Jump to content

New skyline pics


Skyscrapergeek

Recommended Posts

Great point. My whole argument is that it's not a mutually exclusive relationship. We're not talking about one or the other here in Nashville. We're seeing examples of each type of building being built all at the same time. With time, the best developments will prove to be successful. SoBro has its height restriction. It will be, if demand continues, Nashville's inner city mid rise boro. Downtown, and to a lesser extent, the Gulch, will be highrise, midrise mix. I think there will be demand for all varieties. Economic factors, availability and exclusivity will play a role in which building type people choose.

Still, what does a high-rise offer to the pedestrian realm? Is there anything else besides an exclusive option and the skyline view for people traveling on the interstate?

SoBro's height restriction has already set the bar and has been passed. High-rises are still, according to BZA's ruling, fair game. And apparently setbacks don't have to be followed as well. The restrictions in that district were so blatantly written to go along with Encore that it just proves if Developer A has enough money, Developer A gets what he wants. I'm actually pretty disappointed in the Planning Dept. over these guidelines. Many studies have been done in this area, the elder SoBro Plan, Plan of Nashville, that set the ideal at 8-10 stories and to completely disregard that wasn't a good step in the future of that area.

I'm curious as to the economic factors you mention. Currently, you have to have some coin to afford $250K for 1000 SF. Affordable units? If you can get your hands on an affordable unit, you're still shelling out $180-200K for a closet, then throw on another $300/ month in HOA. It's pretty obvious who all the development is geared for.

As for being the 'first' to do a true high-rise neighborhood, it's also a very good possibility you could be the last. Why experiment for experimentation sake? Too many precedents have been set as to what a truly livable, diverse, sustainable neighborhood is and can be to chance it and see where the cards may fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If we're only creating exclusive playgrounds for the rich and wannabe rich, why all this angst over what's being built? The vast majority of us will only be able to look on as we drive by on the interstate anyway, right?

No, I used to live downtown and currently work downtown. The experience for me isn't a drive-by snapshot. Sorry that I expect more from a downtown in terms of the pedestrian realm and what actual users other than those at the 55th floor penthouse would benefit from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the highrises do bring something to the mix...buzz. They help create an interest in living downtown and they will add to the interest of the skyline from a distance.

I agree, however, with cdub and bzorch that they should be the exception, the accent, if you will, to a thriving neighborhood of midrise and lowrise fillers. Much of the community you get in a highrise will probably be self-contained. Look at the Viridian for an example. Private club. Private fitness center. Of course, I'm not saying that some of these folks will not spill out onto the streets, which is a good thing.

I prefer a mix of high, mid, and lowrise, in order to meet the variety of demands and housing needs. Linclink's photos of Chicago on the dreamscape link demonstrate a good mix. If I had to choose, I would prefer a street full of mids and lows to a high surrounded by surface lots. I just hope the highs help build the market and that a few highs don't gobble up all of the demand. Downtown will only become viable for long term residents with density and convenient services. I'm downtown now because I believe that is the way Nashville is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, my question was rhetorical and sarcastic and was in direct response to CDubs assertion that only closets will be availbable to middle and lower class people.

And Bzorch, just because you say something a million times, does not mean that you've proved your point. Possibly the reason there aren't any(?), many(?), highrise neighborhoods is there aren't enough people to fill them and the desire isn't/wasn't prevalent to stake out small plots of land and pack them full of people. At least in this country. Vancouver has already been mentioned as successfully assembling a highrise city. How about Sao Paolo, Hong Kong, Tokyo, other hell of dense cities in asian countries, etc.

I still don't know what it means for something to be human scaled. Is a mountain human scale? Is the ocean? Is the freaking universe? The Viridian seems a lot more sensitive in relation to those things.

Regarding your high-rise/mid-rise schematics, will people automatically cross the street to access the sliver of sunlight available to them in certain times of day in either environment? What about cloudy/rainy days? Hell, I live and work in a low-rise/no-rise environment, there still wasn't any sun today. I thought, all throughout history, before and during the built environment, people sought refuge from the sun. On a ninety degree, ninety percent humidity day, shade is a welcome thing. Certainly, Nashville won't be so crowded and dense that sun worshippers won't have to travel too far to get some rays.

I'll go back to my earlier point. These developments aren't mutually exclusive. In any MODERN city. Period. Nashville has a loooong way to go before it's one/tenth as dense as NYC, or Vancouver, Boston, Toronto, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville has a loooong way to go before it's one/tenth as dense as NYC, or Vancouver, Boston, Toronto, etc.

This is exactly my point earlier. If we do not have enough demand such as the cities you mentioned and we do not have the land constraints that many those you mention have, why put all of the demand in a few high-rises and end up with empty parking lots vs evolving? As for Tokyo, Metro M was on this forum recently and his testimonial discussed how dense Tokyo was and it did not utilize high-rises.

I can agree with Downtown Cliff that high-rises could be in the mix on a limited basis. It would be ok it they punctuated the urban landscape, but were not the dominant building type. I would prefer these uses be more civic in nature, but I know that is unlikely. But I would rather have 6 or 7 mid-rise (100 units) developments than 1 Signature tower. As I said this is very selfish of me, because I want a place I can enjoy blocks and blocks of the urban landscape instead of looking at it from my car on the highway.

As for the Central Business District in Chicago and the Financial District in NYC are mainly dominated by office and hotels and have little do with creating a neighborhood. Most of the urban mixed-use neighborhoods surrounding these areas are in buildings that are less than 15 stories.

If you do not value lighting within your home, then I guess that issues would not matter just as scale does not matter to you. Natural sun light is critical to the conservation of energy. If you do not have sun light lighting your home, then you will have to rely on artificial lighting which requires electricity. As everyone is aware, energy is increasingly an important issue. In the winter, you can not use passive solar heating to reduce your energy bill. In the summer you would use blinds or some other type of shade element on the building for high sun angles in order to reduce the solar heat gain. Light also plays an important part on our mental health. Sun light is critically important. A building with a narrower footprint will allow more light penetration into the interior and higher ceilings will also help with this. But if you have building all around you that block the light then none of this is possible.

Pedestrian-scale seems like such an obvious thing, but explaining it is very difficult. It has everything to do with how a space feels. Do different spaces ever feel different to you? If you are on the 50 yard line of the Titans Stadium, it would probably feel much different than if you were in the middle of the park across from the downtown library. The space is defined by the structures around it. So as the street gets wider, you can have taller buildings in order to scale the street. But you do not want to have a street that is excessively wide in order have taller buildings. I think 20-30 story buildings would be appropriate scaled for the interstate. Maybe at one of the monthly meetings we can try and discuss this by walking around and observing the different scales. I think this would be an interesting exercise.

By the way, I repeat myself a lot because no one seems to acknowledge my points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only know what I hear, and I've heard a few conversations about people interested in living in Sig Tower and ICON; but I haven't heard anyone saying they are looking for a downtown loft etc.

While I'm sure we all would rather see a 55 story office bldg, Sig Tower does create interest in living DT. No low-rise will generate this type of excitement from potential home buyers.

bzorch, I agree with you on the low-rise/mid-rise development; but, it's easy to see that a true high-rise does have its place. Cities other than Nashville have the same response for a high-rise condo tower.

Remember...The Jeffersons and 'What you talkin' 'bout Willis'. This isn't just a new fade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention Vancouver and in a way we hold it up on a high pedestal. Here's an interesting article talking about how it's truly not a sustainable downtown. This could very easily be the case with us as we can't seem to get relocations downtown. Unfortunately its developers in this town that call the shots, not planning. This is evident as we don't have a plan for SoBro that anyone is following, even the planning department.

Vancouver article

If we've said something a million times and it doesn't prove our point, give us a counter argument that would disuade us. Proof and examples help in that argument. You mention cities that are already extremely dense and have challenging topographic and environmental constraints.

Look at all the units that will be available downtown and tell me it's not geared to the wealthy. Sig starts at $250K and goes up, couldn't find Encore prices, but I'm sure it'll do the same. Of all buildings planned for construction, all are technically high rise. If they're not, define your thoughts of what makes a high rise. For me and Emporis, it's 12+ stories.

Bzorch, I like the idea of civically geared high rises. Unfortunately, its very European and no one here wants to become Paris or any Italian city. So much for historical precedents, lets do something new seems to be the thought here. How about the 75 story McDonalds with golden arches at the top, that way all the people who don't live downtown will now know they can get hamburgers here? I would bet the average joe of Nashville wouldn't even have a clue that Sig will be residential just by driving by if it's built. They would know of a great neighborhood with all kinds of attractions/ retail opportunities/ hopefully parks that a true mixed use community could be.

If Nashville as a community filled in the downtown loop, for now we'll say from Broadway south as a pie-in-the-sky goal, then we'll be going somewhere as a city. Putting single towers here and there only plugs holes in the skyline and does little to extend the urban fabric. I'm guessing though, that must be what people want for their drive to Cool Springs. Sorry if I wasted you're time and my breath re-emphasizing points that obviously have no weight in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only know what I hear, and I've heard a few conversations about people interested in living in Sig Tower and ICON; but I haven't heard anyone saying they are looking for a downtown loft etc.

While I'm sure we all would rather see a 55 story office bldg, Sig Tower does create interest in living DT. No low-rise will generate this type of excitement from potential home buyers.

bzorch, I agree with you on the low-rise/mid-rise development; but, it's easy to see that a true high-rise does have its place. Cities other than Nashville have the same response for a high-rise condo tower.

Remember...The Jeffersons and 'What you talkin' 'bout Willis'. This isn't just a new fade

I agree there is a lot of interest in the big towers, which is good. But, I think you are wrong on the low-rise excitement. I live in a low rise in close proximity to several low-rise and mid-rise conversions under construction. All of those projects seem to be doing very well in sales and reservations. Their biggest selling point is the neighborhood. The buzz is about the neighborhood, not just the scale of the building. I think this holds true for the big towers as well when you talk to potential home-buyers, not just skyscraper geeks (sorry, Skyscrapergeek :whistling: ) like us.

Remember, folks, we may disagree on the best formula for the urban neighborhood, but I think nearly all of us believe that a good, strong urban environment is our goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cdub, the article on Vancouver is not about wether Vancouverites(?) like or dislike living in high-rise condo developments, which is sort of what we're talking about here. However, it is about the unintended consequesnces of bad urban planning. It seems that it would be a good example of short term gains provided by comprehensive government induced planning and oversight. Are you suggesting that we follow in this mold?

As far as the cities I mentioned as examples of containing high-rise neighborhoods; I didn't realise that you had set the conditions for which cities would be acceptably taken as models. That seems unfair. No city evolves in a vacuum, all are subject to environmental and population constraints. Those factors don't alter wether they're actual models for people living in high-rise neighborhoods. Bzorch, I didn't cite NYC or Chicago as examples. Thanks for ignoring and misrepresenting.

Who is arguing about the affordablity of the new construction? Where did this enter the equation? What is your point in so far as it relates to high-rise v. mid-rise?

Once again, let's go over some of the non high-rise construction going on: Loft conversions all over the downtown area. The two story condo development on the north side of downtown. Everything in Germantown. Everything in East Nashville. The Bristol developments (Broadway, West End), etc. etc. How are you getting the impression that we're only interested in high-rise?

Are there facts that mid-rise is more energy efficient than high-rise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although living in a fancy highrise might impress one's friends and offer awesome ammenities and views, I don't think the draw to living downtown is this building or that building. They all have attractive features. I think the Exchange, Kress, and 160 Lofts are all very cool midrise projects, and all have 'affordable' units. The reason I choose living downtown is three-fold: I'm 1/4 mile [3-minute drive, 8-10 minute bike] from work, I don't have to worry about a long commute and related car maintenance, and I got a killer deal I couldn't pass up. Developers will continue to offer a mix of affordable options. We'll have and welcome the high-end mix of highrise and midrise, but don't forget that some builders are interested in building affordable housing units like those in 5th&Main, Rolling Mill Hill, etc. We're going to see more buildings like the Gulch's all-affordable-unit Laurel House built in and around downtown. I do think the highrises like Signature are very cool and draw a lot of attention, but I agree with the folks who favor the mid-rise projects spread out over several blocks. They offer more retail and streetscape options at human scale that I'm actually able to enjoy. I'm reminded that's the reason I specifically love the east village and other areas of NYC -- block after block of restaurants, shops, record stores, etc, most with scores of midrise-dwelling residents living above.

By the way, I can't wait until the new MTA transit center is built. Not just for the building itself [which will likely contain affordable rental units], but for the fact that a re-done Deaderick street is going to look awesome coupled with the new civic plaza/park at the courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't make the statement that mid-rises are less energy efficient. I asked the question, are they more energy efficient? NewTowner and bzorch have said as much but have not offered "facts" to substantiate their claims.

When you ask for specific examples of high-rise residential cities and I give you some, then change the parameters of the discussion, it is unfair. You didn't ask, what are examples of high-rise cities located in areas without geographical constraints? You asked for examples of high-rise neighborhoods that are hospitable and liveable. How or why they became that way is beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it matter so much about the constraints and why those cities mentioned came to have more highrises? The fact is... the cities are livable, and the highrise neighborhoods apparently work. If they didn't, the people in Tokyo or where ever would probably just choose to move to China or the U.S. or somewhere to build instead. So, who's to say it wouldn't work here as well? And besides, if people want to live in a highrise... why should we deprive them of that... this is America.

I agree that low/mid rise neighborhoods would creature a nice walkable environment. But honestly... to me, a good urban environment would include a mixture of all types of buildings large and small, with good street level development along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what Mr. Drummond would think of this debate? He solved everything is a half hour. He was a wise man. Oh the memories. Different Strokes and the Jeffersons brings back memories especially Different Strokes. Arnold and Willis lived in the penthouse of a hotel and the Jeffersons lived at 185 E 85th St New York, Ny on the upper eastside. I had to Google it. I was not suggesting that high-rise was nothing new. We had/have Pruitt-Igo and Cabrini Green as examples.

As for the energy efficiency between mid-rise and high-rise, I have already gone on record that nearly any building type can be constructed energy efficiently if that is the goal. I do have to say that much of the energy efficiency techniques that are employed rely on natural light and passive solar heating. So light does seem to play into the equation. I found the following links that discuss some of the benefits of natural light:

http://lightingdesignlab.com/articles/ltg_...roductivity.htm

http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/4cphillips.pdf

But if we allow developers to build 200ft buildings side by side in the SoBro then we do have a problem with day light. If we employed measures like Vancouver then we would have less of a problem.

The reason for the limitations of where high-rise works was that the cities do not choose to building high-rises just because its cool. They do it because they have to do it. There is no where else to build. We have a lot of room to grow. At one of the UP meetings we should walk the Gulch and Sobro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good mix will help DT. Sig Tower is good IMO becuase it will give as a wow-factor tall tower while injecting a large nbr of people. If another 55 story residential tower was proposed tomorrow right beside it, I would not be their cheerleader. As I stated, Sig Tower will help DT; but we really need to focus on filling in w/ low/mid-rise next. Let the next tall tower be office use; and if it doesn't happen then oh well.

Cliff, I agree and yes, that's exactly what we want - people moving DT for the neighborhood over the actual bldg itself. That's excellant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dang, this has gotten off track.

I just got back from New York City. While there, we went EVERYWHERE. SOHO, Greenwich Village, Upper East, Upper West, and of course Chinatown. What I noticed is this. The large, well known residential areas are the old, long established areas w/ buildings of 5-15 stories. This is the sort of area I hope SoBro, and probably the Gulch to become. However, there are many tall residential towers spread thoughout the city also. Think Trump's Tower on 5th Avenue, and the one huge condo tower in Times Square. The CBDs need residential towers, too, just for a little variety. That's why I don't mind the Sig Tower, and wouldn't mind another tower or two in downtown. I think we should always focus on all types of residential, low, mid, and high rises. The low and mid are really being well covered, especially in the RHM development.

Another thing is that what we should NOT do, is build a huge area of repeating low rises, and call it a neighborhood. Neighborhoods take years to develop. Hopefully what we do is take some areas, ideally SoBro and the Gulch, and let them build up slowly with a variety of styles and, yes, heights. Put some highrises in there. Just for fun. That's the way I see it.

I hope this has all made sense. I wrote this quickly and I'm not paying attention to the way it flows. Eh. Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know what you are going to get when you view a thread. I think we always get caught up in the discussion and forget to start a new thread. Your post is good reminder that it takes more than buildings to make a neighborhood. It has everything to do with tradition, scale, diversity, public space, the people, impromptu experiences, the street, arrangement of buildings and so much more including the intangibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 months later...

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.