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)

jaxg8r1 Apr 24, 2009 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4214333)
I met Will Macht briefly at the public Coliseum presentation.

Hopefully with all of these ideas being tossed around, maybe we can end up with a new baseball stadium, a renovated PGE Park and a renovated Coliseum.

RED_PDXer Apr 25, 2009 1:30 PM

I took a couple real estate development courses with Macht. Very creative guy and knows how to turn a profit while advancing the public interest. I was sold on adaptive reuse of the coliseum after the first time I saw the proposals his earlier class studied.

360Rich May 7, 2009 4:11 AM

Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

The city and the Portland Trail Blazers are negotiating an agreement for redeveloping the area that would take advantage of the coliseum building, perhaps updating or redesigning it, Adams said.

"Our goal is to keep it, at least the skin," Adams said.

continued http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aves_port.html

MightyAlweg May 7, 2009 7:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 360Rich (Post 4236410)
Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

That is very good news.

I have a feeling the Lents location for a minor league ballpark will end badly if it is shoehorned into that unfortunate location, but at least there is good news for the MC.

JordanL May 7, 2009 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 360Rich (Post 4236410)
Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

The city and the Portland Trail Blazers are negotiating an agreement for redeveloping the area that would take advantage of the coliseum building, perhaps updating or redesigning it, Adams said.

"Our goal is to keep it, at least the skin," Adams said.

continued http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aves_port.html

As long as that horrifyingly ugly building is changed and utilized somehow...

pdxhome May 7, 2009 3:18 PM

With this, our City has made the RQ "untouchable".

Whatever new proposal's come through to re-use the MC are going to be:

1. A long time off.
2. Will change the building too much, thereby stirring the architectual community again.
3. Incredibly expensive that people in the City will not pay for them.
4. A cheesy "live" district that is forced down this City's throat, and therfore no one will attend.

Let's face it, if the MC is placed on a historic registry, then the Rose Quarter is doomed to be a stagnate district for a long, long time.

65MAX May 7, 2009 3:50 PM

Stagnant, not stagnate. Stagnate is a verb, not an adjective. And there's no shortage of ideas for MC.

Plus, I still don't understand why some of you here have such a visceral reaction to a Live! going in here. What's wrong with a "cheesy" entertainment district for convention goers and sports fans? It's the ideal location for one (RQ) and it serves a market that isn't being adequately served right now. AND.... if you really hate the MC so much, wouldn't you WANT something to completely engulf it and hide it from your line of sight? Like a district filled with entertanment venues?

pdxhome May 7, 2009 6:32 PM

Thanks for correcting my grammer "me fail english, that's unpossible"

You're right, there is no shortage of ideas for the MC and RQ, and ultimately the people of Portland will decide what they will, or will not support at the RQ(live district, athletic center, parks/museums, etc.)

At this point there are no other proposals for the area. Today's Oregonian article indicated that the Blazer's "live" idea could cost around $100M and they would likely seek some public financing.

I don't understand why the people of Portland would not support a proposal to benefit the City's oldest sports franchise, but would potentially support a more expensive proposal that creates a "cheesy" entertainment venue for convention attendees. We don't even have a hotel large enough to house a enough convention goers to justify publically finacing an entertainment district. The Rose Quarter is too valuable an area to give away to tourists it should be enjoyed by the citizens of Portland.

So now, the City will plan and study the Rose Quarter to determine exactly what will be placed there, all while the MC continues to structurally deteriorate, and stagnate.

Did I use the verb correctly?

urbanlife May 7, 2009 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4199600)
Brian Libby at PortlandArchitecture.com has written an article on the OMSI site. Looks like it may be catching on!

it looks like the OMSI site is becoming quite popular with the people that post on the Oregonian's site as well.

MC saved, posters like the OMSI idea

Okstate May 8, 2009 1:59 AM

I think the OMSI site would be great. Our rough borders "downtown" would be IMO: OMSI/Baseball - Rose Quarter - Northwest - SoWa. Not a bad foundation/incubator for downtown to be within.

MarkDaMan May 8, 2009 2:13 AM

The Portland Storage on the river is on hold, how much land can be assembled there. Would be cool to have a riverfront stadium!

JordanL May 8, 2009 8:56 AM

If the MC is placed on the historical registry it's basically condemning 30 acres of innercity land to forever be lifeless and useless...

I would be pissed if a few elitist archetectual wonks cost the people who live here the ability to make that area useful.

urbanlife May 8, 2009 9:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4238677)
If the MC is placed on the historical registry it's basically condemning 30 acres of innercity land to forever be lifeless and useless...

I would be pissed if a few elitist archetectual wonks cost the people who live here the ability to make that area useful.

When you look at that area in Google Maps, it really isnt that big of a deal area...so it is an island, but it is a very small island. I would rather see a reinvestment happen in the Lloyd District area and leave this area as an "in and out" entertainment venue area. Because the reality of it, is there is very little that can be done to change the Rose Quarter area, especially when you consider the biggest challenges are the two arenas, the amount of tracks that are needs for light rail through that area, then the topography...seriously, the only major change that could happen there is the redevelopment of the PPS site, which will probably happen eventually.

Besides, who would want to live near the Rose Quarter, nothing like dealing with a swarm of people at every event.

The only good an entertainment area would do for this area is allow people to hang around the arena more before and after the games and concerts...which would need to be places that could handle that kind of flux of people.

In comparison, I would be more concerned with the Burnside Bridgehead because that area could have more of an effect with the city.

JordanL May 8, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4238691)
When you look at that area in Google Maps, it really isnt that big of a deal area...so it is an island, but it is a very small island. I would rather see a reinvestment happen in the Lloyd District area and leave this area as an "in and out" entertainment venue area. Because the reality of it, is there is very little that can be done to change the Rose Quarter area, especially when you consider the biggest challenges are the two arenas, the amount of tracks that are needs for light rail through that area, then the topography...seriously, the only major change that could happen there is the redevelopment of the PPS site, which will probably happen eventually.

Besides, who would want to live near the Rose Quarter, nothing like dealing with a swarm of people at every event.

The only good an entertainment area would do for this area is allow people to hang around the arena more before and after the games and concerts...which would need to be places that could handle that kind of flux of people.

In comparison, I would be more concerned with the Burnside Bridgehead because that area could have more of an effect with the city.

Paul Allen financed most of the construction of the Rose Quarter, and the only real requirement was that TriMet basically had to run everything through there.

The RQ stop is probably the most connected spot in the city and there's NOTHING there. It's like a dessert island. I can get to the RQ insanely easy from almost any spot in the city, and I have NO reason to go there.

That's what this is about. The underutilization of that space goes beyond just how much space there is.

zilfondel May 8, 2009 6:25 PM

There is plenty of land that can be repurposed and programmed in the RQ besides the Rose Garden and MC. Noone has been very thoughtful or creative in how to tie the district into the rest of the area. Isolation is probably the #1 problem with the site.

Any major changes to the RQ should open up the site more to the surrounding streets so that any development inside the RQ is more accessible to the public, particularly when there are no games, and to allow surrounding development to help build a critical mass of activity and stuff to do in the area.

And yes, the Memorial Coliseum needs to be renovated. It would be cool if the main floor could open up to the plaza and be lined with retail or restaurants or something.

urbanlife May 8, 2009 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4239280)
There is plenty of land that can be repurposed and programmed in the RQ besides the Rose Garden and MC. Noone has been very thoughtful or creative in how to tie the district into the rest of the area. Isolation is probably the #1 problem with the site.

Any major changes to the RQ should open up the site more to the surrounding streets so that any development inside the RQ is more accessible to the public, particularly when there are no games, and to allow surrounding development to help build a critical mass of activity and stuff to do in the area.

And yes, the Memorial Coliseum needs to be renovated. It would be cool if the main floor could open up to the plaza and be lined with retail or restaurants or something.


well when was the last time you saw images from a masterplan for the Rose Quarter?

bvpcvm May 9, 2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4239091)
Paul Allen financed most of the construction of the Rose Quarter, and the only real requirement was that TriMet basically had to run everything through there.

What? Where did you pull that "fact" from?

MAX opened there in 1986; planning for the Banfield line began back in 1983. The Rose Garden didn't break ground until 1993. The fact that all subsequent MAX lines pass the Rose Quarter is merely due to the fact that they all use the ONLY bridge in the system, which happens to be right there. Furthermore, what billionaire would make such a demand back in the 90's??

Speaking of MAX, I saw one of the new trains up close last night on Morrison: WOW. Slick.

65MAX May 9, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4237323)
So now, the City will plan and study the Rose Quarter to determine exactly what will be placed there, all while the MC continues to structurally deteriorate, and stagnate.

Did I use the verb correctly?

Yes. My pet peave is people who use 'dominate' and 'dominant' interchangeably (they're not). Or they're, their and there. Or it's and its. Never seen it done with 'stagnate' and 'stagnant' though.

OK, sorry, enough with the grammar police.

bvpcvm May 9, 2009 2:45 AM

^ "Could of" and "would of". Oh, how I groan when I see those two.

65MAX May 9, 2009 8:19 AM

^^^^
LOL, yes!! Thank you, bvpcvm :cheers:

For those who don't know.... it's "would have" or "could have", but you can contract them into "would've" or "could've".

I'd consider opening a Grammar 101 thread, but people tend to get pissed off when you correct their grammar.

MightyAlweg May 9, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4239280)
And yes, the Memorial Coliseum needs to be renovated. It would be cool if the main floor could open up to the plaza and be lined with retail or restaurants or something.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Portland Live!" project, and that allegedly would not serve the citizens of Portland very well. ;)

RoseCtyRoks May 9, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4240048)
Yes. My pet peave is people who use 'dominate' and 'dominant' interchangeably (they're not). Or they're, their and there. Or it's and its. Never seen it done with 'stagnate' and 'stagnant' though.

OK, sorry, enough with the grammar police.

I see you're STILL at it!! It's a little ironic, coming from someone who begins a sentence with a conjunction, and 'never' needs to be preceeded by a noun, in that sentence. Are you REALLY done with the grammar police? Most of us hope so, because we're not here for a 3rd grade lesson. We're here for buildings.

pdxskyline May 10, 2009 6:34 AM

Well, I remember many an event at the MC/"Glass Palace" in my childhood. It has kinda outlived its usefulness since they built the Rose Garden, but there are still some ways to keep it going. Lots of positive things can be gained by retaining it, but there are NIMBYs that do not like the idea of "double headers", or seeing the property just sitting there either.

The proposals over the years to re-use the area have been totally lackluster, except the idea of a community recreational facility. "Big Box" retailers? No thanks! Demolition, not desirable. The whole site, while being very transit-friendly, is a complete mess on event nights (for both transit and non-transit users). It is a ghost town when events are not taking place.

The mess with this site began when they decided to build the original MemCol complex. While the present complex isn't a great thing, I remember when I was a kid how the whole MemCol complex was surrounded by nothing but parking lots. It was extremely ugly and awful. A vibrant neighborhood and jazz scene was destroyed for this project, in the name of what they (now comically) called "urban renewal".

I do have to give them something when they built the Rose Quarter. They landscaped the grounds, built restaurants, and made some effort to make it something that brought people in when events were not happening. But it still did not reintegrate the site with the rest of the city, nor was it a destination unless you were going to an event or transferring between MAX or bus lines. The north end is a barren wasteland of parking garages devoid of ground-level retail, like anyone would go to stores in those-they're too far from the streets.

The big problem with what everyone would like the Rose Quarter to be is that it entails the removal of I-5 in that area. If they ever get around to burying I-5 on the eastbank, it should include a plan to resurface the freeway north of the Broadway/Weidler couplet. I-5 on its raised, filled "wall" creates a huge barrier on that side of the river between the Lloyd District and the Rose Quarter. It certainly is not pedestrian or car-friendly. The freeway forces all traffic to access either area through just a few points (Broadway/Weidler, Holladay St., etc...) Burying the freeway would lessen congestion especially on event nights and provide new land for development that would tie the entire area together.

I find it absurd that any plan to redevelop the Rose Quarter is ignorant of the I-5 barrier. Until the above-ground freeway is gone, or development is planned around the eventuality that I-5 is buried/removed, whatever money they spend on Rose Quarter planning might as well be flushed down the toilet.

Remember that building the Rose Quarter in its present incarnation was thought to be a win-win idea; Paul Allen got what he wanted and the city thought this would spark new development. If we are looking at new solutions again now, we must have done something wrong and missed something. What we missed: I-5!

JordanL May 10, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxskyline (Post 4241709)
Well, I remember many an event at the MC/"Glass Palace" in my childhood. It has kinda outlived its usefulness since they built the Rose Garden, but there are still some ways to keep it going. Lots of positive things can be gained by retaining it, but there are NIMBYs that do not like the idea of "double headers", or seeing the property just sitting there either.

The proposals over the years to re-use the area have been totally lackluster, except the idea of a community recreational facility. "Big Box" retailers? No thanks! Demolition, not desirable. The whole site, while being very transit-friendly, is a complete mess on event nights (for both transit and non-transit users). It is a ghost town when events are not taking place.

The mess with this site began when they decided to build the original MemCol complex. While the present complex isn't a great thing, I remember when I was a kid how the whole MemCol complex was surrounded by nothing but parking lots. It was extremely ugly and awful. A vibrant neighborhood and jazz scene was destroyed for this project, in the name of what they (now comically) called "urban renewal".

I do have to give them something when they built the Rose Quarter. They landscaped the grounds, built restaurants, and made some effort to make it something that brought people in when events were not happening. But it still did not reintegrate the site with the rest of the city, nor was it a destination unless you were going to an event or transferring between MAX or bus lines. The north end is a barren wasteland of parking garages devoid of ground-level retail, like anyone would go to stores in those-they're too far from the streets.

The big problem with what everyone would like the Rose Quarter to be is that it entails the removal of I-5 in that area. If they ever get around to burying I-5 on the eastbank, it should include a plan to resurface the freeway north of the Broadway/Weidler couplet. I-5 on its raised, filled "wall" creates a huge barrier on that side of the river between the Lloyd District and the Rose Quarter. It certainly is not pedestrian or car-friendly. The freeway forces all traffic to access either area through just a few points (Broadway/Weidler, Holladay St., etc...) Burying the freeway would lessen congestion especially on event nights and provide new land for development that would tie the entire area together.

I find it absurd that any plan to redevelop the Rose Quarter is ignorant of the I-5 barrier. Until the above-ground freeway is gone, or development is planned around the eventuality that I-5 is buried/removed, whatever money they spend on Rose Quarter planning might as well be flushed down the toilet.

Remember that building the Rose Quarter in its present incarnation was thought to be a win-win idea; Paul Allen got what he wanted and the city thought this would spark new development. If we are looking at new solutions again now, we must have done something wrong and missed something. What we missed: I-5!

While I am whole heartedly for burying I-5, you're talking about the difference between granting a construction permit to Mr. Allen, and spending $4.5 billion on a transportation project that completely redevelops a surface that is not in disrepair (despite it being incredibly intrusive and poorly designed).

65MAX May 10, 2009 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4240806)
I see you're STILL at it!! It's a little ironic, coming from someone who begins a sentence with a conjunction, and 'never' needs to be preceeded by a noun, in that sentence. Are you REALLY done with the grammar police? Most of us hope so, because we're not here for a 3rd grade lesson. We're here for buildings.

There's a big difference between conversational English (which we use on forums like this) and writing a doctoral thesis. Like I said, people get extremely pissy when you correct their grammar. I was simply agreeing with bvpcvm this time. Also, you don't need to speak for "most of us", RCR. Most of us are capable of speaking for ourselves.

Now, regarding RQ.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't I-5 below grade once it crosses over Multnomah northbound? Reconnecting the RQ area to the Lloyd District would just mean capping over I-5 for several blocks north and south of Broadway/Weidler.

philopdx May 10, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4242253)
There's a big difference between conversational English (which we use on forums like this) and writing a doctoral thesis. Like I said, people get extremely pissy when you correct their grammar. I was simply agreeing with bvpcvm this time. Also, you don't need to speak for "most of us", RCR. Most of us are capable of speaking for ourselves.

... hoeled on now speakin a' gettin a littel pissy

You dun tryed to play the grmmer game and got col' busted. Shoot far, I'mma laughin purdy lowd rat now.

Ain't no one hear me tho, since I reckon' sound waves don' travel thru dese her internet tubes.

:drunk:

65MAX May 10, 2009 8:34 PM

^^^^:no:
Sound waves, no, but ignorance comes through loud and clear. How, exactly, am I 'busted'?

bvpcvm May 11, 2009 3:22 AM

Actually, neither of us particularly criticized grammar errors; we both just pointed out words being used incorrectly or being misspelled. There-their-they're / Stagnate-stagnant / dominate-dominant / *would of (wrong) - would have (correct) - are cases where the writer is misinterpreting what he's heard (or mis-heard) in conversational English. I suppose you could argue that abuse of apostrophes is a grammar issue, but you could probably argue that it's a spelling issue as well. In any case, when I see poor spelling or bad grammar (something beyond typos - and mistakes made by non-native speakers don't count at all) I tend to wonder what other things the writer hasn't paid attention to.

JordanL May 11, 2009 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4242253)
Now, regarding RQ.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't I-5 below grade once it crosses over Multnomah northbound? Reconnecting the RQ area to the Lloyd District would just mean capping over I-5 for several blocks north and south of Broadway/Weidler.

It is below grade until just south of Broadway. Well, except for the Freemont bridge interchange.

360Rich May 11, 2009 10:23 PM

Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?
by Helen Jung, The Oregonian
Sunday May 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

Architects who love Memorial Coliseum would show you the massive glass walls that allow natural light to stream into the seating bowl. They would show you the clever engineering of the roof -- the size of four city blocks -- resting on just four concrete pillars.

But it's a little bit harder for them to show the outlines of a good business when looking at the 49-year-old coliseum's financial bones.

Memorial Coliseum has won a new lease on life after city leaders last week abandoned plans to demolish the arena. Instead of building a ballpark at the site for the Portland Beavers baseball team, the city plans to negotiate a redevelopment deal with the Portland Trail Blazers. The Save Memorial Coliseum campaign, spearheaded by a few architects passionate about the arena, worked.

Article continued http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...al_colise.html

All pics: Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum1.JPG

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum2.JPG

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum3.JPG

pdxhome May 11, 2009 11:19 PM

"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

JordanL May 12, 2009 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4244297)
"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

Not only that... it STILL isn't up to earthquake codes.

bvpcvm May 12, 2009 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4244297)
"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

You're right, let's just get rid of everything that's old and no longer contemporary.

Look, this isn't the prettiest building, but it is architecturally significant, even if you think it's ugly. It's part of our history; it plays a part in telling a story about who we were when the thing was built. We all gnashed our teeth when the Rosefriend came down, because it was one of a diminishing number of old apartment buildings in downtown. Well, there are even fewer of these international style buildings in town. It's a different style, but one that is even more endangered than the style the Rosefriend represented.

Most of us on this forum claim to support a dense, urban environment - one that is in stark contrast to the suburban sprawl which makes up 98% of the built environment in America. We crave this type of environment partly because it's different, unique, hard to find. But our enthusiasm for this diversity doesn't extend, apparently, to a diversity of architectural styles. We either want Thom Mayne or we want the Flatiron building. Anything from the middle of the century need not apply. That's hypocritical, in my view. Things will change. What we build now says something about who we are. We should be able to point out buildings to our children and say "that's what they were building back 19xx, and the idea behind it was Y and the context was Z". Once they're gone, that's much harder to do.

This building might, indeed, cost a fortune to re-purpose. Passing on some sort of heritage, no matter how nebulous that sounds, is priceless.

pdxhome May 12, 2009 3:01 AM

If the MC were an old apartment building, or an old office building or an old warehouse, I would feel more optimistic about re-purposing it. The fact is, it was designed to be a sports/events arena, and it is much more difficult to find a different practical use.

Additionally, the people who have been originally fighting to preserve it, will likely continue to fight whatever design comes out of the Blazers plans. This is because whatever new purpose it serves will either remove the bowl on the inside or change the facade, which are the exact features that make it "unique".

We had an opportunity to redevelop the Rose Quarter (RQ) with a venue that would bring at least 72 more events to the district. Now we are likely headed for a long drawn out battle between the Blazers and some architects.

Likely outcomes:
Architects Win = re-purposed MC building that is still minimally used and very expensive.
Blazers Win = bulldoze or completely change the MC and build "Portland Live"

In either case the taxpayers get a bigger bill than with the baseball park proposal.

JordanL May 12, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4244499)
You're right, let's just get rid of everything that's old and no longer contemporary.

Look, this isn't the prettiest building, but it is architecturally significant, even if you think it's ugly. It's part of our history; it plays a part in telling a story about who we were when the thing was built. We all gnashed our teeth when the Rosefriend came down, because it was one of a diminishing number of old apartment buildings in downtown. Well, there are even fewer of these international style buildings in town. It's a different style, but one that is even more endangered than the style the Rosefriend represented.

Most of us on this forum claim to support a dense, urban environment - one that is in stark contrast to the suburban sprawl which makes up 98% of the built environment in America. We crave this type of environment partly because it's different, unique, hard to find. But our enthusiasm for this diversity doesn't extend, apparently, to a diversity of architectural styles. We either want Thom Mayne or we want the Flatiron building. Anything from the middle of the century need not apply. That's hypocritical, in my view. Things will change. What we build now says something about who we are. We should be able to point out buildings to our children and say "that's what they were building back 19xx, and the idea behind it was Y and the context was Z". Once they're gone, that's much harder to do.

This building might, indeed, cost a fortune to re-purpose. Passing on some sort of heritage, no matter how nebulous that sounds, is priceless.

So your position is basically "it has historical signifigance that we'll somehow forget if it is replaced with something useful, cheaper and easier to maintain that meets current building codes".

And as a follow up "we should repurpose lots of taxpayer money that could be performing work and instead dedicate it to maintaining a building that can't maintain itself".

Brilliant. Where could we possibly go wrong with that.

bvpcvm May 12, 2009 4:51 AM

You know, maybe you're right. In fact, let's get rid of everything that costs money to maintain but doesn't give society a benefit that can easily be calculated. Let's sell off Forest Park and let people build mcmansions up there, entice Cascade General back by letting them build drydocks on Sauvie Island - jobs, after all - build parking garages along Waterfront park, you see where I'm going with this. Civilization costs money.

urbanlife May 12, 2009 8:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4244919)
You know, maybe you're right. In fact, let's get rid of everything that costs money to maintain but doesn't give society a benefit that can easily be calculated. Let's sell off Forest Park and let people build mcmansions up there, entice Cascade General back by letting them build drydocks on Sauvie Island - jobs, after all - build parking garages along Waterfront park, you see where I'm going with this. Civilization costs money.

Well that is just an over reaction comment.


The point with this has nothing to do with the type of architecture it is, it has more to do with how it can be used.

We all know that Allen wants events at the Rose Garden because that means more of a profit for him. Reuse of the building will require renovating the building as is and do little to change its function. (I am a strong believer that if the bowl is removed, you might as well tear down the building.)

Of course everything cost money, that is why we have taxes, but the key is to keep moving forward for the city. Most cities tear down their old arenas when the new ones are constructed...while I dont fully know the history on why it was left standing, I feel that the city must of created a deal that was flawed and now we are in a state of limbo on what to do with a giant building.

Again, I have yet to see plans for that area with or without the MC, so saving the MC or tearing it down shouldnt be the issue right now. How we should redevelop the RQ to fix the mistakes that has been made there should be the focus, then let the fate of the MC rest on that.

65MAX May 12, 2009 9:35 AM

Wow... for a bunch of development and design officianados, I'm surprised that nobody can think of ways to re-purpose MC. There are already so many ideas out there, like a transportation hub/ high speed rail station/ year-round farmers market/ museums/ sustainability center/ aquarium/ HQ hotel/ theaters/ a four-sided arcade surrounded by mixed uses/ an indoor Live! *shudder* entertainment district/ flex offices/ sporting center/ corporate HQ/ or any combination of 2, 3, 4 or all of the above.

I would think that creative people would see this as an ideal opportunity to think outside (or in this case, inside) the box.

Of course it'll cost money to upgrade the structure. It also costs money to demolish the building. Anything you do costs money. What's your point?

urbanlife May 12, 2009 9:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4245116)
Wow... for a bunch of development and design officianados, I'm surprised that nobody can think of ways to re-purpose MC. There are already so many ideas out there, like a transportation hub/ high speed rail station/ year-round farmers market/ museums/ sustainability center/ aquarium/ HQ hotel/ theaters/ a four-sided arcade surrounded by mixed uses/ an indoor Live! *shudder* entertainment district/ flex offices/ sporting center/ corporate HQ/ or any combination of 2, 3, 4 or all of the above.

I would think that creative people would see this as an ideal opportunity to think outside (or in this case, inside) the box.

Of course it'll cost money to upgrade the structure. It also costs money to demolish the building. Anything you do costs money. What's your point?

Which of those ideas require removing of the bowl? That is the issue, it is a bowl inside a box...if you remove the bowl, it is just a box...then what would be the point of that. The point is, it is hard to reuse old arena structures, other than using them as arenas...in this case, the design is all about the bowl in a box.

What I am pointing out is that there needs to be plans to show the possibilities of the district if the MC is preserved as is and ones that show the possibility of the area without it, then pick a course of action that works best for the city in the long run.

360Rich May 12, 2009 3:49 PM

KC Power and Light District by Cordish
 
Portland gets some Rose Quarter revitalization ideas, as well as some caveats
by Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
Monday May 11, 2009, 9:59 PM

KANSAS CITY Mo. -- Snatches of music from 10 bars reverberate through the courtyard, competing with the DJ spinning beats on the main stage.

Flat-panel televisions and video screens pulse insistently as small groups of partiers wander between nightspots or kick back by the fire pit to watch the Royals game on the JumboTron.

Continued http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._kansas_c.html

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_....31kansa12.jpg

JordanL May 12, 2009 5:12 PM

You guys all realize that the MC doesn't even come close to meeting current building codes, right? If the city doesn't "fix" that, it's only a matter of time until they get sued by someone who wants the thing torn down.

WonderlandPark May 12, 2009 7:15 PM

The Oregonian states it quite well why a "Power & Light" does not work there and will not work here. All along I have thought this was bad, bad. It is such a poor fit for Portland. High rents, chain stores, sterile corporate theme "architecture." Save it for somewhere else.:yuck:

pdxhome May 12, 2009 8:06 PM

There was another article in today's DJC about this deal.

Here is the link:

http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...uarter-redevel

RED_PDXer May 13, 2009 7:33 AM

I think this has whole discussion is being pushed by the streetcar project which just got funded. Regardless, this Live district seems like an appropriate companion to the Lloyd Center mall.. they'll become the two of a handful of places I will never patronize. Unfortunately, I work in the middle of this growing mess, at least until our lease is up in a few years.

Okstate May 13, 2009 4:24 PM

One person on the Oregonian comments said something interesting (not saying I agree with it but want to know what you guys think) He said we already have a half-corporate, high rent, master planned development downtown in the Brewery Blocks. Their massive success could show Portland would support another development similar just on a larger scale where the "downtowners" & "Bridge & tunnel" crowd can be together.

JordanL May 13, 2009 5:08 PM

You know, I'd also like to point out that while "the old guard" wil hold their nose and stomp their feet, declaring their intention to not be within half a mile of such a corporate, disgusting display of capitalism white washing... a LOT of the people under 25 in Portland spend a lot of time at both Lloyd Center and places like the Saturday Market.

I think for a lot of the younger people, or at least the one's that I know, there is no choosing between "Portland" and "corporate" environments. They like spending time at both.

PacificNW May 13, 2009 5:18 PM

JordanL: I agree...

pylon May 13, 2009 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 4245870)
The Oregonian states it quite well why a "Power & Light" does not work there and will not work here. All along I have thought this was bad, bad. It is such a poor fit for Portland. High rents, chain stores, sterile corporate theme "architecture." Save it for somewhere else.:yuck:

"Power & Light". "Kicked-back & Green" might be a more appropriate name for this project in our fair city. I'm sure the creative minds on this board can come up with some excellent alternative names instead of P&L. Just changing the name of the project in itself could help reduce the commodity feeling of the Cordish franchise concept.

I'll probably never find myself there, unless they break with their corporate formula and open something like, say, an Oregon-themed Brit pub called "Ye Olde Fetid Beaver", but there is a part of the public that doesn't even notice/care that they're indulging in "corporate-ness". I don't want to be a taste-Nazi ("no corporate for you") and deny them their fun. I think one of the most important things is that the project actually works.

JordanL May 13, 2009 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon (Post 4247908)
"Power & Light". "Kicked-back & Green" might be a more appropriate name for this project in our fair city. I'm sure the creative minds on this board can come up with some excellent alternative names instead of P&L. Just changing the name of the project in itself could help reduce the commodity feeling of the Cordish franchise concept.

I'll probably never find myself there, unless they break with their corporate formula and open something like, say, an Oregon-themed Brit pub called "Ye Olde Fetid Beaver", but there is a part of the public that doesn't even notice/care that they're indulging in "corporate-ness". I don't want to be a taste-Nazi ("no corporate for you") and deny them their fun. I think one of the most important things is that the project actually works.

Can someone explain "corporate"? It seems to be a catchall phrase for "things I don't like doing".

brandonpdx May 13, 2009 11:06 PM

In the context of this discussion to me corporate means a place of business that you can find in many other cities across the US. Something that is not unique to the region. A place where most dollars spent go to pockets outside of the local community and thus are not reinvested in the local community as much as a dollar spent at a locally owned business.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.