NASHVILLE | 505 | 550 ft | 45 FLOORS

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by Cashville

Last I heard the Pinnacle and Symphony Place (last highrise built in Nashville at 417 feet) wasnt exactly filling up.

Then you're getting your information from the wrong people.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I'm blowing a heart valve trying to figure out what you're even talking about.

I knew I wasn't the only one feeling that way.

Since when did a skyscraper proposal need to visually reflect the history of the city, in some way? Why don't you elaborate on what you think a more 'Nashville appropriate' design would look like? In what way does a skyscraper 'pay homage to Johnny Cash?'

The guitar proposal... smh

[Henburg]

Tower could eventually be 750 ft...

This is fantastic news, it will look even better at that height!

Last I heard the Pinnacle and Symphony Place (last highrise built in Nashville at 417 feet) wasnt exactly filling up.

I can't imagine where you heard that from. Even if this were true, 505 CST is directed at a completely different market than The Pinnacle, so the two shouldn't really be compared.

The guitar proposal... smh

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by MIRYDI

The guitar proposal... smh

LOL! I was trying not to think about it.

[arkitekte]

^Keep talking about it and I'll post a rendering. lol

Originally Posted by Henburg

This is fantastic news, it will look even better at that height!

I think it looks really good at 605', but at 750' this tower would be unreal. Let's hope Tony G can find a tenant so this becomes reality.

I wonder what the price tag on something like this would be. $300-$350 million?

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I'm blowing a heart valve trying to figure out what you're even talking about. Since when did a skyscraper proposal need to visually reflect the history of the city, in some way? Why don't you elaborate on what you think a more 'Nashville appropriate' design would look like? In what way does a skyscraper 'pay homage to Johnny Cash?'

Again, unless I'm in error, the firm of Smith/Gill has been chosed for this project. As I understand it, they have a marked tendency to apply regional and/or cultural influences to their architecture. And what I've seen their work in the recent past seems to vindicate my assumptions.
That said, then, I was trying to wrap my head around why this tower--at least in my view--seems to be a glaring exception to the very norm they established for themselves.

You invited me to make a parallel between this and "city appropriateness".
Let me try with this:

Courtesy of Wikipedia article on the History of the Tennessee Titans, relevant points highlighted.

"(Titans owner Bud) Adams appointed an advisory committee to decide on a new name. He let it be known that the new name should reflect power, strength, leadership and other heroic qualities. On December 22, Adams announced that the Oilers would be known as the Tennessee Titans starting in 1999. The new name met all of Adams' requirements, and also served as a nod to Nashville's nickname of "The Athens of the South" (for its large number of higher-learning institutions, Classical architecture, and its full scale replica of the Parthenon)."

Okay. First of all, I'll agree with you that there's no way that a country star, dead or otherwise, can be immortalized by or with a skyscraper. Ditto the Grand Ole Opry or any other abstract concept/tangible thing this city is noted for.
Ah, but why not a tribute to what Bud Adams wanted for his team's identity extrapolated to a stone, steel and glass tower? Greek Revival, as it were.

All that said, I suppose the simple question that I should've asked in the first place is "Why this vertically meandering heap instead?

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Ah, but why not a tribute to what Bud Adams wanted for his team's identity extrapolated to a stone, steel and glass tower? Greek Revival, as it were.

Nashville's skyline is already on par with what the Titans have going. I'm certainly hoping one pulls away sooner or later.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by arkitekte

^Keep talking about it and I'll post a rendering. lol

Please no!...

I think it looks really good at 605', but at 750' this tower would be unreal. Let's hope Tony G can find a tenant so this becomes reality.

I wish we could see a rendering at a distance like we did with the signature tower to get a good idea of what both heights look like.

I wonder what the price tag on something like this would be. $300-$350 million?

I think this tower in Pittsburgh is a pretty good example and is very close in terms of height and tech. It's about $250 million according to wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_at_PNC_Plaza

[arkitekte]

^505 would have roughly 300,000 sq. ft. more than the Tower at PNC Plaza.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by arkitekte

^505 would have roughly 300,000 sq. ft. more than the Tower at PNC Plaza.

Good point. Not sure what construction cost's are in Pittsburgh vs. Nashville but that could be a factor as well.

I think anywhere from $250-$350 million would be about right for 505CST. I would be shocked if it ended up more than that.

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by MIRYDI

Good point. Not sure what construction cost's are in Pittsburgh vs. Nashville but that could be a factor as well.

I think anywhere from $250-$350 million would be about right for 505CST. I would be shocked if it ended up more than that.

That will be one of the major factors. As you earlier mentioned, the Tower at PNC Plaza is very similar, and if we want to get an idea of a number of things about 505 its a good place to start. I'll for sure start to pay more attention to PNC Plaza now.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by arkitekte

That will be one of the major factors. As you earlier mentioned, the Tower at PNC Plaza is very similar, and if we want to get an idea of a number of things about 505 its a good place to start. I'll for sure start to pay more attention to PNC Plaza now.

After reading that wiki link again, I saw that they said the construction budget was $400 million. But looking at the info underneath the picture on the right, it says cost $240 million. I'm not quite sure which number we should be paying attention to, but that is a big difference. I'll have to do a little more research on this project.

I'm pretty sure a building like this could be built in Nashville cheaper than in Pittsburgh, but I'm not sure by how much, or if it's a huge difference. I do think this building is very comparable in a lot of ways though.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Again, unless I'm in error, the firm of Smith/Gill has been chosed for this project. As I understand it, they have a marked tendency to apply regional and/or cultural influences to their architecture. And what I've seen their work in the recent past seems to vindicate my assumptions.
That said, then, I was trying to wrap my head around why this tower--at least in my view--seems to be a glaring exception to the very norm they established for themselves.

You invited me to make a parallel between this and "city appropriateness".
Let me try with this:

Courtesy of Wikipedia article on the History of the Tennessee Titans, relevant points highlighted.

"(Titans owner Bud) Adams appointed an advisory committee to decide on a new name. He let it be known that the new name should reflect power, strength, leadership and other heroic qualities. On December 22, Adams announced that the Oilers would be known as the Tennessee Titans starting in 1999. The new name met all of Adams' requirements, and also served as a nod to Nashville's nickname of "The Athens of the South" (for its large number of higher-learning institutions, Classical architecture, and its full scale replica of the Parthenon)."

Okay. First of all, I'll agree with you that there's no way that a country star, dead or otherwise, can be immortalized by or with a skyscraper. Ditto the Grand Ole Opry or any other abstract concept/tangible thing this city is noted for.
Ah, but why not a tribute to what Bud Adams wanted for his team's identity extrapolated to a stone, steel and glass tower? Greek Revival, as it were.

All that said, I suppose the simple question that I should've asked in the first place is "Why this vertically meandering heap instead?

A Greek Revival skyscraper?!? I think we're done here.

[Cashville]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Then you're getting your information from the wrong people.

Nope, Im getting my info from the people that actually monitor the market. I know for a fact that last year ago there were still around 250,000 sqft available in the building which was only able to place it 2nd downtown. edit: and is still around 100,000 unoccupied. Downtown is still lagging behind other segments in the city and it will be a long time before 800,000 premium sqft are needed in the CBD.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by Cashville

Nope, Im getting my info from the people that actually monitor the market. I know for a fact that last year ago there were still around 250,000 sqft available in the building which was only able to place it 2nd downtown. edit: and is still around 100,000 unoccupied. Downtown is still lagging behind other segments in the city and it will be a long time before 800,000 premium sqft are needed in the CBD.

I'll leave anther article for you to read enforcing the fact that there is a desperate need for office space downtown. Add that together with how strong Nashville's economy is, and how fast companies are relocating here, and it only makes sense that more tower's are going to be popping up soon.

Right now if a large company wanted to move downtown, there is nowhere for them to go. Thats why this one has a solid chance whether you want to believe it or not.

Here is the article. It's a long read so I'll just put up a few quotes, but I encourage you to read the whole thing. I would listen to more stuff like this vs your "people that actually monitor the market." What I posted up has been the market trend for a while now in Nashville and it's only getting hotter.

http://www.tennessean.com/interactiv...building-sales

Strong numbers
In considering potential acquisitions, office building buyers typically look at market-specific information, such as job growth and the local economy, diversity of industries, opportunities for rent growth and the pipeline of new buildings. Duration of tenants’ leases is among the variables that determine the value of buildings.

Since 2010, Nashville has outperformed Moody’s Analytics’ expectations for growth in jobs in fields for which office space is needed — business and professional services, information technology and financial services, said Alex Miron, an economist with the forecasting firm. Those employment numbers have been growing at a pace of 6 percent a year since the middle of that year, outpacing growth nationwide of only 2 percent.

“When office-using employment is growing quickly, we tend to see price per square foot of office space rise and vacancy decline,” he said. “Those are good indicators when it comes to regional commercial real estate. It doesn’t look like that’s due to slow down soon. This is a growth driver for Nashville for now — its commercial real estate sector.”

David R. Hendrickson, a managing director of real estate investment banking at Chicago-based Jones Lang Lasalle, who has covered the market here for eight years, cited health care, area universities, government and music among sectors driving Nashville’s diverse and strong economy and its growth into being a primary acquisition target for investors nationwide.

The benchmark interest rate for financing acquisitions of office buildings edged up 0.85 percent over the past two months, but Hendrickson said financing remains available for deals. Some potential buyers here and in other major cities are seeking out shorter-term loans at more attractive rates. “We’re seeing that properties are still trading, the market is still strong and there’s plenty of money available for acquisitions,” Hendrickson said.

The mere prospect of interest rates heading up, however, provides an incentives for buyers to make deals now.

Tighter vacancy rates of office space in the suburbs, especially Williamson County, meanwhile, has boosted appeal of office space in Nashville’s central business district. That, along with diversification in mix of downtown’s office tenants to include technology companies with younger workforces, has helped to reduce vacancy there from a peak of 24 percent to between 12 percent and 14 percent, according to downtown office market reports.

In the first half of this year, $78.6 million of office investment sales have occurred in the Nashville market, representing 10 deals and 498,366 square feet of space, according to a tracking by Cushman & Wakefield/Cornerstone’s capital markets group. That doesn’t include the Bank of America Plaza sale or the pending sale of Regions Center.

After a flurry of deals near year-end in advance of pending tax law changes, investment sales volume slowed in the first half of this year. But brokers see the many buildings in the sale pipeline that also includes the three-building Grassmere Business Center, plus buildings Sony Corp. owns off Music Row and in Cool Springs, as an encouraging sign.

“This is indicative of the fact that property owners are in a position to finally have an exit strategy that allows for them to make money as opposed to a distressed sale, as Nashville continues to lead the Southeast as one of the region’s most dynamic and fundamentally strong markets,” said Lisa Maki, associate director with the Cushman & Wakefield|Cornerstone capital markets group, which specializes in investment sales.

[MIRYDI]

From the Nashville Post.

http://nashvillepost.com/

FAA OKs increased height for proposed downtown skyscraper
505 CST could now rise 750 feet

[JayPro]

Given the maximum height indicated in the article, a possible tweak or two in the design will be in order.
It'd be somewhat like the difference between Tower Verre at today's 1050' versus the original 1250'. Unless, perhaps, this site has a lager footprint.

[MIRYDI]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Given the maximum height indicated in the article, a possible tweak or two in the design will be in order.
It'd be somewhat like the difference between Tower Verre at today's 1050' versus the original 1250'. Unless, perhaps, this site has a lager footprint.

I might not be comprehending well right now but are you suggesting that the proposed tower could actually lose some height?

The tower in the pictures above was announced at 605ft 38stories. The past few articles posted are saying that the tower was actually designed to go all the way up to 750ft. Now the developer has petitioned the FAA to ok a height of 750ft and it was cleared.

basically if he gets this thing off the ground there is a pretty damn good chance that this thing will be atleast 750ft and not the original 605ft.

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by MIRYDI

I might not be comprehending well right now but are you suggesting that the proposed tower could actually lose some height?

The tower in the pictures above was announced at 605ft 38stories. The past few articles posted are saying that the tower was actually designed to go all the way up to 750ft. Now the developer has petitioned the FAA to ok a height of 750ft and it was cleared.

basically if he gets this thing off the ground there is a pretty damn good chance that this thing will be atleast 750ft and not the original 605ft.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm reeling from my father's untimely passing; and using these forums as an escape hatch, if only for a bit, is one of the few respites I have right now.

What I meant to say was this. I indeed *do* understand that this tower is up for possible heightening. That said, my Tower Verre analogy to it was admittedly ass-backwards.

Suppose this gets heightened as planned. Unless this is accompanied with some kind of radical redesign (highly doubtful), we're prolly likely to see a more slender version of it. And here's where my Tower Verre thing should be somewhat applicable.

Back in the day, TV's 200' chop-off demanded by Amanda Burden of the NYC Planning Commission made it look quite stubbier than what was originally drawn up. And fortunately, nothing in the way of a major redesign was needed.

So let's fast-forward to now and wax hypothetical a bit. Suppose Ms. Burden repents of her unfortunate decision and petitions for the height back. Barring anything unusual, this happens and we're back to the superslender version that many of us hoped for to begin with.

Now, all *that* said extrapolated to *this* tower: An extra app. 150' can make quite the difference, of course. The curves and undulations that I was complaining about before, IMHO, would be more flattering with this increase.

Hope this makes sense. It's been a horrid day...never mind the past 2 1/2 weeks.

[LA_TN]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Again, unless I'm in error, the firm of Smith/Gill has been chosed for this project. As I understand it, they have a marked tendency to apply regional and/or cultural influences to their architecture. And what I've seen their work in the recent past seems to vindicate my assumptions.
That said, then, I was trying to wrap my head around why this tower--at least in my view--seems to be a glaring exception to the very norm they established for themselves.

You invited me to make a parallel between this and "city appropriateness".
Let me try with this:

Courtesy of Wikipedia article on the History of the Tennessee Titans, relevant points highlighted.

"(Titans owner Bud) Adams appointed an advisory committee to decide on a new name. He let it be known that the new name should reflect power, strength, leadership and other heroic qualities. On December 22, Adams announced that the Oilers would be known as the Tennessee Titans starting in 1999. The new name met all of Adams' requirements, and also served as a nod to Nashville's nickname of "The Athens of the South" (for its large number of higher-learning institutions, Classical architecture, and its full scale replica of the Parthenon)."

Okay. First of all, I'll agree with you that there's no way that a country star, dead or otherwise, can be immortalized by or with a skyscraper. Ditto the Grand Ole Opry or any other abstract concept/tangible thing this city is noted for.
Ah, but why not a tribute to what Bud Adams wanted for his team's identity extrapolated to a stone, steel and glass tower? Greek Revival, as it were.

All that said, I suppose the simple question that I should've asked in the first place is "Why this vertically meandering heap instead?

Very Nice! Thanks for the insight and comments!