New rendering: Bank One Ops Center redevelopment

September 27, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Bank One Ops Center renderingThe company charged with redeveloping the former Bank One Operations Center downtown is recruiting tenants for the mixed-use apartment and retail project. A flier from Milhaus Development shows a retail component of 40,000 square feet with asking rents between $18 and $20 per square foot. It also includes the rendering above. Suggested users include "brewery, restaurant, grocery, pharmacy, restaurant." The $30 million project has dragged on for more than three years as the developer, city and property owners tried to sort out financing, timing and valuation. A lawsuit brought in May by the principals of Kosene & Kosene Development, former partners of Milhaus principal Tadd Miller, added another wrinkle. The Kosenes alleged Miller took their money to launch the effort, then tried to cut them out of the city-supported deal. It wasn't clear when Milhaus plans to begin work on the project. Developers often begin marketing new space for lease before construction begins. Miller did not immediately return a phone message.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Dear God..
    MoochieSeptember 27, 2011 10:30 AM
    Please, please, please, please, please let this one happen..
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • War Zone
    rwhSeptember 27, 2011 11:15 AM
    This area desperately needs some new development it is embarassing to the City of Indianapolis especially for the Super Bowl guests. At least break some ground. The area has looked like a war zone since Market Square was demolished. Such a shame that this has not been developed. The City must make this a priority.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Please Fence It
    KentSeptember 27, 2011 11:17 AM
    Since we are in a 'clean the house before Super Bowl company arrives' mode, please erect a decorative fence around it so it looks like there may be a future for the site, and to screen the homeless sleepers so they can have some privacy!
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Yes, please
      IndyIndieSeptember 27, 2011 11:22 AM
      A nice fence, possibly with this rendering all over and the words coming soon. I walked by this site last week in the evening and it is a wreck/vagrant town.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Wrong render?
      MoochieSeptember 27, 2011 11:42 AM
      Cory, did you post the wrong render? That one is more than a year old.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Speaking of the SB
      JoeSeptember 27, 2011 2:58 PM
      Rumor on the street (literally on the street from one of the guys working on the project) is that the portion of the cultural trail extending along Washington Street will NOT be done in time for the SB.

      Great planning, fellas!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • Not a Rumor
        gobnaitxSeptember 28, 2011 10:58 AM
        I happen to have the June 2011 issue of "Urban Times," where they reported, "Previous plans to complete the Central Corridor (the Washington Street segment) in time for Super Bowl 2012 have been shelved. Current construction plans call for all 'hardscape' work from Alabama Street to Senate Avenue to be done by Dec. 15. All construction zones will then be abandoned, and then later restored after the Super Bowl in order to complete elements such as landscaping."
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • The Rumor That Is Not
        JoeSeptember 28, 2011 1:46 PM
        I give up then. The abject failure to plan these projects is absurd!

        How long have we known that we are going to have the SuperBowl in this city? Three years? Four Years? And yet we start a project that substantially impacts a central artery of downtown, and it won't be completed in time for the event!?!?!

        The persons responsible for that decision should be run out of town on a rail!
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
        • Sweetheart Deal
          JerrySeptember 29, 2011 12:19 AM
          This is yet another city sweetheart deal designed to make a developer rich while raiding the taxpayer's wallet.
          Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Jerry
            BerwickGuySeptember 29, 2011 10:27 AM
            Jerry,

            You seem so enlightened as to the details of this project. Why don't you inform as to what you are inferring?

            Hmmmmm......
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Not sure...
            PaulSeptember 29, 2011 4:50 PM
            but Jerry might be referring to how all taxes generated from the redevelopment will not go into the general fund, but will instead go into paying off the parking garage across the street that the City bought so that the new apartments could have free parking.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Not again...
            BradSeptember 30, 2011 8:21 AM
            It looks a little bit like the diRimini.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Square, Flat again
            mikeWSeptember 30, 2011 10:09 AM
            Why do our developers in this region insist on every new building being a square block, flat roofed, repetitive flat front facade. Why can't we get some curves, dimensions, staggered rooflines, etc. I'm sure this will be nice when it is finished, but its like all the other apartments and condo buildings that have been built in the last 4 years.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Design.......
            JoeOctober 1, 2011 5:46 PM
            We get similar mediocre design because we (the market) don't demand better. Some cities find it difficult to sell or rent boring buildings. The development of interesting and unique styles is what they try to sell. Here, we are so desperate for any DT residential development that it is viewed any building is a good building. I assume at some point we will find more interesting projects, but in a weak urban market...what's the incentive?
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Disagree
            MeOctober 4, 2011 9:53 AM
            I think it's a nice, simple building. Frankly, this is nothing like DeRimini and I think any calls for throwing a bunch of fake gables and other nonsense onto our buildings are misplaced.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Not enough information
            MoochieOctober 4, 2011 4:07 PM
            No enough info to make a judgement on design. This rendering small and basic and is more than a year old. Like I stated earlier, I wonder if he posted the wrong render.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Other apartments...
            Ben B.October 5, 2011 9:12 AM
            Cory,
            Can you find out what's going on with the McOuat building? Originally the apartments were scheduled to open in 3Q 2011, but it seems to have been moved back. I just can't wait to get more apartments in the Mile Square!
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Joe...
            MarshallOctober 5, 2011 1:03 PM
            ... not sure what you consider a weak urban market, but I definitely wouldn't use that term to describe Indy at the moment.

            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
          • Marshall
            JoeOctober 5, 2011 2:14 PM
            Indy has a high occupancy rate for rentals and a few projects to add more apartments onto the books, but as far as ownership market....well Indy lacks much of it. There was a small wave of condo development, but those now have trouble selling and I am aware of few, if any proposals that are on the table for ownership. If a majority of the market is simply renting to college students then there is little incentive to provide great architecture or design. Until there is a demand for DT ownership with demands for design, we will continue to see mediocre development.
            Reply to CommentFlag Comment
            • Students?
              MikeWOctober 5, 2011 6:05 PM
              I'm not so sure that a majority of the occupancy is students, as a lot of the rent downtown in the newer buildings are pretty pricey. I would bet that a majority in the core of downtown (not on the west side near IUPUI) are young professionals. I know 5 people (single,ages 24 - 35) in the last 6 months who have decided to pay $1000+ for a 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom just to be downtown because there is nothing for them to buy down there. But the area is attractive enough to them. 2 of them work out of Northside offices, 3 of them downtown. We need more quality $130K-190K condos/homes downtown. That rent payment is close to those home prices depending on downpayment.
              Reply to CommentFlag Comment
            • Plenty Available @ $130-190k
              CorrNDOctober 6, 2011 9:02 AM
              I just did a Talk to Tucker map search zeroing in on the northeast quadrant of downtown: I see 20 properties of all different types for sale in the $130-190k range. That doesn't even include things like The Shelton which are in that range but not in public listings.

              There is too much misconception about the cost of buying downtown.
              Reply to CommentFlag Comment
            • Students
              JoeOctober 6, 2011 9:03 AM
              You might be surprised to find out how many students live on the parents dime. There are actually undergrad students living in the Cosmo nad The Avenue as well as 1201 are both geared towards students. IUPUI has long been purely a commuting college, but an effort has started to change that with more near campus living. Many of the downtown Buckingham projects are student based. I agree that more housing options are needed at a lower price range, but it is hard to make that work without taller buildings.
              Reply to CommentFlag Comment
            • What Rail?
              georwellOctober 11, 2011 5:11 PM
              We should if we could,...but we can't!
              Reply to CommentFlag Comment
            • New Renders!
              MoochieMarch 12, 2012 5:07 PM
              New Renders and project news on Milhaus's blog!

              http://milhausdevelopment.com/blogs/blog
              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