Archived

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

NewTowner

Signature Tower

Recommended Posts

But how is that outward growth prevented? Do we have to do something to keep the Franklins, Murfreesboros and Hendersonvilles from growing?
Not a subject for this topic. Feel free to start a discussion on this subject if interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^LOL, the developers in Atlanta think too highly of themselves. There are maybe 1 or 2 places in North America that could actually justify the building of a 70 story residential tower and Atlanta is not one of them. Announcing one of the tallest towers in the world has a way of getting one instant free attention on a national basis for a product that mainly appeals to the unwarranted real estate excess that has been going on in the USA.

The reality of the situation is that most people would not actually want to live in a building this tall. I am surprised that nobody has talked to the compromises the residents of the John Hancock Center in Chicago make to live in that tower. I doubt that many would want to live like that on a day to day basis. The most expensive property in NYC, by far, are the town homes where one can step out onto the street. Not condos in tall towers.

Americans have gone through a 20 year phase of building mcmansions, luxury condos, and other places that don't make much practical sense and are designed mostly to appeal to those who still measure worth based on the size of one's pocket book. The signature tower comes at the end, from what I can see of that cycle and will most likely be a victim of that timing. Many people are now demanding more sensible and eco friendly buildings that are not so over the top.

I disagree. Atlanta could easily have accomodated a building like Signature Tower, especially before the mortgage crunch. The idea that somehow only 1 or 2 places in North America could justify a 70 story residential building doesn't work for me. You are somehow trying to mis-equate the size of the city with the justification of height. In the end it is all about demand. 400 condos, even million dollar ones, isn't even close to being too much for a city over 5 million people. Given that most of the units are 400,000-750,000 makes it even more reasonable.

And even Nashville at 1.5+ million could do it if demand is there. Obviously 100+ people have thought it okay or they wouldn't have signed on the dotted line. To take your assertion farther, being 800+ feet in the air in Nashville is no different than being 800+ feet in the air in NYC. (except you get a much more unobstructed view of rolling hills and scenary). So while you statement that most people don't want to live in a tall condo tower may have some truth to it, it has nothing to do with where that tower is. The justification is soley based on the developer's willingness to propose it, the ability to sell the units, and the city's willingness to allow it. Those are the only real factors to consider when one speaks of justification.

If this building had been proposed ten years ago even in Nashville, I have no doubt it would be standing tall today and likely with a couple other complimentary towers in the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. Atlanta could defintely support a Signature Tower, especially before the mortgage crunch. It's probably just a relatively short time before it gets one. I've been hoping all along Signature Tower would spur developers in Atlanta to build such a project there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Atlanta could easily have accomodated a building like Signature Tower, especially before the mortgage crunch. ....
Then where is it? The lack of condo buildings of this height speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then where is it? The lack of condo buildings of this height speaks for itself.

I imagine no developer ever seriously proposed one down here. Do you really believe that ten years ago if a developer proposed a 1,200 foot mixed use tower down here and got city approval to build it that it wouldn't have been built because of lack of demand? Hardly. I venture that once the mortgage crunch is gone that some gutsy developer will make such a proposal and make it happen. I still stand by my premise that demand, city approval, and a visionary developer is all that is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ no offense, but it's really kind of silly to suggest, or declare, that there was a market in nashville for a 1200 foot residential tower ten years ago. whatever the market will support today, logic suggests it would have supported much less 10 years ago. that same logic would expect a deeper market 10 years hence. it should not be hard for anyone to agree on this.

as to whether the mortgage crunch is to blame for signature's woes one only need drop back about 8-9 months on this thread to see that signature was stuggling with sales, financing and managing its costs (the biggest three issues ?) well before the subprime meltdown last august. to suggest that all will be well once the mortgage market stabilizes seems to ignore the obvious.

tony seems to have moved on to a new signature project anyway out in the floodplain of bells bend. maybe those "dreams can come true" but i think he's going to need a new gameplan for the property on church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ no offense, but it's really kind of silly to suggest, or declare, that there was a market in nashville for a 1200 foot residential tower ten years ago. whatever the market will support today, logic suggests it would have supported much less 10 years ago. that same logic would expect a deeper market 10 years hence. it should not be hard for anyone to agree on this.

as to whether the mortgage crunch is to blame for signature's woes one only need drop back about 8-9 months on this thread to see that signature was stuggling with sales, financing and managing its costs (the biggest three issues ?) well before the subprime meltdown last august. to suggest that all will be well once the mortgage market stabilizes seems to ignore the obvious.

tony seems to have moved on to a new signature project anyway out in the floodplain of bells bend. maybe those "dreams can come true" but i think he's going to need a new gameplan for the property on church.

IF...and it's a BIG if...Tony doesn't get Siggy built, I would imagine it may be 10 years before we see something at the Church St. site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife's sister lives in a high rise condo in Buckhead. She said they cannot give condo's away down there. Right now she would lose big time if she sold her unit.

What building does your wife's sister live in? In the immediate Buckhead area there are currently 72 units pending and 32 others have sold since 01/01/08. There are alot of variables that go into why a unit can not sell. Most importantly is pricing and location. Also what type of view and what floor is this unit on? Perhaps she needs to revisit the price with her realtor. As a realtor sometimes we have to be the voice of reason and say "yes, I understand your upgrades but noone is going to pay $699,900 for a 2 bd, 2 ba on the 8th floor facing the Grand Hyatt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now let me discuss the Signature Tower.

I will have to counter Plasticman's assessment and say that a building of the Siggy's size would be a serious mistake for the Atlanta market. This is my belief before or immediately after the credit crunch. I have a listing in a high-rise and a dear friend who lives in another high-rise. Having visited him on many occasions I will be the first to say that livability starts to seriously decrease after 30 floors. Only out of necessity will people tolerate higher floors. As Monsoon said, there are very few cities that really validate such height. Even in those cities are such high living is rare...look at New York, Mexico City, Tokyo and Sao Paulo. How many 70 story residential buildings are in those cities?

As an outsider this constructive criticism may not be received but take it for what it's worth. My husband and I were on the list. We even made the trip to Nashville to the unveiling of the Siggy. For the price we would have paid for the unit, we could buy in New York City. I personally loved the building but the fundamentals were not there. Even in a mid major market like Atlanta, living in a high-rise in the Buckhead district can be a challenge. It would not, however, be one of total inconvenience. Within steps of the Sovereign, The Mansion on Peachtree, Terminus, Realm and countless others, there are many shopping, dining and retail options. Also with MARTA access and highway access, one could be to the airport with ease and to countless points around the world. Until these issues are addressed in the Siggy's location, you would be hard pressed to find someone willing to put down as much money on an inconvenience. You don't get wealthy by making silly decisions.

Many of Atlanta's choicest high-rises are occupied by people as their second, third and sometimes fourth home. Many Europeans and Canadians are now buying up units in Atlanta's high-rises. I am not saying that Nashville doesn't have to same cache' as Atlanta. Perhaps it does. Atlanta speaks to a varied market. In one building you can have everything from a player for the Seattle Sea Hawks, to a major hip hop recording artist to a Russian Ballerina all on one floor. That's why I feel the Siggy's prices may have been another challenge. Some might say "why buy a unit there when I can buy a unit in Manhattan, Atlanta or Miami?" Getting the most bang for your buck is paramount.

Perhaps the Signature Tower is ahead of it's time. Perhaps the credit crunch is adding more fuel to the fire....or should I say water to the fire? Either way, I find the building to be quite attractive. In a market as young as Nashville, I personally think that Mr. G should sit on the land for a while. Build many midrises to add people and amenities to the city center...then and only then should he revisit the Siggy. In the Signature Towers price range; you are going to have to have a boatload of amenities. Giving away a Lexus LS460L is not going to suffice...especially if the potential owners already own a S600 or a Continental Flying Spur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ no offense, but it's really kind of silly to suggest, or declare, that there was a market in nashville for a 1200 foot residential tower ten years ago. whatever the market will support today, logic suggests it would have supported much less 10 years ago. that same logic would expect a deeper market 10 years hence. it should not be hard for anyone to agree on this.

as to whether the mortgage crunch is to blame for signature's woes one only need drop back about 8-9 months on this thread to see that signature was stuggling with sales, financing and managing its costs (the biggest three issues ?) well before the subprime meltdown last august. to suggest that all will be well once the mortgage market stabilizes seems to ignore the obvious.

tony seems to have moved on to a new signature project anyway out in the floodplain of bells bend. maybe those "dreams can come true" but i think he's going to need a new gameplan for the property on church.

Not even remotely silly and you missed my point. I was really speaking of Atlanta regarding a 1,200 footer, not Nashville. Monsoon asked where they were and my response was that there may not have ever been a proposal for such a structure down here (I don't know). But if there were a proposal during the height of the real estate boom I would bet 70/30 that it would have been standing tall today. I believe most of you are leaving out one part of my assertion...demand. You have to have a visionary, you have to have approvals to build, and you must have "demand". Those three things alone justify building whatever height you want to. LC and Monsoon both assert that people don't want to live that high. Fair enough. That is where the "demand" comes in. Is it there or not?

Signature's problems may be that the 110 or whatever number he has sold is about it for that type of condo up there. I don't know. But I do believe strongly that the marketing has been less than adequate for a high end project. You combine gimicky marketing which cheapens the project with the lending crunch and you have a recipe for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now let me discuss the Signature Tower.

I will have to counter Plasticman's assessment and say that a building of the Siggy's size would be a serious mistake for the Atlanta market. This is my belief before or immediately after the credit crunch. I have a listing in a high-rise and a dear friend who lives in another high-rise. Having visited him on many occasions I will be the first to say that livability starts to seriously decrease after 30 floors. Only out of necessity will people tolerate higher floors. As Monsoon said, there are very few cities that really validate such height. Even in those cities are such high living is rare...look at New York, Mexico City, Tokyo and Sao Paulo. How many 70 story residential buildings are in those cities?

As an outsider this constructive criticism may not be received but take it for what it's worth. My husband and I were on the list. We even made the trip to Nashville to the unveiling of the Siggy. For the price we would have paid for the unit, we could buy in New York City. I personally loved the building but the fundamentals were not there. Even in a mid major market like Atlanta, living in a high-rise in the Buckhead district can be a challenge. It would not, however, be one of total inconvenience. Within steps of the Sovereign, The Mansion on Peachtree, Terminus, Realm and countless others, there are many shopping, dining and retail options. Also with MARTA access and highway access, one could be to the airport with ease and to countless points around the world. Until these issues are addressed in the Siggy's location, you would be hard pressed to find someone willing to put down as much money on an inconvenience. You don't get wealthy by making silly decisions.

Many of Atlanta's choicest high-rises are occupied by people as their second, third and sometimes fourth home. Many Europeans and Canadians are now buying up units in Atlanta's high-rises. I am not saying that Nashville doesn't have to same cache' as Atlanta. Perhaps it does. Atlanta speaks to a varied market. In one building you can have everything from a player for the Seattle Sea Hawks, to a major hip hop recording artist to a Russian Ballerina all on one floor. That's why I feel the Siggy's prices may have been another challenge. Some might say "why buy a unit there when I can buy a unit in Manhattan, Atlanta or Miami?" Getting the most bang for your buck is paramount.

Perhaps the Signature Tower is ahead of it's time. Perhaps the credit crunch is adding more fuel to the fire....or should I say water to the fire? Either way, I find the building to be quite attractive. In a market as young as Nashville, I personally think that Mr. G should sit on the land for a while. Build many midrises to add people and amenities to the city center...then and only then should he revisit the Siggy. In the Signature Towers price range; you are going to have to have a boatload of amenities. Giving away a Lexus LS460L is not going to suffice...especially if the potential owners already own a S600 or a Continental Flying Spur.

nicely done...this past year many of us have tried to make sense of this ambitious project. i've yet to see anyone sum it up quite so well. thanks for posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but when TG announced this project at 55+ stories, I knew then it was doomed. I really wish he would have stayed with 55 stories and I think we would be seeing this thing rise right now. I'm really disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was this project canceled or something? I'm trying to figure out how this thread got so negative so fast? Last I heard, tony was about to announce a general contractor. Isn't that good news?

There have been a lot of "announcements" over the last 2 years since this project was announced. Yet, at this point, it is all vaporware since there is no construction taking place.

I recommend that you read back through it to figure out why the people here have come to the conclusions they have. As we have said numerous times, this project is not going to go up unless there are enough sales to support it. Until that happens, anything else is really irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of "announcements" over the last 2 years since this project was announced. Yet, at this point, it is all vaporware since there is no construction taking place.

I recommend that you read back through it to figure out why the people here have come to the conclusions they have. As we have said numerous times, this project is not going to go up unless there are enough sales to support it. Until that happens, anything else is really irrelevant.

I just don't see the point in saying anything else is irrelevant. This site fosters discussion about potential projects as well as current ones and all he was trying to say is that the announcement of a new contractor would still indicate TG is working, albeit at a slow pace. We know it's not rising until certain conditions are met, but discussion of other factors and aspects of the project besides sales make this thread still of interest IMO, and that is why it is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all of this quite relevant to the ongoing discussion.

I'm perplexed at where the pronoucement "until that happens, anything else is irrelevant" comes from.

There have been a lot of "announcements" over the last 2 years since this project was announced. Yet, at this point, it is all vaporware since there is no construction taking place.

I recommend that you read back through it to figure out why the people here have come to the conclusions they have. As we have said numerous times, this project is not going to go up unless there are enough sales to support it. Until that happens, anything else is really irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was, Tony could have everything lined up as far as GC, all the way down to the artwork in the lobby picked out, but if he doesn't meet requirements set forth by his lenders, then the best laid plans go to waste. However, everyone is certainly welcome to discuss whatever aspect of this project they chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see the point in saying anything else is irrelevant. This site fosters discussion about potential projects as well as current ones and all he was trying to say is that the announcement of a new contractor would still indicate TG is working, albeit at a slow pace. We know it's not rising until certain conditions are met, but discussion of other factors and aspects of the project besides sales make this thread still of interest IMO, and that is why it is relevant.

Nobody said you couldn't discuss anything you like as long as it is on topic. A question was asked and I answered it in regards to "announcements" from Tony concerning this project. We have long established here this building will not go up unless there are enough sales to warrant it and as far as it seems now, these don't exist, hence my comment that other announcements from him are irrelevant.

I'm perplexed at where the pronoucement "until that happens, anything else is irrelevant" comes from.
If you are still perplexed, then try to read the comment in context to what I was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reviewed and remain perplexed about the nature/tone of the reply. It seems just a bit repressive for a discussion thread.

Nobody said you couldn't discuss anything you like as long as it is on topic. A question was asked and I answered it in regards to "announcements" from Tony concerning this project. We have long established here this building will not go up unless there are enough sales to warrant it and as far as it seems now, these don't exist, hence my comment that other announcements from him are irrelevant.If you are still perplexed, then try to read the comment in context to what I was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have reviewed and remain perplexed about the nature/tone of the reply. It seems just a bit repressive for a discussion thread.
Your opinion is noted. Please send a PM if you need further clarification on my remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is willing to take on the task, we should have a timeline of the progression of this project from conception to current status. It would include announcements, delays, public support/backlash, etc. I think this way we can have everyone examine the timeline and come to their own conclusion as to what will happen. Another post of the tower rendering wouldn't hurt either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is willing to take on the task, we should have a timeline of the progression of this project from conception to current status. It would include announcements, delays, public support/backlash, etc. I think this way we can have everyone examine the timeline and come to their own conclusion as to what will happen. Another post of the tower rendering wouldn't hurt either.

How about a wiki page? I created this a while back.. maybe someone can update it with dates and more info..

http://www.urbanplanet.org/wiki/index.php/Signature_Tower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.