The city next week will consider an ordinance making sidewalks a requirement for any new
project in Marion County. When the ordinance was initially heard last October, officials from several local developers requested
a continuance to review the new rule. Tammara Tracy, a principal planner with the Metropolitan Development Commission, said
their concerns included a desire for flexibility for projects already begun and how much sidewalk was required. All subdivision
residential development in the county already are required to include sidewalks but commercial and industrial development,
and apartment construction projects, were not required to do so. In its revised form, developers in the middle of projects
can opt to add sidewalks or pay a fee into a fund that will be dedicated to new sidewalks in the county. The full story is
here. (Image is from The Urbanophile.) What do you think?
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
The city next week will consider an ordinance making sidewalks a requirement for any new
project in Marion County. When the ordinance was initially heard last October, officials from several local developers requested
a continuance to review the new rule. Tammara Tracy, a principal planner with the Metropolitan Development Commission, said
their concerns included a desire for flexibility for projects already begun and how much sidewalk was required. All subdivision
residential development in the county already are required to include sidewalks but commercial and industrial development,
and apartment construction projects, were not required to do so. In its revised form, developers in the middle of projects
can opt to add sidewalks or pay a fee into a fund that will be dedicated to new sidewalks in the county. The full story is
here. (Image is from The Urbanophile.) What do you think?
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.
-
Yes. Blame those who were too lazy to go vote Obama out and those who voted him in again. That's my take on it. I know folks won't get it on the left. OK. Start berating me now!
-
Serioulsy, people are AGINST this project? Most communities would be salivating over a project like this. You'd rather have an empty eye-sore gas station and shacks posing as apartments? This project is exactly what BR needs. BUILD IT MR MAYOR. And yes, I am a BR resident, and have been for 20 years.
-
As a St. Vincent employee of over 20 years, I am saddened and disheartened by this announcement. Unfortunately, as the healthcare "industry" continues on this political and corporate path, all that St. Vincent Hospital has stood for spiritually for its employees and this community is being sucked dry. I know it truly has no choice. It is not just Obamacare or just competition or just any single thing. This trend started long before I was even born when the government became involved in healthcare and it became an "industry." I grieve for those who will lose their jobs, one of whom may be me, but I also grieve for this hospital which I have served for over 20 years. May God give us and it the grace to withstand the future of healthcare.
-
Why do people constantly harp on this issue and act ignorant about what a city population measures? A city's population is the city's population. There is no argument or debate about it. If you want to measure the density of a city--measure it. If you want to measure the size of a metropolitan area, then measure the metropolitan population. City boundaries cover different sized areas--and they always have (though the disparity has probably increased since about 1900 or so when more cities began annexing their surrounding communities). For example, San Francisco only covers 49 square miles while Houston cover nearly 600 square miles. No one argues about the population rankings of either city even though they clearly cover extremely different sized areas. Indianapolis is the 13 largest city by population in the U.S. That is a fact. While the population of a metropolitan area may give you a better sense of how large a community is, as noted, even metro areas can vary widely in the size of geographic area they cover--so that is not a perfect comparison either.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
36 Comments
Add Comment
Speaking of Carmel, I was up there to a visit a friend the other day and was shocked at what I saw at 116th & Guilford. Buildings that were built up to the street and sidewalks. If it can be done at 116th & Guilford, why not 54th & College?
Could we ever let this one die? Fresh Market opens this year. Fight the next battle instead of the last one.
Or ask DMD and DPW why Meridian north of 86th was rebuilt without any sidewalks within the past 5 years, and whether they will ALWAYS include sidewalks in any major road rebuilding project while demanding it of private developers.
who lives in an older neighborhood downtown. The city does such
a pathetic job of maintaining neighborhood sidewalks. Unless they
get their act together I don't see how the city can commit to the maintenance
of new sidewalks when the ones we have now (many) are completely
crumbling.
(see colts, pacers, final four, IMS, victory field, IMA, Murat, IRT, hall of champs, eiteljorge, canal, white river, eagle creek, monon trail, culture trail, fashion mall, castleton mall, etc. with out their property taxes going to fund IPS or township schools, infrastructure, the arts, Imaging if hamilton county residents taxes where close to marion county taxes. People would waste the differnce in gas for the commute and the money would stay where it is created!
But is that advantage a prerequisite to having a vision for good urban design and the leadership to follow through on achieving the goals of building an aesthetically pleasing and walkable community? I don't think so.
Retail developments there is enough demand, i.e. enough people with enough income, to support their business. Furthermore, retail develops as close as possible to where these people and their money spend most of their time.
I believe by mentioning 54th & College, Helen was referring to the Fresh Market store being built with parking in front along both streets. If the City had a vision and leadership to see appropriate URBAN development, they would have demanded that the store be built up to the sidewalk, as is most of the existing, and apparently thriving, development in the area. Critics might suggest that the store wouldn't have been built if the City said no to the proposed design. I would ask why not? Would the company then decide that they no longer were interested in profiting from the available wealth of the neighborhood? It seems to get done in other central cities, that share all the same comparative disadvantages to their suburban municipalities.
But it's questionable whether the City has that vision, and it's clear there's no leadership pushing for it. But don't just blame your city leadership. The Meridian Kessler Neighborhood Association showed up at the Fresh Market hearing to say they were just tickled by the design. There was no public opposition to the design. Typically, the people need to show the way, before the leaders will lead.
Back on topic: the people definitely need to let their city-county councilors know if they believe that this sidewalk ordinance is vital to raising the city's quality of life.
Further, the previous use of that site (Atlas Supermarket) was similarly sited, with all its parking between College Ave. and the storefront...not to mention that it was an ugly suburban building in an urban setting. At least one side of Fresh Market will abut College. The building is tall and closer to the street than Atlas, adding to the urban feel of the College corridor.
Finally, there's an old building (maybe 50-60 years old) across the street (now Moe & Johnny's/Cornerstone Coffee) that is set back from both College & 54th, so the precedent exists on the corner to have the building pushed to the back corner of the lot.
It's plenty urban. Let's pick on Keystone Ave., Michigan Rd., Crawfordsville Rd., Shadeland Ave. and East Washington St. for a while, instead of taking shots at one of the most urban corridors in Indianapolis' most-walkable (and probably most-walked) neighborhood.
Carmel is walkable if you are in the walkable parts of Carmel, but how do you get to those areas from your individual subdivisions?
I get tired of hearing people spout out the same old refrain well, we have school-age kids, we better move to Carmel. I know lots of well-educated, successful parents who are sending their kids to IPS magnet schools. I urge you to check out the magnet schools in MK/Broad Ripple area (#91 Montessori, #84 CFI - these are high-achieving schools. IPS is also opening a gifted academy for grades 2-8 this fall at the old Sidener Middle schools (corner of Keystone and Kessler).
As for the Fresh Market, it would be great if the building was right up to the sidewalk, but we are thrilled to be getting it and you can bet we will be WALKING to it frequently.
Helen, I just went to SSC and Unionstation13 has stated she is no longer posting on this website. Is there a way you can clarify by posting on SSC as Unionstation13? Anyway, I do agree its pathetic.
Dave, though I'm not a fan of the design the fresh market will probably benefit people in that area. I like kroger and chain grocers but its good that grocery stores are being built in the more compact part of town.
What is up with this site?!
As a resident of the outer townships, I am very happy to see this ordinance proposed. The big problem out here for walkability are main roads without sidewalks and commercial strips that aren't required to have sidewalks. I see a lot of people trudging to bus stops along Michigan road in ditches. Its really depressing.
When my neighborhood was built the developer was actually required to build the first leg of a bike trail along michigan. It just ends at either side of the subdivision, all of a few hundred feet long. Without an ordinance like this it will never be extended into the commercial stuff to the north and south of us. I hope this passes!
In a democracy, all citizens should have equal access to shared common amenities. This includes the paths of movement, aka roads, which are built on publicly owned land. When a road doesn't have sidewalks, it effectively forbids the use of the public amenity for those who don't have access to a car. We ALL have access to our feet (or hopefully/alternatively assisted movement devices like wheelchairs), therefore every single path of movement should, nay must, include accommodation for pedestrians.
Now the question is: if the developer is required to build the sidewalk, is it public property, or not? And if the public builds the road but doesn't own the land directly adjacent to the road, the public ROW, can we force developers to build on their private land what should be, IMO, a requirement of our use of public funds? I think the paths of movement by ALL modes of transportation should be publicly owned and equally accessible, therefore I don't think we should force the developer to pay for/maintain sidewalks; I think the city/governmental entity should have to do it. NOTE: That doesn't mean we can't force developers to pay much higher fees to cover the cost of sidewalks (which I also think we should be doing! If they want to build on greenfields they can jolly well pay the public ROW costs to get there!).
Properties in the city were assessed for sidewalks, sewers, even street paving in the last century (the hated Barrett Law assessments) and all those improvements were in the public way. Fairness might dictate that the cost of extending those municipal services should be borne (ultimately) by the new residents and businesses, in the form of a levy or mandate on the owners of land at a particular date.
Hitting up all county property owners for new sidewalks could be seen as a double-tax on those areas where property-owners previously paid for their sidewalks. However, if taxpayers outside the old city limits have helped to pay for maintenance and replacement of those original sidewalks inside the old city, it would mitigate the double-tax argument. If people without sidewalks have been paying to maintain them inside the old city, then there is a good case for the city-county government to pay for new sidewalks outside the old city.
That whole corner node functions in a way that proves Indianapolis' parking-lot requirements are ridiculously high for urban neighborhoods. The corner is proof that even moderate density and sidewalks encourage people to walk in their neighborhoods. The long-term stability of Meridian-Kessler (despite popular perceptions about IPS) is due in part to lots of people who choose to live there in part because of the walkability of the area and the presence of corner nodes like the ones all along College.
Secondly, that area of 54th and College should not be considered urban. It's been suburban since it was developed in the 1910s and 1920s. It's the original Indy suburbia designed to accommodate automobiles and people together. It's an example of great zoning that mixed light commercial pockets surrounded by mostly single family dwellings with some multi-family buildings intermixed. This resulted in functional neighborhoods that encourage walking to shopping, dining, entertainment (even schools!!) with convenient automobile access. Moe and Johnny's was a Kroger grocery store and a service station designed to again accommodate automobiles. The Fresh Market compliments the design intent of the neighborhood while slightly (quite literally) elevating the population, or in this case commercial, density. Old suburbia shouldn't be confused for urban and shouldn't be treated with the same development standards that make sense in Center Township or other more verticle areas.
Meridian Kessler looks a whole lot more like Center Township than it looks like Fishers; ignoring obsolescence, blight, and a bit of misguided infill redevelopment around King Park, the development pattern on College Ave. looks pretty much the same from 13th to 62nd.
The development pattern in many of the residential areas of Center Twp. outside downtown is indistinguishable from the College corridor. By today's standards it is undeniably urban: rectillinear street grid, 40-foot urban lots, close spacing and shallow setbacks of homes, rear alleys, and neighborhood schools, churches, and shopping corners.
To correct your history, much of Meridian Kessler was platted in the late 1890s, and many homes were built in the first two decades of the last century before automobiles were commonplace. The area was a streetcar suburb.
What's the misguided development you speak of around King Park?