Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium / District Of Columbia Stadium

[BeatEmBucs]

It was then determined the stadium would never again need to seat 55,000, and the rusty scaffolding was a nightmare to deal with. The space behind the 3rd base dugout/ North soccer goal sits vacant today.

Doesn't DC United use that area as a picnic area for their games? Any word on if the United will get their "soccer only" stadium? If not it looks like RFK will make it to 50 where just about every other stadium built around that time has been demolished.

Oh yeah, in seeing the old pics, I notice the scoreboard was on the "ground level" when did the scoreboard move upstairs? I would guess at some point after the Senators left, sometime in the late 70's/Early 80's from what I remember watching Redskin games. It's strange that many "cookie cutters" had scoreboards in the lower or mid level that were eventually moved up to the top of the stadium (RFK,Fulton County stadium, 3 Rivers, the Vet) later on. Seems like a big waste of money in the long run to spend thousands (if not millions) to move the scoreboard somewhere else in the stadium.

[RfkFedEx]

Doesn't DC United use that area as a picnic area for their games? Any word on if the United will get their "soccer only" stadium? If not it looks like RFK will make it to 50 where just about every other stadium built around that time has been demolished.

Oh yeah, in seeing the old pics, I notice the scoreboard was on the "ground level" when did the scoreboard move upstairs? I would guess at some point after the Senators left, sometime in the late 70's/Early 80's from what I remember watching Redskin games. It's strange that many "cookie cutters" had scoreboards in the lower or mid level that were eventually moved up to the top of the stadium (RFK,Fulton County stadium, 3 Rivers, the Vet) later on. Seems like a big waste of money in the long run to spend thousands (if not millions) to move the scoreboard somewhere else in the stadium.

The dead area behind the 3rd base dugout has housed a giant hospitality tent in recent years. There's also a large, yet portable equipment shed back there. I should have got some pics when i was there for the Military Bowl last week.

Edit: I just realized the old lower level scoreboard was also digital.

The old scoreboard in RF or the South endzone was removed sometime in the 70s after the Senators left. The Skins installed portable bleachers behind that endzone, thus covering the old board. The digital board was hanged from the roof above RF at that time. I don't think it was deemed a waste of $ at the time.

Imagine how awesome a digi board must have looked in the 60s when manual boards were all that anybody had ever known up until that time. In fact, the manual boards probably felt dated by the later 70s considering OYS/Dodger Stadium had had electric boards for sevral years by then.

[BeatEmBucs]

The old scoreboard in RF or the South endzone was removed sometime in the 70s after the Senators left. The Skins installed portable bleachers behind that endzone, thus covering the old board. The digital board was hanged from the roof above RF at that time. I don't think it was deemed a waste of $ at the time.

The waste of $ was that the scoreboards were not up top to begin with. I know the Redskins of the 60's weren't that good, but they missed out on good revenue by not having those bleachers during the early years of RFK. Same goes for all the other "cookie cutters" that had good seats not in place due to poor scoreboard location.

[Paul W]

Redskins...they missed out on good revenue by not having those bleachers during the early years of RFK.

nfl tenants were considered second when multi-use stadiums were designed.
the 'skins probably didn't get any of the display advertising $$$'s from that board either.
until the late 70's the price of nfl tix was not that much different than a movie tix then.
now, because of athlete free agency and owners obsession with "luxury" the "good revenue" is the norm now.

[RfkFedEx]

The Skins didn't start selling out consistently until Lombardi arrived in 1969, although the team brags to this day that their supposedly active sell out streak began in 1968. The few football pics I've seen from the early and mid 60s looked to have only had about 30-35,000 patrons seated on the sidelines, with swaths of empty seats behind both endzones in the upper deck. Somewhere there's a good color pic of the inaugural Skins game in at DC Stadium 1961 against the NYG. The place was only a little more than half full. The NFL was still small potatoes back then, and the all white Redskins had been horrid for 15 years at that point.

[Lpeters199]

https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm...4c5f18f81b2010

[jnakamura]

That LACMC scoreboard from 1937 looks to have been really futuristic for its time. Though it seems it would have been tough to read from behind the other endzone.

Yeah, probably--it wasn't exactly huge.

Going back, the first digital board actually goes all the way back to 1928--that's when the Times Square "Zipper" was unveiled.



Interesting to note that it took a full 35 years from the debut of the "Zipper" until a moving digital display finally made its way to a baseball stadium.

[Lpeters199]

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...gton-169336047

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bethlehem-St...d#ht_711wt_983

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1971-Press-P...ht_2777wt_1014

[RfkFedEx]

Looks like the RF scoreboard was always digital. I had always figured it was manual.

[alpineinc]

Cool '60's store display.



http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=101615

[Lpeters199]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...y.html#photo=1

[Frank Wagner]

Regarding possible building of a new Redskins stadium on the RFK site: I had always heard that the draconian DC height rules would never let a stadium as tall as FedEx be built on the site. I also heard that the height rules are the reason the lights are suspended from the highest roof section at RFK - not on top of the roof like other cookie cutters. Anyone know anything about this?

[RfkFedEx]

Regarding possible building of a new Redskins stadium on the RFK site: I had always heard that the draconian DC height rules would never let a stadium as tall as FedEx be built on the site. I also heard that the height rules are the reason the lights are suspended from the highest roof section at RFK - not on top of the roof like other cookie cutters. Anyone know anything about this?

You are correct about the infield light racks. Fortunately, the roof at RFK is so large the light racks fit nicely below it without obstructing any seats or mucking up aerial views of the Capitol building.

Had FedEx Field been built on the RFK site it would dominate aerial views of the mall today. Thank god it didn't happen. When a new stadium is eventually built at RFK, it will likely have to be dug deep into the ground with a field 40-50 feet below street level.

[Lpeters199]

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65...pitol-building

[Paul W]

Regarding possible building of a new Redskins stadium on the RFK site: I had always heard that the draconian DC height rules would never let a stadium as tall as FedEx be built on the site. I also heard that the height rules are the reason the lights are suspended from the highest roof section at RFK - not on top of the roof like other cookie cutters. Anyone know anything about this?

from scoreboards thread 1-3 #494...
that "quirk" was mandated by the d.c. arts/architecture council, they were concerned that the roof line and light frames would show up in ariel photography of the mall and capitol building (background).
the curved lines on the west side of the building were less obtrusive than the roof layout on the east side.

[Lpeters199]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flaneur/347660173/

[milladrive]

Folks, I realize that the history of DC/RFK Stadium cannot be truly discussed in depth without referring to football, soccer, and other non-baseball events. Still, there's a fine line we walk between what and how much is acceptable until the thread is considered off topic. Not to mention, FedEx Field has nothing, if anything, to do with baseball. It analagous with, for example, a Yankee or Met thread discussing Madison Square Garden or the Meadowlands in depth. It'd be unacceptable according to the terms and conditions of Baseball-Fever.

After going through this thread post by post, I've come to the conclusion that if the thread were to be stripped of the talk involving FedEx Field, there'd be almost no thread left.

I'm leaving the thread alone (for the most part), but further discourse on FedEx Field is better suited for Pigskin-Fever. As well, further discourse on non-baseball events at DC/RFK Stadium should be directed to either Pigskin-Fever or the Ballparks in Football Configuration thread here in this forum.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know the DC United usually block off RFK's upper deck. At what times, if ever, do they un-block it? Does the upper deck ever get used at all nowadays?

[RfkFedEx]

I know the DC United usually block off RFK's upper deck. At what times, if ever, do they un-block it? Does the upper deck ever get used at all nowadays?

The upper deck hasn't been open for United games since the early 2000s. The only time it is used today is for the Military Bowl game in Dec. and a few world soccer exhibitions. The big friendly matches are played at FedEx, so its rare to need the upper deck at RFK today.

The original wooden seats in the 500 level today have gone unpainted for nearly 20 years, not even the return of MLB in 2005 warranted a resurfacing. Some of those seats are in pretty bad shape today.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't suppose it would be in any way realistic to simply attempt to *remove* the upper deck? (Kind of like the un-expansion of Angel Stadium after the Rams moved out.) Would this be cost prohibitive?

[RfkFedEx]

I don't suppose it would be in any way realistic to simply attempt to *remove* the upper deck? (Kind of like the un-expansion of Angel Stadium after the Rams moved out.) Would this be cost prohibitive?

Not structurally, let alone economically feasible.

In 2004 there was a suggestion of cutting away the outfield portion of the building (ala Cinci's Riverfront stadium in its final two years), but such a reduction would have really hurt the soccer configuration.

This was when Nats Park opponents wanted the city and MLB come up with a long term solution to stay at RFK permanently, something we all know wasn't gonna happen. Had the Nats been forced to stay at RFK long term, an open outfield view with a modern ground level concourse between the foul poles could have been neat.

[chip]

RfkFedEx,

I'm not sure if I posted this before but are you thinking something like this?

[WEB]

Would it be fair and reasonable to write if a soccer stadium is built or the team relocates, this facilities time is over?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Probably. The United are the only team that still uses RFK full-time. If they leave, it's over.

[RfkFedEx]

RfkFedEx,

I'm not sure if I posted this before but are you thinking something like this?

Good call w/ the concept pic. The ballpark figure thrown around for such renovation was in the $200 mil range.

MLB ended up dropping about $10 mil on upgrades to bring the team back in 05. The money went to updating and upgrading the press box, club houses, lounge and suite areas, dugouts, and of course the swivel stands in the lower level. The United reaped the benefits of the MLB money, but all their fans did was cry about how unfair it was that they suddenly had to share RFK.