July 06, 2011
Nationals Park review: For this, you spent $686m?
Part of my travels last week involved a stop at the Washington Nationals' eponymous stadium on Saturday, for the second half (or more like second 60%) of a twi-night doubleheader against the Pirates. It was my first visit to Nationals Park, and my verdict is...
Meh. The D.C. stadium bears more than a passing resemblance to its HOK/Populous brethren Citi Field and Citizens Bank Park — stacks of club seats and restaurants behind home plate, overpriced shopping concourse in the outfield (complete with Blue Smoke and Shake Shack, just like in Queens), kids' play area — only without even those parks' moderate charms. The design is supposedly meant to evoke the glass-and-stone aesthetic of Washington's monuments, but when you replace actual granite with white-painted steel and cinderblocks, you just get drab.
The biggest problem, though, isn't the paint job but the grandstand design. Here's a photo from the upper deck down the first base line, which, being set lower than the behind-the-plate upper deck because there are no club seats forcing it skyward, should provide a decent view:
I was surprised to find myself lower vertically, but horizontally somewhere in Northern Virginia. The problem is in that lower deck, which you can see extends for something like 40 rows back before you get to the base of the upper levels. And because the upper decks have no overhang — apparently somebody thought that no one in D.C. in the summer would ever want to be in the shade — they're set back farther from the action than Stephen Strasburg is right now. (Of course, I would have expected this if I'd read my own blog posts.)
Nationals Park isn't an awful place to see a game: We ended up moving down to empty field-level seats along the left field line (ushers were thankfully far and few between), which only involved circumnavigating a handful of dead-end ramps and obtruding stadium clubs, and a fine time was had by all. Having been to RFK Stadium previously for a Nats game, however, I have a hard time seeing this as a big upgrade in terms of fan experience — let alone $686 million worth of upgrade.
And what of the much-hyped neighborhood redevelopment that was supposed to burst forth as a result of the new stadium? Well, right now it looks like this:
If you go to Harrison, New Jersey, you can see similar banners adorning similar chain-link fences outside the Red Bull New York soccer arena there. If nothing else, new stadiums are doing wonders for the Potemkin village rendering industry.
January 17, 2011
D.C. United exploring D.C. stadium sites
D.C. United is apparently preparing to play Baltimore and Washington against each other in its bid for a new stadium: After talking up Baltimore last summer, team president Kevin Payne now says he's discussed four sites in D.C. with city officials.
One leading candidate, according to the Washington Post, is Buzzard Point in Southwest Washington:
[City council member Tommy] Wells said last week that he isn't sure how a stadium would be financed, particularly with the city facing an expected $400 million-plus budget shortfall next year, but that a stadium on Buzzards Point would enliven the neighborhood. The Akridge property is between First and Second and R and V streets SW, a neighborhood that has seen little new development. "It's an area that really could be a great place for soccer, but also a great place to have more commerce and retail on the west side of South Capitol," Wells said.
If Buzzard Point is familiar to you, that may be because it's part of the same area that was supposed to be revitalized by the Washington Nationals stadium when that was opened in 2008. But surely the second time will be the charm.
July 02, 2009
On the eve of the 4th: The Nationals, the ballpark, and development
It appears that the stadium building lobby is taking time off for now, but there is always time for introspection. As talk radio hosts rail against stimulus funding and government waste, the Washington Nationals, a beneficiary of a pre-stimulus package in the form of almost $700 million of taxpayer money to build a new ballpark, sit in last place in their division. What are taxpayers getting for their money? Well, stimulus hasn't occurred, though it was presumed to be a product of construction as plans were being drawn up and pushed through the political process.
Nationals president Stan Kasten was on C-SPAN recently, telling a National Press Club audience to be patient because a bright future lies ahead, despite a dismal on-field performance this season.
For a less upbeat overview of the Nationals' progress, including some focus on the stadium issue and pathetic development that has unfolded around the new stadium, Jeff Blair at the Toronto Globe and Mail put together an article which explains that the new ballpark is so nondescript that it could have been plopped into Minneapolis, Cincinnati, or Cleveland. To be fair, the departure of the team from Montreal to Washington may have some Canadians agitated, but the team has struggled with attendance, and Blair reports that the neighborhood surrounding the new ballpark features little more than a seedy liquor store and a temporary tent that serves as a faux-tailgate area. So much for the brisk economic development the new ballpark was supposed to bring...
I'll be on break this weekend, and look forward to seeing Neil return with his insights and humor. If I see anything break in the next 24 hours, I'll do my best to have it posted, but I suspect things may be slow as we move into a holiday weekend. I hope all of you have an enjoyable and safe Fourth of July weekend.
April 13, 2009
Nats opening day marked by vacant lots
The Washington Nationals held their home opener today, and while most of the attention was directed to the sudden death of Harry Kalas, it was also the start of the second season for Nationals Park, the $611 million stadium that was built mostly with public money. Last year saw disappointing attendance, and things aren't starting off that much better this year, as the Washington Post notes:
Baseball stadium backers promised a lively entertainment district when the D.C. government poured nearly $700 million into building Nationals Park: a hub of bustling shops, restaurants, hotels, condos and office towers to draw patrons year-round.
But as the Nationals take the field for their second season at the ballpark, there won't be much entertainment outside. ... Fans approaching the ballpark along Half Street will pass an empty office building and a 35-foot-deep hole in the ground owned by Monument Realty, which has put plans on hold for shops, residences and a hotel. One block north, another office building, built by Nationals owner Theodore N. Lerner, sits vacant in search of a tenant.
The Post blames the lousy economy; the Washington City Paper counters that the "stadium district" was doomed from the start. Either way, it has D.C. being made fun of by other cities with failed ballpark villages.
And speaking of being made fun of, the libertarian magazine Reason has a long analysis of the stadium's overblown economic impact claims, highlighted by this from Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher on last year's opening day:
Twelve-year-old Brennan Jones, a Little League catcher from Falls Church, served up this strike from Econ 101: "The District's going to make so much money. We're paying for this place every time we come." Brennan expects to come very often; during Nats batting practice last night, he got pitcher Luis Ayala to sign his Nationals rally monkey. The kid is set, probably for life.
Responds Reason's Nick Gillespie:
Only a real Ty Cobb-type sonuvabitch would put a price tag on a kid getting his rally monkey signed. Hell, the stadium practically paid for itself in that one act. Especially when the kid channels Warren Buffet and declares the stadium a no-lose proposition. Who can argue with that?