Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Hogsett administration is considering a possible sale and redevelopment of Old Indianapolis City Hall as part of an expanded request for proposals for a neighboring parking lot first issued last fall.
The city’s Department of Metropolitan Development is asking developers to pay at least $2.34 million for the 113-year-old building at 202 N. Alabama St., which was the seat of city government until the City-County Building was completed in 1962.
The request is part of an amendment to an RFP issued in October for the 0.65-acre parking lot immediately north of the building, at 222 N. Alabama St., for which at least five developers put in bids. While that RFP focused primarily on the parking lot, it did allow bidders to incorporate a non-government use of the Old City Hall building—an unused piece of real estate that has challenged city officials for nearly a decade.
The city considered bids from Buckingham Cos., Flaherty & Collins Properties, KennMar, TWG, and a partnership of Gershman Partners and Citimark, but did not select any of the proposals. Instead, it opted to formerly incorporate the Old City Hall building into an updated RFP.
No details of what the original proposals entailed have yet been made public, but city officials said many included the former government building in their pitches.
“As a result of the RFP (that) DMD issued at the end of last year for the adjacent parking lot, a number of respondents sought to include Old City Hall in their proposals,” Rusty Carr, director of metropolitan development, told IBJ in a written statement. “This addendum allows the city to capitalize on redevelopment interest for both properties.”
The amendment essentially resets the bidding process, allowing any developer with interest in the site—whether or not they bid on the October RFP—to put forth a project idea.
The site is just south of the Mass Ave district and situated in the northwest corner of the Market East district, in which numerous other redevelopment efforts are taking place. City officials think the parking lot site could act as a bridge between the two downtown neighborhoods.
The October request for bids required that any ideas for the former city hall consider the historic nature of the building.
Previous efforts to jumpstart development at Old City Hall and the parking lot have all fizzled, including a proposal in 2015 to develop a 21c hotel and museum. Another RFP was issued for both the parking lot and the city hall building in 2017, receiving nearly a dozen responses before the effort ultimately petered out.
An extensive, 196-page analysis released in September 2021 found that it would take an investment ranging from $36 million to $55 million to convert the Old City Hall building into a “grey box”—a real estate industry term used to describe a building that’s largely move-in ready but requires some tenant improvements such as flooring and painting.
The same analysis also indicated it would cost about $4.2 million to address a laundry list of deferred maintenance issues such as facade repairs, roof upgrades and mechanical system replacements.
Any project could be partially subsidized or incentivized by the city using tools such as developer-backed tax-increment financing, New Markets tax credits, affordable housing incentives, abatements or payment in lieu of taxes, according to the original RFP. An amount would be determined through negotiations between the selected developer and city officials.
The Department of Metropolitan Development is accepting bids for the amended RFP through noon on July 17.
Built in 1909 and 1910 and clad in Indiana limestone, the four-story Old City Hall housed the Indiana State Museum from 1966 to 2001 and temporarily housed the Central Library during renovations to the main library building early this century.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
This building and lot will continue to languish in disrepair for years to come because the amount of red tape and developer must overcome is insane. A 4th RFP in 8 years is ridiculous.
It’s not necessarily the red tape. It’s the old infrastructure (or lack of infrastructure) of the building itself. No sprinklers, no full scale HVAC with old Concrete and Limestone walls. That is the main reason that old historic building is languising.
Patience can be a virtue! Obviously the right use and plan hasn’t come forward yet. We can’t just destroy the correct solution because we’re tired of waiting.
I still find it hard to believe that Jim Irsay and the Irsay family haven’t pursued Old City Hall for the Irsay Museum. It’s basically the perfect structure and location for such a permanent museum use. As the Cook family spent literally about a billion dollars on the French Lick and West Baden hotel restorations, with no return or profit attached, Irsay could also do the same here. Jim could afford it, and make the project a true destination and attraction for downtown.
Irsay wants people to fawn over him to get his collection into a museum. This is why he toured around the country with his tour where, for some reason, he sang a decent amount of the songs. It is kind of crazy that he didn’t make Indy his first option for the museum when the city has given him and his family so much already.
I don’t find that hard to believe. While Irsay has supported certain causes and can at times be generous, his efforts don’t rise to the level of the Cook family and their legacy.
It is a perfect fit for Irsay and the city of Indianapolis. Irsay’s collection is more than just rock and roll memorabilia and as a historic preservation it would be quite the gift to the city.
A couple highrise!!!!! High!!!! 50 floors and up!!!! Stop building low!!!!!
To create empty space?
The amount of unused commercial space Downtown and elsewhere is already rather high and promising to go a bit higher. Hotel space? The new hotel planned at Pan Am is making current hoteliers a bit skittish that there will be too much capacity.
Apartments and condos? Perhaps. Downtown’s population has grown quite a bit over the past ten years. But 50 stories? Even the current stock is “in balance” but not a shortage. I realize you and others are pushing for a critical mass of people in one area. There are good reasons for that. But high-rise residential doesn’t necessarily make for a “rooted” neighborhood feel. I’d like to see the surface parking lots be absorbed by whatever buildings go up. Beyond that, the human scale of our Downtown is, I think, something to be admired.
It seems to take forever for projects in this City to materialize. Other cities seem to streamline this process. Not sure why Indianapolis can not expedite this process. Taking 3 to 4 years is not acceptable. Was in Boston over the weekend it is amazing how much has been developed in the seaport area over the last several years. Such a beautiful, clean and safe city.
100% thinking same thing when was in Boston for playoff games last month! Very quickly built an entire new commercial and real estate district in seaport there where in indy things drag. Did not see cookie cutter 4-6 story apartment projects with 1 foot “balconies” either as we seem to have a fair amount of in indy.
+1
It is very frustrating to see how long it takes to develop projects downtown.
The Historical Society at times has been a hindrance also.
Jacob, it is unfair to compare Boston and Indianapolis. In terms of media household income alone, the Boston-Cambridge-Newton market is the 5th wealthiest in the U.S., at more $82,000 while the Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson market’s median is less than $64,000.
With that difference, as well as being home to 16 Fortune 500 companies (twice as many as in our entire state), investors and developers obviously have a higher level of confidence to undertake more major projects there than here.
We also have a much, much weaker tax base than Boston. Greater Boston as ~4.3 million people; double the population of Metro Indy, and they all live in about 30% less space compared to Metro Indy. They are denser, use fewer resources per household (sprawl and large swaths of single-family homes are extremely expensive to support with public services), and have served as a seat for many of the country’s biggest corporations.
No vision has been developed for this property nor the location. Most important, Hogsett should stop initiating new projects and issuing requests for proposals. This is an election year, in which he justifies a third term due to Covid derailing his plans. Finish what you started and stop counting your chickens before they are hatched.
He’s been doing more than any mutt we’ve seen prior!!! Not asking your opinion. Don’t respond back.