l< j Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Serious question: you suppose they paid cash? They tried to use Canadian coins.
RyanC883 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer. Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too. All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium. Exactly. A Dome could host the NCAA Tourney, if retractable, an outdoor NHL Game, big name concerts year round, perhaps an SU Basketball game, etc.
djp14150 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Yeah,after 50 years the nfta releases the choke hold on the downtown waterfront.the funniest part about the whole thing is the nfta signed a contract stating that who ever buys the land has to develop it in so many months or they get the land back. Let the 15 year study group begin.i can't wait to ride over the new peace bridge to the new stadium. Mayve I will be buried there when they break ground....
bbb Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 It seems to me that this has nothing to do with a stadium. They are turning this into a state park. I don't want to make this political. But, I am Republican and vote mostly R across the board, but I always vote for Higgins, because of what he has done for the waterfront. I know he has his haters, including some of my friends, but I argue - who was going anything until he came along? Donn Esmonde agrees: http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/its-higgins-who-deserves-our-thanks-for-the-waterfront-20130905
Endless Ike Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer. Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too. All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium. Buffalo cannot host a superbowl. Will never ever happen. When the nicest hotel in town is a run down, shabby Hyatt barely worthy of the name, you're not hosting a superbowl. I'm not even kidding, Buffalo would need to double or triple the number of large hotels, and all the new ones would need to be 4 or 5 stars. We gave Handsome Tom **** for bashing Buffalo hotels, but he's not wrong. When you're used to staying at the Four Seasons, the W, or the Mandarin, Embassy Suites and Adam's Mark just ain't going to cut it.
Bufcomments Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) For 2 dollars? Seriously, for prime land along the waterfront??? I swear politics is a MOFO. Something smells fishy about this whole deal and I bet a stadium has nothing to do with it. Edited September 6, 2013 by Bufcomments
simpleman Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer. Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too. All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium. And again, why would you waste valuable waterfront property to locate the stadium there. It does not matter where the stadium is to host the events, it would have the same effect desired located anywhere in the city where there is ample less valuable property. You could do the same at the current location, why not just keep the stadium where it is if that is what you are trying to accomplish? It would be a lot less costly. The answer you give is far from logical or obvious. Buffalo has plenty of underused, unused spaces and old manufacturing, industrial, and even unused former railroad facilities.
beerme1 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Not sure why there is talk of a stadium on this waterfront land at this point. This is a nail in the coffin to that idea. Besides I like my idea best. Build a new stadium in a parking lot next to the Ralph. Tear down the Ralph and return to tailigating lots. The better solution to me but is way to expensive is to tear down the Perry street projects and raze some other buildings and put it there. I'm guessing with the going union wages though the tab for that idea is $3 billion and that isn't happening so back to my first thought. It's kind of like building a twin span for the peace bridge.
BuffaloATL Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 For 2 dollars? Seriously, for prime land along the waterfront??? I swear politics is a MOFO. Something smells fishy about this whole deal and I bet a stadium has nothing to do with it. Not at all. I work on projects like this all the time. Municipalities spend a crazy amount of money keeping the property maintained, insured, etc so giving it away saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the park will be a HUGE boost for the area. You turn areas around by developing quality public space, which will increase surrounding property tax values, etc.
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront. Cleveland's stadium is right on the waterfront, no dome, do they complain because the wind is too cold? It's a sweet view of Lake Erie and there's lots of attractions, restaurants and stuff to keep it busy there year round. I'd love to have playoff football in a snowstorm with snow rippin off the lake. Have rail service goin downtown to ease on the parking problem. But no, we get another dumb park that will be desolate all winter. Better yet do nothing ... It's great sightseeing looking at all those ancient grain towers and rusty vacant factories.
KollegeStudnet Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I'm about to be optimistic. For $2, NYS bought a piece of property that has been basically vacant since the Richard Nixon years. On the outskirts of the new waterfront park, develop a residential area, commercial area and add a line connecting it to the Metro.
Solomon Grundy Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I thought the NFTA IS a state agency? At least when I worked for those chumps for summer jobs, I thought I was a state employee. No, but gets lots of state funding .
Just Jack Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. Stadiums with a view Gillette Lincoln Financial Mile High Cleveland LP Field CenturyLink Field Raymond James Paul Brown Heinz Field Seem just about any new open air stadium, they've left a portion out to allow views. And you could debate that Indy, Houston, Dallas, and Arizona also do since they all contain a "wall of windows".
Breakdance Posted September 7, 2013 Author Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Not sure why there is talk of a stadium on this waterfront land at this point. This is a nail in the coffin to that idea. Nope - the Northern part of the Outer Harbor where a stadium has shown up on blueprints is now property of the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. and will *not* be owned by the state and will *not* be ran as a park: http://www.buffalone...ie-for-20130905 Hoyt said the public would be involved in determining what happens with the northern portion of the waterfront. “We’re excited about the prospect of having a very public process, where we engage the public to give us their opinions of what they’d like to see. In the end, we’re going to give them what they want – waterfront access and a world-class waterfront,” Hoyt said. It's all in line with the mock-ups that appeared last year: Look at that nice park on the right! Edited September 7, 2013 by Breakdance
Nitro Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 A stadium on the waterfront with a view to the lake like Lucas Oil Stadium here in Indy would be a draw. Folks like the design with the retractable roof and the wall of windows. It would benefit the WNY area. My Dad, now deceased, used to tell me how vibrant the waterfront was in the 30s and 40s but in my 53 years all I saw was an area that was under utilized. I hope and pray that the civic leaders make some wise decisions in how to develop that land.
T master Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront. Must be a bird watcher ... Have you ever seen lucas oil stadium ? It is mostly glass on either end & you can see through glass so you still get the view . There may be other places that are a bit better suited for a stadium in Buffalo but this dragging of political feet in the western NY area is why the economy sucks so bad there & why i HAD TO eventually move to make a living . Plus people are drawn to the water , If the stadium plan is built as proposed with a sports museum & convention center it could be a lot like the sights in SF on the water . The other thing with a domed stadium is that your completely brain farting is HELLO SUPER BOWL BID ! Yes if we get a domed stadium on the water front that will mean there will be a movement for more hotels to bring Canadian visitors & eventually a SB bid to Buffalo , but the backwards kind of thinking in this post is what has kept the economy & the Buffalo area in a funk for the last 20 + years !!! But hey start a comity & have it go through the motions for the next ten years by then Ralph will have passed, the Bills will have been sold & moved by the new owner (because of ancient stadium & backward thinking) , hence more jobs lost , no more NFL in western NY & more people leaving the area instead of staying , so go for it ... A stadium on the waterfront with a view to the lake like Lucas Oil Stadium here in Indy would be a draw. Folks like the design with the retractable roof and the wall of windows. It would benefit the WNY area. My Dad, now deceased, used to tell me how vibrant the waterfront was in the 30s and 40s but in my 53 years all I saw was an area that was under utilized. I hope and pray that the civic leaders make some wise decisions in how to develop that land. Thank you i would like to add this to my reply ...Thank You Sir !!!
Rhode Island Red Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Stadiums with a view Gillette Lincoln Financial Mile High Cleveland LP Field CenturyLink Field Raymond James Paul Brown Heinz Field Seem just about any new open air stadium, they've left a portion out to allow views. And you could debate that Indy, Houston, Dallas, and Arizona also do since they all contain a "wall of windows". I am quite sure that I would have to examine all of the alternatives pretty carefully before I said I was for or against a waterfront stadium in Buffalo. However, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that, without really knowing what the other stadia on your list have "a view" of, I can tell you that there is absolutely no "view" in Foxboro.... just one end of the stadium that has sort of an open end. From inside you can't tell at all what's out there, nor would you care about it anyway 'cuz the place is truly out in the boonies. Gilette is the absolute opposite of what's been discussed in this thread so far in terms of a waterfront stadium.
Bufcomments Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Not at all. I work on projects like this all the time. Municipalities spend a crazy amount of money keeping the property maintained, insured, etc so giving it away saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the park will be a HUGE boost for the area. You turn areas around by developing quality public space, which will increase surrounding property tax values, etc. A park could have been there YEARS ago. What took them soooo long. At least Higgins is doing his part.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Yeah,after 50 years the nfta releases the choke hold on the downtown waterfront.the funniest part about the whole thing is the nfta signed a contract stating that who ever buys the land has to develop it in so many months or they get the land back. Let the 15 year study group begin.i can't wait to ride over the new peace bridge to the new stadium. Sad but true, I will believe it when I see it. I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront. No one is coming to look at a waterfront, but a Stadium and such brings people = money.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Anyone ever walk to the FNC during a gale coming off the lake? 50-60 mph winds? Good times. Now imagine trying to tailgate in that... Or trying to kick a field goal in that... Or try to keep that multi-million dollar retractable roof from blowing off. The lake front is about the worst place you could build a new stadium. And when they do build it don't waste hundreds of millions of dollars making it a retractable dome that is rarely used. PTR Edited September 7, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
Recommended Posts