It's all relative to Cheektowagonians.Originally Posted by HurkeyNuts
It's all relative to Cheektowagonians.
You are right. The geographic middle would be North in Niagara Falls, which is why I would understand building it there.
Building it in the middle of freaking nowhere with absolutely nothing around it just seems foolish.
I prefer Downtown Buffalo of course. No city with a downtown stadium has easy access in and out on game day. Why even discuss that matter. Of course getting in and out will be hard. I would hope a downtown stadium would include a more revamped trolly/Metrorail system.
Building a stadium in a tiny town like Batavia would just be VERY odd. While the stadium committe certainly needs to explore all possibilities I would throw out a guarantee it will not be in Batavia because as stated it is in the middle of nowhere, and further away from the geographic middle of the fan base.
Well, I don't think Batavia would be any more odd than building a Stadium in the booming metropolis of Foxborough.
I think the over riding factor in choosing a new site should be ease of access for the greatest number of fans.
I think mass transit would be great, but that is a huge expense to add to the Stadium bill.
Niagara Falls would be a difficult ride for anyone not living in Niagara County.
The outer Harbor in Buffalo has LIMITED access.
I think Lancaster or Batavia would make most sense for the most people to get to the game fast & easy.
Orchard Park & Downtown would be next on my list.
Shows that Buffalo itself wasn't a prime choice 40 years ago to build the stadium and sets precedent for them to build a stadium outside of the city again.
Also it devalues your idiotic statement a little.
If the goal is to regionalize the team, and who knows if that's the case anymore or would be the case with a new owner, then building outward towards Canada or Rochester would make more sense than putting the stadium in Downtown or the South Towns.
This by far makes the most sense and isn't much further for Canadian fans and is still easy to access. Parking would be so much easier, better, faster, etc. In fact, they could build a special access ramp to the Thruway just for events and games.
There's also rural Rt. 20.
I think that they're too late on this though, the economy in NYS has dropped like a lead balloon over the last five years and is getting worse by the nano-second.
Either way, it does make the most sense of all proposals, draws Rochester right into the mix full instead of half-tilt, and even opens up the drive from Syracuse and points east far more substantially.
Downtown makes about as much sense as everyone that thought that a Bass Pro Shops would stimulate the economy in Buffalo.
Cutting taxes would stimulate the economy in WNY and NYS in general, but the state is in a self-fulfilling-prophecy style death spiral in that regard.
The whole "downtown Buffalo" thing sounds nice in theory but will never happen.
Not true, for many Buffalonians the trip to where Darian Lakes is is no farther than OP, or not significantly so.
You also fail to mention how much closer it is for Rochestarians and particularly those from Syracuse, who could shave about 45 minutes off of their over-two-hour drive time to make it a far more reasonable 80-90 minutes.
Even Ithaca and Binghamptom become reasonable at that point.
For Canadians crossing at either Lewiston or NF there's all but no perceptible difference except that the drive to Darian Lakes would be much easier and more rural.
For those in Lockport, Tonawanda, and Amherst I also see no perceptible difference.
By the way, it's 25 miles exactly from Exit 50 of I-90 to Darian Lake. That's 20 minutes at 75.
Why would we care about 40 years ago though and why would it have any bearing on the topic at hand?
I think Lancaster or Batavia make the most sense, but Downtown is a much better option than the outer harbor or the Falls IMO.
i'd agree that building downtown to spur growth with nothing else there is a fools errand. but buffalo is slowly reviatilizing. this is a piece to it. if the Bulls signed off for their games downtown, then maybe the campus goes to games via the subway which is largely under utilized.
downtown is getting revitalization dollars without the bills. if you put the bills in the mix, that's better for the city where the medical community has gotten money and pegula has put in the harbor center and a new hotel is on its way. you have to keep adding to that with your biggest visible entity, the bills.
batavia is not anywhere close to foxborough. New England has a denser population and more unified identity than buffalo, rocherster, canada and albany. Albany sees itself as little brother to NYC and much older brother to buffalo. so it's not exactly worth catering to them. i think in my lifetime, i've seen rochester and buffalo seek similarities than point out the differences. and i think the canada fan base has grown.
But those three communities don't really mind the traveling to the games. And the traffic really isn't that bad if you provide alternatives.
gebobs (04-14-2014)
Building in Buffalo is fine and there is plenty of real estate for it and parking. Just don't make the mistake that others have made and build it in an area with the intent of rejuvenating said area (i.e. a slum). People won't go.
Lehner's history. He just doesn't know it yet.
I think that's yet another reason to build it at the Outer Harbor site or the Bethlehem Steel site. Not slums, just abandoned. Tons of room, no crime, or perception of crime. And with the old Pier site, it's basically still Downtown, but without the parking problems.
BuffaloRedleg (04-15-2014)
The Outer Harbor is just stupid. For one thing, the roads that now exist could not handle the traffic of 70,000 people.
For another, much better use of that land could be made than to have a stadium on it that is used about 10-12 days in a year.
It's sets the precedent that the organization, state and county didn't care about having the stadium downtown before.
That and if you think it's idiotic to put the stadium in Pembroke, it's no more idiotic than having the stadium in OP.
I would love that but that sounds like it would require a lot of politics. Getting funding for high speed rail sounds like a pipe dream.
The simplest plans are usually the easiest to accomplish especially in the current era of tight state and local budgets. I would lean towards keeping the stadium right where it is, maybe like across the street. No new infrastructure needed and the traffic is manageable. Once the new building is done you implode the old one like they did in Seattle with the Kingdome. In most cases sports stadiums have not proven profitable for anyone except the owners. What you want is an ownership group with deep pockets that can pay the cost of the stadium themselves.
I've got news for you, Rainbow Boy, the roads aren't adequate in ANY new location to handle 70,000 people. That's part of the reason it makes so much sense.
There's going to need to be infrastructure work done regardless of where the new stadium goes. Why not make that infrastructure work benefit taxpayers 365 days a year rather than 10 days a year?
And if you don't think the Outer Harbor is Downtown, then you've never been to the Outer Harbor and you have ZERO idea what you're babbling about (as per usual).
You can literally throw a rock and hit the FN Center from there.
BuffaloRedleg (04-15-2014),Mouldsie (04-15-2014)
The reason the stadium wasn't put Downtown in the early 70s has nothing to do with not caring. It has to do with not being able to hide a $1 MIL cash bribe. Trust me on this. Orchard Park was not the preferred option, but it became the necessary one.
BuffaloRedleg (04-15-2014)
BS. The roads to the Ralph handle the traffic just fine.
And as has been pointed out already, the access is good to the site of the former Lancaster raceway.
As far as the Outer Harbor, Polencrantz said it was a bad idea for the reasons I named.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote