Riley Towers expansion in works

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of the Riley Towers apartment complex is preparing to develop a 54-unit extension of the landmark downtown property.

The five-story building would be built at 225 E. North St., immediately west of Riley Towers’ south tower. The development site is owned by Barrett & Stokely Inc., which bought Riley Towers in 1993. A portion of the site is the former Hudson Street, which the city vacated last year at Barrett & Stokely’s request, and a surface parking lot that the company bought late last year from Regions Bank.

The proposal calls for 4,100 square feet of street-level retail along North Street. The balance of the first floor and the second floor would house 79 parking spaces. The third through fifth floors would house a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments, with balconies.

The timing of the project could depend on whether the developer seeks rezoning of a portion of the site. In its current configuration, part of the project would be built on land tagged with an obsolete zoning classification that predates the 1970 merging of city and county governments. That part of the site must be rezoned, said Jeff York, a senior planner with the city’s Department of Metropolitan Development, or the project must be reconfigured to build around it.

The project is up for approval at a Jan. 28 meeting of the city’s Regional Center Hearing Examiner, but the developer is likely to seek a continuance because of the zoning issue.

Bryan Barrett, director of acquisitions for Barrett & Stokely, said his company is consulting with the project architect, Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf, to determine if the design can be downsized to avoid the land that must be rezoned. Barrett said chances are good his company will stick with the original design and seek the rezoning, which would add a couple of months to the approval process.

It’s not clear when the project would start. Barrett said his company wants to use the site this year as a staging area to refurbish the Riley Towers garage on the opposite side of North Street. Work on the new apartment building wouldn’t start until the garage work is finished and financing is secured, Barrett said.

He said there isn’t a firm price tag assigned to the project yet and the process of finding down financing hasn’t begun.

Riley Towers, a 525-unit complex comprising two 30-story towers and a 16-story building, is about 90 percent occupied, said Barrett, who noted his company rarely engages in the development of new apartments because of the expense. He said building adjacent to Riley will be more cost effective because the new apartment units can share Riley’s leasing office and tenant amenities, such as a clubhouse and swimming pool.

Riley Towers was built in 1963 and boasts the tallest residential buildings in the state. Original plans called for 10 of the 30-story towers.

The new building would be directly across the street from a portion of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, a bike and pedestrian path being built throughout the downtown area. The North Street section of the trail is under construction.

William French, a retail real estate broker for Colliers Turley Martin Tucker, thinks the addition of the trail will create demand for retail space along that stretch of North Street. French represents the owner of two buildings and a parking lot at the northeast corner of Delaware and North, adjacent to the trail and across the street from the proposed Barrett & Stokely project.

“Once the cultural trail is completed, we’ll see that corner redeveloped eventually,” French said.


Post a comment to this story

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.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.