Westin on Lower Broad

[it's just dave]

I just dropped message to Sullivan's asking about this. I'll let you know what they say when they answer me. I certainly think it would be a great time to proceed with the plans for the restaurant. The great location it's in only gets better as time goes by.

[CityHeart]

I just dropped message to Sullivan's asking about this. I'll let you know what they say when they answer me. I certainly think it would be a great time to proceed with the plans for the restaurant. The great location it's in only gets better as time goes by.

Thanks

[tistic]

This board makes me laugh. We lament the spread of suburban sprawl and the negatives it brings. Then members of this declare the need for developers to put up "affordable" housing built of "quality" materials so we help them out by offering TIF. Then a developer proposes something and we decide that it does not fit in with the other buildings because it is too tall or looks too modern or some other complaint and we restrict the use of that land. Then a company decides to relocate to Cool Springs and we act outraged at their "shortsighted" decision. Perhaps some more incentives would show them how great downtown is. LOL. Surely I am not the only one that sees the irony.

Just think it through with me...Utopia is possible if we only contradict ourselves enough...

(Long, awkward silence...)

Okay, that doesn't make as much sense when I write it down. But there's got to be some way we can BEND the free market to our will and make the developers do what we want, where we want, how we want...some way to make the subjective objective...maybe contradictions plus regulations equals...a vibrant new urbanism...???

Okay, forget I said any of that.

[nashvol85]

People are concerned about the facade? What if the building looks like the Caremark building on 2nd? That building looks classy and blends in well with the surrounding area.......just a thought.

[QuietMike]

People are concerned about the facade? What if the building looks like the Caremark building on 2nd? That building looks classy and blends in well with the surrounding area.......just a thought.

Please don't call it the "Caremark Building." They're simply subleasing one floor and the right to put their sign on the top for the Monday Night Football money shot. It's officially known as the "Commerce Center." It does look good and blend in pretty well, though.

[Richard Lawson]

Just think it through with me...Utopia is possible if we only contradict ourselves enough...

(Long, awkward silence...)

Okay, that doesn't make as much sense when I write it down. But there's got to be some way we can BEND the free market to our will and make the developers do what we want, where we want, how we want...some way to make the subjective objective...maybe contradictions plus regulations equals...a vibrant new urbanism...???

Okay, forget I said any of that.

I had to chuckle at this one...An attempt to tell independent minded developers what to do, when to do it and how to do it would be a bloody affair and futile. It's a little like telling a petulant to behave properly.

[ATLBrain]

Better watch out. They'll sick Tom White on you.

[it's just dave]

That building was originally built for Magnatek...but they fizzled on the deal. The Chamber of Commerce moved in and leased space. I've never heard the term Commerce Building, but I call it the Caremark Bldg...for obvious reasons. Doesn't matter, I like the building. I also liked the old Kennedy-Bowden machine shop that was there before. They moved to LaVergne, but kept the original cool neon sign. Nuf.

[LA_TN]

I join you in the I've heard folks say that they wished Healthways had stayed in Davidson County. Well, when Franklin opened the door with a $2 million property tax break to get CHS to move from Brentwood to Franklin, Healthways stepped up to the trough.

This is exactly my problem with Nashville right now. Companies choose location based on $$$. If you want companies to locate DT, put your $$ where your mouth is. Brentwood/CS does. I think it is essential to retain the character of lower Broad; but, if you want to cancel a $200 million hotel/development to save a block bldg, a parking lot, and a run-down street; then I'm going to step down the street for a little Jack Daniels...no wait, that $10 million dollar investment was run out of town too, by our rep., Thelma Harper

[fieldmarshaldj]

...I'm going to step down the street for a little Jack Daniels...no wait, that $10 million dollar investment was run out of town too, by our rep., Thelma Harper

Minor correction, "The Mad Hatter" is a state Senator, not a state Rep. Even though she is "elected" from my area (including Antioch), she does not get my vote... ever. I think she manages to successfully (as evidenced by her actions, losing the JD Museum being one of them) unite Conservatives and Liberals to dislike her immensely.

[smeagolsfree]

You have every right to question the development, hell I may be right beside you in the end. On another note the Crab Shack building would stay along with some redone lowrise buildings on 3rd.

Like I said after driving down there and seeing the buildings in question, I dont have a problem with the block buildings. I am glad the Crab shack will stay. I would like to see the Trail West building have renovated facade. I am 100% with you guys as far as DT needing the project. My only concern at first was the fact that a number of older buildings were going down and When you think Broadway, you think older historic buildings. The Presca building on third is in great shape and would hate to see that one go. I just hope they do the project with class and with regards to the surrounding architecture.

What I would like to see is Metro set building standards for any new construction on Broadway,2nd, and other areas with pre- WWII buildings.

As far as the buildings that were torn down for the Encore, there was only one that was sort of cool with the older rock foundation, but it was off the main road and not visible. The rest of the buildings were pretty much trash.

Sorry if I got you guys too riled up. It was fun to see.

[hayesmw]

Like I said after driving down there and seeing the buildings in question, I dont have a problem with the block buildings. I am glad the Crab shack will stay. I would like to see the Trail West building have renovated facade. I am 100% with you guys as far as DT needing the project. My only concern at first was the fact that a number of older buildings were going down and When you think Broadway, you think older historic buildings. The Presca building on third is in great shape and would hate to see that one go. I just hope they do the project with class and with regards to the surrounding architecture.

What I would like to see is Metro set building standards for any new construction on Broadway,2nd, and other areas with pre- WWII buildings.

As far as the buildings that were torn down for the Encore, there was only one that was sort of cool with the older rock foundation, but it was off the main road and not visible. The rest of the buildings were pretty much trash.

Sorry if I got you guys too riled up. It was fun to see.

That building with the rock base was too cool. The Wheby building. It had a barrel roof. When you walk in there were about 14' ceilings for the 1st 20' or so, with a larger room in the back with 24' +/- ceilings. It would have made a very cool bar or restaurant. Although I am excited about Encore, it would haev made a great conversion if someone could hvae picked it for the right price. That was the big problem there.

[Richard Lawson]

This is exactly my problem with Nashville right now. Companies choose location based on $$$. If you want companies to locate DT, put your $$ where your mouth is. Brentwood/CS does. I think it is essential to retain the character of lower Broad; but, if you want to cancel a $200 million hotel/development to save a block bldg, a parking lot, and a run-down street; then I'm going to step down the street for a little Jack Daniels...no wait, that $10 million dollar investment was run out of town too, by our rep., Thelma Harper

Purcell has prided himself on not attracting things without a bunch of tax incentives. In a certain respect, one could argue that it would be a bad race to get into within the local area. Franklin is the only city that is doing it. As far as I know, Brentwood hasn't offered any incentives like that. Speaking of Brentwood, it's interesting that the city's stringent zoning, big lot size requirements and broad anti-commercial development attitude is actually creating kind of a green buffer between Nashville and Franklin.

[ATLBrain]

I hope everyone here understands my concern. These buildings may be junk (I can't get up there to see them), and a new hotel would (in that case) be an improvemennt.

My concern (again) is the precedent that this would set. What oversight is in place for quality development and preventing wanton obliteration of a real treasure of DT?

[memphian]

From what I have heard... these buildings are as significant as the Wal-Mart in Dickson - which means not really at all. I think there is no real loss of character if they're torn down and we get a huge money-making business on the lot. Now if we were talking about tearing down the Ryman - that's one thing but we're talking about some buildings that have maybe outlived their usefulness. I would at the same point hope that the city helps find Trail West or whatever the business is there another location. I don't want to homogenize Broadway but Westin is a great name to have. I can only hope they build a 500 room hotel.

I am going to Nashville this weekend to scout the site. I may change my view on this after that.

[barakat]

It would be very cool and I think appropriate to have a Westin on this site, setback as described at 20+stories. You can't beat the location -- it's in the heart of the District and would of course be extremely marketable. However, I really like the Richards&Richards building.

[ariesjow]

It would be very cool and I think appropriate to have a Westin on this site, setback as described at 20+stories. You can't beat the location -- it's in the heart of the District and would of course be extremely marketable. However, I really like the Richards&Richards building.

I agree. That site for a Westin would be amazing. I'm sure it will stay highly occupied due to its location and the quality of the hotel. I can't see it being too much of a problem to the neighborhood either. It'll be an improvement over what's there.

[smeagolsfree]

I spent the afternoon downtown and made it a point to walk around that particular block. The fact that a year and a half ago I would not have given a crap if any of the older buildings on Broadway were torn down. But then I listened to the outcry of several people on this very forum saying that it is a crime to tear down the older buildings DT and to change the nature of a neighborhood. So I can say with confidence its your fault.

I may end up eating crow after what I said and crow is very good from time to time. That area can certainly use a clean up, if it is done right. I have voiced my concerns that this may be the start of something that cannot be stopped but I hope not. If the building that is build is in character with the other buildings on Broadway, this can be a great thing. It will definitely be a natural extension of the skyline across Broadway into Sobro that would be needed if all the structures that are planned in Sobro are built.

[Hankster]

This project reminds me of a project that failed back in the 80's. The idea was to build a 21 story office structure on 2nd Avenue on the parking lot located across the street from Hooters. That project failed because of public outcry that it was too tall and totally out of character with other buildings on 2nd Ave. This Westin project has very significant hurdles to cross to get approved. The outcry against this particular project could be enormous. The large setback is a big help, but still may not be enough. The developers will have to do an outstanding job both in design and in communication to get this one approved. I'm looking forward to seeing a rendering for this project and am hoping that the character of Lower Broad is largely unaffected by this. If that is the case, this project could be a landmark project that injects more vibrancy into the area, retains the character of Lower Braod, and provides a roadmap for future development there.

[bnaflyer]

This project reminds me of a project that failed back in the 80's. The idea was to build a 21 story office structure on 2nd Avenue on the parking lot located across the street from Hooters. That project failed because of public outcry that it was too tall and totally out of character with other buildings on 2nd Ave. This Westin project has very significant hurdles to cross to get approved. The outcry against this particular project could be enormous. The large setback is a big help, but still may not be enough. The developers will have to do an outstanding job both in design and in communication to get this one approved. I'm looking forward to seeing a rendering for this project and am hoping that the character of Lower Broad is largely unaffected by this. If that is the case, this project could be a landmark project that injects more vibrancy into the area, retains the character of Lower Braod, and provides a roadmap for future development there.

This is a great reminder--maybe somebody can find the renderings of the ridiculous 1980s proposal. I remember it well--an office tower stuck on top of some kind of hokey facade. At the time, the project had a lot of roo rah supporters--people who love any development, no matter how out of character or destructive. Now I am sure everyone would agree that building it would have been a big mistake.

The likely problem with this proposal is NOT necessarily that there is some sacred building that will be destroyed. It is the destruction of the scale of lower Broadway and the existing "height plane." We will have to see the renderings and detailed plans (if this ever goes that far) but it would have to be a pretty amazing Westin to be suitable for this location.

[ATLBrain]

OK... where did you guys (as mentioned above) learn that this would be a $200 million project?

[tistic]

This is a great reminder--maybe somebody can find the renderings of the ridiculous 1980s proposal. I remember it well--an office tower stuck on top of some kind of hokey facade. At the time, the project had a lot of roo rah supporters--people who love any development, no matter how out of character or destructive. Now I am sure everyone would agree that building it would have been a big mistake.

I've got to differ with you on this, BNA--all the hubub about that proposed building not fitting in with the character of 2d Ave N was WAY overplayed. The opponents totally ignored what a benefit it would be starting a few stories up from street level to have something (anything!) to draw the eye away from that monstrous phone utility building (huge, brick, windowless) that takes up most of the block on the west side of 2d Ave N. That thing is YOOOGLY, and the view of the skyline from the east bank would have been greatly improved with that new vertical dimension added.

The phone utility building is so ugly maybe some people don't even notice it any more, sort of like not hearing the trains when you live near the tracks. But in terms of discussing a benefit or detriment to the character of 2d Ave at that time, the opponents to the proposed office tower only paid attention to the east side of the street and ignored what an improvement it was relative to the West side.

[Skyscrapergeek]

I've got to differ with you on this, BNA--all the hubub about that proposed building not fitting in with the character of 2d Ave N was WAY overplayed. The opponents totally ignored what a benefit it would be starting a few stories up from street level to have something (anything!) to draw the eye away from that monstrous phone utility building (huge, brick, windowless) that takes up most of the block on the west side of 2d Ave N. That thing is YOOOGLY, and the view of the skyline from the east bank would have been greatly improved with that new vertical dimension added.

The phone utility building is so ugly maybe some people don't even notice it any more, sort of like not hearing the trains when you live near the tracks. But in terms of discussing a benefit or detriment to the character of 2d Ave at that time, the opponents to the proposed office tower only paid attention to the east side of the street and ignored what an improvement it was relative to the West side.

Because after all, what we got instead was one of those...wonderful...surface...um...lots...that...uh...everyone....gulp...loves..

.so much.

[LA_TN]

Purcell has prided himself on not attracting things without a bunch of tax incentives. In a certain respect, one could argue that it would be a bad race to get into within the local area. Franklin is the only city that is doing it. As far as I know, Brentwood hasn't offered any incentives like that. Speaking of Brentwood, it's interesting that the city's stringent zoning, big lot size requirements and broad anti-commercial development attitude is actually creating kind of a green buffer between Nashville and Franklin.

I searched around a little, but could not find the source, sorry; but, I read recently that the city of Franklin is giving Healthways a $2 million dollar property tax break to lure them to Cool Springs. This is the type of incentive I wish Nashville would offer some of these companies. I think it's safe to say that offering Healthways an incentive to keep them in Davidson Co. would have been worthwhile. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, Cresent is currently constructing bldg 8 (70% pre-leased) while bldg 9 will start const in Q4 and Highwoods III is almost finished.

So sorry this is so way off the thread. If someone likes, we can start a new one if needed

[QuietMike]

Those of you with a Nashville Post subscription should check out the preliminary renderings for the Westin on Lower Broad. While the Broadway elevation is not terrible, the 2nd Ave elevation needs a lot of work. Of course, the Broadway side needs work too, but the 2nd Ave. side... whoa. Another issue is the total lack of setback on 3rd. That was a surprise.

Thanks for the pictures, Richard.