Signature Tower

[producer2]

[^First, you are a gentlemen for responding to my comments. I recently commented on some things written by WW and, despite continuing to use UP as a source when convenient, he's never even bothered to address my questions. I guess he didn't really have a good answer.

As to your comments, I understand you think Tony is too personally invested for his efforts to be unsuccessful. However, several much larger industry titans (Jorge Perez, Donald Trump, etc.) have recently folded projects where they've spent a multiple of Tony's pursuit cost so I don't really buy your premise that it must succeed because he has bet his reputation that is will. But by foregoing the opportunity to educate the buying public and the public at-large how these deals fundamentally piece together, again, I think our media fails in its duty to inform...and the ad nauseum puff pieces (pr disguised as articles) subject you and your peers to fair criticism (I think) that despite 3 years of heavy development activity you're still completely unable to zero in on and report about the key facts and deal points that remain to be accomplished. Again, "done deal" and "as if there was any question" suggests a certainty about the outcome that I don't yet think is warranted. I agree that Tony's reputation hinges on this project succeeding but too much media cheerleading may also diminish your future credibility if things don't go as you apparently think they will. Thanks again for responding.

Jeeper12,

Just curious, why does it matter how this is reported in the media? It is not a public or taxpayer building. Tony owns the land, has the approvals, etc. so all it becomes is can he pull off the sales and loans. He is not stealing anyone's money so why put out negative press, why not be positive (even if it is fluff) so that peole might be interested and buy and make this thing a reality.

[Richard Lawson]

As to your comments, I understand you think Tony is too personally invested for his efforts to be unsuccessful. However, several much larger industry titans (Jorge Perez, Donald Trump, etc.) have recently folded projects where they've spent a multiple of Tony's pursuit cost so I don't really buy your premise that it must succeed because he has bet his reputation that is will. But by foregoing the opportunity to educate the buying public and the public at-large how these deals fundamentally piece together, again, I think our media fails in its duty to inform...and the ad nauseum puff pieces (pr disguised as articles) subject you and your peers to fair criticism (I think) that despite 3 years of heavy development activity you're still completely unable to zero in on and report about the key facts and deal points that remain to be accomplished. Again, "done deal" and "as if there was any question" suggests a certainty about the outcome that I don't yet think is warranted. I agree that Tony's reputation hinges on this project succeeding but too much media cheerleading may also diminish your future credibility if things don't go as you apparently think they will. Thanks again for responding.

I like the back and forth.

I don't think I've been cheerleading on this. I think you have an expectation that the media must report every deal point. That's tough to do when most people really don't care. They either want to see it done or not done. They don't really care about the details. When I get asked about this stuff on TV I can't go into a laborius discussion about specific deal points, equity to debt ratios, construction pricing factors, etc. Eyes glaze over. It's all bottom line. And the bottom line with respect to the tower involves sales. And I've said over and over again that it has to have a certain level of pre-sales before construction can begin. Whether I think it will get there or not is another question. And all I've said to that is they are higher priced that what's there now and that may be a challenge in sellling. On a lot of this stuff, we really won't know until we know. It's a big project and I don't think 3 years is out of the question.

Clearly, there were pieces that had to be put together in the hotel deal before the operating agreement was signed. My reference to "done deal" and "as if it were a question" referred specifically to the agreement with the hotel, nothing more. The latter phrase was intended to show the release for what it was, something that had already been set in stone.

I've been critical of TG plenty over the years, forcing him to admit things he hasn't wanted to admit. The first was when he had to fire the initial leasing company on The Cumberland close to the opening because it wasn't doing the lease up. He hates it whenever I mention his past bankruptcy in print. But as to reputation, he's no Trump. Trump can withstand the hit apparently when he pulls out of a deal. Rather, it doesn't hurt his rep. With TG, I think a failure on this project would do tremendous harm to his rep. I wasn't trying to establish a premise. I was just pointing out that he wants this to happen, probably more than any of his other projects. This is his second attempt at the property with a condo tower. His first was brief around the time of The Cumberland opening.

[Richard Lawson]

Not to jump into the conversation, but here goes. Reporters have sometimes conflicting responsibilities. One is to report the truth, and the other is to sell newspapers for their employers. This isn't so much of a conflict for someone reporting on say, crime, where there are multiple and constantly changing sources and the information is public knowledge, but in business reporting the dynamic is much different. I know a writer at the Charlotte Business Journal who sometimes isn't afraid to get dirty who also can't get his calls returned by a number of reputable developers. Why? At some point over his career, he has either reported on project uncertainties, or released info before being "fed" it by the developer. Developers, for a variety of legitimate reasons, like to control what is released in the press, and to not play their game leads to no longer getting phone calls returned, which can lead to finding a new profession.

You are correct. There's a fine line. But the developers who can't handle the bad with the good aren't usually overly successful ones. The challenge is to get info out there but not mess up a deal. Of course, it depends on the deal, too. If rezoining is involved, then the gloves are absolutely off. There are plenty times I've ticked a few off developers by writing stuff that is critical of a deal. For example, doe anyone remember the big retail development that was going to go in the Gulch? The developers out of Maryland made the annnouncement just before the Las Vegas shopping center show. That's a little trick developers do to show momemtum and get press clippings for the show, dangling it all in front of potential tenants. I wrote a story pointing that out in relation to the announcement. The developers were much ticked that the major daily did that story because that wasn't what they wanted to show. Meanwhile, HG Hill Realty presented at the show and only told anyone after the show. Look what's being built. Hill Center and not the Gulch deal. Business reporting is a lot like political reporting, on a tight rope so that you get good stories most of the time.

[Jeeper12]

Not to jump into the conversation, but here goes. Reporters have sometimes conflicting responsibilities. One is to report the truth, and the other is to sell newspapers for their employers. This isn't so much of a conflict for someone reporting on say, crime, where there are multiple and constantly changing sources and the information is public knowledge, but in business reporting the dynamic is much different. I know a writer at the Charlotte Business Journal who sometimes isn't afraid to get dirty who also can't get his calls returned by a number of reputable developers. Why? At some point over his career, he has either reported on project uncertainties, or released info before being "fed" it by the developer. Developers, for a variety of legitimate reasons, like to control what is released in the press, and to not play their game leads to no longer getting phone calls returned, which can lead to finding a new profession.

I agree with some of what you said (as to the pressures on writers) but I still stand by my post. A clever journalist can find a way to report the facts without being a cheerleader, or, at the other extreme, slamming the developer or being overly critical. And since we're talking about this developer and this project, is there a media outlet anywhere in Nashville the Tony could accuse of being unkind in their reporting ? I don't think there is a project away from ground zero without equity, a construction lender and hard sales contracts that has received more courtesy from the media (name one if you can). Sorry, but I don't see how any of the reporters responsible for the recent stories were over the sort of barrel you suggest in your post.

[Jeeper12]

I think you have an expectation that the media must report every deal point. That's tough to do when most people really don't care. They either want to see it done or not done. They don't really care about the details. When I get asked about this stuff on TV I can't go into a laborius discussion about specific deal points, equity to debt ratios, construction pricing factors, etc. Eyes glaze over. It's all bottom line. And the bottom line with respect to the tower involves sales. And I've said over and over again that it has to have a certain level of pre-sales before construction can begin.

Actually, I completely appreciate the limited appetite that the public has for deal mechanics, which is exactly why I think your role is so important. You have an ability to understand the mechanics and break it down into a sound bite or short sentence that the average joe can comprehend and absorb. Again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you can offer expectation guidance without being offensive to the developer. Reporters can objectively clarify and explain the remaining hurdles without slighting the developer or jumping to headlines that are premature given the known facts; see below.

I must tell you that I know doctors and pet shop owners in CA and DC that seem to ask more probing and insightful questions about pending Nashville deals on the table. Trust me, everyone in CA, FL, NV, AZ, NY and DC knows the difference between a reservation and a hard contract. They know you need equity and construction loans to build projects. Yet many of our reporters still don't apparently seem to understand (or bother to report) these differences. See NBJ's "More than half way there" and "Approaching Go" headline in Friday's article if you think I'm overstating things.

Richard, I don't mean to malign your work. I agree that you generally dig deeper than most (thus your frosty relationship with AP). But at some point Nashvillians deserve more from their media at-large. I know there's lots of pressure to just print the release as-is from the PR firm but one can at least hope for a more perfect system of dispensing information.

[Jeeper12]

Jeeper12,

Just curious, why does it matter how this is reported in the media? It is not a public or taxpayer building. Tony owns the land, has the approvals, etc. so all it becomes is can he pull off the sales and loans. He is not stealing anyone's money so why put out negative press, why not be positive (even if it is fluff) so that peole might be interested and buy and make this thing a reality.

Funny you should ask that question, Producer. A little over a year ago I had a friend in CA who had plunked down $450k to a developer in Vegas for a project called Las Ramblas. You may have heard of it as it was a joint venture between Jorge Perez, George Clooney and Randy Gerber. Anyway, after holding on to my buddy's half a million bucks (deposits are 30% out there) for well over a year the famous trio decided to pull the plug despite spending millions and completely selling out the project. Apparently, the construction costs skyrocketted far beyond what the developer had anticipated thus eliminating their expectations for a profit. So, the developer simply wrote everyone a letter with apologies returning their depost money and stating that the deal was being terminated. No harm no foul, right ? Not exactly, in the time that elapsed from my friend going to contract to the date of termination condo prices had skyrocketted from $500/sf to well over a $1,000/sf. See the problem ? Even though the developer didn't steal my friend's money he absolutely cost him the opportunity to get into a Vegas condo at a price he could afford.

As developers in Nashville ask buyers to sign long term contracts with big deposits I think the scenario above offers parallels worthy of consideration, especially as prices continue to skyrocket. If I buy a condo from developer x and things drag out for a year or more with no progress what will I have to pay for condo y when developer x finally gives up and returns my money ? For these and other reasons I think the media provide an important role of informing the public. And more to one of your specific points, I don't think they should set out to write negative articles either. Just follow the facts, ask intelligent questions that are obviously in need of answers and report it straight up. And most importantly, don't mislead the public (with headlines, or otherwise) about the true status of a project.

[monsoon]

The conversation about the state of Nashville's newspapers and media is getting off topic. Please drop it or start another thread.

[Richard Lawson]

I agree with some of what you said (as to the pressures on writers) but I still stand by my post. A clever journalist can find a way to report the facts without being a cheerleader, or, at the other extreme, slamming the developer or being overly critical. And since we're talking about this developer and this project, is there a media outlet anywhere in Nashville the Tony could accuse of being unkind in their reporting ? I don't think there is a project away from ground zero without equity, a construction lender and hard sales contracts that has received more courtesy from the media (name one if you can). Sorry, but I don't see how any of the reporters responsible for the recent stories were over the sort of barrel you suggest in your post.

Nobody was over a barrel with the recent stuff. But no one made a big deal out of it either, although I didn't see what the City Paper wrote. I briefed it as did the Tennessean. Still, the key is balance. There have been critical voices out that who we all quote. But in some of those cases those critical voices are selling condos themselves. The fact is he gets covered because so far, in the past decade, he's shaken off doubters by producing most of what he's pitched. The Cumberland was a rough start, occupancy was troublesome etc. But so far no other developer has built two tall buildings downtown, has a third on the way and has proposed an even bigger one downtown. I wasn't here when he took a huge amount of heat for tearing down the office building with the Tennessee Theater or when he left town for a bit because of the bankruptcy. It's only been in the past few years that he has been able to shake some of that stuff. In his case, you have to balance the coverage over the past 15 years. It's not that he gets a pass by the media. I'm not completely certain what you expect the media to do -- stories that simply state that he can't do it, prices are too high, the deal is too complicated, he can't get the equity, bank loans, the market can't handle it? On the whole, all of those questions have been asked at some point or another. He pushes the risk on the development side, albeit with someone else's money, more so than others so that gets him more attention. The next few months are crunch time where his feet will be to the fire.

[producer2]

Here is what I do not understand, most on this thread have no problem with the design of the building, it is even gettting press outside of Nashville for it's proposed construction techniques. Now we have essentially boiled it down to what we personally do or do not think is right for others in terms of what they will spend for their residences and how they choose to live their lives. We speculate on whether the developer will or will not be able to convince the Nashville public to buy into this ambitious project. Why don't we just let it play itself out and see which side of the fence this falls on?

[Richard Lawson]

Actually, I completely appreciate the limited appetite that the public has for deal mechanics, which is exactly why I think your role is so important. You have an ability to understand the mechanics and break it down into a sound bite or short sentence that the average joe can comprehend and absorb. Again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you can offer expectation guidance without being offensive to the developer. Reporters can objectively clarify and explain the remaining hurdles without slighting the developer or jumping to headlines that are premature given the known facts; see below.

I must tell you that I know doctors and pet shop owners in CA and DC that seem to ask more probing and insightful questions about pending Nashville deals on the table. Trust me, everyone in CA, FL, NV, AZ, NY and DC knows the difference between a reservation and a hard contract. They know you need equity and construction loans to build projects. Yet many of our reporters still don't apparently seem to understand (or bother to report) these differences. See NBJ's "More than half way there" and "Approaching Go" headline in Friday's article if you think I'm overstating things.

Richard, I don't mean to malign your work. I agree that you generally dig deeper than most (thus your frosty relationship with AP). But at some point Nashvillians deserve more from their media at-large. I know there's lots of pressure to just print the release as-is from the PR firm but one can at least hope for a more perfect system of dispensing information.

I appreciate the compliment. When I was at the paper I noted the difference between hard contract and reservation all the time and always asked about the expected conversaion rate. With the Veridian the actual conversion was higher than typical. And they started Encore without presales. I haven't taken that on yet with the Sig Tower in part because of other stories chiefly the Sounds debacle. I don't remember what the reserved number is but it's mostly the high dollar units that have been reserved. Still, as you've noted, there is a difference between reservations and hard contracts. The proof will be in the pudding over the next several months.

In a different post, you mentioned Las Vegas. I don't know that market but isn't it getting killed right now with overbuilding? That sucks about your friend, getting caught in the construction cost squeeze. But it sounds like, too, that the developers didn't take heed of the potential rise in costs. I don't think that the rise in construction costs was a blind side to anyone. That is, it wasn't an overnight happening. They were rising at a pace that should have had developers cautious, especially in markets that were much hotter than Nashville.

[Richard Lawson]

Here is what I do not understand, most on this thread have no problem with the design of the building, it is even gettting press outside of Nashville for it's proposed construction techniques. Now we have essentially boiled it down to what we personally do or do not think is right for others in terms of what they will spend for their residences and how they choose to live their lives. We speculate on whether the developer will or will not be able to convince the Nashville public to buy into this ambitious project. Why don't we just let it play itself out and see which side of the fence this falls on?

That's kind of how I've been playing it with this project in particular. It's tough to speculate how the market will reacte to Sig Tower. The prices are a good bit higher than current stuff. I'd say it's a riskier bet for a buyer with this one than others because of the prices. They are banking on the market being in at least the $500 per square foot range, preferably higher, when and if the tower is built. As I've written, the next few months will give the picture.

[monsoon]

Here is what I do not understand, most on this thread have no problem with the design of the building, it is even gettting press outside of Nashville for it's proposed construction techniques. Now we have essentially boiled it down to what we personally do or do not think is right for others in terms of what they will spend for their residences and how they choose to live their lives. We speculate on whether the developer will or will not be able to convince the Nashville public to buy into this ambitious project. Why don't we just let it play itself out and see which side of the fence this falls on?

Actually I stated my opinions on the poor and tacky design of this building some time ago and the onslaught that I got for that was deafening. The only way I got away with saying it was because I am an admin on this forum and can deal with the subsequent insults, character assassination, and ridicule that came from me pointing out, what I think it is a very lacking design for a number of reasons. So many people think that putting up a tower such as this would somehow maybe make Nashville more world class or something, that any discussion on it's viability or design, is simply unacceptable.

Your characterization that we are negative on this tower simply because we don't like the way rich people live, completely misses the mark on all of the real issues that we have covered here. To me, it is an unwarranted dismissal of people who are critical about vanity towers and their ultimate effect on cities. But as I pointed out above, having an honest discussion on the matter in the Nashville forum is almost impossible. If you want to just "let it play out", then fine, what is your reason for continuing to post in this topic?

The fact of the matter is there are at least three proposals in the USA that are taller than this building so the moment is already lost in regards to the Signature Tower being noticed much outside of Tennessee.

[Richard Lawson]

Actually I stated my opinions on the poor and tacky design of this building some time ago and the onslaught that I got for that was deafening. The only way I got away with saying it was because I am an admin on this forum and can deal with the subsequent insults, character assassination, and ridicule that came from me pointing out, what I think it is a very lacking design for a number of reasons. So many people think that putting up a tower such as this would somehow maybe make Nashville more world class or something, that any discussion on it's viability or design, is simply unacceptable.

Your characterization that we are negative on this tower simply because we don't like the way rich people live, completely misses the mark on all of the real issues that we have covered here. To me, it is an unwarranted dismissal of people who are critical about vanity towers and their ultimate effect on cities. But as I pointed out above, having an honest discussion on the matter in the Nashville forum is almost impossible. If you want to just "let it play out", then fine, what is your reason for continuing to post in this topic?

The fact of the matter is there are at least three proposals in the USA that are taller than this building so the moment is already lost in regards to the Signature Tower being noticed much outside of Tennessee.

The design is a vast improvement over what the original one was 10 years ago. His first attempt looked like an upside down telescope. My initial reaction on this design was it looked like a French Tickler. I'm not sure how the vanity buildings can look any better. They all seem to borrow from some other design somewhere. The ones in Asia seem to be about the only really different ones, but in the U.S. there's more pragmaticsm with efficient use of space pretty much driving design.

[Plasticman]

Good grief has this thread drifted. The design is superb IMO. It's all in one's opinion. As far as vanity driven, ALL skyscrapers have some vanity involved. Not one doesn't. That includes Wachovia Charlotte, MP Louisville, Trump New Orleans, and Mandarin Oriental here in Atlanta. With no vanity driving the design, they would all be bland boxes.

[producer2]

^So far it has not been demonstrated the developer has a plan that will make a profit on that land. If, after a year of being announced and reports on their website are true, they have a problem with getting enough people interested in the property. And I believe, though I might be wrong on it, all of those reservations expire at the end of this month. I am not hugely familiar with Nashville's market, but I think that a profit can be made on land without having to build a 1000+ ft skyscraper. They are immensely expensive to build, it's not clear there are enough people willing to pay the price to support it, and in most parts of the world where they have to have skyscrapers, apartments above 50 stories are undesirable as they are a PIA to access. This is the reason there are not that many residential towers in the world, even in expensive markets, that are more than 40-50 stories.

If this skyscraper is built people have to ask themselves is the price of living in the sky worth it, and can they get their money back when they decide to sell. Maybe, maybe not ,as it is a high risk gamble with no precedent.

I think that any urban environment, but especially one in a city such as Nashville, would be much better served by a set of buildings that are less than 20 stories and that would be cost available to a wider range of people so that a real city is built and not just an enclave for the McMansion escapee set. Sure it doesn't have the bragging rights of a supertall, but you know, that is one sentence for most people and then it is irrelevant. If you look at the desirable parts of cities vs the uninteresting parts, they are almost always in the parts where low rise buildings have been built on zero lot line at grade access where there that is ringed by retail on the ground floor. Skyscrapers almost always fail at these simple concepts because the architects are more interested in building a monument instead of an intimate place and we end up with a plaza, a lobby and usually some kind of water feature at ground level. Pretty I guess, but dead from a people perspective.

Forgetting what the developer wants to do, government should be focused on what is good for the largest majority of people in the city. It's not clear to me, and evidence supports it, that building a vertical McMansion is the ticket to success.

metro m.

Many valid points, but where I take exception is where you become the city planner and explain how Nashville is not building enough units with varying costs in order to be a "real city" this is not true, there are a number of projects that are both affordable and liveable (several coming in the gulch.) You have stated that with this one building Nashville will become an "enclave for the McMansion escapee set". And finally you propose that government should decide how this one man, who owns the property and is not asking for ANY public funding, develops his property. That is why I post on this site, because I believe in less government and more capitalism as it pertains to this particular project. If Tony gets it done then good for him, if not then it was not meant to be. But he has his approvals, hsi property, his plans, his sales office, and his goals. Just like the Westin, West End Summitt and other projects that have both believers and non-believers, in the end the masses will decide

[nashvol85]

Good grief has this thread drifted. The design is superb IMO. It's all in one's opinion. As far as vanity driven, ALL skyscrapers have some vanity involved. Not one doesn't. That includes Wachovia Charlotte, MP Louisville, Trump New Orleans, and Mandarin Oriental here in Atlanta. With no vanity driving the design, they would all be bland boxes.

Oh, but the bland boxes are more intimate and better suit the city.........

[monsoon]

metro m.

Many valid points, but where I take exception is where you become the city planner and explain how Nashville is not building enough units with varying costs in order to be a "real city" this is not true,

Well that is your problem since you didn't read the response that you quoted in context. I was asked a question and that was my answer to that question. I don't even begin to believe that I would speak for being a city planner for Nashville and if you think that was the intent, then I suggest that you re-read it again along with the posts that led up to it.

As for the actual points then you and I disagree on the role that government has to play in how a city is built. I for one don't think decisions should be left entirely to developers who after all are only looking to make a profit. The dismal states of so many cities with their endless sprawl speaks for itself when it is left to these people to decide. All of this has already been said in this thread so again I suggest that you actually read through it.

[Plasticman]

In an effort to get back on track, let's look at pros and cons. This building will do several things:

Bring three years of steady construction jobs to many, many workers.

Result in a lot of building materials being purchased which the majority is still made in America.

Bring high income people to DT Nashville with money to spend.

Resulting in a need for more shopping and eating venues.

Resulting in more revenue for downtown businesses as a whole.

There are downsides:

More demand on public utilities

More traffic DT

Potentiall more crime DT as the wealthy might be targeted for muggings.

and probably others.

While this won't answer the question of viability, it does promote dialogue between opposing views.

Can anyone add other pros and cons? Jeepers and Metro., your opinions might not be popular but they are thought-based. Can you find any pros and cons?

[Skyscrapergeek]

I for one don't think decisions should be left entirely to developers who after all are only looking to make a profit.

With respect, the second half of this statement is not only incorrect, it is unfair and uninformed. It goes without saying that developers want to make a profit but to say they are ONLY looking at making a profit is silly. Since this is the ST thread I will use Tony as an example. He has consulted with the city's planners and its residents many times during this process (especially when he didn't need or have to) because he wants at least the majority to be pleased with it. Tony actually cares how this is received by and impacts the city. The main reason he continually refuses to cut corners is because he has a vision for his customers that goes beyond profit. You may not like his vision, and that would be entirely fair, but you cannot say with any credibility that either he or all developers only care about profit.

[Richard Lawson]

In an effort to get back on track, let's look at pros and cons. This building will do several things:

Bring three years of steady construction jobs to many, many workers.

Result in a lot of building materials being purchased which the majority is still made in America.

Bring high income people to DT Nashville with money to spend.

Resulting in a need for more shopping and eating venues.

Resulting in more revenue for downtown businesses as a whole.

There are downsides:

More demand on public utilities

More traffic DT

Potentiall more crime DT as the wealthy might be targeted for muggings.

and probably others.

While this won't answer the question of viability, it does promote dialogue between opposing views.

Can anyone add other pros and cons? Jeepers and Metro., your opinions might not be popular but they are thought-based. Can you find any pros and cons?

The biggest negative -- won't use con because we are after all talking about developers -- is the price for the units. How deep is the market for $500 per square foot places? That's the big question that will be answered either way in the coming months. Debating the design and size is moot at this point since it's already been designed. Now it's a matter of whether it will actually be a go.

Jeepers was busting chops on the hotel announcement. But they had to work out details of interior design and all that goes into the technical side of the hotel. Then there was working through the language of the operating agreement. Apparently, those aren't so easy to put together. The cost of the hotel alone will exceed $60 million.

[Skyscrapergeek]

Potentiall more crime DT as the wealthy might be targeted for muggings.

The flip side of this may be that the streets become safer as the wealthy move into the area. Especially in this location, where the homeless congregate down the street in the park across from the library. I see a lot of political pressure being applied by ST's residents. Who knows, maybe it could bring more awareness to the problem. Although, I don't know how much more aware it could possibly get.

Good points Plastic.

[monsoon]

..... Tony actually cares how this is received by and impacts the city. The main reason he continually refuses to cut corners is because he has a vision for his customers that goes beyond profit. You may not like his vision, and that would be entirely fair, but you cannot say with any credibility that either he or all developers only care about profit.

Yet there is no evidence the final product will be anything more that an exclusive enclave for the well off and guests of the hotel. If he were truely interested in making something interesting for the public at large, he would have designed the building with an observation deck (requires separate elevators) and other attractions that would engage the average person. From what I can see there is none of that in this design which would cost extra money or cut into profits. It also has a rather dull and boring street level design. From what I can see, the only thing interesting about this building is it's height but beyond that there is nothing that I can see that it will add to Nashville other than possible bragging rights that it has a taller building than Atlanta. Some might think this important but as I have said before, skyscrapers don't make a city.

[Richard Lawson]

Yet there is no evidence the final product will be anything more that an exclusive enclave for the well off and guests of the hotel. If he were truely interested in making something interesting for the public at large, he would have designed the building with an observation deck (requires separate elevators) and other attractions that would engage the average person. From what I can see there is none of that in this design which would cost extra money or cut into profits. It also has a rather dull and boring street level design. From what I can see, the only thing interesting about this building is it's height but beyond that there is nothing that I can see that it will add to Nashville other than possible bragging rights that it has a taller building than Atlanta. Some might think this important but as I have said before, skyscrapers don't make a city.

Had MDHA not gotten wierd about the TIF because of the hotel, there would have been some "affordable" units in the building. As for the design, ultimately, unfortunately, buildings on paper look different once built. So it make work for downtown or it may not. But we won't know for three years. That's a helluva thing isn't it?

[ATLBrain]

Given all the technology devoted to showing the building in its prospective setting, it's probably going to look a lot like what we've seen (if that is the go-forward design). Personally, I like the desing, but I think it's about 300ft too tall. I know that strikes some as heresy, but I think the lines are graceful and the materials look good together. As Richard says, though, we won't know until we see how lighting affects the final product. I still hope this gets built.

On a related note, Richard (I believe) referred to a conversation with TG and said there would be some "fun", big announcement later this week. Is that going to be from TG? Does it relate to any existing/announced projects, or something altogether new?

I'm sorry if the quote above isn't completely accurate, but seems like I remember the word "fun".

[Jeeper12]

In an effort to get back on track, let's look at pros and cons. This building will do several things:

Bring three years of steady construction jobs to many, many workers. I agree somewhat; this project is unlikely to create mostly new buyers to Nashville. So, whatever units Tony didn't sell would likely be developed absorbed by someone else anyway

Result in a lot of building materials being purchased which the majority is still made in America. Mixed; probably not worthy of the list

Bring high income people to DT Nashville with money to spend. I agree

Resulting in a need for more shopping and eating venues. I agree

Resulting in more revenue for downtown businesses as a whole. I agree

There are downsides:

More demand on public utilities So...that's what utility bills and real estate taxes are for; impact on schools would be minimal

More traffic DT Agree somewhat, however a similarly sized commercial building would generate 5-6 times the traffic.

Potentiall more crime DT as the wealthy might be targeted for muggings. Disagree; more people and activity in the area will decrease crime not increase it.

and probably others.

While this won't answer the question of viability, it does promote dialogue between opposing views.

Can anyone add other pros and cons? Jeepers and Metro., your opinions might not be popular but they are thought-based. Can you find any pros and cons?

In addition to the above, I think a successful ST would raise the bar for more luxury projects since developers would have more confidence in the depth of the market here for those very high price points.

On the flip side, an unsuccessful ST could hang on the residential condo market for years if Tony were ultimately forced to discount his units heavily from the original prices (this could occur for a variety of reasons) to pay off his debt and equity sources. For illustration purposes imagine a developer doing an enormous project right in the middle of Green Hills (a healthy $250/sf market) offering 1500 $375/sf homes (all at once). If the houses were so well-received that they were all snapped up at $375/sf it would obviously have a positive impact on all the others around them. However, if the developer (and the lenders and the investor pre-sale buyers) miscalculated and too many of the presale buyers walked necessitating a discounted sale of the homes for say $300/sf or less you can imagine how this might depress the pre-existing market since there were all of a sudden so many brand new opportunities to trade up to the new overimproved houses without having to pay the full price.

I realize this is somewhat of an esoteric point steeped in economics but I believe it is a very real risk nonetheless and I don't think I'm without company in having this view. So, this may suprise some but I will be thrilled to death if Tony is successful with this project. However, due to the substancial risk of harm to our market in the event of ST's failure (assuming it gets built) I want to see it underwritten conservatively so that most, if not all of the risk associated with this very very pioneering project is born by Tony, his to-be-named partners and lenders AND his buyers. A 20% deposit would go along way to cushioning any problems he might experience with either the local or national market during the 3yr buildout. Ironically, the conservatism I'm advocating would also serve the development group well too since the much larger deposits would increase the likelihood of their buyers not getting spooked by something and bailing before a closing.