Developers are working on plans to build new residential or commercial space adjacent
to two public-housing towers near Mass Ave downtown. The Indianapolis Housing Agency has asked for pitches for land surrounding
the 21-story John J. Barton Apartments at 555 Massachusetts Ave. (shown here) and the 15-story Lugar Tower at 901 Fort Wayne
Ave. The group isn’t putting a price on the three parcels, which total about 3 acres. Instead, it hopes to partner with
a private developer, securing low-income tax credits and federal funds. The agency also might ask a developer to participate
in a $14-million planned renovation of the actual towers, including $7 million for all-new plumbing. The housing agency properties
available include a triangle-shaped parcel, now a park, in front of the Barton, and small pieces on either side of the Lugar
Tower. The Lugar properties include driveways and parking, which could be moved or rearranged as part of the development.
The full story, from this week's IBJ, can be found here. Don't get IBJ in print? Subscribe!
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
Developers are working on plans to build new residential or commercial space adjacent
to two public-housing towers near Mass Ave downtown. The Indianapolis Housing Agency has asked for pitches for land surrounding
the 21-story John J. Barton Apartments at 555 Massachusetts Ave. (shown here) and the 15-story Lugar Tower at 901 Fort Wayne
Ave. The group isn’t putting a price on the three parcels, which total about 3 acres. Instead, it hopes to partner with
a private developer, securing low-income tax credits and federal funds. The agency also might ask a developer to participate
in a $14-million planned renovation of the actual towers, including $7 million for all-new plumbing. The housing agency properties
available include a triangle-shaped parcel, now a park, in front of the Barton, and small pieces on either side of the Lugar
Tower. The Lugar properties include driveways and parking, which could be moved or rearranged as part of the development.
The full story, from this week's IBJ, can be found here. Don't get IBJ in print? Subscribe!
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
liek the rest of America
-
These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.
-
It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.
-
No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.
-
whoa!
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
45 Comments
Add Comment
I'd like to see everyone think creatively about how to best engage with the Barton Apts., not just create a virtual fence to hide people in low income housing away so they can't be seen. I'm not sure if Barton could ever be retrofitted to make it appealing to market rate renters, but if you could do something like convert a portion of Barton to market rate and make part of the new units subsidized housing as an offset, you get to the more mixed income type developments that seem more successful today. Warehousing low income people in 100% low income high rise commie blocks is a known failed model. What can we do to retrofit that? Also, put it all under one management so that there are the right incentives to keep the whole thing maintained correctly.
Also, let's see how we can creatively engage the arts and architecture community of the city to enliven these structures. I'm not saying demolish the tower, which is one of the few architectural examples of its type around, but find out how to do some interesting things. As thundermutt noted elsewhere, just painting the base of the federal building did wonders for that structure.
Just some initial thoughts. The Lugar building I've nothing to say on yet since I need to study the site more.
park. I look out onto that greenspace almost everyday while I'm sweating
through mile after mile on an eliptical machine at the Y.
It's called balance. . .hardspace with softspace. There is plenty of room
for retail at the east end of Mass Ave. Posters on this site constantly bark
about more retail/restaurant space. I think the retailers and restauranteurs
already on Mass Ave would really like more traffic in their establishments.
The market isn't and hasn't dictated more development of this type.
Matthew, retail north of Barton Tower on Mass Ave. struggles because of the black hole created by the fire station and that park. Several businesses fought to survive at the east end, only to blossom once they moved to the thriving strip anchored by the Davlan.
I work out at the Atheneum as well, and look out the same windows. I would much rather see thriving businesses and homes, which will draw more people to support the Murat and Atheneum, than a underused lawn that's just taking up space.
For Mass Ave to truly succeed, it has to be a continuous strip of urban engagement on at least one side of the street. If the Barton Tower development is done correctly, it will have a huge ripple that has the potential to effect empty lots for several blocks in every direction.
of a canvas is covered by brushstrokes your eye is overwhelmed and doesn't
know where to focus. You look away. Great masters create pleasing
compositions by balancing busy areas with more placid ones. Learn from history.
Business thrive because they have something to offer (as well as location). The
businesses at the east end of Mass that do well offer something to our city
that we don't already have in abundance (over saturation). The Murat is packed
to the gils when in use. The ACT is moving out of the atheneum, great
opportunity for re-use of that space.
Ablerock: Seriously, you'd rather look at cold concrete over lush greenspace? I'll
never understand that.
The Lugar Tower reminds me a lot of my first post-college apartment in Hanoi, Vietnam. The development was a mass stretch of block units and plazas built in 1968. Every unit was built to be identical and there was nothing that differentiated the structures other than a number – I was in C4. However my Vietnamese apartment complex was allowed to be modified and operated in a much more free-market system. This allowed for major modifications to be made: flats were combined, balconies were built, and rooftop gardens were planted. There even became spaces for businesses within the jungles of concrete. Lots of the open space was converted into barber shops, food stalls, and market places where I could buy fruits, vegetables, and household goods. Whereas in the US these changes would never have been possible due to too much regulation. Regulation is sometimes needed but perhaps we should sometimes allow a more laissez faire towards development. And use it more wisely for things such as saftey.
Whatever is built, there needs to be more of an element of playfulness and randomness. There is enough room to build dense but mid-rise apartments/units and have open space to integrate the two structures. Perhaps within this open space there can be outdoor shops, food vendors, and maybe an outdoor bicycle repair shop. Maybe when Matthew looks out the window on his elliptical machine he’ll be able to see green space, urban vitality, and a transformed and much more interesting place making.
I'm NOT opposed to development. I AM opposed to senseless development.
But I have to disagree with those who are saying that high-rise commie towers with 100% low-income population--such as Barton--are a proven failure. What about Barton? Isn't the fact that it houses a low-income population while it remains surrounded with an increasingly vibrant urban neighborhood evidence enough that such juxtapositions can succeed? I must concede that I don't think we, as citizens of the city, have given Indianapolis Housing Agency enough credit--sure there are problems and oversights (recent bedbugs come to mind), but so many cities would not be able to manage high-rise public housing without the surrounding neighborhood going to pot--Chicago is perhaps the most notorious example. In addition, the high-rise typology is not the only one that can breed squalor: New Orleans almost exclusively has employed the low-rise walk-up townhome approach, and many of them were as bad or worse than Chicago for decrepitude and criminality. Ostensibly IHA has budgeted enough for repair/replacements, and capital improvements. If it were able to sell off this parcel, it would benefit from the influx of cash, as well as reduced budget for grounds maintenance. No doubt the same crew who opposed the canal parcel will try to throw a wrench in this as well.
No art lesson needed here. I graduated from Herron. :-)
To answer your question: Yes, in context, I'd much rather look at a well-designed building than that lawn. That doesn't mean I want to see the whole world covered in buildings or hate nature.
The (huge) real parks I will defend near/in downtown: White River State Park, The American Legion Mall, Military Park, Riverside Park, Garfield Park, even Crown Hill Cemetery. These parks represent a plethora of natural respite, even if the city were extremely dense.
We are not hurting for greenspace, people. We are hurting for walkable, dense, truly urban neighborhoods, and quality developments.
If done right, this project will not only bring more people downtown to make use of Indy's real parks on a consistent, daily basis, it will help make Mass Ave and the rest of the regional center a more vibrant 24-hr neighborhood.
Mass Ave has been designated a cultural district and by design is well on its way to being a vibrant urban corridor. This parcel is a huge puzzle piece in its success and stalling that because of a patch of grass would be a huge disservice to the city and Mass Ave.
Here is the challenge with the looking out the window while I exercise view of the world. It is similar to the MCANA position on the Canal lot. Why does MCANA want to preserve that space? Because some of their members like to sit there and enjoy outdoor concerts. In effect, what this says is that the space should exist for event type purposes such as concerts, or views for people working out, etc.
This is exactly the big downside of downtown Indianapolis. It's the flip side of its strength. The entire downtown is literally built to host events of one type or another. That and serve as a 9-5 office park. And it does this exceedingly well. Indeed, Indy's superiority at having an event friendly downtown is a big part of why it is successful as a convention, sports, and tourist destination.
The downside of that is that spaces that are designed for events can be bleak and deserted when there is no event in session. Which is in fact what you see along most of the Canal most of the time. Except the Wholesale District (and core office area during the working day), the streets of downtown rarely have more than a handful of pedestrians. This is because they aren't designed as well-functioning urban spaces. Mass Ave. has the chance to change all that.
Indy absolutely needs to stay world class at events, but it also needs spaces that can transcend being event venues. It needs to start building, at least in the downtown area, more well-functioning urban districts to complement its events excellence.
And an answer to Sassafras ( I can’t think of any place in Indianapolis where one could stand and be “overwhelmed†by how built up it is):
Stand on the top level (9th floor) of the parking garage in the 100 block of North Illinois, directly behind the Wellpoint building. That is the best place I've found in Indianapolis to feel as if you're actually in the middle of a big city. I could well imagine a non-urbanite standing there and being overwhelmed by urbanity.
I totally agree. Indy could have 3/4 of its available surface area (green and parking lots) covered with 5 story buildings and would only begin to be dense enough to make the great greenspaces of downtown - like the Mall and Military Park - usable and interesting as respite.
If I'm not mistaken, Monet brushed every square inch of his canvas, what turned out from a distance (a magnificent piece of work). Much like a city is viewed from far away, all the pieces fit together, or looking at a block from down one end of the street, you notice if the fabric is missing a piece. Well the moths sure did a number with Mass Ave in the BArton Tower area - the park.
Why is everyone ignoring the obvious choice? The intersection of Mass and College has THREE undeveloped corners out of four. One is a gravel lot, one is paved parking (which is rarely used) and the third is a wide open grassy lot with no foliage. That section of Mass is in much greater need of development.
I know we have plenty of green space and I'm NOT a NIMBY. But with the overwhelming number of surface parking and empty lots on Mass. can't we concentrate on those first?
I'll say it again: If done correctly, this development will have a huge positive ripple effect on the entirety of Mass Ave and could potentially accelerate development on several empty lots throughout the neighborhood, including those at the intersection of College and Mass Ave.
MUCH more sense than developing the triangular patch of greenspace
near the Barton. Like I always say. . .I'm not opposed to development,
but I am opposed to senseless development.
Developers develop what can be developed. This sounds silly, but it is an absolute. The first thing a developer needs is a site, and unless it is available at a reasonable price from a reasonable seller nothing happens. Instead of speculating on what could be let’s talk about reality, and decide its viability based upon its merits. If the property at Mass Ave and College were available for a reasonable price in enough quantity to support a profitable mixed use development, it would be in development. Stop using its vacancy as an excuse to save another open site that represents a large hole in the urban streetscape. That argument is counterproductive.
Having said that, the Indianapolis Housing Authority needs to exercise the utmost care when selecting the successful team. The architect used will be critical to each project’s success. Some of the less-urban architects who reviewed/toured the towers didn’t even know where the buildings were downtown. Two of them mistook the Riley Towers for the Lugar Towers. You can just imagine my mental state...
New development aside, the bigger problem here, I believe, is the reuse of the actual towers. They were built on the cheap for people who wouldn’t complain. They have concrete decks and the ceiling heights are VERY low. You can literally touch the bottom of the deck above with your hand. That means that the average “floor-to-floor†height is about 8’-4†or so. Just try to sell that at market rates. The floor plans are also smallish, with exposed concrete walls. If you were to add drywall and furring, the rooms get that much smaller.
My point is that, barring the most substantial renovation, these towers are doomed to the down-market resident and this will forever impact the surrounding market. Perhaps there is a way to expand vertically through the concrete decks for 2-level units, but structural modifications can get expensive. The city simply needs to ask itself, “How important is this area? Are we serious about this?†I don’t think this project could arrive at a worse economic time…
Big picture, this is another great opportunity for the city to ignite this district and “right†some old wrongs. I hope there are some old-timers in this forum that can fill in some blanks as to how these towers “happened†for trivia’s sake. Remember that these were built when no one thought anyone would live downtown again. This is, in part, why today there is so much opposition to developers who claim that “any development (however bad) is better than what is there now.†That argument is almost always wrong, and has been proven time after time to create problems for each subsequent generation. This time, let’s ask what WON’T create problems for subsequent generations, and hope that someone at the city has the guts to do it right.
I agree that architect selection is going to play a huge part in the success of this project. It's a tricky location, but could be very dynamic and excellent if done right. I love contrasting architectural styles, as they add to the vitality of a city, and buildings don't get much different than Barton Tower, The Atheneum, and The Murat. The architect must be able to navigate these architectural movements while creating something contemporary that embraces the street life on Mass Ave.
Ignoring Barton Tower and pretending it's not there by erecting some generic faux-main-street development is not going to cut it. The architect must be able to integrate Barton Tower into the project in a way that highlights the few good things about it and makes it more attractive, not uglier (idealistically without painting or trying to update the facade of the tower itself).
wherever they wanted. Oh wait, greedy land developers, combined with
irresponsible loan practices are part of what's lead to the astronomical
foreclosure and loan default rates that we have now.
Developers see one thing. . . .GREEN. . . .as in cash. Trust me, they don't
have the best interest of an urban or any environment at heart. They want
to line their pockets. Smart city planning wouldn't rely on land developers
to make these kind of calls. Constant land development does not lead
to economic growth. It leads to constant land development. We've proved
that by the economy we have now.
Your greedy developer argument falls flat. The potential development of this site is being advanced by the city.
I also think that it is possible to design an attractive, functional, urban low-rise or mid-rise surrounding development from concrete and glass. That is, those materials used appropriately do not automatically equal brutalist architecture. In fact, the design cues in the tower could be nicely integrated into a new development at its base.
I think the development should become mixed-income. Every market needs some low-end market rate housing, especially in an area that is in demand with young people just starting careers. I do not believe that existing residents should be displaced, but some existing residents should be moved to the new units to be constructed to avoid an us vs. them mentality on the block.
The block you refer to is successful because of the mixed-use Davlan and all of the great businesses there, not just that pocket park. You'll also notice how that small park is nestled into a fairly developed area on the same block. It's not a huge isolated swath of grass separated by streets and a tower that doesn't engage with the neighborhood, across from a ugly firehouse and bank, as is the case with Barton Tower.
On the Davlan block, the east side of the street is almost 100% developed and the Davlan takes up a good portion of its side. You have lots of residential units above and several storefronts on the sidewalk below. That's exactly what's making that block dynamic and successful. If those businesses and homes weren't there to draw people to the area, that little park would be full of vagrants and a waste of space. And it was, years ago, before the Davlan was redeveloped, before the Old Point moved in, etc.
Wouldn't you like to see all of Mass Ave as successful as the Davlan block? Wouldn't it be great to walk the length of it without losing the energy and excitement? I'd love to see the whole Regional Center look and feel like that block. It's my favorite block in the city.
I think that's what the city wants and they understand that the Barton Tower block is a huge black hole that is holding back Mass Ave from its fullest potential as a dynamic, vibrant urban corridor. The success of Mass Ave is crucial to the vitality of Indianapolis.
Matthew, your points about development momentum eliciting little more than constant land development is dead-on. The result could have been--and in some cases actually is (particularly in booming suburbs)--a string of newly-built, cheap spec projects with no buyers or tenants. This is a huge problem and can easily become a blight to the landscape. The current pocket park at Barton Towers may be unused 99% of the time, but it is not a blight to the landscape.
That said, it is not a catalyst for the neighborhood's vitality either. And the city is faced with the option of developing the site, with the potential that it may fail to find residential or retail tenants and contribute very little to the tax base, or it could continue to sit as a park, where it comprises a grounds maintenance expense for the IHA and stands NO chance of adding to tax revenue. When faced with such options, the City's decision is a no-brainer. No doubt it will be a year minimum before anything happens on this site, given the economy.
Smart city planners would most likely unanimously support development of the site--having been in contact with the Indiana Finance Authority who owns the 1-acre parcel along the canal, I can assure you that everyone involved with both the state and the city planning department want to see that site developed. Developers do indeed see green first and foremost, but they have to earn their bread and butter too, and if they build something that doesn't meet market demand they quickly go bankrupt. Market demand for such a site will most likely be high density, and the aesthetic of a more unified street wall along Massachusetts Avenue.
The developer should work with the Indianapolis Streetcar Corporation to build a demonstration station/tracks. It could eventually be connected to the greater CIRTA projects and the Clarion People Mover (which in the future would connect the 16th Street/Stadium Drive High-Tech Corridor; check out Cleveland’s Medical Mart, http://members.cox.net/neotrans/AAO_Monthly_Newsletter_020109.pdf).
The Obama Administration is looking to increase funding to CDBGs and there will be a lot more money flowing into HUD. If Chris Palladino were involved then there would be a lot of expertise in creating public/private partnerships as well as would be able to learn from the mistakes of Fall Creek Place: namely, having a better review of the contractors who built the houses to make this site longer term. Mayor Ballard and the Indy Housing Authority need to make sure that they ask for State and Federal funds. Now is not the time for setting things aside in the rainy day fund – because otherwise, when is a rainy day?
by the city I'm to believe this is a golden idea and a golden decision?
This isn't a smart decision. It's an easy decision by city.
The most valuable real estate in Manhattan is around Central Park.
Just a point to note.
Residents have both legitimate concerns and provide genuinely valuable input to the process. Periodically they can also be self serving and narrow minded. I have had residents who own boarded up houses in neighborhoods where I work remonstrate against my projects on down-zoning redevelopment cases. Who do you think they were looking out for? I’ve seen residents who were responsible for writing parts of the new Regional Center Guidelines remonstrate against mixed-use developments on sites that were appropriately zoned. How does that work? We are all in this for ourselves sometimes. Some of us are just honest enough to admit it.
I pointed out that the city is behind the development of this property to rebut your claim that greedy developers were to blame.
But I often complain about low quality development. How can I reconcile that?
It is simple: set a high bar, then back like crazy people who want to build things that meet it. It starts with a proper urban oriented comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance for the central city. It should encourage modest densification (not Manhattanization), mixed use development in key nodes and corridors, and flexible infill (doubles, granny flats, even small condo type buildings) in residential areas. A form based ordinance could work, but isn't required. Some basics around materials. Rules for when abatements can be requested (e.g., must have LEED certification). A proper building code with modern energy efficiency requirements (e.g., wattage caps). Then we get to where most things can be built as of right, without a cumbersome approval process. It goes without saying that the city should declare a permanent freeze on new historic districts. Clearly, any historic neighborhoods out there should have been discovered by now. Focus on a fast, efficient, professional approval process, permitting, inspections, etc.
Nashville, Tennessee figured it out. I don't know why we can't too.
It's not really that hard to approach the land-use committee of the local neighborhood organization with a concept and then work toward a compromise that will sail through the system. Too many developers ignore that crucial pre-development step.
When a planner at DMD asks every petitioner directly have you talked to (name of neighborhood organization)? that should be a clue that things go easier if that step is taken first.
It's called due diligence for a reason.
BTW, I always start with the neighborhoods.