Kansas-based LodgeWorks LP continues to refine its proposal for a hotel project that would include a bridge
over the Central Canal. The proposal, designed by Chicago-based ASC Architects, calls for:
In its proposal, LodgeWorks writes: "We came to an understanding that the Canal District had no focal point. It has a soul but no heart. LodgeWorks proposes to build a hotel over the Central Canal, thereby creating another striking symbol for the city of Indianapolis." The company owns or operates 17 hotels, mainly on the coasts. This would be its first in Indiana.
The plan is one of two proposals for a one-acre state-owned property along the Canal between Ohio and New York streets. Browning
Investments and Dora Brothers Hospitality are pitching a hotel and
retail space. Your turn: An environmental group is lobbying to preserve the land as open space instead. Should
it be developed? If so, which proposal do you like?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
54 Comments
Add Comment
To answer your question I would like to see it developed and to have as much interaction with the canal as possible.
Cory maybe this the proper question:
Would this environmental group be opposed if the Historical Society building wasn't there?
I don't really understand this environmental argument at all. Exactly what negative impact is this development supposed to have? If they are worried about green space, does the inclusion of a garden help?
Also, is it just me or does the canal look really wide in that artist's portrayal? Or maybe its just the person in the obligatory gondola looks really small...
In my job, I entertain a lot of people from out of state. Rarely do they even know that the canal exists.
I would love to see more restaurants, entertainment, and such along the canal. Anything to get people out of their homes and enjoying what the city has to offer.
One thing, though. The bridge here would strictly serve hotel guests, right? So there'd be no pedestrian advantage. That's not a problem if there won't be any independent shops on the other side.
The Historical Society parking lot has got to go. Aesthetically, I don't know which downtown parking lot is more offensive, theirs, or the lot right up against the Capitol Building.
As for the design, I like it. My only problem is the disruption the building of it is going to make. Since it will be next to impossible to get too much heavy machinery down there easily, then you can bet that one lane of New York and Ohio will be blocked off, and of course, at least one side of the canal at a time will be, too. This is more a gripe really...not a reason to prevent development. It will just be bad for those of us who walk/bike the canal a lot.
ablerock.. parking is one of the biggest issues along the canal. All designs should address it and while the lot at the Historical Society is somehow offensive to you. how else are you going to get people to the canal unless car addicted Hoosiers can drive there.
living green is more than saving a small or large piece of open space or using technology to make our buildings more efficient, its a mass change in our society and way of living. to live green is to change the way you live and the person standing next to you, and changing their way of living to include an attitude that they will change someone else. Most of the arguements against the Canal Hotel are simply NIMBY arguements. You use the canal for this or you like the canal for that. ITS A WATER TREATMENT CANAL FOLKS, THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT IT. Our city continues to grow and the more roadblocks we put up in front of that development the more our cities stigma as a small underdeveloped midwester TOWN will perpetuate. We are the little sister to the SECOND CITY. Either we grow up or fade away.
There is no parking problem on the Canal. Rarely does Senate Ave. have any cars parked on it. The problem is that the lots are all private and ban anyone who isn't in the building from parking there. Hence on Saturday you have gigantic lots that are padlocked shut.
Its not much of a stretch to see very nice, modern infill - check out what's
happening in Chicago. Clean urban and urbane design. Sensitive but current.
More blather just like south of Lockerbe's Kosene developments.
Where's the green statement? Doesn't exist.
Also, I think I've finally figured out why development is such a long and tedious process in Indianapolis....... every member of the community is an Architecture expert/critic and nobody can agree on anything. Someone on these boards, I forget his name, is CONTINUOUSLY maoning about non-traditional footprints and it makes me laugh every time... hee hee... just thought about it. Downtown Indianapolis is FREQUENTLY held up as an example to the rest of the country as to what quality redevelopment and development should look like, but to hear this citys own residents tell it, you'd think we were all living in the most backward city in the country.
I am proud to take my out of town visitors downtown to show them around. Almost without exception, they are left with a very favorable impression, not only of what this city already has in place but for the potential it holds. That is a key thing.... this downtown still holds a LOT of potential, whereas a lot of the cities we are frequently compared to are just about maxed out. Indy is full of jewels, whether we all recognize them or not, that many cities would be proud to have as a part of their fabric.
Of the two proposals, I think that this one is far and away the best and would make the Canal and even better attraction. Face it people, the Canal is a major underacheiver and needs a bold development to actually take it to the next level. Oklahoma City's Bricktown Canal is far better than ours and they used ours as a model!!
Downtown Indy needs more density, not grass. We need more buildings and people, not grass.
1) Adding balconies would go a long way in terms of improving how the structure engages the canal.
2) We don't need more hotel rooms downtown. Apartments would be ideal.
therefore have higher expectations than others. We see what is being
built around the around the world and only want the best for our city.
Sure our city's downtown, in comparison to many our size, is in good shape.
I want it to be great.
The Browning design complies with the sky plane. The sky plane requires the building to step back at different heights. Once the building steps back far enough from the center line of the canal, the building height is unrestricted.
That said, I do like the engagement with the canal here. It's another case, it seems, of me liking the mass and footprint of a building, but not the wrapper (which in this case looks seriously wrapper-like).
Any chance of seeing a plan? That might change my attitude.
There are huge amounts of greenspace along the canal. I don't think it's necessary to maintain this strip of grass just to have a free viewing area for 14 concerts and 3 movies per year. Instead, we can have 365 days of cafes and restaurants in that space (or 180 if you only want to count the times you'd want to be outside). Whether we like the designs or not, the proposed developments are all better uses of the land.
How did we get away from that vision and into the downtown hotel hub idea? Maybe we wanted the dining on downtown streets instead?
I also have to agree that this site has always been planned for development. If the Historical Society wanted it for movie night, they should have bought it.
Style is such a personal taste. Just because this isn't Italy, does that mean we should tear down all the Italianate and Italian-influenced structures in town and never build any modern interpretations of those styles? I don't think so.
Personally, I'd be in favor of outlawing that stucco-on-styrofoam stuff inside the Regional Center, but I don't get to make the rules.
1) The IHPC has no jurisdiction here. cj simply has no idea what IHPC does or stands for, and should stop with the desperate attempt to bad mouth a city agency he obviously don't understand.
2) The Historical Society (no relation to the IHPC), which sits in a fake historic building, should have bought the land.
3) A public design competition would win broad support and would be a tremendous gesture of good will by the owner.
But this isn't Venice. This is a land-locked state in the 21st Century United States. What is appropriate about planting a 500 year old Italian seafront city style in contemporary Indiana?
Achieving an urban scale, rhythm, massing, and richness SIMILAR to historic Venice but with a modern appearance is entirely possible, and in my opinion, far more desirable.
Am I missing something? Feel free to dislike the design -- I'm personally on the fence -- but I fail to see how ANY element of the design is OUT of context with its surroundings.
Is this like designing buildings to match our cars, whose styles change every year? ;-)
But I agree, CorrND - it matches its surroundings, and in terms of styling I wish it didn't; I wish it looked of its time.
There WAS a plan for the Canal district. It was positioned as a cool urban living space, so a bunch of apartments and condos (no doubt pro-forma driven) were built with the canal as an amenity but utterly without canal-level life to attract people. Remember (those old enough) that the push for the past 15 years has been more people living in the Mile Square. (In my files somewhere are the City RFPs for all the apartment and condo sites along the Canal.)
Where have you gone, Jane Jacobs? We keep repeating the mistakes she highlighted forty years ago, albeit in new ways.
This can give a center peice for the canal, and boost density up up up!
This will probably contribute to the european feel of the canal.
The design though not amazing, has an amazing shape, and the way it goes over the canal is just.. very old world.
I hope this is chosen over that cold brown brick building with no street level.