Kosene pitches towers

April 18, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A $130-million retail and residential complex with two towers on either side of Market Street is one of the proposals expected today for redevelopment of the Market Square Arena site. Proposals are due at noon.Chase Tower
The project pictured here would include 180 condo units, 240 apartments, 68,000 square feet of retail space and 880 parking spaces. It is being proposed by a partnership of Kosene & Kosene Residential Inc., Pedcor Cos. and Market Square Equity LLC, which includes Lewis Smoot of Smoot Construction Co., the Ohio-based company that previously tried to develop the site. Smoot owns six acres adjacent to the site, including a parking garage, that could be developed as part of the plans. The project was designed by New York-based Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects.
  • Considering the number of unhappy buyers complaining about poor construction by Kosene on Packarrd, it's a wonder why anyone would want to joint venture with them.
  • I completely agree!
  • It will be interesting to see how this affects further development on the East Market corridor. Will it extend east of the interstate, especially with the Holy Cross resurgence bolstering it to the north.
  • I also purchased new construction from Kosene downtown. The whole experience was just awful. The quality of workmanship was terrible. Had to watch them every step, and then they still screwed things up. Customer service / warranty was rude and non-responsive. Only thing Kosene is interested in is their bottom line, not the quality of their product. If the city is smart, it will choose the Hearthview partnership.
  • I disagree with all the post. I live at the Packard and have had nothing but GREAT response from them re:customer service. Funny how everyone is complaining about them, but you all supposedly live here? Must not be too bad then huh? Or do you really live here, maybe this is a member of Hearthview posting negative comments. Anyways, I live in a Kosene product and have many friends that do as well, and have been very pleased. I think it's a great idea for them to do this product, they already know the market down here.... they know it better than any other developer.
  • And for all we know, you're just a Kosene goon bad-mouthing the competition again. It's all about bottom line for Kosene. They are now asking the city for millions to subsidize these hideously-designed buildings, claiming high-rise living is not financially viable downtown. And partnering with Smoot? I don't think the city will make the same mistake twice.
  • Horrible design! I cannot believe this is the BEST they can do. I know there was anotehr design out there....I only wish more had submitted!
  • As a local real estate professional, I have had extensive exposure to the Kosene product through the years. In all that interaction, I have never known them to strive for anything less than to deliver the very best product possible. I can tell you first-hand that I personally believe their developments to be of superior workmanship and quality when placed side-by-side with those of their competitors.

    While on its face, the Target store seems to be a selling point for the competing proposal, when it comes down to it, if Target desires to locate in this area, I’m sure the Kosene party would gladly tweak their plan to accommodate the store. Assuming that’s the case, I believe the Target store becomes a mute point in the decision.

    I encourage the decision-makers in the Mayor’s office to take the time to thoroughly investigate each developer’s project history and I believe you’ll walk away with the same level of respect for the Kosene product that I’ve come to embrace.
  • While both designs presented today leave me longing for the days when One Market Square was on the table, i personally prefer the Market Square Partners proposal (Kosene). In particular, i like that the design is modern and urban (and does not include the traditional brick facade). I also like that the proposal includes apartments, rather than just condos. By the way, this proposal offers 58,000 sf of retail space vs. 55,000 sf of retail space offered by the competing proposal (excluding Target).

    Everyone is getting too caught up in the fact that Target is a part of the Market-Ability Partners proposal. From what i can tell from the renderings, the Target structure would essentially be separate from the rest of the development (meaning no residential/office above). If this is the case, the City or another developer could do a deal directly with Target and find a more appropriate site dowtown.
  • You live at the Pakard and like it? I guess you are not one of the people who have sound problems or water leaks.
  • If living at the Packard was so bad, I don't think people would live there. Last time I checked the Packard is near full occupancy. Also, if it was so bad I don't think their property values would increase as significantly as they have. The complaints some of you have about Kosene are pretty amazing. Kosene is not alone in asking the city to subsidize the project, Hearthview has also said that they need money from the city. Every other recent project downtown like the Marriott or Conrad have received money from the city. Why shouldn't local developers like Kosene or Hearthview also receive subsidies? What does partnering with Smoot have to do with anything? It wasn't there fault at all that the former MSA project didn't work. Also, it is interesting that a couple people have said that all Kosene is interested in is the bottom line. Why then do their properties cost less per square foot than any other upscale properties downtown? Kosene has more experience in this market than any other developer and has been a pioneer for downtown Indianapolis residential development. There is a reason why their properties sell out.
  • Why shouldn't local developers receive money from the city? Because downtown living is not only viable, but desirable. Kosene received no subsidies for their other downtown projects. If they aren't true believers in highrise living downtown, then they shouldn't be bidding on the project, let alone asking the city to line their pockets.

    Why do Kosene properties cost less per square foot than any other upscale properties downtown? Because they are not truly upscale properties, they are just marketed as such.
  • This is by far the better proposal. Hopefully the city doesn't screw up again like they did with the convention hotel.
  • Joe, if they aren't upscale properties I don't know what is. A standard Hudson unit without upgrades comes with hardwood floors, granite countertops in the kitchen, marble fireplace, marble countertops in the bathrooms, jacuzzi tub in the master bath and stainless steel appliances. These are more upscale standards than are offered by any other developer downtown. Maybe you can enlighten everyone as to what the word upscale means. If this doesn't meet the definition of upscale than there are no upscale properties in downtown Indianapolis.
    I assume Joe by what you say that you do not believe that Market Square should be developed by anyone. No developer is going to meet the city's demands without the city paying for it. Of course Kosene doesn't believe in highrise downtown living in Indianapolis, neither does anyone else which is evidenced by the fact that only 2 developers bid on the most lucrative piece of residential property downtown and both said that the project is only feasible with subsidies. That is why the project has to be subsidized by the city no matter whether Kosene or Hearthview develops the site. I can guarantee you that if the city did not require the property be a high rise neither Kosene nor Hearthview would propose one.
  • [...] and push [MSA redevelopment].” A rendering of one of two proposals is at right. The other is here. Check out the full story here. What do you [...]

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.