Jump to content

Washington DC 2024


woohooitsme83
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sometimes their interests don't necessarily align with each other. Easy for us to talk about that from afar. Is this the team's stadium or does it belong to the city? Does it help or hurt DC United's cause for this to be the Olympic Stadium? A soccer stadium for DC United is something that will be useful to them now and for a long time to come. A 60,000 seat T&F field (probably needs to be a lot bigger than that) MIGHT be useful one time about 10 years from now. Tough to make that justification. Now considering this seems like there's a preliminary plan, maybe there's something to it. And maybe if DC gets selected, there's some legs to it. But still, the vote for 2024 is still nearly 3 years ago, so does DC United want to wait that long for this to play out. They may not want to.

True. So hopefully when the DCU stadium is built, they'll look towards knocking down RFKMS and build the DC Oly Stadium there cuz it will be a white elephant. And we all know that's a "No No" in sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. So hopefully when the DCU stadium is built, they'll look towards knocking down RFKMS and build the DC Oly Stadium there cuz it will be a white elephant. And we all know that's a "No No" in sports.

you-keep-using-that-word-300x183.jpg

So let me see if I understand this correctly.. you want them to knock down RFK because it will no longer serve a useful purpose and to build a new stadium in its place that will get used for the Olympics and then possibly no longer serve a useful purpose?

A white elephant, in the context of sports stadiums, is one where the costs are out of proportion with its usefulness. Let's say DC United does in fact move into a new stadium. Not sure what happens to RFK, but the stadium has been around for more than 50 years and has had at least 1 regular tenant there since the day it opened. So I'd say DC got their money's worth with that one. Plenty of stadiums, many of which opened later than RFK, outlived their usefulness already. It's unfair to label RFK as a white elephant when they lose their primary tenant when its been standing more than 50 years.

When people refer to white elephant stadiums these days, they're usually referring to stadiums that got built to host 1 big event and then there's no plan for how to use the stadium afterwards. Essentially why was it build in the first place. It would probably make sense to knock down RFK, less they let it start to rot. But if they're going to build a new stadium in its place, they need to have a legacy plan for it that goes beyond the Olympics. Because if that's all this new stadium is being built for, that is the textbook definition of a white elephant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you-keep-using-that-word-300x183.jpg

So let me see if I understand this correctly.. you want them to knock down RFK because it will no longer serve a useful purpose and to build a new stadium in its place that will get used for the Olympics and then possibly no longer serve a useful purpose?

A white elephant, in the context of sports stadiums, is one where the costs are out of proportion with its usefulness. Let's say DC United does in fact move into a new stadium. Not sure what happens to RFK, but the stadium has been around for more than 50 years and has had at least 1 regular tenant there since the day it opened. So I'd say DC got their money's worth with that one. Plenty of stadiums, many of which opened later than RFK, outlived their usefulness already. It's unfair to label RFK as a white elephant when they lose their primary tenant when its been standing more than 50 years.

When people refer to white elephant stadiums these days, they're usually referring to stadiums that got built to host 1 big event and then there's no plan for how to use the stadium afterwards. Essentially why was it build in the first place. It would probably make sense to knock down RFK, less they let it start to rot. But if they're going to build a new stadium in its place, they need to have a legacy plan for it that goes beyond the Olympics. Because if that's all this new stadium is being built for, that is the textbook definition of a white elephant.

Fair enough. I interpreted a white elephant to be a stadium that loses its purpose and is only up to hold football friendlies and concerts (sporadic events). And I tbh when I wrote that post, my thought process did indeed only go up to the point of Olympic games and not legacy. I still think though that if the new site for DCU is for DCU purpose only, I think the best idea would be for them to knock RFK down and build a new Oly Stadium. Possibly a temp one since the reforms allow that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I interpreted a white elephant to be a stadium that loses its purpose and is only up to hold football friendlies and concerts (sporadic events). And I tbh when I wrote that post, my thought process did indeed only go up to the point of Olympic games and not legacy. I still think though that if the new site for DCU is for DCU purpose only, I think the best idea would be for them to knock RFK down and build a new Oly Stadium. Possibly a temp one since the reforms allow that.

Be careful where you're talking about what the reforms allow. The goal is to put forth a winning bid, not merely an acceptable bid. I don't know if a temporary stadium on the site of RFK is it. But needless to say, there needs to be some sort of legacy plan in place here and not have the stadium become a white elephant. That's not at issue with RFK. It is if you try and put something new there without a long-term vision for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful where you're talking about what the reforms allow. The goal is to put forth a winning bid, not merely an acceptable bid. I don't know if a temporary stadium on the site of RFK is it. But needless to say, there needs to be some sort of legacy plan in place here and not have the stadium become a white elephant. That's not at issue with RFK. It is if you try and put something new there without a long-term vision for it.

Well that's why I said "possibly". It's a suggestion. Not necessarily something that I would want them to say is the way to go, because if you recall when the reforms first came out, I questioned some of the ideas it put forth. Like when I said will they have a bias towards the old formula or the new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new dc united stadium at buzzard point has been along time in the making, so I'm really not suprised.

DC's bid is supposed to be centered at RFK, and the stadium would eventually get left to Washington's NFL team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new dc united stadium at buzzard point has been along time in the making, so I'm really not suprised.

DC's bid is supposed to be centered at RFK, and the stadium would eventually get left to Washington's NFL team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

Wow, what a ridiculous waste of money! The Redskins' current stadium isn't even 20 years old and they already want to move to a new stadium? That's about as, if not more absurd than Atlanta Braves moving out of Turner Field and into a new stadium by 2017. And of course the taxpayers are the ones who will be getting screwed over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new dc united stadium at buzzard point has been along time in the making, so I'm really not suprised.

DC's bid is supposed to be centered at RFK, and the stadium would eventually get left to Washington's NFL team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

Right.. Daniel Snyder is going to leave a stadium he owns and operates and take over a stadium that "gets left" for him. I'll believe that one when I see it.

This is another one of these cases where everyone's interests have to align and if not, they'll all be in it for themselves. And this is Daniel Snyder we're talking about, so we'll have to see how that one works out. That's assuming DC gets the nomination in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I understand fed ex field is basically new, but for some reason most washington fans just hate it bc doesn't have the same pathos/ethos of rfk, or its too far from the fanbase, etc whatever. And out of this there have been talks to return to rfk. With an olympics you have a reason to go back there (and also implied that the track just gets removed post games)

Thing is that if of course a huge waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...