ZoolanderANDtheBoYz says: (4/13/15 11:10 AM)
"Monument first acquired the lots in Square 700 between Half and Van streets in 2005, three years before Nationals Park opened to fans, for a combined $6.96 million. In August 2008, Monument sold those lots to Akridge for $9.66 million. And now, seven years after acquiring them, Akridge has dispatched those parcels to JBG and Brandywine, in separate deals, for a total of $65 million.
It amounts to an 834 percent increase in value over the course of a decade, reflecting the meteoric growth of the Capitol Riverfront community, between South Capitol Street and the Navy Yard. The blocks immediately surrounding Nats Park are simply exploding with development, and much more is to come in short order."

I know you corrected the permit guy from Washington Business Journal on twitter. But, he still has not corrected it.

ZoolanderANDtheBoYz says: (4/13/15 11:11 AM)
21 million in profit is a healthy and lucrative return for Akridge.

JD says: (4/13/15 11:30 AM)
WBJ's story is corrected now.

ZoolanderANDtheBoYz says: (4/13/15 12:25 PM)
*Correction - Akridge profit is roughly around 9 million not 21 million. Still that is a good return.

Andrew in DC says: (4/13/15 7:36 PM)
@ZoolanderANDtheBoYz 9 million on $56 million invested in 2009 is not a good return. It's not even 20%.

By comparison, you could have put all $56 million in the S&P 500 on the day they closed the deal on Sept 3rd, 2008 and made 63.13% - a return of a cool 32M ... and that was before the market crashed from Oct-March.

Akridge is just happy to get away from this deal with its head intact. This is a huge loss for them. Their investors should be pissed.

ZoolanderANDtheBoYz says: (4/13/15 9:12 PM)
@Andrew, I didn't know Akridge is publicly traded company.

Andrew in DC says: (4/13/15 9:46 PM)
@Zoo they aren't - but that doesn't mean they don't have investors:

link

Scott says: (4/14/15 4:33 PM)
How much do you normalize finance with debt in a commercial deal? I doubt any of these properties are purchased with all cash, so the return of $9 million is not on $56 million, but on whatever you had invested. That's the power of leverage.

So if it was financed 20% with cash in 2008 - or $11.2 million - and you returned $9 million in 2015, that's higher than what you would have made investing the same $9 million in the S&P 500 at the same point in time.

Of course, we probably have no idea what their actual numbers are, either how much they financed in cash, nor their expenses over time that would lead to a real ROI.

Scott says: (4/14/15 4:34 PM)
*normally*

202_cyclist says: (4/15/15 11:10 AM)
Was part of Akridge's motivation in selling the Half St property to get more funding to finance its massive and ambitious Burnham Pl development ( link

ZoolanderANDtheBoYz says: (4/15/15 11:15 AM)
Damn @202, I was about to ask the same question with the same link. 8.5 billion for the next 20 years is a big bet.

JD says: (4/15/15 12:23 PM)
Not really on this subject, but I saw a Michael Stevens quote somewhere recently that talked about the neighborhood now being at the halfway point of its build-out. It kind of startled me that that's about right. And once you get all this Half Street/South Capitol/1st Street stuff underway, it's really just the later phases of The Yards, Florida Rock, and a smattering of potential projects north of M/west of 3rd left to go.

(I know that doesn't make it sound like there's that little left to go, but in comparison to what's been done....)

202_cyclist says: (4/15/15 2:22 PM)
"Not really on this subject, but I saw a Michael Stevens quote somewhere recently that talked about the neighborhood now being at the halfway point of its build-out. It kind of startled me that that's about right. And once you get all this Half Street/South Capitol/1st Street stuff underway, it's really just the later phases of The Yards, Florida Rock, and a smattering of potential projects north of M/west of 3rd left to go."

Maybe CSX will sell some of the huge amount of land it owns next to 70 and 100 I Street after the VA Ave tunnel construction. Residential would be difficult here b/c it is right next the highway but I don't see any reason additional office buildings can't be constructed there. There is also the lot immediately north of McDonalds, as well as the McDonald's property. Additionally, as mentioned in my comment for the marine barrack's post, almost all of the lower 8th Street corridor is still undeveloped-- I don't know if that is considred Navy Yard/Capitol Riverfront, however.

JD says: (4/15/15 7:13 PM)
Lower 8th is within the BID boundaries, although at one of the 2010 barracks meetings Michael Stevens said that if the Marines take any of the private land over there, he will advise the BID board to shrink the boundaries to not include any new Marine facility. Probably spoken in the heat of the moment, but still an indicator of the feeling that any new installation along 8th would perhaps not be considered a net positive from a business standpoint.