77°Partly Cloudy

Lululemon, yoga and athletic wear, coming to 14th and U Street, NW

by Prince Of Petworth January 2, 2017 at 10:22 pm 106 Comments

img_9172
1925 14th Street, NW looking north towards Soul Cycle and U Street

Thanks to Courtney for the heads up confirming the scuttlebutt from October:

“signage up for new lululemon on 14th street near soul cycle”

Lululemon confirms:

“We’re comin’ for you.”

img_9173

There is also a Lululemon in Logan Circle at 15th and P St, NW which may or may not be considered the same neighborhood as 14th and U Street, NW. For the record it is .6 miles away in a very dense part of town.

img_9174
looking south towards the coming Madewell

  • John

    Soon this city will be nothing but Sweetgreens and Lululemons.

    • Anon

      Poor fitting suits are going nowhere.

      • maxwell smart

        Truth. The spokesperson for poor fitting suits will soon be our president.

    • Khris

      And sadly, it seems pretty clear that many of our newer residents actually like it this way.

      • maxwell smart

        I mean… this does really seem to be peak Lululemon territory. I’m sure they know what they are doing.

        • That’s all I’m saying too.

          • Anon

            Man this neighborhood has changed. I mean I was naive enough to think my particular stage of gentrification 10 years ago “was how it was.” But ugh.

          • You’ll probably want to avert your eyes from here on out then. Also steer clear of Ivy City, NoMa, Brentwood, Brightwood, Anacostia…

          • Anon

            But p.s. I do like Sweetgreen, lol.

      • Tsar of Truxton

        I have never been to a Lululemon and only occasionally go to Sweetgreen (though I would go more if there was one convenient to work), but I definitely think both are better than empty storefronts or run down convenience stores/markets. Then again, I also prefer cleaner neighborhoods, lower crime rates, and (hopefully) improving schools, so call me crazy.

        • James W.

          Let’s stop pretending that opening trendy stores and expensive restaurants reduces crime and improves education. It doesn’t, and the numbers in DC bear that out. Just because things used to look ‘worse’ doesn’t mean that they actually were worse.

          • Anonecon

            James. Lay out your data.

          • Anon

            “Let’s stop pretending that opening trendy stores and expensive restaurants reduces crime and improves education.” – I think we’re arguing semantics, but trendy stores/restaurants most certainly push out the poorer residents while bringing in new money. This often has the effect of reducing crime and improving the educational outcomes (albeit only for some).

          • James W.

            Except that crime has fallen east of the river too (you know, that place where you’ve been pushing the poor people)? Not to derail this thread, but too many people embrace the worst of gentrification under false pretenses. If you want a Lululemon, fine. But don’t justify it as public safety and education.

          • James W.

            Anonecon, that’s not how it works. If the argument is that Lululemon is good because it lowers crime and improves education, then it’s not on me to disprove this truism.

          • Anon

            James – what about the crime stats in western PG?

          • MR

            @James W. You said “the numbers in DC bear that out.” Then when you were asked for those numbers, you replied “that’s not how it works.” Umm, yes it is. If your argument is supported by “numbers,” then please offer them up.

          • James W.

            http://www.ibtimes.com/washington-dc-crime-rate-2015-amid-gentrification-public-safety-crisis-worries-some-2220355

            “Crimes with guns have increased 34 percent in Petworth this year compared to last year, and 9 percent in Columbia Heights. There were 154 homicides across D.C., this year, compared with 97 last year, a 59 percent increase and the highest rate since 2008, according to government statistics.”

            Proceed.

          • James W.

            Apparently including a link sends my comment to moderation. Just google this: ““Crimes with guns have increased 34 percent in Petworth this year compared to last year, and 9 percent in Columbia Heights. There were 154 homicides across D.C., this year, compared with 97 last year, a 59 percent increase and the highest rate since 2008, according to government statistics.” I get that people really really want to believe that just putting in more gelaterias and yoga clothing stores solves the world’s problems… but it don’t.

          • James W.

            You should also seek out an ArcGIS map that overlays crime rate with per capita income in DC. The highest crime rates aren’t where incomes are lowest… they correspond more highly with areas where incomes are highest. As for ‘how this works’ – it’s not on me to disprove the hypothesis. The fact that I merely alluded to the numbers not supporting the original hypothesis doesn’t shift the obligation of proof to me.

          • Tsar of Truxton

            Your article is a year old. The new data is here: http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance (though it looks like there is at least one typo), and the rates came back down. Looking at crime from year to year is pointless anyway because it can spike for various reasons and then regress back to normal. Over the long term, the city has continued to see an overall decrease in crime Go check the stats from 10 years ago. Then go check 20 years ago. Which city would you rather live in?

          • MR

            @ James In your 12:14 p.m. comment, you contend that there are higher crime rates in those parts of the city where incomes are higher. Serious question: Do you really think that’s true? Do you think that Kalorama/Georgetown/Dupont/Upper NW–which all have higher household incomes than the rest of the city–also have higher crime than, say, Anacostia?
            .
            I’m happy to have a polite argument about this with you, but first I’m trying to understand your point. Your links don’t actually help your argument. Yes, crime is up in certain areas like Petwork and Columbia Heights. By your logic then, crime rates in the poorest neighborhoods should have gone down over the same time period. So: crime is up in the expensive locales, and down in the poorer areas of DC? Do you have any numbers to support that?
            .
            To be clear, I don’t think that gelaterias and yoga clothing stores will solve the world’s problems. I just disagree with your premise that there is higher crime in the most expensive areas of a city. And, generally, gentrification does decrease crime, at least over time. The reasons are obvious–higher property values, increased tax revenues, displacement of lower income residents. I’m not saying it’s fair, but I think it’s mostly true. Here’s an easy way to prove who’s right: take 14th Street between Thomas Circle and U Street and compare the crime numbers there in 1995 to the crime numbers today.

          • HaileUnlikely

            People have trouble understanding the difference between the value of a variable, it’s rate of change, the rate of change of its rate of change, etc. That A is increasing and B is decreasing neither supports nor refutes the assertion that B is 100x larger than A.

        • textdoc

          Ehh, false binary (Lululemon vs. empty storefronts/run-down convenience stores). It’s not an either/or.
          .
          For what it’s worth, I’d be happy with a Sweetgreen in place of a Lululemon. And $9 salads are more accessible to more people than $100 yoga pants.

          • Anon

            Yoga pants that don’t come in normal human sizes.

      • jaybird

        I prefer it to the way it was and I probably will never set foot in there. Much like Salt and Sundry but I’m glad its there…

  • dcgator

    R U F K M

    • Tsar of Truxton

      Someone please translate

      • textdoc

        I believe it’s “Are you f***ing kidding me?”

        • Tsar of Truxton

          Ah, thanks.

        • dcgator

          Y

  • maxwell smart

    I hope they turn one of these into a men’s only store, like the one in SoHo, otherwise I can’t see how 2 locations a stone’s throw from each other makes sense. This isn’t Starbucks… how often does 1 person go to LuLulemon on a yearly basis?

    • I admire your consistency in this opinion maxwell. https://www.popville.com/2016/10/looks-like-lululemon-coming-to-14th-and-wallach-place-nw/#comment-1198038 I’m sorry it didn’t turn out to be “a delivery from lululemon to a person named Bennett”…

    • Anonymous

      That’s the beauty of fitness apparel – the more you workout and your body changes, the more you need to buy.
      It seems to me that there’s no shortage of people willing to drop a significant chunk of their paycheck on Lulu stuff.

    • Khris

      Ha! I didn’t even know they made men’s yoga pants. I suppose Victoria’s Secret might have a men’s section that I’ve never been aware of too.

      • maxwell smart

        They make running, cycling and gym clothes for men. I actually really like their men’s running apparel.

        • Khris

          Good to know.

    • J Street

      The P Street location is moving.

      • Snoopes

        Source?

        • J Street

          P Street location employees.

      • Anon

        The obvious answer. Thanks for confirming.

      • maxwell smart

        And the slow demise of P Street continues…

        • Anon

          lol. First they took our yoga pants, then they came for the organic dairy. We’re totally screwed now. This is irreversible.

      • Rich

        Hopefully, not another Eatwell restaurant in their place.

  • Guillermo Brown

    I’m happy for this new location. The one at 15th and P is a pain in the ass if you’re driving to it

  • I don’t get all the hate. I have a few things from Lululemon that I like (namely, shorts), but it is a pain in the butt to get to if you don’t live by P St. I hate driving down there and parking is terrible. A store right by the metro will be handy.

    • James W.

      Just not sure that people buy fitness clothing so frequently that it needs to be ‘convenient’ in the same way perhaps a grocery store needs to be convenient. Personally I find the pop philosophy on their bags to be the worst kind of proselytizing but, hey, get spiritual enlightenment where you will.

      • Totally agree on the bag slogans. I’m not saying it needs to be as convenient as a grocery store, but I would like to be able to make the trip over lunch break, which is hard for me given the current location of the store.

        • maxwell smart

          “but I would like to be able to make the trip over lunch break” – so would, I’m sure, other people who could easily walk to their current location, who now would not be able to go during their lunch break.

      • anon

        There’s something especially obnoxious about a place that sells $100 yoga pants smarmily proclaiming that “friends are more important than money.”

        • Anonymous

          I seriously always rolls my eyes when I see that on their signs and bags.
          COME. ON.

    • maxwell smart

      Bus? Bike? Uber? or I don’t know… maybe walking to the store that sells fitness clothing? It’s not like they sell things that are difficult to transport.

      • I don’t want to haul two kids to a workout store (shopping with them is terrible and adding walking 5-7 blocks with them to that is even worse) and if I have time without them on weekends, I would rather be doing something else than driving to P st (such as exercising). I wouldn’t have responded and I’m not sure why I’m getting into a debate about this, but the assumption that I’m being lazy is grating. It’s a fine store, not great, but not everyone that shops there fits this weird stereotype that people project onto it.

        • Anon

          “And, yes, I know that I’m vain.” – maybe not everyone, but you sure seem to fit

    • Rich

      They sell expensive stuff that doesn’t need to be very expensive. It’s kind of like people who swear by Whole Foods and don’t realize that half their stuff can be bought for less elsewhere and much of the rest is nothing special.

      Plus, they’re semi-cultish. They attach themselves onto local yoga studios (which often are a bit cultish themselves; yoga instructors often seem as un-detachable as car salespeople) to build their following. Given that I seem to encounter the least evolved people imaginable coming from yoga classes, I’m assuming the bubble for all of this will burst. This isn’t the first time yoga has been a “thing”.

  • J

    This is a sincere question: What is the big deal about Lululemon? I ask this as someone who works out regularly but can’t fathom spending $100 (or more than $20….) on a pair of barre pants.

    • I’ve gotten some stuff there that I really like- a few pairs of running shorts (they’re the perfect length and have three pockets, one with a zipper); yoga pants (which fit well and don’t show underwear lines); and a sports bra (which I like how it looks, which probably doesn’t matter because I wouldn’t work out in just a sports bra). All of these have lasted 4+ years with regular wear . I’m sure some of their stuff is crap and I would be mad if I bought something that I didn’t like, but it does motivate me to work out a little more if I know that I like what I look like in the workout clothes. And, yes, I know that I’m vain.

      • Anon

        I’m guessing you don’t have large breasts or normal size thighs. Also, I have workout clothes from target that have lasted 4+ years and fit well.

    • Hill Denizen

      They make cute, flattering clothes, that are usually fairly high quality. I can’t justify the spend, though I sometimes wish I could. Personally, I just stick with Nike on clearance.

    • Anonymous

      They take their cult marketing from the Landmark Institute. Similar mindset to Scientology – you need to “buy in” to be part of the club.
      Also, there’s a not insignificant segment of the population for whom workout/yoga apparel is their clothing of choice when they aren’t (1) dressed for work or (2) “going out.”

    • flieswithhoney

      I think the brand is elite/expensive enough for many people to justify wearing yoga leggings as everyday pants. I have two pairs of running shorts from them that I really like but I don’t feel comfortable wearing spandex leggings solo unless I’m exercising so no lulu “pants” for me. The salespeople at the P street store are very nice and helpful, however.

      • textdoc

        I don’t understand the idea that the cost of an item somehow makes it more “formal” than it is. IMO, yoga pants don’t suddenly become “dressier” just because they’re expensive yoga pants — they’re still yoga pants.

        • Anon

          Yea, but people who spend more than $100 on yoga pants don’t really care about the sartorial expectations of the poors.

          • textdoc

            Emperor’s new clothes.

          • Rich

            It’s sort of like Patagonia but without the innovation, quality, or environmental concern.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think people who wear yoga pants as everyday wear really believe there is such a thing as “dress” yoga pants. It’s just that it has become more acceptable to be walking around in yoga pants.

          • textdoc

            Possibly. But I know I’ve heard people arguing in the past that (for instance) a dress code that bans jeans shouldn’t apply to THEIR jeans, because their jeans are expensive jeans. And I think some people are using a similar line of reasoning to argue that their yoga pants are somehow “dressy” solely by virtue of being expensive.

          • maxwell smart

            I think it’s also to give the illusion that one is always either coming from or going to yoga/gym/cycling studio. It helps build the reputation that you are A: always on the go and just SO, so busy and B: obsessed with your health, which in the age of FitBit, etc. is very trendy.

          • Anon anti pants

            I just wear yoga pants as much as I can because I do yoga and don’t like wearing real pants unless I absolutely have to (work, court, fine dining. Is that so wrong?

          • rachel

            yoga pants are comfortable and flattering. why shouldn’t you wear them to, say, the grocery store or the movies? and for what it’s worth, I think a lot of people in DC are pretty much always on their way to or from the gym. personally, I bike to work daily year round and I often go to the gym on my way home. but even if I wasn’t exercising – why does it matter to anyone else what I’m wearing? I never understood how me dressing in a way that is comfortable for me could possibly be offensive or bothersome to people I don’t know.

  • logancirclegirl14

    DC has reached peak BASIC

    • James W.

      It reached peak basic about 5 years ago and has been in a steady state. Welcome to where mall fashion goes to die… a slow death.

    • Anon

      Peak DCUM for sure!

  • anonymous

    I guess they’ve gotten past that
    “I see London,
    I see France,
    I (literally) see your butt in those yoga pants”
    issue they had a few years ago.

  • Ben

    I don’t get the hate in this thread. I’m assuming Lulu did the analysis to determine the area can support two stores. People who spend $20+ per workout class multiple times a week can clearly afford expensive clothing.

    • James W.

      Seems fairly self-evident that many residents see this development as emblematic of a quickly homogenizing DC that caters to high-earners with the dollars and free time to spend hundreds on ‘athleisure’ wear. It’s also the case that Lululemon’s founder is an Objectivist with a history of saying dumb stuff. Hence the ‘hate’

      • textdoc

        This.
        .
        Also, even if everything in this area is going to be pricey, I can understand people being peeved that this is another branch of a store that already exists in the area. Couldn’t it have been, say, artisanal gelato instead?

      • Ben

        Fully understood – but the homogenizing of this area began a long, long time ago.

        • Anon

          How long, really? Not that long, actually. I’ve been here 10 years. Never imagined this.

          • Ben

            I would peg the development of the Ellington and U St’s first Starbucks as the start – and that was 04 ;)

          • Ben

            Actually – thinking more if we want to be technical – it was the Harrison Square Townhomes in 2000/2001 built between 13th and 12th on V/W ST NW. There was an interesting writeup in the Post a while back about the builders dodging bullets while they where being built.

    • stacksp

      700K row houses or in the U st area 1M+ row homes….
      $13 sandwiches
      $20 Cycling Class
      $100 pants…

      Seems to all go together….I dont get the outrage either…

      • Anonymous

        Yes, no shocker that higher costs for residential spaces leads to higher costs for commercial spaces leads to higher costs of goods being sold in those commercial spaces.

    • ooo

      Ask Brittany Norwood about the hate.

  • stacksp

    Lulelemon has crossed over to everyday daily wear in addition to athletic apparel. Its seems to be what women throw on to run grocery and store errands. You can not count on two hands how many women are wearing leggings in Say whole foods or Target on a Saturday morning. Leggings and leisure wear is very popular now and they just happen to make some of the more quality products in the same vain as say Nike Tech Fleece line

    • maxwell smart

      “Lulelemon has crossed over to everyday daily wear in addition to athletic apparel.” OR athletic apparel has become everyday wear.

      • stacksp

        That’s what I meant lol

      • Anon

        Yet for some reason folks continue to ignore the well-dressed chap in an ever-seasonal fedora and trenchcoat.

      • Anon

        I still judge people who where lululemon specifically.

  • Anon

    YOGA PANTS! Amirite?

  • MadMax

    They make the single best pair of cold weather men’s running pants I’ve ever owned. Not sure why it’s hard for some people to fathom why people would want well made items that are popular all over the rest of the country in DC. Our rich people aren’t somehow more exclusive than rich people elsewhere (and by rich, I merely mean people with enough disposable income to spend money on work out gear, and presumably working out too).

    • J Street

      Agreed. They make the single best pair of women’s cold weather running pants I’ve ever owned. I run ~30 miles a week and this would not happen without the warm, lightweight gear that makes me look and feel great. Worth it!

    • JDAVA

      You’re missing the point. No one is questioning the quality of their products. I think what people are having a hard time “fathoming” is whether it’s logical to have two stores a 6th of a mile apart. If the P St. location is moving, as another commenter mentioned, my point is moot.

      • Anon

        Your point is moot.

      • MadMax

        Those 2 locations have probably had more housing units developed around them in the past 5 years than anywhere else in the city. I don’t see why (even if they weren’t possibly moving one) having 2 stores 6 blocks apart is any different than 2 Chipotles, CVS, or something else, especially when you consider the clientele of the area.

        • Anon

          You don’t see the difference between cheap fast casual, a pharmacy, and a “luxury” yoga pants store? Don’t kid yourself.

          • MadMax

            For the capital of Brunch Beckys in the District? No, I do not. I would only make that argument in that heavily dense, specific area, not any other random 6 block stretch in DC.

        • HaileUnlikely

          Makes more sense than the strange concentration of mattress stores a mile or so north of there (the Freakonomics article about why the hell there are so many mattress stores is interesting and kind of hilarious)

      • K

        Well, I am assuming a major corporation probably has a better understanding on where to place their stores then say the average Popville reader. I know I am good at a lot of things, but managing a multi-million dollar company is not one of them.

      • Anon

        I’m questioning the quality of their products vs. the brand hype. You can google and get the issues on their quality. Nike they aren’t.

        • maxwell smart

          Like most brands, it’s highly specific to what you are purchasing. I’ve been very happy with their men’s running shorts and tops – more so than similar product at Nike.

        • MadMax

          Sure you could Google a product and see what a random article tells you, or you know maybe buy something yourself and see. I’ve run in my winter pants several hundred times with no showing of wear whatsoever, and the tops that I’ve bought hold up just as well for summer work outs.

    • HaileUnlikely

      Thanks for the tip. I might check them out. As a non-slim, non-yoga-doing dude, the thought that they might have a product that is useful for me never even occurred to me.

      • HaileUnlikely

        p.s. Which one are you talking about? I’m guessing the “Surge Pant.” Might give it a try. I presently do most of my winter running in a now-discontinued pant made by SportHill which I bought in or about 2010; they are admittedly showing a little bit of wear now but still going strong. I bought them for about half the price of the Lululemon’s in question, but as I mentioned those have been discontinued and their current product lineup all basically costs as much as the Lululemons.

        • MadMax

          They were called ChillStop pants. I checked the site yesterday to see if they were still available (I bought mine probably 5 years ago) but they’re not on the site anymore. I’m sure they’ve got something similar though, if not improved by now. (retail was appx $100-120)

  • Anon

    Barf.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list