The new Bills stadium should be built in downtown Buffalo, where it can be a vibrant addition to the city: urban, walkable, and oriented toward public and private transit.
Currently there are two sites under consideration: Orchard Park and South Park.
But there is a downtown site that would cost less in infrastructure costs than either of the sites under consideration. This should give the Pegulas cause to reconsider a downtown location.
The site is just East of Sahlen Field bounded by Michigan, Seneca, South Division, and a point about 150 feet west of Chicago Street.
The extra site and off-site costs for this site amount to about $43 million and mirror similar such costs for the Orchard Park site. This number was developed using the same construction estimation methods, line items, lump sums, unit costs and allowances as found in the state sponsored AECOM report; other costs are based upon experience and research.
People are also reading…
This site has many advantages: It is actually “downtown.” This means that it has the advantages of being at the region’s center, the focus of streets, expressways, parking, public transportation, utilities, commercial outlets and bars, restaurants and entertainment. The stadium’s presence at Michigan/Seneca will add to the city’s vitality and augment nearby attractions, such as Canalside, the Cobblestone district, the Naval Park, the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino, Sahlen Field and KeyBank Center.
The whole point of building downtown is for people to make use of the city’s amenities. By parking downtown and walking to and from the new stadium, people will experience and patronize the many rich offerings in the downtown, especially restaurants, bars and other commercial and institutional attractions there, like the Buffalo Pierce Arrow Transportation Museum, which is right across street. This is in sharp contrast to the current parking situation at most stadiums, including Orchard Park, where one must navigate through a stultifying sea of parking lots.
The city’s existing infrastructure obviates the need for extensive utility modifications and extensions since the site sits in the middle of a network of storm drainage, sanitary sewers and gas and electric service. Additional parking shouldn’t be required because the site is surrounded by surface parking and parking structures, all within walking distance. Also, since the site is about 80% vacant, acquisition costs will be minimized.
Concerns have been raised that a downtown site would not have sufficient surface parking for tailgating. This fear can be dismissed by a survey of the many parking lots nearby. If it turns out that more surface parking is desired, there are plenty of vacant sites close by to supplement the existing. Some are worried that a stadium would disrupt or destroy an existing neighborhood, like the First Ward. The Michigan/Seneca site, being downtown, won’t disrupt a community.
Another concern is that the stadium, used only 10 times a year by the Bills, will become a dead zone in the downtown. However, there are potential additional uses; for example, high school, collegiate and professional soccer, lacrosse and field hockey (a football field can accommodate these sports), as well as concerts and other such events.
The principal argument against a downtown location is that the South Park site would cost as much as $1 billion over the Orchard Park site. The South Park site, burdened by excessive site acquisition and infrastructure costs, mostly due to the site’s distance from the city’s center and its confluence of streets, utilities, parking and public transportation. Furthermore, this site has a large number of buildings requiring acquisition and demolition.
The AECOM report estimates the South Park site’s extra costs for site acquisition and infrastructure at about $350 million. The report further argues that the site allows only an East-West orientation, and a North-South is required, adding $300 million to enclose a stadium at this site. The Michigan/Seneca site can accommodate the preferred orientation.
But the Orchard Park site also involves additional costs: selective building demolition, special site improvements, new parking and highway, utility and other infrastructure work, totaling almost $59 million. This work and attending costs are part of the AECOM Orchard Park cost estimate.
So, all sites require on-site and off-site improvements above the actual stadium construction costs.
The additional cost of $43 million for Michigan/Seneca is about $16 million less than that for Orchard Park, estimated by AECOM at $59 million.
The Michigan/Seneca site will bring more excitement to downtown and cost less than Orchard Park.
The new Bills stadium should be built downtown. If not, why not?
Eve Kowalewski, born and raised in Buffalo and currently living in New Jersey, is a retired architect with experience in stadium design and site selection.
