Developer drops pursuit of condos

October 10, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lakes at the CrossingA local developer has dropped its effort to buy out 77 condo owners southeast of 86th Street and Keystone Avenue, at least for now. Residents of the condo development, Lakes at the Crossing, received a letter yesterday from developer Gershman Brown & Associates, announcing its attempt to acquire the 23-acre property had ended in failure. Two residents confirmed the letter's arrival. They say the developer, which apparently was working with Simon on redevelopment plans for the prime land near The Fashion Mall at Keystone, had secured contracts with more than 70 percent of homeowners but couldn't reach terms with the others. The developers were offering at least double the residential property value for each unit, making the deal worth potentially $43 million. One of the residents who wanted to stay, Mabel Young, is pictured here. The original post is here.
  • With a Fashion Mall expansion coming online and if the proposed Venu gets built, then that property will be worth a lot more in the next 5 years. I bet those condos won't be sitting there forever.
  • If I were among the 70% who had reached a deal for a price at least TWICE the property value and it fell through because of a few hold outs like Mabel here, suffice i to say that she would not be receiving invites to too many neighborhood block parties.
  • Good! Considering all the other viable areas for redevelopment this is one i'd like to see stay as it is! :)
  • You know, I DO feel really bad sometimes when land gets bought up for redevelopment, and I think there have been many cases where development of a particular area has been a real shame. However, I must admit I was looking at this area on Google Earth to check out the site for Venu, and I couldn't help but think about how cool it would be to develop the southeast corner as well....make it a whole 'pop up city' like someone said about Atlanta. The fourth corner, however, I think should remain untouched. One thing I LOVE about much of the north side of Indy is that there really are a lot of trees. Keep those ones.
  • Wow. With the radioactive lake in her backyard, I'd think Mabel there would have taken anything she could get for the place.
  • Cityfan: you were right about them not being there forever. Maybe they'll be gone in 2050! Getting 70 people to agree to something that's still viable for a developer is usually impossible. Simon knew all along they'd be densifying their mall before going across the street, but of course thier going to let GB take a whack at the assemblage (doesn't waste any Simon rescources).

    Even if they could get the assemblag done I guarantee Venu is in at a better basis in the dirt, better access off of Keystone from 465 traffic, better visability and an easier fight on the rezone.

    My grandkids (I'm 29) might be reading about the redev of those condos!
  • Easy solution and one I bet Simon is doing is quietly buying the condos as the come on line. Not to be morbid, but within 10 years the majority will have died or moved on to nursing homes.

    Simon Properties is patient. They will get what they want eventually.
  • rush4ever: That occurred to me, as well. However, the average age of the people living in the condos is 10-15 years younger than you seem to think. So add 10-15 years to your estimate, and you'll have a better case.


    Given that the Venu project is much closer to becoming reality than Simon's proposal (after all, Venu has its land secured, while Simon was unable to land the entire Lakes at the Crossing parcel), it's too late for Simon to effectively do what it likely wanted to do in the first place: head off the Venu development by securing those corporate and retail entities that would otherwise go to Venu.

    Simon's in a much better position to build up, rather than out -- which is exactly what will happen with its planned expansion of the current Fashion Mall building. The condos are a long, long way from disappearing, and by then, Simon will likely have moved on to parcels that it stands a better chance of getting when it wants and needs them: now.

Post a comment to this blog

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
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. 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.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. 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.