SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home In Defense Of Rfk Stadium

THE PLANK AUGUST 17, 2009

In Defense Of Rfk Stadium

BY JASON ZENGERLE

Matt Yglesias is right that it would be absurd for the District of Columbia to build a new a stadium for the Redskins on the site where their old stadium, RFK, now sits. Since pro football stadiums go unused for most of the year, owing to the NFL's 16-game schedule, they don't help their surrounding neighborhoods in the same way baseball and basketball/hockey stadiums do. Better to do something else with the RFK site; Yglesias's sensible alternative plan for the site unexpectedly even includes a park!

That said, I do think something was lost when the Redskins abandoned D.C. and moved out to the 'burbs. Part of the problem is simply the new suburban stadium's size: Where RFK sat only about 55,000, FedEx field holds upwards of 90,000. It's just not as intimate a setting as RFK. And while intimacy isn't the first word you think of when you think of football, there was something special about the band-box quality of RFK--and the way the bleachers would actually shake when the fans got really excited. Throw in the stadium's own technological limitations--no JumboTron video screen, no sky suites, and no ridiculous state-of-the-art sound system, which meant that all the music at the game came courtesy of the very old school Redskins Marching Band--and RFK was truly unique in a way that it gave the Redskins a terrific homefield advantage. It can't be a total coincidence that the Redskins haven't won a Super Bowl since they left RFK.

The other great thing about RFK, and having a football stadium in a city instead of the burbs, is the connection it establishes between the team's fans and the city the team represents. Many, maybe even most, of the 55,000 season ticket holders at RFK were suburbanites. But on at least eight Sundays each year, the Redskins brought them into the city. If they took the Metro, they walked right through a city neighborhood to get to the stadium. Maybe they even bought some peanuts or a foam finger from an enterprising neighborhood vendor en route. It fostered a sense of community, however fleeting. That just doesn't exist for the people who go to Redskins games today out in Raljon Landover. In fact, it wasn't until a few years ago that they were even able to take the Metro to FedEx field.

None of this is sufficiently important to lure the Redskins back to D.C. But it is a shame they left in the first place.

--Jason Zengerle

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 9 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9 comments

Snyder's lease in Montgomery County is pretty ironclad; it's way too expensive for even the Redskins to consider breaking the lease until much closer to 2026.

Back in 1996, some federal commission or another proposed using the RFK grounds to build a new Supreme Court building and federal courthouse, and then extending the National Mall west from the Capitol to the RFK site, more than doubling the available space for new federal offices, museums, and monuments. That's what I would do with the RFK site, were I emperor of the world.

- rhubarbs

August 17, 2009 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I live in Cincinnati. We have a stadium in the city. Our football team isn't too hot. The business from walking to a stadium on the rare day when there is a game just isn't worth it. Stadiums are a space intensive thing. Usually people don't want to tailgate in a parking garage so you have to a giant wasteful parking lot. Better to put stadiums on the fringes of a city.  .

- CraigMcGil

August 17, 2009 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Snyder's lease is with Montgomery County, he would have no problem moving the Skins since FedEx Field is in Prince George's County.  

Aside from being snarky, if/when the team can leave FedEx, I hope they return to DC (even if it's not for almost 20 years).  FedEx is a nightmare to get to--the metro option is not a real option since it also requires a bus and the stadium itself is second rate.  By next year, the Redskins will have the oldest stadium in the NFC East, and I know Snyder won't love that.  

While I don't think it wise for DC to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in building Snyder a stadium at the RFK site, I would love for him to do just that.  

- gchernack

August 17, 2009 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

D'oh! In my own defense, I (A) hate the Redskins passionately and so have never been to FedEx Field and (B) live in Northern Virginian and therefore I set foot in Iowa more often than I set foot in Maryland.

But I'm with you: If Snyder wants to pony up the money to build the thing, I'd be for selling the RFK land to Snyder for a dollar. But I neither live nor vote in DC, and the shame of it is that FedEx is in Maryland precisely because the District government refused to accept Snyder's offer to finance a new Redskins stadium himself. (A great story on Snyder's evil ways in last week's City Paper, by the way: www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php)

- rhubarbs

August 17, 2009 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be accurate, the Redskins didn't abandon anything. That's the name of the team. It was Jack Kent Cooke who abandoned DC and RFK.  And before him, Bob Short abandoned RFK and stole away with my team to some godforsaken place I refuse to name.

- cvillekid

August 17, 2009 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RFK's intimacy was also a boon to baseball fans in the upper deck of the stadium. RFK, like the Old Yankee Stadium, cantilevered the upper deck close to the action. All of the new stadiums build out and out and out and up, leaving fans in the cheaper seats out of the game.

- rozenson

August 17, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Big Park got to Yglesias!  Ha!  But where does DC United play when RFK gets torn down?

- cspencef

August 17, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A little history.  Jack Kent Cooke had every intention of building his new stadium on city-owned ground right next to RFK.  After he gave then-mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon (back to Kelly after the divorce) a pat on the ass, her honor found it impossible to do business with Cooke.  In the end he had to plant his flag in Maryland.

The Squire was a bit eccentric, particularly in his dotage.  Since my office was in the building that housed the restaurant of the late lamented Duke Zeibert, I "bumped into" The Squire a number of times in the lobby or the restaurant.  He would always go out of his way to snarl at me.  Since I had no connection with him whatsoever, I often wondered who he mistook me for.  Ed Williams?  Cary Grant? Brad Pitt?  Quasimodo?

I loved living in the DC area for 37 years.  I thank Snyder for easing my transition to retirement in Southeast Florida.  He wrecked my beloved Redskins, and will continue to do so.  Improbably, I have fallen in love late r in life with Bill Parcells' latest rescue operation.

- lsernoff

August 17, 2009 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have no problem with developing an alternative use for the RFK Stadium site (the land itself on which RFK is situated, after all, belongs directly to the Federal Government and not to the District) as long as D.C. United gets a 27,000 seat soccer specific stadium to play in.

- hoosierguy

August 18, 2009 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close