Corbusian ideas may have laid waste to countless blocks of American cities but that's nothing compared to the French Banlieue. Those places look like death warmed over! At least our slumming suburbs will "look" more humane now that the Corbusian hey-day has passed.

by Thayer-D on Oct 8, 2009 9:20 am  

stadium: The same Mayor Dixon who is currently being investigated for theft of gift cards given to needy families? Or is that a different politician named Dixon in MD?

by Bianchi on Oct 8, 2009 9:26 am  

Walk to Sch Day: I tried to find more info about the 2nd grader struck on NJ Ave. Was the child fatally struck or did s/he survive?

by Bianchi on Oct 8, 2009 9:31 am  

The ShawNeighborhood email says the child was conscious in the ambulance. So hopefully that means it wasn't a serious injury.

by David Alpert on Oct 8, 2009 9:52 am  

Hey!!!! please don't put "the" before DC United.

Losing United to Baltimore would be a travesty to the city of Washington. United is a legitimate contender with a big time sponsor and will only lose money playing at RFK every year for so long. It would be a good idea to support this team and it's bid for a stadium in the city, it will keep jobs, support a social and cultural event and provide many other benefits to the city.

by jspot on Oct 8, 2009 10:03 am  

I agree. The United should stay in DC and I'm glad that DC, and other local jurisdictions, are still involved in the process behind closed doors. I think something will get done now that only a soccer-only stadium is the goal rather than something bigger. I understand the situation that the team is in financially, I just hope they choose to stick around b/c I think the DC area is a better market to be in than the alternatives.

by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 10:29 am  

Vik, as jspot mentioned, the team is "DC United" or "United" for short. There is never a "the" in front of the team name.

It's not a matter of choosing. If the team and fanbase had its way, they would be playing in a new Poplar Point stadium already. No one wants to leave their home or their established fanbase.

I also want to point out that no stadium proposal by the Maryland Stadium Authority would involve taxpayer dollars. The bonds would be paid by fees on the tickets and concessions. The fans would collectively pay for the stadium. The jurisdiction pays for infrastructure. If located near transit in an urban environment, that's a very small cost. The jurisdiction reaps all economic rewards from the stadium activities and foot traffic.

Any stadium proposal in DC would be similar. The team and its fanbase would pay construction costs either up front or through ticket and concession fees. The local government would pay for things like sewers.

by Cavan on Oct 8, 2009 11:00 am  

Re: Stadium

I like DC United and all, but why should a public government construct a stadium that is used by a sole tenant that is a private company? Especially when there are other financial issues facing the city.

I am not against arenas that will be used on a consistent basis with multiple tenants (Verizon Center) as these will generate events and tax revenue for the city on a near daily basis. It is the limited use stadiums such as the baseball stadium that bother me.

Maybe this could be approached from a different angle. Could the facility be constructed so that it could host multiple sports? Or MD/VA/Mid-Atlantic/national championships? Make it a lacrosse stadium as well? Just something that is going to be used more than 15-20 times a year and is not controlled by one of its 'tenants'

by Rob on Oct 8, 2009 11:12 am  

Sports:
Wow. Why is everything always so crazy around sports? I don't understand, and beyond that, I don't care, why 1 stadium can't service all sports? If your sport is so outrageous that it can't make use of a general purpose area then too damn bad.
Along the same lines, let's fund a frisbee stadium! An indoor golf stadium! A bocce ball stadium! Let's make a giant curling stadium and we'll make millions off all the Canadians rushing in on transit!

Walk to School Day:
That is terrible. I hope all of these drivers (Metro and general) that are hitting people are getting the severest penalties possible.

Arlington:
Yup, it's a beautiful oasis. :) No, there doesn't need to be more parking.

by James on Oct 8, 2009 11:25 am  

@James: There was a time when multipurpose stadiums were the rule. Thing is that most of those stadiums failed because the concept never seemed to fully click. Remember the huge to-do it was to convert RFK from baseball to soccer configurations and back?

Anyone from any of the cities that had a 60's-70's vintage concrete multipurpose donut want to chime in about how successful they were that most were gone or retrofitted to one-sport use before their 35th birthday?

by Jason on Oct 8, 2009 11:42 am  

Adding the "the" is a habit, I do it b/c of how other US teams are talked about rather than the European teams that our soccer teams tend to copy. I'm against significant public funds for the team, and I think team knows that they're not going to get some really sweet sucker deal. Some people want to know why the gov't needs to sell the bonds in the first place, for a limited use facility. In this climate, I don't blame them. Hopefully something gets done in the DC area and they don't have to move farther away from the fans who have supported them all this time.

by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 11:50 am  

Adding "the" has nothing to do with European names, it has to do with grammar. People incorrectly refer to DCU's league as "the MLS," too. Being that MLS stands for Major League Soccer, saying "the Major League Soccer" doesn't make sense. You don't hear or see sportswriters referring to baseball as "the Major Leauge Baseball" or "the MLB."

by Alex B. on Oct 8, 2009 11:54 am  

It is time we realize that professional sports teams only care about thing: money.

City taxpayers should adopt a similar attitude; if a stadium costs the city more than the city will reap in revenue from it, we should just summarily reject giving any city aid.

If we put as much enthusiasm into public schooling as we do into baseball stadiums and soccer stadiums, this city would be much better off.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 8, 2009 12:15 pm  

"Adding "the" has nothing to do with European names, it has to do with grammar. People incorrectly refer to DCU's league as "the MLS," too. Being that MLS stands for Major League Soccer, saying "the Major League Soccer" doesn't make sense. You don't hear or see sportswriters referring to baseball as "the Major Leauge Baseball" or "the MLB." "

Why are you comparing a team name with a league name's abbreviations? They're not the same. Most other sports team in this country is commonly referred to with a "the" in the front due to the naming pattern. It's understandable that someone could see "United" as a collective group, a noun, if they're used to a certain pattern of naming with every other team that exists here.

by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 12:29 pm  

*haha, sorry for the grammatical errors. Anyway, let's hope DCU stays.

by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 12:32 pm  

Self-sustaining stadiums, nice theory, but who's on the hook if stadium revenues don't meet projections? Public financing means just that, public. The bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the government entity issuing them. If these stadiums were such a great investment, the teams would have no problem attracting private capital without government backs. Plus there are all sorts of infrastructure improvement funded by taxpayers that get added to the bill. Just say no to more sports team boondoggles.

by Paul on Oct 8, 2009 12:39 pm  

It has nothing to do with the acronyms. We say just "MLB" because Major League Baseball is singular. We refer to the sport as "baseball," not "the baseball." "The baseball" means something totally different, as does "the United." Conversely, we say "the NBA" because we're referring to "the National Basketball Association."

You don't have to explain to me why people screw it up. I know why they make the error. That doesn't mean it's not an error, however.

Let's say the team's name wasn't DC United, it was Steve. Not the Fightin' Steves - just Steve. You would say "Steve played a great game," not "the Steve played a great game."

by Alex B. on Oct 8, 2009 12:55 pm  

If you don't have a dog in the sports hunt then stay out. It's frustrating when people not interested in an argument weigh in with little thought. Sports are a powerhouse of economic generation! look at what Dan Snyder has done with the redskins, and he's done it with a BAD TEAM! I'm very happy that this discussion is happening on this venue however, there is more to making Washington better than just improving transit! saying no to sports is not a great decision. Saying that DCU's stadium would only be used 20 times is also false. It's in the interest of the stadium operators to have as many events as possible. US national team games (there is one at RFK next week) Other national team games (Honduras plays packed "home" games at RFK once a year because of how many immigrants live in the area, college (football, soccer and lacrosse) games too. Further more a 20k venue in the city would be great competition for concerts at Merriweather and Nissan and DAR Hall! I'd rather take the metro to a concert than a car! look at how many people took the "tro" to see U2 at fed ex field 2 weeks ago. Infrastructure isn't just infrastructure! It is short sighted to think that a DCU stadium would simply be a boondoggle! my last point DCU has been supporting RFK for the last 10 years! who owns RFK? DCU has lost money not generated anything because of a lease that it cannot afford, yet the club has stuck it out for a passionate fan base! This is a franchise that is a rarity in the sports and should celebrated for that (don't buy them a stadium but at least acknowledge that DCU is playing its part!

PS this sight is a fantastic forum for good discussion!

by Jspot on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 pm  

There are a handful of parks that come to mind that were privately funded. The Giants baseball stadium in San Francisco comes to mind. The model now is to have the local municipalities pay for the stadiums. If I owned a company where I could get the local government to pay for my headquarters why wouldn't I?

The infrastructure improvement funded by taxpayers is something that I would expect for pretty much every business. What form it takes is another question and is is something that is debated daily on this blog in regards to what type of infrastructure should be provided (mass transit versus more roads etc..). It's essentially what we're going through with BRAC here in the DC area.

by Rob on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 pm  

@Jspot

I agree that the facility created should be used more than 20x a year. I want a facility that can be used hundreds of times a year. Maybe this public discussion should be reframed so that a venue is created for all those outdoor events that use the same size surface as mentioned.

Obviously, a baseball/football stadium doesn't work, but you mention a couple alternatives that could work for a ~20,000 stadium.

by Rob on Oct 8, 2009 1:22 pm  

Ok Alex, maybe we don't need a the in front of Capitals or Nationals, b/c those don't really make much sense either. Anyway, I have no problem saying just DCU and United and DC United w/o "the", but it's trivial to me.

Rob, I agree w/ infrastructure improvements, but I think people want a better reassurance in how to fund these upgrades. Something like BRAC w/ thousands of higher paying jobs is different from a sports stadium where the residual effects are a bit harder to figure out, multiple uses obviously help. DC was just griping not too long ago about their bond rating potentially being downgraded with the Convention Center Hotel. I think something will work out, but the deal will have to be designed to protect the city just in case anything goes wrong because I think that's the cause for a lot of hesitance for people. Most people don't want the team to leave.

by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 pm  

I'm kind of surprised that the little summary of the subrubs/slums article left the implication that all suburbs everywhere will descend into the banlieue, while ignoring the article's positive mentions of two DC-area suburbs (in an article about a national issue).

Or, wait. I'm not surprised. I forgot. We disdain everything outside the 10x10 square. Because things are dramatically different the moment you cross the Potomac, Western Avenue, Eastern Avenue or Southern Avenue. Like a whole other world a block and a half away.

by Catherine on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 pm  

maybe the team should be called "The Dude"

by Bianchi on Oct 8, 2009 2:13 pm  

At last, a President who cares about good urban policy. As the article acknowledges, the task is immense. I wish him the best.

As a side note, the article mentions some really great names (Carrion, Cleaver, etc.)!

by Matthias on Oct 8, 2009 2:28 pm  

Vik,

I don't think it's trivial at all. First, it's a brand. Second, "the United" is just wrong, and errors like that bug me.

Just look at this blog. If a reporter quoted David and said he was the editor of "the Greater Greater Washington," we'd all cringe.

by Alex B. on Oct 8, 2009 2:32 pm  

I was in Clarendon a couple nights ago, hanging out at Spider Kelly's and bemoaning the loss of Orpheus Records next door, when I realized... it's part of a string of 4 retail locations, all next to each other, all vacant. Isn't this weird? This is on the same block as Metro (Wilson Blvd between Highland and Washington Blvd) in what's always talked about as such a successful area... Can anyone explain these vacancies? It seems like most have been empty for some time.

by Scott on Oct 8, 2009 4:23 pm  

Jspot, you're spot on about the economic benefits of sports stadiums. When done right, a stadium (except football since it's only used 8 times a year) can be a great anchor of place and economic activity. I wrote about these conditions earlier in the year: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1700

by Cavan on Oct 8, 2009 4:25 pm  

@Scott: Is the building owner trying to clear out a large space to redevelop?

by Michael Perkins on Oct 8, 2009 4:34 pm  

Scott, I think that Michael is right (or at least that's what I've understood the issue to be). Sign of good times, oddly (can afford to leave things empty while waiting to embark on a costly project with the confidence of getting higher-rent businesses out of the place).

Still quite a successful area, according to the NYTimes yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/realestate/commercial/07ballston.html

by Catherine on Oct 8, 2009 4:41 pm