sweatpantsjoe Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I'm not in favor of anything that involves the word dome.
ThurmasThoman Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 would be terrible. our stadium has a certain aura that most other NFL teams can't replicate. also, this year is going to be interesting: we haven't had a head coach/#1 receiver/starting quarterback return for a third consecutive season since marv/reed/kelly. i think a big reason our homefield advantage has been mitigated over the past 15 years, is our players havent played enough games there. i may really be thinking outside the box, but i think it takes some time to understand the wind patterns field level at the ralph. i would wager we finish with 6 or more wins at home this year.
Dorkington Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Emotionally, I'd like to keep the same stadium. But logically, it makes sense to have a stadium in a "downtown" environment, and also have it closed (I think retractable is the best of both worlds, in this case, because they can keep it open for football, and closed for other attractions during bad weather).
todd Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I think a downtown stadium is a great idea. For selfish reasons, it would take significant time off my commute when I watch a game. It would provide an easier commute for most regional fans, except those from south of the city. Originally I think Ralph wanted the stadium to appeal to the fanbase approaching cleveland, but that isn't significant any more. Rochester, Syracuse and Canada are where its at. As far as a domed stadium goes, I'm indifferent.
CodeMonkey Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Most people on this forum I would expect to be against a dome. But I think the majority of the people that go to games would prefer a closed roof during the winter at least. I think a dome would also help sell tickets to the late season games that always, even in the 90's when the team was good, had trouble selling out. Personally, I would prefer not to be in the rain and snow during any sporting event.
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 RWS has a certain 'feel' to it that would be hard to replicate or approach with another faciltiy downtown. But it was built during a time when flight from the city to the suburbs was at its peak and really in Orchard Park its more or less in the middle of nowhere. A downtown stadium might be a good idea if it was a multiple use facilty, concerts, trade shows, maybe UB games, or a new college bowl game. But as a standalone facility for just 8 games a year (assuming the Toronto game moves back) it isn't going to cut it from a benefit standpoint. If it leads to further development downtown, businesses popping up around it, new hotels, permenant jobs in varous parts of the economy it might be a good step forward to revitalize the city center. But to be that it would have to be step one in a multiple step plan to invigorate the city. After years of doing more or less nothing just openly discussing the merits of the idea might be a step in the right direction for the city. The big unknown is obviously the cost and then lining up funding.
Gordio Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I'm having a nice discussion with my friend about this topic. Here is what would make the most sense. Keeping the Ralph in O.P. Moving Coca-Cola field to the river front. Anything they want to do in a new stadium can be done in that. No excuses. The only thing you won't be doing is playing NFL football in it. Ralph should NOT leave to go down town. They are not going to waste money & move Coca-Cola field to the river front. Why would they waste money like that on the Bisons. They are a minor league team. The stadium is fine where it is. As far as a new stadium, I am kind of starting to see their point. I mean my guess is that they are going to need over $100 million to renovate the Ralph. Pittsburgh/Baltimore I think built their stadiums for $300M-$400M. So my thought is you might as well pony up the extra money & get a brand new stadium out of the whole thing, lock the team in here for the next 20 years & be done with it. With that being said, it makes no sense to build a new stadium in Orchard park. You need to either put preferably downtown or maybe in Niagara Falls. Here is the thing though, if you don't put a retractable roof on it, it really is only going to be used 10-12 times per year. Put a retractable roof on it & attach a new convention center to it. The problem with that is now you are talking some serious coin. So I guess what I am trying to say is I really do not know what the solution is. One other thing, if they do put the stadium downtown or in NF, tailgating as you know it as it goes on currently at the Ralph will be a thing of the past. There will be no sprawling parking lots & the college atmosphere. Shame really but I guess it is what it is.
tombstone56 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 ALL THE STORY IS REALLY ABOUT IS A POLITICIAN FROM INNER CITY coming up with a lame idea to try to get the city relevant again.. those days are past. IF any of the local rumors are to be believed its the former Summitt Mall location..close to Canada, bridges, large space ,infrastructure,that seems a far more likely location.than shoehorning it into a downtown site.
muffmonster Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 They are not going to waste money & move Coca-Cola field to the river front. Why would they waste money like that on the Bisons. They are a minor league team. The stadium is fine where it is. As far as a new stadium, I am kind of starting to see their point. I mean my guess is that they are going to need over $100 million to renovate the Ralph. Pittsburgh/Baltimore I think built their stadiums for $300M-$400M. So my thought is you might as well pony up the extra money & get a brand new stadium out of the whole thing, lock the team in here for the next 20 years & be done with it. With that being said, it makes no sense to build a new stadium in Orchard park. You need to either put preferably downtown or maybe in Niagara Falls. Here is the thing though, if you don't put a retractable roof on it, it really is only going to be used 10-12 times per year. Put a retractable roof on it & attach a new convention center to it. The problem with that is now you are talking some serious coin. So I guess what I am trying to say is I really do not know what the solution is. One other thing, if they do put the stadium downtown or in NF, tailgating as you know it as it goes on currently at the Ralph will be a thing of the past. There will be no sprawling parking lots & the college atmosphere. Shame really but I guess it is what it is. That is why I don't want a new stadium. The Ralph has such a unique game day experience which would go away with a move into the city. I'm sure the Ralph needs and can use some upgrades but for me it is just fine as it is. I can watch football, get a beer and nachos, and use a the restroom when needed. I don't want a mall atmosphere with shops and restaurants.
Phil Hansen Forever Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 One more thought... Of these 5 cities who has the worst weather? Minneapolis, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, New York, Chicago. Of those cities whose football team is never in the conversation as having the best fans? Hint: the answer to both questions is the team that plays under a roof. You forgot Greenbay and by the way, Minneapolis' weather is mostly mild these past couple decades.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) A stadium on the downtown waterfront is a terrible idea. Insanely terrible for a number of reasons. 1) It doesn't attract development. Look at the First Niagara Center. 60+ events a year. Show me any development. Look at Cleveland. Same story. 2) You think the weather is tough in Orchard Park in winter? Try being right up against the lake. Anyone ever walk to a Sabres game during a gale? Try walking through the tunnel under the HSBC tower when the winds are blowing at 50 mph! 3) RWS is still viable and you can enhance it by making wider concourses, a Patriot Place-style commercial development, and yes (but unlikely due to cost) a roof. If we build a new stadium anywhere I'd rather put it in Niagara Falls right next to the Rainbow Bridge so Canadian fans can walk across. And it would have to be part of a larger hotel/convention/resort/commercial development. And if it's not a dome you are wasting your money. No one wants to freeze or get rained on watching a game. A dome lets you host all kinds of events besides football. PTR Edited April 11, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
T master Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but... I think anyone would have to be out of their f'ing minds to support having a taxpayer funded stadium built. Don't get me wrong. I love the Bills and hope and pray that they'll always be successful and stay in Buffalo. However; this talk about a new stadium just seems to me that peoples priorities are way out of whack up there. I could be incorrect on my assumptions, since I haven't lived in the region for over 20 years, but I thought Western New York was really struggling financially. Is this not the case? Don't you think hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars could be spent on something better?? For those that say that an idea like this would revitalize downtown Buffalo... I just don't see how 8 home games could make this happen. Go Bills. REALITY CHECK !! The entire country is in the toilet when it comes to finances why should a thing like tax payer funded money's going to build a stadium stop this movement ?? JUST PRINT MORE MONEY !!!! Hell Rudi had the Mets & Yankees stadiums funded by tax payer money , why couldn't they have done what the Giants & Jets do & split the stadium & saved the tax payers ?? B/C they don't give a rats A** about the tax payers that's why !! What ever it takes to get reelected that's what they do !!!
Lurker Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Hmmm… stuck at the end of a story on a townhouse development in the Fruit Belt. The project would cost close to $1 billion. ??? That's nowhere in the story that I can find...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 ??? That's nowhere in the story that I can find... Any new stadium starts at a billion these days. PTR
metzelaars_lives Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I don't know what to say about this besides it's never gonna happen. Although I guess at some point, either the Bills will leave WNY or they'll HAVE to build a new stadium, at which point, yes, it would benefit the region to have more of a reason for people to go downtown, even if it's 10-15 times a year. They could leave it open for tours year round and build a little museum like Green Bay to give people a reason to go down there year round. My only hope is that if they did build a retractable roof, which with global warming I think is becoming less and less necessary, that they would leave it open in the rare instance that it actually snowed in Buffalo in December some time.
Gordio Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 You forgot Greenbay and by the way, Minneapolis' weather is mostly mild these past couple decades. The average hi/lo in Minneapolis for November is 41/26, in December it is 27/12, January 24/7. I would hardly call that mild.
mikef272002 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Just read a few of the news stories about this and am just wondering, are any of you are any of you as annoyed as I am to hear a clamoring for a domed/retractable roof stadium? Personally I would love a downtown venue, as long as there is enough parking/ tailgating space and a better or at least equal (to the ralph) traffic situation to and from the game. I realize what it could create some vigor in the city as a multi-use facility, but as a Bills fan I can't help but be selfish and only think of what it means to me as a fan. If there is a roof, in my opinion it will close in November and not open til May, I hope I'm wrong about this, but Ive rarely seen teams with retractable roofs keep them open in the cold. Especially in the Super Bowl even in warm areas like AZ and Houston where the roofs are for when it's too hot, the NFL chose to keep them shut. And in Toronto a few years ago the players wanted to open the roof in December and it didnt happen. So what I'm selfish about as a fan is this, there is a mystique about the Bills that goes beyond the players and organization, the harsh weather and grizzled, maniac fans who withstand it and enjoy it through thick and thin have been the true Identity of this team and I'd hate to lose it so that an RV or boat show can come through town. One more thought... Of these 5 cities who has the worst weather? Minneapolis, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, New York, Chicago. Of those cities whose football team is never in the conversation as having the best fans? Hint: the answer to both questions is the team that plays under a roof. I think there thinking is that at roof will sell more tickets, less people come to games when it is cold and snowy...Also I don't think playing in a snow storm gives us any advantage over anyother team, it's not like we have had guys on our team that have lived in Buffalo all there lives and played football for the bills in the cold for the past 10 years. Most these guys are from down South and hate the cold just as much as the other team and are not used to playing in the snow anymore than players on the Carolina panthers or whoever.. I say get the roof if it helps sell tickets and keeps the Bills in Buffalo..
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 ??? That's nowhere in the story that I can find... That wasn't in the story… but that's generally the cost of a new stadium these days… one billion. They might budget $700 million but by the time they're done… plus infrastructure improvements, it'll be one billion.
cjbills69 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 A domed stadium would allow Buffalo to bid on hosting a Superbowl, which generates alot of money for the city.
Wayne Cubed Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 A domed stadium would allow Buffalo to bid on hosting a Superbowl, which generates alot of money for the city. Actually thats incorrect. Its been written in several articles that hosting a super bowl, generally doesn't benefit the city. here's a quote from a proffesor who studied multiple super bowls. “The results are shocking,” Porter wrote in “Mega-Sports Events as Municipal Investments: A Critique of Impact Analysis,” a chapter in The Economics of Sport. “For each of the six events studied in three different locations, there is no measurable impact on spending associated with the event. The projected spending and spillover benefits of regional impact models never materialize.”
Recommended Posts