Project Thread/New Construction/Photo du jour/Const. CAMs

[markhollin]

Looking SE from above Capitol building about 5 weeks ago (courtesy of Clear Sky Images):
 

[bhibbs]

Im really glad the church in the middle has withstood the test of time/progress

[Pdt2f]

2 hours ago, bhibbs said:

Im really glad the church in the middle has withstood the test of time/progress

The PCUSA has been hemorrhaging membership for years so I wouldn't be too surprised if it ended up as an "event space" eventually. I won't go into my opinions as to why they've fallen, but I feel like leadership of this church would prefer to secularize the building than sell it to a different denomination, if it were to come to that. I don't know anything about the financial health of that particular congregation, just overall info about the PCUSA. 

[bhibbs]

4 minutes ago, Pdt2f said:

The PCUSA has been hemorrhaging membership for years so I wouldn't be too surprised if it ended up as an "event space" eventually. I won't go into my opinions as to why they've fallen, but I feel like leadership of this church would prefer to secularize the building than sell it to a different denomination, if it were to come to that. I don't know anything about the financial health of that particular congregation, just overall info about the PCUSA. 

it would be a beautiful event space, my wife and I went inside one night while we were at the Art Crawl.
hopefully its protected in some fashion to make sure it never comes down.

[wmaddbb2018]

From 12th floor of Bennie Dillon (700 Church) looking east)

Edited September 20, 2017 by wreynol4

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Bennie-Dillon. Where the rooftop a/c units are as big as skyscrapers.

[wmaddbb2018]

1 hour ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

^Bennie-Dillon. Where the rooftop a/c units are as big as skyscrapers.

That's technically from the building across the street.

[Andrew_3289]

[markhollin]

TBT: The Gulch, 2007 (courtesy of Aerial Innovations):

 

[Andrew_3289]

Driving down I-40 this afternoon 

 

[BnaBreaker]

Please forgive me for the fact that the following are not photos of Nashville, but let me explain... and of course, mods please feel free to move this to a different thread if you feel this isn't the appropriate place.  

As many of you know, I have often expressed concern that some of Nashville's urban neighborhoods are developing in a very disjointed, disorganized way that lacks cohesiveness and the sense of community most want from an urban neighborhood, due primarily to projects that are done on the cheap and have little to no relationship with the street or the other developments around them.  Without getting too in depth into details and discussion (this is the photo thread after all) I wanted to post two aerials I came across tonight that do a great job of displaying visually this constant refrain of concern you so frequently hear from myself and others. 

The first photo is of Richmond, VA and it's stunningly gorgeous Fan District.  In my opinion, this is what we should be trying to emulate in most neighborhoods that surround downtown.  Note the organization, the cohesiveness, the relationship each building (the private realm) has with the street (the public realm) in that they are opened up to the community not shut off from it. 

The second photo is of the Montrose neighborhood in Houston,  TX.  You might notice an abundance of newer large scale developments in this shot that aren't all that dissimilar from many of the new residential developments you see in Nashville, and let me be clear that those can and are being done right in some cases, and when they are, they should be welcomed.  However, as you can see in this shot, there is absolutely no cohesion at all.  There is no neighborhood.  It's basically a collection of individual developments.  No retail to speak of, developments facing every which way with blank walls or fences or garage doors the only thing greeting the odd pedestrian.  This shot also does a great job at showing that density doesn't necessarily equal urban.  If everything is still shut off from the public realm and auto oriented, like at public housing project highrises (to use an extreme example),  it doesn't matter how high the density is, it still won't be a healthy urban neighborhood.  Anyway, all that blabber aside, let me show you the aerials.

EDIT: Upon viewing the photos after posting, it appears they were significantly downsized, so I apologize if they are too small to really get an accurate feel for them.  If you click on them, you can zoom in a bit.

RICHMOND, VA

 

HOUSTON, TX

Edited September 22, 2017 by BnaBreaker

[wmaddbb2018]

[markhollin]

Baker Donelson/Chamber of Commerce Center.

Looking SE at intersection of Commerce and 3rd Ave. North from CMT building:
 

[bhibbs]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmillsphoto]

From a redditor... 

[chris holman]

On 9/21/2017 at 9:30 AM, markhollin said:

TBT: The Gulch, 2007 (courtesy of Aerial Innovations):

 

Wow  so much has changed 

[markhollin]

[urbanplanet17]

On 9/22/2017 at 4:16 AM, BnaBreaker said:

Please forgive me for the fact that the following are not photos of Nashville, but let me explain... and of course, mods please feel free to move this to a different thread if you feel this isn't the appropriate place.  

As many of you know, I have often expressed concern that some of Nashville's urban neighborhoods are developing in a very disjointed, disorganized way that lacks cohesiveness and the sense of community most want from an urban neighborhood, due primarily to projects that are done on the cheap and have little to no relationship with the street or the other developments around them.  Without getting too in depth into details and discussion (this is the photo thread after all) I wanted to post two aerials I came across tonight that do a great job of displaying visually this constant refrain of concern you so frequently hear from myself and others. 

The first photo is of Richmond, VA and it's stunningly gorgeous Fan District.  In my opinion, this is what we should be trying to emulate in most neighborhoods that surround downtown.  Note the organization, the cohesiveness, the relationship each building (the private realm) has with the street (the public realm) in that they are opened up to the community not shut off from it. 

The second photo is of the Montrose neighborhood in Houston,  TX.  You might notice an abundance of newer large scale developments in this shot that aren't all that dissimilar from many of the new residential developments you see in Nashville, and let me be clear that those can and are being done right in some cases, and when they are, they should be welcomed.  However, as you can see in this shot, there is absolutely no cohesion at all.  There is no neighborhood.  It's basically a collection of individual developments.  No retail to speak of, developments facing every which way with blank walls or fences or garage doors the only thing greeting the odd pedestrian.  This shot also does a great job at showing that density doesn't necessarily equal urban.  If everything is still shut off from the public realm and auto oriented, like at public housing project highrises (to use an extreme example),  it doesn't matter how high the density is, it still won't be a healthy urban neighborhood.  Anyway, all that blabber aside, let me show you the aerials.

EDIT: Upon viewing the photos after posting, it appears they were significantly downsized, so I apologize if they are too small to really get an accurate feel for them.  If you click on them, you can zoom in a bit.

RICHMOND, VA

 

HOUSTON, TX

That can be easily explained.

Cities like Richmond, VA experienced their population boom before the automobile became a mainstay in America, whereas Houston and Nashville didn't start booming until after Word War II.

Thus, in Richmond, the city has more transit-oriented development (streetcars mainly) while Nashville and Houston have more car-oriented development. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

2 hours ago, urbanplanet17 said:

That can be easily explained.

Cities like Richmond, VA experienced their population boom before the automobile became a mainstay in America, whereas Houston and Nashville didn't start booming until after Word War II.

Thus, in Richmond, the city has more transit-oriented development (streetcars mainly) while Nashville and Houston have more car-oriented development. 

Actually, if you go back to 1900, Richmond and Nashville had roughly the same population (85k and 80k). However, Richmond preserved so much of its old architecture and neighborhoods. Nashville, however, lost all the dense old housing within the CBD, suffered a massive fire that destroyed much of the beautiful mansions in East Nashville and largely replaced the homes that lined Broadway and West End, and then you have the scourge of urban renewal itself. Remember that Nashville has the black mark of having willfully demolished the only Presidential mansion in the nation (Polk Place, for which President Polk took great pains to assure would remain a museum and attraction for years to come, including having himself buried there) and even demolished the beautiful Governor's Mansion on 7th, along with all the other mansions along the street (now where the War Memorial Plaza is).

With some care and foresight, we could've had some lovely neighborhoods and streets in the CBD to rival Richmond today. Sadly, not to be.

[BnaBreaker]

3 hours ago, urbanplanet17 said:

That can be easily explained.

Cities like Richmond, VA experienced their population boom before the automobile became a mainstay in America, whereas Houston and Nashville didn't start booming until after Word War II.

Thus, in Richmond, the city has more transit-oriented development (streetcars mainly) while Nashville and Houston have more car-oriented development. 

Well that should go without saying... you're missing the point though... we can still build cities like that, and in many places, urban areas do still follow those guidelines.  The existence of the automobile cannot be used as an excuse for careless and lazy zoning laws or for allowing developers to run amok.  

[urbanplanet17]

2 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Well that should go without saying... you're missing the point though... we can still build cities like that, and in many places, urban areas do still follow those guidelines.  The existence of the automobile cannot be used as an excuse for careless and lazy zoning laws or for allowing developers to run amok.  

Agreed completely.

[claya91]

IG @anatanoting

[markhollin]

July, 2017 (Courtesy of Stephen Davis):
 

[nashvylle]

21 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Well that should go without saying... you're missing the point though... we can still build cities like that, and in many places, urban areas do still follow those guidelines.  The existence of the automobile cannot be used as an excuse for careless and lazy zoning laws or for allowing developers to run amok.  

Is there an example of a city that did not have an urban environment built correctly in the early 20th century, but was developed correctly in the last few decades, despite the existence of the automobile? Is Portland an example?

 

[Andrew_3289]