Tag Archives: reservation 13

What would a successful urban NFL stadium look like in DC?

I had started jotting down notes about a new stadium at RFK back in 2015 when Events DC hosted a series of planning meetings about the topic. Parts of this post have been sitting in my drafts folder since then.

And since 2015, a lot has changed. The local NFL team is now on its third name, and Virginia seems set on throwing money at the team to build a new stadium somewhere in the hinterlands of Loudoun or Prince William counties.

Legislators seem entranced by the idea of building a new city around the stadium, with a dome to host events year-round – Super Bowls, Final Fours, etc. Such promises of large-scale events are almost required in order to justify the multi-billion dollar price tag. Spending that much for a facility that only hosts a dozen events a year seems hardly worth it.

However, the only suitable parcels for such a large footprint are further and further from the center of the region. One of the potential locations (near the Jiffy Lube Live amphitheater) is so far from the core of DC that Baltimore’s NFL stadium is both closer and easier to access for a huge portion of the City. How attractive will a stadium that’s 30 miles from the city (and the bars and hotels and hospitality) be to a host committee picking venues for the Final Four or a Super Bowl?

Back in the District, Mayor Bowser expressed support for bringing the team back to RFK, but there doesn’t seem to be any appetite on the Council for matching Virginia’s offer.

And yet, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

There are lots of reasons to oppose any deal with the current team and owner. The team is bad and poorly run; the owner is (by all accounts) an awful person and unlikely to be a good partner in any city-building exercise; the financial incentives for NFL teams in general are extractive and lack strong ties to the community. All of this was true in 2015 and remains so today.

Then there are the externalities: stadium opponents will often cite large parking lots hosting tailgate parties as if those are requirements for building. Yet they do not need to be. And if we think beyond the narrow NFL vision for what a stadium should be, there are all sorts of opportunities.

It’s worth thinking through what it would take to get to ‘yes’ on a new football stadium in DC. Assume we had a different owner; one willing to fund a stadium privately. RFK has hosted sporting events since 1961; the site has lots of advantages. What would I need to see to get to ‘yes’ on a new stadium at RFK?

  • Minimal parking; no surface parking – Plan for fans to arrive via transit, potentially including infill Metro stations.
  • A civic center built to host multiple events
  • Connected to dense, urban development on the City side
  • Integrated into parkland on the river side

It’s not too hard to envision an urban stadium and waterfront park, both as a vision for the future of the RFK site and as a reference to past plans.

Planning Precedent

Before the District broke ground on D.C. Stadium in 1960, planners identified the need for a stadium in Washington to host large events, and at the intersection of East Capitol Street with the Anacostia River as early as the 1930s – often with the eye on hosting the Olympic Games.

1941 NCPC Plan for an East Capitol Mall.
1941 NCPC Plan for an East Capitol Mall.

A series of plans in the 1920s and 30s involved a massive expansion of DC’s monumental spaces. Very little of the plan was implemented, but one common element included a stadium and other athletic facilities (including a tennis arena, natatorium, and ballfields, with an eye toward hosting an Olympic Games) where East Capitol Street meets the Anacostia River.

east cap mall crop stadium
Cropped image of the 1941 plan; includes #71 stadium, #72 sport field, #73 natatorium, and #74 tennis stadium as well as a railroad station at the bottom of the image.

This version of the plan includes a new stadium located opposite of the existing DC Armory, as well as a large ‘sports field’ built into the hillside. The plan contains many similar elements to Berlin’s olympic park, including the massive Maifield located next to the Olympiastadion.

Aerial view of Berlin's Olympiastadion, along with the Maifield. Image from Bing Maps.
Aerial view of Berlin’s Olympiastadion, along with the Maifield. Image from Bing Maps.

The stadium was built for the 1936 Olympic Games in a park to the west of Berlin’s center city. The Maifield was built for holding annual May Day celebrations, as well as hosting large events. After World War II, the Maifield was the base of operations for the British soldiers occupying their sector of West Berlin.

Following reunification, there was a long debate in Berlin about what to do with the stadium built by the Nazis. Some favored demolishing it and replacing it with a new stadium, others argued it should be left to crumble as a ruin. The end result was a renovation, completed in 2004 in anticipation of hosting the 2006 World Cup.

The renovation includes an underground parking garage directly linked to the VIP seating areas via a large below-grade atrium. The renovation managed to add premium seating areas while completely preserving the exterior. There are a modest number of surface parking areas, but they are either well landscaped or paved in a manner that allows for other uses. Nearby transit lines include both the U2 U-Bahn line as well as the S5 S-Bahn, complete with a large multi-platform station to accomodate big crowds.

  • Built: 1936
  • Renovated: 2004
  • Capacity: 74,475
  • On-site parking: 815 spaces

The stadium isn’t without its challenges. The main tenant is Bundesliga club Hertha BSC, which wants to build a dedicated soccer stadium (without the running track) and a smaller total capacity.

Events DC’s master plan for RFK abides by the terms of the lease on the land for ‘recreational purposes,’ and actually ends up with a vision for a waterfront park (with or without a stadium) and various sports and recreation venues not dissimilar from the Olympic Park ambition.

RFK Stadium and the challenge of multi-use venues

As mentioned above, the dilemma for any modern NFL stadium is the relative paucity of events compared to the cost of the edifice. Building a multi-use facility is the obvious solution, but the history of such venues in the US is murky. RFK is the original concrete donut, built to host football and baseball – admirably adaptable, a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none kind of design.

These multi-purpose stadiums were once common; now almost all have been demolished – usually requiring separate baseball and football venues as replacements.

At some level, a stadium is a stadium. The basic design parameters for a football field haven’t changed that much over the decades. There are plenty of college football stadiums approaching (if not exceeding) a century of service. They’ve been renovated and added to over the years, upgraded to meet modern standards and the increasing professionalization of college football. Yet the institutional context means teams won’t ever move to a different city in order to get a better deal. Similarly, it’s not an accident that the NFL’s longest tenured team in a single stadium (albeit one substantially altered over the years) is the league’s only community-owned franchise – the Green Bay Packers.

The modern challenge is building a stadium capable of hosting more events than just NFL gamedays in order to justify its own existence, yet doing so without draining the public coffers.

The latest set of domed NFL stadiums (SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis) all make use of ETFE roofing to provide an indoor venue that doesn’t ‘feel’ indoors – and arguably feels more open than the previous generation of retractable roof designs (in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Indianapolis). But for all of them, the roof is a critical element to enable additional events that justify the stadium’s existence and expense.

However, successfully hosting those kinds of events also relies on a central location in the region. Many of the domed NFL stadia are ‘downtown’ or immediately adjacent. Others are centrally located within the region. Only Phoenix is truly on the fringe (yet still just 12 miles from downtown as the crow flies).

As part of a regional plan, it’s much easier to justify that level of investment and land use intensity at a place like RFK than it is in Gainesville (31 miles from the Capitol Dome) or Ashburn (25 miles). If it were just a football stadium, hosting a dozen events a year, surrounded by surface parking lots, then a location on the fringe is preferable.

It’s a shame that the institutional context doesn’t allow for the kind of long-standing reinvestment and evolution, building off of the planning history for the RFK site. It’s also a shame that there’s not an obvious partnership between the primary user of a stadium and both the surrounding grounds as well as the neighboring community. But that’s not the world we have.

But it can be fun to dream.

Density helps provide public benefits

Ryan Avent, writing at Architect Magazine, takes a look at the recently floated idea of putting a Redskins practice facility at Reservation 13 in DC.  One of the reasons for the backlash against the idea was the opportunity cost of a metro-adjacent, develop-able site (a scarce enough commodity in DC) lying fallow for the purposes of football practices. Regardless of the merits of that particular idea, Avent notes that denser development all around creates more capacity for these kinds of public goods.

Consciously, in the case of urbanists opposed to the practice facility, or unconsciously, as is likely to be true of nearby residents, opponents are expressing an awareness of the importance of density to urban life. To make Reservation 13 come alive, there must be people there—enough of them to support local businesses such as coffee shops and corner stores. With sufficient critical mass, the neighborhood might support restaurants, bars, and shops, which could then draw residents from other corners of the city. A healthy density helps integrate a neighborhood into the broader city, which then reinforces that neighborhood’s local amenities. Were more than half of the parcel dedicated to a relatively stultifying land use, critical density might fall out of reach.

Lurking within this compelling argument, however, is an unjustified assumption. On its own, the use of 33 acres for football need not reduce the parcel’s density. Development proposed for the remaining land could simply be made taller. In the 2003 master plan, the city recommends building heights of two stories on the western, neighborhood-facing side of the property, rising to 10 stories on the waterfront side (the property slopes downward toward the water). In practice, the only thing preventing Washington from having its cake and eating it too is a devotion to short buildings.

Not only in terms of opportunity costs for limited parcels of land, there’s also the matter of revenue.  Constraints on development limit the ability to ask for public amenities, ranging from new infrastructure to affordable housing via inclusionary zoning.  There’s only so much juice that can be squeezed from the orange.

Indeed, the core urban logic of density is taking root (“Height in this city isn’t about height. It’s about density,” Hickok said). While a great deal of the discussion has focused on changing the height limit, there’s a lot of potential capacity between the more restrictive zoning and the federal height limit. Avent continues:

Indeed, the scarcity of land that has so energized residents to question the mayor’s efforts is entirely a product of the District’s laws and regulations. The neighborhoods just west of Reservation 13, like much of the city’s residential land, are zoned R-4. This allows for matter-of-right development of single-family homes on lots with minimum specified widths and maximum specified heights. If Washington wanted to do so, it could substantially increase the available developable area. A zoning area that doubled the District’s population density—essentially creating an entire second city on top of the first—would be achievable without so much as questioning the city’s statutory height limit—and leaving the District at less than a third of the population density of Manhattan.

Utilizing modest-in-appearance, yet substantial increases in density amongst DC’s residential areas (mentioned here), we could greatly increase the effective overall density of the District.  But those small interventions (alley dwellings, english basements, etc) won’t produce that ‘second city’ that Avent discuses.  That would require more intense development.

Writing in Crosscut, Ed McMahon discusses some of those forms:

Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean’s book Visualizing Density vividly illustrates that we can achieve tremendous density without high-rises. They point out that before elevators were invented, two- to four- story “walk-ups” were common in cities and towns throughout America. Constructing a block of these type of buildings could achieve a density of anywhere from 20 to 80 units an acre.

Mid-rise buildings ranging from 5 to 12 stories can create even higher density neighborhoods in urban settings, where buildings cover most of the block. Campoli and McLean point to Seattle where mid-rise buildings achieve densities ranging from 50 to 100 units per acre, extraordinarily high by U.S. standards.

The challenge, however, is meshing that modestly tall kind of density (respectful of the federal height limit) with the current structures on the ground.  It would require large scale redevelopment of already extant neighborhoods.  Indeed, some of those structures that DC does have are threatened by the lure of development potential. This manse on K St is one of the last of its kind.

The irony is that the constraint on height (and thus density) in DC is one of the key reasons legacy lowrise structures are under such development pressure.

Google Streetview - Northeast corner of 6th Ave and 38th St

A quick stroll around Midtown Manhattan will reveal lots of really tall buildings, both old and new.  But there are also lots of small and short structures mixed in – since development pressures have the ability to go up (not that New York is free of development constraints – see Ed Glaeser), they don’t have to knock down all smaller structures as a matter of course.

Google Streetview - Southwest corner of 6th Ave and 38th St

The takeaway is about tradeoffs – preserving structures like the remaining manse on K St is a constraint.  It can be a workable constraint, depending on what other constraints are also in place.  But the combinations of affordable housing, historic preservation, a flat skyline, shorter buildings and smaller scale development might not be feasible together.

McMahon’s larger point is one of context – simply plopping a skyscraper down amidst a sea of shorter buildings is a recipe for another Tour Montparnasse.  But context is relative and probably speaks more to the pace and evolution of the change than to the nature of the change itself.  Likewise, additional height might be the very thing that helps preserve the small-lot fabric of a place while still providing a release valve for growth, as it has in many locations in Manhattan.

Avent concludes with a cautionary note about the costs of these preferences:

What the battle over Reservation 13 makes clear, however, is that Washington’s height aversion crowds out attractive amenities—a football facility in this case; parks or museums in others; willing would-be residents, artists, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers in many, many others. It has a substantial cost, in other words.

As mentioned above, this is really a discussion about trade-offs.  Paris is often mentioned as a fellow flatly-skylined city with far greater density than the District today. But would DC residents really embrace the intensity of redevelopment required to turn rowhouse neighborhoods into 5-6 story walk-up neighborhoods?  If not that particular trade-off, then what other trade-offs are on the table?

Should be an interesting conversation.