Bills release new stadium renderings

[SDS]

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yikes. Don’t let the architects hear that. 

I doubt you’ll find any fan that gives a rats ass if there’s another stadium in a different sport that has similar features on the other side of the world.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

You missed my point. Hope that helps. 

I apologize. I guess I missed your point. 

[LabattBlue]

I really hope they don’t price the sideline seats(especially the first ten rows) so high that a large number of them go unsold.  Horrible look when on TV, and you see this a lot at baseball stadiums right behind home plate with the comfy widely spaced seats, that are often empty. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, SDS said:

I doubt you’ll find any fan that gives a rats ass if there’s another stadium in a different sport that has similar features on the other side of the world.

I’m in full agreement with you there. My comments are from the world of architecture….not from the viewpoint of your typical sports fan. 

[LeGOATski]

Just now, Inigo Montoya said:

 

I hadn't seen it before.  I like it better than what was released yesterday...

It's almost two years old. I like it too, and it may have been an early idea, but I think they wanted the stadium fully enclosed on the sides to reduce wind/elements. We can see they got rid of the huge gap on the end. The overhang looks sleek on that one, but I don't like how it's up on stilts with the metal structure exposed underneath. Looks outdated and clashes with the rest of the sleek design

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m in full agreement with you there. My comments are from the world of architecture….not from the viewpoint of your typical sports fan. 

so we need a different design to satisfy the architectural insustry? Lol GTFO

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As they say….It’s all in the eye of the beholder. 

Fair enough. What in your beholding eyes make the two stadiums so similar in your view?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, SDS said:

so we need a different design to satisfy the architectural insustry? Lol GTFO

Ouch dude! Relax. 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Fair enough. What in your beholding eyes make the two stadiums so similar in your view?

It’s the general exterior shape clad in a glass/metal panels with undulating openings. And the general interior shape featuring the steep rake of the seats and high pitched overhang halo at the top. Both are very similar to Tottenham. I’m guessing that from this point forward in the development of the design that the architects are going to work like crazy to make sure they look less similar. It’s what we do. 

[Bockeye]

On 10/27/2022 at 9:14 AM, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I'd say that  angle is no where near indicitive of how much the roof covers.

 

You can see the lower seating in that image and how much of the seating is actually covered. 

In looking at it again, the new stadium roof design does not look like it covers near as much as this pic of Tottenham or Allianz Munich. 
 

Either it’s the angle of the design pic they released or my other thought is, they had to angle the roof much more sharply for snow load and thus could only extend it so far over seats.  Tottenham and Allianz roofs are much more flat than concept drawings (and appear to cover much more seating than our concept).
 

Saw somewhere that the architects/design firm say 65% of seating will be covered. 

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It’s the general exterior shape clad in a glass/metal panels with undulating openings. And the general interior shape featuring the steep rake of the seats and high pitched overhang halo at the top. Both are very similar to Tottenham. I’m guessing that from this point forward in the development of the design that the architects are going to work like crazy to make sure they look less similar. It’s what we do. 

I get the building material similarities and I pointed out the roof overhang previously, but everything else you mentioned is generic to many stadiums already. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I get the building material similarities and I pointed out the roof overhang previously, but everything else you mentioned is generic to many stadiums already. 

No argument there. That’s what makes stadium design so challenging. The architects have to work really hard to make the facilities look different, given that there are so many things that are by the nature of the facility going to be similar.

 

Remember, my critique says nothing about whether the Bills stadium is what most people would say is nice looking or not. My comments come strictly from the point of view of an architect. I’d be shocked if Populous didn’t actually try and talk the Bills out of having it look at all similar to one of their more recent designs. Again, it’s what we do. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[LeGOATski]

9 minutes ago, Bockeye said:

In looking at it again, the new stadium roof design does not look like it covers near as much as this pic of Tottenham or Allianz Munich. 
 

Either it’s the angle of the design pic they released or my other thought is, they had to angle the roof much more sharply for snow load and thus could only extend it so far over seats.  Tottenham and Allianz roofs are much more flat than concept drawings (and appear to cover much more seating than our concept).
 

Saw somewhere that the architects/design firm say 65% of seating will be covered. 

It "covers" everything but the lower bowl. And "cover" is a loose term for many of those seats. If you draw a line straight down from the overhang and consider anything on the outside of that line as "covered" then yeah, I see 65%. Lower bowl is 35%, I guess that seems right.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

19 minutes ago, Bockeye said:

In looking at it again, the new stadium roof design does not look like it covers near as much as this pic of Tottenham or Allianz Munich. 
 

Either it’s the angle of the design pic they released or my other thought is, they had to angle the roof much more sharply for snow load and thus could only extend it so far over seats.  Tottenham and Allianz roofs are much more flat than concept drawings (and appear to cover much more seating than our concept).
 

Saw somewhere that the architects/design firm say 65% of seating will be covered. 

It’s the angle somewhat but Hotspur stadium has added glass for more coverage. Hopefully this is something the Bills do as well.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’ve tried to look up how much the Hotspur stadium canopy covers. This angle looks similar to the Bills rendering. There is additional glass added to the canopy for more coverage. I think the Bills could do something similar.

 

 

Renderings are often deceiving because of the perspective. Just go on Google Earth and look straight down from the satellite. You’ll see that virtually all of the seats are covered in European soccer stadiums, especially in England where it rains a lot during their season. 

[LeGOATski]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’ve tried to look up how much the Hotspur stadium canopy covers. This angle looks similar to the Bills rendering. There is additional glass added to the canopy for more coverage. I think the Bills could do something similar.

 

 

I would think so, too. If structural soundness is in question, how much more would it be to have an extra overhang that can slide out? Would be a cool feature. If it's gonna snow, leave it in. If it's nice weather or just rain, slide it out for extra coverage. Based on the 65% comments though, it seems to be not in the conversation at this point. Probably too much extra money and not worth it.

[The Wiz]

57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As they say….It’s all in the eye of the beholder. 

I thought it was "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder"

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No argument there. That’s what makes stadium design so challenging. The architects have to work really hard to make the facilities look different, given that there are so many things that are by the nature of the facility going to be similar.

 

Remember, my critique says nothing about whether the Bills stadium is what most people would say is nice looking or not. My comments come strictly from the point of view of an architect. I’d be shocked if Populous didn’t actually try and talk the Bills out of having it look at all similar to one of their more recent designs. Again, it’s what we do. 

I agree there’s only so much that can be done when designing for specific dimensions and uses like a football stadium. It’s too bad that ours can’t be in an urban setting because I think there are more aesthetic possibilities vs building in a barren field. What would you, as an architect, do to differentiate football stadiums? 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, K-9 said:

I agree there’s only so much that can be done when designing for specific dimensions and uses like a football stadium. It’s too bad that ours can’t be in an urban setting because I think there are more aesthetic possibilities vs building in a barren field. What would you, as an architect, do to differentiate football stadiums? 

Excellent question. The answers are all around you. Would you say that Dallas, Minnesota, Los Angeles, London, all look the same? They do not. The architects went to great lengths to make sure that they don’t…..and it’s NOT about cost. 
 

The same is true with more recent outdoor stadiums like San Francisco, Seattle, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Miami and others. 
 

Again this not about ugly or beautiful in the traditional (layman’s) sense of the word. It’s about making a place that uniquely unique…..if that makes sense. And I’m sure Poplulous will bring a lot of that into the final development. They are VERY talented.

[LeGOATski]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I agree there’s only so much that can be done when designing for specific dimensions and uses like a football stadium. It’s too bad that ours can’t be in an urban setting because I think there are more aesthetic possibilities vs building in a barren field. What would you, as an architect, do to differentiate football stadiums? 

Some art deco detail, if done right, could be very cool and representative of Buffalo architecture. The rendering already features a brick facade and some details reminiscent of buildings like Buffalo City Hall would fit in nicely.

[Heitz]

15 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I agree there’s only so much that can be done when designing for specific dimensions and uses like a football stadium. It’s too bad that ours can’t be in an urban setting because I think there are more aesthetic possibilities vs building in a barren field. What would you, as an architect, do to differentiate football stadiums? 

 

Yoooo, what if we made that sh*t a TRIANGLE instead of a circle or square!?  

🤯🤯🤯

 

Yeah, you can thank me later...  

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Some art deco detail, if done right, could be very cool and representative of Buffalo architecture. The rendering already features a brick facade and some details reminiscent of buildings like Buffalo City Hall would fit in nicely.

I do like the cobblestone facade and I hope they keep that. It’s a real tip of the hat to historic buffalo. 

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Heitz said:

 

Yoooo, what if we made that sh*t a TRIANGLE instead of a circle or square!?  

🤯🤯🤯

 

Yeah, you can thank me later...  

A heptagonal prism seems like a no-brainer now. They done ***** up.

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I do like the cobblestone facade and I hope they keep that. It’s a real tip of the hat to historic buffalo. 

I'm sure they will, but they could go a little further to make it unique.

[BillStime]

56 minutes ago, Bockeye said:

In looking at it again, the new stadium roof design does not look like it covers near as much as this pic of Tottenham or Allianz Munich. 
 

Either it’s the angle of the design pic they released or my other thought is, they had to angle the roof much more sharply for snow load and thus could only extend it so far over seats.  Tottenham and Allianz roofs are much more flat than concept drawings (and appear to cover much more seating than our concept).
 

Saw somewhere that the architects/design firm say 65% of seating will be covered. 

 

I've been to a game @ Tottenham Stadium - sat 4 rows up from mid-field - the overhang covered our seats.

 

If the Bills stadium is anything remotely similar to Tottenham, I will be pleased.

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

38 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I would think so, too. If structural soundness is in question, how much more would it be to have an extra overhang that can slide out? Would be a cool feature. If it's gonna snow, leave it in. If it's nice weather or just rain, slide it out for extra coverage. Based on the 65% comments though, it seems to be not in the conversation at this point. Probably too much extra money and not worth it.

Northwestern would have similar weather concerns and they covered every seat they say. It’s a much smaller stadium however.

[LeGOATski]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Northwestern would have similar weather concerns and they covered every seat they say. It’s a much smaller stadium however.

Yeah, that lower bowl is not nearly as big. That whole stadium looks like the Bills mid-upper sections.

 

However, Tottenham is the same size. 62K+ I think, and they managed to "cover" it all. The Bills should be able to do the same. Not sure what the issue is, but it must be structural or cost, or both.

[CountDorkula]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, that lower bowl is not nearly as big. That whole stadium looks like the Bills mid-upper sections.

 

However, Tottenham is the same size. 62K+ I think, and they managed to "cover" it all. The Bills should be able to do the same. Not sure what the issue is, but it must be structural or cost, or both.

I would guess cost. It can’t be structural since the same firm the designed Tottenhams stadium with cover. 

[Jukester]

Agree, if they cut back on the canopy, it can only be due to cost. Plenty of cold weather stadiums in Europe including Russia where there are prominent overhangs, so it can’t be due to snow or structural limitations.  
 

I was excited that Populous was designing the stadium and if it ends up close to Hotspur design, I’ll be very happy.  Having said that these renderings are limited in detail. An overhead view would’ve been nice to quell some of our concerns. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Jukester

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, Jukester said:

Agree, if they cut back on the canopy, it can only be due to cost. Plenty of cold weather stadiums in Europe including Russia where there are prominent overhangs, so it can’t be due to snow or structural limitations.  
 

I was excited that Populous was designing the stadium and if it ends up close to Hotspur design, I’ll be very happy.  Having said that these renderings are limited in detail. An overhead view would’ve been nice to quell some of our concerns. 

I doubt it. People would still be complaining that it's only 65%

[SoCal Deek]

49 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Northwestern would have similar weather concerns and they covered every seat they say. It’s a much smaller stadium however.

Thanks for sharing! The Northwestern stadium is another recently revealed design.

 

If you’re interested, Everton’s new stadium in Liverpool is right on the waterfront and is a completely different aesthetic. 

[BaaadThingsMan]

I like it. The design will help with the elements on and off the field.

 

After being back in the area recently and seeing all the land around downtown still sitting dormant empty or in a state of disrepair I kinda wish they would have considered downtown a viable option. 

 

It would have been generational. 

[K-9]

23 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I doubt it. People would still be complaining that it's only 65%

How many rows of the lowest bowl comprise the 21,700 uncovered seats? 

10 minutes ago, BaaadThingsMan said:

I like it. The design will help with the elements on and off the field.

 

After being back in the area recently and seeing all the land around downtown still sitting dormant empty or in a state of disrepair I kinda wish they would have considered downtown a viable option. 

 

It would have been generational. 

Another missed opportunity. Kind of like the waterfront plans in the 70s. 

[LeGOATski]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

How many rows of the lowest bowl comprise the 21,700 uncovered seats? 

I count 30 rows l, but that's just a rendering. RWS currently has 38 rows in the lower bowl? We should expect less rows in the new stadium based on the details so far and what their stated intentions are.

[DrDawkinstein]

47 minutes ago, BaaadThingsMan said:

I like it. The design will help with the elements on and off the field.

 

After being back in the area recently and seeing all the land around downtown still sitting dormant empty or in a state of disrepair I kinda wish they would have considered downtown a viable option. 

 

It would have been generational. 

 

37 minutes ago, K-9 said:

How many rows of the lowest bowl comprise the 21,700 uncovered seats? 

Another missed opportunity. Kind of like the waterfront plans in the 70s. 

 

It will always stick in my craw as a huge missed opportunity to really push Buffalo to a new level.

 

I guess in this case status quo isnt a horrible alternative.

 

But still...

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

It will always stick in my craw as a huge missed opportunity to really push Buffalo to a new level.

 

I guess in this case status quo isnt a horrible alternative.

 

But still...

People are what push a city to a new level. A football team and stadium doesn't bring in a mass influx of people.

[boyst]

14 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

People are what push a city to a new level. A football team and stadium doesn't bring in a mass influx of people.

if they need to do anything they need to a get a light rail system or preferably a monorail.

 

this can shuttle from downtown points and points outside of the area to the game.

 

CLT has done good with this and the Panthers

[LabattBlue]

8 minutes ago, boyst said:

if they need to do anything they need to a get a light rail system or preferably a monorail.

 

this can shuttle from downtown points and points outside of the area to the game.

 

CLT has done good with this and the Panthers

Right after the new Peace Bridge is done.  Great idea. Never going to happen.  N-E-V-E-R. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by LabattBlue

[K-9]

43 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I count 30 rows l, but that's just a rendering. RWS currently has 38 rows in the lower bowl? We should expect less rows in the new stadium based on the details so far and what their stated intentions are.

That must have been tedious so thanks for the effort. I’m just figuring that the lowest rows comprise that 35% of uncovered seats. 

44 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

It will always stick in my craw as a huge missed opportunity to really push Buffalo to a new level.

 

I guess in this case status quo isnt a horrible alternative.

 

But still...

Far from horrible, but just as far from optimal as well, imo.

[K-9]

29 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

People are what push a city to a new level. A football team and stadium doesn't bring in a mass influx of people.

This is true, but stadiums are people magnets and even though they’re limited use, they still draw people to a certain geographic area where they tend to spend money. I know all those bar and restaurant owners are glad as hell to have Sabres fans coming back downtown since the pandemic. At the very least, it would only add to the downtown economy, however small that level of addition might be. I’m a big believer in dollar velocity.

[Bad Things]

9 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

there is one part/tone of your post that infuriates me about this region “it’s not fancy, it’s suits Buffalo we don’t need any of the over the top stuff ” 

 

it’s that kind of thinking that keeps this area stuck. “We don’t need nice things”

 

sorry for my mini rant just can’t stand the “because we’re Buffalo we don’t really need nice things.”

So, what I wrote "infuriated" you?

Good grief, mate.

 

Are you suggesting that Buffalo should have a flash stadium like some of the others in the NFL?  (Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Dallas...)

If so, you are either totally delusion, or haven't traveled much.

In my post, I wrote, "It suits our team and the area.  It's nothing 'over-the-top', but is very practical, with a modern, clean feel to it."  

That really infuriated you?

 

There's already an uproar with how much of this will be publicly funded.  How do you think the situation would be for an even more expensive stadium at taxpayers expense?

 

Let me ask you... what were you expecting from the new stadium?

 

Also... you have me quoted as writing, "it's not fancy, it's suits Buffalo we don't need any of the over the opt stuff".  I never wrote any of that, but you make it sound like I did. WTF?

Edited October 28, 2022 by Bad Things