Viability lies in the success of the businesses, not the style of architecture. Plus, if it's NOT tied to the sports facilities, then you're ignoring the existing context of the area. Trying to recreate the neighborhood that used to be there (pre-MC) would be a futile effort, it'll never be what it once was.

Who's to say there wouldn't be apartments and jobs? (I assume you mean commercial office space?) A mixed use development at RQ, if planned well, could be a dynamic 24-hour activity center for Portland. Also, you seem to be assuming that there won't be any design review for this project. I seriously doubt that there will be a sudden explosion of "crapitecture" and in fact, with a project this big, we may even get a couple of gems out of it. Maybe something as note-worthy as the Apple store in NYC.

Maybe not on this board, but in my experience in Portland his statement is very accurate.

Why don't you describe your experience in Portland, then, using MightyAlwegs delineations?

OK, so we are comparing Stumptown with Starbucks, which has 16,120 stores in 49 countries?

See, I can use wikipedia too! Doesn't that make me clever? :haha:

The point being argued here is not that the legal status of sole proprietorship is somehow more noble than a C corp, S corp, LLC or partnership. The point is that we can somehow strive to redevelop the Rose Quarter with a strong dose of local, unique flavor rather than just dumping in a strip mall and calling it a day.

Look, I'm no disaffected student with some activist axe to grind. I've been to 48 states and about 160 cities on various engagements since 2002. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to see city after city after city with a dilapidated downtown, yet with a shiny, gleaming WAL MART on the local bypass, invariably flanked by an Applebee's and Goody's discount clothing store (RIP Goody's).

I've also been to bustling suburbs of major cities, and I dare you tell the difference between Hoover, AL, Marietta, GA, Lenexa, KS, Cherry Creek, CO, Plano, TX, Lakeland, FL or Bloomington, MN. Or the difference between suburban Columbus, Indianapolis, or Sacramento.

Despite some geographical differences, they are populated with identical-looking pale stucco Best Buys, TGI Fridays, Macaroni Grills, Bed, Bath and Beyonds, World Markets, Buffalo Wild Wings, Dominos Pizzas, Carmike or Regal Cinemas, Home Depots, Walgreens, Taco Bells, Subways, Costcos, Krogers, Targets, CVSs, Sears, Chilis, Old Navys, Gaps, Outbacks, Olive Gardens and Cracker Barrels. And despite the different fonts on their signs, the restaurants all use the cheapest CISCO ingredients they can get their hands on.

This homogenization of culture isn't limited to retail outlets. All I ever heard on radio stations from GA to ID to ME to CA was the same Nickelback/Kelly Clarkson/Timbaland mix of the Top 40. Independent stations were pretty rare outside of college towns. God forbid someone play Okkervil River or Belle and Sebastian on a Clear-Channel owned, pay-to-play station.

By the way, I discovered both of those groups in locally-owned establishments. When I ask someone working at Starbucks what music is playing, they shrug and say "I dunno man it's on a feed".

Again, this isn't coming from some strident, anti-establishment hipster trying to be hip. I've seen and lived the vapid suburban lifestyle. In fact, one of the things that drew me to Portland is the vibrancy of the local culture and being able to thrive without setting foot in a Wal Mart. Don't get me wrong, Portland has its share of chains like most places, but most places sure as hell don't have anything like The Pied Cow.

The intent of my post here is not to naively disparage the right of corporations to earn a profit on their equity. My point is to say that when conglomerates stifle any and all deviations from the bottom line, despite their gastronomic or artistic merit, we are deprived of a little variety. And variety, the last time I checked, is the spice of life.

I hope that the redevelopment is a success, and I'm sure that we can inject a little Portland "weirdness" into the city's plans. It would be such a shame to put another cookie-cutter suburb right in the center of town.

It's a generalization, which means like any other (moderately accurate) generalization, it's a sort-of-accurate descriptor for more than 50% of a given group. All this means is that more than 50% of people who dislike "corporate" are everyday idiots. Since the world is very clearly more than 50% idiots, I don't find this hard to believe, (which incidentally is why most generalizations around about the stupidities of a given group).

Well still, how can this place be an attraction if all it has is the same old stuff people have near their homes?

I don't think you should call people with enough common sense to seek out unique attractions when they go out for a good time "idiots". Real "idiots" are the people who visit Paris and shop at the Disney store.

Who knows, I just get the feeling that this is the real reason why people dislike "corporations". I'll just assume based on the obvious that most people still go to Wal-Mart to buy cat food and toilet paper and Big Mac's are pretty tasty in their own way

Looks like the good folks in Lents aren't going to allow this stadium to take over their neighborhood park without a fight. This will surely throw a monkey wrench into City Hall's fast-track plans to get something built by 2011. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._out_agai.html

Might this possibly put the Rose Quarter back in play for a stadium, or is that plan totally dead now?

^it's dead...the beavers are off to the 'burbs if lents dies.

What ticks me off about this is that the east side always complains the city ignores them. When the city trys to put a great amenity in their neighborhood they start complaining. Do they want development and attention or not?

By the way, I did see a piece on KGW last night that showed quite a few people for the stadium. It is just the noisy complainy people who go to the meetings.

Yeah... it was the noisy people opposed to the MC destruction.

I wouldnt go so far to call it a great amenity, city hall wanted to build a private structure on park land, which should never be okay. They wanted to use a huge chunk of urban renewal funds to pay for it, which also should never be okay. Plus if they are going to use urban renewal funds, then it should be renewing an area, the location of Lents Park is in the middle of a neighborhood, now if it were by Foster, and was attached to a urban redevelopment, then this might be a different story.

Also, there was a study done to see if minor league ballparks can cause improvements to an area, out of the 60 stadiums that were studied, only 5 had caused any positive redevelopment, and all 5 were downtown stadiums that were attached to urban projects.

I am guessing at this point, the city will probably have to either work out a deal with PPS to use their site or a deal with MLS to keep the Beavers at PGE until a better location could be found or Paulson will find another city willing to build the Beavers a stadium.

Also, the money comes from the same pot that would improve public infrastructure in the area. Leonard and Adams have said that they would only delay projects in the area for 5 years. Well $50M plus (remember, the city has to replace the park area which is estimated between $14-17M), with interest will eat away at the remaining maximum indebtedness. The east side has complained about unpaved roads since they were incorporated into Portland. Few projects if any will be completed after the stadium takes a sizable chunk out of the budget. Also, the amenity will still be a single use stadium that does not have any ancillary development. None. Maybe a few concession stands or local vendors - definitely a large robust parking lot. But that is about it...

For you to say, do they want attention, I think they do. But they want jobs, infrastructure improvements, small businesses and retail, and they want the owners of blighted homes/ buildings in their neighborhood to have access to repair grants and loans.

By the way, a publically owned stadium will not pay property taxes. Tax Increment Financing is paid off by increases to the property tax base. If this is only project that receives funding, how long do you think it will take this working-class area to improve enough to pay back the over $200M in allowable debt. Oh, and please remember, if you spend $65M in the earlier part of a URA's life, the interests is still compounding, so the actual cost is much much higher.

How much interest does a $400,000 mortgage? Can you imagine what the total balance is on $65M?

Here is KGW reporting on people trying to preserve the park for public use and save their URA funding for projects that will improve their neighborhood.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....4b017b46.html

I'm with you UrbanLife,...
 

... it's Blanchard (PPS) or the burbs for the Beavers. I told Sam at the meeting in the Rose Quarter when MC was on the table that Blanchard should be the primary site but he and Randy never put an "outside the box" thought into it. No work on contingency planning.

Ep

Maybe Mr. Paulson should consider Delta Park or Vancouver, WA.

hahaha...i was just about to say the same thing...pot, kettle, black

I think a better solution would be to pass on MLS until the post office site in the Pearl becomes available, then move the Beavers there, into a ballpark that could potentially be upgraded to MLB.

I posted that thought and everyone laughed at me like I was a complete moron who didn't know any better. :shrug:

I still have no idea why that isn't a solid option...

I think it's a case of doing the best you can with the resources you have at the time.

Right now MLS is knocking, there is an owner with deep pockets to run the franchise and a rough form of a plan to get MLS done.

I support the baseball stadium at the MC site (not that it matters since it's off the table anyway). I wonder how people would feel if the baseball stadium were for a MLB franchise instead of the Beavers. Would people feel differently about razing the MC for MLB?

The truth is there are only two current MLB teams that are considering relocating, Oakland and Tampa Bay. Everyone else in MLB is settled in their respective cities. Oakland is deep into negotiations with the City of San Jose for a stadium, and even if that falls through, the A's will not leave Cali. That leaves Tampa Bay or an expansion franchise and the competition for a team among other cities is steep. 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.

Both of these ideas have been explored as options, but are years and years away from becoming feasible. The MLS/ AAA stadium require a very short time frame. We need to have them ready for the 2011 season, which would be a tight design/ engineering/ construction period even if the city were to start today.

Also, the Post Office site will only be purchased if the LUBA decision comes back with a favorable outcome and the River District expansion/ funding is approved. Then a suitable facility will need to be constructed at a site near the Airport. This is 5-10 years away, and USPS is leary of the deal due to budget issues and may still pull out of the deal. Nothing is set in stone.

Blanchard, though a large and ideal site, is still a large functioning office for PPS. They would need to find a suitable location in the city for their operations, complete tenant improvements or construction, then be relocated. PPS, with their budget constraints has not the money nor the desire to complete that sort of project. Also, the costs would be astronomical to the city general fund/ URA funding. There would be virtually no subsidy remaining for construction of the stadium. I think Blanchard will become a reality in the near term only when a deep-pocketed private firm pursues the opportunity. Until then, the site will need to wait until development patterns require more room on the east side.

Additionally, though not very attractive, these are very strong well constructed buildings that have high replacement costs and could withstand another century of use. The embodied energy and costs of constructing these buildings to taxpayer need to be considered. Demolition to create another building is very wasteful for a city that has so many vacant parcels/ parking lots. Their highest and best use would be to renovate or reuse these buildings, not to continue Portland's legacy of demolition.

Just my thoughts...

My Lord, I hope BESC isn't around for another century.