The developer of an $85 million downtown project faces a delay after its design for a parking garage failed to meet city
approval Thursday morning.
The Indianapolis Regional Center Hearing Examiner denied recommendation of the design and instead gave Flaherty & Collins
Properties more time to resubmit plans that he said needed to be more welcoming to downtown pedestrians.
Approval of the garage design now will be considered at the examiner’s June 14 meeting.
“These are high-traffic roadways,” David DiMarzio said. “We would like these to be more pedestrian-friendly.”
The project, announced in January, originally called for 487 apartments, a Marsh grocery store,
the parking garage and additional retail space on properties bounded by Michigan Street, Capitol Avenue, Vermont Street and
Indiana Avenue. Revised plans call for 330 apartment units.
Overall, the project would replace a block and a half of surface parking lots owned by locally based OneAmerica Financial
Partners Inc., which uses them for employee parking.
The five- or six-story garage would be built at the northwest corner of New York and Illinois streets.
Flaherty & Collins is planning 1,500 square feet of retail space, which could grow to more if there’s enough demand,
said Jim Crossin, the company’s vice president of development.
But two Indianapolis residents who attended the meeting insisted the retail plans are inadequate, especially since city guidelines
say parking garages fronting pedestrian walkways should include “retail shops, restaurants, business services and offices.”
Because the site is within the Regional Center overlay district, the project needs to comply with Regional Center Urban Design
guidelines and requires initial approval by the city’s hearing examiner.
“This particular garage is a less-than-inspiring design,” said Joshua Brewster, who works downtown. “This
simply looks like an ice-cube tray, basically, and I think the downtown deserves more.”
Crossin, however, countered by pointing out that the main purpose of the garage is to serve OneAmerica employees and tenants
of the company’s tower.
“You can’t escape the fact that it is a parking garage, and some things aren’t achievable,” he said.
“By no means is it more than a utilitarian garage, so we think [the design] is appropriate.”
DiMarzio, the hearing examiner, said he could overlook the small amount of retail space if the developer improves the ground-floor
design and provides more landscaping to make the design more pedestrian-friendly.
A groundbreaking is scheduled for this summer.

















IBJ Conversations
20 Comments
Add Comment
(1) The developer is spending the CITY'S money (the city is paying for the cost of the garage), so the city can damn well insist on a quality design.
(2) The LAW requires the proposed building to comply with design standards, and insisting that people follow the law is not giving anyone the "run-around."
(3) A two-week delay to make some minimal aesthetic improvements is hardly a great imposition being imposed on the developer.
(4) If the developer would rather build a crappy building elsewhere with their own money, then they are welcome to pick up and do so.
(4) Indianapolis is a major city, not some podunk town that needs to spread its legs for any developer that throws the place a sideways glance. Indianapolis should insist on the best, not settle for junk. Accepting anything is not going to make Indianapolis grow any faster (not sure where you got that silly notion from), nor is Indianapolis a slow-growth city compared to similarly sized city's in the Midwest.
As a parking garage, the structure is perfectly (and cheaply) suited to a rooftop garden, environmental recharging area wih rain gardens and grassy areas, a crushed stone jogging path and even a bark park! Dowtown workers could enjoy lunch, a book or a walk here, while residents of the related apartment project would have more park space to move us up from 37th out of 40 major cities. One America, Flaherty & Collins and the City need to rethink the huge opportunity that exists here.
Oh really?
http://www.thecoolist.com/parking-garage-design-10-modernist-masterpieces/
I'm disappointed by this reduction in apartments. One of the greatest benefits to the city and to Downtown in particular is that this project would increase density and population. A 33% reduction in units reduces the value of this project by 33%. There's no reason to reduce the number of units. None.
The city is paying for it and gifting it to AUL.
Interesting that the smaller proposed Broad Ripple parking garage costs taxpayers much more than this larger parking garage.