SkyscraperPage Forum

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

zilfondel Apr 16, 2009 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4197793)
I corrected my earlier statement after rereading the report that was released a while ago. So I would have to say it doesnt make sense to spend all that money on the report, then when it comes time to put it in action, not to listen to it...if that is the case, why spend money on planning if the city council refuses to listen to what planners are saying?

So yes you are correct that if the ballpark goes at the MC it would stay a minor league ballpark, which is not a good enough reason to put it there because a AAA ballpark should be placed in a location that will allow for a MLB expansion if Portland were to ever get one...it is much easier to compete for a team when we would already have a place that could be upgraded for them.

Bingo. This is why the PPS site should be pursued, as its large enough. Or, PDXF's OMSI site, although it likely wouldn't be large enough either.

Current plans would result in Portland losing an asset (MC, which is a great venue opportunity for non-major league games, and community events), while replacing it with something worth substantially less: a 9,000 seat uncovered ballpark.

pdxf Apr 16, 2009 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4197814)
Bingo. Or, PDXF's OMSI site, although it likely wouldn't be large enough either.

I'm actually pretty sure that the OMSI site is large enough for MLB. The latest site plan uses the stadium footprint for the MLB proposal at the Post Office Site, which I basically just copied to the OMSI site, and it's a little roomier than my first studies. All of my sketches use a MLB sized stadium.

PacificNW Apr 16, 2009 1:06 AM

I understood, at one time, that AAA Baseball was considering the stadium presently located in the Hillsboro for a temporary location. If this is indeed a fact shouldn't it be considered as an option prior to steamrolling along the present path? I realize that watching a baseball game in Hillsboro is not ideal for those whole live in Portland but, with a little patience and foresight, a better permanent/expandable (MLB) location for the park can be found, IMO.

Joeplayer19 Apr 16, 2009 1:48 AM

People in Hillsboro don't want to watch a game in Hillsboro. Lol Maybe its just me, but sometimes I need to get the hell out of this suburb.

PacificNW Apr 16, 2009 1:52 AM

↑ :cheers:

pdxhome Apr 16, 2009 2:01 AM

If we're talking about a baseball stadium located in Hillsboro, then we may as well go back to discussion about Lents. Some previous conversations indicated that placing a baseball field, particuarly AAA, that far out of the Downtown core in Lents or Hillsboro would cut out a signifigant portion of the Beavers fan base (i.e. Hillsboro fans won't drive to Lents and Eastside fans won't drive to Hillsboro).

Let's remember that one of the biggest motives for a baseball field at MC is to help the City fulfill a 20+ year long goal of revitalizing the Rose Quarter.

PacificNW Apr 16, 2009 2:38 AM

I mentioned in my posting that Hillsboro would only be a temporary facility. My question: Why spend millions on a AAA facility that "might not" viable for expanding into a MLB facility in the future? My thought was to use a temporary location (such as the current Hillsboro stadium) and not spend the millions until a more suitable location is found/available. That new location could be Lents for all I care. I just don't want MC bulldozed until all options have been explored.

pdxf Apr 16, 2009 2:54 PM

I created a new site plan, with a southeast orientation, just to show that other orientations can be done with the site. Perhaps a north-south orientation would provide better views, but all of this could be worked out later. I posted the new siteplan on the site:
http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballatomsi/

It looks like we have a week before the decision is made to demo Memorial Coliseum. It seems like Sam and Randy are pretty set on the Rose Quarter as the site, but perhaps if there was a better solution that caused some buzz and discussion amongst the community, there could potentially be some hope. Obviously I think that the OMSI site is an intriguing option, and I think it has some major advantages over other proposed sites.

If anyone here also thinks it's a viable option, and an alternative to demolition of the Memorial Coliseum, I encourage you to email the idea and the website to anyone that will listen. I have included Brian Libby's email address (portlandarchitecture.com), the contact for the burnside blog, and email addresses for the city commissioners on the website. Perhaps if enough on this message board email the idea to these parties, this idea could gain some momentum.

http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballa...plan_small.jpg

urbanlife Apr 16, 2009 6:38 PM

I actually like your OMSI site idea. OMSI is a destination place and adding another destination place and a new parking structure to help replace the parking that would be lost and needed.

I have only one question with that area, how would traffic be handled? The lights leading out of that area are on a long cycle and are not meant to handle heavy amounts of traffic. I am guessing any games there, it would be quite the added mess getting in and out of that area. I know light rail would elevate some of this issue, but it would still be a serious issue that needed to be looked at fully.

pdxhome Apr 16, 2009 7:18 PM

The traffic is probably the biggest deterent for the OMSI site. I know the City has been involved in several planning efforts of the Central Eastside Industrial Area. It seems to me that one of the primary concerns would be the rail line that runs through the district. It is an active line that at certian times of the day can make the roads in this part of town cut off from the rest of the transportation system.

pdxf Apr 16, 2009 9:38 PM

Brian Libby at PortlandArchitecture.com has written an article on the OMSI site. Looks like it may be catching on!

urbanlife Apr 17, 2009 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4199600)
Brian Libby at PortlandArchitecture.com has written an article on the OMSI site. Looks like it may be catching on!

seriously I would laugh if the city council actually changed their minds and worked with OMSI to put this next to them because of this site...I would dare say that would give this site something to brag about if that were to happen.

pdxf Apr 17, 2009 2:34 AM

I would probably laugh as well, and the odds a pretty long, but you never know!

pylon Apr 17, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4200138)
I would probably laugh as well, and the odds a pretty long, but you never know!

pdxf-
although, with only the information I currently have, I think the ballpark might best work in the Lloyd lot, I've got to say to that it's awesome to see you and this forum having an impact. Right on, PDX.

Delaney Apr 17, 2009 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon (Post 4200270)
pdxf-
although, with only the information I currently have, I think the ballpark might best work in the Lloyd lot, I've got to say to that it's awesome to see you and this forum having an impact. Right on, PDX.

I would agree with you if the LLoyd lot was big enough for major league expansion, but it isn't.

philopdx Apr 17, 2009 8:06 AM

I have to say, after finding out that there will never be an option to expand the ball park into an MLB-level facility, I've turned against the project. What's the point of all this fuss if we are cutting off the most likely avenue for adding another pro team?

Also, I read an article in the Portland Mercury concerning the plan, and the reputation of Cordish in particular. I had no idea they enforce strict dress codes in their developments, tend to push their own franchise restaurants, and actually successfully opposed light rail in downtown Kansas City.

In a letter to the mayor of Kansas City the president of the company said that light rail would have "disastrous implications and would be terrible public policy."

Sorry, but we don't need "drill baby drill" clowns like this within 500 miles of Portland. Are they going to insert themselves into OUR city's transit discussion? Because they "... have concerns about how it would impact pedestrian flow and access" to their development? Frankly, knowing this about them now leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Here are the links:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portl...nt?oid=1315006

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18732

http://thebridge.typepad.com/thebrid...-by-drted.html

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/1943


Happy Reading... :hell:

Okstate Apr 17, 2009 4:18 PM

From reading about the company it appears they aren't against light rail but rather are trying to keep the affluent in their development while discouraging the "less fortunate" associated with riding mass transit. I don't think they'll worry one bit about Portland b/c we've got people from all spectrums on our mass transit. What a silly, stupid company. I still am not against a "goofy" rose quarter redevelopment, I just wish it were a more reputable company. Then again, I suppose you can't have both.

zilfondel Apr 17, 2009 9:28 PM

For reference, here is KCgridlock's Kansas City Power & Light District photo thread. Since Cordish built that development and has been saying thats what they want to build here, I think it could help give us some idea of what they're trying to do.

http://www.kcphotos.com/gallery/albu.../kcmo_0484.jpg

One thing is for sure - their stadiums are much nicer than ours. The round one reminds me of the MC, but oval instead of square.

IMO, it doesn't seem inherently bad or anything, but definitely not organic. Kind of reminds me of those big malls they build in Hong Kong and Japan that anchor huge new developments. However, their district appears to be right in downtown, not in a secluded separate area like the Rose Quarter, and they were even able to renovate an old historic theater and reuse it. RQ would have to rely on really good architecture and mix of restaurants and such to bring people in... I wonder about how this would impact downtown Portland. It seems like many suburbanites do currently visit downtown; would downtown dry up as people visit the RQ "Power and Light District" instead?

pdxf Apr 18, 2009 12:43 AM

OMSI site discussed on the Portland Mercury Blog (affectionately titled 'Fantasy Baseball Stadiums', which I don't necessarily disagree with):

http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogt...eball-stadiums

WonderlandPark Apr 18, 2009 1:53 AM

I have seen and walked through the Power & Light district last fall. It is just a mess of chain stores & restaurants, "charmed" up with some McHistoric "industrial" details, tied to a sports arena. Portland doesn't need or want this sort of thing. During the day the district sits empty except for some office crowd people. Its charmless & contrived. Portland has so much else going for it. Why on earth did someone thing the copying the Power & Light district is a good idea?

RED_PDXer Apr 19, 2009 8:55 AM

The problem with the Rose Quarter is that there are too many mega-sites there. The Rose Garden is huge and impassible, the MC is also big and impenetrable, I-5 blocks access from one direction, and the convention center also occupies a huge chunk of land. Putting in another big box style development only creates more of the same. PGE park was nice because it's compact and sits at the edge of downtown against the hillside. Rose Quarter could be improved by creating new access points to the waterfront and greater connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods - not by building another big box development mimicking the MC.. I'm increasingly disturbed by Cordish and his company's history.. This just seems contrary to Portland..

As for the OMSI site, It seems much more appropriate than the MC site, but OMSI owns about 14 acres of land suitable for redevelopment and has a master plan for a million square feet of new development there, including research and office spaces in high rises, museum expansion, and even a little bit of retail. Their proposal includes towers where the sketches show the baseball stadium would go. I'm not sure this plan jives with their agency mission.. They are a non-profit, but not a public agency. Can eminent domain be used for a minor league baseball stadium? http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...r_big_exp.html

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 4:28 AM

I performed a more accurate site study for my proposed OMSI site yesterday, and while the AAA baseball stadium works well, the steps that would need to be taken to upgrade the site to MLB standards in the future would probably be unfeasible (footprint of the stadium would most likely require the removal of the Opera building, changes to the alignment of the Max Line, and potentially some slight modifications to a rail alignment). Of course these could probably be overcome, but they definitely add a higher degree of complication.

This has been an interesting process, and the idea went further than I thought it would. In addition to Brian Libby picking up the idea, I was contacted by the Burnside Blog, and was emailed by KOIN who wanted to do a story on it (I think the site would require additional study before I would feel comfortable presenting the idea, especially with my more accurate site plan). I'm a little disappointed that I didn't do a more accurate study earlier, but I'm happy that the idea, which still could potentially work, is being discussed as an option. I found it incredibly interesting how a simple idea posted on a message board could get people thinking, and perhaps there is more power to this message board than originally thought--which could prove useful in the future!

NewUrbanist Apr 20, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4205001)
I performed a more accurate site study for my proposed OMSI site yesterday, and while the AAA baseball stadium works well, the steps that would need to be taken to upgrade the site to MLB standards in the future would probably be unfeasible (footprint of the stadium would most likely require the removal of the Opera building, changes to the alignment of the Max Line, and potentially some slight modifications to a rail alignment). Of course these could probably be overcome, but they definitely add a higher degree of complication.

Pdxf -

I wonder if your stadium could work on these blocks in the Central Eastside?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+wat...h&z=16&iwloc=A

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+water+and+se+salmon+portland+oregon&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;split=0&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=mqnsSdOPDJPksgOw65ThAQ&amp;ll=45.522886,-122.661667&amp;spn=0.011172,0.019226&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=A&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+water+and+se+salmon+portland+oregon&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;split=0&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=mqnsSdOPDJPksgOw65ThAQ&amp;ll=45.522886,-122.661667&amp;spn=0.011172,0.019226&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=A&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

It is still close to the new MAX alignment, on empty blocks. The only issue is ODOT purchased the property when an expansion of I5 was considered to be necessary, so taking the property from a state agency will be problematic.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewUrbanist (Post 4205555)
Pdxf -

I wonder if your stadium could work on these blocks in the Central Eastside?

I'll have to take a look and see. My initial look is that they are probably too small, unless we take out I-5, which I definitely wouldn't mind seeing.

If anyone is interested, I also posted a more accurate site plan for the OMSI site (http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballatomsi/) which illustrates the issues with the MLB portion. Again, the site would work for AAA, but to me, the best option for a site is one that could be expanded in the future, and the MLB expansion may be an issue for the OMSI site.

urbanlife Apr 20, 2009 7:52 PM

looking at your new image, I dont see OMSI wanting to give up that much of their land...I am thinking this would be a hard sell.

And the site in the central eastside is definitely too small...great location though...hell, why not down in the south waterfront, the condo market is a bust right now...

Oh, and the city council will be making a decision this wednesday....so we will probably know more then...unless their decision is to take longer making a decision, which is a likely thing to happen.

MightyAlweg Apr 20, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4205625)
If anyone is interested, I also posted a more accurate site plan for the OMSI site (http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballatomsi/) which illustrates the issues with the MLB portion. Again, the site would work for AAA, but to me, the best option for a site is one that could be expanded in the future.

I love the idea of a MLB stadium near downtown Portland, and your OMSI plan is fun to look at. Very well done! (I wish Mayor Adams wasn't so quick to throw the Beavers a bone with a hastily built AAA stadium that can't be expanded and dooms Portland to another 30 years of no additional major league sports. But that's another topic.)

That said, where is all the parking for an OMSI or Eastside plan? A MLB Stadium with dozens of home games per year is going to need parking spaces for 20,000+ cars within walking distance. I don't see inclusion of parking in any of the Eastside stadium plans thus far.

Using San Diego's Petco Park as an example, as it is similar to Portland's plans sitting on the perimeter of the downtown core and directly adjacent to a major light rail station, there was still a need for Petco Park to develop 11,000 new parking spaces close to the field, in addition to the 15,000+ other spaces gobbled up on game days in nearby downtown garages.

Since Petco Park opened in '04, the percentage of fans using light rail to get to the stadium has grown to 12% of fans. The majority of those are using Park & Ride stations in Mission Valley or the South Bay to take one of the light rail lines serving Petco Park. But that still requires tens of thousands of parking spaces to be used by fans arriving directly at Petco Park via car.

Safeco Field in Seattle has about 8,000 spaces dedicated to the ballfield, with additional surface lots and garages in south downtown soaking up the 15,000+ additonal spaces needed. I imagine they'll get some folks arriving via light rail when Link opens later this year.

Angel Stadium in Anaheim has 15,000+ parking spaces in surface lots around the field, plus 5,000+ more in offsite lots within walking distance. There is also the Anaheim Depot train station directly adjacent to the stadium, and many fans arrive via Amtrak Surfliner or Metrolink commuter trains on game days. That station is slated to be transformed into the massive ARTIC complex as the southern terminus of the California High Speed Rail system, although Surfliner and Metrolink trains will still serve the station on separate platforms.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx Scroll down to Anaheim ARTIC Station video to see a quick flyover of ARTIC and how it relates to the adjacent Angel Stadium

My long-winded point...:rolleyes: Even with rail transit serving stadiums directly, you still need to accomodate at least 10,000 cars in lots directly adjacent to the facility. You can accomodate thousands more cars further out for a lower price, and you can encourage rail travel with adjacent and efficient stations, but you can't have a MLB stadium without a lot of parking.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 8:16 PM

Parking is an issue that I think could be solved in the event that Portland lands MLB team, there is certainly land on the eastside where parking facilities could be added (of course parking for AAA stadium would need to be figured out). Something in SOWA could be interesting and have tremendous views if we want to designate the land for that purpose.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4205895)
looking at your new image, I dont see OMSI wanting to give up that much of their land...I am thinking this would be a hard sell.

Depending on what OMSI wants to pursue, I wonder if the city could offer them the Memorial Coliseum as part of their expansion plans. I know it would have the disadvantage of being separated from their existing campus, but if they were of different enough purposes, they could in some ways act as different museums. This of course, could also save the MC.

zilfondel Apr 20, 2009 9:57 PM

Even if the OMSI or Lloyd cinema sites aren't upgradeable to MLB stadiums, they would save the Memorial Coliseum. Parking for 9,000 fans wouldn't be much of an issue, particularly if a deal could be struck at Lloyd Center with their large parking garage.

MLB won't happen for a few years, giving us some breathing room to find a proper location for a stadium in the future.

pdxhome Apr 20, 2009 11:11 PM

I have a question, and I do not intend to sound careless about the potential razing of the MC.

Much of the architectual argument in preserving the MC has been focused around uniqueness of the design (bowl inside of a glass box). If the MC were saved, and re-used (athletic center, commercial development, OMSI annex, etc.), then don't all those ideas potentially alter the facade or interior, thereby removing the very architectural components that make the building special?

I remember seeing rendering a long time ago for the MARC where the entire building was stripped and reclad...

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 11:24 PM

I agree that any updates would need to leave the facade alone. I didn't care for the MARC proposal for that reason. We could leave the exterior and bowl alone, but redo the 'arena' section of it. Depending on the use, perhaps cut a hole in the middle and have a huge atrium surrounded by offices, exhibits, etc...I think there could be a solution that preserves what makes it the Coliseum, but make it usable for a new use.

cab Apr 21, 2009 12:56 AM

http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...orial-Coliseum

Looks like Memorial Coliseum might be saved.

PacificNW Apr 21, 2009 1:16 AM

↑ Outstanding, IMHO.

MightyAlweg Apr 21, 2009 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cab (Post 4206473)
http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...orial-Coliseum

Looks like Memorial Coliseum might be saved.

Good! I've always thought the MC was fabulous looking. But then I'm a mid-century mod kind of guy. It would be a shame to demolish it since it's such a great example of its era and type. I feel the same way about the Key Arena up in Seattle, originally the Century 21 Pavilion at the 1962 World's Fair. Really just fabulous looking buildings that have aged very gracefully.

My step-mom in Portland feels the same way too, as she saw both The Beatles and The Supremes play there on separate occasions in '65.

EastPDX Apr 21, 2009 2:21 AM

I Am Stoked!
 
If this is true, going to the Leftbank and making the comment I made could have paid off!

I asked the Mayor not to give up on the Blanchard Site! The PPS District should have contigency plans for a time when the building would be unusable (e.g., like an earthquake, etc.). Basically I wanted him to think "outside the box" on how the city could support the PPS with their issues of the move and support saving the MC and using the best site for the AAA Ballpark.

If he truly said that the "MC, Rose Garden, and the Ballpark can co-exist in the Rose Quarter area" that leaves only the PPS Admin. Building at Blanchard.

(Possible solution: find a temp. location for the admins and also pay them somehow 150%, like was done for the USPO site to the feds)

I AM STOKED!!! :cheers:

Now if only the Blazers can stop Yao and the Rockets tomorrow and win the first of four games.

Ep

urbanlife Apr 21, 2009 7:43 AM

PPS could always move into the old high school at SE 14th and SE Stark, which is not being used and would have plenty of room for them and could use a healthy renovation.

They might want to rethink the deal with Allen and work out something where both stadiums are useful. It makes no sense to not be using both of them to their fullest...either that, or Portland needs to put a booking agency in charge of the MC and make it make more money...but either way, something in that deal should probably change if the MC is to ever improve...which it is do for a facilities renovation.



I dont know if it is just me, but it seems like after the whole sex scandal thing with Adams, he is now trying to act very proactive and getting things done around here, but doing it in a fashion of not pissing anyone off. Which is the case here if they go with the PPS site...I am guessing if no one step forth about this, he would of moved forward just to get this all done, but once a number of people opposed it, he seems to be changing course to keep people happy....it doesnt bother me, just making an observation.

pdxhome Apr 21, 2009 3:01 PM

Personal life aside, I think what your seeing from Mayor Adams is what he has been able to do during his entire political career, and that is get projects done in Portland, or at least make strong attempts and move processes along. A large part of this talent I believe has been due to his ties with former Mayor Katz.

If the MC is to remain and become integrated into the entertainment district I wonder if it will "temper" the otherwise suburban feel that comes with the typical Cordish developments.

urbanlife Apr 21, 2009 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4207350)
Personal life aside, I think what your seeing from Mayor Adams is what he has been able to do during his entire political career, and that is get projects done in Portland, or at least make strong attempts and move processes along. A large part of this talent I believe has been due to his ties with former Mayor Katz.

If the MC is to remain and become integrated into the entertainment district I wonder if it will "temper" the otherwise suburban feel that comes with the typical Cordish developments.

that is why I voted for him, I knew I wouldnt agree with everything he wants to do, but at least he tries to get things done.

zilfondel Apr 21, 2009 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4206303)
I have a question, and I do not intend to sound careless about the potential razing of the MC.

Much of the architectual argument in preserving the MC has been focused around uniqueness of the design (bowl inside of a glass box). If the MC were saved, and re-used (athletic center, commercial development, OMSI annex, etc.), then don't all those ideas potentially alter the facade or interior, thereby removing the very architectural components that make the building special?

I remember seeing rendering a long time ago for the MARC where the entire building was stripped and reclad...

It depends on what kinds of renovations are done to that building now, doesn't it? Take a look at what happened to Penn Station. New York has been looking at converting the old post office into the Moynihan Station, a replacement for the old Penn Station. Would this ruin the historic value of the existing post office? I doubt it.

Unused buildings end up as ruins, as they hold no value for anyone to maintain. MC has more value than simply the 'teacup in a box.' It is also greener to renovate it, while preserving what you can.

Anyways, this isn't exactly Fallingwater. Also, it is not on the historic landmarks list yet.

scottyboi Apr 21, 2009 8:58 PM

per the above...wouldn't it be naive to think the MC will remain as it is...all evidence seems to point to the fact that although it sees some use and has a role (limited though it may be), Portland cannot, at this time, support (nor does it need) two sports arena. It would seem that it must change to accommodate whatever use it is put to in the future. Let's face it, even when people save a historic house, they often have to gut the interior to make it livable by modern standards...not alot of people would want to live in 9x9 rooms without closets...

zilfondel Apr 21, 2009 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4207082)
I dont know if it is just me, but it seems like after the whole sex scandal thing with Adams, he is now trying to act very proactive and getting things done around here, but doing it in a fashion of not pissing anyone off. Which is the case here if they go with the PPS site...I am guessing if no one step forth about this, he would of moved forward just to get this all done, but once a number of people opposed it, he seems to be changing course to keep people happy....it doesnt bother me, just making an observation.


Sam has always been extremely proactive and has been instrumental in getting things done. Following the scandal, he hid under a rock for awhile, but it seems like he's gotten back out.

My favorite attribute about him is his willingness to work with people, and make concessions when collaborating. If we're really going to keep MC, then I think this proves it.

pdxhome Apr 22, 2009 5:29 PM

Has found any new plans/renderings out there with a baseball configuration next to the MC? I'm anxious to see what the next round of plans shows.

RoseCtyRoks Apr 23, 2009 7:34 AM

^^ Nothing that I've seen yet, but I would think some renderings won't be too far off, of the co-existing facilities. A serious look into the possibility of the MC, Rose Garden, AND new baseball stadium grouped together, certainly seems to be the theme right now. If the Coliseum can survive, perhaps in a different roll, this all seems like it could be a win-win. ( As long as parking isn't a problem with all the activity! )

From the DJC: http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...d-building-nea

pdxhome Apr 23, 2009 2:55 PM

What concerns me about the whole development plan, from what I have read so far, is trying to fit the baseball field, with the MC, with the parking garages. No matter the design of the baseball field there is a good chance that it will up with an undersized, postage stamp baseball field that could poentially be worse that PGE Park is for baseball right now.

It would be amazing to see the city go all in on this one and pump money into the district.
1. AAA Baseball Field at Blanchard Property - $90 Million ($50 Million Private, $40 Million City)
2. MC turns into the MARC - $90 Million (City)
3. Entertainment/District - $100 Million (Blazers)

It seems like this combination would benefit the most people in Portland, something for everyone. I'm dreaming...

jaxg8r1 Apr 23, 2009 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4211633)
What concerns me about the whole development plan, from what I have read so far, is trying to fit the baseball field, with the MC, with the parking garages. No matter the design of the baseball field there is a good chance that it will up with an undersized, postage stamp baseball field that could poentially be worse that PGE Park is for baseball right now.

It would be amazing to see the city go all in on this one and pump money into the district.
1. AAA Baseball Field at Blanchard Property - $90 Million ($50 Million Private, $40 Million City)
2. MC turns into the MARC - $90 Million (City)
3. Entertainment/District - $100 Million (Blazers)

It seems like this combination would benefit the most people in Portland, something for everyone. I'm dreaming...

Hey, if we are dreaming lets bury I-5, that industrial stuff by the river and the traintracks....Line the river with parks, put in a couple of mid-rise condo towers...ahh..I could go on and on :cheers:

urbanlife Apr 23, 2009 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxg8r1 (Post 4211729)
Hey, if we are dreaming lets bury I-5, that industrial stuff by the river and the traintracks....Line the river with parks, put in a couple of mid-rise condo towers...ahh..I could go on and on :cheers:

and dont forget turning the new eastside streetcar line into a roller coaster line. OMSI to Lloyd in 2.5 minutes of fun. :haha:

jaxg8r1 Apr 23, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4211761)
and dont forget turning the new eastside streetcar line into a roller coaster line. OMSI to Lloyd in 2.5 minutes of fun. :haha:

Glorious.... haha :)

2oh1 Apr 23, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4211761)
and dont forget turning the new eastside streetcar line into a roller coaster line. OMSI to Lloyd in 2.5 minutes of fun. :haha:

OH! MY! GOD! File that under "best idea ever"! I love it! Who says mass transit can't be exciting?

Delaney Apr 24, 2009 2:49 PM

This was posted on Brian Libby's blog. Pretty intriguing ideas for MC, plus cool images:

http://bojack.org/images/machtoncoliseum.pdf

zilfondel Apr 24, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delaney (Post 4213679)
This was posted on Brian Libby's blog. Pretty intriguing ideas for MC, plus cool images:

http://bojack.org/images/machtoncoliseum.pdf

I met Will Macht briefly at the public Coliseum presentation.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:06 AM.

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