The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
You'd think that the a city just recovering from one bout of stadium shellshock would approach building a whole other new stadium carefully. Not the District. They're looking to build two more.
Today Marc Fisher updates us on two stadium projects we reported on long ago, neither of which seemed destined for completion given the legislative conniptions the D.C. Council had to go through just to get the new stadium for the Washington Nationals off the ground. But now both D.C. United and the Washington Redskins are pining for their own new digs, and Mayor Adrian Fenty and key councilmembers seem receptive to the idea. This time, though, the city isn't going to build the teams their stadiums -- it's going to ask that the team owners fund the construction in exchange for the development rights to the surrounding lands. In short, D.C. United would pick up millions of dollars of waterfront land at Poplar Point while the Redskins would inherit similarly well-located lands at the current RFK site. Fisher, himself one of the biggest boosters for the Nats' new stadium, is cool to the idea, having written today in an online chat:
Nay to the idea that owners of sports teams should automatically be given valuable city land for them to develop so that they can make even more massive profits than they will by building new stadiums. The model to hew to is the Abe Pollin one, where the Wizards owner built the MCI Center with his own bucks (and support from the District for infrastructure), and didn't get any big land giveaway in return.Call us the perpetual pessimists, but D.C. United, the Redskins, and the city's pols should slow it down just a touch. While having both these stadiums built free of charge seems like a grand idea, the council and the residents in the neighborhoods surrounding both Poplar Point and RFK should assess what their lands are worth to them, what would otherwise be done with them, and if giving them away in exchange for a stadium is sound public policy. More than that, the council needs to ask itself if something approaching the Pollin model is feasible -- can they structure a deal in which they avoid having to pay for the stadiums while still retaining some semblance of control of the surrounding development?
These debates are obviously in their nascent stages, but need to be approached like the big decisions that they are. The District proved with the Nats that negotiating isn't its strong suit, so it should try and avoid the same mistakes with D.C. United and the Redskins.
What's your take?
Picture snapped by MissChatter
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The DC United stadium deal and complex is for way more than just a stadium. It would bring affordable housing, market rate housing, retail and a hotel to a part of town that needs it.
DC United has met with the community and, I believe, now have large community backing for the project.
Fischer doesn't like it cause he hates soccer and loves baseball.
The Redskins plan isn't even a plan yet so putting these two proposals in the same bucket is not right.
On topic: The United deal, as Sam above indicates, and been in the offing for a few years and provides enough amenity to Ward 8 and the broader community that even Marion Barry approves of it. Bring it on!
With respect to the Skins, there are a few forces at play. 1) The Jack has been a horrible disaster for the region and the team (well, everyone but Danny boy). To undo the sham that was Sharon Pratt Nixon (er Dixon) and bring the Skins back to the RFK site once the Nats and DCU are out, in my opinion would be fanastic, particularly if that means a little bit of neighborhood serving retail in that corner of town (assumming the residents want it -- they may not).
However for the infrastructure, etc., The long term benefits to having the Skins and the primary music etc. venue there is terrific.
Also, the NFL is providing favorable loans to its owners for new stadia. That Jerry Jones is building a $1B stadium in the Big is impetus enough for Danny Boy to want to keep pace.
Off topic: Rees, you have been banned from this site. Please go away.
Regardless of whether the RFK giveaway is good policy, I'm not sure if it's even possible. The land on which RFK sits, belongs to the National Park Service. DC has limited jurisdictional rights based on the site's continued use as a stadium.
Start tossing around retail and housing and NPS may want to put a stop to the plan. Except that Congress loves them some American Football.
Sam,
Good point: Fisher does hate soccer.
I know the D.C. United deal has been in the works for a while, but I never heard that a land-for-stadium provision was part of it. If it is, it's a bad idea IMHO.
And fear not -- I'll be deleting Rees' comments.
Who is this Rees guy? Didn't he lose in the Ward 3 primaries?
wasn't fedex field built about 10 years ago? what do the 'skins need a new stadium for?
I'd be okay with a limited-term tax on whatever gets built around the stadium, the proceeds of which are dedicating to helping the owner/builders more quickly recoup development costs.
But DC should keep its own land. We could long-term lease it and collect taxes on it, if necessary. This model would be sort of like a triple-net lease, but with rent, build-out, and taxes, instead of the usual rent, build-out, and utilities. That way the asset remains more completely in DC's portfolio. If the DC government wants to emulate the best of private enterprise, this would be a great way to start.
I thought the NPS owns the land on which RFK sits. Isn't that the reason why the RFK site can't be redeveloped to something... useful?
You're right, GhettoBurbs. NPS owns it and the surrounding lot. They are considering returning it along with lots of other property. NCPC developed a set of (unfunded) mixed-use (monument, park, residences, commercial) plans for it under their capital space initiative. Elements of DC Gov want some want a stadium there. Otavio had some good observations on this about a month ago.
Chris, I was just thinking the same thing. Why is it that Wrigley field, fenway park, soldier field and other stadiums can stand for almost a century, yet barely 10 years after Jack Kent Cooke stadium opens, Snyder is already looking for a new home? Im all for football relocating back to the district but seems like the folks in pg county really got shafted on this stadium from day 1. If snyder wants back into DC he should foot the bill and compensate the folks out in PG for that albatross.
Good venues will stnad the test of time by providing a favorable user experience that last longer than the initial novelty.
JKC was built to maximize profit by accomodating the largest crowd possible and providing the largest quantity of premium seating/services available. It reminds me of US Cellular (formerly Comiskey) -- blander than vanilla and designed primarily to exploit revenue streams.
Wriggley's longevity is entirely understandable -- it's still an amazing place to watch a baseball game. Fenway is another beast -- lousy sightlines, cramped and obstructed seats, dillapidated . . . but enough character to provide a unique and favorable experience.
Soldier Field had a UFO planted on top of the original structure a few years ago. It had history, but now strives to be JKC.
Wouldn't this allow the same sort of notorius eminent domain problems that were spotlighted in the Kelo case last year and has lead to a revolt among property rights advocates? The government shouldn't get to hand over those sort of powers to private land developers period.
As a huge Redskins fan who seriously dislikes trekking out to FedEx for games, getting the Skins a new stadium is completely absurd. Building it out there may have been a mistake, but unless (as shelley just said) Snyder wants to finance the entire operation himself, I'm afraid we're stuck there.
Snyder wants a new stadium for the following reasons:
1. FedEx Field is the largest stadium in the NFL, but given the enormous demand for Redskins tickets and the long waiting list, Snyder could easily fill 20,000 more seats.
2. FedEx was actually built on the cheap by Jack Kent Cooke. It lacks some of the amnenities that newer stadiums have (such as more dining options and a high def video board). Stadiums in Phoenix, Philly, Baltimore, and the new Cowboys stadium pretty much make FedEx look like a dinosaur.
3. Snyder owns the land that FedEx is sitting on and that he will make more by developing that land than he will from owning the Redskins. If he can get cheap (or free) land at the RFK site, then he can pretty much finance the new stadium with the land underneath FedEx.
At this point, I don't really see any better option for the RFK site. A park there would be as empty as the other parkland along the Anacostia River, housing could work but the site is so big that would need to bring in retail to go along with the housing, essentially building an entire neighborhood from scracth, that isn't easy and it sure isn't cheap.
IF they did RFK right this could be really nice. But you cannot do like it is now - one stadium surrounded by acres of crappy parking lots. There must be mixed use development, and lots of it. This is waterfront property (granted, it's a bit marshy at that point), and it's stunningly located. And we must get some serious bang for our buck here. Using a new RFK to leverage some nice mixed uses - retail, housing, commercial - could mean big bucks for the city for decades.
And definitely throw in some amenities for the neighborhood. We could really use a nice movie theater complex. The closest one is Union Station, which is cute but pretty much sucks.
I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to have our "home" teams "home," however, inevitably, this city, and/or its citizens will get screwed by one of these deals.
It always happens.
I'm already imagining the frustration brought on by metro delays.