The Old Northside Neighborhood Association is fighting an administrative
approval of plans to build a CVS pharmacy at the southeast corner of 16th and Meridian streets. The Metropolitan Development
Commission will consider the appeal at its meeting on July 2. Among the group's concerns: The plans don't include an entrance
at the intersection, and the approval doesn't include a stipulation that customers leaving the store's drive-through must
turn right onto 16th Street. The DPW intends to allow only right turns, said Jeff York, a senior city planner. As for the
other issue, CVS has a security concern about adding a second entrance, York said. The pharmacy's entrance is planned for
the rear, facing the store's parking lot. The neighborhood group wants a layout more friendly to pedestrians.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
The Old Northside Neighborhood Association is fighting an administrative
approval of plans to build a CVS pharmacy at the southeast corner of 16th and Meridian streets. The Metropolitan Development
Commission will consider the appeal at its meeting on July 2. Among the group's concerns: The plans don't include an entrance
at the intersection, and the approval doesn't include a stipulation that customers leaving the store's drive-through must
turn right onto 16th Street. The DPW intends to allow only right turns, said Jeff York, a senior city planner. As for the
other issue, CVS has a security concern about adding a second entrance, York said. The pharmacy's entrance is planned for
the rear, facing the store's parking lot. The neighborhood group wants a layout more friendly to pedestrians.
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
liek the rest of America
-
These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.
-
It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.
-
No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.
-
whoa!
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
42 Comments
Add Comment
offense, but this thing is a HUGE improvement on the run down IHOP. I want
to see this built.
This is a CVS at 16th and Meridian in Indianapolis, 2008, not the general store and saloon across from the OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ, 1881.
I applaud the neighborhood group for pushing for more-excellent, pedestrian-friendly urban design.
Good intentions by the neighborhood assoc., but if it reduces the economic utility of the development, they're going to have to live with a rear-entrance.
CVS is a corporation that would easily be able to afford these types of changes, and the only way to get good demand is through regulations because business is not working for the benefit of the community but instead for the benefit of the company.
Does anyone really believe that the majority of the customers at this store will be walkers? This isn't downtown (where there IS a pedestrian-oriented CVS); there aren't 50,000 people working within blocks. This site is at the corner of two busy streets where almost 50,000 cars pass by every day. The reality of it is, most of the customers will arrive by car even though they have the choice of walking or arriving on one of five buslines that pass within a block.
I assume this also means the IHOP is going away. Could they include the Original Pancake House in the CVS? Then I'd be excited...
http://www.sustainableindustries.com/greenbuilding/19835304.html
http://www.chhip.org/bldg_broadwaypine.asp
I honestly don't see why Marcus and givemeabreak and others resort to such hyperbole. In my view, the Walgreen's replaced an eyesore; there's no more parking on that site than before. Likewise with CVS. Neither is horrible or awful. The cookie-cutter tan-EIFS CVS stores at 38th & Emerson, 56th & Emerson, 71st and Binford...THOSE are awful. Likewise the cookie-cutter-tan-EIFS fake-gabled Walgreen's all over town. Awful. But...people spend money there, so it reinforces their store merchandising layout and they have little incentive to change it. In my view, what Walgreen's built and what CVS proposes is better than anything else they have in town in terms of site plan and materials/facade; no one has pointed to anything better in this whole debate here and on other development forums around town. (That is not to say that I find nothing to criticize about them, but that's not my purpose here.)
As I've said in other posts on other subjects, these aren't likely to be hundred-year buildings...more like 20-30. So when it's economically feasible to do more dense development at that corner (i.e. when downtown creeps that far north across all the surface parking lots and junky buildings that still exist today), both Walgreen's and CVS will be functionally obsolete and ready for redevelopment. In the meantime, both are (or will be) generating pedestrian and car traffic at the retail node, both are generating jobs and wage taxes, both are generating sales and property taxes, and both are as convenient to public transportation and pedestrians as anything in Indianapolis can be.
Economic activity is good; it beats the alternative. If you don't believe me, ask the people who are trying to revitalize any number of other parts of Indianapolis: South Madison's Miracle Mile, the Lafayette Road/Lafayette Square area, East and West Washington Streets, East 10th, and MLK.
Too bad CVS and Walgreens (who I assume will follow with their own urban-friendly cookie-cutter design) didn't do this earlier. Would have made downtown Brownsburg look better, cookie-cutter or not....
Many fabulous opinions I have to add.
However, developers go with demand and what makes economic sense. The rest is just extra.
The fact that they built up to the sidewalk and added a sort of fake second floor is a pretty big win.
However, people shouldn't just 'settle' for what they get if they can get better but people should not be snobbish either.
The city of Indianapolis and it's citizens make profit for CVS.
If anything, the city is doing it a favor so asking for little things like a second entrance or a more interesting facade shouldn't be too much to ask. It isn't like people are asking for a 45 story mixed-use tower.
An entrance facing the intersection would make a lot of sense is pedestrian traffic increases but the security risks turn off the developers.
I would like to see a health food store or grocer near this area for residents of the Old North and downtown but that probably doesn't make economic sense.. yet.
Big-box retailers have standard product lines, standard merchandising layouts, and thus standard floor-plans for their stores. Tinkering with exterior look and feel (without moving the exterior elements too far) is possible, but reorganizing the interior layout messes with their store's ongoing operations and profitability. That's where I draw the within reason line. The store should have the maximum opportunity to succeed, not be hamstrung from the start with an inefficient or insecure layout.
It is pretty obvious to me that a store generating jobs and tax revenue is a better occupant at 16th and Meridian than a crappy run-down restaurant and a state corrections office.
I don't deal in it could be SOOO much better if only they changed everything I don't like about it or what we (I) REALLY want on that corner is (fill in blank).
This is the deal on the table, and I really believe that it is (a) much better than what is there today, and (b) at least as good as the competitor's site across the street, and much better from a 16th St. perspective.
A grocer, a mixed-use developer, or anyone else could have tried to put a deal together to locate there. But the market says a big-box national retailer is what makes sense there in 2008.
AND, I am sure I am in the minority, but I will hate to see IHOP gone. Yes, its a nasty building with even nastier food, but that building is almost iconic to me as it has always been there. When I was a kid and we would head downtown, the IHOP was my indicator that we were in the city. That style of IHOP is a dinosaur, so why not build the same way for the new one?
Every city has its issues with people opposing density.
Its quiet typical really.
As more people moved downtown they are going to have to accept density.
Its just how things work. Eventually even the neighborhood groups can't oppose x amount of townhouses or if a development has street level retail.
Thunder, you keep trying and trying and trying to sell this CVS, but it aint working. Have you not ever been in two CVS stores that weren't laid out identically? They aren't all the exact same size or layout. And if they had to have identical design, then they would locate their door on A CORNER, any corner, because every freestanding CVS I can think of, has their entrance at A CORNER of the store. HMMM?
But for this special urban CVS, it is in the middle of the south facade. It seems like CVS is more interested in making sure the door is as close as possible to as many parking spaces as possible, than they are concerned about not deviating from their standard interior layout.
I imagine you'll tell us that's great also, because they know what's best for that corner, because they are the market at work. Of course, you'd have a hard time finding anybody to say that following the market would have been the right decision when a two-story bookstore building was proposed (and not accepted by the City) for the eventual site of the Conrad. The market doesn't always provide the development that is in the public interest. That's one of the reasons we have zoning.
2. Illinois and Washington isn't in this discussion. Neither is Avon. Try to address my points: it's better than what's there now, it's at least a little better than its competitor across the street, and nothing impedes pedestrian access as at McDonald's across the street.
3. Development in the public interest is applicable to publicly-owned land, like the MSA site. Not this land, which is privately-owned and appropriately zoned for what the developer wants to build.
The dissenters seem to claim that design of a building is the be-all and end-all of city planning and progress. A city should look like New York or Tokyo, and if a particular building doesn't fit their Socratic image of what urban development is, then don't build and dream of your own 115 story Spire. Personally, I think that's counter-productive because it looks at city development on a lot by lot basis instead of the grand picture.
I don't object to an appropriately designed pharmacy, but I'm not convinced that what they're proposing is better than what's there. No, what's there might not be ideal, but at least the IHOP actually faces a street and, although I don't think they use the front door, at least it has windows that allow activity inside and out to be seen from both streets. (And since I've never eaten there, I'm not one who has any fond childhood memories of this place.)
If this CVS, as proposed, is what passes for improvement and economic development (just think of all those jobs that will be brought over from Illinois & 18th), then I guess I need to crawl into a cave and take a long nap.
Agreeing with you also means ignoring that the proposed CVS on Meridian is better than the one it replaces on Illinois, which is a suburban-strip-mall store with its parking in the front yard. The proposed parking lot and entry comply with the Regional Center design guidelines at the new site, and they don't at the old site. Better development.