In 2005, the Montreal Expos baseball club relocated to Washington, DC, bringing a Major League team back to the District for the first time since 1971. One of the primary factors in attracting the team to the city was the promise of a brand new, state-of-the-art ballpark known as “Nationals Park.” The $611 million stadium was a joint venture created by HOK Sport /Devrouax-Purnell Architects and opened on March 30, 2008. Nationals Park is located in Southeast Washington, south of the Capitol, along the fast-developing Capitol Riverfront adjacent to the Navy Yard, and was situated in one of the poorest and polluted parts of the city in an effort to spur economic growth and development, and was designed to serve as the catalyst and cornerstone of a new mixed-use Capitol Riverfront in the nation's capital. However, the path to the Park’s construction was a rocky one due to battles over public financing, urban planning and development, and satisfying promises for local citizens throughout the construction timeline. The completion of Nationals Park was marked by cultural and class struggles, that brought several competing interests into conflict while the city sought to return to its baseball roots.
Washington, DC has an illustrious baseball history stemming back over a century. In 1859, Washington had two teams, the Nationals and the Potomacs. However, professional play was suspended during the Civil War, and was subsequently reinstated in the 1870s. Following the creation of the American League in 1901, a Washington franchise, the "Senators" was established, but changed their name to The Nationals in 1905. For over 50 years the team used the two names interchangeably, until 1957 when owner Clark Griffith officially changed the name to the Senators. In 1960, the team departed for Minnesota, but a new expansion franchise, that donned the same nickname as their predecessors, was re-established in the same year. The second iteration of the Senators skipped town for Texas after the 1971 season, leaving the District without a team for over 30 years.[i] For the better portion of this time period, teams from other cities would threaten a move to Washington as leverage to have a new stadium built, or have their current stadium upgraded, and while these threats often yielded the intended outcomes for the respective franchises, a professional baseball void continued in the District. For years, DC residents and officials sought baseball’s return as emphasized by Mayor Anthony A. Williams who spearheaded the campaign for a team, saying, “Baseball is about our way of life… It’s about community. It’s about opportunity.”[ii]
Around the turn of the millennium, talks began to pick up once again to bring a team to the DC area. Several regional locations vied to attract the team, including Northern Virginia, which rolled out several potential locales for a potential stadium, including Arlington and Alexandria. One proposed site, Crystal City was deemed unusable, as the location was within a half mile of National Airport, and pilots worried that lights from the stadium would be an air safety hazard. Another site, located in Ft. Belvoir was also deemed insubstantial, despite being close to the interstate and a Metro stop in Springfield, construction on I-395 and the Beltway would have made transportation difficult for people to get to the stadium.[iii]
Officials with the Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority were responsible for soliciting designs for the creation of the ballpark, and they sought to create an “urban village” to bring together the stadium with the surrounding apartments, stores and offices. They intended to design a proposal that had “pronounced architecture” that reflected a “Disneyland” type atmosphere. Additionally, politicians also wanted architects to consider how the park’s design could act as a memorial for those killed in the Pentagon on September 11th.[iv]
Ultimately, the Virginia proposals failed due to lack of an adequate financing plan. The Virginia plan required the team to bear a larger portion of the ballpark construction costs than did a competing proposal from the District. Had team had been located in Virginia, they would have been required to finance $120 million, or one third of the $360 million required, and the majority of the burden would have come from ticket and concession taxes, which would have limited their ticket and merchandise sales, pricing out their potential customers.[v] Additionally, a test to determine if the VA State Lottery could pay for the new stadium determined that it could only raise half of the $14 million per year necessary to finance the stadium.[vi]
Due to the number of issues surrounding the Virginia Proposal, the Montreal Expos relocated to Washington, DC in 2005. The team moved into the dilapidated Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, which was built in 1961, under the condition that a new ballpark would be built to house the Nationals shortly after their arrival. Before the team was permitted to relocate to the District, there was an intense battle in the DC City Council to adjudicate financing costs for stadium development. The discussion became highly politicized, as Council Chairwoman Linda W. Cropp was the primary voice blocking the proposed ballpark deal in order to place herself as a viable candidate to become the next mayor of DC. However, it was perceived that she raised the issue of private financing only when it served her political purposes, and the racially charged debate only served to divide the region and made her appear as a polarizing figure.[vii] Her primary positions, regardless of intent sought to raise concerns of her constituents, that the development of the ballpark would price current long-establised residents and small businesses out of the area through forced gentrification, and that the burden of publicly financed dollars to contribute to stadium costs would come from tax dollars that would be better spent on more pressing needs within the city.
One proposal was to develop the area around RFK Stadium in order to save money.[viii] After several months of deliberation, the Council came up with a $535 million financing estimate to build a park in the southeast portion of the District along the Anacostia River by March of 2008.[ix] The hope was that the new stadium would increase the city’s revenue and allow more money to be devoted to improving schools and other community needs.[x] Additionally, the site served Mayor Anthony Williams’ plans to change the demographics of the city, and the only way of increasing DC’s population by his goal of 100,000 by 2040 meant restoring unfashionable precincts of the Washington, such as in the southeast.[xi]
The District's financing plan included a $246 million upfront payment from Deutche Bank in exchange for a lease payment and revenue from the stadium, and the rest of the park would be paid for by issuance of municipal bonds.[xii] The team’s ownership was responsible for paying 14% of the direct costs, and the team would make $5.5 million annual stadium rental payments. In comparison to other financing plans for stadiums in and around Washington, the plan was far more generous to the Nationals ownership than the similar deals behind FedEx Field in Landover, MD and the MCI Center in N.W. Washington, but was roughly similar to other recent major league ballpark pans throughout the country.[xiii] Additionally, the plan set some of the most aggressive employment goals ever set by the city, which required contractors to give the city’s residents priority if the businesses needed to make new hires for any new jobs created.[xiv]
Though the team was able to make the move to the District, it was not without a fair share of public opposition. At the formal announcement of the stadium deal, protests broke out, District resident Adam Edinger, 31, stormed the podium and yelled “This is a bad deal, people!” before being wrestled off stage by security. Edinger, who was a former candidate for DC Shadow Representative to Congress, called the deal a “rip-off.” Other protestors from a group called “No DC Taxes For Baseball” held signs on seat-cushions that read, “I am a DC taxpayer/business and paid $500 million for a baseball stadium and all I got as a lousy seat cushion.” Others held signs that read, “stop the $614-million stadium giveaway.” Team officials worked to address the concerns of DC residents, such as a six-figure spending plan to renovate old city fields, and create new ones in the District for public use.[xv] Additionally, they issued public estimations that the team might bring in as much as $400 million in revenue to the city.[xvi] Ultimately, public support was largely on the side of bringing baseball back to Washington, as surveys showed that 82% of residents wanted a new ballpark in the city.[xvii]
Once it had been determined that a team would be moving to DC, there was a competitive bidding process to design the stadium. Several design firms submitted proposals for their vision for the new stadium including HKS Inc of Dallas, who designed Miller Filed in Milwaukee and the Ballpark at Arlington; CDFM2 of Kansas City, MO, who had not previously designed a ballpark; and LDA Companies of Pittsburgh and Robert A.M. Stern Architects of New York, who had previously worked with HOK Sports on PNC Park in Pittsburgh.[xviii] However, the firm of HOK Sport of Kansas City along with Devrouax-Purnell of Washington, DC was selected for their design. Their goal was to create a ballpark so distinctive to the city that it would not be replicated, and they sought to bring “something exciting and unique to Washington, DC.”[xix] HOK was considered one of the most prolific sports facility architects in the country, as they had served as the lead architect in ten of the previous fourteen MLB stadiums to be built, including Camden Yards in Baltimore, MD; Pac Bell Stadium in San Francisco, CA; and Coors Field in Denver.[xx][xxi] Each of their previous designs incorporated unique elements of the cities they were located in, and HOK sought to continue that trend with the ballpark in DC.
The park itself was intended to have a distinctly unique design to the District of Columbia to serve as a source of pride and the centerpiece of the redevelopment effort. The 41,222-seat stadium was constructed of steel, concrete, and glass, and served as a distinct contrast to the “retro” ballparks being built across the country over the previous 20 years including nearby Camden Yards in Baltimore and the new Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, NY. Though the stadium seated fewer fans than many other new major league parks, it offered the most lower-bowl seating, close to the action of any park in the country.[xxii][xxiii] The field itself, which was a mixture of materials from Maryland and Virginia, was located 24 feet below street level, which allowed fans with tickets to the lower bowl access to their seats without having to use an escalator or elevator, and offered fans open sight lines to action on the field from the open concourses.[xxiv]
The exterior architecture was designed with a triangle point at the south end, intended to evoke city designer Pierre L’Enfant's design for the city layout of DC. The stadium’s construction was also intended to be fully integrated to the $3 billion in mixed-use redevelopment along the Anacostia waterfront.[xxv] Inspiration for the look of the ballpark is taken from the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, by architect I.M. Pei. Nationals Park was also situated to highlight Washington’s many landmarks. Beyond the outfield of the stadium, fans had a view of both the Washington Monument and the Capitol Building. Additionally, a row of cherry trees was planted beyond left field, evoking the signature Washington Cherry Blossoms that bloom every spring along the river.[xxvi] The goal of the park’s design was to create a piece of architecture that people could immediately associate with both Washington, DC and the Nationals, that was both distinctive but also offered a feel of being seamlessly integrated with the construction site.
Originally, they sought to orient the park towards the Northwest, so that there would be a view of the Capital building in the outfield, but it was overridden because the setting sun would be a distraction to the players. City planners wanted to orient the park to the south in order to face the river, but ultimately it was determined that facing the stadium to the northeast made the most sense in a way that would be least disruptive to the site for both aesthetic and practical reasons. Fans would walk in from the northeast on Half Street through what the planners called a “decompression zone,” where they could “eat, shop, and play, to give a distinct feel of arriving at the ballpark even though they were not yet inside.” The asymmetrical outfield provided interesting bounces on long hits, and offered creative seating patterns that were unique to Nationals Park alone.[xxvii]
Nationals Park was also intended to balance a state-of-the-art atmosphere with a traditional ethos. The park offers 2,666 club seats that create access to special lounges and food, as well as 79 suites that seat more than 1,200 of the highest-paying fans. A large concourse to the north features a restaurant and other retailers that remain open on non-game days.[xxviii][xxix] The ballpark also includes neon-signed baseball and DC themed concessions including the “Beltway Bar” and “Nats Dogs.” Additionally, the park serves to highlight the city’s baseball history with a flag commemorating Washington’s only World Series wins by the Senators in 1924. The HOK designers also borrowed an odd, right-angled jog to the right-center field fence from Griffith Stadium, the former home of the Senators. The clubhouse was designed in an oval-shape in honor of the White House Oval Office as well. As team general manager Jim Bowden put it, “We’ve gone from the outhouse to the penthouse.”[xxx] In contrast to the traditional design elements, the park also was home to a 4,500 square foot high-definition scoreboard, as well as over 600 linear feet of LED ribbon board along the inner bowl fascia. Beyond the outfield fence was a designed children’s area with a jungle gym, Build-a-Bear workshop, and a video game zone.[xxxi]
Mark Lerner, the son of principal owner Teddy Lerner was responsible for much of the ballpark design and planning, and spent over $50 million personally on upgrades. Lerner traveled to many other stadiums around the country to see what he could add to Nationals Park to make it unique. He sought to “give the ballpark personality” by including handcrafted masonry behind home plate, historic baseball posters, and distinctive scrim on the back of the scoreboard, among other aesthetic improvements to the stadium. Additionally, he sought to create a family-friendly fan environment that did not discriminate against race, as he added signs thanking fans for attending in both English and Spanish.[xxxii]
One of the primary unique features of the ballpark was its role in revitalizing the environmentally degraded Anacostia Waterfront. The stadium achieved a special certification in Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) from the U.S. Green Building Council, and earned the distinction of being the most environmentally friendly ballpark in the country. In order to gain the certification, the city installed special energy-efficient lights, used 20% recycled materials and installed a 6,300 sq. foot green roof beyond left field to collect rain water and filter runoff from the stadium. Also, the city installed six sand filters beneath the stadium designed to prevent stadium runoff from polluting the Anacostia.[xxxiii] Though the price cap on the stadium construction made it difficult to attain all of the environmental design goals, the park ultimately attained the desired LEED certification.[xxxiv] Mayor Adrian Fenty saw the importance of having such an environmentally friendly ballpark in DC and exclaimed, “to have a building along the Anacostia River- the first LEED certified stadium in the country- is saying a great deal about how we care about the environment here in the District of Columbia.”[xxxv]
The idea of developing land along the Anacostia first originated in the late 1990s, when Mayor Williams formed the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, in order to plan mixed-use development, parks, trails and road improvements on both sides of the river all the way to Virginia. City officials determined the site for Nationals Park, and began buying up more than 50 acres of underutilized federal land near the waterfront. Developers began eyeing the area as the next big place for office buildings, retail outlets, and housing in the District as well. Two years before the team moved to DC, the District awarded the development of the Southeast Federal Center to Forest City, a Cleveland developer known for its ambitious mixed-use projects, to develop new homes, offices, and other retail spaces around the stadium.[xxxvi]
The construction of the new ballpark sought to spur the renewal of old urban spaces, but it required an incredible amount of work to see these efforts come to fruition. The plan included spending $6.1 billion on construction to develop 12 million square feet of office space; 9000 residential units; 1200 hotel rooms; and over 800,000 sq. ft of shops, restaurants, and other entertainment venues.[xxxvii] Before the development began, the area was one of the most rundown in the District, marked by vacant lots, auto repair workshops, and trash compacting facilities. Local leaders had a vision to change the face of the city, and they knew that to accomplish their goals, it was vital to upgrade the area surrounding the Anacostia, just a short distance away from the Capitol. In implementing their changes, many of the local residents feared what it meant for their continuance in the area, however the plan stated that no low-income residencies would be lost, but the property would support more than double the number of homes by overhauling 700 low-income units into a denser urban complex. Members of the city’s Anacostia Waterfront Initiative saw the development as a “catalyst for the whole South Capitol Street corridor and the redevelopment of the near Southeast.”[xxxviii]
One of the primary concerns of DC residents was the threat of being forced to vacate their homes and businesses due to eminent domain seizures. Several business owners in the neighborhood objected having to sell their property for the completion of the project. Additionally, many of the occupants had their roots in the neighborhood for many years, staying even though few others were willing to live there.[xxxix] Despite their objections, city officials informed twenty-three landowners in the twenty-one acres surrounding the ballpark site that they must sell their property to the city.[xl] Several property owners claimed that the city’s offers were inadequate and sued the city on the grounds that they had no right to use eminent domain to acquire the land, however a Supreme Court ruling affirmed the right of municipal governments to take private property in order to spur economic development. The city set aside $97 million to buy land and help relocation.[xli] Many of the landowners were unwilling to sell their land, despite being offered nearly three times the amount at which the properties were assessed, as they anticipated the inflation of their land value in anticipation of the stadium.[xlii]
Absent from the plans from the stadium was a concrete transit strategy that addressed how patrons would be able to attend games at the stadium. Parking and transportation plans around Nationals Park made it very difficult for visitors to use nearby streets to park their cars.[xliii] Two new parking garages at the ballpark offered 1,200 spaces for fans with the priciest seats and suites, and other season ticket-holders who would be charged $35 per game to park there. However, these lots were not nearly sufficient to adequate spaces for all other fans to attend events at the stadium. In addition the city announced parking restrictions on neighborhood streets during games.[xliv] While the Nationals old home at RFK Stadium were surrounded by acres of surface parking, newer ballparks, Nationals Park included, were designed with a clear aim of weaving the stadium into neighborhoods and spurring spinoff development.[xlv] While the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation wanted underground parking garages beneath the new office and retail development, the DC sports commission nixed the idea due to cost and time constraints.[xlvi]
Due to the lack of parking, the city turned to their focus towards public transportation to get people to the stadium. One option offered to fans for those without season ticket spaces to park at RFK and take free shuttles to the stadium. However, city officials promoted DC’s Metro system as the best way to get to the ballpark. The Navy Yard Station along the Green line was located one block north of the stadium, and was seen as the primary means of public stadium transportation.[xlvii] Originally, the city had no plans to expand the Metro Station, believing that if it were difficult for riders to get through the packed station, they would be more likely to stay in the area and spend money at new local restaurants. However public dissent coerced Metro to unveil a $20 million renovation plan that would triple the station’s capacity so that it could handle 15,00 passengers per hour. The federally funded plan offered new jobs for over 800 DC residents. [xlviii]
Though Nationals Park was to serve as the centerpiece of the development plan, the primary focus of generating revenue along the Anacostia was the retail and residential development to accompany the stadium. Many of the buildings surrounding the stadium were being built concurrently with Nationals Park, in order to maximize their impact.[xlix] In a ten-block radius to the northeast and the south of the stadium included plans for more than 50 projects to be built by JPI and Cohen Companies to add nearly 9000 housing units over a fifteen year period. Office developers including Lerner Enterprises, JBG Cos and Donohue Co’s plans to construct new buildings that would bring thousands of new workers to the neighborhood. The private investment in the area was projected to be in the billions of dollars, $150 million of which the city contributed towards infrastructure improvements, tens of millions of dollars in special tax programs to build parks and housing units for low-income area residents.
Developers envisioned fans dining at newly constructed restaurants, paying for their bill, and walking to the stadium. However, perhaps the primary reason that the ballpark funding plan gained the approval was the promise of Mayor Williams the promise that the project would trigger billions of dollars in economic development, and his pledge to spend more than $300 million toward a special community benefits fund. The redevelopment of the S.E. Federal Center, called “The Yards” included a decade-long plan that included restoring several historic buildings on the site, and converting older units into condominiums and retail space. The Forest City development included 700 housing units along with 730,000 sq. feet of office and 500,000 sq. feet of retail spaces.[l] Of the $12.8 million in financing for King Towers, an apartment complex near the stadium, the non-profit So Others Might Eat planed multiple housing sites. 48 affordable units were offered at below-market-rate prices, including 50 at The Yards.[li]
Though the city was able to overcome numerous hurdles during the stadium construction, there were myriad issues still to be dealt with in order for the completion of the project to come to fruition. Many of the promises and goals laid out by the city when securing funding failed to meet their first set of objective and benchmarks, as a majority of the hiring goals meant to provide employment opportunities to city residents fell short. The hiring agreement was essential to winning over union, public, and political support for ballpark financing, as supporters touted the park as a source of jobs in the city where pockets of unemployment remained high. The agreement between the city, the primary contractors, and the local unions called for the contractors to have over half of the construction hours at the ballpark to be performed by city residents, when in fact only 27% of the hours were completed by District residents. Additionally, there was an unmet promise that all new apprentices must be city residents, and they must work at least 25% of the construction hours. Only 87% of the apprentices came from DC, and they only performed 19% of the hours delegated for the project.[lii] The contractors defended the un-met goals by claiming that it was difficult to find enough skilled residents from the city, and that journeymen were tied up in other projects, as the city’s workforce was unprepared to qualify for apprenticeship programs. Businesses that failed to meet the goals faced financial retribution, but the agreement capped the amount at a 5% penalty of the value of the contact.[liii] The fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis, as well as the weakened economy meant that many of the projects planned took longer to complete than originally planned, which also materially affected both employment and development goals. Numerous newly constructed office buildings in the area struggled to find tenants, and new residential projects changed from offering condos for sale to apartments for rent due to financial concerns.[liv]
A land dispute also served to hold up the development of the area. Though Metro agreed to sell part of their property to Akridge, a DC-based developer, Monument Developers sued to prevent the sale on the grounds that it had previously struck a deal for the exclusive rights to negotiate the property. As a result, the litigation meant that many of the amenities planned for the site would not be in place for several years until after the park opened.[lv]
Though the process of bringing a home to baseball back to Washington was tumultuous, it was ultimately successful through the early stages of project completion. The stadium rose from the ground in record time, and did not violate the city council’s cap on hard and soft costs.[lvi] Nationals Park opened on Opening Day, March 30, 2008. Traffic flowed smoothly from outside the stadium, despite forecasted concerns of congestion. The DC Metro system recorded its fifth-highest Saturday ridership of all time, with 580,771 trips, with 15,141 for the Nationals game, though, 72 cars were towed from illegal parking places, with 716 tickets issued. Though there were kinks to be worked out, such as congestion at concession areas and glitches due to crowds on the escalators that overloaded the motors, the game was a sellout with over 41,000 in attendance.[lvii]
Fans were rewarded with not only the beautiful, new ballpark they were promised, but also a walk-off home run victory by the home team by fan-favorite Ryan Zimmerman who proclaimed after the game that “it’s going to be fun to come to this place every day. It gives us a sense of pride.”[lviii] Though many of the amenities surrounding the park were still taking shape Mayor Fenty echoed the sentiments of many as he declared, “I think I speak for everyone when I say this project represents the true greatness of Washington DC.”[lix]
The construction of Nationals Park illustrated both ability of the city of Washington to complete a momentous public works project, but was also to overcome numerous obstacles by uniting several divided factions to return baseball to DC. The project also represented the challenges of competing interests, of municipal and institutional advancement versus disadvantaged minority populations. It posed questions of how to build consensus and overcome dissent, while seeking to satisfy the requests of multiple communities. Throughout the project, it was clear that there was a mindfulness of not only incorporating the ethos of Washington, DC and the its many demographics into both the physical design of the stadium and surrounding areas, but also in the programs and opportunities that the construction of Nationals Park sought to create.
Nationals Park also now serves as the cornerstone for redevelopment in Southeast, Washington, and represents the importance of creating a public space that puts environmental stewardship as a primary focus. Though external factors such as the economy have inhibited the rate at which the infrastructure surrounding the stadium is being created, the construction and successes of the ballpark are a signs of the potential for converting what had previously been one of the more disadvantaged areas of Washington, DC into a center for commerce and community.
Bibliography
Antonen, Mel. "Nationals Open New Field with 3-2 Win; Zimmerman's Blast Beats Braves." USA Today 31 Mar. 2008, Chase Ed. ed., Sports sec.: 5C. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Asher, Mark. "Finalists in the Ballpark; Virginia, D.C. Groups Seek Stadium Design and Site." Washington Post 21 May 2002, Final ed.: D04. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Bateau, Michael. "Expos Painted over in Nationals Colors: Uniforms, Logos Unveiled: Protester Decries Public Money Spent on Stadium." National Post 23 Nov. 2004, Toronto ed., Sports sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Cain, Andrew. "Baseball Moves Hinge on Cash; Sale of Montreal Expos Could Bring Team to Virginia, District." Washington Times 9 Oct. 1998, Final ed., Metropolitan Times; Regional News sec.: C5. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Ceresi, Frank, Mark Rucker, and Carol McMains. Baseball in Washington, D.C. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2002. Print.
Fisher, Eric. "Survey Shows Support for D.C." Washington Times 28 Apr. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Fisher, Eric. "Ballpark Will Be 'iconic'" Washington Times 1 Apr. 2005, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Fisher, Eric. "Baseball Deal Carries Tough Terms, Penalties." Washington Times 2 Oct. 2004, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Fisher, Eric. "HOK Sport to Design Nationals' Home." Washington Times 31 Mar. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Fisher, Eric. "Parking Scarce for New Ballpark." Washington Times 5 Oct. 2004, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Forgery, Benjamin. "A Perfect Setting For a Diamond; Ballpark Site in Southeast Could Spur Ambitious Urban Renewal Plans." Washington Post 25 Sept. 2004, Final ed., Style sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Hsu, Spencer S., and Mark Asher. "D.C. Group Opposes Downtown Ballpark." Washington Post 24 Jan. 2002, Final ed., Metro sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Knott, Tom. "Ballpark Dream vs. the American Dream." Washington Times 27 Sept. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Knott, Tom. "This Is It?; Steel and Glass Ballpark Inspires... Only a Yawn." Times. Web.
Knott, Tom. "This Is It?; Steel and Glass Ballpark Inspires... Only a Yawn." Washington Times 15 Mar. 2006, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Laris, Michael. "Group Seeks Designs for Va. Ballpark; Officials Home Planning Helps Lure Baseball Team." Washington Post 24 Apr. 2002, Final ed., Metro sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel, and David Nakamura. "Ballpark Is Ready, but the Neighborhood Isn't; Fans Must Dodge Cement Mixers as D.C.'s Grand Vision for SE Gradually Takes Form." Washington Post 24 Mar. 2008, Met 2 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel, and Lena H. Sun. "Team, Transit Officials Pleased With Performance." Washington Post 1 Apr. 2008, Suburban ed., Metro sec.: B05. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel. "Ballpark Concept Becomes Concrete; Architects' Vision Rises Beside the Anacostia as Opening Day Approaches." Washington Post 23 Jan. 2008, Suburban ed., Metro sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel. "Group Goes to Bat for the Environment; Conservation Crops Hopes to Steer Young Nationals Fans to Its Facility." Washington Post 19 June 2008, Every ed., Extras sec.: DZ03. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel. "In Signature Style, Lerners Strive To Make Ballpark Fan-Friendly." Washington Post 28 Mar. 2008, Met 2 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel. "No Time to Rest in the Homestretch; Ballpark Crews Rush to Meet This Month's Deadline." Washington Post 2 Mar. 2008, Met 1 ed., Metro sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
LeDuc, Daniel. "Stadium Project Falling Short of City's Ambitious Hiring Goals; Contractors Use Fewer D.C. Workers Than Required." Washington Post 24 Feb. 2008, Met 1 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "Cropp Vows Ballpark on Anacostia; Forum Panel Defends Job Opportunities." Washington Times 28 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "Group Pitches 'ballpark District'" Washington Times 22 Oct. 2005, Sports sec.: C07. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "Landowners Must Yield to Ballpark; District to Proceed with Eminent Domain for Acquisition by Dec. 31." Washington Times 6 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "On Deck: Playing Field for Stadium." Washington Times 10 Oct. 2007, Sports sec.: C03. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "Park Deemed Success; Mayor Praises Nationals' Completed Stadium." Washington Times 29 Mar. 2008, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tim. "Stadium's Plan Discourages Driving; Fewer Parking Spaces, Higher Meter Rates on Streets than Expected." Washington Times 28 Feb. 2008, Metropolitan sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tom. "Ballpark Plan Goes Public; Nationals' Modern Stadium Previewed." Washington Times 15 Mar. 2006, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lemke, Tom. "Offices, Condos Flock to Be near Nationals." Washington Times 28 Jan. 2008, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Lovero, Thom. "Ballpark Talk Out of This World." Washington Times 21 Dec. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Nakamura, David, and Thomas Heath. "City's New Focus Is on Finding Parking; Area Revitalization Plans Appear to Be Put on Hold to Meet Legal Obligations." Washington Post 24 Sept. 2006, Final ed., Metro sec.: C05. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Nakamura, David, and Thomas Heath. "D.C. Says It Has Found Parking Near Stadium; Almost 9,000 Sports Are Possible, Officials Say." Washington Post 14 Jan. 2006, Final ed., Metro sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Nakamura, David. "D.C. Ballpark Architect Has Towering Test." Washington Post 8 Aug. 2005, Final ed., A Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Nakamura, David. "The Nats' New Home: A Field of Green?" Washington Post 6 Aug. 2006, Final ed., Sunday Sources sec.: M03. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
"Nationals Park, Washington, DC." Ballparks by Munsey and Suppes. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. <http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm>.
O'Connell, Jonathan. "Near Nationals Park, a Development Unstalled; Firm Says It Will Restart Construction on Luxury Apartments." Washington Post 20 Aug. 2010, Suburban ed., A-Section sec.: A18. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Redding, Robert, and Tim Lemke. "Williams Defends Anacostia Site for Ballpark." Washington Times 20 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Shrug, Barry. "Nationals Are Reborn to a Mixed Reaction." Washington Post 23 Nov. 2004, Final ed., Sports sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Wagner, Arlo. "Fans Bid Adieu to RFK; Nationals Fans Looking Ahead to New Ballpark." Washington Times 24 Sept. 2007, Page One sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Stadium Deal Is Typical for Teams; D.C.'s Financing Plan In Line With Others." Washington Post 23 Sept. 2004, Final ed., Metro sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
End Notes
[i] Svrluga, Barry. "Nationals Are Reborn to a Mixed Reaction." Washington Post 23 Nov. 2004, Final ed., Sports sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[ii] Svrluga, Barry.
[iii] Cain, Andrew. "Baseball Moves Hinge on Cash; Sale of Montreal Expos Could Bring Team to Virginia, District." Washington Times 9 Oct. 1998, Final ed., Metropolitan Times; Regional News sec.: C5. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[iv] Laris, Michael. "Group Seeks Designs for Va. Ballpark; Officials Home Planning Helps Lure Baseball Team." Washington Post 24 Apr. 2002, Final ed., Metro sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[v] Whoriskey, Peter. "Stadium Deal Is Typical for Teams; D.C.'s Financing Plan In Line With Others." Washington Post 23 Sept. 2004, Final ed., Metro sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
[vi] Cain, 1998
[vii] Lovero, Thom. "Ballpark Talk Out of This World." Washington Times 21 Dec. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[viii] Lemke, Tim. "Cropp Vows Ballpark on Anacostia; Forum Panel Defends Job Opportunities." Washington Times 28 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[ix] LeDuc, “Stadium Project Falling Short…” 2008
[x] Lemke, “Cropp Vows Ballpark on Anacostia…” 2005
[xi] Knott, Tom. "Ballpark Dream vs. the American Dream." Washington Times 27 Sept. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xii] Redding, Robert, and Tim Lemke.
[xiii] Whoriskey, Peter.
[xiv] LeDuc, “Stadium Project Falling Short…” 2008
[xv] Svrluga, Barry.
[xvi] Buteau, Michael. "Expos Painted over in Nationals Colors Uniforms, Logos Unveiled: Protester Decries Public Money Spent on Stadium." National Post 23 Nov. 2004, Toronto ed., Sports sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xvii] Fisher, Eric. "Survey Shows Support for D.C." Washington Times 28 Apr. 2004, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xviii] Asher, Mark. "Finalists in the Ballpark; Virginia, D.C. Groups Seek Stadium Design and Site." Washington Post 21 May 2002, Final ed.: D04. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xix] Lemke, “Ballpark Plan Goes Public…” 2006
[xx] Fisher, “Survey Shows Support,” 2002
[xxi] Fisher, Eric. "Ballpark Will Be 'iconic'" Washington Times 1 Apr. 2005, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxii] Wagner, Arlo. "Fans Bid Adieu to RFK; Nationals Fans Looking Ahead to New Ballpark." Washington Times 24 Sept. 2007, Page One sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxiii] Lemke, “Ballpark Plan Goes Public…” 2006
[xxiv] Lemke, “Ballpark Plan Goes Public…” 2006
[xxv] Lemke, “Ballpark Plan Goes Public…” 2006
[xxvi] LeDuc, Daniel. "No Time to Rest in the Homestretch; Ballpark Crews Rush to Meet This Month's Deadline." Washington Post 2 Mar. 2008, Met 1 ed., Metro sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxvii] Nakamura, David. "D.C. Ballpark Architect Has Towering Test." Washington Post 8 Aug. 2005, Final ed., A Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxviii] Lemke, Tim. "Ballpark Plan Goes Public; Nationals' Modern Stadium Previewed." Washington Times 15 Mar. 2006, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011
[xxix] LeDuc, “No Time to Rest in the Homestretch…” 2008
[xxx] Antonen, Mel. "Nationals Open New Field with 3-2 Win; Zimmerman's Blast Beats Braves." USA Today 31 Mar. 2008, Chase Ed. ed., Sports sec.: 5C. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxi] LeDuc, Daniel. "In Signature Style, Lerners Strive To Make Ballpark Fan-Friendly." Washington Post 28 Mar. 2008, Met 2 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxii] LeDuc, “In Signature Style…” 2008
[xxxiii] Lemke, Tim. "Park Deemed Success; Mayor Praises Nationals' Completed Stadium." Washington Times 29 Mar. 2008, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxiv] Nakamura, David. "The Nats' New Home: A Field of Green?" Washington Post 6 Aug. 2006, Final ed., Sunday Sources sec.: M03. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxv] Lemke, “Ballpark Deemed a Success…” 2008
[xxxvi] Lemke, Tom. "Offices, Condos Flock to Be near Nationals." Washington Times 28 Jan. 2008, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxvii] LeDuc, Daniel, and David Nakamura. "Ballpark Is Ready, but the Neighborhood Isn't; Fans Must Dodge Cement Mixers as D.C.'s Grand Vision for SE Gradually Takes Form." Washington Post 24 Mar. 2008, Met 2 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxviii] Forgery, Benjamin. "A Perfect Setting For a Diamond; Ballpark Site in Southeast Could Spur Ambitious Urban Renewal Plans." Washington Post 25 Sept. 2004, Final ed., Style sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xxxix] Knott, “Ballpark Dream,” 2004
[xl] Redding, Robert, and Tim Lemke. "Williams Defends Anacostia Site for Ballpark." Washington Times 20 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xli] Lemke, “Landowners Must Yield to Ballpark” 2005
[xlii] Redding, Robert, and Tim Lemke.
[xliii] Lemke, Tim. "Stadium's Plan Discourages Driving; Fewer Parking Spaces, Higher Meter Rates on Streets than Expected." Washington Times 28 Feb. 2008, Metropolitan sec.: B01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xliv] LeDuc, “No Time to Rest in the Homestretch…” 2008
[xlv] Fisher, Eric. "Parking Scarce for New Ballpark." Washington Times 5 Oct. 2004, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xlvi] Lemke, Tim. "Landowners Must Yield to Ballpark; District to Proceed with Eminent Domain for Acquisition by Dec. 31." Washington Times 6 Oct. 2005, Page One sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xlvii] LeDuc, “No Time to Rest in the Homestretch…” 2008
[xlviii] Lemke, Tim. "Park Deemed Success; Mayor Praises Nationals' Completed Stadium." Washington Times 29 Mar. 2008, Sports sec.: C01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[xlix] Leduc, “No Time to Rest in the Homestretch…” 2008
[l] Lemke, “Offices, Condos Flock…” 2008
[li] O'Connell, Jonathan. "Near Nationals Park, a Development Unstalled; Firm Says It Will Restart Construction on Luxury Apartments." Washington Post 20 Aug. 2010, Suburban ed., A-Section sec.: A18. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[lii] LeDuc, Daniel. "Stadium Project Falling Short of City's Ambitious Hiring Goals; Contractors Use Fewer D.C. Workers Than Required." Washington Post 24 Feb. 2008, Met 1 ed., A-Section sec.: A01. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[liii] LeDuc, “Stadium Project Falling Short…” 2008
[liv] Lemke, “Offices, Condos Flock…” 2008
[lv] Lemke, “Offices, Condos Flock…” 2008
[lvi] Lemke, Tim. "Park Deemed Success…” 2008
[lvii] LeDuc, Daniel, and Lena H. Sun. "Team, Transit Officials Pleased With Performance." Washington Post 1 Apr. 2008, Suburban ed., Metro sec.: B05. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
[lviii] Antonen, 2008
[lix] Lemke, “Park Deemed a Success…” 2008