LANDOVER - FedEx Field (91,704) [Archive]

Zorba

December 20th, 2005, 03:43 AM

NFL
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Washington_Redskins_logo.svg/100px-Washington_Redskins_logo.svg.png
Washington Redskins

5x Champion:
1937, 1942, 1982, 1987, 1991

Here are some of my photos from FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. The photos were taken at the recent Washington Redskins 35-7 domination of the Dallas Cowgirls.

The stadium seats just over 90,000 people. I might be going to next weeks game against the New York Giants as well so I will be sure to take more photos of the stdium. from that game if I go.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/gocaps75/IMG_0543.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/gocaps75/IMG_0544.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/gocaps75/IMG_0545.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/gocaps75/IMG_0546.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/gocaps75/IMG_0548.jpg

asohn

December 20th, 2005, 03:45 AM

nice pics.

This is the largest stadium (capacity-wise) in the NFL, right?

Zorba

December 20th, 2005, 03:46 AM

^^
Yep.

Thanks. The pics are a bit blurred though.

Iain1974

December 20th, 2005, 05:13 AM

So what does a ticket cost for a regular season game like that? Face price, not scalper price.

Perth4life3

December 20th, 2005, 05:23 AM

can i ask why a lot of football stadiums in the U.S dont have roof's?

Zorba

December 20th, 2005, 05:34 AM

So what does a ticket cost for a regular season game like that? Face price, not scalper price.
I sat in the lodge(clud) seats and for that game the tickets were $700 a piece. I didnt have to pay though because a family friend got us the tickets. The prices vary though. I would say the cheapest is $85.

Iain1974

December 20th, 2005, 05:50 AM

I sat in the lodge(clud) seats and for that game the tickets were $700 a piece. I didnt have to pay though because a family friend got us the tickets. The prices vary though. I would say the cheapest is $85.

$85 for the cheapest tickets? Wow. I suppose that about £48. Similar to Chelsea I suppose.

BaylorGuy314

December 20th, 2005, 06:01 AM

can i ask why a lot of football stadiums in the U.S dont have roof's?

Sure you can.

But may I ask why a lot of football stadiums in Europe have roofs?

Perth4life3

December 20th, 2005, 05:04 PM

wtf i wasnt insulting it because it doesnt have a roof, i was just wondering why us stadiums dont generally have roof's?

kingdomca

December 20th, 2005, 06:53 PM

wtf i wasnt insulting it because it doesnt have a roof, i was just wondering why us stadiums dont generally have roof's?

but I think you stepped into a boring old US v Europe issue.

They dont need roofs.
They play very few games
They have more of an inland climate in most places compared to western europe
If there is one wet and one cold game every year, its just part of the experience.
especially as the rest of their main sports outside the summer baseball season, basketball and ice hockey, are completly indoors.

40Acres

December 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM

vertigosufferer

December 20th, 2005, 10:20 PM

actually, it looks great without a roof. as do all american stadiums without one. Again, we dont need roofs because we're not afraid to get a little wet and a little dirty, and get really fucking rowdy, unlike ....

If you had as much rainfall as some parts of Europe can sometimes get, the novelty of getting wet and not being bothered about it, would soon wear off, trust me.

Scba

December 21st, 2005, 01:18 AM

One of the basics of football is that the elements of nature play a factor. You've got games where the windchill is way below 0f, it's snowing out, and there's guys in the stands wearing nothing but jeans. That's passion right there, I don't care how prestigious weather-perfected sports are said to be.

When I was younger, we'd WAIT for it to snow before we went out and played. It's just part of the game that you'd need to see around enough to understand, Euros.

reyrey

December 21st, 2005, 09:59 PM

Fedex looks a bit like wembley from the inside, without the roof.

nomarandlee

December 21st, 2005, 09:59 PM

My only angst against this stadium is the lack of covering so that the underside of the stands don't show. This is a probably in MANY stadium in the U.S. and in Europe though (as well as in my home town Soilder Field which would look so much better if it had one). The underside of stands are just not very attractive no matter what you do to them.

BrunoFoca

December 22nd, 2005, 04:20 PM

In Brazil as well as in Latin America almost all stadiums do not have roof, and rain very here, in São Paulo this year in one day rained the same of must have rained in one month.
Until I know nobody ever died for taking rain while he attended a soccer game.

And Fedex Field is a beutiful stadium with or without roof.

www.sercan.de

April 13th, 2008, 12:54 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2230839358_57a9000d45_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skindaddy/2230839358/sizes/o/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2091/2179150892_3fab1b9d09_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2324/2154058807_e111af99af_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/morganporter/2154058807/sizes/o/

EPA001

April 13th, 2008, 02:15 PM

Very impressive pictures. And a beautiful stadium it is! Looks really classic and classy! Just beautiful.

wizziko

April 14th, 2008, 07:45 AM

that stadium needs some new video screens, those things are puny considering the size of that stadium

marrio415

April 14th, 2008, 10:27 PM

nice stadium but needs a ROOF.Lol just kidding just kidding.No really though nice stadium in the summer looks real good

Big Texan

July 24th, 2008, 07:07 AM

Not true in DC...There is interest in a new stadium there but not because of Dallas.

Deep down in side, we all know the Redskins only want a new stadium because of the Cowboys. They might not say it on the outside, but they say it on the inside.

en1044

July 24th, 2008, 07:13 AM

Deep down in side, we all know the Redskins only want a new stadium because of the Cowboys. They might not say it on the outside, but they say it on the inside.

theres been talk about the redskins building a new stadium for years, long before the Cowboys started planning this one. Will it be designed to be bigger and better than JerryWorld?...of course-but it wont be built because of JerryWorld.

Kampflamm

July 24th, 2008, 02:26 PM

Why would the Redskins need a new stadium though? FedEx Field is just 10 years old!

The only reason the Giants and Jets are building a new stadium is because the Cowboys are building there next stadium and the Giants didn't want to be the ones in the NFC East with the old stadium. The Same thing is happening in Washington DC because the Redskins want a better stadium then the Cowboys, Eagles and Giants.

The world doesn't revolved around the Cowboys. Teams want new stadiums because they want to make more money.

en1044

July 24th, 2008, 07:43 PM

Have they found Jimmy Hoffa?

Why would the Redskins need a new stadium though? FedEx Field is just 10 years old!

The world doesn't revolved around the Cowboys. Teams want new stadiums because they want to make more money.

Because FedEx Field sucks the big one.

nyrmetros

July 25th, 2008, 05:46 AM

Because FedEx Field sucks the big one.

They built it. No one forced them too. They should deal with it. The only team that DC should have helped out with a stadium deal is DC United. No one else.

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 06:06 AM

They built it. No one forced them too. They should deal with it. The only team that DC should have helped out with a stadium deal is DC United. No one else.

no, FedEx was very forced. It was built outside of the District by Jack Kent Cooke to piss off the DC government and was very poorly designed. If the DC gov and the Redskins can work out a deal then they should get a new place to play. I can only assume that you have never been there as you dont know what your talking about.

nyrmetros

July 25th, 2008, 07:43 AM

no, FedEx was very forced. It was built outside of the District by Jack Kent Cooke to piss off the DC government and was very poorly designed. If the DC gov and the Redskins can work out a deal then they should get a new place to play. I can only assume that you have never been there as you dont know what your talking about.

So how was that forced then? Jack owned the team, and built the stadium. No one put a gun to his head. You are right. I have not been to Jack Kent Cooke Stadium. I have been to the old Capital Centre and RFK Stadium many times. But NO stadium should ever be obsolete in 10 years and no team should ever be talking about getting a new stadium after just getting one 10 years ago. Barring and structural saftey problems of course, of which I haven't read any.

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 01:43 PM

So how was that forced then? Jack owned the team, and built the stadium. No one put a gun to his head. You are right. I have not been to Jack Kent Cooke Stadium. I have been to the old Capital Centre and RFK Stadium many times. But NO stadium should ever be obsolete in 10 years and no team should ever be talking about getting a new stadium after just getting one 10 years ago. Barring and structural saftey problems of course, of which I haven't read any.

The gun to his head was his age. Jack wanted the stadium built befre he died so it was built very quickly. It was to be the memorial to his legacy. Unfortunately in his rush a poor stadium design and built poorly. I dont understand why this is such a big deal. If they want a new one, then they get a new one.

nyrmetros

July 25th, 2008, 07:20 PM

The gun to his head was his age. Jack wanted the stadium built befre he died so it was built very quickly. It was to be the memorial to his legacy. Unfortunately in his rush a poor stadium design and built poorly. I dont understand why this is such a big deal. If they want a new one, then they get a new one.

Because there is no reason the city of DC should have to pay for it . I don't see any sympathy for the team on this one.

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 07:32 PM

Because there is no reason the city of DC should have to pay for it . I don't see any sympathy for the team on this one.

Who said DC is going to HAVE to pay for it. Sure it would be nice, but a privately financed stadium is possible here.

miguelon

July 25th, 2008, 07:41 PM

the sidelines for american football are really good, but i think i doesnt even fit a football ground, is it??, i know it was not ment to be a football stadium, but it takes away the posibility for some extra revenue, and a possible world cup host for Washington.

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 07:52 PM

berkshire royal

July 25th, 2008, 07:58 PM

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 08:22 PM

I have to say I love that in the US a 90,000 stadium gets slammed and there is talk of a new stadium for that team when the stadium is only 11 years old surely there be some minor work that could be done to improve it? Wouldn't the state be a bit pd off about having to pay towards a new stadium especially considering that they have already had to pay towards a new ballpark and also seeing as this is a very young stadium?

FedEx Field is a soulless monster. Its in a horrible location (which drives up parking costs) and has absolutely no atmosphere. Another thing most people dont realize is that FedEx was built as a 78k seater, not a 91k seater. The extra seats were squeezed in where ever possible. Everything seems forced or squeezed. The lower bowl has thousands of seats with their views blocked by columns. Its just not acceptable anymore. The new stadium could be privately financed, its the third richest team in the world, and our owner Dan Snyder isnt short on cash. Sometimes a team knows when they need a new stadium. Tropicana Field is in the process of being replaced and its not that old. Sure it was built in 1990 but since it began hosting baseball in 1998 it has almost doubled its construction cost in improvements.

What people outside of DC fail to understand is that before playing in the massive and open FedEx Field the Redskins played in tiny RFK Stadium. That place was loud, it had atmosphere. Its been referred to as the Boston Garden of football stadiums. People want something that wasnt forced or rushed. They want something that is built for the fans, something with a little personality. No amount of money spent or improvements on FedEx can do this.

berkshire royal

July 25th, 2008, 09:00 PM

FedEx Field is a soulless monster. Its in a horrible location (which drives up parking costs) and has absolutely no atmosphere. Another thing most people dont realize is that FedEx was built as a 78k seater, not a 91k seater. The extra seats were squeezed in where ever possible. Everything seems forced or squeezed. The lower bowl has thousands of seats with their views blocked by columns. Its just not acceptable anymore. The new stadium could be privately financed, its the third richest team in the world, and our owner Dan Snyder isnt short on cash. Sometimes a team knows when they need a new stadium. Tropicana Field is in the process of being replaced and its not that old. Sure it was built in 1990 but since it began hosting baseball in 1998 it has almost doubled its construction cost in improvements.

What people outside of DC fail to understand is that before playing in the massive and open FedEx Field the Redskins played in tiny RFK Stadium. That place was loud, it had atmosphere. Its been referred to as the Boston Garden of football stadiums. People want something that wasnt forced or rushed. They want something that is built for the fans, something with a little personality. No amount of money spent or improvements on FedEx can do this.

I see your point a stadium is nothing without its fans and if a stadium doesn't cater to the fans needs then clearly it isn't up to it. It still amazes me that such a large stadium could be disgarded so quickly after being built regardless of its faults. Do you reckon there will be announcment of a new stadium project soon then? I have to say this stadium sounds like a worse version of Old Trafford :lol:

en1044

July 25th, 2008, 09:01 PM

I see your point a stadium is nothing without its fans and if a stadium doesn't cater to the fans needs then clearly it isn't up to it. It still amazes me that such a large stadium could be disgarded so quickly after being built regardless of its faults. Do you reckon there will be announcment of a new stadium project soon then? I have to say this stadium sounds like a worse version of Old Trafford :lol:

I have no idea if there will be anything announced soon. All talk about a new stadium has just been speculation. There has never been any official word of one. The thing is, our owner (Dan Snyder) is so unpredictable that tomorrow he could announce that a deal has been is the works for months and construction will start in a week. Of course im just exaggerating but you get my point.

www.sercan.de

July 26th, 2008, 12:19 PM

Planned as a 78k?
Do you have plans or renderings and pics when it was opened?

en1044

July 26th, 2008, 04:43 PM

Planned as a 78k?
Do you have plans or renderings and pics when it was opened?

no renderings...it didnt look any different when it opened than it does now because the extra seats were crammed in all around the structure.

nyrmetros

July 26th, 2008, 05:02 PM

Who said DC is going to HAVE to pay for it. Sure it would be nice, but a privately financed stadium is possible here.

The Skins are not going to want to pay for the stadium themself when the DC council gave the Montreal Expos a free stadium.

nyrmetros

July 26th, 2008, 05:04 PM

no renderings...it didnt look any different when it opened than it does now because the extra seats were crammed in all around the structure.

Are there pics of the inside the stadium before and after all those seats were crammed in?

salaverryo

July 26th, 2008, 06:32 PM

can i ask why a lot of football stadiums in the U.S dont have roof's?

American football teams play an average of 8 home games per season (and this in the NFL, in college football it's even fewer). Of those 8 dates, how many can be rainy? Surely not all of them.

Benn

July 26th, 2008, 11:39 PM

Well 10-12 including preseason and possible playoffs. But there is more to it than that, for a lot of us it's about going to see an outdoor sport outdoors, being in the elements is seen as a good thing, being under a roof is sort of halfway between. Also with the weather patterns in much of the country rain is not a big problem especially in autumn, markets where that is a problem (basically Seattle) there are substantial roofs.

en1044

July 27th, 2008, 03:44 AM

The Skins are not going to want to pay for the stadium themself when the DC council gave the Montreal Expos a free stadium.

thats a pretty uneducated statement. They will have to fund most of the stadium's costs and they know it.

en1044

July 27th, 2008, 03:52 AM

American football teams play an average of 8 home games per season (and this in the NFL, in college football it's even fewer). Of those 8 dates, how many can be rainy? Surely not all of them.

also, its just how the stadiums have evolved. Its just not the number of days the stadium is used. This isnt Europe where stadiums required roofs and then they just became customary. Being that there is almost no rain here we developed our stadiums as such over many decades. Our stadiums are a direct response to our environment.

en1044

July 27th, 2008, 09:38 AM

Are there pics of the inside the stadium before and after all those seats were crammed in?

It looked exactly as it does now, hence the use of the word "crammed"

nyrmetros

July 27th, 2008, 09:13 PM

thats a pretty uneducated statement. They will have to fund most of the stadium's costs and they know it.

Teams will always try to get the local council to pay as much as possible. Just look at the new Yankee and Mets stadium. Everyone said how those were great deals because the teams were paying for the stadiums. At the end of the day, the city and state will be paying as much as $800 mill, and maybe even more.

en1044

July 27th, 2008, 10:16 PM

Teams will always try to get the local council to pay as much as possible. Just look at the new Yankee and Mets stadium. Everyone said how those were great deals because the teams were paying for the stadiums. At the end of the day, the city and state will be paying as much as $800 mill, and maybe even more.

yes but this isnt New York. There are limits on how much the city can spend and everyone knows that. Its not even certain that a new stadium will be built in the District, Virginia can possibly find some room near the Potomac to build on.

nyrmetros

July 28th, 2008, 12:29 AM

yes but this isnt New York. There are limits on how much the city can spend and everyone knows that. Its not even certain that a new stadium will be built in the District, Virginia can possibly find some room near the Potomac to build on.

But if the Skins tell Marlyand/DC, either build us a new stadium or we are going to Virginia...... that's a lot of pressure....

Big Texan

July 28th, 2008, 12:33 AM

The world doesn't revolved around the Cowboys. Teams want new stadiums because they want to make more money.

Im talking about the NFC East and the teams in it.

Big Texan

July 28th, 2008, 12:38 AM

But if the Skins tell Marlyand/DC, either build us a new stadium or we are going to Virginia...... that's a lot of pressure....

Here is an idea, tare down RFK and build a new one there.

nyrmetros

July 28th, 2008, 12:39 AM

Here is an idea, tare down RFK and build a new one there.

Only if DC United of MLS get their new stadium at poplar point......

en1044

July 28th, 2008, 03:15 AM

But if the Skins tell Marlyand/DC, either build us a new stadium or we are going to Virginia...... that's a lot of pressure....

No its not, not even close. The Redskins fanbase IS DC/MD/VA. The Skins HQ is in Virginia. They have training camp there. Heck, they could built it in Maryland again if they want to. It really doesnt matter where they build it as long as its closer to the city and near the Metro. Theres no pressure.

en1044

July 28th, 2008, 03:16 AM

Here is an idea, tare down RFK and build a new one there.

They should, it would be the best scenario, but VA or MD would have to pitch in if the Redskins decide they dont want to pay all of it on their own.

TexasBoi

July 28th, 2008, 03:36 AM

While Fed Ex Field is not on a metro station. It isn't that far from the metro at all. Morgan Blvd is only a 15 minute walk from the Blue line. I should know. I live right on it. But go to hell redskins.:banana:

en1044

July 28th, 2008, 03:42 AM

en1044

August 4th, 2008, 10:35 PM

D.C. Leaders Hope To Lure Skins Back From Suburbs

WASHINGTON -- Ever since losing the Washington Redskins to FedEx Field in Landover, Md., D.C. leaders have been trying to get the team back to Washington, and the effort continues with Mayor Adrian Fenty's administration.

The storied Redskins history in the nation's capital ruptured in the early '90s. Former Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly fumbled an effort to keep the team in D.C., insulting former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke, News4's Tom Sherwood reported.

Next, former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder thought he had the team, and Cooke seemed insulted when News4 questioned that deal. But three months later, the Virginia deal was dead.

Cooke finally built FedEx Field.

Now, D.C. Council Finance Committee Chairman Jack Evans is working with Fenty to lure the team back from the suburbs.

Fenty and Evans agree any deal must be good for the city as well as the Redskins.

A spokesman for Redskins owner Dan Snyder said, "We're happy where we are and we have 20 years left to be there."

The city doesn't see that as a "no." It envisions 100,000-seat domed stadium suitable for Super Bowls at the RFK Stadium site.

nyrmetros

August 5th, 2008, 01:14 AM

The city doesn't see that as a "no." It envisions 100,000-seat domed stadium suitable for Super Bowls at the RFK Stadium site.

And who's paying for it?

en1044

August 5th, 2008, 03:26 AM

And who's paying for it?

the team and the city

nyrmetros

August 5th, 2008, 05:32 PM

the team and the city

And what are the numbers? Is the team paying for the stadium and the city paying for infrastructure ?

en1044

August 5th, 2008, 05:35 PM

And what are the numbers? Is the team paying for the stadium and the city paying for infrastructure ?

no one knows yet, its just a preliminary agreement

nyrmetros

August 5th, 2008, 05:52 PM

no one knows yet, its just a preliminary agreement

DC council is setting themselves up to pay for the whole thing again, and DC United still gets nothing. wankers.

en1044

August 5th, 2008, 06:06 PM

DC council is setting themselves up to pay for the whole thing again, and DC United still gets nothing. wankers.

um...no?

The city is not going to dish out $1 billion for this stadium (which you know it will cost), common sense tells you that. The Redskins have more than enough money to finance a big part of the new stadium. DC United can play in FedEx Field when they demolish half of it, or they can play in a new stadium in MD or VA. Its not a big deal. Around here, Redskins>DC United because Redskins=more $$$.

Benn

August 5th, 2008, 06:44 PM

at the going rate $1.5 billion atleast, you know Snyder will want to one up Jerry Jones, so he is going to want a 100,000 seat retractable roof affair, and would probably end up being the most expensive stadium to date. Unless the new Meadowlands has serious cost overruns, which could happen.

en1044

August 5th, 2008, 06:49 PM

Benn

August 5th, 2008, 07:43 PM

Thats the story of the NFL these days, by 2012 the Cowboys, Giants and possibly Jets fans will be effectively priced out of going to see games in seats where they can actually see anything. I sincerely hope smaller market teams don't get any bad ideas, PSLs would kill a number of franchises. If the Vikings put them on all of the season tickets, I would just go to Gophers games, and pretty much give up on the NFL, but I think Zigi is smarter than that. I could see San Fransisco doing that whole thing if they get a new stadium, and if LA gets another team they would be a forgone conclusion.

en1044

August 5th, 2008, 07:46 PM

Well luckily smaller market teams dont have to worry so much about PSLs because of cheaper stadiums. I hope Danny Snyder can find a way around the PSL option. He may not be the best owner, but hes a master money maker. He can be pretty creative sometimes.

Benn

August 5th, 2008, 08:35 PM

I'll give him that, although he ahs tried to micromanage the Redskins with terrible results, he needs to let his GMs and coaches handle the football decisions entirely, then maybe they would get back to their early 90s form.

While I am not terribly worried about the Vikings going to PSLs, besides maybe on the club seats or a few sections between the 20 yard lines it still does concern me, and if they build the $850 million proposed stadium ticket prices will still jump, but I could probably still afford to get decent seats in the corner or endline areas not too far from the field.

hngcm

August 6th, 2008, 04:58 AM

i doubt the Vikings will have PSLs, i don't think the Colts have them

Benn

August 7th, 2008, 09:20 PM

Well the Colts won't, but the Seahawks have some, and Seattle isn't much bigger than the Twin Cities. Zigi does like money, so kind of depending on how much money the state would put in I could see PSLs in the lower level between the 20 yard lines, I don't think that anybody wants, but businessmen make decisions on the their financial bottom line, not everybody else's.

merope

August 8th, 2008, 05:04 PM

Well luckily smaller market teams dont have to worry so much about PSLs because of cheaper stadiums.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. The first PSLs were for the Carolina Panthers if I remember correctly. Pretty small market team there.

I'd say PSLs are more or less a done deal for *any* new NFL stadium for the foreseeable future.

nyrmetros

August 12th, 2008, 01:40 AM

yea, Carolina was the first NFL team with PSLs.....

Bobby3

August 12th, 2008, 01:52 AM

Carolina's stadium was entirely financed by private money though, so the PSL thing doesn't really irk us. If it was public/private we'd have been pissed.

Pricing people out of something their tax dollars (if even a fraction of a penny) paid for is criminal.

nyrmetros

August 13th, 2008, 07:15 AM

$5, 000 PSL for a $900 season ticket. lovely.

bing222

August 13th, 2008, 09:15 AM

I think that the FedEx field should stay

en1044

August 13th, 2008, 09:33 AM

I think that FedEx Field should gooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

merope

August 13th, 2008, 03:22 PM

I'm with those happy to wave goodbye to Landover. RFK, where I was lucky enough to attend many Redskins games, gave a genuine home field advantage. This seems lacking at FedEx. Architecturally, FedEx is dull, even unattractive. Dallas, Beijing and other cities are showing that stadia can be exciting and innovative.

Scba

August 14th, 2008, 02:32 AM

How innovative can an NFL stadium be?

merope

August 14th, 2008, 05:14 AM

How innovative can an NFL stadium be?

A lot more than FedEx is.

www.sercan.de

February 6th, 2009, 12:04 AM

Very informative post by en1044
Its not going to be as expensive as other stadiums. The new stadium would be built where RFK Stadium is now. That land has been specifically zoned by Congress to hold a stadium. It would take an act of Congress for anything other than a stadium to be built there. Since the new stadium would probably be owned by the government on government land, I dont see the land being all that expensive. Also, the FedEx site in Landover would be sold... the site, although not suited for a stadium, would serve other purposes quite nicely. The Redskins would also put a lot of their money towards the new stadium, but the city wouldnt have as much of a problem spending a bit as well, as the stadium would make a lot of money in return. There are already parking lots built around the site. It actually works perfectly.

FedEx Field was built in a hurry so that owner Jack Kent Cooke would be able to live to see its completion (he didnt). The construction is somewhat poor. Its in a horrible location, even though its only about 5 miles from RFK. It wasnt built on a Metro line (the station that "serves" the stadium is about a mile away). The stadium is quiet because of the design. Sound goes straight up, like at Michigan Stadium. It is one of the most luxurious stadiums in the NFL, but thats only if you are in the club level or in a suite. If you arent, you have to walk around in concourses that look terrible and dirty (and smell). It drives the fans away. The Redskins have gone from having possibly the best home field advantage in the NFL at RFK to one of the worst. The fans havent changed, but the people who attend the games have.

Now heres the worst part. FedEx was built with a capacity of 78,000. Now it seats 91,000. See any major additions, extra decks built? No. To expand, seats have been forced into places not originally designed for seating...like in the picture below. In the picture you can see across the field where the lower bowl ends and a row of suites begins. Originally, on the opposite side of the stadium where the lower bowl ended there was just a wall. Dan Snyder added seats there (its known as the cave) to increase capacity. Those seats are terrible. Its another reason why people would just rather watch on tv. Its just a pain. A new stadium more geared towards the fans and with better transportation (and a retractable roof for other events) would greatly improve the experience and generate a lot of money for the city.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/169265013_114c824e82.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/166848630_2c23320bbd_o.jpg

Ganis

February 6th, 2009, 05:37 AM

Fed Ex is an example of poor stadium planning.

en1044

February 6th, 2009, 06:16 AM

Fed Ex is an example of poor stadium planning.

Yes, it is. Thats what happens when Marion Barry is your mayor and hes too busy doing coke off a hookers ass to realize that a new stadium in the district is pretty important for the economy. FedEx was built right outside of DC for a reason...out of spite. Jack Kent Cooke wanted to screw the city bad for not letting him build in Washington. He succeeded (kinda).

en1044

January 14th, 2010, 10:29 AM

Well some good news coming out.

The Redskins will finally be replacing those awful video screens at FedEx Field with brand new HD screens.

No link yet, but there will be more details soon.

GunnerJacket

January 15th, 2010, 05:08 PM

Well some good news coming out.

The Redskins will finally be replacing those awful video screens at FedEx Field with brand new HD screens.

No link yet, but there will be more details soon.Does this mean the push to relocate is being tempered? I realize this isn't a comparably huge expense but one would think they'd refrain from any investment in FedEx if their goal is to be done with it.

en1044

January 15th, 2010, 09:05 PM

Does this mean the push to relocate is being tempered? I realize this isn't a comparably huge expense but one would think they'd refrain from any investment in FedEx if their goal is to be done with it.

Thats what a lot of people are saying right now, but if theres anything Ive learned about Dan Snyder its not to look too much into his actions because his next move may very well be to relocate.

Who knows.

en1044

January 20th, 2010, 03:39 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcs...assive_hd.html

Redskins to install HD video screens at FedEx

This week, the Washington Redskins began mailing letters to their general admission and premium club seat ticket holders, informing them of significant changes to the in-game video experience, headlined by two 30 feet tall by 100 feet wide high-definition video boards, one in each end zone.

Now, there are two ways fans could react to this news. (And no, drunken indifference is not an option. It's the offseason.) Some fans will say it's about time, that after living with a scoreboard nicknamed The Lite Brite and a video board that seemed smaller than Albert Haynesworth, the franchise owed season ticket holders this much and more. They'll talk about the lack of out-of-town scores and in-game stats, and the 28-by-28 feet JumboTron that hadn't been updated in 13 years, and the high-def screens in Philadelphia and Baltimore, and the in-game experience at FedEx that Sports Illustrated rated 28th out of 32 teams in 2007.

But because I'm an optimist, I'm choosing to take a different point of view. Redskins fans this fall were as angry as local observers could remember. They demanded change. And whatever the reason, no matter how late the hour, some signs of change have arrived.

Fans wanted a general manager, and they got one in December. They wanted Daniel Snyder to take a step back, and while it's early, at least there are public nods in that direction. And they wanted the game-day experience to leave the 20th century; this is a first step. If you demand something, and then it happens, you can hardly complain that it only happened because you demanded it.

So what does this letter announce? There will be the HD boards in both end zones, replacing the comically small scoreboards, the old JumboTrons, and two end zone billboards. The big screens, which should be in place for the preseason, can be split into a variety of configurations; for example, displaying the same replay from different angles simultaneously, or showing replays and stats at the same time. There will be 10 other new screens in the lower bowl, from the game clocks to the time clocks to the out-of-town scoreboard displays, which will be equipped to also convey game stats and fantasy football totals.

Obviously we need to wait and see how it all looks, but these sound to me like massive upgrades.

"I think Dan Snyder's finally realizing that he doesn't have an endless supply of fans, so the product on the field has to be improved and the amenities have to be improved as well," said Mike Broderick, one of the franchise's most vocal critics during the past fall. "At least they're trying," he added, which is the angle I'm going for.

"It's about time that they actually gave back to the fans as opposed to just taking money from them with nothing to show for it," said Ted Abela, another of my go-to fan voices.

The big boards will compare in size quite favorably to other models in the close vicinity. Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field has two 27-by-96 foot screens. Baltimore's M&T Bank Stadium has two 24-by-100 foot screens. Charlotte's Bank of America Stadium has a 31.5-by-77 foot screen.

Of course, that team in Dallas has some sort of 71-by-160 monstrosity, along with the pole dancers and the playoff losses and the kicker that can't make clutch field goals, but they can keep all that.