Jump to content

Signature Tower


NewTowner

Recommended Posts

The advertising and overall marketing of the condos at the Signature Tower is very poor and already stale.

Giarratana & Co. need to better sell the concept of luxury urban living in the center of it all in downtown Nashville.

The impersonal, general nature of the ads and promotion to date are no longer effective. They've simply been around too long without anything materializing.

What's needed is something to pomote excitement about city living, the Hotel Palomar, the building, the downtown scene, convenience, etc. None of that has really been effectively promoted to date.

The reality is that more and more people are skeptical that this project will ever break ground. As a result, one can't expect the condo sales to really take off until there is some sort of concrete evidence that the Signature Tower will become a reality.

Everyone keeps looking for something to start happening at 5th & Church. So far, its just an ugly parking lot.

When thing start happening, I think many more units will be sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

fair points but if tony has really already burned through 20 mil i don't see anybody stepping up to give him another 5 to dig a hole and revamp his marketing. given the general state of the market and the results of his efforts thus far i really don't understand why he would start digging. seems like a desperate hail mary and not a good use of 5 mil even if its other peoples money. maybe i'm off but it seems like someone needs to sit down with him and explain the principle of sunk costs, aka cutting your losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a not-so-new idea for any developer of high-end condos in Tennessee... advertise in pubs which have lots of target readers in high-tax states. If this segment is retirees and/or empty-nesters, then go to lifestyle magazines like Vanity Fair and Robb Report et.al. And I subscribe to the WSJ, but I've yet to see an ad for Signature in it. I would expect that we'd get the ads in the Southeast edition... there are always ads for condos in Fla, Atlanta, and NC. I reallly thought outlets like that were no-brainers for a project like this. I'm sure he's getting interest from the usual suburban types in the Nashville area who are looking for a change, but heck we're getting all sorts of half-backs here in Atlanta, and I've heard that there's lots of them in NC and TN too. Hell, I don't know why they're not being targeted. Also, WSJ has Prudential RE, Coldwell, etc. listings in it, and I don't know why he doesn't have a few of the most select units that haven't sold yet listed on that page. Am I just missing something here?

Regarding the existing marketing, it really is lackluster. Although, I have not been to Nashville in months, I think I've gotten a good understanding of the current marketing from this board and the real-estate magazines in our office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you guys really want this tower built, but I must say that living in a building that tall is very unattractive and not to mention very dangerous. I'll be surprised if there will ever be enough buyers to get this building constructed. After 9/11 and being in New York when it all went down, you couldn't pay me to be in a building that tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you guys really want this tower built, but I must say that living in a building that tall is very unattractive and not to mention very dangerous. I'll be surprised if there will ever be enough buyers to get this building constructed. After 9/11 and being in New York when it all went down, you couldn't pay me to be in a building that tall.

I'm not sure "dangerous" is a realistic argument. You still fly don't you? The odds of another plane crashing with or without terrorist help are much higher than the odds of a plane or some other device bringing down the Signature Tower. You still drive don't you? Car crashes happen everyday even to the safest drivers. It is no more dangerous to live in a skyscraper in Nashville than in any other city and millions of people world-wide live in them. And even more people work in buildings this tall and taller 8, 10, and 12 hours per day.

Unattractive is just an opinion and may be valid for some. But the market for these condos isn't aimed at people who are afraid to live in highrise buildings. Whether you live in the Veridian or Signature, if the building is destroyed you'll be just a dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you guys really want this tower built, but I must say that living in a building that tall is very unattractive and not to mention very dangerous. I'll be surprised if there will ever be enough buyers to get this building constructed. After 9/11 and being in New York when it all went down, you couldn't pay me to be in a building that tall.

Well for the sake of the highrise office and condo markets in the United States, thank god there are millions of people out there who aren't still paranoid, six years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've developed a phobia of really really tall buildings. I had lunch with a friend in the World Trade Centers exactly two weeks before they were attacked. Thank God I didn't work down there. At any rate, I hope you guys get the Signature Tower, but I don't think I'll ever step foot in it.

You have a legitimate point, and no one should poo-poo it. High-rise buildings make mockeries out of fire safety codes, and every fireman knows it. How it is that we can require standard emergency exit signs and multiple exits in every public building, but yet permit people to be marooned 600 feet in the air where no ladder could ever reach them, is a testiment to the public's inability to apply critical thought to their surroundings. Very few people would be willing to work 600 feet undergorund, beneath tons and tons of rock and soil--yet this would actually be considerably safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You have a legitimate point, and no one should poo-poo it. High-rise buildings make mockeries out of fire safety codes, and every fireman knows it. How it is that we can require standard emergency exit signs and multiple exits in every public building, but yet permit people to be marooned 600 feet in the air where no ladder could ever reach them, is a testiment to the public's inability to apply critical thought to their surroundings. Very few people would be willing to work 600 feet undergorund, beneath tons and tons of rock and soil--yet this would actually be considerably safer.

An inverted 600 foot towers would have beautiful views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a legitimate point, and no one should poo-poo it. High-rise buildings make mockeries out of fire safety codes, and every fireman knows it. How it is that we can require standard emergency exit signs and multiple exits in every public building, but yet permit people to be marooned 600 feet in the air where no ladder could ever reach them, is a testiment to the public's inability to apply critical thought to their surroundings. Very few people would be willing to work 600 feet undergorund, beneath tons and tons of rock and soil--yet this would actually be considerably safer.

You could say the same about air travel. How we can strand tens of thousands of people per day 36,000 feet in the air with no chance of escaping should a fire break or even worse disaster occur? Even a small airline failure is usually catastrophic. Should we just ban air travel because of the risk? Thousands and thousands of skyscrapers are built annually with no doubt hundreds of thousands on the planet with little in the way of mishap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say the same about air travel. How we can strand tens of thousands of people per day 36,000 feet in the air with no chance of escaping should a fire break or even worse disaster occur? Even a small airline failure is usually catastrophic. Should we just ban air travel because of the risk? Thousands and thousands of skyscrapers are built annually with no doubt hundreds of thousands on the planet with little in the way of mishap.

I totally agree. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is 100% safe. And we continually accept a certain amount of risk/return ratio in everything we do. Driving is way more dangerous than flying, and flying is more dangerous than living in a skyscraper.

Shortly after 9/11 almost everyone was declaring the age of the skyscraper over and that from now on, people would build low to the ground and blah blah blah. I knew that was BS. It simply is not human nature. We like grand things.

I have doubts about the future of the Signature Tower, despite wanting severely to see it built because I think it's an awesome building. But if it doesn't get built it won't be because people were worried about living in a skyscraper out of some nebulous fear of terrorism (which, btw, means they have accomplished exactly what they set out to do, i.e. instill fear) or fire hazards, it will be due to financing and credit issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face facts. Terrorists attacked the WTC because it was the epicenter of the modern world's economy. They attacked the pentagon because of everything it stood for (spying, intel., etc). I dont think we have to worry too much about terrorists attacking a condo tower that would have 500-1000 people in it (tops) just watching TV and doing their laundry.

EDIT- Has anyone seen that 30 second Signature Tower commercial? It's on the website.

Also just for kicks I fashioned together a picture of Nashville if the Signature tower gets completed along with pinnacle and encore. Way to go photoshop! Original photo taken by Lexy.FutureNashville.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a legitimate point, and no one should poo-poo it. High-rise buildings make mockeries out of fire safety codes, and every fireman knows it. How it is that we can require standard emergency exit signs and multiple exits in every public building, but yet permit people to be marooned 600 feet in the air where no ladder could ever reach them, is a testiment to the public's inability to apply critical thought to their surroundings. Very few people would be willing to work 600 feet undergorund, beneath tons and tons of rock and soil--yet this would actually be considerably safer.

OH MY GAWD!!!! NT, you're back! I wondered where you had been for so long. LOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've developed a phobia of really really tall buildings. I had lunch with a friend in the World Trade Centers exactly two weeks before they were attacked. Thank God I didn't work down there. At any rate, I hope you guys get the Signature Tower, but I don't think I'll ever step foot in it.

I respect you're phobia, as all phobias, no matter how irrational they may seem, are serious. However, you should realize that this phobia and the reasons behind it are very unrealistic and not based in any sort of fact. There is absolutely nothing that would suggest that being inside of a skyscraper is any more dangerous than being anywhere else that you are in your life on a daily basis. I'm not saying that your phobia is stupid at all. I'm just saying that even though you may be afraid of entering a skyscraper, that in reality there is nothing to be afraid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You have a legitimate point, and no one should poo-poo it. High-rise buildings make mockeries out of fire safety codes, and every fireman knows it. How it is that we can require standard emergency exit signs and multiple exits in every public building, but yet permit people to be marooned 600 feet in the air where no ladder could ever reach them, is a testiment to the public's inability to apply critical thought to their surroundings. Very few people would be willing to work 600 feet undergorund, beneath tons and tons of rock and soil--yet this would actually be considerably safer.

Welcome back NT. But please, explain your comment that "every fire[fighter] knows it" (Lets not leave out the female firefighters). My experience has been just the opposite. When I sit down with the Fire officials and discuss high rise buildings, they all seem to like them, and in fact express excitement about buildings such as Signature Tower. High rise buildings must be constructed of non combustible materials, must have full blown alarm and detection systems, must be sprinklered, must have multiple exits and must have elevator evacuation capabilities. Frankly, If I were choosing where to live, a nice modern high rise would seem much safer than one of these "converted lofts" that is in a 100 year old building of wood construction, with floors that were once factory floors oozing with machine oil. Having worked in one of these old buildings when it was a factory, I know what I'm talking about. They are fire traps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back NT. But please, explain your comment that "every fire[fighter] knows it" (Lets not leave out the female firefighters). My experience has been just the opposite. When I sit down with the Fire officials and discuss high rise buildings, they all seem to like them, and in fact express excitement about buildings such as Signature Tower. High rise buildings must be constructed of non combustible materials, must have full blown alarm and detection systems, must be sprinklered, must have multiple exits and must have elevator evacuation capabilities. Frankly, If I were choosing where to live, a nice modern high rise would seem much safer than one of these "converted lofts" that is in a 100 year old building of wood construction, with floors that were once factory floors oozing with machine oil. Having worked in one of these old buildings when it was a factory, I know what I'm talking about. They are fire traps.

I went to school for three years at "Old Public School" in Lawrenceburg, TN from 1972-1974 which had those floors the janitors would oil periodically. What a filthy mess they were. I am almost positive Signature Tower will not have oiled floors. :thumbsup: Another safety concern of older buildings is asbestos exposure and lead paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face facts. Terrorists attacked the WTC because it was the epicenter of the modern world's economy. They attacked the pentagon because of everything it stood for (spying, intel., etc). I dont think we have to worry too much about terrorists attacking a condo tower that would have 500-1000 people in it (tops) just watching TV and doing their laundry.

EDIT- Has anyone seen that 30 second Signature Tower commercial? It's on the website.

Also just for kicks I fashioned together a picture of Nashville if the Signature tower gets completed along with pinnacle and encore. Way to go photoshop!FutureNashville.jpg

I was making my peace with the large possibility of not having this building until I saw this...that view right there makes me want it more than any other I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face facts. Terrorists attacked the WTC because it was the epicenter of the modern world's economy. They attacked the pentagon because of everything it stood for (spying, intel., etc). I dont think we have to worry too much about terrorists attacking a condo tower that would have 500-1000 people in it (tops) just watching TV and doing their laundry.

EDIT- Has anyone seen that 30 second Signature Tower commercial? It's on the website.

Also just for kicks I fashioned together a picture of Nashville if the Signature tower gets completed along with pinnacle and encore. Way to go photoshop!FutureNashville.jpg

NM, You may want to credit the photographer who too that shot. Hint, hint. He would greatly appreciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, yeah! That rocks!

Just thinking though... would the Pinnacle be a lil wider? I think its gonna be a fairly wide building isnt it?

Yes, I agree. Pinnacle looks too small. Part of the problem too might be that the only view to cut and paste from is a perspective looking up from Schermerhorn (sp?) I don't think it will appear as wide as the Bat building, but not too much thinner. The tower will be as wide as the block from 2nd to 3rd.

So with photoshop, are you guessing the height/ width, or is it scalable for distance? (not a computer wiz kid here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face facts. Terrorists attacked the WTC because it was the epicenter of the modern world's economy. They attacked the pentagon because of everything it stood for (spying, intel., etc). I dont think we have to worry too much about terrorists attacking a condo tower that would have 500-1000 people in it (tops) just watching TV and doing their laundry.

EDIT- Has anyone seen that 30 second Signature Tower commercial? It's on the website.

Also just for kicks I fashioned together a picture of Nashville if the Signature tower gets completed along with pinnacle and encore. Way to go photoshop!FutureNashville.jpg

Great job. Siggy looks awesome in that shot. I beleive Pinnacle will be a good deal more noticeable than that. The tower should be just slightly lower than the bottom of Batman Tower's ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face facts. Terrorists attacked the WTC because it was the epicenter of the modern world's economy. They attacked the pentagon because of everything it stood for (spying, intel., etc). I dont think we have to worry too much about terrorists attacking a condo tower that would have 500-1000 people in it (tops) just watching TV and doing their laundry.

EDIT- Has anyone seen that 30 second Signature Tower commercial? It's on the website.

Also just for kicks I fashioned together a picture of Nashville if the Signature tower gets completed along with pinnacle and encore. Way to go photoshop!FutureNashville.jpg

Wow, That photoshopped picture is fantastic maestro. It really defines how the look of the skyline will appear from the north side of town, especially like the Fern St. overpass, or coming from the north on 65, topping the hill at the Clarksville/I-24 split. Someone else photoshopped a picture a while back, and i'm curious to find out who did it. Also, to the left of Siggy in this picture is another HUGE tower partially hidden by the Renaissance Hotel, and to the left of Nashville CC, which i'm very curious about. Does anyone know what this could potentially be??

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/sky.../sigwlight2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saw this article about trump's condo projects posted on nc. http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/m...19-frangos.html

apparently even trump is struggling with big projects in some of the larger markets. very interesting info about how he sells or licenses his name to developers for fees without really taking any risk or having any development responsiblity in some projects. he certainly seems to have learned a lesson from some of his tough years in the business. maybe rather than digging a hole tony should pay half of that cost to trump to try and get things going again. even with trump's apparent problems that seems like a better use of cash than digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.