The Washington Commanders have released the first renderings for their proposed new home, planned for the former RFK Stadium site in Washington, DC.
The 65,000-seat stadium, designed by global architecture firm HKS, is expected to open in 2030. Its design includes a cantilevered translucent roof, echoing features used at stadiums in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. Like HKS-designed SoFi Stadium in LA, the Commanders’ venue is envisioned as a single continuous structure rather than a collection of separate buildings.
Washington is aiming to restore the intimidating home-field atmosphere it enjoyed at RFK Stadium between 1961 and 1998, before the then-Redskins relocated to Landover, Maryland and eventually became the Commanders. A key part of that plan is a ‘Wall of Fans’ at one end zone, with what the team describes as ‘affordable fan-friendly seating’ intended to amplify the voices of its most dedicated supporters.
The new Commanders stadium will also preserve one of RFK’s notable features: a view of the US Capitol. That sightline, however, will be framed by a huge glass façade. The enclosure is designed to make the venue fully temperature controlled, a requirement under NFL rules for any stadium seeking to host a future Super Bowl.
The proposed project carries a $4 billion price tag. Taxpayers are contributing $1.1 billion, while the team is providing another $2.7 billion.
Although the stadium has not yet been given a name, Donald Trump’s White House has already floated a suggestion of its own.
The Washington Commanders have unveiled the first renderings of their proposed new stadium
A rendering released by the Commanders shows fans approaching the planned stadium
Designed by HKS and targeted for a 2030 opening, the 65,000-seat venue will have a cantilevered translucent roof similar to those used in Minneapolis and Los Angeles
Demolition work at RFK Stadium remains in its final phase, with vertical construction on the new Commanders facility expected to begin next spring.
Once open, it will be able to host more than 200 events per year, with the domed design also qualifying it to host a Super Bowl. The NFL does not award its end-of-season showpiece to stadiums located in climates less than 50°F unless the field is completely covered by a dome.
The stadium does not yet have a name but Donald Trump is already suggesting his own.
As he’s currently trying to do with the Kennedy Center, Trump wants to name the new stadium for himself, ESPN reported in November. Previously, then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ESPN it would be a ‘beautiful name’ because ‘it was President Trump who made the rebuilding of the new stadium possible.’
Leavitt’s statement was not accurate. It was Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, who signed the federal legislation to transfer the RFK Stadium site land to the district.
Like RFK Stadium before it, the new facility will have a clear view of the US Capitol
The Washington Monument and US Capitol are visible amid the RFK Stadium deconstruction
In this 1984 picture, RFK Stadium can be seen with the US Capitol sitting in the distance
The stadium will be encolsed with glass, allowing it to be fully temperature controlled
But that hasn’t stopped Trump from weighing in on the project. Last year, Trump vowed to block the stadium’s construction if the team did not change its name from Commanders to its previous name, the Redskins.
Former Washington owner Dan Snyder dropped the Redskins name in 2020 as the country was going through a racial reckoning in the wake of the George Floyd murder by Minneapolis Police.
The origin of ‘Redskins’ is disputed, according to a 2016 Washington Post article that claims it was first used as a pejorative as early as 1863 in Minnesota.
‘The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory,’ read an announcement in The Winona Daily Republican. ‘This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.’
By 1898, Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary began defining ‘redskin’ with the phrase ‘often contemptuous.’
A 2016 Washington Post poll found that 90 percent of the 504 Native American respondents were ‘not bothered’ by the team’s name. Snyder ultimately wrote an open letter, defending his decision to keep the moniker by citing the study.
However, that survey and other similar studies have been slammed by journalists and social scientists as being unreliable.
‘The reporters and editors behind this story must have known that it would be used as justification for the continued use of these harmful, racist mascots,’ read a statement from the Native American Journalists Association. ‘They were either willfully malicious or dangerously naïve in the process and reporting used in this story, and neither is acceptable from any journalistic institution.’
In March of 2020, UC Berkeley revealed a study that found that more than half of its 1,000 Native American respondents were offended by the team name.