Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7473614)

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...

Originally Posted by 58rhodes (Post 7473830)

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.

Originally Posted by babs (Post 7473882)

my thoughts too--if any body cares:cheers:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7474107)

And for those of you concerned about money, it's worth noting that any renovation that changes the use of the building will cost more than a renovation that maintains its use as an arena.

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7474107)

And for those of you concerned about money, it's worth noting that any renovation that changes the use of the building will cost more than a renovation that maintains its use as an arena.

Originally Posted by eric cantona (Post 7474066)

"unneeded arena"

unneeded according to you.

I agree with the preservationists here. the report (by professionals!) tells me that IN ADDITION to preserving an historically important piece of architecture (shell AND bowl), it can be a useful part of our urban fabric and contribute financially to its continued existence. for me that's a win-win-win.

legacy projects, like many (most?) civic projects, traditionally do not pay for themselves. at least not monetarily. they do contribute a great deal to the soul of the City, and provide touchstones to our collective past. putting this in strictly monetized terms misses the point of it completely, in my view.

Originally Posted by babs (Post 7474309)

It's an under used tombstone. I don't know why some of you are so resistant to looking at other uses for the building. In know many of you are creative people, the lack of creativity in finding new uses for this building is amazing. And I'm not even calling for demolition like so many others.

Originally Posted by PacificNW (Post 7474532)

Portland is one of the major creative hubs of sneaker/outdoor gear companies in the U.S. Wouldn't it be great to have the likes of Nike, Addias, Columbia Sportwear, etc. step up and collaborate with some grand idea(s) for this venue? Come on, Mr. Knight, show Portland some more love..

Originally Posted by innovativethinking (Post 7474695)

That's actually not a bad idea. Or Nike just bankroll the whole thing on their own and make it a grand Nike museum of their history. It can become a tourist draw for Nike. Mercedes for example in Stuttgart has a similar concept..

Originally Posted by babs (Post 7474305)

Yet spending more to turn it into something else could have a return significantly higher.

Originally Posted by BlazerBeav (Post 7474980)

Jumptown was part of the redevelopment proposal years ago that would have built something along the lines of Kansas City's Power & Light district.

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7476006)

THIS.

Again, I ask, do we need it? Is it the best use of the land? Is it the best way to encourage growth for the inner east side? Is it the best option for Portland in the decades to come? How much will it cost and would that money be more effectively used elsewhere?



Yeah, I remember the renderings that went with Jumptown. Stunning. And probably entirely unrealistic (sadly).

I think it's funny how the same people who want to fight for this structure haven't blinked an eye at the fact that one of the proposals permanently eliminates the glass from "The Glass Palace." I think people are romanticizing the idea of it rather than the reality of it. Are people really, REALLY, fighting to save a sea of parking? Are people really passionate about saving a ghost town in such an amazing location? That's what the MC is. It's a sea of parking and a ghost town whenever events aren't in progress.

If a billionaire came along and decided to fund a massive underground parking structure beneath the MC, and maybe 20 stories of housing or a hotel above it, I'd be thrilled. But as a stand alone structure at that location, surrounded by a sea of asphalt with a much more modern arena next door and countless other venues around town which could fill the need... c'mon now.

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7476006)

I think it's funny how the same people who want to fight for this structure haven't blinked an eye at the fact that one of the proposals permanently eliminates the glass from "The Glass Palace." I think people are romanticizing the idea of it rather than the reality of it. Are people really, REALLY, fighting to save a sea of parking? Are people really passionate about saving a ghost town in such an amazing location? That's what the MC is. It's a sea of parking and a ghost town whenever events aren't in progress.

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7476006)

If a billionaire came along and decided to fund a massive underground parking structure beneath the MC, and maybe 20 stories of housing or a hotel above it, I'd be thrilled. But as a stand alone structure at that location, surrounded by a sea of asphalt with a much more modern arena next door and countless other venues around town which could fill the need... c'mon now.

Originally Posted by cailes (Post 7477315)

If we are talking about the real history of this area, wouldn't mowing down MC make more sense and turning that area back into residential?