Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowDesign plans for part of the Old City Hall redevelopment project downtown have undergone a substantial change, ahead of the city’s historic preservation commission hearing next month.
Indianapolis-based TWG Development has overhauled its design for the skyscraping tower planned at 222 N. Alabama St., immediately north of Old City Hall and considered the bulk of the $264 million redevelopment project for the west side of that block.
Plans for the exterior of the tower have morphed from a sleek, glass curtain wall to an approach in line with more traditional downtown properties—a mix of curtain wall, concrete and column coverings.
The floor count also has been reduced from the original 32 floors to 29. The 28th floor will have an exposed rooftop area in one wing of the tower, with amenities including an outdoor pool, a fitness center and a clubhouse.
The developer has submitted the new design details for the project, which was first announced a year ago, to the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission for its Sept. 4 meeting. TWG met with the IHPC earlier this year to get initial feedback.
The original plans for the project called for the tower to include 190 apartments, 24 condominiums, 150 hotel rooms and 8,000 square feet of retail and hospitality space, while the 114-year-old former city hall building would be converted into an art gallery, dining, retail and office space.
The mix of uses will remain the same, but the number of units will shift to 186 apartment units, 156 hotel rooms and 23 condominiums, according to a TWG official.
It’s not immediately known whether TWG will seek final approval for its design during the September IHPC meeting. A developer is permitted to make multiple trips to the preservation commission to receive feedback before submitting a final design.
Megan Vukusich, director of the city’s Department of Metropolitan Development said TWG continues to work with the city to find an appropriate design for the project. The commission, which falls under the DMD’s umbrella, includes architects, developers and private sector planning leaders from across Indianapolis.
“What IHPC’s board has requested is to make sure … there’s a seamless transition in the architecture from Old City Hall to a new, modern building,” Vukusich told IBJ on Tuesday. “They just want to make sure that looks seamless as you’re walking down the street, so that’s where a lot of those changes are coming from.”
The IHPC has purview over the design of the project because it includes Old City Hall, which has been designated for historic protection.
As part of its submittal, TWG indicated it plans to make extensive restorations to Old City Hall at 202 N. Alabama St., with the reinstallation of several windows throughout the property. Most have been covered in limestone infill.
The developer also wants to reinstall skylights and clean and repair existing marble flooring and other historical elements. Company officials have previously told IBJ the restoration of the building would be a massive undertaking.
The developer, which is working with Indianapolis firm StudioAxis on the design portion of the project, is still awaiting word from the Indianapolis Economic Development Corp. about whether it will receive funding through the Regional Economic Acceleration and Development Initiative.
Vukusich said it’s unclear how much the project could receive incentives, but she indicated the city remains in conversations with the IEDC about that and two other downtown projects: the Simon family’s planned redevelopment of the CSX building across from Gainbridge Fieldhouse and the revamp of Circle Centre Mall.
While city officials have said they’re open to providing funding beyond the $14 million in tax-increment financing that’s already been allocated for the project, TWG has not asked for additional assistance, Vukusich said.
The Old City Hall redevelopment is expected to be completed by the end of 2027.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Always happens. Reduced floor count.😡
The first design was more cutting edge, the second looks like Indianapolis unfortunately. Will still be nice if it gets built hate they lost 4 floors.
I think the first design style looks more like a bank building from the 2010s – I don’t mind the design change but I do mind the decrease in floor count.
“in line with more traditional downtown properties—a mix of curtain wall, concrete and column coverings.” In other words, cheap. Why does Indy always settle for second-class when it comes to developments like this? They show an amazing initial rendering, get approval, then build a less-than. SMH!
Why such disappointment about “losing 4 floors”? Are you in real estate and had clients ready to buy?
Exactly Tony! The pundits have never paid or built anything in their lives, not to mention designed buildings that tall.
The reason why many people are disappointed when projects are scaled back is because they have a lot of pride in Indianapolis and want development to be bold and impressive. Not to suggest that the new design is bad (I happen to really like it) or that any project should ignore the economics. But I am tired of the same old 5 story apartment buildings. Let’s think big and go big.
I agree the original design is more forward thinking but the new one looks better given it’s right next to the historical architecture. The first design would be great as a stand-alone development.
Losing four floors stinks but tbh it was to be expected, that usually happens with every project. Propose the maximum that you *think* you could make work depending on your capital stack and then work backwards from there. Overall, I think the design looks good. It doesn’t have the angles that the original proposal would, but it still looks really nice and will be a decent addition to our skyline.
I happen to like the new design. The first one was the same one they’d proposed for the City Market project, just plopped on a different corner, so. Now, we just wait to see if it ever even breaks ground.
Exactly. Because this proposal was largely a copy-paste job from their City Market proposal, and because of the uncertain dynamics of the lending market and interest rates, some changes were to be expected. I think it’s possible we could see them come back if there’s a rate drop in the near future.
I’m with Marshall on this. I like the new design. The other design didn’t “fit”. The same dynamic played out in London, with the construction of several glass towers that failed to fit in, and have since construction been the object of ridicule by the folks in London. Probably examples of this in every city. These large avant garde designs always look good on paper, and in reality for a few years. Then the novelty wears off, and they are just funny shaped squarish pegs not fitting into the round hole. Novelty isn’t always a good idea for massive architecure.
The new design looks alot like the building next door, the Regions Tower, from before a windstorm made them redo the facade on the upper floors. It’s hard to tell from the pictures, but I do like the street level view a little better. The columns break up the street level into smaller spaces and makes it feel more people friendly.
The bank across the street sure looks out of scale. Such an ugly building for the corner.
The new design is more attractive than the original which was a copy and paste from the City Market proposal. Now includes A rooftop pool. Exterior terraces on multiple sides of the tower. Slightly shorter but far superior to me.
If it was 2 stories taller than the original I suspect everyone would LOVE the new look.
The original looks much better, the new is blah. Indy needs Wow!