28 Story Bldg for Bass, Berry?

[cheeriokid61]

That's very true. What then do you think of the major residential projects such as Rolling Hill Mill?

[NewTowner]

That's very true. What then do you think of the major residential projects such as Rolling Hill Mill?

I think Rolling Mill Hill will be awesome, because it will also have retail/restaurants--and office, for all I know. The residents of that fantastically sited mixed-use mid-rise neighborhood will be in easy walking distance of much more than their own area, as well. I just hope the eruption of SoBro high-rises doesn't spoil their views of the city and river (sorry, couldn't help it).

[Hankster]

Since it has been stated that that the new building has an art deco crown, I'm hoping the whole building is a modern version of the art deco style from top to bottom. I'd like that a lot. I too would love to see a rendering of this thing.

[nashvol85]

I don't mind midrises being built at all. If BB&S wanted to build a 5-10 story building on the same lot, I would support it just as much. I just don't see a problem of building big buildings. Not everything downtown is going to develop from here on out is going to be 30+ stories...I think most people know that. However, if someone has the want and the means to build a taller building, why not let them? Height limits are for suburban office parks, where mundane buildings are encouraged. I want to see something cool built...something you can't see out in Brentwood of Franklin. Height isn't the issue...restrictions are.

[NewTowner]

I don't mind midrises being built at all. If BB&S wanted to build a 5-10 story building on the same lot, I would support it just as much. I just don't see a problem of building big buildings. Not everything downtown is going to develop from here on out is going to be 30+ stories...I think most people know that. However, if someone has the want and the means to build a taller building, why not let them? Height limits are for suburban office parks, where mundane buildings are encouraged. I want to see something cool built...something you can't see out in Brentwood of Franklin. Height isn't the issue...restrictions are.

I can happily shake hands with you on the first part of your statement, in the spirit of compromise and common ground. But you are wrong about two things: that skyscrapers can't be built in suburban asteroid belts (Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta), that height restrictions are anti-urban.

There is nothing sprawl-friendly about height restrictions. You had better believe that if Rome and Washington, D.C., did not have height restrictions, that there would be huge skyscrapers scattered throughout those cities. Like extortion and racketeering, big buildings can make lots of money. But these cities do have restrictions, and are still (lo and behold!) much denser and more urban than Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles, or Jacksonville--all of which have skyscrapers. You said that height limits are for suburban office parks. If you ask me, they make the least sense in suburban office parks--a skyscraper's huge shadow would at least cool down those acres of surface parking.

Some of the very best neighborhoods in the world have height restrictions. You might not want them in downtown Nashville, and I can discuss that with you in peaceful friendship, but please do not assert that democratically framed restrictions are "suburban" in character or intent. That is simply not true.

[frankliner]

I can happily shake hands with you on the first part of your statement, in the spirit of compromise and common ground. But you are wrong about two things: that skyscrapers can't be built in suburban asteroid belts (Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta), that height restrictions are anti-urban.

There is nothing sprawl-friendly about height restrictions. You had better believe that if Rome and Washington, D.C., did not have height restrictions, that there would be huge skyscrapers scattered throughout those cities. Like extortion and racketeering, big buildings can make lots of money. But these cities do have restrictions, and are still (lo and behold!) much denser and more urban than Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles, or Jacksonville--all of which have skyscrapers. You said that height limits are for suburban office parks. If you ask me, they make the least sense in suburban office parks--a skyscraper's huge shadow would at least cool down those acres of surface parking.

Some of the very best neighborhoods in the world have height restrictions. You might not want them in downtown Nashville, and I can discuss that with you in peaceful friendship, but please do not assert that democratically framed restrictions are "suburban" in character or intent. That is simply not true.

I might add that Washington's highrises are almost entirely suburban (I count Rosslyn's as urban) with Tyson's Corner and the Dulles corridor being preeminent examples. (there are also several others on the Maryland side)

[nashvol85]

I can happily shake hands with you on the first part of your statement, in the spirit of compromise and common ground. But you are wrong about two things: that skyscrapers can't be built in suburban asteroid belts (Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta), that height restrictions are anti-urban.

There is nothing sprawl-friendly about height restrictions. You had better believe that if Rome and Washington, D.C., did not have height restrictions, that there would be huge skyscrapers scattered throughout those cities. Like extortion and racketeering, big buildings can make lots of money. But these cities do have restrictions, and are still (lo and behold!) much denser and more urban than Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles, or Jacksonville--all of which have skyscrapers. You said that height limits are for suburban office parks. If you ask me, they make the least sense in suburban office parks--a skyscraper's huge shadow would at least cool down those acres of surface parking.

Some of the very best neighborhoods in the world have height restrictions. You might not want them in downtown Nashville, and I can discuss that with you in peaceful friendship, but please do not assert that democratically framed restrictions are "suburban" in character or intent. That is simply not true.

I don't know of any suburb around Nashville that would allow anything over 10-12 stories built right now. Maybe Franklin in a decade or two, but not right now.

I think you missed my point about that anyways...I'm not saying that a height restriction will discourage companies from building downtown...I'm just saying (mainly in the case of office buildings) that if there is a height restriction, they may end up looking a lot like their suburban counterparts or some generic POS on West End. The new SunTrust building is a good example. I like it...it's a nice looking building...but honestly, it looks just like anything else you might find in a big office park or out in the suburbs. I don't mind seeing buildings like that, but I really don't think that we should limit ourselves to something that size.

As for your point about Rome and Washington DC...

1) Rome was a big city when Jesus Christ was wearing diapers. A lot of their "downtown" has been there for centuries...it's hard to compare that to Nashville, which is a relatively new city (on that scale) and was developed differently. Skyscrapers are only an invention since the late 19th century...so developing an tall downtown would require razing a large area of town.

2) Washington DC was planned out block by block from the beginning and is filled, FILLED with civic buildings and federal buildings. The CBD there is mainly government buildings, which in general don't tend to be that tall. I agree that there should definately be building height restriction there...

Nashville doesn't have the same situation as those places. If we still had all of the low-midrises from the 20's-30's-40's before they were mostly razed then I might have a different viewpoint on this subject...but 1957 changed that for Nashville with the birth of L&C tower.

[NewTowner]

I don't know of any suburb around Nashville that would allow anything over 10-12 stories built right now. Maybe Franklin in a decade or two, but not right now.

I think you missed my point about that anyways...I'm not saying that a height restriction will discourage companies from building downtown...I'm just saying (mainly in the case of office buildings) that if there is a height restriction, they may end up looking a lot like their suburban counterparts or some generic POS on West End. The new SunTrust building is a good example. I like it...it's a nice looking building...but honestly, it looks just like anything else you might find in a big office park or out in the suburbs. I don't mind seeing buildings like that, but I really don't think that we should limit ourselves to something that size.

As for your point about Rome and Washington DC...

1) Rome was a big city when Jesus Christ was wearing diapers. A lot of their "downtown" has been there for centuries...it's hard to compare that to Nashville, which is a relatively new city (on that scale) and was developed differently. Skyscrapers are only an invention since the late 19th century...so developing an tall downtown would require razing a large area of town.

2) Washington DC was planned out block by block from the beginning and is filled, FILLED with civic buildings and federal buildings. The CBD there is mainly government buildings, which in general don't tend to be that tall. I agree that there should definately be building height restriction there...

Nashville doesn't have the same situation as those places. If we still had all of the low-midrises from the 20's-30's-40's before they were mostly razed then I might have a different viewpoint on this subject...but 1957 changed that for Nashville with the birth of L&C tower.

I suppose I did miss your point. Rome's relative age does not, however, disqualify it from comparison to Nashville. The ancient city was sacked and destroyed...it is now a Baroque city. Regardless, perhaps I should have used Savannah as an example. Paris also works, as it is no older than Nashville--Philadelphia, as torn and shattered as it is, is physically older than Paris. Paris was built as skyscrapers were born, and Le Corbusier (the Mofo we can all thank, in large part, for the demolition of Nashville and its replacement with towers and parking lots) advocated the destruction of Paris and the erection of skyscrapers and automobile highways--you know, kind lof like America. The city laughed him out of town--we were not so wise.

We are still not so wise, it seems.

[cheeriokid61]

Paris also works, as it is no older than Nashville

Well, you're wrong there. It's been around for a while. Trust me, I took AP European History.

But this post,

I can happily shake hands with you on the first part of your statement, in the spirit of compromise and common ground. But you are wrong about two things: that skyscrapers can't be built in suburban asteroid belts (Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta), that height restrictions are anti-urban.

There is nothing sprawl-friendly about height restrictions. You had better believe that if Rome and Washington, D.C., did not have height restrictions, that there would be huge skyscrapers scattered throughout those cities. Like extortion and racketeering, big buildings can make lots of money. But these cities do have restrictions, and are still (lo and behold!) much denser and more urban than Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles, or Jacksonville--all of which have skyscrapers. You said that height limits are for suburban office parks. If you ask me, they make the least sense in suburban office parks--a skyscraper's huge shadow would at least cool down those acres of surface parking.

Some of the very best neighborhoods in the world have height restrictions. You might not want them in downtown Nashville, and I can discuss that with you in peaceful friendship, but please do not assert that democratically framed restrictions are "suburban" in character or intent. That is simply not true.

Other than the fact that you kind of missed his point, I still thought it was a good post.

[it's just dave]

Wouldn't it be a wise addition to any discussion as this one to take into account the fact that we're dealing with very different populations. When comparing Nashville or just about any other American city, the one thing it's filled with is Americans, not Europeans. Americans are a much younger people, not programmed to dense, tightly packed cities, not programmed to use mass transit (with certain exceptions of course). We're programmed to jump into our cars and go where we want, when we want, to acquire any good or service required without thinking twice about it. We come back to our homes, park in our own garages, load up the fridge, plop our fat asses down and watch our HDTV while popping the top on a cold one. If we need more, we jump in the car, drive a couple of miles, and retool our senses with those things that make us happy.

No amount of brick and mortar discussion is going to change the mentality of a country that spreads 3000 miles across, filled with the same citizenry and a landscape punctured by the same stores, the same churches, the same cars, the same freeways, the same fat, lazy people. All we can hope for is that some small percentage of the people think and act differently. Yes, there's a trend toward this different way of thinking, but it's an impossible dream to think that the people of this country are going to participate in some mass reversal of trend and all move back to the city. That, in itself, limits the rebuilding of complete cities to please the few who want to live in them. We're still committed to the millions who choose not to and no matter how we may not like it, we are obligated to provide for them and share the money and services. That, in itself, will prevent to rebuilding of any city overnight. It will decades of change. Not many of us will see then end result, but I'm grateful that I'm here now to see the beginning of thoughts in that direction.

In the meantime, I'm heading to Lowe's to get a new light fixture for my kitchen. I'm taking my car, getting on a freeway, and not really minding the trip at all. I'm an American. I'll admit it.

So build us an office tower. Keep the firm downtown, perhaps some of the lawyers will ditch Brentwood and live close by. It's a start. When "they" need some services, and there's enough of them, things to support those needs will follow.

[MidTenn1]

I think in all the discussion on this thread, one important fact has been overlooked. In our discussion of what's proper for SoBro we need to recognize that there really is no SoBro right now. Except for the south side of Broadway, there is no existing historical, mid-rise community to protect. There is mostly a bunch of run-down, abandoned warehouses an industrial buildings and parking lots. Most of the residential has been built in the last decade or so. The City is trying to create a SoBro from scratch and that may be where the difficulties lie.

In Paris, London, Greenwich Village and SoHo in New York, the French Quarter, Savannah, Charleston and Beacon Hill in Boston there is an infrastructure of mid-rise, mixed use residential and retail that was built hundreds of years ago when economic and social forces and existing technology demanded it. There was no governmental directive saying you shall not build skyscrapers here. People would have said, 'What's a skyscraper?"

When the skyscraper became feasible, they were mostly built in CBD's where the price and scarcity of land made them necessary. The surrounding residential areas were untouched by redevelopment. After a time, some Cities worked to preserve the character of these residential areas, in particular New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah and Boston, and large areas of mid-rise residential were protected from intrusion of high rise buildings.

Thus, these models we look to for inspiration simply don't apply in Nashville's case. We need to find a new model, if there is one and I don't know of a City that has built a 'SoHo' from scratch as Nashville is apparently trying to do.

So, I'm not convinced that building the SoBro of our dreams is even doable if the political, economic and social forces are demanding a high rise built environment. It's one thing to preserve the character of an existing historical area, but to defend a bunch of empty lots and derelict buildings in a run-down area so close to the CBD from what I believe is an inevitable expansion of the downtown, high rise district is a losing cause. It is a noble cause, however the proponents of such a vision do not occupy the high ground in this battle.

I believe the high ground may exist on the East bank, or north of the Capital or even out on West End where condo development is exploding. These areas are not prime locations for dense office development, and have some residential infrastructure to build upon.

[nashvol85]

I think in all the discussion on this thread, one important fact has been overlooked. In our discussion of what's proper for SoBro we need to recognize that there really is no SoBro right now. Except for the south side of Broadway, there is no existing historical, mid-rise community to protect. There is mostly a bunch of run-down, abandoned warehouses an industrial buildings and parking lots. Most of the residential has been built in the last decade or so. The City is trying to create a SoBro from scratch and that may be where the difficulties lie.

That's all that really needs to be said about the subject. I agree. SoBro = buzzword creation by the local media...nothing more.

[titanhog]

NT...I agree with alot you say. I would love for Nashville to have some of the charm of Paris, Charleston, Savannah, etc. I just don't see that there is much downtown to preserve, other than a block or two on Lower Broad...some of 2nd Ave...the Ryman...State Capitol...etc. Hopefully, we'll preserve some of Music Row, because it's old homes converted to studios and publishing companies has a one-of-a-kind charm. Hopefully, we'll do a better job of preserving antebellum homes and the surrounding acreage. Hopefully, we'll search this city and find those neighborhoods with historical architectual significance and preserve them as well. But...I still don't see us needing to preserve the current height variance in SoBro...it's basically the CBD.

[Lukin]

I think in all the discussion on this thread, one important fact has been overlooked. In our discussion of what's proper for SoBro we need to recognize that there really is no SoBro right now. Except for the south side of Broadway, there is no existing historical, mid-rise community to protect. There is mostly a bunch of run-down, abandoned warehouses an industrial buildings and parking lots. Most of the residential has been built in the last decade or so. The City is trying to create a SoBro from scratch and that may be where the difficulties lie.

In Paris, London, Greenwich Village and SoHo in New York, the French Quarter, Savannah, Charleston and Beacon Hill in Boston there is an infrastructure of mid-rise, mixed use residential and retail that was built hundreds of years ago when economic and social forces and existing technology demanded it. There was no governmental directive saying you shall not build skyscrapers here. People would have said, 'What's a skyscraper?"

When the skyscraper became feasible, they were mostly built in CBD's where the price and scarcity of land made them necessary. The surrounding residential areas were untouched by redevelopment. After a time, some Cities worked to preserve the character of these residential areas, in particular New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah and Boston, and large areas of mid-rise residential were protected from intrusion of high rise buildings.

Thus, these models we look to for inspiration simply don't apply in Nashville's case. We need to find a new model, if there is one and I don't know of a City that has built a 'SoHo' from scratch as Nashville is apparently trying to do.

So, I'm not convinced that building the SoBro of our dreams is even doable if the political, economic and social forces are demanding a high rise built environment. It's one thing to preserve the character of an existing historical area, but to defend a bunch of empty lots and derelict buildings in a run-down area so close to the CBD from what I believe is an inevitable expansion of the downtown, high rise district is a losing cause. It is a noble cause, however the proponents of such a vision do not occupy the high ground in this battle.

I believe the high ground may exist on the East bank, or north of the Capital or even out on West End where condo development is exploding. These areas are not prime locations for dense office development, and have some residential infrastructure to build upon.

Great post. I completely agree with everything you just said. It is impossible to compare Nashville to any of the cities that have been mentioned in regards to the area of "sobro". I would much rather see high rises (and can we really call encore and westin "highrises"?) close to downtown off of broadway, than in east nashville, hillsboro village or sylvan park or anywhere else where "human-scaled" neighborhoods are thriving. I think the economics require that most major development (ESPECIALLY office) close to the downtown core be upwards of 10 stories...and since there is no primse spot for these developments in the CBD, as MANY developers have already stated, it only makes sense to go where there is virtually nothing right now.

NT: I love your posts. They simultaneously intrigue me and frustrate the hell out of me. But I'm sure that when it comes to urban design, you probably have a bit more experience (or maybe just knowledge) than most people here. But I have to ask you a question: How far can you promote idealistic standards of beauty before simple rules of economics get in the way? It simply does not make sense for a company like Bass, Berry, and Sims to build a midrise in sobro. With the amount of space they need it only makes sense for them to build a highrise in downtown (or somewhere less desirable like west end) or an office park in the suburbs. I don't think it makes me or anyone else a "skyscraper fanatic" to conclude that the obvious choice would be a downtown high rise. Which equals more people downtown who will eat and shop (as well as increase the need for mass transit, which will bring more traffic at first, but will also hopefully encourage city officials to get some real plans going), as well as more people who would consider living downtown. I think this could add tremendous activity to the street (with 1st floor retail that is planned) and encourage growth in an area where there really is nothing.

[Hankster]

But...I still don't see us needing to preserve the current height variance in SoBro...it's basically the CBD.

Basically, this is a fact. Nashville is becoming way to big to have a Central Business District that is all north of Broadway. The REAL CBD will most definitely include SoBro as well.

[vinemp]

1) Rome was a big city when Jesus Christ was wearing diapers. A lot of their "downtown" has been there for centuries...it's hard to compare that to Nashville, which is a relatively new city (on that scale) and was developed differently. Skyscrapers are only an invention since the late 19th century...so developing an tall downtown would require razing a large area of town.

Actually, there were plenty of skyscrapers in Rome. That was a common medieval architectural convention in Italy. They served the same purpose then that they serve now: They manifest a sign of power--plain and simple. (Why do you think our World Trade Towers were destroyed? The guelfi did that centuries ago to the towers of the ghibellini. It was designed the break their spirit.) San Gimignano is probably the only city I can think of whose towers are still erect. Look it up, and you'll see what I mean.

Today, there are height restrictions in every city in Italy. It's just an aesthetic tradition. Milan is the only city I can think of that doesn't have such restrictions, but that's in a particular area of the city.

I would also like to remind you that, after WWII, Palermo was completely rebuilt in a different location. Many other cities rebuilt themselves, but the palermitani did not care to rebuild over the old city, clean it, clear it, renew it--nothing. And, it's still sittin there in ruins next to the "new" city.

There is nothing inherently "right" and precious about old buildings. We simply decide what we keep (i.e. remember, maintain, etc) and what we don't.

Regardless, time moves on.

[chris holman]

Rome

New Towner These pics would probably satisfy your ambitions of a mid rise city for Nashville. The pics are beautiful but I'm still a skyscraper lover by heart.

[vinemp]

It seems to me that we all want Nashville to be a city we can admire. We want Nashville to exhibit those positive urban characterstics we appreciate in New York, Chicago, San Fracisco or D.C.--all of which are great cities.

But, think about this:

New York had sheer population growth and limited land to drive its growth (most of which had to be vertical). Chicago had a fire, and some smart planners got wise early on after (See Plan of Chicago). San Francisco has had several fires and earthquakes; certainly, they would develop a better mind for city planning. D.C. was planned from the beginning, and all of its slow growth was carefully monitored.

Nashville has a different history. We will be what we are, yet I think there is plenty of room for us to grow into a city just as admirable (and densely populated) as any of these. But, we have greater challenges to creating a vibrant Center.

1.) Our culture is starkly automobile-minded.

It is a sign of prestige and freedom. We can afford to buy autos, fill them with gas, and we can go where we like--when we like. What's more, we don't have to walk or take the bus.

2.) We do not use our mass transit enough.

MARTA was up an running long before The Olympics, but, as I recall, it wasn't until 1996 that yuppies and non-middle class minorities used the system with any regularity. Now, everyone wants to be so "urban" that more people are deciding to take the bus or trains. In my sociological opinion, we got over ourselves and our notions of class and cultural identity. Bravo!

3.) We are not very community-oriented.

Cities were developed to protect people. We found safety in numbers. Nowadays, many of us do not even know our neighbors, nor do we spend much time with them. How close do you think these multi-family housing projects will bring their occupants? I am skeptical, but grossly hopeful that all of our new mixed-use communities will flourish. They must.

Now, I have to ask. When does Nashville get wise? I firmly believe we are too stuck on the dream of what it will be like to have a rich urban core. Still, we want to wait until after-the-fact to take part in it. As we fantasize, we should participate in what we already have and support the growth of current establishments that will be viable in our Urban Dream. A cluster of tall buildings should not be the factor to make or break that Urban Dream--let us keep our eye on the prize!

Besides, a city's people best reflect a city's prosperity.

[NewTowner]

Wow! You guys really have my work cut it out for me. Well, okay...sleeves rolled up...let's get started:

Cheerio Kid

Well, you're wrong there. It's been around for a while. Trust me, I took AP European History.

This was written in response to my statement that Paris came into its own around the same time as Nashville, and was, for all practical purposes, no older. You see, while Cheerio Kid has a point in saying that Paris is older than Nashville (it was a Roman city and all!), my point remains on its feet. Why? Because Medieval Paris was almost completely destroyed under Napolean III in the 1860s-1880s, when his favorite urban design Maestro, Baron von Haussman, transformed the city from a wretched, clogged, filthy, restless, dark, and stanky cesspool of malcontent and violence into the Baroque town we all know and love today. It is a modern city--though its architecture is so timeless and marvelous that many people assume it is much older. It is younger than Philadelphia, and a contemporary of Nashville. It is just much, much, much better. We should learn from it--though I would never suggest we should enlist dicators to duplicate it. I am a capitalist and a proud voter.

it's just dave

...Americans are a much younger people [than Europeans], not programmed to dense, tightly packed cities, not programmed to use mass transit (with certain exceptions of course). We're programmed to jump into our cars and go where we want, when we want, to acquire any good or service required without thinking twice about it. We come back to our homes, park in our own garages, load up the fridge, plop our fat asses down and watch our HDTV while popping the top on a cold one. If we need more, we jump in the car, drive a couple of miles, and retool our senses with those things that make us happy.

...

No amount of brick and mortar discussion is going to change the mentality of a country that spreads 3000 miles across, filled with the same citizenry and a landscape punctured by the same stores, the same churches, the same cars, the same freeways, the same fat, lazy people. All we can hope for is that some small percentage of the people think and act differently.

First of all, I take issue with the assertion that Americans are a much younger people than our fellow Westerners. Where did we come from? Did we Nashvillians suddenly spring forth--following Athena by a few millenia, but from Zeus' bottom, rather than his fruitful brow? No...I once believed the intuitive and seemingly common-sense theory that American cities are sprawled out, ugly, and dysfunctional because we are a young people in a young and virgin land. But then I did some research, and I found out some interesting things:

1) Tennessee's population density is comparable to that of Austria

2) Philadelphia was a major metropolis, second only to London in the English-speaking world, before the Revolutionary War

3) Much of Europe is comprised of villages and small towns...truly large cities are EXTREMELY RARE

4) Our mass tranist systems were second to none, but were dismantled by the Federally-subsidized automobile industry and we were "programmed" (Dave's language) to use cars

5) The United States onced possessed some of the most glorious architecture and townscapes in the world, until we intentionally destroyed it all in the 20th century, all in the name of:

EUROPEAN MODERNIST THEORY FOR FACTORY-MODE ASSEMBLY-LINE MACHINIST LIVING

Our Interstate system is an imitation of the Autobahn, our skyscraper CBDs were born in European imaginations in the 19th and 20th century, and the stark faces of modernist high-rises are pure imitation of the New Style advocated by social revolutionary Europeans in CIAM (Congres Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne) who postulated the City of Tomorrow back when we were building the Frist Center for the Visual Arts. Your "American Way of Life" is simply a beotchized consumerist version of socialist European car-worship. Americans used to be the sort of people who built public squares, and Main Streets, and, yes, high-rises--but not the Modernist high-rises surrounded by surface parking that cost Nashville nearly all of its beautiful downtown architecture, from its Byzantine Synagogue to row upon row of gorgeous town homes. We built embellished and glorious buildings, like the Tennessee State Capitol and the American Trust Building (not my favorite, but let's be fair)...until the European Moderns won. Thank the academies. Dave: Americans became less, nor more, American when we traded in our citizenship for consumership.

PHofKS

I think in all the discussion on this thread, one important fact has been overlooked. In our discussion of what's proper for SoBro we need to recognize that there really is no SoBro right now...

The City is trying to create a SoBro from scratch and that may be where the difficulties lie.

...

So, I'm not convinced that building the SoBro of our dreams is even doable if the political, economic and social forces are demanding a high rise built environment. It's one thing to preserve the character of an existing historical area, but to defend a bunch of empty lots and derelict buildings in a run-down area so close to the CBD from what I believe is an inevitable expansion of the downtown, high rise district is a losing cause. It is a noble cause, however the proponents of such a vision do not occupy the high ground in this battle.

I do not speak in defense of derelict lots and worthless buildings. Some of my fine friends here at Urban Planet seem to believe that those who are opposed to high-rise development are simply some variety of Historic Preservationist, and anti-development in general. This could not be further from the truth. I would like to see much of what currently sits in SoBro wiped off the face of the earth...but I want it replaced with mid-rise, mixed-use, beautiful neighborhoods, not giant skyscrapers (or minimum-security prisons, for that matter). I want the middle of Manhattan, not the southern bit. I want Savannah, not Atlanta. I want--above all else--Nashville. Many of you have told me that you think saving SoBro's dumpy warehouses might be stupid. I agree--it might be. But I also think erecting a bunch of skyscrapers would be stupid, because the alternative is so much better.

Also, please understand this: the CBD, as a concept, is dead. DOA. Kaput. Finished. The Nashville of the future will be mixed-use, and the assembly-line experimental separation of working/living/playing/driving will be erased. If the CBD expands in this late hour, it will be the yeasty swelling of a bloated carcass, and your children may have to live in the shadow of those half-empty high-rises in the near future, instead of walking to school next to shops and churches and their buddy's apartment. The Central Business District has fallen. If you don't believe me, contemplate the Viridian.

Lukin

It is impossible to compare Nashville to any of the cities that have been mentioned in regards to the area of "sobro". I would much rather see high rises (and can we really call encore and westin "highrises"?) close to downtown off of broadway, than in east nashville, hillsboro village or sylvan park or anywhere else where "human-scaled" neighborhoods are thriving. I think the economics require that most major development (ESPECIALLY office) close to the downtown core be upwards of 10 stories...and since there is no primse spot for these developments in the CBD, as MANY developers have already stated, it only makes sense to go where there is virtually nothing right now.

Yes--you can definitely call the Westin and the Encore high-rises. And yes--skyscrapers would be better placed in SoBro than in Hillsboro Village. But the only reason skysrapers "have" to be put in SoBro or the Gulch is because they "can" be put in SoBro and the Gulch--not the other way around. Land is expensive there because the sellers know that builders MIGHT be able to persuade Metro to ease the restrictions, a la Encore. If Metro put its foot down, prices would fall back down a little, and the building boom would continue--albeit at a human scale that would be better for everyone, and certainly more useful to future Nashvillians. If you can't visualize the grandeur and dignity of a mid-rise district, go to Savannah or Rome...for the last bloody time.

The fact that SoBro is a blank slate provides a potential opportunity that should be viewed with gravity and contemplation, not "oh what the hell just build it." The area which is SoBro is larger--get this--larger than the area which contains the heart of Florence. You know, Florence--that gorgeous city where millions of people spend millions of dollars every year. Now, before you get all fluffed up, I am not saying that SoBro could be Florence. I don't think we have it in us. But it could be more like Florence, and less like Detroit, and we would all be happier and healthier for it.

Last, but not least:

vinemp

Actually, there were plenty of skyscrapers in Rome. That was a common medieval architectural convention in Italy. They served the same purpose then that they serve now: They manifest a sign of power--plain and simple. (Why do you think our World Trade Towers were destroyed? The guelfi did that centuries ago to the towers of the ghibellini. It was designed the break their spirit.) San Gimignano is probably the only city I can think of whose towers are still erect. Look it up, and you'll see what I mean.

Today, there are height restrictions in every city in Italy. It's just an aesthetic tradition. Milan is the only city I can think of that doesn't have such restrictions, but that's in a particular area of the city.

I would also like to remind you that, after WWII, Palermo was completely rebuilt in a different location. Many other cities rebuilt themselves, but the palermitani did not care to rebuild over the old city, clean it, clear it, renew it--nothing. And, it's still sittin there in ruins next to the "new" city.

There is nothing inherently "right" and precious about old buildings. We simply decide what we keep (i.e. remember, maintain, etc) and what we don't.

Regardless, time moves on.

You are right. Many Italian towns had towers in that wonderful, lovable period of peace and cultural bliss known as the Middle Ages. They were monuments to factional war, to vendetta, to bloodshed--to ego and fear and hate. When Republican forms of government rose in Siena and Florence, the "medieval skyscrapers" in these towns were demolished. Only the town hall--the palace and fortress of the people--could from that time on have a tower. These new civic towers were symbolic of the unity and equality of the people, and of the singular importance that the house of government had in the community. Of course, there were other towers: church towers. They, like the city halls of Florence and poor Siena, are still there. The fall of the Italian skyscrapers you refer to mark, in some ways, the end of the big and mean Middle Ages, and the beginning of the beautiful and human-scaled Renaissance. Think about that a moment.

I never said that there was something inherently "right" about old buildings. I would argue that there was something inherently "old" about old buildings--and I am pretty sure that I would argue that there was something inherently "right" about right buildings. I would definitely argue that there was something inherently "beautiful" about beautiful buildings, and something inherently "human-scaled" about human-scaled buildings. We would all agree that there was something inherently "tall" about skyscrapers. But I think, Vinemp, that I will have to call your bluff and ask if you will compromise your logic and argue that there is something inherently "right" about tall buildings. No? Then maybe...we should shoot for "right" buildings, whatever they may be, and play it smart. I don't think they are much taller than, say, eight stories. And that is pretty tall. But anyway, your feelings about "old" buildings are not pertinent to the issue at hand--SoBro does not contain very many of them. We need some "new" buildings, and hopefully some "beautiful," "strong," and "useful" "new" buildings.

[LA_TN]

Ummm....I just was going to say that if this thing gets built, it would be nice; but I question the height, being south of Broadway (I'd think Tony would be a bit unhappy after lowering Encore). Also, if it doesn't get built and BBS goes to West End, that would be nice also. That's all I have to say!

[FromParkAveToTN]

I

[cdkoellein]

Rome, Paris, Copenhagen, Savannah, etc. The problem with those cities is that I don't want to live in them. Each is a worthy destination of a cultural vacation. I will don my garish shirt, black socks and sandals and swing my camera bag around in them, ride around in a rubber-tired red trolley, and pretend I am living in ye olde world for a while, but I want to come home to a place that reflects the best of modern America.

I know no human architectural achievement, Angkor Wat, Versailles, and the Taj Mahal NOTwithstanding, that I find more beautiful and inspiring than the American skyline. I could stare at the skyscraper-scapes of Chicago, New York, or even Cincinnati fully entranced for hours at the collective beauty of the tall buildings that form the postcard identity of each of those cities. And, it is not just as a distant observer that they are worth appreciating. I take great pleasure in wandering up-close and personal among a forest of towers at the base of a tall city. There is no place on earth to inspire energy and achievement and awe like the sidewalks of Manhattan in the shadow of its glass and steel spires.

I accept that there are those who genuinely don't like skyscrapers. To them I say if you want to live in a low- or mid-rise city, surely you can be content to claim West End and Music Row and Germantown and East Nashville, etc. Or, if you like, find a nice pasture and build yourself a new low-rise town at "human scale" complete with the charm of Victorian and classical details cast in styrofoam and vinyl. Call it "___ Village" or "___ Town(e)." I don't care. But, surely there are a few blocks in this city that can be set aside for those of us who truly love the skyscraper and do not share your sentiments about "human scale" or your distaste for modernity. I don't think every square inch of a city must be dedicated to the same architectural or planning philosophy, and with that in mind, I argue that it is not the low- and mid-rise proponents who are losing out. Those of us who love tall buildings are the ones fast running out of geography that can be constructed to our tastes and to inspire our imaginations.

[Hankster]

Rome, Paris, Copenhagen, Savannah, etc. The problem with those cities is that I don't want to live in them. Each is a worthy destination of a cultural vacation. I will don my garish shirt, black socks and sandals and swing my camera bag around in them, ride around in a rubber-tired red trolley, and pretend I am living in ye olde world for a while, but I want to come home to a place that reflects the best of modern America.

I know no human architectural achievement, Angkor Wat, Versailles, and the Taj Mahal NOTwithstanding, that I find more beautiful and inspiring than the American skyline. I could stare at the skyscraper-scapes of Chicago, New York, or even Cincinnati fully entranced for hours at the collective beauty of the tall buildings that form the postcard identity of each of those cities. And, it is not just as a distant observer that they are worth appreciating. I take great pleasure in wandering up-close and personal among a forest of towers at the base of a tall city. There is no place on earth to inspire energy and achievement and awe like the sidewalks of Manhattan in the shadow of its glass and steel spires.

I accept that there are those who genuinely don't like skyscrapers. To them I say if you want to live in a low- or mid-rise city, surely you can be content to claim West End and Music Row and Germantown and East Nashville, etc. Or, if you like, find a nice pasture and build yourself a new low-rise town at "human scale" complete with the charm of Victorian and classical details cast in styrofoam and vinyl. Call it "___ Village" or "___ Town(e)." I don't care. But, surely there are a few blocks in this city that can be set aside for those of us who truly love the skyscraper and do not share your sentiments about "human scale" or your distaste for modernity. I don't think every square inch of a city must be dedicated to the same architectural or planning philosophy, and with that in mind, I argue that it is not the low- and mid-rise proponents who are losing out. Those of us who love tall buildings are the ones fast running out of geography that can be constructed to our tastes and to inspire our imaginations.

Eloquenty put, and my sentiments exactly!!!

[jice]

Rome, Paris, Copenhagen, Savannah, etc. The problem with those cities is that I don't want to live in them. Each is a worthy destination of a cultural vacation. I will don my garish shirt, black socks and sandals and swing my camera bag around in them, ride around in a rubber-tired red trolley, and pretend I am living in ye olde world for a while, but I want to come home to a place that reflects the best of modern America.

I know no human architectural achievement, Angkor Wat, Versailles, and the Taj Mahal NOTwithstanding, that I find more beautiful and inspiring than the American skyline. I could stare at the skyscraper-scapes of Chicago, New York, or even Cincinnati fully entranced for hours at the collective beauty of the tall buildings that form the postcard identity of each of those cities. And, it is not just as a distant observer that they are worth appreciating. I take great pleasure in wandering up-close and personal among a forest of towers at the base of a tall city. There is no place on earth to inspire energy and achievement and awe like the sidewalks of Manhattan in the shadow of its glass and steel spires.

I accept that there are those who genuinely don't like skyscrapers. To them I say if you want to live in a low- or mid-rise city, surely you can be content to claim West End and Music Row and Germantown and East Nashville, etc. Or, if you like, find a nice pasture and build yourself a new low-rise town at "human scale" complete with the charm of Victorian and classical details cast in styrofoam and vinyl. Call it "___ Village" or "___ Town(e)." I don't care. But, surely there are a few blocks in this city that can be set aside for those of us who truly love the skyscraper and do not share your sentiments about "human scale" or your distaste for modernity. I don't think every square inch of a city must be dedicated to the same architectural or planning philosophy, and with that in mind, I argue that it is not the low- and mid-rise proponents who are losing out. Those of us who love tall buildings are the ones fast running out of geography that can be constructed to our tastes and to inspire our imaginations.

Great post! I completely agree.

[cheeriokid61]

Does anyone know when the renderings will come out? Or even if this project is still happening?