Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Style is always subjective but these are two very different stadium locations. Nashville’s design is a downtown location and I believe the architects are trying to create a downtown vibe with lots of balconies facing the streets so people can be seen in the stadium bars and restaurants, ‘hanging out’ before during and after the game. The other difference with a downtown design is that you cannot get far enough away from the facility to view it all at one time. The narrow streets and surrounding buildings block that kind of vista. The Orchard Park location is in the middle of a parking lot, so you can take in the entire stadium upon arrival. But unlike Nashville there’s no surrounding street atmosphere to engage with, so balconies and patios are somewhat superfluous.

 

Again, this isn’t about style. It’s about the stadium experience. 


 

if it’s a direct copy of Tottenham Hotspur, then I am 1000% on board. 
 

if it’s a stripped down version of that stadium because they needed to cut cost, and because Buffalo there is where I start to have issue. 
 

what’s another 20-25 million when you’re spending 1.2 billion 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, elroy16 said:

 

 

Would you really want them to maximize wind swirl and turn every game into a mess where no one can pass the ball? I know Allen has a canon but he can't throw through everything.

 

I'm pretty sure they designed the stadium to minimize the wind, which is the way to go.

 

Maximizing crowd noise should definitely be a priority.

 

Not necessarily maximize the wind, but wind certainly is an advantage for us over the years- especially from a kicking standpoint.  Over time, our kickers / punters get used to the all the intricacies and nuance of kicking in our stadium w/ unique wind pattern, but visiting kickers aren't. 

Edited by saundena
Posted

It's a newer football stadium without any frills.  Looking at Nashville's proposed stadium shows what is possible, looking at ours shows what's acceptable.

 

Realistically, there's no reason to build an architecturally interesting building that is going to be an anchor or hub of a neighborhood sitting in the middle of nowhere in Orchard Park.  If it was built in downtown Buffalo it would have made more sense to make it something more than just a generic football stadium.  Which is what this is.

 

Ultimately, it's about the football team playing inside.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:


 

if it’s a direct copy of Tottenham Hotspur, then I am 1000% on board. 
 

if it’s a stripped down version of that stadium because they needed to cut cost, and because Buffalo there is where I start to have issue. 
 

what’s another 20-25 million when you’re spending 1.2 billion 

Well I guarantee it’s not a direct copy of Tottenham but you can certainly see that it’s from the same design firm. And, I’m guessing the Pegulas asked for it to be similar. I’m certain Terry and Kim visited Tottenham with the architects more than once.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, saundena said:

Not necessarily maximize it, but it certainly is an advantage for us over the years- especially from a kicking standpoint.  Over time, our kickers / punters get used to the all the intricacies and nuance of kicking in our stadium w/ unique wind pattern, but visiting kickers aren't. 

There is zero evidence to support this. You can’t predict wind. 
 

the Buffalo weather home field advantage is a long myth. 
 

it came out In the 90s when the Bills had one of the best teams In The league and Marvs clever slogan. 
 

it went away when the team was bad, it was proved to be non existent and actually caused the Bills to lose a game they had no business losing (Pats) 
 

players and the league have changed. Most players want comfort and zero weather impact. 

Edited by CountDorkula
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Inigo Montoya said:

It's a newer football stadium without any frills.  Looking at Nashville's proposed stadium shows what is possible, looking at ours shows what's acceptable.

 

Realistically, there's no reason to build an architecturally interesting building that is going to be an anchor or hub of a neighborhood sitting in the middle of nowhere in Orchard Park.  If it was built in downtown Buffalo it would have made more sense to make it something more than just a generic football stadium.  Which is what this is.

 

Ultimately, it's about the football team playing inside.  

With a stadium, the seating bowl is pretty much a seating bowl. After you get past the roof, or no roof, the differences are in the areas outside the bowl itself. Most importantly, in the concourse areas…which are non existent at Rich Stadium. That’s why I’m shocked that they didn’t present any images of those areas. Those spaces are going to be the REAL upgrade.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
Just now, CountDorkula said:

There is zero evidence to support this. You can’t predict wind. 
 

the Buffalo weather home filed advantage is a long myth. 
 

it came out In the 90s when the Bills had one of the best teams In The league and Marvs clever slogan. 
 

it went away when the team was bad, it was proved to be non existent and actually caused the Bills to lose a game they had no business losing (Pats) 
 

players and the league have changed. Most players want comfort and zero weather impact. 

 

A long time ago I read an article that looked into this and the finding was that over time, our kickers enjoy a higher FG % than the visiting kickers.  I also remember that the difference was more pronounced later in the year when weather is typically worse.  Wish I could find the article.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, wagon127 said:

Worst stadium ever. No red endzones.


They can have multiple colored endzones and midfield designs through a season because it will be a grass field.

Edited by Beast
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, In Summary said:

If it blocks the wind, then it's a winner.  I expect that a few competent aero/fluids engineers will solve that.

It not only will block the wind, it will confuse the wind before doing so.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

With a stadium, the seating bowl is pretty much a seating bowl. After you get past the roof, or no roof, the differences are in the areas outside the bowl itself. Most importantly, in the concourse areas…which are non existent at Rich Stadium. That’s why I’m shocked that they didn’t present any images of those areas. Those spaces are going to be the REAL upgrade.

I hope the devil is in the details. 
 

I want it to be known you are walking into the Bills house. Think Bell Center in Montreal or Rogers center I think it’s still called in Toronto. 
 

I want Buffalos, Bills logos, Bills colors everywhere. A giant Buffalo In The opposing locker room. Bills highlights on TVs as the opposing players are walking out of the tunnel etc. 

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...