October 21, 2008
New Total for Nationals Park: $692 million
Baseball season comes to its end over the next week, as the World Series is set to unfold between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Philadelphia Phillies. Here in D.C., we celebrate by freaking the eff out all over again over the cost of the brand new Nationals Park. Not only did hardly anyone go to Nats games in their new ballpark this year, but now we're hearing about how the whole endeavor actually cost over $690 million, quite a bit more than the regularly quoted $611 million figure. No one, and we mean no one, who followed the lengthy debate over the new baseball stadium could possibly be surprised by this news, but it's still causing quite a bit of consternation in some corners of the D.C. Council.
The Examiner has the lowdown on where that additional $83 million came from: the land acquisition bill went $50 million over original estimates; a laundry list of unfinished work items; agreeing to spend an additional $4 million on putting finishing touches on the ballpark under a settlement agreement over a rent dispute with the Lerners. And of course, some on the Council are crying foul over that $4 million settlement, pointing out that the city is only getting $3.5 million worth of rent in return.
Proponents of basic arithmetic say the city has a lot to learn to when it comes to dealing with the Nats. Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, on the other hand, reminds us that it could have been a lot worse had the Lerners successfully charged the $100,000 per day they claimed they could collect because the ballpark wasn't "substantially complete" by March 1. The failure of the Nationals Park endeavor to make anyone in Washington feel good or excited about baseball, however, is both substantial and complete.
Photo by mosely.brian
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I disagree that "The failure of the Nationals Park endeavor to make anyone in Washington feel good or excited about baseball, however, is both substantial and complete".
People aren't excited about baseball 'cause the team sucks.
[ report this ]
basic point: the lerners don't care about the city. they are in this for themselves.
good for them, they're good businessmen. terrible at good civic relationships. oh well. you lose some, you lose some.
[ report this ]
While it seems pretty unlikely this thing will EVER make any money for the District as long as the team sucks and nobody cares about them, a cost overrun of $83 million dollars (just over 10%) seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of boondoggle projects of this size.
Of course that assumes we've actually been told the truth about the final cost.
[ report this ]
This bodes poorly for DC United.
[ report this ]
While it seems pretty unlikely this thing will EVER make any money for the District as long as the team sucks and nobody cares about them, a cost overrun of $83 million dollars (just over 10%) seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of boondoggle projects of this size.
Seriously. We could have only funded three summer jobs boondoggles with the overruns. Its just peanuts.
[ report this ]
I guess I'd be more shocked about the $690 million figure, if I had any faith that the District government could actually put it to better use without mismanaging, embezzling, or otherwise misplacing it, than the team's owners can. While it seems like the Lerners are turning out to be cheap, eccentric owners who have little intention on putting together a winning team, at least they know how to handle large sums of money.
[ report this ]
It's not just the team; the new stadium sucks also. RFK was a perfectly pleasant place to enjoy baseball. It was easy to get to, the sightlines were mostly excellent, and the cheaper upper deck seats were close in and with great sightlines. None of this is true in the new stadium, where snooty club seats have been put into the level which was the upper deck at RFK, pushing the affordable seats up to the stratoshpere. It has a bigger TV screen, but I don't go to the ballpark to watch TV. I miss RFK.
[ report this ]
I don't know much about baseball ... but I can see Nationals Park from my apartment!!
[ report this ]
RFK was awesome, and it would have taken just a touch of refurbishing at probably less than a quarter of the cost of the new stadium to make it perfect. And probably better than the new one too.
[ report this ]
It's not just the team; the new stadium sucks also. RFK was a perfectly pleasant place to enjoy baseball...I miss RFK.
You are high.
And you can still enjoy RFK for DC United matches, that is, when the power is working. The place is literally a rat trap. I've been going to RFK since the 70's and my rose colored glasses are off - the place is done.
And you can get $5 or $10 seats at Nationals Park then sit in the upper deck or go to the Loft or standing room. I agree with the civic criticism of the Park and Lerners, but to prefer RFK is kind of silly.
[ report this ]
$692M instead of $611M?
who cares.
[ report this ]
a few councilmemebers, that's who
and that's all that matters
[ report this ]
Well, hell... while we're at it... why don't we go for a cool billion!?!?
[ report this ]
Can someone explain to me how, when 29,005 fans on average pay to go to each Nationals game, we keep harking on poor attendance. Yeah, the team sucked. If anyone had hopes that it wouldn't, I'd call them a fair weather fan because there was never any belief that they would be good this year.
For those complaining that they can't give away their tix, send them my way.
[ report this ]
im with yatrakarna:
paid attendance was 19th in the league. they finished dead last in actual record on the season. pretty damn good if i say so myself.
i was in the middle of typing a diatribe about how this city hasn't had baseball for so long and we have to educate ourselves (full disclosure: i'm a life-long red sox fan, but split a full season ticket package with friends; we love the sport of baseball) about how to enjoy the game again, when i saw yatrakarna's comment. it grounded me.
listen, when the lerners and the city get past their differences about the stadium construction, and hopefully start working to build youth baseball back in the city... the longer a team is here, in the papers, on that godforsaken MASN network, etc etc... the longer the Nats finish in the dump and draft well... the more quickly they will be a successfull, contending team. the florida marlins are evidence of that on a 6 year cycle. the rays are evidence of that this year. i truly think the nationals will be a fun team to watch within the next 5 years.
oh, and by the way... the nationals did average just over 29,000 fans per game. just so you know, those tampa bay rays, who are playing in the world series starting tomorrow, averaged just over 22,000 fans per game.
not bad. not bad at all.
[ report this ]
you make good points, swifty79. i think a lot of people in the city expect instant gratification. they were told throughout this process that the stadium would produce something akin to 7th street near the verizon center. a lot of people with short memories forget that it's taken a decade to get from the opening of that to where we are today.
patience is needed in a society that doesn't care much for it.
[ report this ]
Can someone explain to me how, when 29,005 fans on average pay to go to each Nationals game, we keep harking on poor attendance.
This is the single worst average attendance for in 26 years for an existing team playing its inaugural season in a new park. Even the Reds managed more fans at GAB in 2003 (29,077/game) to go with 93 losses. It also ranked in the bottom 1/3 for overall attendance in 2008.
[ report this ]
that's also cincinnati... a city that has had a team for many, many years (118 years to be exact). the fact that the reds had 3 winning seasons and one postseason appearance in the ten years (speculating... ten years of city planning, and wrangling about fundraising to build a new stadium, resulting in either public excitement or disinterest... depends on how you view it) leading up to GAB is indicative of, well, low expectations by fans, and thusly, low (relatively speaking... remember, the montreal expos drew 700,000 all year in 2004) attendance.
consider the reds:
2001- record, 66-96, average home attendance, 23,794
2002- record, 78-84, average home attendance, 23,197 (better record, lower attendance!!!)
2003- record, 69-93, average home attendance, 29,077 (new ballpark!!! yay!!!)
so one could assume that the new ballpark resulted in an increased average attendance of about 25%. this is also a team that has a devoted fan base of 100+ years. baseball, well, its part of the fabric of cincinnati. ain't going nowhere any time soon.
DC? we'll again... we're new. we need to be successful before we start ratcheting up the expectations another notch or two. sure, we need to tweak the new stadium a bit, streamline operations, and develop the area around the ballpark.
lest we forget, as IMgorph says, it took a long time for the area around MCI, nay, Verizon Center to build up and become a destination. And there, you're talking about an arena for two teams that have been in this region since 1974 (read: teams that had a fan base and let's assume, reasonable attendance figures... we all know the MCI Center was opened in 1997).
be patient. please?
[ report this ]
thanks, swifty79, but it's IMGoph :)
(no 'r')
[ report this ]
I would hope that the Nationals' ownership realizes that becoming the next Pittsburgh Pirates/Kansas City Royals isn't going to fly here, where not everybody, but still a significant number of residents are from someplace else, and Major League Baseball hasn't existed for well over a generation. Not to mention, aside from the inexplicably popular Redskins, fans are notoriously fair weather.
[ report this ]
hahaha my bad IMGoph!
[ report this ]
no worries. there is a doppleganger called imgorph lurking out there somewhere, though.
[ report this ]
The Nationals did record the second-worst attendance in the inaugural season in a new ballpark, second only to another also-ran dog of a team in a smaller market, to wit: the Cincinnati Reds. That's probably the relevant statistic here. As for the Lerners being "in it for themselves", hello-- no one, least of all a sports team owner, operates a business out of a profound sense of civic do-goodery. Everyone in DC should have gone into this with their eyes open. Publicly-financed stadiums are boondoggles, plain and simple, and this one is certainly living up to those expectations.
[ report this ]
ledroitist: the lerners sure did make a big deal about how this was more than just a business for them (stories about mr. lerner working griffith stadium as a kid, etc., how there's a lifelong love of baseball there and he was doing this for the city).
yeah, i know it's all flowery BS, and we shouldn't be fooled by it, but they did pitch things that way, and it's a quick, cynical turn from cooperative to "every man for himself" that they've pulled.
[ report this ]
IMGoph, did you expect them to do anything else than offer up a big helping of platitudinous BS, since they getting a $611M, er, $692M bouquet from the DC Council? Have to keep up appearances after all.. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is of course nothing new in DC and the Lerners have long experience of getting "deals done" through their various real estate enterprises. Given the inseparable links and perennial back-scratching between big-time real estate developers and the DC government, the Lerners are perhaps the "perfect" owner for a DC team.
I would also submit that the Verizon Center experience is not terribly germane. Aside from free opera telecast and the Pope's outdoor mass, was the Nationals Park (coming soon, a new grotesque corporate name)used for any other event all year? I just don't see the average DC suburbanite, who doesn't get to his seat until the 2nd inning and leaves in the 8th, lingering around to patronize bars, restaurants and retail establishments. I could be wrong...hope so...really, I don't want to see this thing fail.
[ report this ]
2/3 billion $ got us a baseball field, a food court and a giant digi-tv wrapped in average-to-poor architecture. Two-thirds of One Billion Dollars. Is there anything about this deal that speaks well for itself?
[ report this ]
consider the reds:
2001- record, 66-96, average home attendance, 23,794
2002- record, 78-84, average home attendance, 23,197 (better record, lower attendance!!!)
2003- record, 69-93, average home attendance, 29,077 (new ballpark!!! yay!!!)
This is irrelevant. Until the Nats 2008 season, the Reds were considered an excpeption -- most teams playing in a new stadium benefit from novelty if nothing else. There was never any supply scarcity here other than the tix for the opener and the Pope visit. And the Nats didn't lose 102 by the end of April, however much it felt that way to fans.
But please . . . don't let me discourage the apologists out there from making futher excuses.
[ report this ]
/3 billion $ got us a baseball field, a food court and a giant digi-tv wrapped in average-to-poor architecture. Two-thirds of One Billion Dollars. Is there anything about this deal that speaks well for itself?
The apologists will tell you it's "self-supported" by rents, taxes on concessions and the infamous gross-receipts tax on businesses grossing more than $10m a year. But, in the end, the money has to fall out of someone's pocket, and there are certainly more deserving causes than Class AAA baseball on the Potomac. Jack Kent Cooke must be rolling over in his grave and the deal he coulda had from DC, if he had only he had owned a clapped-out baseball franchise desperate to re-locate from Montreal/San Juan, and not the Redskins.