Jump to content

Gulch supertower rendering

doormanpoet

By doormanpoet
in Nashville

Recommended Posts

doormanpoet Hamlet

doormanpoet

Posted
Posted

The woman who owns the Adagio Spa told me this week at the hotel she has seen the rendering and it will not be released to the public until the end of the year after all three buildings ICON, Terazzo and Sliver building have been started.

She said ALL of the merchants in the area know about this supertower between 50 and 70 stories, but the general public will not be told until units are ready to be sold. She said they will not explain the secrecy, but as we all know what happens. We know Harrison lofts fell through and WES is in dire doubt, so maybe they do not want to seen as a failure n the media if they cannot pull this off.

We will have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
southsideJ Whistle-Stop

southsideJ

Posted
Posted

I am all for being open to the CBD/skyline expanding, but a building like this belongs in the CBD. Either it is 15 years too early or it belongs in the CBD. Also building a tower in the Gulch would minimize how tall the building will actually look.

This city needs some reasonable residential development to go with the ultra-elite-expensive. I have to admit, this would be exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onyte9 Whistle-Stop

Onyte9

Posted
Posted

John has seemed to doubt WES since near day one as has Richard Lawson. I'm not really sure why its in doubt but I take their word for it. Mr Lawson is a heavy hitter, if anyone has the heads up it would be him. I would really like to see WES get built. It would be a great addition.

As for the super tower in the Gulch appearing shorter. If it is truely a super tower ah la 70 stories it wont appear short at all. A tower located in the actualy Gulch would only appear about 20 to 30ft shorter from broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ATLBrain Burg

ATLBrain

Posted
Posted

This city needs some reasonable residential development to go with the ultra-elite-expensive. I have to admit, this would be exciting.

So why do people keep saying this?

I keep reading that the city (I assume DT specifically) "needs" reasonable residential developments, and I'd like to know what their ideas of reasonable are. Certainly in recent years, it has made more sense to buy than rent. So more condos have been in the offing. However, I'm sure there are those who will buy a condo and keep it purely for investment purposes while they rent it out.

Additionally, the Stahlman is going to be apartments (has anybody checked the rents for that?), and what about that building going over the MTA transit center? Even the Ballpark and RMH developments will have MDHA required "affordable" units. Even these are condos and not apartments.

In order to understand this "need", I'd like to know what is considered reasonable:

What price range is reasonable? Rents?

Has anybody totaled the proposed reasonable rate (affordable) housing units DT?

What about existing units?

What is the existing/future demand?

Who are those people?

What are their housing alternatives?

What constitutes their need?

From what I've read and seen from published prices for condos DT, I think they are quite reasonable for the properties offered (especially compared to what comps are going for in Atlanta and other cities).

I would think that the big boys pumping their money into DT would be quite familiar with these dynamics b/c they fuel the demand for their product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tistic Unincorporated Area

tistic

Posted
Posted

As long as it doesn't smell fishy, I'm OK with it.

Everyone here is a part of the "inner circle", so I think it's okay to let this secret out in this forum...

For SSG, a fishy smell is sort of like Kryptonite. We should all try to influence the CDC & Metro to keep any fish markets from going up near any places where we might need SSG use his superhero powers to prevent anything very scary from happening. Wield your influence accordingly and keep this under your hat. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
southsideJ Whistle-Stop

southsideJ

Posted
Posted

So why do people keep saying this?

I keep reading that the city (I assume DT specifically) "needs" reasonable residential developments, and I'd like to know what their ideas of reasonable are. Certainly in recent years, it has made more sense to buy than rent. So more condos have been in the offing. However, I'm sure there are those who will buy a condo and keep it purely for investment purposes while they rent it out.

Additionally, the Stahlman is going to be apartments (has anybody checked the rents for that?), and what about that building going over the MTA transit center? Even the Ballpark and RMH developments will have MDHA required "affordable" units. Even these are condos and not apartments.

In order to understand this "need", I'd like to know what is considered reasonable:

What price range is reasonable? Rents?

Has anybody totaled the proposed reasonable rate (affordable) housing units DT?

What about existing units?

What is the existing/future demand?

Who are those people?

What are their housing alternatives?

What constitutes their need?

From what I've read and seen from published prices for condos DT, I think they are quite reasonable for the properties offered (especially compared to what comps are going for in Atlanta and other cities).

I would think that the big boys pumping their money into DT would be quite familiar with these dynamics b/c they fuel the demand for their product.

What I mean when I say I think that the city needs more reasonable residential development the main thing I am thinking of is that the city should be striving to have a residential core in and around the CBD that has a diversity of incomes. We don't want a dt area that is just a neighborhood for the rich. What's usually the reason that people on this forum that are big urban fanatics give for not living in an urban neighborhood but instead live somewhere like Antioch? Money.

It seems to me that there is much more development that is exclusive than otherwise. How about some more dt residential for those who can't afford to buy? After Stahlman there might be one or two other developments in the dt area that are rental. Places like Bennie Dillon, Riverfront and others have been converting to condos; ICON eliminated their plans to include apts after crazy demand for more condos, further shrinking the urban rental market.

Demand--

I live in an apartment building in The Gulch, Laurel House Lofts, where there is a cap to how much money you can make at the time you apply for residence. I was on the waiting list for a year to get in and there has continued to be a long waiting list for several years since it opened. So there is definite demand for more of this type of residence where people of modest means can live in or near dt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
memphian Hamlet

memphian

Posted
Posted

Nashville needs another apartment tower similar to The Cumberland - but maybe a bit more pleasing to the eye. I would also challenge a developer to build something of quality. Various incomes truly will give the city the life that it needs. I'd go as far as to say that we need to find an urban university or school of some sort to inject some vitallity and youth into downtown on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

SSJ

I agree that it is a worthy goal to want a diverse mix of econimic profiles in the d'town area but how do we achieve that end? Could you please elaborate on the public/private agreements/funds that contributed to the Laurel House Development say vs. the same for Mercury View Lofts?

It my experience most efforts (gov't or private) to subvert the natural market just shift the incentives to other entities. Take rent control in NYC there is a huge game being played of kick-backs and hop-scotch moves between non-legacy tenants and landlords that subvert the original intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
gochberg Unincorporated Area

gochberg

Posted
Posted

Does a "diversity of incomes" in a residential development actually help people?

I know it sounds nice, but my guess is that any benefit to people is small and that the costs (of the tax increment financing the city provides to get developers to do it) are very high. Food and clothing are just as essential as housing, but we would not tolerate a city government that gave a tax break to a supermarket or clothing store that limited its customers in order to get a certain income profile. We know that government intrusions into the food or clothing business would add costs and give little benefit. Why treat housing differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bwithers1 Burg

bwithers1

Posted
Posted

Does a "diversity of incomes" in a residential development actually help people?

I know it sounds nice, but my guess is that any benefit to people is small and that the costs (of the tax increment financing the city provides to get developers to do it) are very high. Food and clothing are just as essential as housing, but we would not tolerate a city government that gave a tax break to a supermarket or clothing store that limited its customers in order to get a certain income profile. We know that government intrusions into the food or clothing business would add costs and give little benefit. Why treat housing differently?

First of all, there is definitely a market for reasonable housing that a middle-class person could afford to purchase (not just rent). In fact, I think that this market is often what is driving a lot of the developments at the far fringes of the suburbs across the country: that's often how far a young couple with kids has to go to be able to afford a house. But inside the cities, I really think that developers can find lots of land that is available and affordable to build housing for average-income folks. I would have to say that yes, mixing economic levels in housing is very desirable for a host of reasons, and I am thrilled that it is becoming more commonplace at least in the inner cities. A lot of the "projects" are well located, and more and more they are being replaced with a mix of subsidized and market-rate residents in virtually the same buildings. This is a huge improvement over the dense pockets of poverty that trap poor people in crime-ridden holes. The government already does subsidize food purchases for those who qualify for those benefits. And the private market already contains a wide variety stores for different price points. Beyond that, a lot of second-hand stores are run by charities, and so donating to them is subsidized in the form of tax write-offs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

To be honest (and controversial) IMO many subsidized housing programs do not accomplish stated goals and many just waste taxpayer funds. It especially makes little sense to subsidise housing in highly sought after areas. It makes little sense for the government to pay for someone to live in Belle Meade if they can afford on their own to live in Belle Meade Links. The same is true for the Gulch (Edgehill) or Downtown (East Nashville).

If the government IS going to spend finite dollars helping people afford housing then the return should be maximised. In this case help two families live in Salemtown vs. helping one live in the Gulch. IMO no one asking for help from the government has an absolute right to live anywhere they choose. People everyday make decision about location based on budgets not desire...should it be any different for those receiving government assistance?

The caveat to this is TIF and other public/private incentives that are designed to spur redevelopment (though it is widely abused). This is done because the area is deemed UNDESIERABLE once it becomes a highly-sought destination all TIF should disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.