Signature Tower out of Place?

[nashscan]

with the Sig Tower is that it has basically become a gated community for the rich right smack dab in the middle of downtown with all the respect and sensitivity for its neighbors and environment that you might expect from a McMansion in the suburbs or a Cadillac Escalade for my Honda Civic. I think it would be much more positive and significant for Nashville if a tower of this magnitude was needed for offices like BOA in Charlotte.

Is that the real reason you think the Signature Tower is out of place? Should developers stop building nice tall expensives towers, because you might not be able to afford it?

I certainly couldn't afford to live there right now. I also drive a Honda Civic. But one day, I will own a Cadillac Escalade and live in the Signature Tower.

[Nashvillain]

Is that the real reason you think the Signature Tower is out of place? Should developers stop building nice tall expensives towers, because you might not be able to afford it?

I certainly couldn't afford to live there right now. I also drive a Honda Civic. But one day, I will own a Cadillac Escalade and live in the Signature Tower.

The real reason I think it's out of place is because like a three story mansion crammed in amidst one story ranches or Escalades with 24 inch chrome wheels, its an assault on good taste and a giant F... You to its neighbors.

[nashscan]

The real reason I think it's out of place is because like a three story mansion crammed in amidst one story ranches or Escalades with 24 inch chrome wheels, its an assault on good taste and a giant F... You to its neighbors.

I completely disagree, and I'm glad your in the minority. I do appreciate your opinion though.

[GoldRiver]

Here is a picture of Nashville when the L&C Tower was much larger than anything else around it.

[cheeriokid61]

In that picture, the L&C is the only highrise. The Signature Tower will not be the only highrise. This is completely different.

EDIT: Okay, I did some research. When built, Signature Tower, at 1047 feet, will be 1.69 times taller than the next tallest tower, the BellSouth Building, which is 617 feet tall. At 409 feet tall, the L&C Tower was 2.12 times taller than the next tallest tower of the time, the Dominion Bank Building. Also, just for fun, the BoA Headquarters in Charlotte, at 871 feet tall, was 1.48 times taller than the next talles building at the time, which is 1 Wachovia Center, at 588 feet tall.

I just thought I would put things into mathematical terms in terms of sticking-outness.

[NewTowner]

Here is a picture of Nashville when the L&C Tower was much larger than anything else around it.

Wow. Nashville was so much denser back then, and a whole lot less land was devoted to automobile storage. Kind of makes you...*sigh*

I had no idea that the old square by the State Capitol building had been cut through the middle, and then had two of the internal corners sheared off, all for slightly more convenient motoring. Geez! No wonder they had no problem demolishing it completely a few years later...

Just goes to show you, "Give them an inch..."

[GoldRiver]

This picture is probably from the 70's, I'm not sure. All of the buildings look the same color.

[Nashvillain]

Blaagh! Speaking of density, I'd trade ten Sig Towers if we could get this back...

Thanks for reminding me of that website Goldriver.

[cheeriokid61]

Wow, those are nice pics. I wish I could've been able to live back when downtown Nashville was in its heyday. It's amazing to see how many buildings were torn down just for a surface parking lot.

What website is that?

[Nashvillain]

Wow, those are nice pics. I wish I could've been able to live back when downtown Nashville was in its heyday. It's amazing to see how many buildings were torn down just for a surface parking lot.

What website is that?

HistoricNashville.com

[cheeriokid61]

Awww, I just had to go to the Opryland section. I miss the Flume Zoom.

[linclink]

Hey!!!

There used to be a baseball stadium downtown... across from the capitol!!! hehehehehehehe

[Hankster]

Hey!!!

There used to be a baseball stadium downtown... across from the capitol!!! hehehehehehehe

Yes there was! That would be the Old Sulfer Dell stadium, home of the old Southern Association (Class AA) Nashville Vols. It was one of the most unusual stadiums ever with a extremely short right field fence and a hill that rose in front of that fence. I think it was only something like 260 feet down the right field line, but they erected a screen on top of the fence that required a towering drive to clear the fence. A guy named Bob Lennon hit 64 homes runs in about 1950, many of them over that short right field fence. At the time it was the most home runs ever hit in a professional season (either minor league or major league). The hill extended over to center field and it was so deep out there that few home runs were hit to center. I think the ballpark was built in the late 1800's, possibly the very early 1900's. They tore down the park and disolved the team in 1964. I can remember going to some games there. Nashville did not have professional baseball from 1965 until 1977 when the Nashville Sounds began playing.

[rocky top buzz]

Something else we are not taking into consideration from a 'skyline view' point of view is the fact that the Sig will be built on higher land than the BellSouth Tower. So it really will appear about twice as tall. I still want it, but also wanted to clarify.

[tistic]

Another problem I have with the Sig Tower is that it has basically become a gated community for the rich right smack dab in the middle of downtown with all the respect and sensitivity for its neighbors and environment that you might expect from a McMansion in the suburbs or a Cadillac Escalade for my Honda Civic. I think it would be much more positive and significant for Nashville if a tower of this magnitude was needed for offices like BOA in Charlotte.

Nashvillain--I'll defer to RK and metro to judge whether I'm following you off topic for a moment...Actually it's worse than a moment--it seems I've written an essay. I happen to think this is quite on topic, though, if the poll question is taken broadly to include the economic disparity question you raise. Since skyscrapers have always been symbols of prosperity and since we live in one of the world's most prosperous cities, I think this is quite on topic and very interesting. I answered "No" to the poll question.

You've posted a few comments on this thread that indicate you resent wealthy people, or at least that you so completely cannot identify with them that you resent their very nice homes and vehicles. The next time you drive your Civic in Nashville, there will be somebody riding the bus who can't afford nearly as nice a car as you've got.

Should you have to ride the bus just because they do? Should they resent you for it if you don't sell your car and ride the bus? Do you deserve to be resented for not riding the bus? If they're thinking angry thoughts at you as you drive by, is that a greater burden on you, or on them?

To spare them that burden, should the state force you to sell your car, spread the proceeds among the walkers and bus riders and force you to walk and ride the bus with them?

Soviet Communism is a political/economic system that tried literally forcing everyone to live objectively equal lives, and it failed very painfully. The inspiration to achieve personal excellence got watered down so badly that without individual incentives for ingenuity their system couldn't even feed all its people. And b/c Communism had to rely on the use of force to get people to comply, hundreds of thousands of real people who didn't agree with the system were assasinated or sent to gulags by the state police. And *millions* more were murdered b/c of the criminal suspicion the central government's thought police had to foment between neighbors in order to keep everyone too afraid of the government to resist it.

Your offense at noticeable wealth strikes me as a kind of romanticised hearkening back to Communist ways that completely forgets all its horrors. I totally doubt you're actually a Communist. (I actually think people in this country who call themselves Communists don't really have enough historical education to know what they're talking about.) I bet you have a lot of compassion for ordinary people who lack basic things the middle class takes for granted. Like me, I'm sure you have a heart for people who are in real need.

But if we allow subtle or not-so subtle "class warfare" to advance, there is a logical (yet in many ways illogical) conclusion to which it extends itself--its destination (as well as its origin) is Communism. It is ugly and costly, and it is therefore very much worth resisting. (I'm not yet sure what to make of the Chinese version--I hope they're in a not too long transition in the right direction.)

I am a capitalist. Not yet financially independent, let alone wealthy. And as a reasonable person I'm even-handed enough to point out some of the uncomfortable flaws of capitalism if necessary. But in a country like ours where people are free to excel and to worship and to move around and to be themselves and to follow their dreams, our system affords a great deal of public and private sector generosity (by that I mean pile$ of money) to be extended to the poor. Even the families among us in this country who meet the official definition of "below the poverty line" (who typically have a car, a tv, etc.) are wealthy by the standards of what poor means in the rest of the world.

I'll take the McMansions and the chrome wheels and the Escalades AND THE SKYSCRAPERS of Capitalism (i.e., the subjectively appealing incentives to work hard)--along with its notable flaws--any day of the week ; the alternative is the modern day quasi-Communism of many elected officials on the Left wing who gain political power when they influence voters to resent other citizens whose stuff is more expensive than their own.

The burden of that resentment falls most heavily on the people whose resentment it is. I would much rather see that energy directed towards making the strengths of Capitalism stronger and its weaknesses less significant.

But God help us if the historical memory of our citizenry ever gets so poor, that the resentment and political rhetoric of class warfare takes root so deeply that a simple majority decides to establish anti-Capitalist, egalitarian policies backed up with the use of force.

[Guest]

tistic - great post!!

[bruceman]

Nashvillain--I'll defer to RK and metro to judge whether I'm following you off topic for a moment...Actually it's worse than a moment--it seems I've written an essay. I happen to think this is quite on topic, though, if the poll question is taken broadly to include the economic disparity question you raise. Since skyscrapers have always been symbols of prosperity and since we live in one of the world's most prosperous cities, I think this is quite on topic and very interesting. I answered "No" to the poll question.

You've posted a few comments on this thread that indicate you resent wealthy people, or at least that you so completely cannot identify with them that you resent their very nice homes and vehicles. The next time you drive your Civic in Nashville, there will be somebody riding the bus who can't afford nearly as nice a car as you've got.

Should you have to ride the bus just because they do? Should they resent you for it if you don't sell your car and ride the bus? Do you deserve to be resented for not riding the bus? If they're thinking angry thoughts at you as you drive by, is that a greater burden on you, or on them?

To spare them that burden, should the state force you to sell your car, spread the proceeds among the walkers and bus riders and force you to walk and ride the bus with them?

Soviet Communism is a political/economic system that tried literally forcing everyone to live objectively equal lives, and it failed very painfully. The inspiration to achieve personal excellence got watered down so badly that without individual incentives for ingenuity their system couldn't even feed all its people. And b/c Communism had to rely on the use of force to get people to comply, hundreds of thousands of real people who didn't agree with the system were assasinated or sent to gulags by the state police. And *millions* more were murdered b/c of the criminal suspicion the central government's thought police had to foment between neighbors in order to keep everyone too afraid of the government to resist it.

Your offense at noticeable wealth strikes me as a kind of romanticised hearkening back to Communist ways that completely forgets all its horrors. I totally doubt you're actually a Communist. (I actually think people in this country who call themselves Communists don't really have enough historical education to know what they're talking about.) I bet you have a lot of compassion for ordinary people who lack basic things the middle class takes for granted. Like me, I'm sure you have a heart for people who are in real need.

But if we allow subtle or not-so subtle "class warfare" to advance, there is a logical (yet in many ways illogical) conclusion to which it extends itself--its destination (as well as its origin) is Communism. It is ugly and costly, and it is therefore very much worth resisting. (I'm not yet sure what to make of the Chinese version--I hope they're in a not too long transition in the right direction.)

I am a capitalist. Not yet financially independent, let alone wealthy. And as a reasonable person I'm even-handed enough to point out some of the uncomfortable flaws of capitalism if necessary. But in a country like ours where people are free to excel and to worship and to move around and to be themselves and to follow their dreams, our system affords a great deal of public and private sector generosity (by that I mean pile$ of money) to be extended to the poor. Even the families among us in this country who meet the official definition of "below the poverty line" (who typically have a car, a tv, etc.) are wealthy by the standards of what poor means in the rest of the world.

I'll take the McMansions and the chrome wheels and the Escalades AND THE SKYSCRAPERS of Capitalism (i.e., the subjectively appealing incentives to work hard)--along with its notable flaws--any day of the week ; the alternative is the modern day quasi-Communism of many elected officials on the Left wing who gain political power when they influence voters to resent other citizens whose stuff is more expensive than their own.

The burden of that resentment falls most heavily on the people whose resentment it is. I would much rather see that energy directed towards making the strengths of Capitalism stronger and its weaknesses less significant.

But God help us if the historical memory of our citizenry ever gets so poor, that the resentment and political rhetoric of class warfare takes root so deeply that a simple majority decides to establish anti-Capitalist, egalitarian policies backed up with the use of force.

Amen brother!

[GoldRiver]

tistic, we're kindred spirits. I agree with you 100%.

Anyway, as far as the main topic goes, I can't wait for Sig. Tower to be built. I think it will only bring good things to Nashville. We have a lot to look forward to.

[Nashvillain]

Hey Tistic, I appreciate your response but I think it's totally off base. My points do not concern resentment of wealth, they concern a misplacement of priorities and an immature need to show off ones wealth with flashy things. I think Sig Tower is a monstrously immature and childish display of vanity for the developer and for anyone who lives, let's say, above the 40th floor. I mean, just watch the video. You're right, though. I certainly can't relate to it, nor do I ever want to.

[doormanpoet]

Although the skyline of 1950 is dense, it was also full of abandon buildings, the state capital lawn was a slum, blacks in the 1950's were living in tennament homes with no running water. In 1965, it was not much different. I prefer Nashville in 2006. Races are equal, or said to be, and Nashville has enough economic strength for Tony to build a vanity tower if he wishes.

To call Signature tower immature is simply selfish. Tony started leasing apartments when he was younger, and at 48 he is very successful. I don't want to hear anymore of theses haves vs. have not speeches. Everyone knows I am a liberal democrat, but being liberal also implies choice. If one is offended at Signature Tower, move to Buffalo NY where they have not built a high rise in 40 years. Move to Memphis and Birmingham where blacks are still making 75% of what whites are. Hell, why mot move to East St. Louis where crime is as high as it is in DC.

I attest and I promise to my full knowledge of this subject area, Tony's building will be followed up by another supertall in three years. I guess that will be another vanity developer catering to the rich.

[Lexy]

Supposing 800 people actually live in Signature Tower. What kind of retail would cater to people living there? Would the rest of Nashville be welcome in those places?

And the comparison b/n L&C and a 1000 foot tower is not obvious. A 400 foot tower in relation to surrounding low rise buildings does not dominate the way something twice as tall does.

Relatively speaking, yes it most certainly does. Ask anyone (scientist, urban planners etc.) and they would agree with me here.

[nashvol85]

I don't have a problem with the construction of a tower that is nearly twice as tall as anything else in the city. Of course I want some infill and some more modest 300-500 foot tall towers, but Nashville seems to be stuck.

As stated in the Tennessean article on May 7th, Nashville has limited itself to towers in the 30 story range. Yes, this is a gigantic leap forward (30 stories taller than the next highest floor count!), but I feel that if something of great magnitude does not get built, then Nashville would forever settle for the 30 story tower. It takes a risk taker to go out on a limb and try something new for the city.

If we were to just "let things happen" and let new, taller towers develop on their own with no encouragement or incentive, then it might take decades before we see anything new in the 600-800 foot range. If Signature is built, at 1,047 feet tall, it will clear the way for other developers to build taller and taller. I believe that if Signature gets built, then it will spark other developements in the downtown area to top the 30 story mark and aim for 40 or 50 stories.

Signature is to begin construction in about 6-7 months, and will not be complete for another 2 1/2 - 3 years. That is a lot of time for an announcement of say, a new office tower or residential or even a hotel tower that helps balance Signature out in the skyline so that it no longer would "stick out" from the crowd. I don't think that Signature will stick out forever, but it might take 5-10 or even 15 years before there are enough large skyscrapers built to even things out (I think 2-4 500-800 foot towers would easily do the job).

What is wrong with a little wait? We've had to wait more than 12 years since the last truly major project was completed before something this bold has been put forth (more than just a pipe dream). I'm sure we won't have to wait so long for the next one to come out...Nashville is ready to explode.

[Nashvillain]

I love the whole, "if you don't like it, why don't you move response." O.K., sorry to crash the party guys, I'm off to Buffalo or East St. Louis to wallow in my love of economic stagnation, high crime and communism, I guess.

I'm just trying to articulate my opinion in regards to the original topic of this thread, is Sig Tower out of place? My opinion doesn't have anything to do with class or communism and certainly not race. It has to do with aesthetics and the relationship that this building intends to have with the rest of Nashville.

I offered up those arial pics of Nashville from the 50's to show both how much we've lost in terms of architecture and density (imagine how many of those buildings could have been converted to residential) and how a few monster condo towers dotting (blotting out) the cityscape won't offer nearly as much to the livability of our city.

[chris holman]

I love the whole, "if you don't like it, why don't you move response." O.K., sorry to crash the party guys, I'm off to Buffalo or East St. Louis to wallow in my love of economic stagnation, high crime and communism, I guess.

I'm just trying to articulate my opinion in regards to the original topic of this thread, is Sig Tower out of place? My opinion doesn't have anything to do with class or communism and certainly not race. It has to do with aesthetics and the relationship that this building intends to have with the rest of Nashville.

I offered up those arial pics of Nashville from the 50's to show both how much we've lost in terms of architecture and density (imagine how many of those buildings could have been converted to residential) and how a few monster condo towers dotting (blotting out) the cityscape won't offer nearly as much to the livability of our city.

I believe the topic was ment to be about how the tower would affect the skyline.

[Lexy]

I respect, and appreciate, your opinion Nashvillian. I can also see your points quite clearly too.