Jump to content

28 Story Bldg for Bass, Berry?


MidTenn1

Recommended Posts

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.

Oh, boy. I won't bother trying to talk you out of your preferences for the immense--different sorts of experiences have apparently shaped our very different human hearts. I used to share your fascination with the large, prefering the stimulation of the sublime over the over virtue of the beautiful, but then I did a lot of traveling and heard/read a lot of good ideas about architecture and my mind was changed. I wish I could reconstruct my own journey for you, so you could see it and judge it in its entirety, but I can't. So, out of respect for your time and patience, I will try to keep this short:

The only problems I want to address are found in your reasoning, and there are two of them. The first one is the lack of hard foundation under your assumption that skyscrapers are somehow more "modern" than the ye olde nonsense your Hollywood-tilted eyes see when you visit mid-rise cities that have existed longer than you have. There is nothing inherently modern about building as tall as you can--about glass, concrete, iron, or any of it, and there is nothing inherently outdated about building on a lower scale than existant technology permits because one believes it to be better, more decorous, more beautiful. Big is not new, and small is not old. They have both been around a long time--and at some point (say, while standing in their respective shadows) the difference between the aching towers of Medieval Tuscany and those of Lower Manhattan become mute. Get this, please: Savannah and Berlin and Rome are not less "modern" than New York or Hong Kong. "Modernity" does not come packaged in elevator shafts or revolving restaurants. Your shallow mockery of traditional architecture reveals an assumption that your preferences for bigness are justified by the rigid doctrine of timeline progressivism, by the hard line of cultural evolution. Guess what? If the 20th century taught us anything, it is that new is not necessarily better. And anyway, there are a lot of new mid-rise buildings, and a lot of new classical buildings, and a lot of new people with the same old Indo-European languages and the same old two-eye one-nose one-mouth combination your reasoning would place us all in contempt of. Time is not, I'm glad to say, on your side.

My second problem is this:

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'm not sure how the sidewalks of Manhattan can inspire "achievement" or "energy," because these things are not "inspired"...so I will stick with the last one: "awe." I will agree that skyscrapers inspire awe. Some of them by their dramatic design, many more by the sheer technology they display. Being dwarfed by a series of manmade structures, feeling tiny and insignificant in the canyons of civilized commerce and insurance and brokerage and leverage and acquisition and merger--this feeling is terrifying, thrilling, and sublime to be sure. The shining glass, the vanishing points in the distant sky, the lights, the stunning vistas...this all inspires "awe." The comparison is often drawn, and I believe it is a legitimate one, between the overpowering might of techno-gigantism in skyscrapers and in the Gothic cathedrals of our previous Middle Age. Here is my problem--and it is mostly a semantic one, but semantics can be important: you confuse the sublime with the beautiful. Worse: I could be wrong, but your post suggested to me that you had not considered what happens to cultures than prefer the thrilling to the virtuous, the flash-bang sexy to timeless achievement. Do we want our children to feel "awed" by our rock-hard displays of technology, or to be enobled by their embellished and humane neighborhoods? Do we want them flanked by the Bearers of Meaning, by buildings which make them feel like citizens and grown-ups, or buried in a cacophany of steel and shadow like tadpoles in a wheat thresher?

You argue for the sublime. I argue for the beautiful. You fail the realize the difference between the two. No worry, I still respect you. In fact, I think of you as a 19th-century Romantic Poet--the Lord Byron of downtown Cleveland. But here is some advice from Alberti: the next time you go to Rome, don't swing your camera around so much, and don't ride the rubber-wheeled anything. Check out a nightclub, say your prayers with Borromini, and fall in love while having a water balloon fight on a bicycle, swaying on the sun-dappled, tree-lined sidewalks...next to buildings that hug, rather than dominate, you and yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

Apparently, this project is in the early stages. From what I've read about it, I think it's very likely that this one will go soon. There has been a lot of preplanning, and the developers seem to be getting their ducks in a row. Obviously, I have no way to know, but I believe this will get out of the ground before Palmer's does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, boy. I won't bother trying to talk you out of your preferences for the immense--different sorts of experiences have apparently shaped our very different human hearts. I used to share your fascination with the large, prefering the stimulation of the sublime over the over virtue of the beautiful, but then I did a lot of traveling and heard/read a lot of good ideas about architecture and my mind was changed. I wish I could reconstruct my own journey for you, so you could see it and judge it in its entirety, but I can't. So, out of respect for your time and patience, I will try to keep this short:

The only problems I want to address are found in your reasoning, and there are two of them. The first one is the lack of hard foundation under your assumption that skyscrapers are somehow more "modern" than the ye olde nonsense your Hollywood-tilted eyes see when you visit mid-rise cities that have existed longer than you have. There is nothing inherently modern about building as tall as you can--about glass, concrete, iron, or any of it, and there is nothing inherently outdated about building on a lower scale than existant technology permits because one believes it to be better, more decorous, more beautiful. Big is not new, and small is not old. They have both been around a long time--and at some point (say, while standing in their respective shadows) the difference between the aching towers of Medieval Tuscany and those of Lower Manhattan become mute. Get this, please: Savannah and Berlin and Rome are not less "modern" than New York or Hong Kong. "Modernity" does not come packaged in elevator shafts or revolving restaurants. Your shallow mockery of traditional architecture reveals an assumption that your preferences for bigness are justified by the rigid doctrine of timeline progressivism, by the hard line of cultural evolution. Guess what? If the 20th century taught us anything, it is that new is not necessarily better. And anyway, there are a lot of new mid-rise buildings, and a lot of new classical buildings, and a lot of new people with the same old Indo-European languages and the same old two-eye one-nose one-mouth combination your reasoning would place us all in contempt of. Time is not, I'm glad to say, on your side.

My second problem is this:

I'm not sure how the sidewalks of Manhattan can inspire "achievement" or "energy," because these things are not "inspired"...so I will stick with the last one: "awe." I will agree that skyscrapers inspire awe. Some of them by their dramatic design, many more by the sheer technology they display. Being dwarfed by a series of manmade structures, feeling tiny and insignificant in the canyons of civilized commerce and insurance and brokerage and leverage and acquisition and merger--this feeling is terrifying, thrilling, and sublime to be sure. The shining glass, the vanishing points in the distant sky, the lights, the stunning vistas...this all inspires "awe." The comparison is often drawn, and I believe it is a legitimate one, between the overpowering might of techno-gigantism in skyscrapers and in the Gothic cathedrals of our previous Middle Age. Here is my problem--and it is mostly a semantic one, but semantics can be important: you confuse the sublime with the beautiful. Worse: I could be wrong, but your post suggested to me that you had not considered what happens to cultures than prefer the thrilling to the virtuous, the flash-bang sexy to timeless achievement. Do we want our children to feel "awed" by our rock-hard displays of technology, or to be enobled by their embellished and humane neighborhoods? Do we want them flanked by the Bearers of Meaning, by buildings which make them feel like citizens and grown-ups, or buried in a cacophany of steel and shadow like tadpoles in a wheat thresher?

You argue for the sublime. I argue for the beautiful. You fail the realize the difference between the two. No worry, I still respect you. In fact, I think of you as a 19th-century Romantic Poet--the Lord Byron of downtown Cleveland. But here is some advice from Alberti: the next time you go to Rome, don't swing your camera around so much, and don't ride the rubber-wheeled anything. Check out a nightclub, say your prayers with Borromini, and fall in love while having a water balloon fight on a bicycle, swaying on the sun-dappled, tree-lined sidewalks...next to buildings that hug, rather than dominate, you and yours.

Oh, jeez. I'm going back to Skyscrapercity.com

*said while rummaging for last Moon Pie*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, this project is in the early stages. From what I've read about it, I think it's very likely that this one will go soon. There has been a lot of preplanning, and the developers seem to be getting their ducks in a row. Obviously, I have no way to know, but I believe this will get out of the ground before Palmer's does.

According to Bidclerk.com this project has an expected start date of Summer, 2007 or about one year from now. Therefore, I'm hoping (expecting, actually) WES gets out of the ground before this project.

Bass Berry Project on Bidclerk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Thanks! It is always great to see what inspires others and to learn from their preferences.

To reject the beauty of a tall building does not label one as a person who has distaste for all that is contemporary. After all, modernity is not limited to size when we consider the built form.

I would propose that a persons need to be inspired by tall buildings is not sacrosanct. Where one is inspired by all that is tall, another may prefer a more intimate scale. Each has its place. What is most important is the scale of the building on the first three to five floors. If we could make sure that this scale relates and is in harmony with the sidewalk and streets, we would probably please most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the developer is still tweaking the design and isn't allowing the renderings to get out to the public just yet. They are holding them close and probably won't put them out until MDHA design review

Any news on when they would have the MDHA design review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about the the new proposed tower in today's Nashville City Paper:

Nashville City Paper

Cool! Another building with a crown. The eastern half of downtown is really getting some interesting buildings. I also love the possibility of adding ground-level retail along 2nd Ave South in this building, which can only complement what is going on with the Sounds redevelopment area. The comment about needing attractive design to lure pedestrians south of Broadway is spot-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The renderings really do sound cool. I like hearing about a highrise that will stand apart from those already built in Nashville. On another note, I've been to several Northeastern cities (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia) this summer and I have been thinking we might just need 1 or 2 all glass skyscrapers. They provide a very pleasing contrast in all of these other cities :D .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fight could get ugly, but I've met Tom White and I know his reputation. The guy is as sharp a legal mind as you'll find on property rights. Planning may give lip service to the height restrictions, but in the end they know they don't have much legal ground to stand on if an owner wants to develop a legitimate project that has no detrimental effect on adjacent property. Sorry, but casting a longer shadow than you would like itsn't good enough. It's lost in virtually every case it's been challenged. White and Barry will win this. It's up to Planning to make it either nice or ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as if they are going the same route that Palmer went and going to try and get a zoning change. That way I think they avoid the MDHA. Too much political clout being thrown around on this one. Doorman, William, and Myself had a discussion about this and feel that this one will get a go. Besides, this may mean a start to more projects in the DT instead of all going to the burbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yeah, Metro should be greatful anyone even wants to build a building downtown. I would laugh my ass off if BB&S just said..."Yeah, you know what? Screw it, we're bulding in Cool Springs"...Maybe that would cause metro to reconsider how much they value setbacks and short shadows...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yeah, Metro should be greatful anyone even wants to build a building downtown. I would laugh my ass off if BB&S just said..."Yeah, you know what? Screw it, we're bulding in Cool Springs"...Maybe that would cause metro to reconsider how much they value setbacks and short shadows...;)

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yeah, Metro should be greatful anyone even wants to build a building downtown. I would laugh my ass off if BB&S just said..."Yeah, you know what? Screw it, we're bulding in Cool Springs"...Maybe that would cause metro to reconsider how much they value setbacks and short shadows...;)

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's see if I've got this right... DT hasn't seen a new office building in 13 years. Now there's a group of business/property owners opposed to this? Don't they know beggars can't be choosey?

Well, we've seen a new office building (and are building one)...but they aren't of any significant size.

I'm getting pissed at all of this "So Bro" talk...neither the Westin nor this project have any plans to destroy any historic buildings (in fact, the Westin would be rehabbing a few)...so why are people opposed to them? They're too tall for the area. Hello? They're freakin DOWNTOWN!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we've seen a new office building (and are building one)...but they aren't of any significant size.

I'm getting pissed at all of this "So Bro" talk...neither the Westin nor this project have any plans to destroy any historic buildings (in fact, the Westin would be rehabbing a few)...so why are people opposed to them? They're too tall for the area. Hello? They're freakin DOWNTOWN!!!!!!!!

I agree, the Downtown Nashville Partnership, et. al, are doing a great job of making up neighborhoods (Lafayette, SoBro, Germantown, Gulch, etc.) and helping to define them, but really.....SoBro is STILL DT! To John Q. Public in Franklin, Hendersonville, Bellevue, Ashland City, etc. if they see a new 28 story building that's gorgous on Demubembrean they'll look at the city as they drive in and say "Look at that pretty new building downtown," and most likely can't tell you the different areas that have been defined. We don't know much, but really.....DT is losing to Cool Springs JUST LET IT IN!

PS As long as it has street level retail along Demonbreun.

PPS. Hundreth Post, WoHoo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The description of this tower sounds wonderful. I can't wait to see the renderings, because I think it's going to be a spectacular project. Downtown Nashville desparately needs to revive itself as a prime provider of office space, and this project along with SunTrust, promises to do just that. People have to realize that SoBro IS downtown, and the height restriction that are in place there are too restrictive. Do we want to risk loosing this project to Cool Springs? Nashville is becoming a big city and all of downtown simply will not fit north of Broadway. C'mon, let's build this thing!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we've seen a new office building (and are building one)...but they aren't of any significant size.

I'm getting pissed at all of this "So Bro" talk...neither the Westin nor this project have any plans to destroy any historic buildings (in fact, the Westin would be rehabbing a few)...so why are people opposed to them? They're too tall for the area. Hello? They're freakin DOWNTOWN!!!!!!!!

FYI, the Westin will tear down at least 1 historic building. The Richards and Richards building from the 1920s. But you are right that the Westin would be rehabbing the Trail West building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, the Westin will tear down at least 1 historic building. The Richards and Richards building from the 1920s. But you are right that the Westin would be rehabbing the Trail West building.

What this does, in effect, is preserve 4 buildings I believe. Trail West, Higgins Law Firm bldg, Pesca bldg and the Crab Shack. It landlocks all of the other buildings to the rear, preserving them from being torn down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we've seen a new office building (and are building one)...but they aren't of any significant size.

I'm getting pissed at all of this "So Bro" talk...neither the Westin nor this project have any plans to destroy any historic buildings (in fact, the Westin would be rehabbing a few)...so why are people opposed to them? They're too tall for the area. Hello? They're freakin DOWNTOWN!!!!!!!!

I'm getting pissed off as well. -_- Even in the article it doesnt clearly explain why So Bo is not considered to be part of Downtown. Which doesnt make sense to me what so ever.

Even the Hilton, a very nice hotel but looks like it could be 4 to 5 stories taller.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, the Hilton the GEC and the Nashville Symphony are not in DOWNTOWN their in

SO BO. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.