New renderings: $5M plan for amphitheater, trail in Fishers

November 18, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Fishers ampitheaterThe Town of Fishers this week unveiled plans to build a new outdoor amphitheater and multipurpose trail in its downtown district along 116th Street. Fishers streetscape improvementsThe first phase of improvements will cost between $4 million and $5 million, said Maura J. Leon Barber, the town spokeswoman. That should cover the amphitheater, a trail segment along the north side of 116th Street and reconstruction of Maple Street. Future improvements are planned for Lantern Road, the south side of 116th Street and the Nickel Plate District Trail. The plans call for a groundbreaking in spring of 2012 and completion in the summer. Project funding comes from the town's cash reserves and a $500,000 grant from the Hamilton County Convention and Visitors Bureau. A&F Engineering of Indianapolis is designing the multipurpose trail and the amphitheater designer has not yet been determined. What do you think?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Long overdue...
    Steve MeierNovember 18, 2011 1:03 PM
    Absolutely awesome! Fishers has gotten national rave reviews over the years even without a nice walking downtown. This will make the town an even better place to live.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Bravo!
    TJNovember 18, 2011 1:13 PM
    Fishers is a terrific place to live, and this project will be a great addition.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Franklin was on the "trail"
    ChrisNovember 18, 2011 2:42 PM
    Franklin had a proposal for something similar for its downtown. Must have been too progressive and forward thinking. THey fired their mayor and the space that was going to be the Trail and shops and ampitheatre, will continue to be a smelly industrial - brownfield dungeon.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • traffic studies???
    AmyNovember 18, 2011 2:55 PM
    A facility like this would be a wonderful addition to the Town of Fishers if only it didnt create a traffic nightmare! This section of 116th street is already a traffic disaster. Though the intent is good, my concern is this will make a bad situation worse.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • -
    AblerockNovember 18, 2011 2:59 PM
    Looks like the perfect setting for Pleasantville 2.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Great Vision
    ClifNovember 18, 2011 4:03 PM
    This sounds like a great next step for Fishers. Becoming more pedestrian friendly will serve to create a better sense of community and provide healthy lifestyle promotion. I'm proud that our planners are this visionary.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • I Like It!
    Fishers GalNovember 18, 2011 5:23 PM
    As long as this is as it appears and doesn't involve ripping down all the buildings/houses/businesses in Old Town Fishers, I love it. Adding to the mid-town area of Fishers is a great idea. And it's already becoming very walkable in that area, especially for those who live nearby.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Outdoor Concerts
    JustinNovember 18, 2011 11:39 PM
    I know they already have outdoor concerts there in the summer time. This will be perfect for those events.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Agreed
    RayNovember 20, 2011 8:49 AM
    Let's get to work on the screenplay
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Trails
    Jerry T. PayneNovember 20, 2011 3:46 PM
    While you are at it how about adding a trail path on 131st street between Lantern road and 37. This is a very dangerous section of road for both children and adults who walk, run and ride bicycles on this narrow two lane section of road.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Or...
    thundermuttNovember 21, 2011 9:16 AM
    The centerpiece for "The Truman Show 2".
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Good start
    Crossed WiresNovember 21, 2011 1:13 PM
    Although good in concept, a few details could be changed. Move the buildings up to the sidewalk/trail on 116th street similiar to the buildings across the street. I count 4 curb cuts/access drives in that rendering. Move the parking to the rear and/or side and you can eliminate 2 curb cuts, and reducing vehicle conjection right at the entrance. Pedestrian safety would be improved as well.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • We call those "trails"?
    SassafrasNovember 22, 2011 3:59 AM
    If it's a paved pedestrian path running directly parallel to a street, isn't that called a "sidewalk"? Or is there something about these "trails" that I'm missing?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Trail?
    PaulNovember 23, 2011 10:35 AM
    Yep. You called it a sidewalk, but it might be a little wider than a standard sidewalk, and it might be asphalt or paving stone instead of concrete. I think those elements allow them to call it a trail. Plus, "sidewalks" are often found in scary urban neighborhoods. Also, when they call it a trail it means it should safely accommodating both pedestrians and bicyclists, and sometimes they can even use that as a stronger justification for not having a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, because they have a "trail".
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Thanks Paul
    SassafrasNovember 28, 2011 11:16 PM
    Exactly what I thought--wouldn't want people to be too convenienced by having sidewalks on both sides of the road.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • To clarify...
    Fishers GalNovember 30, 2011 12:39 PM
    @Crossed Wires, the buildings in the second rendering are mostly already there, so they won't be moving them up to the sidewalk to flip-flop where the parking is. I think that picture is to show what the trail might look like.
    I'm still a bit confused, though, where the ampitheatre will be placed. Cory, do you know?
    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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT