For those not following the DC deal, the plan is for the new ballpark to be break with the "Camden Yards/Retro style" that has consumed design for over a decade now. This article talks of what maybe in store in DC.- Maury

Read the entire article here on the Washington Post website.

Getting Good Designers To Swing at D.C.'s Pitch

By Benjamin Forgey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 5, 2005; Page C01



The search for a D.C. ballpark designer hopefully will attract architects of the caliber of Santiago Calatrava,
who designed Olympic Stadium in Athens. (Saitas Pantelis -- Athens News Agency)

Unique. Iconic. World-class. Contemporary. Distinctive. Forward-thinking. Representative of 21st-century architectural ideals.

Words and phrases such as these are peppered throughout a document recently released by the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission: "Request for Proposals -- D.C. Major League Baseball Park Architectural and Engineering Services."

This is the 28-page paper (plus attachments) that sets the tone and establishes the processes for designing and building Washington's new ballpark on South Capitol Street.

The park represents a giant architectural and planning opportunity for the nation's capital, a rare chance to build a splendid, 21st-century "gateway" structure near a major bridge and within site of the Capitol dome. And to help revive a river and a section of the city.

Demonstrably, Washington is rejecting yet another "retro" ballpark. But whether we will get a stadium that embodies all or any of the admirable qualities so frequently cited in the RFP, as such documents are known, remains a troubling question.

One reason is the schedule. It is incredibly tight. The agreement between the city and Major League Baseball calls for the ballpark to be ready for Opening Day 2008. To get a stadium built and operable by then means that the complicated job of preparing the city's 21-acre site must begin this fall, at the latest. (The site, bounded by South Capitol, N, First and P streets SE, is not entirely in the city's possession, as of today.) Construction has to start by next February.

A demanding schedule is an obstacle that can be overcome, of course, but it puts pressure on the process at every point. And the process, as we shall see, has quite a few points where too much pressure could negatively affect architectural quality.

The first, and possibly most important, of these is the selection of the design architect. More precisely, the city will be selecting a design team, comprising a lead designer and a supporting crew dedicated to transforming a vision into reality. Like stadium engineering, such teams require precise balances and can be hard to put together in short order.

Usually for such important civic projects, the selection process is a rather patient, deliberative affair taking anywhere from four months to a year. In Washington, we're getting the condensed version. The RFP was issued Jan. 14. Submissions are due Feb 15. Oral presentations by finalists will take place Feb. 21 and 22, and the final choice will be announced the first week of March. (Originally the selection date was Feb. 28. Allen Lew, chief executive officer of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, said in an interview, however, that a few more days will be needed.)

Who got the message? That's question number one where such a condensed selection process is concerned. One can be reasonably sure that most local firms and all the big sports stadium design specialists are aware of the opportunity. But what about the "world-class" designers, the ones you'd automatically put on a top 50 list of architects most likely to come up with a brilliant new concept?

Toni Griffin, a chief deputy of the Anacostia Waterfront Corp., which has a big say about the ballpark because it will be built just a block from the river, said copies of the RFP were sent to a number of distinguished architects. Lew said he's heard "rumors" about the possible involvement of name architects.

But Santiago Calatrava, the Spanish architect engineer who designed the beautiful Olympic Stadium in Athens, told me in a telephone conversation this week that he knew nothing of the Washington opportunity. New Mexico's Antoine Predock, a top-50 type and lead architect for Petco Park, the innovative stadium that opened last April in San Diego, said he hadn't heard about it, either. (Predock did, however, enthusiastically ask for the commission's e-mail address.)

So, who know's who'll show up? Only one thing is certain: The wait for an answer won't be long. And then the question becomes, who'll get the job? That always tantalizing possibility is given extra dimension in the Washington case by at least two questionable steps on the procedural ladder, both of which might penalize a brilliant designer.

Like most such competitions, this one is to be judged using a point system. Unlike most competitions whose focus is outstanding design, however, one of the five criteria on the District's list -- in addition to design quality, key personnel, management capacity and local and minority participation -- is cost. That sounds reasonable in a publicly funded project of this magnitude, until you read the fine print. What competitors are being asked to present are fixed fees for each phase of the design process.

Compare this with the Design Excellence Program of the General Services Administration, which has done so much to improve federal architecture over the last couple of decades. Robert Peck, president of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, used to oversee the program as director of the Public Building Service. "In the federal government, by law you are not allowed to consider upfront cost in the selection of your number one-ranked firm," Peck said. "You pick who you think is the best on design and technical grounds, and then, later, you ask for a price," he continued. "If it's out of line, then you can go on to your number two choice."

At this point in the game, then, the cost criterion is basically a diversion from the main issue. Perhaps because of this, the commission this week cut the point allowance for cost from 25 (out of a possible 100) to 15, according to Lew. Encouragingly, the 10 points thus freed up were applied to the design category, upping it from 30 to 40 points. "At least," Peck said, "they're going in the right direction."

Then, too, the stadium is to be constructed by what Lew calls a "hybrid design-build system." This means the prime contractor, a firm to be hired after the architectural team in a separate process, will at a certain point "own the design," in Lew's words. The ideal is for the "builder and architect to work side by side as the design develops, sharing responsibilities for materials selections and systems," Lew said. But on a fast-track construction schedule like this one, the builder can overrule the designer.

The list of obstacles could go on. (Or, optimistically, we could call them "challenges.") For instance -- again in strong contradistinction to the exemplary federal program -- there are no architects assigned by law or regulation to the committee that evaluates the teams, totals up the points and thereby selects the winner. (Technically, the committee "recommends" a winner. The final decision is up to a city council at least half of whose members don't want the ballpark. But let's not even go there.) Also, the master plans for the site itself and the surrounding area are still being developed by the Anacostia Waterfront Corp., so at the very beginning of the design process, the designer will have very little context or few design guidelines to go on.

What it all comes down to is that there is a tremendous gap between the architectural ambitions stated in the RFP and the potential foul-ups built into the system.

There are, to be sure, plenty of good intentions, and these count for something. Andrew Altman, the chief of the Anacostia Waterfront Corp., who, as former director of the city's Office of Planning, oversaw the creation of the farsighted Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, has repeatedly stated his determination to aim for the best. "This is when cities succeed or fail," he said this week, "so you have to get it right."

Lew, who managed the construction of the city's new convention center, defined his architectural goal as "something unique for Washington." As an example, he mentions the East Building of the National Gallery of Art. "That building looks as beautiful as it did when it was built [in 1978]. Its beauty is in its scale, proportions and palette. It's not saying it has to remind you of something Greek or Roman."

These two men could become the key advocates for design excellence, something the ballpark will sorely need as the story unfolds. They've promised, Lew said, to attend each other's meetings on the issues "so that the processes of planning, design and construction become seamless." Altman confirms the arrangement. "That's right, we're engaged," he said.

For the Olympic Games of 1992, Barcelona showed the world how foresight in planning and daring architecture could be fused to advance a city's reputation, economic health and quality of life. In the same year, Baltimore showed the United States what an excellent new baseball park -- retro as it may be -- could do for a city's pride. In the years since, cities around the globe have used splendidly designed sports stadiums to achieve similar aims.

Now it is Washington's turn. Let's hope.

Read the entire article here on the Washington Post website.

D.C. Places Premium on 'Signature' Look for Ballpark
Creativity Stressed As Architects Vie To Win Project
By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page C11



D.C. officials say that this rendering of a new stadium was drawn only to inspire unusual design possibilities
and that the design has not been finalized."We do not want to see just another baseball stadium," says
Allen Y. Lew, chief executive of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission. (360 Architecture)

In their successful pitch for a Major League Baseball team, District leaders presented a sketch of a ballpark along the Anacostia River that gives spectators a view of one of the city's most powerful symbols: the U.S. Capitol.

The rendering, which was by no means final, was intended to stir emotions, to offer a glimpse of the unusual design possibilities for the future home of the Washington Nationals. When the stadium is completed in 2008, officials say, it could become a city gateway that reinvigorates a once-neglected riverfront.

But don't expect a throwback stadium such as Baltimore's Oriole Park at Camden Yards, which started a ballpark building boom in 1992, with its red-brick facade, ornate ironwork and historic warehouse.

"We do not want to see just another baseball stadium," said Allen Y. Lew, chief executive of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission. "We want signature architecture. We're not looking to just mimic other cities."

The sports commission, along with the staff of Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), will oversee the ballpark's design and construction. The commission plans to select a chief architect this month.

At least 75 representatives for 35 firms, including the half-dozen leading sports architecture companies, have obtained the city's 28-page packet of instructions. The city has advised potential designers to consider recently built ballparks but to "create architecture for Washington that is distinctive and of this time."

What that means, exactly, is open to interpretation.

Toni L. Griffin, a city deputy planning director, noted that the stadium's waterfront site near the Navy Yard and South Capitol Street is "not an area surrounded by a lot of brick or stone or marble. So it's an opportunity to really set a design vocabulary for this district on the waterfront."

The stadium project, one of several ballparks on the drawing board in major cities, might become part of a movement that favors innovative designs. Last year, the San Diego Padres unveiled Petco Park, which featured a sandstone facade and palm-tree-lined gardens. A proposed new ballpark in Miami for the Florida Marlins will not use bricks, but rather glass and steel, said an architect who designed it.

A majority of the 14 baseball-only stadiums constructed in the past 13 years mimicked the traditional look ushered in by Oriole Park, which was viewed as an escape from the bloated, multipurpose bowls -- such as Washington's Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, which once was shared by the Redskins and baseball's Senators. Recently, there has been a backlash against the so-called "retro ballparks, " which some architecture critics have called a cliche.

Peter Eisenman, a New York-based architect who used a desert cactus as inspiration for the design of the new stadium for the Arizona Cardinals football team, said that European sports facilities are more daring and modern. He suggested that the District hold a design competition, instead of a traditional bidding process, to foster creativity.

The Williams administration went through an acrimonious debate with the D.C. Council to win approval for a publicly funded stadium. A major challenge for the city and the new architect will be to live within the city's estimated $279 million stadium construction budget.

Officials want to keep the height of the structure relatively low so it won't overpower residential neighborhoods a few blocks away. Major League Baseball's requirements include 41,000 seats, 2,000 club seats, 66 private suites, a restaurant and a picnic area.

Architects say those requirements are not extraordinary and probably can be met with one concourse level, matching the thinking of Stephen M. Green, a special adviser to the mayor on baseball issues.

Green says the city is seeking a ballpark that is relatively small in scale -- with three concourses similar to Pittsburgh's PNC Park, rather than four. Such a design is said to add intimacy.

"We want to be democratic," Green said. "We are trending toward less exclusivity."

The smaller size also cuts costs. As planned, D.C's ballpark will be 1.05 million square feet, while some parks are as big as 1.4 million square feet. Architects call the ballpark's budget adequate but hardly exorbitant.

As the architects are vetted by the D.C. sports commission, a group of city planners is working on a master plan for a ballpark district that would feature mixed-use development, strongly influencing how the stadium is set on 21 acres.

Andrew Altman, head of the city's Anacostia Waterfront Development Corp., envisions a river-walk leading to the park, which could feature retail shops and restaurants on the ground level. Roads would be widened and extended to the river, and a new bridge leading over the river on South Capitol Street has been proposed.

Lane Welter of HNTB Architecture -- which is retrofitting RFK Stadium, the Nationals' temporary home, and intends to bid for the new ballpark -- said inspiration could be drawn from D.C.'s international flavor.

"That would be interesting to pin down," Welter said. "But the ballpark has to be used as a centerpiece to revitalization of the Anacostia. That will set a tone, and from there who knows what will be spawned?"

City planners are studying such factors as which way the stadium should open -- with a view to the Capitol on the north or the water to the south. They also are studying where fans should enter the ballpark -- behind home plate or through a gate near the outfield.

"We want the ballpark to help in the creation of a neighborhood, and not just be an isolated icon," Altman said.

Whether the new ballpark can do that and fulfill its other functions remains to be seen.

With the financial stakes high, the Nationals and Major League Baseball will keep close watch over the process through a team representative, whose $3.7 million fee will be paid by the District. Generating revenue inside the park is key for a team trying to remain competitive and turn a profit.

Across the country, cities with major league teams are creating large concourses with televisions, so fans can linger in the concessions areas without missing any action. Picnic and gathering areas, such as the waterfront promenade in San Francisco or the Park at the Park in San Diego, are considered a must-have as teams seek to get fans to "come early and stay late," as the marketing mantra goes.

"The big thing now in our business is that design has to be a lot more flexible, and you do not put all your marbles in one revenue stream," said Earl Santee, a lead designer for HOK Sport of Kansas City. Santee has traveled to the District several times to help prepare his company's bid for the project.

"We've taken the emphasis off the suite, and that's changed the design paradigm" Santee said. "I like a big lower deck and big main concourse. It's like main street, where everyone comes together."


If there are fewer exclusive seats in the District's stadium than in other ballparks, architects probably will be pressured to create other revenue-generating features.

In Baltimore, then-Orioles President Larry Lucchino and his lead architects from HOK created a ballpark experience that became a hit by almost every measure. Fans have loved the traditional look and feel of the park, with its nod to the area's history through the incorporation of the red-brick B&O Warehouse beyond right field. Owners love the park's amenities -- the 75 luxury suites and the Eutaw Street promenade, where fans spend money on Boog's Barbecue and team-owned stores. Not coincidentally, while the ballpark's ceremonial entrance is behind home plate, most fans enter through the large gates on Eutaw Street.

HOK, the country's leading sports architecture firm, has designed 10 of the 14 most recent ballparks, as well as football stadiums and other sports arenas. Santee noted that team owners often demand a more traditional stadium because Oriole Park has been so successful and because baseball is the most traditional of sports.

(to read the entire article use the link above)

It will be interesting to see what the city designs. The Mayor sold the stadium to the city as a way to revitalize SE Washington. However, if they build a "unique" ballpark, it may not be able to attract outside development.

I think the whole key to the development is to create foot traffic in and around the ballpark. They have a good Metro stop, meaning people won't need their cars. But they definately need to create a more pleasing environment for the pedestrian....

I like "unique". I'm just not sure its the smartest move in the world.