Columbia Club strikes deal with Indianapolis Chamber

 IBJ Staff
February 20, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

The historic Columbia Club is attempting to reverse its membership slide by teaming up with the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce.

The not-for-profit on Monument Circle announced its initiation fees will be waived for all chamber members. That’s a substantial discount, since Columbia Club initiation fees have soared as high as $1,500 in the past.

The promotion applies to employees of any business that belongs to the chamber. The new offer provides that the Columbia Club’s monthly dues will also be lowered 30 percent for new members’ first year. The discounted dues range from $60 to $130, depending on the member’s age. The club still charges a $100 application fee for all new members.

The Columbia Club The venerable club on Monument Circle is waiving initiation fees and discounting dues for Chamber of Commerce members. (IBJ File Photo)

Originally organized in 1889 by Col. Eli Lilly to support Gen. Benjamin Harrison’s presidential campaign, the Columbia Club has long cultivated an aristocratic atmosphere, where doormen guard access to Indianapolis’ elite. But that reputation has shrunk with its membership.

The club offers three restaurants, two lounges, 96 overnight rooms, business meeting space and a fitness center. But it has only about 1,600 members. That’s 24-percent lower than two years ago, and about half its peak in the late 1990s. In September, the Columbia Club hired a new general manager, James Rentschler. According to its most recent annual tax statement, the Columbia Club lost $108,756 in 2007 on $7.5 million in revenue.


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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!