A $60 million project slated for South Street between Meridian and Pennsylvania streets has a whole new look, along with a
couple of anchor tenants. Plans for Ralston Square call for a Cambria Suites hotel, a BlackFinn Restaurant & Saloon and an
upscale bowling alley. The designer is Ratio. The full story was reported in Saturday's print IBJ and now appears here. Miss it? You should subscribe. Tell them Property Lines sent you. Here are a few of the new renderings:
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
57 Comments
Add Comment
Wouldn't a multimodal passenger transportation hub make more sense?
Re building next to the rail line: I don't think it really matters, as trains travel VERY slowly through that portion of the line. Therefore, I wouldn't have any real concerns about the rail line if I were developing this...
As for the condos, I'm guessing that the north views will be some of the best in the city. At nine, ten or eleven stories, you're going to be able to see over most of south meridian and have a great view of the circle and skyline behind. And on the sound question, how much noise do the tracks produce there? The trains are traveling well below normal speed that close to Union Station.
It seems like it tries too hard to be something 'cutting edge' or 'totally unique' and that's when we end up with dated architecture.
I think if the facade had a bit more organization and perhaps more elegant lines it wouldn't be so dated.
Also, if I were designing this structure I would have had a slight setback after the 3rd floor facing Meridian street so it doesn't totally dwarf not only the stretch of 2-4 story older buildings lining Meridian but also doesn't dwarf the Slippery Noodle, an important historic landmark.
Either way, its nice to see some creativity in architecture I personally think its the wrong kind of thinking. BUT this is just my opinion.
Just because one has not designed a structure does not mean their opinion on urbanism and design doesn't matter.
I've seen many ideas by ordinary people that were much better (and better in taste) than many architect's and developer's ideas.
Thanks for the compliment!
So you are unable to articulate why this is a good design and can only claim that BobUp's opinion must be wrong because he isn't an architect? Maybe you should get back to us when you actually have something to contribute to the discussion, since this blog is, in case you missed it, mostly here for the discussion of design.
Anyway, the project is one of several in the works that would add hotel space downtown, including a new JW Marriott convention hotel, (two hotels at Pennsylvania and Maryland streets) and a handful of others surrounding Lucas Oil Stadium is that supposed to imply that the Penn Centre is still a go yo?
Originally: 1 floor, 41k sq.ft.
Now: 2 floors -- 37k sq.ft. 1st floor, 40k sq.ft. 2nd floor
While other components of this project are good for the downtown economy, convention business, etc., for downtown residents, more retail space is by far the most important component.
Inquiring minds (cheapskates like me) want to know. Thx.
I realize everyone has opinions, and it is your right to expound upon them.... However, I resent this sort of high minded snobbery that derides everything to come down the pike. NO design will ever be perfect, but would it kill any of you to actually look on the bright side? Flame away...
I think this is a good addition to downtown, and I am sure it will be refined again before ground is broken. I am with CorrND, the more retail downtown the better, and I love the idea of another bowling alley.
I would promote most any kind of mixed-use development for downtown. Being critical about the design or even the use of this parcel is just part of the dialog that needs to be exchanged. I think property owners and developers actually do key in to what people are thinking, even tho developers are completely $$ driven and architects are generally ego driven. It's always a battle between how much it costs to build some crazy design.
I wish people would simply articulate more when they like or dislike. You can have your opinion, just size it up a little better. What DO or DON'T you like about a given product? I think it creates a better dialog and conversation. Good job since comment 14 or so.
Here's to wishful thinking so that I can afford one on my single income salary at age of 26 (28 by then!)
And nice William Safire reference...
From a downtown development standpoint, this project is great. Big Daddy is right: it's exactly what a lot of us clamor for on this and other blogs. It's mixed-used, medium density, a decent height, great location, contemporary stylings, etc.
But what is also true, as Bobup points out, is that the building has some problems, architecturally speaking. For instance, I love expressive, quirky buildings, but this one looks a bit confused. It's trying to be reserved and strange at the same time, which doesn't really work. Are they trying to fool us into thinking there are multiple buildings on one site via multiple window treatments? Also, as has already been noted, because the garage is white, it stands out more than anything else on the building, which isn't what one wants. Someone please tell me that's not the first thing you look at when you glance at the renderings.
It could still be improved with some tweaks, which may well happen.
Overall, I like it, and am glad to have it downtown. I'll take just one of these over 10 Villagios at Paige Point any day.
However, I think this is an Internet age building that's a little ahead of its time for Indianapolis. A little touch-up would considerably reduce the visual jumble, which is the dominant image.
Continue the brick pillar treatment to the west edge of the full-height brick, so the top section doesn't appear to be perched, and so that the main entrance is highlighted... and so that all the facades share a significant major common design element.
The Urban Design guidelines require outdoor living space for each condo unit, and I assume that the green roof is intended to meet that requirement without balconies. Nonetheless, some recessed balcony spaces on the glass box southwest corner might mitigate the deep-dark-recess look of the parking garage below it and create a little more harmony in the appearance of the Meridian street face.
Nevertheless, architecturally I'd have to say this is a step backwards from the original plan. Not that I thought that one was perfect by any means, but this building has a lot of problems. The mishmash of facade treatments being the principal problem. I'm really struggling to figure out what the architects were trying to do here. Ablerock is totally right on this one.
Alas, given its location this will be a very prominent structure on the skyline.
The starting price is definitely off my budget. If the smallest unit is 750 sq and priced at $275K, that would make approx $270/sq.ft. That's a lot!
Also, the proximity to the train tracks really bothers me. I don't want to be shaken during my sleep every night!
I don't think anyone here is fighting to keep a surface parking lot.
I'm certainly not.
Ratio is a perfectly competent architecture firm that is capable of producing much better work. That's all we're fighting for. :-)
I think a few of the 'commenteurs' here could be found carousing of an evening in their favorite t-shirt - emblazoned with their personal philosophy of Go Ugly Early.
Thanks.
Curious about the architecture I've found that this is more like a recreation of the brutalist design just trying to be more 'stylish'.
I constantly hear people saying Indianapolis shouldn't try to be like other cities so why doesn't Indianapolis do something unique?
Something that reflects the past but a bright progressive future?
To me.. this looks just like everything else being built. Just a remake of brutalist designs and the new name of 'contemporary'.
I am glad that Indy has development, and by all means bring on the development and in no way should it be halted simply because of its looks.
But since this post really doesn't matter I have to say I don't like it.
Things like this only look good today, but really not tomorrow. Look how brutalism ended up. Everyone loved it in the 60's and 70's but after that it became dated and bland. So what makes this new contemporary style emune to that fate? Not everyone dislikes brutalism, there are many fans of it but I'm talking about the general population who has always been more compfertable with calmer more organized facades.
Why do you think people love things like the World War monument?
Is that really what we want? A ton of buildings we have to re-face later? Like the Indiana Square tower?
Be creative but for the love of Indy don't be a part of a passing trend.
I would love to see something truely beautiful that reflects the past of Indianapolis and the future it has.
Not saying we should be slapping victorian facades on these things but we shouldn't be afraid of beautification or organization. *makes odd hissing sound.*
I have an idea.
Why don't they borrow some influence from the Slippery Noodle? I mean, it is a landmark is it not?
Eh and its charming! Take some influence from the oldies' like we take advice from the elders.
I would love to see some organization, beautification, and more brick work on the facade. A nice lush garden on top and nice vertical lines.
Less random materials here and there, it doesn't age well. I mean, in one part it is made of glass and then in another its made of some sort of tan/orange brick.
Try setbacks, it worked not only for buildings in the 20's but also buildings like the Chase Tower or that sort of gothic looking highrise near the circle.
Use the setbacks to create sort of different gardens on different levels.
Then at street level you don't want to scare people off or only relate to the brutalist fans. Try warm tones of glass(this is why stained glass was very popular a hundred years ago.) and colors. Make it feel compfertable and more human-scale. But over all, just try to make it more Indianapolis and less Beijing.
BE CREATIVE!!!!!!!!! ;)
I'm not really completely 'in it' right now and I need to sleep, I apologize! :)
Is it the odd use of material? The zigg-zag lines?
How is that ambitious for a world of architecture?
Something like the Chrysler building was ambitious.
This looks like all that stuff being built in every other city which isn't meant to offend everyone because we do need buildings that are not screaming UNIQUE! But when the only buildings that scream unique were built almost a century or more ago that says something about our city's need for better architects and new look on architecture.
I just don't understand what makes this brutalist revival so ambitious and amazing. If someone could explain that would be great!
:)
Lame Sh*tty Design
(That statement was more to poke fun at all of the above comments, not the current homicide issues - there are more important things in life than the looks of a building, but reading some of the posts here makes you think this is life & death.)
I'll give my 2 cents and leave -
1) You can never be sure about anything until its built. The Eiffel Tower is one famous example where something was hated when first built but eventually became loved by the city. Not saying this is Eiffel Tower-esque, but give it a chance to be built rather than judging purely from a rendering. Maybe it'll suck, maybe it'll be a hit, but who can really know at this point?
2) I've always thought architecture was like art, where if you get people talking about it you've done your job. It may not be your ideal look, but its definitely got people talking, rather than being a bland brick rectangle designed to not be noticed.
worst case scenerio they can just re-face it.
But isn't artwork a little different? Paintings and statues can be moved very easily and you don't have to see them.
Maybe trying to do that sort of stuff with architecture just doesn't work.