"Excitement" not worth $1B stadium

Development

by David Alpert • October 14, 2008 11:11 am

Mayor Fenty wants to bring the Redskins back to DC, calling it "a big mistake" to let the team move to Landover in 1997. Why does Fenty want them back? Civic pride. Fenty told the Post,

Photo by dbking on Flickr.
"If people were around D.C. when the Redskins won the Super Bowl and in the quote-unquote heyday of past years, there's nothing like it in Washington, D.C. There's nothing like the excitement and having a Super Bowl team, walking around after the Super Bowl. So we want all that to come back to the city. It was a big mistake letting them leave, but we'll get them back."

When it comes to stadiums, pride often goeth before a fall—economic fall. As the article points out, New York and Dallas are both building new stadiums at a cost of about $1 billion apiece. DC could do a lot to generate civic pride with $1 billion. We could throw the biggest state fair ever. We could lobby for voting rights in a campaign larger than any seen before. We could build a whole streetcar system. We could repave most of our sidewalks with gold.

And there's one more advantage of buying civic pride directly instead of relying on a football team: you can get the "excitement" even without having to win a Super Bowl, something the Redskins haven't done in 16 years.

Plus, football stadiums almost never help the surrounding neighborhood. As Marc Fisher pointed out in the context of the soccer stadium, while the Verizon Center hosts 220 events a year and the Nationals ballpark around 100, an NFL team only plays eight home games a year. The strong tradition of tailgating means that more people will drive to football than to baseball, even if the stadium is next to Metro instead of a mile's walk down a suburban street.

Economists have found that stadiums never pay off for their host cities in bringing in concession revenue or more fan spending at nearby restaurants; if anything, nearby restaurants just cannibalize other restaurants elsewhere. The study I saw (I can't find the link just now) found that the a stadium only actually benefits a city when it stimulates development in the surrounding area, and even then it still may fall short of spending the money directly on economic development.

Near the ballpark, in what was a blighted part of town, there is substantial development; some claim that's because of the ballpark, others claim it would have happened anyway. But around RFK stadium, there's no way it will generate development. The nearby neighborhood is doing just fine, and most of it is already built out and even historically protected; other parts, like the Reservation 13/Hill East development, are moving forward just fine on their own.

If anything, replacing the acres of parking with more mixed-use neighborhood and parks, perhaps like NCPC's National Capital Framework Plan suggests, would do more for the city's and surrounding neighborhood's economic development than any football stadium.

Fenty:

"As Jack Evans has pointed out on the city council, [the land in Landover] could probably be used for a lot of other valuable things. We have a stadium site sitting here ready, willing and able to go. A new stadium could go on there. We could probably donate almost all of the land to the stadium and, I think, build a brand-new stadium that could accommodate a Super Bowl that has all of the new trappings of new stadiums. ... We just want it to happen as fast as humanly possible."

Memo to Mayor Fenty and Jack Evans: our land here could be used for a lot of other valuable things, too. Let's just start using that land, and forget about blowing $1 billion just for the occasional possibility of a little excitement.

49 comments — Share	— tags: Adrian Fenty, Capitol Hill, DC, economics, Jack Evans, Redskins, stadiums

H Street United? (Apr 9, 2009)
Live chat with Brett Abrams (Apr 7, 2009)
How to create a successful urban stadium (Feb 18, 2009)
Evans-Silverman: two worlds, two boxes of tools (Jul 29, 2008)
Soccer stadium won't stimulate the economy (May 29, 2008)

Comments

Hell, for $1 billion we could build TWO streetcar systems!

by rg on Oct 14, 2008 11:20 am

With regards to stadiums, I wouldn't get too excited about Mayor Fenty's words. He "promised" to DC United that they would be able to go forward and build a stadium on Poplar Point once they (United was behind most of the lobbying to the Congress) got the land released from Congress. Keep in mind that United has been offering to pay all construction costs for 10 years now. In addition, they want to build it urban style without surface parking lots and adjacent to a Metro. We just don't hear very much about that any more, do we?

If you want to base the potential of this actually happening on mayor's track record so far, I would suggest you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past him if he thinks it will get him reelected.

by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 11:22 am

I agree that it is stupid to build a new football stadium merely for sentimental reasons. But isn't the situation a bit more complicated than that? Doesn't DC not actually own the land that RFK occupies? It's my understanding that the Federal government owns it and leases it to the city for stadium-purposes only. Thus there's nothing else we could do with the land except have a stadium. Plus, I think the ideas floated were to have Snyder pay for the construction himself. So I don't think we'd pay for the construction, and we don't own the land anyway.

Of course, even if this were all true, I'd still oppose the stadium, but I just wanted to clarify it a little bit.

by Reid on Oct 14, 2008 11:54 am

So long as Snyder pays to build it, why not? Build it as if it will eventually host the Olympics. We WILL get the summer olympics eventually, though maybe not for a couple more decades.

by SG on Oct 14, 2008 12:06 pm

Reid: The feds transferred Poplar Point to DC, so it's not unprecedented to hand over the land to DC. Or, perhaps they could build some monuments and a park on part of it, and give the rest to DC for development. Or they could build some federal offices as part of a mixed-use project the way they are doing with The Yards in Southeast, which GSA owns but is becoming mixed-use.

SG: If we didn't pay anything, I'm fine with it. I don't think that's what will happen, though, and it sounded like Fenty wants DC to offer something to counter whatever Maryland would give them.

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 12:09 pm

SG: The Olympics also requires a huge number of new stadiums, and I think the numbers have shown that it hasn't been an economic boon to its host city at least for the last few Games.

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 12:10 pm

I would have a lot of civic pride about having a local team whose stadium we manage to get our suburban neighbors to pay for. That would make me exceedingly proud of our great and fiscally smart city.

by Ward 1 Guy on Oct 14, 2008 12:22 pm

It's worth pointing out that neither The City of Dallas or New York City is building a football stadium. Both are being built in suburban jurisdictions. I know in Arlington, TX the taxpayers are chipping in $300M.

Also, it's disingenuous to say it will be used 8 times a year. Yes, there are 8 regular season games. There are also preseason games, playoff games, potential Super Bowls (if they dome it, which they), NCAA final Fours, a collegiate bowl game, concerts, etc. So I agree that wouldn't be worth $1B, but what would it be worth? $200M? What would the city be asked to contribute? It's more complicated than you're presenting.

by Alex on Oct 14, 2008 12:24 pm

Did the feds actually transfer Poplar Point? I thought that was still pending.

I agree that the lease terms are negotiable, and simply because they currently require a stadium doesn't mean we have to have a stadium. I was merely pointing out that the opportunity costs are not so clear cut as you first made them out to be.

But again, I'd be wary spending a single cent on the stadium. First of all, Snyder is already entertaining the idea of a new stadium only 10 years after the old one was built. That's insane. Who's to say he wouldn't try to blackmail the city in another 10 years? Or perhaps he'd pull an Abe Pollin and demand a "loan" to beef up to stadium in return for explicit bribes of free tickets to the councilmembers.

Plus, the idea is to build a domed stadium (that's the only way to get the Superbowl this far "north"). Even the retractable domed stadiums are ugly. As long as we're making billion dollar decisions based on sentiment, I'll throw out my sentiment that football in domed stadiums is sterile and artificial.

by Reid on Oct 14, 2008 12:25 pm

Alex: You're right that a few more events could happen there. They're still not especially frequent; plus, we already do have RFK, so we don't need a new stadium just to have a place to put a concert. Is it worth a lot of money to have that place be just a little nicer for events that will draw a lot of traffic and little economic activity?

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 12:28 pm

That photo says it all. Parking lots, empty except for puddles and trash, for the majority of the year. Keep that vitality-sucking monstrosity out on the Beltway where it belongs.

by Omari on Oct 14, 2008 12:30 pm

The impact of Nationals Stadium and the Verizon Center are both overstated. In both cases it was the emerging city and Metro that helped to build the neighborhoods and both stadiums were just on the bandwagon (admittedly Verizon sooner than Nationals). Imagine Verizon were not built. Does anyone think Gallery Place would not have been developed anyway? The only thing Nationals did was use imminent domain to make the are more valuable and drive out the gay clubs.

As for the RFK site. Reid is right, but there is no reason that can't change. NPS can't really be interested in taking charge of such a large area when they heven't the funds to manage what they have now. Even so, tearing down RFK and creating Robert F. Kennedy Park - with facilities where DC residents can play sports instead of watching them - would provide greater benefit than a $1B facility which sits empty for 85% of the time.

by David C on Oct 14, 2008 12:35 pm

I disagree about the overstatement of the impact of Nationals Stadium and Verizon Center. Would any development have ever occured there at all if those places were never built? The East End of Downtown would still be the neglected semi-blighted (rather than fully blighted) ugly stepsister of the West End. You have to remember that that all the momentum for downtown dense commercial development had long since shifted to the West End. The historical downtown would still be dead after 6pm rather than alive at all hours of the day.

As for the Navy Yard area... This area was long since forgotten by the city and the region. It was blighted ever since the construction of the SE Freeway. It is/was the classic example of the "wrong side of the tracks" phenomenon. No one would even be taking the proposal to tear down the SE freeway seriously if it weren't for the new Nationals Stadium having raised the profile of the area.

If the Redskins want to reconstruct a new stadium on top of RFK once DC United moves to their soccer stadium, why not? If they pay the construction costs, why not? The problem with RFK is not the stadium. It's all the mostly unused parking lots. Build a garage or something but with only enough spaces to accomodate a minority of uber expensive permit only season ticket holders. Vigorously ticket football fans who park in the neighborhood. Run shuttles to the Potomac Ave and other surrounding Metros in order to take pressure off Stadium-Armory. Have a big tent with a concession stand for non-car fans who want to tailgate.

If this gets built in an urban design, this stadium will change the way every other city in our nation will think about stadium building. This is a golden opportunity. Far more of the general population is passionate about sports than urbanism. Here is a way to keep showing them that urban environments work and continue the success of the Verizon Center, Nats' Stadium and the (hopefully) future Poplar Point soccer stadium.

by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 1:03 pm

David C: A minor pet peeve:

Eminent Domain. It is a power reserved by the government. It was used on behalf of the Nationals, not by them. Just had to get that off my chest.

To the topic at hand: This is the same inexplicable planning trap that politicians get stuck in. Will they put a Festival Marketplace or an Olym there too?

This could become the way to change up some of the fundamental problems with the Mall. If they move some of the agencies and bureaus in forgettable buildings to this area, mixing public and private uses, they could demolish the old headquarters and sell the land to developers who would mix in private uses. That might actually restore the vibrancy of near Southwest.

by King of Spain on Oct 14, 2008 1:08 pm

Yeah, Dave, it is worth a good chunk of money. The Super Bowl and Final Four are huge draws that the stadium would host 2 to 3 times each in its lifecycle. As it stands the metro area has no chance of hosting these events or realizing their value, much less the city of DC. That's no chance, as Cavan points out, to showcase urbanism or world class transit oriented development. Is it worth $1B of tax payer money? No, it isn't. But is there some sum it's worth? Yes.

Though, look at the timetable on this, the stadium wouldn't be built until around 2020 and seemingly development around it would begin after that. That's too long to wait in my opinion.

by Alex on Oct 14, 2008 1:28 pm

There are two separate issues here:

1. Does the RFK Site make sense for a stadium?

and

2. What's the appropriate level of public financing for it?

----

1. Yes, it does make sense. The infrastructure is in place.

2. We can't answer this until we know what we're actually talking about. We have no numbers to go off of here. If Danny wants to build a palace and finance most of it himself, I'm fine with that. I'd also be fine with some public contributions in the forms of, say, an infill Metro station at Oklahoma Ave, or the movement of the DC Armory to a different location to allow the redevelopment of that building/parcel.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 1:44 pm

Spelling- not my strong point. I did not mean to imply that the Nationals used imminent domain, but it really matters little who used it. The point is that imminent domain is a powerful tool that can add value to a property that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Cavan, I think you're history is a little off. Navy Yard was already turning around before the baseball stadium. The stadium deal was approved by the city council on 12/15/2004. At that point the new Marine Barracks were built, the new DOT building was a year under way, Maritime Plaza had been open for a year as had 1100 New Jersey and 300 M had been open for 3 years, the ,a href="http://www.jdland.com/dc/pdf-view.cfm?filename=wasa_050225_ncpc_rehab.pdf">rehab plans for the WASA site were only two months away from approval, Forrest City was already planning the Yards, the zoning commission had already approved the Capper/Carolsburg venture, the Canal Park design had already been chosen and Capitol Hill Tower and the Courtyard were already under construction. See what I'm talking about? Calling the baseball stadium the catalyst is like calling our invasion of Normandy the opening shots of WWII.

At least Verizon center was early, but Gallery Place had been in the works for years. Verizon opened there BECAUSE of the Gallery Place plans.

If the Redskins are willing to pay for their stadium and place their money at risk, then I agree let them. [Though the stadium should compete with other RFPs so that the public interest is maximized] But I will bet you an infinite pot of coffee that they will not agree to pay for a new stadium out of their own pocket. And we shouldn't buy it for them.

by David C on Oct 14, 2008 1:47 pm

Alex: I think the question is: the sum that a few Super Bowls and a Final Four or two is worth—is it greater, or less, than the value of having permanent taxpaying residents or offices, and some parkland, on that site?

In the, say, 25-year lifecycle of the stadium, if it draws 2 or 3 of each of these events, that's about one mega-event every five years. That brings people and attention to DC, and also drives some regular people not to go eat downtown that day because of the expected crush. Meanwhile, a real neighborhood with real people brings benefits every day, and regular, repeatable tax revenue.

I don't know the numbers. But I have a feeling that the value to the city of actual development would exceed any value that the stadium could bring.

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 1:47 pm

David C,

No, Verizon and the Ballpark will not be true catalysts, but they will draw in many crowds that would otherwise rarely venture into the city, yet alone those parts of the city.

I seem to recall seeing some historical ridership trends from various Metro stations. The upward trend at Gallery Place bears a strong correlation with the opening of the Verizon Center and the subsequent improvements in the surrounding areas.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 1:50 pm

So stadiums built in the city with city money for people from the suburbs? Screw that.

It's not like baseball fans come into the city and stop by Frager's on the way. They ride or drive in, spend a bunch of money at the stadium for some millionaire who lives out in the suburbs and then they drive or ride home. Again, screw that.

by David C on Oct 14, 2008 1:53 pm

Cavan: Much of the development around the MCI Center was not spurred by the MCI Center, which actually creates a large dead space along the streets, but was subsidized by the DC taxpayers through TIFs and other development incentives. And some of the private development in the area was in the pipeline or even completed long before the MCI Center, the taxpayer subsidized Akridge project, the Spy Museum project and other projects that gained public financial support by claiming that they would spur development in the East End.

by JR on Oct 14, 2008 1:54 pm

David C,

That's not what I'm saying at all. Like it or not, DC is the center of a region. It has larger reach than just residents - especially for things that are regional draws, like pro sports.

Downtowns thrive on the fact that more people come there than could possibly live there. That kind of concentration is exactly what makes cities great.

Would you rather people spend their entertainment dollars in the city or in the burbs?

Again, don't equate my arguments with support for full public financing. I never said that was a good deal. However, that's a completely separate issue from the proper location of these kinds of facilities.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 2:16 pm

Just running some conservative numbers on tax revenues generated, assuming a 10% tax rate (like Nats stadium) on tickets and concessions (I will conservatively exclude parking and external neighborhood benefits) and a 100,000 seat stadium used only for football...

100,000 x $175 (avg ticket price) x 10 (number of home games incl. preseason which are the same price)= $17.5 million per year.

This does not include the taxes on concessions, which I assume would be $2 per person per game assuming the average fan spends $20 at the same.

If the public debt service could remain around $20 million per year, then the stadium would not be a net loss for the city. If we assume (like with the Dallas stadium) that it required a $300 million taxpayer subsidy, then it would require $19.5 million per year in interest payments using a (conservative) 6.5% fixed bond. Municipal bonds would likely be much cheaper than this, in a normal credit market.

by SG on Oct 14, 2008 2:16 pm

I doubt the superbowl or the final four would register as much more than a blip on the economic picture for DC. Especially if you amortized that bump across the life of the stadium. I suspect the cherry blossoms attract more money every single year than either one of those events would do every 12 years.

by Reid on Oct 14, 2008 2:23 pm

Dave,

Why would it be a stadium OR a neighborhood? Right now it's nothing, right? From the metro to the river there is nothing there, nothing to tax, nothing to enjoy, nothing but parking lots and institutional buildings. So SOMETHING needs to be there, right? My question to you then, is Gallery Place bettor or worse for having an arena there? Would residential development or parkland cleanup or whatever we decide would be best for RFK happen more or less quickly if $1B were invested in the area?

Are you against a stadium or against a publicly financed stadium? To what extent? And can you comment of SG's rough numbers?

by Alex on Oct 14, 2008 2:38 pm

Living a few doors down from Stadium-Armory, I'd have to say I would oppose this idea, for a few reasons:

1. This is an excellent spot for mixed-use development along the lines of the NCPC plan. I fear that a large stadium would come at a cost to commercial and residential development I would like to see.

2. The overflow from sporting events directly impacts our neighborhood. As much as I enjoyed being able to leave my house and be watching a Major League baseball game in 15 minutes (including ticket time), the constant stream of drunk fans after the game (beyond myself that is) and widespread parking issues makes me reluctant to deal with football fans.

3. As several others noted, baseball is less frequent than football. Even if it booked twenty events a year, that's still less than thirty days a year for an event. No one is going to open a restaurant or bar nearby because of that. Not to mention, baseball fans tend to be more laid back than football fans. Less likely to be a problem when they lose.

4. Also, as noted, the parking is the big issue here. It's not the stadium I really object to. It's the barren wasteland of parking separating me from the Anacostia that bothers me. A football fans want to drive and tailgate.

5. Off the topic, but when did Final Four games start playing at football stadiums?

Overall, neighborhood opinion is divided on this, but the vocal ones tend to be more loudly opposed. As annoying as they often are, I would be with the NIMBY's on this one. If Jack Evans wants a stadium, let him find space in Georgetown.

by TtE on Oct 14, 2008 2:40 pm

Alex: I'm not necessarily against a privately-financed stadium that has very little parking and an urban character. But I really, really doubt that will ever happen.

There's plenty of precedent for baseball, soccer, and basketball/hockey; there's almost no precedent for football (are there any?) If DC builds a stadium there, the parking lots will stay.

As for SG's numbers, as long as the stadium always sells out, then it seems okay, but doesn't account for the opportunity cost of other things we could do with that land. It also would take all the tax revenue away from Prince George's County, benefiting the city at the expense of the region.

Again, if it's just the building with no surface parking and almost no big garages, that's one thing, but to devote that entire mass of land to vacant space for occasional car storage at most 20 days a year is not the best use of space.

by David Alpert on Oct 14, 2008 2:51 pm

For the unrelated question on the Final Four - The first domed Final Four was in the Houston Astrodome in 1971. They didn't return to a Dome until the Louisiana Superdome in 1982, but after that, football stadiums hosted the 84, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, and every Final Four since 1997. The 96 Final Four was (and will be) the last to be held in a regular basketball arena - it was held at the Meadowlands Arena outside NYC.

As far as parking goes with a stadium, I would assume any new stadium development on the RFK grounds would be accompanied by an aggressive performance parking system.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 2:51 pm

It's also important to distinguish between different kinds of sports stadia. Arenas need to be downtown. Baseball stadiums probably are best in urban environments, but more so on the fringes of the core or in neighborhoods. Football stadiums are really best located out on the fringes.

However, there are some great examples of urban football stadiums, though almost all of them are college football stadiums, not professional ones. Most have been there for generations and are integrated into campus environments. Still, these are places with very high event capacities and often little to no official on site parking.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 2:56 pm

what do you think the relationship of the "tail-gate party" is to the vast parkinglots around FB stadiums? I mean, would there be a big outcry against a FB staduim designed more like the Nat's because then the "tail-gate party" couldn't happen? I've never been to a pro FB game but I've been to a share of college FB game tail gate parties.

by Bianchi on Oct 14, 2008 3:25 pm

I don't think you need parking lots to 'tailgate,' so long as 'tailgating' is synonymous with pregame festivities, rather than the literal interpretation of the word. I've had far more experience (and fun) with college football rather than professional football, but in both cases (from my two alma maters) it's not particularly car dependent in the college case - though that doesn't easily apply to the pros.

College football tends to have a much larger fanbase immediately local to the stadium, thanks to student housing. In my experience, nearly every house near the stadium does something to partake - whether that's firing up the grill, parking cars on lawns, tossing footballs in the streets, etc.

Again, I'm not sure if that translates well (if at all) to pro football, but it does show that we're not talking about something inherent to football alone.

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 3:33 pm

shhh don't say that N*MBY word. It brings out some heated discussions. Check out the previous post.

Back to the topic at hand... of course this entire discussion hinges on the topic of who pays. Even though I'm a sports fan, I see no reason for any jurisdiction to pay that much money for a stadium for a business. However, if they want to pay, it can be positive.

I also do have to concede to David C that apparently the development at Navy Yard was on the boards before the baseball stadium was approved. However, I do have to ask if there would have been much of a snowball effect without it. Remember, you want a diversity of uses in an urban environment. Having all that extra foot traffic on 7th St. NW certainly puts more eyes on the street and fannies at the barstool supporting local business. Perhaps such places would have been built. However, I doubt there would have been the kind of snowball effect that has produced what we see today. I know I like to get a beer and/or food before and after watching my sports.

Alex B. has a good point about the functions of downtowns.

This argument is one that is never waged on terms of numbers. It all comes down to whether or not one is a fan of the team. For example, Mark Fisher is/was a huge proponent of Nationals Stadium. He is also a huge baseball fan. He's against DC United being allowed to pay for the construction of a soccer stadium at Poplar Point. He's not a soccer fan, too. I (not that I'm anyone) am a huge soccer fan and go out of my way to not watch baseball since I'm very much not a fan. Knowing that about me, it would come as no surprise that I would have thought building the baseball stadium was a bad move and how I think the soccer stadium can be excellent urbanism. Of course, baseball playing hardball and not paying a cent in construction then not paying their rent and soccer offering to pay all construction costs for the last ten years but getting nowhere might have something to do with it...

On an unrelated note,

Final Four games have been in domes for many years now. It's a big event and they have no problem selling that many tickets.

by Cavan on Oct 14, 2008 3:41 pm

Tailgating isn't as big in the NFL, but plenty of teams do it with success. Look at Baltimore. We could do the same thing if there were a stadium at the RFK site. I'm not saying I think one way or another on the issue, but I'd be for it if it didn't rely on significant subsidies from the city gov't. Infrastructure improvements, maybe some tax breaks or something, but that's it.

by Vik on Oct 14, 2008 3:47 pm

Also, it's not just Final Fours that are being held in the football stadiums these days - in this past tournament, two of the four regional sites were in football stadiums - Ford Field in Detroit and Reliant Stadium in Houston.

They're also moving to using the entire football stadium, rather than using just one end and having the court up against the grandstand. Take a look at this pic, great football seats wouldn't even be good enough for Bob Uecker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FordField-2008NCAAtournament-MidwestRegional.jpg

by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2008 3:51 pm

The funny thing about this issue is the failure to look at the impact of the Redskins on the area around RFK during the period when they played there. If sports were so great for neighborhood/ec. dev., why was that area so crappy?

Far more can be accomplished with the RFK land than a stadium. Since 2003 e.g., I've suggested that the northernmost parking lots could be converted into housing. And yes, it is possible to change the nature of the NPS/Federal agreement with DC on how that land can be used.

As far as PG County and revenues from the Redskins go, isn't the number something like $6 million/year? I can't seem to find the cite to support this, something I read last year. Estimates from other articles range from $3MM to $10MM annually, e.g., in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202201.html

The issue is what could you do alternatively with the money and would it generate more economic development, revenue, and quality of life improvements for the city? My first vote would be for streetcars, but maybe it would tie with putting up the bulk of the money to create the separated blue line, adding subway capacity and more stations in the core of the city.

Those kind of investments should be #1 before any kind of "investment" in sports.

For years I have been writing about the Verizon Center issue.

Yes, it has contributed somewhat to improvements in the East End.

But this has to be balanced against the reality that the land inventory in the traditional CBD was almost nil and development would continue eastward (and southward) if developers were to continue to develop.

SO much of the success of MCI Center is illusory. Plus if it were so great, why have most of the businesses within it failed, at least up to the current iteration.

I will admit it adds to the excitement downtown, and it provides reasons for suburbanites to visit the city. Do they spend more money in the city after? Not as much as we'd like. Pollin schedules events at times that almost require people to go to the Arena and eat-spend their money there. And people have to work, so mostly people stay out after only on Fridays and Saturdays. But Jaleo maybe does as much as MCI in terms of bringing people out to Penn Quarter. Having the reopened Smithsonian Museums contributes as well. The movie theaters, etc.

It's many different pieces and all about layering multiple attractions there. Etc.

by Richard Layman on Oct 14, 2008 4:23 pm

Thanks for the info regarding Final Fours. Should have looked it up before asking the question, but thanks for letting me know.

by TtE on Oct 14, 2008 4:26 pm

Richard and David A have said a lot of what I said. So let me only add a little.

While a major stadium might bring the Final Four. DC has hosted 1st and 2nd rounds in 2008 and regionals in 2006, so we'd be talking about the benefit of stepping up, not going from nothing to something.

DC would probably rarely get Super Bowls due to the weather (in the last 25 years it's gone outside of the southern part of the US twice).

In addition to "what else would we do with the money" whether that be $200M or $1B there is also the question of what else we could do with the land. Creating a park/recreational sports facility on the southern two thirds and housing/retail/hotel/etc... over a new Oklahoma Avenue metro station on the northern third, would monetize and activate a presently dead space. It would provide much needed green space along a river struggling to deal with vast amounts of storm run-off. It would gives adult and youth teams more places to play sports - something that is desperately needed. It would reduce heat island effects, provide jobs etc....And we'd still have an NFL team a metro ride and short walk away.

by David C on Oct 14, 2008 4:47 pm

First line should read "...a lot of what I would have said"

by David C on Oct 14, 2008 4:48 pm

forget the RFK site! Lets redevelop St Eves and include a new football stadium. great access from 295/495/395/metro. You wont have anywhere near the neighborhood resistance in Congrss Hgts as you would near RFK. Panoramic views from the top of the stadium overlooking Anacostia river, new fred doug brdg, new SE/SW watrfrnt, crystal city, natl harbor and pop point. win win situation for everybody!

by ward8sown on Oct 14, 2008 6:30 pm

I'm very happy to see the Mayor get ridiculed for suggesting taxpayers should send their money to NFL owners.

Y'all got one of the best sports writers in the country right in your back yard (doh!), and he's all over the public financing stuff:

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2008-03-30-333/index.html

by Peter on Oct 14, 2008 6:57 pm

If the idea behind building a stadium is to attract attention to DC, it begs the question:

Are there seriously people who don't know that DC exists?

by Boots on Oct 14, 2008 7:26 pm

As an avid Redskins fan, I would love the Redskins in the District. unfortunately, whatever gets built will be significantly bigger than FedEx Field, as it will have to outdo the 105,000 seat monster they are building in Dallas. That means that a new Redskins stadium will likely be TWICE THE SIZE of RFK. I can't imagine how that site will be able to support it.

In response to the notion of an "urban" NFL stadium, Miami's Joe Robbie Stadium and Chicago's Soldier Field have moderate parking footprints. Green Bay's Lambeau Field is even smaller: http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=h&lat=44.501076&lon=-88.063103&zoom=17

But I can't foresee a venue of 100,000 people squeezing into a footprint the size of RFK's, and certainly not a smaller one. As much as I'd love the Redskins back into the city, a venue of that magnitude for that purpose would be horribly detrimental to the urban fabric.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 14, 2008 10:40 pm

-1 billion on a comprehensive interior-beltway streetcar system instead of a stadium...hell yeah...much more useful "civic pride" than a stadium that will be used 15 times a year MAX. I think everyone on this board has put a lot more thought into their opinion (unfortunately) than either the Mayor or Mr Evans with regards to a football stadium. Let's hope Adrian finds his way to this entry!

by stevek_fairfax on Oct 14, 2008 11:19 pm

I live within visual distance of RFK Stadium and am a DC native. For the 45 +/- years RFK has been around, I am wondering what has it provided to the city? I would argue a negative dividend.

And, what has it provided to the adjacent natural Anacostia River habitats or adjacent neighborhoods? I would argue a negative impact.

Take a moment and review the NCPC's vision for the RFK Stadium site (http://www.ncpc.gov/initiatives/pg.asp?p=rfkstadiumsiteredevelopmentstudy).

That type of vision positively changes and contributes to the surrounding natural environment, the neighborhood and city landscape forever. It also contributes to the city coffers and becomes a regional and national destination.

And, it has all the major infrastructure elements to support such a master plan.

Hmmm, let�s see, another mostly vacant monstrosity blocking the city from it�s riverfront or a vibrant gateway linking the monument cores and riverfront?

Just my opinion, but the adjacent neighborhoods and Anacostia River have long been overdue to be brought back together for the sustainability and longevity of both.

This is the chance of a lifetime for both the city and federal governments.

by Ken on Oct 15, 2008 11:44 am

My only problem with the RFK Report is that they decide that the existing metro track must remain, as opposed to burring it. And I would've like to see East Capitol Avenue put below grade as well (but I'm probably in the minority there).

by David C on Oct 15, 2008 12:05 pm

One minor quibble with some of the talking points - Dallas' new stadium will have a permanent capacity of 80,000 seats, with room for temporary seating that can hold up to 100,000 for Super Bowls and other such events.

Also, doubling the seating capacity of RFK would not necessarily mean doubling the size. This is one of those things that drives me nuts, as it does when people equate height to density, etc.

by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2008 12:25 pm

If Fenty wants the Redskins so badly, let him run for mayor of Ashburn or Landover.

by Hiya on Oct 15, 2008 1:43 pm

A new stadium at RFK would be a great thing for DC. Clearly, sports facilities in major metropolitan areas do a great deal to improve civic pride and the city at large. Verizon Center revitalized the Penn Quarter neighborhood, the baseball stadium is spurring a boom in SW... a new 100,000+ seat stadium would bring huge crowds into the area who will spend dollars in DC. Cities exist to bring people together - and stadiums certainly help achieve that goal. Hope Fenty can pull it off.

by KM on Oct 15, 2008 1:54 pm

Some VERY powerful people must be behind this push for new stadiums. Just look at the nonsense with the DC City Council changing their votes to favor that white elephant along South Capitol Street.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/04/beside-misplaced-diamond-lump-of-coal.html

I would rather put the money into transportation infrastructure.

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 15, 2008 2:04 pm