New 16 story tower across from Terrazzo

[Lexy]

When one talks about this "issue", it seems to always be followed up with the word Demand. My question is, is there really a DEMAND for these or is it the resell value that a realty company sees after a unit is built??? In other words, is people really buying these units, or is it Crye Leike? If this is the case, it is a VERY disturbing trend that has got to be stopped. We will reach a point at which condo's and loft's will be the norm and you will see a gentrification of the market. Which could lead to a large number of vacancies in many of these towers being built.

Just playing Devils Advocate here folks. But understand, $750,000 and above isn't affordable by any stretch of the imagination unless you are a Professor at VU. By affordable, and in the context of realestate in the burbs, I mean $175,000-$200,000 for a TWO bedroom condo. Not like Viridian where you get a closet, a bed, and a stove for $150,000.

[Guest]

I do not see why this has turned into a wealthy v. middle income v. lower income thread.

The developers are building to the market as you and I would do if it was our project. Now if I can make a 250K profit per unit or 50K per unit what do you think I am going to do? What would you do?

The more money I can make from this development they more new projects I can start, the more people I can hire, the more I help downtown grow. The flip side is if I price the units too high then they will not sell and I end up carrying the construction loan until I lower them to a sustainable level.

Currently the price range in the CBD is 200K to1.5M and up but just outside this area in Salemtown and East Nashville a house can be purchased for 100-125K (needing a little TLC), and soon in SoBro the plan is to build affordable housing in RMH and the Stadium (I have not seen prices).

As for any housing close-in being competitive with Murfreesboro or Antioch or Brentwood on a sq ft basis I do not think that is realistic. When we moved from Farragut (nice

[bwithers1]

Whatever one's opinion on the subject, I am not sure that the term, "gentrification," would really apply to downtown or Sobro anyway. There aren't really that many people living in those areas who would be displaced. And I do think that overall, the market for mid-range income households will prompt developers to put lots of housing options downtown. Even in Chicago, where there seems to be no upper-limit to prices, there are tons and tons of highrise, midrise, and loft units for sale that start in the $130s or $200s, etc. (Townhouses are pretty untouchable anywhere in the city, though). As for affordable housing, which is defined by 80% of the median income or something like that, there can be set-asides within some of these projects. This kind of socio-economic integration is a good thing for everybody. Since developers in East Nashville and other areas are willing to try it, perhaps at least some of the downtown developers will try it, too.

I do have a few reactions to this building coming from a Chicago perspective: (1) who would have thought that 12th and Division would emerge as Nashville's answer to the Gold Coast, almost like State/Rush and Division in Chicago? (2) what on earth are these wealthy folks going to do about noise, seeing that their building abuts the highway, and all the lateral screening in the world cannot stop noise from travelling up? (3) who would have thought that one would see buildings like those in Chicago, which tout terrific "views" of the expressway, be developed in Nashville. It sure will make a nice change for passersby on the Interstate, who primarily see adult bookstore neon signs and public housing developments when driving through Nashville. Unless that side of the building is just going to be a giant concrete wall with no windows.

[ATLBrain]

It sure will make a nice change for passersby on the Interstate, who primarily see adult bookstore neon signs....

Maybe that will be the retail on the ground level LOL.

[Guest]

Whatever one's opinion on the subject, I am not sure that the term, "gentrification," would really apply to downtown or Sobro anyway. There aren't really that many people living in those areas who would be displaced. And I do think that overall, the market for mid-range income households will prompt developers to put lots of housing options downtown. Even in Chicago, where there seems to be no upper-limit to prices, there are tons and tons of highrise, midrise, and loft units for sale that start in the $130s or $200s, etc. (Townhouses are pretty untouchable anywhere in the city, though). As for affordable housing, which is defined by 80% of the median income or something like that, there can be set-asides within some of these projects. This kind of socio-economic integration is a good thing for everybody. Since developers in East Nashville and other areas are willing to try it, perhaps at least some of the downtown developers will try it, too.

I do have a few reactions to this building coming from a Chicago perspective: (1) who would have thought that 12th and Division would emerge as Nashville's answer to the Gold Coast, almost like State/Rush and Division in Chicago? (2) what on earth are these wealthy folks going to do about noise, seeing that their building abuts the highway, and all the lateral screening in the world cannot stop noise from travelling up? (3) who would have thought that one would see buildings like those in Chicago, which tout terrific "views" of the expressway, be developed in Nashville. It sure will make a nice change for passersby on the Interstate, who primarily see adult bookstore neon signs and public housing developments when driving through Nashville. Unless that side of the building is just going to be a giant concrete wall with no windows.

You are correct the gentrification issue was raised in re: Gernamtown Salemtown and Jefferson Street rather that CBD and SoBro. And I agree city/developer agreements are the way to go butthen you get into trade-offs such as TIF and zoning deals. I also agree that they are trying to get a pretty steep price for those units given the location.

[city watcher]

Is this building going to be a residential structure or an office tower?

[smeagolsfree]

25 upscale condos with possible retail on the first floor. Its going to be a very tall and narrow building with a 6000 sq ft footprint max.

[bwithers1]

Is this building going to be a residential structure or an office tower?

I think that it will be residential. And that continues to puzzle me more and more the longer that I think about it. Why such a high-end place at this particular location, where so many of the cool views of downtown will presumably be blocked by Icon and others? If I had a lot of money to spend on a large unit downtown, I would want sweeping, pretty much guaranteed vistas of the skyline or something other than the highrise immediately next door and/or the expressway. Perhaps I might pay that much to have a view looking down into the new Sounds stadium, or directly at the capital building, or something like that, but I would not pay 750K to wave at my neighbors in the Terrazzo (even though I am one of the few who is optimistic about that building). And any unit facing south or west is going to have to overcome a lot of traffic noise.

I think that this is a good spot for a tower, I'm just not convinced about the target market for this building. What do you folks think?

[barakat]

I think that it will be residential. And that continues to puzzle me more and more the longer that I think about it. Why such a high-end place at this particular location, where so many of the cool views of downtown will presumably be blocked by Icon and others? If I had a lot of money to spend on a large unit downtown, I would want sweeping, pretty much guaranteed vistas of the skyline or something other than the highrise immediately next door and/or the expressway. Perhaps I might pay that much to have a view looking down into the new Sounds stadium, or directly at the capital building, or something like that, but I would not pay 750K to wave at my neighbors in the Terrazzo (even though I am one of the few who is optimistic about that building). And any unit facing south or west is going to have to overcome a lot of traffic noise.

I think that this is a good spot for a tower, I'm just not convinced about the target market for this building. What do you folks think?

I think it's a great spot high-end condos. The noise can been minimized, and I think living perched above that curve in the interstate could be really cool. They should also have a nice view of midtown and the sunset. The #1 reason I would want to live in a high-rise would be for the unobstructed views of the sunset and horizon. Buyers of high-end units like this and in other nearby buildings [and their friends] will also heavily support the surrounding new retail, which is vital to the 'hood.

[bzorch]

Damn those greedy developers! I do think that is what this discussion is really about. Of course, developers are allowed to develop and market to whomever they want. I think the concern is more about what are the consequences of not providing a mix of incomes within a development or area of town.

For a little perspective, I think Steve Neighbor

[Lukin]

Wow, that's awesome bzorch! Thanks for doing that. I've been wondering what this corner is actually gonna look like in a couple years...so thanks for giving me a little clearer of a picture...

And by the way, isn't that corner just gonna rock?

[bzorch]

Thanks, I was curious what it is was going to look like myself. The New 16-story Crosland development will obviously look better than shown (Its massing is based on William's description). I hope I do not offend the architects of all of the buildings. They will all look better than what is shown. It was the massing that was important. I do like the gateway created. I think the ICON tower is overbearing at the intersection of 12th and 11th. It also does not really focus itself on the 12th and Division intersection. Though if we are lucky it wall have a door at the corner. I am not sure how they are dealing with the slope. It is hard to tell by the rendering. I also thought is was interesting how much the Mercury View Lofts were engaging the rest of the proposed fabric.

[cdub]

Damn those greedy developers! I do think that is what this discussion is really about. Of course, developers are allowed to develop and market to whomever they want. I think the concern is more about what are the consequences of not providing a mix of incomes within a development or area of town.

For a little perspective, I think Steve Neighbor

[Guest]

I appreciate when our wealthy citizens give their resources to help improve Nashville. Martha Ingram, Curb, Frist, Massey and all the other first families of Nashville have played very important roles in Nashville society. BUT the point here is they all made vast sums of money and would qualify as 'greedy' in their given profession where they became rich.

People have to become rich before they have anything with which to be selfless. In my opinion it is not realistic to expect a developer to risk his/investors money and not maximize a profit.

To those that prefer the community based theory of real estate development please give a example of how it should work? If a developer prices units below market I would be one of the first (I hope) to purchase one and then attempt to flip it at a higher market rate. Does this make me less of a champion of Nashville? I think not as if I can flip enough unit I may one day become selfless and donate vast land holding to Nashville for all the football frisbee teams.

[samsonh]

That says it all. Unfortunately we don't seem to be thinking long term, only how can I get the most number of units sold at the highest possible price. You free market people can attack me all you want, but there are ways for developers to still make modests profits and provide a mix of housing that will make an area a truly sustainable neighborhood. Again, it seems one project has set the precendent to cater to the elite and everyone else is jumping on the "I'm gonna make an ass-load of money" bandwagon.

First post but I feel like I have to reply. If you feel that developers need to produce 'affordable' housing and they are not, then I encourage you to become a developer and produce those housing options. It is no ones responsibility to provide affordable housing for anyone. Developers and their investors have many options for investing their money and will choose the option that provides them with the greatest amount of return in relation to the risk they are willing to tolerate. Crosland has decided that to maximize their investment they should produce a few high-end units. With the profits they make from this building they will most likely build another building in a couple years. If you reduce their possible profits you will lower the incentive for them to produce not only this building but any subsequent ones they may plan. By telling them they can only charge x, you will see not only a reduction in the amount of housing produced but most likely a reduction in quality in the housing that is produced.

I have been lurking for at least a year because I enjoy reading everyone's opinion way more than I like writing. Cdub this isn't meant to be critical of you, because I enjoy reading your posts as much as anyones. I am similar to Kheldane in that I dislike the idea of government regulations in the free market. I cannot express the economics of it nearly as well as Kheldane, but I feel is right on in everything he says.

[cdub]

Again, let the market run wild and you can get crap. Just look at the suburbs. We are not creating communities that can sustain themselves over the long haul. It seems our country will run into a situation in the future where we will have a large division between the haves and have-nots. Under the free market society, you're saying that lower/ middle class individuals will not have an opportunity to live in an urban environment? Currently, that's the road we're headed down.

We seem to want to address sprawl. How can we do that when we are continually pushing individuals to cheaper land because our urban areas are out of the leagues of what the majority of us can afford. The affordability is a difficult thing to answer, I'm just saying I feel we're heading down the wrong path by not providing options. So far, we're getting the free market and most of us can only talk about living downtown. I'm one of them. I was currently there, but prices were/ are outrageous for someone 3 years out of school. My wife and I do well, but not that well. Landscape Architects don't make bank. 1000 SF is pretty tight for a couple, trust me, as our first apartment downtown was that and then was converted to condos (asking price around $200K). How can a family afford that if what we're trying to create are neighborhoods?

I'm not saying developers aren't entitled to a profit. What I question is when a good profit is enough? Does it have to be maximized for that developer to be able to build a building next year? I doubt it as most developers aren't fronting the money.

If I were a developer (and trust me, I'd love it.), I'd love to see a mixed use or townhome development in the Sobro area that has a mix of incomes. If a neighborhood is done well, you'd never even know a mix existed. Look at the brownstones of NYC or Chicago. Townhome upper floors, affordable (loosely termed affordable) in the basement. You get a mix. I don't think our affordable units are currently that. 80% medium income still keeps out a lot of individuals.

I tend to like the set up of MDHA and grants, though I think it can be taken advantage of. Some units are subsidized, developer still gets market price, but the individual can't 'flip' it for an immediate profit. Buyers must meet income level guidelines in order to get the subsidy, but it helps them get into an area that they would otherwise not be able to afford. With MDHA (I looked into this with Ireland St. Townhomes when I was first out of school), I think the grant was $25K, $15K of it forgivable over a 5 year period at that time. What this helps to do is lock someone in to a unit. If they tried to flip it, they'd owe a percentage back if sold before 5 yrs. This can help an individual build wealth as well, one that wouldn't be able to build wealth living 2 blocks over on Jefferson St. for example. Bzorch has mentioned this in other threads, most Americans' wealth comes in the form of their home. Is it a completely fair system? No. Is it fair that the new urban neighborhoods will be exclusive, no as well.

The city, to me, should be for all people. Gets me back to the original qoute. I don't want to just come downtown and walk looking at McMansions in the sky and Gucci handbags in the retail windows. Those aren't items I can afford or interest me and thus I have no options to come downtown if our system keeps moving how it's moving.

Welcome to the group by the way. Release the free market hounds.

[Skyscrapergeek]

First post but I feel like I have to reply. If you feel that developers need to produce 'affordable' housing and they are not, then I encourage you to become a developer and produce those housing options. It is no ones responsibility to provide affordable housing for anyone. Developers and their investors have many options for investing their money and will choose the option that provides them with the greatest amount of return in relation to the risk they are willing to tolerate. Crosland has decided that to maximize their investment they should produce a few high-end units. With the profits they make from this building they will most likely build another building in a couple years. If you reduce their possible profits you will lower the incentive for them to produce not only this building but any subsequent ones they may plan. By telling them they can only charge x, you will see not only a reduction in the amount of housing produced but most likely a reduction in quality in the housing that is produced.

I have been lurking for at least a year because I enjoy reading everyone's opinion way more than I like writing. Cdub this isn't meant to be critical of you, because I enjoy reading your posts as much as anyones. I am similar to Kheldane in that I dislike the idea of government regulations in the free market. I cannot express the economics of it nearly as well as Kheldane, but I feel is right on in everything he says.

Excellent first post samsonh. Please don't wait another year for post #2.

[ATLBrain]

Nice work Bzorch. This makes me wonder what would go into the big V at the intersection b/n Icon and Mercury View (tract in the foreground). Regardless, that will be a nice looking urban intersection.

[bzorch]

Thanks, I was thinking public space with a focal feature of some sort.

[Guest]

Seems a little too prime for public space. Is it currently owned by the city? If not I would expect dense development.

[bzorch]

All the more reason to make it public space.

[cheeriokid61]

I disagree about the public space. I picture a good mid to highrise modern highrise building - say 15 to 20 stories. There aren't many intersections like that in Nashville, and I would love to see a good building go there. A park can go anywhere. A flatiron can not.

[Guest]

Bzorch

All I am saying is that if the parcel is not already owned by the city I see little chance of an investor not putting a dense development on the site. No way the city can condem the property for an open public space, where is the complelling economic interest?

[ariesjow]

Again, let the market run wild and you can get crap. Just look at the suburbs. We are not creating communities that can sustain themselves over the long haul. It seems our country will run into a situation in the future where we will have a large division between the haves and have-nots. Under the free market society, you're saying that lower/ middle class individuals will not have an opportunity to live in an urban environment? Currently, that's the road we're headed down.

We seem to want to address sprawl. How can we do that when we are continually pushing individuals to cheaper land because our urban areas are out of the leagues of what the majority of us can afford. The affordability is a difficult thing to answer, I'm just saying I feel we're heading down the wrong path by not providing options. So far, we're getting the free market and most of us can only talk about living downtown. I'm one of them. I was currently there, but prices were/ are outrageous for someone 3 years out of school. My wife and I do well, but not that well. Landscape Architects don't make bank. 1000 SF is pretty tight for a couple, trust me, as our first apartment downtown was that and then was converted to condos (asking price around $200K). How can a family afford that if what we're trying to create are neighborhoods?

I'm not saying developers aren't entitled to a profit. What I question is when a good profit is enough? Does it have to be maximized for that developer to be able to build a building next year? I doubt it as most developers aren't fronting the money.

If I were a developer (and trust me, I'd love it.), I'd love to see a mixed use or townhome development in the Sobro area that has a mix of incomes. If a neighborhood is done well, you'd never even know a mix existed. Look at the brownstones of NYC or Chicago. Townhome upper floors, affordable (loosely termed affordable) in the basement. You get a mix. I don't think our affordable units are currently that. 80% medium income still keeps out a lot of individuals.

I tend to like the set up of MDHA and grants, though I think it can be taken advantage of. Some units are subsidized, developer still gets market price, but the individual can't 'flip' it for an immediate profit. Buyers must meet income level guidelines in order to get the subsidy, but it helps them get into an area that they would otherwise not be able to afford. With MDHA (I looked into this with Ireland St. Townhomes when I was first out of school), I think the grant was $25K, $15K of it forgivable over a 5 year period at that time. What this helps to do is lock someone in to a unit. If they tried to flip it, they'd owe a percentage back if sold before 5 yrs. This can help an individual build wealth as well, one that wouldn't be able to build wealth living 2 blocks over on Jefferson St. for example. Bzorch has mentioned this in other threads, most Americans' wealth comes in the form of their home. Is it a completely fair system? No. Is it fair that the new urban neighborhoods will be exclusive, no as well.

The city, to me, should be for all people. Gets me back to the original qoute. I don't want to just come downtown and walk looking at McMansions in the sky and Gucci handbags in the retail windows. Those aren't items I can afford or interest me and thus I have no options to come downtown if our system keeps moving how it's moving.

Welcome to the group by the way. Release the free market hounds.

I agree with your underlying point here wholeheartedly. I'm all with you on providing urban communities with a wide but indiscrernable socioeconomic makeup. Personally, I feel that creating good mixed income communities plays a large step in decreasing a laundry list of problems ranging from the public school academic gap to racial tensions to crime. Unfortunately, developers, no matter how good-willed most may be, are still motivated by profits. And that's perfectly fine. Only local governments have the power to influence how they build by developing strong comprehensive plans and having the people in office who will enforce those plans.

If providing urban mixed income communities in a strong priority for Nashville-Davidson County's policymakers and their constituents, then MDHA would figure out a way to assure make sure developers build and market to not solely the wealthy. But Nashville probably isn't there yet. As progressive as Ann Arbor seems, they aren't there yet here either. It's not a Nashville problem but a national problem with the new urbanist movement.

[fieldmarshaldj]

All the more reason to make it public space.

Every time I see the phrase "public space", I see "panhandler park."