Jump to content


Outer Harbor transferred to NY State from NFTA


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 Breakdance

Breakdance

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

For $2.00 -

http://www.bizjourna...nds-of-new.html

Quote

The state parks office will create a 170-acre park that includes Gallagher Beach and 1,016-slip Small Boat Harbor. The Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. will take control of 130 acres of Outer Harbor property to the north.


First step towards a new stadium?

#2 Kkspike

Kkspike

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:30 PM

Yeah,after 50 years the nfta releases the choke hold on the downtown waterfront.the funniest part about the whole thing is the nfta signed a contract stating that who ever buys the land has to develop it in so many months or they get the land back.

Let the 15 year study group begin.i can't wait to ride over the new peace bridge to the new stadium.

#3 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,551 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:38 PM

This is awesome news.





















I think

#4 bbb

bbb

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,392 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:02 AM

I thought the NFTA IS a state agency?  At least when I worked for those chumps for summer jobs, I thought I was a state employee.

#5 kdiggz

kdiggz

    Mayor of Pegulaville

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,161 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:56 AM

$2 eh? I'll double it and then offer it up to the Bills new owner for free so we can finally have our downtown stadium

#6 Just Jack

Just Jack

    Lifting things up and putting them down

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,841 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 07:42 AM

View Postkdiggz, on 06 September 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

$2 eh? I'll double it and then offer it up to the Bills new owner for free so we can finally have our downtown stadium

Free?!?! That's crazy, you should get something in return. Maybe a coupon for a free hotdog every game you go to.

#7 Homey D. Clown

Homey D. Clown

    Fielding Clown Questions

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:14 AM

ahhhhh...  hope.  It's amazing how much of it we have for our city despite the seemingly relentless opposition to anything new or revitalization effort there seems to be in local and state government.

#8 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:35 AM

I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront.

#9 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,060 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:41 AM

View Postsimpleman, on 06 September 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront.

The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer.  Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too.  All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium.

#10 Brainiac21

Brainiac21

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:48 AM

View Postthebandit27, on 06 September 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer.  Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too.  All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium.
downtown somewhere is fine, but i agree it's a waste to put it RIGHT on the waterfront.  weather is worse, and can definitely be used for more outdoorsy type stuff.  i could see a ballpark... which allows for views and a whole summer of nice weather days.  but a football stadium up north?  kind of a waste.

#11 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,060 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:54 AM

View PostBrainiac21, on 06 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

downtown somewhere is fine, but i agree it's a waste to put it RIGHT on the waterfront.  weather is worse, and can definitely be used for more outdoorsy type stuff.  i could see a ballpark... which allows for views and a whole summer of nice weather days.  but a football stadium up north?  kind of a waste.

Sure, I'd prefer behind the FNC where there's all that industrial land...all I'm saying is that a waterfront stadium offers all of those benefits as well.

#12 BuffaloATL

BuffaloATL

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:59 AM

View Postsimpleman, on 06 September 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront.

this.

#13 Lurker

Lurker

    16 pages is NOT enough

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,048 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostBreakdance, on 05 September 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

First step towards a new stadium?

Doubtful...

http://www.buffalone...e-park-20130903

"The new plan also appears to present a major obstacle to a group advocating construction of a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills on the site, which has so far been largely ignored by top government officials and the NFTA."

#14 The Big Cat

The Big Cat

    Prowling.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,177 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:51 AM

Serious question: you suppose they paid cash?

#15 chris heff

chris heff

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:06 AM

View PostThe Big Cat, on 06 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Serious question: you suppose they paid cash?
After a revenue bond issue.

#16 chris heff

chris heff

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:45 AM

View Postsimpleman, on 06 September 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront.
You're right, think of all the stupid things done with waterfront property. Why is there that stretch of the Niagara Section of the Thruway right along the river?  My sister lives in Hanford Bay, somebody a hundred years ago thought it was a good idea to run the railroad tracks along the lake.

I don't know the outer harbor at all. Could a stadium be built close but far enough away from the water front?

#17 MarkyMannn

MarkyMannn

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,138 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 11:23 AM

View Postsimpleman, on 06 September 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I just don't get the logic here. Prime waterfront land is there for the view and use of the, gasp, "water". Why would you put parking lots and stadiums here? Oh, and then you will want to dome it, since the wind and cold coming off the water during the football season will be brutal. The stadium is only used exactly one week out of 52 weeks a year. Who needs a waterfront view, the eyes are on the field, not the view. It is as silly as putting indoor museums, attractions and casinos there. A stadium goes where there is space for parking and a stadium. Not on valuable or expensive prime waterfront land. Let's use our resources wisely. The needs for a stadium are plenty of space for parking and the stadium, convenient quick and easy access by cars and mass transit to get in and out of before and after the game. Don't waste space that is valuable for reasons such as being on the waterfront.
   THIS +2

View Postchris heff, on 06 September 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

You're right, think of all the stupid things done with waterfront property. Why is there that stretch of the Niagara Section of the Thruway right along the river?  My sister lives in Hanford Bay, somebody a hundred years ago thought it was a good idea to run the railroad tracks along the lake.  
  The Thruway along the river IS a joke.  Trains however resist climbing grades.  Along the water is the lowest most level route.  Plus the RR was probably there first

#18 Helpmenow

Helpmenow

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 11:26 AM

View Postbbb, on 06 September 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

I thought the NFTA IS a state agency?  At least when I worked for those chumps for summer jobs, I thought I was a state employee.
MOB owned?

#19 Rubes

Rubes

    The Doctor of Football...is IN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,984 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:26 PM

View Postthebandit27, on 06 September 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

The obvious answer is that the stadium will be a huge draw for non-football events throughout the spring and summer.  Add a retractable roof and now you still have the outdoor elements of playing in Buffalo, but can also bring in big ticket events year round...more than likely you can host a Superbowl too.  All of these events bring people downtown, which increases revenue ancillary to the stadium.

Dude, that is just freaking hilarious.

#20 sodbuster

sodbuster

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:33 PM

View PostThe Big Cat, on 06 September 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Serious question: you suppose they paid cash?
I hope they got a receipt, just in case they want to return it.