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)

MightyAlweg Jun 9, 2009 1:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4294492)
I would say Portland is 15-20 years from having MLB which is why if we want to keep baseball in Portland, we need to put all our eggs into the AAA baseball basket.

I agree with your assesment. If Portland loses the Beavers now, they can tack another decade onto the wait for a MLB team. Or any major league team really, as MLB is the best bet to arrive before the NFL does.

But the thing I just can't wrap my mind around is that all of this drama is being caused by a millionaire who wants to gut the current downtown baseball stadium for.... soccer?

I live in SoCal where we had that Beckham guy for awhile and have a huge hispanic population, and the evening sportscasts never, ever, never mention soccer. I do see some soccer images when I flip past the Spanish language stations, but the big networks don't mention soccer at all. Ever.

And Portland is going through all of this expense and hassle in a deep recession for.... soccer? :koko:

RED_PDXer Jun 9, 2009 6:41 AM

how often does anyone here attend a major league sports game? a couple Blazers games a year? is it really essential to a happy life? I'd get by fine without them and I'd probably appreciate something I'd use more often in the place of the Rose Garden Arena.. in terms of priorities, spending millions on accommodating MLS is ridiculous. Taking up precious urban land in the middle of our city for something like this is even more ridiculous.. there are better ways to attract national attention than a subsidized team of overpaid athletes..

urbanlife Jun 9, 2009 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer (Post 4295918)
how often does anyone here attend a major league sports game? a couple Blazers games a year? is it really essential to a happy life? I'd get by fine without them and I'd probably appreciate something I'd use more often in the place of the Rose Garden Arena.. in terms of priorities, spending millions on accommodating MLS is ridiculous. Taking up precious urban land in the middle of our city for something like this is even more ridiculous.. there are better ways to attract national attention than a subsidized team of overpaid athletes..

Oh I fully agree, pro sports teams are not worth it in the financial sense and a big city can get by just fine without them.

Though on the other side, pro sports teams are about community unity and creating a local pride. Just seeing the Blazers go to the playoffs showed the amount of unity and pride the city had for its team. People love competition and they love rooting for their home team.

So there are two ways to look at it.

pdxf Jun 9, 2009 5:42 PM

The financial argument for the MLS, or any pro team for that matter is really only part of the story. Because the amount spent at the stadium, at business around the stadium, money spent on public transportation, television and radio ad revenue, or money spent within the city because people would rather attend a sporting event and stay in Portland, rather than go somewhere else during their weekend, the true financial can be a bit hard to compute. While financial return and costs are important (and this is financially a very, very good deal for the city), I find the non-financial benefits to the city more interesting.

The Timbers already have the largest, most supportive fan base in the USL, and even beat out many of the MLS teams in terms of fan support (this isn't necessarily attendance, but the commitment of the fan base). Over the past few years, the Timbers Army has spread from one section, to now almost filling the entire northern section of PGE Park. As the Timbers enter the MLS, support for the team will grow, and the amount of committed, pride-filled fans will continue to increase.

This fan base attracts a variety of people. Within this rowdy bunch are people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, there are young children, 20 somethings, high schoolers, college students, etc.... All of these people are deeply involved with their team, and in essence their city. How many blazer fans make their own t-shirts, scarves, and banners (I'm not talking about signs written on cardboard!)? How many Blazer fans stand and chant the entire game? That's support, and that's pride in their city (Rose City Til I Die!).

Sure, all of these people spend money at local businesses (I think the amount of aforementioned shirts and scarves that the Timbers Army make probably supports an apparel business or two!) and potentially provide a lot to the city financially, but the fact that these varied people, who may or may not interact with each other in everyday life, can unite and cheer for their city is a powerful concept and makes the city more unified and stronger.

Is a pro sports franchise necessary for the happiness of the the citizen's? Certainly not, but it's hard to argue that there isn't a positive aspect of happiness provided for the city. Sure, we all hope that the Timbers MLS will make plenty of money for the city, but to me at least, there is a positive to providing an investment in civic pride that makes the Portland region stronger.

I'm not suggesting that we just throw our money at any sports franchise that comes along, but maybe in addition to calculating the financial costs and benefits, we also look at whether these investments will make this city an even better place to live. I argue that in this case, it will.

http://www.liquidosity.com/mls/ta.jpg
<br>Oregonlive

pdxf Jun 9, 2009 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer (Post 4295918)
how often does anyone here attend a major league sports game? a couple Blazers games a year? is it really essential to a happy life? I'd get by fine without them and I'd probably appreciate something I'd use more often in the place of the Rose Garden Arena.. in terms of priorities, spending millions on accommodating MLS is ridiculous. Taking up precious urban land in the middle of our city for something like this is even more ridiculous.. there are better ways to attract national attention than a subsidized team of overpaid athletes..

I only attended one Blazer game this year...but who cares? How much I go to games really doesn't matter on whether having a sports team is good for the city or not. Is the city a better place for having the Blazers (or Timbers)? Are there financial and civic benefits to having a team? A sports team may not be necessary for being happy, but do they provide enjoyment and contribute to the happiness of the city? I think these are all better questions.

pdxhome Jun 9, 2009 6:38 PM

Quote:

how often does anyone here attend a major league sports game? a couple Blazers games a year? is it really essential to a happy life? I'd get by fine without them and I'd probably appreciate something I'd use more often in the place of the Rose Garden Arena.. in terms of priorities, spending millions on accommodating MLS is ridiculous. Taking up precious urban land in the middle of our city for something like this is even more ridiculous.. there are better ways to attract national attention than a subsidized team of overpaid athletes..
This is a different answer for everyone, but I rarely attend Blazers games. I don't like the NBA. I do however typically drive to Seattle 2-3 weekends per summer to watch a Mariners series. I also attend Timbers games. I rarely attend Beavers baseball games (mainly due to PGE park).

With the Beavers in a new facility I can honestly see myself using the money I would typically spend on Mariners tickets/Seattle trips to buy a season ticket package to the Beavers. My main reason for this is to watch baseball played in a baseball stadium, on real grass.

Again these are personal preferences and I am picky about my baseball watching experience, but my exact experience is something that cannot be easily quantified in an economic study.

RED_PDXer Jun 10, 2009 8:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4296496)
Is a pro sports franchise necessary for the happiness of the the citizen's? Certainly not, but it's hard to argue that there isn't a positive aspect of happiness provided for the city. Sure, we all hope that the Timbers MLS will make plenty of money for the city, but to me at least, there is a positive to providing an investment in civic pride that makes the Portland region stronger.

Interesting responses all.. however, I should've clarified.. what's more important - a road without potholes or watching an overpaid athlete do the same thing a minor league athlete can do? Modern computers and software for our school children or a modern stadium where you can pay $100's of dollars to sit in box seats to watch a sports game? A school system with a high completion rate or a major league team that makes the playoffs.. Almost anything can be bought that makes SOME people happy, but at what opportunity cost?

I realize there are sports fans here.. that's fine.. let's find a corporation to sponsor your sports team than our tax dollars, unless you want to pay the full cost of your enjoyment... decisions like subsidizing "professional" sports teams, compounded over time, result in massive degradation of our essential public services and institutions..

pdxf Jun 10, 2009 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer (Post 4297919)
Interesting responses all.. however, I should've clarified.. what's more important - a road without potholes or watching an overpaid athlete do the same thing a minor league athlete can do? Modern computers and software for our school children or a modern stadium where you can pay $100's of dollars to sit in box seats to watch a sports game? A school system with a high completion rate or a major league team that makes the playoffs.. Almost anything can be bought that makes SOME people happy, but at what opportunity cost?

We can always make the argument that we need to fix our potholes, because we will most likely always have them. Our schools can always be better, we can always try to get more people into permanent housing, etc....

Perhaps we shouldn't have to have perfectly pothole-free roads or the best schools in the world before investing in things that make a city great. When I think of the things that make london, san francisco, or rome great cities, the amount of potholes in their streets really doesn't enter my mind. It's the larger investments that the city made that make them great cities.

Every investment only makes SOME people happy. Potholes and computers for every child are the same as baseball and soccer stadiums. You can't please everyone, but your ending question is valid: What are the opportunity costs for only focusing on things like potholes and ignoring other opportunities that arise?

*And personally, I can put up with some potholes to enjoy the MLS in a couple of years!

JordanL Jun 10, 2009 10:58 PM

I would like to point out that in all but extremely rare cases, the extent of public "funding" of local sports is guaranteeing loans that the franchise uses to build something, then pays the city back for.

Basically a sharing of a credit line, instead of a sharing of funds.

2oh1 Jun 20, 2009 6:36 AM

Are now going to miss out on MLS and lose The Beavers too? This soccer mess is... well, it's a mess.

From the Oregonian: With Lents out for baseball, soccer deal hits new standoff

Quote:

Team owner Merritt Paulson's decision to scrap Lents as a site for a new Portland Beavers baseball stadium has thrown the sharpest curveball yet into the increasingly messy attempts to deliver Major League Soccer to Portland.

Friday's developments shifted by the hour. After Paulson announced he was pulling out of Lents, city Commissioner Randy Leonard issued an ultimatum: Unless Paulson reconsiders, he'll vote against a resolution calling for the city to pursue negotiations for Major League Soccer.

Mayor Sam Adams said he'll continue to push for soccer. But he acknowledged that the Beavers probably will become a regional team, not a Portland team.

And the head of Major League Soccer said if Portland wants a team, city officials need to pick up the pace to meet a Sept. 1 deadline.

"It might be too late," warned MLS President Mark Abbott. "If you don't start very quickly, it will be difficult to complete in time for the 2011 season. The expansion is contingent upon that."

At the center of the debate is PGE Park, the city center's venerable but outmoded ballpark where the Triple-A Beavers now play. That's also where Paulson's minor-league soccer team, the Portland Timbers, play. Paulson's plan is that in two years, the Timbers will join Major League Soccer in a $35 million franchise deal that he needs to seal.

Major League Soccer officials have said PGE Park must be reconfigured for big-time soccer, which would cost $37 million. City officials had settled on Southeast Portland's Lents Park as the Beavers' new home. But neighborhood residents strenuously objected to the idea, saying they were concerned about crowds, traffic and a proposal to finance the $48 million stadium with urban renewal money normally used for neighborhood improvements.

Residents booed Paulson at a meeting Thursday night. In a letter to the city the next morning, he said the opposition persuaded him to abandon the idea of a Lents ballpark.

Now, the standoff between Paulson and Leonard raises the possibility that Portland could end up losing two teams -- the Beavers and Major League Soccer.

"I don't think anybody began this process with the expectation it would cost us an opportunity to keep the baseball team we already have and lose an option for soccer," said City Commissioner Nick Fish, who has voted against a soccer deal. "The question has always been, 'Can we structure a deal which is financially responsible?'"

One of the leaders of the group formed to oppose the Beavers' relocation to Lents said she was overjoyed by Paulson's decision.

"I'm sorry this messes up major league soccer, but it was not the job of the neighborhood to sacrifice ourselves to make a soccer deal work," said Kathleen Juergens de Ponce, a member of Friends of Lents Park's steering committee. "The city should have handled this better on their end."

Paulson declined to return e-mails seeking comment. He has said he would do "everything possible" to keep the Beavers in the Portland area.

Portland is one of the largest and most coveted markets in baseball's Pacific Coast League, and league officials said they're committed to keeping the Beavers here. At the same time, they've acknowledged the drawbacks of PGE Park, which seats about 20,000. Triple-A teams are moving to smaller stadiums so fans can enjoy a more intimate experience.

But no obvious replacement for Lents emerged Friday. Paulson has talked about moving the team to Hillsboro and Clark County.

Adams said he wouldn't revisit the idea of razing Memorial Coliseum. Other possible Portland sites -- from Delta Park to the headquarters of Portland Public Schools -- are unsuitable because they're not city-owned or have other limitations, he said.

Leonard has fought to keep the Beavers in Portland and has been one of the deal's strongest supporters on the City Council. Paulson's move prompted his harshest criticism so far in the negotiations.

"What Merritt has done is put me in a bad position," Leonard said. "I told him I would vote for soccer if he kept the Beavers. He promised me, he shook my hand, he said he'd see this through.

"Merritt needs to very quickly calm down and take a deep breath," he said.

But later in the day, even as he publicly scolded Paulson, Leonard huddled in the mayor's office with Paulson's representatives, trying to work out the outlines of a soccer deal.

"Of course, I know soccer is a good idea," he said.

Timbers fans remained unfazed by the spat between Leonard and Paulson. Jeremy Wright, one of the co-founders of the Timbers Army fan group, said he's confident that major league soccer will land in Portland.

"To be honest, I thought it was dead at least seven times in the last nine months," Wright said. "The league and the city of Portland can't let this slip through our grasp, and Randy understands that."

urbanlife Jun 20, 2009 6:48 AM

Well Randy Leonard is definitely making it much easier for me to decide who I will not be voting for in the next election. This whole "Sam lied" crap is nothing compared to this worthless display of cry baby attitude that Leonard has been showing....seriously, I am gonna have to start calling him baby Bush if he keeps this up.

I hope he doesnt screw up the MLS deal in the long run because I think the Timbers fan base here deserves a boost like this.

Also it kind of pisses me off that the only reason why better locations in the city for a AAA ballpark are not on the table is because the city cant attach URA money to it....which was the only reason why they wanted to build this ballpark in Lents so badly to begin with.

JordanL Jun 20, 2009 7:15 AM

Thank you, people of Lents, for being complete dicks.

I don't know how baseball could possibly make that neighborhood any worse than it already is.

urbanlife Jun 20, 2009 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4316925)
Thank you, people of Lents, for being complete dicks.

I don't know how baseball could possibly make that neighborhood any worse than it already is.

Well they could let the city build a AAA ballpark in the middle of a light density neighborhood and consider 250 street parking spots apart of the number needed to meet AAA parking requirements.

The only reason the city wanted to put it there was because it could use all of Lents's URA money...in other words, the city was just using Lents. Who in their right mind would want a AAA ballpark right across the street from low density housing? This had to be the poorest choice the city could of made for a location...and Leonard's crybaby attitude makes it even worse.

JordanL Jun 20, 2009 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4317024)
Well they could let the city build a AAA ballpark in the middle of a light density neighborhood and consider 250 street parking spots apart of the number needed to meet AAA parking requirements.

The only reason the city wanted to put it there was because it could use all of Lents's URA money...in other words, the city was just using Lents. Who in their right mind would want a AAA ballpark right across the street from low density housing? This had to be the poorest choice the city could of made for a location...and Leonard's crybaby attitude makes it even worse.

This whole thing is messed up. It wouldn't be a problem if we could turn an underutilized, ugly and city-owned building into something useful without everyone blowing a gasket.

But nooooooooo. We must have forgot. This is Portland.

pdxf Jun 20, 2009 6:48 PM

I don't want to lose the MLS bid because of the decision not to use lents (I really don't think that will happen), but the Lents location was pretty bad in my opinion. I think there are other, better possibilities that will be more successful. Of course I'm still pushing for the OMSI site...

2oh1 Jun 22, 2009 6:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4317425)
Of course I'm still pushing for the OMSI site...

I'm still in favor of ripping down memorial coliseum and replacing it with Memorial Park - a Memorial Park that would be better suited to the specific needs of AAA ball, but with a site that would be possible to someday upgrade to MLB - say, 20 years from now if it were to happen.

OMSI would be a very good second choice, especially with MAX probably on the way... but still... Memorial Coliseum is such a perfect site.

2oh1 Jun 22, 2009 6:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4316925)
Thank you, people of Lents, for being complete dicks.

Hardly! I say "Thank you, people of Lents, for sticking up for your neighborhood." It's not their fault that their neighborhood was a poor choice for The Beavers, and it's also not their fault our city leaders seem to lack the conviction to make difficult decisions.

JordanL Jun 22, 2009 8:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 4319377)
Hardly! I say "Thank you, people of Lents, for sticking up for your neighborhood." It's not their fault that their neighborhood was a poor choice for The Beavers, and it's also not their fault our city leaders seem to lack the conviction to make difficult decisions.

Saying no to the stadium does not make them dicks. They way in which they did it does.

brandonpdx Jun 22, 2009 6:46 PM

Portland will get MLS; Randy Leonard is just doing his usual posturing.

eric cantona Jun 22, 2009 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonpdx (Post 4320039)
Portland will get MLS; Randy Leonard is just doing his usual posturing.

spot on. Leonard's drama queen routine is starting to wear thin, IMO.

baseball at the MC is a non-starter for a few reasons:
  1. my understanding is that it is not large enough to accommodate MLB. any site that cannot do that (including Lents) should NEVER be considered. i don't care how remote the possibility is, if there's any chance of attracting an MLB team here then it is simply good planning to be prepared for that, and not building a stadium that could be rendered useless later.
  2. as a forward looking city, tearing down a usable structure for a baseball stadium is the opposite of sustainable.
  3. architectural legacy is important.
  4. regardless of your view of the aesthetic appeal of the MC, it remains a useful counterpoint to the larger and flashier (and uglier...) RG. yes, it can pay for the necessary upgrades if marketed properly. and no, it will not compete with the RG.

i've mentioned it before elsewhere: there is land adjacent to PIR that is owned by the City and the County, has great freeway access, a MAX stop already there, and is large enough for a MLB size stadium AND parking. on top of that parking could be shared with the racetrack. this land is currently grass, and is used for parking at larger events at the track. the Interstate Ave. URA borders it, and could possibly be enlarged to cover the site.

my guess is that there are more sites like this around the metro area, and in Portland. the City's due dilligence on the baseball portion of the whole deal is abysmal. always reactionary (see Leonard comment above) and usually wrong.

urbanlife Jun 23, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric cantona (Post 4320164)
spot on. Leonard's drama queen routine is starting to wear thin, IMO.

baseball at the MC is a non-starter for a few reasons:
  1. my understanding is that it is not large enough to accommodate MLB. any site that cannot do that (including Lents) should NEVER be considered. i don't care how remote the possibility is, if there's any chance of attracting an MLB team here then it is simply good planning to be prepared for that, and not building a stadium that could be rendered useless later.
  2. as a forward looking city, tearing down a usable structure for a baseball stadium is the opposite of sustainable.
  3. architectural legacy is important.
  4. regardless of your view of the aesthetic appeal of the MC, it remains a useful counterpoint to the larger and flashier (and uglier...) RG. yes, it can pay for the necessary upgrades if marketed properly. and no, it will not compete with the RG.

i've mentioned it before elsewhere: there is land adjacent to PIR that is owned by the City and the County, has great freeway access, a MAX stop already there, and is large enough for a MLB size stadium AND parking. on top of that parking could be shared with the racetrack. this land is currently grass, and is used for parking at larger events at the track. the Interstate Ave. URA borders it, and could possibly be enlarged to cover the site.

my guess is that there are more sites like this around the metro area, and in Portland. the City's due dilligence on the baseball portion of the whole deal is abysmal. always reactionary (see Leonard comment above) and usually wrong.

exactly, I have always found that the PPS site was the best site for a AAA park that would also have the option of becoming a MLB park in the future. If we are going to spend money on a new ballpark, wouldnt we want that money to be spent in a way that it can be used as an investment for something bigger later rather?

scottyboi Jun 23, 2009 12:55 PM

Just for the sake of argument...wouldn't tearing down PPS to build a stadium also be seen as unsustainable...it's still usable. I'm constantly amazed that people go on and on about how razing MC is hypocrisy for a city that touts sustainability...then they turn around and say "we could always get rid of the pps building". Either it's bad or it's not...you can't have it both ways depending on the aesthetic value you place on a building.

pdxhome Jun 23, 2009 2:50 PM

The PPS (Blanchard) site and buildings are currently bigger than PPS needs according to a PPS spokesperson during the Oregon Stadium Campaign in 2003-2005. They have desired a smaller property to operate from. It's not very "sustainable" to pay for heating/cooling maintenence on a facility that is under-utilized (much like the MC).

Here is a thought:

Use Lents URD money to build PPS a new office and ops facility in Lents.
Then use Interstate URD Money to build a AAA ballpark at Blanchard Property.

The Blazers would likely fight this scenario to the bitter end since they are targeting Interstate URD money for the "live" district idea.

Could be a win-win for the Beavers and Lents...

scottyboi Jun 23, 2009 3:13 PM

I guess that's just the thing...the MC must be horribly inefficient when it comes to climate control...all that single-pane glass...it must get horribly hot in summer and leak like a sieve in the winter...I'd hate to see the heating/cooling bills for such a building. It's ironic how for a period of time we forgot that having natural ventilation to a degree is desirable in a building. The main point I was making was that people can't say demolishing one aging, inefficient building is sustainable, but doing the same thing across the street isn't...the argument doesn't hold water. I'm not a fan of the PPS building or the MC, I wouldn't mind seeing them both replaced with something different...but demolishing PPS while crying "sustainability" seems silly.

NewUrbanist Jun 23, 2009 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4321522)
The PPS (Blanchard) site and buildings are currently bigger than PPS needs according to a PPS spokesperson during the Oregon Stadium Campaign in 2003-2005. They have desired a smaller property to operate from. It's not very "sustainable" to pay for heating/cooling maintenence on a facility that is under-utilized (much like the MC).


Here is a thought:

Use Lents URD money to build PPS a new office and ops facility in Lents.
Then use Interstate URD Money to build a AAA ballpark at Blanchard Property.

The Blazers would likely fight this scenario to the bitter end since they are targeting Interstate URD money for the "live" district idea.

Could be a win-win for the Beavers and Lents...

Problem is... the deal needs to be completed and constructed by 2011 for AAA to continue it's run in the city. Otherwise, Beavers will need to find another location either in the area or leave. City Council has separated the issue to focus on ensuring MLS arrives on time. Second, URA (not URD) funding cannot be spent on schools... the David Douglas issue is still sitting with the lawyers. Third, PPS will need to have the whole process funded by URA money, which will create another hot button issue with the neighbors who just rallied to fight against a $47M stadium proposal.

Lents NA/ URA folks do not like to be told what is best for them. I think you will be hard pressed to get another mega project funded in with that funding. All projects in the works for the next 5 years would need to stop, with moderate funding capacity in the following 5 year scenarios.

Also, and this might be a bigger off-topic discussion, but Portland has constructed several single user government buildings which do not generate property taxes. Why not consolidate the operations for PPS, PDC and maybe Trimet into a larger high rise building, sell or lease the other buildings to create revenue? Metro has a large squat building, but can you imagine how efficient it would be to have a 40 story building with all of their building operations managed? The Portland Building was a bad design, but the concept of holding all of the city offices in one central location would be a boom for property taxes. Perhaps Trimet can consolidate their operations too (RedPdxer?) and lease rather than own.

Just a thought

MightyAlweg Jun 24, 2009 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4321402)
Just for the sake of argument...wouldn't tearing down PPS to build a stadium also be seen as unsustainable...it's still usable. I'm constantly amazed that people go on and on about how razing MC is hypocrisy for a city that touts sustainability...then they turn around and say "we could always get rid of the pps building". Either it's bad or it's not...you can't have it both ways depending on the aesthetic value you place on a building.

Good point.

But then nothing about profesional sports is "sustainable". Any major sporting event attracts thousands of people who ride cars and buses and electric trolleys that use energy created by wasting natural resources. Then the thousands of people sit there in a big facility made of steel and concrete and toxic chemicals using up more electricity, eating thousands of pounds of cheap food and drink with little nutritional value and a degrading impact on the environment, while hundreds of people either work to put on the game or support the game or clean up the mess from the game, using more electricity and more resources. All for a silly game.

Now, you could argue that at least Portland has the good sense to not build some hulking monstrosity like the new Dallas Cowboys arena. http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

But really, any time you purposely attract 10,000 people to a large venue for the sole purpose of entertaining them for a profit, you aren't doing anything sustainable.

twofiftyfive Jun 24, 2009 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg (Post 4323933)
Good point.

But then nothing about profesional sports is "sustainable". Any major sporting event attracts thousands of people who ride cars and buses and electric trolleys that use energy created by wasting natural resources. Then the thousands of people sit there in a big facility made of steel and concrete and toxic chemicals using up more electricity, eating thousands of pounds of cheap food and drink with little nutritional value and a degrading impact on the environment, while hundreds of people either work to put on the game or support the game or clean up the mess from the game, using more electricity and more resources. All for a silly game.

Now, you could argue that at least Portland has the good sense to not build some hulking monstrosity like the new Dallas Cowboys arena. http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

But really, any time you purposely attract 10,000 people to a large venue for the sole purpose of entertaining them for a profit, you aren't doing anything sustainable.

Which only goes to show that "sustainable" is not a meaningful end in itself.

scottyboi Jun 24, 2009 10:24 PM

To the two previous posters...AMEN!

mmeade Jun 24, 2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg (Post 4323933)
But really, any time you purposely attract 10,000 people to a large venue for the sole purpose of entertaining them for a profit, you aren't doing anything sustainable.

I guess that depends on your definition of sustainable. The word itself means able to be continued. As long as this is a business model that produces more income than it costs, it is indeed sustainable. Possibly not eco-friendly, but certainly a sustainable business. Sports entertainment supplies our economy with thousands of jobs, even here in Oregon. As you've undoubtedly noticed lately, a robust economy makes sustainable construction a whole lot easier.

WonderlandPark Jun 25, 2009 4:37 PM

Yep, everyone should sit at home and watch an energystar* television all day save for the occasional bike ride to the store.

No fun for Johnny.

urbanlife Jun 25, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 4325559)
Yep, everyone should sit at home and watch an energystar* television all day save for the occasional bike ride to the store.

No fun for Johnny.

Dont forget harvesting your own poop for top soil.

JordanL Jun 25, 2009 7:42 PM

I love that people here in Portland know when to not take themselves seriously. :haha:

As an aside, I agree that I haven't heard a non-hypocritical argument for keep the MC. I'd like it if the people who want it kept just admitted the truth: like all people, they have different rules for the things they support.

Trying to pretend that they have some kind of moral vindication in their defense of the MC, and that the people promoting the coming of a new sports team don't, is silly.

eric cantona Jun 26, 2009 5:48 PM

"but demolishing PPS while crying "sustainability" seems silly"

you are correct on that point. but i would also add that your equating sustainability to merely heating/cooling is a little short sighted, at best. there's a lot of embedded energy in existing structures. tearing them down because they "get horribly hot in summer and leak like a sieve in the winter" is only looking at part of the picture. if i could argue that the MC will need to be replaced by a similarly sized facility in the next 20 years (and i can), then tearing it down is folly, regardless of what you think of it's aesthetic qualities. upgrading it to meet today's standards would be the most sustainable option.

"Which only goes to show that "sustainable" is not a meaningful end in itself." - huh? did sustainability kick sand in your face at the beach? not a meaningful end? what would you propose? should we all have coal furnaces in our homes and workplaces?

urbanlife Jun 27, 2009 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric cantona (Post 4327783)
"but demolishing PPS while crying "sustainability" seems silly"

you are correct on that point. but i would also add that your equating sustainability to merely heating/cooling is a little short sighted, at best. there's a lot of embedded energy in existing structures. tearing them down because they "get horribly hot in summer and leak like a sieve in the winter" is only looking at part of the picture. if i could argue that the MC will need to be replaced by a similarly sized facility in the next 20 years (and i can), then tearing it down is folly, regardless of what you think of it's aesthetic qualities. upgrading it to meet today's standards would be the most sustainable option.

"Which only goes to show that "sustainable" is not a meaningful end in itself." - huh? did sustainability kick sand in your face at the beach? not a meaningful end? what would you propose? should we all have coal furnaces in our homes and workplaces?

of course with the PPS, you have to consider how under utilized the area is. Also, the building is much larger than what the PPS needs, so it would be much more efficient for them to be in a space that better suits them and allows the land to be reused for efficiently.

There are more than one way to look at sustainability, and sometimes, tearing down to rebuild is the best way...though, one could also say that the reuse of the building is also sustainable...reusing much of the materials that are currently there to construct new structures.

An example of that is the Pittsburgh Convention Center, where they managed to reuse 90% of the original building in the new building.

New Madrid Jun 27, 2009 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4321402)
Either it's bad or it's not...you can't have it both ways depending on the aesthetic value you place on a building.

pretty sure you can, actually.

also:
The sin is not so much in the demolition of a building as it is in the process of replacing it with something. When you develop a site, no matter what was existing beforehand you should feel compelled to replace it with something more useful/beautiful/flexible than what was there.

MC has TONS of possibilities, the run down parking garage that is the PPS annex simply doesn't. No two ways about it.

crow Jun 28, 2009 4:00 AM

tear down PPS, or take a drive around for yourself, it seems there are so many low rent auto dealers and parking lots that collectively could be combined to give a site for the stadium. where there is a WILL there is a WAY. I am sure the city could help PPS move their schedule forward - that is the perfect spot and could really be a catalyst.

bvpcvm Jul 17, 2009 5:56 AM

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_...mem/print.html

Cyclists push velodrome for Memorial Coliseum
Posted by mhaberman July 16, 2009 16:13PM

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_..._PX00151_9.JPG
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects

At the moment, it's a glimmer in the eye of bike-track fans, but a group of racers -- who in their other lives are developers, architects and the like -- has drafted this plan to build a velodrome in Memorial Coliseum, drawn by track racer Jeff Mitchem, an urban planner at Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects.

The dreamers whom Steve Brown bikes with can see it already: a velodrome, with a gasp-inducing view of downtown Portland, centrally situated to draw on the city's bicycle culture and attract businesses, families and world-class racers.

And for them, the dream comes alive ... inside Memorial Coliseum.

A week ago, Portland Mayor Sam Adams announced a task force to examine how to revitalize the 50-year-old coliseum, which was spared the wrecking ball when local architects lamented this spring at the prospect of tearing down an example of Modernist architecture and replacing it with a baseball stadium.

As far as Brown and like-minded cyclists are concerned, an indoor velodrome is the answer.

"I don't know if the building itself is screaming for a velodrome, but it's certainly screaming to find a best use at lowest cost," said Brown, 57, a Portland developer and elite velodrome racer.

A velodrome is a banked track designed for bicycle racing. Lengths can vary: An Olympic-sized track is at least 250 meters or about .15 of a mile. The United States has 19 velodromes, all outdoors except the Home Depot Center near Los Angeles.

Portland's track, a concrete velodrome at Alpenrose, opened in 1967 and has hosted national and world competitions. Starting today, the track opens its biggest weekend of racing, the annual Alpenrose Velodrome Challenge, which will attract racers throughout the world.

But the Alpenrose facility is getting harder to maintain, and since 2004, an informal committee of racers, including Brown and urban planner Jeff Mitchem, has been looking for a site to build an additional track or a replacement.

Brown lobbied the 2007 Legislature to get lottery money for construction of velodromes in Portland and in southern Oregon, but the bill died. The committee kept searching. In late April, a prospect they had never considered before arose.

Tom Miller, Adams' chief of staff and a cyclist, invited the committee to come to City Hall, and he asked the members to generate a proposal on what it would take to put a velodrome in the Rose Quarter.

Brown said the chat focused on whether a velodrome would fit in the area and "whether it would be more of a broad-based activity or would it be based for elite racing only."

"Our program, as we see it," Brown said, "would be as broad as possible, to get as many people on the track as possible."

Brown said he, Mitchem and two other committee members walked around the Rose Quarter, then into Memorial Coliseum. When they examined the building, they became intrigued by its possibilities.

"I said, 'By golly, let's draw a picture and see if this fits,'" Brown said.
Mitchem, who works at Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects in Portland, and his colleagues Matt Janssen and Patrick Cavaleri drew up plans for a 200-meter track that would fit in the coliseum, with room for other activities -- "big enough to have a national draw through the amateur and professional ranks."

Brown said the track, made of wood, would cost about $250,000 and could be designed with removable sections to allow events such as the Rose Festival's Grand Floral Parade to continue using the coliseum.

"The neatest part of it," Mitchem said, "is that you get the indoor velodrome, and then you sort of accessorize it with activity around that: I can see the hand-built bike show there. There's all this great energy in the cycling community that is sort of looking for a home."

The Trail Blazers would have a final say in what goes into Memorial Coliseum. J.E. Isaac, senior vice president for business affairs for the Blazers, said he talked with Brown this week.

"One thing I don't want to do is get in a situation before we've even had time to look at the ideas and offer an opinion about them," Isaac said. "The city is going to take the time to fully examine all of the options, and (a velodrome) is certainly an option that should be considered and explored."
Warren Jimenez, Adams' deputy chief of staff, said the process of selecting a fate for the coliseum was young and the velodrome idea is "one of the ideas that would be considered as well as the rest of them."

But Brown, Mitchem and other bike advocates say an indoor velodrome in a region with an eight-month rainy season could be a 24-hour facility, where people could take classes or bike-safety instruction.

"We think it's a super idea," said Michelle Poyourow, advocacy manager for the nonprofit Bicycle Transportation Alliance.

"It's an awesome idea," said Kenji Sugahara, executive director of the Oregon Bicycle Racing Association. "It would be a big draw. There would be people from all over the country showing up to train and compete. It would be big for our sport."

-- Anne Saker:
annesaker@news.oregonian.com.

Categories: Breaking News, Cycling, North/Northeast Portland, Portland Neighborhoods, Traffic

RoseCtyRoks Nov 21, 2009 10:25 AM

A Chance To Put In Your 2 Cents!
 
Thinking outside the Rose Quarter box
By Janie Har, The Oregonian
November 20, 2009, 9:30PM
Thomas Boyd/The OregonianThe city has extended the deadline for ideas from the public on what it should do with the city-owned Memorial Coliseum. Justin Gast has no political connections, no deep pockets. He's just a managing editor for a trade publication who rides his bike past the Memorial Coliseum almost every day and sees what could be.

Gast envisions an outdoor amphitheater with a view of the city, a hotel to welcome visitors and music clubs to turn this dead corner of Portland into a more diverse Pearl District.

"There has to be another option that the public gets behind."


Got an idea?
Find applications to submit a concept for Memorial Coliseum at www.rosequarterdevelopment.org. You can submit ideas just to see what sticks or to solicit partners who could help turn the idea into a fully developed proposal. View current proposals at the Web site.
His is among two dozen or so proposals that have come in since Portland Mayor Sam Adams called for a citywide brainstorm on what to do with the aging coliseum and, by extension, the moribund Rose Quarter.

Few of these early ideas come with seed money or blueprints. And they won't have the financial backing of bigger players, such as the Portland Trail Blazers, who have their own plan. But what the ideas lack in specifics, they make up in imagination and desire.

"I don't have a stake in this venture," says Gast, 33. "I don't have an architecture or contracting firm that could benefit from my vision. I'm just a Rose City citizen who sees a tremendous amount of potential for this area."

The Rose Quarter in Northeast Portland holds the Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Garden. Even as fans flock to the Garden for sporting and music events, the general area remains dead most days and nights.

Last summer, Adams convened a 32-member task force to study the future of a coliseum in need of millions of dollars in upgrades and no firm consensus.

The Blazers would like to turn the district into a sports and entertainment playground called "JumpTown." Architects want to keep the coliseum's unique bowl-in-a-glass design. Military veterans cherish the monument to their service in the sunken plaza.

City Commissioner Randy Leonard thinks the coliseum is ugly and wanted to raze it for an open-air Triple-A baseball park.

"The future of that area really touches on the heart of Portlanders. It's really important we think about it that way," says Sandra McDonough, chief executive of the Portland Business Alliance.

"But it's also important we think about the economic viability of what we do there."

Sean-Michael Riley, 34, is a freelance video editor and the first to submit his plan online. Like the Blazers, Riley envisions a rollicking night life destination with music, sports, and restaurants -- but with a roller coaster outside the coliseum.

Riley moved back to Portland after eight years in Los Angeles, where the traffic and the sprawl wore him out. But he credits the City of Angels in one critical area.

"They think a little bit bigger sometimes when it comes to development or public entertainment," he says. "Portland lacks BIG."

Portland also lacks a world-class natural history museum, says Gina Botel, 29, a political science student at Portland State University. She first came up with the idea in 2004, talking with her family over a meal at the Widmer Gasthaus Pub near the Rose Quarter.

After consulting with architects and museum experts, Botel said she realized the current building could easily house a Museum of Natural History specializing in the Pacific Rim. Best of all, the current building could stay as is.

"I could picture it," she says. "The large glass structure illuminated from within to reveal stunning prehistoric fossils hanging from the rafters. The large open spaces filled with displays and interactive exhibits."

Many of the proposals involve entertainment or family amusement. One pitch calls for a botanical garden, maybe with butterflies. Another an aquarium. Several are for a baseball stadium.

Alan Smith, 55, an administrative assistant at Standard Insurance, pictures people turning out wind-turbine propellers or solar cells in a glassed-in coliseum.

"It would bring in a lot of jobs," he says. "Which I think would be more valuable than a place for entertainment."

The Portland Development Commission, the city's economic development arm, has extended the deadline for submissions from Dec. 1 to Jan. 8. Kevin Brake, senior project and program coordinator, expects fleshed-out proposals from the Blazers and others, such as architects, to come later.

All proposals must be submitted by the deadline to be considered. The Blazers have first dibs on development of the coliseum, but that option expires next November.

Cost will matter, since the city doesn't have urban renewal or other public money to throw at development. But how to pay for a project isn't as important at this stage, says Brake, given that the mayor is looking for uses and values that resonate with residents.

"It's an even playing field, and we are really trying to keep it that way," Brake says. "It's pretty cool that people are throwing all kinds of stuff in there, whether they're realistic or not."

Portland developer Doug Obletz says he's not sure whether to jump in with a retooled version of his earlier plan for a community recreation and athletic center, given the Blazers' deep pockets.

"We're not afraid of playing the role of David in the David and Goliath story, but we want to make sure we have a good slingshot," he says.

-- Janie Har

Okstate Nov 21, 2009 6:57 PM

Not necessarily all Rose Quarter but it includes the area:

I really think we ought to make the industrial eastside into a museum corridor for a few large museums which would have a trickle down effect/affect? to foster small gallery/museums to fill in some of the abandoned buildings. Portland is seriously lacking in museums, especially since we are considered such a cultural mecca. I would personally love a natural history museum, aquarium, bicycle museum (the little temporary gallery in the Pearl brought this into my head), indoor botanical gardens, & maybe a funky unique one like a "Bikes, Brew, & Barista" museum of Portland.

urbanlife Nov 21, 2009 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okstate (Post 4571187)
Not necessarily all Rose Quarter but it includes the area:

I really think we ought to make the industrial eastside into a museum corridor for a few large museums which would have a trickle down effect/affect? to foster small gallery/museums to fill in some of the abandoned buildings. Portland is seriously lacking in museums, especially since we are considered such a cultural mecca. I would personally love a natural history museum, aquarium, bicycle museum (the little temporary gallery in the Pearl brought this into my head), indoor botanical gardens, & maybe a funky unique one like a "Bikes, Brew, & Barista" museum of Portland.

Actually that really surprises me that we dont have more museums here, especially around the South Park Blocks around the art museum. Heck, if I am not mistaken, I think Tacoma might have more museums that Portland does.

65MAX Nov 21, 2009 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okstate (Post 4571187)
.... which would have a trickle down effect/affect? ....

Effect is a noun, as in, you can have an effect on something.
Affect is a verb, as in, you can affect something.

twofiftyfive Nov 22, 2009 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4571318)
Effect is a noun

Except when it's a verb.

Quote:

Affect is a verb
Except when it's a noun.

Delaney Nov 22, 2009 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4571318)
Effect is a noun, as in, you can have an effect on something.
Affect is a verb, as in, you can affect something.

oh no...oh...........no..................

urbanlife Nov 22, 2009 8:04 AM

So what effect does all this have with the Rose Quarter?

65MAX Nov 22, 2009 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twofiftyfive (Post 4571600)
Except when it's a verb.

Except when it's a noun.

Congrats on finding two obscure exceptions to the rule. But the "verb" effect is just the verbification of a noun, kinda the same way Scozzafava became a verb. The "noun" affect is just the shortening of affectation by psychologists.

But for normal people, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. Of course, I keep forgetting that most people here are not normal. My bad for trying to help people know the difference.

65MAX Nov 22, 2009 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4572005)
So what effect does all this have with the Rose Quarter?

None, but at least you used "effect" correctly. You could have also said, "How does all of this affect the Rose Quarter?"

urbanlife Nov 22, 2009 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4572086)
None, but at least you used "effect" correctly. You could have also said, "How does all of this affect the Rose Quarter?"

:haha: I am going to bed.

tworivers Jan 9, 2010 1:40 AM

New renderings of the Trailblazers' Jumptown proposal.

http://www.imaginejumptown.com/wp-co.../vmc_two_l.jpg

http://www.imaginejumptown.com/wp-co...mc_three_l.jpg

http://www.imaginejumptown.com/wp-co...vmc_four_l.jpg

http://www.imaginejumptown.com/wp-co.../vmc_one_l.jpg

More here.

I have to say... if they can pull it off it looks intriguing. Particularly the added density, the new tower designs, and what appears to be the promising relationship of the project to Weidler.

On the other hand, I don't get the whole development pictured on the PPS site at all...

pdxtraveler Jan 9, 2010 6:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4641683)
New renderings of the Trailblazers' Jumptown proposal.

I have to say... if they can pull it off it looks intriguing. Particularly the added density, the new tower designs, and what appears to be the promising relationship of the project to Weidler.

On the other hand, I don't get the whole development pictured on the PPS site at all...

I love that first rendering of the whole district including the PPS part!! Of course in this economic environment it is quite a dream.

RoseCtyRoks Jan 9, 2010 9:53 AM

:previous: This could be quite the win-win development. If the timing is right, and all the pieces come together, even a scaled-down version of this could really catch on with people throughout the metro area. Potential new businesses could sprout up close to, and even several blocks from the area, with a lot of draw this area would see the first few years. Then add in the urban growth that we'll see the next 5-10 years, and success should continue.

With the Convention Center Hotel canned, I would think a 250 rm Hotel could do well because of events at Jumptown, Pro Sports, as well as the C. Center. I think this area would be a great way for Nike to show off it's local roots here, and adding a great deal of community flavor and spirit to an area that can be, well, DEAD---will liven up this part of town, no matter the season, weather, or time of day. (OR even if the Blazers are hot or not!)


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 AM.

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