BEFORE



AFTER

THE GOOD

The change from what appears to be a couple of modified dog parks to an actual outdoor futsal court (known more colloquially as a “five-a-side” even though technically they aren’t the same) is a definite upgrade. For one, it might be the only permanent one of its kind in the city. Secondly, branching out into the world of soccer in different forms is a good idea beyond just another area for someone to stand around and, say, drink beer. More generally, though, a solid open space for other types of programming — albeit a small space — is not a bad thing.

AD

AD

Also, though less ambitious, note the lack of buildings around the grassy lawn. That could be for the better. Clogging up the sight lines to the stadium from the street with mixed-use development might prove to be the smarter move in the long-run, particularly if people don’t end up wanting to do much in Buzzard Point besides watch MLS games. In a scenario in which you’re basically uprooting entire city blocks, the minimalist approach on that front makes sense, to start.

THE BAD

That said, minimalist is definitely not the way to go when it comes to the actual stadium itself. What happened to the roof? There is a world of difference between a covered and an open air park. The obvious concern is weather, which in turn goes in hand with upkeep. The former is at least an attempt at trying to control climate and the other says “sucks for you if it’s raining, season ticket holders!” Of course, the team has dedicated fans, but the whole point here was to reward that loyalty with something genuinely nice compared to the rest of the league, not just a random upgrade from the clearly awful RFK Stadium. Not to mention, the entire situation surrounding the naming rights of the facility doesn’t sit well with many. In the old renderings, the big marquee read “D.C. United Stadium.” On the new ones, it reads “D.C. United” with the words “Stadium Sponsor” below it. Even though Pepco was involved in the overall deal since the beginning because of the land swap situation, their agreement to have their name around the stadium had some people asking questions about pay-to-play politics.

THE UGLY

AD

AD

Even if we hadn’t seen the original plans, this new facility wouldn’t inspire a ton of confidence, strictly speaking from a design standpoint. The section farthest from the entrance looks like something from a lower-tier soccer league, and at a cost of nearly $300 million — shaping up to be the most expensive in MLS history — this look leaves a lot to be desired for the price. It’s still a building and people still have to, you know, look at it. There was room for real creativity here, according to the way team officials told the story. Not to mention that the perceived bait-and-switch factor gives the second plan a real disadvantage.

“Europe is home to lots of ballparks and arenas by smaller firms that, for better or worse, push the boundaries of what stadium architecture can be,” The Atlantic’s Kriston Capps wrote in a piece titled “Why Can’t American Stadiums Be Beautiful?” in October 2015. “In the U.S., most sports venues are designed by one of a handful of giant specialty firms, namely Populous, HKS, HOK, AECOM, NBBJ, and a few others. While these are fine firms—great firms, even—stadium designs for American clients trend toward the conservative. … So long as we’re building wasteful stadiums anyway, we might as expect better than the bare minimum. We should strive for more than a mistake that we can live with.”