MGM Resorts strikes agreement to build casino at National Harbor near nation’s capital (Baltimore: real estate, apartment complexes)

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Those people were not smart. They really thought that they would stop the project by blocking the road expansion. That's why I made sure I mentioned the residents to blame for that not happening. At the same time though, putting a mall and a casino off of that road isn't realistic. There should be a compromise in place. Either create a better way in and out of that area or move some of these projects to a different area.

I agree that the infrastructure has to be realigned to accommodate the additional development. Based on the Tanger hearings only small (comparatively) changes would occur there. The casino would be another story. I know that was one of the conditions that PG Council had if the proposed casino project would be approved by them. I am sure that the council, planning board, and developer will take cues from the opening of MD Live to ensure access is fluid as possible. If not they run the risk of loosing business. But note that there will be no real changes once you get pass Fort Foote since 4 lanes were not approved past that marker. It would be nice if the state re-prioritizes the 210 development to begin more of the interchanges sooner and if PG uses some of the set-aside infrastructure funds to begin a BRT project from Branch to the National Harbor (at the very least).

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by wisedisguise

Wow, your last 3 sentences were like a total sense of reasoning. After talk of eminent domain and road expansion flew over my head like crazy talk someone else agrees it is almost folly to try and shoehorn what amounts to a small city into a housing development.

Enacting eminent domain for improvements to infrastructure (e.g. road expansion is really not crazy talk. What do you think they are doing with the purple line, the Arlington trolley, the Route 1 expansion in Alexandria and for that matter the silver line. It may not be a popular option but it is one that is commonly used. They are doing it for the Oxon Hill Road project just on a smaller scale but don't think that as the area continues to grow that it won't be done on a broader scale given the plans that they have for that corridor. If you take a look at just the transportation plans for that area there is no way that a BRT or LRT that is planned to go down OHR to Livingston and terminate at Fort Washington Hospital can be done without acquiring what is now residential land. As you may be aware, ED would not occur unless impacted residents won't take the state's offer but believe me if the government wants the land for "the greater good" it will be taken. Remember Tyson's Corner was once a residential neighborhood before the mall came which was followed by an onslaught of other types of commercial development.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

I agree that the infrastructure has to be realigned to accommodate the additional development. Based on the Tanger hearings only small (comparatively) changes would occur there. The casino would be another story. I know that was one of the conditions that PG Council had if the proposed casino project would be approved by them. I am sure that the council, planning board, and developer will take cues from the opening of MD Live to ensure access is fluid as possible. If not they run the risk of loosing business. But note that there will be no real changes once you get pass Fort Foote since 4 lanes were not approved past that marker. It would be nice if the state re-prioritizes the 210 development to begin more of the interchanges sooner and if PG uses some of the set-aside infrastructure funds to begin a BRT project from Branch to the National Harbor (at the very least).

Baker said at one of the meetings that if the casino comes then he would make sure it moves to the top. That is only part of the issue, I think the Oxon Hill Road exchange is the bigger issue.

[UrbanScholar]

[quote=pgtitans;25393012]Baker said at one of the meetings that if the casino comes then he would make sure it moves to the top. That is only part of the issue, I think the Oxon Hill Road exchange is the bigger issue.

Well that would be good but hopefully he is doing that whether it comes or not. I do see how that type of development could create a greater justification. I agree that the Oxon Hill Road exchange will be an issue but I don't see them not trying to address that given the impact it could have on NH customers.

[kcmo]

When is this country going to learn that casinos kinda suck .

I don't have a problem with it, but wouldn't get all worked up about it either. I would rather see National Harbor add more housing and see it better tied to the rest of PG county. It's kind of an island.

[molukai]

More housing? Really? That won't solve the island problem you speak of. Gentrifying the immediate residential neighborhoods surrounding the area and opening the roadways to those residential districts would stop it from being like an island. It was made into an island on purpose, for fear of the uncouth locals ruining the enjoyment of the primary target clients (out-of-the-area tourists and upper class DC professionals).

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by molukai

More housing? Really? That won't solve the island problem you speak of. Gentrifying the immediate residential neighborhoods surrounding the area and opening the roadways to those residential districts would stop it from being like an island.

That's what I meant. Build or redevelop some of the close by areas and tie them to the develoment. But I understand their challenges. The casino is fine. I have just never had a lot of interest in them, but have nothing against them. I do wonder if they really add as much to the economy as people say they do though. I think they just take from other areas, but the collect a ton of taxes that I don't have to pay, so I'm good with them.

[molukai]

Taking from other areas is better than taking from us, in my book!

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by molukai

More housing? Really? That won't solve the island problem you speak of. Gentrifying the immediate residential neighborhoods surrounding the area and opening the roadways to those residential districts would stop it from being like an island. It was made into an island on purpose, for fear of the uncouth locals ruining the enjoyment of the primary target clients (out-of-the-area tourists and upper class DC professionals).

You keep using that word, but I'm not sure if you really understand the meaning behind that word or you just don't know the neighborhoods behind the National Harbor. There are some nice neighborhoods back there. Some of those houses are valued around a half a million dollar or more. There is no way you can 'gentrify' property that expensive in this county. Are there run down properties in some of those places? Of course, but that could apply to many neighborhoods in this area. I mean I have family that lives directly behind there and they are wealthy, so what are you gentrifying? There are no apartments, no low-income housing. To me when you use that word, it almost makes it seem like you using it for code to say get rid of the black people. I mean I could be wrong, but I honestly can't see anything else that would change from 'gentrifying' that area.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by kcmo

When is this country going to learn that casinos kinda suck .

It would be a better fit in a place that isn't so close to residential areas. I definitely don't agree with casinos, but it makes it even worse when you put it right in the area of a ton of single family homes.