112 Scenarios at a Glance

All scenarios scored against 20 objectives using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with equal weighting. Robustness tested across 7 alternative weight schemes (environmental, financial, social, etc.). Recommendation based on rank consistency and Pareto dominance.

Rank ID Scenario MCDA Score Pareto Rank Range Recommendation
1 H Forest Preserved; No Stadium; Housing MC + City 92.4 Dominant 1 – 1 Proceed
2 E Forest as Park; Stadium 53 Birch; Housing MC 84.0 Dominant 2 – 3 Proceed
3 F Forest Preserved; Stadium Brevard Rd; Housing MC 84.0 Dominant 3 – 4 Proceed
4 I No Stadium; Forest Preserved; Non-RE Revenue 83.7 Dominant 2 – 5 Proceed
5 G Forest Preserved; Stadium South Slope; Housing MC 83.2 Dominated 4 – 5 Consider
6 J Research Forest (Living Laboratory) 80.7 Dominant 6 – 6 Consider
7 B Full Forest Preservation 72.0 Dominated 7 – 7 Consider
8 D Light Housing + Community Park 61.0 Dominated 8 – 8 Eliminate
9 C2 Medium Housing + Buffers 43.4 Dominant 9 – 9 Eliminate
10 C Heavy Housing on Forest 35.4 Dominant 10 – 10 Eliminate
11 A2 Stadium Only on Forest 21.2 Dominated (8) 11 – 11 Eliminate
12 A Stadium + Housing on Forest (AECOM proposal) 17.0 Dominated (9) 12 – 12 Eliminate

Source: coa_comparison.json — MCDA equal-weight scoring, 20 objectives. Pareto "Dominant" = not outscored by any other scenario on all objectives. "Dominated (N)" = outscored by N other scenarios. Rank Range = best and worst rank across 7 weight schemes.

2Interactive Scenario Map

Toggle scenarios to see their spatial footprints on the UNCA forest. The forest boundary (green dashed line) is always visible. Scenario E shows the alternative 53 Birch St stadium site to the south.

Legend

Forest boundary (45 acres)
Scenario A: Stadium + Housing (85% cleared)
Scenario A2: Stadium Only (56% cleared)
Scenario C: Heavy Housing (78% cleared)
Scenario C2: Medium Housing (51% cleared)
Scenario D: Light Dev + Park (22% cleared)
Scenario E: 53 Birch St alt site (0% cleared)
Scenario K: TDA-Funded Preservation-as-Experience (0% cleared, light interpretive trails)
Stadium footprint
Parking structure / surface lots
Housing blocks

3Top 3 Scenarios: Side-by-Side

The highest-ranked scenarios represent fundamentally different strategies. H preserves everything. E relocates the stadium. A is the current AECOM proposal. The gap between H and A is 75 points.

H: Forest Preserved

No stadium. Housing on MC parcels + city infill. Forest stays intact.

MCDA Score92.4 / 100
Rank (all schemes)#1 always
Forest Retained100%
Stormwater100 / 100
Tax RevenueHigh (MC housing)
Public Subsidy$0
Pareto StatusDominant

Strengths

  • Best stormwater, canopy, heat, habitat scores
  • No public subsidy required
  • Housing on already-cleared parcels generates tax
  • Preserves $3.2M/yr ecosystem services

Weaknesses

  • No stadium revenue for university
  • Requires UNCA to pursue non-RE revenue

E: Land Swap

Stadium at 53 Birch St. Forest becomes public park. Housing on MC parcels.

MCDA Score84.0 / 100
Rank (all schemes)#2 – #3
Forest Retained100%
Stormwater100 / 100
Tax RevenueHighest (stadium + housing)
Public Subsidy~$29M (stadium)
Pareto StatusDominant

Strengths

  • Gets stadium AND preserves forest
  • 10 public sites score 90/100 (Brevard Rd, Fairway Dr lead)
  • Tax-generating stadium on non-exempt land
  • Maximum reversibility score (100)

Weaknesses

  • Requires multi-party land swap negotiation
  • Stadium still needs $29M public subsidy
  • Educational value reduced (forest off campus)

A: AECOM Proposal

$204M stadium + 800 units on the forest. Clears 85% canopy.

MCDA Score17.0 / 100
Rank (all schemes)#12 always (last)
Forest Retained15%
StormwaterWorst
Tax Revenue$0 (UNC exempt)
Public Subsidy$29M+
Pareto StatusDominated by 9

Strengths

  • University gets stadium on campus
  • On-site housing for students

Weaknesses

  • Ranks dead last under every weight scheme
  • Dominated by 9 of 11 other scenarios
  • Tax-exempt: generates $0 property tax
  • Destroys 85% of mature forest canopy
  • NPV negative ($-130M over 30 years)
  • Irreversible: 200+ year-old trees gone

3.5Scenario K: TDA-Funded Preservation-as-Experience

Added 2026-04-29 in response to the FOTW strategic pivot. Rather than fight the TDA-funded stadium, pitch the woods to the same Buncombe County TDA capital-projects pipeline as a "family-friendly experience" consistent with FY26 BCTDA priorities. The forest is preserved; light interpretive infrastructure (trails, dendrochronology exhibit, salamander/owl programming) is funded by TDA capital.

K: TDA Family-Friendly Experience

Forest preserved. CapX flows from BCTDA tourism pipeline. Meow Wolf precedent — but ecological.

MCDA Score (EQUAL)83.30 / 100
Best rank (RESILIENCE)#3 of 13
Best rank (ENVIRONMENTAL)#3 of 13
Forest Retained100%
Stormwater100 / 100
Educational Value100 / 100
Subsidy ProfileTDA capital (lower public general-fund)

Strengths

  • Preserves forest with same outcome as H but with different financing
  • Funds preservation through the same pipeline the developer would use
  • Mirrors BCTDA's stated FY26 priority for family-friendly experiences
  • CapX is small fraction of $60–150M facility comparables

Weaknesses

  • "Heads in beds" metric is poor (mostly day visitors)
  • FOTW not yet incorporated; partner-of-record must be SAHC, city, or other 501(c)(3)
  • Programming costs require sustained operating budget

Why the BCTDA fit is real

BCTDA FY26 priority project types (per March 27, 2026 Annual Planning Session, CSL Consultants report):

  1. Large entertainment & arts facility
  2. Sports facilities, indoor & outdoor
  3. Family-friendly experiences — CSL cited Meow Wolf (Santa Fe) as the precedent: "immersive, hands-on environment for all ages, blend of art, play, exploration, and discovery."

The fit: A 45-acre intact urban Appalachian forest with 9 species of Trillium, 8 native orchids, vernal pools used as amphibian breeding habitat, 150-year-old white oaks, and a documented climate archive going back to 1876 already is what the CSL report described — at a small fraction of the build cost of any of the 8 facility types studied.

BCTDA capacity: $34.5M FY27 budget; can take on up to 6 ongoing debt-service capital projects under post-2022 NC law.

Engagement path: The BCTDA is a public body whose meetings are open to the public; agendas and contact information are posted at exploreasheville.com.

The strategic insight: Scenario K does not require defeating Scenario A on its merits. It re-routes the same capital pipeline (BCTDA debt-service for capital projects) to a different recipient (the existing forest, programmed lightly) with a better fit to BCTDA's own stated FY26 priorities. The MCDA shows K as top-3 in environmental and resilience weight schemes — the schemes most aligned with UNCA's own Climate Resilient Campus StoryMap.

4The Adversarial Test

To ensure fairness, we re-scored all scenarios using weights designed to favor the developer's proposal.

Result: H Wins All 7 Weight Schemes

We tested 7 different weighting schemes: equal, environmental-priority, financial-priority, social-priority, university-priority, developer-priority, and community-priority. Under every single scheme, Scenario H (forest preserved) ranks #1.

Even under the most developer-favorable weighting, the gap between H (score ~79) and A (score ~40) narrows from ~75 points to ~40 points — but never closes. The developer's own best-case scenario still loses by a wide margin.

The AECOM proposal (Scenario A) ranks last under every weight scheme tested. This is not a close call. It is not a matter of perspective. The forest destruction proposal is the worst option by any measure.

Why? Scenario A scores 0 on tree canopy, urban heat, carbon, and air/water quality — four objectives that carry weight in every scheme. No reweighting can overcome four zeroes when other scenarios score 83–100 on those same dimensions.

5Alternative Stadium Sites

GIS site-suitability analysis scored all publicly-owned parcels in Buncombe County for stadium potential. 53 Birch St scored 100/100 algorithmically but is disqualified (cemetery adjacency). The top viable sites are 1568 Brevard Rd (123 ac, County, 90/100) and 226 Fairway Dr (111 ac, City, 90/100).

Rank Score Acres Owner Address Current Use Floodplain
-- 100* 48.96 City of Asheville 53 Birch St (disqualified — cemetery) Cemeteries / Burial No
1 90 72.75 United States of America 99999 Elk Mountain Scenic Hwy Government / Exempt / Vacant No
3 90 21.34 City of Asheville 32 Buchanan Pl City Parks No
4 90 64.95 City of Asheville 498 Azalea Rd Government / Exempt / Vacant No
5 90 234.63 United States of America 99999 Ox Creek Rd Government / Exempt / Vacant No
6 90 110.97 City of Asheville 226 Fairway Dr Gov. Park / Community Center No
7 90 85.36 United States of America 99999 Gashes Creek Rd Government Offices No
8 90 313.19 Town of Weaverville Watershed 99999 Eller Cove Rd Water Storage No
9 90 123.33 County of Buncombe 1568 Brevard Rd Government / Exempt / Vacant No
10 90 47.49 State of North Carolina 70 Nut Hill Rd Government / Exempt / Vacant No

Source: scored_alternatives.geojson — GIS site-suitability model scoring on acreage, slope, road access, floodplain status, existing use, and ownership. 30+ publicly-owned parcels scored. Top 10 shown. All sites require on-the-ground feasibility verification.