It’s in the New York Times (or, it’s going to be this Sunday) so it must be true. A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution includes a Capitol Hill vs. Redmond data point in his opinion piece on the value of a “walkable, convenient place.” Now we know why all those “Eastside developers” want to build on Capitol Hill.
Although we have not studied all urban areas to the same degree, these findings appear to apply to much of the rest of the country. In metropolitan Seattle in 1996, the suburban Redmond area, home to Microsoft, had the same price per square foot as Capitol Hill, a walkable area adjacent to downtown, based on data from Zillow. Today, Capitol Hill is valued nearly 50 percent above Redmond.
Hopefully, the Hill didn’t lose too much socioeconomic value this week.
As our neighborhood evolves and becomes more and more popular, I hope we’re able to maintain what makes it so fabulous to live on Capitol Hill in the first place: culture, art, a diverse group of residents, and character. Eastside developers don’t care about the integrity of our neighborhood — they just want to make a profit.
Only problem is all of the developers aren’t from the eastside.
I think it is more that some recognize increasing/preserving the long-term viability of the neighborhood that their building resides in will ultimately have the greatest effect on the value of their property. Still motivated by profits, just done more intelligently. So I don’t think the geographical location of their offices has much to do with it.
Just because they’re from the Eastside doesn’t mean they don’t recognize what makes CapHill special. I mean really– how much can they do with the Eastside? It’s all new. If they could make something like Seattle over there, I’m sure they would. But what, and where?
You unbelievably snotty buttholes! I’m going to advocate bulldozing the whole hill and making it more like Aurora. You people deserve a busted face.
lol, wut?