Development
DC is better off without Redskins stadium or practice fields
Changes may be coming to the location of facilities for 2 DC-area sports teams, the Redskins and DC United. But while soccer is getting the cold shoulder, leaders are trying to entice a football team that won't help DC at all. They'd do more to help DC by urging the Redskins to keep their practice facilities and stadium away.
Photo by jeffl8n on Flickr.
DC United Major League Soccer is surveying fans to see how they'd feel about the team moving to Baltimore. DC united has long been unhappy with RFK Stadium, and considered several DC sites, but always needed the District to provide some public assistance, at least to fund associated infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Mayor Gray and Councilmembers Jack Evans and Michael Brown took a secret trip to Tampa to visit the Buccaneers' practice facilities. Mike DeBonis reports that "the current thinking" is to take about half of the 50-acre Hill East planned development for a Redskins practice facility, then build a new stadium once the Redskins' lease in Landover expires in 2027.
Not only would spending any taxpayer money on this scheme be extremely foolish, it's a bad idea even if the Redskins bought the land at market value and financed everything themselves, which they surely don't actually plan to do. In fact, having any Redskins facilities or stadium anywhere inside the District would be harmful to its future.
As DeBonis notes, Hill East, aka Reservation 13, is slated to become a mixed-use community with access to Metro on one side and the river on the other. Progress has been stalled due to the economy, but the economy will pick up, and the District needs to be thinking long term.
A practice facility occupies an enormous amount of land but employs or houses very few people. DC needs more taxpaying residents and more jobs, not big practice fields, weight rooms, and gyms for a small number of athletes. Maybe a couple rich ones will live in DC and bring their taxes, but how many really might? If they want to live in an urban area, they already can live here; if they don't, they won't anyway.
DeBonis suggests using some of the huge parking lots, which sit on federal land designated exclusively for recreation. But even this is a bad use of space. We could build playing fields for our residents and schools instead. There's already a skate park going into this area; suggestions from a recent Capital Business forum included adding a velodrome or rock climbing.
It's also worth thinking about the long term. Some of this land should become an extension of Capitol Hill, and 20 years from now, the feds might be willing to accommodate that. A 2006 NCPC study looked at the site, and suggested some mixed-use development and waterfront parks, along with sites for those memorials and museums every interest group wants to build these days.
DC's competitive advantage (and Arlington's) compared to the suburbs is that living in those jurisdictions is much more convenient. Most jobs are in DC and Arlington, and being central, they're mathematically closer to jobs in other jurisdictions than living anywhere else.
Transportation options are more numerous; there are more Metro lines, more bus options, and you're much more likely to be able to bike or even walk to work. More retail is within a short walk or bike or transit ride.
On the other hand, land is scarce; DC only has 68.3 square miles (and Arlington 26). Therefore, DC's best strategy is to use its limited space to attract as many residents and taxpaying jobs (not government and nonprofits) as it can. Football does neither of these.
Football teams only play in their stadiums 8 regular home games per year. Add a few other events, and it's still empty almost all the time. But when it's full, huge numbers of people come at once, and many will drive, requiring massive parking surrounding the stadium. Plus, football has a strong tailgating tradition, meaning people want those parking lots.
Dan Snyder, the Redskins owner, also makes a lot of money from that parking. He makes so much that he tried to charge people an extra fee to get into the stadium if they don't park, but rather walk in or come by shuttle from Metro. And he filed a high-profile nuisance lawsuit against one of DC's most valuable media organizations. So why are any DC leaders spending time on accommodating the Redskins?
Soccer, on the other hand, frequently uses urban stadiums worldwide that don't need much or even any parking. A DC stadium could be quite urban in its form. It hosts more games than football, though still far fewer than a baseball stadium or basketball/hockey/concert arena.
Advocates for a deal to keep United in DC say a soccer stadium will bring in economic development around the site, especially if it's at Buzzard Point, where 2 streetcar lines are planned to terminate. It'd be great to have United there, though the District still shouldn't spend any appreciable public dollars on it.
Mayor Gray tweeted, "We value DC United & hope they stay in DC. But District is in a challenging fiscal environment now & publicly funded stadium not possible." Gray (or his media team) emphasized in follow-ups that "no public $ has been expended on Redskins either," and, "Once again, we've put nothing on the table for Redskins."
Gray should hold that line and never offer anything to the Redskins. We can be sure that Evans and probably Michael Brown would love to, though. Evans even claims to be maniacally focused on keeping the District's budget lean, but has a giant blind spot when it comes to giving money to organized sports (or, for that matter, almost any development project, though at least those purport to bring in more tax revenue than the tax break is worth).
DC residents are better off with the Redskins in Prince George's County than inside the District borders. As this year's Council campaign heats up, voters should ask candidates if they believe in spending any public money on football, and be very wary of any candidate who says yes.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
I find it interesting that the Mayor and Councilmember Evans and Brown are working on this behind the scenes. Have they talked to Councilmember Alexander, who will shortly be Res 13's CM. How about Councilmember Wells, the current CM and who will still represent the overwhelming number of residents that live in the vicinity? I'd ask those two to comment, but as this is obviously a non-starter of a deal, they may just be ignoring it.
Or maybe we can propose a training facility in Ward 2 or Chevy Chase?
by Tim Krepp on Nov 4, 2011 11:04 am • link • report
by Paulus on Nov 4, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
by Dan Maceda on Nov 4, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
DC United are one of the only teams that have ever felt like they were truly "our own." I really don't want to see them run out of town.
We don't need or want Hill East to turn into The Meadowlands. Massive and sparsely-used stadia and sports comlpexes are pretty much the one thing I wholeheartedly support putting outside of the urban core. (On the other hand, keep the smaller ballparks and stadia in the city; those do actually contribute to the urban fabric)
Although this extends far beyond DC, we could also have the discussion that Football in its current incarnation is fundamentally flawed.
I could go on, but you get the point.
There are simply too many 'WTFs' about modern football for us to continue playing it like we do for much longer.
(And, yeah. I'm a Packers fan, largely for this reason. In my mind, their team represents what Football could and should be. Okay, really, I'd rather see us play Rugby, which is a lot more fun to watch, but if we're not going to change sports.....I'm drifting off topic here, aren't I?)
by andrew on Nov 4, 2011 11:14 am • link • report
As for a new stadium for DC United, I'm agnostic; I would support it if they could line up the finances and think it would be a great addition to the city. But if it requires tax dollars and people vote that down and the team moves to Baltimore, would I be upset? - probably not.
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 11:16 am • link • report
by Jasper on Nov 4, 2011 11:18 am • link • report
by LoLo on Nov 4, 2011 11:20 am • link • report
You'd like DC to buy the Redskins and use it as a massive jobs project? Cuz that's what would happen. The DC council would never let an opportunity pass by to change the volunteerism into Barry-job machine.
by Jasper on Nov 4, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
I do think that Lot 3 (to the north of the Armory) would be a good site for a DC United stadium. I also think that DCU would want more practice fields as well - the key difference is that DCU's academy system is almost by definition a more public use of space than anything the Redskins would offer.
The real issue is control of the land. RFK is federally owned but locally controlled (at least within the current stadium) for no good reason except that the stadium predates home rule. This kind of anachronistic governance serves no one well.
by Alex B. on Nov 4, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
by Ryan Keefe on Nov 4, 2011 11:22 am • link • report
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
by Lou on Nov 4, 2011 11:43 am • link • report
by Steven Yates on Nov 4, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
by w on Nov 4, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE BETTER JOBS AND HIGHER INCOMES DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN COME IN AND CHANGE OUR WAYS. WE WANT THE SKINS IN DC.
Many of you probably don't even remember the 'Skins playing in RFK (since you're all new to our city). This is just more of the same; you guys move in and want to tell us what we can and can't have in our city.
Let's see in 10 years when half of you have kids how many of you are still living in DC and how many of you have quietly slipped away to Fairfax County so your kids can go to "better school". Well let me tell you: I'll still be in DC, and so will my kids and their grand-kids.
-Winston
by long-time resident on Nov 4, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
by long-time resident on Nov 4, 2011 11:50 am • link • report
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Nov 4, 2011 11:52 am • link • report
by thump on Nov 4, 2011 11:53 am • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Nov 4, 2011 11:53 am • link • report
I like how your definition of "a few sports fans" is 1.9 million (Nats 2011 attendance).
@w
How much do you want to bet as a "newcomer" I haven't met someone born in DC?
@long-time resident
I think the question is what are you willing to give up (in terms of taxes and government programs) to lure the Skins back within the city limits. Getting the Skins back to DC will make getting the Nationals look like a bargain.
by Steven Yates on Nov 4, 2011 11:54 am • link • report
Let's not be naive about that survey.
by Alex B. on Nov 4, 2011 11:54 am • link • report
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
by thump on Nov 4, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
That said, the sports stadium itself is never worth the money for any single jurisdiction. Better to free ride off some other jurisdiction's foolish decision to finance a stadium and enjoy most of the benefits of having a team for comparably little cost. Sure you miss out on some niceties like seeing the team bus roll by on their way to the game, but that's just a tiny part of the enjoyment of being a fan.
As for a practice facility, it's comparably intensive land use for a place like Ashburn. Not so much for DC.
by Falls Church on Nov 4, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report
by thump on Nov 4, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report
I was born in Washington DC. I grew up inside the Beltway. I live in Eckington. I was and still am a Redskins fan. And I think it would be an abomination to put build another FedEx field on the RFK site for a myriad of reasons.
I appreciate you calling out people's general disdain for what is a cultural icon for this city. I think the Redskins are very much a part of the city's culture, character and identity, and I get annoyed to see ire towards the team's place in the metro area (unless, of course it is directed at Dan Snyder). I would like to see the team move from Landover, preferably somewhere closer to a Metro station, possibly in the District or closer in, but definitely not on the RFK site.
by Dave Murphy on Nov 4, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report
@Lance
What? Given the choice you'd rather have Near SE back to what it was like before the Ballpark?
Once the economy improves I'm sure we'll see that area really flourish.
by Steven Yates on Nov 4, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report
And for all the old-timers, this isn't like the Colts when they moved from Balt. to Indy in the middle of the night. They moved from Eastern DC to Western PG County, about 7 miles away. And they would still be Metro accessible if it wasn't for their new owner.
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
by Ryan Keefe on Nov 4, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
And before a few folks start claiming to speak for all native Washingtonians, there are PLENTY who don't want that team back in DC and would rather we do positive things to support our community and build DC back to something great, rather than throw money at some spoiled, rich outsider (ahem, Dan Snyder) who don't care at all about DC.
by Joe on Nov 4, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report
I know far more Virginians that 'associate' with this Maryland team than I do DC people. (And many of these people don't even like DC.)
I've never known the Redskins as anything by a Maryland team and I'd say that's true for the vast majority of DC residents. The fact they aren't considered a DC team is of their own making. They made their bed when they moved out of here many years ago, now let them lie in it. Only a fool would even consider giving even a cent to a team which clearly made their thoughs on DC known by moving out as they did. And the folks like w who remember them driving by in their charter bus should remember they used those same charter buses to get the hell out of dodge. They wanted to be a Maryland team ... and that's what they are now. And actually, I really have a hard time thinking of any DC resident I know who really cares the slightest about what they do ... No, let's not give them our hard earned tax dollars. And for those of you which miss them ... the door to follow them out is always open. Just don't let it slap you on the way out ...
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report
SE was a gay entertainment district known throughout the nation ... People would come from eveywhere to enjoy its caberet clubs and nightclubs. And it was known as being 'better than LA or NY' for what it had to offer ... And with the stroke of a pen it got bulldozed to give a few sportsfan a place to build a stadium. Propose bulldozing Adams Morgan for a similar purpose and you'd have had a revolution on your hands. But Evans thought it was okay to bulldoze SE. I generally support him and his actions, but he really messed up on this one.
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report
Well, maybe not so much as I think the Nat's ballpark and surrounding area is a work in progress and will be much better off than it was before, but about all the rest, I'm with you.
by Tim Krepp on Nov 4, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report
As for the baseball stadium, it is ugly, but over time, it will improve that neighborhood far more than would have been the case if it was not built.
by The Heights on Nov 4, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report
I remember a few years ago talking to someone in a Cowboys jacket who was from the District and he said: "the (racist name) are for the folks from Virginia and South. The District's team is America's Team: the Cowboys."
And as someone who grew up in Jersey as a Jets fan (sidebar - still thankful NYC did NOT build the Jets stadium in Manhattan) I found that statement to be quite interesting.
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report
The Redskins are among the most valuable sports franchises in the United States. Despite on-field performance, they are doing very, very, very, well financially. They own the Ashburn facility outright, and have shown under Snyder no real desire to put any money into it (like an indoor facility), so why would they make the even more expensive decision to move? Besides, anything DC can offer them in terms of taxes or other incentives, would be matched by Loudon County and Virginia.
As for FedEx Field, the location may suck, but it doesn't keep people from going there and paying Snyder's parking fees. Attendance for the Redskins is incredible given their lack of recent (or more than recent) success. Sure the waiting list is a myth, and they converted some of the upper deck seats into a "party deck," but they are still drawing over 90k per game for a terrible team. This isn't a Jacksonville situation.
By the way, Lance, the idea that the vast majority of DC residents consider the Redskins a "Maryland Team" is absurd. For most of the Redskins' history they played in DC while there was a competing team in Baltimore! If anything, the history of the Redskins shows a fan base that extended well into the Carolinas, south of DC, not north. Jack Kent Cooke, by the way, wanted to stay in DC. Marion Barry wouldn't play ball. He then wanted to move to Potomac Yards, but Alexandria would rather have traffic jams every weekend going into a shopping center rather than 8 times a year for football games. That pretty much left Maryland as the only option.
by seaster on Nov 4, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report
Also, is the argument that DC is in such dire need of residential tax base and jobs that we can't afford a training facility or simply that we can do something better with the space? Those two aren't necessarily the same.
I don't know if it's such a hoorrrrible idea as some of you suggest but while a training facility isn't at the top of my list, I'm not certain we shouldn't seriously consider it and whether the players live in DC shouldn't be a serious question - at least it isn't for our baseball team whose players, as I understand, also don't live in DC. Hell, who does nowadays...:(
@Lance, An entire entertainment district got bulldozed the last time around simply to give a few sports fans a highly subsidized ballpark.
What entertainment district are you referring to. Well if bathouses, drug havens (Nations), rundown gov't projects, and unused industrial disctricts are your thing..then I understand your concern.
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
by Joshua on Nov 4, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
Thats already happening NOW.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 4, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report
by TGEOA on Nov 4, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report
by Michael on Nov 4, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report
Otherwise, screw it--why subsidize something only the wealthy can enjoy???
by Brando on Nov 4, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report
by Joshua on Nov 4, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report
With multi-purpose stadiums, you end up with a facility that isn't ideal for either sport. In this era of needing to spend big to attract pro sports teams, a facility that is less than ideal won't cut it.
Details on the problems of multi-sport stadiums:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_stadium#Criticisms
by Falls Church on Nov 4, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report
There are a few reasons:
Dual use baseball/football stadiums have fallen out of fashion. One reason is that it necessitates design compromises that gives both arrangements worse seats than if it were in a single use facility. Scheduling can also become difficult. I'm sure there are also financial reasons why it makes sense for each team to be in separate facilities.
So Nationals Park was built as a pure baseball stadium. You might not even be able to fit a football field in it (though maybe you could, I don't think they've tried). As for use as an NFL stadium, it would seat nearly 20,000 fewer people than the smallest NFL stadium and it's only half the size of FedEx Field.
by Steven Yates on Nov 4, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report
Stadium or no, they should build a new armory away from the metro and tear down that piece of crap and put up something more useful in it's place.
by TGEOA on Nov 4, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Nov 4, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report
So why is it any different for Native Americans?
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
I've heard plenty of derogatory terms used for those groups. I've never once heard or heard or of anyone referring to an Indian as a Redskin as a negative or positive term.
As a Jew, i wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if someone named a team the Manhattan Macabees or the Delaware Davids.
by TGEOA on Nov 4, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
I believe that there are only two NFL teams that currently share stadiums with baseball teams, Miami and Oakland and the Miami situation will change next year when the new Marlins stadium opens. The big multi-purpose "Cookie Cutter" stadium (RFK, Busch Stadium I, the Vet, Three Rivers, etc) is thankfully a thing of the past.
by seaster on Nov 4, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report
http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-10/sports/26025529_1_cooke-and-wilder-potomac-yard-jack-kent-cooke
by RJ on Nov 4, 2011 1:49 pm • link • report
The Washington NoForeSkins?
See Redskins is a physical reference. Its NOT the same as Braves, say.
Don't be a nar.
by kleptinKop on Nov 4, 2011 1:54 pm • link • report
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report
I don't think it's being naive. While I do think there is a strong possibility that DC United has pushed this, soccer in Baltimore is fairly popular.
I do.
Remember that MLS is a single entity league. The individual teams are just sub-parts of the single league organization. Players sign contracts with the league, not the team - and they are allocated to a team. For business purposes, there is no difference between MLS and DC United. That survey came about because DCU needs a stadium.
MLS has been discussing expansion, but Baltimore has never come up except in the context of DCU moving.
It's not that hard to connect the dots. RFK is economically obsolete. That's why both the Redskins and Nationals left. Furthermore, the organizational structure (where DCU leases the stadium from Events DC) means that the team doesn't get much revenue from parking or concessions.
So, combine a stadium that struggles to generate revenue with the fact that the team only gets a small portion of the revenue it does generate, and you've got a recipe for trouble.
by Alex B. on Nov 4, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
Many people make the argument that it's a tribute or speaks to some kind of "noble savage" ideal (which is generally just a red herring). Those are almost never the people who are actually affected by the use of that word. It's real easy for a white person (or anyone not of the group being disparaged) to say something's not racist, but ultimately it's not up to them. It's about how that language is felt by the group being disparaged. Even if no racist intent is present, there can still be a severe and negative impact.
by Joe on Nov 4, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
Except it's not considered offensive by most Native Americans:
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
by Steven Yates on Nov 4, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report
http://ardvaark.net/bizarro-world-no-stadium-for-the-dc-united
by Brian Vargas on Nov 4, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report
A shvach poll like that, versus the complaints of leaders, I will take the poll results with a grain of salt.
by kleptinkop on Nov 4, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report
dude. My nose actually is big. Now in a discussion of ME politics, I would point out that large noses are an evolutionary adaptation to arid climates, and my shnozz is evidence that my ancestors DID hail from the desert before arrival in Poland, and yeah we DO have a claim to the land of Israel as indigenes.
But some goy names a team the "big shnozzes" and uses Jewish symbols and stuff, you bet your foreskin Im gonna be offended.
by kleptinKop on Nov 4, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report
Let the teams leave, it makes no difference its not like the city must have a sports team.
The site would be better as housing, retail(that the area actually needs) and a hospital not some damn stadium or practice area for any team when that does nothing to actually help the residents around there.
by kk on Nov 4, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
by Vik on Nov 4, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
Just as a passing note, DC United's Clyde Simms actually lives a few blocks away from RFK, so there's at least one neighborhood resident who benefits directly from having a DC United stadium in the neighborhood: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/dc-uniteds-clyde-simms-has-embraced-city-living-in-washington/2011/06/30/AGGI6CsH_story.html
;)
by Joshua on Nov 4, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report
The Redskins and DC United should both be in DC. I don't know what the big deal is with the practice facility, but I don't see why we can create some sort of public-private partnership with respect to sports venues.
Two things. First, "Why?"
Second, the big deal isn't with a practice facility per se, it's with adding yet another large institution that adds little to the District tax base. We've got enough untaxable patches of land in DC. We need more individual taxpayers, small retail, and institutions that are willing to pay their way.
Creating a massive complex which would serve essentially as a monument to "The Redskins" is frankly short-sighted and silly.
by oboe on Nov 4, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report
Hold on a sec.
**clickity click**
Okay, just calibrating my "Lance-O-Meter" here. Carry on.
by oboe on Nov 4, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
Everywhere it has been done, with modern stadiums, it has been a huge success. It has revitalized neighborhoods, increased tax bases, increased foot traffic, caused the opening of numerous other related businesses nearby, and so on.
It has saved the downtowns in Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, and even in DC with the Verizon Center and National's ballpark completely changing previously dead areas of town.
If you build it like Landover or Meadowlands or the Pontiac Silverdome, all you get is acres of parking lots. but if you build it within the city and smartly, it transforms things. Go and visit places that have done this and you will see it first hand.
by Ray B on Nov 4, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
DCU stadium, on the otherhand would be used for 30+ MLS games, international friendlies for both Men's and Women's teams, potential NCAA games and potential high school games. If DC get a women's team back, tehn one could easily be looking at 100 events a year, plus outdoor concerts.
by William on Nov 4, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
by Shipsa01 on Nov 4, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report
It has saved the downtowns in Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, and even in DC with the Verizon Center and National's ballpark completely changing previously dead areas of town.
I think you're mistaking correlation with causation. The Verizon Center no more "created" modern Penn Quarter than it created H Street's revitalization. Or Navy Yard. The massive influx of middle-class residents to DC did. Even if it did, a multi-use indoor arena like the VC is a completely different beast than a football stadium.
If you build it like Landover or Meadowlands or the Pontiac Silverdome, all you get is acres of parking lots. but if you build it within the city and smartly, it transforms things. Go and visit places that have done this and you will see it first hand.
I'm sure someone else has made this point, but I fail to see how the voters of DC should commit to a dead zone near the geographical heart of the city so that Landover won't be subjected to a "sea of parking lots." That's what the suburbs does very well, let's let them do it.
We'll hamstring DC's economic growth (which is already hamstrung by the Federal presence, lack of tax reciprocity, and urban/suburban policies) so we can pat ourselves on the backs for having "Brought the Redskins Home!"
It has everything to do with burgandy-and-gold fueled irrational exuberance, and is essentially public policy as crafted by a bunch of 10 year old fanboys wearing Rex Grossman jerseys.
Having said all that, my prediction is that this irrational policy will win out.
by oboe on Nov 4, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report
Okay than, any nearby residents not connected to the teams. If he was not apart of the team would he be living there ?
I cant think of one benefit to having the stadium there for the residents. Traffic (vehicle, pedestrian and transit) become horrible during game days, double parking, crowds disrespecting traffic laws (not respecting traffic lights),
Even if you dont reside in the local area that stadium still affects you. Benning RD and East Capitol would be backed up for miles during game days especially when the Redskins and Nationals were there causing issues to residents of areas not near the stadium.
In the case of public transportation, buses always had problems due to have to sit and wait with the game day traffic and trains would sit and wait for the crowds causing problems to riders not attending the game (just look at Navy Yard today, trains from Branch Ave would pull in to the station and wait for the train to fill cause delays for riders from stations south). Stadiums would be better off in non residential areas or areas with many ways to leave not on the shore of a river that limits you ways to get around it.
by kk on Nov 4, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report
So it is alright to a call team the Blackskins, Brownies, Darkies, Palefaces, Whiteies, Yellowskins or anything else similar responding to any race on earth.
by kk on Nov 4, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report
;)
FWIW I think that a Redskins stadium would be a disaster for the district, no matter where it was placed for a number of reasons: direct costs, opportunity costs, disruption of the street grid, scale relative to the surrounding neighborhood, limited usage, etc. - I think all of these have been expressed upthread quite well.
A stadium for DC United, though, just considered on the urban aspect (i.e, leaving issues of financing out of it) could be quite complimentary to the area if developed smartly. If the district could get over its infatuation with the Skins and realize that Snyder's NEVER bringing the team back to DC short of us destroying Hill East and mortgaging our future, then it'd be a no-brainer to knock RFK down and build a jewel of a stadium as the centerpiece of the mixed use development that's already been mooted. As noted above, it would scale to the neighborhood, would require minimal parking, and would be used often enough to provide synergistic effects to the local economy.
Full disclosure: I live around the corner from Clyde Simms and am a DC United fan.
by Joshua on Nov 4, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report
http://www.flickr.com/photos/totalnerd/5536422462/
This stadium is integrated with the street grid in downtown Portland and has no surface parking. It's a renovated incarnation of a pre-war stadium. Plenty of tax revenue and neighborhood vitality around it.
The Portland Timbers are in MLS, DC United's league.
MLS as a league has learned through trial and error that its does better in small stadiums (about 20,000 capacity, small enough to fit in 1-2 city blocks) stadiums in urban cores that are proximate to public transit. DC United has wanted to self-fund the stadium for over 10 years. They've only asked the government for municipal bonding (to get the better municipal rate; they'd still be on the hook to pay the bonds) and infrastucture like on an apartment or office building.
In the same time, the owner of the Redskins has gouged fans whenever possible, and launched a lawsuit against the City Paper. And the Gray Administration is ready to publically fund (not just issue bonds at a better interest rate but pay 100% for it like Nats Park) for a practice facility for the Redskins. How much sense does that make?!?!?!?
I'm partisan because I'm a DC United fan and a member of the Barra Brava. I also live in downtown Silver Spring so I technically don't have a say in D.C. government affairs. However, I can see fair and unfair. While that seldom has anything to do with anything in D.C. city government affairs, one would think that at least the dollars and cents arguments that David and I (in my post linked in the above piece) might make a difference.
by Cavan on Nov 4, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
You're not one of those myopic twittering tweeters, are ya?
by oboe on Nov 4, 2011 3:36 pm • link • report
;)
by Joshua on Nov 4, 2011 3:59 pm • link • report
Uh ... yeah ... And why shouldn't a race be proud of its color?
by Lance on Nov 4, 2011 4:00 pm • link • report
by Joe on Nov 4, 2011 4:07 pm • link • report
by 7r3y3r on Nov 4, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report
by MLD on Nov 4, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report
by Tim Krepp on Nov 4, 2011 4:25 pm • link • report
The efforts to lure the 'Skins back into the city is more a PR effort that any hard reality. They will live in VA or MD no matter where the facility is. And FedEx isn't going anywhere as the home field, it's still less than 20 years old.
by SE Scrapper on Nov 4, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report
by Tim Krepp on Nov 4, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report
For a Snyderdome, you'd be talking about $500M-$1B, I would think. He's not going to move to DC to pay for it himself, nor to have a replica of FedEx built. It would be for the purpose of competing with Cowboys Stadium for a venue that could host Super Bowls. And one could argue the opportunity cost is also greater, because the enormous parking lot would tie up a lot more land.
by Sgc on Nov 4, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report
In 2011, I don't think you will find any professional sports team willing or even having any interest in naming their team using commonly accepted racial terms. So no, there won't be any redneck, honkey, spic, kike or darkie references.
Would those in opposition to this nonproposal be considered NIMBY's? I mean some of u ARE saying NOT this..in our backyards. Or does the term only apply when you like something others don't or aren't as amenable to?
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jeld-wen+field+portland,+or&hl=en&ll=45.52121,-122.691761&spn=0.005653,0.0078&sll=38.77764,-76.81366&sspn=0.805084,0.998383&vpsrc=6&hq=jeld-wen+field&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&t=h&z=17
by Sgc on Nov 4, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report
I'm beginning to wonder whether this a strategic move to get the public riled up before there was any real consideration for building a facility in the first place.
by HogWash on Nov 4, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report
The current practice facility is in Ashburn right? As far as I can tell no one in Loudoun County minds having them there. In that case, Im not sure this is NIMBYISM. Its not "I dont want put it somewhere else where they have less clout" its "It doesnt make sense here, why not leave it where people love it?"
Its more like a suburbanite opposing hi rises in non metro served suburbs, and wanting them in the urban core instead.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 4, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
by Rich on Nov 4, 2011 5:58 pm • link • report
George Allen was notoriously paranoid about other teams stealing his ideas so he had Jack Kent Cooke build him a compound out in the sticks. They basically did the same thing again in 1992 with the move to Ashburn.
My understanding is that the Redskins own a ton of land around the Ashburn facility, but for some reason (Snyder being cheap) won't build an indoor practice facility. Nearly every NFL team, as well as nearly every major college team now has a place to practice indoors, but the most valuable team in the NFL doesn't. As bizarre as it sounds, the Redskins have actually held indoor practices at the Dulles Sportsplex! Where people play flag football!
In any case, I don't really think the Redskins are looking to move out of Ashburn, unless perhaps they could get a spot right next to FedEx Field and somehow not lose valuable parking lots. Either way, DC should stay out, and keep our tax money, out of this mess.
by seaster on Nov 4, 2011 6:03 pm • link • report
I believe a indoor facility is now being built at the Ashburn site.
by RJ on Nov 4, 2011 11:25 pm • link • report
To everyone else: the term 'redskins' is kinda weird, but 90% of Native Americans [now that the area has a lot of folks actually from India, we need to use this term] do NOT find the name offensive and it is used in Native America communities. It has nothing to do with scalps!
A 20,000 seat downtown stadium - with combo fake/real grass - could be shared with local gridiron footballs teams and used for other events relating to the inaugurals. Go for it! A nice, brick stadium.....
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 5, 2011 8:47 am • link • report
by Reality on Nov 5, 2011 9:43 am • link • report
Plus, mostly, because they are used so infrequently, football stadiums don't have the kind of long term benefit that is claimed, and they contribute comparatively little in the way of economic benefits. The otherwise somewhat well sited football stadium in Baltimore is a good example.
This is why baseball stadiums and even soccer stadiums (which are sized well for concerts and such, unlike football stadiums) are better bets for public money, as odious as it is to me.
(And minor league baseball stadiums, while not perfect and with many failures, can be better sized and fitted into urban settings, and with frequent use, provide more spillover economic benefits, e.g., Memphis or Louisville).
WRT shared stadiums, while I think a design solution could be created, the real issue is that the owners don't want to share. In their own stadiums, they can keep all the revenues. They can't in shared situations. E.g., even the Capitals suffered by comparison to the Wizards in revenue maximization from the Verizon Center because they had a minority position vis-a-vis arena revenues, before common ownership was reinstated in the Leonsis group after the death of Abe Pollin and the sale of the Wizards and the arena.
The other thing about sharing economic benefits is that teams try to schedule events to minimize people's ability to spend money outside of the stadium.
Plus, the team owners-developers try to get site control around the stadium/arena to maximize their capture of more of the outside of stadium spending, e.g., the complex around the Patriots stadium, the Staples Center area in Los Angeles, and the AEG proposal for a new LA football stadium.
by Richard Layman on Nov 5, 2011 11:30 am • link • report
by Ward1Always on Nov 5, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report
by Doug on Nov 5, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report
The issue with and MLS team and an NFL team sharing a stadium I think is primarily financial. A smaller stadium makes more sense for MLS and probably provides a better atmosphere than if they played in an NFL stadium. Obviously it's not impossible to play soccer in an NFL stadium, in fact it happens fairly frequently (things like international friendlies and US National team games).
by Steven Yates on Nov 5, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Basically, the issue comes down to that the Redskins would have so much power in the discussions that they'd likely design a stadium that was pretty inhospitable to United. That would mean failing to deliver on various things United would need:
* Wide enough field: The two fields are the same basic shape, but a soccer field is much wider (70-75 yards vs 53). NFL stadiums often skirt the dimensions, and you can usually observe the difference in field play when they do.
* Scheduling: it doesn't conflict all that often, but when it does, United would need some level of consideration.
* Economic control: meaning over some of the 'ancillaries', concessions, parking, box seat revenue. Also reasonable rent would be hard to deliver on, because big, nice stadiums cost more to open.
* Branding: it would have to look like United's stadium as much as the Skins'. It's harder to sell your team in 'your home stadium' when there's no black and red to be found but burgundy and gold everywhere.
* Aesthetics: this is probably the hardest of the bunch. MLS sells the in-game experience, and past experience renting most NFL stadiums is that even decent MLS crowds, say 15-17k, look like nothing in them. RFK is actually pretty decent in this regard, but it's also small by NFL standards. Seattle works OK because their MLS team draws 36,000 a game.
You'd need a two-decker (not a bowl) stadium, and you'd need the lower deck to be smaller than most NFL lower decks are, so that DCU would fill most of it on an average day and hope to sell it out on a good one. I'd guess 22-24k would be that number--which means you have kind of an awkward setup, because the Skins would probably want about 75-80k seats total. And then you'd need a distinct 'cut-off' feel for the upper deck so that fans aren't looking at it that much and can pretend it doesn't exist. (In Vancouver, they have a stadium shared by the MLS and CFL teams, and it has a retractable roof over just the lower deck, which would be an intriguing but expensive solution.)
There are other things like natural grass, which is a 'strong want' for soccer, because you can easily spot the difference in game play on turf, and no visible football lines during soccer games, which are hard but not impossible to deliver.
Most have said it's not realistic that a stadium will meet enough of those criteria to really be a decent home. I think it's barely possible, but it really stretches the imagination.
by Sgc on Nov 5, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report
2. Despite popular mythos, neither the Verizon Center nor Nationals Stadium did very much to drive development in DC. Rather than repeat myself I refer you to this lengthy discussion. I supported Nationals Stadium and thought Linda Cropp was wrong. Turns out, I was.
3. I'm OK with a practice field in DC, but it probably isn't the best use. And it certainly isn't worthy of subsidy. There are a lot of great small businesses that are struggling/closing. If we have money to hand out, let's look at them - i.e. people who have already invested in DC - first.
4. I'd prefer to see the whole area turned into to Kennedy Brothers NRA.
by David C on Nov 5, 2011 7:19 pm • link • report
I can tell you that some of the USDOT employees dragged kicking and screaming from L'enfant were in part assuaged by the promise of the Ballpark. It was a tangible sign of the changes in the neighborhood. Among other things, it means police presence, and pedestrian presence. Thats not so important on M Street now, but only a couple of years ago it was.
Football facilities, that do not create that kind of presence, of course cannot have even the impact I claim for the ballpark
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 5, 2011 10:56 pm • link • report
by David C on Nov 5, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report
Its not irrational. Even now there's far more pedestrians on M Street in the evening on game days, and that makes walking to the metro feel that much more comfortable. I'm surprised that at a blog that I think understands the importance of "critical mass" in urban development, this is so controversial.
Whether the factor is large enough to have a measurable impact on the pace of development I can't say. And even if it does, that does not mean that any subsidies were justified.
I looked at where you pointed, and did not see any conclusive demonstration of zero impact, but I did see people indicating the synergy of the sports venue with the urban qualities of the area.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 6, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report
The Jets played in the Mets' stadium
The Giants played in the Yankees' stadium
The Steelers played in the Pirates' stadium
The Redskins played in the Senators' stadium
The 49ers played in the Giants' stadium
The Lions played in the Tigers' stadium, etc.
The Bears' Soldier Field was a real exception.
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 6, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
Not sure I buy that, that only shows that professional baseball was popular before professional football was.
Football as a game first grew in popularity as a college sport, the professional game didn't blossom until much later.
There are plenty of 'self supporting' college football stadia. I'm also not sure what 'self supporting' means. In terms of hosting events? Or just football? And based on what kind of economic model? The NFL these days is a TV sport, TV revenues vastly outweigh those generated within the stadium.
Also, point of correction - Soldier Field is indeed an old stadium (1924), but the Bears didn't play there until 1970. Before that, they played at Wrigley Field. They left because the NFL demanded all of their teams play in stadiums with capacities larger than 50,000. Soldier Field, at the time, could accomodate in excess of 100,000.
by Alex B. on Nov 6, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report
I was going to correct myself on the Bears and Wrigley - thanks for making that point. The Eagles played at Franklin Field for many years as well.
College athletics have a completely different economic basis and dynamic. Michigan's stadium is not only huge but OLD and supported, in part, by fees from a student body of over 50K.
But, seriously, compare how often Camden Yards is used and how often Ravens stadium is used. If Art Modell paid to build Ravens stadium, that would be fine - but taxpayers paid for a stadium that mostly sits empty most of the time. The Ravens should play in Camden Yards.
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 6, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report
There's one flaw with that logic: If you forced the Ravens to play at Camden Yards, the Ravens franchise would not exist.
People like football. It's a popular sport. The reason governments build stadiums (as much of a sham as the financing can be) is to get the team there.
The NFL never would've approved a team for Baltimore if the stadium plan was to play in Camden Yards.
Also, for college athletics - I don't believe Michigan Stadium is supported at all by student fees. That might have been part of the original financing back in the 20s, but it's certainly not part of it now.
by Alex B. on Nov 6, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 6, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
How much support (both total dollar amount and percent of the project cost)? How is it financed? Where's the revenue come from? What's the team's situation (expansion? threat to move? etc)? Where is the stadium located? What kind of project are we talking about? What's the public money going for (infrastructure, the stadium itself, etc?)
Way too many variables to make that a yes/no question.
by Alex B. on Nov 6, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report
I find that very difficult to believe, considering the baseball stadium didn't open until a year after the DOT headquarters. That there are people who would not work there but for the promise that a year later there would be 40-50 evenings when the streets would have more pedestrians - but only evenings when it is still sunny after work - sounds beyond improbably to me. You can suspect it, but I don't see any reason to believe it.
Its not irrational.
It's not irrational to be willing to quit a job unless there are 40-50 well-lit evenings when there will be a few thousand pedestrians on the street several blocks a way? I guess we'll just agree.
I'm surprised that at a blog that I think understands the importance of "critical mass" in urban development, this is so controversial.
I get the idea of critical mass. But a building that takes up 2.5 city blocks and sits empty 95% of the time does not create a critical mass of people. Averaged out over the year, it probably has a lower number of people per square foot than most of the rest of the city.
I looked at where you pointed, and did not see any conclusive demonstration of zero impact,
It helps to go here first. But you're not going to find "conclusive evidence." That would require knowing what would happen without the stadium being built, and my parallel universe device has been on the fritz for months.
by David C on Nov 6, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report
by shawguy on Nov 6, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report
Depends.
How much support (both total dollar amount and percent of the project cost)? How is it financed? Where's the revenue come from? What's the team's situation (expansion? threat to move? etc)? Where is the stadium located? What kind of project are we talking about? What's the public money going for (infrastructure, the stadium itself, THE STADIUM ITSELFetc?)
Way too many variables to make that a yes/no question.
I DISAGREE. IT'S FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR TAXPAYERS TO BENEFIT FROM A FOOTBALL ONLY STADIUM.
A BASEBALL STADIUM - OR HOCKEY/BASKETBALL ARENA - GENERATES AN ECONOMY FROM THE MANY TIMES THEY'RE USED. A FOOTBALL ONLY STADIUM CANNOT DO THAT.
THERE ARE FAR BETTER PLACES TO USE OR INVEST TAXPAYER DOLLARS - ESPECIALLY FOR A CITY SUCH AS DC IS.
WE'LL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE.
by Alex B. on Nov 6, 2011 2:25 pm
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 6, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Nov 6, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report
The baseball stadium was convenient in that it was willing to be first, and it may well have been the tipping point for a few people, who in turn were the tipping point for others.
That sort of thing would hardly justify $600 million in public expenditure, but it's probably more than zero impact.
by Sgc on Nov 6, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report
Actually, an argument can be made that the main driver of economic value is actually outside events that might bring in people from out of the area (although, to be fair, when the Nats host the Phillies it brings a lot of people in from Philadelphia), and that a baseball stadium actually hosts *too many* dates (80 plus reserved dates for possible playoffs, all concentrated in the best weather months) to make that happen.
Football stadiums are problematic for other reasons, but regarding the list from Capt. Hilts, economic factors have changed since most of those multi-sport venues were built. To wit, luxury suites will, if the single-sport venue is built reasonably frugally and there's demand, finance a good half of the venue, which was something that wasn't true in, say 1965. Corporate sponsorship of stadiums also wasn't a big factor back then.
FedEx is pretty much self-financing--it was paid for by government bonds, but those are paid back by a direct tax on the facility, and by all appearances it appears the facility will perform on that obligation.
by Sgc on Nov 6, 2011 3:59 pm • link • report
Those luxury boxes get written off on taxes as 'business expenenses' so they get subsidized by taxpayers, too. Do folks in PG County see FedEx as helping their city? Not that I'm aware. That money usually goes to the team, not the city - though those deals vary. Art Modell gets to keep even parking charges!
Jack Kent Cooke paid for the stadium. Taxpayers for the roads and plumbing on the way into it.
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 6, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
My understanding is that JKC did not pay cash for the stadium, it was all done by bond obligation of the independent Maryland Stadium Authority. It doesn't show up in Maryland's general fund, and you can almost think of MSA as a quasi-government.
by Sgc on Nov 6, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report
One of the reasons the price Snyder paid for the team approached a billion dollars was because the stadium belonged to Cooke. That was also why he was permitted to put his name on it. I think Joe Robbie did something similar in Miami. I think he paid for it.
Had PG County taxpayers paid for the construction of the stadium, the sale price of the team would not have been so high.
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 7, 2011 12:11 am • link • report
1. WRT to it being a year after USDOT moved - yes, believe it or not, some folks at USDOT can actually look a year or more out. (appropriately discounted, of course)
2. Some at the tipping point. If there are a range of people, from those sure to quite, to those sure to stay, than there have to be some right at the tipping point (out of about 8000 employees). They can be tipped by a small change.
3. 40 to 50 week day home games a year, out of about 250 weekdays a year. Thats a significant proportion. Its of course a much higher percentage in the summer, which I think is prime mugging season.
4. Its not just folks several blocks away. Lots of people walk from parking EAST of USDOT. On a game day there are usually lots of fans walking PAST USDOT to the ballpark. If you had actually been at USDOT on a game day you would know this.
5. DOT employees, like many other people saw the ball park as heralding additional development (see this is where the synergies get all interconnected) You may estimate THAT impact at zero. Not everyone does.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 9:58 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 9:59 am • link • report
but the average of the rest of the city wasnt coming to that location at that point. The relevant comparison is to what was there then - which likely would have remained for years, and which was, possibly, an active deterrent to redevelopment.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 7, 2011 10:02 am • link • report
Before the baseball stadium, the site hosted over a dozen businesses, the Washington Sculpture Center, and at least one private residence. All together these probably provided more eyes on the street more reliably than the stadium does. [Some of these businesses had to shut down or move out of the District - hooray for supporting small businesses!]
I don't really want to argue about whether or not one or two USDOT employees may not have quit their jobs because of the baseball stadium. That is hardly 'development', which is what everyone asserts the stadium brought. Those jobs would have been filled. And if one or two may have quit because of the stadium, I propose that one or two who quit may have stayed, but for the stadium (Phillies fans). I have just as much proof of my assertion as you do of yours, which is exactly none.
by David C on Nov 7, 2011 11:28 am • link • report
by 20024 on Nov 8, 2011 9:43 am • link • report
$300M riverfront project in Southeast ready to go
Washington Business Journal , Contributing Writer
Date: Monday, December 13, 1999, 12:00am EST
Long in the works, a new office development in southeast Washington has cleared two major regulatory hurdles.
The proposed project, which many see as a major stepping stone toward a revitalized Buzzard Point/Capitol Gateway area, got the thumb's up in recent weeks from both the National Capital Planning Commission and the city's zoning commission. This effectively clears the way for developer Florida Rock Properties of Jacksonville, Fla., to break ground whenever a major tenant can be signed.
The $300 million building would bring 1.5 million square feet of office space and almost 1500 parking spots to what is now a concrete processing facility on a six-acre plot of land on Potomac Avenue between First Street SE and South Capitol Street.
by Dan Maceda on Nov 8, 2011 10:07 am • link • report
Huh? How so?
by Alex B. on Nov 8, 2011 10:25 am • link • report
Im glad of that, as I dont have a time machine to go back and grill people. I am merely trying to give you the mindset of people who actually were in the position of moving to the area to work, and had decisions to make. At the time I don't think many USDOT employees thought the existing businesses in the area really added to their sense of safety - the upcoming ballpark was touted as a reason to feel positive about the move. What was true for them, may well be true for people who bought or rented units in the new residential developments, etc. I know thats not proof - I dont think we can retrospectively prove anything on this - but just as you are adding facts about the level of space usage, I am adding facts about perceptions.
I also don't know that we can discount the impact of the ballpark bringing people to the neighborhood who otherwise wouldn't have known about it, both people from the suburbs, and from other parts of the district.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 8, 2011 10:52 am • link • report
???
The ball park has brought out of town phillies fans to visit the area. Why would it be a negative for a greater Wash resident philly fan?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 8, 2011 10:54 am • link • report
Not sure how you could think the stadium wasn't at least a comfort factor for some people. I'm not sure about the direct safety aspect, but if my office was going to move to a previously pretty undeveloped (in terms of commercial office-oriented amenities) neighborhood, the promise of a big anchor for future development/demand would probably at least influence my opinion/decision.
Or do you just think that when an office moves no employees choose to start looking for another job?
by MLD on Nov 8, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
Not sure how you could think the stadium wasn't at least a comfort factor for some people. I'm not sure about the direct safety aspect, but if my office was going to move to a previously pretty undeveloped (in terms of commercial office-oriented amenities) neighborhood, the promise of a big anchor for future development/demand would probably at least influence my opinion/decision.
Exactly. It also helps that the area is Metro accessible.
by Fitz on Nov 8, 2011 11:22 am • link • report
Which facts are you adding? So far you're claiming to somehow know what US DOT employees thought 5 years ago. Since I don't know how you could possibly know that, I don't know how that is a fact.
Why would it be a negative for a greater Wash resident philly fan?
That was a joke. But just as you can claim to magically know what people thought 5 years ago, so can I. And so I think some people refused to move to the new HQ because of the stadium.
Not sure how you could think the stadium wasn't at least a comfort factor for some people.
1. There is absolutely no evidence of this
2. The stadium wouldn't open until 1 year after DOT HQ.
3. The claim was not that it comforted anyone, but that it actually changed their decision. THis is merely speculative and it is just as likely that it changed their opinion for the negative as for the positive.
4. It really doesn't matter one iota. The point is that DOT HQ made its decision to move before the stadium site was selected. So, the stadium didn't influence DOT to make the move. Whether or not it comforted some people who were changing offices is irrelevant, unless you can show how that induced development. What's important is that the jobs moved - not individual people. Comforting employees whose jobs were moving, whether they went or not, doesn't really spell development.
by David C on Nov 8, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 9, 2011 3:28 pm • link • report
http://redskins4ever.com/wp-content/profile-pics/1.jpg
http://www.gearshift.tv/blog/uploaded_images/gearshift-easterns-draft-50mm-025-793408.jpg
Anyway, why don't they just change the name to the Hogs? Their actually have a connection with the name, pork is huge in the South, they have mascots already in those silly men who dress up like ladies with snouts, and most importantly, there's the DC-Congressional connection: all the Pork that rolls out of this city.
by Shipsa01 on Nov 9, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 9, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
To be frank, I would be content if the team had no name at all. Being from DC is enough for me. And I think George Allen stole the logo from the Blackhawks, who are named for Blackhawk himself.
And let's get rid of Notre Dame's drunken Irishman with the red nose and his fists up, while we're at it.
by Capt. Hilts on Nov 9, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 9, 2011 4:44 pm • link • report
@Capt. Hilts
Where do you get the idea that the Fighting Irish logo is drunk? Also, he does not have a red nose. As for the fists up, well, he's fighting.
by Steven Yates on Nov 9, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2011/11/18/dan-snyder-not-on-rfk-gala-guest-list/
"The name that really jumps out from the guest list, however, is one that's not on it: Dan Snyder.
The Redskins owner, of course, brings up how much RFK once meant to him about as often as a baby brings up dinner. And we know how much Snyder loves anniversaries. And it's well known the stadium folks and Snyder's organization have been talking for the last several years about the team making some sort of comeback on these grounds, even if it's just for a new Redskins Park.
Rumors about the Redskins' return to D.C. have picked up ever since Gray and some city councilmembers flew to Florida to inspect the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' training center.
So I was surprised that Snyder's passing up this climactic anniversary function. I asked a source with the party planners if Snyder was invited: "Yes of course he was invited," was the reply.
When I asked Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie, he replied only, "We will have representatives there." Maybe a desire to not raise any eyebrows before a deal with the RFK Stadium people is actually done caused Snyder to not send in an affirmative RSVP. Or, continuing in this French vein: Perhaps he'll be off holidaying on his new-to-him $70 million boat somewhere on the Riviera."
Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but it seems to me that there are talks going on (not in public) about this; we need to stay alert and make sure this DOES NOT happen.
by Shipsa01 on Nov 19, 2011 9:41 am • link • report
Add a Comment