Critics, Neighbors Warily Eye Ballpark's Effects

| Print Post This | Like (0) | Comments (0)

WHO ISN'T A BIG FAN of Nationals Park? Post architecture critic Phil Kennicott, for one.

He, frankly, likes RFK Stadium better. As an architectural experience, anyway.

An excerpt:

The old and much-maligned RFK Stadium, where the Nationals played the past three seasons, might be a better building -- more visual interest, more presence on its prominent site, and a better mix of modern style with the city's vernacular gravitas -- but it was a lousy experience. Today, we have a great experience but, alas, a lousy building.

Indeed, when people say it's a better experience, the building almost disappears in their judgment, which is exactly what the new stadium does in its location. Although it is positioned on one of the most symbolically significant and potentially beautiful axes of the city, aligned with the Capitol and next to the Anacostia River, it all but fades into the landscape. Two disastrously situated parking garages -- reserved for high-paying ticketholders -- obscure the front entrance, and its other three sides present a bland face to the world.

Meanwhile, Nationals Park's neighbors say they're not sure what having a major attraction so close to their doorsteps will mean for their quality of life, but all the hubbub of late has them worried.

"This has changed my life already," Emma Ward, a resident whose home is just west of the ballpark, told The Post's Petula Dvorak. "I can't go in and out of my house without really thinking about it." In fact, Dvorak reports, the retired schoolteacher walked to the grocery store on Sunday rather than driving and risking the loss of a now-coveted parking spot in her neighborhood.

» "This Diamond Isn't a Gem" [WaPo]
» "D.C. Residents Wait In Stadium's Shadow" [WaPo]

Photo by John McDonnell/The Washington Post