The good, the bad, and the ugly of Indianapolis (recently)

The Good: The nice thing about what is perceived to be a one time event like the Super Bowl is that it gives people a deadline to clean house and finish up projects. A lot of projects and ideas are coming out and about.

The decision to close Monument Circle in August to see what would happen is a fascinating proposition. The Circle is closed half the time during the summer months anyway, so closing it for a whole month should make for an interesting experiment. The opportunities that come with recreating the circle as a pedestrian plaza is limitless. Tables and chairs. Public art. Landscaping. And even more events since the cost of security and road closure permits are practically eliminated. I have really warmed up to this idea.

The proposal to turn Georgia Street into an event plaza is interesting as well. The biggest challenge was allowing access to the multiple garages along Georgia. But the Ratio Architects design seems to do that. Sidewalks on each side. A plaza down the middle. Less vehicular space. And unique elements that could create unique venues in the middle of the street.

The ups and downs of the City Market will hopefully hit another up and stay up. The drive is to use the center hall as a real city market and steer away from the food court setup that has plagued them in recent years. There is a call to demo the west wing and redevelop it. Riley Area has a proposal that incorporates an art center and a YMCA, which I think would be spectacular. And the east wing would be converted into a bike commuter hub, an idea that is LONG over due.

The Bad: All the good ideas listed add to the improvement of our urban city. The proposed cuts by IndyGo is a great disservice. In my opinion, you can't have a world-class city without having transportation options that everybody can enjoy. City business leaders showed their support for expanded and improved transportation, including commuter rail and a street car on Washington Street. But a good bus system to support and feed these larger systems is needed. And for some reason, IndyGo isn't capable of being that. At this point, I almost feel like the system needs to be dismantled and started over from scratch. It is a really sad situation. The city and the region needs to adequately fund public transportation if we are truly going to be a great city.

The Ugly: The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library system is seeing some rough times too. They recently announced a proposal to close 6 branches to save money. Not good. The Mayor's office recently stated that they will do everything they can to keep that from happening. Not bad. But in the end, we have a library system that is having money issues. And it needs to be fixed before it becomes an uglier situation.

Public spaces and places and the ability to access them are important components of a successful city. We need to make it happen.

Work in progress: Marriott Place

From the outside, it looks like the new J.W. Marriott in downtown Indianapolis could open any day. But in reality, they have another year before they will open. But the big cranes have been removed and the majority of the exterior glass panels have been installed.

The long awaited hotel had gone through many, many, MANY redesigns. The reality of the hotel is slightly different than the last renderings I had seen. The footprint and shape are pretty much the same. The color palette is different. The rendering shows different shades of glass and dark neutral colors where the glass is not. The reality is that the glass is pretty much the same shade of blue and the dark neutrals are replaced with limestone-like shades, similar to the Convention Center across the street. The limestone colors are an improvement; the class coloring isn't, in my opinion.

But the project consists of more than just the J.W. Marriott tower. There are three other hotels that together from Marriott Place. And in between them, on the northside, is an art plaza that includes a large stylized sculpture of a cardinal, a mosaic mural of peonies, and tulip tree leaves etched into the plaza pavement. The collection of art is a nice touch for the complex and creates a connection to the White River State Park across the street with its collection of art.

To the west of the J.W. Marriott tower are three hotels consisting of one remodeled structure and two new structures. The existing structure received a much needed face lift. They all use some standard suburban hotel design standards; there is nothing unique here.

On the plus side, they do have canopies at the entries that are modern in design. And the entire complex covers the majority of the property. The density at Marriott Place is more urban than it is suburban. And that might be one of the best features of this project.

The hotel might be best seen from the west. The curve of the J.W. Marriott tower is more interesting on convex side than on the concave side. And the convention spaces along Maryland street create more street interest than along West Street.

While I contend that the glass colors in the renderings are more interesting than the blue glass that is installed. But on a sunny day, like on this day that I took these pictures, the blue glass tower looks nice with the blue sky backdrop. Additionally, some color variations will occur depending on if the room's curtains are open or not. Or where the stairwells and elevator towers are located.

The brick along the Maryland Street elevation is interesting. I believe they are trying to give an interpretation of natural limestone patterns, similar to what you see when a highway cuts through a hill in southern Indiana. The wall makes me think of exposed limestone. It also makes me think that someone screwed up the brick ordering. I didn't like it at first. It has grown on me, though.

Being a fan of baseball and, in particular, Victory Field, I was concerned about how the hotel would impact the fan experience. I'll be interested to see what the hotel looks like from my seats this season.

My other concern was the impact that the pedestrian bridge would have over West Street. They opted to use a clearer glass than the reflective blue on the hotel, and I think that lessens the impact of the bridge.

And when you look south along West Street, you can even see the Victory Field centerfield sign through the bridge.

Work on the West Street side of the hotel continues, including the canopy. At the moment, the street presence could be improved, but we'll see what the finished project looks like. But the concave side does nicely catch the sunlight at different times during the day and the blue glass reflections the Indy skyline back.

It's a nice modern addition to our skyline. No one would argue that it could have been better, but so far, it seems to be successful.

Parking in Urban Areas

A planned redevelopment on Meridian Street has come to a stop because of a Metropolitan Development Commission ruling, according to the Indianapolis Business Journal. MDC Staff recommended a variance for the required off-site parking, but because of neighborhood opposition, the MDC did not give the developer a variance.

In my opinion, we need to change the zoning ordinance so that properties in urban areas don't need to meet these requirements. Especially given the properties close proximity to public transit, as Urban Indy pointed out.

Far too often, minimum parking requirements in the zoning ordinance gets in the way of good re-development.

SB 177 is done, for now

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Sen. Miller has agreed to remove SB 177 from consideration at this time. She has agreed to send the issue to a summer study committee.

In the article, she is mentioned as wanting to know, "how neighborhoods are designated as historic, and why IHPC has authority over what colors houses are painted." The answer is simple: because the neighborhood ask to be and the neighborhood put color selection in their historic district plan that they create.

"She also wants to explore a mandatory disclosure to buyers of historic properties." And my understanding is that it is mandatory, that it is basically a sort of covenant. Realtors are suppose to let people know.

“What I’m trying to balance is individual property rights with still being able to protect neighborhoods...I just want fairness for individuals.” I, too, want fairness. I want to know that the work I put into my historic home and the equity that is created isn't tarnished because my neighbor wants to put vinyl siding on his home. That's why we worked so hard for our historic designation.

Now, I say all these remarks, but I concede that when it comes to the case of St. John's church in Cumberland, things get a little hazy. I believe that we have the right to protect things that we find important (culturally, historically, etc.). But my "because we asked for it" argument doesn't hold water in that case.

My hope is that when the study committee concludes, they will leave rules regarding current historic districts mostly unchanged, since, as I will say again and again, the neighborhoods asked for these restrictions.

But I can understand why there is cause for concern in the case of St. John's church. Maybe in the study session some ideas will come up for improving the process while still protecting historic properties. Perhaps Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana can work on a program, similar to Fund for Landmark Indianapolis Properties (FLIP), where properties like the church can be bought, and HLFI can lead a more appropriate commercial development of the property. The easy fix would be for CVS Pharmacy to agree to spending a bit more money on this particular location because of its historic significance.

Well, I won't hold my breath.

But I will breath easier knowing that SB 177 is done for now. And I will look forward to the discussions this summer.

Buses, Trains, and Automobiles

In other news, another topic that is near and dear to my heart has made some headlines recently. A draft plan by Indy Connect - Central Indiana's Transportation Initiative has been made public and they are requesting comments on their ideas for public transportation in the Indianapolis area. The initiative is made up of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority (CIRTA), and IndyGo. The plan was created as a result of years of studies and comments from the Central Indiana Transit Task Force (which the Indianapolis Business Journal talked about recently).

The plan in intriguing as it combines commuter rail, light rail, express bus service, expanded local bus service, and expansion of highway lanes (the Task Force recommends adding toll lanes on I-69 and I-65).

I like this draft for multiple reasons. The commuter rail north to Fishers and south to Greenwood addresses some of the greatest commuter needs. These are the densest of the Indianapolis suburbs and are the most likely to provide customers. Additionally, there are railroad right of ways in place that are vacant or are underutilized. In the case of the Greenwood line, the existing ROW is wide enough to accommodate an additional track.

The light rail proposal would utilize Washington Street between Cumberland and the airport, similar to the interurban line that used to run along this route. This provides an improvement in transportation quality and reliability to a corridor that already heavily uses public transit. I hope that, in the future, they would also look at light rail for 38th Street, for a Downtown/Broad Ripple connection, and another connection between downtown and 38th Street (along Meridian or Illinois/Capital). I've made these sort of suggestions before.

Not all areas need rail and I'm happy to see proposals for express bus services. I think this proposal and the addition of toll/express lanes go hand in hand. A bus that is stuck in traffic like everybody else is not that helpful. An express bus that can utilize dedicated lanes, however, is something that more people would consider.

And finally, the addition of bus routes both within Indianapolis and in other counties is important to be able to feed the rail and express bus routes. And I agree with the Task Force that IndyGo should look at more direct routing and move away from the central hub network that is currently used (I suggested a series of bus hubs in the past as well).

I'm glad to see that both the public and private sectors are staying on task with public transportation. While there are obviously costs that are associated with it (a regional tax has been suggested), it is worth it. Improved and expanded public transportation will improve the quality of life in our region.

SB 177 Update

Nothing big to report. SB 177 has been assigned to the House Government and Regulatory Reform committee, though nothing has been scheduled yet. The committee is chaired by Rep. John Bartlett (covers Lawrence and parts of Indy) with Rep. Dennis Tyler (Muncie) as vice. Also on the committee are: Rep. John Barnes (Indy, including Irvington), Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon (Lake County), Rep. Earl Harris (Lake County), Rep. Phillip Hinkle (Speedway), Rep. Tim Neese (Elkhart), Rep. Milo Smith (Columbus), Rep. Steven Stemler (Clark County), Rep. Greg Steuerwald (Brownsburg, Avon), Rep. Vern Tincher (Spencer, Terre Haute), and Rep. David Wolkins (Warsaw).

Of all the representatives on the committee, it appears that Rep. Barnes is the only one with constituents that would be impacted. As far as I can tell, neither Rep. Bartlett nor Rep. Hinkle have IHPC districts in their house district.

The bill is sponsored in the House by Rep. Bill Frizzell of House District 23 which covers the communities of Peru, Mexico, Denver, Macy, Akron, Mentone, Etna Green, Bourbon, Bremen, Milford, Nappanee, and Wakarusa.

Response from HLFI

Marsh Davis, president of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, left a comment explaining their position. And I appreciate it. Just like I appreciated comments left by Councilman Ben Hunter, even though we still disagree.

I've posted Mr. Davis' comment below. I am glad to hear that they are going to fight the bill in the House. And he defended himself in trying to find a compromise. Which I generally am a fan of compromise. But I still believe, however, that the bill that Sen. Miller defended at the committee hearing was a bad bill. It was not a compromise worth defending. And that it was disappointing and damaging that HLFI spoke in favor of it, with or without conditions.

I think a lot of people were shocked and hurt by the HLFI support. And I think their support left an impression in the minds of many, that if the Historic Landmarks Foundation can support it, well, it must be okay.

Again, I contend that Mr. Davis was wrong to defend the bill at committee. The historic districts really could have used his voice in helping to oppose the bill, even if the bill would pass anyway.

Allow me to explain Historic Landmarks Foundation's position on Senate Bill 177: As originally drafted, the bill was unacceptable. When we approached the bill's author, Sen. Pat Miller, indicating our opposition to the bill, she indicated a willingness to amend the bill to remove the most damaging components if we could find "some common ground" on the appeals process. As it was as a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass in the Senate due to the influence of its author, we had a hard choice: allow the original bill (over our opposition) to pass, or support a compromise.

Historic Landmarks Foundation, in full consultation with Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission (IHPC) staff, suggested amendments that would make the bill less damaging. When the amended bill was sent to the Local Government Committee, Historic Landmarks Foundation supported the bill with the condition that it would be further amended to address additional concerns raised by Historic Landmarks Foundation, the IHPC, and residents of historic neighborhoods. Those concerns were not adequately addressed, however, and the bill that passed the full Senate included unacceptable amendments none of us had seen.

The bill now heads to the House of Representatives where Historic Landmarks Foundation and members of Historic Urban Neighborhoods of Indianapolis (HUNI) will oppose it. Our position is clear: table the bill and allow study committees, local and state, to elicit an honest community dialogue on the effectiveness of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission. We think the IHPC does an outstanding job. Its record over time is impressive, and the benefits of local designation are abundantly apparent in our historic neighborhoods.

Just to be clear: Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana opposes Senate Bill 177. As it is taken up by the House, we will continue our work, in partnership with HUNI, our statewide Affiliate Council, and countless others to see that this bad legislation does not survive in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Best wishes,

Marsh Davis
President, Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana