Jump to content

Archived

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

NewTowner

Signature Tower

Recommended Posts

Every forum seems to be the same. Moderators remove what they see fit and if they disagree with it, which for a private forum is the indivdual's right.

I just hope that people see Signature Tower for what it is. Its a project that has really great chances of being constructed, its a great architectural masterpiece, and it will give Nashville a national image.

But ultimately, it will be cool to have the tallest building outside Chicago and New York in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^^I don't keep up with Charlotte, I didn't even know Wachovia was being constructed. Whatever happens I hope it looks good.

About Signature, they are signing people and its a work in progress. It isn't that "it hasn't happened yet" as much as they are in the process of signing people right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I know this is a touchy subject but the World Trade Center was not, for say a work of art. But they were recognized all over the world for their height and they were a Icon symbol for New York City.

Nashville is growing and redefineing itself and wants its own Icon for the city. Signature Tower will capture that element. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a touchy subject but the World Trade Center was not, for say a work of art. But they were recognized all over the world for their height and they were the Icon symbol for New York City.

Nashville is growing and redefineing itself and wants its own Icon for the city. Signature Tower will capture that element. :)

I don't think it will...and New York had many superior and better-loved "symbols" than the almost universally hated World Trade Center--take the Empire State Building, Times Square, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building, and the Statue of Liberty as examples.

While there are a few things I do indeed like about the Signature Tower, I don't think it will be beautiful enough--or representational enough--to become Nashville's premier iconic symbol. We have a couple of contenders already (Ryman, Parthenon, etc.), but we will likely have to wait many years more before a true masterpiece graces our town.

I know a couple of people here will disagree with the following statement, but I have to say it: height does not equate greatness--nor largeness, beauty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it will...and New York had many superior and better-loved "symbols" than the almost universally hated World Trade Center--take the Empire State Building, Times Square, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building, and the Statue of Liberty as examples.

While there are a few things I do indeed like about the Signature Tower, I don't think it will be beautiful enough--or representational enough--to become Nashville's premier iconic symbol. We have a couple of contenders already (Ryman, Parthenon, etc.), but we will likely have to wait many years more before a true masterpiece graces our town.

I know a couple of people here will disagree with the following statement, but I have to say it: height does not equate greatness--nor largeness, beauty.

I agree. Signature will be an icon much in the way the GEC is an "icon" [it's unique, recognizable], but probably not a premier iconic symbol. The only usefulness it will offer anyone in this forum is at street level. Unless you're buying a unit and haven't shared the fact, or you get a room at Palomar for the heck of it. Of course, it isn't entirely about "usefulness." The Parthenon isn't really useful. I can't go in there and buy some shoes or coffee, but the building is iconic. So I guess as far as Nashville's iconic structures go, I'd say the Ryman stands out the most to me. However, in 2010 if anyone happens to asks "what is Nashville's Chrysler Building?", Signature would be the easiest answer but only in terms of asthetics and height. Then I'd recommend they see a show at the Ryman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think it'll be a premier iconic symbol. It has all the ingredients. It is as distinctive as any skyscaper u/c or planned in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered how Charlotte is compared to nashville in anyway.

We are the banking capital {aside from NYC but know one else is close to charlotte

Wow, So wachovia is building a 40 story tower. How in the world do you compare charlotte to nashville.

And ya on M's defense He is quick to state flaws in projects.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a couple of people here will disagree with the following statement, but I have to say it: height does not equate greatness--nor largeness, beauty.

I think that has to be one of the most intelligent things said on this thread thus far.

I hate how nearly every thread has to turn into a nashville vs. memphis/charlotte/austin/atlanta/etc. I really don't think metro meant to say that the signature is ugly and charlotte is so much better...I think he just meant to say it was ugly. while I happen to disagree with his opinion, there is really no reason to insult charlotte or the wachovia building. charlotte and nashville are completely different cities with completely different character. while I wouldn't trade nashville for charlotte, i think that charlotte is easily years ahead of nashville in urban development and has an incredibly vibrant downtown and a seemingly strong committment to mass-transit (something which nashville severly lacks). we should look to charlotte as a guide to development, not as competition.

People need to come to the realization that is possible that signature will not get built. just because he has a website and renderings doesn't mean its a done deal. of course I really hope that it does get built, but if people don't buy the condos than it just isn't gonna get built (look at what's happening to terrazza). "naysaying" or whatever you want to call it, is really just a reaction to the housing bubble that just burst all around the country.

like NT said, just because its gonna be the biggest thing in the south, doesn't mean that signature is necessarily the best...and there are going to be plenty of people who can't stand it and aren't jealous of nashville....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your comments are interesting, with one exception. When I look at cities to model urban growth after, I think of Portland in the 2 million range. When looking at larger metropolises I think of Toronto, San Francisco, New York as models to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your comments are interesting, with one exception. When I look at cities to model urban growth after, I think of Portland in the 2 million range. When looking at larger metropolises I think of Toronto, San Francisco, New York as models to look at.

I think it is a mistake to model a mid-sized Southern city after these cities. Portland and Toronto's mistake have been todecide that the automobiles are not good and as a result they have set themselves up in an either or situation where the "or" is still winning out. In both cases, there is a lot of suburban growth because of the rather draconian rules on what can happen within their cities. There are other models that seek to provide alternatives but recognize the fact that everyone in the South has an automobile. Its a reality that can't be ignored but there are certainly ways to address it so there isn't continued out of control sprawl.

On the other hand, I don't think that building a 70 story tower in an area that lacks the things for day to day living isn't a good idea either. If the signature tower was surrounded by grocery stores, schools, drug stores, schools, basically the things that would make it possible for this tower to serve residents that have already foresaken the automobile, it might be OK, but this isn't the case. Day to day living in a tower such as this is going to be difficult for the residents higher up in this tower because the residents are forced to live like everyone else in Nashville where they have to drive to places to get groceries and other goods, and dragging up shopping bags in an elevator is a PIA. Residential towers of this height are not common for a reason, people don't want to live in them for the most part. If you go to a very dense city where there might be a need for something like this, and one will find the most desirable and expensive places are the lowrise places. Highrises are relegated to the low end of the market.

BTW, if anyone wants to compare the Signature tower to anything in Charlotte, then I suggest they look at 210 Trade and The Vue. Both of these are condo towers that are about 53 stories each. Right now, there is a question that either will be built for different reasons. 210 Trade completely almost sold out 400 units in less than a month. However the prevailing opinion amongst the forumers here is they sold the units too fast and at too low of a price and as a result the project may not be profitable. The Vue has the opposite problem, their projects are at the absolute high end of the market and the opinion is they haven't sold enough of them, like the Signature, to make either possible. And both are in competition with about 5000 other proposed condos for the area.

All three of these towers (signature, 210 trade, vue) are being built where they really are not needed and it is my opinion that it was to tap into the once booming real estate speculation market which has started to evaporate. It remains to be seen if these developers can pull them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I don't think that building a 70 story tower in an area that lacks the things for day to day living isn't a good idea either. If the signature tower was surrounded by grocery stores, schools, drug stores, schools, basically the things that would make it possible for this tower to serve residents that have already foresaken the automobile, it might be OK, but this isn't the case. Day to day living in a tower such as this is going to be difficult for the residents higher up in this tower because the residents are forced to live like everyone else in Nashville where they have to drive to places to get groceries and other goods, and dragging up shopping bags in an elevator is a PIA. Residential towers of this height are not common for a reason, people don't want to live in them for the most part. If you go to a very dense city where there might be a need for something like this, and one will find the most desirable and expensive places are the lowrise places. Highrises are relegated to the low end of the market.

This is the aspect of downtown living that most intrigues me. having worked downtown, for most of the past 40 years, I've seen it go from a vibrant area with three department stores and several movie theaters to a virtual ghost town in the 80's. I am now watching a revival occur spurred on with great projects like the arena, library, stadium and Symphony Hall. It has brought more tourists and some residents back to town.

But with the exception of lower Broad's tourist oriented businesses, the downtown retail has yet to comeback. Indeed, the few remaining businesses still seem to be barely hanging on. Most restaurants serve lunch only.

I suppose it's a matter of the chicken or the egg. Which comes first? Will the new residential bring more retail or do we need the retail first. I pass by the 23 story Cumberland Apartments twice a day and the ratio of cars leaving the garage to people walking out the front door seems like 20 to 1 at best.

I might suggest that, upon construction of a new convention center, the current convention center be made available for commercial and retail. Allow some stores like Barnes and Noble, Staples, Best Buy, JC Penny (or their counterparts) to maintain an affordable presence downtown along with some movie theaters, corner pub type establishments to provide the essentials for walkable, safe, downtown living. The location is ideal and will resolve the question about what to do with the vacant facility.

I know the Church Street Mall, built in the early 80's failed, but success in Louisville and Memphis with 'galleria' type projects demonstrates it could work. Everything is in place, so we are not talking about another grand , expensive project. Such a project may complete the puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered how Charlotte is compared to nashville in anyway.

We are the banking capital {aside from NYC but know one else is close to charlotte

Wow, So wachovia is building a 40 story tower. How in the world do you compare charlotte to nashville.

And ya on M's defense He is quick to state flaws in projects.

??? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the aspect of downtown living that most intrigues me. having worked downtown, for most of the past 40 years, I've seen it go from a vibrant area with three department stores and several movie theaters to a virtual ghost town in the 80's. I am now watching a revival occur spurred on with great projects like the arena, library, stadium and Symphony Hall. It has brought more tourists and some residents back to town.

But with the exception of lower Broad's tourist oriented businesses, the downtown retail has yet to comeback. Indeed, the few remaining businesses still seem to be barely hanging on. Most restaurants serve lunch only.

I suppose it's a matter of the chicken or the egg. Which comes first? Will the new residential bring more retail or do we need the retail first. I pass by the 23 story Cumberland Apartments twice a day and the ratio of cars leaving the garage to people walking out the front door seems like 20 to 1 at best.

I might suggest that, upon construction of a new convention center, the current convention center be made available for commercial and retail. Allow some stores like Barnes and Noble, Staples, Best Buy, JC Penny (or their counterparts) to maintain an affordable presence downtown along with some movie theaters, corner pub type establishments to provide the essentials for walkable, safe, downtown living. The location is ideal and will resolve the question about what to do with the vacant facility.

I know the Church Street Mall, built in the early 80's failed, but success in Louisville and Memphis with 'galleria' type projects demonstrates it could work. Everything is in place, so we are not talking about another grand , expensive project. Such a project may complete the puzzle.

i think you need the people living downtown first before retail can truely be successful there. with all of the shopping options in the surrounding areas, retail downtown would not work too well given the traffic conditions and the length of drive. true, all of the major shopping areas in the city have traffic problems too, but they also having people living within close proximity to them. i say build up residential then the retail will come. it will be an untapped market that will be attractive to businesses. turning the convention center into a retail center would be an excellent idea once the new one is built. plus women could escape the preds game to go shopping through the tunnel connecting the two under broadway (unless you're like lexy's wife who is a true fan!!! :P ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That story is good cheerleading for the developer, but offers very little in details about the Signature tower except for this.

  • He is looking for a financial partner.
  • He is looking for public money
  • If you take one of the sentences literally, they don't expect to be building this tower for at least 3 years.

This tells me that sales are not going that well and any dates that have been posted here as the start construction are just marks on the calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]He is looking for public money

Did not see this anywhere in the article. It stated that he rejected TIF but I may be missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metro, which sentence are you talking about that could be interpreted as saying it won't be built for 3 years?

Below is the statement that monsoon was refering to in the article. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the statement, IMO. The statement refers to the three years that remain before the completion of this project in 2009. He will have to continue his selling until every unit is sold, and that may well take three years to accomplish. More than likely the selling and planning will continue long after construction has started. In my opinion, nothing has changed. There is no reason to think that this project is any less likely to be completed now than a month ago. I am very confident that announcements will come forward on October 9th that will validate this opinion. We may even hear that he has achieved financing, although I would be pleasantly surprised at that.

"But getting to that point will take at least three more years of hard selling and planning. It also will mean staking the respect and capital he's worked hard to accumulate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some news from Atlanta. If built, it seems that Signature Tower's reign as tallest in the US outside of New York and Chicago, and tallest in the South could be a short one. I wonder if Signature Tower has inspired this project in any way?

John Portman, long time architect for the city of Atlanta's premiere skyscrapers has announced that he is in the early stages of designing the cities new tallest building. By early next year the city of Atlanta and the country as a whole will be looking at an amazing rendering of the cities new tallest. It would be located in Midtown Atlanta and will be called The Midtown Mecca. The building will be the first thing you see, while entering the city from the north and the new skyscraper would more than likely be a mixed-use building inhabited with condos, office space, and retail. It could be as tall as 1250 feet tall, making it more than 100 feet taller than the cities current tallest, and as tall as the Empire State Building located in New York. The building is to be completed by 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the 3 year comment as a reporter who was trying to convey the information through a newspaper, and given that the 3 years the reporter was talking about was the time it is going to take to complete this project and open Signature Tower for residents and hotel customers.

Metro M. has offered 100% of the negative aspects of this project while inferring his own opinion, which is great.

But if you look at the entire picture, Signature Tower is already approved by the MDHA, the hotel is already signed for, and over 100 units have already been sold if I'm not mistaking.

In other words Signature Tower is already over 50% complete. LOL

Just because Giarratana hasn't found the bank willing to fork over his $350 million mortgage, so-to-speak, to finance the deal doesn't mean its not going to happen.

Here's some news from Atlanta. If built, it seems that Signature Tower's reign as tallest in the US outside of New York and Chicago, and tallest in the South could be a short one. I wonder if Signature Tower has inspired this project in any way?

John Portman, long time architect for the city of Atlanta's premiere skyscrapers has announced that he is in the early stages of designing the cities new tallest building. By early next year the city of Atlanta and the country as a whole will be looking at an amazing rendering of the cities new tallest. It would be located in Midtown Atlanta and will be called The Midtown Mecca. The building will be the first thing you see, while entering the city from the north and the new skyscraper would more than likely be a mixed-use building inhabited with condos, office space, and retail. It could be as tall as 1250 feet tall, making it more than 100 feet taller than the cities current tallest, and as tall as the Empire State Building located in New York. The building is to be completed by 2010.

Of course it does. It has 100% to do with the fact that they don't want a smaller kid up the road with a bigger building. Atlanta has the power and the resources to do it, so good for them.

I could care less if its reign is short. Signature Tower will leave its mark as the largest skyscraper outside New York, Chicago, and Atlanta thereafter. :rofl:

If you think about it, Nashville doesn't need more than Signature Tower. If Atlanta wants to upstage us because an Atlanta developer has a personal superiority complex and has to maintain it, then so be it.

At least Nashville's ambitions for building this are genuine and not reactionary. A developer who is already helping build the future of Nashville wants to make a mark, and he's put himself out there. We're the first city outside New York and Chicago to actively attempt to build a super scraper (1000+ ft) in the United States post 9/11. That is enough to keep us inspired.

We'll take Signature Tower and go with it. Nashville needs to be busy building a city, not just super towers, but Signature Tower is important to create a "signature" on the Nashville skyline.

That will be its purpose, and to have one of the top 20 tallest buildings in the world in Nashville is success to me.

Part of building a city is developing blocks that are undeveloped or underdeveloped.

In case some of you haven't noticed, a new office building at 28 stories and 380ft was proposed two blocks across Broadway from BellSouth in the past month.

150_Third_Avenue_S_renderingSmall.jpg

150_Third_Avenue_S_rendering1Small.jpg

This is the first major office building proposed since SunTrust's 14 story building that is currently under construction on the block just on the other side of BellSouth. Also, its on a hold for 3 months for MDHA and Metro to review it.

The process has already started on yet another highrise in Nashville, and if you want to discuss this one go to Nashville Projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very confident that announcements will come forward on October 9th that will validate this opinion.

Is Giarratanna making a press conference tomorrow on the 9th? If so, I didn't know. Usually these announcements have good news, maybe he'll have a secret, such as the financing will have come through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Giarratanna making a press conference tomorrow on the 9th? If so, I didn't know. Usually these announcements have good news, maybe he'll have a secret, such as the financing will have come through?

I wouldn't get your hopes up. If that were true Tony wouldn't have hidden it from Mr Sisk.

I think monsoon is probably right about Tony wanting/needing public money to get the project done. He won't be asking for TIFF again unless he can do so without building all the affordable units. But all his pr efforts in the face of anemic sales have the whif of a guy trying to sell Nashville that it needs the ST so bad for its image that it ought to kick in $15 or $20 million (with no strings) to help plug the profitability hole he is encountering. I could be wrong but my gut tells me this is what he's up to. We'll all find out soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hopes are not up to far, I just try and keep a postive outlook as much as possible. If it doesn't happen its not going to happen, but the signs are positive thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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.