So, when presented with numbers your response is that you don't believe them. Difficult to argue with that....

It's hard to believe numbers without attribution. Isn't that more wise than being a sucker who believes anything that supports his views? C'mon now. Here's a perfect example: part of justifying it as a potential track & field venue is based on being able to use it to attract cycling races even though, and I quote, "the track size would not meet international standards for sanctioned races, making it unclear how many ticketed events might be held."

Yes, and that's reflected in the financials for that option. Although the report doesn't make recommendations for which option should be chosen, it's clear that the "Dynamic Floor/Indoor Track" isn't a good option. Stop fighting straw men.

I can't help noticing you picked one comment from my rather lengthy post as if it invalidates everything I said... and you then say "Stop fighting straw men." ...?

Let's try this again with quotes from the report.

You're not curious about how many of those events are currently being held at Moda Center or elsewhere in Portland? Well, I am. A ton of money may be spent to take revenue away from one venue to give it to another.


As they'd say at wikipedia... CITATION NEEDED. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying, there must be a giant addendum to the report where they explain and prove that number. Offer proof and I'm definitely interested.


Again, I would challenge them to provide a daily list of all events at Memorial Coliseum along with analysis of whether the venue's existence and costs are justified based on how it's actually used. Could those events be held elsewhere? SHOULD those events be held elsewhere? And if these events are so important for the MC, how many of them would be lost with each of the options listed in the report? In some cases, most if not all. In other cases, it's assumed those current events would continue, but that seems like false analysis to me since renovations would increase costs and change the venue itself, potentially making it unusable by those events (granted, the assumption is they'd be replaced by others, but still...).


The question is, does Portland NEED it? With so many other pressing needs (crumbling roads, lead in school water, air pollution, housing... among so many others ...is this the best use of money that we'd know a best case scenario shows we wouldn't get a return on investment for the needed capital? I'm not saying the answer isn't yes. I'm saying I want to know.

:cheers: Wow, thanks for the kind words and intelligent, thought-provoking analysis. And welcome to the forum. We need more forumers who are data- and fact-averse, wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it slapped them in the face, and couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag.

[wakes up, realizes the 60's are over, removes full-body tie-dye outfit]

I'm not going to bother going through your questions one by one, because they're almost all addressed in the study. Given that you claim to have read it, you should already know that. In particular, Part I and Part II of the Market Conditions Report go into a lot detail. For example: where are events currently held in the Portland? Pages 24 to 52 of the Market Conditions Report covers that. (And no, I'm not particularly worried about a 3,000 to 8,000 seat arena stealing all the business from a 20,500 seat arena). It's clear a lot of thought, analysis and consideration was put into this by professionals in the field. Will you be asking for the long form birth certificate next?

Ooh, clever, and not at all rude.

I simply question the spending of millions - perhaps over a hundred million - on Memorial Coliseum when Portland has so many other needs. Of course, if you know of a wealthy benefactor who would like to offer up $150,000,000, my point about the expense becomes moot. But even then, I would still ask:

Is this the best use for that much money? ...nobody seems to want to address that question.

Is this the best use for the land the MC takes up? ...nobody seems to want to address that question either.

The study is already a year old. It's downright foolish to assume that if one of the options is chosen construction would begin in the near future or even in this decade. Costs are going to increase. Just look at how repairs for the Portland Building skyrocketed all the way up to $192 million (and growing). At what dollar figure would Portland be better off building a new venue somewhere else and opening up the MC's land for development, especially considering that doing so would help raise capital to pay for it?

I wish more people knew how to think big - not big as in budgets, but big, as in big picture. I still believe the Portland Building and the Courthouse should have been replaced in one large building, after which, the Portland Building should be sold to recoup some expenses, even if that means demolishing it to sell the land it's on. There has to be a better option than spending $192 MILLION to repair an awful building. Now, I realize it's unfair to compare an atrocity like the Portland Building to a beauty like the Memorial Coliseum, but the comparison makes sense financially. Costs are ballooning. At what point is it better to consider alternatives? After twenty plus years of searching for solutions for the MC, I can't believe more people aren't asking these questions.

I think questioning is wise, though I understand why those who love the MC prefer the rubber stamp of unquestioned approval.

Both of you guys are both right and wrong.

The reason there are so many graduation and other events during late April, May and June at the Memorial Coliseum is that the Blazers are required by the NBA to leave many of the dates available in case the Blazers make it to the NBA finals. Every NBA arena has to deal with this requirement. The dates open up after they either fail to make the playoffs or get eliminate but that's too late to fill dates. There was a time when Portland graduations were held at Keller Auditorium. Not sure when it's not used for that anymore. Also keep in mind the new PSU arena is coming online soon. There's also the Chiles Center.

Fright Night is at the Coliseum events center because it's centrally located and the rent is cheap. It's a terrible space for most events and the Expo Center and Convention Center compete for that space.

A lot of the smaller, lightly attended events could also go to the Convention Center. They have the bleachers to easily set up a 3000-5000 seat arena in their halls. As for the Grand Floral Parade, notice that most of the seats inside were empty?

Without a pro or college sports team as a resident tenant, the business case to restoring the Coliseum as a sports arena is weak. I just don't see it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the glass box is a pretty cool building but I wish we'd expand the conversation to see what else we can do with the interior beyond a sports arena. We've got enough clever developers in town to figure out something new and exciting.

Here is a chart of all the spectator venues I could think of in the Portland Metro Area, showing their maximum capacity:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psfymtnywo.jpg

VMC is shown in green, with both its current capacity (12,888) and post renovation capacity (8,000). Post renovation it would probably have a lower capacity because of the installation wider seats, ADA access, hospitality suites etc.

The only venues with a similar capacity are Halls D and E of the Expo Center. However that only competes with VMC to a limited extent, as the report notes:

Excepting the Expo Center there is a pretty huge gap in venues between the 4-5,000 capacity venue and the 20,000 seat stadiums. So given that, do the two following assumptions make sense?

Firstly, the "Tenant and User Experience Enhancements" scenario:

Secondly, the "Strategic Market Enhancements" scenario:

So we're talking 12-17 additional events a year. Given that the building is the only comparable venue of its size, it's very possible to believe that there are that many shows every year that either aren't being held or are bypassing Portland entirely, due to lack of suitable facilities.

Now contrast that with the amount of money it will cost. How are 12 to 17 events for fewer than 8,000 people each (potentially far fewer) worth tens of millions of dollars in investments based on estimates that will be outdated by the time the project takes shape?

And what about the land? Look at how much prime central city land the MC sits on and consider the benefits redeveloping it could bring to the city.

Cumulatively that results in tens of thousands more visitors a year, and the building going from an operating loss of $110,000 a year to an operating profit of $449,000 a year, with at least a 40 lifespan for the improvements. (Much of the increased profit comes from increasing the energy efficiency of the building, which comes with benefits other than just money.)

What about the land? That area is full of vacant or underused land. There's decades (at least) of development potential in the Lloyd District / Rose Quarter. Let's talk about building on the PPS Blanchard site or the Thunderbird site before we start talking about tearing down National Register listed buildings.

There are two key things missing from your chart.

When the Moda Center curtains off the upper level, that reduces the facility's capacity by about 8000 seats to about 12,000 seats. The Moda Center's Theater of the Clouds configuration take the facility down to about 5000 seats.

One of the keys here is whether the Winterhawks are willing to sign a lease to move full time to a new Coliseum. They said they are but until there is a signed lease, it's all up in the air. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Blazers come up with a last minute deal to keep them at the Moda Center full time. It would be in their best interests to have as many dates as possible used at Moda. Without the Winterhawks, this is totally a no-go proposal.

In that vein, Portland has long been talked about as an expansion location for the NHL (the Moda was built with that in mind). Should that day ever come, that removes the Winterhawks from the picture, and then what?

I'll weigh in as an outsider.

The building looks ok but I'm mystified that it's called "historic."

It's easy to imagine that neighborhood growing quickly. It's by the MAX, the area is already improving, and the Pearl etc. are quickly filling up.

Guessing the operating profits don't count the cost of the renovation? So basically you pay $90 or $140 million or whatever then that's offset by a tiny amount. This doesn't count any reduction in profit at other venues that it might take events from.

If a convention center breaks even it's fine because it's about drawing visitors to hotel rooms. But the events at Moda sound more local. So most dollars it brings in are simply local money spent there instead of elsewhere. Economic impact studies tend to conveniently (some would say dishonestly) forget that fact. If it's worthwhile, it's more like the entertainment value.

I'm shocked by the seating list. A metro of Portland's size will usually have at least a major NCAA D1 university if not MLB, NFL, etc., and therefore it'll have at least one stadium that seats maybe 45,000 or more. Is there another case of a city Portland's size not having this?

Not that I'd recommend building one, unless it came with a pro team. Even with a cover, there's not a ton of stuff that needs a stadium otherwise.

Maybe if the Timbers build a larger stadium that could at least handle larger concerts.

I'm aware of that (which is why I said 'maximum capacity'). Indeed many of the venues in the chart have the ability to be configured for smaller audiences. Presently VMC doesn't have that capability, but could post-renovation.

...but is it necessary?

All of these options (excluding demolition) are based on the desire to find a new use for the structure rather than asking if we need it and if the money and land could be better put to other uses.

The MC is gorgeous. But do we need it? Are we wasting time and resources on it? Your chart above seems to be proof that we don't need it, especially since the chart didn't include the proper capacity for the upcoming PSU Viking Pavilion (it's listed above in its current capacity rather than in its upcoming 5,000 seat capacity, probably because listing the current lower seating number of 3,000 instead of the upgrade to 5,000 helps support the cause for keeping the MC).

Try harder. From the Final Findings and Decision by the Design Commission on the PSU Viking Pavilion:

There's no need to be rude. You're better than that. ou're obviously passionate about the MC, but you keep nitpicking details while ignoring the main points of the comments you're replying to. For example...

It's great that you love the MC. I too think it's gorgeous. But, do we need it? Is it the best use of the amount of the millions of dollars it will require?

It's great that you love the MC. I too think it's gorgeous. But, do we need it? Is it the best use of the amount of the millions of dollars it will require?[/QUOTE]

You answered your own question. If you believe it to be gorgeous why on earth would you want to tear it down? The notion that fiscal responsibility is somehow the end-all-be-all here is just maddening. Of course saving/rehabilitating this building is the best use of the millions that would be required. What type of cost-efficient mundanity do you imagine would replace it? We have far too few examples of great architecture in this city, and I for one would pay to keep it around for that reason alone.

You answered your own question. If you believe it to be gorgeous why on earth would you want to tear it down? The notion that fiscal responsibility is somehow the end-all-be-all here is just maddening. Of course saving/rehabilitating this building is the best use of the millions that would be required. What type of cost-efficient mundanity do you imagine would replace it? We have far too few examples of great architecture in this city, and I for one would pay to keep it around for that reason alone.[/QUOTE]
my thoughts too--if any body cares:cheers: