Development
Near Southeast rebirth started before the Nats came along
With the Nationals boasting the best record in the Major League, and the Near Southeast neighborhood coming alive, journalists and smart-growth bloggers alike are again claiming the stadium begot the neighborhood's transformation. But the neighborhood's development history tells us the situation is more complex.
Photo by tramod on Flickr.
The media hammered the storyline of the stadium as neighborhood savior back when the recession brought development to a halt. But now the trope is popping up as fast as cranes on the DC skyline. Even Jim Graham said "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development."
Exaggerations like that are just plain wrong. The transformation of Near Southeast began years earlier. New federal and District policies opened land for development, the District's political leadership changed, and the Green Line was completed, connecting Navy Yard to Maryland suburbs. When the stadium site was announced in 2004, neighborhood development was well underway.
Near SE planning started long before Nats
As neighborhood blog JDLand has meticulously documented, the neighborhood's transformation began in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The District cleared blighted property and the Federal government decided to make the vacant land it owned available for development. In 1996, the District demolished the Ellen Wilson housing project under a Hope VI grant.
Two years later, the last of the Capper high-rises and the old Washington Star building were both closed, and parts of Capper demolished in 2000. In that same year, Congress passed the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000, allowing the GSA to begin negotiations with private developers to develop 55 acres of the Southeast Federal Center.
Over the same time period, the national and local government were making deals. In the late '90s, the Navy awarded a contract to build five new buildings in the Navy Yard as part of the NAVSEA Headquarters Project, the Marines inked a deal to build the Marine Bachelor Enlisted Quarters on the Capper footprint, and Federal and District agencies that controlled land along the Anacostia signed an agreement to develop the ambitious Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.
After a long delay, the GSA finalized deals to bring a new Department of Transportation Headquarters and the massive Yards mixed-use development to the Southeast Federal Center. Around that time, HUD awarded DC a $35 million grant to build more than 1500 new housing units at the Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg project sites, filling most of the area between M Street and the Southeast Freeway from 2nd to 7th Street.
In 2003, the District released the South Capitol Gateway and Corridor Improvement Study, which called for fundamentally redesigning South Capitol Street as a neighborhood boulevard and replacing the Douglass Bridge; and the Council approved funding for Capitol Hill Tower Cranes were up when the Nats came to town
Prior to the announcement of the baseball stadium, construction was well under way. In 2002, two large office buildings on M Street opened and 4,100 NAVSEA employees started work at the Navy Yard. In 2003 the Federal Gateway building opened and the next year the Marine Barracks.
Maritime Plaza opened its two office buildings in 2001 and 2003. And developers and officials were negotiating or planning other projects, like the WASA site, Half Street, 20M, Florida Rock and Diamond Teague Park, during this time as well.
It was only after all of this had occurred, that District selected the area for the baseball stadium and even later, in a very close vote, that they financed the stadium. It would be another 14 months before the Council passed the lease agreement that would make construction of the baseball stadium possible. In fact, the vast majority of projects More than just real estate deals
Political leadership played a important part in revitalization as well. The election of Anthony Williams as Mayor in 1998 ended the Barry era, and instilled confidence in the business community that investment in DC was safe. The Williams administration spearheaded the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative and worked hard to create an development-friendly environment.
The Federal Government assisted in 1997 with the DC First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit and again in 2001 when Congress dissolved the Financial Control Board. As Garance Franke-Ruta wrote in a recent piece in the Atlantic, "[t]he tax credit had a dramatic impact in encouraging moderate and middle-income people to put down roots in DC, especially younger, college-educated white people, and invest their sweat equity in fixing up rundown housing stock."
So strong was the change, that in 2002 the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate (AFIRE) named Washington, DC the top city in the US and the world for real estate investment, only a decade after being known as the "Murder Capital of the World."
Better transit brought more people, more investment
Another major catalyst was the completion of WMATA's Green Line. Until 1999, Navy Yard was the A study of neighborhoods along the Green Line from Navy Yard to Petworth showed that during the 2000s, the area added more young people, more multi-family units, and more jobs than either the Rosslyn-Balston corridor or the Northwest DC Red Line Corridor. The baseball stadium can't be viewed as the catalyst for the whole corridor, but the Metro line can be.
While development deals and transit improvements played large parts, Near Southeast also benefited from more general forces at work. As the new millennium began, Washington was experiencing a regional boom. Several areas went through a massive redevelopment from 1997-2007 including Gallery Place, Near SE, U Street, Barracks Row, Columbia Heights, and Rosslyn-Ballston. The pattern of development in those areas, over that time period, looks very similar.
At the same time, DC and its neighborhoods benefited from a general return to cities. Not only has DC's population been growing since the 2000 census, but "28 of the nation's biggest metropolitan counties grew faster from April 2010 to July 2011 than the rest of the nation as a whole."
Sites adjacent to the stadium still empty
If Councilmember Graham's assertion that "we wouldn't have all this development" were true, we'd expect to see development start closer to the stadium after it was built and radiate away from there over time. But mapping out the development, what we see is that almost every lot next to the stadium remains undeveloped.
The area east of the Metro station seems to be the core of the transformation, with later work building off of that. Only one property that abuts the stadium, the Camden South Capitol condos, has been developed in the 8 years since the stadium site was announced. You have to look across M Street to find any other post-stadium development, and those 5 properties are as linked to the pre-stadium development as they are to the stadium itself.
No stadium can be just as good
Thanks to New York's failed bid for this summer's Olympics, we also have a recent answer to the question of what happens when a stadium isn't built. The answer is development.
When New York City lost the 2012 Olympics to London, the city revamped its proposed stadium site to create Hudson Yards. This development has so much potential, the New York Times wrote "the Olympic bid's defeat may have been one of the best things to happen for the city's growth in recent memory."
There is no doubt that Nats stadium, by pumping $1 billion into the neighborhood and using eminent domain to consolidate property, may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization. In time, it may even prove to bring additional development of the area.
But the evidence so far is that, at best, it hasn't been a drag on the process that was already in place. Near Southeast was a neighborhood on its way when the Nationals were still playing in Montreal.end penultimate station on a stub line that only served a handful of stations, all in central DC. That year, it was extended south of the river and into Prince George's County in 2001 making the area more easily accessible, particularly to suburban workers.
Development sites in Near Southeast. Blue=pre-stadium, orange=during stadium finalization, purple=after stadium; shaded=under construction or completed; solid=cleared or planned only
David Cranor is an operations engineer with NASA. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate and also writes the WashCycle. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
So yeah, development would have happened in near SE anyway, sure. But I think the ballpark accelerated it.
David C is, I think, a supporter of street cars on H Street, Columbia Pike, etc. Its clear that development in both those areas came before any streetcars appeared (since they havent yet) and more would come without streetcars. Yet that does not mean the streetcars will not accelerate development. Why is the ballpark subject to binary thinking (IE it only counts as contributing to development if it was the sole cause of development)?
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 20, 2012 11:46 am • link • report
by Jay Roberts on Aug 20, 2012 11:57 am • link • report
by Fitz on Aug 20, 2012 11:59 am • link • report
by monkeyrotica on Aug 20, 2012 12:20 pm • link • report
What the Stadium did was drop an anchor, something that was relatively permanent, reassuring developers that SE was actually going to see government investment which had been lagging for years at that time. You're right, development would have come but it likely would have been at an anemic pace. I have reports going back 20 years promising the rebuilding of the Douglass bride and public / private partnerships. As soon as the stadium agreement was ratified, money flew out the door.
I think the stadium's impact has been somewhat muted due to the near-economic collapse of the last few years, but tax revenue from the stadium area has been higher than initially estimated. http://www.welovedc.com/2010/06/03/mayor-council-raid-nats-park-tax-coffers-to-cover-gap/
True, the stadium isn't all rainbows and unicorns but compared to other single purpose stadium projects that hope to spur development, this one looks pretty good. If anything, it probably needs a few more years of investment after the Great Recession to show its full impact.
by Randall M. on Aug 20, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report
by charlie on Aug 20, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report
by Alan B on Aug 20, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report
by Jim Titus on Aug 20, 2012 1:26 pm • link • report
The city levied a tax on the largest businesses (who wanted the baseball team) to pay for the stadium. So I don't think it's really taking money away from regular people, and isn't part of the point of government bonding that we can help others pay for something that the public wants?
by MLD on Aug 20, 2012 1:49 pm • link • report
We've gone back and forth on this issue for years now. Nats Park, just like Verizon Center, just like Fenton/Ellsworth in Silver Spring is the Bright Shiny Object that attracted new attention, new investment, and made the area familiar to people who don't already live there.
That area was on the wrong side of I-395. It was cut off from the rest of the city since the late 1950's urban renewal. The existence of the Metro there meant there was potential for redevelopment but far from a given. For example, Deanwood looks exactly the same as it did in the 1970's despite having Metro service since 1978.
Meanwhile, downtown, Columbia Heights, and Silver Spring most certainly don't look the same. The difference is the Bright Shiny Objects of the Verizon Center, DC-USA, and Fenton/Ellsworth.
Plans are great. There are plans for a completed metro system in Baltimore. However, without the Bright Shiny Object, progress for revitalization around the Navy Yard would have been about as fast as completing Baltimore's fixed rail rapid transit system. You can argue that the District agreed to bad financial terms on Nats Park. (although the facility has been more than paying for its bonds due to high hotel tax receipts and high attendence this season) It's simply inarguable that the stadium had no effect on redeveloping down there. The increased attention and the fact that more potentional residential/office renters/buyers are now familiar with the area rather than taking decades for the region at large to even know it exists is immeasurable.
While the lines of the Favored Quarter are now much blurrier than before the explosion in urban place revitalizion 10 years ago, it most certainly still exists. Places outside of the Favored Quarter often need some sort of Bright Shiny Object to attract the attention and interest necessary for complete revitalization. Otherwise, they remain forgotten like Navy Yard was or, at best, quiet areas like Deanwood. Columbia Hights needed some sort of new attraction, as did the eastern part of downtown, as did Silver Spring as they weren't within the Favored Quarter before revitalizion. Today, the Favored Quarter has now expanded to include eastern downtown and arguably Mount Vernon Triangle. It's also possible to argue that Silver Spring is now in the Favored Quarter (I don't think so but if you look at residential rents, the argument is certainly there.) No new Bright Shiny Objects are needed. Now you put Bright Shiny Objects in Wheaton or a redone Crystal City etc.
Plans, while nice, don't bring attention and dollars. You may not like baseball. I don't care for it much, either. However, it's inarguable that it's a successful urban stadium.
by Cavan on Aug 20, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 20, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 20, 2012 2:44 pm • link • report
by DCster on Aug 20, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report
by selxic on Aug 20, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
It's just part of the blog's larger narrative that sports arenas and stadiums are bad for cities.
by Scoot on Aug 20, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
There have been other posts that say that an urban stadium done right adds to a city.
by Cavan on Aug 20, 2012 4:24 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 20, 2012 4:26 pm • link • report
I actually think this article underestimates the Navy's role by not mentioning the number of private contractors that came along with the NAVSEA move and who now occupy a lot of the near-SE office space. Being involved in two wars (which saw unprecedented opportunities for military contractors) didn't hurt either.
by dcdriver on Aug 20, 2012 5:38 pm • link • report
by selxic on Aug 20, 2012 7:10 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 20, 2012 7:43 pm • link • report
That's not what I was trying to say, and I hope that wasn't the sense that you got. Perhaps the map made it seem that way, but I understand that some projects may have moved to the left thanks to the stadium. In fact I wrote that it "may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization."
@Alan B, I think the real question is ...is the benefit enough to support the cushy financing.
I agree. But I see this as a part of that question, and that question is beyond my capabilities to answer.
@Jim Titus, thanks. Fixed.
@MLD I don't think it's really taking money away from regular people, and isn't part of the point of government bonding that we can help others pay for something that the public wants?
I'm no expert on the financing, but I'm not sure the entire cost was covered by the bonds. As I recall that was capped at like $600M. The expansion of the Metro entrace was extra, etc.. As to whether taxing big businesses takes money from regular people ("Corporation are people my friend"), I think this has limited DC's ability to borrow in the future - isn't there a limit to that. And when you raise taxes, it makes it harder to raise taxes again - so we lost the opportunity to tax for something else. And finally, Grover Norquist is part right - raising taxes does increase unemployment and slow the economy a bit. Not as much as he'd have you believe, but somewhat.
On your last point, this could definitely be considered a government function, and might even be good policy. But that wasn't my point.
@DCster, see the above commentts on what the stadium taxes are and where they come from. That they exceed expectations only says that DC's economy has done well, it does not prove that the baseball was a net benefit.
@selxic "I'm not sure what is being corrected. Most who cared to know have long acknowledged the area had plans well before MLB even owned the Expos."
So, does Jim Graham not care to know?
by David C on Aug 20, 2012 8:56 pm • link • report
Plans are great.
It's true that plans don't always lead to shovels. But much of what has been built was farther along than plans. Many things were built, being built of funded. Which projects do you think were sped along by baseball?
It's simply inarguable that the stadium had no effect on redeveloping down there.
I'm not sure it's "inarguable", but nonetheless I'm not arguing it. Like I said, "There is no doubt that Nats stadium, by pumping $1 billion into the neighborhood and using eminent domain to consolidate property, may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization." What I want to do is push back on the narrative that there was nothing there, then we built the stadium, and now we have this great neighborhood as a result.
Would you say that you agree more with Jim Graham's statement that "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development" or mine that "Near Southeast was a neighborhood on its way when the Nationals were still playing in Montreal."
Places outside of the Favored Quarter often need some sort of Bright Shiny Object to attract the attention and interest necessary for complete revitalization.
Perhaps that's true. But the world is filled with failed BSO's and failed neighborhoods next door. And it's unclear that this neighborhood need a BSO or didn't already have one in the US DOT HQ.
David C.'s views are that arenas and stadiums are bad
No it's not. I love areans and stadiums. It's my view that some people are exaggerating the benefits of this particular stadium.
And though not in this post, it is my view that DC got taken to the cleaners on this deal. When governments publicly finance stadiums that is often (but not always) bad - because sports leagues are negotiating from a stronger position. You end up paying money for prestige. I don't need prestige - or at least I don't need it as much as I need clean water, a power grid that rarely fails or quality education for kids.
And it is also my view that with $1B, the power of emminent domain, and the investments of thousands of hours of District employee time, we probably could have done more to develop this area than the stadium will provide.
That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't worth it. The jury is still out. But if development is the goal BSO's may not be the best way to achieve it. And we should think about all of this the next time a group of billionaires asks us to build them a BSO, instead of pointing to Near SE and saying "it's clear that if that stadium hadn't been built, you wouldn't have all this development."
by David C on Aug 20, 2012 9:24 pm • link • report
The stadium did destroy the. DC gay community's center as well as Nation where people flocked from NYC and Toronto on weekends.
by Tom Coumaris on Aug 20, 2012 10:38 pm • link • report
by selxic on Aug 21, 2012 1:12 am • link • report
by danmac on Aug 21, 2012 8:27 am • link • report
These two are not related. DCwater is an independent, multi-state authority, with its own bond rating. It can borrow money independently from what DC does.
by goldfish on Aug 21, 2012 8:56 am • link • report
by danmac on Aug 21, 2012 9:36 am • link • report
As for failed Bright Shiny Objects, the failed ones tend to be from the 1980's and early '90s while the successful ones tend to be from the late 1990's onwards. The difference is that in the late 1990's, we collectively started to realize that a Bright Shiny Object in an urban place needs to be urban-formatted (integrated with the street grid, no surface parking, entrances that open up to the sidewalks, etc.).
For the record, I agree with Jim Graham. We can argue that there could have been a less expensive Bright Shiny Object but there had to be one because that neighborhood was so long-forgotten by everyone except the few who lived there that no profit-seeking developer would have bet on that area.
by Cavan on Aug 21, 2012 9:38 am • link • report
I agree with you. People seem to want to paint a broad brush w/ respect to stadiums and arenas in urban areas and it's just not that easy, whether we're talking from a fiscal perspective or urban planning/economic development ones.
by Vik on Aug 21, 2012 10:16 am • link • report
I was a staunch stadium opponnent and even with the recent on field success some of the arguments against remain valid, but you make a good point about its role as an anchor. Any developer who questions the Districts's commitment to the neighborhood or worry focus and priority will shift to other neighborhoods can be assured that a $630 million sinkhole isn't good for the District (polically and financially) and it provides motivation to make more things happen.
The neighborhood is blossoming, and the best part of the stadium is that you don't need to be a baseball supporter, fan, or sympathizer to appreciate it.
by anon_se on Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am • link • report
Its bonds are completely independent of DC municipal bonds, and are paid by ratepayer fees. They are not tied to DC tax revenues.
Yes, the sewer fees are escalating; but this has nothing to do with the ability of the DC government to borrow money or its power to direct development.
by goldfish on Aug 21, 2012 10:32 am • link • report
by A Streeter on Aug 21, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Aug 21, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report
by A Streeter on Aug 21, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report
Potomac Yards should take off any day now.
by Feldspar on Aug 21, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Aug 21, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report
George S. Hawkins
10/27/11
to me
Hi Dan,
There are two impervious fees on our bill – one that comes to DCWater exclusively for the big tunnel project, and one that we collect for theDistrict, which does subsidize green roofs and other green development. We arediscussing with US EPA whether we can perhaps substitute green development anddownsize some of the tunnels. Stay tuned!
by danmac on Aug 21, 2012 4:44 pm • link • report
by Falls Church on Aug 22, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
by David C on Aug 22, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report
http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm/3740/Tuesday-Tidbits-More-Post-Vacation-Catching-Up-to-Do/
"As I've said many times--of course things were happening in Near Southeast before the ballpark (I wouldn't have started this blog in 2003 otherwise). But to not recognize that the ballpark sped up *plans* considerably is to not have watched the 18-month landrush in 2004 and 2005 after the ballpark's location was announced, when so many little lots between 1st and South Capitol south of the freeway were snapped up by the big guns. And to say that the ballpark didn't drive development right after it opened is to neglect the worldwide financial market near-collapse, and the years needed to recover from that"
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 22, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report
"There is no doubt that Nats stadium, by pumping $1 billion into the neighborhood and using eminent domain to consolidate property, may have sped up the Near Southeast revitalization."
if it MAY have sped up development, then there IS doubt that it did so. If there is NO doubt that it sped up development, than it DID speed it up, and "may" does not belong. Are you trying to say 'there is no doubt that someone claiming that there is NO evidence for development speed up is wrong" Thats oddly expressed, and is indeed a pretty weak assertion. Thats probably why most folks here (and JDLAND) are reading you as saying that there was PROBABLY NO SPEED UP.
its real hard to have a debate when we arent all clear on what we are debating.
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 22, 2012 5:12 pm • link • report
if it MAY have sped up development, then there IS doubt that it did so.
It may not be the clearest sentence. What I was going for was that there is no doubt that putting these kinds of resources into an area may speed up revitalization. It is possible.
Where there is doubt, for me at least, is that it has done so. It's hard for me to see a project that has moved faster thanks to baseball. But maybe with more time it will become more clear.
As for JDLand's point about the land rush, I think she gives that too much credence. Yes, immediately afterward some people did come in and spend a lot of money - too much really - for some land in the area [I can't find it, but somewhere is an interview with some of the people involved with the deals who pretty much say that]. But then they did nothing with the land. In some cases they did nothing with it BECAUSE they paid too much for the land and it had to go through bankruptcy. So because of baseball, many plots of land were owned by one person instead of being owned by another, and in some cases it wound up in bankruptcy. That isn't development. And it may be that it slowed things down.
And if JDLand is going to blame the lack of development after the stadium on the worldwide financial market near-collapse, then she also needs to acknowledge that the dizzying prices paid during the land rush were related to the land and housing boom going on at the time.
by David C on Aug 22, 2012 8:10 pm • link • report
I read this as trying to have it both ways.
by goldfish on Aug 23, 2012 9:09 am • link • report
I think it's possible that it sped up revitalization, but the evidence is weak.
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 9:27 am • link • report
the dizzying prices maybe, but the intensity of flipping was certainly due to plans to develop. Had there been a ballpark, but no bubble, presumably the flipping would have happened but at lower prices, and, in the absence of the banking collapse, the projects would have gotten underway.
Given the boom and banking collapse, but no ballpark, yes, by now we would have the same non-development right near the park.
Lesson - dont finance Bright Shiny Objects right before global financial collapses, because the collapse will undermine the prospects of getting the benefits of the BSO. Of course thats true for LOTS of different kinds of investments, especially ones designed to increase RE investments.
Do you think that if we get a financial collapse in say 2013, that there will be a lot of new development near H Street or Columbia Pike Light Rail?
Note - i lean toward support of those two street car projects, and I'm not keen on public financing of sports arenas. But I think the analytic approach you apply to Nats Park is quite different from one usually applied by contributors here (and that I guess you share) wrt street cars.
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 23, 2012 9:28 am • link • report
by goldfish on Aug 23, 2012 9:38 am • link • report
That presumption would be true if you think property owners were just as willing to sell at lower prices as they were at higher ones. That's not really how the market works. And if that's not true, then neither is your following assumption.
Many projects have been started, built and completed since the financial crises started. Some right in this neighborhood - ones that predated the stadium. Yet still the land next to the stadium sits mostly empty. At some point in time, the crisis starts to become an excuse that can't be justified. What will finally get these projects off the ground is the burgeoning population resulting from the SE federal center and the Carrol Cappersburg projects, neither of which happened because of baseball.
Given the boom and banking collapse, but no ballpark, yes, by now we would have the same non-development right near the park.
Right. So if everything else were the same, but for baseball, things would look pretty much the same. Isn't that the heart of my argument, and the opposite of Graham's?
Do you think that if we get a financial collapse in say 2013, that there will be a lot of new development near H Street or Columbia Pike Light Rail?
I think there's already been a lot of development in those corridors, including during the economic financial collapse, and that it's been because of the planning and investment in transit. You're making my point for me. Why does the presence of an actual BSO not cause development, but the promise of one does?
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report
I have. I just haven't argued what you want me to argue. I'm arguing that even if the stadium hadn't been built, you'd still have the vast majority of all of this development (if not all of it). It's right there in the opening paragraphs.
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report
As for lower prices, I think the prices would still have been high relative to historical levels, just not AS high.
As for councilman Graham, I think he is referring to the large amount of development that HAS occured. Thats what JDLand and others argue has sped up, not the lots that are still empty. Your claim is that the failure of the lots NEAR the ballpark to develop is evidence that the development further away cannot be ballpark related. I think the argument JDLand is making is that since the projects close to the ballpark were stopped by the financial collapse, you can't use that to argue that the projects further away were not ballpark impacted. As for why one project is impacted and not another, that has to do with the specifics of project financing, the nature of the project (including its mix of residential office retail) its size, etc.
As for col pike and H street, I think theres a considerable argument that development in those places also has other drivers - in H street its walkable proximity to Capital Hill, plus aggressive redevelopment of the bars by Mr Englert. On columbia pike its sheer proximity to the core - the auto commute is fairly easy. Now the argument that the streetcars DO matter and will matter is mainly based on what developers in those areas are actually saying. In SE DC, developers seem to think baseball is important, and include the ballpark in their advertising.
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 23, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report
There's Arlington Mill and Penrose Square and the Shell Site and Rosenthal site have both been approved for work this year.
I think the prices would still have been high relative to historical levels
Well, we'll never know. But it's reasonable to question whether they would have been enough for the current owners - with successful clubs and businesses - to cash in.
As for councilman Graham, I think he is referring to the large amount of development that HAS occured. Thats what JDLand and others argue has sped up, not the lots that are still empty.
And I think you're putting words in their mouth. That isn't what they said.
I think the argument JDLand is making is that since the projects close to the ballpark were stopped by the financial collapse, you can't use that to argue that the projects further away were not ballpark impacted.
Clearly I disagree.
As for col pike and H street, I think theres a considerable argument that development in those places also has other drivers - in H street its walkable proximity to Capital Hill, plus aggressive redevelopment of the bars by Mr Englert.
No doubt, and I would never argue that it was all just because of the streetcar. But I'll add that I think Englert chose H Street, in part, because of the streetcar.
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report
How about Poplar Point?
by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Aug 23, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report
penrose square is done. Arlington mill is being done at county initiative, a community center and affordable housing I think not in response to the market. Yes, there are projects in planning, but not UC yet.
"And I think you're putting words in their mouth. That isn't what they said."
here is what JDLand said
" And to say that the ballpark didn't drive development right after it opened is to neglect the worldwide financial market near-collapse, and the years needed to recover from that""
she seems to think it did DRIVE development. Im not sure how she could not be referring to what did occur since its not possible to have driven development that has not yet occured.
hopefully she will chime in again and clarify
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 23, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report
I don't get that from what she wrote. Here's how I read it: There was no development right after it opened but that's because of the financial near-collapse. Which is more "It didn't drive development, but nothing could have."
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report
by David C on Aug 23, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report
[blockquote]Nobody cares about whether or not David C proved what he was saying[/blockquote]I'm not sure how to respond to that...
Anyways, I was genuinely trying to understand the stance of the article. That's why I asked the questions I did in my last comment for clarification instead of attempting to put words in his mouth. I did add Poplar Point since other developments were discussed in the back and forth with others, but I believe the other questions were completely on topic.
I know JD has held a stance against covering Poplar Point, but even that is near, near SE. It's not Arlington. :P
by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report
by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report
I can see where you could read her that way. I'd still love to see her chime in again.
by MStreetDenizen on Aug 23, 2012 5:53 pm • link • report
by Payton on Aug 23, 2012 8:44 pm • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 25, 2012 9:39 am • link • report
by goldfish on Aug 25, 2012 10:50 am • link • report
by Read Scott Martin on Aug 25, 2012 10:19 pm • link • report
Add a Comment