28 Story Bldg for Bass, Berry?

[NewTowner]

I feel the same, the height cap needs does need to be removed or adjusted for the area.

...

I'll fight you on this Churchill-style: through the streets and in the parks, in the caf

[cheeriokid61]

It does sound very art deco, which would complement the Schermerhorn well. And I don't know the rest of your questions. That was to Frankliner.

But honestly, I'll have to go with dp. I'm tired of people complaining about every freakin project that gets proposed. First it's a residential tower that's too tall, and should be smaller. Only office buildings can be tall. Then an office tower gets proposed. No, it's too tall, it'll destroy the urban fabric of the city. It has to go in the CBD. IT CAN'T. Do people really want there to be no more highrises in the city anywhere because there's no more room in the CBD?

And I posted this before I saw NT's post. I really don't think that skyscrapers are bad. I do like areas that are mostly midrise, but it doesn't hurt it if there are a few highrises in there. This building could really help the area. With 27 floors of office and ground level retail, it will bring people to the sidewalks. I say build this building. We can have low and midrise neighborhoods further south in RHM, south of Gatway Blvd., and in the Lafayette neighborhood, where there are plans to revitalize it. CBDs naturally grow when there's no more room, and that's what is happening.

[it's just dave]

The Shelby Bridge will empty directly across 3rd to the Schemerhorn entry plaza. This building would sit to the left of the bridge and as one would approach the Center from the bridge, the sightlines to the Hall should remain intact. Visitors to the Hall can easily utilize the bridge and enjoy all of what the new SoBro cityscape should offer. You might not see the loading docks, what a shame. The front will be clearly visible.

I'm not sure I understand the uproar over larger buildings "blocking out" the better ones. Well, yeah, maybe if you're 100 feet tall, but if I understand human scale that means between 5 and 6 feet tall for most of us. If you're on the sidewalk as it seems we should be, nothing 400 feet tall to your back is going to block anything you're standing in front of. I really don't get all this human scale argument. We're shorties compared to ANY building, and if you're on the street, no little 400-ft tall tower is going to screw up the view.

[cheeriokid61]

I agree. Was there ever a good view of the symphony center from a distance? It's only like 40 feet tall.

[frankliner]

The Shelby Bridge will empty directly across 3rd to the Schemerhorn entry plaza. This building would sit to the left of the bridge and as one would approach the Center from the bridge, the sightlines to the Hall should remain intact. Visitors to the Hall can easily utilize the bridge and enjoy all of what the new SoBro cityscape should offer. You might not see the loading docks, what a shame. The front will be clearly visible.

I'm not sure I understand the uproar over larger buildings "blocking out" the better ones. Well, yeah, maybe if you're 100 feet tall, but if I understand human scale that means between 5 and 6 feet tall for most of us. If you're on the sidewalk as it seems we should be, nothing 400 feet tall to your back is going to block anything you're standing in front of. I really don't get all this human scale argument. We're shorties compared to ANY building, and if you're on the street, no little 400-ft tall tower is going to screw up the view.

Dave, in this case it is just a matter of trying to figure out if a $60 million symphony hall that was touted to be a piece of enduring public art (along the lines of the Parthenon) will be blocked out. I can't really visualize what you described (in terms of how the proposed high-rise will be sited) so I'm just not gonna offer an opinion on this one.

On another note, that modeling sounds really different from what we have seen in Nashville. I don't think we have many Deco-styled buildings in Nashville (and certainly not high-rises). Sounds pretty cool!!

[downtown cliff]

What is the current class A occupancy rate in the CBD? West End?

[it's just dave]

I think sighting will be important, but certainly a sensitivity to sightlines will be not only mentioned, but demanded. The only way to preserve all sightlines for the hall (which, btw, cost $120 million, ouch) would to have placed it in a similar context as the Parthenon, in a field. But that wasn't desired, so, we have it where it is. It's important that it blend, an blend it will in the long haul.

Here's some perspectives from the Shelby Bridge. Setbacks, particularly perpendicular to the bridge will be important to preserve the streetscape and not hinder the views of the hall. I think this can be done. When one is walking, there are surprises with every step as the perspectives of place change. If we want a dense SoBro, we can have one, but we can't see and experience everything from one vantage point. Moving around willbe important, and in my opinion, will make it fun to be there.

Anyway, for what it's worth, here's some old shots of the SSC and the positioning of the property in question. Hope this helps a little.

[chris holman]

New Towner I can make a good argument to justify high rises oppose to more mid rises Downtown.

Density is very well suited for a downtown setting which will cause the building to built a vertical as possible Due to land cost and demand for the tenant for the building causing buildings to be built taller.

Nashville is not a small town it a booming city where the land value is on the rise every year.

How many mid rises would have to be constructed to fill the needs for Bass & Berry for the amount of square needed for there offices?

How much of Nashville's land would be used for their project or any other project that needs a large amount of square feet in a project downtown if constructed only as a mid rise?

If you owned a large corporation wouldn't you want all of your offices in one building or 5 mid rises?

If New York City was built with only mid rises the city's core would probably be 100 miles wide to supply all of the workers in that city and the commute would be horrible.

People walking building to building when the problem it could have been solved by building vertical.

[wboarder44]

I love the fact people don't want to see certain size buildings in certain parts of town. I'm sure you would think a lot differently if you actually owned property in that general area. When you put a height restriction on a piece of property is severely devalues it. You can only pay so much for a piece of property when you put a 5 -10 story building on it. On the flip side, you can pay a lot more when you can spread out the land cost over a 400' foot building. I'd personally be pissed if the government tried to put a restriction on my property after I had already owned it.

If the city wanted to keep the site lines for the new concert hall they should have paid fair market for the surrounding land and made it a park.

I'm sure Michael has a take on this.

[NewTowner]

The Shelby Bridge will empty directly across 3rd to the Schemerhorn entry plaza. This building would sit to the left of the bridge and as one would approach the Center from the bridge, the sightlines to the Hall should remain intact. Visitors to the Hall can easily utilize the bridge and enjoy all of what the new SoBro cityscape should offer. You might not see the loading docks, what a shame. The front will be clearly visible.

I'm not sure I understand the uproar over larger buildings "blocking out" the better ones. Well, yeah, maybe if you're 100 feet tall, but if I understand human scale that means between 5 and 6 feet tall for most of us. If you're on the sidewalk as it seems we should be, nothing 400 feet tall to your back is going to block anything you're standing in front of. I really don't get all this human scale argument. We're shorties compared to ANY building, and if you're on the street, no little 400-ft tall tower is going to screw up the view.

No one is worried about whether the Schermerhorn will be visible from two miles away--although that would be nice. A beautiful classical concert hall encased in high-rises will look small and undignified. If your imagination won't serve you, allow me to paint a picture using (hopefully) common-enough reference points:

1) Notre Dame in Paris, surrounded by skyscrapers: bad.

2) The newly built Frauenkirche in Dresden, surrounded by skyscrapers: bad.

3) The Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, surrounded by skyscrapers: bad.

4) The United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., surrounded by skyscrapers: bad.

5) The Maison Car

[downtown cliff]

I'd personally be pissed if the government tried to put a restriction on my property after I had already owned it.

Actually, the government has had height restrictions on this area, and lots of others, for a long time. They have been consistently, and spinelessly, reducing the restrictions.

[it's just dave]

When I say "I" perceive something, it's of a personal nature; it's my perception. You haven't yet plucked the eyes from my head and suddenly become able to see as I do. I don't assume that you know how my imagination does or does not serve me. I find your arrogance highhanded and unseemly.

All the textbook arguments pro and con for anything will not affect how I see something. Yes, I've been to Paris, London, Rome, lived near SoHo and the Village. I have my own way of seeing things.

You guys getting bored with yourselves over on the NC? I guess poker for three isn't that much fun, is it?

[nashscan]

Do you think you're better than everyone else? You use a lot of big words and try to sound all intellectual, but you come accross as a snob. I'm sure you'd be a great person to have a drink with, but I don't agree with most of what you write. You said that most of the world's finest cities have no skyscrapers. Really? Maybe a few borderline communist European cities. Remember...your opinions are just your opinions. Nothing more.

I'll fight you on this Churchill-style: through the streets and in the parks, in the caf

[Skyscrapergeek]

You guys getting bored with yourselves over on the NC? I guess poker for three isn't that much fun, is it?

Now you're getting Dave! Welcome to the dark side.

[frankliner]

dave, great shots and thanks for them, they provide some great perspective. However, just to clarify for myself, is the proposed parking lot the one to the left of the bridge in that first picture? Thanks for your help in clarifying, I unfortunately cannot just walk over there and check it out for myself.

[Skyscrapergeek]

dave, great shots and thanks for them, they provide some great perspective. However, just to clarify for myself, is the proposed parking lot the one to the left of the bridge in that first picture? Thanks for your help in clarifying, I unfortunately cannot just walk over there and check it out for myself.

Yes, that is the one.

[downtown cliff]

When I say "I" perceive something, it's of a personal nature; it's my perception. You haven't yet plucked the eyes from my head and suddenly become able to see as I do. I don't assume that you know how my imagination does or does not serve me. I find your arrogance highhanded and unseemly.

All the textbook arguments pro and con for anything will not affect how I see something. Yes, I've been to Paris, London, Rome, lived near SoHo and the Village. I have my own way of seeing things.

You guys getting bored with yourselves over on the NC? I guess poker for three isn't that much fun, is it?

Always making folks feel welcome, huh, Dave?

[FromParkAveToTN]

If the maximum height in SoBro is 20 stories, why are they proposing a building that is 28 stories? I don

[Guest]

ParkAve

In my limited experience in Nashville I have noticed that existing limitations on buildings are easily overcome with the proper lobbying person. In this case BBS has a lot of start power within their organization so it is my opinion that in their minds the 20-story rule is only a suggestion.

[Nashvillain]

I've been away from the forum for a while, it's great to see not much has changed; people are still unwilling to debate NT's ideas point for point but are content to lash out at him for expressing a dissenting and extremely informed point of view that passionately (sometimes obnoxiously so) advocates for a different way of building our city. I think NT's failing is an unwillingness to accept UP posters' general excitement level for all building projects, highrise or midrise or whatever and coming down as a heavy-handed tastemaker on all threads that express enthusiasm for new building projects that happen to be high rise. And let me just add, it is extremely lame, not to mention intellectually lazy if not outright stupid to continually say, "I'm tired of the debate..." or "It's so tired or old..." as a means to "win" an argument.

Anyway, having not heard from the architects of the SchermerHall, and having not looked at it closely, I don't know what to say about their Egyptian revival motifs. If I recall correctly, a lot of the sculptural programs, in and around the building, refererence a few different ancient cultures, not just Egytpian. I'm curious, NewTowner, why this particular mimicking or copying is so much less desirable and even laughable, than only imitating the Greeks(?), who I presume you refer to in talking about classicism?

To put in my 2 cents about the particular building under discussion, I don't see a problem given our current economic model with businesses and developers constructing highrises if that type meets their needs. I think it is emminently preferable that central city districts (not just a CBD, but an entire city, an urban center, as a vital hub of commerce, culture and learning) reemerge to combat the endless sprawl of suburbia and I'm all for any commercial enterprise willing to sink their resources and stake their future success with that of the city of Nashville, rather than seek the cheaper real estate in outlying areas.

[NewTowner]

When I say "I" perceive something, it's of a personal nature; it's my perception. You haven't yet plucked the eyes from my head and suddenly become able to see as I do. I don't assume that you know how my imagination does or does not serve me. I find your arrogance highhanded and unseemly.

All the textbook arguments pro and con for anything will not affect how I see something. Yes, I've been to Paris, London, Rome, lived near SoHo and the Village. I have my own way of seeing things.

You guys getting bored with yourselves over on the NC? I guess poker for three isn't that much fun, is it?

Why do we always have to get all personal and stuff? So often we fail to summon the intellectual resources required to produce fruitful dialogue, bailing at the first sign of real disagreement with a bunch of hollering and toy-throwing. Instead of resorting to name-calling and blubbering, Dave, why don't you actually articulate this inviolable "way of seeing things" you have crafted? Why do you like high-rises, etc.? If you know something I don't, then please: by all means share it! I really don't know that much, and honestly have never professed to...I am sure you can teach me something. And in the meantime, we can disagree and debate without getting all huffle-puffed about everything. It happens all the time! I promise! I have seen it with my own eyes!

The frustrating thing is, when I try to lay out an argument, so often people respond with tears and shouting, accusing me of arrogance because I dared to suggest that they were wrong--although, as everyone secretly knows, the first sign of arrogance is the unwillingness to admit that you might be wrong. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. One of us certainly is, but we will never get to the bottom of it with all this tantrum throwing.

This sort of spitting and biting is expected in Junior High School, but grown-ups ought to be able to debate the merits of an issue without taking everything so personally and getting so super-emotional. Instead of picking out the few things I wrote which can be taken as "arrogant" out of context, why don't you address my real points? Instead of pulling the doo-doo cop-out card of "my opinion is my opinion and your opinion is your opinion" why don't you do the civic democratic thing and engage in a little good-spirited debate? If you are right, prove it! That's how issues are settled among civilized peoples.

Sheesh. I hate to say this again, but: I know you just didn't. Uh-uh! Holy Ba-nokies.

[NewTowner]

Anyway, having not heard from the architects of the SchermerHall, and having not looked at it closely, I don't know what to say about their Egyptian revival motifs. If I recall correctly, a lot of the sculptural programs, in and around the building, refererence a few different ancient cultures, not just Egytpian. I'm curious, NewTowner, why this particular mimicking or copying is so much less desirable and even laughable, than only imitating the Greeks(?), who I presume you refer to in talking about classicism?

No, no! My passing comments on the eclectic detailing of the Schermerhorn in no way sum up my feelings on the building. I think it is marvelous. And for the record--I wouldn't want anyone to ape the Greeks anymore than I am thrilled by the Egyptian "theme" on the Shermerhorn. True classicism must imitate no one, as variety and innovation are among the Classical's most pressing demands. Sure, there is some recurring vocabulary in classical architecture from ancient Greece to modern Paris (there are also recurring themes in music, aka chords, and recurring themes in poetry, aka words), but only the uninformed (no offense, anyone, that's just cooked beans) would suggest that imitating antiquity is the essence of classicism. In fact--check this out, ya'll--the "neoclassical" movement was decidedly unclassical, because it was just a passing fad that amounted to the copying of old buildings in order to invoke cutesy powerful ancient themes...rather than create buildings which are purely, simply, unashamedly: strong, useful, beautiful.

PS: Thanks for the D, Nashvillain. And I am sure you are right about my weak points. It is hard for me to express my sympathy with general Nashville boosterism, though I share it, and should do a better job of kindly acknowledging its importance and nobility among the people here at Urban Planet.

[titanhog]

First of all...no one is WRONG. It's all subjective to tastes. Alot of what NT says, I agree with. Alot of what NT says, I disagree with. Our downtown will never resemble the wonderful cities of Europe as far as appearance. The American skyscraper is here to stay, and the inner loop is destined to be filled with many more over the next century. Yes...it is a shame when architectually significant structures like the Ryman, Schemmerhorn and State Capitol are surrounded by behemoths, but the decision to build these towering structures were made decades ago. If the Schemmerhorn is to be a monument unto it's self, it should have been built on a 100 acre hilltop somewhere other than within the downtown loop. We can talk all day about "human-scale" downtown, but for the most part...that ship has sailed. This is no knock on you NT, because you have alot of insight...I just feel as though it is a moot point right now.

[NewTowner]

First of all...no one is WRONG. It's all subjective to tastes. Alot of what NT says, I agree with. Alot of what NT says, I disagree with. Our downtown will never resemble the wonderful cities of Europe as far as appearance. The American skyscraper is here to stay, and the inner loop is destined to be filled with many more over the next century. Yes...it is a shame when architectually significant structures like the Ryman, Schemmerhorn and State Capitol are surrounded by behemoths, but the decision to build these towering structures were made decades ago. If the Schemmerhorn is to be a monument unto it's self, it should have been built on a 100 acre hilltop somewhere other than within the downtown loop. We can talk all day about "human-scale" downtown, but for the most part...that ship has sailed. This is no knock on you NT, because you have alot of insight...I just feel as though it is a moot point right now.

Actually, the "CBD skyscraper" as we know and love it today was invented by Europeans...and while I agree with your common-sense assertion that our cities will never be perfect (neither is Paris or London, goodness knows!), I still believe that we should fight to make the best Nashville we can. Shoot for the sky, I always say! Just don't build to it, ha ha!

As far as subjectivity is concerned, I think that while the principle certainly applies to ice cream flavors, pizza toppings, tennis shoes, topographic maps, and even the whole Simpsons vs. South Park issue currently rocking America's pubs, subjectivity as an intellectual frame of reference has been given too much credit. I might like pepperoni, and you might like mushrooms, but it is an objective truth that putting cast-iron lawn furniture on your pizza is not only bad to the tongue and unwieldy to the hand, but also utterly devoid of nutrional value to the human body--and the human body is universal, timeless, and non-negotiable.

I argue that high-rises are unhealthy and inferior to mid-rises in regards to the human spirit for largely the same reasons I would argue that getting no exercise and eating nothing but Twix is bad for the human body. I think that this take on urban design is rooted in well-established fact, sort of like how getting hit by a bus is commonly accepted as an all-around negative due to objective truths about the human body expressed in skull fractures and overwhelming pain.

Believe it or not, my opinion actually runs counter to my own "feelings" on the subject. I like the Chrysler Building. I can't help it. It makes me feel excited and impressed, particularly when I see it from the top of the Empire State Building. It is awesome and grand...but it is not beautiful. I think Midtown Manhattan is inferior to the Dresden Neustadt, even though it pained me to come to this conclusion a few years back, and I still feel slightly resentful about it. Skyscrapers are cool, but neither practical nor beautiful. They are not human-scaled.

Man is the measure. And finally, Titanhog--I really believe that it is not too late. SoBro has height restrictions that should stay.

[nashvol85]

I have no clue why so many people could have a differing view on a building that will be sitting on a freakin parking lot downtown. It's not going to destroy a historic building or property and there is no reason to be upset that our 4 story symphony hall will have its view blocked...it's not like the symphony hall is part of the skyline. The only buildings that should really not be surrounded by skyscrapers downtown are the State Capitol building, the L&C tower, and the Davidson County courthouse.

JMO, but y'all are making a HUGE and unnecessary deal out of this. Not everything built downtown should be lavish and extraordinary...if Bass Berry and Sims wants to build a 400 foot skyscraper inside the loop downtown, by all means they have the freakin right to do it. Just as long as it doesn't end up looking like the Museum Plaza proposal in Louisville, I'm fine with it.