Signature Tower

[monsoon]

We continue to be proved right here at UrbanPlanet about this tower. We have said here for quite some time the market for luxury condos of this type is gone and probably won't come back and that is why there has been no movement on the Signature tower. Now we have confirmation given that 25 floors of condos are being removed from the project. Remember you read it here first, not in the local press which seems all too willing to take whatever developers say without question or comment.

[samsonh]

We continue to be proved right here at UrbanPlanet about this tower. We have said here for quite some time the market for luxury condos of this type is gone and probably won't come back and that is why there has been no movement on the Signature tower. Now we have confirmation given that 25 floors of condos are being removed from the project. Remember you read it here first, not in the local press which seems all too willing to take whatever developers say without question or comment.

I think you are taking it a bit far here with the bolded part. This tower was far too ambitious. But there is definitely a market for high rise living, and by all indications it is growing. I think we will go through a period of years where the market will absorb the new product on the market, and then we will continue growing. There are many luxury condo developments that have sold extremely well, so there most certainly is a market.

I also would like to point out that your post is one of the most inflammatory (and childish) I have seen on this board, seems a really odd attitude for a moderator to have.

[titanhog]

We continue to be proved right here at UrbanPlanet about this tower. We have said here for quite some time the market for luxury condos of this type is gone and probably won't come back and that is why there has been no movement on the Signature tower. Now we have confirmation given that 25 floors of condos are being removed from the project. Remember you read it here first, not in the local press which seems all too willing to take whatever developers say without question or comment.

Who is "we?"

[paribasomw]

We continue to be proved right here at UrbanPlanet about this tower. We have said here for quite some time the market for luxury condos of this type is gone and probably won't come back and that is why there has been no movement on the Signature tower. Now we have confirmation given that 25 floors of condos are being removed from the project. Remember you read it here first, not in the local press which seems all too willing to take whatever developers say without question or comment.

This is suprising commentary coming from a "moderator" of Urban Planet. The tone of this particulat moderator's posts have been generally negative on this particular project for a long while. I think we would expect more balanced and objective commentary in the moderation.

[monsoon]

This is suprising commentary coming from a "moderator" of Urban Planet. The tone of this particulat moderator's posts have been generally negative on this particular project for a long while. I think we would expect more balanced and objective commentary in the moderation.

I will be glad to discuss anything that I have posted that you think is incorrect. I notice that you did not point out anything. On the matter of it it is negative or not, that is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. Being "objective" does not mean trying to make a positive spin on something that isn't. If you are looking for that, I suggest reading the newspaper.

I and a few others have pointed out for a long time the very simple economics of what must happen for this project to be built. Basically the developer has to sell enough units in order to get financing for a construction loan, and more to the point, sell enough units at high enough price to at least break even. Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics. Others have said the tower would be built because Nashville essentially "deserves it", or that it is some kind of city effort, or that potential buyers are not worried about an investment in this kind of place, etc etc. And in the 2+ years this topic has been active we have seen posted numerous declarations that ground breaking is going to happen on.....

Yet throughout all of this there was this nagging small detail of no units going under contract for a long long time according to their website. I have contended that no contracts = no tower and appears to be proven out.

I am not sure what is overly negative or unbalanced about that. In fact UrbanPlanet is probably one of the very few places on the web where this notion was actually objectively discussed in regards to the proposed Signature tower. You certainly didn't see it in the newspapers. In any case it's pretty much a moot point now. The proposal is now dead and the developer has gone back to the drawing board. Whether or not he comes back with another tower that is of this height remains to be seen, but given this is his 2nd proposal for this tower to have died, in my opinion don't expect it. We all know what opinions are worth and you may see this differently which is perfectly OK and certainly encourage you or anyone else to post your thoughts if you think differently.

[Nashville_maestro]

I think it's strange and a little funny that Nashville always compares itself with much larger cities (most commonly Atlanta and Chicago as is also the case with this article). St. Louis and Charlotte would be better cities to compare ourselves to.

As far as Signature is concerned, I don't know. I've kind of stopped caring. I want it to be built but I've been teased with one too many groundbreaking dates. If I had to make a guess it's that probably signature isn't going to happen for the time being. Nashville needs to grow a bit more before something like this can really be marketed with enough enticement to bring in enough buyers. Outside of country music, Nashville really isn't a destination vacation spot (which would hurt out of state marketing should TG decide to ever market it outside of Nashville). Things like urban parks, destination shopping, museums, and other various attractions make all the difference when it comes to this. Once the riverside redevelopment is complete, the convention center is finished, and some more upscale shopping comes this way, this project will have a greater chance as a second home for some people.

I would rather see TG expand the hotel rather than have him try and compete for buisnesses with Eakin and AP&a for two reasons: first, I really like the eakin project and I like west end summit more than sig. Competing would make it harder for them to get out of the ground. Secondly, the buisness realm is stressed along with the economy and it will be almost as hard enticing buisnesses to uproot and move to Nashville (on a scale as to fill sig) for the time being as it will be enticing people to buy a 700k condo. On the other hand there ARE a lot of proposed hotels right now...

Plus i like the current design and i would hate for him to redesign to accommodate office space. All of this is of course my humble, inexperienced opinion.

[titanhog]

I will be glad to discuss anything that I have posted that you think is incorrect. I notice that you did not point out anything. On the matter of it it is negative or not, that is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. Being "objective" does not mean trying to make a positive spin on something that isn't. If you are looking for that, I suggest reading the newspaper.

I and a few others have pointed out for a long time the very simple economics of what must happen for this project to be built. Basically the developer has to sell enough units in order to get financing for a construction loan, and more to the point, sell enough units at high enough price to at least break even. Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics. Others have said the tower would be built because Nashville essentially "deserves it", or that it is some kind of city effort, or that potential buyers are not worried about an investment in this kind of place, etc etc. And in the 2+ years this topic has been active we have seen posted numerous declarations that ground breaking is going to happen on.....

Yet throughout all of this there was this nagging small detail of no units going under contract for a long long time according to their website. I have contended that no contracts = no tower and appears to be proven out.

I am not sure what is overly negative or unbalanced about that. In fact UrbanPlanet is probably one of the very few places on the web where this notion was actually objectively discussed in regards to the proposed Signature tower. You certainly didn't see it in the newspapers. In any case it's pretty much a moot point now. The proposal is now dead and the developer has gone back to the drawing board. Whether or not he comes back with another tower that is of this height remains to be seen, but given this is his 2nd proposal for this tower to have died, in my opinion don't expect it. We all know what opinions are worth and you may see this differently which is perfectly OK and certainly encourage you or anyone else to post your thoughts if you think differently.

I'm sure you may disagree, but it just appears that you come to the Nashville forum with the hopes that this project will fail. As if it is Nashville vs. some other city.

I wish well for cities like Charlotte, yet I'd like to see this built. I agree, some on here have been "rah, rah"...but what's wrong with that? Isn't it better than being a "negative Nellie?"

It really appears you have a "ha, I told you so" attitude...and it actually comes across as being somewhat anti-Nashville, especially considering that the Siggy thread is where you almost always post. It seems to be your mission to prove us Nashvillians wrong.

I, for one, hope Tony builds something nice on that property.

And...the project is not officially dead...and I'm glad.

[paribasomw]

I'm sure you may disagree, but it just appears that you come to the Nashville forum with the hopes that this project will fail. As if it is Nashville vs. some other city.

I wish well for cities like Charlotte, yet I'd like to see this built. I agree, some on here have been "rah, rah"...but what's wrong with that? Isn't it better than being a "negative Nellie?"

It really appears you have a "ha, I told you so" attitude...and it actually comes across as being somewhat anti-Nashville, especially considering that the Siggy thread is where you almost always post. It seems to be your mission to prove us Nashvillians wrong.

I, for one, hope Tony builds something nice on that property.

And...the project is not officially dead...and I'm glad.

Bravo! Very well-stated reply...exactly what I mean about moderator Monsoon's continuing high-handed postings on this topic. Indeed, Monsoon (from Charlotte) always seems to have a negative viewpoint about Signature Tower as if there some sort of wish to see it fail. That is what I mean about it being shocking that is from a UP moderator who most certainly won't be banned for the post. I would expect better commentary from a moderator. Where are the Nashville moderators?

[southsideJ]

I will be glad to discuss anything that I have posted that you think is incorrect. I notice that you did not point out anything. On the matter of it it is negative or not, that is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. Being "objective" does not mean trying to make a positive spin on something that isn't. If you are looking for that, I suggest reading the newspaper.

I and a few others have pointed out for a long time the very simple economics of what must happen for this project to be built. Basically the developer has to sell enough units in order to get financing for a construction loan, and more to the point, sell enough units at high enough price to at least break even. Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics. Others have said the tower would be built because Nashville essentially "deserves it", or that it is some kind of city effort, or that potential buyers are not worried about an investment in this kind of place, etc etc. And in the 2+ years this topic has been active we have seen posted numerous declarations that ground breaking is going to happen on.....

Yet throughout all of this there was this nagging small detail of no units going under contract for a long long time according to their website. I have contended that no contracts = no tower and appears to be proven out.

I am not sure what is overly negative or unbalanced about that. In fact UrbanPlanet is probably one of the very few places on the web where this notion was actually objectively discussed in regards to the proposed Signature tower. You certainly didn't see it in the newspapers. In any case it's pretty much a moot point now. The proposal is now dead and the developer has gone back to the drawing board. Whether or not he comes back with another tower that is of this height remains to be seen, but given this is his 2nd proposal for this tower to have died, in my opinion don't expect it. We all know what opinions are worth and you may see this differently which is perfectly OK and certainly encourage you or anyone else to post your thoughts if you think differently.

what is particularly offputting about your posts in this topic is that they mostly seem childish and bitter. You have repeatedly stated that the Nashville media is gullible and ignorant and suggested that you understand the local real estate market better than they do. This is ridiculous and makes me doubt that you have little more purpose here than to stir things up and lash out at anyone who doesn't beilieve the building is a bad idea and will never be built. You almost seem to have more at stake than the people who would like to see it built. You don't even live in Nashville, do you? When was the last time you were even in Nashville?

I don't remember anyone ever arguing that economics don't apply to Giarratana or that the building will get built b/c Nashville deserves it. And I don't remember ever reading an article on Signature Tower that didn't include the word 'if' when talking about if the tower actually gets built.

I believe you even once scolded people on here once for discussing the Signature Tower in the Signature Tower thread.

What gives? And you're a moderator?

[Nashville_maestro]

I know a lot of people here and on skyscrsper city consider the only thing giving charlotte's skyline an edge over Nashville is the Bank of America plaza. If signature were built, it would put Nashville ahead of charlotte as far as skyline goes. I guess a lot of people measure a city by its skyline which is a tad obsurd. (Monsoon lives in Charlotte I believe)

[monsoon]

Bravo! Very well-stated reply...exactly what I mean about moderator Monsoon's continuing high-handed postings on this topic. Indeed, Monsoon (from Charlotte) always seems to have a negative viewpoint about Signature Tower as if there some sort of wish to see it fail. That is what I mean about it being shocking that is from a UP moderator who most certainly won't be banned for the post. I would expect better commentary from a moderator. Where are the Nashville moderators?

You guys are amusing if you think I have posted what I have posted in this topic because I am trying to have some kind of Charlotte based vendetta against Nashville. If you really think this, then I suggest that you go and read my posts in the Charlotte section of UrbanPlanet where I have said exactly the same thing about a number of dubious projects there that are now canceled. You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts, do not support it.

I will remind you that it was me who started the Nashville forum. And because I personally stared it, expanded it, and picked the moderators that we have had for it, I have an ongoing interest in the topics here as I do with many sections of UrbanPlanet. If you are "shocked" by my postings, I don't know what to tell you except that I have never gotten a PM or email from you stating why you don't like how this is being handled. You are more than welcome to do so. Taking pot shots at me from the peanut gallery isn't the way to get things done here.

I have never said the tower would not be built. You can go back and read through my posts and you won't find that. What I have consistently said is this tower won't be built without sales. The sales have not happened and guess what, there is no project now. If this upsets you enough to make personal attacks against me, I don't know what to say because I now that I haven't said anything here that I have not said anywhere else. We are not a skyscraper booster site and my posts reflect that.

[monsoon]

what is particularly offputting about your posts in this topic is that they mostly seem childish and bitter. You have repeatedly stated that the Nashville media is gullible and ignorant and suggested that you understand the local real estate market better than they do. ....

Yet we have had people from the "nashville media" post articles in one of the local papers where they directly attacked a member of UrbanPlanet. (not me) They later retracted and apologized it but it does show the level that the media operates at these days. That episode was well documented here, but I have since removed the topic as to stop the negative discourse.

In calling me "childish and bitter" you are guilty in the very thing that you accuse me of. You can also check back through my posts and you will find that I try to stick to facts and not make personal attacks such as this.

I have never said I understand the market better, but you don't have to live in a market to understand what it takes to build a building. However if you want to refer to any posts that I have made where I have done so, you may refer to it here and we can discuss it.

[monsoon]

I know a lot of people here and on skyscrsper city consider the only thing giving charlotte's skyline an edge over Nashville is the Bank of America plaza. If signature were built, it would put Nashville ahead of charlotte as far as skyline goes. I guess a lot of people measure a city by its skyline which is a tad obsurd. (Monsoon lives in Charlotte I believe)

I don't measure a city by it's skyline and have often posted why skyscrapers are bad for cities much to the dismay of people who do post in the Charlotte forum. Again I recommend anyone that thinks otherwise, go read my posts there. My biggest criticisms towards projects on this site were not towards the Signature tower, in fact I have said relatively little about it's impact negative or positive on development in Nashville. My biggest criticisms of skyscraper projects are towards a number of Charlotte projects. If you don't believe this I do recommend you go read through what I have posted in that city's forum.

In addition, since you mentioned SSC, we simply don't allow VS topics and discussions to happen at this site. We have been pretty good about that as there is almost no conversations her that directly compare Nashville to Charlotte to any other city. People have tried to start those kinds of fights here and I have deleted those posts without comment to stop it from happening.

[satalac]

Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics.

examples please.

In any case it's pretty much a moot point now. The proposal is now dead and the developer has gone back to the drawing board.

where did it say that the proposal for the tower was dead? it simply stated that some condo units will be replaced with commercial ones. kinda like the throw the baby out with the bath water cliche. while you are entitled to your opinion, i wouldn't group the entire forum as "we" when describing urban planet. there are those of us that live in nashville that are very knowledgeable about goings on in the city that many outsiders may not know about. and while you are correct that tony isn't immune to the economy, he has proven to be quite successful against the odds. to totally discount him would be unwise. am i saying signature tower is 100% getting built? no, but i still believe that it is a good possibility. quitting in the face of adversity never get anything accomplished.

[monsoon]

......

where did it say that the proposal for the tower was dead?

The proposal was being billed as one of the tallest residential/condo towers to be built in the world. In fact most of the free press he got in the beginning was based solely on this buildings unique position in this market relative to height because there are very very few residential towers in the world with this many floors. Now he is saying that he is removing 25 floors of condos. That means that proposal is dead and he is back to the drawing board. He may replace it with a different proposal but he has not said, as far as I know what that might be.

[nashvylle]

A conversion of floors 14-42 does not = a dead proposal. He has 100 contracts, still has Hotel Palomar, still owns land. Get this tower Nashville.

[dmillsphoto]

OK, my two cents as a resident of Nashville: This tower will be built, just like WES will and just like the 1201 Demonbreun towers will. This is part of expansion.

To comment - the proposal is not dead as Monsoon has suggested in post with quote "The proposal is now dead and the developer has gone back to the drawing board." The Burj Dubia went through something like 16 revisions before a final count for business, hotel, boutique, and residences was resolved. It took several years to achieve this. My data to back that up was the Discover Channel special on Dubai, as quoted one of the developers. Provided Signature Tower is nowhere near the icon that Burj is, it is going through the same process - revisions until it is finally accepted and built. Who cares if it takes five years total to get it sorted out. That does not signify death. Only delay.

To comment - I don't think her posts have been "childish" as suggested, rather I would say a little more unsympathetic to the building. I doubt seriously it is jealousy over Nashville vs. Charlotte.

I believe this is the last revision needed - and it will still have the claim as the highest residences in the US when it's done. 70th floor penthouse hasn't changed at all, in fact it was the first to get a contract. (Edit: This excludes the Chicago Spire until completion of each)

[Nashville_maestro]

What's the old saying? Third time's the charm?

Also, I think the Chicago spire will actually have the highest residences in the country when it's finished if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong though.

Edit- just saw your edit.

[GRDadof3]

what is particularly offputting about your posts in this topic is that they mostly seem childish and bitter. You have repeatedly stated that the Nashville media is gullible and ignorant and suggested that you understand the local real estate market better than they do. This is ridiculous and makes me doubt that you have little more purpose here than to stir things up and lash out at anyone who doesn't beilieve the building is a bad idea and will never be built. You almost seem to have more at stake than the people who would like to see it built. You don't even live in Nashville, do you? When was the last time you were even in Nashville?

I don't remember anyone ever arguing that economics don't apply to Giarratana or that the building will get built b/c Nashville deserves it. And I don't remember ever reading an article on Signature Tower that didn't include the word 'if' when talking about if the tower actually gets built.

I believe you even once scolded people on here once for discussing the Signature Tower in the Signature Tower thread.

What gives? And you're a moderator?

I have to step in here on this one. Either tone down the attacks on the moderator or find someplace else to spend your free time.

Monsoon has not attacked anyone personally in this thread, so please don't take your emotional over-exuberance and defensiveness regarding this project out on him. Every project is subject to, and should be subjected to, due criticism. If you, or anyone else for that matter, responds to my post with an attack on me, you will summarily be suspended/banned.

Thank you.

[highriser]

You guys need to stop being so hard on Monsoon. She is entitled to her opinion. It just seems to me that we here on the Nashville board are a little bit too sensitive to opinions other than ours, but I've seen plenty of you guys on the boards of other cities talking down their projects and ideas as well, so, "let he who is without opinion cast the first stone."

[satalac]

The proposal was being billed as one of the tallest residential/condo towers to be built in the world. In fact most of the free press he got in the beginning was based solely on this buildings unique position in this market relative to height because there are very very few residential towers in the world with this many floors. Now he is saying that he is removing 25 floors of condos. That means that proposal is dead and he is back to the drawing board. He may replace it with a different proposal but he has not said, as far as I know what that might be.

thank you for clarifying. i guess its just different perspectives. i understand what you're saying. what i was meaning is that the tower itself is not dead. I know you're talking about the tower as just hotel and condos being dead. did you find any examples of your quote "Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics." yet?

[monsoon]

.... "Yet despite this fairly simple idea, some have said here that we don't really need to be concerned with that because the developer is some kind of genius that doesn't have to worry about these kind of economics." yet?

I haven't bothered to go and look because I know what was said about this project and I don't really wish to dredge back up some of the really insulting posts that are mostly in the trash now. Since I made my post yesterday, I've been called childish, immature, and motivated to make Nashville look bad because I am from Charlotte. Never mind that nobody wants to actually discuss what I have posted.

And I just got a nasty PM from a member who has not posted here in two years that falls in these same lines. So I am not looking to go back and bring up posts from people only to somehow prove they were wrong. Given the "sensitivities" that some here have towards this project and the difficulties in having a objective conversation about it, I am just not going to go there. Please feel free to go back and read through the almost 2200 posts that are still available if you are interested. It should not be too hard to find.

There are a lot of good forumers from Nashville who do make good contributions to UrbanPlanet and it is in support of these people that we do try to keep the conversations focused on the subject at and and keep the personalities out of it.

[satalac]

Never mind that nobody wants to actually discuss what I have posted.

the reason i asked for examples was so i could discuss the reasons you felt this way. it was not meant to degrade you in any way. i do agree that it is unfortunate that some of the posts have turned personal. that is one of the reasons i took a break from this forum for a while.

[Plasticman]

I find his latest proposal as an acknowledgement that he waited too long to tap the market and that something had to change. Plus I've stated several times that the project is too upscale to waste such low-brow marketing like balloon rides and free cars on. The only thing missing was dancing clowns, pony rides, and face painting.

Had he proposed this five years ago, it would be different. With correctly aimed marketing toward upscale clients, he would have sold out and be complete by now. I wonder what marketing he did with Veridian that caused it to sell out well before being complete?

On the positive side, I believe his acknowledgment, though late in coming, will help get this thing out of the ground. Yes it is delayed but by starting over while still maintaining many of the contracts my optimism is again trending upward. While he has stumbled, he certainly hasn't fumbled and he does have a level of determination that may just turn into success.

[southsideJ]

I have to step in here on this one. Either tone down the attacks on the moderator or find someplace else to spend your free time.

Monsoon has not attacked anyone personally in this thread, so please don't take your emotional over-exuberance and defensiveness regarding this project out on him. Every project is subject to, and should be subjected to, due criticism. If you, or anyone else for that matter, responds to my post with an attack on me, you will summarily be suspended/banned.

Thank you.

i never suggested that this or any other project shouldn't be subjected to due criticism. And at point did I display an emotional over-exuberance and defensiveness regarding this project? My post wasn't even really about Signature Tower--more just about how I found monsoon's posting attitude in this topic to be surprisingly combative and derogative of the Nashvillians and the Nashville media, esp. considering that he/she is a moderator.