Walking the grounds: 1773 N Meridian
A recent uproar in the loca community of urban thinkers caught my attention last week. Cory Schouten posted a new story on his popular IBJ Property Lines blog about the building located at 1773 N. Meridian in Indianapolis. (click here for the story and here for an alternative opinion via urbanyindy). There seems to be valid interest in rehabing the property, however the neighbors of the area have complained loudly about a lack of parking. The city's planning department endorsed a variance on the parking issue but a Metro Development Commission examiner put the kibosh on it because of protest from the neighbors. If you read the comments over at Cory's page you may get a sense that there is more going on here. You decide.
This weekend, I had a few minutes between the Indyconnect meeting in Plainfield that I attended, and my wife's Baby Shower (which I also attended 
) so I stopped by and snapped some photos. In light of sounding like a repost of other information I would like to highlight that the two stories got me interested enough to take my camera and go check this out. I hope that someone with a better sense of urban advancement can see the sentiment being carried in these posts, and do something to make sure this is made right.
I apologize for the lack of vibrancy in the photos. It was an overcast day with snow still on the ground, so they are not my most proud work.
Front of building facing Meridian. Nikon D90 w/ Tokina 12-24 f4, 1/400, f6.3, ISO200
Side of the building, Nikon D90 w/ Tokina 12-24 f4 1/250 f6.3 ISO200
Nikon D90 w/ Tokina 12-24 f4
The building even engages the back alley to the edge
Notice all the intricate tile at the entrance, something modern construction has abandoned
EDIT (2/24/2010): This topic seems to be growing in popularity. Here is a collection of links discussing this topic:
February 22nd, 2010 - 22:17
Excellent pics. It would have been interesting to hear exactly how the neighborhood voiced its concerns about this. Others have speculated it has more to do with the affordable housing proposed in the redevelopment than the issue of parking. It’s hard to know how to reason with people who would rather a building remain vacant and decayed (obviously attracting squatters and most likely drug dealers), instead of renovating it, regardless of who the tenants might be. I love that you showed the gas meters, which appear in better shape than I would have expected. Makes you wonder how long this has been vacant.
February 23rd, 2010 - 09:26
Okay, here you go.
Vacant: more than three and a half years that I know of. Apparently the current owner was involved in a partnership to redevelop the property into high-end condos in 2005-06, and his partner bailed and left him holding the bag. Several potential buyers have looked at the building, but none has been able to make a deal work. The Riley proposal is the first one to get this far in due diligence and entitlements. The developers sought and received a letter of support for the zoning variances from the registered neighborhood organization, Near North Development Corp. As noted, they also received a favorable recommendation from DMD staff planners. This is normally a winning combination in a zoning matter.
At the hearing, the neighboring property owners were represented chiefly by the owner of the one-story building visible in the first photo. That owner also owns the parking lot across the alley that is slightly to the south of the building. His statements included grossly overstated mis-characterizations of the developer’s finances (“million-dollar profits” and “three-hundred-thousand dollar finder’s fees”) and of the neighborhood organization. He also appealed to the Hearing Examiner to “make them do what we had to do: buy parking lots.” He asserted that the variance amounted to the developers seizing HIS parking without permission. His arguments were laced with half-truths and innuendo; prior to the hearing, this person spread horror stories among the neighbors about prior low income tenants of the building (which have nothing to do with the present development proposal).
The owner of the condo-ized residence directly behind the building spoke in fear of deliveries, construction vehicles, or tenants just leaving cars in the alley and blocking her parking spaces that rely on the alley for egress. The owner of the apartment building without on-site parking at 17th & Penn didn’t exactly state his opposition. (Perhaps he feared that his tenants, who use the street spaces adjoining the Herron HS campus, would be fighting for those spaces?) The owner of the parking lots to the north and northeast of the building reiterated the other building owner’s call to make the developers buy parking. All of the objectors were white upper middle class people, all but one middle-aged or senior citizens.
I must add, I know the hearing examiner and have for many years. He is a thoughtful and even-handed person, and a thorough lawyer. He is not a dolt or hack, as portrayed on the IBJ comments thread. In fact, he is a former director of DMD. He called for a recess before rendering his decision, during which the developers and remonstrators apparently had a brief and unproductive discussion about leasing parking spaces for the project. It appears to be his belief that someone will part with some parking spaces if offered enough money to do so. I don’t think any of the immediate neighbors will do so.