Other midwestern cities getting strongarmed by billionaire sports owners.

[illwill]

The Atlanta Braves are moving from the city to the burbs. This caused a huge discussion about race relations but the Braves said most of their fans are from the burbs and they wanted to go to where the money is. And it was much cheaper that what Ted Turner was wanting.

The Mayor of Rosemont, IL., a Chicago suburb offered free land for the Cubs...but he was laughed at.

I think Detroit teams are good. Although we were disappointed when the Detroit Shock moved to OKC. We just need to get those pistons in the city.

[KJ5]

Well I think our elected representatives need to stop rolling over and taking it in the rear from these billionaires. If public funds help build these arenas the taxpayers should get a share of the profits too. It's shameful how a bankrupt city lets some billionaire run roughshod over it.

[Gistok]

Well I think our elected representatives need to stop rolling over and taking it in the rear from these billionaires. If public funds help build these arenas the taxpayers should get a share of the profits too. It's shameful how a bankrupt city lets some billionaire run roughshod over it.

You need to go back and read the other threads on how the Stadia and future Arena are being funded... it's not coming out of your pocket, so you getting a share of the profits is a moot point.

The Stadia were funded by the team owners, former Indian Gaming Casino state money, liquor by the glass and hotel room taxes, and state land drilling lease fees.

The future arena is being funded by the team owner, future downtown property tax increase captures, and again state land drilling lease fees.

With the exception of the state land drilling lease fees, these monies would not have been available for other uses, such as public lighting or public safety.

[Lombaowski]

The Atlanta Braves are moving from the city to the burbs. This caused a huge discussion about race relations but the Braves said most of their fans are from the burbs and they wanted to go to where the money is. And it was much cheaper that what Ted Turner was wanting.

The Mayor of Rosemont, IL., a Chicago suburb offered free land for the Cubs...but he was laughed at.

I think Detroit teams are good. Although we were disappointed when the Detroit Shock moved to OKC. We just need to get those pistons in the city.

Part of the problem in Atlanta was the stupid location they built the stadium in. It is in the teeth of Atlanta traffic south of downtown, there is no MARTA stop there, and it's in the hood. It's like Detroit putting their stadium at Michigan and Livernois. I mean Dodger Stadium is a pain to get to also, but it's Dodger Stadium and it was also built 60 years ago. The new stadium was placed where it is because of politics, and Turner gave in because of all the money he was gonna make off the Olympics.

Same thing happened in DC, the Nationals got cheap land in Anacostia in hope the ballpark would revive the neighborhood. They imagined shops, restaurants, bars, condos, etc, etc. They have a bunch of public housing, the worst neighborhood in DC behind them, and very little economic activity. Restaurants? Few. Bars? Few. Condos, they are building some but not a whole lot going on. The black caucus won in both Atlanta and DC, and the fans lost. No one goes to either stadium before the game or stays after. And DC has a metro stop 200 meters from the gate!

DC is being gentrified at an alarming rate, so maybe Anacostia develops but I'm thinking it'll be somewhat seedy for a long time. Atlanta? No one wants to drive to the game after work and sit in that horrendous traffic to pay $10 for a beer. The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

[emu steve]

Part of the problem in Atlanta was the stupid location they built the stadium in. It is in the teeth of Atlanta traffic south of downtown, there is no MARTA stop there, and it's in the hood. It's like Detroit putting their stadium at Michigan and Livernois. I mean Dodger Stadium is a pain to get to also, but it's Dodger Stadium and it was also built 60 years ago. The new stadium was placed where it is because of politics, and Turner gave in because of all the money he was gonna make off the Olympics.

Same thing happened in DC, the Nationals got cheap land in Anacostia in hope the ballpark would revive the neighborhood. They imagined shops, restaurants, bars, condos, etc, etc. They have a bunch of public housing, the worst neighborhood in DC behind them, and very little economic activity. Restaurants? Few. Bars? Few. Condos, they are building some but not a whole lot going on. The black caucus won in both Atlanta and DC, and the fans lost. No one goes to either stadium before the game or stays after. And DC has a metro stop 200 meters from the gate!

DC is being gentrified at an alarming rate, so maybe Anacostia develops but I'm thinking it'll be somewhat seedy for a long time. Atlanta? No one wants to drive to the game after work and sit in that horrendous traffic to pay $10 for a beer. The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

Folks are either wrong or carelessly wrong discussing the location of the Nationals Park.

The precise location is the southern part of "Near Southeast" which is the area south of the southwest/southeast freeway, S. Capitol, S.E, and ultimately the Anacostia River. The stadium is just south of M Street, S.E. [[think it is actually N St. S.E.).

It is approximately one mile south of the Capitol.

ANACOSTIA area of D.C is the OTHER SIDE of the Anacostia River. Anacostia has nothing to do with the stadium or 'Near Southeast."

BTW, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway divided Capitol Hill from "Near Southeast" and the ole 'right side/wrong side of the [[freeway)'.

Capitol Hill is very, very expensive residential. Near southeast was light industrial, housing projects, etc. etc.

BTW, as I've posted in other threads, there have been thousands of housing units, mostly apartments, built in the area of Nationals Park. The thing which hurt development was that the stadium opened 3/2008. The economic crash came 9/2008.

I find the development near Nationals Park, breathtaking.

I need to get some 2000 / 2010 Census numbers for population in that area.

Here is a great, great website on the ballpark area:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm

[Pickford-Bentler]

Folks are either wrong or carelessly wrong discussing the location of the Nationals Park.

The precise location is the southern part of "Near Southeast" which is the area south of the southwest/southeast freeway, S. Capitol, S.E, and ultimately the Anacostia River. The stadium is just south of M Street, S.E. [[think it is actually N St. S.E.).

It is approximately one mile south of the Capitol.

ANACOSTIA area of D.C is the OTHER SIDE of the Anacostia River. Anacostia has nothing to do with the stadium or 'Near Southeast."

BTW, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway divided Capitol Hill from "Near Southeast" and the ole 'right side/wrong side of the [[freeway)'.

Capitol Hill is very, very expensive residential. Near southeast was light industrial, housing projects, etc. etc.

BTW, as I've posted in other threads, there have been thousands of housing units, mostly apartments, built in the area of Nationals Park. The thing which hurt development was that the stadium opened 3/2008. The economic crash came 9/2008.

I find the development near Nationals Park, breathtaking.

I need to get some 2000 / 2010 Census numbers for population in that area.

Here is a great, great website on the ballpark area:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm

My brother was moved over their when NAVSEA left Crystal City for the Navy Yard development. He told me it was "dicey" at first but has got a lot better.

The geography of that region lends itself to development.

When I lived by Pentagon City, I would ride my bicycle to East Potomac Park to do laps at high speed. There is a bridge over the Potomac with a dedicated bike lane.Trails tend to get jammed, thus requiring conscientious biker to slow down.

Anyhow, it is not much farther to hit M street by the warf, thus being about a mile from Nationals Park.

On warm summer days, I would walk from Pentagon City to the Capital.

If the stadium was a black caucus perk, then it would be next to Fedex Field. That neighborhood is probably 95% black.


We could be engaged in a which came first - the chicken or egg? - argument.

FedEx has done nothing to really make Landover the place to be. Is that due to the stadium or location?

That land by Nationals Stadium is gaining traction. Is that due to the stadium or location?

[Lombaowski]

Folks are either wrong or carelessly wrong discussing the location of the Nationals Park.

The precise location is the southern part of "Near Southeast" which is the area south of the southwest/southeast freeway, S. Capitol, S.E, and ultimately the Anacostia River. The stadium is just south of M Street, S.E. [[think it is actually N St. S.E.).

It is approximately one mile south of the Capitol.

ANACOSTIA area of D.C is the OTHER SIDE of the Anacostia River. Anacostia has nothing to do with the stadium or 'Near Southeast."

BTW, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway divided Capitol Hill from "Near Southeast" and the ole 'right side/wrong side of the [[freeway)'.

Capitol Hill is very, very expensive residential. Near southeast was light industrial, housing projects, etc. etc.

BTW, as I've posted in other threads, there have been thousands of housing units, mostly apartments, built in the area of Nationals Park. The thing which hurt development was that the stadium opened 3/2008. The economic crash came 9/2008.

I find the development near Nationals Park, breathtaking.

I need to get some 2000 / 2010 Census numbers for population in that area.

Here is a great, great website on the ballpark area:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm

I have Nats Seasons tickets, I know exactly where it is. I worked right across the river for two years, I could see the ballpark.

The area that it is in is considered Anacostia Waterfront, it is the area directly across the Anacostia river and adjacent to the Navy Yard. SE DC is the correct nomenclature, but when you think of SE you associate it with Anacostia. Some call it Navy Yard, some call it Anacostia, some call it southeast, some call it waterfront. Not that it matters, what I said is still accurate.

The Anacostia Waterfront area of Washington, DC is undergoing a massive transformation. With a $10 billion restoration and revitalization plan underway, the Anacostia Waterfront is the city’s fastest-growing area of employment, entertainment and residential growth. The redevelopment project, which includes the building of Nationals Park, the Washington Nationals new baseball stadium, will also create 6,500 units of new housing, three million square feet of new office space, 32 acres of new parkland and a 20-mile network of riverside trails. Local government and advocacy groups are working towards cleaning up the Anacostia River to restore its ecosystem.

Across South Capital toward Fort McNair is all public housing. All that area looks mostly like Detroit, run down and dicey.

To the North three blocks there is a brew pub. Outside the centerfield gate there is a connex container area that is a bar called the bullpen. It is an outdoor place that sometimes is open, sometimes isn't. This is essentially the only thing down near the stadium. You have to walk north and east to get to a few more restaurants, six or seven blocks away. The DC welcome site lists Five Guys as the 4th best of four restaurant and bar options close to the stadium. Right across the river is Anacostia Park and the worse crime in DC.

The city pays $32 million a year to administer the stadium, and got a pretty bad deal in general. Of that $32 million it is estimated the Nats stadium and areas immediately surrounding the park that are there because of the park, are generating $13 million in revenue. There is no giant Ferris wheel, no restaurants, no boutique shops, no bars, nothing. Nothing that the city thought would be there is there and most here take offense to your assertion that it is due to the economic crash.

DC was not impacted like Detroit was, or really anywhere else was during the downturn. Here is a good article on DC in Time that explains. Between the wars and the gentrification of the city as the east coast San Francisco, DC has weathered the storm extremely well. Those using the economic downturn as an excuse for the area around the stadium not seeing a boom are missing the main point. The stadium should have never been built there, it was a concession made to keep the team playing in DC and not in NoVA.

People have opined that the stadium would have been better suited in the suburbs since 85% of the Nats fans attending the games are not living in DC.

The economic revival there is far from breathtaking, it's actually very disappointing. The area was supposed to draw a number of chains, local business of all kinds and thousands and thousands of new residents. That has not happened. Any gains in the Navy Yard neighborhood are incidental to the stadium, DC is a booming housing market and a chic place to live. At this point most of the prurchased commercial property is being held hostage, or have slow moving projects underway. The neighborhood will likely get better and better, but that is due to DC housing prices, the city's growing popularity as a great place to live, and because there is just so much space available. It will have almost nothing to due with the ballpark.

[emu steve]

I have Nats Seasons tickets, I know exactly where it is. I worked right across the river for two years, I could see the ballpark.

The area that it is in is considered Anacostia Waterfront, it is the area directly across the Anacostia river and adjacent to the Navy Yard. SE DC is the correct nomenclature, but when you think of SE you associate it with Anacostia. Some call it Navy Yard, some call it Anacostia, some call it southeast, some call it waterfront. Not that it matters, what I said is still accurate.



Across South Capital toward Fort McNair is all public housing. All that area looks mostly like Detroit, run down and dicey.

To the North three blocks there is a brew pub. Outside the centerfield gate there is a connex container area that is a bar called the bullpen. It is an outdoor place that sometimes is open, sometimes isn't. This is essentially the only thing down near the stadium. You have to walk north and east to get to a few more restaurants, six or seven blocks away. The DC welcome site lists Five Guys as the 4th best of four restaurant and bar options close to the stadium. Right across the river is Anacostia Park and the worse crime in DC.

The city pays $32 million a year to administer the stadium, and got a pretty bad deal in general. Of that $32 million it is estimated the Nats stadium and areas immediately surrounding the park that are there because of the park, are generating $13 million in revenue. There is no giant Ferris wheel, no restaurants, no boutique shops, no bars, nothing. Nothing that the city thought would be there is there and most here take offense to your assertion that it is due to the economic crash.

DC was not impacted like Detroit was, or really anywhere else was during the downturn. Here is a good article on DC in Time that explains. Between the wars and the gentrification of the city as the east coast San Francisco, DC has weathered the storm extremely well. Those using the economic downturn as an excuse for the area around the stadium not seeing a boom are missing the main point. The stadium should have never been built there, it was a concession made to keep the team playing in DC and not in NoVA.

People have opined that the stadium would have been better suited in the suburbs since 85% of the Nats fans attending the games are not living in DC.

The economic revival there is far from breathtaking, it's actually very disappointing. The area was supposed to draw a number of chains, local business of all kinds and thousands and thousands of new residents. That has not happened. Any gains in the Navy Yard neighborhood are incidental to the stadium, DC is a booming housing market and a chic place to live. At this point most of the prurchased commercial property is being held hostage, or have slow moving projects underway. The neighborhood will likely get better and better, but that is due to DC housing prices, the city's growing popularity as a great place to live, and because there is just so much space available. It will have almost nothing to due with the ballpark.

Amazing you and I have roots in D.C. [[I have been here since 1979) and really, really disagree about a LOT.

I have never, though, heard the area near Nationals Park referred to as "Anacostia".

As you know, Southeast has a LOT of neighborhoods, e.g., Capitol Hill is part SE and part NE, "Near Southeast" [[that's a neighborhood name) refers to the area south of the Southeast expressway to the Anacostia, Anacostia is the 'other' side of Anacostia River [[yes, rivers like the Anacostia and Detroit Rivers have two sides and no one calls Windsor 'Detroit River waterfront').

[Scottathew]

The Mets may have a worse location, but they have chop shops instead of ghetto and it's quite a bit easier to get to and from.

My wife and I stayed in Manhattan for a week and went to a Mets game during that time.

It was amazingly simple to get to and from the game. The subway stop was very close to the gate and there's nothing but a concrete walkway between the stadium and the subway. The entire stadium is designed to efficiently flow foot traffic from the subway to the seats. When the game is over they have a ton of trains lined up to take you back into Manhattan.

When the game ended we were back in Times Square in about 30 minutes.