Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

People in their 20’s in their first entry level professional jobs aren’t earning sufficient income yet to make them a backbone of the income tax base. They’re renting, so they aren’t paying property taxes, they don’t have cars so they aren’t paying registration fees, getting tickets or paying fuel taxes. They aren’t spending money on their homes or filing remodeling or building permits. They have very little financial contribution to city govt beyond income taxes.

Agree that 20 somethings aren’t moving into suburbs or small town though. But 30-50 somethings moving into those places contribute a LOT more to local govt revenue intake than 20-somethings in urban areas.

30-50 somethings moving into those places are a net loss for local government revenue, if they have kids in public school. Cars are also a net loss for local government revenue.

And remember that renters pay property tax through their rent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

People in their 20’s in their first entry level professional jobs aren’t earning sufficient income yet to make them a backbone of the income tax base. They’re renting, so they aren’t paying property taxes, they don’t have cars so they aren’t paying registration fees, getting tickets or paying fuel taxes. They aren’t spending money on their homes or filing remodeling or building permits. They have very little financial contribution to city govt beyond income taxes.

Agree that 20 somethings aren’t moving into suburbs or small town though. But 30-50 somethings moving into those places contribute a LOT more to local govt revenue intake than 20-somethings in urban areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

“Driven interest” in communal living? 30 years ago I lived in a roach infested group house in DC. This is nothing new. What’s new is kids today paying $10 for coffee, 20 for a salad and $100/month for a cell phone. Be smarter and work harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.

DP. Nothing screams low IQ like misreading a comment. The question was why do some people want DC to fail.

The only people responsible for DC’s failures are the ones that vote for the idiots they have in place; mayor and most of the city council. So it is an act of self destruction.

Those with common sense and the means to do so are fleeing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.

DP. Nothing screams low IQ like misreading a comment. The question was why do some people want DC to fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.