Shuttered Shapiro's space in Carmel 'mothballed' for now

July 2, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shapiro’s Delicatessen has left the building.

The venerable restaurant closed its location at 918 S. Range Line Road in Carmel for good on June 16 and company leaders handed over the keys within a week.

President Brian Shapiro also gave up an ownership stake in the brick building that launched the Carmel City Center redevelopment project in 2001. Three years ago, the Carmel Redevelopment Commission bought Shapiro’s $2.5 million mortgage, and the company began making payments to the CRC.

But the deli still struggled to make ends meet, and on June 12 Shapiro’s announced it would close the 11,500-square-foot Carmel eatery to focus on its flagship restaurant in downtown Indianapolis. The move allowed the deli to avoid foreclosure.

CRC Executive Director Les Olds said the agency is drafting a request for proposals to solicit new uses for the building, which is being “mothballed” in the meantime. City staff will maintain the property, and Olds said utilities will be reduced to the bare necessities to keep costs down.

Commission President Bill Hammer said other restaurant operators already have expressed interest in the bulding.

“There has been a lot of restaurant development in Carmel, and this is an opportunity for someone else to come in,” he told IBJ.

If that were to happen, what dining concept—or specific restaurant—would be at the top of your wish list?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Shapiro's
    What do I want in the former Shapiro's space? Shapiro's!
    • Ditto
      I want Shapiro's, too!
    • Come back to West 86th Street
      I would like to see Shapiro's reopen a location on W. 86th Street in Indianapolis which it closed when it moved to Carmel.
    • Agreed and more legwork
      I agree with the previous comment about putting a Shapiros on E 86th...plenty of traffic and rent would be a lot less than Carmel.

    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.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

    ADVERTISEMENT