This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
January 22, 2007
D.C. braces for two more stadium battles
Just when Washington, D.C. residents thought that they were finally done being hit up for stadiums, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher reports that two, count 'em two, more stadium plans are in the works. D.C. United is moving ahead with long-rumored plans for a 27,000-seat soccer-only stadium across the Anacostia River from the new Nationals stadium; meanwhile, Fisher reports that the Redskins are "quietly" talking with D.C. officials about building a new stadium of their own on the RFK Stadium site.
The D.C. United stadium doesn't have a price tag yet that I can tell, but team management has said that it will pay for construction costs, if the city gives it for free the right to develop a large swath of the 110-acre Poplar Point site, currently federal parkland, where the stadium would go. (If that sounds familiar, it's because it's going around.) While city council members have been generally supportive of the plan, those who live nearby are somewhat less so, calling the Poplar Point plan city-sponsored gentrification at the expense of the neighborhood's poor residents.
As for the Redskins returning to D.C., it seems almost unimaginable, given that the team only opened its stadium in suburban Maryland in 1997. (It was built with yet another free-land-and-infrastructure deal.) According to Fisher, though, talks are serious:
It's not by any means clear that this will amount to anything, but there have indeed been conversations between the Redskins ownership and the District government, and the incentive here is clear: The city would love to have the team back, and the team feels competitive pressure from Dallas, the Giants and others that are building huge new stadiums that will be as big or bigger than the Landover facility, and will have a new generation of amenities. And the NFL is offering low-interest loans to encourage such ventures. Finally, what's pushing both the team and the city is the dream of having the Super Bowl in Washington, which would happen if the new stadium had a retractable roof.
So a ten-year-old, 75,000-seat football-only stadium now isn't enough to be "competitive," because its amenities date predate the Bush administration? Now that's keeping up with the Joneses.
Fedex Field opened with 80,116 seats. It now has
90,000 plus seats. Thanks.
When it comes to a $500+ million publicly financed Baseball stadium I couldn't agree with this website more. I have seen both Milwaukee and DC get totally screwed over by MLB by financing stadiums that were built only for the profitability of their owners and with no commitments to the local community.
But I don't think the Poplar point project can be compared on any level to the financing deal that was provided to Fedex or the MLB stadium. If anything maybe you could compare it to the Verizon center, in that it is being built in an area where very little economic activity is going on. Plus it�s a privately funded project meaning DC will only have to turn over the land and won�t have to finance the project�exactly what we should have done with Baseball.
The reality of Poplar Point is that nothing is there to displace except garbage and empty lots. I have no idea why the residents would think that by not building a soccer stadium they will be saved from high rise luxury condos. Those will be built with or without a stadium as part of the Anacostia re-development. But if you commit to the DCU stadium you support minority ownership and minority developers who are committed to improving the area for current residents, instead of VA developers who would displace current residents and make it their goal to gentrify the Anacostia metro area.
DCU has done more for the local community than all the other pro sports teams in DC combined and yet they will the only ones without a stadium when RFK is torn down.
This is a win win situation for the city and the residents of Anacostia and its really getting hard to argue against it at this point.
DC United deserves a new stadium.
To even consider Fed-Ex Field obsolete is insane. I'd like to hear Snyder's comments on moving his team somewhere else because the city of DC/Landover refused to replace a 10 year old stadium.
Posted by Bertell Ollman on January 22, 2007 05:45 PM
For anyone interested, let's talk about the real reason that Snyder is considering moving, namely, the land in PG County that he owns in and surrounding FedEx has undergone an amazing increase in value since FedEx was built 10 years ago. PG County is one of the fastest growing counties in America, and the demographics of its residents (generally, high-earning black professionals) makes the land much more valuable as condos, shopping, single family homes, etc. than as parking for a stadium that gets used 12 times per year.
That is Snyder's motiviation. Obviously, he won't agree to anything unless the DC government throws in the kitchen sink, but after the Nats and DC United move out, there's no there there at RFK any more.
Smart money says it's already close to being a done deal.
Posted by AW on January 22, 2007 06:25 PM