NASHVILLE | Development Showcase

[MidTenn1]

Originally Posted by MIRYDI

Nashville is cookin right now... Throw 505CST in there for good measure...

It's too speculative right now. I could have added the Eakins Office at 12th and Demonbruen; 22 stories and probably 300'. I think that will start in a year.

[Dr Nevergold]

You guys are certainly quick with posting new announcements, that is fairly hot off the press.

Do any of you know why there is opposition to the Amp/BRT project? I glanced at a Stop AMP activist group - I have no idea how much support they have - but the video I saw of them on Channel 5's web page is rather one sided. I was surprised Ch. 5 only gave one voice during the entire discussion.

I think these people are losing sight of what the Amp is suppose to do, for the numerous cars that transverse up and down West End Ave, thousands of trips a day can be replaced by walking and hopping on the bus.

The only alternative is to allow the city to continue to get more congested as it is, with no new lane possibilities for expanding the street an an auto-only fashion.

...then you have the entire urban atmosphere/walkability issue at play. The StopAMP group just seems so clueless.

[Dr Nevergold]

These are the videos I'm referring to. I can't believe anyone is opposing a BRT system, if people are against this, they're against any form of viable, frequent transit service that is actually usable.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22...transit-system

This is just one meeting and one news clip, but I thought this kind of attitude was dying down over time, I suppose it isn't?

Here's another video, longer air time for the anti-Amp group:
http://www.newschannel5.com/category...clipId=9086088

Of course they start their argument by saying they're not 'anti mass transit' when they are. LOL The same thing could be said no matter what corridor your put it on, if it was on Charlotte it'd back up traffic, if it were on Murfreesboro Pike it'd back up traffic. They'll just change their tune no matter where its put.

I got a laugh from the female caller who said "no one uses the buses now" and stating its a waste. Well, the reason why no one uses buses now is because Nashville has a shoddy transit system. No one is going to wait 30 minutes to an hour for a bus. If you have shoddy transit, people won't use it. If you have BRT with frequent service that actually comes every few minutes, it changes everything. Of course people will use it. Thousands of people will use it, and it'll take those thousands of cars off the road.

[BnaBreaker]

I refuse to watch those videos. Why? Because I'd like to sleep tonight. haha

In all seriousness though, I am fairly confident in saying that the people in those groups are in the significant minority.

[MidTenn1]

Primary objections include:

>Loss of parking on West End thus reducing customer access to local businesses
>Disruption of traffic flow and patterns
>Primary use by visitors thus not reducing traffic demand significantly
>Other corridors would serve actual residents better
>City can't afford it

Quite frankly, each point does have some merit. However, I support BRT it because it will tie midtown to downtown creating a 40 block long central business district. It will encourage more residential density in the core leading to more office, retail and entertainment opportunities giving Nashville one of the more vibrant and diversified urban cores in the south.

[nashvol85]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

Primary objections include:

>Loss of parking on West End thus reducing customer access to local businesses
>Disruption of traffic flow and patterns
>Primary use by visitors thus not reducing traffic demand significantly
>Other corridors would serve actual residents better
>City can't afford it

Quite frankly, each point does have some merit. However, I support BRT it because it will tie midtown to downtown creating a 40 block long central business district. It will encourage more residential density in the core leading to more office, retail and entertainment opportunities giving Nashville one of the more vibrant and diversified urban cores in the south.

This isn't a response to you, but rather the points. (I didn't watch the video btw)

>Loss of parking is basically a drop in the bucket. How many parking spaces per block are there? On the south side of West End on a HUGE block between 28th and 29th...12. On about 600' of street frontage. Yes, those spaces do add up. But it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You can't even use those spaces during rush hour. Would some of those spaces not be utilized by people that *could* use the Amp rather than driving their cars from their West End offices to restaurants/businesses on West End? Yes, there is a cost associated with that. But as parking gets tighter...wouldn't there be a cost to parking in general?

>Disruption to traffic flow patterns. Yes. I do think this will disrupt traffic in some way. As I commented on one of Gail Kerr's articles, this should not be viewed as a 'solution' to our traffic problems, but rather a solution to increasing traffic. West End isn't getting less dense. The corridor is getting more built up. It simply can't be widened to handle extra traffic. Some of the actual traffic needs to be dispersed to other corridors. And naturally, some of the traffic can be taken care of by offering neighborhood residents and college students and office workers an alternative to driving their cars on the corridor.

>I call BS on this one. Yes, there are a lot of visitors in hotels on this corridor...but if you polled current MTA traffic on the #3/5, I think you would find the vast majority are not visitors. Still...even if this line becomes more attractive to visitors than residents, it reduces traffic pretty significantly because they aren't taking individual cabs or their personal vehicles/rentals, which cause traffic problems because they don't know where the eff they are going.

>Other corridors being more viable might be the most compelling argument. I think a case could be made here. However, it seems one of the main reasons this corridor was picked is because the density actually meets the federal standards for funding. Nashville is not an overly dense city. It is more dense in the core than the overall numbers reflect...but nonetheless, it is not high density. Federal funding is an important part in actually getting our rapid transit program off the ground. Sometimes you need to do what will get funding rather than just do what is needed. If this line proves successful, the hope is it will open the door to other lines being utilized. It will make it easier for the city to justify using more local funding if it is successful.

>More BS. The city has a $1.8 billion budget. This is about the allocation of resources, not whether or not the city has money. Where are our priorities? For a long time, public transit hasn't been one. It's time we make it one. Perhaps the next step will be to get in line with other cities and have more dedicated funding for mass transit. I don't think people realize just how much the city spends on...anything. 4% of that goes to transportation/infrastructure. Perhaps it is time to rethink how much we spend on transportation.

[MidTenn1]

Originally Posted by nashvol85

This isn't a response to you, but rather the points. (I didn't watch the video btw)

>Loss of parking is basically a drop in the bucket. How many parking spaces per block are there? On the south side of West End on a HUGE block between 28th and 29th...12. On about 600' of street frontage. Yes, those spaces do add up. But it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You can't even use those spaces during rush hour. Would some of those spaces not be utilized by people that *could* use the Amp rather than driving their cars from their West End offices to restaurants/businesses on West End? Yes, there is a cost associated with that. But as parking gets tighter...wouldn't there be a cost to parking in general?

>Disruption to traffic flow patterns. Yes. I do think this will disrupt traffic in some way. As I commented on one of Gail Kerr's articles, this should not be viewed as a 'solution' to our traffic problems, but rather a solution to increasing traffic. West End isn't getting less dense. The corridor is getting more built up. It simply can't be widened to handle extra traffic. Some of the actual traffic needs to be dispersed to other corridors. And naturally, some of the traffic can be taken care of by offering neighborhood residents and college students and office workers an alternative to driving their cars on the corridor.

>I call BS on this one. Yes, there are a lot of visitors in hotels on this corridor...but if you polled current MTA traffic on the #3/5, I think you would find the vast majority are not visitors. Still...even if this line becomes more attractive to visitors than residents, it reduces traffic pretty significantly because they aren't taking individual cabs or their personal vehicles/rentals, which cause traffic problems because they don't know where the eff they are going.

>Other corridors being more viable might be the most compelling argument. I think a case could be made here. However, it seems one of the main reasons this corridor was picked is because the density actually meets the federal standards for funding. Nashville is not an overly dense city. It is more dense in the core than the overall numbers reflect...but nonetheless, it is not high density. Federal funding is an important part in actually getting our rapid transit program off the ground. Sometimes you need to do what will get funding rather than just do what is needed. If this line proves successful, the hope is it will open the door to other lines being utilized. It will make it easier for the city to justify using more local funding if it is successful.

>More BS. The city has a $1.8 billion budget. This is about the allocation of resources, not whether or not the city has money. Where are our priorities? For a long time, public transit hasn't been one. It's time we make it one. Perhaps the next step will be to get in line with other cities and have more dedicated funding for mass transit. I don't think people realize just how much the city spends on...anything. 4% of that goes to transportation/infrastructure. Perhaps it is time to rethink how much we spend on transportation.

No offense taken. I just listed some of the concerns I have heard and do not necessarily support, but I appreciate your thoughtful rebuttal.

I will elaborate on the parking issue however: in my experience as a traffic engineer, parking space is one of the most 'emotional' issues businesses deal with. The loss of one space could result in the loss of 2 to 3 customers every hour, which can be the perceived difference between survival and bankruptcy. Any road/intersection improvements I proposed that caused the loss of even one space were quite often dead on arrival. One time the movement of a parking space just ten feet nearly killed a project. And the emotion becomes so intense the politicians will not support anything the business community objects to.

Nashville may be big enough to dismiss these concerns without fear of political retribution, but nevertheless, the concerns are there and real.

[nashvol85]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

No offense taken. I just listed some of the concerns I have heard and do not necessarily support, but I appreciate your thoughtful rebuttal.

I will elaborate on the parking issue however: in my experience as a traffic engineer, parking space is one of the most 'emotional' issues businesses deal with. The loss of one space could result in the loss of 2 to 3 customers every hour, which can be the perceived difference between survival and bankruptcy. Any road/intersection improvements I proposed that caused the loss of even one space were quite often dead on arrival. One time the movement of a parking space just ten feet nearly killed a project. And the emotion becomes so intense the politicians will not support anything the business community objects to.

Nashville may be big enough to dismiss these concerns without fear of political retribution, but nevertheless, the concerns are there and real.

I understand that. Sometimes businesses are very resistant to change. Sometimes it is for good reason (change leads them to going out of business). Sometimes their fears are unfounded, or they fail to heed the warnings of the changing climate. I think this is one of those cases.

Traffic on West End is already pretty hectic. As of now, the density of the corridor stretches the traffic capabilities. There are some sections with on-street parking...and there are sections without it. During rush hour, you can't park on the street anyways. But when it is allowed, it can be a mess because you can be driving in the right lane where there is no on street parking, then come upon a section with parked cars. During non-rush hour times (like around lunchtime) this can be especially trying, and it hurts the traffic flow. In all honesty, there probably shouldn't be on-street parking anywhere on West End anyways, for that very reason.

Add in the fact that much of West End is developed with shopping centers/strip malls, and there is quite a bit of parking within these centers. Is there enough? Probably not. It gets awfully crowded around lunchtime. Some places barely have any parking as it is. However, any business that has located there in the past 20 years knows the parking situation. If businesses want to complain to Metro about something, it shouldn't be on-street parking, but the lack of public parking, such as a public garage, that could help alleviate the problem. But any garage would likely be in the form of paid parking...something West End patrons are not used to.

Furthermore, traffic is only getting worse. If I had a business out there, my concern would be not that people couldn't find parking, but rather that they wouldn't want to deal with the traffic trying to get to my business. The Amp provides a way for people who live and work along West End an easier alternative to navigating the corridor and getting to those businesses than by an adventure to find an open parking spot in a car or using the regular bus service. It does come at a cost (much like paying for parking)...but the ease of use would make it a much more attractive alternative, especially during lunch time, when office workers have a limited amount of time for their break.

I'm not suggesting that there won't be growing pains (adjusting to a new system) or casualties (places going out of business)...but in the end, it's the right thing for the corridor. I would suggest that maintaining the status quo would be more damaging for business than implementing the Amp line and taking away a couple lanes of roadway and on-street parking.

[MidTenn1]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

Building/Floors/Est. Height

SoBro 32 380’
Omni Hotel 22 260
Mondrian 23 270
Green Hills 22 250?
West End Summit 1 22 350
West End Summit 2 17 269
West End Summit Hotel 16 190’?
Buckingham Hotel 17 190’
Marriot SoBro 16 190’
Hyatt Regency 16 200’
Marriot Spring Hill 16 200’

The article in the Tennessean this morning lists the height of the Green Hills high rise as 240'.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

The article in the Tennessean this morning lists the height of the Green Hills high rise as 240'.

SoBro is listed at 395' also, not 380'....

[Dr Nevergold]

Since nashvol had a fairly good summary, I'll just say that really the points don't have merit.

Nashville is overwhelmingly and predominantly an automobile oriented city and culture, there's no pretending it isn't, and there's no pretending that it'll change significantly.

BUT, it doesn't mean that the central core couldn't use a system like this. For the thousands of people who transverse West End avenue daily, several thousand of those (and nearby locations along Church/Vanderbilt area, etc) could be people who opt to park their cars, then ride. Since the service will be frequent, it finally becomes viable to park your car cheaply across the river in the Titans stadium area, or other areas, then hop over to the other parts of the city without driving everywhere. Not everyone would choose to do this, but a large number would.

I agree that even central Nashville residents largely aren't going to get rid of their cars, but this project can and will reduce traffic congestion by getting a few thousand people out of their cars every day and using it. Even if the BRT only had 10,000 riders a day, that is significant traffic reduction in terms of automobiles for one corridor. Such a significant portion of the people who drive up and down that route are tourists or are there for Vanderbilt, business travelers, or people looking to visit family in the Centennial and Baptist hospital complexes along the route.

I'll end by saying that if you want 5-10,000 fewer car trips per day so that there's more room for your car, you better support this project. Virtually no one expects Nashville to become an urban utopia, but this is the lowest cost, most auto friendly project they chose, and I think its right for the kind of place Nashville is. $175 million is not that much money to spend on such a significant upgrade in transport and landscape of the central core. The aesthetic quality this system will bring to the corridor will be a significant upgrade from the present. It'll become a more tame boulevard with a better landscape.

You shouldn't be driving 50mph down West End Avenue, weaving in and out of traffic, with left turns anywhere you want. That's why its not a pedestrian friendly corridor at present. If that's what the anti-transit folks are upset about, they're crying over spilled milk. They have every other avenue in the city they can do that on.

[MIRYDI]

There have been rumor's floating around about a 60 story Four Seasons hotel here in Nashville. While I was certainly skeptical, this article posted today atleast indicates that there is some truth to Four Seasons looking at Nashville for a potential project. This would be huge for Nashville!

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville...nashville.html

Four Seasons scouts Nashville

Luxury hotel company Four Seasons has Nashville on its radar.
Nashville real estate investor Mark Bloom said he recently met with the head of development for the Canadian-based hotel company, showed him a tour of the city and filled him in on Nashville's hotel and development market.
"They are interested in Nashville and looking at potentials," said Bloom. He added that Four Seasons is not yet committed to doing a local project.
A spokesperson with Four Persons declined comment. New full-service hotels have recently been drawn to downtown Nashville due to the opening of Music City Center.
Bloom's Corner Partnership is trying to partner with a luxury hotel developer for its 1.23-acre site in the Gulch at the corner of 12th Avenue South and Laurel Street. He said his group has spoken to three or four potential super-luxury hotel partners that are "very interested in Nashville and very interested in the site."
"Nashville now needs a next-generation hotel and residential tower that would be considered four-and-a-half or five-stars -- a Four Seasons or super-luxury property that we don't have at this time that Charlotte has and Austin has," Bloom said. "I think Nashville has a much stronger level of consumer sophistication and demand for super-luxury than we have ever seen before in every category, whether it be retail, residential or lodging. That demand is starting to escalate."

[BnaBreaker]

It has always struck me as odd that outside the Hermitage, Nashville doesn't really have any true LUXURY hotels. It seems to me that a place like Four Seasons would fit in perfectly here.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

It has always struck me as odd that outside the Hermitage, Nashville doesn't really have any true LUXURY hotels. It seems to me that a place like Four Seasons would fit in perfectly here.

I noticed that as well. With everything that's going on lately though you would have to think one will pop up eventually. Hell there might even be a couple. You never know...

[arkitekte]

8/16

Everything is looking good.

Omni and CMHOF Expansion:


Hyatt Hotel:

[MIRYDI]

^^^Thanks for the pics! They look great...

I can't wait for the sign to go on top of the Hyatt. I think the extra little touch will go along way. I do have to be honest about something though. The more I see this building, the more I dont really like it.

[LMich]

I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Hyatt's new base model for its different brands is pretty horrible. I'm sure they thought they'd try and go with a "cool" upgrade to their aesthetics, but it comes out looking really cheap and busy.

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by LMich

I was thinking the same thing, honestly. Hyatt's new base model for its different brands is pretty horrible. I'm sure they thought they'd try and go with a "cool" upgrade to their aesthetics, but it comes out looking really cheap and busy.

It looks cheap and tacky, but I don't really remember anything overly negative about the base at street level, the scale of everything seemed fairly decent. From what I remember everything looked like it fit in there (I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing). If anything this creates a little more density in SoBro. We'll eventually get used to it.

[LMich]

I meant "base" as in "default" model. I wasn't refering to this particular hotel's physical "base."

[atlantaguy]

Is it a Hyatt Place by any chance?