New name for tower: M&I

July 9, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
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).
  • You speculate on the owners of the First Indiana (soon to be M&I) building selling the 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.
  • 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.
  • 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!

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing:

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.