[HoosierGuy317]

The tallest building is the Chase Tower at 811 ft. While this is pretty tall, Indiana only has two buildings over 500 ft. in the entire state. :sly:

I haven't really heard about any major construction in South Bend, Fort Wayne, or Evansville.

Does anyone have a reason for why? (insufficient funding, height limits, etc). I believe a city needs to be distinguished from other cities, and one way to do so is by the skyline.

[LMich]

You could replace Indiana with dozens of other states, and the post would read the same. I'm not convinced that this is something uniquely Indiana. And, more importantly, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Most cities economies are now based in their suburbs; as long as that's the rule rather than the exception, we're not going to see a lot of high-rises going up in a lot of cities all across the country.

[MayorOfChicago]

^ I totally agree.

[Robert Pence]

Land prices, public policy and tax laws encourage horizontal sprawl instead of vertical growth and density. And don't forget, "This is the way we've always done it."

The last tall building completed in Fort Wayne was this one, 442 feet tall, 27 floors, finished in 1982.
http://www.robertpence.com/fort_wayne/one_summit_sq_2004_0049.jpg

Around 1990 Lincoln Financial, then headquartered in Fort Wayne, started talking up a new downtown highrise of 40 floors or more, I think. Ultimately they determined that the business wasn't strong enough to justify it, and a few years later they relocated corporate headquarters to Philadelphia. If built, the new tower would have been on part of the land now targeted with the Harrison Square proposal.

[cwilson758]

It's not just Indiana as mentioned. It is a lot of States. I mean, think about all of the Western States like Idaho, Utah, the Dakotas, New Mexico, hell, even Arizona.

Anyway, there are 3 towers in Indy over 500' tall. Chase, AUL, and One Indiana Sq.

[satsuchan]

It's not just Indiana as mentioned. It is a lot of States. I mean, think about all of the Western States like Idaho, Utah, the Dakotas, New Mexico, hell, even Arizona.


That doesnt put us in very good company. I would suggest other Great Lakes States as examples - cheaper land and less speculation.

[Defiant6]

You could replace Indiana with dozens of other states, and the post would read the same. I'm not convinced that this is something uniquely Indiana. And, more importantly, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Most cities economies are now based in their suburbs; as long as that's the rule rather than the exception, we're not going to see a lot of high-rises going up in a lot of cities all across the country.

Exactly. Be happy that you've got at least 2 buildings over 500ft. My city and state isn't even that lucky. The tallest building in the state of Kansas is just 325ft and that's the Epic Center in downtown Wichita. For a city the size of Wichita you would think that they would have at least a couple of more buildings taller then that. Heck the Epic Center was originally supposed to have a twin tower, but that never came to fruitation thanks to the real estate collapse in the late 80s/early 90s.

[Hysteria]

You could replace Indiana with dozens of other states, and the post would read the same. I'm not convinced that this is something uniquely Indiana. And, more importantly, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Most cities economies are now based in their suburbs; as long as that's the rule rather than the exception, we're not going to see a lot of high-rises going up in a lot of cities all across the country.

This is true - although South Bend is still the largest city in North Central Indiana, it's not economically as important as it used to be. A lot of jobs and retail have moved to Mishawaka and neighboring Elkhart County continues to grow in population and industry. That said, there are construction projects taking place downtown, none of them skyscrapers.

The tallest building in the state of Kansas is just 325ft and that's the Epic Center in downtown Wichita. For a city the size of Wichita you would think that they would have at least a couple of more buildings taller then that. Heck the Epic Center was originally supposed to have a twin tower, but that never came to fruitation thanks to the real estate collapse in the late 80s/early 90s.

But hey, we've got a building taller than the Epic Center. :)

[Robert Pence]

I was downtown in South Bend on Friday afternoon (Mar 23), strolling around with my camera again. There are some things I really like; the East Race and Century Center and the beautiful expanse of river there are among the most attractive outdoor spaces in the state.

Although the downtown is clean and has some attractive buildings, overall it certainly lacks height and density. Most jarring and destructive of the urban fabric are the six-lane, one-way streets (four lanes of traffic and two lanes of parking). They make the downtown seem really pedestrian-unfriendly, and even walking at a brisk pace it's usually not possible to cross within the cycle time of the "walk" light.

I'd like to see South Bend take about two lanes off the width of some of those streets and build out in front of some of the nondescript buildings with some height, and provide small courtyards with benches and possibly fountains in the resulting setback among the buildings that are worth looking at.

[mobyhead]

Perhaps Hoosiers suffer from acrophobia.

[HoosierGuy317]

I don't know how to explain it. . .maybe I just got spoiled by all the high rises in Chicago.

I just think it would be cool for cities like Indianapolis and Fort Wayne and such to have buildings that make them distinguished. For example, in NYC they have the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. In Chicago you have the Sears Tower. Atlanta the BOA Plaza (the building with the gold top). While you might not know what the building is called, you know where it is.

[hoosier]

Indy's tallest is taller than the tallest building in Cincy, KC, Louisville, Columbus, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.

I think Indy holds its own with these other cities in terms of its skyline.

Since there are no cities in Indiana the size of a Chicago or Atlanta, or New York, there is no resaon to expect that they would have buildings as tall if not taller.

Charlotte is unique.

The downtown Indy office market is weak. There is not the demand for more office space downtown.

In the next five years, there will be a approx. 400 ft. hotel, a 15-20 story condo, and a 400-500 ft. residential building constructed in downtown Indianapolis.

With land being so cheap in the metro area, most businesses are building or have built large campus parks instead of skyscrapers (see Eli Lilly and Anthem).

And South Bend and Ft. Wayne have skylines that match their city sizes. They aren't bad for cities of their size.

[hoosier]

The tallest building is the Chase Tower at 811 ft. While this is pretty tall, Indiana only has two buildings over 500 ft. in the entire state. :sly:

I haven't really heard about any major construction in South Bend, Fort Wayne, or Evansville.

Does anyone have a reason for why? (insufficient funding, height limits, etc). I believe a city needs to be distinguished from other cities, and one way to do so is by the skyline.

Skyscraper construction is market driven. If there is a demand for office space, then buildings will be constructed to accomodate it.

And 25 years ago, Indy didn't even have a skyline. There were only two buildings in the entire city over 300 ft. tall. Now there are seven.

The Indiana state government doesn't build skyscrapers.

The Indy City-County building is 371 feet tall and needs to be replaced or expanded but the city doesn't have $200 million lying around to fund the project.

[Defiant6]

This is true - although South Bend is still the largest city in North Central Indiana, it's not economically as important as it used to be. A lot of jobs and retail have moved to Mishawaka and neighboring Elkhart County continues to grow in population and industry. That said, there are construction projects taking place downtown, none of them skyscrapers.


But hey, we've got a building taller than the Epic Center. :)


What city doesn't have a building taller than the Epic Center? :haha:

[Connect]

I agree with hoosier. Markets determine what gets built. Whether its hotel, office or residential... whatever. It has to be sufficient demand for the space to make the construction financially feasible.

Even if there was a seriously diminished suburban demand and the urban demand increased drasticly as a result; the effect on the skyline's height would be negligable unless the demand for new space was really high. This is especially so if the growth in that market sector is slow or stable. In essence one new X00,000 SF highrise building would kill demand for other highrises for many years to follow.

That said, I think that with the exception of Gary, most Indiana city skylines correspond well to the size of the city.

[LMich]

Though, I do agree that almost all high-rise projects are market driven, every once in awhile you'll get a bold developer with a lot of money to blow that will build a massive project, in spite of the market, and make it work. This can be by doing everything from hitting a lucky break in finding tenants, and/or 'stealing' tenants from neighboring buildings in the case of office space.

And, sometimes, in some cities you'll get a project build almost solely off of hype and manipulation of reality, in essence, creating demand where it wouldn't have been.

Of course, these are all exceptions, and not the rule, but I thought I'd add that. A lot of the new Las Vegas condo tower construction, IMO, is a perfect example of my second point (i.e. creating demand).

[Halovet]

That said, I think that with the exception of Gary, most Indiana city skylines correspond well to the size of the city. Michigan City would also be an exception. There are only 35-40,000 in population, yet the height of The Blue Chip Hotel which started construction last week, will be nearly that of South Bend's City Center.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/461/bluechipmichigancityol9.jpg

[cwilson758]

Yes, as mentioned, back in 1980, Indy only had six buildings over 90m. The two Riley Towers, the City-County Building, AT&T, the Hilton and One Indiana Square. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Indy had its own "Charlotte-like explosion" where we saw the construction of an additional 8 towers exceeding 90m and 4 over 70m. That is 12 new buildings in our Top 20 since 1987, with 8 of those built between 1987-1990. That is one hell of a boom.

[hoosier]

And to add one thing, the city where I live, Bloomington, has 70,000 people but a height limit on city buildings. That hasn't stopped a massive eight story apartment building, a seven story hotel, a seven floor condominium, and a four (I think) floor condominium from being built downtown in the past four years.

If the height limit was not in effect, Bloomington would have some 10+ story buildings in its downtown.

[Halovet]

And to add one thing, the city where I live, Bloomington, has 70,000 people but a height limit on city buildings. That hasn't stopped a massive eight story apartment building, a seven story hotel, a seven floor condominium, and a four (I think) floor condominium from being built downtown in the past four years.

If the height limit was not in effect, Bloomington would have some 10+ story buildings in its downtown.So why in the hell does Bloomington have a height restriction?:shrug: :koko:

[SuburbanNation]

Indy's tallest is taller than the tallest building in Cincy, KC, Louisville, Columbus, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.

I think Indy holds its own with these other cities in terms of its skyline.


not to mention portland...

...which questions the whole importance of skyline and scrapers in small to mid sized cities.

[rstravis]

442 ft is pretty good for a city the size of Fort Wayne. And Indy's city population is affected by the city-county merger. Realistically, with a metro area still under 2 million, it has a very respectable skyline. Even South Bend's skyline is pretty respectable for a city its size. I would like to see more in Indy, but it's not at all unreasonable.

[Halovet]

Indy's tallest is taller than the tallest building in Cincy, KC, Louisville, Columbus, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.

I think Indy holds its own with these other cities in terms of its skyline.

not to mention portland...

...which questions the whole importance of skyline and scrapers in small to mid sized cities.and to those, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans, San Antonio, PHX, San Diego....The list goes on and on!:yes:

[hoosier]

So why in the hell does Bloomington have a height restriction?:shrug: :koko:

The city government wants to try to maintain a small town atmosphere in Bloomington, even though the era of Bloomington being a sleepy little town is long gone.

I think the height limit needs to be lifted.

[Halovet]

The city government wants to try to maintain a small town atmosphere in Bloomington, even though the era of Bloomington being a sleepy little town is long gone.

I think the height limit needs to be lifted.I haven't been to Bloomington sense my little Bro was a student there in the 80s. Even then, there were some pretty tall towers on Campus. If a challenge to the restriction does come, it would most likely start with Architecture students at IU. I for one hope it happens.:fingerscrossed:

[hoosier]

I haven't been to Bloomington sense my little Bro was a student there in the 80s. Even then, there were some pretty tall towers on Campus. If a challenge to the restriction does come, it would most likely start with Architecture students at IU. I for one hope it happens.:fingerscrossed:

The height restriction doesn't apply to the university, so they could theoretically build as high as they wanted.

[satsuchan]

I dont think IU has an architecture program, and the tallest buildings on campus are only about 10 floors tall. There was a proposal for a ten story condo tower on north Walnut several years ago, but I think that was shot down because of poor design, not because of height limits. In fact, Im not sure that there are any legal height limits in the city, it may only be an informal agreement not to build anything near the square that would eclipse the courthouse dome.

[MayorOfChicago]

Every damn time I see this thread title I think of the Simpsons episode where they watch the movie called...

"Springfield....a city on the...GROW"

[Connect]

ok.. Downtown Bloomington height limits...
(Might as well do a lil research and come with the facts...)

Basically, downtown is governed by three overlay districts. Each district has a min & max height requirement.

Courthouse = 25' - 40'
Core = 35' - 50'
University Village = 25' - 40'

Here are the links...
Overlay Map (http://bloomington.in.gov/maps/imgs/pdfs/planning_downtown_overlays.pdf)
Unified Dev. Ordinance (http://www.bloomington.in.gov/code/)
(The UDO's zoning ord looks to be really user friendly!)

.

[bobdreamz]

ok.. Downtown Bloomington height limits...
(Might as well do a lil research and come with the facts...)

Basically, downtown is governed by three overlay districts. Each district has a min & max height requirement.

Courthouse = 25' - 40'
Core = 35' - 50'
University Village = 25' - 40'

Here are the links...
Overlay Map (http://bloomington.in.gov/maps/imgs/pdfs/planning_downtown_overlays.pdf)
Unified Dev. Ordinance (http://www.bloomington.in.gov/code/)
(The UDO's zoning ord looks to be really user friendly!)

.

those sound more like house measurements than building heights!..:(

[LyndaleHoosier]

Yeah...I'm an alum and I'm pretty certain that Eigenmann Hall was 14 floors and the Memorial Union builidng is about 12 and is on a hill. ;)

[A&Fcolumbus]

Yes, but say consider the lack of maybe high-rise growth.
The lack of a high growth economy can explain why cities like Buffalo and Cleveland have escaped the condo tower mania, that is running wild across the US.

However, Columbus and Indy have long been considered growth cities, for the midwest.

When I was in in Indy i noticed a lot of office to condo conversions, like most cities in this region. However, along the canal and places theres mostly very very low rise residential growth.

Since 2000 columbus on the other hand has opened a 26 story condo tower, along the river, and now its 2nd is nearly done. Rumors of a 3rd and 4th are afloat. Doesn't it seem that Indy seems maybe a tad behind on the demand for high rise downtown living?

New North Bank Condo tower in Columbus, where and when in indy will there be more of these? Any plans or rumors?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/439349762_29db7c7054_b.jpg
Park the tower sits along.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/439362235_6d0fd6fda0_b.jpg

Columbus Miranova Condo Tower from about 2000
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/429947183_78a912f609.jpg

[LMich]

Does a healthy economy automatically dictate that high-rise residential towers be built? I think if anything has the most influence in housing, it's the particular trend a city just happens to like. Some cities are enamored with new-construction high-rise living. Some cities have a wealth of historic office and industrial properties that make for excellent residential conversions, so that trend is followed. I don't want to speak for Indy, but rather to make a point that healthy economy may not dicate as much in the high-rise construction area as one might think. If I did have to make a guess about Indy, I'd assume that the wealth of cheap land (i.e. large city limits) kind of limits the the demand for high-rise living, and promotes the construction of townhomes and apartment/condo complexes (i.e. it's a whole lot cheaper to build a crap-load of townhomes and apartment complexes than high-rise towers).

[hoosier]

Indy does have plans for mid-high rise residential buildings. The site of Market Square Arena is eventually going to get a condo tower and the Penn Street Tower is supposed to break ground later this year. I have heard that it could be around 400 feet tall.

There is a 10 story condo under construction on Mass avenue right now as well.

[A&Fcolumbus]

Does a healthy economy automatically dictate that high-rise residential towers be built? I think if anything has the most influence in housing, it's the particular trend a city just happens to like.

I would say that generally you are right, but when we are speaking of large cities and metros, over 1.5 million, you find that most of these, in the US, with a decent economy are seeing some type of condo tower construction that is atleast 20 stories.

Chicago and Mini and Columbus all have seen it, some cities see it in their mega suburbs. It's somewhere in the metro or central city, Charlotte and Atlanta are seeing it, and of course the coastal cities with the towers on their waterfronts.

I would say that it is safe to say that the general trend for larger metros with a good economy is towers. Also, Columbus is surrounded by cheaper land. This may be why Columbus has fewer condo towers than some other cities, and also because downtown housing did not become a big deal in Columbus until post 2000. However, housing costs in Columbus are slightly higher than Indy. Indiana does have lower prices on newer homes which may have some play in the construction of more townhomes and single family homes.

The great thing about the columbus condo towers is that they follow the riverfront. Once a city starts the tradition of building along a waterway, ocean, or lake with towers, it seems to usually be followed with other tower development. It's a very good sign for Columbus that it's waterfront is being developed by residential towers instead of lowrise townhomes or something of that sort. I remember being in Pittsburgh and seeing residential infill along one of the rivers. The infill would be perfect for a tower, but it was low rise 3 story town homes in a row sitting on the waterfront. You may say that in a city like Pittsburgh there may be or there is believed to be a lacking demand for highrise, thus lowrise is built to sort of "play it safe." Once a city gets over that hump and realizes there is a market for towers, as long as the demand holds out, the towers keep on coming.

I would say that Indy seems to be less apt to building tower infill, which is common in a medium sized city turned large post WWII.