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)

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 12:17 AM

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

2oh1 Jun 13, 2016 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7472242)
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."

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 1:06 AM

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.

2oh1 Jun 13, 2016 1:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7472280)
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.

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..."
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.


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."
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.


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)."
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...).


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.

tworivers Jun 13, 2016 2:04 AM

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.

: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]

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 2:13 AM

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?

2oh1 Jun 13, 2016 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7472318)
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.

babs Jun 13, 2016 5:18 AM

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.

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 6:29 AM

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:

Quote:

The Expo Center is challenged by the lack of hotel rooms in the immediate area. As a result, the majority of events hosted at the venue are public events and consumer shows drawing primarily from the local area.
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:

Quote:

It is estimated that the VMC could host a total of 128 events and attract a total of 430,300 attendees on an annual basis under the Tenant and User Experience Enhancements scenario. A total of 12 additional events over Scenario 1 are estimated including four Winterhawks games, two concerts, two family shows and four other sporting events (OSAA basketball games).

These estimates include a 7.0 percent increase in Winterhawks attendance over Scenario 1 estimated levels due to an enhanced fan experience and more sponsorship and advertising opportunities to drive additional attendee demand. Other ticketed events with anticipated attendance increases include FrightTown, family shows, concerts, other sports and the Grand Floral Parade with various increases ranging from roughly 6 percent to 11 percent depending on the event.
Secondly, the "Strategic Market Enhancements" scenario:

Quote:

It is anticipated that the VMC could host a total of 133 events and attract 453,700 total attendees on an annual basis under the Strategic Market Enhancements scenario. These estimates include an additional four percent increase in Winterhawks attendance over Scenario 2 due to additional fan experience enhancements

A total of five (5) events over Scenario 2 are added including three concerts and two family shows.
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.

2oh1 Jun 13, 2016 7:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7472444)
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.

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 7:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472455)
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?

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7472455)
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.

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.

babs Jun 13, 2016 3:08 PM

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.

BlazerBeav Jun 13, 2016 3:26 PM

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?

mhays Jun 13, 2016 3:50 PM

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.

maccoinnich Jun 13, 2016 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babs (Post 7472688)
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.

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.

2oh1 Jun 14, 2016 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7473022)
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).

maccoinnich Jun 14, 2016 5:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 7473573)
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:

Quote:

The eastern portion of the building will be reconstructed with a new multipurpose arena facing the South Park blocks with seating for up to approximately 3,400.

2oh1 Jun 14, 2016 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich (Post 7473577)
Try harder.

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?

AcmeGreg Jun 14, 2016 3:03 PM

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.

58rhodes Jun 14, 2016 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcmeGreg (Post 7473783)
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?

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:


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:01 AM.

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