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)

urbanlife May 14, 2009 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonpdx (Post 4248497)
In the context of this discussion to me corporate means a place of business that you can find in many other cities across the US. Something that is not unique to the region. A place where most dollars spent go to pockets outside of the local community and thus are not reinvested in the local community as much as a dollar spent at a locally owned business.

thus refers to the phrase "Anywhere, USA."

bvpcvm May 14, 2009 1:15 AM

corporate means "designed by committee to offend the least number of people possible while appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator".

JordanL May 14, 2009 3:37 AM

So:

- Any national retailer
- Any district which uses design principals in place elsewhere in the country
- Any common entertainment options (movies, restaraunts, etc.)

Are corporate.

And thus undesirable?

The dollars flowing out of the region I understand, but that's because we do such a poor job of enticing dollars into the region. I'd be pretty protectionist in that environment as well.

So what I'm gathering is that an "acceptable" proposal would include:

- A streetcar connection
- Some kind of museum/display of the MC
- The relocation of well known local retailers
---This might include McMinnemans, Red Light, Powell's, etc.
- Maybe a heritage center as well?
- Maybe relocating a locally owned kareoke bar?
- Maybe moving one of the brewpubs from downtown?

Is that more along the lines of what you guys are thinking? I'm not really excited about a "Portland Live" type project, but I'm having trouble deciding if I like the alternatives better because the most anyone has said is "not corporate", and that's a very, very poor description.

Does this list hit somewhere close to what people are looking for? Because it kind of sounds like someone describing the Pearl District to me.

bvpcvm May 14, 2009 4:10 AM

well, that's probably not too far off, but i think the main thing would be:

no chili's
no red robin
no azteca
no fuddrucker's
NO APPLEBEE's
etc

JordanL May 14, 2009 4:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4249073)
well, that's probably not too far off, but i think the main thing would be:

no chili's
no red robin
no azteca
no fuddrucker's
NO APPLEBEE's
etc

Okay, so I'm not opposed to any of that, but I gotta ask... this basically just duplicates:

Hawthorne
The Pearl District
Twenty Third

So... why?

I don't really like any of those places you named, but... why do we need another district just like all our other shopping/entertainment districts?

urbanlife May 14, 2009 5:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4249100)
Okay, so I'm not opposed to any of that, but I gotta ask... this basically just duplicates:

Hawthorne
The Pearl District
Twenty Third

So... why?

I don't really like any of those places you named, but... why do we need another district just like all our other shopping/entertainment districts?

of course, I am fully aware I am not the target audience for the Live! Entertainment District.

65MAX May 14, 2009 7:10 AM

I don't understand the anti-corporate argument. Very few of the products we buy are made here in Oregon, but we still buy them from Home Depot or Target or Fred Meyer or Safeway. If an outside company thinks they can be successful here, they'll open shop and hire local people, lots of them. Then those wages help bolster the local economy. What's wrong with that?

JordanL May 14, 2009 7:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4249200)
of course, I am fully aware I am not the target audience for the Live! Entertainment District.

Well, I wasn't saying that it was a bad thing, I just didn't follow the logic on why we wanted to duplicate the districts we already have.

pylon May 14, 2009 2:03 PM

I believe Nike was planning on having some kind of store/facility in the Live! complex. It'd be cool if they would also add a LAIKA animation studios (owned by Phil) component to it somehow- so that Live! wouldn't be strictly sports oriented. Seems like it would broaden the appeal and help advertise.

pdxf May 14, 2009 5:15 PM

I like the LAIKA thought...

It would be cool if the MC could be repurposed as LAIKA studios and an 'Oregon Film Center' to further Portland's movie exposure. Put in some cinema space, create some offices and studios, maybe some leasable incubator space for new animators/producers, etc... I'm not sure where LAIKA is at with there campus planning though, and if they are still moving to the burbs?

You could create a central atrium, and have and a ramp that circulates through the space (rather guggenheimish), providing access to theaters and cinema space, restaurants, museums, etc.. Have offices and studios along the outer edge of the bowl...

holladay May 14, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4249100)
Okay, so I'm not opposed to any of that, but I gotta ask... this basically just duplicates:

Hawthorne
The Pearl District
Twenty Third

So... why?

I don't really like any of those places you named, but... why do we need another district just like all our other shopping/entertainment districts?

It's not really about duplicating existing neighborhoods. It's more about adding another neighborhood to the city. Building a destination entertainment venue makes it a little harder to do that, because the scale will probably be all wrong, and the roster of chain retailers and restaurants it will hold will cater to conventioneers and suburbanites coming into the city to watch Blazer games and shop at Lloyd. It would be nice to think that the Live! district would generate enough foot traffic to encourage other developments to spring up around it, but local retailers would probably be less likely to open shop in this area because they would rather be in a part of the city that was more 'Portland.' So what might happen if Live! is successful? I'd say within a few years you might see a power center opening with an urban Target, Staples, and Home Depot. Granted, those places are useful, but they may not be the best uses for prime inner-city land that could turn into a real neighborhood if the proper vision was set in place. Just my $.02. I could be wrong.

pylon May 14, 2009 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4249828)
I like the LAIKA thought...

It would be cool if the MC could be repurposed as LAIKA studios and an 'Oregon Film Center' to further Portland's movie exposure. Put in some cinema space, create some offices and studios, maybe some leasable incubator space for new animators/producers, etc... I'm not sure where LAIKA is at with there campus planning though, and if they are still moving to the burbs?

You could create a central atrium, and have and a ramp that circulates through the space (rather guggenheimish), providing access to theaters and cinema space, restaurants, museums, etc.. Have offices and studios along the outer edge of the bowl...

Me like-y. I think incorporating some of PDX's creative side in the Live! project will broaden the appeal of the area to help with attendance/success, as well as help ensure a less bland/"corporate" (that word again) look to the enterprise. And help make Cordish step up to the Portland plate, instead of just putting a carbon copy of the KC-style Power & Light here.

CUclimber May 14, 2009 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4249828)
I like the LAIKA thought...

It would be cool if the MC could be repurposed as LAIKA studios and an 'Oregon Film Center' to further Portland's movie exposure. Put in some cinema space, create some offices and studios, maybe some leasable incubator space for new animators/producers, etc... I'm not sure where LAIKA is at with there campus planning though, and if they are still moving to the burbs?

You could create a central atrium, and have and a ramp that circulates through the space (rather guggenheimish), providing access to theaters and cinema space, restaurants, museums, etc.. Have offices and studios along the outer edge of the bowl...

That is a fantastic idea.

65MAX May 15, 2009 1:12 AM

I agree, that is an excellent idea. There's already stadium seating that could easily be re-used in theaters or auditoriums. One thing Portland lacks is a venue that seats more than 3,000, but less than 12,000. There should be a market for a middle range (around 6,000-8,000 seats) performance space. Take half of the bowl for that and the other half for something else. Also, regardless of the status of LAIKA's new campus, they could still have a presence there.

zilfondel May 15, 2009 4:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4244682)
If the MC were an old apartment building, or an old office building or an old warehouse, I would feel more optimistic about re-purposing it. The fact is, it was designed to be a sports/events arena, and it is much more difficult to find a different practical use.

As a public building, I believe that this is an even greater reason to preserve the building than to tear it down or repurpose it.

Most of the greatest historical architecture are public buildings. Castles, train stations, museums, the original Roman Coliseum...

zilfondel May 15, 2009 5:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4248021)
Can someone explain "corporate"? It seems to be a catchall phrase for "things I don't like doing".

Plastic architecture, typically Post-Modern, that is typified by heavy usage of value-engineered "architectural details" like cornices and EIFS. See Bridgeport Village.

Formulaic architecture housing formulaic retail. Now, if they actually use a local architectural firm, then we'd likely get something at least a step above that in terms of quality, which is why I'm on the fence, yet hopeful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4249280)
I don't understand the anti-corporate argument. Very few of the products we buy are made here in Oregon, but we still buy them from Home Depot or Target or Fred Meyer or Safeway. If an outside company thinks they can be successful here, they'll open shop and hire local people, lots of them. Then those wages help bolster the local economy. What's wrong with that?

One word: Boring.

Why would I want to go to one place if its the same as everywhere else? Unless it has something unique, us spoiled urbanites will sniff our noses at it being uninteresting and thus not worth our time. I suppose its kind of like style. Whats hip, whats new...


/devil's advocate

Now I haven't spent much time lately thinking about the RQ, ever since finding out that the MC isn't going to be razed. Been kind of busy with real life, unfortunately. I do agree with the idea that the Rose Quarter should be unique. Like, in-your-face totally off the wall unique kind of place. Someone needs to sit down and do some brain storming...

Let's see, what do we have here?

Blazers
bland office buiding
some parking garages
Rose Quarter transit center
MAX up Interstate
Jazz roots
African American community (long gone)
close to downtown and Steel Bridge
THE RIVER!
Memorial Coliseum

plus its close to downtown, MLK, and Lloyd District

What should it be? The entertainment district? Sports area?

I don't know how successful an entertainment district will be, since we already have one downtown N/S of Burnside.. and those kinds of things usually build off of themselves, like a snowball (bear with me here). There isn't a whole lot to draw people into this district, unless you're going to plop in an entire district, like the Blazers could with Cordish. Then the question is one of target demographics and markets, how underserved they are in the metro area, etc.

I don't have access to that data and I doubt many on this site do.

Another thought, organically-developed mixed-use river entertainment areas have been previously planned/built in Portland, such as Riverplace, which occurred in stages with market-rate housing. It is well-connected to downtown, however. If the RQ was decently connected to the Esplanade, then perhaps it could build off of the energy of the river as a sort of destination. Or maybe a connection between the Steel Bridge ped crossing and NoPo (Van/Williams/MLK gateway). There is also the Centennial Mills project which used an actual public design competition to determine the best design and use for the site... so an appropriate developer was chosen by how appropriate their product was for Portland.

Nothing builds a destination like access. And if the only access is by freeway for suburbanites that can't find Portland except for a google maps directions printout, it's going to be very corporate. If it is designed to not trap people near the Rose Garden after a basketball game, but to connect to the neighborhoods of Portland (and the Lloyd District is a bit barren right now...) then it will have good bones to grow as part of the city.

I think Cordish did actually integrate the P/L district well into the city, but they had actual city blocks to work with. Not so in the RQ...


I think having some cultural attractions besides sports would help round out the district and draw people year-round. Like a jazz museum, with some jazzy and sports-themed restaurants or bars (McMenamins Blazers pub? I dunno). Rehab the MC and booking more events could help a LOT, as well, particularly if they brought more big concerts like The Killers, which will bring a lot of local Portlanders out of the woodwork.

If they dropped a better-than average 24-hour fitness facility (not necessarily THAT one) could also help draw people into it. Some office space, a small hotel, outdoor beer garden(s), cafes, bike rental shop, bookstore, and some boutique shops could make it a draw.

But I think a ped bridge over the RR tracks to a nice riverside development with residential would make a world of difference. Not necessary, perhaps, but could elevate the entire district (if done properly) into a world-class district.



Final thoughts: at the review for the Centennial Mills design competition, someone said that the overly ambitious G/E plan made sense for a future, bigger Portland in its scope. Highly sustainable, lots of activity, and so on. A little telling that we're set to basically get both #1 and #3 projects, I think. I'm a little skeptical if Portland can actually support all of these "entertainment districts" - I kind of think there isn't a high enough core central city population to keep all the wheels of commerce greased. Would hate to see some of downtown's energy sapped, although I don't think downtown would be the one to suffer...

JordanL May 15, 2009 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4251070)
Plastic architecture, typically Post-Modern, that is typified by heavy usage of value-engineered "architectural details" like cornices and EIFS. See Bridgeport Village.

Formulaic architecture housing formulaic retail. Now, if they actually use a local architectural firm, then we'd likely get something at least a step above that in terms of quality, which is why I'm on the fence, yet hopeful.

Cordish already said they were going to use a local architect firm I'm fairly certain.

As for the MC though, you guys know that as a public building, the city is basically going to have to rebuild the ENTIRE structure, or condemn it due to earthquake codes, right? If it's "saved" it's going to be the same building in name only... because the entire thing is supported by four columns they'll have to go down all the way to the columns themselves to rebuild. There is no easy refit for the MC.

If it gets onto the historical register, I'm certain it'll end up condemned for several years.

RED_PDXer May 15, 2009 5:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4251087)
If it gets onto the historical register, I'm certain it'll end up condemned for several years.

So you're a structural engineer and have reviewed some engineering reports on this structure?

zilfondel May 15, 2009 6:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4251087)
Cordish already said they were going to use a local architect firm I'm fairly certain.

As for the MC though, you guys know that as a public building, the city is basically going to have to rebuild the ENTIRE structure, or condemn it due to earthquake codes, right? If it's "saved" it's going to be the same building in name only... because the entire thing is supported by four columns they'll have to go down all the way to the columns themselves to rebuild. There is no easy refit for the MC.

If it gets onto the historical register, I'm certain it'll end up condemned for several years.

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily saying it would have plastic architecture, just offering one definition. If they're using local, that's great!

As far as Earthquake, there are lots of buildings that don't meet earthquake codes. For instance, most schools in the state fail. They won't be condemned. It can still be enhanced through some sort of engineering solutions, I'm sure.

As far as the LAIKA idea (kind of slow here), I think it is an interesting idea... we could build sort of an advertising district then? Big shiny lights, sports and media/technology display? Kind of like a Times for Portland? Or, err... a P/L district?


Perhaps the corporate should be celebrated!

pylon May 15, 2009 6:25 AM

Originally Posted by JordanL
Can someone explain "corporate"? It seems to be a catchall phrase for "things I don't like doing".


Maybe "generic", as in generic design, might be more appropriate than "corporate" in some instances here.

pdxhome May 15, 2009 4:34 PM

Quote:

As far as Earthquake, there are lots of buildings that don't meet earthquake codes. For instance, most schools in the state fail. They won't be condemned. It can still be enhanced through some sort of engineering solutions, I'm sure.
Your right there are hundreds of buildings in Portland that are not up to earthquake codes. However, when a building is remodeled it's the law to bring it into compliance with modern building codes.

I'm not a structural engineering, but I am a civil engineer and from all the journals I've reviewed about retrofit projects generally the rehab costs increase exponentially with more elaborate structures.

Just look at the rehab that Hoffman Construction did on the Meier and Frank Building downtown. If I recall correctly, the final pricetag was nearly $11M over the original cost estimate, becasue they kept finding little issues that had to be resolved.

holladay May 15, 2009 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4251070)

Another thought, organically-developed mixed-use river entertainment areas have been previously planned/built in Portland, such as Riverplace, which occurred in stages with market-rate housing. It is well-connected to downtown, however. If the RQ was decently connected to the Esplanade, then perhaps it could build off of the energy of the river as a sort of destination. Or maybe a connection between the Steel Bridge ped crossing and NoPo (Van/Williams/MLK gateway). There is also the Centennial Mills project which used an actual public design competition to determine the best design and use for the site... so an appropriate developer was chosen by how appropriate their product was for Portland.

Nothing builds a destination like access. And if the only access is by freeway for suburbanites that can't find Portland except for a google maps directions printout, it's going to be very corporate. If it is designed to not trap people near the Rose Garden after a basketball game, but to connect to the neighborhoods of Portland (and the Lloyd District is a bit barren right now...) then it will have good bones to grow as part of the city.

I think Cordish did actually integrate the P/L district well into the city, but they had actual city blocks to work with. Not so in the RQ...

But I think a ped bridge over the RR tracks to a nice riverside development with residential would make a world of difference. Not necessary, perhaps, but could elevate the entire district (if done properly) into a world-class district.

Zilfondel, I really liked a lot of your ideas, so it kind of got me thinking: how do we improve the RQ and integrate it better into the surrounding fabric? Especially, how do we improve access and make space for all the things you mentioned. I took a look at the area on Google Earth and sketched up a few ideas. They are quick and simplistic, but maybe they will generate some discussion.


KEY:
Red - new street network, including arrows showing possible directions of traffic
Blue - new blocks for development (housing, retail, offices, etc.)
Yellow - new Memorial Coliseum plaza surrounded by retail (Live! development? Powell's East? Museum?)
Green - park space, maybe including housing and a pedestrian bridge along the river, as Zilfondel suggested?

http://www.pbase.com/mattgarner/imag...1/original.jpg

Existing Conditions:

http://www.pbase.com/mattgarner/imag...2/original.jpg

zilfondel May 15, 2009 8:21 PM

^ not bad. You can also realign the train tracks to run closer to Interstate than the river, freeing up additional riverside space for a park or riverside path w/development.

JordanL May 15, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer (Post 4251112)
So you're a structural engineer and have reviewed some engineering reports on this structure?

That's it, attack my credibility instead of my points. :rolleyes:

@holladay: I would like to see all that blue space south of Weidler combined into a master plan. Those streets are mostly unnecessary in the area... we could build one large area, whether it's "corporate" or not.

EDIT:

zil: An advertising district/P&L area would be interesting, but I don't see the architects that threw an absolute fit over the MC sitting on their ass while neon signs and big screen TVs go up on buildign fascades.

holladay May 16, 2009 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4252341)
@holladay: I would like to see all that blue space south of Weidler combined into a master plan. Those streets are mostly unnecessary in the area... we could build one large area, whether it's "corporate" or not.

I'd like to see the original street grid reasserted as much as possible in this area. One of the great thing about Portland is the standard 200x200 block. It keeps things compact, makes it easy to navigate, and gives the city regular order. A 'superblock' of entertainment, housing, and retail sounds a bit out-of-scale to me. But several separate blocks that can each be developed on their own, incrementally, would lend itself better to the creation of a real community. Megablocks were tried back in the days of Modernism and urban renewal, and they didn't fulfill their promises. Nowadays, megablocks are common in Asia, and I admit they function well there because the cities all have high densities, but what we need here is something a little more in-tune with our low-density, comfortable urbanism.

Now, I'm not saying that my diagram is the right one (after all, I only spent 20 minutes on it) because I know there are many strategies that could work in this area, but I don't think the superblock is the way to go. A huge 'destination' pedestrian zone of entertainment and sports bars sounds a lot like CityWalk at Universal Studios, if you ask me. It would be virtually impossible to do it without making it corporate, and I'd consider that a real lost opportunity.

MightyAlweg May 17, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4249280)
I don't understand the anti-corporate argument. Very few of the products we buy are made here in Oregon, but we still buy them from Home Depot or Target or Fred Meyer or Safeway. If an outside company thinks they can be successful here, they'll open shop and hire local people, lots of them. Then those wages help bolster the local economy. What's wrong with that?

Bravo. I also don't understand the anti "corporate" thing that so many younger folks cling to nowadays.

It seems like "corporate" is a code word for hipsters who want to prove they are, well, hip.

The funny thing is that if you were to populate a new retail/dining development around the Rose Quarter with only "local" businesses who might escape the silly "corporate" tagline, they would still be additional locations in a chain of locations. And they would be run by succesful businesspeople earning profits and expanding their business model. And most of them, if not all, would have incorporated their thriving businesses to help them pay taxes and navigate the business world. So they would be by their very definition.... wait for it.... corporate! :yuck:

Powell's bookstore? That would be their seventh location. NikeTown store? That would be their thirteenth NikeTown location, not to mention the hundreds of other Nike and NikeWomen stores located in dozens of countries around the world. (Plus the pesky issue of the child slave labor they are accused of using in their shoe sweatshops in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Then the products are shipped across the oceans in diesel belching superfreighters. But at least they are "local") Stumptown Coffee? That would be their eighth location spread across two states. Papa Haydn? Their fourth restaurant. McMenamins? Oh, please.

It seems as though there is a unified desire to bring retail and dining life to an otherwise desolate neighborhood around the Rose Quarter. But the hipster's guiding principle is that any business that would go in there can't be part of a chain and can't be owned by succesful businesspeople who might have incorporated their profit-seeking organization. That doesn't leave you with many retailers with sufficient capital to choose from, unless you were to recreate Saturday Market with lots of homemade craft booths and Elephant Ear stands on game nights. :haha:

A succesful nightlife district around the Rose Quarter should be populated with succesful businesses. If they populate such a district with unsuccesful businesses, that's not going to do much to bring people in, right?

65MAX May 17, 2009 5:22 PM

Well said. We WANT successful businesses there, regardless of where they are headquartered. And if the architecture is (god forbid) Disneyesque, it's not the end of the world.

WonderlandPark May 17, 2009 10:55 PM

My objection to this comes from the fact that this area will only be tied to sports facilities. Like the P&W district in KC, the place will be a slick corporate ghost town most of the time. There are no jobs there, no apartments, just a couple of arenas. You will have a mostly empty sterile environment. I just don't see Portlanders, hip or otherwise, flocking to the Rose Quarter to hit Applebees. Nor do I see Stumptown opening a location there. I see lots of defenders in this forum of this little bit of "anywhere USA" just to fill a hole. But if you fill a hole with crap, then in 10 years we will be like "what were we thinking?" as bulldozers raze the crapitecture and we try again with something more viable.

holladay May 18, 2009 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg (Post 4254151)
Bravo. I also don't understand the anti "corporate" thing that so many younger folks cling to nowadays.

It seems like "corporate" is a code word for hipsters who want to prove they are, well, hip.

The funny thing is that if you were to populate a new retail/dining development around the Rose Quarter with only "local" businesses who might escape the silly "corporate" tagline, they would still be additional locations in a chain of locations. And they would be run by succesful businesspeople earning profits and expanding their business model. And most of them, if not all, would have incorporated their thriving businesses to help them pay taxes and navigate the business world. So they would be by their very definition.... wait for it.... corporate! :yuck:

Powell's bookstore? That would be their seventh location. NikeTown store? That would be their thirteenth NikeTown location, not to mention the hundreds of other Nike and NikeWomen stores located in dozens of countries around the world. (Plus the pesky issue of the child slave labor they are accused of using in their shoe sweatshops in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Then the products are shipped across the oceans in diesel belching superfreighters. But at least they are "local") Stumptown Coffee? That would be their eighth location spread across two states. Papa Haydn? Their fourth restaurant. McMenamins? Oh, please.

It seems as though there is a unified desire to bring retail and dining life to an otherwise desolate neighborhood around the Rose Quarter. But the hipster's guiding principle is that any business that would go in there can't be part of a chain and can't be owned by succesful businesspeople who might have incorporated their profit-seeking organization. That doesn't leave you with many retailers with sufficient capital to choose from, unless you were to recreate Saturday Market with lots of homemade craft booths and Elephant Ear stands on game nights. :haha:

A succesful nightlife district around the Rose Quarter should be populated with succesful businesses. If they populate such a district with unsuccesful businesses, that's not going to do much to bring people in, right?

You work in the entertainment industry. And you live in notoriously suburban Orange County. No surprise that you see no problem with chains and mega-developments that have no sense of place... It even seems that you basically advocate the continued expansion of your own personal way of life. Just because you used to live in Portland, you feel you know all about the city. You consistently remark that many Portlanders cling to their values and beliefs simply because of a desire to be 'hip,' but what do you really know about it? Maybe they do actually care about issues that you see as irrelevant, and perhaps the reason they live in Portland is because they want to be surrounded by like-minded people. If you spend time in Portland neighborhoods, and open your eyes a little, you might see that Portland is not the same city it used to be. I'm frankly tired of all the labels you assign to Portland residents. Contrary to your opinion, we are not all group-think hipsters. If you can't appreciate the validity of Portland's efforts to become a different kind of city then your viewpoint is obviously extremely narrow.

tworivers May 18, 2009 2:34 AM

Quote:

Bravo. I also don't understand the anti "corporate" thing that so many younger folks cling to nowadays.

It seems like "corporate" is a code word for hipsters who want to prove they are, well, hip.
Oh come on, that is downright stupid. I suspect that you don't really believe that, but are just trying to get a rise out of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Weak.

65MAX May 18, 2009 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 4254771)
My objection to this comes from the fact that this area will only be tied to sports facilities. Like the P&W district in KC, the place will be a slick corporate ghost town most of the time. There are no jobs there, no apartments, just a couple of arenas. You will have a mostly empty sterile environment. I just don't see Portlanders, hip or otherwise, flocking to the Rose Quarter to hit Applebees. Nor do I see Stumptown opening a location there. I see lots of defenders in this forum of this little bit of "anywhere USA" just to fill a hole. But if you fill a hole with crap, then in 10 years we will be like "what were we thinking?" as bulldozers raze the crapitecture and we try again with something more viable.

Viability lies in the success of the businesses, not the style of architecture. Plus, if it's NOT tied to the sports facilities, then you're ignoring the existing context of the area. Trying to recreate the neighborhood that used to be there (pre-MC) would be a futile effort, it'll never be what it once was.

Who's to say there wouldn't be apartments and jobs? (I assume you mean commercial office space?) A mixed use development at RQ, if planned well, could be a dynamic 24-hour activity center for Portland. Also, you seem to be assuming that there won't be any design review for this project. I seriously doubt that there will be a sudden explosion of "crapitecture" and in fact, with a project this big, we may even get a couple of gems out of it. Maybe something as note-worthy as the Apple store in NYC.

JordanL May 20, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4255024)
Oh come on, that is downright stupid. I suspect that you don't really believe that, but are just trying to get a rise out of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Weak.

Maybe not on this board, but in my experience in Portland his statement is very accurate.

tworivers May 21, 2009 1:56 AM

Quote:

Maybe not on this board, but in my experience in Portland his statement is very accurate.
Why don't you describe your experience in Portland, then, using MightyAlwegs delineations?

philopdx May 21, 2009 4:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg (Post 4254151)
Bravo. I also don't understand the anti "corporate" thing that so many younger folks cling to nowadays.

It seems like "corporate" is a code word for hipsters who want to prove they are, well, hip.

The funny thing is that if you were to populate a new retail/dining development around the Rose Quarter with only "local" businesses who might escape the silly "corporate" tagline, they would still be additional locations in a chain of locations. And they would be run by succesful businesspeople earning profits and expanding their business model. And most of them, if not all, would have incorporated their thriving businesses to help them pay taxes and navigate the business world. So they would be by their very definition.... wait for it.... corporate! :yuck:

Powell's bookstore? That would be their seventh location. NikeTown store? That would be their thirteenth NikeTown location, not to mention the hundreds of other Nike and NikeWomen stores located in dozens of countries around the world. (Plus the pesky issue of the child slave labor they are accused of using in their shoe sweatshops in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Then the products are shipped across the oceans in diesel belching superfreighters. But at least they are "local") Stumptown Coffee? That would be their eighth location spread across two states. Papa Haydn? Their fourth restaurant. McMenamins? Oh, please.

OK, so we are comparing Stumptown with Starbucks, which has 16,120 stores in 49 countries?

See, I can use wikipedia too! Doesn't that make me clever? :haha:

The point being argued here is not that the legal status of sole proprietorship is somehow more noble than a C corp, S corp, LLC or partnership. The point is that we can somehow strive to redevelop the Rose Quarter with a strong dose of local, unique flavor rather than just dumping in a strip mall and calling it a day.

Look, I'm no disaffected student with some activist axe to grind. I've been to 48 states and about 160 cities on various engagements since 2002. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to see city after city after city with a dilapidated downtown, yet with a shiny, gleaming WAL MART on the local bypass, invariably flanked by an Applebee's and Goody's discount clothing store (RIP Goody's).

I've also been to bustling suburbs of major cities, and I dare you tell the difference between Hoover, AL, Marietta, GA, Lenexa, KS, Cherry Creek, CO, Plano, TX, Lakeland, FL or Bloomington, MN. Or the difference between suburban Columbus, Indianapolis, or Sacramento.

Despite some geographical differences, they are populated with identical-looking pale stucco Best Buys, TGI Fridays, Macaroni Grills, Bed, Bath and Beyonds, World Markets, Buffalo Wild Wings, Dominos Pizzas, Carmike or Regal Cinemas, Home Depots, Walgreens, Taco Bells, Subways, Costcos, Krogers, Targets, CVSs, Sears, Chilis, Old Navys, Gaps, Outbacks, Olive Gardens and Cracker Barrels. And despite the different fonts on their signs, the restaurants all use the cheapest CISCO ingredients they can get their hands on.

This homogenization of culture isn't limited to retail outlets. All I ever heard on radio stations from GA to ID to ME to CA was the same Nickelback/Kelly Clarkson/Timbaland mix of the Top 40. Independent stations were pretty rare outside of college towns. God forbid someone play Okkervil River or Belle and Sebastian on a Clear-Channel owned, pay-to-play station.

By the way, I discovered both of those groups in locally-owned establishments. When I ask someone working at Starbucks what music is playing, they shrug and say "I dunno man it's on a feed".

Again, this isn't coming from some strident, anti-establishment hipster trying to be hip. I've seen and lived the vapid suburban lifestyle. In fact, one of the things that drew me to Portland is the vibrancy of the local culture and being able to thrive without setting foot in a Wal Mart. Don't get me wrong, Portland has its share of chains like most places, but most places sure as hell don't have anything like The Pied Cow.

The intent of my post here is not to naively disparage the right of corporations to earn a profit on their equity. My point is to say that when conglomerates stifle any and all deviations from the bottom line, despite their gastronomic or artistic merit, we are deprived of a little variety. And variety, the last time I checked, is the spice of life.

I hope that the redevelopment is a success, and I'm sure that we can inject a little Portland "weirdness" into the city's plans. It would be such a shame to put another cookie-cutter suburb right in the center of town.

JordanL May 21, 2009 5:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4260588)
Why don't you describe your experience in Portland, then, using MightyAlwegs delineations?

It's a generalization, which means like any other (moderately accurate) generalization, it's a sort-of-accurate descriptor for more than 50% of a given group. All this means is that more than 50% of people who dislike "corporate" are everyday idiots. Since the world is very clearly more than 50% idiots, I don't find this hard to believe, (which incidentally is why most generalizations around about the stupidities of a given group).

llamaorama May 21, 2009 7:18 PM

Well still, how can this place be an attraction if all it has is the same old stuff people have near their homes?

I don't think you should call people with enough common sense to seek out unique attractions when they go out for a good time "idiots". Real "idiots" are the people who visit Paris and shop at the Disney store.

Who knows, I just get the feeling that this is the real reason why people dislike "corporations". I'll just assume based on the obvious that most people still go to Wal-Mart to buy cat food and toilet paper and Big Mac's are pretty tasty in their own way

MightyAlweg Jun 5, 2009 1:45 AM

Looks like the good folks in Lents aren't going to allow this stadium to take over their neighborhood park without a fight. This will surely throw a monkey wrench into City Hall's fast-track plans to get something built by 2011. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._out_agai.html

Might this possibly put the Rose Quarter back in play for a stadium, or is that plan totally dead now?

MarkDaMan Jun 5, 2009 2:12 AM

^it's dead...the beavers are off to the 'burbs if lents dies.

pdxtraveler Jun 5, 2009 9:37 AM

What ticks me off about this is that the east side always complains the city ignores them. When the city trys to put a great amenity in their neighborhood they start complaining. Do they want development and attention or not?

By the way, I did see a piece on KGW last night that showed quite a few people for the stadium. It is just the noisy complainy people who go to the meetings.

JordanL Jun 5, 2009 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtraveler (Post 4289285)
What ticks me off about this is that the east side always complains the city ignores them. When the city trys to put a great amenity in their neighborhood they start complaining. Do they want development and attention or not?

By the way, I did see a piece on KGW last night that showed quite a few people for the stadium. It is just the noisy complainy people who go to the meetings.

Yeah... it was the noisy people opposed to the MC destruction.

urbanlife Jun 5, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtraveler (Post 4289285)
What ticks me off about this is that the east side always complains the city ignores them. When the city trys to put a great amenity in their neighborhood they start complaining. Do they want development and attention or not?

By the way, I did see a piece on KGW last night that showed quite a few people for the stadium. It is just the noisy complainy people who go to the meetings.

I wouldnt go so far to call it a great amenity, city hall wanted to build a private structure on park land, which should never be okay. They wanted to use a huge chunk of urban renewal funds to pay for it, which also should never be okay. Plus if they are going to use urban renewal funds, then it should be renewing an area, the location of Lents Park is in the middle of a neighborhood, now if it were by Foster, and was attached to a urban redevelopment, then this might be a different story.

Also, there was a study done to see if minor league ballparks can cause improvements to an area, out of the 60 stadiums that were studied, only 5 had caused any positive redevelopment, and all 5 were downtown stadiums that were attached to urban projects.

I am guessing at this point, the city will probably have to either work out a deal with PPS to use their site or a deal with MLS to keep the Beavers at PGE until a better location could be found or Paulson will find another city willing to build the Beavers a stadium.

NewUrbanist Jun 5, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtraveler (Post 4289285)
What ticks me off about this is that the east side always complains the city ignores them. When the city trys to put a great amenity in their neighborhood they start complaining. Do they want development and attention or not?

By the way, I did see a piece on KGW last night that showed quite a few people for the stadium. It is just the noisy complainy people who go to the meetings.

Also, the money comes from the same pot that would improve public infrastructure in the area. Leonard and Adams have said that they would only delay projects in the area for 5 years. Well $50M plus (remember, the city has to replace the park area which is estimated between $14-17M), with interest will eat away at the remaining maximum indebtedness. The east side has complained about unpaved roads since they were incorporated into Portland. Few projects if any will be completed after the stadium takes a sizable chunk out of the budget. Also, the amenity will still be a single use stadium that does not have any ancillary development. None. Maybe a few concession stands or local vendors - definitely a large robust parking lot. But that is about it...

For you to say, do they want attention, I think they do. But they want jobs, infrastructure improvements, small businesses and retail, and they want the owners of blighted homes/ buildings in their neighborhood to have access to repair grants and loans.

By the way, a publically owned stadium will not pay property taxes. Tax Increment Financing is paid off by increases to the property tax base. If this is only project that receives funding, how long do you think it will take this working-class area to improve enough to pay back the over $200M in allowable debt. Oh, and please remember, if you spend $65M in the earlier part of a URA's life, the interests is still compounding, so the actual cost is much much higher.

How much interest does a $400,000 mortgage? Can you imagine what the total balance is on $65M?

Here is KGW reporting on people trying to preserve the park for public use and save their URA funding for projects that will improve their neighborhood.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....4b017b46.html

EastPDX Jun 5, 2009 11:56 PM

I'm with you UrbanLife,...
 
... it's Blanchard (PPS) or the burbs for the Beavers. I told Sam at the meeting in the Rose Quarter when MC was on the table that Blanchard should be the primary site but he and Randy never put an "outside the box" thought into it. No work on contingency planning.

Ep

PacificNW Jun 6, 2009 1:56 AM

Maybe Mr. Paulson should consider Delta Park or Vancouver, WA.

scottyboi Jun 6, 2009 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4289298)
Yeah... it was the noisy people opposed to the MC destruction.

hahaha...i was just about to say the same thing...pot, kettle, black

2oh1 Jun 8, 2009 12:18 AM

I think a better solution would be to pass on MLS until the post office site in the Pearl becomes available, then move the Beavers there, into a ballpark that could potentially be upgraded to MLB.

JordanL Jun 8, 2009 9:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1 (Post 4293490)
I think a better solution would be to pass on MLS until the post office site in the Pearl becomes available, then move the Beavers there, into a ballpark that could potentially be upgraded to MLB.

I posted that thought and everyone laughed at me like I was a complete moron who didn't know any better. :shrug:

I still have no idea why that isn't a solid option...

pdxhome Jun 8, 2009 5:14 PM

Quote:

I still have no idea why that isn't a solid option...
I think it's a case of doing the best you can with the resources you have at the time.

Right now MLS is knocking, there is an owner with deep pockets to run the franchise and a rough form of a plan to get MLS done.

I support the baseball stadium at the MC site (not that it matters since it's off the table anyway). I wonder how people would feel if the baseball stadium were for a MLB franchise instead of the Beavers. Would people feel differently about razing the MC for MLB?

The truth is there are only two current MLB teams that are considering relocating, Oakland and Tampa Bay. Everyone else in MLB is settled in their respective cities. Oakland is deep into negotiations with the City of San Jose for a stadium, and even if that falls through, the A's will not leave Cali. That leaves Tampa Bay or an expansion franchise and the competition for a team among other cities is steep. I would say Portland is 15-20 years from having MLB which is why if we want to keep baseball in Portland, we need to put all our eggs into the AAA baseball basket.

NewUrbanist Jun 8, 2009 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastPDX (Post 4290550)
... it's Blanchard (PPS) or the burbs for the Beavers. I told Sam at the meeting in the Rose Quarter when MC was on the table that Blanchard should be the primary site but he and Randy never put an "outside the box" thought into it. No work on contingency planning.

Originally Posted by 2oh1
I think a better solution would be to pass on MLS until the post office site in the Pearl becomes available, then move the Beavers there, into a ballpark that could potentially be upgraded to MLB.
Ep

Both of these ideas have been explored as options, but are years and years away from becoming feasible. The MLS/ AAA stadium require a very short time frame. We need to have them ready for the 2011 season, which would be a tight design/ engineering/ construction period even if the city were to start today.

Also, the Post Office site will only be purchased if the LUBA decision comes back with a favorable outcome and the River District expansion/ funding is approved. Then a suitable facility will need to be constructed at a site near the Airport. This is 5-10 years away, and USPS is leary of the deal due to budget issues and may still pull out of the deal. Nothing is set in stone.

Blanchard, though a large and ideal site, is still a large functioning office for PPS. They would need to find a suitable location in the city for their operations, complete tenant improvements or construction, then be relocated. PPS, with their budget constraints has not the money nor the desire to complete that sort of project. Also, the costs would be astronomical to the city general fund/ URA funding. There would be virtually no subsidy remaining for construction of the stadium. I think Blanchard will become a reality in the near term only when a deep-pocketed private firm pursues the opportunity. Until then, the site will need to wait until development patterns require more room on the east side.

Additionally, though not very attractive, these are very strong well constructed buildings that have high replacement costs and could withstand another century of use. The embodied energy and costs of constructing these buildings to taxpayer need to be considered. Demolition to create another building is very wasteful for a city that has so many vacant parcels/ parking lots. Their highest and best use would be to renovate or reuse these buildings, not to continue Portland's legacy of demolition.

Just my thoughts...

JordanL Jun 8, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:

high replacement costs and could withstand another century of use
My Lord, I hope BESC isn't around for another century.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:07 AM.

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