O/T: How a stadium led to the building of a neighborhood

This might be an ideal case [[case study) of how a barren area gets a stadium and a NEIGHBORHOOD develops.

First the day of the game activity and eventually a full fledged neighborhood develops [[52 x 7 neighborhood) complete with all of the happy hours and things which make life what it is, especially for the younger professionals.

Doubt this can really happen to the same degree near the new arena, but there are hopes that thousands of folk reside will there and a new neighborhood develops over the next 5 - 10 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z6

"Nationals Park opened in 2008. In the immediate years afterward, when the area was still gritty, the community surrounding the new, gleaming stadium had two personalities: one with ample foot traffic during the days and nights when the team suited up, and one that was far more barren when the home team was away. Back in those days, the makeshift fairgrounds on Half Street just outside the park’s center-field gate was the only place to go before and after games. There were only a few places to grab a bite to eat or shop for groceries if you lived in one of the new high-rises."

"“We were on the complete other side, off the Red Line, which I hated,” Ternes, 33, said. “I feel like I’ve really seen this neighborhood go through that transition. Sometimes I feel like when we first moved here that we only had Starbucks, Five Guys and Subway, that like, I’ve paid my dues, and so I love our neighborhood now. It’s very exciting to see all the restaurants and the family activities. It’s a super family-friendly neighborhood.”

"Several residents said that while the evolution in the neighborhood has been gradual over six years, the change has been particularly steady since 2012."

I might add that by 2018, ten years after the stadium opened, that the neighborhood transformation will be essentially complete.

The pace of development has picked up over the last few years [[as the economy improved and the neighborhood took shape) and plans are in place to develop some of the obvious undeveloped big parcels [[like the one right outside the centerfield gate). There are some key developments underway at M St. S.E. and 1st. S.E., very close to the stadium. The last biggies will be at 1/2st. S.E. between M and N., at the stadium's doorstep [[the property recently changed hands - that, I believe, was necessary to get a new developer on board).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

while the evolution in the neighborhood has been gradual over six years, the change has been particularly steady since 2012."... I might add that by 2018, ten years after the stadium opened, that the neighborhood transformation will be essentially complete.

---

The Detroit project is significant with the start up of the adjoinng projects coinciding with the arena construction.

How many times is this same discussion going to happen on this forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subsidized

How many times is this same discussion going to happen on this forum?

---

Sorry, I know the subject has been discussed a lot.

I did, however, like the perspective that a stadium literally caused a neighborhood to develop.

Most articles on stadiums suggest yeah a few eateries, bars, some office buildings, etc. etc. but not a whole neighborhood with maybe 10K residents.

No stadium ever built a neighborhood.

And the Nationals park area in DC sucks. It's among the blandest parts of core Washington [[and that's saying something). It would likely be a better neighborhood if the stadium/occasional traffic sewer were never built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Sorry, I know the subject has been discussed a lot.

I did, however, like the perspective that a stadium literally caused a neighborhood to develop.

Most articles on stadiums suggest yeah a few eateries, bars, some office buildings, etc. etc. but not a whole neighborhood with maybe 10K residents.

---

Never mind that there were people living in that area while the ballclub was still located in Montreal. But I digress.

The area to the south of the Capitol started to redevelop long before the new ballpark. There were townhouses, apartments, and condos that had opened up by 2006-07-ish--well before the 2008 opening of the new stadium [[I know--I had friends who lived in that neighborhood). The Waterside Mall had already been demolished, and its redevelopment was already moving forward at the time Nationals Park opened.

So, you argue, what about all the new restaurants? Sure, the ballpark has resulted in the opening of additional bars and restaurants. But are there SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS worth of new bars and restaurants? As I've stated repeatedly, if the end goal is bars and restaurants, then you're better off using public money to build bars and restaurants--the dollars stretch a lot further.

The one HUGE factor that you ignore here, however, is that 1) DC is [[one of) the most expensive city in the United States [[only San Francisco might have higher housing costs) and 2) most of its 63 square miles had already been developed. I would suspect that housing pressures played a greater role in residential development on the Anacostia Waterfront than the massively expensive stadium.

I live in a neighborhood of about 10,000 residents. We have amazing restaurants [[that beat the pants off culinarily-underachieving DC), bars, lounges, and live music. Yet no publicly-financed stadium. How could this possibly be? Maybe because other factors contribute more to development [[and redevelopment) of neighborhoods than whether you have a $600 million spaceship in your backyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I live in a neighborhood of about 10,000 residents. We have amazing restaurants [[that beat the pants off culinarily-underachieving DC), bars, lounges, and live music. Yet no publicly-financed stadium. How could this possibly be? Maybe because other factors contribute more to development [[and redevelopment) of neighborhoods than whether you have a $600 million spaceship in your backyard.

---

Lets see access to the Cleveland Clinic [[yeah no govt money ever went into that) may be the reason. And how do you access it? Euclid's Health Line! :rolleyes:

Baseball Stadiums draw much larger crowds than Hockey Arenas. There is a lot more to this project than simply building an area to support Red Wing games. The area is now ripe for redevelopment and the Ilitch family has used the new arena as a way to stake claim and become landlords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Lets see access to the Cleveland Clinic [[yeah no govt money ever went into that) may be the reason. And how do you access it? Euclid's Health Line! :rolleyes:

Baseball Stadiums draw much larger crowds than Hockey Arenas. There is a lot more to this project than simply building an area to support Red Wing games. The area is now ripe for redevelopment and the Ilitch family has used the new arena as a way to stake claim and become landlords.

---

???

I can't tell if you're being facetious, or if planning schools actually teach the idiotic concept that Several Hundred Million Dollar Project Plans are necessary for building a neighborhood.

It's so funny that the standards for causality vary so much on this forum.

When it comes to Detroit losing population, it's all about core stuff: Crime, schools, lack of jobs. Until Detroit fixes that stuff up, nobody will want to live there.

Unless, of course, they build a stadium for hockey. Then EVERYBODY will want to live next to the stadium.

That's right. People want to live next to a traffic generator equal to 41 Dream Cruises a year. Quality schools and crime be damned. So much so that developers will shell out money to extract the tremendous profits that will come from that.

But stuff like a rapid transit system, that won't create any appreciable development.

It's amazing that the rules for Detroit are supposed to be totally different from the rules that obtain everywhere else.

If you want to see real research instead of cheerleading, look this over.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.14.3.95

Or try this experiment. Ask yourself, "Would my neighbor move down next to the sports stadium to be nearer the Detroit Red Wings and all the special events down there?" I think your answer is right there ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Never mind that there were people living in that area while the ballclub was still located in Montreal. But I digress.

The area to the south of the Capitol started to redevelop long before the new ballpark. There were townhouses, apartments, and condos that had opened up by 2006-07-ish--well before the 2008 opening of the new stadium [[I know--I had friends who lived in that neighborhood). The Waterside Mall had already been demolished, and its redevelopment was already moving forward at the time Nationals Park opened.

So, you argue, what about all the new restaurants? Sure, the ballpark has resulted in the opening of additional bars and restaurants. But are there SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS worth of new bars and restaurants? As I've stated repeatedly, if the end goal is bars and restaurants, then you're better off using public money to build bars and restaurants--the dollars stretch a lot further.

The one HUGE factor that you ignore here, however, is that 1) DC is [[one of) the most expensive city in the United States [[only San Francisco might have higher housing costs) and 2) most of its 63 square miles had already been developed. I would suspect that housing pressures played a greater role in residential development on the Anacostia Waterfront than the massively expensive stadium.

I live in a neighborhood of about 10,000 residents. We have amazing restaurants [[that beat the pants off culinarily-underachieving DC), bars, lounges, and live music. Yet no publicly-financed stadium. How could this possibly be? Maybe because other factors contribute more to development [[and redevelopment) of neighborhoods than whether you have a $600 million spaceship in your backyard.

---

Your facts are about 99+% wrong on D.C. stadium area. [[I drove through that area every couple weeks and watched the construction; read every Washington Post article, and followed JDLand.com which tracked every building being torn down or built there since I believe 2004).

In 2006 there were probably more homeless folks walking the streets of the 'stadium area' then folks living there.

I believe that area had less than a DOZEN dwelling units.

That was one of the arguments against eminent domain that there were people living there and then there articles that there were a few old houses which some one fixed up with one or two people living there, etc.

The area was light industrial, strip joints, chop shops, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Your facts are about 99+% wrong on D.C. stadium area. [[I drove through that area every couple weeks and watched the construction; read every Washington Post article, and followed JDLand.com which tracked every building being torn down or built there since I believe 2004).

---

2004? You mean there were buildings being torn down, and new buildings being constructed, as soon as 2004? Wasn't the baseball team known as the Montreal Expos in 2004?

Never mind that construction of the new ballpark didn't begin until May 2006. It officially opened on March 30, 2008.

Given these FACTS, which you yourself acknowledge, how can you plausibly claim that the stadium resulted in "a new neighborhood"? I think you're trying really, *REALLY* hard to force something you believe to be true. It ain't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

???

I can't tell if you're being facetious, or if planning schools actually teach the idiotic concept that Several Hundred Million Dollar Project Plans are necessary for building a neighborhood.

---

Planning schools don't teach that. Twenty four years of experience allows you to see what is actually going on.

It is not necessary for building a neighborhood, but that is what is being done. Pretty smart way of getting control of an area that is on the way up. Cincinnati and Columbus have both implemented similar strategies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Planning schools don't teach that. Twenty four years of experience allows you to see what is actually going on.

It is not necessary for building a neighborhood, but that is what is being done. Pretty smart way of getting control of an area that is on the way up. Cincinnati and Columbus have both implemented similar strategies.

---

"Getting control of an area that is on the way up." What kind of communist Five Year Plan bullshit is that?

You know what builds a neighborhood? PEOPLE. People with homes, people with businesses, people with leisurely pursuits. Just people. No stadiums, tourist traps, convention centers, or billion-dollar-freeway-widenings necessary.

That, I learned by keeping my own damn eyes open, and for a lot longer than 24 years. I have never, NEVER once heard a person say, "You know, this neighborhood would be a lot better if we had an enormous stadium."

...and FWIW, Columbus can keep their tiny ticky-tacky theme park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

2004? You mean there were buildings being torn down, and new buildings being constructed, as soon as 2004? Wasn't the baseball team known as the Montreal Expos in 2004?

Never mind that construction of the new ballpark didn't begin until May 2006. It officially opened on March 30, 2008.

Given these FACTS, which you yourself acknowledge, how can you plausibly claim that the stadium resulted in "a new neighborhood"? I think you're trying really, *REALLY* hard to force something you believe to be true. It ain't.

---

"You mean there were buildings being torn down, and new buildings being constructed, as soon as 2004? Wasn't the baseball team known as the Montreal Expos in 2004? "


I did NOT say that. I said that Jovette Dupree, award winner for her following of that area [[she is a webmaster for the Wash. Post and started her own website, JDLAND.COM around 2004 with thousands of before/after photographs which has won her awards as the expert on the area. The joke is that she knows more about that area then the D.C. government does).

I drove through that area a number of times in 2004 [[but too afraid to stop and wouldn't even take the subway to get to the area) and there wasn't really anything happening in 2004 other than a subway stop, DOT, etc.

A subway stop and federal office building [[DOT) does not make a neighborhood.

Ask someone who works at the Census Bureau. They have a new, beautiful federal office complex and a subway stop on the green line and the area around it is still horrible. [[I worked there in the 1980s and folks wouldn't leave the complex to buy a hamburger for lunch. Like mid-day. That bad). I drove through there this year and nothing has changed in 30 years.

I've lived in the D.C. area for 35 years and worked at the Census Bureau [[Suitland), also in 'old downtown' [[1980s) and then near the White House and Galley Place until 2011.

I like to think I know D.C. and surrounding areas well.