Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

+100. A giant sports complex would be amazing - fields, pools, etc. It’s metro accessible and would be heavily used.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

The only real rationale for even partially publicly subsidizing the construction of a stadium - whether through a land grant, dedicated revenue through taxies levied on other businesses, tax break on stadium activities, or whatever - is that the stadium will stimulate commercial development (e.g., a residential-entertainment district) in the surrounding area. Like you, I don't see much potential for this to happen at the RFK location and certainly not without drawing away activity that would otherwise happen elsewhere in the city.

People seem to think that the RFK site could be developed along the riverfront and end up something like the Wharf or Navy Yard, but the riverfront is a park that is not going anywhere. Any development would be necessarily limited to the existing stadium footprint, the parking lots, old DC hospital grounds, and maybe the DC armory. That is a huge amount of land, but quality matters more than quantity for developments to work and the quality of that land is not great at all. It's just not a part of the city that people would be drawn to outside of football games, of which there are only ever going to be a handful.

If the owners of the Commanders want to build a new stadium there, fine, but the city shouldn't give them a penny to do it. The best outcome for the city's residents would be for the existing stadium to be torn down and for the city to put a proper recreation complex there with an indoor pool, basketball courts, and additional playing fields (the existing fields are heavily over-subscribed in the evening hours and weekends). A recreation facility that is actually useful for and used by city residents would be a much bigger draw for commercial and residential development than a massive stadium that has a handful of games a year.

Anonymous wrote:The subsidies would be in the form of demolition of the existing stadium and prepping the land and infrastructure for a new stadium, but the city would be spending that money even without a stadium, but most people don't think about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

I agree with the first paragraph. I think open space or even just fields for community use would be better than a stadium.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

I’m not sure if DC has the demand for another residential-entertainment district in this quadrant of the city. Just look at H St NE which has cratered due to the development of Union Market; and the empty storefronts on Barracks Row and to some extent Eastern Marker. With Union Market, the Wharf, and Navy Yard, I’m just not seeing how another entertainment district can be supported.

So for that reason, I am actually in favor of a stadium at RFK because there is demand for that. But only if the development preserves recreational facilities, minimizes parking, and adds some housing. I just can’t see replicating Navy Yard there.

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

The local community that has lived there near a stadium for lo these 63 years? Or moved there during that time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%.

Few acts can justify a huge stadium and acts that cannot sell out such a stadium don't want to be playing to empty seats when they can pack a smaller venue like Nats Park or the available-year-round Capital One Arena.

The stadium would be a financial disaster for the District and a poor use of land. Building a The Wharf-like development without a stadium wouldn't be the best use, but would be better than anything with a stadium.

Anonymous wrote:

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.