13 development scenarios scored across 20 objectives. Every weighting scheme produces the same result: preserving the forest wins.
Each scenario was scored against 20 objectives spanning environmental, financial, social, and governance concerns. Results were then re-tested under several different weighting priorities — environmental, financial, equity, governance, resilience — to make sure no single scenario only wins because of one particular bias.
| Rank | ID | Scenario | Overall 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 – 4 | Proceed |
| 3 | F | Forest Preserved; Stadium Brevard Rd; Housing MC | 84.0 | Dominant | 3 – 5 | Proceed |
| 4 | I | No Stadium; Forest Preserved; Non-RE Revenue | 83.7 | Dominant | 2 – 6 | Proceed |
| 5 | K | TDA-Funded Preservation-as-Experience | 83.3 | Dominant | 3 – 6 | Proceed |
| 6 | G | Forest Preserved; Stadium South Slope; Housing MC | 83.2 | Dominated | 4 – 6 | Consider |
| 7 | J | Research Forest (Living Laboratory) | 80.7 | Dominant | 7 – 7 | Consider |
| 8 | B | Full Forest Preservation | 72.0 | Dominated | 8 – 8 | Consider |
| 9 | D | Light Housing + Community Park | 61.0 | Dominated | 9 – 9 | Eliminate |
| 10 | C2 | Medium Housing + Buffers | 43.4 | Dominant | 10 – 10 | Eliminate |
| 11 | C | Heavy Housing on Forest | 35.4 | Dominant | 11 – 11 | Eliminate |
| 12 | A2 | Stadium Only on Forest | 21.2 | Dominated (9) | 12 – 12 | Eliminate |
| 13 | A | Stadium + Housing on Forest | 17.0 | Dominated (10) | 13 – 13 | Eliminate |
Source: coa_comparison.json (derived from mcda_weighted_scores.json; both refreshed 2026-05-07 to include Scenario K). MCDA equal-weight scoring, 20 objectives, 13 scenarios. 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 the 6 weight schemes.
Toggle scenarios to see their spatial footprints on the UNCA forest. The forest boundary (green dashed line) follows Buncombe County parcel boundaries for the cluster of UNCA-administered parcels along W.T. Weaver Boulevard, Lookout Road, Vivian Avenue, and Nantahala Street. Total acreage depends on which Vivian Avenue parcels are counted as forest vs. main campus — the working approximation used throughout this analysis is “45 acres,” with constituent-parcel sums of roughly 38–62 acres depending on inclusion criteria; precise on-the-ground forest-boundary survey is on the open work list. See the Forest acreage note on the main interactive map. Scenario E shows the leading viable alternative stadium site at 1568 Brevard Rd (south Buncombe County, ~123 acres County-owned, already cleared, no FEMA floodway).
The conceptual scenarios (A, A2, C, C2, D) are no longer drawn on the map. They were illustrative shapes, not engineering site plans — their substance is in the comparison cards and tables below.
The map shows ground-truth geography only. Conceptual scenario comparisons (A, A2, C, C2, D, H, K) are tabulated in the comparison cards and scoring tables below.
The highest-ranked scenarios represent fundamentally different strategies. H preserves everything. E relocates the stadium. A is the current stadium proposal. The gap between H and A is 75 points.
No stadium. Housing on MC parcels + city infill. Forest stays intact.
Stadium at 1568 Brevard Rd. Forest becomes public park. Housing on MC parcels.
$204M stadium + 800 units on the forest. Clears 85% canopy.
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.
Forest preserved. CapX flows from BCTDA tourism pipeline. Meow Wolf precedent — but ecological.
BCTDA FY26 priority project types (per March 27, 2026 Annual Planning Session, CSL Consultants report):
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 doesn't require defeating the stadium proposal on its own terms. It re-directs the same public funding pipeline — tourism-development capital projects — toward the existing forest, programmed lightly with trails, exhibits, and seasonal events. Under environmental and resilience priorities, Scenario K ranks in the top three of all thirteen options — the same priorities UNC Asheville's own students articulate in their Climate Resilient Campus StoryMap.
To ensure fairness, we re-scored all scenarios using weights designed to favor the developer's proposal.
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 stadium 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.
GIS site-suitability analysis scored all publicly-owned parcels in Buncombe County for stadium potential. Two algorithmic top scorers were excluded on human review: 53 Birch St (100/100, Riverside Cemetery adjacency) and 226 Fairway Dr (90/100, Asheville Municipal Golf Course — a 1927 Donald Ross design listed on the National Register of Historic Places). The leading viable candidate is 1568 Brevard Rd (123 ac, County, 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 |
| -- | 90* | 110.97 | City of Asheville | 226 Fairway Dr (disqualified — Asheville Muni Golf Course, NRHP) | Active municipal golf course | DQ |
| 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.