Signature Tower

[tistic]

The fact of the matter is that while you may disagree with the prognosis that I have posted, you have not posted any reasons as to why that prognosis may be wrong except again to dismiss it as unwarranted naysaying.

With a hotel deal signed, a contractor on board, with 150 or so purchasers committed with deposits, and with engineering and architectural schematics proceeding, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a condo tower soon to be built on this site.

History shows that more developers build buildings for profit than build them to set height records. And economics demands that only an idiot would walk away from a project just because it has to be modified to suit the market demand. Meeting market demand is what developers do. Far from being an idiot, Tony is extremely bright. This project could conceivably wind up being a smaller than currently planned, but some version of it will get built--otherwise Tony and his team would be walking away from a pile of profit.

Every project ever built had a start date announced. Virtually every project built had some construction delays. The choice is to positive or negative when those things happen.

So it seems quite unwarranted, IMO, to predict the whole thing will fall through when all the ingredients are there for a project to get built, merely because of typical delays.

At this point we certainly have more reasons to believe the boosters than the pessimists.

[rocky top buzz]

LA, you said the TIF financing was denied? I don't remember hearing that. I thought Tony was quoted as saying 'If the TIF doesn't get approved, the signature wouldn't be built?'

[Skyscrapergeek]

TIF was granted, however, Tony decided not to accept it. Yet another reason to be optomistic.

[monsoon]

History shows that more developers build buildings for profit than build them to set height records. And economics demands that only an idiot would walk away from a project just because it has to be modified to suit the market demand. Meeting market demand is what developers do. Far from being an idiot, Tony is extremely bright. This project could conceivably wind up being a smaller than currently planned, but some version of it will get built--otherwise Tony and his team would be walking away from a pile of profit.....

I don't know any developer that would build a building for anything other than profit. Again, if he can't get enough commitments to satisfy whatever bank he is approaching for a construction loan the thing won't be built. This is the real gate as to what will happen. I do agree however that another scenario may be a significant scaling back of the height of the building. The project has already had a major revision to add height, if that doesn't work, there isn't any reason to believe that it wont have another to remove height, except for maybe that is going to piss off the people who have made reservations.

[titanhog]

I'll continue to believe Gaushell and his optimism for the project since he has first hand knowledge and let you naysayers continue to spread your pessimism. If Gaushell starts to give hints of the doom to come, then I'll start to worry.

"Trailerpark Trash" metro? Wow...left field.

[monsoon]

^I think I already explained that was a poor choice of words, maybe you did not bother to read that far ahead.

In any case, I do think what has been presented here looks as if it was designed by a 1st year architecture student, and not a very good one at that. There have been numerous others that have privately mentioned this to me as well while this design has unfolded on this site. They of course won't put it this thread lest they have to deal with the onslaught of personal insults that I received for saying so. IMO, Nashville deserves something better than this.

So there, I have expressed my opinion, and as has been pointed out here this isn't the only one about this tower. We all know what opinions are worth so we can all move on now.

[MidTenn1]

Once again, I will post the photo of the model of the tower which I think gives the closest representation of how the final project may look.

It shows the emphasis on the horizontal structure as well as the vertical which eliminates the glass 'rocketship' look you see in so many modern supertalls in America.

I preferred the original proposal for the 700' building that had a 'classic' (I use that word with trepidation, these days) facade featuring individual, recessed windows and detailed relief on the exterior cladding. So I was somewhat dissapointed at the early renderings of the revised, taller building, which indeed gave it the 'rocketship' look. But the unveiling of the model allayed some of my concerns with the proportions and scale of such a building. It turned out to be quite a 'handsome' building. It would look grand in New York City or Los Angeles.

But, alas, it will be built in Nashville. And there is probably no way to make a 1,047' tall building blend in to our skyline. It will catch your attention, no doubt. Perhaps, if some of the rumored 50 story+ hotels come about in conjunction with the new convention center, the impact will be reduced some.

As far as the street level is concerned, I agree the there is something missing. There will be retail on the lowest level, but the facade is a continuation of what's happening on the 65th floor.

I could go on, but I am content with the proposal for several reasons:

> It does have an appealing "Chrysler Building' look to it with the spire and is a true 'signature' tower.

> It will put about a thousand more human feet on the streets of downtown and create demand for more retail and commercial which may encourage more residential.

It's not the ideal building for Nashville, but I can't think of one that is. We tend to take risks and chances and prefer a little chaos and anarchy in our growth and development. It has worked well so far and has made Nashville what it is today, one of the world's great Cities.

[Dale]

I love it. I can't think of a better place for it than Nashville.

[erdogs]

That sure is a handsome building. I'm very happy for Nashville, they deserve it.

[chris holman]

Did anyone that recived a invitation for a special preview of Signature Tower get a chance to go to the presentation today? I'm wondering what more in details about the tower did Tony G show or talk about.

I recived one but I had to work so I couldn't make it.

[it's just dave]

I'm not going to be able to make it, but the presentation is Monday, Oct. 9th. You haven't missed it yet, Chris.

[barakat]

My invitation says Oct 12.

[Jeeper12]

As we debate the likelihood of these big projects moving forward I thought some of you might find this Feb article regarding Trump's 55 story Tampa tower interesting. The market there has softened but as of this Feb they had 75% of the units sold with 20% deposits and had begun site prep. It's apparently a big mystery as to why there still has been no progress on construction.

http://sptimes.com/2006/02/01/Business/Whe...ump_Tower.shtml

[Dale]

As we debate the likelihood of these big projects moving forward I thought some of you might find this Feb article regarding Trump's 55 story Tampa tower interesting. The market there has softened but as of this Feb they had 75% of the units sold with 20% deposits and had begun site prep. It's apparently a big mystery as to why there still has been no progress on construction.

http://sptimes.com/2006/02/01/Business/Whe...ump_Tower.shtml

Problems with the GC, for one thing.

[Jeeper12]

Problems with the GC, for one thing.

Just for grins I called the sales agent and he said Trump was not going to use Turner Construction as previously announced but that they are close to announcing who the new contractor will be. Is Tony still using Turner ?

[chris holman]

I'm not going to be able to make it, but the presentation is Monday, Oct. 9th. You haven't missed it yet, Chris.

I believe I missed my invention, it was for Oct 4th.

[Duke32]

Is Tony still using Turner ?

Yes.

[Hankster]

That sure is a handsome building. I'm very happy for Nashville, they deserve it.

There are so many who love the architecture of this building. I've seen many similar comments on all the skyscraper sites, and I too share this sentiment. Metro.m, I respect your opinion about this tower, but it seems that you are very much in the minority on your opinion.

Also, despite what any of the naysayers point out, all indications point to this BEAUTIFUL tower breaking ground in early 2009. And it will be 70 stories, not just 65.

[monsoon]

...... Metro.m, I respect your opinion about this tower, but it seems that you are very much in the minority on your opinion.....

Maybe, but as I mentioned above I got a huge amount of grief for stating my honest opinion of this tower, and it still goes on. I have probably deleted 25-30 posts out of this thread since I stated it. I can imagine that most people, who are not admins of a web forum, and are actually serious posters, most likely would choose to avoid the controversy. I also got a few PMs that said, "Thanks, at least someone finally said it".

In regards to it being built. It won't happen until they sell enough of them to get a construction loan from a bank. That isn't naysaying, it is stating the reality of the situation. I have no idea if they will do this or not, and I don't think anyone else posting here that knows either. However if anyone does know, then please post it here.

[BnaBreaker]

Maybe, but as I mentioned above I got a huge amount of grief for stating my honest opinion of this tower, and it still goes on. I have probably deleted 25-30 posts out of this thread since I stated it. I can imagine that most people, who are not admins of a web forum, and are actually serious posters, most likely would choose to avoid the controversy. I also got a few PMs that said, "Thanks, at least someone finally said it".

lol you deleted the posts of everyone who dissented against you? nice. I mean, you shouldn't get hastled for your opinion if infact your opinion is legit and not just whiny biased bs that all of us has seen before from others...but you really need to go and delete their posts?

Opinions are merely opinions by the way. You shouldn't be hastled for your opinion, and like Nashvillians, jealous children from other southern cities who got their feelings hurt by this tower (those PMing you that didn't have the balls to say it themselves) being proposed do not have the monopoly on it. Saying "Thanks, at least someone finally said it" implies that this structure being ugly was simply a hidden fact that we needed to be enlightened to. It also suggests to me that, as I said before, some are simply sore about the fact that this isn't going up in their town.

Okay, you can press the "delete" button on this post too.

[NewTowner]

lol you deleted the posts of everyone who dissented against you? nice. I mean, you shouldn't get hastled for your opinion if infact your opinion is legit and not just whiny biased bs that all of us has seen before from others...but you really need to go and delete their posts?

...

Leave the fellow alone. I suspect, due to previous experience, that he has only deleted posts that were unreasonable or ridiculous. If you look back over the past few pages of Signature Tower thread, you will find plenty of dissenting "opinions", undeleted in all of their glory, and probably some pretty nasty ones, too.

I don't know why everybody has to get so angry at Metro.M's thoughts and feelings on the subject of the Signature Tower. No amount of online cheerleading will erect the thing, and no amount of online skepticism will kill it if the buying is good. So lighten up, keep the Bill of Rights in mind, and try to have a more intact sense of humor.

The Signature Tower might get built, and it might not...speculation and debate about the maybes and whatfors is fun until people start getting mean and petty. Where's the fun in assembling a fanboi consensus and then quashing all dissent? Let's keep the party going, have a little less crying and hollering, and little more laughing and conversing...

[BnaBreaker]

Leave the fellow alone. I suspect, due to previous experience, that he has only deleted posts that were unreasonable or ridiculous. If you look back over the past few pages of Signature Tower thread, you will find plenty of dissenting "opinions", undeleted in all of their glory, and probably some pretty nasty ones, too.

I don't know why everybody has to get so angry at Metro.M's thoughts and feelings on the subject of the Signature Tower. No amount of online cheerleading will erect the thing, and no amount of online skepticism will kill it if the buying is good. So lighten up, keep the Bill of Rights in mind, and try to have a more intact sense of humor.

The Signature Tower might get built, and it might not...speculation and debate about the maybes and whatfors is fun until people start getting mean and petty. Where's the fun in assembling a fanboi consensus and then quashing all dissent? Let's keep the party going, have a little less crying and hollering, and little more laughing and conversing...

I'm not sure who that is directed towards, but I personally don't mind what his opinion of the building is. He is more than entitled to it. It makes me laugh though when people who are clearly envious of it secretly hope it isn't built...and i'm not referring to him when I say that.

[BrandonTO416]

How is the 48 page Signature Tower thread 'boosterism' different or worse than the 94 pages on the Wachovia thread in the Charlotte thread? Do we need to post more to make it acceptable? While we may not have fianancing secured or enough condo's reserved, we have firm renderings to discuss, a notable difference.

The fact is that its no different at all. The fact is also that a reason why people are so confident in Signature Tower - more than any other project - is because its something a reknowned developer is backing that has a knack for making things work when people tell him it won't.

I don't like comparisons to Charlotte because Charlotte is a radically different city from Nashville. Charlotte is very corporate with little else downtown. Nashville is a government center, a tourist center, and a business center with less of a corporate downtown. Nashville is also a huge medical science research center and educational center. Vanderbilt has nearly 18,000 non-corporate jobs and its right beside downtown. Its got more of a neighborhood feeling because of it, and much of the office space in Nashville is in West End. The cities are absolutely nothing alike.

But if we are to compare the Wachovia discussion to Signature tower, I will say that Signature has a larger chance of getting erected. TIF financing, the residential component makes it easier to sell, and the fact that much of the building is a hotel - Nashville has a need for a higher class hotel - so in other words there is a high demand for Signature because its not an office tower.

The fact that Nashville is a different city, the fact that its less "corporate" and doesn't rely as much on corporate offices to make the city, I think means the chance of success of Signature Tower is very high. Wachovia - for all its discussion - is just pie in the sky until the Wachovia board room decides to spend the money. Its not approved yet, its not anything more than an idea.

Signature Tower is already approved.

With that having said, I don't really like to compare anything to Charlotte. I hope things work out for Charlotte and they are able to build a massive corporate HQ's for Wachovia. Its an incredibly different styled city to Nashville and has a different outlook based on its different decisions for growth.

The only thing I ever found funny about Charlotte comparisons is that Charlotte is one of the only metros in America with a metro population over 1 million but has a lower density rate than Nashville.

Back to Nashville...

The Cumberland was not going to work, but Giarratanna made it work. It was the first highrise living building built in the city above 10 or so stories. The last highrise living tower in Nashville's downtown was probably the pitiful building over by News Channel 5's studios across James Robertson Parkway in the mid 1900's. Its all of what, 11 stories?

The Viridian was a pipe dream, and Giarratanna made it work.

Signature Tower is different. Metro Government sees the previous projects as major success, the city as a whole wants a "signature" building. And besides, its time. Even with Viridian, its not a tower that "stands out" per se. It just mixes in with the downtown. The Cumberland was no different, its a great building, but it is just another highrise. Signature is a tower that Nashville wants to build, the people and the government alike.

Of all the architecture I've noticed in the various cities I've been in, Signature Tower is one of the best post-modern works of art that I've seen. It mixes art deco with a modern appeal. Glass and steel with art and style. Its the best of both worlds.

I've been through a lot about my opinions over the past few years. I used to exhaust my personal frustration through complaining about public projects in this city. Those days have come and gone.

But when I objectively look at the facts and look at the history and the potential future, Signature Tower looks to be a project that is not just an average up-start. Its most likely going to be built. Its already approved by Metro Council and Giarratanna just has to wait for the units to sell.

[monsoon]

lol you deleted the posts of everyone who dissented against you? nice. I mean, you shouldn't get hastled for your opinion if infact your opinion is legit and not just whiny biased bs that all of us has seen before from others...but you really need to go and delete their posts?

Certainly not. But I got rid of the posts that contained nothing but insults. A lot of people read this forum and take it seriously so we go through a lot of effort to keep it a clean place. Anybody is free to disagree with anything I have said as long as they follow our, not too difficult to understand, rules.

[monsoon]

But if we are to compare the Wachovia discussion to Signature tower, I will say that Signature has a larger chance of getting erected. TIF financing, the residential component makes it easier to sell, and the fact that much of the building is a hotel - Nashville has a need for a higher class hotel - so in other words there is a high demand for Signature because its not an office tower.

There isn't any really isn't any comparison as these are different types of projects.

The signature tower is a condo tower and the developer has to have enough interest from buyers before he can get the funding to build the thing. This apparently has not happened yet.

The Wachovia tower is an office tower the bank is building for its own needs, and it is already under construction. Oddly enough, the bank has not released any official drawings, renderings or anything else about this tower.

Questions such as this are one of the reasons that I am quick to clamp down on this thread. (not you Heckles) Some have suggested the reason I stated my opinion of the Signature tower as being ugly and doing nothing for the street level, is because I am from Charlotte. If anyone knows me, they will know that I have lobbed the same complaints about many of the projects in my own city. An badly designed skyscraper is a badly designed skyscraper, and it doesn't matter to me where it is located. We are here to advocate for better cities, not building towers. I don't know why this is so difficult for some to understand.