Fisher's writing style is typically annoying, but the point being made is one that has to be addressed.
And last time I looked, there WAS a stadium in Rock Creek Park. I agree, this is a discussion that needs to be met head-on by the owners at some point. Based on the land swap legislation and looking at the plan the AWC put forward, a lot of the land is set aside as parkland. However, it sounds like the opponents are on board with the other development, but not the stadium. Would they prefer office space? Because something is going to fill that spot on Poplar Point - even if it isn't a soccer stadium.
As a resident that lives literally right next to Rock Creek park I have to agree with one of the main thrusts of the article - there would be massive outcry if this were proposed in Rock Creek park. (A large [20k+] stadium plus condos, etc). However, the rest of the article, I disagree with. Poplar Point as a nature preserve or park of some time? Give me a break. Maybe Fischer should lay off the cliches in his writing a little bit and actually, ya know, go down and take a look at the area himself, without someone with an agenda as a tourguide. I doubt he'd be willing to go by himself though
certainly, there are issues to be addressed. but i think the key point made is that it may come down to the DC govt fighting with itself, in terms of trying to get the Poplar Point development (stadium included) either built or not built. at least United appears to have a portion (and perhaps a prominent and majority section) of the DC government in their corner and fighting on their side for a stadium/associated development. and, imo, the Rock Creek Park analogy used by Fisher is a very limited one.
Thanks for fixing the link. If this was a baseball stadium discussion, Fisher would be behind it 100%. The guy is a jackass. Indeed, something will go up on that site...office space, retail, etc. God forbid a soccer stadium is included.
Yep. There's no denying the difference in political clout between areas. That's a universal truth these days. Notice he doesn't spend much time worrying about where the political influence comes from: money and investment. Anacostia will have a lot more influence after the development. It's unavoidable that any time you build anything on undeveloped land, no matter what anyone says, that it will have an impact on the natural environment in that area. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. I suppose I've always hoped that the plans left enough space undeveloped to not be too much of an issue. Most of the designs I saw the development covered a small part of the total parkland. I also think it's easy for people to think of gigantic sports stadiums and parking lot wastelands and confuse that for the much smaller footprint our stadium is likely to have. All of that said, I think we definitely need to go about all of this with respect to the people and environment of that area. If we do not, we'll regret it.
A stadium for DC United in the city isn't happening within the next 10 years. I'm just not going to believe it anymore. Give up all hope and maybe one day I'll be pleasantly suprised.
its looking more and more that we build it on lot 8, with the barra bar being a building where we tailgate. other than that, im not holding my breathe
The sad thing is he did go down there sand saw "It's a hellish wreck, a field of broken glass, rusted radiators, bizarrely twisted pipes, all left to rot" for 2 decades!!!!! He blames the politicians, never the people. It was like that for 2 decades! Now you have a team of people who want to help clean it up and put a stadium amongst other necessary retail shops. So let's attack those willing to help clean up the community, wouldn't getting rid of an eye sore like RFK and building a nicer stadium benefit everyone? More taxes, better roads, waterfront is clean, soccer fields for the public.......... People amaze me, they only complain when something happens but letting rusted radiators sit there for 2 decades, how is that good for the environment why not start by cleaning up your community. Oh wait that is someone else’s job....
Did Snyder just come out with a plan to do that? I say go to Dulles or some place else...I know it wouldn't be DC, but maybe they can find a community that supports the most successful local team. I am tired of waiting, the are not even asking the community to pay for it!!! UGH!
I think the key here is the last statement. When have we ever seen the DC gov't take "decisive acts of political will?" On to more important things.....game tonight.
going out to dulles is the worst thing ever.....fc dallas remember? DC NEEDS to stay in DC. as for snyder, I know he wants the spot for super dooper pooper stadium, but i dont know what the condition of that deal is
Ok so what if DC cannot stay in DC? Should the team fold? If Snyder is going to put is stadium where RFK is, then where does/should United go? DC United obviously does not have much pull to get a stadium, which is clear (unfortunately). Also, we have a MUCH loyal fan base then Dallas. I was just throwing Dulles out as an example but if Snyder gets his way they might need to consider the options. I would rather DC United have their own stadium in VA then having to go to Georgetown to see a game. It looks bad to see MLS games being played on a college campus
it would be very funny if the Nationals had to end up sharing their new stadium with United for some (or many) seasons. I actually think that United and the new ownership group (MacFarlane especially) has a lot more pull than we know about and/or for which we are able to give him (and United) credit. I'm still optimistic about a stadium getting built in DC (likely at Poplar Point), as I see importand and powerful people in the city who are behind the idea -- even if a Post writer can hang out with and interview some local environmental types and complain that parkland shouldn't be lost for development. yes, development is likely to occur there, and if MacFarlane is part of the group that leads in that development, then I'm fairly certain a new stadium for United will be part of the development at Poplar Point.
The "Poplar Point could be like Rock Creek Park" argument Fisher uses is completely bogus. Poplar Point could be used for some riverside parkland but it's so small in comparison to Rock Creek Park that it's like comparing the backyard of a rowhouse with a large farm. They both might be nice but can't be used for the same purposes. No one's mentioned developer Tim Kissler, our recent almost-owner. He bought up land at Poplar Point hoping to build a stadium. Now that he doesn't own a team he doesn't think a stadium at Poplar Point is a good idea anymore! The whole article / opinion piece is just a summary of all the environmental arguments that we can expect will be used by stadium opponents.
I think MacFarlane has more pull than other DC United owners, but not as much as Snyder or MLB. They, MLBm wanted a stadium and they get one by 2008. MLB didn't reach out to the community they shunned them and forced the stadium down their throats, and made them pay for it or those who have business pay for it (which everyone knows gets passed down to the consumer). Snyder mentiones that he is interested in putting a stadium back in DC and they bend over backwards, even offering the land for a $1. Where is this kind of reception for DC United? I think at this point they need to play hardball, how many years has it been since they started talking about SSS in DC? I do not remember... In regards to the nationals sharing the field again with DC United, it won't happen MLB wouldn't allow it. Would be funny though. If DC decided to move to Va or Md, I would still go to the games. It is the team that I support not the stadium.
that would totally suck if we had to share the stadium for a couple more years........but i would b laughing the whole time
that's easy for fans who live in the suburbs to say. but the key is trying to put the stadium in the best possible place where the most people wil have the easiest time getting to the stadium. there is no ideal location, but Poplar Point seems like a pretty good (if not great) parcel of land. i think DC and MLS realize that the best location for a new stadium is as close to downtown and the city center as possible (and is therefore metro accessible and close to all the other attractions in the city). there have been many threads here about the benefits and need for keeping United in DC.