[Note: This was posted to an Indianapoils Star online forum about the future of Union Station in late December 1996]

I know this is a bit off the subject of Union Station, but…

The previous message about downtown businesses being dependent on suburban visitors hit the nail on the head. There is some residential development downtown, but it is not enough and is insufficiently dense to support the type of vibrant urban core I think most people envision. Yes, compared to the decline of yesteryear, things are really starting to happen. But we need to stop judging ourselves in comparison to the past. Over the last 50 years, downtown Indy has seen serious decline. Anything would seem an improvement. The goal should not just be any growth. It should be quality growth that adds to the city's character and helps us get to where we want to be -- a "major league city" with a bustling, thriving downtown (I presume). We have now turned the corner and mostly reversed decline. We are in a position to be able to exercise judgment about what type of development is correct for downtown, not just praise anything that comes along because it happens to fill in a vacant lot. A key component of this is bringing in more residents.

Over the 5 1/2 square mile downtown area, there are only about 13,000 people. This is a population density of about 2,000-2,500 people per square mile. By comparison, citywide, San Francisco’s population density is over 15,000 per square mile. Chicago’s is over 12,000 and Seattle’s is over 6,000. Our downtown density is not nearly enough to support any type of urban (i.e., pedestrian oriented) neighborhood. Additionally, a large percentage of downtown residents are low income. Not that these are bad people, but low income folks are unlikely to frequent the type of yuppie businesses people seem to want to have downtown. And without at least some middle class folk the low income residents won't have any businesses at all to frequent.

More middle class people are moving downtown (as a previous poster mentioned). However, most new development outside the core of the mile square is very low density. This is a recipe for disaster. Also, much of it is very low quality, suburban copycat style development. It is astounding that city leaders (and newspapers) point to these (specifics later) as examples of good development. If the city truly wants to have a thriving, 24 hour downtown, it needs to attract more residents. For downtown to really have a chance at being able to have sidewalks full of people instead of empty and have businesses that aren't dependent on people driving in from Fishers, it needs a lot more people. Say 40-80,000. It's not realistic to expect that to happen overnight, but the city can start with potential activity hubs (the Mall, Mass Ave., or the Canal for example) and start working to create real urban neighborhoods around them. This would mean ensuring that new development is high density, urban style building that makes efficient use of rare downtown land. At current development densities, downtown will have far fewer than 40,000 people when it is fully developed.

An example of what happens the in presence of low density residential development is "thriving" Mass Ave. Drive down it on a Saturday afternoon (or anytime really) and you'll be lucky to see a single pedestrian. By the standards of any real urban area, Mass Ave is dead. Many of the storefronts are filled with 9-5 offices which could be located anywhere. Many of the retail establishments (outside of a few places that have gained the status of hip and trendy, such as the Abbey and the Metro) aren't all that busy. I’ve often been the only customer in some stores during prime shopping hours. Vacant lots abound. 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 simply aren't enough people living near Mass Ave to make it a viable neighborhood shopping district (yet) and it doesn’t have enough suburban drawing power to turn it into another Broad Ripple. A telling (and maybe a bit off the wall, I admit) sign that this isn’t a real neighborhood shopping district is the absence of any diners (the Abbey is the closest thing). Fountain Square, a real (though still somewhat depressed) neighborhood retail area, has several and, interestingly, also features lots of pedestrians, cars, occasional parking shortages, etc. Compared to vacant storefronts and dilapidated buildings of years ago, things are great on Mass Ave, but anything would look good compared to that. The Abbey, the Murat, etc are real progress, don’t get me wrong, but the area falls far short of being a true, thriving urban neighborhood.

Unfortunately, many of the residential areas surrounding Mass Ave. are very low density and new development continues the trend. If the city wants to make that area really take off, it should use the few examples of good, high quality, high density development that exist, and make that the standard for the future. The Lockerbie Glove Company lofts and the Lockerbie Town Homes are probably the best examples. At the other extreme, the worst would be the extremely low density (and 100% suburban styled) Renaissance Place condos. The area around Mass Ave and College near the Abbey is filled with vacant lots and light industrial property that would be perfect for this type of development. I’m not hopeful that the city or the neighbors will encourage this, however.

Another things that amazes me is that the city (with the notable exception of Councilor Susan Williams, who has opposed some development on aesthetic grounds and likes high density residential development) thinks virtually anything anybody builds downtown is good. The truth is, much of it is actively evil and does more long term (or even short term) harm than good. A few examples are:

1). The new strip mall at 10th and Indiana. A horror on historic Indiana Ave, this new strip mall would be perfectly in character for West 38th St. Tell me something, if you had your choice of living in a real suburb, or a downtown area trying to act like a suburb (but still having high crime, poor schools, high taxes, etc) which would you choose? If downtown doesn't offer a truly different experience from the suburbs, what's the point? Development like this often crops up on the edges of downtown and can "girdle" it (a la cutting a ring of bark off from around a tree), eventually limiting and killing off growth.

2). New hotels downtown. I've only seen the new Comfort Inn (at Capitol and Merrill) driving by, but it appears to be identical to its brethren that seem to pop up at every suburban interstate interchange. A deep setback off the street and large parking lot complete the suburban motif. The developer made absolutely no attempt to make this building fit into its surrounding urban area or to add any character at all to downtown. Yet the Indianapolis Monthly downtown guide proudly announces this as an example of the exciting things happening downtown.

The new Marriott hotel complex along the Canal (brought to us by the same company (Whiteco) responsible for many of the billboards that line our interstates) is slightly better, but is still too suburban looking (at least from what I've seen so far), features yet another large surface parking lot, and is low density (it will have about 250 rooms and take up an entire city block. By contrast, the Omni Severin has nearly twice the number of rooms and takes up less than half a block). The nearly completed Marriott Courtyard is architecturally identical to the one on Walnut St. in Bloomington (but actually has fewer floors) and, one presumes, many others across the country. The city not only rejected a much higher density solution when selecting this development for that block, it also gave the developer a 10 year tax abatement to build it. That's right, a 10 year tax abatement to a billboard company for erecting a copycat building on prime downtown land. Visit the skyscraper like Marriott Courtyard on State St. in Chicago and see the difference.

3). Office buildings on the Canal. It appears that the city thinks the best use of the Canal real estate is as a suburban office park. It has encouraged t he development of low density, high parking lot buildings that actually hurt exi sting and future residents (and older downtown office buildings). Take the Technology Transfer Center at Senate and St. Clair (the building just north of the new Watermark development). This is a typical self-referential suburban low rise office building. It is set back off streets and the Canal. A prominent parking lot appears to take up more land area than the building itself. The structure relates to its surroundings in no meaningful way that I can detect. Senate Ave and St. Clair are almost always devoid of pedestrians. The only people you are likely to see near this place are office workers doing the 5:00 march to their cars so they can get the heck out of there. After 5:00 and on weekends, the building is a black hole in the neighborhood. At a full city block, it creates a large empty spot that functions as barrier between Watermark and anything that develops north of there. The parking lot is padlocked shut after hours and so cannot be used by anyone who wants to drive down to see the canal or USS Indianapolis memorial, forcing people to squeeze into a no parking zone on Walnut Street south of the building. I can’t think of a single thing this building contributes to the city or the neighborhood other than property taxes. The city seems to believe otherwise however (or maybe just needs the property taxes to pay off Circle Centre bonds), since it keeps trying to bring in more of the same. It sold off the triangular lot at Indiana and Senate to AUL for an office building (actually a parking lot. AUL doesn’t plan to develop the site for several years, at which point it will receive a tax abatement for its trouble. It is possible AUL may decide to put a good building on the site since they seem to be a responsible corporate citizen), is putting more offices (along with a small expansion of Watermark) on the block south of Watermark, and is trying to lure the Clarian Health (nee Methodist Hospital) headquarters to the north of St. Clair.

If the city wants offices to be part of the Canal mix, a far better approach was that taken by the Stewart Center developers. That building saved a historic facade, has storefronts that might house retail at a future date (they are used for offices now), fronts Indiana Ave., is very human scaled, and features enclosed parking mostly hidden from view on the lower level. This type of building with ground floor retail and upper floor offices is what should be built. The rehab of the historic building across the street for a ground floor jazz club/restaurant and upper floor offices is also good.

Anyway, downtown needs more residents not more office buildings. New low rise offices are the last thing downtown needs. We already have numerous vacant class B and C office buildings in the core of downtown. We even have a major skyscraper that is 100% vacant (the old Blue Cross building on Market St). These buildings (often historic) have proven difficult to redevelop. (For example, the former Fletcher Trust building was unable to lure enough office tenants to make a renovation feasible. The developer is now trying to redevelop it as a hotel). We should continue to try to focus office development there rather than allowing near downtown suburban style office parks to sap vitality from the Mile Square. That is why I think the rest of the Canal (as well as the surrounding streets such as Senate) should be built out with high density residential. This would feature lots of urban townhouses and apartments (the Lockerbie Town Homes mentioned earlier would provide a good model) with some single family homes set on narrower lots than even traditional city homes. Indiana Ave, the Canal, and major intersections on other streets could feature neighborhood retail, coffee shops, bars and restaurants, doctor's offices, etc. This base of people will provide the patrons that will keep downtown businesses alive and give us streets full of people walking to neighborhood businesses (which won’t need off street parking lots) instead of driving to strip malls far away.

4). The new canal residential developments. The new Canal Court development is a typical suburban apartment complex plopped down on the Canal. It features a jumble of buildings set around winding streets. It completely turns its back on the neighborhood. Parking garages front busy West St. and detract from the already desolate streetscape there. (This was decried by the Star's Steve Mannheimer during development of the property to no avail).

Contrast this with the Canal Square apartments and see the difference. Canal Square has more apartments in about half the land area. It is more vertically oriented and has a zero setback off the streets and canal on all sides promoting a more urban feel. The parking garage is hidden from view on the interior and the building even helps mitigate the visual impact of an existing IPL substation. There are doors exiting directly onto the sidewalks, showing that the building is actually part of the neighborhood instead of isolated from it.

The Mansur Watermark development had tremendous potential (being medium density and urban styled, with many other praiseworthy elements). However, its potential was squandered by Mansur’s decision to make the townhouses face inward rather than outward (more garages facing the street) and to isolate the development from the neighborhood with a cheap wooden fence. (The flats do face outward, fronting the canal, however). These two things make Watermark little more than an upscale, pseudo-gated, zero lot line suburban subdivision. It's sad to see that that quality of the residential development along the canal is actually declining rather than improving as downtown gains more vibrancy.

If the city truly wants a thriving, urban center it needs urban style, high density development that engages its neighborhood, not hides from it. Build with suburban style architectures and densities and all you will get is a downtown version of the auto based suburb. One that, as I mentioned earlier, still has high taxes, poor schools and high crime.

A great coming opportunity is to turn the numerous parking lots around Market Square (which will probably be demolished after a new arena is built on the Georgia St. site) into high density housing that would feed both the Mall and the businesses along Mass Ave. I think this area is perfect for the construction of high rise type apartments or condos. Conventional wisdom has it that Indy residents don't like high rise living, but I'm not so sure. The existing high rise buildings all have major problems that affect their desirability. For example, the high rises at 38th and Meridian are in a marginal (at the current time) neighborhood. Barton Place is public housing. 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 (not including public housing of course). 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. Even with its problems, Riley Towers is still nearly fully occupied. I think a real, modern, upscale high rise condo building with lots of onsite amenities (dry cleaning, 24 hour security, concierge, coffee shop, exercise room, in unit washer/dryer, cash machine, etc) could do very well in Indy. Unfortunately, a recent Indianapolis Business Journal article had the city advocating yet another suburban style office park on the near east side of downtown.

Many downtown attractions (even perhaps Circle Centre) could eventually fall victim to the same fate as Union Station. When development is dependent on suburban visitors, anything that loses its status as hip and trendy can fall. In our micro attention span age, anything can fall prey to the "next big thing". And make no mistake about it, downtown is totally dependent on suburbanites. Union Station showed us that. Downtown residents, conventioneers and tourists couldn’t keep it afloat once it ceased to hold attraction to our own suburban masses. Expanding the convention center and spending more on tourism promotion will help bring in more visitors, but it is an urban population base that will (by virtue of having a stake in the survival of their own neighborhood and sheer numbers) make downtown businesses and attractions viable and stable.

Don’t think I want to remodel downtown Indy to be another Chicago or Seattle. A high density, urban core is fully consistent with our history. As late as 1950, Center Township had a population of 337,000 (a population density of almost 8000/sq. mi.). Along historic Indiana Ave. alone, there were once 33 restaurants, 33 saloons, 26 grocery stores, 17 barber shops, 16 tailors, 14 shoemakers and 13 dry good stores. Amazing. This is our true heritage, not bland, generic hotels and low rise offices that take up entire city blocks for just one or two buildings. We celebrated this heritage in style with the superlative Circle Centre mall, now it’s time to make everything else we build downtown live up to the same standards.

Wow, I rambled on for a long time! I hate to think about how long I’ve been here typing. One last thing (in case anyone from the Star actually reads these things). The Star has been missing in action when it comes to taking a critical look at downtown development. The Op Ed pages are little more than mindless cheerleaders for whatever comes down the pipe. Columnists rarely rise to critically examine issues such as the rapid suburbanization of downtown. The Star has no architecture critic. It has no urban planning critic or urban land use experts writing (that I can see). The rare times the Star actually seems to latch on to a serious debate about downtown are when finances are involved (such as taxes for a new arena). We need to start treating proposed downtown developments (and announcements of developments) with the same sort of hard scrutiny given to politicians who announce proposals. The Star would never just mindlessly reprint the contents of a press release or speech from the governor on, say, education reform, as the perfect solution to education problems, but too often that is what is exactly what is done with key issues such as downtown land use.

Only Steve Mannheimer (the paper’s best columnist IMHO) ever rises to the occasion, but he is like a voice crying in the wilderness and no one else at the Star ever picks up on his ideas. He would also appear to be spread too thin with his roles as restaurant critic, columnist, visual arts editor and his duties at Herron to really function effectively in positions (such as architecture critic) that really deserve to be filled by someone dedicated to them. Unless you figure out how to clone Steve, you guys should really bring in some additional people (perhaps on a freelance basis) to cover these issues. Names like David Hoppe and Lou Harry come immediately to mind.

The Star could be the most influential positive voice in the shaping of the downtown Indianapolis of the future. Don’t blow it.