its a TERRIBLE place for a game. have you ever been to camden yards? pac bell? anyplace decent? the only place i can think of that RFK is definitely better than is the old Vet in Philadelphia, which might be the single worst stadium of all time. but specifically, let's go through a little list of why RFK sucks:

1) enclosed, ugly concrete concourses outside the stadium

2) virtually no sightlines from outside the seating bowl (e.g. on the concourses)

3) TERRIBLE concessions from aramark

4) football sightlines in the upper rows of the lower deck, resulting in expensive seatholders not being able to see any ball hit over 20 feet in the air

5) multi-use upper-deck seating, which means that the outfield seats literally feel like you're half a mile from the field of play

6) absolutely nothing that would draw a regular person to a ballgame (no picnic areas, game areas, museum areas, etc)

7) the dugouts and player facilities are far below major league standards, apparently.

and i say this as someone who has a 41-game plan and LOVES just being able to go to games. but you can't expect to just move a team into a 45-year old stadium and stay there. how long would you have them stay there? indefinitely? look, if DC has other priorities and doesn't want to pay for a decent major league stadium, then the team shouldn't be here.

but let's not be disingenous about the situation - the nationals are currently housed in the OLDEST major league stadium not named yankee, wrigley or fenway. 17 of the 30 teams in the majors have a stadium built in 1990 or later. it would be a crime to get a club to come here, and then try to swindle them into accepting facilities that rank among the crappiest in baseball.

and yeah, of COURSE its fun now. it's the first time washington's had a team in 35 years, its summertime, its great. the question is how are people going to feel about coming to the concrete shithole that is RFK stadium in a couple years. and i'd say they'd be a lot less inclined.

huh. well, those are things i definitely didn't know. like i said, i've only been to three games, but my experience each time has been overwhelmingly positive, even with concessions, etc. but stuff about accomodations for the team and sightlines make a lot of sense.

also, it's nice to see that you're actually alive. what's up w/ WK?

Scott's points are valid, but the REAL reason we'll be getting a new stadium is the luxury suites. They're the big money-maker for sports teams these days, and RFK doesn't have many, and what they do have are extremely lame compared to those at the MCI Center or the Redskins' place. Hence MLB's insistence on a new ballpark, so the new ownership can charge DC-area corporations an arm and a leg for a luxury box, and those corporations will then write it off on their taxes.

Fair points Scott, but the aesthetic considerations seem weak to me -- it's a shame it's ugly, but it's hardly worth millions of dollars to fix that. And of course there's nothing worth visiting in the proposed stadium area, either.

I say fire Aramark. Put CCTV by the concession areas. Bring in the outfield (give up on soccer) and put some new seats in there. Build new clubhouses. The sightlines in the mezzanine are a shame, but not the end of the world. The outfield seats aren't so bad. Put a jumbotron with decent replay opposite them and they'd be fine.

I'm sure a new stadium will be built, but I also think that RFK could be retrofitted into a livable stadium.

yeah, i should have made that more of my point - that with somewhat extensive renovations, that it seems like RFK could be a good stadium. but i dunno. carl, thanks for that point as well - another thing i knew nothing about. i have much to learn in the ways of baseball, it seems.

the wk is dead to me. i keep it up only as a way to get all my links. i'm politicked out (i haven't read an editorial since the election i think), and my job and personal life are decidedly more hectic recently. i just don't have the love or the time anymore. oh, also, i say you at the game on sunday when it was hot as balls. i would have said hi but my father and i were talking at the time...if you're ever in the area, i have seats 20 and 21 on the aisle of section 513, row 2.

anyways, to tom, i agree with some of what you're saying, but what would the kind of things you're talking about cost? how would you go about closing down the dc united? to make rfk even a below average major league stadium, i'd say it would cost, i don't know, $50 million? possibly more? it cost them like $20 just to turn it into the shithole it is now. how much would it cost to make it halfway decent? plus, i'd add in another $75 million for the civil lawsuit in breaking a contractual agreement to house the dc united...

and if you succeeded in "fixing up" RFK, for how many years do you think it would last?

look, i'm all for saving the city some money. but in the long run, i think you're much better off building a great stadium that can last for the next 60 years than you are retrofitting a crappy stadium that will suffice (and never do more than that) for the next 10. plus, if you can figure out a way to move the united, developing the real estate after demolishing rfk should MORE than pay for the land purchases around the navy yard.

also, i get the impression it'll be easier to create a Pac Bell-type zone around the navy yard than around RFK, because of residential zoning restrictions in zone 6.

but the biggest reason i haven't really felt the need to point out is that we freaking promised to build a stadium in the first place. and it'd be pretty shabby behavior to renege on a agreed-upon deal and leave our new team in the shittiest stadium in the major leagues.

who are you guys, the owner from major league? are you going to make jake taylor bathe in the outboard motor whirlpool?

oh, and carl is TOTALLY right about the luxury boxes. but that's not necessarily a bad thing. sure, the newer stadiums are designed to drive revenues higher, but that also gives an owner more leeway to create a flexible salary structure. in other words, higher ticket revenues means higher payrolls, and generally a better shot as building a better team.

considering the size and wealth of the dc market, there's no reason we should have to settle for a small-market payroll and a third-world stadium.

you're right about breaking the deal - i mean i know we have the deal now and can't change it. i guess i meant to ask why in the first place rehabbing RFK wasn't considered. but maybe it was and the points you've made were just too much and it made more sense to build a new stadium. either way, as long as i can get hot dogs and beer, i'm happy!
you should have said hi - i'm usually in whatever section we get when we show up at the box office 10 minutes before the game. it's been 501 and 505 so far.

well, it's baseball's fault. and you can look at it one of two ways, either a) they wanted to blackmail washington into paying for a nice brand new stadium to drive up the sale price and maximize the share to the other 29 owners when they sold the team, or b) they didn't want to move the expos from a decrepit old stadium where fans quickly lost interest into a similar situation in dc.

i think it's a little from column a, a little from column b.

i also retain the right to COMPLETELY AGREE with you two if the new stadium sucks. but if its awesome, and it revitalizes the navy yard the way camden yards and pac bell have revitalized their respective areas, then that'll be way cooler than a souped-up-but-still-crappy RFK.

While Scott's criticisms of RFK are well-founded, it's worth noting that the stadium is not the worst in the major leagues, as it is still vastly superior to the soul-rending concrete atrocity in which the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play "baseball."