Jump to content

EDIT: Total cost to taxpayers? Bills select sports firm to represent ownership in building new open air stadium in OP, targeted for 2025


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, purple haze said:

The overhang is likely about rain, snow, hail and wind as opposed to  the sun.  Why is everyone’s focus on sunshine?

Because it makes the game unwatchable on tv. I mean it's been discussed a bunch in this thread...

6 hours ago, uticaclub said:

And the sun is always shining in Buffalo

 On average three more sunny days than Seattle. But Seattle averages 20 more heavy cloud days. Not a huge difference.  

Edited by Not at the table Karlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Syracuse gets crushed with snow. They have a dome. Maintenance would obviously cost more than an open air stadium. It's likely all about money. That's understandable. We just have to remember this is going to be a 40-50 year stadium. So let's do it right. 

 

 

 

 

BUT Retractable. It gets a foot of snow on top, will it move?

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

OP is about 115 inches yearly

Still 35 more than Chicago's all-time record (1978) and a whopping 70-80 than another NFL stadium on average.  ON AVERAGE. Minnesota went open air, right, same with all the others in snow areas.  Detroit simply doesn't get the snow, it's protected in the winter...

 

ON AVERAGE The OP gets pounded, even more so than Downtown....

 

I don't dare touch my convertible below 40 degrees, let alone with tons of snow on top.  I suppose they could heat it, to melt... IMO just not worth the hassle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

BUT Retractable. It gets a foot of snow on top, will it move?

 

I'm not for retractable, but I don't care either way. Also you're not opening the roof when it's cold out.

Edited by Buffalo_Stampede
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the overhang us similar to the ones in seattle, won't the crowd noise get deflected .back towards the field and increase our home field advantage?  Combine that with still having snow, wind, taib, etc and visiting teams are going to hate playing here.  I can't wait.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

BUT Retractable. It gets a foot of snow on top, will it move?

 

As long as they install the giant Trico wiper blade to brush off the snow first.  

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JMF2006 said:

 

Which is still in the same state.

 

They are saying College Station PA or Toronto(which would really go over well)

 

Toronto doesn't even have a football stadium...Rogers Center was modified for baseball only giving the Argos the boot to the MLS soccer field(BMO Field) that seats about 30,000

How about All High stadium then?  :) Minor growing pains on the way to a shiny new stadium!  I bet they find a way to play through in the old one.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Google Earth:

The only acreage large enough to fit the footprint of the new stadium along with the necessary construction space around it would be directly north of the current stadium, at the SE corner of Abbott and 20 (Southwestern). That would obviously move it further away from the offices, field house etc, and would put all of the parking on one side of the new stadium but it’s about the only option unless you’re going to start buying up homes.

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, without a drought said:

Why is this actually necessary.  They already have an outdoor stadium that is used for about 100 hours a year. I'm not expecting any public funding to go smoothly.

It’s not necessary at all. European soccer clubs who don’t play in the wealthiest markets use the same stadiums for decades. It’s all about the NFL wanting increased revenue that comes with a new stadium. The Pegula’s don’t seem to have a choice. I realize the NFL isn’t too concerned with the average fan, but I question what an open air stadium in OP has to offer that differs from the current venue ? I’m sure there will be plenty of upgrades, but how does this affect the guy sitting in the typical stadium seat ? The only difference I see is increased ticket prices. A dome could be marketed as a guaranteed comfortable game day experience, a downtown venue can be marketed as increased tax revenue and boost to local business. I don’t see enough to be enthusiastic about an open air venue in OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domed stadium downtown please. I was never a fan of downtown location, but with recent canalside events I could see that being a whole different experience down there. And the domed stadium would become a venue for many more events. Think trade shows, concerts, heck Buffalo would even be in the running to host a Super Bowl someday.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Syracuse gets crushed with snow. They have a dome. Maintenance would obviously cost more than an open air stadium. It's likely all about money. That's understandable. We just have to remember this is going to be a 40-50 year stadium. So let's do it right.

 

Great point about the snowfall in Syracuse and the Carrier Dome, which is a 40-year old structure and still standing.  There have obviously been many design advances since then.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven’t weighed in on this topic yet…I was one of those hoping for a cool downtown venue but I’m not “disappointed” in keeping the stadium in OP.  Excited to see the plans, as it does seem a bit odd a retractable roof of some sort is apparently not in the works.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a new stadium is due.  I'm fine with it being in OP and I generally would prefer a dome over an open air stadium, especially one with those stupid canopies.  I get the appeal of the elements but if there's even a chance that the sometimes VERY bad WNY weather could have a serious impact on the game then I say go with a dome.  Imagine if a playoff game ends up having weather like the Colts blizzard game...that would suck (in my opinion).  A retractable roof would be cool but also a waste of money considering how many times the roof would actually be open.

 

One thing that I want to address is the cost of the stadium and how it would be paid for.  It's unlikely but I really hope that Erie county and NYS don't don't write blank checks for the stadium regardless of the cost.

 

The new TV deal works out to 300+ million per team per year and the Pegulas can pretty much count on fans filling the stadium because that's what Bills fans do so they won't exactly be strapped for cash.  Additionally, NYS is going to be strapped for cash post-COVID, so even without the cost of a new stadium, there would likely be cuts, increased taxes or more likely a combination of the two.  A new stadium would definitely get public funding and tax subsidies but if this will end up substantially costing the community in other areas then I'm honestly against it and I'm sure I'm in the minority there.  WNY always gets the short end of the stick so I'm afraid that any budget cuts will disproportionally affect the area.

 

TLDR:  If Terry and Kim want a shiny new stadium then that's fine but they need to pay a big chuck of the $$$.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

From Google Earth:

The only acreage large enough to fit the footprint of the new stadium along with the necessary construction space around it would be directly north of the current stadium, at the SE corner of Abbott and 20 (Southwestern). That would obviously move it further away from the offices, field house etc, and would put all of the parking on one side of the new stadium but it’s about the only option unless you’re going to start buying up homes.

 

What about ECC South? I'm not being funny about this - you're the architect, so you know better than anyone.  But I eyeballed it, and lots 3 and 4, together with the campus, look plenty big to me.  Only have to buy maybe four or five parcels on the west side of Abbott to make it work if they want all land abutting Abbott from 20A to 20.  

 

I'll add that, politically, ECC South makes sense.  It's an excuse for the county to consolidate the ECC campuses, they get to contribute to the stadium for what amounts to an in-kind contribution, and it allows the county/state to avoid massive infrastructure headaches and charges that would come with a downtown stadium.  Would also explain the shift in the last week on the Skyway and the Pegulas' retreat from downtown hospitality businesses (716 and, apparently, Labatt House). 

 

***

 

EDIT:  They may have to get their hands on "La Galleria" and the Texas hots place and O'Neill's, too. So be it.  Minimal land acquisition costs, nevertheless. 

Edited by SectionC3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, UConn James said:


I seem to recall in recent years that the Pegs had bought up land surrounding the stadium. I don’t think it was all used for practice fields. 

 

 

Maybe it’s just me, but it would’ve been nice if the part about possibly playing elsewhere during construction was broached down the line.
 

They really couldn’t pass up the opportunity to get in an un-veiled threat to the pols during what should just be celebratory news? Couldn’t just let us bask in a totally positive direction of the franchise for a hot minute?

 

That's what makes it weird. Maybe that's the Jerruh people talking. They assume the worst in a negotiation.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

What about ECC South? I'm not being funny about this - you're the architect, so you know better than anyone.  But I eyeballed it, and lots 3 and 4, together with the campus, look plenty big to me.  Only have to buy maybe four or five parcels on the west side of Abbott to make it work if they want all land abutting Abbott from 20A to 20.  

 

I'll add that, politically, ECC South makes sense.  It's an excuse for the county to consolidate the ECC campuses, they get to contribute to the stadium for what amounts to an in-kind contribution, and it allows the county/state to avoid massive infrastructure headaches and charges that would come with a downtown stadium.  Would also explain the shift in the last week on the Skyway and the Pegulas' retreat from downtown hospitality businesses (716 and, apparently, Labatt House). 

 

***

 

EDIT:  They may have to get their hands on "La Galleria" and the Texas hots place and O'Neill's, too. So be it.  Minimal land acquisition costs, nevertheless. 

This is what the random Twitter guy said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chandler#81 changed the title to EDIT: Total cost to taxpayers? Bills select sports firm to represent ownership in building new open air stadium in OP, targeted for 2025
  • Hapless Bills Fan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...