Stock Yards Bank finalizing Di Rimini makeover plans

July 25, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Di Rimini NewThe bank that owns the infamous Di Rimini apartment project is offering more details about its plans to overhaul and finish the development at 733 N. Capitol Ave. Stock Yards Bank & Trust, which took over the property from a developer who put up a vastly different building than the one the city approved, has been working with city planners in a bid to salvage the project.

Among the changes reflected in the new rendering above:

  • Brick on the first-floor facades along Capitol Avenue and St. Clair Street.
  • Lighting at each first-floor entrance, with address numerals.
  • Glass doors and weather protection canopies for first-floor entrances.
  • Improved window, sliding door and roofline design.
  • New stair tower clad in brick.
  • Improved landscaping.
  • Removal of leasing office space and replacement with a retail use.

A hearing examiner is scheduled to consider approval of the changes Aug. 23. Planning department officials have said they'll recommend approval if Stock Yards makes a handful of additional, minor changes to its design. 

Want to compare the proposed new look to what's there now and catch up on the Di Rimini saga? Click here.

  • Better than nothing
    I'm still not a huge fan of the design, but, considering how horrendous the current construction is, I'll take it. Retail is good, and brick is far better than country-shack stone. It's also more economical and ecologically-friendly to fix what's already there than to tear it down and start from scratch (despite that many downtown urbanites -myself included- wouldn't shed a tear if that were to happen).
    • Still hideous
      Take the top two floors off and maybe we can start talking about a real solution...
      • Polish a Turd
        Mythbusters proved that you can polish a turd... However, the final outcome depends on how much junk is in it to begin with. Unfortunately this building has a lot of bad things to start with. This is better than the previous renditions, but still a shame for the city of Indianapolis.
      • SHAME
        Shame on the city of Indianapolis for even letting the building get far along the construction process. Would this have happened in Carmel? We all know the answer. It seems like the leadership of some places just cares more.
        • In Carmel....
          If this was built in Carmel, the Mayor would most likely have hand selected the builder based on campaign contributions, the construction would have been skethcy at best (see Sophia Square), and rents would have been subsidised with tax dollars to boost occupancy. So I guess you are correct, it would have been a different project.
        • Untitled
          Not bad given what they started with. But get rid of all the EIFS and replace with brick or metal panels. EIFS is banned in the RC Guidelines. Why did fire have to torch the Cosmo and 21 Park but not this thing?
        • Esta
          "the Mayor would most likely have hand selected the builder based on campaign contributions" Yeah, that NEVER happens in Indy, does it? Broad Ripple Garage
        • Time To Move On
          It's not going to be the prettiest building, but it is certainly adequate. I am sure they will win city approval, and finally, that ugly eyesore will be made into a useful residential structure. Also, it is time for some people to let go. Mark, they are not going to remove the top two floors, as it would be prohibitively expensive and only achieve a minor aesthetic improvement. There is fantasy land and there is the real world, and in the real world, this is the best result that is going to be achieved.
        • Indy
          Ha! I guess you are correct. Ironic thing is Sophia Square and the BR garage are both projects of the same politcally connected contractor.
        • Other Ideas
          I would not approve this, but if so, I'd rather see a lot more screening - lots of trees, let vines grow over it - anything to cover this up. It's a laughing stock and the aplogists have incredibly low standards.

        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. 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.