Carl Paladino: Put new stadium in Cobblestone district

[May Day 10]

Hopefully this "rail" they build has some stops on grand island

[major]

Why not just build this back?

[Rochesterfan]

21 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Too many advocates of a downtown stadium dismiss how limiting downtown Buffalo's geography actually is when it comes to access.   Downtown is butted up  against Lake Erie, the Buffalo Harbor, and the Buffalo River on the west and south, which is why the development and population growth in the Buffalo area is -- and always has been -- to the north and east first.  Westward development has always been nil.  Outside of the Old First Ward neighborhoods right around the Harbor and the Buffalo River, southward development was late in coming since development in South Buffalo didn't real start until after 1900.  Buffalo's geography is why Erie County's population is concentrated in the Northtowns and northern parts of the eastern suburbs.  Whether by private vehicle, rail, bus or Uber, traffic from any stadium located in downtown Buffalo would be going primarily north or northeast.  It would be the heavy concentration of traffic, especially after games, that would require significant infrastructure upgrades to the highways.  Unfortunately, the closest limited access highway to a downtown stadium, I-190N, has limited possibilities for expansion because it runs along the Niagara River.  I-190S which connects to the Thruway, runs through miles of established neighborhoods.   

 

Geographically, downtown is just about the worst site in Erie County to locate a new stadium.  Cost-wise it will easily be the most expensive option for any new stadium because the cost of road expansion.  Putting the stadium in downtown by the Inner Harbor or in the Cobblestone district only exacerbates the problems and increase the costs.  I'm not sure if there are better sites in downtown, but there are better and cheaper sites within the city outside of downtown, some very close to downtown.  Not every venue or destination in Buffalo needs to be located in downtown.

 

 

You do realize pretty much every major city in the NE (almost across the US) are on some type of major water way right.  That is why the cities were built there.

 

The lakes and rivers that you are talking about limiting Buffalo - look at Cleveland, Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc.  They all managed to find ways to build Downtown stadiums right on their waterfronts.  Several of them have multiple Stadiums in the same area - to use the same infrastructure.

 

All of these cities also had the exact same trends as Buffalo and most major cities - families moving to the suburbs for years.  The difference - many of these cities began moving major events back downtown and building up the city and now more and more people are moving back into the city because of the growth.

 

Buffalo is seeing the exact same trend - younger families/couples with disposable income grabbing apartments downtown to be near Canalside for festivals, to be right in the heart of the rebuild and enjoy life.

 

People are correct in that a venue for football only has a limited number of uses per year and does little to bring in the money that it costs to build, but as cities like Pittsburgh have shown - it can be a big part of the revitalization of the area and can bring in businesses like bars, restaurants, casinos, hotels, etc. that help stabilize the areas and keep the growth.

 

Putting a stadium in OP is fine for the fans, but it does nothing to enhance the area.  Little has grown around the stadium because there is nothing there M-Sat.  There is already growth in the downtown area that has been going for years with people working M-F and events on Sat/Sun.  Supporting that growth helps and yes it will cost more, but somehow every major city finds ways to do exactly that many times with worse areas to work with.  

 

 

[May Day 10]

No "growth" comes from a football stadium.  Its proven fact.  I dont think a broke county/city/state should pay hundreds of millions in upgrades for a football stadium if "growth" from it is the goal.  

 

In Pittsburgh, there is stuff there because the ballpark.... and it is a nice, affluent city

 

If we had fortune 500 company(s) downtown and people were moving in there, thats great.  Now, its hipsters.  The only people who work in buffalo seem to be government workers and m&t.  All the stuff down there is window dressing until the city lands a white whale or 2 to be headquartered there

 

 

If we can press a button and a $700 Million stadium costs the same in Orchard Park.... and it would be the same price crowbarred in downtown, then that is great.  I would agree it should be downtown.  

However, it isn't the case.  Land acquisition, infrastructure, and roadways/rail system are going to need major work, and you also have a lot of issues with environmental studies, possible industrial legacy waste, etc.  In all, you could be talking more than double the cost, with little tangible benefit to the downtown area for the $.  All I am saying, is I predict in these studies, they are finding that building a new stadium on adjacent land in Orchard Park will allow them to get more bang for their buck as far as a facility goes, with far less red tape.  They could be looking at paying $750 Million for a new stadium and asking the Public to provide $750 Million in upgrades almost solely to service this stadium.  

 

This is much more than 'wah, I want tailgating'.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by May Day 10

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, purple haze said:

An issue for some years is that everything went to the suburbs.  That was the case in cities across the country.  Then the memo went out that 

a viable, developed downtown is good for businesses and culture.  Buffalo, as usual, stayed stuck in the past, but now seems to have emerged

from the spell of suburbia.  There are good arguments to be made for keeping the stadium in Orchard Park, but if folks can't see a downtown

stadium coming I don't know what to tell them.  And complaining about taxes and traffic and usage and no tailgating ain't stopping it.  

 

Working on roads and rail, both public transportation and trains will probably be part of stadium construction.  Yes, it will cost a lot of money.

Yes, tax payers will help fund it.  Yes, the Pegula's will kick in.  Yes, the NFL will probably kick in.  It is what it is.   I can see the state paying

for infrastructure: roads and rail;  the county, Pegula's and NFL and taxpayers covering the stadium.  I can also see a plan for a new Sabres 

arena as part of that construction.  When the stadium is built enjoy seeing the Bills play, and hopefully win.  Change is life.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

You do realize pretty much every major city in the NE (almost across the US) are on some type of major water way right.  That is why the cities were built there.

 

The lakes and rivers that you are talking about limiting Buffalo - look at Cleveland, Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc.  They all managed to find ways to build Downtown stadiums right on their waterfronts.  Several of them have multiple Stadiums in the same area - to use the same infrastructure.

 

All of these cities also had the exact same trends as Buffalo and most major cities - families moving to the suburbs for years.  The difference - many of these cities began moving major events back downtown and building up the city and now more and more people are moving back into the city because of the growth.

 

Buffalo is seeing the exact same trend - younger families/couples with disposable income grabbing apartments downtown to be near Canalside for festivals, to be right in the heart of the rebuild and enjoy life.

 

People are correct in that a venue for football only has a limited number of uses per year and does little to bring in the money that it costs to build, but as cities like Pittsburgh have shown - it can be a big part of the revitalization of the area and can bring in businesses like bars, restaurants, casinos, hotels, etc. that help stabilize the areas and keep the growth.

 

Putting a stadium in OP is fine for the fans, but it does nothing to enhance the area.  Little has grown around the stadium because there is nothing there M-Sat.  There is already growth in the downtown area that has been going for years with people working M-F and events on Sat/Sun.  Supporting that growth helps and yes it will cost more, but somehow every major city finds ways to do exactly that many times with worse areas to work with.  

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

No "growth" comes from a football stadium.  Its proven fact.  I dont think a broke county/city/state should pay hundreds of millions in upgrades for a football stadium if "growth" from it is the goal.  

 

In Pittsburgh, there is stuff there because the ballpark.

 

If we had fortune 500 company(s) downtown and people were moving in there, thats great.  Now, its hipsters.  The only people who work in buffalo seem to be government workers and m&t.  All the stuff down there is window dressing until the city lands a white whale or 2 to be headquartered there

 

I'm going to address all three of these posts in 1 of my own.

 

First off, this isn't about 'suburbia' vs 'city'.  It is about the stubborn insistence on the part of Buffalo's supposed leaders that every single venue/institution has to be crowded into downtown, preferably within sight of City Hall.   Do you know why Paladino owns so much property in the Cobblestone District?  He's been sitting on a lot of empty lots there (after he demo'd the existing buildings, some of them of historic significance) for 20 years because at one time his pal ex-Buffalo mayor Tony Masiello had the bright idea of moving the Buffalo Zoo to that area and Paladino started buying up properties in anticipation for that project before it was made public.  When the scheme was made public, it was shot down by everyone, especially the Buffalo Zoological Society, as it should have been. 

 

Buffalo is more than just the downtown area.  There are other sites in the city that are better suited for a new stadium, and they aren't that far from downtown because Buffalo's physical area is relatively small (< 43 square miles), primarily because cities in New York State haven't been able to annex their suburbs since about 1900.  Some areas of the city aren't good sites for a stadium for a number of reasons, but primarily because they are already developed or are developing.  These the areas west of Main Street to the city line which encompasses Allentown, the Delaware District, North Buffalo and Black Rock and the neighborhoods east of Main Street, west of the Kensington Expressway, north of Downtown north to UB South Campus is either part of the Medical Campus or residential areas, some of which are gentrifying because of the Medical Campus like the Fruit Belt.

 

Two possibilities are in the area of the Central Terminal, where there's already rail and rail ROWs as well as lots of city owned property, which another poster suggested, and the area around Dingens/South Ogden Street I-190 exit which offers unused former warehouse facilities, rail, and interstate access.  Both of these sites are in areas where land acquisition costs will be much less than in Downtown or Cobblestone, and infrastructure upgrades/reconfiguration would be easier (and therefore cheaper).  The CT site is also close to the Broadway/Fillmore business district which includes the Broadway Market., an area certainly in need of redevelopment.   If an urban football stadium is truly a development catalyst as advocates claim, then this site would be perfect to prove that.  

 

I'm with May Day 10 and other skeptics of football stadiums as development engines, but a stadium near the CT or Dingens/South Ogden Street would at least not disrupt already developing areas. 

[May Day 10]

That S Ogden Street Site could work transportation-wise because the lots' egress could marry up with the 190, and you also have 90 there for easy escape anywhere.

 

 

[LabattBlue]

18 hours ago, Mrbojanglezs said:

I think a good spot is somewhere east of the airport by the 90. Then they can create a new dedicated exit right on to the 90 going east and west. There can be a little parkway going from the 90 to the stadium. 

 

There has to be some land out there. 

 

You mean a property like what used to be undeveloped behind Lancaster HS(Walden & Stony)?  LOL

On 8/5/2019 at 7:02 AM, May Day 10 said:

I dont care if its uber, lyft, horse and buggy, rickshaws, palanquins, or liberty cab.  The street pattern out of perry street/cobblestone is the same single lane gridlock going in 1 to 2 directions.  

 

The good news..if a stadium is built down there, not all 65,000 attending will be parking directly adjacent to the stadium. 

 

Consider this...~45,000 people used to attend Bills games in the middle of a residential neighborhood for almost a decade, and the only freeway access(Kensington Expy) was several blocks away.

[PromoTheRobot]

41 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

You mean a property like what used to be undeveloped behind Lancaster HS(Walden & Stony)?  LOL

The good news..if a stadium is built down there, not all 65,000 attending will be parking directly adjacent to the stadium. 

 

Consider this...~45,000 people used to attend Bills games in the middle of a residential neighborhood for almost a decade, and the only freeway access(Kensington Expy) was several blocks away.

 

And the Kensington didn't exist for most of the Rockpile's history. How did the city not collapse?

[May Day 10]

The city doesnt collapse after sabres games, but it is very inconvenient.  I find myself leaving in the 2nd intermission more and more and the traffic situation can be a deciding factor for me to stay at home.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by May Day 10

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, LabattBlue said:

Consider this...~45,000 people used to attend Bills games in the middle of a residential neighborhood for almost a decade, and the only freeway access(Kensington Expy) was several blocks away.

 

In those days, there were no suburbs for people to drive in from....   

 

[Malazan]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:30 AM, SoTier said:

Finally, the Bills could limp along for a season playing games at the UB Stadium and/or at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse.  The UB Stadium holds 25,000 and is configured for football -- the Chargers have been playing in a 25k soccer stadium for at least 2 seasons, so it can be done.  The Bears played their home games in Champagne, Ill (135 miles) while Soldier Field was being rebuilt, and the Packers played some games in Milwaukee for a number of years, which is about 120 miles away.

 

 

They could even play some games in Toronto ?

[LabattBlue]

14 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

In those days, there were no suburbs for people to drive in from....   

 

Huh?  In the 1960's there was no suburban population outside of the city of Buffalo?  I must have been dreaming of the time I spent in West Seneca in the 60's.  LOL

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

The city doesnt collapse after sabres games, but it is very inconvenient.  I find myself leaving in the 2nd intermission more and more and the traffic situation can be a deciding factor for me to stay at home.  

 

No different than leaving a stadium lot in Orchard Park. Or for that matter, Foxboro. Traffic is unavoidable when you bring 60K together. But the Earth doesn't fall off its axis because of it.

[AllenLongBall]

On 8/5/2019 at 11:54 AM, mrags said:

Brian Moorman is a @ickbag

Where did he touch you?

[Augie]

1 hour ago, AllenLongBall said:

Where did he touch you?

 

I think you are supposed to use a doll for that. 

[Mr. WEO]

14 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

 

People are correct in that a venue for football only has a limited number of uses per year and does little to bring in the money that it costs to build, but as cities like Pittsburgh have shown - it can be a big part of the revitalization of the area and can bring in businesses like bars, restaurants, casinos, hotels, etc. that help stabilize the areas and keep the growth.

 

 

 

 

 

It's difficult to understand why people still believe this is true.

[mrags]

1 hour ago, AllenLongBall said:

Where did he touch you?

He didn’t. Maybe that’s the problem 

16 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I think you are supposed to use a doll for that. 

Why bother on the doll when you can use me for that 

[Lurker]

4 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

Huh?  In the 1960's there was no suburban population outside of the city of Buffalo?  I must have been dreaming of the time I spent in West Seneca in the 60's.  LOL

 

Not like it is today.   

 

Town of West Seneca Population

 

    1960:  29, 575

    2017:  45,325

 

Town of Amherst Population

 

    1960:  51,123

    2018:  125,659

 

Town of Lancaster Population

 

    1960:  19,068

    2018:  43,270

[SoTier]

15 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

In those days, there were no suburbs for people to drive in from....   

 

 

15 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

Huh?  In the 1960's there was no suburban population outside of the city of Buffalo?  I must have been dreaming of the time I spent in West Seneca in the 60's.  LOL

 

In the 1960s, the Buffalo's suburban development was primarily concentrated in Tonawanda, the southwestern part of Amherst along Niagara Falls Blvd and Main Street in what is now Eggertsville and Snyder, and west of the airport in Cheektowaga.  Development in the Southtowns was modest and very limited compared to the areas north and west of the city, most of it concentrated along Routes 5, 75, and 62 south to Hamburg.

 

The explosive development of Buffalo's outer ring suburbs beyond the areas described above really didn't start until the later 1980s and 1990s. 

[PromoTheRobot]

22 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

 

In the 1960s, the Buffalo's suburban development was primarily concentrated in Tonawanda, the southwestern part of Amherst along Niagara Falls Blvd and Main Street in what is now Eggertsville and Snyder, and west of the airport in Cheektowaga.  Development in the Southtowns was modest and very limited compared to the areas north and west of the city, most of it concentrated along Routes 5, 75, and 62 south to Hamburg.

 

The explosive development of Buffalo's outer ring suburbs beyond the areas described above really didn't start until the later 1980s and 1990s. 

 

You do realize there are cities with metro populations in the millions, several times larger than Buffalo, by a lakes, oceans and rivers, with multiple downtown arenas and stadiums, that somehow manage the traffic? You have yet to give a reasoned explanation why Buffalo would be paralyzed by a downtown stadium, and these other cities aren't?