Downtown apartment complex to expand

September 1, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The developer of The Waverley apartments downtown has filed plans to expand the complex at 151 S. East St., IBJ's Tom Harton reports in today's Real Estate Weekly. Carmel-based J.C. Hart Co. Inc. wants to add 48 one-bedroom units to the 164-unit complex. Out of 86 existing one-bedroom units, only one is vacant. The four-story expansion would feature apartments with balconies overlooking East Street on the second, third and fourth floors. A 41-space parking garage would occupy the first level. A small surface parking lot shielded from the street would provide enough extra spaces to accommodate all 48 apartments. When Hart won its original approvals for The Waverley from the city in 2006, the vacant land the company now wants to build on was earmarked for three separate buildings for townhomes and ground-level retail space. But J.C. Hart found little interest for the commercial space. The company hopes to start construction as soon as next spring. The full story is here.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • AblerockSeptember 1, 2009 7:20 PM
    It's hard to believe there's no interest in retail space when there's a captive audience of at least 164 residents in that apartment complex alone. Not to mention the surrounding neighborhood or the large adjacent Farm Bureau and Anthem office buildings.

    For instance, one could open a tobacco shop and do quite well. I pass dozens of smokers from both campuses daily. ;-)
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • caliboy28September 2, 2009 1:35 AM
      What is the use of writing comments when they just disappear later in the day? Whats going on with this new system???
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • CorySeptember 2, 2009 8:37 AM
      All I can tell you is what they're telling me: We're working on it.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • CoryWSeptember 2, 2009 10:25 AM
      This is good to hear and I am actually please that they have scrapped the retail portion. Fletcher Place is literally a stones throw from here and having new retail so close would hurt, not help, that strtch of College
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • all-day breakfastSeptember 2, 2009 2:02 PM
      Monolithic, low-rise apartment complexes aren't particularly urban, especially this one, with its pitched roofs and Hardiplank siding. It's great to see an increase in the rental base downtown, though... I just wish the site could be developed with a better sense of its urban context.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • all-day breakfastSeptember 2, 2009 2:03 PM
      Monolithic, low-rise apartment complexes aren't particularly urban, especially this one, with its pitched roofs and Hardiplank siding. It's great to see an increase in the rental base downtown, though... I just wish the site could be developed with a better sense of its urban context.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • all-day breakfastSeptember 2, 2009 2:03 PM
      Monolithic, low-rise apartment complexes aren't particularly urban, especially this one, with its pitched roofs and Hardiplank siding. It's great to see an increase in the rental base downtown, though... I just wish the site could be developed with a better sense of its urban context.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • BenjaminSeptember 2, 2009 3:39 PM
      At least the surface parking won't front East Street.

      I wish they would still do the first floor retail and just build two or 3 floors of residential above it. This would be a great spot for all the Insurance company employees to grab lunch or coffee if there were retail.

      It still kills me how suburban this project is..
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • RaySeptember 2, 2009 9:56 PM
      No retail on the bottom floor seems to be the Indianapolis way...where do these people get their info that there would be little interest in commercial space. I use to work at Anthem and would have gone out there more than a few times a week on my short 1/2 lunch just to get out of the building. This is the freaking downtown already and a lot of us live here and would happily visit a retail establishment in that area. So much narrow minded thinking...bah!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • j.j.September 3, 2009 11:15 AM
      Not building multi-use / retail on the street level is simply short sighted.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • FletchSeptember 3, 2009 9:51 PM
      First floor parking along East Street. No pedestrian door along East Street. Surface parking along East Street also. More hardi-plank siding downtown. Two new curb cuts along East Street with cars blocking the sidewalk waiting for the gates to open. Expansion of a suburban-type apartment compounded surrounded by tall fences and gates. Elimination of a (probably illegal) gravel parking lot. Elimination of previously approved plan for presumably one-story, single-user commercial building. So, how does that balance out?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Financing difficulties
      rickyricardoMay 6, 2010 12:46 AM
      when a housing project contains commercial space it no longer qualifies for Federal funding or state of Indiana Housing Authority financing and also can be disqualified from fed income tax credits
      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

    1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

    2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

    3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

    4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

    5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

    ADVERTISEMENT