Signature Tower

[TopCat]

I guess I

[monsoon]

^Surburban sprawl has nothing to do with this particular topic and the building of this tower isn't going to do anything to address the issue except to create housing in the city that most people can't afford which encourages most people to continue to seek the suburbs. I don't disagree with you about having urban growth boundries but you don't need to build 70 story luxury skyscrapers in order to have them. Tokyo manages to have a 32+ million population in a fairly small area without highrises. Most of the residential buildings there are less than 20 stories. The big difference is that 60% of the space in their cities are not devoted to the automobile.

[Plasticman]

^Surburban sprawl has nothing to do with this particular topic and the building of this tower isn't going to do anything to address the issue except to create housing in the city that most people can't afford which encourages most people to continue to seek the suburbs. I don't disagree with you about having urban growth boundries but you don't need to build 70 story luxury skyscrapers in order to have them. Tokyo manages to have a 32+ million population in a fairly small area without highrises. Most of the residential buildings there are less than 20 stories. The big difference is that 60% of the space in their cities are not devoted to the automobile.

Metro, I guess my next question then is do you have more of a problem with the fact that it is geared toward the wealthier clientel, the fact that it is so tall in a city that is perceived not to "need" such height, a combo of both, or some other reasons.

Taking it farther would you have a problem with two more Veridians at 500 feet or three of them at 325 feet? Would it be problem if this building were in Atlanta? I guess ultimately would we be having all these questions if the same tower were in a much larger city? Or if the developer went out of his way to have some extremely pedestrian friendly street level commerce? This also brings up the idea of if it were in a different city it would still be taking up the same footprint and using up the same resources, bringing in the same revenues so why is it bad no matter if it's New York city or Macon, GA.

I'm actually enjoying this line of thinking as everyone is bringing up valid opinions and points.

[monsoon]

Metro, I guess my next question then is do you have more of a problem with the fact that it is geared toward the wealthier clientel, the fact that it is so tall in a city that is perceived not to "need" such height, a combo of both, or some other reasons.

I actually don't have any problem with the building of this particular tower if that is what the developer wants to do and it meets whatever happens to be requirements for local zoning. If it happens to be the only building of this height then sure, some people are going to look at it as they have done with other out of place skyscrapers and will make that point. It seems unlikely to me that Nashville in the next few years is going to be populated with enough similar skyscrapers to balance out a tower this tall so most likely you will hear this criticism. However I am not making that case.

What I have tried to get across is that I don't think it will do much good for the city as a whole if the goal for is to build an urban community in Nashville that is inclusive, diverse and an appealing place to live. Vanity skyscrapers, by their nature, do exactly the opposite from this. It's the mindset of the suburbs set on a small piece of property. I would be much more excited by a developer that was looking to build an urban community around say a transit station and was willing to kick in some cash to help get a trolley or light rail line running. The planners in the city should be looking to encourage this type of development and using their very limited tax resources to encourage TOD instead of a vanity skyscraper (not saying they are in the Sig case) as the end result will be a much better looking and desirable city.

[rocky top buzz]

Top Cat, I've heard the concern many times that our suburban growth is eating up all the farmland. I understand the sustainability issues, but farming is not a concern with most suburban growth. If you look at developement patterns around Nashville, you'll see that very little true 'farmmland' has been sold for suburban growth. Here's what I mean: most of the farms that have been turned into subdivision were old family farms that were no longer producing sizeable crops of anything. That is because the economics no longer worked for farming the land, and the economics has more to do with NAFTA than GNAR. We still have more than enough farmland in this country to provide for a growing population, and also, much of what we have is no longer truly developed on a farm. Cows, chickens, etc.. still need grazing land, but lettuce, tomatos, beans, and more are often grown in labs nowadays.

[NewTowner]

You could have said every bit of that in three sentences? I do think you made some decent points but overall you could take the same reasoning points and apply them to many of mankinds achievements such as going to the moon. After all, going to the moon was out of both curiosity and pride to some degree. While it may seem a waste of money, many technological and medical breakthroughs were brought about by the space race. Yes lives have been saved due to our relentless attempt at greater achievements. The same can go for highrise buildings. I am sure many architectural achievements continue to produce technology related to construction as in newer and stronger materials, etc. This same technology may be used for safer bridges, stronger buildings, etc.

But I for one don't believe having a pride filled skyscraper is any more a sin than having the biggest home on the block or the nicest car. Even if it is pure vanity, that doesn't mean an engaging street level has to be mutually exclusive from a very proud and robust highrise.

Anyway your opinion and I'm sure others share it.

You misread my statement. I have no problem with achievement, and certainly no problem with great achievement--where we actually disagree is whether technological exhibitionism for its own sake can count as achievement. I would not harken the building of a giant skyscraper with going to the Moon, because architecture is art and space exploration is not...the fact that you compared them suggests to me that when you see a skyscraper, you do not see art--you see a technological feat...like going to the Moon. Architecture which is nothing more than techno-showmanship is failed architecture, because artform has a different calling than a Junior Scientist Chemistry Set. Buildings have to be Strong, Useful, and Beautiful...technology is or should be a tool that assists us in our great struggle to achieve these high objectives, not a stand-in for them, not an end in itself.

I guess I

[TopCat]

"We still have more than enough farmland in this country to provide for a growing population, and also, much of what we have is no longer truly developed on a farm. Cows, chickens, etc.. still need grazing land, but lettuce, tomatos, beans, and more are often grown in labs nowadays"

Yum, my favorite thing...laboratory tomatoes. That sort of produce, like giant CA strawberries has no taste poor texture and is grown with chemicals. That's why there is such a rush at the farmers market for hothouse tomatoes

I have to agree that a lot of farmers are quitting farming, mostly because the land value is so high they could never make farming what they can make by selling. I see first hand everyday on my drive to work - farm land that was productive a year or two ago is now under asphalt and tinker toy houses.

"We could build mid-rise for a hundred years and still have room to spare"

What about in a 100 years, then what? Are we to suck up all the resources?

"Finally, Solient Green is about the least cost-effective food scheme ever devised. Just think about it. It could never work, or Wal-Mart would have gotten involved by now."

Yes NT, LOL - you are correct...my bad.

But since this is a Siggy thread, I live out in the next area to become suburbs. If the choice is to have Mc Mansions all around me or live DT, I'll take ST anyday.

[Plasticman]

I actually don't have any problem with the building of this particular tower if that is what the developer wants to do and it meets whatever happens to be requirements for local zoning. If it happens to be the only building of this height then sure, some people are going to look at it as they have done with other out of place skyscrapers and will make that point. It seems unlikely to me that Nashville in the next few years is going to be populated with enough similar skyscrapers to balance out a tower this tall so most likely you will hear this criticism. However I am not making that case.

What I have tried to get across is that I don't think it will do much good for the city as a whole if the goal for is to build an urban community in Nashville that is inclusive, diverse and an appealing place to live. Vanity skyscrapers, by their nature, do exactly the opposite from this. It's the mindset of the suburbs set on a small piece of property. I would be much more excited by a developer that was looking to build an urban community around say a transit station and was willing to kick in some cash to help get a trolley or light rail line running. The planners in the city should be looking to encourage this type of development and using their very limited tax resources to encourage TOD instead of a vanity skyscraper (not saying they are in the Sig case) as the end result will be a much better looking and desirable city.

That is a very good explanation of your view. And I actually agree 100%. As much as I want to see Signature built (I'm in GA since 83 & an Atlanta booster but an old Tennessee boy too) I am gaining a better understanding of the different views on here. I do believe Nashville will welcome this addition and will build on it in a positive way by drawing more consumer commerce, entertainment, and other businesses. THis will force better pedestrian friendly streets.

I believe everyone can benefit from this if the right people are involved.

[NewTowner]

But since this is a Siggy thread, I live out in the next area to become suburbs. If the choice is to have Mc Mansions all around me or live DT, I'll take ST anyday.

This isn't the choice. Consider Tuscany.

[Plasticman]

A newslink

http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id...16C00B1B0C2757C

[memphian]

You know - I'd really like to see a Bloomingdales in the base of this thing. If not something grand like that at least pay homage to the fact that it was once the site of Cain-Sloan. Maybe the restaurant should be named, The Iris Room.

[elguapo731]

A newslink

http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id...16C00B1B0C2757C

WOW, Tony G. ain't playing around. Here is the link to the financing company he's chosen.

http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/en-GB/

These guys are serious world wide players. I'd put money on Siggy rising close to the proposed timeline.

[elguapo731]

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville...ml?surround=lfn

NBJ news article on the opening come Monday 19th

[nashscan]

I suppose Metro or Jeepers will be eager to tell us how this gets us no closer to a groundbreaking?

[SoundScan]

I suppose Metro or Jeepers will be eager to tell us how this gets us no closer to a groundbreaking?

It gets Signature Tower no closer to a groundbreaking because JLL is NOT financing the project, they are helping to secure financing from a major bank that will provide the bulk of the contruction loan. Finding a bank to provide financing is not the most difficult hurdle for this project, it's finding 250+ buyers who will sign hard contracts and lay down hard, substantial deposits so that this future bank will actually provide the hard dollars, not just promise it.

[producer2]

I actually don't have any problem with the building of this particular tower if that is what the developer wants to do and it meets whatever happens to be requirements for local zoning. If it happens to be the only building of this height then sure, some people are going to look at it as they have done with other out of place skyscrapers and will make that point. It seems unlikely to me that Nashville in the next few years is going to be populated with enough similar skyscrapers to balance out a tower this tall so most likely you will hear this criticism. However I am not making that case.

What I have tried to get across is that I don't think it will do much good for the city as a whole if the goal for is to build an urban community in Nashville that is inclusive, diverse and an appealing place to live. Vanity skyscrapers, by their nature, do exactly the opposite from this. It's the mindset of the suburbs set on a small piece of property. I would be much more excited by a developer that was looking to build an urban community around say a transit station and was willing to kick in some cash to help get a trolley or light rail line running. The planners in the city should be looking to encourage this type of development and using their very limited tax resources to encourage TOD instead of a vanity skyscraper (not saying they are in the Sig case) as the end result will be a much better looking and desirable city.

In your opinion why does it have to be "inclusive, diverse, and an appealing place to live" in one corridor? There are many different price points downtown like the gulch which will be different from SoBoro whcih will be different from the Church Street area.

[monsoon]

^I think I was pretty clear on the matter.

[convulso]

i hadn't been at all enthusiastic about the look of this project until seeing these renderings. now i can see the 'signature.'

in the renderings, it's far less out of proportion with the rest of the skyline than i had previously thought. hope it turns out that way.

[Hankster]

It gets Signature Tower no closer to a groundbreaking because JLL is NOT financing the project, they are helping to secure financing from a major bank that will provide the bulk of the contruction loan. Finding a bank to provide financing is not the most difficult hurdle for this project, it's finding 250+ buyers who will sign hard contracts and lay down hard, substantial deposits so that this future bank will actually provide the hard dollars, not just promise it.

This is a valid point. Still, Giarrantana has teamed up with a great company to help him find the buyers to sign the hard contracts he needs. Most important is what happens when the Sales Center opens on Monday. If he is successful in converting most of his reservations into hard sales contracts, and is able to rev up sales with a big marketing push over the next 30 to 60 days, then he will get the hard dollars he needs. Without a successful sales push, he won't. This will a be a very interesting next couple of months for this project.

[producer2]

^I think I was pretty clear on the matter.

So you are saying that all residential buildings should be inclusive and diverse?

[Hankster]

So you are saying that all residential buildings should be inclusive and diverse?

I think the only way a downtown area can truly be inclusive and diverse to the entire population is to provide housing at all the price points from very low to very high. This means a wide range of housing offerings at every price point. I'm proud to say that downtown is shaping up pretty well with very diverse price points being developed. Unfortunately, the very low price point is extremely hard to impossible to find, but that's due to the high cost of real estate there. It's probably unrealistic to ever expect any downtown housing in that price range. But other than that, there's new housing being offerred from the 100's up into the millions. And there's hundreds of rental units with reasonable monthly rents that will be offered. To me, that's real diversity. Without a few projects like Signature Tower, the very rich would not be represented downtown, and would be relegated to mansions in Belle Meade, Brentwood, and so on. It's really hard for me to find any reason to think that Signature Tower will hurt diversity and inclusiveness in downtown Nashville.

[producer2]

Thanks Hankster, I agree with your assesment. monsoon, can I get your input on this as well?

[Jeeper12]

This is a valid point. Still, Giarrantana has teamed up with a great company to help him find the buyers to sign the hard contracts he needs. Most important is what happens when the Sales Center opens on Monday. If he is successful in converting most of his reservations into hard sales contracts, and is able to rev up sales with a big marketing push over the next 30 to 60 days, then he will get the hard dollars he needs. Without a successful sales push, he won't. This will a be a very interesting next couple of months for this project.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the Chicago firm was retained several months ago to try and source debt and equity for the project, not buyers. I agree that the next 30 days is showtime for Tony. I'd assumed he'd immediately begin converting reservations but I noticed that he still has a reservation form (with a 3/31/07 drop dead date) attached to his website. As I've said before it is a big challenge to begin selling (or even reserving) units before you have equity and a firm bank committment lined up. It's possible that he does but unlikely since an announcement to that effect would be especially helpful to his marketing efforts. Absent these ducks in a row I could see taking a more conservative tack (higher deposit amount) but considering the pricing on this project (and that effect on underwriting)his old reservation form deposits don't look very conservative to me. We'll see soon enough I guess.

[Plasticman]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the Chicago firm was retained several months ago to try and source debt and equity for the project, not buyers. I agree that the next 30 days is showtime for Tony. I'd assumed he'd immediately begin converting reservations but I noticed that he still has a reservation form (with a 3/31/07 drop dead date) attached to his website. As I've said before it is a big challenge to begin selling (or even reserving) units before you have equity and a firm bank committment lined up. It's possible that he does but unlikely since an announcement to that effect would be especially helpful to his marketing efforts. Absent these ducks in a row I could see taking a more conservative tack (higher deposit amount) but considering the pricing on this project (and that effect on underwriting)his old reservation form deposits don't look very conservative to me. We'll see soon enough I guess.

I remember the name of that firm being tossed around but it was one in a list of "possible" financiers. Not sure whether they were ever committed or not.

I would imaging Tony has a lot of ducks in a row but doesn't feel obligated to come onto UP and discuss. It would be nice to have a post by him though.

[Onyte9]

Did anyone make it by the sales center today?