Indianapolis Wish List

[speedblue47]

This is just another thread to spice up this rather dull time in development, and give people interested in Indianapolis development something to occupy themselves with until a major announcement is made.

The idea here is to give an address, some information about the parcel and/or area, and lastly information on what you would like to see here. History and context as needed would definitely be appreciated, but do NOT make a page long post(I know I am not one to talk). Give us the general overview, and fill out the details in discussion. Again, discussion, not bickering. Some of us would like to see another high-rise or skyscraper, and some of us would be happy with mid-rise infill. Some like modern, some like art deco, some like interpretations of the various Classical forms.

And lastly, please keep conversations to the developments themselves, and not drift off into long spats about transit and public policy, etc, etc. Let's keep it friendly, and link to pics or maps if available.

[GarfieldPark]

There are a couple of parking lots that have been discussed to see new government uses. Both sites are next to important existing government buildilngs. For both, it seems a lack of funding is the primary issue that is causing them not to be built. One is the large square-block parking lot immediately north of the State Capitol building. Supposedly it is to be the site of a new Legislative / Judicial building someday. A beautiful, classic yet modern new limestone, glass and copper building with underground and/or hidden parking should be built there. The underground parking would be linked to the Capitol building to its south and eliminate the ugly parking lot on the north side of the Capitol. That project would help eliminate two ugly parking lots in a very prime location and would fill in part of that sea of parking lots on the NW side of the CBD.

Secondly - the parking lot south of the City-County Building (south of Wahington St. and north of the jail) has been discussed as the site for a new law enforcement / judicial - courts center / jail expansion. I've seen some nice drawings in the past of a well designed 10 - 12 story, very sturdy looking building (dark granite exterior). It would allow the existing jail / lock-up and courts facilities in the CCB to be moved out which would help free-up some needed additional space in the CCB.

Obviously the 2 (3?) square blocks on the former site of Market Square Arena is an extremely critical spot to see some major new residential / mixed use development. I'll let others throw out their more detailed suggestions for what should go there. Basically, I'd be happy with a variety of buildings ranging from 8 - 30 stories or so with a mix of residential, commercial and maybe some creative / artist's type live / work studios. Modern architecture with stone, steel, plenty of glass and multiple colors would be nice to see. Some nice trees and landscaping along Market too.

[speedblue47]

Thanks for the input GarfieldPark. I would suggest recommending this thread to people in the development news forum if you would like more interaction.

I agree with much of what you propose, but I would really like to see those parking lots on Capitol put to use for commercial/residential users. Also this new Legislative/Judicial Building: Is it supposed to take up the whole block? How many stories would it be? I think that 10-12 stories would be needed, but I guess 8 would be acceptable. That is still a large lot to develop, even with some serious backstepping from the streets. I would assume such a facility would actually surround an above ground parking complex centered on the lot, with maybe a 30,000 sq. ft. footprint. On the other hand, I believe that lot near the CCB would be perfect for a Jail expansion(or possibly replacement?).

Do you have a link to any of these drawings or renderings? I must have missed on these projects.

[ak72]

I have a proposal that many people probably haven't thought of and I know that there are pleanty more areas that need more redevelopment but here goes nothing. Sorry it is a long post but I hope it is worth reading, it would be a great development. Mabey when the economy recovers there will be demand for it (one can hope).

I would like to see a new development on the site of the Indianapolis Star Building at the Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Delaware block. I see a tower at each corner with a large pedestrian area in the middle, a bit like the Rockafellar Center in New York. At Penn and New York will be the tallest tower. Around 30 stories of glass and steel. The Star can occupy this building along with another major company headquarters that can be lured to Indy. The next building will be at the corner of Penn and Vermont. It will be a twenty story hotel of glass and granite. Then at the other two corners will be two 10 story residential buildings, one will be lofts and apartments. The other will be townhomes and condos. These don't have to look alike and the style can be creative but I would like to see classic, brick/stone buildings. On the first floor all the way around all 4 buildings will be retail and the second floor on the inside will be retail as well, creating a sort of outdoor urban mall. At the center of the four buildings will be a circular plaza with a fountain in the middle resembling monument circle, and the lower levels of the buildings will form around the plaza. The residential buildings and hotel will have balconies looking over the plaza. Now parking will be a huge challenge. There will be multi-story underground parking garage for residents and hotel guests. There will also be a praking garage replacing the parking lot on the other corner of Penn and Vermont. This will be an eight story garage with glass and brick facade facing Penn and Vermont (and open on the other two sides) with ground level retail. And on the exterior of the block all buildings will approach the with about a 10' sidewalk. I think this would be great as a connector between Massachusetts Ave and "the mall". I have dubbed it Penn Plaza.

Here is a picture I made real quick with photoshop so you can get a better idea of where I'm saying:

[speedblue47]

I like the massing, and the concept, but I think the city should start to drift away from the "classic, brick/stone" look. Especially with the new facade at OIS, we should look to extend the modernity out further into the skyline.

But overall, I love this idea. The economy isn't ready for it quite yet, and I don't think the star is looking to sell at the moment, but maybe in 5 years? Would be great if this could happen before the Super Bowl, but I don't see it.

Oh, and thank you for the Photoshop. I'll try to provide the same for my proposals, and maybe include a summary of proposals every couple of weeks to see the impact they would have on the city.

[NaptownBoy]

Wow, where do I start?

• How about a central transit center? One that would serve IndyGo, Amtrak and Greyhound, but also with a focus on passenger rail. A line or two branching out from downtown could definitely work in the near future.
  
• An urban Target along with two 15-20 story towers at the former MSA site would work wonders for that side of the CBD. I'd throw in some street-level retail at the foot of the towers to pick up the streetlife a bit.
  
• It'd be nice to see a couple of 500-footers go up and alter the skyline a bit, one exclusively residential and one corporate. Just to fill in the gaps and stretch the core of the city somewhat. Also, throw in some mixed use 8 to 12 story buildings fronting Illinois and Delaware streets between New York and St. Clair streets, giving the American Legion Mall area a walled-in, mini Central Park type of feel.
  
• The one thing that I've always wanted downtown was a magnet public school. An intermediate or high school level academy dedicated solely to the arts, or something of that nature. A four to six story, single building on a city block with outstanding architecture.
  
• Perhaps most of all, I'd like to see more traditional residential downtown. Actual street-oriented development that engages the neighborhood within is always a plus.

I know that some of the aforementioned ideas may never, ever see the light of day judging by the history of this city's actions, but given Indy's bright potential they could all work. Besides, it's always fun to have a dream, isn't it?

By the way, if anyone wants to see some visual representation for these ideas, let me know and I'll post them.

[ablerock]

I just want to see the parking lot on the north side of the Statehouse converted back into a park.

1932 (North is to the right)



1937 (North is at the top)



Present day (North is at the top)

[speedblue47]

Boy - Please, if you have the skills, Photoshop it of SketchUp it! I'm currently working on my proposal for the MSA site as we speak.

ablerock - If someone could make a deal to the state and develop a parking garage across Ohio from the statehouse - with street level retail of course - then they could revert that back to a park. As a civic monument, I would like to see this, as the plan for the statehouse seems to be based a lot on symmetry.

[unvrsty07]

Speedblue, I would LOVE to see your proposal of the site, please do share that with us as well!

[speedblue47]

That sounds like a challenge, universty07. I am a web designer, not a 3d modeler, so it is taking me time to learn SketchUp and get proficient at it. But, since you are calling my number I guess I'll throw one out there.

The MSA proposal looks to do several things, them listed in order:

1. House a number of new residential units affordable to a vast swath of Indianapolis residents to increase street life in the eastern half of the CBD after 6.
2. House a large retailer, and several supporting retailers to provide services for not only the residences of this project, but also those elsewhere in downtown.
3. Create a sort of "gateway" structure for commuters coming in from the east side of town.
4. Create a thought out and distinctive mixed-use project that both engages the major thoroughfares but also provides open space for residences and patrons of possible cafes/restaurants that are part of the project.

The project also attempts, in a way, to recall memories of life downtown with MSA. It does this by using the lots on both sides of Market thoughtfully and joining the town main towers over Market street(though not in the way of MSA). From a design perspective, look for the towers to draw inspiration from JW and the Library expansion. This is in terms of materials and form, but not exactly.

I have the lots as roughly 85,000 sq. ft. a piece, so 170,000 sq. ft. as a whole. By my count this will yield the following:

1 Level Retail w/ 1 Big Box retailer(Target, Best Buy, etc.) per tower and then several smaller retailers, with restaurants/cafes on the facade opposite Market.

1 Level Office. This will be a mix of professional services space and normal grade A space in one tower, and open floor plan small-space leasing(per cubicle etc) in the other.

1 Level (east of the main towers) of facilities. These will include pool, hot tub, fitness center, etc.

20 levels of residences, with roughly 500 units split between apartments and condos of both middle-class and luxury levels.

The resulting project will be a commanding presence in the skyline, a hot spot for those living the urban lifestyle, and one of the most sought after addresses in Indianapolis.

I'll be back with a rendering when I get a chance.

[ablerock]

Originally Posted by speedblue47

The resulting project will be a commanding presence in the skyline, a hot spot for those living the urban lifestyle, and one of the most sought after addresses in Indianapolis.

I'll be back with a rendering when I get a chance.

You mean something like this? (But taller, right? )

[speedblue47]

My height target would be 317' (just to be a nerd), and the facade will be largely all glass and the facades of the two towers arch away from Alabama. Also my project will have the base come up to the curb at Alabama, and put the public space on the facades opposite Ohio, but will have planters on the curb side of Alabama and Ohio.

[NaptownBoy]

Originally Posted by speedblue47

Boy - Please, if you have the skills, Photoshop it of SketchUp it! I'm currently working on my proposal for the MSA site as we speak.

ablerock - If someone could make a deal to the state and develop a parking garage across Ohio from the statehouse - with street level retail of course - then they could revert that back to a park. As a civic monument, I would like to see this, as the plan for the statehouse seems to be based a lot on symmetry.

I'm actually working on stuff as I speak. I like to use SketchUp for concept projects.

[speedblue47]

I wish I could get a hang of it....It doesn't seem to like curved planes very much.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by speedblue47

I like the massing, and the concept, but I think the city should start to drift away from the "classic, brick/stone" look. Especially with the new facade at OIS, we should look to extend the modernity out further into the skyline.

But overall, I love this idea. The economy isn't ready for it quite yet, and I don't think the star is looking to sell at the moment, but maybe in 5 years? Would be great if this could happen before the Super Bowl, but I don't see it.

Oh, and thank you for the Photoshop. I'll try to provide the same for my proposals, and maybe include a summary of proposals every couple of weeks to see the impact they would have on the city.

The classic brick/stone look is exactly what we need. Regardless of whether or not it is 'what's in' or 'cool' at this time it will always remain at the least attractive for centuries to come. We don't want to look like our urban boom was dated like a city that did the pedestrian street and metal facade thing in the 1970's. Classic stone and brick for at least the majority of projects would probably allow these projects to age well and someday be preserved like the victorians we love today.
Drifting away from that would be dangerous for the architecture of Indianapolis because when people are looking back in twenty years saying "Oh my what were we thinking?!" in other cities people will be passing our classic modest infill rowhouses and structures stating about it's beauty and fine brickwork. Look at the LOS! I really don't think these modernist designs will ever work in Indianapolis or age well like they would in other cities. Now, the idea of a ton of highrises being built in Indianapolis is also unlikely. An eight story government building north of the statehouse is even more unlikely. One thing is that at this point the city is probably going to keep the structures in that area a certian height so the statehouse isn't dwarfed any farther not to mention it is questionable whether or not that sort of state government space is needed. Indianapolis should stick to filling in the gaps and working more on making great neighborhoods better and improving the great downtown we have. Let's be Indianapolis, not Chicago or Dallas.

[socrates#1fan]

As for my wish list goes.
I'd like to see the Indianapolis city hall properly restored and re-used. I think really bringing out it's classic glory would add a lot of beauty to that area. The old city hall could actually be used for city offices due to the much needed space in the CCB.
I would like to see the downtown loop's structures(historic and new) properly restored/renovated and maintained, we need to get rid of the rundown feels in parts of the downtown area.
I would like to see an art museum downtown, maybe in the style such as the new music hall in Nashville. Perhaps something like that would work well on the market square sight?
More mid-rise and low-rise infill with nice designs and rooftop gardens. This city needs to get greener(which doesn't mean let's all drive hybrids and where grocery bags it means put gardens ontop of flat-roof structures, etc.).
Grocery stores, not expensive grocery stores but real grocery stores that EVERYONE can afford in the downtown area. We want to reduce the amount of times downtown residents have to get in their cars and drive to Fishers to go grocery shopping.
More public art work, and less of that cheap abstract stuff. I'd like to see some well made statues, fountians, markings, etc in multiple parts of the city. If I see one more ball of metal or twisted pipe I swear I am going to flip.
The White river needs to be properly used. It is a decent sized waterway with the potential of becoming a downtown attraction. Perhaps boating or even something like a larger Indianapolis Canal.
Public transportation! It is obvious this city needs more busses and hopefully some more commuter rails, streetcars, etc. With less people driving we can get more pushing for density.
I've got more but I'll post them later.

[speedblue47]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

The classic brick/stone look is exactly what we need. Regardless of whether or not it is 'what's in' or 'cool' at this time it will always remain at the least attractive for centuries to come. We don't want to look like our urban boom was dated like a city that did the pedestrian street and metal facade thing in the 1970's. Classic stone and brick for at least the majority of projects would probably allow these projects to age well and someday be preserved like the victorians we love today.

Just make that "we" in your last sentence is exclusive. I don't remember us using materials from Britain, or using Victorian methods of construction, so I'm not a fan of the Victorian style being used today. It is as fake as the front brick facades on the houses in suburban vinyl villages. But let us not make this an architectural debate - as that could last for pages and pages and pages and not resolve anything. Actually, an architecture should "date" a city. That's something called history. You don't go to Chicago and go "this looks it was built in the late 1890's" or "this looks like it was built in the late 1970s". You look around and say "wow! That was built in 1890, but the building across the street was built in 1978, and look at that building from the '20s down the street".

Maintaining a single architectural style gets you Venice. If you want Venice, it's already built in Italy. I want a living city that grows and changes like its people - and its technology. If we preserved and extended some style artificially there would be a problem - not everyone agrees what style is best. You like Victorian, but Paul likes Art Deco, and Suzy would sure to see more of the Doric order on every building, and John thinks only Classic Revival fits the City of Indianapolis. But every building in the built environment is a testament to its age and to its architect and to its owner. I personally hate the various styles except in the proper context of having been built when it was appropriate to the materials and methods used to build it.

Much of the beef that people have with modernism lies with two of its offshoots - brutalism and the forms of modernism more in line with artistic modernism. Brutalism is, was, and always will be mostly a product of government expansion. The most numerous examples of brutalism are housing projects, jails, administration buildings, military housing, etc. The private sector really got no use out of them because the designs - while cheap - usually didn't inspire anyone. The style also came to be equated with those government structures listed above. The other form of modernism which has taken criticism, appropriately, is this "representational" school of architecture, where the building has its form imposed on it by a preconceived design rather than from its function. Some of these are commercial projects, but many of them are commissioned by departments of local government to house things like museums. Luckily, we see this more in Europe.

And then it is the bad modern architecture that gets labeled as "characteristic" of the movement. This is largely done by architects who think of modernism as a "style", when it is actually a way of approaching an architectural project, and a philosophy of seeing it through. You can't say "Well, the facade will be modernist, but I can't forget the portico!" Or "Well, yes it looks modernist, but the hallways must have crown molding for the building to be you know, comfortable." This is how bad modernist projects get built(and from an architect who believes in the modernist philosophy, but sadly not the talent to execute it).

So, in short, on this point we will more than likely have to agree to disagree. I believe that people, especially young people, will look at a city's architecture and decide the city's character and ambition. And if done right, it may very well represent that - with the layers of buildings representing the character of the various ages of the City, and its movement into the future. Somehow, I don't think brick structures in an age of steel, glass, and reinforced concrete impart a sense of forward-thinking.

Just my 2 cents.

[socrates#1fan]

So it is some how progressive in your idea that we construct these structures that will not age well?
You can tell these classic brick/stone structures were built in this time. Why? The patterns, modest ornaments(when compared to moldings of say the victorian era.), different brick, and the interior typically is modern. Indianapolis did exsist very much so in the victorian era. It had about 130'000 people by the end of the victorian era so Indianapolis very much has the past to construct these buildings. No, the general public dislikes modernism most of the time because it is typically ugly to them. People like the victorians, classics, etc not because they are 'from the olde' days' or from 'nostalgia' but because they are still beautiful while things such as ranch houses from the 60's or glass homes from the 80's are eyesores and quiet dated. BTW, there is a difference between good dated and bad dated(which modernism tends to get.). Good dated is like Elvis while bad dated is Hannah Montana(hint because Hannah Montana was a passing fad while Elvis was truely something unique.) and this can very much be applied with architecture.
This is not an era of glass, concerete and steel and forward thinking. This is an era of fads and dated trends that people will regret much like we did with brutalism(except a handful of folks who enjoy it's clean lines and over all purely functional form.). Most of the time people only like it because if they don't like it they must be backward, sort of like the king's robes. Say what you want, but the design of the structure proves that once this trend is gone and another one replaces it, this style will be dated and not in the good way. It will be in the dated bin with Hannah Montana and Bush. To have a timeless structure it has to have something that never goes out of style, organization and details.
Indianapolis shouldn't AVOID modernism, however, architecture isn't something that can be easily replaced so modernism should be kept in the IMA and things like the white river state park so that if they get REALLY ugly they can just be taken to the IMA. It is fine to wear a faddish shirt but don't get your leg chopped off because it is cool.
These 'backward' structures being built in Indianapolis will be the gems of tomorrow people are eager to restore and put their lofts in. I'd rather have a city of good architecture than a city that is 'progressive' now but 'backward' later.

[Indywatch]

1)
I'd like to see many of the areas in green on this map in-filled with highrise, midrise or even low rise mixed use development. Some of the areas already have existing proposals like Ralston and Sodo. The areas in red I dont see the possibility for much change other than small infill or maybe a parking garage. The red areas represent CURRENT development such as existing high rises, parks, residential and government facilities. GET RID OF SOME OF THOSE SURFACE PARKING LOTS!



2)
I'd also love to see light rain transit from downtown to the new airport... and probably a northeastern corridor as well eventually over time having a complete metro system mass transit to get people around town effectively. Whoever drew this metro map is BRILLANT!



3)
I liked the idea of creating dramatic gateways to the major arteries coming into downtown... though I'm not sure the proposed Circle Truss Gateway is the best example or most innovative design for this. I'm sure something better could be proposed.



4)
A few more tall buildings (at least 2) nearly the height if not excedeing the Chase tower. Nashville, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Cincinnati... all have some proposal for a new tallest, whether or not they get built.

5)
An "Arena City" created in the blighted SW area of downtown near the Lucus Oil Stadium.... with restuarants, hotels, retail, and new high rise / mid rise condo's looking down into the stadium. Similar to Columbus' Arena district.

6)
I'd like to see PennCentre get built. That eastern side of downtown needs a major hotel to provide more pedistrian traffic to allow the new restuarants like Fogo de Chao, Scotty's Brewpub, Barcelona, and India Garden to get foot traffic and have a fighting chance at surviving. Right now all the major hotels are near the Convention Center and Circle Mall and foot traffic stays within a very few blocks of those two. People dont walk much further east than Meridian.

7)
I'd love to see more development in the Fountain Square Area. If it means tearing down some of those older home (with not much historic value) and putting up brand new... I'm for it. That area has so much potential and it's not being utilized to it's fullest yet.

8)
I'd like to see a better solution for dealing with pan-handlers downtown. The deposit contribution boxes do not seem to be working. There are STILL beggers on every corner. I'm not sure what the solution is.

9) SHINEY HAPPY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE oh and yeah WORLD PEACE! ;-)

[Indywatch]

ADD:

10)
Fix up Pan Am Plaza to make it an area of civic pride once again other than the public eye sore it now is.