SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Downtown & City of Portland (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=192)
-   -   Rose Quarter Redevelopment (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=152548)

philopdx Mar 4, 2009 3:18 AM

CORDISH???

http://www.kansascityfrontpage.com/0...-SPEEDWAYn.jpg

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

http://images.google.com/url?source=...8h_NU6KzBan8ww

Okstate Mar 4, 2009 7:58 AM

I will say that I think a cheesy stylized entertainment district would be successful in town. I can't think of a successful city in America that does not have one. Plus a concentrated nightlife scene to compete with Old Town can't be a bad thing. They don't even know what the word competition means.

Basically this day was inevitable IMO so why not have the best damn cheesy entertainment district possible :)
1) residences 2) offices 3) cheesy entertainment helping support the downtown tax base as opposed to competing with it can't be the worst thing either as opposed to what exists there currently.

Opposing this won't make it not happen. I hope we (Portland) can just ride their A$$ & make them really work on a fitting design to complement this city.

urbanlife Mar 4, 2009 8:29 AM

and they better include a new home for the Beavers so our minor league baseball team can stay near downtown.

Veteran's Memorial Park does have a nice ring to it.

philopdx Mar 4, 2009 2:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificNW (Post 4121116)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 3:12pm PST | Modified: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 3:25pm

J.E. Isaac, the Blazers’ senior vice president for business affairs, said the Rose Quarter has about 10 undeveloped acres as well as four acres on the Willamette River that it purchased in 1992. The site once held a hotel, long since demolished and now ready for re-development.
...

The re-development plan currently does not include taking over the busy grain terminal that separates the Rose Quarter from the Willamette to the north of the Steel Bridge. The owners have said they don’t want to sell, Miller said.


http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...2/daily31.html


So where is this four acre site? I'm trying to reconcile the two statements above - they own a site on the river but their plans do not include developing the grain elevators since they don't own the site. Maybe I just haven't had my coffee yet. Are they two separate pieces of land? Is the four acres on the north side of the grain silos?

bvpcvm Mar 4, 2009 2:51 PM

^ i understood that they're talking about the red lion site just north of the grain terminal.

it might be cheesy, but if they actually do create an area that's vibrant and is put to use more than the current rose quarter, it probably meets the goals of most people here.

pylon Mar 4, 2009 5:10 PM

This proposal looks like it has the possibility to create a synergy among other projects- the headquarters hotel, eastside streetcar and development, and the smart tower... these three plus the party center could lead to more convention center business. The improved convention-oriented attractions could help as/if Portland becomes a player in the green economy.

Other benefits may include more transit oriented development in North Portland, increased light rail ridership from Vancouver on the tentative Columbia River Crossing, increased interest for companies that might want to move here, a relationship with the redevelopment of the main post office property across the river, maybe a casino, more incentive for people to live downtown instead of sprawling outward, etc.

These kinds of projects can sometimes flop though. The one in Rochester, NY failed miserably.

RoseCtyRoks Mar 4, 2009 6:47 PM

I'm torn on Memorial Coliseum going away. On one hand, keeping it for the Winterhawks, concerts, and keeping a Portland landmark, of sorts, has to be considered. But if it's taking up an area that could be a very thriving part of our city, then I have to say maybe it's time has come.

The question: Is there enough land in that area to build UP and OUT for this grand vision, with the MC still in the equation? Knowing that the grain terminal is staying for eons, (Portland is the largest exporter of wheat in the U.S.) would that limit what can be developed close to the river?

At any rate, I'm glad that Portland is thinking forward, and realizes the potential of this area, that the Rose Quarter can wake up from it's deep sleep.

JordanL Mar 5, 2009 2:06 AM

I think at some point the grain elevator will go. The property value will simply be too high, and someone will buy it at it's proper value.

I LOVE the idea of a real entertainment district, designed as such. The MC has outlived itself... it's time it was replaced.

bvpcvm Mar 5, 2009 3:09 AM

i thought i read recently that the grain elevator was acquired by someone new. i know that the family that owned it for years had no intention of selling it and, when the city made inquiries, named a price no one in their right mind would agree to. but this owner - if i'm remembering correctly - was saying that as long as they could work out a deal to build a new one closer to the actual harbor, would be willing. maybe i was reading about the elevator by the broadway bridge tho.

PacificNW Mar 5, 2009 3:58 AM

The are a French family (Dreyfus) who are near as rich as Paul Allen...the price probably would have to be right and/or a new location closer to the Columbia.

bvpcvm Mar 5, 2009 4:17 AM

so are they *new* owners or is the same owners who have been there forever?

JordanL Mar 5, 2009 6:02 AM

As a Libertarian, I certainly don't support the idea, but what are the chances the city finds a location closer to the Columbia, then uses Eminent Domain to force them there?

PacificNW Mar 5, 2009 6:05 AM

I think they still own the silo's. They sold the KOIN tower properties.

zilfondel Mar 5, 2009 8:05 AM

I said before that Cordish would be a good developer (judging from their track record and their proposal for the Centennial Mills) for an entertainment complex here. Glad that it may happen!

We actually do need more developers in town with deep pockets. That means that they're investing in us.

As for MC, I really hope it doesn't come down. Its a Vietnam War Veterans Memorial! And an excellent example of 1960s Modernism, designed by SOM. Its probably the best of the buildings they've designed in Portland, too. It would be a perfect building to be adaptively reused and - judging by the companies' desire to embrace sustainability, you could logically assume thats what they may do.

If it were a tower by them, you guys would be clamoring to preserve it.

scottyboi Mar 5, 2009 3:41 PM

I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

Delaney Mar 5, 2009 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

No, sorry but the Rose Garden is ugly. Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I may sound like a snob, but you're wrong about MC. Memorial Coliseum is one of our most well designed local buildings. Yes it is tarnished, but if polished it could be the gem the area is lacking. Talk about landmark - It has a 50 foot tall wood supported glass curtainwall around the whole thing, for goddsakes. Teacup in a glass box dammit! Save it!

Plus the Beatles and Obama played there, not to mention the last time the Blazers won it all.

scottyboi Mar 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Yikes...am I wrong...or do you disagree with me...

pdxtraveler Mar 5, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

I have to totally disagree. We all have are opinions which I totally respect your right to yours! But, I really do like Memorial Coliseum.

JordanL Mar 5, 2009 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delaney (Post 4124274)
No, sorry but the Rose Garden is ugly. Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I may sound like a snob, but you're wrong about MC. Memorial Coliseum is one of our most well designed local buildings. Yes it is tarnished, but if polished it could be the gem the area is lacking. Talk about landmark - It has a 50 foot tall wood supported glass curtainwall around the whole thing, for goddsakes. Teacup in a glass box dammit! Save it!

Plus the Beatles and Obama played there, not to mention the last time the Blazers won it all.

What?

MC is a well designed building and the Rose Garden is ugly?! WTF?!

ethirtysex Mar 5, 2009 11:17 PM

It would be a bummer to see the MC come down. It's a part of Portland history and still has its practical uses. But if the Blazers management can do so many good things with the team recently, I expect they'll apply the same brilliance to the redevelopment of the Rose Quarter.

PacificNW Mar 5, 2009 11:38 PM

↑ That can be debated. Have you seen the EMP in Seattle? Ugh.. It would be great if the MC could be incorporated into the plans. I have stated, many times on this forum, that the MC is a great example of a particular style of architecture. I feel it would be a huge loss if it was demolished.

pdxf Mar 6, 2009 4:03 AM

The Rose Garden, to me at least, is a terrible building, odd random elements protruding from a confused mix of exterior materials and elements. For those of us that appreciate a cleaner, more refined and perhaps more meaningful architecture, the MC is a much nicer design, but of course all of this depends on what you're looking for in a building.

Regardless of whether the MC is a beautiful design in someone's eyes, it is undeniably an important building in Portland's architectural and general history and that is a valid reason to preserve it.

I am actually on the fence about it's demolition. While I would hate to see it go, it currently doesn't have a very dignified existence, and may actually be keeping the surrounding area from being developed. I would love for a proposal that would preserve it, but if I see a good redvelopment proposal for the area that doesn't include it, I may be prepared to make the sacrifice.

rsbear Mar 6, 2009 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

Wrong.

MarkDaMan Mar 6, 2009 5:24 AM

off topic rant

zilfondel Mar 6, 2009 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4124643)
What?

MC is a well designed building and the Rose Garden is ugly?! WTF?!

From the outside, the Rose Garden is hideous. Interesting article by Portland Spaces regarding the historic value of MC.

Quote:

On the upside, the building itself is one of the finest examples of minimalist modern architecture in the city. Designed by the same firm (That’d be Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) responsible for the Sears Tower, Burj Dubai, and New York’s Freedom Tower, the Memorial Coliseum is worth saving.
From a sustainability standpoint, it is bad to tear down a functional structure. Particularly one that doesn't have major issues in regards to cost of maintenance and spatial requirements.

MC seems to function well

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/...d46a95.jpg?v=0
Jill Greenseth on flickr

Sweet night shots:

1960s
http://www.gdwriter.com/graphics/portland_coliseum.jpg
unknown photographer; photo found here

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_SGwyrxSp2Y8/R-...0/IMG_1270.JPG
Jacklyn on Picassa

JordanL Mar 7, 2009 12:59 AM

Quote:

From the outside, the Rose Garden is hideous.
Disagree.

From the outside, the MC is hideous. It's a goddamn box, and the front of it is... dated at best. I had to walk by it every day for work for almost two years.

PacificNW Mar 7, 2009 2:11 AM

↑....and this makes you an expert? There are probably people, within/and out of the architectural community, who will agree with your personal opinion as well as those who disagree. But the history/style of MC should not be easily dismissed and disgarded, imo.

JordanL Mar 7, 2009 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificNW (Post 4127305)
↑....and this makes you an expert? There are probably people, within/and out of the architectural community, who will agree with your personal opinion as well as those who disagree. But the history/style of MC should not be easily dismissed and disgarded, imo.

No, I was simply explaining the basis of my opinion. But it's just an opinion.

I completely agree with the history, but I'm still in favor of redeveloping. The MC has utility how many hours per year?

It could be replaced with MANY things that would have MUCH more utility.

2oh1 Mar 7, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4127461)
It could be replaced with MANY things that would have MUCH more utility.

...and those things couldn't be built on any of the empty land over there because...?

I'm torn in regard to the MC, but I can't help seeing missed opportunities everywhere I look in the Rose Quarter. I remember going to Cuccina Cuccina (sp?) years ago, and I couldn't figure out why it was even there. I'd love to see the Rose Quarter turned into an entertainment district, even if it were touristy enough that I wouldn't want to go there. I think it would be good for the city.

RoseCtyRoks Mar 9, 2009 6:31 AM

Big plans for the Rosequarter, including possible demolishing of the MC, and building the baseball stadium. You'll want to see the renderings:

http://www.portlandspaces.net/blog/t...-is-good-taste

JordanL Mar 9, 2009 6:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4130370)
Big plans for the Rosequarter, including possible demolishing of the MC, and building the baseball stadium. You'll want to see the renderings:

http://www.portlandspaces.net/blog/t...-is-good-taste

Those are renderings of Philladelphia...

RoseCtyRoks Mar 9, 2009 7:16 AM

^^Ah......Thanks, I thought it was too soon to have an entire concept complete with renderings of this. Glad you pointed that out! :D

bvpcvm Mar 9, 2009 1:50 PM

lots of parking lots

designpdx Mar 9, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4130552)
lots of parking lots

That was my first thought as well

pylon Mar 9, 2009 8:52 PM

Creating an Entertainment District - maybe good
Using Cordish to implement it - maybe not so good

The Rose Garden and convention center could provide customers for the district, and an analysis of what sports fans (and their families) and conventioneers want in their entertainment would be appropriate before making major decisions for the project. Intuition tells me that these demographics won't mind the more commercial/corporate/chain/mainstream types of entertainment, and we shouldn't ignore or criticize that. This seems like the kind of target market that the Cordish approach might lend itself to.

But these aren't the types of entertainment that we readers of design and urban planning information on these websites here in Portland, as well as other locals in general, are typically fond of. We like our beer, coffee, and entertainment locally crafted, served with character and imagination, and commuted to without cars. For the 24-7 entertainment district to succeed it will have to take this more provincial (in a good way) perspective into account as well because games and conventions will only provide part of the district's customer base.

It would seem that we have enough local talent (architecture and construction) and resources (urban planning) to design, manage, and integrate this project into the larger metro picture, instead of letting Cordish be the lead. At the least, like the sustainability center project, we should open this up to competition with other firms, partnerships, and philosophies. Cordish already has the Centennial Mills proposal to implement. We might be putting too many eggs in the Cordish basket by giving them the entertainment district too.

And finally, beginning this project may be locally stimulative and be ready when the economy turns around.

tworivers Mar 10, 2009 12:09 AM

If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!

RED_PDXer Mar 10, 2009 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4130370)
Big plans for the Rosequarter, including possible demolishing of the MC, and building the baseball stadium. You'll want to see the renderings:

http://www.portlandspaces.net/blog/t...-is-good-taste

Can't say I'm excited about corporate America in my playground.. However, it would sure make downtown Portland seem great in comparison!

pdxtraveler Mar 10, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4131584)
If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!

Actually I think a development like they proposed for Centennial Mills would be more fitting for the Rose Quarter. I didn't like it for the Centennial Mills area, but it is different at the Rose Quarter. We are attracting Gresham, Hillsboro, Vancouver, Salem, and convention dollars into that area, not necessarily our own.

tworivers Mar 10, 2009 7:06 PM

Saw this on the Tribune website:

Quote:

The deal calls for the city and Paulson to spend just under $129 million to remodel PGE Park for an MLS team and build a 9,000-seat AAA baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter on the site of Memorial Coliseum for the Beavers, the team also owned by Paulson.
I am completely opposed to tearing down Memorial Coliseum. Hasn't Portland learned its lesson when it comes to demolition of "obsolete" structures? I wonder if this will be fought over, and if there might be any legal remedies.

twofiftyfive Mar 10, 2009 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4132765)
Saw this on the Tribune website:



I am completely opposed to tearing down Memorial Coliseum. Hasn't Portland learned its lesson when it comes to demolition of "obsolete" structures? I wonder if this will be fought over, and if there might be any legal remedies.

Considering that there is another multi-use arena right next door, I think you can remove the scare quotes.

tworivers Mar 11, 2009 2:04 AM

Quote:

I think you can remove the scare quotes.
No thanks. I was intentionally referencing the mentality that resulted in so much of the classical revival architecture of the early 20th century getting demolished. It seemed like the expedient choice at the time -- later, we realized that we actually had something cool that we destroyed forever. I respect the differing viewpoints on the Coliseum while coming down squarely (no pun intended) on the side of those who prefer it over the Rose Garden, which, as much as I love seeing the Blazers play inside of it, looks like the 1980s in the worst way to me. I think that given the cavalier attitude Portland has manifested over the years towards so many of its buildings, we should slow down and think before we demolish a landmark structure like this. Particularly with our prevailing environmental ethic, I would like to see every redevelopment opportunity (even those that radically reconfigure the architecture of the building, particularly if the detachment from its surroundings can be fixed) exhausted before it is done away with.

rsbear Mar 11, 2009 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4133428)
I think that given the cavalier attitude Portland has manifested over the years towards so many of its buildings, we should slow down and think before we demolish a landmark structure like this.

I so agree with you on the MC but I think your statement above is over the top. Yes, Portland lost a number of good/great buildings in the 50's/60's/70's, but since then it has also done better at preservation than most other cities in the U.S.

urbanlife Mar 11, 2009 4:08 AM

Well it looks like we will find out the fate of the MC tomorrow.

Okstate Mar 11, 2009 4:43 AM

I hope this ball park gets designed so that it could easily flip to MLB status someday in the future. Maybe the Beavers could be moved somewhere else in the metro...like Lents! I'm not trying to be nasty to the Beavs, I just want MLB more.

rsbear Mar 11, 2009 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okstate (Post 4133712)
I hope this ball park gets designed so that it could easily flip to MLB status someday in the future. Maybe the Beavers could be moved somewhere else in the metro...like Lents! I'm not trying to be nasty to the Beavs, I just want MLB more.

The story in the Oregonian said it seats 9,000 so expansion ability to 40,000 (or more) for MLB sounds pretty unlikely.

zilfondel Mar 11, 2009 8:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon (Post 4131236)
Cordish already has the Centennial Mills proposal to implement. We might be putting too many eggs in the Cordish basket by giving them the entertainment district too.

And finally, beginning this project may be locally stimulative and be ready when the economy turns around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4131584)
If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!


Err, what. LAB won, remember?

At least Cordish's proposal, however, was heavily built out with pretty good mixed-use utilization of the site. I forget who their architect was, tho. Oh wait, they chose GBD and Design Collective, Inc.

zilfondel Mar 11, 2009 8:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4133640)
Well it looks like we will find out the fate of the MC tomorrow.


City of Portland actually owns MC. So... I doubt its going to be torn down. I don't think our current City Council would let them, considering the hard bargaining they are doing to Paulson on the MLS deal.

JordanL Mar 11, 2009 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4133901)
City of Portland actually owns MC. So... I doubt its going to be torn down. I don't think our current City Council would let them, considering the hard bargaining they are doing to Paulson on the MLS deal.

You'd be surprised what a City does when faced with a massive budget shortfall, the chance at massive private investment, and an able buyer on one of their most expensive and under-utilized (per square foot) buildings...

JordanL Mar 11, 2009 11:47 AM

Out of curiosity, what exactly do those who propose keeping the MC say we should do to create a 24/7 entertainment district?

What would you put there?

I assume it wouldn't be a Hard Rock Cafe... what would it be? I've read through this thread and all I see is a lot of bitching with no constructive ideas.

NJD Mar 11, 2009 2:46 PM

^
Quote:

create a 24/7 entertainment district?
Don't.

We already have several funky, Portland style entertainment districts including Old Town. Making one out of thin air will age horribly, be 'anywhere-USA', and will not build on an existing environment. Nothing much has happened to the Rose Quarter since we razed the historic neighborhood there. Any mass 'entertainment district' will just be a focus on suburban/ tourist economies anyway further removing local money from local businesses.

What should we do to the Rose Quarter? Perhaps reintroduce the old or new street grid, try to cap I-5, build a ballpark at the PPS site, leave MC alone for future reuse, and/or publicly build a new HSR station. All I know is Vulcan does not have the same Portland sensibilities as Hoyt Street, Williams & Dame, Gerdling Edlin, Beam, Randy Rapaport, etc...


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.