The Stadium Thread

How do we feel about the Renderings?

  • Love It

    Votes: 38 84.4%

  • Meh

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • Hate It

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • With the 7th pick in the 2026 NFL draft….

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • Total voters
    45
1000012747.jpg

The eagles posted this yesterday.
 
Spearfeather said:
Rooting for canopy, for us, but I know we're trying to get a Super Bowl, and I don't know if we'd get one with it.
Click to expand...

Miami was forced to redesign it’s stadium to get future SBs. They didn’t enclose it but extended protections from rain for the audience. Heaven forbid the elites might get wet.

After the experience with cold weather in the SB at the Meadowlands, I wonder if that would be a no-go for a cold weather city. I doubt those elites are interested in being cold again either.
 
All I ask is that Trump keep his big nose out of the Washington team's ability to get a downtown stadium after all these years of frustration and poor ownership.
 
Last edited:
Bulldog said:
All I ask is that Trump keep his big nose out of the Washington team's ability to get a downtown stadium after all these years of frustration and poor ownership.

He's got plenty of other issues to speak out on at the moment and about 147 more trade deals to complete.
Click to expand...

This would be more appropriate in the Tailgate section. Oh…wait…there isn’t one here.
 
Trump’s comments directly relate to status of new stadium, it is relevant.
 
You included your ‘feelings’ related to Trump - which makes it ‘political’. We are allowing general commentary because yes the President’s insertion of himself into the issue is relevant. What’s not relevant is how members view him.
 
I don’t think anyone’s posts here are totally objective, everyone has their own lens to look at different issues.

In part I am trying to figure out if political meddling is just that a political ‘photo op’ or something more meaningful in terms of actions to block or delay progress on project.
 
He was asked by a reporter about it first.
He responded.
A few days later a former player for us said he was going to make a plea to the President.
A couple days later. He made his post.
 
Last edited:
I don’t get the “actions to block or delay progress on project” part. From my lens they were quite the opposite. It’s not like the city council could deny the deal out of spite, their funding is pretty significantly provided by the federal government.
 
Spearfeather said:
He was asked by a reporter about it first.
He responded.
A few days later a former player for us said he was going to make a plea to the President.
A couple days later. He made his post.
Click to expand...
Who was the former player making a plea? In my ridiculous work schedule, I totally missed that.
 
Ok, back to roof coverings. I'm in for fixed natural light.

I've posted this before. I used to be a "play in the elements" guy. But then something happened, probably the fact I was a season ticket holder and sat through many, many, many miserable losses and the fact it was cold and wet, and worst case cold AND wet, was just insult to injury.

I used to say "real fans get wet."

Now I say "real fans are going to stay no matter what, so make it better for everybody else."

Covered open isn't going to be good enough to get a superbowl. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money.

Give me fixed natural light, 250+ days per year of stadium use, SuperbowlS (emphasis on the S, we would join the rotation with a good stadium), Final Four, potentially bigger college bowl games, the biggest tours, women's world cup, world cup, I want ALL OF IT. And more.

And to get all of it, we need a roof. It's that simple.
 
This popped up in my feed on facebook. I found it on Twitter. I haven't seen anything about this posted by anybody BUT USA9, the CBS affiliate. They seem to be the media outlet most against using the RFK land for stadium development.



I'm not sure I fully understand the methodology used by "Office of the Budget Director within the DC Council." I'm going to say I'm a little skeptical of the findings, and I'll tell you why. I'll also say this isn't a political stance. When I worked for Deloitte, I led a project to implement a new budget system for a state. (State name will be withheld, it's not really relevant, but I will say it wasn't VA or MD.) I worked in the state State Budget Office and for the State Budget Director for a little over a year. The State Budget Director in that state was a political appointee. Their direct deputies were political appointees. All of them worked on the campaign, in some way shape or form, for the Governor. They worked for the governor. I don't think that's exactly the same for the District, as the current Budget Director, Jennifer Budoff, has been in her post for ~17 years. However, it's important to note she and the budget office work for the City Counsel.

In general, I think it's hard to understand the economic impact of stadium vs. mixed use development, and I'm not going to pretend to be an economist. But I will say, based on my year + of working in a budget office, generally speaking, the findings coming out of the budget office aligned to what the government body in charge wanted them to say. And I'm not sure that didn't happen here. I can't prove it in this instance, but based on my previous experience, it wouldn't be shocking.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Ok, back to roof coverings. I'm in for fixed natural light.

I've posted this before. I used to be a "play in the elements" guy. But then something happened, probably the fact I was a season ticket holder and sat through many, many, many miserable losses and the fact it was cold and wet, and worst case cold AND wet, was just insult to injury.

I used to say "real fans get wet."

Now I say "real fans are going to stay no matter what, so make it better for everybody else."

Covered open isn't going to be good enough to get a superbowl. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money.

Give me fixed natural light, 250+ days per year of stadium use, SuperbowlS (emphasis on the S, we would join the rotation with a good stadium), Final Four, potentially bigger college bowl games, the biggest tours, women's world cup, world cup, I want ALL OF IT. And more.

And to get all of it, we need a roof. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. I want fixed, natural light, and views of the monuments etc. those renderings looked great.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
This popped up in my feed on facebook. I found it on Twitter. I haven't seen anything about this posted by anybody BUT USA9, the CBS affiliate. They seem to be the media outlet most against using the RFK land for stadium development.



I'm not sure I fully understand the methodology used by "Office of the Budget Director within the DC Council." I'm going to say I'm a little skeptical of the findings, and I'll tell you why. I'll also say this isn't a political stance. When I worked for Deloitte, I led a project to implement a new budget system for a state. (State name will be withheld, it's not really relevant, but I will say it wasn't VA or MD.) I worked in the state State Budget Office and for the State Budget Director for a little over a year. The State Budget Director in that state was a political appointee. Their direct deputies were political appointees. All of them worked on the campaign, in some way shape or form, for the Governor. They worked for the governor. I don't think that's exactly the same for the District, as the current Budget Director, Jennifer Budoff, has been in her post for ~17 years. However, it's important to note she and the budget office work for the City Counsel.

In general, I think it's hard to understand the economic impact of stadium vs. mixed use development, and I'm not going to pretend to be an economist. But I will say, based on my year + of working in a budget office, generally speaking, the findings coming out of the budget office aligned to what the government body in charge wanted them to say. And I'm not sure that didn't happen here. I can't prove it in this instance, but based on my previous experience, it wouldn't be shocking.
Click to expand...

What’s the life expectancy for a modern stadium these days? I’m sure it’s longer than 17 years but by how much?
 
Chris said:
What’s the life expectancy for a modern stadium these days? I’m sure it’s longer than 17 years but by how much?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I found this while searching what has been released publicly:

The Washington Commanders' new stadium in DC will have a 30-year lease agreement with the city, which includes four consecutive 5-year renewal options, potentially extending the lease to 50 years

Now, there are a few things to consider:
1. Who knows if that's true
2. Just about everybody involved in the deal right now will be dead in 50 years. Not to be morbid, but that's just math, so who knows what the decision makers are going to do in 50 years.
3. There is going to have to be significant upkeep on the stadium during it's life span. That's going to cost money that somebody is going to have to pay.

They are signing a 30 year deal. Just like with FKA FedEx. But the hope would be it would last longer, they would upgrade it along the way and it could last longer.

Generally speaking, the longer it lasts, the more money it's going to generate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 13, Members: 0, Guests: 13)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top