(originally posted Dec. 2) It's been just short of a year since Gustafson Guthrie Nichol Ltd won the design competition for Washington Canal Park, and basically nothing has happened with the plans since then. But for its Dec. 8 board meeting, the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation has prepared a draft resolution that agrees to award GGN a $979,500 contract for design and planning services. Let's hope that the park appears in 2006, as originally scheduled. UPDATE: I have now heard that the AWC board did authorize the AWC to enter into a contract with GGNL. But of course now the contract has to be worked out.

The Post has already posted a version of tomorrow's stadium story, "Mayor Insists Stadium Costs Will Not Rise" (changed to "Williams Dismisses Stadium Estimate" in Wednesday's print version), which quotes Mayor Bowtie as saying, "Under no circumstances will this stadium cost $700 million," and that the reports of that pricetag were misleading, the result of misinformation perpetuated by stadium opponents "who have been against this deal from day one." (Gee, I wonder who that could be?) More: "Williams acknowledged that the stadium project budget does not contain money for ancillary costs such as improvements to a nearby Metro station and roads, an underground parking structure, bond financing fees and other potential costs.  [...] 'I never believed these costs should be borne completely by the baseball stadium budget,' Williams said. 'They never have been borne completely by other cities with stadiums.' But several council members said they approved the $535 million budget with the expectation that the figure included money for roads, Metro and bond financing."

Zoning Commission news: the expected Dec. 8 hearing on Florida Rock's second stage PUD has been cancelled, with plans for a new date in Spring 2006. Also, the new proposed amendment to the Capital Gateway Overlay has been approved for setdown (hearing date TBD); here is the Office of Planning's report and draft of the proposed text change that was submitted to the Zoning Commission for discussion.  If you have comments or questions or additional input, contact Joel Lawson at the Office of Planning.

Did we say $435 million? We meant $535 million. Or $589 million. Or $714 million, if you watch NBC4 ("New Cost Estimate Jeopardizes Baseball Stadium Plan") or read this morning's Post ("D.C. Baseball Stadium Cost Could Exceed $700 Million") or Washington Times ("D.C. re-evaluates ballpark figure for higher costs"). Or is it really that high? "Officials stressed that the new estimates are preliminary and take into account all potential costs, including $41 million for underground parking, $20 million to upgrade the Navy Yard Metro station and $12 million to rebuild nearby roads. They added that some of the work might not have to be paid for by the city or done at all." Mayoral spokesman Vince Morris disputes the figure: "The $700 million doomsday budget is not ours and does not reflect reality." And as for the city's concession in the lease agreement, the city has agreed to give baseball one-third of parking revenue generated by a new stadium on non-game days. In the meantime, David Catania continues to fight the stadium, by introducing two emergency measures at today's council session: One would slap a $535 million limit on spending to build the stadium, and the second would state that the stadium and related infrastructure improvements can only be paid for by city bonds. UPDATE: AP is reporting that both of Catania's measures failed (votes were 8-5 in favor, but 9 votes are needed for emergency legislation).

Another day of "Almost There...." The Post's "Ballpark 'Hurdles' Are Cleared, Cropp Says" says that the MLB concessions should end the push to switch to RFK, but there's still not a guarantee that the council will approve the lease, especially since they haven't seen it yet (because it doesn't exist yet), and don't know whether there are any surprises in store.

It's not official, but those always available "sources" tell the Post ("Tentative Deal Reached On Lease For Stadium") that "agreement has been reached on the District's two key demands, the $20 million payment and a letter of credit from baseball." There are still discussions to be had, but DCSEC chair Mark Tuohey says a deal could be wrapped up early next week, in time for the city council to schedule a Dec. 20 hearing. One thing we don't know: "In return for the payment, baseball will receive a concession from the city, government sources familiar with the negotiations said. The nature of that concession was not disclosed." What could this be, a statue of Bud Selig on the Mall? It's also nice to see that this article spells out the problems with a sudden move to the RFK site, which have been glossed over during this week's turmoil. We shall see what next week brings.... UPDATE: The WashTimes's story for Saturday ("Ballpark Lease in Ninth Inning") concentrates on how it might be difficult for the city to sell the $286 million in public bonds during the last days of December. UPDATE II: A story on MLB.com says that lawyers for both sides continue to meet today to put the final touches on the agreement.

Do I need to put a question mark over the stadium site my map of Near Southeast again? The Post has a story on its web site this afternoon, "MLB Does Not Rule Out RFK Site for New Stadium". Lots of back-and-forth about what was said, what wasn't said, is RFK doable, is it not doable, yadda yadda yadda. I think I may cease posting on the (supposed) stadium just like I did last year, until something concrete is decided. (Then again, we thought something concrete was decided a year ago.)

ANC 6B has posted its December Meeting Agenda, which is scheduled to include reports on two Near Southeast projects from its Planning and Zoning Committee's Dec. 6 meeting: the Capper/Carrollsburg second-stage PUD (which is going before the DC Zoning Commission on Dec. 19), and a new proposed project at 1006-1010 7th Street, SE, which plans to combine 3 [currently empty] lots and construct 4-story building with offices on 1st floor and 3 residential floors above (9 apts.). This would be on the east side of 7th Street, across from the Marine BEQ and next to the five rowhouses that are being renovated (just north of the 7th and L Market). This project is also on the agenda for the Dec. 15 Historic Preservation Review Board Meeting. On a similar front, the proposed mixed-use project at 801 Virginia Ave. is also on the HPRB agenda (again), it appears the original proposal (see the July ANC 6B minutes for details) has been revised. My 8th Street Historic District page has a photo or two of these 7th and 8th Street locations.

You Make the Call.... Associated Press: "Mayor Anthony A. Williams is confident the city and Major League Baseball will agree to a lease for a new Washington Nationals' ballpark without arbitration." Washington Times: "District Mayor Anthony Williams yesterday responded to a stern warning from Major League Baseball officials regarding the timeline for the new ballpark for the Washington Nationals, saying he was confident the city would agree to a lease and financing for the stadium by the end of the year." Washington Post: "Mayor Anthony A. Williams said publicly yesterday he feared that the D.C. Council would reject a stadium lease agreement unless Major League Baseball contributes more money, and within hours the council scheduled a high-stakes meeting with a top baseball official." [The meeting is this morning at 8:30.] UPDATE: Here's the AP's piece on how the meeting went.

The DC CFO office has posted Natwar Gandhi's prepared remarks from Monday's roundtable on the stadium--the PDF also includes a table of estimates of the costs for the stadium, showing the new $589 million figure. [On another front, Mr. Gandhi, I know you are very busy these days fending off snarky attacks from DC council members, but could you prod your staff to get the DC Property Sales database updated? I'm pretty sure there have been more than four property transactions in all of DC since Sept. 30th (although you were certainly quick to get the 45 stadium property eminent domain transfers into the system).... ]

The scheduled Nov. 28 hearing on the new proposed amendment to the Capitol Gateway Overlay was again deferred, and is now scheduled for Dec. 5 at 6:00 pm. The main objectives for the proposed amendment are to further regulate density transfer available through the existing combined lot provisions; to require Zoning Commission review of development proposals throughout the overlay area; to establish retail requirements along Half Street SE and First Street SE; and to establish setback and step back requirements on Half Street SE, South Capitol Street, and Potomac Avenue.  (FYI, the CG Overlay is mapped to include an area roughly bounded by M Street to the north, the Anacostia River to the south, Fort McNair to the west, and the Southeast Federal Center site to the east.) The proposed amendment is in its early stages, there will no doubt be much discussion and back-and-forth.

From Wednesday'sWashington Times, "Evans: No need for $20M for D.C.", discusses the misstatement about a $20 million payment from MLB, the status of the lease negotiations, and how the city council potentially would vote. Today also brings an AP story ("MLB Pressures DC on Ballpark") about a letter sent to Mayor Williams and Chairman Cropp from MLB expressing concern about the progress of the lease negotiations. And, a day late, here's Marc Fischer's Tuesday column in the Post, "Grinches Try to Steal Baseball."

"Company Invests in Capital to Redevelop Blighted Areas" is a nice profile of Forest City Enterprises, developer of Capper/Carrollsburg and the Southeast Federal Center, in its hometown paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The article says that ground will be broken on the first part of the huge Federal Center redevelopment in 2007. (The article is part of a series detailing FCE's projects around the country.) For those of you interested in Southwest and the Waterside Mall redevelopment, the article mentions it as well....  [Full disclosure: I'm quoted deep down in the article.]

Blech, after all this stadium stuff recently, I feel the need to clense my digital palate, so I've returned to my original Near Southeast mission for a moment and have posted some new photos. My latest Capper Seniors #1 photos show that construction is moving along, and I've added a cool comparison to my New Jersey Avenue page from the SE Freeway (don't ask how I took them) showing the impact of Capitol Hill Tower and the DOT HQ on the Near SE skyline in the past 11 months. And I've documented some minor changes in the landscape of the Ballpark District (with the demolition of a few small buildings along Half Street) and the 8th Street Historic District. I also tossed in a few updated shots on my M Street, Capitol Hill Tower, and DOT HQ pages, too. (As always, scroll the pages and look for the  icon.) Speaking of the Ballpark District, Stephen Green of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development said today at the stadium hearing that the four finalists for the "master developer" gig were interviewed by the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation today, and that a team should be named by the first or second week in December.

From today's DC city council roundtable on the new baseball stadium: The Post reports that the city will submit the stadium lease agreement to the council for approval ("District to Submit Lease Agreement for Stadium"), which, as the article notes, "sets up another tenuous December for boosters of the $535 million stadium project along the Anacostia River in Southeast. After a bitter debate, the council passed the stadium-financing package last December by a 7-6 vote."  (Maybe the stadium can be paid for by selling a Nationals-branded line of Maalox to stadium supporters.) In better news for the pro-stadium folks, negotiators say that the lease agreement is close to completion, and DC Sports and Entertainment Commission chair Mark Tuohey told the city council today that baseball will pay $20 million for additional costs ranging from land acquisition to labor, insurance and materials. It was also said that the stadium will be going in front of the zoning board in early December. UPDATE: streaming video of the roundtable is now available on the DC council web site.

From Saturday's Post ("New Hurdle For Stadium Lease Deal"): "A majority on the D.C. Council is demanding a vote on a stadium lease between the city and Major League Baseball, and several council members said they will reject the deal unless baseball agrees to pay for any cost overruns on the project. [...] The council's involvement in the lease represents a setback for the mayor, the sports commission and baseball, all of which had been operating under the assumption that any lease agreement reached by the negotiators would be locked in place." From Sharon Ambrose, who voted in favor of the financing package last year: "I'm not prepared to continue being one of the biggest baseball boosters in the city without taking a look at that lease. Baseball is something the city really wants, but nobody wants it at any cost. . . . Wouldn't you think baseball wants a snazzy, attractive stadium in the nation's capital? Well, guys, ante up a little bit."

The DC Sports and Entertainment Commission is now saying (in Thursday's Washington Times, "Ballpark estimates made without data on area, design") that they were "forced to predict the cost in 2004 before knowing where the ballpark would be built or what it would look like and that unforeseen delays contributed to rising costs that have pressured the city to stay under a $535 million budget. " But Mark Tuohey, chairman of DCSEC, is quoted as saying, "There are no cost overruns ... it's all manageable. We're going to build the stadium for $535 million." Jack Evans is quoted (again) about getting different designs (saying that he asked HOK Sport for three designs, but got only one), but DC government official Stephen Green says that the "iconic" glass-stone-and-steel design is not inherently too costly.

The back-and-forth about the new baseball stadium has become exasperating for everyone--and finally Thomas Boswell has weighed in, with "Play Ball--Now" in Thursday's Post. The summary: "But now is the time to abandon such tough-guy negotiating methods. Both sides should stop stalling. Stop pretending to debate who pays for the last 2,000 parking spaces for the richest customers. Or (get a load of this one) what happens if the District is destroyed by a super catastrophe like New Orleans and the new ballpark has cost overruns. Seriously, that is the kind of stuff these geniuses claim they've been squabbling about. What, no mandatory Meteor From Mars insurance? Let's finally cut to the chase. Both sides need to stop posturing over the last few million bucks and bragging rights. Instead, compromise, shake hands and start mining the gold from this Washington mother lode. Together."

The Washington Times is reporting that the DC Council will be told at the Nov. 28 stadium roundtable that the $535 million cap on the new stadium's pricetag is written in stone, meaning that either the design would have to be scaled back or Major League Baseball would have to chip in (yeah, right). The story also reports that the stadium lease agreement appears to be far enough along that it will be able to be discussed publicly at Monday's roundtable (which is expected to be, the article quite rightly notes, a fairly contentious meeting). Will the "iconic" glass-stone-and-steel design that was presented to DC officials recently have to be scaled back? Would a brick retro stadium a la Camden Yards be cheaper? Will this ever end?

The DC government has delayed by one month the vacate date for landowners in the footprint of the new Nationals stadium, according to Wednesday's Post ("Stadium Property Takeover Delayed"). Properties must now be vacated by Feb. 3, 2006; the mayor's spokesman says this will not effect the stadium's completion date. The article also says that several of the landowners filed counterarguments in court this week to the city's eminent domain proceedings: "Some are contesting the city's legal right to the land, some are challenging the amount of money the city is offering for the properties and some are fighting on both fronts." A hearing has been scheduled for Feb. 24, although one owner has requested a hearing date before the Feb. 3 vacate deadline. You can visit my Stadium Offers page to see which lots have been seized by the city, what the properties were assessed for in 2005, and what the city offered.