Archived

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

satalac

New bid on the thermal site downtown

30 posts in this topic

the tennessean

does anybody have any thoughts on what this might be? It would be nice to see a mixed commercial and business tower go here. one thing that's kind of weird but i think would stand out is a little village square like by pancake pantry in gatlinburg. like an outdoor shopping center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I would be fine with it, as long as it is a low- to mid-rise. It doesn't need to overwhelm the riverfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it's not? Isn't that property open to any height? It seems as though that section of DT Nashville was part of a revised zoning plan that would allow taller buildings. I don't recall how tall (400-600 ft?) nor if the Thermal site in included in that overlay (am I using correct terminology?). SBE&R's plan included at least two high rises. No doubt, whoever develops it will be looking to build a LOT of density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what sort of proposal for the site those developers come up with. There are so many options for the site I really wouldn't want to speculate as to what they might be. I think it would need to be low to mid rise to fit into the area's overall feel, with density of the structures playing a key role in filling in this key section of town into the overall downtown landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's Metro's continued role in this? Do they sell the land to the developers or lease it as planned for the ballpark? How does that affect possible development? Does the Council hold out for supposed bigger and better things in order to flex its muscle or for members to get their names behind a big project?

Maybe Metro can lease it less than market value and stipulate below market-rate rentals or condos be built. That way, the developers aren't "forced" to build super tall as well and the area can be a high density, low to mid-rise development which will preserve views to the river and to downtown from Rolling Mill Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be fine with it, as long as it is a low- to mid-rise. It doesn't need to overwhelm the riverfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, I'd love it if they built a structure that "overwhelmed" the waterfront. I wouldn't mind at all if the waterfront looked something like this one day:

trump12tx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skyscrapers are silly for Nashville, we'll never have enough of them compared to places like Chi-town and NYC, plus, if you're in one of those cities and actually out on the street you've got to walk around with your head tilted back at an uncomfortable angle just to see the tops of them and you might get trampled or hit by a taxi or something.

How 'bout something more reasonable like these river fronts instead:

Architectural styles are subject to change/modification but hey, there's a landscape out there and one can see it despite all them buildings! Nashville has hills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I personally don't have a problem with a tower on the riverfront there. I think it's a great idea. Now, there are some purist on here that will burn me at the stake for saying that, but I digress. Everytime a new development goes up in Nashville, we don't have to keep comparing it to European architectural styles. I see the point trying to be made about it and I respect it greatly, but that is a different culture and different way of life. One that Nashville doesn't have, nor would it ever really embrace with our current "frame of mind" we have as Tennesseans. LOL! I think some may know what I am talking about. If not, i'll explain it later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to imply that Nashville doesn't need to copy any given architectural style, just wanted to show how various cities have embraced their rivers with a beautiful, consistent low-rise wall of architecture. Others have made this point before but I'll make it again: too much development is concentrated in towers and Nashville has a lot of empty lots to build on, let's spread the love a little so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tennessean

Just another article from The Tennessean this morning that has a little more info about the timeline and process for how the bidding could take place. Also says in there that officials from the Sounds and Streuver Bros. are still interested in the site...

Should be very interesting to see what the plans submitted are, but I think it is interesting to note one section of the article:

John Pierce, a Tower official who oversees the firm's Nashville projects, said the partnership is meant to combine the two firms' strengths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something mid-rise would complement Encore directly behind it from the river perspective. Whatever it is, it would be wicked with all glass panels to reflect the water in the building and the sun on the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Tennessean

Just another article from The Tennessean this morning that has a little more info about the timeline and process for how the bidding could take place. Also says in there that officials from the Sounds and Streuver Bros. are still interested in the site...

Should be very interesting to see what the plans submitted are, but I think it is interesting to note one section of the article:

So I think it is quite possible after hearing that that their proposal will include a mixture of buildings that could include a high-rise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds like a subsidy to me... you sure are eager to give other people's money away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yep, I don't have any problem with it. Besides, isn't that what Metro planned to do in the first place? Subsidize the building of the ball park and surrounding development by lending them the land for 30 years and shelling out a half a million tax-payer dollars for maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is that taxes from the city? and if so, aren't you from murfreesboro? i guess it makes sense you don't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not from the Boro, I lived there for about 9 torturous months. I currently reside in Franklin and maybe one day I'll make the move back to Nashville. I'm sure my current tax dollars subsidize a few things here in Franklin just like yours subsidize stuff in the Burrr. I accept that and encourage it as a legitimate functio of government because I don't believe the free market provides the best results in every instance and the government can theoretically overlook pure profits to achieve a more desirable outcome for the citizens. Peace.

p.s. And you of course didn't pay attention to the fact that Metro already planned to subsidize the development of the ballpark and Sber's development. I'm just suggesting that they stipulate a different kind of development in exchange for use of the land. Or, they should just sell the land and get the hell out of the game. No hair off my back, either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my point being is that your taxes don't pay for what gets done is nashville, so of course you don't have a problem with it. and yes, i did pay attention to the fact that metro had already planned to subsidize the previous development. like 10-SC 1337 was saying, you're eager to give other people's money away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does any of this have to do with me, anyway? If I lived in Davidson I still wouldn't have a problem with it, since I live in the U.S. and the Federal govt subsidizes lots of things I don't have a problem with the concept, yes, the execution often leaves a lot to be desired. But again, this doesn't have anything to do with me, I posted a question which no one bothered to answer in their zeal to attack me for my supposed position: what is Metro's role in this development? Do they sell the land and let the developers build what they can at the behest of free market forces, or do they lend or lease the land to a developer and maintain some control over what's developed as was planned with the ballpark and the amphitheater? We can have a discussion about these questions but please don't bring me personally back into the discussion because it's irrelevant and annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Nashville and I have no problem with the city shelling out tax dollars to better the city, as long as it will help in the long run. The titans stadium is paying off, look at the tax dollars gernerated when there are home games, Downtown booms on Sundays, even on the days when there are no home games there is still an increase in traffic. Same goes for Preds games. The city took a hit when there was a lockout and it reminded us why we need the Preds. Same with the 4th of July celebration. There is a chunk of cash that goes up in smoke, literally.... but the tax revenu and publicity we get is well worth the investment. 150,000 people downtown willing to spend a little dough equals to a good business plan and I am sure sponsors chip in to help the cities cost down.

What ever gets put on the site (It it were me) would have to benifit the city. We just can't give away the property to developers who want to make a pretty building. I dont' mind spending the money as long as we get something in return. I would much rather have the city spend the money on something that benifits us rather than blow it all on dinners and trips, cause like it or not they will blow the money regardless, why not let it work for us.....

Someone mentioned an ampetheater with a retractable roof.... I could see that working but cost would be pretty high for construction. I like the idea of something with year around appeal with some mix use tossed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i do apologize for upsetting you. that was not my goal. i believe that metro should sell the land to a developer. there is too much bureaucratic red tape that is killing progress on this piece of land. until metro gets their act in gear, i don't trust them with leasing out land like this. them sitting on the land is not helping downtown grow. build or develop something already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some council members won't be able to resist sticking their hands in this cookie jar though and will insist on having a part to play in developing something big and momentous for Nashville when all Nashville really needs is more dense, mixed-use development and a nice promenade along the banks of the river. Stick an amphitheater on the east bank since there's no immediate residential development planned there and ample land and parking. Imagine concerts with downtown as a backdrop for the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Begin OT/

Metro should sell and get out of the way. Government inherently makes things more expensive. Furthermore the government cannot create a development that the market wants(obviously). I am a huge fan of the Preds and Titans, but to claim that they are +NPV projects is a dubious claim at best. It is extremely difficult to accurately measure the impact of those investments, and many studies have shown sports teams do not positively impact the surrounding community's tax base.

End OT/

As for this piece of land, hopefully a dense residential community with street level retail will come out of this. I think this will take time as the residential market is quite weak and will be for several years, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a huge fan of the Preds and Titans, but to claim that they are +NPV projects is a dubious claim at best. It is extremely difficult to accurately measure the impact of those investments, and many studies have shown sports teams do not positively impact the surrounding community's tax base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.