Aecom Buffalo Site Opt Study - FINAL-141223

B U F FA L O
N F L S TA D I U M S I T E O P T I O N S A N A LY S I S
23, DECEMBER 2014
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES
BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 1
2 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS
TA B L E O F C O N T E N TS
I .
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 4
A. GENERAL TASK DESCRIPTION

B. SHORTLISTED SITES

C. NON SHORTLISTED SITES
D. RALPH WILSON STADIUM RENOVATION
I I .
M E T H O D O LO GY 1 4
A. INTRODUCTION
B. HISTORY
C. CONTEXT

D. STADIUM PROGRAM DRIVERS
E. PROCESS
II I .
S I T E E VA LU AT I O N S U M M A R Y 2 8
I V.
S H O R T L I S T E D S I T E S 3 0
V.
E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T S C E N A R I O S 5 6

V I .
N O N - S H O R T L I S T E D S I T E S 6 4
V I I .
F U R T H E R E VA LU AT I O N S 7 0
VI I I .
E VA LU AT I O N T E A M 7 2

I X .
A P P E N D I C E S 7 8
A. NFL CASE STUDIES

B. BASE NFL PROGRAM

i. OPEN AIR FOOTBALL STADIUM
ii.MULTI-PURPOSE STADIUM
C. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
D. RELATIVE SITE COST ANALYSIS

E. RALPH WILSON STADIUM RENOVATION
I.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
A .
G E N E R A L TA S K D E S C R I P T I O N
AECOM has been retained by the Foley & Lardner LLP, on behalf of the Governors Office of the State of New York and
Empire State Development, to evaluate potential locations for a future stadium venue of the NFLs Buffalo Bills. As
Governor Cuomo has repeatedly indicated that keeping the Bills in Western New York is a priority, the purpose of this
analysis is to evaluate potential locations in the greater Buffalo region that could support an NFL stadium and game
experience worthy of Buffalo Bills fans and the citizens of Western New York. This analysis is intended to be a tool for
use by various stakeholders in evaluating various stadium options and not as a definitive statement of positions or
recommendations. This analysis includes the following:
Evaluation Criteria A discussion of the essential and desired characteristics, both quantitative and qualitative,

of modern NFL game day environments, which characteristics are used as evaluation criteria for potential
stadium locations. Evaluation criteria include:
Site size and ease of land acquisition
Roadway and infrastructure improvement needs
Parking and access to public transportation
Ancillary development potential
Iconic impression potential
Additional revenue potential and sustainability potential
Site Comparisons - A site comparison study of 13 potential stadium locations, as proposed by various stakeholders.

Of the 13 potential locations evaluated, 3 locations were shortlisted as being the most desirable sites based

on the evaluation criteria. The existing Orchard Park site was analyzed for both its potential with a renovation

of Ralph Wilson Stadium and for comparison, its potential as a site for a new stadium, alongside

the other shortlisted sites. It is important to note that the identification of certain sites as shortlisted is not

a definitive recommendation of such sites or exclusion of non-shortlisted sites; rather such categorizations

merely reflect our views as to the most desirable sites based on information analyzed to date.
Existing NFL Case Studies An analysis of certain existing stadium case studies applicable to the potential sites in

the greater Buffalo region.
Cost Model A presentation of a generic stadium cost and revenue model for the Buffalo market, based in part on

recently completed NFL stadium projects.
Stadium Program A presentation of a program model for a generic NFL stadium, which accounts for the possibility

of either an open-air or domed stadium.
Revenue Sources A general description of revenue sources for a typical NFL stadium.
Ancillary Development Analysis of potential development and related ROM costs that could be generated on or

adjacent to each shortlisted site.
Economic Impact Analysis of ROM economic impacts for each shortlisted site.
Evaluation of Existing Ralph Wilson Stadium A high-level evaluation of the value and perceived longevity of the

existing Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park following the most recent renovations.
This analysis does not identify, design or recommend a single best location for the Buffalo Bills stadium, nor does it
delineate the full potential of the potential locations identified herein as shortlisted sites. This analysis identifies,
based on the information available as of the date hereof, a shortlist of sites that have the best potential for successfully
hosting a modern NFL stadium and benefiting the community. This report is intended to serve as a platform for a
broader discussion of the potential of each potential site and the costs and benefits to the community of potential
stadium and ancillary development on each such site.
AECOM does not deem any potential site evaluated to be the perfect site as-is, as every site evaluated in this analysis
has opportunities and challenges. The evaluation criteria used to evaluate those opportunities and challenges include
sufficiency of site size, ease of site acquisition, infrastructure considerations (both availability existing infrastructure
and cost of new infrastructure construction), ease of access to site, site acquisition costs and ease, parking and access
to public transportation, ancillary development potential, iconic impression potential and community impact, among
other things.
Of the 13 sites evaluated, AECOM has identified 3 potential new sites plus the possibility of renovation to, and for
comparison purposes, the construction of a new venue adjacent to, the current Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard
Park as the most optimal shortlisted sites. It is important to note that, notwithstanding the fact that these 4 sites are
shortlisted, each of the shortlisted sites require improvements, including upgrades to roads and other infrastructure.
A primary consideration in the evaluation of sites is the business model and resulting space program for the potential
stadium facility. A stadiums successful return on investment and contribution to the community depend on balancing
the number of events held at the facility with stadium program and budget. There are two distinct options to consider
when evaluating a business model for large assembly stadiums: an open-air, football-focused venue and a domed
roof (retractable or non-retractable), multi-purpose venue. The presence of a domed roof on a stadium can have
implications on its usage, but also comes at an increased capital cost. A summary of program and revenue potential for
domed versus open-air stadiums is described in Section II on page 19 of this analysis.
The criteria evaluated and presented herein for each of the shortlisted sites includes analysis of the ease of site
acquisition, access and potential costs associated with development of the site and potential stadium construction
costs. All costs presented herein are to be considered conceptual estimates due to the preliminary nature of this
investigation. Further investigation and development is required for final determination of potential costs including the
following:
I.
Roadway and Transportation Improvement Costs Conceptual costs of recommended improvements relating to
access to each site are described in Section II. Site Evaluation Summary Chart on pages 28-29 and within each
shortlisted site analysis in Section IV.
Potential Site Acquisition Costs Cost value of the parcels contained within each site are described in Section III.
Site Evaluation Summary Chart on pages 28-29. Values depicted are reflective of current assessed value for a
comparative analysis of the proposed sites only and do not represent fair market value of the properties.
Economic Development Scenario Costs Potential costs for potential ancillary development scenarios for each
site as described in Section V Economic Development Scenarios, Table of Conceptual Economic and Fiscal
Impacts on pages 62-63.
Stadium Development Costs Potential costs associated with the stadium development within the site itself.
Costs are based on the model program outlined in Appendix B.
B .
S H O R T L I S T E D S I T E S
Of the sites proposed, AECOM evaluated 13 major potential sites in connection with the preparation of this analysis,
including 12 new sites and the existing Ralph Wilson Stadium site in Orchard Park. The evaluated sites include both
urban and suburban sites in Buffalo city proper and the surrounding communities. Utilizing a carefully crafted set of
criteria based on characteristics of successful NFL stadiums (as discussed in more detail in Section II of this analysis),
4 of the 13 potential sites have been shortlisted as having the greatest potential for being the location of a successful
NFL stadium, including 3 urban sites and the potential development of a viable long-term solution (ie renovation or new)
at the existing Orchard Park location. While each shortlisted site is not without challenges, the 4 sites present the most
viable options for an NFL stadium in the Buffalo region, based on the facts and information evaluated to date. However
sites should continue to be evaluated as additional information becomes available including any input from team
ownership. Inclusion on the shortlist does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement of such site.
With respect to each shortlisted site, this analysis includes AECOMs opinion as to the type of venue (open-air or dome)
that will best suit such site from a planning perspective and an analysis of the impact on costs and potential revenues of
each site. A summary matrix of the 13 potential sites and the criteria used to evaluate such sites is set forth in Section
III and a summary of the potential costruction and related costs is set forth in Appendix D on page 86 of this analysis.
The 4 shortlisted sites are presented as follows alphabetical order without representation of ranking.
C O B B L E S TO N E D I S T R I C T S I T E
The Cobblestone Districts history dates back to the origins of the City of Buffalo. With many of its buildings originating
as far back as the 1850s, the district was designated as a local historic district in 1994 in response to demolition
resulting from the construction of the First Niagara Arena. Bounded by Michigan Avenue to the east and Illinois Street
to the west, Scott Street to the north and South Park Avenue to the south, the Cobblestone District site is located in an
area that is part of Buffalos urban renewal. The Cobblestone Districts adjacencies with the First Niagara Center Arena,
HARBORCENTER and Coca Cola Field create the potential for a new stadium to develop an iconic sports district and
further the development and renewal of downtown Buffalo. This connection to other retail and mixed use development
make the Cobblestone District site a good candidate for construction of a domed, multi-purpose stadium with program
to attract business conferences and other mixed use that would realize benefit that a higher number of events a domed
stadium would bring. There is also ample access to public transit, such as the potential intermodal hub of Metrorail,
bus and Amtrak in the vicinity of the Exchange Street station which for the avoidance of doubt is located 1/10th of
a mile away from the proposed Cobblestone District Site. More detailed recommendations for roadway and traffic
infrastructure improvements are included in the detailed transportation analysis of this site in section IV of this report.
The Cobblestone District site is not without challenges, as its historic nature and potential archeological conditions may
create hurdles for development. The footprint of a stadium would most likely occupy the south-eastern portion of the
site as illustrated in the site diagram on page 32. Careful and thoughtful planning of stadium design elements should
allow the existing buildings along Illinois and Mississippi Streets to remain intact during and after stadium construction.
Such design elements that may accomplish this include incorporation of an asymmetrical sideline bowl design
approach as employed in existing NFL stadiums such as in Chicago at Soldier Field, or even incorporation of existing
buildings into the structure of the stadium, as is the case in Detroit at Ford Field
E X C H A N G E S T R E E T S I T E
The Exchange Street site, bounded by Swan Street to the north, Chicago Street to the east, Exchange Street to the South
and Michigan Avenue to the west, is the most accessible, in terms of ingress and egress, of any of the proposed urban
sites and also best access to existing parking inventories. With its adjacency to the on and off ramps of I-190, and
linkages to the I-33 to the north, this site has the easiest load-in and loadout capabilities. Adjacencies with Coca Cola
Field create the potential to develop an iconic sports district, similar to the Cobblestone District site. Further, this site
has the additional benefit of adjacent properties that offer ancillary development potential. The sites proximity to other
retail and mixed use development also make the Exchange Street site a good candidate for a domed, multi-purpose
stadium with program to attract business conferences and other mixed use, though an open-air stadium would also
be a viable option. Its location at the edge of the downtown Buffalo core offers spin-off development potential without
the costly demolition of major buildings. Were a stadium to be built on this site, Seneca Street would need to be closed
I.
between Michigan and Chicago, and re-opened east of Chicago. More detailed recommendations for roadway and
traffic infrastructure improvements are included in the detailed transportation analysis of this site in section IV of this
report.
Pierce Arrow Museum was recently constructed on the Exchange Street site, and would either need to be relocated
or incorporated into the stadium as a unique iconic feature. Off site, several adjacent residential homes need to
be considered in connection with stadium activities and event traffic flow. Engaging with the community to further
understand potential impediments will be important with respect to this site. To mitigate potential challenges, a
development block should be considered as part of the initial conceptual planning process.
O R C H A R D PA R K
Serving as the home of the Buffalo Bills since 1973, the existing Ralph Wilson Stadium (RWS) site in Orchard Park has
the benefits of years of experience hosting NFL games and fan familiarity. The site is comprised of 181 acres, most of
which is occupied by RWS, parking inventory, Bills administration space and the practice facility. The site has developed
several game day traditions has over the years, and is the paradigm game day experience for Bills fans. Deciding to
put a stadium solution on this site, either through a major renovation of RWS in addition to the renovation currently
underway, or constructing a new stadium on the existing site, would leverage those existing traditions. Also, as the
largest potential site considered, the Orchard Park site provides the most parking capacity and resulting tailgating
opportunities for fans. Extending the Bills presence here by renovating existing Ralph Wilson Stadium is likely to be
the least costly solution to solving some of the challenges of the existing stadium. However, if new ownership deems a
new stadium on this site to be the solution, there are only a few locations on which a new stadium can be built without
interfering with existing operations. The best available location would be to construct the stadium north of existing RWS
in parking lots 5, 6, and 7 on land currently controlled by Erie County. This location also retains the independence and
separation for the Bills administration and practice facility. The Orchard Park site is the only potential site evaluated
with little to no acquisition costs or the schedule delays that could arise from dealing with existing property owners.
Recommendations for roadway and traffic infrastructure improvements are included in the detailed transportation
analysis of this site in section IV of this report.
It is important to note that, surveys of Bills fans highlight significant challenges with the Orchard Park site. Access to
the stadiums parking lots is greatly underserved by the primary access routes of Abbott Road, Southwestern Blvd and
Big Tree Road. Access to the closest high volume road system, Highway 219, is two miles from the stadium parking lots
at its closest point. Although it is the largest of the shortlisted sites, like certain other suburban site evaluated, we do
not believe the Orchard Park site will promote ancillary retail or destination development due to its roadway challenges
and the remote nature of the location. Hence the economic plan with the best community return on investment at this
site would be to renovate the existing open air stadium as it is likely to have the lowest capital investment. However
for comparison purposes this analysis also includes an analysis of the possibility of constructing a new stadium on the
existing site.
S O U T H PA R K S I T E
The South Park site is the largest of the urban sites being considered, with its potential 122 acres spanning from the
Buffalo River to the south edge of I-190. The site has two sections, with the first south of South Park Avenue between
Michigan Avenue and Louisiana Street and bordered by Ohio Street against the Buffalo River. The rest of the site being
north of South Park Street is between Louisiana Street and Hamburg Street with I-190 as its northern boundary. The
north half of the potential site is currently totally comprised of vacated properties that have been taken over by the City
of Buffalo. With enhancements to Louisiana and Hamburg Streets, the site would have sufficient access to the high
volume traffic of I-190 and would also be within walking range of the parking inventories of the Cobblestone District
and downtown Buffalo. The sites far western point is well- suited to development of an intermodal transportation
hub with the close proximities of light rail and bus traffic. Although subdivided by South Park Avenue, each half of the
site is large enough to support the stadium and its immediate circulation. The southern half of the site borders the
Buffalo River, where the rivers edge is already under the reconstruction as a waterfront park. The site would also place
a stadium between the Cobblestone District and other development projects. With the appropriately scaled mixed use
development surrounding the potential stadium, both areas would likely realize an increase in activity and value.
The South Park site also presents a set of challenges. Walking distances from the site to the downtown parking
inventories will be increased by a quarter of a mile to half mile when compared to the Cobblestone District or Exchange
Street sites. Also, like the Exchange Street site, engaging with the community to further understand potential
impediments is appropriate with respect to this site. As the southern half of the site sits adjacent to an established
residential neighborhood and would overtake the neighborhoods public Conway Park, replacement of the park
and related transition should be considered. From an infrastructure standpoint, the site would require expansions
of Louisiana and Hamburg streets along with additional turn lanes and wider entrance and exit ramps to I-190.
More detailed recommendations for roadway and traffic infrastructure improvements are included in the detailed
transportation analysis of this site in section IV of this report.
I.
C .
N O N S H O R T L I S T E D S I T E S
Of the 13 sites proposed and evaluated, 9 sites were not shortlisted. It is important to note that failure of a site to be
included on the shortlist does not constitute a definitive dismissal of such site, but is instead and indication based
on data evaluated to date that such sites were not as appealing as the shortlisted sites. In the case of each nonshortlisted site, certain obstacles contributed to the decision not to shortlist such sites. In some cases, single dealbreaker criterion resulted in a site note being shortlisted (e.g., the site size and/or configuration is not sufficient for an
NFL stadium footprint). In other cases, a series of criteria contributed in the aggregate to a site not being shortlisted
(e.g., extremely high infrastructure development and related costs, lack of connection with Buffalo icons and lack of
access to public transportation). When such criteria were encountered, the site was put on the non-shortlisted list and
not evaluated for other criterion. New information including team ownership input should be evaluated as it becomes
available and could result in further conversations and evaluation with respect to non-shortlisted sites. Below is a
listing of the 9 major site location considerations which were not shortlisted:

Batavia site
Central Terminal site
La Salle Park site
Niagara Falls site
Outer Harbor site
Republic Steel site
Tonawanda Street site
University of Buffalo site
West Seneca site
Section VI below contains a description of the location of each non-shortlisted site and a narrative description of
AECOMs evaluation of each such site. Section III below contains a matrix that presents the evaluation criterion for all 13
sites in tabular form, including the non-shortlisted sites.
D.
R A L P H W I LS O N S TA D I U M R E N O VAT I O N S
AECOM reviewed and evaluated the plans for the recently completed renovation project at RWS. The RWS renovation
project cost approximately $130 million and was completed prior to the 2014 NFL season. The contemplated RWS
renovations added value to the facility and are likely to be appreciated by Bills fans. The renovations included upgrading
the arrival and concourse experience for fans and upgrading RWSs technological resources, including new HD video
boards and Point of Sale technology for better and more flexible food and retail purchasing options. While the current
RWS renovation project enhances the fan experience, as technology continues to advance, the existing RWS continues
to age and NFL fan expectations continue to evolve, additional renovation projects and improvements to RWS may be
necessary in order to entice the team to enter into a renewed long term lease. A comparative analysis of the renovated
RWS to other NFL facilities is provided in Appendix A of this report.
While additional renovations projects are possible, significant renovation projects of the type that would likely be
necessary to encourage a long term lease renewal will be extensive (as discussed in more detail in Appendix E). The
costs associated with undertaking the aforementioned renovations, including possible demolition and rebuilding of the
majority of the seating bowl including the upper deck, could exceed $540 million in 2014 dollars, which amount does not
take into account any infrastructure improvements. For the renovation AECOM designed for Lambeau Field, a stadium
with similar seating bowl challenges, the team was able to retain operations in the existing stadium while renovations
were underway. While retaining operations at the facility may be necessary if the decision is made to proceed with
a renovation rather than constructing a new stadium, such an approach impacts design decisions, the schedule for
completion and the cost of construction. Likewise, if renovation plans prove to be so extensive that retaining operation
is not feasible, additional costs would need to be accounted for temporary relocation of the team during construction
along with potential loss of revenue. Additional analysis combined with owner input is necessary to facilitate a
discussion on merits of deciding to renovate the existing RWS or constructing a new facility.
It is important to note that modernizing and renovating the existing RWS stadium structure will not likely result in the
Orchard Park site becoming a candidate for viable ancillary development, as discussed in more detail herein.
I.
II. M E T H O D O LO GY
A . I N T R O D U C T I O N
There are many influences that create great communities, including a unified connection to great sports teams. Sport
has the power to unite communities and cross social and economic boundaries by creating a communal identity and the
sports stadium often comes to symbolize that identity and drive ancillary development. When designed properly, sports
venues create sports destinations that surpass the game itself and create event destinations. In short, it is more than
a game. The contrast between an isolated stadium venue and a stadium that is integrated into a vibrant community
context can be the difference between a franchise that is merely located in a city and one that is a part of the citys
sense of pride, identity and energy.
The purposes of this analysis are to (i) identify potential locations in Western New York that could support an NFL
stadium and game experience worthy of the Buffalo Bills fans, including the current stadium site, (ii) evaluate each
potential location and identify those locations that appear most viable for a first class NFL facility, (iii) evaluate the
potential of the existing stadium site and provide input on the long term viability of Ralph Wilson Stadium as an NFL
venue, (iv) provide case studies of certain existing NFL stadiums, (v) develop a generic stadium cost and revenue model
for the Buffalo market, and (vii) compare the potential ancillary development programming and economic impacts at
each potential stadium site.
While the number of potential stadium sites is infinite, this analysis focuses on the evaluation of 13 stadium site
locations proposed by various stakeholders that AECOM deemed potentially viable. Every site considered in this
analysis has unique opportunities, benefits, challenges and constraints related to infrastructure, access, real estate
acquisition and community influences, among other considerations. The 13 proposed stadium sites were evaluated
using quantitative and qualitative criteria based on essential and desired NFL game day environment characteristics.
Essential criteria include sufficient site area and orientation to accommodate stadium development and acceptable
infrastructure improvement costs; desired criteria include ancillary development potential, iconic impression potential
and naming rights visibility, among other things. A summary matrix of the 13 potential sites and the criteria used to
evaluate such sites is set forth on in Section III of this analysis.
This analysis includes both graphic depictions and a written examination of the shortlisted sites, which have the
best potential for successfully implementing an NFL stadium. In addition, this analysis also provides background
information as to the base program for a potential stadium, either as an open-air, football focused stadium or domed,
multipurpose stadium, and a comparison of that base program to certain other NFL stadiums; however each such NFL
stadium program must be viewed as a specific solution to the market and particular business model of its host city.
Investigations into concealed conditions such as Geotechnical soil conditions and existing utility infrastructure
conditions are outside of the scope of this analysis, but will be necessary prior to moving forward with any of the
potential stadium sites. Further, this analysis does not include or represent an Environmental Impact Statement, which
may be required for certain sites.
B . H I S TO R Y
The Buffalo Bills are a source of pride and unity for the City of Buffalo and the region of Western New York. The Bills are
also one of the few NFL franchises to benefit strongly from multi-national connections, as a contingent of fans commute
from Toronto and throughout the province of Ontario, Canada to Buffalo for Bills games. From the teams founding in
1960 by owner Ralph Wilson until 1973, the Buffalo Bills played at the corner of Jefferson and Best streets, just north of
Downtown Buffalo, at a stadium nicknamed the Rock Pile. However, with the Bills commission into the newly merged
National Football League in 1970, it became necessary for the Bills to have a new larger and more modern home. After
much debate and years of litigation, a new stadium (named Rich Stadium at the time) opened in 1973 in the Buffalo
suburb of Orchard Park. This stadium, renamed Ralph Wilson Stadium in 1998, remains the home of the Buffalo Bills
today. It has undergone numerous renovations and upgrades over the years, including a $130 million dollar renovation
completed the same year of this study. Evaluation of the long term viability of Ralph Wilson Stadium as an NFL venue is
outlined in Section VIII.D. of this analysis.
C . C O N T E X T
The City of Buffalos economy is currently expanding and diversifying, driven in large part by advances in the healthcare
and education sectors. As home to the corporate headquarters of two major banks, Buffalo also has a strong presence
in the financial industry. The central business district of Buffalo has seen a resurgence led by private investment in
housing and corporate construction. The City of Buffalo reports that 4,400 new private sector jobs were added in 2013.
To help bolster this economic growth, Governor Cuomo has committed to invest $1 billion in state funds in Buffalo, which
is now commonly referred to as the Buffalo Billion. Major construction is underway in the core of downtown Buffalo in
the form reshaping the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, and there are plans to develop a Buffalo High Tech Innovation
Hub. In addition, development plans are either underway or under construction to draw new life to Buffalos waterfront.
Such developments include building upon the Canal side development with the new HARBORCENTER and future
development plans e.g. Outer Harbor or the Erie Canal Harbor developments. It is reported that nearly $10 billion dollars
in total construction investment is planned across the Buffalo/Niagara region1 with a great deal of focus and attention
being paid to the central core of the city.
The population of Western New York region (defined as Erie and Niagara Counties) is currently at 1.1 million and
expected to grow by 17% by the year 2040.1

Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council, 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update
http://www.gbnrtc.org/files/8014/0016/3887/GBNRTC_2040_MTP_Update_-_FINAL_May2014.pdf
D.
S TA D I U M P R O G R A M D R I V E R S
A primary driver for evaluation of potential stadium sites is the business model and resulting space program for the
facility. A stadiums successful return on investment and contribution to the community depend on balancing the
number events held at the stadium with stadium program and budgetary considerations. There are two distinct options
to consider when evaluating a business model for large assembly stadiums: an open-air, football-focused venue and
a domed roof (retractable or non-retractable), multi-purpose venue. The presence of a domed roof on a stadium can
increase stadium usage, but come at an increased capital cost. Factors that can impact the potential need for, and
usage of, an enclosed dome stadium include the following:

Weather An enclosed roof provides obvious protection from bad weather during the NFL season, particularly in
cold climates such as Buffalos. In the NFL, examples of domed stadiums include cold market stadiums such as
Indianapolis (Lucas Oil Field) and Detroit (Ford Field) and warm market stadiums such Houston (NRG Stadium),
Dallas/Arlington (AT&T Stadium) and Phoenix/Glendale (University of Phoenix Stadium).
Sport-Specific Uses An open-air stadium is precluded from hosting certain sports (e.g., basketball) that are
sometimes held in large stadiums primarily used for football. For example, many NFL stadiums with domed roofs
(retractable and non-retractable) have hosted the NCAA Final Four and earlier rounds of the NCAA mens basketball
tournament.
Other Uses In addition to sporting events, an indoor stadium can also host a wide range of non-sport related
public and private events that cannot be held in an outdoor facility. For example, many of the indoor stadiums in the
NFL host large trade shows and other business and consumer events on the stadium floor, in meeting rooms and
in club areas. Domed stadiums in Indianapolis and St. Louis are a significant part of the cities convention space
offerings, which helps to increase the facilities non-football usage.
Surrounding Environment For certain uses, such as trade shows, event organizers generally prefer or require
that a facility be located in the immediate area of complementary land uses such as hotels, restaurants and other
forms of entertainment. As a result, an indoor stadium will generally have greater success in booking these kinds of
events if it is part of a larger district development or urban area rather than a suburban setting surrounded by acres
of parking that isolate a facility from other development.
Ability of Market to Attract Events The ability of a market to attract and host major stadium events such as NCAA
Final Fours, major concerts and trade shows also contribute to the number of non-football events held at a stadium.
Market characteristics such as climate, number of hotel rooms, other local attractions and general destination
appeal all contribute to a markets ability to attract such events.
While domed stadiums can support a much larger number of events and create value both for the venue and
surrounding ancillary development, they also cost significantly more to construct and maintain. Enclosed stadiums
come with either a fixed dome or retractable roof and mitigate weather-related risks for events held at the stadium.
Truly viable multi-purpose venues reside as part of larger developments including hotels, retail and other destination
attractions. Without the existence of or potential for these types of ancillary development on or directly adjacent to a
potential stadium site, the additional incremental investment of a domed venue is diminished.
The addition of a retractable roof further adds a significant incremental expense to a domed stadiums construction
cost. In addition, depending on materials used, local climate and the number of times a roof is opened and closed, it
can also impact operating expenses. Historically the incremental usage of a roofed stadium does not guarantee the
stadium will generate revenue commensurate with its additional usage. The majority of a NFL stadiums revenues
and expenses are generated by the 10 home NFL games per year held at the facility, before considering any revenuesharing arrangements between a team and facility owner. Domed stadiums also have a much better record of revenue
generation when used as trade show venues rather than convention center expansions, as conventions consumers
demand highly flexible and numerous meeting room options that are difficult to implement in NFL stadium facilities.
We note that convention usage affects hotel occupancy rates immediate to the facility more than trade show usage, as
trade shows are regionally attended and do not dramatically affect hotel occupancy.
Many events held at domed stadiums, ( e.g., the hundreds of community events that had been held at the Metrodome
in Minneapolis), may be unticketed or have very low attendance levels. However, where a stadium is a major part of
a communitys public-event space throughout the year, and is supported by complementary development, revenue
generation from non-NFL events can be more significant (such as Essence Music Festival at the Superdome in New
Orleans). Conversely, open air stadiums are directly sports focused. As such, square footage, systems and operations
costs are dramatically less than costs for multi-purpose stadiums. Thus, the capital investment in open air stadiums
is lower than domed stadiums, but the lower cost comes at the expense of having more limited event options at the
facility. In the last twelve years, there have been 13 NFL teams playing in 12 either new, or dramatically reconstructed
stadiums. Of those 12 stadiums, 7 were built as open air stadium, 1 was built as a fixed dome stadium and 4 were built
as retractable roof stadiums. (New York Giants and New York Jets share MetLife Stadium)
The following tables show a sample event calendar and estimated operating revenues and expenses for a generic
open-air and roofed (either retractable or fixed dome) NFL stadium, based on the building program assumptions
described in Appendix section B of this report. The major physical difference between the two facility types, aside from
the obvious roof feature, is approximately 12 meeting rooms and back of house support spaces in the roofed scenario
that would be added to support trade-show use of the stadium. These assumptions are not specific to the Buffalo area,
as we have not completed a market analysis and results could vary significantly based on the site being considered.
Open Air Stadium
Domed Stadium
(Fixed or Retractable Roof)
Open Air
Stadium
Domed
Stadium
E . P R O C E S S
Scope. The steps taken by AECOM to evaluate sites for a new Buffalo NFL stadium were open and without bias or
preconceptions. AECOM evaluated the 13 most viable sites proposed by various stakeholders, including private
developers, the City of Buffalo, Eire County, Empire State Development and the evaluating AECOM team. Proposed sites
included urban, suburban and rural sites. At no time was a site outside of western New York considered as part of this
study as Governor Cuomo has repeatedly indicated that keeping the Bills in Western New York is a priority. The sites
evaluated include:
Batavia Site
La Salle Park Site
Central Terminal
Niagara Falls Site
Cobblestone District
Orchard Park Site
Exchange Street Site
Outer Harbor Site
Republic Steel Site
West Seneca Site
South Park Site
Tonawanda Street Site
University of Buffalo Site
MAP O F S I TE LOCATI ON S W I TH MAI N TR A N S PO RTAT I O N R O U T ES
Criteria. In its analysis, AECOM utilized a list of evaluation criteria derived from years of experience developing the
best of NFL game day experiences. Section III of this analysis contains a listing of evaluation criteria. The criteria
span across all types of users and stakeholders for the venue as well as influences for the city and region. Of the 13
principal sites considered, 4 sites were shortlisted as providing the most viable options for an NFL stadium in the
Buffalo region. In some cases, single deal-breaker criterion resulted in a site note being shortlisted (e.g., the site
size and/or configuration is not sufficient for an NFL stadium footprint). In other cases, a series of criteria contributed
in the aggregate to a site not being shortlisted (e.g., extremely high infrastructure development and related costs,
lack of connection with Buffalo icons and lack of access to public transportation). Consideration was also given to
the existing Western New Yorks regional economic development plan which embraces the principles of smart growth
which concentrates investment in areas where infrastructure already exists. This involves reviving downtown and
main streets and generally increasing the vitality of our regions downtown cities, villages and town centers. For new
infrastructure investments, the Western New York economic plan advocates projects that enhance walkability and
transportation options, fosters transit oriented development, enhances access to our waterfront and strengthens
established neighborhoods. The regions smart growth initiative is intended to encourage private investment, create
an environment that employers and employees find appealing, that people want to live in and visit, and that creates a
sustainable 24/7 sense of vibrancy and economic vitality. History of stadium developments (e.g. Most recently, MetLife
Stadium at the Meadowlands) as proven the ability of stadium developments to stimulate and promote the viability
of public transportation options and their role in the fabric of their communities. As stadium site selection process
moves forward, further engagement with NFTA transportation studies will be warranted to uncover benefits for both the
stadium and the greater Buffalo community.
Stakeholder Meetings. As part of this analysis, Foley & Lardner LLP facilitated meetings with certain key stakeholders,
including:

State and local elected officials and their representatives
Community business leaders
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
Empire State Development
USA Niagara Development Corporation
Notably, this analysis was conducted without input from the Buffalo Bills management or ownership, or the NFL.
DOWNTOW N AVAI L AB L E PAR KI N G I N VE N TO RY
FEMA FLOOD MAP - BUFFALO
FEMA FLOOD MAP - NIAGARA
AECOM Expert Analysis. AECOM experts evaluated each site for its proximity or availability of multiple large volume
points of access. For the urban sites, the AECOM design team analyzed location of parking inventories, pedestrian
routes and available public mass transit systems. The shortlisted urban sites have the benefit of dispersion of
egress traffic as most people will be leaving the site as pedestrians and walking into the downtown to get to multiple
parking lots and the potential for spin off activity and revenues to local businesses in the downtown area. If any
urban site is selected, Main Street Buffalo has potential to become a post-game environment with great energy and
linkage to businesses if utilized as a pedestrian/light rail connector to a downtown sports district. As described in
the Transportation Analysis portion of the report Section IV of this analysis, each shortlisted site in Section IV of this
analysis was evaluated for major roadway or bridge construction required for good vehicle and pedestrian flows. Those
concepts were reviewed further for potential costs ranges each site could anticipate requiring which are listed in the
Evaluation Summary included in Section III of this report. For the urban sites, the primary issues concentrate on access
and location of available public parking. A Desman Study performed in 2008 identified 32,730 available spaces systemwide in the downtown Buffalo core area. Of these spaces, 8% are curbside, 56% are located in publicly available offstreet facilities and the remaining 36% are located in private/restricted off-street parking facilities. Occupancy rates for
those parking spaces averaged 76% even during peak hours between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. During NFL Sunday game
times, and evening games on Mondays and Thursday, this utilization would be significantly lower and would provide spin
off revenues for local businesses as stadium patrons infill the parking down times and patron businesses walking to
and from the potential stadium. The diagram on Page 23 of this report depicts available public parking inventories in the
core downtown area of Buffalo.
AECOM also conducted a preliminary assessment the sites immediately apparent environmental conditions, but
without going so far as to conduct geotechnical or any exploratory investigations. Some of the sites reviewed were
already considered brownfield sites (i.e., a site previously used for industrial purposes that may be contaminated) or
had existing landfill conditions). While brownfield conditions were not a sole reason for elimination of a site, there was
consideration for the cost and time for remediation of the site in relative terms. Shortlisting of a site does not indicate a
conclusion or suggestion that such sites soil condition is ready to build upon. Further, geotechnical and environmental
evaluations should be part of a final site selection process. Finally, sites near the Buffalo River, the Niagara River, the
Cazenovia Creek and Lake Erie were reviewed for their position within FEMAs mapping of 100 and 500 year flood plains
as shown by the flood maps on page 24 of this report. Those sites included sites of Niagara Falls, the Outer Harbor site,
the Republic Steel Site, and the West Seneca Site. The Outer Harbor and West Seneca sites were the only sites of those
evaluated with partial impact from either the 100 year or 500 year flood plains.
NF L Stadiu m Template
689'
100'
50
844'
50
3 0-
-3 0
4 0-
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
3 0-
-3 0
2 0-
-2 0
1 0-
-1 0
1 0-
-1 0
2 0-
-2 0
3 0-
-3 0
4 0-
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
3 0-
-3 0
2 0-
-2 0
1 0-
-1 0
100' NFL Security Setback Zone
1 0-
-1 0
2 0-
-2 0
Model Stadium Program and Stadium Footprint Template. A model stadium program for a simple modern
NFL
CenturyLin k Field - Seattle, WA
facility was utilized for the purposes of evaluating size and influence of the stadium at the various proposed 745'
sites. A
description of the model stadium program is included in Appendix B of this analysis. Within the framework of this
report, the potential sites were evaluated in the context of whether a fixed domed stadium, a retractable roof domed
stadium or an open air stadium would be preferable and AECOM
makes
recommendations
based
on the factors
100' NFL
Security Setback
Zone
1 050
4 0-
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
3 0-
-3 0
2 0-
-2 0
100'
fit the business model is yet to be determined.
-1 0
689' stadium) will best

described above. Ultimately, the decision of what type of stadium (retractable roof, open air, or domed
1 0-
-1 0
2 0-
-2 0
3 0-
-3 0
A unified stadium footprint template was utilized to evaluate each proposed sites ability to accommodate a building the
scale of a NFL stadium in its proper orientation. Proper orientation is a more critical factor in open air or retractable roof
1 0-
-1 0
2 0-
-2 0
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
50
-3 0
4 03 0-
-3 0
-2 0
844'
50
3 02 0-
4 0-
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
flexibility to this issue. That template used in the analysis was derived as a combination of the similar NFL facilities of
820'
3 0-
-3 0
3 0-
-3 0
2 0-
-2 0
1 0-
-1 0
stadiums due to the fields orientation to the solar path during game time. Domed stadiums by their nature give more
-1 0
2 01 0-
-1 0
1 0-
-2 0
Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis and Century Link Field in Seattle. Also included in the template is a demarcation of a
Lucas Oil Stadium - In dianapolis, IN
NFL recommended security boundary of 100 feet. Inside this line, current NFL security measures restrict the686'
parking of
public vehicles and call for screening of vehicles used in stadium operations. A summary of the potential construction
and related costs for the model stadium program is set forth in Appendix D on page 86 of this analysis.
0
100' NFL Security Setback Zone
2 00
4 00 FT
745'
2 03 0-
1 0-
-1 0
2 0-
-2 0
3 0-
-3 0
4 0-
-4 0
50
850'
4 0-
-4 0
50
820'
-2 0
-1 0
63,000 Seats
137 Suites
7,100 Club Seats
1.9 million Square Feet
0
2 00
4 00 FT
2 0-
850'
3 04 050
-3 0
-2 0
-4 0
-2 0
-3 0
-4 0
50
4 03 02 0-
-1 0

1 0-
820'
1 0-
67,000 Seats
98 Suites
7,500 Club Seats
-1 0
1 0-
1 0-
-1 0
-2 0
-3 0
2 03 04 050
-4 0
-3 0
4 03 02 01 0-
-2 0
-1 0
-2 0
2 03 0-
-3 0
-4 0
4 050
50
4 0-
-4 0
-3 0
3 02 0-
-2 0
-1 0
65,000 Seats
100 Suites
7,500 Club Seats
-1 0
686'
745'
689'
1 0-
Lucas Oil Stadium - In dianapolis, IN
1 0-
-1 0
-2 0
-3 0
-4 0
50
844'
50
2 01 0-
3 0-
-3 0
4 0-
-4 0
50
4 0-
-4 0
3 0-
-3 0
2 0-
-2 0
1 0-
-1 0
100'
689'
The table depicted the two pages below summarizes the evaluation of the potential sites and the criteria used.
Shortlisted sites are outlined in the white columns while the non-shortlisted sites are shaded. It is important to note
Property
Class andof
SiteaCharacteristics
Alternative Stadium
Sitesshortlist does not constitute a definitive dismissal of such site, but is instead
that
failure
site to beforincluded
on the
and indication based on data evaluated to date that such sites were not as appealing as the shortlisted sites.
Cobblestone
Site Size
Sufficient Size/config for Stadium
Footprint
Roadway improvements
Street/Ramps/Walks
Existing Conditions
Area (Acres)
Distances
Miles to I-190 or I-90 Ramp (miles)
Parking
On Site (# of Cars)
< 3/4 Mile; walkable distance (# Cars)
Public Transportation1
Light Rail
Regional Rail
Ancillary Development2
On Site Potential
Synergy potential with Sports
Entertainment context in close
proximity(< 3 blocks walkable)
Schedule conflict with adjacent uses
(i.e. parking, sound, light)
Iconic Impression Potential3
SHORTLISTED SITES
Exchange Street
Orchard Park
Yes
$50M - $100M
Yes
South Park
Yes
$100M - $150M
$50M - $70M
Central Terminal
No
Yes
$200M - $250M
TBD
Outer Harbor
Yes
$800M - $1B
122
42
181
0.2
0.1
2.5
0.1
1.5
1.1
800
12,000
350
15,000
12,000
2,000
6,000
2,180
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Building Naming Rights Visibility

Secondary Sponsors Visibility
Sustainability Potential5
Best
Good
Best
Good
Little
Only up Close
Best
Only up Close
Little
Only up Close
Good
Good
Easily obtainable Energy

potential for low or zero energy
options
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Parcels
Parcel Assessed Value

# of Parcels / Assessed Value7
17
Assessed Value
$21,811,400
16
Assessed Value
35,260,200
Assessed Value
$170,398,200
Parcels
181
Parcels
21.3
Parcels
24
Connection with Notable Buffalo Icons

Money Shot View
Additional Revenue Potential4
199
Assessed Value
12,371,150
Notes
1. Is access to Public Transportation currently available within acceptable walking distance (< 1/2 mile)
2. Is there the potential or obsitcles to future ancillary and revenue generating development
3. Does the site offer visual connection of the site to landmarks, architecture, or spaces that are unique to Buffalo and which could
showcase Buffalo's unique features to a national TV or visiting audience.
4. Will naming rights graphics be readily visible from either passing vehicles or money camera shots of the stadium to maximize return on
investment potential for the sponsor.
Most visibility = Best; Moderate Visibility = Good; Least Visbility (Only Up Close) = Little
5. Will the site offer the opportunities for reliable energy and opportunities for sustainable approaches to reduce the energy use of the stadium.
6. For Non Shortlisted sites, items identified in RED, are significant and need additonal investigation/resolution for the site to be shortlisted.
7. Assessment listings are shown for comparative purposes only and do not represent fair market value of the properties nor the cost of acquisistion.
La Salle
TBD
Unk
B
G
III.
SITE E VA LUAT I O N S U M M A RY
Property Class and Site Characteristics for Alternative Stadium Sites
Cobblestone
1.1
Unknown
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Good
Good
Yes
Yes
(i.e. parking, sound, light)

No
Iconic Impression Potential3
Yes
Yes
No
Connection with Notable Buffalo Icons
Money Shot View
Additional Revenue Potential4
Yes
Yes
Building Naming
Yes Rights Visibility Yes
Secondary Sponsors Visibility
Sustainability
BestPotential5
Good
Easily obtainable
Good Energy
Only up Close
potential for low or zero energy
options
Yes
Yes
Yes Value
Parcel Assessed
# of Parcels / Assessed Value7
Yes
$100M - $150M
No
$50M - $70M
No
24
21.3
181
0.2
131
0.1
47
800
12,000
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Central Terminal
Outer Harbor
West Seneca
Yes
$200M - $250M
Yes
Batavia
No
TBD
Unknown
Yes
$800M - $1B
122
Unknown
42
181
2.5
116
0.1
113
1.5
Unknown
1.1
350
15,000
12,000
2,000
6,000
2,180
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
No
8,240
Yes
Un Committed
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
NoNo
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NoNo
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Best
No
Good
No
Best
No
Good
No
Little
No
Only up Close
No
Best
No
Only up Close
Little
OnlyYes
up Close
17
Towanda Street
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessed
Value
$21,811,400
Good
OnlyYes
up Close
16
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessed
Value
35,260,200
Good
Yes
Good
Best
Yes
Good
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assessed
Value
$170,398,200
Parcels
181
$50M - $100M
Yes
University of Buffalo
Yes
Parcels
$800M - $1B
Republic Steel
Yes
Parcels
Yes
Roadway improvements
Street/Ramps/Walks
Yes
Yes
Existing Conditions
Area (Acres)
TBD
$800M - $1B
Distances
Miles to I-190 or I-90 Ramp (miles)
100
136
Parking
On Site (# of Cars)
< 3/4 Mile; walkable distance (# Cars)
Public Transportation1
Unknown
Unknown
Light Rail 0
Regional Rail
Ancillary Development2
No
No
On Site Potential
No
No
Synergy potential with Sports
Entertainment context in close
Yes
proximity(<No
3 blocks walkable)
No with adjacent usesNo
Schedule conflict
South Park
NON SHORTLISTED SITES
Parcels
Outer Harbor
Site Size
Sufficient
for Stadium
La SalleSize/config
Park
Niagara Falls
Footprint
SHORTLISTED SITES
Exchange Street
Orchard Park
199
Yes
Assessed
Value
12,371,150
No
NoLittle
Only up Close
Good
Good
Good
Only up Yes
Close
Yes
No
Yes
Notes
1. Is access to Public Transportation currently available within acceptable walking distance (< 1/2 mile)
2. Is there the potential or obsitcles to future ancillary and revenue generating development
3. Does the site offer visual connection of the site to landmarks, architecture, or spaces that are unique to Buffalo and which could
showcase Buffalo's unique features to a national TV or visiting audience.
4. Will naming rights graphics be readily visible from either passing vehicles or money camera shots of the stadium to maximize return on
investment potential for the sponsor.
Most visibility = Best; Moderate Visibility = Good; Least Visbility (Only Up Close) = Little
5. Will the site offer the opportunities for reliable energy and opportunities for sustainable approaches to reduce the energy use of the stadium.
6. For Non Shortlisted sites, items identified in RED, are significant and need additonal investigation/resolution for the site to be shortlisted.
considered for the shortlist.
7. Assessment listings are shown for comparative purposes only and do not represent fair market value of the properties nor the cost of acquisistion.
Yes
Yes
IV.
S H O R T L I ST E D S I T E S
Through the course of creating this analysis, thirteen (13) different site opportunities were proposed and evaluated by
the AECOM team. Those sites include both urban and suburban sites within Buffalo city proper and the surrounding
communities. Utilizing a carefully crafted set of criteria demonstrated by successful NFL stadiums, 4 sites have stood
out as having the greatest potential for successfully implementing a NFL stadium, including 3 urban and a long term
stadium solution (ie renovation or new) on the existing Ralph Wilson Stadium site in Orchard Park. Each shortlisted site
has its own list of strengths, weaknesses, benefits and challenges that are summarized herein and is outlined in tabular
form in page 28 of this analysis. As stated previously, there is no one perfect site in its current condition. An opinion
will be given as to the type of venue; open-air vs domed, which will best suit the site from a planning perspective. The
impact on cost and potential revenue will also be outlined. The 4 sites (3 shortlisted sites plus the existing Orchard Park
stadium site) are presented here in simple alphabetical order without representation of ranking.
COCA-COLA FIELD
ME TR
OR
HARB AIL - E RIE
C
OR S
TA TIO A NAL
N
BUFFA
AM TR L O EXCH
A
AK R
AIL S NGE ST
TATIO
N
MA IN
ST RE
ET
AM TR
I 190
SCOT
P
PERR
Y STR
AK R
A
IL
T STR
EET
100' NFL
SECURITY ZONE
EET
4 00 FT
Potential Parking / Development
ENU E
2030-
- 40
40-
50
50
40-
N AV
- 40
30-
- 30
20-
- 20
MICH
IGA
BU
FF
AL
O
2 00
10-
- 10
S PA
ME POT
TR EN
T
O
RA IAL
IL NE
ST W
AT
IO
N
- 30
I ST R
EET
SIPP
MISS
IS
IL LIN
OIS S
TR EE
T
- 20
10-
- 10
FIRST NIAGARA
CENTER
SENECA BUFFALO
CREEKCASINO
RK A
V
EN UE
RI V
ER
Potential Development
COBBLESTONE DISTRICT
C O B B L E STO N E D I ST R I CT S I T E
I.
P L A N N I N G A N A LYS I S
The Cobblestone Districts history dates back to the origins of the City of Buffalo. With many of its buildings originating
as far back as the 1850s, the district was designated as a local historic district in 1994 in response to demolition
resulting from the construction of the First Niagara Arena. Bounded by Michigan Avenue to the east and Illinois Street
to the west, Scott Street to the north and South Park Avenue to the south, the Cobblestone District site is located in an
area that is part of Buffalos urban renewal. The Cobblestone Districts adjacencies with the First Niagara Center Arena,
HARBORCENTER and Coca Cola Field create the potential for a new stadium to develop an iconic sports district and
further the development and renewal of downtown Buffalo. This connection to other retail and mixed use development
make the Cobblestone District site a good candidate for construction of a domed, multi-purpose stadium with program
to attract business conferences and other mixed use that would realize the benefit that a higher number of events and
patrons a domed stadium would bring.
More than any of the other proposed sites, the Cobblestone District site will benefit from available public and
mass transit. Within a block of the site, there is access to both a light rail station and an Amtrak commuter station,
creating a potential intermodal hub. Parking will be delegated to the utilizing downtown inventory of which there are
approximately 12,000 spaces within a mile radius and over 15,000 spaces within a one mile walking distance. A more
detailed transportation analysis is set forth below.
The site is not without significant challenges, however. Its historic nature combined with potential archeological conditions may create hurdles for development. The footprint of a stadium would most likely occupy the south-eastern
portion of the site as illustrated in the site diagram on page 32. Careful and thoughtful planning of stadium design elements should allow the existing buildings along Illinois and Mississippi Streets to remain intact during and after stadium construction. Such design elements that may accomplish this include incorporation of an asymmetrical sideline
bowl design approach as employed in existing NFL stadiums such as in Chicago at Soldier Field, or even incorporation
of existing buildings into the structure of the stadium, as is the case in Detroit at Ford Field. This could result in shorter
overall width of the stadium and thus allowing the facility to fit into the district. Even with the requisite acquisitions, the
site will need to address the NFLs required security issues, including the NFLs 100- foot recommended secure zone.
Public traffic to surrounding properties on game day may be impacted and closures to Michigan and South Park Avenues may be required.
The constricted site area will result in a stadium placement outside the optimal stadium orientation, meaning the site
will only accommodate a fixed roof facility due to weather considerations. Further, due to the requisite closure of Perry
street west of Michigan Avenue to Illinois Street, First Niagara Center traffic will be diverted to the First Niagara parking ramp to access from the west and south only. As discussed in more detail in the transportation analysis below, road
improvements will be required to enlarge Michigan Avenue from South Park to Seneca to facilitate better load-in and
load-out of the stadium as well as to improve pedestrian movement from the downtown area to the stadium. The cost of
such improvements would likely cost between $50 million and $100 million, but as noted otherwise in the report, many
of these changes are consistent with the master planning for downtown and may occur irrespective of the development
of a new stadium (see Section III).
I I .
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N A N A LYS I S
Reference Appendix Section C, Trip Generation Analysis, for the traffic volume basis of design
for a generic NFL stadium in Buffalo, utilized in the transportation analysis below.
1. Estimated transportation mode share:
- Via Transit
- Light rail
15% as primary mode

15% as secondary mode (to/from parking)
30% total
- Public bus 5%
- Charter bus 2%
- Hired Car 3%

- Auto
45% park within mile (park/walk access)

30% park in downtown parking (park/LRT-shuttle-walk
access)

2. Parking
- Total event parking needs
14,000 16,000 spaces
3. Guest trip generation to the site and surrounding downtown areas
- Arrival during pre-game highest hour (2 hours prior to game time):
- 2,700 3,000 arriving autos
- 10,000 12,000 persons by LRT
- Exiting during post-game highest hour (1 hour post game time):
- 7,000 7,500 departing autos
4. Site Opportunities
- Transit service
Transit-rich environment including LRT, public bus, Amtrak
Enhanced pedestrian access
Minimum expansion of LRT trackage required
Intermodal (bus and LRT) station can readily be developed adjacent to stadium
- Roadway and parking operations

Multiple freeways serve the downtown and stadium area
Direct ramp connections to stadium area
Downtown street grid provides system flexibility/capacity
Existing downtown parking infrastructure (structured and at-grade)
Reduced dependency on parking adjacent to stadium by creating dispersion of parking locations
within downtown.
5. Site Challenges
- Transit service

LRT capacity is finite (projected demand exceeds capacity); requires LRT expansion (tracks, station,
rolling stock)
Game day bus service needed to link Stadium with downtown parking to supplement LRT capacity
Very high frequency LRT service required; will require traffic planning to avoid conflict with downtown
pedestrian and traffic flows

Limited number of ramps linking I-190 to stadium area, and ramp termini conflict with other traffic
flows in the downtown
On-site and adjacent roadways will need expansion, and interface with existing downtown grid will
need to be resolved
Game day traffic management plan will be needed, including street management (one-way,
reversible, turn prohibitions, street closures), intelligent traffic control and command center, access
management, on-street parking prohibitions, and motorist information systems.
Additional pedestrian-only bridges may be needed to cross Amtrak/CSX rail line.
Removal of certain streets will be needed to develop stadium and parking sites, creating disconnects
in the street grid.
Downtown parking facilities mainly further than mile from stadium
6. Recommended Site Improvements As described on the site comparison chart on pages 28-29, AECOM
has identified approximately $75-$125M in recommended site transportation improvements which consist
of the following costs. As noted otherwise in the report, many of these changes are consistent with the
master planning for downtown and may occur irrespective of the development of a new stadium.
- Transit Service $40 - $60M

Light Rail Line extension to provide additional station platforms, possible new or expanded turnback
loop.
New Light Rail Terminal Station
- Roadway/Ramps/Walkways $35M - $65M

New Entrance and Exit ramps to I -190 at Seneca Street
Improved sidewalk along Michigan Avenue and Main Street corridors
Legend
Percentage of overall
Vehicle count
XX%
I-190
The diagram above is a depiction of traffic

flows by volume, percentage of overall
vehicle count and the route used.
Transportation
Route
### Arrive
### Depart
Number of Vehicles in
Peak Time frame
(2 hours prior to
game time)
Peak Time frame
(1 hour post game
time)
III.
E C O N O M I C A N A LYS I S
Economic Development Scenarios Analysis in Section V, outlines projections of Costs,
Economic Impacts and Fiscal Impacts resulting from the bullet points listed below. A
detailed cost breakdown is provided in Appendix D.

The Cobblestone District site has an L-shape, which appears to limit on-site ancillary development to two
specific smaller areas; higher densities may also be needed based on requirements for on-site
parking.
Ancillary development surrounding the parcel is particularly constrained on three sides north, south and
west.
Parcels to the east across Michigan Avenue have limited development opportunities.
The site provides limited capacity for surface parking; structured parking may be needed based on
neighborhood parking supply.
The existence of the supportive entertainment uses (First Niagara Center, the HARBORCENTER, including
two ice rinks, parking, and hotel, Coca Cola Field and Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino) may create positive
synergies. In addition, the Courtyard Buffalo Downtown/Canalside, an upscale hotel, opened in May 2014
with 102 rooms; an analysis of attendance and parking requirements for these venues is needed.
Possible synergies with First Niagara Center and Coca Cola Field could drive market support for district
restaurant and bar opportunities as well as supporting retail proximate to the three stadiums. At present,
retail offerings in the vicinity of the stadium site appear limited.
Further research is needed to confirm whether the proposed football stadium could be operated in concert
with the other venues as a sports/entertainment district rather than three separate venues in proximity to
each other. Operating synergies across the three venues could be achievable, possibly including managed
parking or public safety.
Interstate visibility should correlate with enhanced advertising and sponsorship opportunities for the team
and/or venue.
ME
SENE TRO RAIL
CA S
TATIO
N
M
LA FA E TRO RA
IL
Y ETTE
STAT
ION
1/2 M
ILE
MYR
TL
20-
30-
40-
50
- 40
- 10
EXCH
- 20
AN GE
AM TR
- 30
- 40
50
40-
30-
- 30
- 20
20-
- 10
10-
STR E
AK R
A
ET
E AV
SENE
CA S
T REE
CA RR
OLL
STR E
ET
100' NFL
SECURITY ZONE
IL
I 190
1/4 M
ILE
FIRST NIAGARA
CENTER
SENECA BUFFALO
CREEKCASINO
2 00
4 00 FT
EXCHANGE
& MICHIGAN
STREETS
EXCHANGE
STREET
SITE
1/4 M
ILE
N AV
10-
CH IC
AGO
S
BUFFA
AM TR L O EXCH
A
AK R
AIL S NGE ST
TATIO
N
CA S
T REE
N STRE
ET
N ST
REET
PIERCE ARROW
MUSEUM
MICH
IGA
D
SENE
ENU E
SWA
COCA-COLA FIELD
1/4 M
ILE
ME TR
OR
HARB AIL - E RIE
C
OR S
TA TIO A NAL
N
S DI VIS
IO
T REE
ME
SENE TRO RAIL
CA S
TATIO
N
1/2 M
ILE
3/4 M
ILE
1/4 M
ILE
E XC H A N G E ST R E E T S I T E
I.
The Exchange Street site, bounded by Swan Street to the north, Chicago Street to the east, Exchange Street to the South
and Michigan Avenue to the west, will perhaps have the best ingress/egress access of any of the proposed urban sites
and will also provide the best access to existing parking inventories. With its adjacency to the on and off ramps of I-190,
and linkages to the I-33 to the north, this 22 acre site has the easiest load-in and loadout capabilities. Adjacencies
with Coca Cola Field create the potential to develop an iconic sports district, similar to the Cobblestone District site.
However, unlike the Cobblestone District site, the Exchange Street site has the additional benefit of adjacent properties
that offer ancillary development potential. This sites proximity to other retail and mixed use development make this
site a good candidate for a domed multi-purpose stadium with program to attract business conferences and other
mixed use, thought an open-air stadium would also be a viable option. The sites location at the edge of the downtown
Buffalo core offers spin of development potential without requiring the costly demolition of major existing buildings.
The site is bordered by Exchange Street to the south, Swan Street to the north, Michigan Avenue to the west and Chicago
Street to the east. Were a stadium to be built on this site, Seneca Street would need to be closed between Michigan
and Chicago, and re-opened east of Chicago. More detailed recommendations for roadway and traffic infrastructure
improvements are included in the detailed transportation analysis below.
Pierce Arrow Museum was recently constructed on the Exchange Street site, and would either need to be relocated
or incorporated into the stadium as a unique iconic feature. Off site, several adjacent residential homes need to
be considered in connection with stadium activities and event traffic flow. Engaging with the community to further
understand potential impediments will be important with respect to this site. To mitigate potential challenges, a
development block should be considered as part of the initial conceptual planning process. However as noted otherwise
in the report, many of these changes are consistent with the master planning for downtown and may occur irrespective
of the development of a new stadium.
II.
- Via Transit
- Light rail
15% as primary mode

3% as secondary mode (to/from parking)
18% total

- Public bus
5%
- Charter bus
2%
- Hired Car
3%
- Auto
25% park in downtown parking (park/LRT-shuttle-walk access)
2. Parking
14,000 16,000 spaces
3. Guest trip generation to the site and surrounding downtown areas
- Transit service

Stadium site is close to the downtown bus terminal
Enhanced pedestrian access using the existing street grid
Potential extension of LRT rail to vicinity of stadium site via Swan Street
Less reliant on transit to reach downtown parking areas

Reduced dependency on parking adjacent to stadium by creating dispersion of

parking locations within downtown.
5. Site Challenges
- Transit service

Possible LRT expansion (tracks, station, rolling stock) to stadium vicinity
Frequent LRT service will require traffic planning to avoid conflict with downtown pedestrian and
traffic flows
On-site and adjacent roadways will need expansion, and interface with existing
downtown grid will need to be resolved
Game day traffic management plan will be needed, including street management (one-way,
reversible, turn prohibitions, street closures), intelligent traffic control and command center, access
management, on-street parking prohibitions, and motorist information systems.
Removal of certain streets will be needed to develop stadium, creating disconnects in the street grid.
6. Recommended Site Improvements As described on the site comparison chart on pages 28-29, AECOM has
identified approximately $100-$150M in recommended site transportation improvements which consist of
the following costs. As noted otherwise in the report, many of these changes are consistent with the master
planning for downtown and may occur irrespective of the development of a new stadium.
- Transit Service, $50 - $75M

Light Rail line extension to a New Light Rail Terminal
New Light Rail Terminal Station Connected with the Buffalo Exchange Street Amtrak Station.
- Roadway/Ramps/Walkways, $50 - $75M

New Entrance and Exit ramps to I -190 at Seneca Street
Lowering of I-190 ramp to grade at Seneca Street
Improved sidewalk along Michigan Avenue and Main Street corridors
Legend
Vehicle count
XX%
I-190

Transportation
Route
### Arrive
### Depart
Peak Time frame
(2 hours prior to
game time)
Peak Time frame
(1 hour post game
time)
III.

The Exchange Street site alternatives are highly constrained in terms of on-site ancillary development
opportunities, though there do appear to be opportunities for development on the corner of Swan Street]
and Michigan Avenue and also on a smaller scale along the south side of Swan Street down to the
intersection of Swan Street and Chicago Street.
There is very little retail existing in the neighborhood surrounding the site. There are hotels in mile
proximity including the soon to open hotel in the HARBORCENTER development.
Existing residential development north side of Swan Street and east of Chicago Street is a constraint,
though land uses to the east, west and south could have more redevelopment potential.
Exchange Street has an industrial character, which could be more amenable to redevelopment over time,
as assemblage of residential properties tends to be more difficult than assemblage of commercial or
industrial properties.
Aerial photos of the site from 2012 indicate that many buildings appeared to be occupied at that time.
South of Exchange Street, redevelopment potential is constrained by existing rail lines as well as the
Interstate 190.
The sites Relative proximity to Coca Cola Field provides opportunity for creation of a sports district.
Interstate visibility to the site should correlate with enhanced advertising and sponsorship opportunities
for the team and/or venue.
M
IL
E
2
1/
1/
2
E
IL
M
1/
4
V
BL
E
IL
M
HW
UT
N
ER
4
1/
M
IL
E
T
ES
SO
100' NFL
SECURITY ZONE
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
-
1
0
5
0
2
0
4
0
3
0
-
0
2
-
ABBOTT ROAD
1
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
M
IL
E
4
1/
1/
2
AB BO
T
E
IL
M
T ROA
D
2
1/
M
IL
E
1/
4
E
IL
M
EXISTING
RALPH WILSON STADIUM
4
3/
E
IL
M
HW Y 20
A
2 00
4 00 FT
EXISTING RALPH WILSON STADIUM
I .
Serving as the home of the Buffalo Bills since 1973, the existing Ralph Wilson Stadium (RWS) site in Orchard Park has
the benefits of years of experience hosting NFL games and fan familiarity. The site is comprised of 181 acres, most of
which is occupied by RWS, parking inventory, Bills administration space and the practice facility. The site has developed
several game day traditions has over the years, and is the paradigm game day experience for Bills fans. Deciding to
put a stadium solution on this site, either through a major renovation of RWS in addition to the renovation currently
underway, or constructing a new stadium on the existing site, would leverage those existing traditions. Also, as the
largest potential site considered, the Orchard Park site provides the most parking capacity and resulting tailgating
opportunities for fans. Extending the Bills presence here by renovating existing Ralph Wilson Stadium is likely to be
the least costly solution to solving some of the challenges of the existing stadium. However, if new ownership deems a
new stadium on this site to be the solution, there are only a few locations on which a new stadium can be built without
interfering with existing operations. The best available location would be to construct the stadium north of existing RWS
in parking lots 5, 6, and 7 on land currently controlled by Erie County. This location also retains the independence and
separation for the Bills administration and practice facility. The Orchard Park site is the only potential site evaluated
with little to no acquisition costs or the schedule delays that could arise from dealing with existing property owners.
Recommendations for roadway and traffic infrastructure improvements are included in the detailed transportation
analysis of this site in section IV of this report.
It is important to note that, surveys of Bills fans highlight significant challenges with the Orchard Park site. Access to
the stadiums parking lots is greatly underserved by the primary access routes of Abbott Road, Southwestern Blvd and
Big Tree Road. Access to the closest high volume road system, Highway 219, is two miles from the stadium parking lots
at its closest point. Although it is the largest of the shortlisted sites, we do not believe the Orchard Park site will promote
ancillary retail or destination development due to its roadway challenges and the remote nature of the location. Hence
the economic plan with the best community return on investment at this site would be to renovate the existing open
air stadium as it is likely to have the lowest capital investment. However for comparison purposes this analysis also
includes an analysis of the possibility of constructing a new stadium on the existing site.
I I .
- Via Transit
- Light rail
0% as primary mode
0% as secondary mode (to/from downtown parking)
0% total

- Public bus
5%
- Charter bus
5%
- Hired Car
5%
- Auto
2. Parking
15,000-18,000 spaces
3. Guest trip generation
- 0 persons by LRT
- 0 persons by LRT
- Transit service

Bus service would be the principal transit mode

Multiple freeways serve the stadium area
Multiple multi-lane highways link the stadium area to the freeways
Parking is built and is all on site. Improvement costs minimal.
5. Site Challenges
- Transit service

No LRT or scheduled public bus service to the stadium area.
Any extension of LRT to the stadium site would require an 8-9 mile extension of current tracks. Limited
rail right of way appears to be available.

Access to the stadium site and on adjacent roadways is through signalized intersections, which cause
significant traffic congestion on game days. On-site and adjacent roadways could be expanded to
improve level of service.
6. Recommended Site Improvements As described on the site comparison

chart on pages 28-29, AECOM has identified approximately $50-$70M in
recommended site transportation improvements which consist of the
following:
- Roadway/Ramps/Walkways; $50 - $70M

Surface Street Improvements to 1.5 miles of Abbott Road and 1.8 miles of Southwestern Blvd.
Improvements are not targeting widening at this point
without additional ROW research.
Legend
Vehicle count
XX%
I-190

Transportation
Route
### Arrive
### Depart
Peak Time frame
(2 hours prior to
game time)
Peak Time frame
(1 hour post game
time)
III.

The existing stadium site provides abundant surface parking. Assemblage of land does not appear to be
required.
This site is largely self-contained from a sports standpoint which would allow the owner to maximize
on-site revenue capture.
The site location, which is distant from interstates, does not lend itself to destination retail
opportunities unless the number of events associated with the facility are expanded. However, if an
ancillary retail project were considered, it would need to be larger in scale to serve as an adequate
destination (greater than 250,000 square feet of rentable space). McKinley Mall is already located 2.25
miles from the site further research would be needed to assess the competitive position of this mall in
the region.
There is modest supporting retail development along Southwestern Boulevard.
Lack of limited visibility to high traffic routes may limit advertising and sponsorship opportunities.
I 190
LE
MI
1/2
T REE
D
S PA
RK A
V
EN UE
LE
MI
1/4
POT
ME T ENTIAL
RO
N
RAIL EW
STA
TION
UR G
STR E
ET
MA R
VIN
CH IC
AGO
S
IO
OH
ST
10
E
RE
20
30
0
- 1
O
AL
FF
BU
FUT
URE
40
0
- 2
50
0
- 3
0
- 4
0
- 4
COR
RID
OR
MIAM
I ST
REET
0
- 3
50
40
0
- 2
R
VE
RI
RAIL
HA M
B
ST RE
E
ENU E
N AV
MICH
IGA
LE
MI
1/4
LE
MI
1/2
SENECA BUFFALO
CREEKCASINO
30
0
- 1
20
10
LOU IS
IANA
ST
REET
LE
MI
1/4
100' NFL
SECURITY ZONE
LE
MI
1/4
LE
MI
1/2
2 00
4 00 FT
SOUTH PARK & LOUISIANA STREETS
I .
The South Park site is the largest of the urban sites being considered, with its potential 122 acres spanning from
the Buffalo River to the south edge of I-190. The northern half of the potential site is currently totally comprised of
vacated properties and could be made available by the City of Buffalo. With enhancements to Louisiana and Hamburg
Streets, the site would have sufficient access to the high volume traffic of I-190 and would also be within walking
range of the parking inventories of the Cobblestone District and downtown Buffalo. The sites far western point is
ideally suited to development of an intermodal transportation hub with the close proximities of light rail and bus
traffic. Although subdivided by South Park Avenue, each half of the site is large enough to support the stadium and its
immediate circulation. The southern half of the site borders the Buffalo River, where the rivers edge is already under
the reconstruction as a waterfront park. The site would also place a stadium between the Cobblestone District and
other vibrant development projects in the area. With the appropriately scaled mixed use development surrounding the
potential stadium, both areas would likely realize an increase in activity and value.
The South Park site also presents a set of challenges. Walking distances from the site to the downtown parking
inventories will be increased by a quarter of a mile to half mile. Also, like the Exchange Street site, engaging with the
community to further understand potential impediments is appropriate with respect to this site. As the southern half of
the site sits adjacent to an established residential neighborhood and would overtake the neighborhoods public Conway
Park, replacement of the park and related transition should be explored. From an infrastructure standpoint, the site
would require expansions of Louisiana and Hamburg streets along with additional turn lanes and wider entrance and
exit ramps to I-190. However as noted otherwise in the report, many of these changes are consistent with the master
I I .
- Via Transit
- Light rail
15% as primary mode

25% as secondary mode (to/from downtown parking)
40% total

- Public bus
5%
- Charter bus
2%
- Hired Car
3%
- Auto
2. Parking
14,000 16,000 spaces
3. Guest trip generation
- 20,000 - 25,000 persons by LRT
- Transit service
Proximity of stadium site to existing LRT requires only a minimum extension of LRT.
Intermodal (bus and LRT) station can readily be developed adjacent to stadium.

Reduced dependency on parking adjacent to stadium
5. Site Challenges
- Transit service

Enhanced pedestrian access
LRT capacity is finite (projected demand exceeds capacity); requires LRT expansion (tracks, station,
rolling stock)
Long walk (>1/2 mile) from stadium to downtown parking requires supplemental bus and LRT service.
Game day bus service needed to link stadium with downtown parking to supplement LRT capacity.
Very high frequency LRT service will require traffic planning to avoid conflict with downtown pedestrian
and traffic flows

Close proximity of established residential communities complicates traffic management on game days,
and constrains ability to implement needed street widening.
On-site and adjacent roadways will need expansion, and interface with existing downtown grid will need
to be resolved
Game day traffic management plan will be needed, including street management (one-way, reversible,
turn prohibitions, street closures), intelligent traffic control and command center, access management,
on-street parking prohibitions, motorist information systems.
Additional pedestrian-only bridges may be needed to cross Amtrak/CSX rail line.
Removal of certain streets will be needed to develop stadium and parking sites, creating disconnects in
the street grid.
Downtown parking facilities mainly further than mile from stadium.
6. Recommended Site Improvements - As described on the site comparison chart on pages 28-29, AECOM has
identified approximately $200-$250M in recommended site transportation improvements which consist of the
following costs. As noted otherwise in the report, many of these changes are consistent with the master
- Transit Service $110 - $140M
Light Rail line extension to the corner of South Park and Michigan Avenue.
New Light Rail Terminal Station
- Roadway/Ramps/Walkways $90 - $110M

New Entrance and Exit ramp lanes to I -190 at Seneca St., Louisiana St. and
Hamburg St.
Widening of Louisiana and Hamburg Streets from South Park to I-190 (approx. .3 miles each).
Legend
Vehicle count
XX%
I-190

Transportation
Route
### Arrive
### Depart
Peak Time frame
(2 hours prior to
game time)
Peak Time frame
(1 hour post game
time)
III.

Economic Impacts and Fiscal Impacts resulting from the bullet points listed below. A detailed cost breakdown is
provided in Appendix D.

The existing site appears to provide ample frontage for surface parking as well as on-site ancillary
development which could include retail, office, restaurant, entertainment and hotel.
Identified properties south of the stadium appear to be used as a park for adjacent residential areas. As
such, development of this parcel would likely require open space offsets, possibly along the Buffalo River.
Existing land use north of Park Avenue and east of Louisiana is entirely residential in nature. Further
research would be needed to quantify the stability of these residential areas.
Stadium construction at this site could be used to leverage enhancement of development along the canal
for future development.
Development on this site could provide a basis for eventual redevelopment of land across the Buffalo River
as part of an Outer Harbor development, for higher value use in the future.
C O N C E P T UA L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T S C E N A R I O S
Each of the proposed stadium sites was evaluated in terms of potential ancillary development. The ancillary
development scenarios presented herein are conceptual and represent only certain options of the many development
scenarios that may arise after a stadium site is selected. A preliminary evaluation of NFL stadiums around the country
was conducted to see what has been developed on NFL stadium sites similar to the sites being considered in Buffalo.
Similar concepts for each site were selected based on potential site size, current amenities, proposed development in
the area and what may be possible nearby.
From a review of other stadiums, new projects tend to fall into one of several typologies:
Urban Park / Waterfront sites, where the stadium is fixed with a park context, with limited directly adjacent parking
(Chicago Bears or Cleveland Browns stadiums, for example)
Urban edge sites, typically directly adjacent to the urban core (Detroit Lions, Denver Broncos, or Seattle Seahawks
stadiums for example)
Urban infill sites, typically adjacent to other sports venues and sports districts, albeit with generally less directly
adjacent parking (St. Louis Rams or Carolina Panthers, for example)
Suburban infill sites, occasionally adjacent to other stadiums, with a larger amount of adjacent on-site parking
(Houston Texans stadium, for example)
Suburban sites, typically stand alone, with ample on-site surface parking (New England Patriots stadium, for
example)
Of the array of typologies, an increasing share of urban stadiums are being built in immediate proximity to other sports
venues, sometimes providing support for broader downtown / entertainment districts.
V.
E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T S C E N A R I O S
E C O N O M I C A N D F I S CA L I M PACTS
The construction and ongoing operations of the stadium and ancillary development will have economic and fiscal
impacts for the surrounding area and the state of New York. Ancillary development scenarios are presented on page 56
for each of the shortlisted sites for construction and operations in the year 2020.
The information contained in this section is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from
preliminary research of the market, national industry standards, publicly available information on comparable facilities
and other factors. Given the conceptual nature of the analysis, we are not in a position to provide assurances regarding
the achievability of any presumed ancillary development projected and this analysis should not be relied upon for that
purpose. Furthermore, there will be differences between projected and actual results since events and circumstances
frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences will likely be material, given the conceptual nature of this
exercise.
Our analysis only included a conceptual evaluation of the physical size capacity of each proposed site or off-site parcels
to support the suggested development. As several of the sites include former industrial activities, we have not yet
developed an understanding of existing subsurface environmental (brownfield) conditions that would otherwise make
residential reuse of specific sites cost prohibitive due to remediation costs.
In general, the 3 shortlisted sites closer to downtown lend themselves to higher density hotels, restaurant and retail
development. However, as in the case of the Cobblestone District site, the area surrounding the potential stadium
location is already largely developed, which may constrain potential for ancillary off-site development. The Exchange
Street site itself is constrained, meaning that a majority of potential ancillary development would occur off the stadium
site itself. However with proper site placement of the stadium the site would support a hotel/retail development on the
corner of Michigan Avenue and Swan Street. The South Park site is both considerably larger, and adjacent to a larger
neighborhood where future redevelopment is likely, particularly along the Louisiana Street and Park Avenue Corridors.
However, potential stadium development on this site would need to presume broader city motivation to encourage
redevelopment along those corridors. As well, proposals for extension of existing light rail in this development area
would need to be understood in terms of encouraging higher density transit oriented residential development. The
conceptual estimates shown below for the South Park site presume the impact of these aforementioned factors. At
present, no assumptions have been made for ancillary development, on- or off-site at the Orchard Park site due to the
sites challenges of transportation access and remote location.
The Conceptual Ancillary Development Scenarios table presents conceptual scenarios for both on- and off-site
development for each of the potential sites being evaluated. This information is being provided as examples of what
might be possible both on- and off-site around a stadium and is not a predictor of what will occur once a site is selected
and a stadium built. The table below summarizes initial order-of-magnitude on and off-site ancillary real estate
development that could unfold related to each site.
V.
Conceptual Ancillary Development Scenarios

Cobblestone
On
Concept*
Exchange Street
Off
Site
Site
150
--
Multi-family
--
Single family
On
Off
South Park
On
Orchard Park
Off
On
Off
Site
Site
Site
Site
--
100
100
200
--
--
--
--
200
100
400
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
200
--
--
--
--
--
20,000
20,000
--
--
--
15,000
--
15,000
--
20,000
--
--
--
General (ft2)
--
--
--
40,000
--
25,000
--
--
Big box (ft2)
--
--
--
--
--
250,000
--
--
15,000
35,000
15,000
40,000
25,000
10,000
--
--
Hotel (rooms)
Site
Site
Residential (units)
Office (ft2)
Retail
Team store (ft2)
Restaurant/bar (ft2)
* The real estate uses here are conceptual and represent hypothetical development scenarios based on
evaluation of the proposed site, nearby development and comparable development.
Source: AECOM
M E T H O D O LO GY A N D R E S U LTS
Economic impacts can be described as the sums of economic activity within a defined geographic region, in this case
the State of New York, resulting from an initial change in the economy. This initial change, also referred to as the
direct impact, spurs a series of subsequent indirect and induced activities resulting from interconnected economic
relationships. This spending will create employment for local residents and associated income, as well as tax revenues
to governments from the corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and sales taxes collected.
Economic impacts were measured using multipliers from IMPLAN for the State of New York in 2012. IMPLAN is
economic impact modeling software which contains detailed information on the interactions of the various sectors
within a specified economic region, in this case the state of New York. It is used to measure the effect of a given
change on the local economy, in this case the construction and operations of an NFL stadium and conceptual ancillary
development. The economic multipliers found in IMPLAN measure the re-spending of dollars in an economy and are
used to calculate indirect and induced impacts, the multiplier effect. Fiscal impacts include sales tax, personal income
tax and corporate income tax for the state as well as sales tax collected by Erie County.
Results depicted in the Conceptual Economic and Fiscal Impacts Table on pages 62 and 63, are presented for changes in
output, employment (Jobs) and wages in the state as a result of this shift in spending.
Total Output: This is the total value of goods and services produced across all industry sectors and all stages of
production in the study area.
Jobs: This represents the number of jobs needed to support the given economic activity across all sectors. It
includes all wage and salary employees, both part - and full-time, as well as self-employed, temporary and seasonal
jobs.
Wages: The total payroll costs (including benefits) across all sectors supported by the initial investment. It includes
the wages and salaries of workers who are paid by employers, as well as benefits such as health and life insurance,
retirement payments and non-cash compensation. It also includes proprietary income received by self-employed
individuals.
Economic impact analysis models how dollars move throughout the economy. Since the economy is composed of
interlocking sectors, spending in one sector (i.e., the direct impact) will have indirect impacts on other sectors. For
V.
example, spending at restaurants will create indirect impacts as the restaurants purchase goods and services from
other businesses to provide meals to their customers. In addition, induced impacts occur as employees of all affected
businesses spend their wages on goods and services they need for their households.
Based on the preliminary evaluation of the market and the conceptual ancillary development scenarios, we estimate
economic and fiscal impacts for construction and annual operations at each of the shortlisted sites. In addition, we
examined operating revenues for the stadium based on national averages as well as on-site parking revenue. Parking
revenues were based upon an average cost of $25 dollars per space per event.
As shown on page 62, stadium construction costs at the Cobblestone District site are estimated at $787.6 million. If
ancillary development of a 150 room hotel, a 15,000 square foot team store and 50,000 square feet of restaurant/
bar space open around a stadium at the Cobblestone District site, the estimated construction costs are $45.9 million.
Annually, a stadium, if built on the Cobblestone District site, could generate $72.9 million in operations with an
additional $1.3 million from on-site parking revenues. The proposed ancillary development, if built as conceptualized,
could generate $24.8 million in additional revenues. If developed as outlined, the State of New York could receive $32
million in taxes from construction on this site as well as $5.9 million annually from operations. Fiscal impacts including
estimated state tax revenues, include corporate income tax, personal income state tax and sales tax revenues.
C O N C E P T UA L E C O N O M I C A N D F I S CA L I M PACTS BY P R O P O S E D S I T E
Cobblestone
Exchange
Street
South
Park
Orchard
Park
Construction
Total Costs
Stadium
Ancillary development
Total
$787.6
$784.6
$911.9
$554.9
$45.9
$108.1
$365.0
$0.0
$833.5
$892.8
$1,276.9
$554.9
$1,459.2
$1,565.4
$2,245.5
$971.3
7,900
8,400
11,900
5,300
$632.2
$672.4
$949.8
$420.7
$2.6
$2.9
$4.5
$1.7
$32.0
$34.3
$49.1
$21.3
Economic Impacts*
Total output
Jobs*
Wages
Fiscal Impacts**
Erie County
State of New York
All cost in millions.

Note: Ancillary development estimates are conceptual and are not predictors of development
or performance.
All economic
and fiscal
impacts
are for the
construction
rather
than
an annual
* Since
construction
occurs
over multiple
years,
these job period
estimates
may
represent
the basis.
same
job over several years.
** Fiscal impacts include corporate income tax, personal income tax and sales tax for the State
of New York and sales tax in Erie County.
V.
Annual Operations
Total Operating Revenues
Stadium
$72.9
$72.9
$72.9
$70.3
$1.3
$0.6
$10.1
$10.5
Ancillary development
$24.8
$33.0
$61.2
$0.0
Total annual revenue
$99.0
$106.5
$144.2
$80.8
$185.0
$196.8
$259.3
$158.9
1,500
1,600
2,000
1,400
$104.3
$110.2
$138.3
$98.2
Erie County
$1.6
$1.7
$4.4
$0.4
State of New York
$5.9
$6.2
$9.6
$4.4
On-site parking
Economic Impacts*
Total output
Jobs*
Wages
Fiscal Impacts**
All revenues in millions.

Note: Ancillary development estimates are conceptual and are not predictors of development or
performance.
* All
economic
and fiscal
impacts
are presented
an annual
basis. may represent the same
Since
construction
occurs
over multiple
years, on
these
job estimates
job over several years.
** Fiscal impacts include corporate income tax, personal income tax and sales tax for the State
of New York and sales tax in Erie County.
The economic success of a stadium and any ancillary development is contingent on many factors including local
market demographics and socioeconomics characteristics, management, the marketability to potential events and
funding, among other things. Once a stadium site is chosen, AECOM recommends completing a detailed feasibility
study evaluating both the stadium and potential ancillary development to determine the needs of the region and what
Of the 13 sites proposed and evaluated, 9 sites were not shortlisted. It is important to note that failure of a site to be
included on the shortlist does not constitute a definitive dismissal of such site, but is instead an indication based on
data evaluated to date that such sites are not as appealing as the shortlisted sits. In the case of each non-shortlisted
site, certain obstacles contributed to the decision not to shortlist such sites. In some cases, single deal-breaker
criterion resulted in a site note being shortlisted (e.g., the site size and/or configuration is not sufficient for an NFL
stadium footprint). In other cases, a series of criteria contributed in the aggregate to a site not being shortlisted (e.g.,
extremely high infrastructure development and related costs, lack of connection with Buffalo icons and lack of access
to public transportation). Should new information including team ownership input become available, it could result in
further conversations and evaluation with respect to non-shortlisted sites. A summary matrix of the 13 proposed sites
and the criteria used to evaluate such sites is set forth in Section III of this analysis, and criteria identified in red in such
matrix (either in isolation or in the aggregate) were the principal drivers for such sites not being shortlisted. When such
criteria were encountered, the site was put on the Non-shortlisted list and not evaluated for other criteria. Below is a
listing of the 9 major potential stadium site locations which did not make the short list, presented in alphabetical order.
B ATAV I A S I T E
The Batavia site, a rural site located at the intersection of Highway 90 and local Highway 98. There is little definition to
the boundaries of this particular site however it was anticipated to be bordered by Highway 98 to the west and State
Street Road to the east, Interstate highway 90 to the south and an undetermined border to the north. This site offers
marginal benefit to Bills fans that the other sites evaluated do not offer. The sites distance from the core Bills fan base
in Buffalo would result in long commute times and creates increased pressure on I-90, the single main artery used for
access. The site also offers little in the way of synergies with other entertainment venues or ancillary development.
CENTRAL TERMINAL
The Central Terminal site, located at the intersection of Memorial Drive and Paderewski Drive, has great architectural
potential, but does not have sufficient area to accommodate an NFL stadium footprint nor the transportation systems
to provide proper access without major disruption to the existing neighborhood fabric. Its boundaries were identified
as Memorial Drive, and Paderewski to the west and north, Curtiss Street to the east, the active freight rail line to the
south. While the sites overall acreage may equal some of the other urban sites, the narrow configuration of this site
makes it extremely difficult to accommodate the stadium footprint in its proper orientation. As the site would operate
as a suburban site, a larger challenge would be the lack of the necessary area (100+ acres) to self-support the parking
inventory. Further, the roadways accessing the site system are currently only at a residential scale and over 1-1/2 miles
to a major roadway system.
VI.
N O N S H O R T L I ST E D S I T E S
Because of its location, the site lacks the potential synergies associated with other entertainment developments as
there are no significant developments within a 2 mile radius. Thus there would be no incentive that would spur ancillary
development opportunities.
L A S A LL E PA R K
The La Salle Park, located along the lakefront and I-190 between Porter Avenue and Virginia Street, was another
proposed waterfront site evaluated. Like the Outer Harbor site, this site has access challenges that will require
infrastructure additions, which would include the addition of two new ramp systems to access the highway 190 and
would negatively impact the nearby residential neighborhoods. Even more limiting, the La Salle Park Site has virtually
no pedestrian access to any of the downtown Buffalo amenities or parking inventory, only a single pedestrian bridge
currently exists. Further, as a waterfront site, there are likely environmental challenges that would need to be evaluated
more fully but are outside of the scope of this analysis. Ultimately the combination of access challenges, environmental
challenges and lack of ancillary development potential prevented this site from being shortlisted.
N I A G A R A FA LLS S I T E
The site with the potential for the greatest regional impact of a new stadium would be in the City of Niagara Falls,
located about 20 miles north of downtown Buffalo in the adjoining County of Niagara. The site is located less than a
mile from the actual waterfalls, is comprises 136 acres of property under single ownership, and is bordered by Niagara
Street to the north, Buffalo Avenue to the south, 8th street and the Seneca Casino to the west, and Portage Road to the
east. Niagara Falls hosts an average of eight million visitors a year and serves as an iconic landmark for Western New
York and the world, often shown on national broadcasts of Bills games. The site would serve as a natural complement
to the Niagara Falls downtown tourism district, which could serve as a pre-/post-game entertainment zone; and being
in a largely-cleared redevelopment area, it would not be hampered by potential neighborhood impacts compared to
other sites considered. It would also place the stadium venue relatively closer to the emerging fan base in Toronto and
Southern Ontario; the site is about 10 city blocks from the international border and is at the midpoint of the regions four
vehicular bridge crossings to Canada.
While locating a new stadium in downtown Niagara Falls could significantly leverage a number of current assets and
activities there, the greatest obstacles to this becoming a shortlisted site are a number of deficiencies related to
available institutional and built infrastructures to serve the needs of such a facility. For example, because it is located
in Niagara County, the site would not benefit from organizational capacity and institutional knowledge of stadium
operations developed over the last 40+ years by Erie County government for public safety, traffic control, and emergency
response activities on game days.
Secondly, while Niagara Falls may be a more central location to access Southern Ontario, it would move the stadium
venue further away from the main concentration of Bills fans in Buffalo and its immediate suburbs, requiring sufficient
transportation capacity to handle stadium movements to/from the south and east of the proposed site. The major
expressway providing such road access is I-190 (Niagara Section of the NYS Thruway), a largely four-lane facility that
traverses Grand Island on its route to Niagara Falls via two pairs of toll bridges (the North and South Grand Island
bridges). Traffic capacity issues currently occur at toll plazas at each bridge pair, particularly in the heavy summer
tourist season. Preliminary investigations of transportation needs indicate that, at a minimum, the collection of
tolls would need to be removed or suspended for game day traffic in order to expedite flow. However more likely, two
additional lanes of capacity would also be necessary on I-190 at each bridge pair and across Grand Islandsimilar
to the six-lane section of I-190 in downtown Buffaloto sufficiently handle stadium-related flows in this corridor.
Additional roadway improvements would also be required to the LaSalle Expressway and Buffalo Avenue in Niagara
Falls. Similarly, transit capacity in the region (both bus and rail) is less heavily developed in Niagara County than at
urban sites in Buffalo rail access to Niagara Falls is located two miles north of the proposed site and the City does not
currently have a major bus facility in the downtown district.
The costs of making such improvements could well exceed $1 billion, as well as affect annual toll revenues used to
maintain I-190 and the North/South Grand Island bridges. While such improvements could have regional/superregional implications (e.g., expanding road capacity at the Grand Island bridges could facilitate international trade
and tourism flows), no significant plans are currently being considered to expand capacity the various connections
between Buffalo and Niagara Falls in the foreseeable future. If in the future, prior to final site selection, such plans for
improvement are developed and funded, this sites candidacy should be reconsidered, as the lack of infrastructure (and
the related cost of such infrastructure) is the principal reason for the exclusion of this site from the short list.
OUTER HARBOR
The Outer Harbor site, located along Buffalos water edge along Highway 5 downtown, has great potential for iconic
architecture. The site is bordered by Lake Erie to the west, Highway 5 and Fuhrmann Boulevard to the east, the Buffalo
Boat harbor to the south, and the Wilkenson Nature Preserve to the north. The site however would require extensive
utility infrastructure and transportation developments in order to be viable for development. While the exact costs of
such improvements would require a more detailed analysis, required improvements would include multiple new bridge
development, utility improvements and the possible relocation of the General Mills plant. Plans proposed by some local
developers call for 4 new connections from downtown Buffalo with a total of 8 new bridges spanning the Buffalo River
and outer canal to complete the connection to the Outer Harbor site. Proponents of the site have suggested that the
costs of such bridge improvements alone could be in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, before taking into account
VI.
any issues identified in environmental reports. Thus, the actual costs of the bridge improvements could exceed even the
high estimates of project proponents. Not only could these improvements render the site cost-prohibitive, but would
also significantly increase the likelihood of delay as the approval process for such infrastructure could take years.
Further, environmental considerations also must be considered for any waters edge development such as Outer Harbor,
though a detailed analysis of such environmental considerations is beyond the scope of this analysis. At minimum,
there are reports of regular occurrences of extreme weather conditions, including strong wind chills and near white out
conditions, during the NFL season at this site that could negatively impact fan experience and playing conditions at
the site. There is also concern the placement of a stadium on the Outer Harbor site may be inconsistent with a series
of current and past public policies and plans (e.g., City Comprehensive Plan, Brownfields Opportunity Area plans, Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan, City zoning and upcoming Green Code, etc.), as well as the master planning process
conducted by the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation, a subsidiary of Empire State Development. All of these
policies suggest a more diverse mixed-use development strategy to the Outer Harbor involving multiple water-enhanced
uses in lieu of a parking intensive use such as a stadium. In the aggregate, the factors described above and discussed
more detail herein weigh against the construction of a stadium at the Outer Harbor site.
REPUBLIC STEEL SITE
The site of the former Republic Steel fabrication plant was evaluated, however with the future development of a
technology office park on the site, much the usable land is already committed to other uses. The site is bounded by
South Park Avenue to the north, active rail lines and Tifft Street to the south, the Buffalo River to the west and Hopkins
Street to the east. Further, the remaining uncommitted area of the site includes the location of a large residual waste
landfill. These factors, combined with the need for major infrastructure improvements, eliminated this site from the
shortlist.
TO N A W A N D A S T R E E T S I T E
The Tonawanda Street site is situated between the intersection of I-90 and Scajaquada Expressway on the south and
Tonawanda Street & Amherst on the north. The site is also bounded by a rail line to the west, the Niagara River on the
south, and a creek along the eastern edge adjacent to and under the Scajaquada Expressway. While the site is large
enough to accommodate an NFL stadium footprint and some parking (including potential shared parking spaces at
the neighboring SUNY Buffalo State), vehicular access to and from the site is very limited and there is no viable public
transportation options associated with the site. Development of vehicular access to the site appears difficult and cost
prohibitive. Moreover, while the site is within Buffalo city limits, it does not present the ancillary development potential
of the other three urban sites and their unique proximity to the downtown core and public transit.
U N I V E R S I T Y O F B U F FA LO ( U A B )
A site at the University of Buffalo campus, located in Amherst, was evaluated but did not make the shortlist due to size
and operational constraints. The only area of campus viable for accommodating an NFL stadium is the location of the
existing football stadium, at Millersport Highway and therefore the facility presumably would become a shared NFL/
collegiate venue. Such shared venues rarely accommodate both levels of attendance well and usually create a less than
desirable game environment for the university games. In addition, AECOM understands that campus parking inventories
could not be considered for use for NFL games and that other resources for parking are not walking distance from the
potential stadium site.
WEST SENECA SITE
The West Seneca site, located at the intersection of Highway 219 and Ridge Road, has the potential to host a Multipurpose stadium due to current development plans for a mixture of multi-use, medium density development adjacent
to the potential stadium site. However, notwithstanding the development plans, the completion of the contemplated
development is uncertain and, but for the contemplated development, the West Seneca site offers limited value add
features compared to the shortlisted sites. The stadium is currently proposed to be located on un-acquired land
adjacent to the development at the corner of Orchard Park Road and Ridge Road with the proposed Buffalo Bills
Way bordering the stadium on the west. Currently, parking inventory appears to be insufficient for stadium use and
therefore other parcels to the north and south will need to be acquired to achieve parking counts necessary. There
is also concern the placement of a stadium on the West Seneca site may be inconsistent with the overall economic
development strategy as proposed by the WNY Regional Economic Development Council.
With only a single means of access from I-90 currently, the West Seneca development concept plans for additional 4
lane roadways to be developed in the place of a the current rail line running north-south and bisecting the site. The new
required roadways are proposed to connect to I-90 on the south and the Aurora Expressway (Highway 400) to the north.
The proposed arterials are currently planned only at a conceptual level and the route north is planned within the flood
plain of the Cazenovia Creek.
Further study is required of the key development issues such as the necessary roadway infrastructure costs and
costs associated with providing the requisite parking. These efforts would need to account for necessary right-ofways widths, acquisitions, utility relocations, and ultimately construction costs to recommend the site as suitable to
accommodate a new NFL facility. Due to the uncertainty associated with the future development on this site, the site
was not shortlisted at this time.
VI.
OT H E R S I T E S C O N S I D E R E D
Certain other remote sites were considered but not analyzed in detail, as their distance from the core of Bills fan base in
Buffalo would make for long commute times and place increased pressure on the single main arterial used for access.
Other sites considered and not made part of the shortlist include:

Greyhound Bus Terminal site Site was eliminated due to lack of requisite size to
accommodate the stadium in its proper orientation. The site located in downtown is bordered by Washington Street
to the west, Elm Street to the east, Clinton Street to the north and South Division Street to the south. In addition
to its size constraints, the site would have interrupted the major arterial connectors of Oak Street and Elm Street,
connecting the current sports district to Highway 33.
Bethlehem Steel site- Site was eliminated due to proximity to current and potential future development that would
not be fully compatible with stadium uses. The 1,100-acre brownfield site, created by the closure of the steel plant
in 1982, is being progressively cleaned up and repurposed for a number of new industrial, power generation, and
intermodal and transshipment uses. For example, the Port of Buffalo officially moved from the Buffalo Outer Harbor
site to this sites deep-water port facilities in the late-1980s. Steel Winds, a 14-turbine wind farm was established
along the sites Lake Erie waterfront in 2007. Rail/truck staging and shipment facilities are actively running in the
southern portion of the site. Most recently, in July 2014, a new power project called Steel Sun was announced, which
will involve the installation of a 3,000-panel solar array at the site. Site was eliminated due to commuting distance
of almost 5 miles from the central entertainment distance from lack of synergies with potential development.
Located south of downtown between Highway 5 to its east border, and Lake Erie as its east border, the site would
have no connection to other entertainment areas of Buffalo and would require infrastructure improvements to
achieve proper access routes.
In connection with any further action regarding stadium site planning, AECOM recommends further evaluations be
undertaken with respect to certain key areas. These were outside of the scope of this analysis, which was focused
on conceptual planning and macro environmental, aesthetic, cost and infrastructure issues. The following is an
abbreviated list of items for more detailed study:

1. Site Investigations
a. Land survey
b. Geotechnical analysis
c. Brownfield / historic contamination potential
d. Utility location/accessibility
e. ROWs, easements, and street lines
f. Ownership

2. City/County Permitting/Approvals
a. Zoning requirements/restrictions

-Bulk/Floor Area Ratio restrictions
-Appropriateness of zoning in adjacent development areas
-Building height limitations

b. Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement
-Traffic congestion
-Noise
-Light spillage

-Visual impacts and community character
-Wetlands/natural resources

-Impacts to provision of utilities
-Mitigation of identified impacts
c. Floodplain & floodway management
d. Site plan review and public review/participation
3. State/Federal Permitting/Approvals
a. US Army Corp of Engineers
b. NYS Department of State
c. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
VII.
F U R T H E R E VA LUAT I O N S
The extent and nature of any further evaluations will vary from site to site. For example, a site in a former industrial area
or on a former landfill (e.g., the Republic Steel site will have a greater need for environmental studies to assess potential
contamination issues. Sites near the waterfront (e.g., the LaSalle Park site or the Outer Harbor site) will introduce a
variety of specific reviews including consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, flood plan impacts and, if
the site requires work on adjacent bulk heading, permitting from the US Army Corp of Engineers.
VIII.
E VA LUAT I O N T E A M
AECOM is one of the worlds largest, most comprehensive design and planning consultancies, combining architecture,
engineering, environmental planning, economics, and urban design. AECOMs services include integrated solutions
for regional and local planning, architecture, landscape architecture, economics, sustainability, urban regeneration
strategies, community development, land management, water and natural resource planning, environmental regulatory
reviews, and habitat creation and restoration.
In connection with the preparation of this analysis, the AECOM team conducted investigative meetings with key
stakeholders, developers, and governmental groups to assemble the analysis in this report. Included in the stakeholder
meetings conducted were members of:
Empire State Development
USA Niagara Development Corporation
County of Erie, Department of Environmental Planning
County of Erie Executive offices
City of Buffalo Planning Department
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
Larkin Development Group
Other Private Developer Organizations
To provide the most comprehensive evaluation possible for this analysis, AECOM assembled a project team equipped
with strong planning and programming backgrounds as well as significant sports facility architectural design
experience. The skills brought to the table offer significant planning and evaluation components, with a marriage of the
best NFL facility expertise and local building implementation knowledge.
Key members of the AECOM team included:

Jon Niemuth
Jon is AECOMs Sports Market Sector Leader for the Americas. For Jon, ground-breaking design is about more than
form and image. In his 18 years at AECOM, he has executed designs with both wide ranging architectural and cultural
influences, while ensuring that each design integrates with todays modern amenities and flexibility. Jon is the rare
architect who excels at all levels of sports design both domestically and internationally for collegiate, professional
and civic clients. His projects range from the Seattle Seahawks Century Link Field, Cincinnati Bengals Stadium Study,
Cleveland NFL Stadium Study and Detroit Lions Domed Stadium Study to the University of Oregon Autzen Stadium
Renovation, University of Connecticut Rentschler Field and Washington State University Martin Stadium Expansion. Jon
has been extremely successful in delivering to clients successful, world-class design solutions that address diverse
goals and priorities, while rigorously adhering to budget- and schedule-driven objectives. His focus on projects is at the
early planning, programming and budget creation stages; however, Jon remains personally involved in all projects of the
practice through a studio style direction and oversight of a talented team of project designers.
Christopher Mitchell
Christopher, a registered architect and a LEED Accredited Professional with 20+ years of diverse project experience,
maintains every project can be significant with an appropriate design approach. His project experience spans
residential, retail, industrial manufacturing, sports facilities, museum, civic and theatrical design. After graduating from
Kansas State University in 1992, Christopher began his career designing sports stadia for notable local sports firms
such as HOK Sport (now Populous) and Ellerbe Becket (now AECOM). Projects of note include the San Francisco Giants
new MLB Stadium, the Seattle Seahawks new NFL stadium and the University of Oregons Autzen Stadium expansion.
Paul Griesemer
A nationally recognized leader in sports design, Paul has dedicated himself to pioneering the development of quality
sports facilities specifically focused on football stadiums and training facilities. With more than 30 years of experience
practicing architecture, his experience spans stadiums, convention facilities, Olympic venues and multi-purpose
facilities, including recreation and training facilities. Paul has led the facility design efforts for 12 NFL franchises, many
as repeat clients, universities and stadium efforts in several countries.
Pauls relevant project experience includes the Louisiana Superdome renovation, the redevelopment of Lambeau Field
for the Green Bay Packers, improvements to FedExField for the Washington Redskins and EverBank Field improvements
VIII.
for the Jacksonville Jaguars. Additionally, Paul has performed a key role in the concept design of a new shared
retractable-roofed Minnesota Football Stadium for the NFL Vikings and the $90 million expansion of Autzen Stadium for
the University of Oregon. Paul has also led the design of Edwards Jones Dome in St. Louis, Raymond James Stadium in
Tampa, Florida and EverBank Field in Jacksonville, Florida while with another firm.
David Stone
David joined AECOM Economics (formerly Economics Research Associates) in 2007 and has more than 10 years of
experience in the analysis of real estate projects. His consulting practice focuses primarily on market and financial
feasibility and economic and fiscal impact analyses of sports and recreation projects for public agencies, private
developers, sports franchises, financial institutions and colleges and universities. He also has experience with a variety
of other project types, including convention centers, hotels, amphitheaters and others.
Steve Kelly
Steve has more than 25 years experience in the cost management profession, working on behalf of building contractors
and cost consulting firms. Steve is a leader with the Davis Langdon Sports Group with experience working on
high-profile sports projects, including stadia as well as a full range of facilities for competition and spectators and
high-performance centers for training and the development of sports excellence. During the last six years, he has
participated in more than 125 sports and recreation projects of varying sizes and degrees of complexity, including the
Rose Bowl renovation, three Major League Soccer stadiums and Dodger Stadium renovation and expansion. Steve also
works with our international Sports Group, which specializes in major global games/sports facilities.
Alan Harwood
Alan is a Principal and Vice President with AECOM and has worked in the Washington area office since 1987. He is a
certified planner with more than 29 years of award-winning experience in community revitalization, urban planning,
community revitalization and environmental impact analysis associated with major sports facilities. He brings excellent
instincts, a strategic approach, strong leadership skills and a personal commitment to each project.
Alan has successfully completed challenging projects for a variety of clients, including Major League Soccer (MLS),
National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB) and National Football League (NFL) teams and
facilities. A particular expertise of Alans is the economic development of parcels and communities surrounding the
facilities. He has been involved with projects that have won more than 25 awards since 1990.
Gary Davies
Gary, with more than 30 years of experience in traffic operations and transportation planning, is an expert in regional,
county and municipal transportation planning studies, as well as analyses and planning efforts relating to traffic
simulation, emissions estimation, travel demand management and employer trip reduction programs. He is a recognized
leader in the development and application of major travel models and software systems to analyze a wide range of
transportation operations and performance.
Shelly Fialkoff
Shelly is highly proficient in the transportation industry as a project manager and transportation engineer. He
has served as deputy director of planning for the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority and was
responsible for the planning of new facilities for both rapid transit and commuter rail systems. His responsibilities
included supervision of federally-funded transportation programs. Mr. Fialkoffs transit experience includes conceptual
feasibility studies for new and high technology (AGT) transportation systems, transit and commuter rail stations,
new transit expansion projects, environmental impact analyses of transportation projects and transit related capital
planning studies.
James Kaczor
Mr. Kaczor has over 25 years of professional experience in the engineering and consulting industry, and is responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the Central and Western York offices including Amherst (Buffalo), Ithaca, and Syracuse,
New York. He has been responsibly involved in all aspects of engineering and consulting including the development,
execution, assessment and reporting of civil construction, geotechnical investigation and waste management projects.
Mr. Kaczors typical projects include remedial design investigations, environmental assessment investigations,
hydrogeologic and geologic studies, review and assessment of remedial design packages and remedial contractor
oversight.
VIII.
IX. A P P E N D I C E S
A P P E N D I C E S
A. NFL CASE STUDIES

B. BASE NFL PROGRAM

i. OPEN AIR FOOTBALL STADIUM
ii.MULTI-PURPOSE STADIUM

C. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
D. RELATIVE SITE COST ANALYSIS

E. RALPH WILSON RENOVATION POTENTIAL
NFL Stadium Comparison
FEATURES
Year Opened (Renovated)
Capacity (total current/future)
Club Capacity (current/future)
Suites
Suite Capacity
% of Sideline Seats
% of Capacity in the Lower Bowl
Club Lounge
Concessions (general spectators)
Ratio (Fixed P.O.S. to Spectator Incl. Clubs)
Novelty Store
# of Booths
# of Writer Locations
Lambeau Field
2002
71,800
6,200
Bank of America
Stadium
1996
73,258
11,358
158
2,270
53
45%
110,000 sq ft
FedEx Field
1997
80,116
15,802
Raymond James
Stadium
1998
66,321
12,000
195 (3 Levels)
2,500
65%
62%
83,320 sq ft
304 Fixed POS
32 Stands
124 Portable
174
3,000
52
n/a
97,671 sq ft
180 Fixed (Main)
107 Fixed (Upper)
TBD Portables
292 Fixed POS

47 Portable
244
5,118
51%
40%
156,270 sq ft
328 Fixed POS
42 Stands
75 Portable
1:200 (Main & Upper)

and 1:110 (Club)
1:178
1:221
Yes
Nat'l TV + 16
217/271
Yes
Nat'l TV +10
154/200
Yes
Nat'l + 13
192/240
CenturyLink
Field
2002
67,000 / 72,000
7,500 / 10,000
98
12 Field
2,106
61%
46%
159,100 sq ft
M&T Bank Stadium

1998
69,084
108 8,196
(2 Levels:
52 Upper & 56
Lower)
2,410
52%
First Energy
Stadium
1999
73,200
8,600
312 Fixed POS

37 Stands
245 Fixed POS

44 Stands
147
12-50 per suite
44%
33%
111,260 sq ft
214 Fixed POS
33 Stands
71 Portable
1:181
1:182
1:230
1:130
8 Permanent Stands
Nat'l TV + 14
225/280
Yes
Nat'l TV + 8
175/225
No
Nat'l TV + 10
Yes
Nat'l TV + 10
144
83,320 sq ft
Paul Bro
Stadium
2000
65,600
7,600
114
1,728
70%
42.50%
~80,000 s
407 Fixed P
56 Stand
1:147
Team Store
Fixed Nov
Nat'TV +
156
* unconfirm
Concourse Width (Main)
50' min - 110' max
30' min - 76' max 50' min - 72' max
44' min - 80' max
40' min - 90' max
40' min - 64' max
26' min - 104' max 30' min - 60
Concourse Width (Upper)

Building Area
24' min - 64' max

32'
30' min - 52' max
1.6m square feet 1.68m square feet 1.65m square feet
11 Passenger
8 Passenger
2 Service
2 Service
20
26' min - 48' max

1.41m square feet
10 Passenger
3 Service
24' min - 32' max

1.6m square feet
Elevators
32' min - 35' max

1.63m square feet
12 Passenger
1 Service
12' min - 32' max 30'min - 60

1.47m square feet 1.88m squar
9 Passenger
10 Passen
2 Service
2 Servic
Escalators
4 (Club)
TBD
$238,000,000
Public & Private
Club Restaurant/Bar
Approximate
Construction Costs
(including renovations) Year of
construction dollars
ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Funding Sources
No
20
4 Sports Bars
2 Restaurants
Yes
No
Yes
No
$269,000,000
$275,000,000
$168,000,000
$290,000,000
$220,000,000
$320,000,000
$400,000,
Private (sale of
seat licenses);
City $40m;
County $10m;
Ericcson $20m
25.6% Public
74% Private
100% Public
69.8% Public
30.2 Private
Tax Exempt Revenue

Bonds, Lottery &
Ravens
74.7% Public
25.3% Private
1/2 cent sal
Metropolitan Size
Average Attendance
Sub Urban Site
Mixed Use Planned
Ancillary Development
Urban Site
No Ancillary
Revenue to team
Sub Urban Site
Sub Urban Site

Adjancent
abandoned mall
being considered.
Urban Site
Urban Site
Mixed Use under No Ancillary Revenue
development
to team
Urban Site
Urban S
Mixed U
Planne
dium
s:
6
OS
A .
First Energy
Stadium
1999
73,200
8,600
Paul Brown
Stadium
2000
65,600
7,600
147
12-50 per suite
44%
33%
111,260 sq ft
214 Fixed POS
33 Stands
71 Portable
114
1,728
70%
42.50%
~80,000 sq ft
407 Fixed POS*
56 Stands
1:130
Yes
Nat'l TV + 10
144
Georgia Dome
1992
71,500
4,600
Soldier Field
2003
62,000
8,740
Ford Field
2002
65,000
8,600
Reliant Stadium
2002
69,500/70,000
7,514
HHH Metrodome
1982
64,121
0
164
1,714
45.70%
43%
44,500 sq. ft.
138
2,660
64%
62%
63,888 sq. ft.
132
2,232
61%
58%
112
1,714
45.70%
43%
0
* unconfirmed
248 Fixed POS

40 Stands
320 Fixed POS

34 Stands
56 Stands
33 Portable
166
3,020
52%
37%
96,000 sq. ft.
328 Fixed POS
42 Stands
75 Portable
243 Fixed POS
1:147
Team Store + 8
Fixed Novelty
Nat'TV + 6
156
No Store + 12
Stands
National TV + 9
109
1:203
1:256
2 Team Stores
Nat'l TV + 12
225
No
Nat'l + 13
175
25' min - 30' max
40' min - 75' max
max
26' min - 104' max 30' min - 60' max
30'-0''
max
eet
12' min - 32' max 30'min - 60' max

1.47m square feet 1.88m square feet
9 Passenger
10 Passenger
2 Service
2 Service
19'-0''
1.6m square feet
8 Passenger
2 Service
enue
y&
enue
1:160
Team Store
Nat'l TV + 11
262
26' min - 52' max

26' min - 60' max
1.5m square feet 1.83m square feet 1.96m square feet
7 Passenger
9 Passenger
4 Service
16
2 Service
N F L CA S E ST U D I E S
Lucas Oil
Stadium
2008
63,000
7,100
Univ
of
Phoenix
2006
63000/72000
7,400
137
88
78,000
148 Stands
33 Portable
310 fixed POS
No
National TV + 8
109
Team Store
Team Store
24'-0''
30' min - 80' max
29'-0''
1 Passenger
2 Service
Ralph Wilson
Stadium
1973
74,000
6,878
121
1,936
74%
68%
100,938 sq. ft.
114 Fixed Main
56 Fixed Upper
104 Fixed Club
1:243
Team Store
Nat'l TV + 8
98
18' min - 48' max
1.8m square feet
1.7m square feet
18' min - 39' max

1.02m square feet
11
10
2 Passenger
12
14
18
3 Service
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
$320,000,000
$400,000,000
$214,000,000
$635,000,000
$500,000,000
$425,000,000
$720,000,000
$500,000,000
74.7% Public
25.3% Private
1/2 cent sales tax
100% Public
63% Public
37% Private
Public & Private
25.6% Public
74% Private
Public & Private
Public & Private
Public
Urban Site
Mixed Use
Planned
Urban Site New

Stadium
Development
underway
Urban Site
No Ancillary
Revenue to team
Urban Site
No Ancillary
Revenue to team
Urban Site
No Ancillary
Revenue to team
Sub Urban Site

Adjacent to Westgate
Entertainment District
Sub Urban Site
Urban Site
Sub Urban Site

Part of Astro
World
Development
New Stadium
under
Development with
Ancillary
Development
AECOM 2014
NFLOpenAirStadiumProgramSummary
OpenAirFootball
CATEGORYONE:SPECTATORFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALSPECTATORFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
737,375
CATEGORYTWO:FOODSERVICE&MERCHANDISEFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALCONCESSIONS/MERCHANDISEFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
132,102
CATEGORYTHREE:TEAMFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALTEAMFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
53,898
CATEGORYFOUR:MEDIAFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALMEDIAFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
33,678
CATEGORYFIVE:ADMINISTRATIONFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALADMINISTRATIVEFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
9,738
CATEGORYSIX:OPERATIONSFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALOPERATIONSFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
341,020
GSF
Remarks
409,224
CATEGORYSEVEN:CIRCULATION
Category
Description
SUBTOTALCIRCULATION
TOTALSTADIUMSQUAREFOOTAGE
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
408,804
GSF
Remarks
490,565
1,866,580
B.
BASE NFL PROGRAM
NFLMultiPurposeStadiumProgramSummary
MultiPurpose
CATEGORYONE:SPECTATORFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALSPECTATORFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
794,015
CATEGORYTWO:FOODSERVICE&MERCHANDISEFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALCONCESSIONS/MERCHANDISEFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
135,702
CATEGORYTHREE:TEAMFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALTEAMFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
53,898
CATEGORYFOUR:MEDIAFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALMEDIAFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
33,678
CATEGORYFIVE:ADMINISTRATIONFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALADMINISTRATIVEFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
GSF
Remarks
9,738
CATEGORYSIX:OPERATIONSFACILITIES
Category
Description
SUBTOTALOPERATIONSFACILITIES
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
481,020
GSF
Remarks
577,224
CATEGORYSEVEN:CIRCULATION
Category
Description
SUBTOTALCIRCULATION
TOTALSTADIUMSQUAREFOOTAGE
Unit
S.F.
TotalNSF
408,804
GSF
Remarks
449,684
2,053,939
C.
T R I P G E N E R AT I O N A N A LYS I S
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Executive Summary
Project Overview and Cost Drivers
This report considers potential costs for a new 65,000 seat football stadium for the Bills in Buffalo, New York. Several
sites are contemplated in this report, along with variations on the basic stadium model. Potential costs for each site are
reported on our Site Option Summary and each begins with a stadium which, like the current facility, has no roof. In this
baseline, we also consider the development of a site "apron" which would theoretically extend to 25' beyond the
building exterior walls. Variables which are contemplated for the facility and which affect overall costs are the inclusion
of space and programmatic features which would allow the stadium to function for trade shows and the like (the "Dual
Purpose" variable). Subsequent to that, we consider the options of a roof which covers the entire facility and then
another which considers costs if that roof could open & close mechanically. Lastly, we consider how the cost model
would be affected by the site variable - size primarily and then, in one case, the desire to raise the event level to above
flood plain level in that specific locale.
Summary
AECOM
In summary, potential costs range by over $110M and depend greatly on the presence or not of a roof and the extent of
Concept Cost Plan June 4, 2014
site likely to be developed. Anticipated costs will also vary if the construction start date and duration are extended
beyond that currently contemplated (June 2015 and 16 months respectively).
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
$ x 1,000
Site Option Summary

Description
Base Stadium & Site - Open Air Football No Roof
Cobblestone
District
Exchange
Street
South Park
Site
Orchard Park
Site
520,362
520,362
520,362
520,362
62,741
62,741
62,741
188,589
188,589
188,589
Additional Premium for Moveable Roof
62,815
Site Development - based on site size
8,906
5,949
70,385
28,081
FF & E allowance
7,000
7,000
7,000
6,500
787,598
784,640
911,891
554,943
Premium for Dual Purpose Program

Premium for Fixed Roof
D.
AECOM
Cost Plan June 4, 2014

R E L AT I V E S I T EConcept
C O ST
A N A LYS I S
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Overall Summary Baseline
SF
B1
Open Air Stadium
TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

S1
Arena Related Site
TOTAL SITEWORK
Escalation To Midpoint Included Above
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
TOTAL
1,870,514
272.70
510,082
1,870,514
272.70
510,082
745,478
13.79
10,280
10,280
TOTAL BUILDING AND SITEWORK

Z30
$/SF
520,362
0.00%
0
520,362
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium Areas & Control Quantities
SF
SF
Areas
Program Areas
Program Areas
Enclosed
911,109
Program Type 1
100
Sheltered
375,000
Program Type 2
200
Field
132,000
Program Type 2
200
Seating
452,405
Program Type 3
300
Level 6
Program Type 6
600
Program Type 7
Subtotal of Programmed Areas
1,870,514
Structured Areas
Program Areas
On Grade
549,703
Program Type 1
100
Suspended
868,162
Program Type 2
200
Seating
452,649
Program Type 3
300
Covered Area 2
Subtotal of Structured Areas
TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA
Program Type 10
1,870,514
Efficiency:
0%
2,900
Ratio to GFA
Control Quantities
Functional Units
65,028 Seats
Number of Stories (x1,000)
5 EA
Gross Floor Area
0.035
0.003
1,870,514 SF
1.000
Enclosed Area
911,109 SF
0.487
Footprint Area
549,703 SF
0.294
Gross Wall Area
500,716 SF
0.268
Retaining Wall Area
0 SF
Finished Wall Area

Windows or Glazing
13%
Roof & Deck Area - Flat

Roof Glazing Area
Interior Partitions
Elevators (x10,000)
Electrical Load
500,716 SF
0.268
65,093 SF
0.035
555,635 SF
0.297
0 SF
Finished Area
58,738 LF
0.031
911,109 SF
0.487
14 EA
0.075
21,000 KW
0.011
Program Areas
Program Areas
Enclosed
911,109
Program Type 1
100
Sheltered
375,000
Program Type 2
200
Field
132,000
Program Type 2
200
Seating
452,405
Program Type 3
300
Level 6
Program Type 6
600
Program Type 7
Subtotal of Programmed Areas

Structured Areas
D.
1,870,514
R E L AT I Program
V E S I TAreas
E C O ST A N A LYS I S
On Grade
549,703
Program Type 1
100
Suspended
868,162
Program Type 2
200
Seating
452,649
Program Type 3
300
Covered Area 2
Subtotal of Structured Areas
TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA
Program Type 10
1,870,514
Efficiency:
0%
2,900
Ratio to GFA
Control Quantities
Functional Units
65,028 Seats
Number of Stories (x1,000)

Gross Floor Area
0.035
5 EA
0.003
1,870,514 SF
1.000
Enclosed Area
911,109 SF
0.487
Footprint Area
549,703 SF
0.294
Gross Wall Area
500,716 SF
0.268
Retaining Wall Area
0 SF
Finished Wall Area

Windows or Glazing
Roof & Deck Area - Flat
Roof Glazing Area
Interior Partitions
Finished Area
Elevators (x10,000)
Electrical Load
13%
500,716 SF
0.268
65,093 SF
0.035
555,635 SF
0.297
0 SF
58,738 LF
0.031
911,109 SF
0.487
14 EA
0.075
21,000 KW
0.011
AECOM
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium Summary
%
$/SF
Gross Area:
1,870,514 SF
TOTAL
A10
Foundations
7%
19.72
36,896
A20
Basement Construction
0%
0.00
Substructure
7%
19.72
36,896
B10
Superstructure
16%
42.69
79,860
B20
Exterior Enclosure
5%
14.52
27,160
B30
Roofing
1%
2.96
5,545
Shell
22%
60.18
112,564
C10
Interior Construction
7%
19.72
36,893
C20
Stairways
0%
1.11
2,078
C30
Interior Finishes
7%
19.92
37,256
Interiors
15%
40.75
76,227
D10
Conveying Systems
2%
6.10
11,413
D20
Plumbing Systems
3%
7.94
14,860
D30
Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning
6%
16.66
31,160
D40
Fire Protection
1%
3.07
5,740
D50
Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications
11%
30.64
57,310
Services
24%
64.41
120,484
E10
Equipment
7%
17.84
33,374
E20
Furnishings
2%
5.92
11,075
Equipment & Furnishings
9%
23.76
44,448
F10
Special Construction
0%
1.33
2,480
F20
Selective Demolition
0%
0.00
Special Construction & Demolition
0%
1.33
2,480
77%
210.16
393,099
8%
21.02
39,310
85%
231.17
432,409
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES

Z10
Design Contingency
10.00%
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES

Z21
Field Requirements
8.00%
7%
18.49
34,593
Z22
Office Overhead & Profit
4.00%
4%
9.99
18,680
95%
259.65
485,681
5%
13.04
24,400
100%
272.70
510,082
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION

Z30
Escalation to Midpoint (Feb 2016)
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
5.02%
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
D.
June 4, 2014
R E L AT I V E S I T E C O ST A N A LYS I S
Open Air Stadium

Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
A10 Foundations
A1010 Standard Foundations
A1020 Special Foundations
A1030 Slab On Grade
Field slab - 6"
Event level slab - 8"
Extra over for ramped slabs
Pads, trenches & curbs
Perimeter drainage
549,703
SF
15.00
8,245,544
549,703
SF
40.00
21,988,118
549,703
SF
11.55
6,662,026
132,000
SF
9.04
1,193,280
417,703
SF
11.30
4,720,043
7,664
SF
5.65
43,302
1,870,514
SF
0.28
528,420
7,831
LF
22.60
176,981
36,895,689
A20 Basement Construction
B10 Superstructure
B1010 Floor Construction
Elevated floor construction - CIP concrete beams, girders
& deck
Extra over for topping slab at waterproofed decks
Precast seating deck on CIP rakers
CIP columns supporting floors
Lids over single height spaces in double height volumes
Steel framing & grating to catwalks
Stair and elevator core walls
Miscellaneous metals
B1020 Roof Construction
Steel framed roof with metal deck - lids
Sub roofs under seating deck protecting interior finished
spaces
1,320,811
SF
58.41
77,154,702
868,162
SF
33.90
29,430,686
495,229
SF
5.65
2,798,044
452,649
SF
73.45
33,247,054
6,123
CY
960.50
5,881,322
95,036
SF
16.95
1,610,867
9,016
SF
50.85
458,469
47,037
SF
45.20
2,126,072
1,417,865
SF
1.13
1,602,187
555,635
SF
4.87
2,704,814
60,406
SF
22.60
1,365,176
47,421
SF
28.25
1,339,638
BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

| 91
79,859,516

Elevated floor construction - CIP concrete beams, girders
& deck
Extra over for topping slab at waterproofed decks
Precast seating deck on CIP rakers
Lids over single height spaces in double height volumes
Steel framing & grating to catwalks
AECOM
Stair and elevator core walls

Roof Construction
NFLB1020
Stadium
Steel
Buffalo Billsframed roof with metal deck -
lids
Sub roofs under seating deck protecting interior finished

spaces
Open Air Stadium
1,320,811
SF
58.41
77,154,702
868,162
SF
33.90
29,430,686
495,229
SF
5.65
2,798,044
452,649
SF
73.45
33,247,054
6,123
CY
960.50
5,881,322
95,036
SF
16.95
1,610,867
9,016
SF
50.85
47,037
SF
1,417,865
SF
1.13
1,602,187
555,635
SF
4.87
2,704,814
60,406
SF
22.60
1,365,176
47,421
SF
28.25
1,339,638
Quantity
Unit
Concept Cost Plan
45.20
Rate
458,469
June 4, 2014
10
2,126,072
Total
79,859,516
B20 Exterior Enclosure

B2010 Exterior Walls
Damproofing and drainage panels to foundation walls
CMU exterior walls
Terracotta cladding
Concourse railings - CMU interior face
Catwalk railings
Faade secondary steel
500,716
SF
23.60
11,815,673
31,324
SF
5.65
176,981
310,004
SF
16.95
5,254,565
83,848
SF
45.20
3,789,941
16,985
SF
16.95
287,895
3,606
LF
169.50
611,292
250
B2020 Exterior Windows

Glass fin supported curtain walls
Ticket windows
Suite glazing
B2030 Exterior Doors
HM doors & frames
Glazed aluminum entrance doors
Bifold doors enclosing outdoor bars
Rolling grilles enclosing concessions
Insulated overhead coiling doors
Wrought iron gates - large
Wrought iron gates - large
Sliding gates/fences at concourse level
Door automation
B2070 Exterior Louvers and Vents
Allow for louvers
B2080 Exterior Wall Appurtenances
Entrance canopies
6,780.00
1,695,000
89,258
SF
123.11
10,988,529
65,093
SF
146.90
9,562,176
12
EA
5,085.00
61,020
24,165
SF
56.50
1,365,333
500,716
SF
5.13
2,570,735
349
EA
1,695.00
590,811
133
EA
2,825.00
376,368
2,782
SF
113.00
314,399
10,450
SF
56.50
590,425
3,323
SF
56.50
187,746
12
EA
22,600.00
280,088
14
EA
3,955.00
55,142
781
SF
113.00
88,228
LS
87,527.50
87,527
500,716
SF
0.35
175,055
LS
175,055.00
175,055
500,716
SF
0.39
197,750
LS
169,500.00
169,500
LS
28,250.00
28,250
500,716
SF
2.82
1,412,500
5,000
SF
282.50
1,412,500
Flagpoles
B2090 Exterior Wall Specialties
Allowance for video screen enclosure/structure
27,160,242
B30 Roofing
92 | BUFFALO
NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS
B3010 Roof Coverings
555,635
SF
9.90
5,500,752
781
Door automation
B2070 Exterior Louvers and Vents
Allow for louvers
B2080 Exterior Wall Appurtenances
Entrance canopies
Flagpoles
B2090 Exterior Wall Specialties
Allowance for video screen enclosure/structure
D.
SF
113.00
88,228
LS
87,527.50
87,527
500,716
SF
0.35
175,055
LS
175,055.00
175,055
500,716
SF
0.39
197,750
LS
169,500.00
169,500
LS
28,250.00
28,250
500,716
SF
2.82
1,412,500
5,000
SF
282.50
1,412,500
27,160,242
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
11
B30 Roofing
NFL Stadium
Buffalo
B3010Bills
Roof Coverings
Flat roofing on concourse amenity buildings
to concourse split slabs - over occupied

Open Waterproofing
Air Stadium
areas
B3080 Overhead Exterior Enclosures

Soffits - painted concrete
555,635
SF
9.90
5,500,752
60,406
SF
16.95
1,023,882
495,229
Quantity
SF
Unit
Rate9.04
4,476,871
Total
25,851
SF
1.70
43,817
25,851
SF
1.70
43,817
5,544,570
C10 Interior Construction

C1010 Partitions
CMU partitions
Drywall partitions
C1020 Interior Doors
Interior glazing
HM doors & frames
Glazed aluminum entrance doors
Wood doors
Overhead coiling grilles
C1030 Fittings
Seating railings
Rough carpentry
Firestopping
Caulking and sealant to interiors
Caulking and sealant to exterior walls
Millwork allowances
Suites
Club - bars, fixed drinkrails and built in furnishings
Premium Restrooms
Showers and change rooms
Other millwork
Toilet accessories & partitions
Stainless concession counters
Code signage
Graphics package
Sponsorship package
Lockers
958,422
SF
12.98
12,442,871
285,434
SF
16.95
4,838,106
672,988
SF
11.30
7,604,764
958,422
SF
2.10
2,014,225
LS
452,000.00
452,000
600
EA
1,695.00
1,017,000
50
EA
2,825.00
141,250
108
EA
1,977.50
213,570
3,370
SF
56.50
190,405
1,286,109
SF
17.44
22,435,471
23,511
LF
169.50
3,985,123
1,286,109
SF
0.85
1,089,977
1,286,109
SF
0.28
363,326
1,286,109
SF
0.28
363,326
500,716
SF
0.28
141,452
122
EA
11,300.00
1,378,600
LS
565,000.00
565,000
11,448
SF
8.48
97,022
39,774
SF
5.65
224,723
LS
452,000.00
452,000
LS
1,469,000.00
1,469,000
2,090
LF
282.50
590,425
1,870,514
SF
0.28
528,420
1,870,514
SF
2.83
5,284,201
1,870,514
SF
2.83
5,284,201
1,286,109
Seating railings
Rough carpentry
Firestopping
Millwork allowances
Suites
Club - bars, fixed drinkrails and built in furnishings
Premium Restrooms
Showers and change rooms
Other millwork
Toilet accessories & partitions
Stainless concession counters
Code signage
Graphics package
Sponsorship package
Lockers
AECOM
Players lockers - football

Coaches lockers
NFL Stadium
Employees locker, 3 tier per door
Buffalo Bills
Officials locker, 2 tier per door
Aux lockers
SF
17.44
22,435,471
23,511
LF
169.50
3,985,123
1,286,109
SF
0.85
1,089,977
1,286,109
SF
0.28
363,326
1,286,109
SF
0.28
363,326
500,716
SF
0.28
141,452
122
EA
11,300.00
1,378,600
LS
565,000.00
565,000
11,448
SF
8.48
97,022
39,774
SF
5.65
224,723
LS
452,000.00
452,000
LS
1,469,000.00
1,469,000
2,090
LF
282.50
590,425
1,870,514
SF
0.28
528,420
1,870,514
SF
2.83
5,284,201
1,870,514
SF
2.83
5,284,201
150
EA
Concept
Cost Plan
2,825.00
June423,750
4, 2014 12
40
EA
1,130.00
45,200
70
EA
1,130.00
79,100
700
EA
84.75
59,325
20
EA
565.00
11,300
Open Air Stadium

Rate
36,892,566
Total
Quantity
Unit
1,286,109
SF
1.62
2,078,070
48
EA
28,250.00
1,356,000
154
EA
3,955.00
609,070
EA
28,250.00
113,000
1,286,109
SF
C20 Stairways
C2010 Stair Construction
Steel stairs per flight
Short stair flights - voms
Catwalk access - main roof
C2020 Stair Finishes
Included below
2,078,070
C30 Interior Finishes

By program
Service space
Building support/BOH
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Press viewing/commentary
94 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM
SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS
Laundry
Offices
1,286,109
SF
28.97
37,256,108
154,356
SF
5.65
872,111
66,600
SF
5.65
376,290
2,820
SF
16.95
47,799
85,500
SF
5.65
483,075
96
SF
16.95
1,627
2,880
SF
16.95
48,816
3,948
SF
25.00
98,700
57,630
SF
8.48
488,414
9,540
SF
45.20
431,208
5,640
SF
16.95
95,598
AECOM
TECHNICAL SERVICES
16.95
287,303

16,950
SF
600
SF
28.25
16,950
10,290
SF
16.95
174,416

By program
Service space
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Circulation - premium
Suites
Concourse
Event staff changing
Lockers - dry - staff
Lockers - dry - players
AECOM
Lockers - wet
Warehouse/storage/shops
NFL Stadium
Club
Buffalo Bills
Ticket sales
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
Open Air Stadium

HOF
Team store
Stairs & ramps
Elevators & escalators
Sealer to seating
D.
1,286,109
SF
28.97
37,256,108
154,356
SF
5.65
872,111
66,600
SF
5.65
376,290
2,820
SF
16.95
47,799
85,500
SF
5.65
483,075
96
SF
16.95
1,627
2,880
SF
16.95
48,816
3,948
SF
25.00
98,700
57,630
SF
8.48
488,414
9,540
SF
45.20
431,208
5,640
SF
16.95
95,598
16,950
SF
16.95
287,303
600
SF
28.25
16,950
10,290
SF
16.95
174,416
60,000
SF
22.60
1,356,000
71,280
SF
56.50
4,027,320
320,400
SF
2.83
905,130
3,540
SF
16.95
60,003
10,176
SF
16.95
172,483
41,868
SF
56.50
2,365,542
12,030
SF
Concept Cost Plan
56.50
June 4, 2014
13
679,695
19,800
SF
5.65
111,870
3,570
SF
16.95
60,512
100,200
SF
141.25
14,153,250
1,200
SF
169.50
203,400
67,650
SF
45.20
3,057,780
24,000
Quantity
23,400
SF
Unit
SF
113.00
Rate
113.00
2,712,000
Total
2,644,200
94,320
SF
5.65
532,908
15,845
SF
452,405
SF
1.75
791,708
37,256,108
D10 Conveying Systems

D1010 Elevators & Lifts
Passenger elevators
Freight elevators
D1020 Escalators & Moving Walks
Escalators
1,286,109
SF
1.14
1,469,000
EA
226,000.00
1,130,000
EA
339,000.00
339,000
1,286,109
SF
7.73
9,944,000
44
EA
226,000.00
9,944,000
11,413,000
D20 Plumbing Systems

D2010 Plumbing Fixtures

Service space
1,286,109
SF
4.42
5,680,415
154,356
SF
0.57
87,211

D1010 Elevators & Lifts
Passenger elevators
Freight elevators
D1020 Escalators & Moving Walks
Escalators
1,286,109
SF
1.14
1,469,000
EA
226,000.00
1,130,000
EA
339,000.00
339,000
1,286,109
SF
7.73
9,944,000
44
EA
226,000.00
9,944,000
11,413,000

Service space
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
AECOM
Offices
Suites
NFL Stadium
Concourse
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium

Lockers - wet
Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
HOF
Team store
Stairs & ramps
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution
Service space
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
1,286,109
SF
4.42
5,680,415
154,356
SF
0.57
87,211
66,600
SF
1.02
67,732
2,820
SF
0.06
159
85,500
SF
1.13
96,615
96
SF
1.13
108
2,880
SF
7.91
22,781
3,948
SF
25.99
102,609
57,630
SF
21.47
1,237,316
9,540
SF
25.99
247,945
5,640
SF
1.13
6,373
16,950
SF
1.02
17,238
600
SF
10,290
SF
60,000
SF
1.02
61,020
71,280
SF
2.83
201,366
320,400
SF
0.79
253,436
3,540
SF
2.26
8,000
10,176
SF
12.43
126,488
41,868
Quantity
12,030
SF
Unit
SF
12.43
Rate
25.99
520,419
Total
312,660
19,800
SF
0.45
8,950
2.83
Concept Cost Plan
1.36
1,695
June 4, 2014
14
13,953
3,570
SF
0.17
605
100,200
SF
9.04
905,808
1,200
SF
6.78
8,136
67,650
SF
19.21
1,299,557
24,000
SF
1.13
27,120
23,400
SF
1.13
26,442
94,320
SF
0.17
15,987
15,845
SF
0.17
2,686
1,286,109
SF
2.49
3,202,275
154,356
SF
0.57
87,211
66,600
SF
1.36
90,310
2,820
SF
0.45
1,275
85,500
SF
1.75
149,753
96
SF
0.45
43
2,880

SF
3,948
SF
13,018
AECOM4.52
TECHNICAL SERVICES
7.91
31,229
57,630
SF
11.30
651,219
Club
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
HOF
Team store
Stairs & ramps
Service space
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Suites
Concourse
Lockers - wet
Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
AECOM
Kitchen/concession
HOF
NFL Stadium
Stairs
Buffalo Bills
Team store
Elevators
D2030 Sanitary Waste
Open Air Stadium

Service space
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Suites
D.
3,570
SF
0.17
605
100,200
SF
9.04
905,808
1,200
SF
6.78
8,136
67,650
SF
19.21
1,299,557
24,000
SF
1.13
27,120
23,400
SF
1.13
26,442
94,320
SF
0.17
15,987
15,845
SF
0.17
2,686
SF
0.57
87,211
R E L AT I VSF
E S I T E C 2.49
O ST A3,202,275
N A LYS I S
1,286,109
154,356
66,600
SF
1.36
90,310
2,820
SF
0.45
1,275
85,500
SF
1.75
149,753
96
SF
0.45
43
2,880
SF
4.52
13,018
3,948
SF
7.91
31,229
57,630
SF
11.30
651,219
9,540
SF
7.91
75,461
5,640
SF
1.70
9,560
16,950
SF
1.24
21,069
600
SF
9.04
5,424
10,290
SF
1.81
18,604
60,000
SF
0.90
54,240
71,280
SF
2.83
201,366
320,400
SF
0.68
217,231
3,540
SF
1.13
4,000
10,176
SF
0.68
6,899
41,868
SF
0.68
28,387
12,030
SF
4.07
48,938
19,800
SF
0.45
8,950
3,570
SF
1.13
4,034
100,200
SF
5.65
566,130
1,200
SF
2.26
67,650
SF
Concept Cost Plan
12.43
2,712
June 4, 2014
15
840,890
24,000
SF
0.68
16,272
23,400
SF
0.68
15,865
94,320
SF
0.06
5,329
15,845
SF
1.70
26,857
1,286,109
SF
3.03
3,894,554
154,356
Quantity
66,600
SF
Unit
SF
Rate0.68
1.58
104,653
Total
105,361
2,820
SF
0.11
319
85,500
SF
2.26
193,230
96
SF
1.58
152
2,880
SF
5.20
14,970
3,948
SF
9.04
35,690
57,630
SF
12.43
716,341
9,540
SF
9.04
86,242
5,640
SF
1.81
10,197
16,950
SF
1.36
22,984
600
SF
3.39
2,034
10,290 NFL
SFSTADIUM SITE1.92
19,767 | 97
BUFFALO
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
60,000
SF
1.02
61,020
71,280
SF
2.83
201,366
Open Air Stadium

Quantity
Security
MEP
Vault
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Suites
Concourse
Lockers - wet areas
Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
HOF
Team store
Stairs
Elevators
D2040 Rain Water Drainage
Roof drainage
Seating drainage
D2090 Other Plumbing Systems
Water treatment & storage
AECOM
Water pumping & circulation
Unit
Rate
Total
2,820
SF
0.11
319
85,500
SF
2.26
193,230
96
SF
1.58
152
2,880
SF
5.20
14,970
3,948
SF
9.04
35,690
57,630
SF
12.43
716,341
9,540
SF
9.04
86,242
5,640
SF
1.81
10,197
16,950
SF
1.36
22,984
600
SF
3.39
2,034
10,290
SF
1.92
19,767
60,000
SF
1.02
61,020
71,280
SF
2.83
201,366
320,400
SF
0.79
253,436
3,540
SF
1.24
4,400
10,176
SF
4.07
41,396
41,868
SF
4.07
170,319
12,030
SF
4.07
48,938
19,800
SF
0.68
13,424
3,570
SF
0.11
403
100,200
SF
6.78
679,356
1,200
SF
2.83
3,390
67,650
SF
13.56
917,334
24,000
SF
0.68
16,272
23,400
SF
0.79
18,509
94,320
SF
1.24
117,240
15,845
SF
2.26
35,809
1,008,040
SF
1.64
1,653,478
555,635
SF
2.01
1,117,604
452,405
SF
1.18
535,873
1,870,514
SF
0.23
429,400
LS
282,500.00
282,500
LS
146,900.00
Concept Cost Plan
146,900
June 4, 2014
16
14,860,123
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
D30 Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning
Open Air Stadium

D3010 Energy Supply
Natural gas systems

Generator fuel storage & first fill
D3020 Heat Generating Systems
High efficiency boilers & ancillaries
Misc. resistance heat
D3030 Cooling Generating Systems
Air-cooler chillers & ancillaries
Food service refrigeration
Misc. heat pumps & compressors
911,109
Quantity
1
SF
Unit
LS
Rate1.29
429,400.00
1,175,200
Total
429,400
LS
745,800.00
745,800
911,109
SF
1.49
1,356,000
LS
1,084,800.00
1,084,800
LS
271,200.00
271,200
911,109
SF
3.29
2,994,500
LS
LS
565,000.00
565,000
LS
124,300.00
124,300
2,305,200.00
2,305,200
AECOM TECHNICAL
SERVICES
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
16
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium
D.
Generator fuel storage & first fill
D3020 Heat Generating Systems
High efficiency boilers & ancillaries
Misc. resistance heat
Air-cooler chillers & ancillaries
Food service refrigeration
Misc. heat pumps & compressors
D3040 Distribution Systems
Hydronic Distribution Systems
Service space
Security
Vault
MEP
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Suites
Concourse
Lockers - wet areas
Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
HOF
Team store
Stairs
Elevators
Air-side distribution systems
Service space
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
1
LS
745,800.00
745,800
911,109
SF
1.49
1,356,000
LS
1,084,800.00
1,084,800
LS
271,200.00
271,200
911,109
SF
3.29
2,994,500
LS
2,305,200.00
2,305,200
LS
565,000.00
565,000
LS
124,300.00
124,300
911,109
SF
12.30
11,208,074
154,356
SF
1.58
244,191
66,600
SF
1.70
112,887
2,820
SF
1.36
3,824
85,500
SF
4.52
386,460
96
SF
4.52
434
2,880
SF
3.96
11,390
3,948
SF
4.41
17,399
57,630
SF
3.96
227,927
9,540
SF
4.41
42,043
5,640
SF
3.96
22,306
16,950
SF
3.96
67,037
600
SF
1.70
1,017
10,290
SF
3.84
39,534
60,000
SF
1.81
108,480
71,280
SF
4.52
322,186
320,400
SF
0.68
217,231
3,540
SF
3.39
12,001
10,176
SF
3.39
34,497
41,868
SF
3.39
141,933
12,030
SF
4.07
48,938
19,800
SF
1.13
22,374
3,570
SF
1.24
4,438
100,200
SF
4.07
407,614
1,200
SF
3.96
4,746
67,650
SF
4.52
305,778
24,000
SF
3.39
81,360
23,400
SF
4.52
105,768
94,320
SF
1.02
95,923
15,845
SF
0.20
3,223
154,356
SF
3.39
523,267
66,600
SF
4.52
301,032
Lockers - wet areas

Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
AECOM
Kitchen/concession
HOF
Team store
NFL Stadium
Stairs
Buffalo Bills
Elevators
Air-side distribution systems
Open Air Stadium

Service space
Security
MEP
First aid
Private toilets
Public toilets
Premium toilets
Press workroom
Laundry
Offices
Suites
Concourse
Lockers - wet areas
Ticket sales
Club
VIP Lobby
Kitchen/concession
Bar - self contained
HOF
Team store
Stairs
Elevators
D3050 Terminal & Package Units
Air handling units & other terminal units
D3060 Controls and Instrumentation
DDC controls
D3070 Systems Testing & Balancing
Test & Balance
D3090 Other HVAC Systems & Equipment
Exhaust systems
41,868
SF
3.39
12,030
SF
4.07
19,800
SF
1.13
3,570
SF
1.24
100,200
SF
4.07
1,200
SF
67,650
SF
3.96
24,000
SF
3.39
23,400
SF
4.52
94,320
SF
1.02
15,845
SF
0.20
154,356
Quantity
66,600
SF
Unit
SF
Rate 3.39
4.52
Concept Cost Plan
4.52
2,820
SF
4.52
85,500
SF
6.78
96
SF
7.91
2,880
SF
9.04
3,948
SF
9.04
57,630
SF
9.04
9,540
SF
5.65
5,640
SF
5.65
16,950
SF
10.17
600
SF
7.91
10,290
SF
2.26
60,000
SF
9.04
71,280
SF
1.13
320,400
SF
6.78
3,540
SF
6.78
10,176
SF
6.78
41,868
SF
4.07
12,030
SF
2.26
19,800
SF
9.04
3,570
SF
9.04
100,200
SF
9.04
1,200
SF
10.17
67,650
SF
10.17
24,000
SF
7.91
23,400
SF
9.04
94,320
SF
5.09
141,933
Kitchen/concessi
48,938
HOF
22,374
Team store
4,438
Stairs
407,614
Elevators
4,746
Air-side
June 4, 2014 17 distribution s
305,778
Service space
81,360
Building support/
105,768
Security
95,923
MEP
3,223
First aid
Private toilets
523,267
Total
Public toilets
301,032
Premium toilets
12,746
Press workroom
579,690
Press viewing/co
759
Laundry
26,035
Offices
35,690
Circulation - prem
520,975
Suites
53,901
Concourse
31,866
Event staff chang
172,382
Lockers - dry - st
4,746
Lockers - dry - pl
23,255
Lockers - wet are
542,400
Warehouse/stora
80,546
Ticket sales
2,172,312
Club
24,001
VIP Lobby
68,993
Kitchen/concessi
170,319
Bar - self contain
27,188
HOF
178,992
Team store
32,273
Stairs
905,808
Elevators
12,204
D3050
Terminal & Pack
688,001
Air handling units
189,840
D3060 Controls and Ins
211,536
DDC controls
479,617
15,845
SF
2.83
44,762
911,109
SF
6.43
5,857,920
576,000
CFM
10.17
5,857,920
911,109
SF
7.06
6,434,707
911,109
SF
7.06
6,434,707
911,109
SF
0.73
669,210
911,109
SF
0.73
669,210
911,109
SF
1.61
1,464,480
576,000
CFM
2.54
1,464,480
31,160,091
ion
67,650
AECOM
AECOM
NFL Stadium
Buffalo
Bills
NFL Stadium
systems
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium
/BOH
Open Air Stadium
mium
4.52
305,778
24,000
SF
3.39
81,360
23,400
SF
4.52
105,768
94,320
SF
1.02
95,923
15,845
SF
0.20
3,223
154,356
SF
3.39
66,600
SF
4.52
2,820
SF
4.52
85,500
SF
6.78
June 4, 2014
18
Rate
Total
759
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
7.91
9.04
3,948
SF
9.04
57,630
SF
Enclosed areas
D4010 Sprinklers
9,540
SF
Covered areas requiring protection
Enclosed areas
5,640
SF
Special fire protection systems
Covered areas requiring
protection
16,950
SF
9.04
10.17
Special fire protection systems

600
SF
7.91
4,746
26,035
35,690
1,286,109
520,975
911,109
53,901
1,286,109
375,000
31,866
911,109
1
172,382
375,000
10,290
SF
2.26
23,255
60,000
SF
9.04
542,400
SF
1.13
80,546
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power71,280
& Communications
ging
320,400
SF
6.78
2,172,312
taff
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power &
Communications
3,540
SF
6.78
24,001
D5010 Electrical Service & Distribution
1,870,514
layers
10,176
SF
6.78
68,993
Main switchgear, transformers, & distribution panel boards
21,000
eas
41,868
SF
4.07
170,319
1,870,514
Feeders
1
age/shops
Main switchgear, transformers,
&SF
distribution panel
12,030
2.26boards 27,18821,000
Equipment power: HVAC
, Plumbing
911,109
Feeders
19,800 , SF
178,992
1
Equipment power: concession
food service 9.04
67,650
Equipment power: HVAC
,
Plumbing
3,570
SF
9.04
32,273
911,109
Convenience power
1,286,109
Equipment power: concession
food service 9.04
100,200 , SF
905,80867,650
D5020 Lighting & Branch Wiring
1,870,514
ion
Convenience power 1,200
SF
10.17
12,204
1,286,109
Lighting for enclosed areas
911,109
ned
67,650
SF
10.17
688,001
1,870,514
Lighting for non-enclosed areas
375,000
Lighting for enclosed areas
24,000
SF
7.91
189,840
911,109
Facade lighting
1
Lighting for non-enclosed
areas SF
23,400
9.04
211,536
375,000
Event lighting
1
Facade lighting
94,320
SF
5.09
479,617
1
Lighting controls
1
Event lighting
15,845
SF
2.83
44,762
1
D5030 Communications & Security
1,870,514
kage Units
Lighting controls
911,109
SF
6.43
5,857,920
1
Security systems inc. cameras, card readers, control
1
s & other terminal units
576,000 CFM
10.17
5,857,920
1,870,514
Fire alarm system: complete
1
strumentation
Security systems inc.911,109
cameras, card
SF readers, control
7.06
6,434,707
1
Voice / data systems
1
Fire alarm system: complete
911,109
SF
7.06
6,434,707
1
Special systems: broadcasting connections
1
Voice / data systems
1
D5090 Other Electrical Systems
1,870,514
Special systems: broadcasting connections
1
Lightning protection and grounding
1
1,870,514
Sound system
1
Lightning protection and grounding
1
Broadcast cable
1
Sound system
1
Distributed TV
1
Broadcast cable
1
Audio visual pathway & display systems
1
Distributed TV
1
Scoreboard & event display: power & pathway only
1
Audio visual pathway & display systems
1
Emergency power generation
6,000
Scoreboard & event display: power & pathway only
1
Start-up & commission
1,750
Emergency power generation
6,000
Start-up & commission
1,750
Concept Cost Plan
Unit
SF
5.65
18
12,746
Quantity
579,690
SF
5.65
June 4, 2014
523,267
96
D40 Fire Protection

D4010 Sprinklers
Concept Cost Plan
D. 301,032
2,880
D40 Fire Protection
ommentary
SF
SF
4.46
5,740,225
SF
SF
SF
SF
LS
SF
4.62
4.46
2.77
4.62
492,680.00
2.77
4,208,298
5,740,225
1,039,247
4,208,298
492,680
1,039,247
LS
492,680.00
492,680
5,740,225
5,740,225
SF
7.19
13,446,192
KW
SF
LS
KW
SF
LS
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
KVA
LS
HR
KVA
342.50
7.19
565,000.00
342.50
3.39
565,000.00
16.95
3.39
1.13
16.95
9.88
1.13
12.43
9.88
6.78
12.43
1,440,750.00
6.78
2,034,000.00
1,440,750.00
1,130,000.00
2,034,000.00
5.09
1,130,000.00
3,051,000.00
5.09
2,260,000.00
3,051,000.00
3,305,250.00
2,260,000.00
904,000.00
3,305,250.00
8.49
904,000.00
960,500.00
8.49
3,390,000.00
960,500.00
2,260,000.00
3,390,000.00
2,034,000.00
2,260,000.00
3,579,840.00
2,034,000.00
655,400.00
3,579,840.00
468.95
655,400.00
101.70
468.95
7,192,563
13,446,192
565,000
7,192,563
3,088,659
565,000
1,146,668
3,088,659
1,453,303
1,146,668
18,472,332
1,453,303
11,325,082
18,472,332
2,542,500
11,325,082
1,440,750
2,542,500
2,034,000
1,440,750
1,130,000
2,034,000
9,520,250
1,130,000
3,051,000
9,520,250
2,260,000
3,051,000
3,305,250
2,260,000
904,000
3,305,250
15,871,415
904,000
960,500
15,871,415
3,390,000
960,500
2,260,000
3,390,000
2,034,000
2,260,000
3,579,840
2,034,000
655,400
3,579,840
2,813,700
655,400
177,975
2,813,700
HR
101.70
177,975
57,310,190
57,310,190
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
19
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Open Air Stadium
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
E10 Equipment
E1010 Commercial Equipment
Dock bumpers
Concession equipment
Bar equipment
Concourse public bars
Club
1,286,109
SF
10.64
13,684,752
EA
2,825.00
25,425
67,650
SF
169.50
11,466,675
12
EA
11,300.00
135,600
LS
169,500.00
169,500
Beer distribution
POS system
E1090 Other Equipment
Suite equipment
Scoreboards
Ribbon boards
Media mesh allowance
Moveable partitions
LS
565,000.00
565,000
418
EA
3,164.00
1,322,552
1,286,109
SF
15.31
19,688,950
122
EA
2,825.00
344,650
5,000
SF
900.00
4,500,000
8,334
SF
900.00
7,500,600
7,500
SF
847.50
6,356,250
LS
250,000.00
250,000
LS
250,000.00
250,000
Hydrotherapy equipment
Steam/Sauna equipment
Monitor mounts, allow
Window shades/blinds
LS
75,000.00
75,000
700
EA
508.50
355,950
LS
56,500.00
56,500
33,373,702
E20 Furnishings
E2010 Fixed Furnishings
Stadium seating
General seating
Suite, premium seating
Club, Loge premium seating
ADA Companion seating
ADA Spaces
Fire extinguisher cabinets, recessed
Floor mats and frames
1,286,109
SF
8.61
11,074,723
55,600
EA
152.55
8,481,780
1,600
EA
265.55
424,880
7,500
EA
265.55
1,991,625
164
EA
265.55
43,550
164
EA
128
EA
508.50
65,088
LS
56,500.00
56,500
LS
11,300.00
11,300
Whiteboard and tack boards, allow
11,074,723
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
D.
June 4, 2014
20
Open Air Stadium

Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
F10 Special Construction

F1030 Special Construction Systems
Field construction & equipment
Aeration system
132,000
SF
18.79
2,480,000
132,000
SF
15.00
1,980,000
LS
500,000.00
500,000
2,480,000
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
21
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Basic Site Areas & Control Quantities
SF
SF
SF
Areas
Basic Site Areas
AECOM
Building Footprint Area
549,703
25 Feet Building Perimeter Apron
195,775
Subtotal of Building Footprint Areas
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
745,478
TOTAL
SITE AREA
NFL
Stadium
Buffalo Bills
745,478
Basic Site Summary

%
$/SF
Gross Area:
G10
Site Preparation
18%
TOTAL
745,478 SF
2.49
1,853
G20
Site Improvements
38%
5.21
3,883
G30
Site Mechanical Utilities
11%
1.57
1,170
G40
Site Electrical Utilities
10%
1.36
1,017
G90
Other Site Construction
0%
0.00
Building Sitework
77%
10.63
7,923
77%
10.63
7,923
SITE ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES

Z10
Contingency
10.00%
8%
1.06
792
Z11
Other 1
0.00%
0%
0.00
Z12
Other 2
0.00%
0%
0.00
85%
11.69
8,715
SITE ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES

Z21
Field Requirements
8.00%
7%
0.94
697
Z22
Office Overhead & Profit
4.00%
4%
0.51
376
Z23
Other 1
0.00%
0%
0.00
Z24
Other 2
0.00%
0%
0.00
95%
13.13
9,789
5%
0.66
492
100%
13.79
10,280
SITE CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION

Z30
5.02%
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
22
D.
AECOM
4, 2014I S23
R E L AT I V E S I TConcept
E C OCost
STPlanA NJune
A LYS
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Basic Site
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
G10 Site Preparation

G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
G1020 Site Demolition and Relocations
Demolition of existing buildings
G1030 Site Earthwork
Dewatering based on duration of in-ground activities
G1040 Hazardous Waste Remediation
Excluded
745,478
SF
1.50
1,118,217
745,478
SF
1.50
1,118,217
745,478
SF
0.76
565,000
LS
565,000.00
565,000
745,478
SF
0.23
169,500
28,250.00
169,500
6
745,478
MOS
SF
1,852,717
G20 Site Improvements

G2040 Site Development
Hardscape
G2050 Landscaping
Allow
195,775
SF
16.95
3,318,386
195,775
SF
16.95
3,318,386
195,775
SF
2.89
565,000
LS
565,000.00
565,000
3,883,386
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities

G3010 Water Supply
Domestic and fire water mains
Domestic and fire water structures
G3020 Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer mains
Sanitary sewer structures
Lift stations
G3030 Storm Sewer
Storm drain piping
Storm drain structures
G3050 Cooling Distribution

Chilled water piping
G3060 Fuel Distribution
195,775
SF
0.92
180,800
500
LF
214.70
107,350
LS
73,450.00
73,450
195,775
SF
2.83
553,700
500
LF
214.70
107,350
LS
50,850.00
50,850
LS
395,500.00
395,500
195,775
SF
1.15
226,000
2,000
LF
67.80
135,600
1 STADIUM
LS SITE90,400.00
BUFFALO NFL
OPTIONS ANALYSIS90,400
| 105
195,775
SF
0.62
122,040
600
LF
203.40
122,040
3,883,386
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities

G3010 Water Supply
Domestic and fire water mains
Domestic and fire water structures
G3020 Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer mains
AECOM
Sanitary sewer structures
195,775
SF
0.92
180,800
500
LF
214.70
107,350
LS
73,450.00
73,450
195,775
SF
2.83
553,700
500
LF
214.70
107,350
LS
LS
195,775
SF
1.15
226,000
2,000
LF
67.80
135,600
Lift stations
G3030 Storm Sewer
NFL Stadium
Storm drain piping
Storm drain structures
Buffalo Bills
G3050 Cooling Distribution
Basic Chilled
Site water piping
G3060 Fuel Distribution
Natural gas piping
Item Description
50,850.00
Concept Cost Plan
395,500.00
50,850
June 4, 2014
24
395,500
LS
90,400.00
90,400
195,775
SF
0.62
122,040
600
LF
203.40
122,040
195,775
Quantity
Rate0.44
87,010
Total
200
LF
124.30
24,860
LS
62,150.00
62,150
Service entrance and metering
SF
Unit
1,169,550
G40 Site Electrical Utilities

G4010 Electrical Distribution
Duct banks
Misc feeders
G4020 Site Lighting
Circulation lighting
G4030 Site Communications & Security
Voice & data feed inc. room for spare
Voice & data structures
195,775
SF
1.82
355,950
1,000
LF
310.75
310,750
500
LF
90.40
45,200
195,775
SF
2.89
565,000
LS
565,000.00
565,000
195,775
SF
0.49
96,050
500
LF
124.30
62,150
LS
33,900.00
33,900
1,017,000
G90 Other Site Construction
D.
AECOM
R E L AT I V EConcept
S I T ECostCPlan
O STJune
A 4,N2014
A LYS I S25
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Premium for Dual Purpose Facility
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
Additional Program and Trade Show Provision for Field

A1010 Standard Foundations
A1020 Special Foundations
A1030 Slab On Grade
Expanded field slab slab
Thickened field slab
Additional event level slab
Pads, trenches & curbs
Perimeter drainage
Elevated floor construction - CIP concrete beams,
girders & deck
B2010 Exterior Walls
B2020 Exterior Windows
B2030 Exterior Doors
C1010 Partitions
C1020 Interior Doors
C1030 Fittings
Rough carpentry
Firestopping
Code signage
Graphics package
Sponsorship package
C3010 Finishes by program
Prefunction
Meeting rooms
Corridor
Meeting room satellite kitchen
Bowl MEP
Concourse
Vertical circulation

60,240
SF
15.00
903,600
60,240
SF
40.00
2,409,600
60,240
SF
11.55
2,276,280
40,000
SF
9.04
361,600
150,000
SF
8.00
1,200,000
60,240
SF
11.30
680,712
60,240
SF
0.28
17,018
750
LF
22.60
16,950
79,119
SF
11.55
3,191,912
79,119
SF
33.90
2,682,134
367
CY
960.50
352,302
139,359
SF
1.13
157,476
60,000
SF
23.60
1,415,853
10,696
SF
123.11
1,316,778
60,000
SF
5.13
308,047
71,405
SF
12.98
927,032
71,405
SF
2.10
150,066
139,359
SF
7.47
1,040,542
139,359
SF
0.85
118,107
139,359
SF
0.28
39,369
139,359
SF
0.28
39,369
60,000
SF
0.28
16,950
139,359
SF
0.28
39,369
139,359
SF
2.83
393,689
139,359
SF
2.83
393,689
139,359
SF
24.31
3,387,136
30,000
SF
50.00
1,500,000
23,040
SF
50.00
1,152,000
3,600
SF
10.00
36,000
3,600
SF
45.20
162,720
120,000
SF
5.65
678,000
(31,700)
SF
2.83
(89,711)
(9,181)
SF
5.65
(51,873)
139,359
SF
4.42
615,513
139,359
SF
2.49
346,989
139,359

Code signage
Graphics package
Sponsorship package
C3010 Finishes by program
Prefunction
Meeting rooms
Corridor
Meeting room satellite kitchen
AECOM
Bowl MEP
Concourse
Vertical circulation
NFLD2010
Stadium
Plumbing Fixtures
D2020Bills
Domestic Water Distribution
Buffalo
D3010 Energy
Supply
Premium
for
Dual Purpose Facility
D3020 Heat Generating Item
Systems
Description

D3040 Distribution Systems
D3050 Terminal & Package Units
D3060 Controls and Instrumentation

D3070 Systems Testing & Balancing
D4010 Sprinklers
Enclosed areas
E1090 Other Equipment
Moveable partitions
Electrical & data outlets at field level - 30' grid
E2010 Fixed Furnishings
Stadium seating
General seating - retractable
0.28
39,369
139,359
SF
0.28
39,369
60,000
SF
0.28
16,950
139,359
SF
0.28
39,369
139,359
SF
2.83
393,689
139,359
SF
2.83
393,689
139,359
SF
24.31
3,387,136
30,000
SF
50.00
1,500,000
23,040
SF
50.00
1,152,000
3,600
SF
10.00
36,000
3,600
SF
45.20
162,720
120,000
SF
5.65
678,000
(31,700)
SF
(9,181)
SF
5.65
(51,873)
SF
4.42
615,513
139,359
Water & air outlets at field level - 90' grid
SF
Z21 Field Requirements

Z22 Office Overhead & Profit
Z30 Escalation to Midpoint (Feb 2016)
2.83
June 4, 2014
(89,711)
139,359
SF
2.49
346,989
139,359
SF
3.03
422,003
139,359
SF
1.29
179,753
139,359
Quantity
Rate 1.49
207,408
Total
139,359
SF
Unit
SF
3.29
458,025
139,359
SF
12.30
1,714,335
139,359
SF
6.43
896,000
139,359
SF
7.06
984,223
139,359
SF
0.73
102,359
609,943
SF
4.62
2,817,250
609,943
SF
4.62
2,817,250
609,943
SF
7.19
4,384,577
609,943
SF
9.88
6,023,517
609,943
SF
5.09
3,104,393
139,359
SF
5.51
768,519
LS
250,000.00
250,000
167
EA
2,000.00
333,333
19
EA
10,000.00
185,185
139,359
SF
57.41
8,000,400
8,889
EA
900.00
8,000,400
Alternate Cost Before Markups

Z10 Contingency
Concept Cost Plan
26
48,352,110
10.00%
4,835,211
8.00%
4,254,986
4.00%
2,297,692
5.02%
3,001,315
62,741,313
D.
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
27
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Fixed Roof
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
Cost Premium for Fixed Roof

Main static roof structure
Main roof covering - pillows of ETFE
B3020 Roof Openings
Main roof gutters
609,943
SF
14,217
609,943
131.69
80,323,262
5,650.00
80,323,262
SF
62.15
37,907,957
609,943
SF
62.15
37,907,957
609,943
SF
1.44
879,257
3,417
LF
169.50
579,257
LS
150,000.00
150,000
LS
150,000.00
150,000
609,943
SF
4.06
2,476,839
609,943
SF
2.01
1,226,839
LS
1,250,000.00
1,250,000
609,943
SF
1.61
15,000,000
LS
15,000,000
15,000,000
609,943
SF
2.05
1,250,000
Roof fall protection system

Bird deterrents
D2040 Rain Water Drainage
Roof drainage
Plumbing for enclosed bowl
D3090 Other HVAC Systems & Equipment
HVAC for enclosed bowl
D4010 Sprinklers
Sprinklers for enclosed bowl
Electrical for enclosed bowl
LS
1,250,000.00
1,250,000
609,943
SF
8.49
7,500,000
LS
7,500,000.00
7,500,000

Z10 Contingency
145,337,316
10.00%
14,533,732
8.00%
12,789,684
4.00%
6,906,429
5.02%
9,021,386

188,588,546
D.
AECOM
PlanA June
2014 I S 28
R E L AT I V E S IConcept
T E CCost
O ST
N A4,LYS
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Movable Roof
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
Cost Premium for Movable Roof

Main static roof structure - increased steel complexity
Main roof covering - as fixed version
F1030 Special Construction Systems
Roof Operation
609,943

54.77
33,408,790
2,350.00
33,408,790
14,217
609,943
SF
609,943
SF
24.59
15,000,000
LS
15,000,000.00
15,000,000

Z10 Contingency
SF
48,408,790
10.00%
4,840,879
8.00%
4,259,974
4.00%
2,300,386
5.02%
3,004,833
62,814,862
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Costs Affected by Site Size
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
COBBLESTONE
SITE
- 1,018,000sf
of building & apron
Site A - 1,018,000sf
total,
272,522sftotal,
net of272,522sf
building net
& apron
G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
Excluded
Hardscape
G2050 Landscaping
Allow
G3030 Storm Sewer
Storm drain piping
G4020 Site Lighting
1,018,000
SF
0.40
408,783
272,522
SF
1.50
408,783
1,018,000
SF
0.23
231,464
231,463.58
231,464
LS
1,018,000
SF
272,522
SF
16.95
4,619,248
272,522
SF
16.95
4,619,248
272,522
SF
2.89
786,489
LS
786,489.24
786,489
272,522
SF
1.50
408,783
272,522
SF
1.50
408,783
272,522
SF
1.50
408,783
272,522
SF
1.50
408,783
6,863,550
Z10 Contingency
10.00%
686,355
8.00%
603,992
4.00%
326,156
5.02%
426,035
8,906,088
Site B - 927,500sf total, 182,022sf net of building & apron

G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
Excluded
Hardscape
G2050 Landscaping
Allow
927,500
SF
0.29
273,033
182,022
SF
1.50
273,033
927,500
SF
0.17
154,598
154,598.40
154,598
16.95
3,085,273
16.95
3,085,273
2.89
525,309
LS
927,500
SF
182,022
SF
182,022
SF
182,022
SF
Allow
G3030
Sewer
G1040 Storm
Hazardous
Waste Remediation
Storm
drain piping
Excluded
G4020
G2040 Site
Site Lighting
Development
Circulation
Hardscape lighting
G2050 Landscaping
Alternate
Cost Before Markups
Allow
G3030 Storm Sewer
Z10 Contingency
Storm drain piping
D.
Z21
Field
Requirements
G4020
Site
Lighting
Z22 Office
Overhead
& Profit
Circulation
lighting
1
1
272,522
1,018,000
272,522
LS
LS
SF
SF
SF
786,489.24
231,463.58
1.50
786,489
231,464
408,783
1.50
408,783
272,522
272,522
272,522
SF
SF
SF
1.50
16.95
1.50
16.95
408,783
4,619,248
408,783
4,619,248
272,522
SF
2.89
786,489
LS
786,489.24
6,863,550
786,489
272,522
R E L AT ISF
V E S I T E C1.50
O ST A N408,783
A LYS I S
10.00%
272,522
SF
1.50
686,355
408,783
8.00%
272,522
SF
1.50
603,992
408,783
4.00%
272,522
SF
1.50
326,156
408,783
5.02%
426,035
6,863,550
8,906,088
Z10 Contingency
EXCHANGE
STREET
SITE
- 182,022sf
netbuilding
of building
& apron
SiteZ22
B - Office
927,500sf
total,
182,022sf
net of
& apron
Overhead
&
Profit
G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
Hazardous
Waste
Remediation
SiteG1040
B - 927,500sf
total,
182,022sf
net of building & apron
Excluded
G2040
Clearing
Hardscape
Allow
G2050
G1020 Landscaping
Site Demolition and Relocations
AECOM
Allow
G3030
Sewer
G1040 Storm
Hazardous
Waste Remediation
Storm
drain piping
Excluded
NFLG2040
Stadium
Site Development
Hardscape
Buffalo Bills
G2050 Landscaping

Allow
10.00%
686,355
8.00%
603,992
4.00%
326,156
5.02%
927,500
SF
0.29
426,035
273,033
182,022
SF
1.50
273,033
8,906,088
927,500
SF
0.17
154,598
154,598.40
154,598
16.95
0.29
16.95
1.50
3,085,273
273,033
3,085,273
273,033
LS
927,500
SF
182,022
927,500
182,022
182,022
SF
SF
SF
182,022
927,500
182,022
SF
SF
SF
182,022
182,022
182,022
SF
2.89
525,309
LS
525,309.31
525,309
Rate 1.50
1.50
273,033
Total
273,033
182,022
927,500
1
1
SF
SF
LS
LS
2.89
0.17
525,309.31
154,598.40
Concept Cost Plan
1.50
525,309
154,598
525,309
154,598
June 4, 2014
273,033
1.50
273,033
SF
16.95
3,085,273
SF
16.95
3,085,273
G3030 Storm Sewer
182,022
Quantity
182,022
G4020 Site Lighting
182,022
SF
1.50
273,033
182,022
SF
1.50
273,033
Item Description
Storm drain piping
SF
Unit
SF

Z10 Contingency
4,584,280
10.00%
458,428
8.00%
403,417
4.00%
217,845
5.02%
284,556
5,948,525
Site C - 862,500sf total, 117,022sf net of building & apron

G1010
Site Clearing
AECOM TECHNICAL
SERVICES

Allow
862,500
SF STADIUM SITE 0.20
175,533| 113
BUFFALO NFL
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
117,022
SF
1.50
175,533
862,500
SF
0.12
99,391
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
SOUTH
SITE -total,
5,345,300sf
total,net
4,599,822sf
net&of
building & apron
Site D - PARK
5,345,300sf
4,599,822sf
of building
apron
G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
Excluded
Hardscape
G2050 Landscaping
Allow
G3030 Storm Sewer
Storm drain piping
G4020 Site Lighting
5,345,300
SF
1.29
6,899,733
4,599,822
SF
1.50
6,899,733
5,345,300
SF
0.73
3,906,809
LS
3,906,808.56
3,906,809
5,345,300
SF
1,393,022
SF
16.51
22,999,110
4,599,822
SF
5.00
22,999,110
1,393,022
SF
4.76
6,637,465
LS
6,637,465.02
6,637,465
1,393,022
SF
4.95
6,899,733
4,599,822
SF
1.50
6,899,733
1,393,022
SF
4.95
6,899,733
4,599,822
SF
1.50
6,899,733
54,242,583
Z10 Contingency
10.00%
5,424,258
8.00%
4,773,347
4.00%
2,577,608
5.02%
3,366,949
70,384,744
Site E - 6,735,000sf total, 5,989,522sf net of building & apron

G1010 Site Clearing
Allow
Excluded
Hardscape - mainly asphalt paving
G2050 Landscaping
114 | BUFFALO NFL Allow
STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS
G3030 Storm Sewer

Storm drain piping
6,735,000
SF
0.89
5,989,522
5,989,522
SF
1.00
5,989,522
6,735,000
SF
0.37
2,500,000
LS
2,500,000.00
2,500,000
6,735,000
SF
5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
5,989,522
SF
0.83
5,000,000

1
LS
AECOM TECHNICAL
SERVICES
5,000,000.00
5,000,000
5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
G4020 Site Lighting

5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
5,989,522
SF
1.50
8,984,283
40,442,371
Z10 Contingency
D.
10.00%
4,044,237
8.00%
3,558,929
R E L AT I V E
4.00%
S I T E C O ST1,921,821
A N A LYS I S
5.02%
2,510,341
52,477,699
ORCHARD
PARK SITE
- 8,058,000sf
7,312,522sf
of building & apron
Site F - 8,058,000sf
total,
7,312,522sftotal,
net of
building &net
apron
G1010 Site Clearing
Allow for selective grading
Excluded
Pavement patching & restriping
G2050 Landscaping
Allow
G3030 Storm Sewer
Storm drain piping - mostly existing
G4020 Site Lighting
Circulation lighting - mostly existing
8,058,000

0.23
1,828,131
7,312,522
SF
0.25
1,828,131
8,058,000
SF
1.24
10,000,000
LS
10,000,000.00
10,000,000
8,058,000
SF
7,312,522
SF
0.50
3,656,261
7,312,522
SF
0.50
3,656,261
7,312,522
SF
0.34
2,500,000
LS
2,500,000.00
2,500,000
7,312,522
SF
0.25
1,828,131
7,312,522
SF
0.25
1,828,131
7,312,522
SF
0.25
1,828,131
7,312,522
SF
0.25
1,828,131

Z10 Contingency
SF
21,640,653
10.00%
2,164,065
8.00%
1,904,377
4.00%
1,028,364
5.02%
1,343,280
28,080,739
AECOM
Concept Cost Plan
June 4, 2014
33
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
Individual Site Conditions Costs
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate
Total
Item 1: Raising site above flood plain

G1030 Site Earthwork
Imported fill to raise existing level from +7 to +11
609,943
SF
90,362
CY
25.00
2,259,048
Z10 Contingency
AECOM
10.00%
Concept Cost Plan
NFL Stadium
Buffalo Bills
107,350
5.02%
140,224
2,931,323
$/SF
Gross Floor Area:
Foundations
A
B10
198,79634
4.00%
Stadium Average Versus Current Cost Model
A10
225,905
June 4,
2014
8.00%
A20
2,259,048
Average
Cost Model
$/SF
TOTAL
TOTAL
1,685,764 SF
1,870,514 SF
18.78
31,653
21.89
36,896
0.00
0.00
Substructure
18.78
31,653
21.89
36,896
Superstructure
76.76
129,397
47.37
79,860
21.15
35,651
16.11
27,160
5.20
8,771
3.29
5,545
103.11
173,819
66.77
112,564
27.97
47,157
21.88
36,893
0.00
1.23
2,078
13.71
23,106
22.10
37,256
41.68
70,263
45.22
76,227
4.47
7,543
6.77
11,413
12.64
21,304
8.82
14,860
16.77
28,266
18.48
31,160
2.88
4,863
3.41
5,740
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications
32.60
54,964
34.00
57,310
69.37
116,940
71.47
120,484
B20
Exterior Enclosure
B30
Roofing
Shell

C20 Stairways
Interiors
D40 Fire Protection

Services
E10
Equipment
E20
Furnishings
17.27
29,120
17.49
29,489
19.80
33,374
6.57
11,075
Stadium Average Versus Current Cost Model

$/SF
Gross Floor Area:
A10
Foundations
A20
Substructure
B10
Superstructure
AECOM
B20
Exterior Enclosure
B30
Roofing
Average
1,685,764 SF
31,653
21.89
36,896
0.00
0.00
18.78
31,653
21.89
36,896
76.76
129,397
47.37
79,860
21.15
35,651
16.11
27,160
5.20
8,771
3.29
5,545
103.11
173,819
66.77
112,564
27.97
47,157
21.88
36,893
1.23
2,078
D.
C20 Stairways
June
4, 2014
RE
L AT
I V E S I T E C O ST A N A LYS I S34
0.00
Stadium
Average Versus Current Cost 13.71
Model
C
0
23,106
Average
70,263
$/SF 41.68
TOTAL
Interiors
1,870,514 SF
18.78
Concept Cost Plan
NFL
Stadium
B
Shell
Buffalo
Bills
Cost Model
$/SF
TOTAL
TOTAL
Gross Floor Area:
1,685,764
SF
4.47
7,543
22.10
37,256
Cost Model
76,227
$/SF 45.22
TOTAL
1,870,514
SF
6.77
11,413
D20
Systems
A10 Plumbing
Foundations
12.64
18.78
21,304
31,653
8.82
21.89
14,860
36,896
D30
& Air Conditioning
A20 Heating,
BasementVentilation
Construction
16.77
0.00
28,266
0
18.48
0.00
31,160
0
D40
A
D50
B10
D
B20
Fire
Protection
Substructure
Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications
Superstructure
Services
Exterior Enclosure
2.88
18.78
32.60
76.76
69.37
21.15
4,863
31,653
54,964
129,397
116,940
35,651
3.41
21.89
34.00
47.37
71.47
16.11
5,740
36,896
57,310
79,860
120,484
27,160
E10
B30
Equipment
Roofing
17.27
5.20
29,120
8,771
19.80
3.29
33,374
5,545
E20
B
Furnishings
Shell
17.49
103.11
29,489
173,819
6.57
66.77
11,075
112,564
34.77
27.97
58,609
47,157
26.37
21.88
44,448
36,893
F10
Construction
C20 Special
Stairways
2.06
0.00
3,477
0
1.47
1.23
2,480
2,078
F20
Demolition
C30 Selective
Interior Finishes
0.00
13.71
0
23,106
0.00
22.10
0
37,256
F
C
2.06
41.68
3,477
70,263
1.47
45.22
2,480
76,227
ELEMENTAL
COST
BEFORE CONTINGENCIES
D10 Conveying
Systems
269.77
4.47
454,761
7,543
233.19
6.77
393,099
11,413
D20 Contingency
Plumbing Systems
Z10
ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES
D40 Fire Protection
Z21 General Requirements
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications
Z22 Fee
D
Services
Z23 Bond
E10 Equipment
CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION
E20 Furnishings
E
Equipment & Furnishings
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
F10 Special Construction
12.64
6.43
16.77
276.19
2.88
24.43
32.60
9.50
69.37
2.66
17.27
313.03
17.49
15.73
34.77
328.75
2.06
21,304
10,833
28,266
465,594
4,863
41,191
54,964
16,016
116,940
4,489
29,120
527,691
29,489
26,511
58,609
554,202
3,477
8.82
23.32
18.48
256.51
3.41
20.52
34.00
11.08
71.47
0.00
19.80
288.11
6.57
14.47
26.37
302.58
1.47
14,860
39,310
31,160
432,409
5,740
34,593
57,310
18,680
120,484
0
33,374
485,681
11,075
24,400
44,448
510,082
2,480
E
& Furnishings
C10 Equipment
Interior Construction
Special
InteriorsConstruction & Demolition
F20
Selective Demolition
0.00
0.00
Special Construction & Demolition
2.06
3,477
1.47
2,480
269.77
454,761
233.19
393,099
6.43
10,833
23.32
39,310
276.19
465,594
256.51
432,409
24.43
41,191
20.52
34,593
ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES

Z10
Contingency
ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES

Z21
General Requirements
Z22
Fee
9.50
16,016
11.08
18,680
Z23
Bond
2.66
4,489
0.00
313.03
527,691
288.11
485,681
15.73
26,511
14.47
24,400
CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION

Z30
AECOM TECHNICAL
SERVICES
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
NFL STADIUM SITE 302.58

OPTIONS ANALYSIS
| 117
328.75 BUFFALO
554,202
510,082
M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
Set forth below is an analysis of the current market conditions in Buffalo, New York including changes in demographics
and socioeconomic conditions. In addition, AECOM evaluates recent trends in the regional hotel, office, residential and
retail markets to understand the economic environment in which the proposed stadium and ancillary development will
operate. This information is being provided for context only and AECOM makes no assumptions regarding the future
development or performance of various types of facilities.
While we will provide high level market and demographic analysis for the metropolitan area for each of the proposed real
estate uses, this analysis does not take the place of a precise market and feasibility study associated with ancillary real
estate development, either on- or off-site.
D E M O G R A P H I C S
Comprised of Erie and Niagara counties, the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
is home to 1.1 million people. The MSA was a major industrial area with a large steel manufacturing industry. As
manufacturing jobs moved out of the northeast, the population followed. In 1970, the MSA population peaked with
1.3 million residents. Although the population in the MSA may have stabilized in recent years at 1.1 million people,
Figure 1 above shows the redistribution of the population in Buffalo and the surrounding areas. Even as the population
was growing in the MSA, the share of residents living in Buffalo declined as people moved to the suburbs. In 1940, 60
percent of the MSA residents lived in Buffalo. By 2010, the number of residents in the MSA residing in Buffalo had
dropped to 23 percent, and that rate has remained constant since.
Figure 1 Population of Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA, 1940-2013
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: U.S. Census
Buffalo, NY
Rest of MSA
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Figure 2 Age Distribution, 2010

Less than 5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
Over 90
6.5%
6.6%
6.7%
7.1%
7.0%
6.8%
6.5%
6.5%
6.8%
7.4%
7.2%
6.4%
5.4%
4.0%
3.0%
2.4%
1.9%
1.2%
0.6%
U.S.
5.3%
5.8%
6.3%
7.2%
7.3%
6.2%
5.4%
5.6%
6.7%
7.6%
8.0%
7.0%
5.8%
4.3%
3.3%
2.9%
2.6%
1.7%
0.9%
Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA
Source: U.S. Census
The median age of residents in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA is several years older than the U.S. median, 40.6 years in
Buffalo compared to 37.2 years in the U.S. Interestingly, the median age for residents in Buffalo was 33.2 years reflecting
in part the student population. Figure 2 compares the distribution of residents by age group in the U.S. and the BuffaloNiagara Falls MSA. There is a smaller share of the MSA population under the age of 14 than in the U.S. and a larger
share of residents over the age of 45. Residents between the ages of 25 and 64, the core of the workforce, represent
52.3 percent of the Buffalo MSA population, compared to 53 percent of the U.S. population at large. The share of
residents between the ages of 15 and 24 is slightly higher in the MSA than in the U.S. which could reflect the university
population in the region. The City of Buffalo projects the MSA population to grow by 28% by the year 2031.
Figure 3 Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA Income Distribution
2000
18%
14%
2010
15%
12%
2013
14%
12%
0%
20%
13%
12%
11%
16%
14%
14%
40%
Less than $15,000

$25-34,999
$50-74,999
$100-149,999
19%
19%
20%
10%
12%
12%
60%
80%
6% 3%
11% 5%
11%
6%
100%
$15-24,999
$35-49,000
$75-99,999
$150+
Source: Experian
The median household income for the city of Buffalo metro area is lower than the national median. In 2011, median
household income in the U.S. was $50,502 compared to $47,081 in the MSA. The distribution of households by income
is shown in Figure 3 with a clear shift occurring from lower income categories to higher. In 2000, 18 percent of all
households earned less than $15,000 annually. By 2013, that share had dropped to 14 percent, yet the income category
showing the largest growth is households earning between $100,000 to $149,999.
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
SOCIOECONOMICS
Figure 4 Unemployment Rates, 1990-2013
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
0%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2%
U.S.
New York
Buffalo-Niagara MSA
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
With the exception of the late 1990s and the late 2000s, the unemployment rate in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA
has substantially mirrored national trends, as reflected in Figure 4. During the most recent economic downturn, the
regional unemployment rate was lower than the national averages by a full percentage point. However, in 2012 and
2013, the unemployment rate in the MSA surpassed the national rates slightly.
Within the MSA, the number of jobs has remained fairly steady, even during the recent recession, though in 2013, there
were 4,200 fewer jobs in the Buffalo region than in 2001. The types of jobs in the economy has shifted though, with a
smaller share of goods producing and more service providing and government jobs.
Figure 5 Regional Labor Market Trends, 2001-2013

600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: U.S. BLS
Goods Producing
Service Providing
Government
Goods producing jobs include natural resources and mining, construction and manufacturing jobs. In 2001, there were
99,887 people employed in goods producing jobs, 19 percent of all jobs. By 2013, this fell to 71,020 jobs or 14 percent
of the total. Manufacturing jobs make up the largest share of the goods producing sector and experienced a significant
downturn since 2001, nearly 27,300 jobs. Service providing jobs accounted for much of this decline, adding 26,157 since
2001. The most jobs were added in professional and business services, followed by leisure and hospitality jobs and
education and health service jobs. Employment in the public sector makes up 16 percent of jobs in the Buffalo MSA.
Some jobs were lost in the federal and local government, but small gains were made in state government employment.
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Table 1 Top Private Employers in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA, 2014
Employer
Kaleida Health
Sector
Health care system
Number of
Employees
10,000
Catholic Health System
Health care system
6,628
Employer Services Corp.
Employment-related services
6,363
M&T Bank
Commercial bank
5,140
Tops Markets LLC
Supermarket retailer
5,058
Catholic Diocese of Buffalo
Parishes, schools, and institutions
3,500
Wegmans Food Markets Inc.
Supermarket retailer
3,209
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Hospital
3,186
Moog Inc.
Manufacturer
3,174
HSBC Bank USA N.A.
Commercial bank
3,000
Source Buffalo Business First 2014 Book of Lists

Table 1 shows the largest private employers in the Buffalo MSA. The largest two private employers are in the health care
sector. The MSA has become the center for healthcare and education for much of Western New York.
H OT E L M A R K E T
The travel industry nationwide has been showing signs of gradual recovery since 2010 and in 2013 room rates
surpassed pre-recession levels. Smith Travel Research (STR), a company that gathers lodging industry supply, demand
and performance data from properties in more than 160 countries, reported that U.S. hotels experienced growth in three
key metrics during 2013 occupancy, average daily rate (ADR) and revenue per available room (RevPAR).
Figure 6 U.S. Hotel Performance, 1999-2013
$120
70%
$100
60%
50%
$80
40%
$60
30%
$40
20%
$20
ADR
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
$0
10%
0%
Occupancy
Source: STR
Overall, the U.S. hotel industrys occupancy increased to 62.3 percent in 2013, the highest it has been since 2007. During
the past several years, increases in occupancy did not always translate into revenue gains as many hotel properties
lowered their room rates due to increased competition. In addition, there was a downshifting in type of hotel used.
Instead of staying in an Upper Upscale hotel such as a Hilton, Hyatt or Marriott, travelers choose instead to stay in
Upscale hotels such as a Courtyard, Crowne Plaza or Hilton Garden Inn. However, from 2012 to 2013, the average
daily rate (ADR) was up 3.9 percent to $110.35; reaching a new peak, and revenue per available room (RevPAR) which
accounts for both occupancy and ADR grew 5.4 percent to $68.69. According to STR, in 2013 the U.S. hotel industry also
had the highest number of rooms available (1.7 billion), rooms sold (1.1 billion) and room revenue ($122 billion). These
numbers indicate both that more people are traveling and that rates have also recovered which is good news for the
industry. The progress made in 2013 can be attributed to the combination of overall improved economic conditions,
corporate and consumer confidence, strong leisure travel demand and moderate room supply.
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
STR classifies hotels into class segments based on their brand as well as average room rates. Independent hotels are
now categorized by class also. The segments include:
Luxury Chains
Upper Midscale Chains
Upper Upscale Chains
Mid Scale Chains
Upscale Chains
Economy Chains
In the Buffalo region, there are 156 hotel properties providing 13,656 rooms according to STR. The following table shows
the number of hotels operating throughout the Buffalo region as well as the number of rooms by class.
Table 2 Hotels in Buffalo Region
Properties
Rooms
Economy
72
3,462
Midscale
23
2,349
Upper Midscale
35
4,247
Upscale
19
1,937
1,661
156
13,656
Upper Upscale
Total
Source: STR
Though Economy hotels make up the largest number of properties, the largest share of rooms are Upper Midscale,
which includes Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn, Hampton Inn Best Western and similar hotels. Nearly half of the rooms in
the MSA are in the cities of Buffalo and Niagara, 6,536 rooms. There are currently 7 properties under construction
throughout the region which will increase the room count by 6 percent, a total of 861 new rooms. There are no luxury
properties in the market.
Figure 7 Buffalo Hotel Rooms by Class

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
Economy
Midscale
Upper Midscale
Upscale
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
500
Upper Upscale
Source: Smith Travel Research
As set forth in Table 2, the 156 hotels in the region, 23 are located in Buffalo with 3,564 rooms. Figure 7 shows hotel
rooms by class with the largest share of rooms classified as upper midscale (868 rooms). The number of hotel rooms
offered in Buffalo grew at an average rate of 1.6 percent per year since 2000, as a total of 616 rooms were added over
this span. In May 2014, the Courtyard Buffalo Downtown Canalside opened with 102 rooms. It was the first new hotel in
Buffalo since the Fairfield Inn & Suites Buffalo Airport, an Upper Midscale property, and the Embassy Suites Buffalo,
an Upper Upscale property, opened in July 2009.
Table 3 Hotels Under Construction in Buffalo, New York
Property
Zip Code
Rooms
Upscale
Boutique Hotel
Hilton Garden Inn Buffalo Downtown
Hyatt Place Buffalo Amherst
14202
14202
14226
57
116
137
Upper Upscale
Marriott Buffalo Downtown
14203
205
Source: STR
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
According to STR and set forth in Table 3, there are 4 hotels currently under construction in Buffalo which will add 515
rooms to the inventory, a 17 percent increase. Three of the properties are Upscale and the other is Upper Upscale.
Three of the properties are downtown, adding 378 rooms. The Marriott property is located in the HARBORCENTER, a
mixed-use development adjacent to the Niagara Center with two hockey rinks and other amenities, and is scheduled to
open in mid-2015. A 2014 report by HVS lists several redevelopment projects that include hotels:
The former Trio manufacturing facility will be developed into a 230 room facility divided into an upscale boutique
property and an upscale extended stay hotel along with residences and retail space.
The Richardson Olmsted complex in Buffalos Forest neighborhood will be reportedly redeveloped into an 88 room
boutique hotel and event center by 2016.
The former Curtis Building downtown may be redeveloped into a 67 unit upscale boutique hotel.
The Grange League Federation grain elevator and warehouse is part of the RiverWorks mixed use development
which will include a craft brewery, hotel, entertainment and retail attractions.
The Adams Mark hotel is currently for sale. Given its proximity to HARBORCENTER, there is a possibility that a
future owner may renovate and reposition the hotel to capture the influx of hockey-related and meeting and group
demand.
An in-depth analysis of the 12 properties downtown (Midscale and better) shows a healthy market, in part due to limited
supply of hotel rooms. As shown in Table 4, combined these 12 hotels offer 1,905 rooms and represent the competitive
market for new hotel development downtown. The largest property is Adams Mark Buffalo with 486 rooms. The Hyatt
Regency provides 396 rooms.
Table 4 Select Properties in Downtown Buffalo
Class/Property Name
Open Date
Rooms
Adams Mark Buffalo
June 1980
486
Best Western on the Avenue
June 1968
61
NP
40
Comfort Suites Downtown Buffalo
April 1980
146
Doubletree Club Buffalo Downtown
Nov. 1998
100
Hampton Inn Suites Buffalo Downtown
May 2001
140
Holiday Inn Buffalo Downtown
Aug. 1966
167
Courtyard Buffalo Downtown Canalside
May 2014
102
Hotel @ The Lafayette
June 1904
57
Embassy Suites Buffalo
July 2009
182
Hyatt Regency Buffalo
Feb. 1984
396
The Mansion on Delaware Avenue

NP = Not provided
June 2001
28
Midscale
Lenox Hotel
Upper Midscale
Upscale
Upper Upscale
Source: STR
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Performance data for these properties for the past several years shows that demand for rooms has outpaced changes in
supply indicating that the market is not oversupplied. During the recent economic recovery, occupancy rates dipped in
2009 and have since surpassed pre-recession levels even as new properties opened.
A commonly used hotel performance measure is revenue per available room (RevPAR). This is determined by dividing
total room revenue by the room supply (i.e., the number of rooms available for the period being analyzed). RevPAR is a
measure of how well hotels are able to fill rooms and is commonly throughout the industry to benchmark performance
to other time periods, competitive hotels, other markets, etc. Among the properties described in table 4, RevPAR grew an
average of 3.7 percent annually since 2008.
Figure 8 Hotel Performance at Select Downtown Properties
$76
$108
$104
$73
$66
$60
30%
$64
40%
$70
50%
$101
$96
$98
60%
$109
70%
20%
10%
0%
2008
Source: STR
2009
2010
RevPAR
2011
ADR
2012
2013
Occupancy
Since 2008, the number of rooms supplied in the market has been growing at 2.9 percent annually. Demand exceeded
growth at 3.9 percent over the same time period which resulted in increasing occupancy rates. As an indicator of health
in the hotel market, both the average daily rate (ADR) and RevPAR also grew. As set forth in Figure 8, 2013, RevPAR
was $76 per room at the select properties, an increase of $12 per night since 2008. In a hotel market, when occupancy
passes 70 percent, it is often an indicator that there is enough demand in the market to support additional rooms.
O F F I C E M A R K E T
National demand for office space was negatively impacted by the economic downturn beginning in 2008, as illustrated
in Figure 9. Vacancy rates started growing that year as companies reduced the size of their workforces as well as sought
to minimize leasing costs by increasing worker density in office space.
Figure 9 National Office Market, 2003-Q2 2013
9
8
12.8%
13.3%
12.2%
11.1%
13.4%
13.1%
13.0%
12.9%
12.8%
12.6%
12.5%
12.4%
12.2%
2012 Q2
2012 Q3
2012 Q4
2013 Q1
2013 Q1
2013 Q2
11.7%
10.5%
10.7%
2006
2007
Billions
5
4
3
2
1
0
2003
Source: CoStar
2004
2005
2008
2009
Class A
Class B
2010
2011
Class C
2012 Q1
Vacancy Rate
The recovery from the economic downturn is underway as illustrated by declining vacancy rates since peaking at
13.4 percent in 2010. Demand for office space has been restructured since the beginning of the economic downturn.
Contributing factors include higher worker productivity resulting in slower total employment growth, higher levels of
worker density per office compared to the pre-downturn era and continuing technological advancements that ease
remote work by employees as well as employer willingness to allow employees to work off site.
At the end of 2013 Q2, there was a total of 7.7 billion square feet of office space in the U.S., with 36 percent of this total
comprised of Class A space, 44 percent Class B space, and 20 percent Class C space.
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Figure 10 National Office Market Rents

$35
$30 12.2%
$25
11.1%
10.5% 10.7%
11.7%
13.3% 13.4% 13.1% 13.0% 12.9%

12.8% 12.6% 12.5% 12.4%
12.2%
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013
1q
2q
3q
4q
1q
2q
3q
Source: CoStar
Total Rent
Class A Rent
Vacancy Rate
Typically, as vacancy rates increase, average rents fall. Figure 10 does show this relationship at the national level,
particularly as the recession began. Since the dramatic drop in rates in 2009, they have varied little, reaching $23.37 per
square foot of office space in the third quarter of 2013. Rates for Class A space have recovered faster, adding $0.75 per
square foot in rent since 2009 compared to $0.07 for total rents. However, they are still lower than their peak of $30.07
per square foot in 2008. At the end of the third quarter of 2013, average rents for Class A space in the U.S. were $28.56
per square foot, more than $7.50 square foot higher than Class B space.
In 2013, vacancy rates in the Buffalo market increased as a result of HSBCs downsizing. HSBC left more than 700,000
square feet vacant at the One Seneca Tower in the central business district (CBD). A report by HVS indicates that
there are discussions to convert the building to a mixed use space with lodging, office, retail, entertainment and other
uses. The impact of this vacancy will likely linger. On the positive side, there are several redevelopment initiatives
resulting from the Buffalo Billion initiative. The initiative was developed by the Western New York Regional Economic
Development Council (WNYREDC) at the request of Governor Cuomo. In 2013, the WNYREDC pledged $1 billion
in state funds to attract complementary private investment in excess of $5 billion to accelerate growth in health
care, manufacturing, technology and tourism. To date, key components include the $1.5 billion Buffalo High-Tech
Manufacturing Hub at RiverBend, the $225 million Buffalo Medical Innovation and Commercialization Hub, the $50
million New York Genome Center, the $53 million Buffalo Niagara Advanced Manufacturing Institute, and the $55 million
Buffalo IT Innovation and Commercialization Hub.
Figure 11 Total Office Space in Buffalo CBD

15,000,000
14,500,000
14,000,000
13,500,000
13,000,000
12,500,000
Source: CoStar
Occupied SF
2014 1Q
2013 3Q
2013 1Q
2012 3Q
2012 1Q
2011 3Q
2011 1Q
2010 3Q
2010 1Q
2009 3Q
2009 1Q
2008 3Q
2008 1Q
2007 3Q
11,500,000
2007 1Q
12,000,000
Vacant SF
According to the CoStar Group and as set forth in Figure 11, a company that maintains a database of existing and under
construction office buildings in metropolitan areas across the U.S., there are 14.5 million square feet of office space in
Buffalos central business district. Since the first quarter of 2007, only two properties have been added, increasing the
inventory by 547,258 square feet. The total rental building area (RBA) has been unchanged since the second quarter
of 2008. The number of vacant square feet has not been as volatile as the national averages. However, with the HSBC
departure discussed above, the share of vacant space increased in the third quarter of 2013 from 8.2 percent to 13.4
percent, nearly 2 million square feet of vacant space.
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Figure 12 Vacancy Rates and Rent for Buffalo CBD Office Space
16%
$17.00
14%
$16.50
12%
$16.00
10%
8%
$15.50
6%
$15.00
4%
$14.50
Rent per SF
2014 1Q
2013 3Q
2013 1Q
2012 3Q
2012 1Q
2011 3Q
2011 1Q
2010 3Q
2010 1Q
2009 3Q
2009 1Q
2008 3Q
2008 1Q
2007 3Q
0%
2007 1Q
2%
$14.00
Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar Group
Typically as vacancy rates rise, rents fall. However, vacancy rates in the Buffalo CBD have been fairly steady until
recently, as shown in Figure 11. Rents also fluctuated only slightly. The average rent for office space peaked in the
fourth quarter of 2009 at $16.86. Since then, rates have fallen and have been averaging $16.30 for the past several
quarters. As of the second quarter of 2014, average rents were $16.39 per square foot.
There are 5.6 million square feet of Class A space in downtown Buffalo. Vacancy rates were just under 7 percent until
the One Seneca property emptied. Currently at 20 percent vacancy, rates dropped slightly to $18.05 per square foot.
Though nationally construction has slowed, CBRE projections show more than 500,000 square feet of office space
currently under construction in the Buffalo market with another 300,000 square feet in the planning stages. In addition
to new construction, new inventory is expected to come from redevelopment projects in the CBD of Class C space.
R E S I D E N T I A L M A R K E T
Home sales and prices across the country have recently been rising, though still lagging from the peak of the housing
bubble back in 2006. This rise has been attributed to a drop in foreclosures, lower unemployment, continued low
mortgage rates and pent up demand. Homeownership peaked in the U.S. in 2004 at 69.2 percent and has experienced a
steady decline dropping to 64.8 percent in the first quarter of 2014. Restrictive credit markets, low inventories of homes
for sale and high student debt for young adults have made home ownership difficult for some prospective owners. A
difficult job market and stagnant wages also are hindrances. This has also affected the household growth rate. Though
still growing it is at a much slower rate as some families are now cohabitating.
Figure 13 Housing Starts in the U.S., 2000-2013
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
Single Family
2-4 Family
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
500,000
5+ Family
Source: U.S. Census
The strength of the housing market, and the economy, is often measured by housing starts. According to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), when the housing bubble began in 2003, the pace of singlefamily housing starts was at an annual rate of 1.5 million units, peaking in 2005 at 1.7 million units, as shown in Figure
13. Construction starts began rising again in 2010. At the end of 2013, there were 617,600 construction starts on single
family homes, a 15 percent increase from 2012. Multifamily housing starts also peaked in 2005 and fell to a low of
108,800 in 2008. By 2013, there were 307,400, a 25 percent increase from 2012. The number of building permits issued,
a fairly reliable indicator over time of future starts, follows a similar pattern as housing starts, peaking in 2005 and
slowly recovering starting in 2010. Permits for single-family homes were up 20 percent in 2013 to 620,802. Multifamily
building permits were up similarly. Before the housing market crashed, multi-family permits made up between 20 and
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
25 percent of all permits in the U.S. In the post-recession recovery, they made up 37 percent in both 2012 and 2013
indicating that perhaps this segment is recovering faster.
In the Buffalo MSA, there were an estimated 518,979 housing units in 2012, of which 90 percent were occupied. Owners
occupied two-thirds of such units. Home sales declined in early 2014. According to Corelogic, as reported by HUD,
existing home sales decreased by 3,675, or 35 percent, to 6,650 homes sold during the 12 months ending February 2014
compared with a year earlier, and the average sales price for an existing home sold decreased by 1 percent, to $116,350.
Sales of new homes decreased 5 percent to approximately 120 homes sold and the average sales price decreased 11
percent to $196,250 during the same period. The rental market stabilized during the past year as the vacancy rate
for apartments was unchanged. According to realtor.com, the average rent for a one bedroom apartment in Buffalo is
$1,234 and $1,404 for a two bedroom. Rents are slightly higher in Buffalo than in the rest of the MSA which is typical in
urban areas.
Figure 14 Residential Building Permits, Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
Single Family
2-4 Family
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
500
5+ Family
Source: U.S. Census
As set forth in Figure 14, the Buffalo MSA, the number of residential building permits issued peaked in 2002 with nearly
3,000. The vast majority of such permits are for single family homes. With the recent financial crisis and the tightening
of the credit markets, the number of permits issued for single family homes fell between 2007 and 2008 and again
between 2010 and 2011. In 2013, the number was 1,016. The number of multi-family units has fluctuated over time with
relatively few smaller multi-family buildings (2-4 units) than larger developments (5+ units). However, in 2013, there
were considerably more permits issued for 5+ unit buildings in Buffalo than in previous years.
Figure 15 Sales Transactions for Multi-Family Housing, 2005-2013
A 2013 report by CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) Global Research and Consulting, denoted in Figure 15, shows that multifamily
housing transactions are slowly rebounding in the Buffalo market. In 2013, there were 179 sales transactions, up from
131 transactions in 2012. The sales transactions represented 2,688 apartment units, selling for an average of $39,627
per unit. As shown in Figure 15, the selling price is down slightly from the previous year, but still much higher than 20082009 levels. This reflects a recovering economy as well as the continuation of low interest rates.
Properties outside of the city of Buffalo are selling at a higher price. In 2013-2014, more than one-quarter of the
apartments sold were in Buffalo (27%), averaging $29,733 per unit. This is 25 percent lower than the MSA average. In
Erie County, the 1,320 apartments sold at an average of $48,359.
According to CBRE, published plans indicate 193 units to be built downtown as well as housing for 584 students in 216
units. There are several other reuse projects that have not released the number of units, one of which includes senior
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
housing. In the surrounding area, there are pans to add 458 units of housing to the market which includes 120 senior
housing units. According to CBRE, future demand is driven largely by the need for additional student housing in the
region.
Table 5 Estimated Demand for New Home Sales
Units of
Demand
Percent
of Total
$150,000 to $199,999
310
12%
$200,000 to $249,999
800
31%
$250,000 to $299,999
570
22%
$300,000 to $349,999
360
14%
$350,000 to $399,999
180
7%
$400,000 to $499,999
150
6%
$500,00 and higher
210
8%
Price Range
Source: HUD
In a 2012 report on the MSA housing market, HUD estimates demand for new market rate sales housing in Erie County
through October 2015. Expected demand is 3,575 new homes in Erie County, some of which would be met by units under
construction as well as currently vacant units. The rental housing market in Erie county has improved since 2010 as
demand from college students and seniors increased. The vacancy rate in 2012 was 7 percent, down from 8.5 percent in
2010. HUD estimates that there is demand for nearly 1,525 new market rate rental units in Erie County through October
2015. Of those, 75 are studios, 460 are one bedrooms, 690 are two bedrooms and 310 have three or more bedrooms.
R E TA I L M A R K E T
Retail sales declined as economic uncertainty grew in 2008 and 2009. Declines in net worth and home equity hindered
consumer spending. Recovery began slowly in 2010 with some lingering concerns of a double dip recession through
2011. However, pent up demand combined with recovery in the housing markets, resulted in retail sales surpassing their
previous peak in 2012, reaching nearly $4.9 trillion.
Two trends that will impact the retail market are worth noting the sluggish rebound in the housing market and
the push for taxation of online retail sales. Retail sales depend on household growth and new household formation.
However, more young adults are living at home longer waiting for the economic recovery to take root. With small
improvements in job creation, retail sales will rise. Second, pressure has been growing on Congress to address the
sales tax exemption for interstate online retail sales. State and local governments, joined by some business interests,
are pressing for the sales tax issue to be addressed as tax receipts for retail sales continue to drop due to the growth of
online shopping.
The economic downturn had an impact on real estate as well. Several large big box retailers were not able to survive the
economic downturn such as Borders, Circuit City and Linens n Things. Other chains are merging operations, such as
Office Depot and OfficeMax, while other large retailers close underperforming stores across the country such as Kmart,
Abercrombie & Fitch, and most recently, Blockbuster Video. These retailers have left large, empty storefronts in their
wake and communities are struggling to fill them. At the same time, other retailers thrived as shoppers with consumers
becoming more value-driven as household income declined. These cost-conscious shoppers shifted their spending
to discount, dollar and thrift stores though it is expected that as employment and household spending recover, retail
patterns will shift back.
Figure 16 National Retail Space, 2006-2014
8%
$15.07
$15.04
$14.98
$15.09
$15.12
$15.16
$15.21
$15.26
2012 2q
2012 3q
2012 4q
2013 1q
2013 2q
2013 3q
2013 4q
2014 1q
$15.44
$15.11
2012 1q
Rent per Sq. Ft.
2014 2q
$15.11
2011
2009
2008
2007
0%
2006
1%
$15.44
2%
2010
3%
$16.34
4%
$17.37
5%
$16.39
6%
$17.08
7%
Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar
E.
MARKET RESEARCH
Despite declines in retail sales, the amount of retail space in the U.S. continues to grow, though the pace of growth has
slowed. By the second quarter of 2014, there were nearly 10.1 billion square feet of retail space throughout the U.S.
according to CoStar. Reference Figure 16. Vacancy rates peaked at 7.6 percent in 2009 and have slowly fallen to 6.5
percent currently. As vacancy rates fell, rents started rising again, though they remain almost $2 per square foot lower
than their peak of $17.37 in 2008. The amount of retail space being constructed fell dramatically in 2008 and 2009 as
credit markets froze and project financing became very difficult. Even as the financial sector recovered, the amount of
retail space expected to be delivered to market in the U.S. in 2014 is 8.9 million square feet compared to a high of 210.7
million square feet in 2006.
According to CoStar, the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA retail market has 59.9 million square feet of retail space, 7.1 percent
of which is vacant. Current MSA rents average $10.26 per square foot. Over the past year, a total of 269,312 square feet
of retail space has been built in Buffalo-Niagara Falls market. There were 2 retail spaces under construction which will
add 16,826 square feet of retail space.
Figure 17 Downtown Buffalo Retail Space
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
Occupied SF
2014 1Q
2013 3Q
2013 1Q
2012 3Q
2012 1Q
2011 3Q
2011 1Q
2010 3Q
2010 1Q
2009 3Q
2009 1Q
2008 3Q
2008 1Q
2007 3Q
2007 1Q
1,000,000
Vacant SF
Source: CoStar
In Buffalo CBD, there are 6.7 million square feet of retail space, 11 percent of the regions total. The vacancy rate is
slightly higher at 7.4 percent. Rents are also higher, averaging $13.59 per square foot, typical in a downtown. Since
the first quarter of 2007, there has been only 1 retail space added to the downtown inventory with 26,206 square feet.
Vacancy rates peaked in the second quarter of 2012 at 8.7 percent and have been falling slowly.
According to CBRE, attrition, redevelopment and adaptive re-use of vacant space have all contributed to the reduction.
For example, a former Wal-Mart in Hamburg is being repurposed as a light manufacturing facility and a former
department store is being redeveloped as a Cabelas in Cheektowaga.
AECOM reviewed and evaluated the plans for the recently completed renovation project at Ralph Wilson Stadium (RWS).
The RWS renovation project cost approximately $130 million and was completed prior to the 2014 NFL season.
The RWS renovations added value to the facility and are likely to be appreciated by Bills fans. The renovations included
upgrading the arrival and concourse experience for fans and upgrading RWSs technological resources, including new
HD video boards and Point of Sale technology for better and more flexible food and retail purchasing options. Further,
RWSs concessions and toilet facilities were renovated on the concourses and entry gates were added from the parking
lots. These improvements should improve fan experience and interaction capabilities.
It is difficult to compare the holistic impact of the amenities and accommodations of renovated NFL stadiums to those
of newly constructed NFL stadiums. However, a categorical comparison of the amenities at the renovated RWS to those
at a selection of other NFL stadiums, including certain recently renovated stadiums and certain newly constructed
stadiums, is set forth in Appendix A.
While the RWS renovation project will certainly enhance the fan experience, as technology continues to advance,
the existing RWS continues to age and NFL fan expectations continue to evolve, additional renovation projects and
improvements to RWS may be necessary in order to entice the team to enter into a renewed long term lease. For
reference purposes, the current trend in NFL stadiums is to provide seating treads of 34 inches to accommodate
modern stadium chairs and provide fans with adequate leg room. By contrast, the post-renovation RWS will retain 30
inch seating treads. Further, the concourses in RWS are 22 feet wide and have to accommodate both fan circulation and
concession queuing. The current trend in NFL stadiums is to provide concourses that are approximately 65 feet wide.
After reviewing the stadium documents we believe it may be possible to conduct renovations that would extend the
useful NFL life of the facility. Renovations to Lambeau Field in Green Bay and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City provide
examples of older facilities for which the useful NFL life was extended following extensive renovations. The $295 million
dollar renovation to Lambeau Field included an overhaul of the Lambeau concourses, construction of a new retail
Atrium, a new Pro Shop, adding rest rooms, adding a new entrance and adding new player facilities (including strength
and conditioning rooms and a new player parking area). The $375 million renovation to Arrowhead Stadium included a
new press box, a new Kansas City Chiefs Hall of fame, new seating arrangements, a new team store, new suites and club
lounges and a childrens learning area.
F.
R A L P H W I LS O N STA D I U M R E N OVAT I O N
Beginning with those models, we could envision a future renovation to RWS that would take an approach similar to
the renovation of Lambeau Field to address structural improvements and include upgrades to premium seating areas,
additional restroom and concourse improvements, further improvements to Point of Sale system and ADA compliancerelated improvements. For reference purposes, we believe renovations to RWS comparable to those at Lambeau
Field and Arrowhead Stadium could cost over $420million in 2014 dollars. RWS however would offer the additional
complexity of rebuilding the upper deck structures to accommodate the required premium suites and modern media
facilities. This added challenge would add between $125 and $150 million to the other renovation cost model. Thus the
costs associated with undertaking the aforementioned improvements and renovations could exceed $540 million in
2014 dollars. Note that this amount does not take into account any infrastructure improvements. Additional analysis
combined with owner input is necessary to facilitate a discussion on merits of renovating RWS vs constructing a new
facility.
Nonetheless, modernizing the stadium will not create a site that we anticipate becoming a candidate viable ancillary
development, as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Aecom Buffalo Site Opt Study - FINAL-141223

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aecom Buffalo Site Opt Study - FINAL-141223

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aecom Buffalo Site Opt Study - FINAL-141223

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B U F FA L O

23, DECEMBER 2014

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 1

2 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

A. GENERAL TASK DESCRIPTION

C. NON SHORTLISTED SITES

D. RALPH WILSON STADIUM RENOVATION

D. STADIUM PROGRAM DRIVERS

A. NFL CASE STUDIES

i. OPEN AIR FOOTBALL STADIUM

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

E. RALPH WILSON STADIUM RENOVATION

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 3

4 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 5

6 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 7

8 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 9

10 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

Central Terminal site

La Salle Park site

Niagara Falls site

Outer Harbor site

Republic Steel site

Tonawanda Street site

University of Buffalo site

West Seneca site

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 11

12 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 13

14 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 15

16 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 17

18 | BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

Open Air Stadium

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

BUFFALO NFL STADIUM SITE OPTIONS ANALYSIS | 19

La Salle Park Site

Niagara Falls Site

Orchard Park Site