Indys stagnet skyline. (Indianapolis, Carmel, Washington: rental, living, law)

[KoNgFooCj]

I agree. Indianapolis will have 900,000 people by 2023. The skyline is definitely on the small side. Ive looked and havnt found anything substantial in the planning stages. Columbus is about the same population, and Indy has a taller building than Columbus, but Columbus still has the better skyline.

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

I agree. Indianapolis will have 900,000 people by 2023. The skyline is definitely on the small side. Ive looked and havnt found anything substantial in the planning stages. Columbus is about the same population, and Indy has a taller building than Columbus, but Columbus still has the better skyline.

Yeah, it is on the sparse with density side. Leaves a lot to be desired, unfortunately. Especially for its city and metro size.

I did a high rise building count and Indianapolis currently has 12 buildings over 300 feet downtown. Not too bad, but it definitely does not fall within a city category that has a sizable density downtown, or a good amount of high rises downtown.

I see they have several proposed or approved for construction, but just one over 300 feet that I can see.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

Yeah, it is on the sparse with density side. Leaves a lot to be desired, unfortunately. Especially for its city and metro size.

I did a high rise building count and Indianapolis currently has 12 buildings over 300 feet downtown. Not too bad, but it definitely does not fall within a city category that has a sizable density downtown, or a good amount of high rises downtown.

I see they have several proposed or approved for construction, but just one over 300 feet that I can see.

That's insane. I work in a suburb of Bellevue, WA that has 31 buildings over 230 feet per wikipedia. Mind you, that's a suburb with population less than 150,000.

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by W & C

That's insane. I work in a suburb of Bellevue, WA that has 31 buildings over 230 feet per wikipedia. Mind you, that's a suburb with population less than 150,000.

That's a dense suburb--nice, wow.

I counted those buildings over 250 feet in Indianapolis, and there is a sizable amount, with 15 buildings between 250 and 300 feet high. So there is a good amount within that range.

The thing it lacks is height and density in the 300 - 500 foot range or higher, which makes for a really solid skyline (think Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, etc).

Hopefully it will get there in the next 20 years or so though, it is growing well.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

That's a dense suburb--nice, wow.

I counted those buildings over 250 feet in Indianapolis, and there is a sizable amount, with 15 buildings between 250 and 300 feet high. So there is a good amount within that range.

The thing it lacks is height and density in the 300 - 500 foot range or higher, which makes for a really solid skyline (think Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, etc).

Hopefully it will get there in the next 20 years or so though, it is growing well.

Yeah it’s sort of like if someone built a bunch of skyscrapers in the middle of Carmel.

[ischyros]

I've read (without any real proof) that no building is allowed to cast a shadow on the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, thus the only real tall buildings are on the edge of downtown or north of the circle, and that this has hampered a lot of real tall buildings downtown. One of the reasons the Circle Tower has such a strange design at the top, to limit the shadow on the monument. Again, what I read didn't actually offer proof so I've never found anything that says if this is true or not but if it is, that could help explain why there is a lack of taller buildings downtown.


The National Park Service, in an article about Monument Circle, says this:

In 1921-22, local architect William Earl Russ and city leaders proposed, and the city implemented, local legislation that limited heights to 10 stories and called for elevation setbacks to preserve the prominence of the monument.

https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/indian...rclesessay.htm


Obviously this law doesn't exist anymore but there's no mention of not casting a shadow.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by W & C

That's insane. I work in a suburb of Bellevue, WA that has 31 buildings over 230 feet per wikipedia. Mind you, that's a suburb with population less than 150,000.

150K people on a strip of land approximately 33.46 sq. mi. that has growth confined between two lakes and likely couldn't expand due to other municipal limits in the area. Indianapolis is over ten times the amount of land but only 5.4x the amount of people. Not only that, the Indianapolis area isn't confined by many natural or artificial barriers for the most part, so I'm not sure what the comparison is here. Go back in time, fill in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish and I doubt we see that same sort of upward growth. In the end, money wins. Municipal limits don't stop growth from spreading, but they do change the dynamics of growth in many areas of a metro area.

The early law that limited growth likely played a part in why Indy's downtown isn't as large as it could be. Given the limited growth, possible desire to live a ways out of downtown, etc., the growth spread outward and just continued like that for decades. Then once there was enough established growth on the north side of town, you saw a handful of three to seven story (maybe taller?) office complexes being built.

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

Hopefully it will get there in the next 20 years or so though, it is growing well.

I doubt we will see anymore sky-scrapper buildings like One America or Salesforce towers. It wasn't that long ago I heard the downtown retail vacancy rate wasn't all that great. With the decent economic growth over the last ten years, maybe that has gotten better. Even then, I just don't see any need for any super tall builds. There is still enough land for shorter, but decent sized residential buildings in the area.

I could see a lot of ten or so story buildings, mostly residential if the trend for younger folks is to live in dense urban areas, at least for the first part of their life. The main issue is ridiculous rental rates that people will pay, then moan to their local government leaders to "do something!"

[Justabystander]

Originally Posted by W & C

That's insane. I work in a suburb of Bellevue, WA that has 31 buildings over 230 feet per wikipedia. Mind you, that's a suburb with population less than 150,000.

You cannot compare Seattle with Indianapolis. Seattle has geographic limitations such as the Puget Sound and a hilly topography, Indy is a huge flat area that doesn't really need the density that Bellevue has.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by indy_317

150K people on a strip of land approximately 33.46 sq. mi. that has growth confined between two lakes and likely couldn't expand due to other municipal limits in the area. Indianapolis is over ten times the amount of land but only 5.4x the amount of people. Not only that, the Indianapolis area isn't confined by many natural or artificial barriers for the most part, so I'm not sure what the comparison is here. Go back in time, fill in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish and I doubt we see that same sort of upward growth. In the end, money wins. Municipal limits don't stop growth from spreading, but they do change the dynamics of growth in many areas of a metro area.

The early law that limited growth likely played a part in why Indy's downtown isn't as large as it could be. Given the limited growth, possible desire to live a ways out of downtown, etc., the growth spread outward and just continued like that for decades. Then once there was enough established growth on the north side of town, you saw a handful of three to seven story (maybe taller?) office complexes being built.

Yes, those are pretty good reasons why.

What I bolded is pretty significant, IMO. Whereas people with money in Indy often prefer to live in a 5,500 sq. foot mansion in Carmel, people w/ money in Bellevue often prefer to live in an 700 sq. foot unit inside a vertical glassbox with a view of Seattle skyline, Lake Washington and mountains.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by Justabystander

You cannot compare Seattle with Indianapolis. Seattle has geographic limitations such as the Puget Sound and a hilly topography, Indy is a huge flat area that doesn't really need the density that Bellevue has.

Yes, it's probably not a very good apples-to-apples comparison.