Art gallery planned for Washington Street building

July 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The new owners of a pre-Civil War building at 42 E. Washington St. are renovating the historic four-story structure with plans to open a high-end art gallery in October.

Jim and Linda Hunter are demolishing the building’s interior and are awaiting state approval before beginning construction. They’ve already received approval from the city’s planning department and Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission on their plans to revitalize the building.

42 E. Washington
                              history 225px(A sketch of the new design and images of the building through the years are at right.)

The building, one of downtown’s oldest surviving structures, will receive a new façade and an arched entry. Interior plans call for removing a portion of the floor separating the first and second levels to create a mezzanine-type entrance that was part of its original design.

The first-floor art gallery will sell museum-quality art pieces that one might find in New York or Miami, Jim Hunter said. An art and entertainment business will be housed on the second level.

Hunter is unsure how much they will invest in the property but described the renovation as a “significant upgrade.”

The building has been mostly vacant for years, except for an occasional first-floor retail tenant (most recently a jewelry store). A prior owner of the building attempted to brick over the windows in 2011 before the city issued a stop-work order. The Antonopoulos family ultimately completed a stabilization project before selling the property to the current owners, who live in Johnson County.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • very nice
    Great news for downtown!
  • Boost for the Block
    This block of Washington St. has struggled over the years. Compared to West Washington its like night and day. Many of the buildings are in disrepair. The block lacks an architectural consistency. This renovation will definitely help. Someone please develop the large parking lot across the street. This site really needs an infill development to complete Washington St.
  • upper levels
    Thanks for the update, Scott. Any ideas what they'll be doing with the upper two floors?
  • 1918 photo incorrect?
    Are you sure that's the same building in the photo labelled "1918"? That building has five stories. The article and other photos reference a building with four stories.
    • It is 5 stories tall
      Bill, it appears that the drawing is a bit inaccurate. The building is 5 stories tall. That can be seen by walking or driving by it, so the 1918 picture really is of the building in question.
      • Demo of fifth floor
        The fifth floor will be removed. It had been added to the structure sometime late 1800s, early 1900s and is causing severe foundation pressure to the rest of the building.
      • additional information on building
        Here's a link to additional information about this building that appeared on the "Historic Indianapolis" blog. The fifth floor was added sometime before 1880 to the building (hence the difference between the 1850s drawing and the 1918 photo). http://historicindianapolis.com/then-now-40-e-washington-street/

      Post a comment to this blog

      COMMENTS POLICY
      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
      ADVERTISEMENT
      1. Aaron is my fav!

      2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

      3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

      4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

      5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

      ADVERTISEMENT