1418 Macintosh Ct.
Plainfield, Indiana 46168
September 10, 1997
Tel: (317) 624-2397
Email: arenn@urbanophile.com

Dear Ms. Zahn:

I am writing you to express some serious concerns I have about the direction the city is taking to redevelop the area around Market Square Arena. As downtown's principal champion, I hope that you will take my input under consideration when giving your advice to the study team. Because the issue of downtown development is so complex and so important, this letter is a bit long. I appreciate you taking the time to read through it.

I am very worried that the city will elect to redevelop the east downtown area as a suburban style office and industrial park instead of selecting a more urban land use style. A suburban office park would not only be an inefficient use of precious downtown land, it would actually hurt downtown. A far better approach would be to designate the land around Market Square Arena as high density (perhaps even high rise) residential. My reasons are detailed below.

I read an Indianapolis Star article in which someone suggested building a suburban office park downtown might lure back businesses that left downtown for similar environments in outlying areas. This is a particularly naïve thought. Do we really believe most businesses left downtown because of the type of building they were in? Things are a lot more complex than that. A whole host of things such as taxes, crime, parking, and proximity to customers and employees all played a part. The building itself probably played a minor role. In fact, all other things equal, I my guess is that nearly any worker would prefer an office in a high rise with a great view to some generic three story glass box.

Applying this same logic to other areas shows the absurdity of imitating the suburbs to lure people downtown. For example, people stopped shopping downtown department stores and started shopping at far away strip malls. The logic of the downtown office park would suggest that we should have put a Wal-Mart anchored "power center" on the two blocks where Circle Centre now sits since that is what people in the suburbs want. (We certainly could have saved a lot of money that way). Something tells me that if we had just constructed a downtown version of Village Park Plaza, Circle Centre would not be quite the same success it is today. By building a mall with a unique urban shopping environment people could not experience anywhere else, we attracted suburbanites in droves because it was something that was not like the suburbs. Nobody would have driven downtown to go to a strip mall.

Given a choice between a real suburb, and a downtown trying to act like a suburb (but still having a high crime rate, high taxes, poor schools, etc.), people will choose the real suburb almost every time. Building downtown faux suburbs is not a long term strategy for success. Instead, following the economic Law of Comparative Advantage, downtown should strive to capitalize on being the unique urban space the suburbs will never be. And on giving us all that sense of place, that feeling of "This is Indianapolis", that Woodfield Crossing or some nearly identical near east downtown office park cannot.

Yes, if we built a few low rise office buildings we could probably find tenants – particularly after the inevitable handouts from the city to fund land acquisition, free surface parking lots, tax abatements, etc. But why would these businesses come downtown? Would it be for the building and office park atmosphere? No. I argue that it would it be because of proximity to Circle Centre and the cultural and recreational infrastructure of downtown. To be part of the unique atmosphere that is the center of our city. But a suburban style office park is not part of that atmosphere. It is the antithesis of the unique city experience. It adds nothing to downtown. It gives no one a reason to come there, or to leave thinking they have experienced something special if they do. Instead, it leeches off downtown. It takes its vitality from the vibrant urban fabric around it, but is not part of that fabric. It takes but does not give. Why not instead build something that not only succeeds because of the other good things downtown, but actually offers something to downtown back in return?

Downtown has several older class B and C office buildings that are vacant. Many of these building are attractive on the outside, but have numerous problems such as asbestos, antiquated mechanical systems, and poor floor plans that make it difficult to redevelop them. Over the years a great number of these buildings, many of them historic, have been demolished. Others may yet face demolition. We also have a major 20 story skyscraper – the former Blue Cross building – that is 100% vacant.

It simply does not make sense to encourage the development of newer, cheap low rise buildings that will exert more pressure on buildings that already struggle for survival. Particularly when there are alternative uses for the land in question that would benefit downtown so much more. To subsidize the development of suburban style offices around the perimeter of downtown is to subsidize a mini-version of the suburban flight that almost killed our downtown once. This time the effect might not be so dramatic, but it could result in the demolition of historic structures and continuation of pockets of blight in the core of the Mile Square.

Urban land is a rare commodity in Indianapolis. We already have thousands of acres devoted to suburban office parks, industrial complexes, and subdivisions. But we only have one square mile of downtown. A mere 5 1/2 square miles in the greater regional center area. This is our one urban space. The one place where Indianapolis is built like a city instead of suburb or small town. Why would we want to fill up much of that precious land with low rise buildings that would probably contain less square footage than the Bank One Tower (which consumes less than a block of land)? There are plenty of places in Indianapolis to develop suburban office buildings or industrial parks. There is only one downtown for building urban commercial and residential spaces.

We understand completely that urban style development is inappropriate for the suburbs. No one would ever propose commercial buildings with zero setbacks and no parking in the suburbs. It would be against zoning ordinances and out of character for the neighborhood. Why then should we think that it is appropriate to build suburban buildings downtown? It just does not make sense.

A suburban office park might possibly have some sort of place downtown. But it surely deserves no more role than it already has. Downtown is already replete with "campuses" of one type of another: the IUPUI campus, the state government campus, the Lilly campus, and much of the restored Canal. There are already plenty of places for developers to put suburban style office buildings downtown. We do not need another.

Consider also the tax implication of low density development. By putting low rise, cheaper buildings and surface parking lots on several blocks of downtown, we reduce the amount of future property taxes we will be able to collect off that land. This is a particularly bad thing given that downtown is just about the only area of very high value land that many unconsolidated taxing districts can get revenue from. We do not want IPS to have to raise property taxes. Yet we are proposing to construct low density office buildings on our limited supply of downtown land, thus putting an artificial cap on what IPS and other entities will be able to collect in taxes revenue from a "natural increase" in the tax base. This does not make much sense.

If we do not have the vision or patience to create the right type of downtown, we will end up regretting it for years to come. Once a building is constructed on a site, it will be there for decades. We would be better off to leave a lot vacant for years rather than subsidize the building of something harmful or sub-optimal on it. Look at Circle Centre. That project was sixteen years in the making. Had we not had the patience to do the job right, who knows what we might have there today. If all we cared about was filling those holes in the ground, we could have built a suburban office park on the Circle Centre site too. But we did not do that (even though many people would have pulled the plug on the project and disposed of the land differently) and the result was the best thing that has happened in downtown in my lifetime. We need to have similar patience and vision to do the right thing in the Market Square area.

There are about 13,000 people living in the regional center. Over the 5-1/2 square mile downtown area, this equates to only 2,400 people per square mile. By contrast, in the 1950's, the entirety of Center Township had 335,000 people – almost 8,000 people per square mile! The population loss downtown in the past decades has been staggering. Yes, today more people are moving downtown. But there is too little housing and it is too low density to spark the kind of commercial boom city leaders would like. Or to keep sidewalks more than a block or so from Circle Centre from being deserted after 5:00 or on weekends.

Assuming the 1950's Center Township population density of 8,000 people per square mile, downtown should have about 45,000 residents when fully developed. And remember, those density figures were for all of Center Township, not just downtown. One could argue that downtown should be more densely populated than that. However, with the supply of vacant downtown land dwindling, it is unlikely we will have anything near that many people when downtown is fully built out.

If we truly want to have a 24 hour downtown, we need to get serious about downtown housing. We need to lure more residents – a lot more. If we fail to attract substantially more residents downtown (and to provide housing for them), then we will continue to see a downtown that is not living up to its full potential.

A perfect example of this is "thriving" Mass Ave. Drive down it on a Saturday afternoon (or anytime really) and you will be lucky to see more than a handful of pedestrians. By the standards of any real booming urban area, Mass Ave. is dead. Many of the storefronts are filled with 9-5 offices which could be located anywhere. Vacant lots abound. Many of the retail establishments are not all that busy. I have often been the only customer in some stores there during prime shopping hours. The places that do a large business are those that either have a regional monopoly (for example, the Murat Theatre's Broadway plays) or have gained the status of hip and trendy (like the Abbey Coffeehouse). Compare Mass Ave. to, say, Broad Ripple, where the shops are packed, the streets are full of people, and you can't find a parking place and see the difference. There are simply not enough people living near Mass Ave. to make it a viable neighborhood shopping district (yet). Businesses that want to make it have to reach out to suburbanites to come down and visit.

Mass Ave. is certainly in far better shape than it was during the 1970's. But it has yet to reach its full potential. It could be one of the city's premier commercial corridors. Its sidewalks could be packed with people on weekends. But this has not materialized yet. And it will not materialize until there is a larger base of residents near it to support those businesses.

Which brings us back to the Market Square Arena area. Designating it residential makes so much sense, it is almost impossible to see how anyone would propose doing anything else with it. It is clear that downtown needs more residents. The city itself also believes that and has repeatedly stated its desire to have more people living downtown. I believe that the near east downtown area is the perfect place to encourage the development of new housing. This is for several reasons:

• It is one of the few areas of largely vacant land close to the heart of downtown

• It would be attractive to residents because it is conveniently located to nearly all of downtown's activity centers. The Ohio St. financial district, Mass Ave., and Circle Centre are easy walking distance. The new arena will be only a couple blocks away. Even the RCA Dome and convention center could be walked to.

• It would provide a strong residential base to support the Mass Ave. commercial corridor. Critical neighborhood establishments that have struggled to survive (like O'Malia's, downtown's only grocery store) would get a needed infusion of customers. Additional businesses such as record stores, diners, and book stores could be attracted, adding to the corridor's appeal.

• It would help provide a "critical mass" of customers to support the City Market, which has been hemorrhaging money for years. It could also provide a "home base" of customers for Circle Centre.

• It would keep people in the area 24 hours a day. Currently this area is a black hole during non-business hours. With people on the sidewalks 24 hours a day (and perhaps additional businesses in the area to serve them), this area could provide a more inviting link between Circle Centre and Mass Ave., encouraging more tourists and suburbanites to visit the northeast downtown area. Currently, the area functions as a barrier between two of downtown's most important activity centers. An office park would only perpetuate this situation.

• It would draw people who care deeply about downtown. People living in a place are almost certain to be more concerned about it than those who merely work there 9-5 and then leave. The people living in this area would care about their neighborhood and downtown and would be much more likely to put their time into making it a better place than a suburban resident who merely works in the area.

• With people living in close proximity to where they work and shop, many trips could be made on foot or by very short auto trips. This will serve to reduce congestion on outlying roads and reduce air pollution. With Indianapolis on the cusp of violating federal ozone standards, reducing air pollution is critical.

• If executed properly, and if the needed synergies with Mass Ave. and Circle Centre occur, this area could form a key part in the formation of an "urban playground" type neighborhood. The kinds of places found in larger cities that are filled with blocks of restaurants, bars, coffeeshops, bookstores, etc. The types of neighborhoods that have lured thousands of bright, ambitious Indiana college grads to leave the state. This type of environment might help to halt or reverse the much lamented Hoosier "brain drain".

Consider all the things that residential development would contribute to the downtown and compare it to what a suburban style office park would bring and there is no question what to do. Encouraging residential development in the Market Square area not only uses the existing downtown attractions to draw people, it also gives a lot back to downtown, something the suburban style office park does not do.

The need is clear. There are over 100,000 downtown office workers, but only 13,000 residents. A couple hundred more office workers will not add that much to downtown. But a lot more residents could be the shot in the arm that the City Market, et al. need to truly blossom. The Market Square area should be designated residential.

It is important to do more than just designate the Market Square area as residential. It is also important that the residential building erected there be high density.

Why high density? To reiterate, there is only a very limited amount of vacant downtown land. It must be used as efficiently as possible. And downtown needs more than just a handful of residents. It needs a lot more residents. Higher density brings more people. Also, the area in question is part of the heart of downtown. Thus it is appropriate to at much higher densities than elsewhere. Just as very high density development is inappropriate in the suburbs, low density development should be considered inappropriate downtown.

But what is high density? The Indianapolis Regional Center Plan defines high density residential as more than 50 dwelling units per acre. There are only really three developments in all of downtown that meet this criteria: Riley Towers, the Canal Square Apartments, and the Canal Overlook Apartments. Riley Towers is of course a high rise complex. The other two are low rise apartment complexes along the Canal. Canal Square has 275 units on one city block and Canal Overlook has about 125 units on half a block.

Being generous, there are about 5 1/2 blocks of vacant land around Market Square Arena. At 275 units per block, this would equate to 1,500 units if all of the land were built out at the same residential density as the Canal Square Apartments. At 2 people per apartment, this is about 3,000 people. Not an insignificant number, but not a huge number either. To put this in perspective, if each of these people visited Circle Centre mall every day, it would only equate to an extra 1 million visitors per year at the mall – less than a 10% increase over the current 12 million annual visitors. Or consider that the Indianapolis metro area population has grown by almost 20,000 people per year during the 1990's. Over 2,000 people per year move to Fishers alone.

As you can see, even with development at the current definition of high density, there would not be a dramatic increase in downtown population. I would consider the 275 units per block figure a minimum level to establish for the neighborhood. The target goal should actually be higher than that. I think it should be easy to reach a minimum of 500 units per block.

How can that be accomplished? One way is through building high rise apartment or condominium buildings. Conventional wisdom has it that Indianapolis residents do not like high rise housing, but I am not convinced. For many reasons, I believe that the time might be right for downtown high rise residential development. And high rises would provide the needed density. Many high rise buildings across the country contain 500+ units. Even if an entire city block was devoted to just one high rise, this would easily give the required density.

I believe that Indianapolis residents are much less opposed to high rise living than many people believe. All of the existing high rise developments have major problems that affect their desirability, thus they do not provide a good example of how Hoosiers view high rises. For example:

• Riley Towers are old and, quite frankly, ugly. They were modeled after Sandburg Village in Chicago, which, despite being sandwiched between the tony Gold Coast and yuppie Lincoln Park, is viewed with disdain by most Chicagoans and is widely regarded as one of the worst high rise developments in the city outside of public housing. While the surrounding areas are filled with yuppie couples and affluent singles, Sandburg Village is mostly occupied by older and middle aged couples of more modest means. Also, Riley Towers are located too far from the core of downtown. They are much further from Circle Centre and the sports complexes than the Market Square area is. Interestingly, despite all this, Riley Towers are currently over 90% occupied.

• The other high rises in the city are all located in marginal neighborhoods (such as 38th and Meridian) with real or perceived crime problems. They also lack a good neighborhood commercial infrastructure and are inconveniently located both too far from downtown and too far from Broad Ripple and the rest of the North Side. Like Riley Towers, they are also all older buildings.

I believe that a modern, upscale high rise with lots of onsite amenities (dry cleaning, 24 hour security, concierge, coffee shop, cash machine, etc.) in the right location could do very well in downtown Indianapolis. I know many former Indiana residents who now reside in high rises in Chicago. If Hoosiers are willing to live in them there, I see no reason why they would reject them here. Other similar sized cities are looking at high rise residential development downtown. This includes places like Louisville, which is both smaller than Indianapolis and has a somewhat less vibrant downtown.

Interestingly, in one Louisville project, local owners are teaming with an out of town high rise developer from Chicago. This might be the way to go in Indianapolis as well. Perhaps the reason no downtown residential high rise project has been proposed is that local developers have no expertise in building them. If a local developer partnered with an out of town expert in high rise development, it might help lure this type of project. It would also build local know-how in this area.

The city should definitely encourage high rise residential development as a big part of the Market Square are revitalization. With the downtown office market experiencing a near flat growth curve, it is unlikely too many more office only skyscrapers will be built downtown in the near future. Building residential high rises allows the city to add to its skyline while fulfilling a critical need for more downtown residents. And high rises provide the right high density environment needed in the core of downtown. They also allow the city to differentiate itself from surrounding cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, etc. that have largely caught up with us in the downtown redevelopment game. It is a way for us to build a unique environment that those cities do not have and get a step ahead of the competition. With the recent commercial boom in the Circle Centre area and the other good things happening downtown, the time is also right to bring this type of development on line.

Will finding developers for downtown high rise projects be easy? No. Daniel Burhnam once famously said, "Make no small plans. They have no power to fire men's souls." But it is often difficult to follow his advice. Big plans and grand visions are hard to achieve. But we have done it before. We planned big with Circle Centre and worked hard for 16 years to make it a reality. That development turned out to be the grand slam downtown retailing needed. It was 45 years from the conception of the World War Memorial Plaza in 1920 to its completion in 1965. Today it is one of the greatest urban spaces anywhere in America. We constantly say that we want to be a "world class city." If that is what we truly aspire to be, then we should not be afraid to create a world class vision of what our downtown could be and we should be willing to do the hard work it takes to achieve it.

Planning out the near east area of downtown as a high density, high rise residential district would be a bold and daring move that has the potential to catapult downtown to the next level. A suburban office park would do naught but fill up vacant land as quickly as possible. I urge you to think long and hard before recommending a suburban style office park for downtown and to seriously consider high density residential instead.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to call me at (317) 624-2397 during business hours or email me at arenn@urbanophile.com.

Sincerely,

Aaron M. Renn

cc:
Mayor Stephen Goldsmith
Ratio Architects