dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Watch and see it will end up like the Minnesota Vikings Dome. No tailgating, hugely expensive parking and long walks to get the stadium. and a very, VERY sterile atmosphere.. Edited January 18, 2015 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheZone78 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It will be a retractable roof. That I can confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifter Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Take this anyway you wish, but I was told the site along the Buffalo River is the current plan. Perry projects will be demolished after other housing is built. Nothing is set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Hansen Forever Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 and a very, VERY sterile atmosphere.. Exactly. I hated the old dome and the crappy conditions. The new dome looks like crap to begin with and you are correct, a sterile environment with no fun in the experience. I've been there often and parking within 3 blocks is upwards of $100 and out 5-7 blocks is more reasonable at $50+. If you take the Hiawatha train and park at the Mall of America or anywhere downstream for Minneapolis, it's only a few dollars to ride, but the trains are packed and full of gangstas and pickpockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 No dome, Buffalo football is Buffalo weather. The Vikings lost something when they went to a dome, remember the purple people eaters on a cold, muddy field and a gray sky; come on that's football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) No dome, Buffalo football is Buffalo weather. The Vikings lost something when they went to a dome, remember the purple people eaters on a cold, muddy field and a gray sky; come on that's football! Exactly. I hated the old dome and the crappy conditions. The new dome looks like crap to begin with and you are correct, a sterile environment with no fun in the experience. I've been there often and parking within 3 blocks is upwards of $100 and out 5-7 blocks is more reasonable at $50+. If you take the Hiawatha train and park at the Mall of America or anywhere downstream for Minneapolis, it's only a few dollars to ride, but the trains are packed and full of gangstas and pickpockets. agree on both counts!.. and as i said in other posts regarding this, the frozen four will not be coming here every year, nor will the NCAA regionals.. WTH are you going to use a covered stadium for ?. Edited January 18, 2015 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Anything not a dome is throwing money away. As for the Buffalo River site, I hope they leave the Swannie House alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Anything not a dome is throwing money away. As for the Buffalo River site, I hope they leave the Swannie House alone. please explain , how is it throwing money away?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's a roof, not a dome! Why can't people get this right, including the study and Buffalo News article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Football is an outdoor game. However, the citizens who pay should maximize their dollar with an indoor multi use stadium. Cobblestone baby!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 That seems to make sense. They factor that stuff in all of the time on baseball diamonds because of when games usually start and where the sun will be. Maybe the NFL has stipulations that if the sun is shining the stadium has to be able to be at least half sunlit during the games. Or something like that. Why build an outdoor stadium where there is no sunlight on the field in the middle of the afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradobillsfan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 the OP plan pretty much puts the new stadium on top of Sheldon cemetery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Don't know but I'd venture a guess that it has to do with shadows from adjacent buildings that may project onto the field. The harbor center is tall and west of the proposed site, meaning it would project late afternoon shadows in the fall east onto the stadium. That's all I can come up with. Also could be the same issue southwest with the General Mills buildings.thanks, I figured that it must be nearby buildings, but, difficult to see the pics clearly on my phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's a roof, not a dome! Why can't people get this right, including the study and Buffalo News article? i think the term "dome" is used interchangeably with "roof".. same premise.." open air" or "uncovered" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's a roof, not a dome! Why can't people get this right, including the study and Buffalo News article?what is a dome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykaykay Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 and a very, VERY sterile atmosphere.. New Orleans is not sterile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 To my point earlier about ownership issues, here's the ownership of the Cobblestone site. 6 of the 15 parcels are easily acquired, the others are smaller and likely easily acquired as well. The other two sites have way more ownership issues and that becomes time consuming, costly, and offers the potential of protracted legal wrangling. And the use of eminent domain is in all likelihood a possibility. It's very easy to state what site offers the best options from our perspectives but the complexities of design, infrastructure, land acquisition, environmental constraints, community input and blow back (I can already hear the preservationists whining about the cobblestone streets), oh yeah and cost make any suggestion of a selected site laughable. They may very well have a preferred site (the Pegulas) but that doesn't mean that's where it'll end up. Any suggestion of removing the Perry Projects indicates a lack of an historical grasp of the failed promises and epic failure of urban renewal. Because this project will certainly require political intervention, either directly through subsidy, or through assistance in land acquisition, it's unlikely any politician would get behind it. Further, those projects were built with federal monies and don't you think the feds, who have the largest black eye from the so-called "federal bulldozer," will step into this and agree to let them be demolished and the residents relocated. I think that site was off the table from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 @TheBuffaloNews: The states NFL stadium report favors four sites, three of which are in downtown Buffalo http://t.co/L2xOquSVnH http://t.co/bLLT2pcIkJ I didn't know retrofitting the Ralph was still an option It's only not an option from the NFL's perspective, not the States. I would assume keeping the Ralph in the discussions is a State bargaining chip. They're showing the public as well as the Pegulas that a brand new downtown stadium will cost quite a bit more, so if the Pegulas would like a new stadium they'd probably have to chip in more. Smart move in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's only not an option from the NFL's perspective, not the States. I would assume keeping the Ralph in the discussions is a State bargaining chip. They're showing the public as well as the Pegulas that a brand new downtown stadium will cost quite a bit more, so if the Pegulas would like a new stadium they'd probably have to chip in more. Smart move in my opinion.Ok that's what I remember then. The NFL was not open to it. Is it because they don't like the amount of tailgating? Just thinking about KC, GB who did the retrofit successfully. FTR I'm in favor of the brand new downtown stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 To my point earlier about ownership issues, here's the ownership of the Cobblestone site. 6 of the 15 parcels are easily acquired, the others are smaller and likely easily acquired as well. The other two sites have way more ownership issues and that becomes time consuming, costly, and offers the potential of protracted legal wrangling. And the use of eminent domain is in all likelihood a possibility. It's very easy to state what site offers the best options from our perspectives but the complexities of design, infrastructure, land acquisition, environmental constraints, community input and blow back (I can already hear the preservationists whining about the cobblestone streets), oh yeah and cost make any suggestion of a selected site laughable. They may very well have a preferred site (the Pegulas) but that doesn't mean that's where it'll end up. Any suggestion of removing the Perry Projects indicates a lack of an historical grasp of the failed promises and epic failure of urban renewal. Because this project will certainly require political intervention, either directly through subsidy, or through assistance in land acquisition, it's unlikely any politician would get behind it. Further, those projects were built with federal monies and don't you think the feds, who have the largest black eye from the so-called "federal bulldozer," will step into this and agree to let them be demolished and the residents relocated. I think that site was off the table from the get go. Regarding the Perry Projects, plans are apparently underway. No matter your political affiliation, it's been proven that 1950's-1960's projects need to be torn down & rebuilt with different housing options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts