After reading the recent DCenters Blog, it stuck me that we need to start thinking of, and posting decent and logical non-soccer reasons that this stadium needs to be built. Reasons that will make sense to a non-soccer person. I came up with the following: 1. It is not just a "soccer" stadium (unlike the single use Nats stadium). It will have a stage, and the seating capacity will easily allow for other events that will bring the district revenue, and provide Ward 8 jobs (other than just on DC United gamedays). 2. The stadium is also going to be a Hotel, which will provide further revenue (for the disctrict) and use of the parking facilities (additional revenue). It will also serve as a magnet for Office (use the hotel) and Retail/Food outlets which will bring year round revenue to the District 3. Unless the District plans to subsidize low-cost housing themselves, who exactly is going to do it if the develoment plan does not provide it...? 4. Well lit, busy and active Stadium/Hotel, Retail/Food, and Residential areas offer a better crime detterent than what now exists. Jobs created right in that Ward also lowers the crime rate. 5. Transportation improvements (for the stadium) will provide Ward 8 residents with better access to the rest of the District, and the jobs that it holds. This will be a year round benefit, and not just limited to fans travelling to the stadium on gameday. Please feel free to add + comment upon submitted reasons (both mine, and anyone else's).
$$$$$$$ The financing of the stadium as well as the land acquisition is a much better situation than had with Major League Baseball and the Nationals. The stadium is just one part of the development. Of course the stadium has the hotel/conference center as well, but the entire plan calls for offices, retail, and residential. That is a lot of permanent jobs. As far as transportation, the METRO stop is already right there and there are plans for light rail. There are also plans to better connect Anacostia to the center of DC. There will be a pedestrian walkway over the river. The new South Capitol St. bridge improvements also should assist the flow of traffic and help to connect the area to the downtown center. Regardless of any development at the Poplar Point site, DC United Holdings contains many individuals with very deep pockets that have and intend to invest several billions of dollars into DC. Even politicians know not to get in the way of deep-pocketed people who want to build in the city.
Nice timing. Our friend Marc Fisher talks today about the land grab involved with the United stadium (as well as Snyder and his football team). Expect this to be the mantra from those opposing the deal. snip ... snip ... Link to full column
(Agree totally with benefits for year round and day-to-day employment opportunities the new soccer stadium complex offers over the Nats stadium) ALSO The development around the Nats stadium along the northwest bank of the Anacostia will be primarily heavy commercial - Just big sterile buildings right up next to the river offering little incentive to stroll along the balmy banks The development along the southeast bank of the Anacostia opposite the Nats stadium will include not just a stadium/hotel complex along with commercial buildings, but also residential areas and park settings along the bank - This means there will be ECONOMIC pressure to clean up the Anacostia watershed - This effects much of Northeast DC and adjoining PG County Some earlier plans for the complex also include a local job training center - This brings ecomonic revitalization to the area as well
I frankly have to admit that when I set aside my pro-United bias, it's really hard to justify this thing. It's very easy to make the case that there should be development on the Anacostia waterfront - jobs, $$$ to support the community, momentum for further development, etc., all makes good sense. But I think it's quite hard to make the case that this development should necessarily include a soccer stadium or that the right to do the devleopment should be granted out of hand to Mr. MacFarlane. If it all works, I think we will be the lucky beneficiaries of an unfair process.
I think the issue has to be looked at as "Who is offering what" Right now, nobody has a deal on the table. We're pretty sure MacFarlane is going to put a deal on the table, and we'll have to judge that deal when it happens. The question is, is anyone arguing for something else? Remember that cultural diversity has its own value to the city, which is just as important as affordable housing, jobs, tax revenue, etc... As is smart growth/new urbanism development ideas, which using a stadium to anchor a community would seem to be a part of. Most large scale developments seem to want gov't concessions of some form or another (tax breaks, land, etc... especially those involving large retail areas) so United is not simply alone in this. We need to see the deals, and we need to see what other deals are around. Right now the only people we know that are planning to get into this game are MacFarlane, Chang, Davis, et al...
Yeah, but the thing is, what would be done with the land otherwise...? It basically comes down to development with a stadium, or development without a stadium. A stadium produces more tax revenue than a few additional office buildings or retail stores would. It also provides entertainment for the citizens, both in terms of Soccer, and all the other events that can be held at the facility. Additional office buildings would not offer that at all. Granted the land is worth a fair bit, but a 150-200 Million Dollar Stadium is worth a lot to the District too.
The problem with this argument is that it misses how public/ private development works. Even without getting ripped off like DC did by MLB, government still must bring something to the table if it wants to jump start a development project. DC has land, tax programs and other incentives. McFarlane has capital, lender relationships and experience. Every redevelopment project that has some sort of public benefit has some similar combination All around the region, at Metro stations (Vienna, Wheaton, Bethesda, Twinbrook, and Shady Grove), public parking lots (Bethesda), and elsewhere, government offers the right to develop public or quasi public land to ensure economic development. Taxpayers get things in return. The housing/ commercial project at Shady Grove, for example, will develop as many at 1500 affordable housing units (out of as many 6000 total). If this wasn't public land and private developers, this wouldn't happen. (The SG site is in its early stages, but examples abound in Bethesda and other expensive Mont Co areas.) Poplar Point will have about 30 percent affordable housing as well as other public goods - improved recreation, parks, and transportation. Is this the best deal DC could have gotten for the site? Too early to know. But it's a good plan so far, far better that the baseball, and well within the norms of the development of public assets for public benefit.
Anybody see this nugget from Fisher? "And if the city blows up RFK after the Nats finish with it this fall, the clock will start ticking on a new use for that site." blah blah
I know there has been a recent push to get rid of the AWC, but were there plans to shut down the NCRC before? I thought there had been a while ago but I'm not sure. Would MacFarlane wait for the AWC to be dissolved and the Secretary of the Department of Interior to shut up before presenting plans?
I personally think that Fisher is dreaming up opposition by the Sec. of the Interior. Their foremost concern has to be the relocation of their facilities. As long as the plan that they are presented follows the guidelines set forth in the legislation, I'm not sure DoI can do too much to change it. Maybe Marc has spoken with the SoI, but I doubt it. Besides, some friendly pressure from Norton, Davis, Hoyer and other local politicos could probably shake it loose.
I did, although others seem to have blipped over it (and your post). As a relative late-comer to this issue, the big surprise was reading that Snyder wants to muscle his (team's) way back into DC. Quickly tearing down RFK and building a football stadium on that site has to be factored into the equation. Doesn't mean the DCU stadium won't get approved and built, but ...
Having Snyder bully his way into the conversation could help or hurt. It could hurt if he distracts those involved and divides their attention, or if he so poisons the atmosphere with his approach that the policiticians and/or the public get turned off to stadiums altogether - the "tarred with one brush" theory. Alternately, it could help us if he distracts the anti-stadium shriekers and the media coverage but the powers that be stay on focus to deliver "poplar point development" - we go back to flying under the radar like we did vis-a-vis baseball's stadium.
You know, I hate to say this, no I really hate to say this, but... Beckham coming to MLS can only help us in this political fight. When I watched Good Morning America today, and saw them get so excited about Beckham, (when none of the hosts had a clue about MLS or American Soccer beforehand) it made me realize that the same thing is going to happen around the watercoolers, and in the local media outlets in DC... Becks makes MLS "Cool", and much like NASCAR rode their wave of popularity to build new racetracks, hopefully the interest and exposure Beckham will bring can help our fight. Here's a few examples... "Well, part of the reason he went to LA because they have a great Stadium. It's a great place for him top play, and for the fans to watch..." "LA is one of our biggest rivals, it sucks that they had the facilities to snag a world class player like that, and DC doesn't"
That's actually a very good point. If NY gets Ronaldo, does that help or hurt? On the one hand, it again is a big rival getting a big name; on the other, it shoots to hell the theory that you have to have a nice stadium to get a big name.
Although RBNY will have the new stadium soon (next season correct?) With Ronaldo it's possible they'll attract 30K+ to the Meadowlands on a few occasions this year. *edit* Particularly when Beckham and the Galaxy are in town.
I'm drowning in this Beckham equation already. So let me re-direct. I'm having a hard time believing Snyder will be able to rebuild at RFK. First, FedEx, for all practical purposes, is paid for. As a Redskin season ticket holder there are many reasons to hate the place. But, Redskin fans have come to accept it as home. Relocating the same stadium, or a better stadium, to the RFK site would be a dream come true for most fans, including me. But, why would he? This guy is tight with his money. And the RFK neighbors will have nothing of this. Plus, Snyder will want to build an 85k stadium in an area that held 55k; can the area handle it? I don't think there will ability for Snyder to develop anything but a stsdium in the area, as Fisher suggests, because there just isn't room for it. Ultimately, I think there is so much animosity towards Snyder in the District that I think it will help DC United. DC United is going into an undevloped area and helping it move forward.
What Fisher fails to point out is that the RFK site is leased by the city from the federal government for the express purpose of a stadium. If the city tears down RFK and doesn't rebuid a stadium there, the lease is broken. So, while there might not be the ability to develop the land freely (as at Poplar Point) the city has a motivation to keep a stadium on the site.
Good point, b1968k, but what's Snyder's motivation? He's still got a good stadium situation with high revenue and low debt service, so why go through the pain and aggravation of moving? Is this purely a political arbitrage play where he's going to see if he can squeeze the district the same way MLB did?
I have no idea. Aren't they the most profitiable club in (at least) the NFL? I just think that Fisher is wrong to suggest that it would be the ability to develop the land surrounding the RFK site. I also have a hard time believing that Congress is going to transfer any more chunks of land to DC till the issues with the last one shake out. Jose P also makes an important point. The RFK neighbors have complained loudly and for a long time about a proposed residential school on some of the RFK land - I can imagine them liking this.
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070112-125237-5424r.htm {All a false alarm, apparently:*} Washington Redskins officials yesterday insisted the team will continue to play at FedEx Field for at least the next 20 years and said they have had no discussions with the District of Columbia about a move back into the city. Team general counsel Dave Donovan** said the Redskins are legally bound to FedEx Field until 2027 because of agreement between the team, the state of Maryland and Prince George's County, and said the team has expressed no interest in leaving the Landover facility at least until then. "We don't want to leave," Donovan said. "We're really happy and don't have any other options because we're bound to the lease. It was written in a way to make sure that we play football there for 30 years." ---------- * Stranger things have happened, though. Disinformation campaign? ** No relation.
Nobody has put out a proposal so it's too quick for Fisher to come out with an opinion. It may be a bad deal, but it could be good -- we just don't know yet. I would say that if the DCU stadium + related development is of better quality than development w/o a stadium then DC is getting a good deal. The trick is defining better quality. We've seen Fenty and Barry define better quality as a certain amount of affordable housing -- something that doesn't get built very often because there's no money in it. This is the bargaining chip that DCU has to offer. In Old Town Alexandria there was a combo development of town homes and affordable housing that went decently. There were about 80 800K+ townhomes and about 25 affordable housing units in a primo Old Town location. The 800K + places sold for a lot less than the developer hoped though. Prices on some units started at 1.6M, but never got that high. The DCU stadium devlopment would probably work out as a trade similar to the Old Town development. Alexandria (the City) is very pleased with the results I'd say. They have new tax base and new affordable housing. The city sold land to the developer that was previously occupied by about 40 affordable housing units and the developer got to make out w/ some primo town homes while providing an equal number of newer/higher quality affordable housing. (the developer provided 15 new affordable housing units in West Alexandria for a net zero affect in total affordable housing). I know Alexandria is already looking at repeating this project in the northside projects of Old Town.
Ward 8 public meeting this Saturday: http://www.anacostiawaterfront.net/portals/0/documents/Poplar/20070104-PoplarPointAdinformer.pdf
That is GIGANTIC news. I would go to this, but I am going to be otherwise disposed. Darnit! Someone needs to check this out.