The Nature Conservancy
broke ground Thursday for its new Indiana headquarters. The organization still needs to raise most of the $4.4 million cost
of the building, but a "significant" contribution from the Efroymson Family Fund means construction can begin. The building
will be called the Efroymson Conservation Center. The group currently has 30 employees and rents 8,000 square feet in the
Harrison Center for the Arts at 1505 N. Delaware St. The new building is planned for 620 E. Ohio St. The full story is here.
Also today, a couple of restaurant items:
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
49 Comments
Add Comment
The stuff going on in suburbia could learn a few things from this, from what I can see.
A wise man once said, If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand.
What makes it a suburban building?
It has a giant parking lot behind it. It is setback significantly from the street. It has a yard in front of it. It has a bigger yard in back. It is setback from neighboring buildings. Its primary entrance is in the rear. It is a low-rise, single tenant, single-use building.
Furthermore, it looks like one of Speedway's elementary schools.
Think I'm kidding? Check it out:
http://www.speedway.k12.in.us/images/buildingpics/newby.jpg
Where can one see the comprehensive plan for Marion County? Is it online somewhere or do I need to go to Madison Plaza or the City-County building?
The attributes I listed above, together in one development, most definitely define suburban.
I agree with you, urban has nothing to do with steel, glass, flashiness, or starchitecture.
And I said nothing about that in my post.
---
By the way:
Innovative green design features ≠urban
Fitting in nicely with its neighbors ≠urban
Good things, yes. Urban, no.
Ableblock you should post your PhD thesis on urban design. I am shocked you don't realize energy and environmental efficiency is a cornerstone of most of the new urban construction. In fact the Empire state building is undergoing investment in energy efficiency. BTW was the wise man you?
And, to be clear, I know you didn't say anything about the flashy starchitecture in your post, lol. But I have read many posts begging why the project wasn't more inspired.
You're right, energy efficient, environmentally friendly design is a huge trend right now and is quickly becoming a necessary component of many construction projects, be they urban, suburban, or rural, residential or corporate.
That being said, how does being environmentally friendly make something urban? Didn't urbanity exist before this green trend?
Think of it in relation to this: Does having eyes make one a woman?
Or are there more specific criteria for being defined as such?
When an attribute such as green design is found in both urban and suburban settings, it doesn't help define either word. Therefore, it shouldn't be included in their definitions.
Go to Indy.gov and search for Comprehensive plan. It was the 4th link down for me.
http://www.indy.gov/egov/city/dmd/planning/services/land/Pages/comp_plan.aspx
To see the actua;l maps:
Indy.gov - DMD - Division of Planning - Maps - Land Use
Heres the link to the actuall maps
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DMD/Planning/Maps/Pages/land-use.aspx
Here's another aerial perspective of the rear that helps illustrate the lawn in the front. It's about 15' wide.
http://tinyurl.com/dfcwzj
Don't get me wrong people, this is a simple, attractive building. It's not like it's The Villagio. ;-) I also applaud The Nature Conservancy for remaining downtown.
But there's no denying the fact that this building been designed with campus-style, suburban sensibilities.
And that's not a good thing for downtown's DNA.
This might be green design, in a certain qualified sense
This might be decent architecture
But it is not an urban building and does not belong downtown.
Of course, when no one demands anything better, why bother? The Nature Conservancy doesn't care, the city doesn't care, the funders don't care.
The thing is, when people locally don't care about what kind of built environment they create, people in other cities will decide that they don't care to live in Indianapolis. Isn't it curious that after 35 years of billions and billions of dollars in investment in downtown, Center Township land outside of the core of downtown is mostly worthless and you can barely get even commercial development done without tax subsidies? The built environment of downtown Indianapolis is in far too many places incapable of generating self-sustaining urban life. Buildings like this only perpetuate the problem.
It's good that we can do things, but it matters what it is we do.
PS: As a non-profit, this large lot is probably being taken off the tax rolls indefinitely too. Nice.
URBANO: This probably (or clearly) is suburban style architecture. But this 9 to 12 block area is sorely lacking in green space, so I would give the NC a break for an attractive building with quite a bit of green; so long as newer developments are mixed-use and more street-engaged (similar to the Maxwell.) The parking situation is unfortunate. I supose comprehensive planning and implementation north of Market St would be the only solution so above and below ground parking structures could be built. Couldn't this have been done prior to the ramp removal project?
What would you have to complain about if I didn't say anything? ;-)
I'm continually amazed that some people are so adverse to the legitimate criticism of inanimate objects and the expression of personal opinion. It's not personal, please stop taking it that way.
Urban development and architecture are human institutions particularly steeped in the tradition of critiquing. It's part of the game and how things are improved.
(Also, Is the name-calling really necessary? This isn't candyland. People do think differently and have varying levels of experience.)
In the real world, constructive criticism is boss. Telling people how they screwed up doesn't help to change how things are improved. It just pizzes people off. And legitimate solutions for the so-called problems brought up through property lines are so few and far between.
It's been said a lot, and clearly it's not what this blog is about, but people critiquing really need a lesson in how criticism is improved to become something better than a fist swipe in anonymous-land.
But then no one would read the comments : )
You were obviously offended by my 1st comment because you're throwing it back in my face. :-)
I'm not attacking the greening of urban design. On the contrary, I fully support it. The funny thing is, true urban development has historically been more energy efficient because it supports pedestrianism and uses land more efficiently.
But that's not my main point.
Let me ask you another question: If I build a LEED-certified, energy-efficient barn downtown, does that make the barn an urban development?
Just because The Nature Conservancy's headquarters are downtown and they're using progressive green techniques in its construction does not make this an urban development.
Rather, it's an energy efficient, potentially LEED-certified, but still very suburban development in the regional center of the nation's 14th largest city.
I take issue with this building because every time a development such as this is built, it erodes the urban fabric of downtown. Developments such as this make it easier for future low-density, large parking lot, large setback developments to happen that's a bad thing for any city.
Sorry folks, it does not pass the straight-face test.
Your point is taken, but this blog isn't a call from developers asking how to improve their projects.
I know you're just having fun, but I can't help but point out your hypocrisy: You're scolding us for being blunt in our assessments and not using constructive criticism, yet you start your post with name-calling and a frank assessment of our abilities to critique effectively. According to your rules, how is that supposed to change anything?
C'mon man, look in the mirror. :-)
That being said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the actual project. :-)
Like K Macdonald said: old doesn't equal historic. Some old things NEED to come down. I'm glad that this building was one that did.
Downtown Indy may be somewhat urban now, at least in the Mile Square, but the more developments like this one - parking lot, parking lot side entry, set back from the street, for heaven's sake LAWNS - the less urban it will be.
Someone above decried a lack of greenspace in this neighborhood. Again, confusion: urban greenspace is not a lawn strip in front of a building or next to a parking lot. Urban greenspace is occupiable outdoor space in the middle of a dense built area. IMO, even street trees and hanging planters offer more green than a lawn strip.
I think this is an attractive building, but its siting is, for an urban core, a disaster.
So what kind of carry out deals is Scotty's featuring this week?
Front yards are not appropriate for commercial buildings in an urban center, period.
The Nature Conservancy may be oblivious, but Axis should know better.
--
Someone on skyscrapercity.com suggested The Nature Conservancy follow Kosene and Kosene's lead with The Maxwell, just two buildings west. The Maxwell engages the street in a more appropriate way, with on-streetparking that helps separate pedestrians from the street, a tree-line, and a wide sidewalk that engages the building directly. I think that's a good idea.
I'd love to see stormwater planters throughout downtown (see Indy Cultural Trail), just not as front yards.
A more efficient and urban use of Stormwater planters (or yards, if you must) is to separate the sidewalks and buildings from the streets, not the buildings from the sidewalks. They create an aesthetically-pleasing, environmentally friendly barrier between pedestrians automobiles.
We've got the order wrong in Indy. Instead of: building-yard-sidewalk-road, it should be: building-sidewalk-greenspace-road.
Good urban design is about squeezing multiple uses out of limited space and resources.
IF we are serious about reducing the urban heat island effect, warm stormwater discharges to Fall Creek and White River, and the volume of CSO, we must design in some soft surfaces around buildings...even in the CBD.
--
The only lawn at the site will be the green roof?
We'll see about that. :-)
KRYS: The level of 'I'm an urban design expert' snobbery can be unbearable at times. The link you posted is a dead-end but I posted the real link above. Thanks! Lots of positive environmental and energy conserving features are listed. Still some moderate adjustments to the design might have been appropriate since this is an area where density and mixed use should be the norm.
Folks, take a look at the Google Map ariel shot of the block. Notice that the NC building will be offset with a strip of grass in front just the same as all its neighbors. Maybe not IDEAL design but will look more appropriate. As the area continues to redeveloped side walks could be moved back from the street to engage the building facades better, and planters with Indiana native plants could be installed. In fact enough room to slightly widen the ROW and place a landscaped median along OHIO since its a major exit for those traveling downtown from the NE suburbs.
:-)