Proposed downtown hotel, residential tower gets new look in latest design

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Design 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.

A rendering of the redesigned hotel and apartment/condo tower at 222 N. Alabama St. (Image courtesy of the city of Indianapolis)

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 original design of the 32-story tower planned for the Alabama Redevelopment (center) at 222 N. Alabama St. (Rendering courtesy of the city of Indianapolis)

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.

A rendering of how the renovated Old City Hall would look as part of a redevelopment of the west side of Alabama Street. (Image courtesy of the city of Indianapolis)

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.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

31 thoughts on “Proposed downtown hotel, residential tower gets new look in latest design

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

  2. “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!

    1. Exactly Tony! The pundits have never paid or built anything in their lives, not to mention designed buildings that tall.

    2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    1. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    1. Actually it looks more like the Conrad or the Simon HQ than the old INB building. I really like the varied facade and the strong vertical lines.

  8. 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.

  9. There are only so many featureless glass boxes a city skyline can have before it loses any concept of identity – the new design is an improvement to me. Buildings will always shrink once the money starts getting more real, I won’t be surprised if it drops another floor or two once they actually start designing and getting pricing in detail.

    That said, I’m already crying for the future of Old City Hall under the “stewardship” of TWG. As a resident of one of their other historic reuse projects (and a “**Luxury™®©**” property to boot), it is a nightmare. Elevators out of inspection by months, failed ductwork that takes involvement from the health department to show even an interest in fixing, light fixtures removed and holes patched with unpainted drywall, …the list goes on. I’m sure whoever they get to construct the new building and renovate the old one will do a fine job, but give it a decade and TWG will have it falling apart at the seams.

    1. TWG hired Meyer Najem to oversee their new apartment block at 18th & Meridian. I wouldn’t expect that building to have the kind of quality issues you mentioned.

  10. If losing a floors gets it built, I’m all for it! I won’t believe that it is getting built until I see tractors moving dirt! Our city is great at putting up fences for development but terrible on getting things started! I think the design looks great. Again, if going a little cheaper means a start to the project, lets do it!

  11. Both renderings have positives. It’s silly to argue about floor count — 28, 30, 32 — whatever. As a prospective resident I’d go with the second design, looks more “liveable”, after all, isn’t that the end goal? The first design looks like any mid-level energy or banking building you’d see in Oklahoma City or Dallas; sleek, flat and glassy, but do you want to call it home? I can’t argue that Indy is not architecturally more imaginative, but whatever the final design, just build it! Among other reasons, looks like we’ll need the tax base from it to help pay for any new MLS stadium.

    1. Totally agree. Appears more livable. At the end of the day they’ve got to sell condos and rent apartments for the project to work. Rooftop amenities and more outdoor living spaces in the redesign should help. Original to me was a very plain big glass box. Folks just liked it because it was a couple floors taller. Indy is never going to be a city of 50 story skyscrapers but you can really fill out a skyline with 25-35 story buildings. Nashville and Charlotte are great examples of this.

    2. Amen David. You hit it right on: the old look was out of place because it looked like an oil company tower in OKC or DFW. The new look is much more Indy.

    3. Oh, and I should add, the architectural star of the show, if and when it happens, should be the old City Hall.

    4. I agree with everything you said. I too was one who initially liked the old design because it looked sleek and modern with more floors. Upon further review and more consideration, it’s clear that the new design gives it a more upscale luxury living appeal and fits with the surrounding architecture. I personally would like to have seen more floors but as Nathan Z. stated, Indy skyline could really fill out by building more mid size skyscrapers ranging from 25 to 36 stories all over downtown just as Nashville and Charlotte is doing. In the end I would love to see this building added to the skyline with the new Hilton and Methodist Hospital campus will make Indy feel as big as the metro suggest the city actually is.

  12. The new design is acceptable albeit unremarkable. Any improvements for downtown Indy are welcome.

    Cutting-edge architecture would be nice. One can hope.

  13. I do like this design, even better than the first probably, but I think the general approach of making a building design look more in line with traditional downtown properties is a terrible approach to design. One thing this city has never been accused of is having aesthetically pleasing buildings in the downtown core. Our skyline for the most part looks straight out of the 1980’s, and that aesthetic should not be mimicked. You obviously don’t want it to stick out like a sore thumb, but the last thing you want to do is have it blend in.

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In