Developers pitch Meridian Street infill

October 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Meridian Street InfillTwo local developers have plans to replace downtown parking lots along Meridian Street with new mixed-use buildings. Jupiter Land Group, headed by restaurateur Rick Coombes, wants to build a five-story retail and condo building (shown here) between the five-story Bright Building, a recent condo conversion, and the three-story Coffin & Co. Building, home to Krieg Brothers Religious Supply. A few blocks south, Sideline Properties recently filed plans for a two-story structure with an open-air party deck on the second floor, between Crackers Comedy Club and Ice Ultra Lounge. A rendering of the project shows a Hot Box Pizza on the first floor. Developer Jim Siegel, a partner in Sideline, also is an investor in Hot Box. Check out the full story here.
  • The 5 story development is nice. Would like to see higher but it matches the surrounding building. The 2 story development I'm not fond of. Too low-rise in my opinion.
  • I like the 5-story project, but a 2-story structure in downtown? They're joking, right? Aside from it not fitting in with the height of ANYTHING around it, how can it possibly be profitable to build just 2 stories tall on downtown land?
  • I'd like to see them put in a Pink Taco next to Hot Box.

    Indy needs more quality Mexican cuisine.
  • Am I understanding the article correctly, in that the second floor of the two-story proposal would be completely be open-air, save for the facade?

    If so, that's a stretch calling it two stories. Still -- and if my interpretation is correct in the first place -- I'd think that the base structure would/could support additional floors as the future demanded it.
  • Two story structures have no place inside the main core of our CBD! There shoudl be a requirement that they all be at least 5-stories.

    As for the taller project, this is solid infill. Yes, I want to see highrises and in-your-face crane construction, but this is what Indy needs to really shore-up the street presence of our DT. Hopefully more retail starts going in outside of Circle Centre and not restaurants.
  • The 5 story infill looks nice. The faux 2 story (really, 1 story with a roof deck) doesn't sound so nice.
  • Indiana Jones, I am pretty sure the project is two stories, with a an outdoor deck either on top of the second floor or as part of the second floor. The entire second floor won't be an outdoor deck.
  • Either way it sounds like a VERY bad idea for Downtown.
  • You are correct, cityfan. Thanks.
  • i like the 5 story project. 2 stories in downtown is pretty lame, but it is better than
    a parking lot.
  • They're idiots
  • #11: If ?Rick Coombes is involved, yes, they are all idiots. Although he's called a restaruanteur in this post, he hasn't had an original idea EVER.
  • If Sideline Properties (aka Jim Siegel) is involved, BEWARE!!!
    Run away as fast as possible - nothing good will come from the project....
  • All cities have random out-of-place two-story buildings amongst the tall ones. It's not the end of the world, and it's better than a parking lot. OF COURSE, I'd like to see something way cooler, but EVERY in-fill building that goes downtown can't be spectacular.

    I think the problem is that we haven't seen even ONE 'spectacular' in-fill building yet. Does anyone know of any examples of cool in-fill buildings elsewhere? Maybe we could shoot some ideas to potential in-fillers.
  • The Maxwell will be pretty sweet infill! Won't it?
  • I can honestly say to me this project is a complete waste of space.
    It is one of those structures that will be an eyesore in a decade, and instead of trying to fit in with the two timeless buildings it sits between, it has to stick out like a sore thumb and make its apperance as a ground up bottle and spikes.
    Highrises are one thing, but 5 story infill? Can we atleast get some craftsmanship or beauty in this thing?
    Heck, I'm starting to wonder if the parking lot looks nicer than this thing.

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. 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.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. 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.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.