SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Downtown & City of Portland (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=192)
-   -   Albina Vision / Rose Quarter Redevelopment (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152548)

PdX Farr Jun 12, 2016 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 7471342)
No one blinked an eye, huh?

Lucky for us, you're not going to get your way.

Someday MC will be the gorgeous centerpiece to a re-knit urban fabric in the immediate vicinity, including the land PPS currently is occupying.

People with this mindset are exactly what is wrong with this city. There is no way this building as is, repurposed or not, will ever be a "centerpiece" of anything. Its a stadium. There is NOTHING SPECIAL about it anymore. Dream on in the past all you want. "It was so amaze in the 60's". Well guess what, its not the 60's anymore. this site can be a million other beneficial things, but staying in its current form, even if renovated or "repurposed", is not one of them.

Stadiums have been revolutionary for their time thorough out the years and have been replace for more revolutionary stadiums. Its called progression, not dwelling on the past.

This building is nothing more than a eyesore from the inside and out. The only people that don't agree with that are a very small minority mostly in the very small architectural community around here. They speak loud and look for cameras and push for getting this dump on national protected lists for personal reasons. There has yet to be a single good proposal to "repurpose" this place that will make it solvent.

innovativethinking Jun 12, 2016 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PdX Farr (Post 7471656)
People with this mindset are exactly what is wrong with this city. There is no way this building as is, repurposed or not, will ever be a "centerpiece" of anything. Its a stadium. There is NOTHING SPECIAL about it anymore. Dream on in the past all you want. "It was so amaze in the 60's". Well guess what, its not the 60's anymore. this site can be a million other beneficial things, but staying in its current form, even if renovated or "repurposed", is not one of them.

Stadiums have been revolutionary for their time thorough out the years and have been replace for more revolutionary stadiums. Its called progression, not dwelling on the past.

This building is nothing more than a eyesore from the inside and out. The only people that don't agree with that are a very small minority mostly in the very small architectural community around here. They speak loud and look for cameras and push for getting this dump on national protected lists for personal reasons. There has yet to be a single good proposal to "repurpose" this place that will make it solvent.

It's trash I agree

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 5:00 PM

Would you prefer it if it had less glass, but maybe, I dunno, had some brown metal panels on it?

65MAX Jun 12, 2016 6:23 PM

Maybe if they put an Apple logo on it, some of you would like it better? It's strange that a glass box built now is the best thing since sliced bread. But built 55 years ago? OMG, it's too old, tear it down and start over. I'm REALLY glad shortsighted people like that aren't making the decisions here.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 7471937)
Maybe if they put an Apple logo on it, some of you would like it better?

Maybe if it had a purpose. Maybe if it got enough use to justify the amount of prime land it eats up. Maybe if over two decades of failed plans for it hadn't already passed by with no outcome other than money lost. Maybe if we had reason to believe two more decades of the same aren't the best we can expect for it, if not longer. Much longer. I'd be thrilled if we could repurpose it, but two decades of attempts have been fruitless.

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7471945)
Maybe if it had a purpose.

I guess people think that if they keep repeating this, it will become true. Veterans Memorial Coliseum hosts well over a hundred events a year, including (just yesterday!) the start of the Grand Floral Parade. With investment, it could hold more and larger events.

innovativethinking Jun 12, 2016 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7471952)
I guess people think that if they keep repeating this, it will become true. Veterans Memorial Coliseum hosts well over a hundred events a year, including (just yesterday!) the start of the Grand Floral Parade. With investment, it could more and larger events.

And just like the math says time after time it still would lose money.

You guys read the study provided last year by the city, that even if they spent between $35.1M & $142M upgrading the coliseum, it still wouldn't make a difference, with the yearly losses adding up to half a million bucks.

Again the math tells us time and time again.

Lets be real here. The memorial part of Memorial Coliseum was a fountain and a wall on the lower level that most people never saw and has been broken for yesrs. The only reason it was a memorial in the first place was back in the days when it was built it was easier to get the package approved by voters if it was a memorial to our war heroes. As a memorial these days, it's more an insult given its sad state.

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 7:18 PM

That's actually not what the report says, but whatever.

65MAX Jun 12, 2016 7:28 PM

Ironically, innovativethinking is neither.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7471952)
I guess people think that if they keep repeating this, it will become true. Veterans Memorial Coliseum hosts well over a hundred events a year, including (just yesterday!) the start of the Grand Floral Parade.

Unless something has changed over the past three or four years, it's main use is assemblies. ASSEMBLIES, with fewer than 100 people. Yes, yesterday it hosted the start of the Grand Floral Parade. It's just a shame there are 365 other days in 2016.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7471952)
With investment, it could hold more and larger events.

Wouldn't it be taking those events away from Moda Center and other venues? Spending money with the left hand to take money away from the right is a net loss.

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 8:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472001)
Unless something has changed over the past three or four years, it's main use is assemblies. ASSEMBLIES, with fewer than 100 people. Yes, yesterday it hosted the start of the Grand Floral Parade. It's just a shame there are 365 other days in 2016.

Not true. The building has an annual attendance of 385,000, with events as described as follows:

Quote:

Despite its condition and lack of amenities, the VMC still sees consistent use and has a diverse event mix including sporting events (e.g., Portland Winterhawks and several Oregon School Activities Association championships), concerts, shows (e.g., Disney and Cirque de Soleil in 2015, Fright Town for last 10 years), conventions (e.g., Craft Brewers Convention reception in 2015), small and large meetings, and civic events (e.g., regional high school and community college graduations and the Rose Festival Grand Floral Parade).

....

The VMC has served, and continues to serve, a needed civic purpose. According to research by Convention Sports and Leisure International (CSL), the VMC currently has more events per year than many of the market study’s benchmark facilities, averaging 117 annual events over the last three years, and significantly higher attendance, almost 400,000 per year. Because of its pricing structure, the size of the facility and the variety of spaces available for use, many of the current uses/events would have a hard time finding alternative locations were the VMC no longer available (e.g., graduations, small conventions and special events such as Fright Town).
Quote:

Wouldn't it be taking those events away from Moda Center and other venues? Spending money with the left hand to take money away from the right is a net loss.
No. They're not directly comparable venues, mostly because of seating capacity. Again, from the report:

Quote:

The CSL report indicates the VMC has the potential to expand its use/event mix and improve its operating financials by filling a needed facility niche in Portland. A spectator and event facility with flexible seating for 3,000 to 8,000 and a large open floor area is not currently available in Portland and there is demand for such a facility.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 9:09 PM

The "facts" used to justify keeping Memorial Coliseum are hilarious.

"Because of its pricing structure, the size of the facility and the variety of spaces available for use, many of the current uses/events would have a hard time finding alternative locations were the VMC no longer available (e.g., graduations, small conventions and special events such as Fright Town"

...and yet, upgrading Memorial Coliseum would make it no longer viable for many of those events due to increased pricing, unless the MC intends to be run at a loss since it's losing money now even without the millions that upgrades would cost.

"A spectator and event facility with flexible seating for 3,000 to 8,000 and a large open floor area is not currently available in Portland and there is demand for such a facility."

...and yet, upgrading Memorial Coliseum would make it no longer viable for many of the events which, in theory, justify its existence.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 9:11 PM

Does anybody have a link to events at the MC? Surely, this is only scratching the surface.

innovativethinking Jun 12, 2016 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7471978)
That's actually not what the report says, but whatever.

It actually does. Check it out

"No matter how much money Portland officials sink into Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the aging city-owned venue looks to be a money-loser.

That's the takeaway from a new consulting report that evaluated five renovation options, ranging in cost from $35.1 million for basic upgrades to $142.9 million to convert the arena into a track facility.

Those renovations would do little to attract new visitors or events, however, and they're unlikely to generate enough new revenue to cover debt payments tied to the expensive upgrades"

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...erans_mem.html

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472081)
The "facts" used to justify keeping Memorial Coliseum are hilarious.

"Because of its pricing structure, the size of the facility and the variety of spaces available for use, many of the current uses/events would have a hard time finding alternative locations were the VMC no longer available (e.g., graduations, small conventions and special events such as Fright Town"

...and yet, upgrading Memorial Coliseum would make it no longer viable for many of those events due to increased pricing, unless the MC intends to be run at a loss since it's losing money now even without the millions that upgrades would cost.

"A spectator and event facility with flexible seating for 3,000 to 8,000 and a large open floor area is not currently available in Portland and there is demand for such a facility."

...and yet, upgrading Memorial Coliseum would make it no longer viable for many of the events which, in theory, justify its existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472082)
Does anybody have a link to events at the MC? Surely, this is only scratching the surface.

So, 2oh1, you are now conceding that that VMC does in fact have a purpose?

And, as I've already explained, one of the problems with VMC is that it doesn't have a loading dock. It therefore takes much longer than industry standard to put up or take down a show. This, along with other improvements, would make it perfectly feasible to hold more events per year, without displacing things like the high school graduations that currently happen there.

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innovativethinking (Post 7472091)
It actually does. Check it out

"No matter how much money Portland officials sink into Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the aging city-owned venue looks to be a money-loser.

That's the takeaway from a new consulting report that evaluated five renovation options, ranging in cost from $35.1 million for basic upgrades to $142.9 million to convert the arena into a track facility.

Those renovations would do little to attract new visitors or events, however, and they're unlikely to generate enough new revenue to cover debt payments tied to the expensive upgrades"

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...erans_mem.html

I'd encourage you to actually read the report, and not cherry pick quotes from the Oregonian out of context.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by innovativethinking (Post 7471977)
And just like the math says time after time it still would lose money.

You guys read the study provided last year by the city, that even if they spent between $35.1M & $142M upgrading the coliseum, it still wouldn't make a difference, with the yearly losses adding up to half a million bucks.

The report said:

http://i.imgur.com/t0VhUm9.jpg?1

In the most likely of the options to move ahead ("Tenant/User Enhancements" or "Strategic Market Enhancements") the arena would make an operating profit of $253,000 or $449,000 a year.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7472092)
So, 2oh1, you are now conceding that that VMC does in fact have a purpose?

...?

Over twenty years of attempts to revitalize, repurpose, find a use for or even a justification for (call it what you will) Memorial Coliseum have accomplished nothing other than to waste money. Over twenty years.

How much money has been spent on those decades of attempts? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

How much money has Memorial Coliseum lost since the Blazers moved out over twenty years ago? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

Memorial Coliseum is gorgeous, but is it the best use of the land it sits on? Is it the best use of the money it has cost and lost for over twenty years?

58rhodes Jun 12, 2016 9:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472103)
...?

Over twenty years of attempts to revitalize, repurpose, find a use for or even a justification for (call it what you will) Memorial Coliseum have accomplished nothing other than to waste money. Over twenty years.

How much money has been spent on those decades of attempts? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

How much money has Memorial Coliseum lost since the Blazers moved out over twenty years ago? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

Memorial Coliseum is gorgeous, but is it the best use of the land it sits on? Is it the best use of the money it has cost and lost for over twenty years?

I guess the big question is what is the demand for the land?

maccoinnich Jun 12, 2016 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472103)
...?

Over twenty years of attempts to revitalize, repurpose, find a use for or even a justification for (call it what you will) Memorial Coliseum have accomplished nothing other than to waste money. Over twenty years.

How much money has been spent on those decades of attempts? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

How much money has Memorial Coliseum lost since the Blazers moved out over twenty years ago? Seriously, I'd love to see a dollar figure.

Memorial Coliseum is gorgeous, but is it the best use of the land it sits on? Is it the best use of the money it has cost and lost for over twenty years?


You said that the building "doesn't have a purpose" and then backed it up by stating that it's mostly used for events with "fewer than 100 people". You are entitled to own your opinions about the building, but you're not entitled to your own facts. The building is used, does have a purpose, and actually has pretty high attendance.

As for your other questions, I'm not going to bother answering them one by one, because they are actually covered in the report that you have evidently not read.

2oh1 Jun 12, 2016 11:26 PM

Actually, Mac, I have read the report.

So many of the numbers and facts in it seem to have been cherry picked.

Quote:

"there appears to be demand in the local market for an updated flexible venue with 3,000-8,000 seats. While expensive, renovating the VMC will cost much less than building a new facility of this size..."
Note how there's no mention of how many of those events are currently being held at Moda Center, meaning, a ton of money may be spent to take revenue away from one venue to give it to another.

Quote:

"It’s also worth noting that the estimated cumulative economic impact associated with these options is $2.1 billion over an expected 30-year span for the Tenant/User Enhancements and $3.5 billion for Strategic Market Enhancements over the expected 40-year span."
Prove it. If this is true, I'm certainly interested, but I don't believe it (though I could be convinced. Offer real proof).


Quote:

"Permanent closure and eventual deconstruction of the VMC should remain on the table. This option would be contentious and challenging to realize and the process of preparing for demolition, developing a redevelopment plan, and finding willing development partners would take several years to organize and would require significant resources. Through it all, the unanswered question remains about what would take the place of the VMC and how it would provide a greater public benefit than renovation of the current facility."
This is the path that makes the most sense. I see no reason to believe we won't be having this exact same conversation five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now and beyond. And since the 2012 plan fell through (even though the city spent millions in the expectation it would come to fruition), why should we believe that won't happen again now?


Quote:

"The biggest decision facing the City is this: Should the VMC be preserved as a public spectator facility for the next 20 to 40 years?"
This is the conversation that needs to be had.


Quote:

"Despite its condition and lack of amenities, the VMC still sees consistent use and has a diverse event mix including sporting events (e.g., Portland Winterhawks and several Oregon School Activities Association championships), concerts, shows (e.g., Disney and Cirque de Soleil in 2015, Fright Town for last 10 years), conventions (e.g., Craft Brewers Convention reception in 2015), small and large meetings, and civic events (e.g., regional high school and community college graduations and the Rose Festival Grand Floral Parade)."
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...).


Quote:

"None of the scenarios are able to produce a direct return on investment (ROI) for the needed capital investment. This is not an uncommon outcome for facilities of this nature. Nationally and locally, many, if not most, spectator facilities, performing arts venues, and exposition and convention centers have some component of public funding for either their capital investment or ongoing operations, or both."
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.

The Blazers played at Memorial Coliseum for 34 years. They're already in their 21st year at Moda Center, which means it's just a matter of time before we're having this same discussion about TWO aging arenas instead of one. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, thank god Moda Center isn't pretty.


I think the track & field version is absolutely LOL-worthy:

Quote:

New indoor track and field events are assumed to include international and national events as well as regional, collegiate, invitational and local events. While the scope of work includes items to accommodate indoor bicycle events, the track size would not meet international standards for sanctioned races, making it unclear how many ticketed events might be held.
Call me skeptical.

I can't help wondering if we NEED the MC, and if the MC is the best use for such prime land. It'd be different if we were talking about a swath of concrete and asphalt in the burbs, but we're not. Is the MC the best use of such prime central city land?


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:15 AM.

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