Tsaikotic Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 not seeing very much parking in the top 2 pics at all...south park and Orchard park show the best sites for keeping parking and tailgating at the stadium...as an "out-of-towner" I really don't want to park somewhere in the city and walk thru a city I don't know to find the stadium. Plus as some of you have said, $50 - $100 for parking closer to stadium is a definite NO for me...I don't tailgate, but I like the fact that Buffalo is one of the best in the NFL for tailgating and would hate to lose that...
GOBILLS78 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 please explain , how is it throwing money away?? Because you're limiting usage opportunties. For the most bang for the buck, you want to bring in revenue producers more than 8-10 times a year like the Ralph.
May Day 10 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 It's nice to be able to have the discussion without the relocation cloud
Kirby Jackson Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 It's nice to be able to have the discussion without the relocation cloudAmen
dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Because you're limiting usage opportunties. For the most bang for the buck, you want to bring in revenue producers more than 8-10 times a year like the Ralph. ok.. what "revenue producers" do you have in mind? i hear that reason all the time, but have yet to be convinced of what those events would be.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 not seeing very much parking in the top 2 pics at all...south park and Orchard park show the best sites for keeping parking and tailgating at the stadium...as an "out-of-towner" I really don't want to park somewhere in the city and walk thru a city I don't know to find the stadium. Plus as some of you have said, $50 - $100 for parking closer to stadium is a definite NO for me...I don't tailgate, but I like the fact that Buffalo is one of the best in the NFL for tailgating and would hate to lose that...You are going to see a different tailgating experience. There will still be some traditional tailgating but it will be more bars and restaurants. It will be similar to a Cleveland. I fear the days of fires in garbage cans are coming to an end.
sodbuster Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 it will be the cobblestone site. it's the closest to pegula's harborcenter. should be easy for the sabres to move conflict dates should they arise. I'm not so sure about that. I reca an article where they interviewed Pegulas advisor, and he talked about a site that Terry wants that sits between the arena and the ballpark. I'll have to look for it, but it was posted on TSW a few months ago.
May Day 10 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I'm not so sure about that. I reca an article where they interviewed Pegulas advisor, and he talked about a site that Terry wants that sits between the arena and the ballpark. I'll have to look for it, but it was posted on TSW a few months ago. Yup. It was sawyer. I believe it may have been the exchange street site?
GOBILLS78 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 ok.. what "revenue producers" do you have in mind? i hear that reason all the time, but have yet to be convinced of what those events would be. That should be their concern, but -- pure speculation here -- concerts, basketball, college bowl game, soccer, supercross, monster trucks, wrestling, et al would all be considered. Not sure how those things would affect what the arena already offers, but typically new, high-profile facilities can attract those things ahead of a 20-year-old arena. Let's not forget that it won't be solely about the stadium. I'm guessing any new facility would be a mecca of sorts for downtown tradeshows, meetings, conferences and the like. The Ralph hosts events maybe 10 weekends a year.
shibuya Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) I do like the river front South Park site. Biggest site and allows other development at the cobblestone area that would be between the 2 venues . You would have his central hub of an enterainment district. Edited January 18, 2015 by shibuya
Kelly the Dog Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Interesting. The NFL insists that stadiums are built north and south, so sunlight doesn't effect the games, like getting in players eyes. The Cobblestone one, IIRC, looked to be east and west, that's why it would have to be a dome. http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10369/NFL-Stadiums-have-to-be-built-North-to-South
dwight in philly Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 That should be their concern, but -- pure speculation here -- concerts, basketball, college bowl game, soccer, supercross, monster trucks, wrestling, et al would all be considered. Not sure how those things would affect what the arena already offers, but typically new, high-profile facilities can attract those things ahead of a 20-year-old arena. Let's not forget that it won't be solely about the stadium. I'm guessing any new facility would be a mecca of sorts for downtown tradeshows, meetings, conferences and the like. The Ralph hosts events maybe 10 weekends a year. most of what you enumerated could be held at the FNC.. im not against a new stadium necessarily, but very anti dome.. anti roof, anti covered stadium..
metzelaars_lives Posted January 18, 2015 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. Why do people keep saying this? I live in Denver and Invesco Field or whatever the hell they're calling it these days is used for events all year round. In fact, an outdoor stadium is better for summer events.
zonabb Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 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. This only supports my argument so I'm unsure what your point is? I stated that "relocation" was not an option and the proposal you speak of is a replacement on site that would allow existing residents to remain. It's a geographic question, not a question of the type of housing. Political affiliation has nothing to do with this, I'm an unaffiliated voter because I think and refuse to align myself with party dogma. Housing isn't, and should never be, a political issue. It's a human issue. Even so, it has not been "proven" that urban renewal projects need to be torn down and rebuilt with different options. Despite the failure of some, many have been successful. I don't trade in generalizations and stereotypes, it's a folly worthy of others. Some fail and some work. Context matters. What has failed (however you suggest we measure failure) in Buffalo probably won't fail in NYC because NYC isn't a dead and dying deindustrialized city with excessive population decline, economic contraction, and continually growing rates of poverty and segregation. The Bills get me away from these conversations, which is why I turn to them as a refuge from the day to day social, economic and political discourse. My point was that no politician anywhere is going to support a project that relocates already marginalized populations and sells the land left behind to regional business elites. Interesting. The NFL insists that stadiums are built north and south, so sunlight doesn't effect the games, like getting in players eyes. The Cobblestone one, IIRC, looked to be east and west, that's why it would have to be a dome. http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10369/NFL-Stadiums-have-to-be-built-North-to-South Cobblestone is north to south, the most north to south of any of them actually. So I'm not sure. Exchange is almost dead on east-west. South Park and the Ralph were more southeast to northwest a la the current stadium. My guess still is shadows.
boyst Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I like the idea of keeping it at the current location if it is not simply upgraded.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Cobblestone is north to south, the most north to south of any of them actually. So I'm not sure. Exchange is almost dead on east-west. South Park and the Ralph were more southeast to northwest a la the current stadium. My guess still is shadows. Yeah, it's the Exchange that is east west. That one would seem to have to be the roofed one. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state-study-focuses-on-three-buffalo-sites-for-bills-stadium-as-well-as-the-ralph-20150118
May Day 10 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) During the afternoon in autumn and winter, the sun typically appears toward the south, no? LookING at the current rws. The sun always seems to be over the southern upper deck there which would put it in the end zone of the cobblestone site Edited January 18, 2015 by May Day 10
Augie Posted January 18, 2015 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. The old stadium in Dallas had this problem, but the stadium itself caused the lighting issues. Watching a gme form there onTV was an awful experience! Into and out of the sun/shade made it very difficult to adjust to. I suppose camera technology may have improved some since then, but I'm glad they take this into consideration.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 The old stadium in Dallas had this problem, but the stadium itself caused the lighting issues. Watching a gme form there onTV was an awful experience! Into and out of the sun/shade made it very difficult to adjust to. I suppose camera technology may have improved some since then, but I'm glad they take this into consideration. Yep. I wonder if the NFL changed its rules because of that stadium. Before the games even started, half would be sunny and half would be shaded, because of the overhanging roof. The new Dolphin stadium looks to both have a roof to deflect sun from the stands, but also be far enough back to not affect the field. I'm sure that was a major consideration and logistics issue/problem.
boyst Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I like a retractable roof vs fixed roof but if I had to choose fixed or open air I would take the roof. Gives it so many more usage options and I think more people would go to bad weather games. Bad weather is not a HFA for anyone IMO. This just had me think of something. The cost of cooling the stadium is pretty expensive and being that it doesn't get that hot up there means they could probably save some by making an retractable roof stadium and use that most months of the year saving on cooling. 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. I expect this to be attributed to the increased revenue of boxes and licensing.
Recommended Posts