RFK stadium

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is, a stadium is going to go there. The question is, will it be surrounded by surface parking lots, or can it be nestled into a new development that extends the L'Enfant street grid and is wrapped in housing and retail?

It can be done - look at European cities for examples.

If the city absolutely needs a football stadium (which it needs as much as it needs Mayor Bowser, which is to say that it would be better off without one), Poplar Point is a much better location. It clusters the stadiums together and would anchor the development of the east bank of the Anacostia. The location is more accessible also.

With the river separating them, it doesn't really cluster them together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is, a stadium is going to go there. The question is, will it be surrounded by surface parking lots, or can it be nestled into a new development that extends the L'Enfant street grid and is wrapped in housing and retail?

It can be done - look at European cities for examples.

If the city absolutely needs a football stadium (which it needs as much as it needs Mayor Bowser, which is to say that it would be better off without one), Poplar Point is a much better location. It clusters the stadiums together and would anchor the development of the east bank of the Anacostia. The location is more accessible also.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I couldn't agree more. Poplar Point is really the best spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact is, a stadium is going to go there. The question is, will it be surrounded by surface parking lots, or can it be nestled into a new development that extends the L'Enfant street grid and is wrapped in housing and retail?

It can be done - look at European cities for examples.

It can be done but it won't because the District won't fight and insist that it's small with little surface parking. Most NFL money is made via TV rights, attendance gradually gets smaller every year. This is time for the Commies to show some NFL leadership and take a smaller stadium with less surface parking in exchange for the choice city location. Having another Raljon at RFK will be absolutely awful for the neighborhood, the District, and the metro area in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
With the river separating them, it doesn't really cluster them together.

It's better than a freeway. And that bridge is less than 1/2 mile across (I'm guessing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
With the river separating them, it doesn't really cluster them together.

It's better than a freeway. And that bridge is less than 1/2 mile across (I'm guessing).

It would only take a few schematics of what an NFL stadium at Poplar Point would look like and people would be falling over themselves to make it happen. Through in a few water taxis and additional development on the east bank and that section of the Anacostia could become one of the most vibrant riverscapes in the US. Who needs tailgating when you’ve got boats?

[Anonymous]

I own a house in the neighborhood. I really hope we don’t lose the nice soccer fields at RfK and that whatever is built includes development of structures that in addition to a stadium would benefit local residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I own a house in the neighborhood. I really hope we don’t lose the nice soccer fields at RfK and that whatever is built includes development of structures that in addition to a stadium would benefit local residents.

+1. Those fields are great and heavily used.

[Anonymous]

The federal government owns the land not the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I own a house in the neighborhood. I really hope we don’t lose the nice soccer fields at RfK and that whatever is built includes development of structures that in addition to a stadium would benefit local residents.

Agreed and what they’ve done with The Fields at RFK demonstrates the need for more quality public spaces in the District. A gigantic stadium that’s in use for 100 hours a year at best is a total waste of precious public land and money. It will never make sense economically and any consulting company that had any integrity would tell the city that the best way to pay for it is to not build it at all. But our Great Leader Muriel insists that the city populace must sacrifice to the altar of professional sports and the developers that she serves.

[Anonymous]

Axios has an article on Poplar Point: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/08/26/poplar-point-anacostia-river-development

Rather than a stadium, it seems like they are looking at a “waterpark, thermal bathing, and spa resort”. Given that the site is a former toxic waste dump and is adjacent to several major highways, I don’t see it happening but would be cool if it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is, a stadium is going to go there. The question is, will it be surrounded by surface parking lots, or can it be nestled into a new development that extends the L'Enfant street grid and is wrapped in housing and retail?

It can be done - look at European cities for examples.

isn’t there a flood risk?

Yes, it is a flood zone and it seems this point is overlooked when discussing options for that site.

[Anonymous]

It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/08/22/rfk-stadium-commanders-football-study?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslocal_dc&stream=top

The Mayor has moved forward with a 2nd stadium study, even though the local community vehemently opposes. Why do they even hold community meetings if they aren't going to listen to residents?!

Because while input from the community is important, no one in executive authority should blindly follow it. Yes listen to the residents but then make the decision you consider correct. That is why you were elected. You do not just follow the people, you lead the people. If the people do not like then you will be voted out. The best decisions are often those that go against what the public wants at that moment.

If you want otherwise move to New England to a Town with a Town Meeting and you will have direct democracy. Replace the 1985 fire truck with a modern one? No we will not spend the money -- the people vote and say isn't that great - -we saved money. When that truck breaks down on the way to put out a fire at your house you will wonder whether saving that money was worth it or whether it was better to have a government that said we will spend the money because our fire trucks can't be 40 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absolutely true that a government-financed stadium would lead to more development and economic activity. However, spending the money in almost any possible imaginable way would result in way more development and economic activity.

Well yes, but if it's just a stadium used 12 times a year that is different than a stadium also used for concerts, that has mixed use, etc. Though to what extent mixed use can be placed there when it's a flood plane? Not sure.

Having lived nearby, not sure that stadium concerts are a great thing; generally concert events at RFK are pretty loud to the point of headache inducing.

The city already has Nationals Park and CapitalOne Arena, both of which host plenty of large concerts. The number of acts that can pull a crowd of 100k and for whom those two venues are too small are absolutely tiny - a couple of concerts a year and probably not much more. The main use for the stadium will always be NFL and the number of games in a season just aren't enough to justify the massive investment of cash and land.