New name for tower: M&I

July 9, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
First IndianaMilwaukee-based M&I Bank has no plans to vacate a 31-story skyscraper in downtown Indianapolis after acquiring its namesake, First Indiana Bank, the CEOs of both companies said today. First Indiana recently renewed its lease, but Marshall & Ilsley hopes to realize cost savings of 20 percent in the merger, so the combined bank still could reduce its space. "The intent would be to be in this building for a considerable period of time," said First Indiana CEO Bob Warrington. The building's New York owners are trying to sell it for $60 million (about $113 per square foot).
ADVERTISEMENT
  • SliderJuly 9, 2007 1:31 PM
    You speculate on the owners of the First Indiana (soon to be M&I) building selling the building...my question - are they going to sell the former and vacant Consolidated Building also, which they also own? It's about time someone redeveloped that property.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • SophiaJuly 9, 2007 9:27 PM
    Another one bites the dust. What a shame. Is Indy left with only one locally headquartered bank now? We can thank our wonderful state legislature for this. While out of state banks were expanding and getting stronger, Indiana banks were tied down by antiquated laws preventing them from expanding across county lines.

    Its painful to see a city like Charlotte booming with real skyscrapers being built and thousands upon thosands of new jobs coming to their dowtown that has a 3% vacancy rate. All because they have banks like BOA and Wachovia headquartered there.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • crankyJuly 11, 2007 1:17 PM
    Although I am hardly impressed with the current crop of legislators, back in the '80's they were only doing what their constituents requested. At that time, there was some very strong lobbying by the small community banks to keep the status quo, which was only to the their detriment in the end. The large city banks lobbied for reform but they were outnumbered by their country cousins.
    Besides, the laws in Ohio were so far ahead of us, that it might not have made a difference. If it's any consolation, things were worse at the time in Illinois, where in Chicago, they were not even allowed to have branches!
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT