red hots

I'm not worried just now, but say by the time the superbowl is over theres no deal I might be a bit more concerned.

Stadiums now are not the stadiums of old built around surface parking lots and expressways. This isn't the 1970s. Green Bay, Cincinnati, St Louis, Dallas, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Seattle, Atlanta, Pittsburgh etc have all had had success doing this. They're a catalyst for additional development. Housing, office space, bars, retail. If the stadium is built for 10 games a year and tailgating then it's a horrendously dated business model. Cheap and nasty.

Why build a new stadium at all then?

Another reason why the OP plan is crazy. Why on earth would UB move football 16/17 miles south of campus with no major transport links and nothing else in the area? Sharing a new stadium in Amherst was by far the best proposal if they weren't going Downtown. Close to the UB Campus, metrorail extension, highways, closer to the population center. Talk about lipstick on a pig.

Am I oversimplifying it by saying we are relying on Poloncarz to say that the proposal in the AP article isn't acceptable?

Metlife Stadium - 82k seats, 230 suites (1.6bn value 2010, 1.9bn value 2020) New Bills stadium - 60k seats, 60 suites (1.4bn value 2021) Metlife is also quite a bit closer to Manhattan than the proposed stadium is to DT Buffalo.

That was what I'm thinking is somehow the answer despite the much different cost of doing business and living in Upstate v NYC. It stinks to me.

1.4bn for an open air stadium with only 60k capacity in Orchard Park. Someone tell me we aren't getting ripped off!? Lucas Oil Stadium with a 70k capacity in a Downtown location, attached to the Convention Center and a retractable roof cost 720m dollars - 858m with inflation in 2019. This is WNY, not Manhattan. Surely the cost of getting a lot less for 542m more is nothing but madness? My brain is about to melt at how the maths are adding up. Also, if they wanted to stay in the suburbs, Amherst was far more preferable with UB football as a potential additional tenant and a potential metro rail extension. Saying it now, the whole deal is its being presented in these articles is *****. Reduced capacity, no value for the tax payer, no additional events, still the same outdoor stadium in the snow belt. I actually would rather stay in the Ralph as is than this.

I think rebuilding open air in Orchard Park is lunacy. I've always supported a city stadium and I can't get my head around how rebuilding open air in OP would cost double what Indy got for a Downtown stadium with a retractable roof and an attachment to the convention center. Even with inflation etc.... Heck if they are going to stay in the suburbs I'd have stomached Amherst as Wilkinson suggested they considered. Operate a facility close to UB and you could have added the Bulls as a tenant and gotten an additional 6/7 days of use out of the stadium a year and a bit more value for the tax payer and I'm sure UB may have kicked in a contribution to the costs even if it was relatively small. You also have the long awaited metro rail extension to the UB North campus. This is just ***** nuts. If we are going going fork out a shitload of public money regardless of the outcome we might as well do it right.

Also whos to say Jerry Jones isn't actually for this either? Sooner or later a team is going to be in that region whether a team relocates there or an expansion team appears. Might as well get it done in a way that suits him getting a slice of the concessions and catering.

You'll know better than me, but Austin comes across as a new money transient place full of people from other cities already rooting for other teams. And the Longhorns are so entrenched as well. I'm guessing theres a ton of Cowboys fans there historically if you're asking locals to pick an NFL team. Texans I have no inkling about as they're a younger and less successful team. Seems like a mini LA demographically to me and we know how the Chargers move especially to a place that doesn't want them has worked out.

Unfortunately you cannot dismiss these things and have to take them seriously, despite all the different reports coming out from various outlets. St. Louis was about to build its second NFL stadium in 20 years and the team still left. San Antonio/Austin as much as Jerry Jones doesn't want a team there is a growing region and San Antonio has aggressively courted teams before. If they are genuine about wanting 1.5b in public money that is outrageously unreasonable.

Stadiums on their own don't make or break an economy, or revitalize an area all by themselves, but to say they do nothing is absolute nonsense. Like all the things I mentioned about they are small parts of the bigger picture. I'll use the Packers again, simply because all their information is publicly available and easy to find. They contribute $160m dollars a year to their local economy.

The direct article about First Energy Stadium in Cleveland I was referring to has this paragraph which states "Browns Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Dave Jenkins says the Stadium is actually used quite frequently for non-Browns events, up to 150 times a year if you count high-school proms, business meetings, charity fundraisers and similar events.". Have a look at this article on Lambeau Field. It might surprise you how often it actually is utilised, it surprised me. Not just gift shops and museums. Probably the best stadium tour I've ever done as well. https://biztimes.com/sports-venues-home-run-corporate-events-2/

Those that would want to continue tailgating in a Downtown area would still pretty much be guaranteed to be able to do that. Theres a bigger picture however, the vibrancy and economic condition of Buffalo versus a personal desire to drink cans of beer and eat hot dogs out of the trunk of your car in a lot in a parking lot in Orchard Park because thats what we've always done and what I personally like to do. A stadium alone won't revive a city, but combined with things I've mentioned in earlier posts they all contribute to the overall health and perception of the city. Of course in the end money will be the biggest factor in what gets done and where.

Theres minimal need for parking lots. Theres around 20k parking spaces in Downtown Buffalo, of which when games largely take place on sundays, these lie otherwise empty, in an area with significantly stronger public transit than Orchard Park does or ever will have. Just because the field is only guaranteed use 10 times per year doesn't mean the building itself is empty. Lambeau Field is in use every single day of the year except Christmas day. Browns stadium 150 days a year outside of gamedays at last check in 2017/18. Theres 15 hotels in Downtown Buffalo which makes a stadium in that area much more strategically placed to hold private and corporate events. Bills Stadium has the Red Carpet Inn.

It makes me laugh when people talk about OP having superior infrastructure. All it has is a sea of parking lots. It has non existent public transit, it has minimal bars, hotels, restaurants. Theres still huge traffic jams around games. Its an open air stadium slap bang in the middle of the snow belt. If Buffalo is serious about urban revitalization then this is every bit the same important piece that major developments like Canalside, the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, Harborcenter and Seneca One redevelopment are.

This rendering was found online a few weeks ago and subsequently taken down, seemingly it was not meant to be out to the public yet. However on the same site there was also a rendering of a renovated "New Era Field" which was also removed, so no idea how old this is, or if its a genuine plan or merely a rendering of one of many ideas. Populous the stadium architects are behind it I believe.

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/poloncarz-on-bills-stadium-theres-no-agreement

On its own I would say its a hard sell, but if you have additional tenants, in the Pats case, an MLS team, to fill the void in the summer months, or other venues in the immediate area such as a ballpark or an arena, it can provide a steady stream of events for the area and its businesses year round. In the case of Buffalo, a new stadium for the Bills alongside the KeyBank Center, Harbor Center, Coca Cola Field can provide a steady stream of events on a year round basis.

A new stadium on its own won't revitalize downtown, but alongside other venues such as an arena, a ballpark, a convention center, which together provides a stream of year round events most definitely can.

An NFL stadium alone won't revive downtown, but an NFL stadium DT alongside other attractions like a ballpark or an arena or a convention center which together provide a stream of year round events is much more likely to. I think despite the lack of public money we are at a good time in the stadium process. Theres been too many relocations in the NFL lately and the league requires stability and needs to reinforce confidence in markets that they won't get up and leave two decades later like they did in St Louis after they ponied up for a stadium. Plus the places we could potentially move to aren't that strong to begin with or have huge opposition from prominent owners (i.e. Jerry Jones & Bob McNair - San Antonio). There will be public money involved, but I suspect not as much as we may actually fear. The signs to me point to DT in a smaller stadium given all the land and investments the Pegula's have made there in recent years (harborcenter, draft room etc) where the Pegula's can attract more money to their investments in that area. I'm not sure we will see a domed or stadium with a retractable roof though IMO for financial reasons, too expensive, even if a roof attracts major events year round rather than just the summer - Ford Field has had numerous winter major concerts IIRC. Something similar to First Energy in Cleveland will be the end result I think. It'll be a "Buffalo Style" stadium as stated before, obviously not Jerry World and not even Lucas Oil and I'm fine that.