North side project to include Paradise

May 11, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Office/Retail projectA two-building office and retail complex at the corner of Meridian and 96th Street will include a Paradise Bakery & Cafe and a McAlister's Deli. Landmark Properties is developing the 45,700-square-foot project just south of McDonald's. One of the buildings will be three stories and the other will be two. Both will include retail on the first floor. The project was designed by Noblesville-based Curran Architecture.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • You know what else would go great there? A Starbucks!
  • Anyone know whats gonna happen with the closed Kro-ghetto at 96th and Meridian?
  • The parking lot in that rendering looks great!
  • this looks like a nice development (again, higher density!), but i agree with liberty bell (ha ha - nice name) with the parking lot. i hope that will be towards the back. this city, for some reason, neglects to put buildings right up on the sidewalk. that creates sprawl and it's unfortunate and annoys me everytime i see a project like that. we should be encouraging pedestrian traffic with every new development (less car trips, more calories burned). but again, this will be a nice overall addition to a marquis area in need of some polishing...
  • The parking is on the west side of the building. The rendering is from the west looking east. Meridian Street would be int he background. The building is pushed up as close to Meridian Street as zoning ordinances will permit, with just a drive lane between the grass/landscaping that will exist between Meridian and the buildings.
  • I'm glad Curran Architecture has been chosen for this building. I like a lot of their other work, like the animal hospital on Rangeline Road in Carmel. Their style is a lot of midwestern-prairie style updated with a very clean, modern chic.
  • Shawn, thanks for the clarification!

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT