Fishers tables $100M project

November 6, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Fishers Town CenterAn Ohio developer and the Town of Fishers have agreed to cancel a 2007 development agreement that called for a $100-million mixed-use project featuring 250,000 square feet of retail space and 150,000 square feet of office. In a statement this week, the city and developer, Fairmount Properties, blamed the project's failure on the economy, tight credit markets and worries about the ability to acquire needed properties "without the town's assistance with eminent domain." The project along 116th Street near Interstate 69 would have required the demolition of about 125 homes. It was originally slated to break ground in Spring 2008. The Town of Fishers plans to hold public meetings to discuss what to do next. More here.
  • Shame... I live in the Ohio town which has a Fairmount-built downtown development on which this plan would have been modeled (see It looks beautiful and has been a huge success. My family lives in Fishers - and, while there this past weekend, was driving on 116th - wondering what had become of the plan. Hopefully, they'll get this plan in gear at some future point.
  • Not a shame for the long-time residents the Fishers Town Council wanted evicted from their homes so they could build their little faux village in their never-ending quest to keep up with Carmel.
  • Yeah, why would anyone live in Fishers when Carmel is close by and soooo much nicer! A bunch of vinyl villages (Fishers) or a newly developed beaufitul downtown (Carmel).
  • Shawn, Carmel didn't have a newly developed beautiful downtown before.... they.... NEWLY DEVELOPED theirs.... either. And Carmel can certainly lay claim to PLENTY of vinyl villages of its own.
  • Oh well.
  • My, how elitest everyone always is on these message boards. There are no more vinyl sided homes in Fishers than there are in Carmel, or Westfield, or Zionsville. Not everyone can afford a custom built fiber cement or brick home, but that doesn't mean that very nice homes cannot include vinyl siding. I can certainly point out many homes with wood siding that are in very poor shape in communities all over Indianapolis.
    It should also be pointed out and applauded that the Town of Fishers chose not to implement eminent domain, but rather put the burden on the developer to come to agreement with the property owners, probably to the detriment of the project. Fishers' leaders showed great leadership and hopefully the future dialogue with the property owners will produce and even greater plan for the town center!
  • Fishers loses again. Their debt spending and relentless pursuit of the losing battle (while spending millions of taxpayer dollars) in forcibly acquiring Geist will be their eventual downfall. Even Republican hegemony is not always a good thing.
  • Time is everything in real estate. Fishers is not competing with Carmel and nether should be feared as far as Indy is concerned. If Indiana and the Metro area area to prosper everyone needs to bring their A games, The urbanophile's comments today on his page was graphic. $75 billion in bonding for mass transit during Tuesdays election and zero of that was for the Midwest,
  • I for one am thrilled that this keeping up with Carmel plan that was not requested by anyone other than our Town Council is history. While some redevelopment of the old town might be welcomed, I think the plan that was being pursued was ridiculous, especially given the state of the economy. And a new development that does not allow for keeping some of the existing storefronts and the Nickel Plate should never happen. It would rip out what little history Fishers has, and that is just wrong.

    I hope the citizens of Fishers come to their senses when the town vs. city question comes on the ballot again. We need a better system of checks and balances than the town manager simply doing whatever the Town Council tells him to do.
  • Fishers gal makes a great point with Fishers. Why are there seven dwarf mayors running around trying to govern the 9th largest town/city in the state and yet they refuse to become a city?? Can it be that the seven little dwarf mayors don't want to give up their so-called power trip?? If there was a true mayor - like Mayor Brainard, Mayor Cook and Mayor Ditslear, maybe Fishers can actually accomplish something!

    And what ever happened with the HUGE River Place project on 96th and Allisonville Rd??
  • River Place is still a strip mall. But it's a NICE strip mall, just like the ones at every other major intersection in Fishers.
  • River place is not a stip mall....nothing has been built.

    The reality is that the whole redevelopment project in the old part of Fishers was brought forward by the Fishers Chamber of Commerce NOT the Town Council.The Town Council was just reacting to what was being initiated by the Chamber.

    Further more the Nickel Plate and the buildings adjacent were NEVER going to be torn down. They were always part of the project. As I stated befor Eminent Domain was NOT going to be used, so no one was going to lose their property who did not want to.

    As far as the whole Mayor/council thing I see merit in both, however what happens if you in fact get a bad mayor or one like Brainard who lies to his citzens about the costs of projects.
  • Another point to consider is the debt to assessed value ratio. This really tells you of the health of local municipalities. So many on here claim Fishers is copying Carmel, but the reality is they are doing no such thing when it comes to finances.

    Carmel does have a higher assessed value, but they have borrowed so much more money that their debt to assessed value ratio is almost 40%higher than Fishers' debt to assessed value. As a matter of fact Fishers cannot exceed a 2% threshold. Noblesville is more than 100% greater than Fishers and Noblesville has a lower assessed value.

    So say what you will about mayors, but the seven dwarf town council has left Fishers in strong fiscal shape.

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