EDIT: Total cost to taxpayers? Bills select sports firm to represent ownership in building new open air stadium in OP, targeted for 2025

[SirAndrew]

12 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Bears played at Memorial Stadium in Champaign when Soldier was being rebuilt.

Fair enough, thanks for the correction. I didn’t remember that, but it would still seem bush league to let the lease expire. They even mention the possibility of several seasons away, that would be strange imo. I’d probably have a different prospective if the options weren’t Toronto and Pennsyltucky. Something in NY like UB, or Syracuse wouldn’t seem as strange. I realize those venues might not be suited for the NFL, but playing in Toronto or State College is certainly not desirable. 

[TBBills Fan]

5 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

THIS TIME, Please do an extensive, exhaustive GPR study in the area BEFORE the first spadeful of ground captures the cameras’ eye. 2 League titles in the previous 9 years before Ralph stuck his shovel in the Orchard Park mud over ancient Indian burial grounds and the closest we’ve come in the 51 years hence was Wide Right!🤦‍♂️

 

I’m begging you!!

 

 

I agree!!

 

Im not superstitious but I am a little Stitious, 

[YoloinOhio]

31 minutes ago, without a drought said:

We all knew it was going to have to happen, but this feels like just checking off the boxes of whats needed and stopping there. And that looks to get you a new version of what's there.

 

I'm just not sure this will seem like the right choice in 2030 or 2035, it may already seem to be outdated and poorly located. Lucas Oil Stadium is 13 and still seems new, I can't see an outdoor stadium seeming new after 13 years.

 Not sure it needs to seem “new”, it just needs to be up to whatever standard the owners and Goodell keep pushing. The outdoor stadiums in Pitt, KC, Cleveland, Foxboro, etc etc are all doing fine. I am sure they have done many studies, so while I would have preferred a retractable roof I have no idea what goes into that decision 

[blacklabel]

I thought they would’ve gone with a retractable roof as opposed to open air with some type of overhang thingy. I think the whole weather factor can be a bit overstated, I don’t think it makes a crazy huge difference in games. Plus, it’s only like every other season or two do they have a heavy snow game. The wind can be a little more persistent throughout the fall but again, only every so often is it so high it has an impact on the game. I figured they would’ve with the roof that way they can use the stadium year round for all sorts of events and not have to worry about the weather. 
 

Either way, a new stadium was inevitably the thing that was gonna happen. I’ll be excited to see the design they end up choosing. 

[Cheektowaga Chad]

1 hour ago, Albany,n.y. said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may be adding a duplicate opinion, but the tweet that says the Bills might need to look elsewhere to play while the new stadium is being built is ridiculous.  They just need to do what's been done in NYC & NJ.  Met Life Stadium was built on another part of the property while the 2 NJ teams still played in Giants Stadium.  City Field was built on another part of the Shea Stadium land and the new Yankee Stadium was built a block or 2 away from the old one & the baseball continued in the old stadiums during construction.  

Losing some parking is better than finding a stadium away from Orchard Park to play in for a season or 2.  After the new stadium is built, the old one is demolished & full parking is returned.  I don't remember any problem with parking at Giants Stadium when Met-Life was being built, just add more available buses to the game or some kind of shuttle from an auxiliary area down the road from Highmark.  

Pretty sure its just a negotiation tactic. The article I read mentioned the lease with Erie County expiring being a big reason why they would play elsewhere while the stadium is built

 

I mean there was zero mention of the division one football stadium currently located in erie County 

[Virgil]

4 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

over his career or last season alone?

 

year 1 the receiving corps was BAD 

 

The obvious advantages are there in a dome but the ability to play in heavy winds is an advantage 

While we won the Ravens game, I think we win by a wider margin if the wind wasn’t a factor.  Allen sailed a TD to Diggs.  
 

Granted, it did save us on the Tucker field goals, so 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

I trust our fans to create enough of a home field advantage where as I don’t want the weather to hose us

[SirAndrew]

12 minutes ago, blacklabel said:

I thought they would’ve gone with a retractable roof as opposed to open air with some type of overhang thingy. I think the whole weather factor can be a bit overstated, I don’t think it makes a crazy huge difference in games. Plus, it’s only like every other season or two do they have a heavy snow game. The wind can be a little more persistent throughout the fall but again, only every so often is it so high it has an impact on the game. I figured they would’ve with the roof that way they can use the stadium year round for all sorts of events and not have to worry about the weather. 
 

Either way, a new stadium was inevitably the thing that was gonna happen. I’ll be excited to see the design they end up choosing. 

I hate the overhang idea. I enjoy the full power of the sun on those rare sunny WNY days, why sit in the dim shade ? It would be really nice to have on rainy days, but I don’t mind the snow, and rainy days are somewhat rare. The overhang makes perfect sense in Miami. In fact a large overhang would make our cold yet sunny days even cooler. 

[Patience]

4 hours ago, zonabb said:

Told everyone everywhere every time this came up. It will be open air in OP due to entire financial considerations. I worked in development and govt. I know people in development and govt. Pegulas want this team to be successful and not lose money here. They don’t want to take on tons of debt, they have zero on the team and it’s profitable. They want govt money but don’t want to saddle the taxpayers with more than necessary. In the end, as the beginning like I said, the costs for anything in Buffalo requires hundreds of millions of offsite upgrades to infrastructure-storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water, and roads-just to be able to build the stadium. That doesn’t even include the unquantifiable amount needed to acquire land, which every fool who owned property in the old first ward thought would make them rich. Waaay too many properties to acquire cost way too much time and money. They could buy some outright with honest offers but the hold outs who wanted double or wouldn’t sell at all require the city to undertake eminent domain proceedings, which is a lengthy and costly court battle (See: Kelo v. New London which was due to one property hold out that by the time the court case was settle, the developer decided against the project anyway!). They would be, literally, hundreds of millions into all of this and not a nickel spent on the actual stadium. Now jump southeast to Orchard Park and you have free land, saving millions in acquisition and eminent domain, and existing infrastructure that already supports a 73k seat stadium, saving hundreds of millions.

 

It was a no brainer when this conversation started and remained that way the entire time. Like everything with Bills homers, the emotional and irrational dreamed and the dream of a downtown stadium was just that.

 

You called it!  I remembered your prior posts on this topic when I saw your board name.  Any additional insight on the type of design they have in mind for it?  Do you think the seat capacity will be the same as the current stadium?

[Solomon Grundy]

1 hour ago, Just Jack said:

Am I the only one concerned about how much input Jerry Jones has with the company the Bills hired to plan the new stadium? 

The "playing away from Buffalo" has me shook

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, SirAndrew said:

I’m not sure why people think OP has some stellar infrastructure. It’s a bunch of two lane roads that lead to expressways. Most NFL stadiums are located next to multiple expressway paths. I’ve never had as much of an issue leaving a Sabres game, as I do Bills games or Darien Lake concerts out in the cow pasture. 

Problem is sabres games bring 20,000 people downtown 

 

Bills games bring 80-90,000 people To orchard Park.. there's tens of thousands of people who tailgate and don't go to the games

 

90,000 people downtown would cause havoc. 20k is manageable

Edited June 19, 2021 by Buffalo716

[UConn James]

1 hour ago, blacklabel said:

I thought they would’ve gone with a retractable roof as opposed to open air with some type of overhang thingy. I think the whole weather factor can be a bit overstated, I don’t think it makes a crazy huge difference in games. Plus, it’s only like every other season or two do they have a heavy snow game. The wind can be a little more persistent throughout the fall but again, only every so often is it so high it has an impact on the game. I figured they would’ve with the roof that way they can use the stadium year round for all sorts of events and not have to worry about the weather. 
 

Either way, a new stadium was inevitably the thing that was gonna happen. I’ll be excited to see the design they end up choosing. 

I was & still am a proponent of a retractable roof. Plans can change, especially at this super-early stage.

 

We have to be building for the weather that’s going to be for the next 50 years, which means stronger storms and wilder weather due to climate change / global warming.
 

(For heavens sake, no power poles for Mylar balloons 🎈 — EVERYTHING utility-wise should be underground!!!!)
 

Weather takes a serious toll on exposed surfaces. Concrete breaks down faster, plastic fades & goes brittle / cracks, paint fails, etc.

 

A partial covering won’t do it for wind and snow and rain. If you’re going to go through the bother to create the structure for a partial why the hell not go for a full solution?
 

Half measures are always terrible. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by UConn James

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

18 hours ago, Bob in STL said:

I don’t like any possibility of playing  in Toronto or at Penn State.  

 

Seems very Pegulish, even ridiculous, to mention Penn State, when all they have to do extend the lease until the new facility is built.  
 

 

Yeah, this reeks of Pegula being in his feelings about his football team playing at his beloved university. Rather bizarre. It's 4 hours away. I'm only an hour and a half from Penn State, so it would benefit me tremendously (I'm 5 hours from Buffalo), but you can't make Buffalo fans travel 4 hours. Just utterly treasonous.

[UConn James]

1 hour ago, Patience said:

 

You called it!  I remembered your prior posts on this topic when I saw your board name.  Any additional insight on the type of design they have in mind for it?  Do you think the seat capacity will be the same as the current stadium?

There seem to be two schools of thought. Populous cities have gone bigger e.g. MetLife, Jerry’s world. Some smaller cities have gone smaller than previous stadium e.g. Ford Field.

 

Personally, I think it should go smaller. The pandemic is only highlighting some of the factors. NFL has become more of a TV & screen league; TBH, it’s a much better product & view on screen and the people who are going seem to be there for the ambiance / tailgating / social & social-media side of things (how many fans do you see in stands who are looking at their phones the whole time. It’s just stupid to me). More average people are being priced out of going to games, more luxury suites & seating is taking the place of general seat capacity because they can charge more and that isn’t revenue-shared.
 

We seem to be a club where the trends don’t fit, however. Corporate & luxury weren’t selling. General seating at 80K (less when the replaced the metal benching) had to be done to pack in as many as they could to reach a number through mass. Maybe that changes with new digs and a competitive team 🤷🏻‍♂️. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by UConn James

[Saxum]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I just had a baked potato and smothered it in ranch.

 

You should change name to Royale Ranche.

[Patience]

11 minutes ago, UConn James said:

There seem to be two schools of thought. Populous cities have gone bigger e.g. MetLife, Jerry’s world. Some smaller cities have gone smaller than previous stadium e.g. Ford Field.

 

Personally, I think it should go smaller. The pandemic is only highlighting some of the factors. NFL has become more of a TV & screen league; TBH, it’s a much better product & view on screen and the people who are going seem to be there for the ambiance / tailgating / social & social-media side of things (how many fans do you see in stands who are looking at their phones the whole time. It’s just stupid to me). More average people are being priced out of going to games, more luxury suites & seating is taking the place of general seat capacity because they can charge more and that isn’t revenue-shared.
 

We seem to be a club where the trends don’t fit, however. Corporate & luxury weren’t selling. Maybe that changes with new digs and a competitive team 🤷🏻‍♂️. 

 

Good points!  I generally agree with all of them.  I'd like to see a carbon copy of Seattle's stadium for us, but I don't know enough about stadium design/construction/development, etc. to know if that's even a possibility.  

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the overhang and what a terrible idea it is. You do realize there are going to be terrible shadows and sun spots, yes? There will be vision issues for players, and the broadcast will be unsightly. It's like they're getting every aspect of this decision wrong.

[RiotAct]

1 minute ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the overhang and what a terrible idea it is. You do realize there are going to be terrible shadows and sun spots, yes? There will be vision issues for players, and the broadcast will be unsightly. It's like they're getting every aspect of this decision wrong.

besides the keeping it in Orchard Park aspect, and the not-being-a-dome aspect.

[UConn James]

19 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the overhang and what a terrible idea it is. You do realize there are going to be terrible shadows and sun spots, yes? There will be vision issues for players, and the broadcast will be unsightly. It's like they're getting every aspect of this decision wrong.

This was a serious issue in the French Open that impacted the players, line judges & the tv broadcast as the shadow line crept onto the court from side to side. The stark thing where one side is glaring sun, the other in dark shade. There’s no camera setting that can make it better.

 

To be fair, in the FO’s case at the Roland-Garros stadium, that shadow was caused by the retrofit of a retractable roof, which added the structure that caused the shadow there.
 

One of the big reasons to do it right the first time instead of having to add things out of later necessity and having them cost so much more and be all clunky / ham-fisted.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by UConn James

[Buffalo_Stampede]

23 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the overhang and what a terrible idea it is. You do realize there are going to be terrible shadows and sun spots, yes? There will be vision issues for players, and the broadcast will be unsightly. It's like they're getting every aspect of this decision wrong.

Its just such a bad idea, the whole thing. Hopefully this leak is to gauge fan reaction. It's terrible.

 

[Cheektowaga Chad]

Wonder if the over hang was leaked to get people ready for a roof