A developer is taking another shot at a condo project along Winthrop Avenue in Broad Ripple. The project was denied at a rezoning
hearing June 20. The Metropolitan Development Commission is scheduled to consider a new plan Wednesday that calls for 23 condos
on 1.5 acres just south of 62nd Street. The developer, PTP Enterprises LLC, has reduced the number of units by two, added
one building and four more parking spaces, and reduced the project height to 30 feet from 35 feet. Will the minor changes
be enough to win approval?
Also Wednesday: The Commission is scheduled to consider an
interim preservation plan for the Cottage Home neighborhood (pictured). The designation would require a limited architectural
and zoning review process by the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission until a final preservation plan is enacted.
The area is just east of I-65/I-70 between Michigan and 10th streets.
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
28 Comments
Add Comment
In another thread several posters bang the drum for transit, but this goes to show that there is no desire or will in Indianapolis for even modest densification even in already established urban neighborhoods. No one wants anything but low density, single family housing, even downtown. The only place where the political will has existed to push through densification is Carmel, where Jim Brainard has staked his political future on the voters not turning against of him on account of it.
This is one of the many reasons that mass transit remains a pipe dream in Indianapolis.
To survive over the long term Broad Ripple needs to have more than dozens of bars and restaurants. People's tastes for entertainment venues can change overnight...to the next hot spot. Having a strong base of homeowners with good, steady incomes is what the area needs...and attractive new construction should be part of the mix.
Urbanophile: you hit the nail on the head! Further, if we don't densify, we die! People of Indy, go to Carmel and really study what their doing up there. It's amazing. As a MK and Broad Ripple lifer it makes me sick to say this but it needs to be heard!
AFTER 29 YEARS OF INDY I'M SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT MOVING OUT OF THE RIP TO CARMEL!! Better schools, way lower taxes, lower crime (sick of people I know getting mugged just because their out at night), and... wait for it.... BETTER NEW URBANIST, WALKABLE COMMUNITIES!!
It's simple: Densify or Die!!!
I live there. My home was built in the 1890s, as were many in the Cottage Home neighborhood. What is your definition of historic? Do a little research before talking out your ass.
There may well be structures in Cottage Home that fall under that definition, but simply declaring any old building or area historic is not appropriate.
On October 3, 2007, the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted to list the Cottage Home area to the Marion County Register of Historic Places and recommend that the Metropolitan Development Commission incorporate the Cottage Home Interim Conservation Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Marion County.
Yeah, what would the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION know about something being historic.
Just because something is not well-known to YOU, doesn't mean that others should be limited by your lack of knowledge.
I maintain that this historic districts, as well as many of the others in Indianapolis, are not about bona fide history protection, but about giving neighborhood organizations almost dictatorial land use control powers that they'd never have under standard rules of zoning. Open any month's edition of the Urban Times and you'll find that the IHPC pays incredible deference to neighborhood association views on new development, nothwithstanding that few if any of the people in those associations are qualified historic preservations experts. The vast majority of the time those neighborhood associations are primarily concerned only about the density of development. Ironically, I've seen strong endorsements of new development with contemporary architecture - as long as it is low density and in keeping with the neighbors views of land use in the neighborhood, which almost always means nothing but single family homes.
If this was really about history, then the neighbor's views wouldn't count for anything. Why should a project be deemed compatible with history just because the Chatham Arch neighbors voted in favor instead of opposed to it? Rather, the city would seek independent review from qualified historians who don't have a stake in the outcome and base decisions purely on that, not the residents land use vision. The place for land use discussion, where residents can and should be involved, is through the planning and zoning process.
Nice straw man.
It was YOUR position that: clearly my definition of historic is simply “old.†When, in fact, that was never the entire basis for deeming Cottage Home historic. I have heard no argument why Cottage Home should NOT be considered historic - in so much that any grouping of land/houses can be such (vs. Chatham Arch, Fletcher Place?).
Not out for a fight; just low to deflate blow-hards once in a while.
Heh.
I fail to see the irony? Seems consistent to me. As long as it is low density and doesn't overwelm the existing structures, new structures wouldn't necessarily have to mimic older styles.
And it also seem incredibly logical that those LIVING in a neighborhood SHOULD have the greatest stake/say in its development - not some outside process. I say more power to the people. Unless you have some underlying tie to the process, and its loss of power - how does this affect you? Just curious.
One of the important counterpoints to raise about dense development is that it needs to be done with an eye to preservation of porous surfaces that grow grass and BIG trees. 100 percent coverage eliminates tree canopy and landscaping (even with green roofs, unless they're built to carry massive weight loads), and one of the main attributes of that area (I lived and worked just a couple of blocks away for 20+ years) is that you can't see the ground from the air in summer when the trees are leafed out. Those neighborhood attributes aren't just nice to have, they are imperative to reduce energy consumption and stormwater runoff.
Process is very important. That's why due process of law is a fundamental right. It is all about the rule of law, not the rule of an un-elected, un-accountable commissariate.
The key to the rule of law is that it involves general rules that provide a clear guide to compliance. Zoning is just like that. You know what is allowed, what you are required to do, and what is not allowed. These historic districts subvert the rule of law by allowing completely arbitrary judgements by commissars (i.e., the IHPC). There is no way to know in advance if you're project complies or not - it is basically a popularity or beauty contest. This is the exact opposite of the rule of law. This is one of the many, many problems with historic districts in Indy.
Actually, I should note that I don't advocate high density development Indy, which is out of character with the city. But some level of modest densification is desireable to support more vibrant neighborhoods and possible better transit. Remember, household sizes were much larger in the past. The decline in average household size means we need to increase the dwelling units per acre just to stay even.
Our second homeowner has just moved in and the third is anxiously awaiting completion on theirs. We just completed our ready move in home with the Essex in 7-C, it turned out beautifully with the hard wood floors and
granite. It is now ready for someone to move right in!
So, if you haven't stopped by to take a look at The Townes at Winthrop, I hope you do soon!
Mike
Next up: folks will learn to love Bedford-stone ranch houses with breezeways, low-pitched hip roofs, picture windows, and sea-foam green living rooms. LOL.
Urbanophile wrote: If this was really about history...the city would seek independent review from qualified historians who don’t have a stake in the outcome and base decisions purely on that, not the residents land use vision. The IHPC has a staff that writes reports and recommendations for each case. According to their website, the staffers all hold advanced degrees in history, historic preservation, or planning.
Regarding the implication that there is something wrong about the commission approving contemporary-looking architecture in historic districts: a basic tenet of preservation is the idea that architecture should be a reflexion of the time in which it was built. Any architecture student who takes an introductory course in historic preservation learns as much.
Urbanophile seems to be saying that there should be no public process through which concerned neighbors can voice their opinion. I agree with SCUBA--when you take away the voice of those who live and work in an area, that's when there's really something wrong with the process.
I hope that as my neighborhood(Cottage home) developes, we will preserve our wooden victorians to keep the charm that drew people here in the first place.
Broad Ripple has been settled at least as long as Cottage Home, maybe longer. Its origins date to the digging of the Central Canal in the early 1800's and there are several historically significant structures.
What is worth preserving there is the whole urban fabric...the village feel. Just as the main reason to preserve Cottage Home is that it's a neighborhood of cottage homes.
Personally I reject the elitist approach of saying a place is historically significant only because some prominent citizen(s) had his/her home there or because an important event occurred there, or of saying a place isn't worthwhile because of how it looks now. Our past, present, and future are all a part of the urban fabric.
ryan, I totally agree about the old Marathon and Marco's site. I live in Warfleigh and every time I go by that corner I imagine a 5-7 story building on the site, retail at the ground, condos above, STREET TREES on both sides (why does BR ave not have any street trees?!?). It could make the intersection feel so much more like the gateway that it is.
Density in BR would be wonderful - it is already the most livable community in the city IMO - where else can you walk to an organic grocery store? And more density would bring in more services for those of us who live there.