16 Park developer to rebuild after 'heartbreaking' fire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The developer of the $34 million 16 Park housing project said it will begin rebuilding as soon as possible after a building was destroyed by fire Friday night.

The Indianapolis Housing Agency is developing 16 Park, an 11-building project that was set to open in October along 16th Street between Central and College avenues. The blaze engulfed a four-story, 28-unit apartment building due to open this fall. Four occupied buildings in the complex were not damaged.

Park 16 fire aftermathFire destroyed a 28-unit apartment building under construction Friday evening. (IBJ Photo / Perry Reichanadter)

IHA Executive Director Bud Myers and Bruce Baird, its director of strategic planning and development, watched the building burn.

“It was heartbreaking,” Baird said. “We put our heart and soul into the redevelopment of Caravelle Commons, so it was discouraging.”

Caravelle Commons was a 65-unit, low-income housing property built in 1975. The seven-acre property had become a magnet for crime, with dead-end streets and fenced-in apartment homes surrounding crowded parking lots. But the Indianapolis Housing Agency was betting the new project would jump-start interest in the area.

IHA will begin the process of rebuilding as soon as the Indianapolis Fire Department finishes its investigation and gives the agency control of the site, Baird said.

IFD Lt. Larry Tracy said Monday morning that the probe is ongoing; he was unsure how long it might last. IFD estimated damage to the building at $3.5 million.

The destroyed building was insured, Baird said.

Four of 16 Park’s 11 buildings are complete and occupied. When finished, the entire project will consist of 155 housing units.

Baird said he has no idea when the project might be completed.

“We’re still assessing that now,” he said. “We’ll be aggressive in resuming construction and moving just as quickly as we can.”

IHA bought Caravelle Commons in March 2009 from the Near North Development Corp., which took over the complex in 2003. Near North stepped in to refinance, renovate and stabilize the property with an eye toward eventually selling it to a more appropriate owner.

IHA is financing most of the 16 Park project with nearly $28 million in federal and state tax credits and another $4.4 million in federal stimulus funds. The housing agency used a grant of about $400,000 from a city housing trust fund to acquire the property and begin drawing up plans for redevelopment.

The fire is particularly devastating to IHA because 16 Park is the largest project in its $120 million portfolio, which includes the redevelopment of Barton and Lugar towers downtown, and the construction of The Braxton at the base of Lugar Tower.

Baird, though, said the fire at 16 Park could have been worse. No other apartment buildings were damaged by the blaze.


  • Was it
  • Location
    I saw the location in the second paragraph of the story: "along 16th Street between Central and College avenues."
  • location of apartments
    These apartments are on the north side of 16th Street, roughly between Park and College. They are located just north of the Old Northside Historic District in downtown Indianapolis
  • More information needed
    Was the location of this apartment complex? What is the address in Indianapolis of this apartment fire? Was it left out of this story for a specific reason? If not, to those of us in Indianapolis who do not know where the 16 Park development is (or other locations connected with news worthy events), please add the location to your news stories. Thank you

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.