New York & Michigan Street transformations

These plans were on display at the annual meeting of the Near East Side Community Organization. Thoughts?

Dear Mayor Ballard

Dear Mayor Ballard,

Every mayor has a legacy. For Richard Lugar, it was Unigov; for William Hudnut, it was bringing the Colts to Indy. It might be too early to say how Bart Peterson will be remembered (keeping the Colts in Indy? leaving the City in a financial crisis for the maintenance on Lucas Oil Stadium?), but it's not too early for you to start thinking about what your legacy might be.

Gaining control of IMPD from the Sheriff? Significant, but probably not something to set you apart from others.

Township consolidation? This would be a significant accomplishment as well, but the initial groundwork was laid by the previous administration.

Here's an idea; you could be the mayor who, for the first time in the history of the City, made making Indy safe and convenient for pedestrians a real priority and followed through. Sure, we've heard lip service to concern for building and maintaining sidewalks in the past, and the Cultural Trail is an innovative development that has drawn attention from around the country.

But the sad truth is that for the 99+% of Indy residents who don't live or work on the Cultural Trail or need to travel outside a two-block radius of Monument Circle, the pedestrian infrastructure is in sad shape. The absent pedestrian signals and crosswalks, the missing sidewalk segments, and the poor location (directly adjacent to traffic) and maintenance (crumble, crumble) of existing sidewalks discourage most people from walking by choice.

But of even more critical importance is the state of our sidewalks right now as you read this letter. Please take a drive around Indy, and get out of the vehicle in random locations to experience what it is like to be one of our citizens who doesn't own a private automobile. You won't even have to leave the Mile Square to see myriad examples of residents and businesses who have forgone both the civic and legal obligation to ensure safe passage for our neighbors of greatest need. They might be children walking to school, the elderly going shopping for basic needs, parents riding the bus to work, or they might simply be young adults like myself who are fortunate enough to own a car, but who would like to have other transportation options. No matter, we are all rendered second class citizens who must remain home or be forced to walk in streets with traffic which is obviously not safe.

What will visitors think if there is a snowfall during the week of the Super Bowl? What do visitors think today? What do residents who have helped revitalize urban neighborhoods, in part because they want to live in vibrant communities where they can walk to destinations, think of the current state of our sidewalks? Surely they are not impressed.

You might ask what you can do. Certainly, the City can not be expected to clear everyone's sidewalk. It's up to each property owner or tenant to do their part. So how can you, Mayor Ballard, address this issue? I'm glad you asked.

First, use the bully pulpit of your office to make it clear to all Indy residents and property owners that this is a serious problem, but that there is a simple solution that can be achieved, only if we all do our part. By stressing the importance of maintaining a safe pedestrian network, you can begin to change the culture, which is key.

Next, make clear that this is not only a civic duty and moral obligation, but a legal requirement. Although it would be difficult to immediately enforce this ordinance throughout Indy, you must dedicate resources, reallocating them from other duties if necessary, to issue warnings and citations for failure to clear snow from sidewalks. There have to be repercussions for those who will not be swayed by polite request alone, and you must solicit the media to highly publicize the enforcement efforts.

Right now, many people see no reason to shovel their sidewalks, when many or most of their neighbors do not. Once the culture begins to change, and the unshoveled sidewalk becomes the exception to the norm, then each individual will realize the community benefit in doing their part. But that cultural shift can only be accomplished by a publicity campaign, led by you, followed up by enforcement of the ordinance.

Please Mr. Mayor, make the goal of creating a city that is safe for pedestrians all year long a priority. I guarantee you'll find it worth the effort. The alternative of watching pedestrians take to the streets and hoping they don't become fatal statistics is not acceptable for a world class city.

Washington Street & I-65/70 Update: Pedestrian Safety

I've already stated my opinions on this design in a previous post http://idyllicindy.blogspot.com/2008/02/urban-arterial-street-corridor-seeking.html but now that much progress has been made, it's time for another look. My observations:

It seems odd that the Washington Street ramps were opened to traffic when there is clearly so much work to be done on Washington. It's interesting how it's perfectly acceptable to open the exit ramps without any permanent signage and with traffic signals hanging on wires (hopefully temporary). The signals for westbound traffic at Davidson Street are angled to face southeast. I'm not sure what that is about. But why is it viewed as acceptable to open the ramps without any pedestrian signals in place? One would presume that they will be part of the project, but perhaps it's not a big priority since there have never been pedestrian signals (at least in recent memory) at either of the intersections to the east (Southeastern/Shelby) or to the west (College). There's also little to no street lighting to help drivers see pedestrians, especially in the area of the entrance ramp to the interstate.

I also realized that I was being naive when I mistakenly believed that the exit ramp from the interstate might only contain three lanes, as was the case when it opened. Apparently, work wasn't completed, and by the looks of it, the ramp will have the five lanes originally proposed. When I asked the question earlier, I was told that five lanes were needed to make sure traffic didn't back up onto the mainline of the interstate, which would in fact be a serious concern. But how is the ramp functioning now with only three lanes? Is it backing up onto the freeway? If not, why do we need the five lanes, which will make the area even less inviting and more dangerous for pedestrians to cross?

I've walked across the intersection of Washington and Southeastern, and to cross Southeastern, a pedestrian must travel approximately 80 feet. This is a ridiculously long crossing distance. With Southeastern being realigned to a 90-degree orientation to Washington, a shorter crossing distance should've been achieved. However, the wide curb radii at the corners, which will facilitate fast turning movements was apparently more important than limiting crossing distance. Both the long crossing distance and the speed of turning vehicles work together to greatly increase the danger to pedestrians.

It's a continuing reminder that pedestrians are an afterthought, if they are even considered it all, in transportation projects in Indianapolis. I drove through the project area at 9:30 p.m. tonight, and I saw multiple pedestrian parties, both individuals and groups walking along Washington. Why is it alright to ignore their needs?

And if pedestrian needs are not considered one mile from the heart of downtown, what are the chances for us to see improvements elsewhere in the County, such as 56th & Georgetown, where a mother and her daughter were killed trying to cross the street on their way home from a grocery store two nights ago? Channel 13 reported that the police concluded that the driver was at no fault and that the pedestrians' actions were to blame, but they also went on to elaborate on the area's lack of not only sidewalks, pedestrian signals, or crosswalks, but also any street lighting that might have helped avoid this tragedy. How many pedestrians need die, and how many people who want to live in a community with balanced transportation options and safe, walkable neighborhoods need move away from, or avoid relocating to, Indianapolis, before we realize that our economic future is in jeopardy due to our automobile-only built environment?

Lucas Oil Stadium

Tonight I am watching the first regular season Colts game vs. Chicago Bears. Here are my thoughts:

The overhead shots of the stadium are impressive. I do agree that having an NFL franchise, as well as a state of the art facility are positives for the region as it does shine a spotlight on Indy and says to the rest of the nation that we are a world-class city. While it's true that it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes-like investigation to realize that the world-class city facade crumbles quickly upon venturing outside of downtown, the stadium does promote a positive image of the city to would be transplant residents and businesses. Retaining an NFL franchise won't diminish the high crime rate, won't repair and replace the long deteriorated infrastructure, and won't raise the education level of the local workforce, but it does provide an amenity to attract potential highly-educated and highly-skilled workers that will attract high-paying jobs and increase the local tax base which can directly address the third deficiency of the City, while providing an increased tax base to address the first two.

The retractable roof, as well as the sliding window oriented toward the downtown skyline, are engineering marvels, and likely add to the thrill of attending an event (I've yet to enter the facility). I was surprised to hear during tonight's broadcast on NBC that the field has no drainage capability whatsoever, thus presumably requiring the roof to be closed at the faintest threat of precipitation. While the inclusion of a roof was necessary to ensure that other events can be held at the stadium, I find it a little disappointing to deduct that the rood will likely be closed any time it's not clear and warm outside. The thought that Colts games might be subject to a little rain or snow was something to which I had been looking forward.

I walked around the exterior of the stadium the other day, first along sidewalk, from South to McCarty, from Capitol to Missouri, etc. I was really struck by the immensity of the site. It took about 20 minutes to circle the block. It seems a lost opportunity that the neither the State, nor the City, saw it necessary to maintain Merrill Street, which previously bisected the site, traveling east to west, from Capitol to Missouri. Although the diagonal orientation of the building would have required the street to be shifted slightly to the south, retention of the site would have made circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles much easier, especially on the 330 or so days of the year on which there is no significant event taking place at the stadium. I wouldn't expect a flurry of redevelopment in the area south and west of the stadium in large part due to the gigantic parking lot south of the building and the superblock created by the elimination of Merrill Street. The vibrant urban development in other parts of downtown, such as the Wholesale District and Massachusetts Avenue, depend upon the pedestrian scale environment, created in large part by the relatively small block size which is fundamental to any city. .

The Convention Center and the RCA Dome (soon to be razed and replaced with a convention center expansion) have already created one superblock that had effectively created a barrier to expansion of the downtown core prior to development of Lucas Oil Stadium. Obviously, the multiple rail tracks just north of South Street provide an additional impediment to development to the south, as anyone who's walked under them along Delaware, Pennsylvania, Meridian, Illinois, or Captol knows that these long underpasses do not exude an inviting ambience. However, if the Convention Center expansion were to somehow be designed to provide an attractive entrance from the south, unlike the imposing, uninviting behemoth of an urban structure that was the RCA Dome , it could help encourage development south of South Street.
impediment to future development.

Presumably, it would benefit the city to see high-density redevelopment of condominiums, apartments, more retail and restaurants, offices, etc. in the area south and west of the new stadium, both to increase the city's tax base and to provide additional areas for tourists and conventioneers to visit. However, in walking around both the stadium and parking lot, I didn't sense that the urban fabric necessary to spawn such pedestrian-oriented redevelopment was in place. It doesn't seem to me that it would've impeded development of the stadium or required any significant alteration to the design to maintain Merrill Street between the stadium and the parking lot, but it would've made a tremendous difference in maintaining the perception that the area is intended for pedestrian activity aside from the couple dozen annual event days. It also might have better facilitated future redevelopment of some portion of the stadium parking lot if parking garage were to ever replace some of the surface spaces.

The Colts Pro Shop is located at the northeast corner of the stadium, which would provide some activity on non-event days, however, it would have been nice to see a couple other tenant spaces built into the street level of the building, such as a couple of restaurant/bars. I don't know how the interior of the building is laid out, but from walking around the stadium it would appear that adding in such uses might be quite difficult.

My overall asssessment is that it is an attractive building as far as football stadiums (or is it "stadia") go, but given it's downtown location, a few small design considerations could have greatly increased the chance of development of a vibrant district surrounding the facility, rather than a long continuation of numerous parking lots and scarce pedestrian traffic.

As a sidenote: I find it amazing the speed at which this project moved from initial planning to completion. For example, I recall that it took the San Francisco Giants about ten years and several failed ballot initiatives before a financing plan was approved, which required that the majority of funding come from the team. The Minnesota Vikings have been attempting unsuccessfully to get Minneapolis, the State, or other local branches of government to replace the Metrodome for about a decade. Yet from my recollection this plan was put together, approved by the state, and the governing bodies of seven of eight metro counties, and underway in less than a year. There may have been some previous discussion about need for a new stadium, but I don't recall any actual plan being proposed.

Setting aside the debate over subsidizing professional sports franchises, it is a testament to the ability of government to get something accomplished in a short time period. I think the only reason it was able to occur so quickly was the combination of the Colts' popularity and the the fact that the local citizenry is generally very uninvolved in the land development process. Although there was no public review process for the design of the proposed stadium since the state is not required to comply with local land use regulations, I would suspect that in many other locales, citizens would have demanded a role in the planning process before giving their elected officials their blessing to raise their taxes for the project. Had this process not moved so quickly, perhaps, an even better design would have been accomplished.

Am I in the minority in my criticisms? Will I be proven wrong and are my concerns unfounded? Or has the City missed a golden opportunity to spur redevelopment of a long neglected and underutilized part of downtown?

Convention Hotel Complex

Here are the renderings of the Courtyard/Springhill hotels proposed for the Marriott convention hotel complex. First is the north elevation viewed looking due south, and the second is the west elevation to be seen facing due east. Yes, the renderings are fuzzy, but this is what was made available at the Metropolitan Development Commission hearing on May 7th.

Three petitions relative to this project were approved yesterday. A rezoning of the grassy wedge at the west, which was apparently owned by and zoned for White River State Park. Variances for the buildings to encroach into the Sky Exposure Plane, and to allow for a driveway on Washington Street being 5 feet from the intersection with West Street. A vacation of all of the public right-of-way up to curbline of the all the surrounding streets. The MDC expressed a lot of concern about how the developer's attorney had modified the commitment requested by the staff that they reach an agreement with the State Patrol to ensure that the building and construction activity will not interfere with emergency communication signals that are broadcast past the site. The petitioner also slightly modified the commitment requested by staff that would require that enough space be reserved between the existing streets and the proposed buildings to construct minimum 8-foot wide sidewalks with 2 feet of separation from the curb, unless they later get the DPW to agree to less space.

I believe the only hurdle remaining is the Regional Center Approval of the designs, which is an administrative review done by City planning staff. People could probably contact them about their concerns, but I don't know if they typically consider public comments during an administrative review.

The Regional Center Zoning Ordinance does contain the following language:

The action of the Administrator upon such approval request shall be subject to

the filing of an appeal, within ten (10) days, by any aggrieved person to the

Metropolitan Development Commission.

The Metropolitan Development Commission may consider and act upon such

appeal of the action of the Administrator at any public meeting of the

Commission and shall either approve, disapprove, or approve the use, site and

development plan subject to any conditions, amendments, commitments, or

covenants by the petitioner. The petitioner or appellant, if on appeal, shall have

the right to be heard.

Thus, if the public felt aggrieved by whatever design might be administratively approved, there would be a mechanism for having the design debated in a public hearing, however, I suspect there would be a filing fee for such appeal.

My biggest concern would be that the north and west ends of the building, which are the parts that project out closest to the street appear to be nearly blank walls, with either no windows, or very small windows within a stairwell (it's really hard to be sure from the poor quality and lack of detail indicated on these renderings). I've heard others characterize the design as being an interstate off-ramp hotel, and I have a hard time understanding exactly what that means (aside from the somewhat objective position that the building would not be as architecturally "nice" as most other downtown hotels), but I think the two box signs near the top of the presumed stairwells, and the inward design are the biggest signs that this is not an appropriate urban design.

One needs to look at the site plan (this is the L-shaped building at the northwest portion of the site) to understand how significantly the ends of the building will impact its appearance. The building won't be visible from the east because of the JW, and the upper floors may or may not be visible from Victory Field to the south dependent upon the height of the ballroom that will front Maryland Street (I wonder how that will address the street). I haven't seen a south elevation. The most prominent views of the building would appear to be from the north and west. Unless someone is standing at the end of the canal, northwest of the hotel, they will be looking at one of the two ends, which I'm imagining looking like the ends of the Lugar Tower, except with two cheap illuminated boxes at the top.

Will an 8-foot wide sidewalk be wide enough to accommodate the throngs of people going to/from the 1,500 or so hotel rooms at this complex? Aren't most sidewalks in the downtown core double or more this width? How many people can comfortably walk along an 8-foot sidewalk? Probably not more than three, which would mean that two pairs could not pass in opposite directions without walking single file. Is it really impossible to design a hotel complex that could attract a Super Bowl without compromising an inviting streetscape and proper pedestrian accommodation? Will we be able to attract similar events in the future if we do?

Would it be too much to ask that if the building is going to be an L-shape, that the ends look a little better. Since when are urban buildings designed with a stairwell being the closest part of the building to the street frontage? And couldn't they at least use individual letters to identify the hotel names as most every other downtown hotel does?

Sidewalk or dirt path?

This photo is looking east along Washington Street, from Parkview Avenue (20xx block of East Washington). Whenever it rains or snows water pools on the sidewalk along with dirt from the eroding hill from the vacant lot. The storm water does not drain properly along this portion of Washington Street, resulting in the right westbound lane being underwater and the tires of passing vehicles shoot heavy streams of water onto the sidewalk and the hill. Pedestrians can typically be observed walking up the hill and through the front yard of the vacant lot at the corner as well as the occupied dwelling to the east to avoid the muddy mess. Could the City not address this issue? I'm aware that the City has a storm sewer upgrade planned nearby on Ohio Street. I hope that the upgrade is intended to correct this problem. How would a person in a wheelchair pass this area? I don't think it would be unrealistic to think that people of limited mobility might be likely to reside in this neighborhood. This is the type of quality of life issue that appears to be routinely ignored in Indianapolis.

While a fair amount of attention has been recently placed on the City's proposed zoning ordinance revisions, which would require sidewalks to be built by developers adjacent to most new development (which I strongly support), there isn't much hope for the long-term maintenance of those sidewalks, when the City can't/won't fulfill its obligation to maintain its current pedestrian infrastructure. I don't doubt that someone with the responsibility to address this issue could come up with 101 excuses as to why they are powerless to solve such a problem. Instead, they should be finding 101 similar problems to fix immediately. It wouldn't take long to put together such a list. Indianapolis has a long, long, long way to go to become a world-class city.

The uncleared sidewalk diary

Kudos to the owners of the old Fire Station at the corner of New York and Alabama, as well as the condos at southeast corner of New York and New Jersey, for having people out shoveling the sleet, snow, slush, ice off the sidewalks at 8 p.m. I would be so grateful if others would learn from these examples.