STADIUM IMPACT DEBATE CONTINUES
Is development coming to the waterfront because of the stadium? Would development have happened no matter what given the DC's desire to spur development and that so much of downtown has been built out? This chart clearly shows how dependent upon the stadium waterfront development is.
The Washington Post quotes Arthur B. Benjamin, a senior vice president at AMR Commercial Real Estate in Bethesda who points to factors in addition to the stadium to support his arguement about why development is happening:
"The prices of land in Near Southeast are so high because the city has said they want vibrant development to happen there and [through zoning they've allowed more density there] so that makes it more valuable. ... Plus, it's getting to a point where there's less ground left [in DC], and that's pushing the price up."
Ronald Cohen, a developer best known for building big-box stores on Rockville Pike, recently paid $51.6 million for a block at First and K streets SE.
"Ground is being purchased and buildings are being built based on where the new stadium is going. ... Clearly all of these sales weren't taking place before" the stadium was announced.Given the lingering debate over the stadium, the real question at this point is: what happens to the proposed development if the stadium is not built?
4 comments:
Can the same be said for Columbia Heights if the DCUSA/Target deal had fallen through?
Not really....The stadium is a far bigger development than the DCUSA project. Plus Columbia Heights seemed to be moving along to a greater extenet by itself anyways.
I think, at this point, development will continue even if the stadium falls through. However, I believe that MLB and the District will come to an agreement; too much time and money has been spent on it to be a failure. Besides, a failure would be a major black eye to the District and would have a negative impact to MLB's reputation.
Unless Virginia can 'steal' the deal...
Post a Comment