Archived

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

bzorch

Where would you put demand?

10 posts in this topic

I have put together the following maps to illustrate the results of (2) high-rise and (2) mid-rise building scenarios. The demand figures are based on the results of ERA's Market Feasibility Study They state:

"In terms of demand modeling, this methodology produces a net gain in downtown

residents of approximately 7,500. Assuming an average household size of 1.7 persons

per household would generate demand for more than 4,400 new housing units in the

greater downtown-from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bzorch,

My preference is Option 4. For the most part, I side with you. We need mid-rise buildings for two key reasons. Lots of mid-rise buildings fill far more empty lots (or underutilized lots) than only a handful of very tall buildings. Also, mid-rises tend to be much more pedestrian oriented.

However, I love skyscrapers too.

WW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with scenario 4. A high-rise or a few will come online in a natural progression of building a city. Hopefully, developers will realize the synergy needed among their various projects to create a whole as opposed to disjointed collection of individual signature structures. The aerial gives one a lively sense of what connectivity can be pursued, even with the CC, as you mentioned. Thanks for this. I'm going back to look more closely.

I vote for mid-rises for most of the parcels in our future downtown hoods. The punctuation marks that are hi-rises I like as well, but certainly the coverage of more under- or unutilized land is most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Dave.

Option 4 looks best , but I would envision a mix of 3 and 4 in reality. Things will take care of themselves. You cant have all high-rise, besides I dont think Nashville will have the potential for an all high-rise urban core. Not now anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bzorch,

Excellent graphic aid. I wonder how much of the demand calculated by ERA could be leeched off by the boom in Midtown, and to a lesser degree, East Nashville. Are these complementary markets or three markets competing for the same limited supply? Obviously, there is a limit to buyers, but are the folks buying in East and Mid the same buyers who would be buying in the Gulch, the Core, and SoBro? I suspect that the Mid buyers are more likely the same folks who would buy into the high rises (Signature, Encore, Icon, etc.), while the East buyers are more likely the same folks who buy into midrises and rehabs. Just a gut feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with scenario 4. A high-rise or a few will come online in a natural progression of building a city. Hopefully, developers will realize the synergy needed among their various projects to create a whole as opposed to disjointed collection of individual signature structures. The aerial gives one a lively sense of what connectivity can be pursued, even with the CC, as you mentioned. Thanks for this. I'm going back to look more closely.

I vote for mid-rises for most of the parcels in our future downtown hoods. The punctuation marks that are hi-rises I like as well, but certainly the coverage of more under- or unutilized land is most important.

I'm with Dave. I like scenario 4, but with a few high rises sprinkled in. To me nothing but midrise is boring. I'd like to see much of the remainder of the Gulch area as midrise, now that we have three highrise projects at a prominent high point. For the future SoBor projects, I'd prefer to see about 50/50 high near Broadway, becoming say 75/25 midrise as you go further south.

Great job, Bzorch! I's a great way to show what the future may hold for us. Is it possible for you to place the proposed SoBro convention center on the drawing? That may give us a better idea how that could impact the development of future Sobro neighborhoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad it helped. Here is option 4 with various CC site options shown.

Option 4 with CC sites

I do think some of the demand that ERA projected demand would be absorbed by the Midtown projects. I did not include them in order to remain very conservative. In addition, to not include the 1,200 units in the CBD that is also absorbing the demand is somewhat negligent. The +25% options are very optimistic.

Then I read stories like this: 6 months to Housing Hell and I do not get a good feeling, but I must remain optimistic. Everyone tells me Nashville is different. I sure hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job Bzorch! Looking at the SoBro as it may look in 2010, I think this dawing reaveals quite a bit as to which convention center site may be best. Here's my take on all 4 possible sites.

1. Plan of Nashville Site - Much less impact on future SoBro & Gulch neighborhood expansions. Located very close to I40 / I65. Faily long walk to most existing hotel rooms. Long way to Lower Broadway, 2nd Avenue entertainment area. Net result: Conventioneers may not like this location as much as the old, so there may be a relatively high risk that the facilty will not draw as many convention goers as planned.

2. Urban Planet Option - No impact on future SoBro & Gulch neighborhood expansions. Good access to I-24. Must walk across a bridge to access many hotels, and the Lower Broadway, 2nd Avenue entertainment area. Uses very valuable riverfront property that could be used for parks, waterfront projects ala Chattanooga, or a massive development. Would only be viable if a mass transit system were built to cross the river, and that would be costly. Net result: Conventioneers would not like this location as much as old, unless transit system is built. Total project cost could actually be higher here.

3. Future Site 1 - Not as much impact as I thought on SoBro & Gulch expansions, but still cinsiderable impact. SoBro and Gulch can link together south of the convention center. Access from interstate not as good, but decent. Moderate to short walk to most existing hotel rooms. Short walk to Lower Broadway and 2nd Avenue entertainment areas. Located close to existing CC, which could be converted easity to meeting rooms, thus increasing Convention Centers ability to attract larger conventions. Net Result: Highest probability of success that the planned number of conventioneers will use this facility.

4. Future Site 2 - Destroys possible linkage of SoBro and Gulch neigborhoods. Decent access to interstates. Longer walk the Future Site 1 to hotels, and entainment areas. Close to existing CC. Net result: Slightly less likely to be successful as Future Site 1.

Based on these observations, I would have to favor the Future Site 1 for the Convention Center. I think it has the greatest probability of success (the single most important factor, IMO when you're planning to invest $455 Million), and it still allows the merging of SoBro and Gulch neighborhoods in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You know after looking at the CC options, there may be one that we have not looked at. This option would be to build the CC on the stadium side of the Shelby st. Bridge and incorporate parking for the Titans underneath with a large hotel attached to it. That is not at all a long walk across the Bridge into the district downtown. You would have ample parking and the CC traffic would not adversely affect the rest of downtown. Shuttles could run across the Woodland st Bridge as well as the Gateway Bridge as a permanent fixture to the downtown transit system. Its just a thought. Ideas??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you Hankster and as you say, I couldn't have said it better. It doesn't look like there will be a perfect site to please everyone but I too think Future Site 1 makes the most sense. I believe it creates the best chance for the success of the CC if it is to be built. I always thought Demonbruen made more sense as dividing line for SoBro than Broadway because of the GEC, CMHOF, etc. I guess you would have to call it SoDemon. Maybe an arbitrary division isn't that practical anyway as they grant variance after variance. I don't know, just wondering. That idea is probably not very popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.