IBJNews

City, development group agree to protect Mallory site

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city and a neighborhood development group have agreed to seek historic protection for a four-acre industrial complex they hope will be a catalyst for redevelopment of a stretch of East Washington Street.

The centerpiece of the P.R. Mallory complex at Washington and Gray streets is a three-story, 125,000-square-foot brick structure that’s been vacant for decades. The building and four smaller structures on the site are owned by Southeast Neighborhood Development, a not-for-profit that’s working with the city to convert the complex from an eyesore into a magnet for neighborhood jobs.

SEND, the city and state historic preservation officials recently signed a memorandum of agreement to seek protection for the structures by placing them under the jurisdiction of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and by nominating them to the National Register of Historic Places.

It could take as long as three years to put the historic protections in place, but SEND and its partners aren’t waiting that long to promote redevelopment of the site.

REW_Mallory_15colEfforts are under way to redevelop the former headquarters of battery-maker P.R. Mallory. (IBJ Photo/Perry Reichanadter)

Julie Beaubien, SEND’s interim executive director, said her group is working toward issuing a request for proposals late this summer or early fall to find a developer or developers interesting in rehabilitating the main Mallory Building.

“The Mallory building is a major redevelopment challenge and opportunity,” said Mark Dollase, vice president of preservation services for Indiana Landmarks, which has been advising SEND on the project. The building could be used as office or light industrial space or could accommodate apartments.

SEND and the city have been working on acquiring the various Mallory properties over the last three years.

Other structures on the site that would be protected by IHPC are a small power house, the Mallory employee cafeteria building, a gatehouse and a smokestack that is a landmark in the neighborhood.

The property also includes undeveloped land that abuts Washington Street. That site was cleared last year by SEND and the city using federal grant money to demolish a former dry cleaner and clean up contamination of the site. Another building within the boundaries of the proposed historic district will be demolished soon because it is considered too deteriorated to save.

Immediately south of the proposed historic district is a city-owned, 60,000-square-foot building that could have a tenant soon. Beaubien said her group is negotiating with a company interested in occupying it and bringing jobs to the neighborhood. She wouldn’t identify the potential tenant.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Mallory site hosted baseball fields where the Indianapolis Indians played their first games. It was later the site of Wonderland, an amusement park that was destroyed by fire in 1911.

General Electric built the main building in 1921, but never moved in. Mallory bought it from GE in 1929 as a location for its tool-forging operation. Mallory, which later manufactured its trademarked Duracell battery there, expanded the complex in the 1930s and 1940s and employed 1,500 at the site by 1966.

Employment began to decline in the 1970s as Mallory sold off various business units. All that remains is CMW Inc., which bought Mallory’s electrical-contact manufacturing operation in 1978. CMW, which also produces high-density metals and welding products, employs about 110 people in buildings that were formerly part of the Mallory complex. Those buildings are south of the proposed historic district and are not part of the redevelopment effort.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • FORD-RETIREE
    WE NEED TO SAVE THIS BUILDING TOO MALLORY WAS PARTNERS WITH FORD TO MAKE THE BATTARYS AND OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS.
  • the old mallory
    yes please save it we want to save the old ford building on washington to at the 1300 block
  • Toxic
    The city wants to buy a former duracell battery plant that was shuttered decades ago because of environmental contamination and they are considering putting apartments on the property?

    The city needs to think real hard before they take this property off the tax roles and pick up millions in environmental clean up costs that belong to others.

    Perhaps an EPA enforcement action is more appropriate.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT