not translate tone of voice. I should have chosen my words more carefully. The first part was intended to be light hearted. I had asked earlier in the thread why everyone was so hung up on the skyline when what mattered was the place where we actually enjoy the city. To design cities based on the views from the highway seems alien to me.

I reread what I posted, and I do apologize for the MP comment. I was frustrated that the MP discussion in the Kentucky forum had degraded into a discussion of who was better (i.e. skyline, population statistics, 5 star restaurants) instead of focusing on the specifics of the proposal. I felt that this thread was getting ready to spiral into the same discussion.

As I said before, Louisville and Nashville are qreat cities. Though I have to say to argue who is better seems ridiculous because there are better cities than both of us. They are both evolving hopefully for the better. I think we are all here because we care how it does evolve. I sometimes feel like the party crasher in these skyscraper discussions, but I am trying to understand the fascination with them but also balancing the discussion by pointing out that there are more elements to a successful urban envrionment that we should not forget.

I think you have a valid point, Bzorch. Lets face it, some of the surface lots in Nashville and Louisville are nothing short of embarrassing. Its true many cities have these, but why do cities like Nash and Lou feel the need to build 55-61 story towers when there is more open space? This is a tough question and has mostly to do with people buying condos and leasing offices--they want the views and the big city feel.

I do think both cities are doing a great job with infill, and I really think both cities were ready for some mega talls. I would not be surprised if either city annouced another 500 footer soon. HOWEVER, I really would like to see ALL cities (outside NYC and Chicago which have already done it) make more of an attempt at making their downtown a dense area with a cross density of retail. As it is, most cities are focusing on 2 or 3 streets for these kinds of initiatives. I am thinking of 2nd and Boradway in Nashville and I think this applies to 4th and Main in Louisville.

For downtown Louisville, Nashville, and any downtown to be truely successful, the surface lots must be developed densely with living above and ground level retail below. There needs to be people on every downtown street corner at all hours, not just a few "hot spots" or around clubs. This is slowly starting to occur. Its always so nice seeing all the people walking their dogs after work downtown, walking in front of two century old warehouses and enjoying the urban environment. Things are changing, but I think in order to get the masses interested in downtown, thinks like 61 story scrapers are good. That is part of the "philanthropic" ideal behind MP (although lets face it, their main goal is to make a profit!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, Louisville and Nashville are qreat cities. Though I have to say to argue who is better seems ridiculous because there are better cities than both of us. They are both evolving hopefully for the better. I think we are all here because we care how it does evolve. I sometimes feel like the party crasher in these skyscraper discussions, but I am trying to understand the fascination with them but also balancing the discussion by pointing out that there are more elements to a successful urban envrionment that we should not forget.

Bingo. I see myself in kind of the same way, so i'm right there with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to discuss this thought: Cities like Louisville and Nashville have surface lots located in prime areas downtown...why do you think the market demands they build a 55 or 61 story tower instead of mid rise infill? I know both cities have a high condo demand downtown. In Louisville, demand has outsripped supply, and is much of the motivation behind MP. Nashville has a similar situation.

I am a huge skyscraper fan...however, I would like to hear from people as to why developers go for skyscrapers when it is not a neccessity (there is plenty of open space in downtown Nash and Lou)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you think the market demands they build a 55 or 61 story tower instead of mid rise infill?

I just don't agree that this is the case in Nashville. It may be true in Louisville... I just don't know about things up there. But in Nashville, there are so many more midrise and lowrise projects than the high rise stuff. While there are still a lot of parking lots, I'd guess pretty comfortably that the number of surface parking spaces has actually decreased since the completion of the Coliseum. I'm also inclined to believe that the cost of land in DT and Midtown has risen dramatically in the last five years. So that's a contributor to the vertical direction of new projects downtown.

This has been happening in Atlanta too, especially around midtown. Buckhead is really the exception to the high vs. lowrise phenomenon, but that's primarily b/c land has gotten so expensive there that it only makes sense to go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with comparing Nashville vs Louisville? Just like we compare Nashville to Memhpis. There is something to be said about civic pride. I group up in the Atlanta area and will always it because it's home. I chose Nashville because of many of it's great qualities.

We talk about sky scrapers and all that making a city, but I will say that Nashville has one big thing that Louisville doesn't have and Memphis didn't have until recently: Pro-sports. I don't think I would have even considered moving to Nashville if we didn't have the Titans and Preds because in my mind, I associate professional sports to the job market. If the towns not good enough for pro-sports, how are you going to find work? Now I know that doesn't play out in reality (I doubt the preds and Titans have created too many more jobs than what would have naturally occured), but again, it's all about civic pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ppassafi, I think you answered your own question in a previous post. Developers need to make profit. I agree with ATLBrain. With the dramatic rise in property values, it is crucial to maximize profit potential for these lots. I believe that this is why we're seeing an apparent increase in the height of Signature Tower. Tony G. does not want to have another situation like he has with Viridian. While being 100% sold is great, running out of product while the market is hot is terrible, hence the rush for Encore. As far as time spent on any given project for example, planning, financing, marketing, you'll spend the same amount of effort as a developer building a mid-rise as you will a high-rise. So when you're talking profit, generally, bigger is better because you maximize time and space. I love working with small churches but when it comes to profit, which keeps me in business, I prefer to work on large cathedrals. They pay more per hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't agree that this is the case in Nashville. It may be true in Louisville... I just don't know about things up there. But in Nashville, there are so many more midrise and lowrise projects than the high rise stuff. While there are still a lot of parking lots, I'd guess pretty comfortably that the number of surface parking spaces has actually decreased since the completion of the Coliseum. I'm also inclined to believe that the cost of land in DT and Midtown has risen dramatically in the last five years. So that's a contributor to the vertical direction of new projects downtown.

This has been happening in Atlanta too, especially around midtown. Buckhead is really the exception to the high vs. lowrise phenomenon, but that's primarily b/c land has gotten so expensive there that it only makes sense to go up.

Of course, Louisville has hoardes of midrises--both conversions and new construction--probably on par with nashville if not ahead. But shall I break out the aerials? BOTH Lou and Nash have a significant number of surface lots that seem like they may be cheaper to develop. Seeing as I am not a developer, I don't know.

There has been talks of building an arena on a block that is 75% surface lot in Louisville. There are 4 historic building left on the block as well. It has been said that acquiring this block would cost 15-20 million. The site is 6 acres so that amounts to 3 million an acre! I know if you go to the exurbs of Louisville about 30 miles out, you can find land for less than $10,000 an acre. Developing land downtown is def pricey. So you are right, downtown land is very expensive, BUT, why is it thought to be better to build skyscrapers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with comparing Nashville vs Louisville? Just like we compare Nashville to Memhpis. There is something to be said about civic pride. I group up in the Atlanta area and will always it because it's home. I chose Nashville because of many of it's great qualities.

We talk about sky scrapers and all that making a city, but I will say that Nashville has one big thing that Louisville doesn't have and Memphis didn't have until recently: Pro-sports. I don't think I would have even considered moving to Nashville if we didn't have the Titans and Preds because in my mind, I associate professional sports to the job market. If the towns not good enough for pro-sports, how are you going to find work? Now I know that doesn't play out in reality (I doubt the preds and Titans have created too many more jobs than what would have naturally occured), but again, it's all about civic pride.

Louisville is "good enough" for pro sports. Would you say that about Vegas? Austin? Louisville and its leaders don't want a team if it means giving them an arena and all the revenues. Louisville athletics are like pro sports here anyways--corporate suites, entertainment, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with comparing Nashville vs Louisville? Just like we compare Nashville to Memhpis. There is something to be said about civic pride. I group up in the Atlanta area and will always it because it's home. I chose Nashville because of many of it's great qualities.

We talk about sky scrapers and all that making a city, but I will say that Nashville has one big thing that Louisville doesn't have and Memphis didn't have until recently: Pro-sports. I don't think I would have even considered moving to Nashville if we didn't have the Titans and Preds because in my mind, I associate professional sports to the job market. If the towns not good enough for pro-sports, how are you going to find work? Now I know that doesn't play out in reality (I doubt the preds and Titans have created too many more jobs than what would have naturally occured), but again, it's all about civic pride.

I agree rtb, I think pro sports have generated a lot of the buzz that has lead to the devlopement explosion we are now seeing in Nashville. Sports, the arts, etc. along with many other wonderful qualities of Nashville have created a very nice forward momentum. I think skyscrapers are a visual symbol of that momentum. As a recent article said, when there are cranes in the sky everyone can see that something good is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think all developers build skyscrapers just to build skyscrapers. It really is needed. Especially if the units are going to be under $500K. You see smaller and shorter buildings, but each unit goes for about $750,000. Why? That's the only way they can make a profit. Don't worry, eventually the surface lots will be filled up. It just takes time. Heck, even NYC still has surface parking lots in places, believe it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think all developers build skyscrapers just to build skyscrapers. It really is needed. Especially if the units are going to be under $500K. You see smaller and shorter buildings, but each unit goes for about $750,000. Why? That's the only way they can make a profit. Don't worry, eventually the surface lots will be filled up. It just takes time. Heck, even NYC still has surface parking lots in places, believe it or not.

Yeah, but their surface lots are awesome the way they lift vehicles above the other ones. That is cool.

The growth rate in the core of Nashville outpaces cities like Louisville, and Memphis. THat is easy to assume by just looking at it in the present and by browsing through the forums for news. But, the big thing is the development surrounding the core in hoods like Germantown, West End, Vandy, and East Nashville. Is there a city outside of Atlanta, Charlotte, and Miami that is seeing this type of development? Perhaps Jacksonville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moved to St. Louis from Nashville in 1995 and was asked in a conversation 3 months later: "Why would anyone want to live in a town that has NO pro-sports teams?" Times have changed for the better, for Nashville. Williamson County owes a debt of gratitude to metro for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not make the immediate jump that developers have to build skyscrapers to make a profit. We need data to back up this assumption. There is some truth to the fact that if you build taller you are spreading your land cost over more units, but it does not say that you can not create an economically viable (profitable) mid-rise building.

To help me understand the situation, I ran the numbers on a 1 acre site in downtown Nashville which sold for $1 million in 2004. I made an assumption it could be purchased today more $1.5 million. I compared building a 10-story building ($70 million in Construction) and a 20-Story building ($150 million in Construction) both with retail on the ground floor and all parking underground. The 10-story's net profit was 11.3% while the 20-story was 18.3%. With the parking above ground, the profit was 21.3% and 27.3% respectively. The above ground parking would add 5 stories to the mid-rise and 10 stories to the high-rise. As soon as you reduce parking requirements on site the profits would increase considerably. The numbers included cost of construction (retail, residential, parking), land, soft cost, realtor fees, financing, and TIF. It also assumed the units could be sold for $300 a square foot and a loss of 30% of the building to common and utility space. Because the construction value is high I figured this was very conservative.

I am by no means a proforma expert but I figured I had to start somewhere. Are there any economic gurus or developers in our midst that can shed light on this issue?

So the question comes down to what is an acceptable profit. I have heard that for mixed-use 8-12% was expected, but for other development it can be upwords of 18-20%. I think the example also shows the difference between putting parking above ground vs underground. It is hard to sell the parking for profit paricularly if it is underground. Your hope is to break even on the cost of parking.

If there is a height limit, then parking above ground will potentially take away an opportunity to sell more units, office space or retail. I think this will encourage more vertical mixed-use like Terrazzo vs Residential on a parking garage like the Viridian.

Then there is demand and how much financing you can get that further determine what you could build. No one is going to loan me $100 million. Private funding is probably one reason the MP has a chance being built.

As discussed at the last UP meeting, there is a problem of land owners in downtown holding on to property expecting an excessive profit, which basically, holds the downtown hostage.

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.