Current stadium is so visually pleasing the way the crowd is set up

[eball]

22 hours ago, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

 

A downtown roof.

 

[Matt_In_NH]

I think this is just you are infatuated with the Bills.  No Mom thinks their own kid is ugly type of deal...

[Mister Defense]

23 hours ago, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

 

Yeah, just like all of those great visuals we see from inside the stadiums in Dallas, New Orleans, Houston, Indianapolis, Detroit...simply breathtaking.  So much better than the blue sky or snow falling...

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

A downtown roof.

 

That’s ridiculous! What good is a downtown roof gonna be when the rest of the stadium’s in Orchard Park? 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

23 hours ago, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

 

Not on TV - Dome games have a weird basement type of lighting to them.  

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

Not on TV - Dome games have a weird basement type of lighting to them.  

Not in Minneapolis and Los Angeles. Having been to games in both stadiums, they are utterly fantastic! 

[eball]

On 4/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

 

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

A downtown roof.

 

 

@HOUSE I think a number of people aren't catching our sarcasm.  

[Simon Says]

On 4/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

Give it up...move to another cause...maybe global warming?

[Mango]

23 hours ago, Logic said:

These are the first three GIF search results when I type in "Visually pleasing". Not sure what to say about the third one.








 

 

Rocky Dennis had a daughter? 

[corta765]

23 hours ago, Fleezoid said:

I believe the sidelines in other stadiums have more area where the fans are set back a bit. The sidelines in Buffalo look more compressed where fans are closer to the playing field. I have no data on this, just what I've observed. Perhaps it shows a better fan experience on TV.

 

This is correct. Buffalo has been voted best sightlines routinely as there is a good view all over and the fans are on top of the field in a sense. Many newer stadiums like Metlife took the crowded on top feel away for much larger longer spacious environments. I have read that its not as loud anymore at Metlife because it is so much spacious and giant/jet fans do not like that.

[Don Otreply]

On 4/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, HOUSE said:

It would be more visually pleasing with a roof

Damn right it would! 

2 hours ago, eball said:

 

A downtown roof.

 

Damn right it would! 

[SoCal Deek]

32 minutes ago, corta765 said:

 

This is correct. Buffalo has been voted best sightlines routinely as there is a good view all over and the fans are on top of the field in a sense. Many newer stadiums like Metlife took the crowded on top feel away for much larger longer spacious environments. I have read that its not as loud anymore at Metlife because it is so much spacious and giant/jet fans do not like that.

Rich Stadium has good sight lines because it is a football-only facility, built into the ground without a roof, meaning that the first row can be closer to the field (no track, etc) and the grandstands are generally shallower without the need to be as vertical as in an above ground roofed structure. 

[JerseyBills]

11 hours ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Have you been to many other stadiums?

KC is quite good.

Seattle, Minnesota, and Arizona are excellent.

Giants/Jets stadium is ok.  Very sterile feeling.  

I was underwhelmed by Denver's and Jacksonville's stadiums.

Green Bay is awful except for the history.

Chicago is terrible.

Now that I am back in the Mid-West I will start to make it to some stadiums that I have not visited since they opened.  I've been to the old stadiums in Cinci, Cleve, Pitt, Detroit, and Indy.  Now all new experiences.  

 

 

Only been to Metlife a bunch of times, I live 10 min away. Bills stadium a cpl times and Vikings once while on a road trip.

 

I was really referring to it on TV.

I need to visit more stadiums

[BADOLBILZ]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Rich Stadium has good sight lines because it is a football-only facility, built into the ground without a roof, meaning that the first row can be closer to the field (no track, etc) and the grandstands are generally shallower without the need to be as vertical as in an above ground roofed structure. 

 

 

The lower bowl is supposed to be more vertical(steeper) in the new stadium.......and that is a good thing, IMO.

[Gugny]

@mrags

 

[SoCal Deek]

26 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

The lower bowl is supposed to be more vertical(steeper) in the new stadium.......and that is a good thing, IMO.

I’m assuming it’ll have to be steeper. When you build up out of the ground the entire facility needs to be more vertical to both reduce the footprint and stack the structure. That’ll help for those who have trouble seeing over the heads of fans who are standing in front of them. 

[RiotAct]

I agree!  (Probably biased, though)

[corta765]

8 hours ago, BillsNutHawaii said:

I love our current stadium !!  Something about the spacing, I just can’t put my finger on it, makes it feel like the fans are practically in the game - to a certain degree.  I’m going to miss it a lot !

 

OIder non cookie cutter 70s style stadiums were built in a way which fans were on top of you and it felt intense while also intimate. Some newer stadiums have managed to keep this like Seattle while others Dallas/NYG-Jets/LA to a lesser extent are beautiful coliseums or just big and the fans are really spread out by design. All of the AFC North stadiums have always had an intimidating feel on TV with how they look whereas the AFC South minus TEN does not have that impact at all. IND stadium is beautiful, but the Dome actually felt more intense IMO.

[Mynamemike]

2 hours ago, corta765 said:

 

This is correct. Buffalo has been voted best sightlines routinely as there is a good view all over and the fans are on top of the field in a sense. Many newer stadiums like Metlife took the crowded on top feel away for much larger longer spacious environments. I have read that its not as loud anymore at Metlife because it is so much spacious and giant/jet fans do not like that.

It’s definitely not as loud but I was there for last years Jets game and the club seats were awesome.  I don’t think I can go back to regular seats again.  Suishi and whiskey all game was a real good experience.  

[SoCal Deek]

5 hours ago, corta765 said:

 

OIder non cookie cutter 70s style stadiums were built in a way which fans were on top of you and it felt intense while also intimate. Some newer stadiums have managed to keep this like Seattle while others Dallas/NYG-Jets/LA to a lesser extent are beautiful coliseums or just big and the fans are really spread out by design. All of the AFC North stadiums have always had an intimidating feel on TV with how they look whereas the AFC South minus TEN does not have that impact at all. IND stadium is beautiful, but the Dome actually felt more intense IMO.

It actually comes down to Code requirements for row spacing. If the rows are closer together (less deep) the Code requires that the exit aisles also be more closely spaced. If the rows are deep enough that people can pass by without you having to stand up then the aisles can be much farther apart. That’s called ‘continental seating’, and it’s what you see in modern movie theaters. It seems trivial but it makes a huge difference in seating capacity. For example, the old aluminum bench style seats in the original Rich Stadium were extremely efficient (no armrests) so they could fit many more seats per row. The same was true in all older stadiums dating back to the turn of the last century. The Orchard Park capacity naturally went way down when they installed new individual bucket seats. I’m guessing the new stadium will be ALL individual seats.