Developer plans $40M apartment and retail project

August 29, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Keystone mapYet another reason to spring for the IBJ online subscription ... Find out all the details on Keystone Construction's plans for a $40 million project with high-end apartments and retail space at the northwest corner of 86th Street and Keystone Avenue. A Whole Foods market and condos had been planned for the site a few years earlier. Keystone acquired the site from the FDIC, which wound up owning the 12.6 acres after Irwin Union bank failed in 2009. Neighborhood groups are expected to oppose the development. The full story is here. (Subscription required.)

Also, in case you haven't watched the wall-to-wall coverage of the demolition of Keystone Towers on local television news, check out IBJ's own video and a little building history here.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • If you build it, they will come...
    J.T.August 29, 2011 6:02 PM
    "Neighborhood groups are expected to oppose the development."

    Of course, the "I've got mine, now we don't need anymore!" crowd. I wonder what those people thought when it was the building of their homes, condos, and apartments that were being built over the last few decades? I could see if it was a Section 8 complex, but why protest a high end development?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Tease
      PJAugust 29, 2011 7:59 PM
      Cory, when I saw the title of your article, I was excited to see that I could read what this is all about for free. However, I was sadly dissappointed when I realized you're simply taunting us poor folk who can't afford you... :)
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Location
      RedAugust 30, 2011 12:31 AM
      I don't know, J.T., maybe it has something to do with the fact the development will be at 86th and Keystone one of the most congested areas in the city.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Trees
      PeteAugust 30, 2011 8:59 AM
      Where as I'm all for development, new projects, and everything they bring, I'm not in favor of developing this site specifically because it's a nice wooded area that should stay that way. I'm no tree-huger, but do appreciate the few undeveloped natural area within the city that aren't man-made parks, and coming right off 465 at that exit, it's nice to have the wooded are on the right, strait across from Keystone at the Crossing which is obviously one the most heavily congested ares in the city. Why make problems even worse there? In an area dominated by concrete roads, a business park, and shopping center, it's nice to have something untouched nearby, but I guess that wooded area isn't making any money for anyone.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Suckers!
      JasonAugust 30, 2011 9:09 AM
      Kosene and Kosene tried to make a retail center out of that property 10 years ago. There are way too many hoops to jump thru to develop it. The residents will shut it down....again. Plus, there is a freakin CEMETERY next to it! Who wants to shop with the dead?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • nora/keystone congestion
      vssamAugust 30, 2011 9:13 AM
      Anyone questioning the motives of those against this development - it would be enlightening for you to travel this area on a daily basis, particularly during weekends. Keystone/465 area is completely overloaded. 86th St between Keystone Crossing Mall - west to Target in Nora has become a weekend gridlock. And factor in the street in front of North Central H.S., once of the cities largest high schools with heavy in/out traffic. The increase in traffic/congestion was particularly obvious once the new Kroger opened (which, by the way, the ability to turn left/west out of Kroger's main entrance needs to be removed. That's an accident waiting to happen - or already has - with the "fancy finger" being used frequently). Given in negative effect of traffic due to just 1 grocery store, the effects of this development would be 3X. When I read this article I was amazed it could even be considered. For me, it has nothing to do with trees or multi-family housing. There simply isn't the traffic/road structure capacity.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Tease...
      CoryAugust 30, 2011 9:50 AM
      PJ: You can get IBJ in print and online for just $1.64 per week! You can't even get a tall coffee at Starbucks for that!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Right.
      HarveyFAugust 30, 2011 11:17 AM
      Meanwhile the developed property across the street sits vacant. I guess Hoosiers haven't gotten the memo yet, the Gilded Age of the Consumer is over. And how long until all of these new so-called high-end apartment developments become middle-of-the-road apartments?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Irwin?
      BradshawAugust 30, 2011 11:31 AM
      Any idea why Irwin Union owned this in the first place?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • High End Apartments
      LindaMAugust 30, 2011 12:16 PM
      HarveyF is right on about that. Also, six blocks south on Keystone (80th and Keystone) sits a failed condo development with 2 buildings complete. I wonder why they wouldn't just take that property and finish it?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • What's across the street?
      BradyAugust 31, 2011 5:52 AM
      What happened to the planned development across the street? Are the stores still empty? Why develop new when you could re-use/demolish old?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • They Don't Own The Property Across The Street
      ChrisSeptember 3, 2011 1:20 PM
      Some of the comments are comical so much as they involves "why doesn't the developer develop this property or that other one?" I realize they may be intended as rhetorical questions, but they are still silly.

      The developers own THIS property, not some other property on 80th Street or across town, etc. This is the property they own, this is the property they have studied and determined sits at a prime location and would be a good plot to develop. No, they don't care about traffic congestion, etc., unless they think it may negatively impact the value of their development. Their job is not to worry about traffic congestion, etc. or any other concerns of others. They are a business concerned with generating a profit for themselves, as all businesses are. That is how things are, and how they should be. Other people can speak up and take care of their own concerns through the zoning process, etc. A business is not founded on altruistic concerns, nor is it a charitable venture.

      If some people object to the project because they are concerned about the potential negative impact on their nearby property, fine, then that should be the focus of your comments.

      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • multi-layer issue
      iffeteSeptember 7, 2011 9:16 AM
      Chris - how wonderfully superior you are! Most of the submitted comments did exactly as you "instructed" - to object based on potential negative impact on nearby property. Traffic congestion, check. Expanding sprawl in that area, check. Mediocre occupancy rate in nearby retail & multi-family developments, check. Existing acant/decaying development in immediate vicinity, check. All the above negatively affect home values, commercial property values, quality of life. Yes, those who are against do need to speak up & get involved. But just because developers don't HAVE to be altruistic does not mean that it's "how things should be". Recall the recent year's overbuild of vinyl villages with inferior building quality and misleading sales - leaving a wake of upside-down homeowners. And our city dotted with ridculous small retail strip malls that are half empty. That's OK - how things should be? This proposed development is an ideal example of when the city officials need to become as informed as possible and consider extended georgraphic & long-term consequences of developers' self-serving projects. Ersal Ozdemir, CEO of Keystone Construction, spends inordinate $$ and time courting local officials/bankers. Let's just see who steps up to the plate and to enable the process to work - for multiple residents & business owners. Not just for multi-millionaire Ersal.
      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
    ADVERTISEMENT