New Commanders Stadium at Poplar Point (Ward 8)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be in DC.

Seattle has benefited from their stadium downtown, Baltimore’s stadiums are downtown, Vegas, etc.

Shiny new things attract developers. New development brings in $. Look at how transformed SE waterfront has been and the wharf area.

$ solves many of the problems in DC.

If you want DC to go back to the 80s, so be it. Ain’t happening

Which was done without a boondoggle of a stadium that puts taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Um, the Wharf wouldn’t have happened without the Nationals stadium nearby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

Just look at what FedEx has done for Largo. So much development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

Just look at what FedEx has done for Largo. So much development.

Why not just stay at FedEx field? A new coat of paint and it's as good as new. Who cares if the billionaires want a shiny new toy paid for by the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

No one who has been to Historic Anacostia in the past 3 years would suggest that new development needs spurring. Between all of the new density in thie historic main strip, Howard Road, Congres Heights etc there is a ton of new development.

[Anonymous]

I don't know the area where fedex is well - assuming they added that planned second metro station, is there opportunity to build additional amenities inside that mile-long corridor (and therefore approach the "mini-city") thing that Virginia seems to be picturing? They talked about a movie theater, kids attraction (the example was something lego related) - would adding that to the area near the current fedex make sense if you can solve the metro proximity issue and modernize the stadium?

[Anonymous]

That stuff is all on the other side of the Beltway where the Capital Centre used to be (and ironically branded to Magic Johnson, who is now one of the co-owners of the WFT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be in DC.

Seattle has benefited from their stadium downtown, Baltimore’s stadiums are downtown, Vegas, etc.

Shiny new things attract developers. New development brings in $. Look at how transformed SE waterfront has been and the wharf area.

$ solves many of the problems in DC.

If you want DC to go back to the 80s, so be it. Ain’t happening

Which was done without a boondoggle of a stadium that puts taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Um, the Wharf wouldn’t have happened without the Nationals stadium nearby.

Southwest waterfront redevelopment efforts started before the stadium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be in DC.

Seattle has benefited from their stadium downtown, Baltimore’s stadiums are downtown, Vegas, etc.

Shiny new things attract developers. New development brings in $. Look at how transformed SE waterfront has been and the wharf area.

$ solves many of the problems in DC.

If you want DC to go back to the 80s, so be it. Ain’t happening

Which was done without a boondoggle of a stadium that puts taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Um, the Wharf wouldn’t have happened without the Nationals stadium nearby.

Southwest waterfront redevelopment efforts started before the stadium.

But they didn't have any steam until the stadium went in.

[Anonymous]

Don’t let them back until they drop that offensive name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

Just look at what FedEx has done for Largo. So much development.

Why not just stay at FedEx field? A new coat of paint and it's as good as new. Who cares if the billionaires want a shiny new toy paid for by the taxpayers.

Does any other country do tho thing where we declare enormous stadiums obsolete every 20 years and knock them down and rebuild them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was involved in the DC United/Poplar Point plan. There were so many issues - the arsenic throughout the site from the greenhouses (estimated at $50 million to clean up in 2006). The main sewage pipe to Blue Plains that would have to be relocated ($100 million in 2006, although this work will need to be done sometime anyway). The highway ramp and access needed...there are a bunch of reasons including community sentiment that moved us away from this as a viable location for a 20,000 seat soccer stadium, much less a 60,000 seat football stadium.

But the point is that most of these things - the arsenic clean-up, the moving of the sewage pipes, and the total re-design (if not relocation) of the Anacostia Highway - need to happen anyway to make the land usable, open up the Anacostia Waterfront and spur development in Ward 8. If putting an NFL stadium there, mobilizes more money faster to get these other things done, then it's a probably a win for the city (and definitely Ward 8) in the end.

Putting the site at RFK is a much easier lift from a development standpoint, but there is much less upside potential (and probably more downside potential) for the city by putting it there. The Fields at RFK are bringing thousands of people to the area every single day as it is. And it's not clear that those widely-used fields would even survive if we put an NFL stadium there. And the traffic issues would be as bad if not worse at RFK than at Poplar Point.

Just look at what FedEx has done for Largo. So much development.

Why not just stay at FedEx field? A new coat of paint and it's as good as new. Who cares if the billionaires want a shiny new toy paid for by the taxpayers.

Does any other country do tho thing where we declare enormous stadiums obsolete every 20 years and knock them down and rebuild them?

Yes. This is extremely common grift by billionaire sports owners.

And the waterfront would have happened without the stadium. But there are 81 home baseball games a year, so even if you hate spending money on a stadium like anyone who knows economics does, baseball is not as bad a waste of money as football is with 8 games a year.

[Anonymous]

Here is an idea: The billionaires only get a new stadium if they split all the profits 50-50 with DC.

Oh, suddenly not interested in a taxpayer handout anymore? Thought so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea: The billionaires only get a new stadium if they split all the profits 50-50 with DC.

Oh, suddenly not interested in a taxpayer handout anymore? Thought so.

The current stadium was 100% financed by the former owner. I don’t think the current crop necessarily needs handouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is an idea: The billionaires only get a new stadium if they split all the profits 50-50 with DC.

Oh, suddenly not interested in a taxpayer handout anymore? Thought so.

The current stadium was 100% financed by the former owner. I don’t think the current crop necessarily needs handouts.

There’s almost always at least a tax break on use of the land, not to mention all the roads and other municipal support required to handle an influx of 50k people a few times a year. I have to think direct subsidies are a no go here… but these are subsidies too and easier to slip under the radar.