Downtown Portland News - Page 108

urbanlife · #**2141** Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

This isn't quite the right thread for this question, but i gave up trying to find it... so .... wasn't McMenamins also planning a hotel on the corner of Park and Alder downtown? Hotel Cornelius I think? Or was it gonna be another owner? Is it still moving forward?

nope, that belongs to Moyer, who is planning on turning it into a business class hotel when he finishes the PAW....though with the current market, who knows...or better yet, with the market in a couple years from now, who knows.

Okstate · #**2142** Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 9:27 PM**

^ I have never seen a tall tower go up in my life.

smendesPDX · #**2143** Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 10:52 PM**

but what about McMinnamins website? I am pretty sure they are already building a hotel here and its in the works...

http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=124

Is this out of date?

PacificNW · #**2144** Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:47 PM**

↑ Yes, they are remodeling the Silverado block into a full service hotel called the Hotel Louie.

llamaorama · #**2145** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 2:37 AM**

Honestly to tell the truth, I never really understood this whole river freeway tunnel project. It would cost like 3 billion dollars, which is an unreal amount of money to what, make the view from a bike path nicer?

Then again, if a plan was made to just demolish the freeway, and not build anything where it was, costing a couple tens of millions and never worrying about it again, then I would be cool with that.

2oh1 · #**2146** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 2:39 AM**

That page is hilarious. The hotel is opening in late 2009. And early 2009. It is as of yet unnamed. And it appears to be named Hotel Louie. Obviously, the page has been updated in bits and pieces. That's ok. Better than no info at all!

I'm really excited about this one. Sure, we've already got plenty of McMenamins places downtown and a few more in NW, but it'll be great to have one of their hotels downtown. I'll admit bias though... I'm a huge fan of McMenamins. I realize their beer isn't the best in town. I go to the Rogue for that... among other places... but there's something marvelously Oregon about McMenamins.

PDX City-State · #**2147** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 5:21 AM**

I agree. McMenamins is a really great company that I often take for granted. I guess that's because there are so many properties. This hotel will be good for Portland.

urbanlife · #**2148** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 5:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDX City-State

I agree. McMenamins is a really great company that I often take for granted. I guess that's because there are so many properties. This hotel will be good for Portland.

but a good thing to keep in mind that there are so many properties in Oregon and they started here in Portland...what better way to have it than have our own homegrown companies be the corporate chains.

urbanlife · #**2149** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Honestly to tell the truth, I never really understood this whole river freeway tunnel project. It would cost like 3 billion dollars, which is an unreal amount of money to what, make the view from a bike path nicer?

Then again, if a plan was made to just demolish the freeway, and not build anything where it was, costing a couple tens of millions and never worrying about it again, then I would be cool with that.

Well you still have to have an I5 connection, so the freeway would have to stay either way you look at it. The plus to burying it would be if the land above it was redeveloped and thus would lead to that industrial zone getting some redevelopments....personally, I think the money would be better spent elsewhere. Burying I5 sounds nice, but in reality, not really that important.

pdxf · #**2150** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 6:15 AM**

I would be a fan of a full demo of I5 between I405 and I84. Sell of the prime waterfront real estate and use the funds to improve I405 (which would become I5), cover it through portions of downtown and create some new prime real estate on either side of the the new I405 park blocks. In addition, it would probably be better for traffic flow, since you would remove two freeway interchanges. I would think this would be far cheaper, and the benefits would be far better.

PacificNW · #**2151** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 7:15 PM**

I used to go to one of their locations in Seattle on Cap. Hill before/after a movie downtown.

alexjon · #**2152** Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificNW

I used to go to one of their locations in Seattle on Cap. Hill before/after a movie downtown.

Six Arms, yum yum

65MAX · #**2153** Posted **Feb 6, 2009, 8:09 AM**

I don't understand the "bury the freeway" logic either. It'll be a hell of a lot cheaper to build OVER both the existing I-5 and the railroad tracks than to relocate or bury either one. Not only would you kill two birds with one stone, but you'd be able to start those buildings today.

There are many vacant and underutilized lots along I-5 and the tracks that are just screaming to be redeveloped. You could even put a green roof over the freeway and have a real park on the eastbank, not just an esplanade.

I think a better way to spend billions of transportation dollars would be on a MAX tunnel thru Lloyd Center and Downtown.

pdxf · #**2154** Posted **Feb 6, 2009, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I think a better way to spend billions of transportation dollars would be on a MAX tunnel thru Lloyd Center and Downtown.

Why? The max doesn't seem to be too much of an eyesore or hinderance to development along it's route. I would actually think that tunneling it through downtown would be a detriment to the vibrancy of downtown.

65MAX · #**2155** Posted **Feb 7, 2009, 5:40 AM**

It's not an eyesore, but there are many reasons to go underground with MAX. Tunneling MAX allows for higher speeds AND longer trains, increasing both efficiency and capacity dramatically, not to mention safety. Getting more people to and through Downtown would only increase the vibrancy and reduce the number of cars needed to get people there. The current surface MAX tracks wouldn't be abandoned, they'd still be used as streetcar routes.

RED_PDXer · #**2156** Posted **Feb 7, 2009, 7:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX

It's not an eyesore, but there are many reasons to go underground with MAX. Tunneling MAX allows for higher speeds AND longer trains, increasing both efficiency and capacity dramatically, not to mention safety. Getting more people to and through Downtown would only increase the vibrancy and reduce the number of cars needed to get people there. The current surface MAX tracks wouldn't be abandoned, they'd still be used as streetcar routes.

EXACTLY! We need to either tunnel through downtown/lloyd or remove about 4-5 stops on the current east/west alignment. It's too f'ing slow! A people mover going 10mph might be quaint the first time you ride it, but it only get slower when you're trying to get from one end of downtown to the other or through downtown.. and really.. how difficult is it to walk an extra 3-4 blocks downtown. gasp!

urbanlife · #**2157** Posted **Feb 7, 2009, 12:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

EXACTLY! We need to either tunnel through downtown/lloyd or remove about 4-5 stops on the current east/west alignment. It's too f'ing slow! A people mover going 10mph might be quaint the first time you ride it, but it only get slower when you're trying to get from one end of downtown to the other or through downtown.. and really.. how difficult is it to walk an extra 3-4 blocks downtown. gasp!

There is definitely a handful of too many stops along the east/west routes.

The one at PGE Park is a good one to keep, but the one that is two blocks from it on Goose Hollow seems a bit over doing it. I can see stopping at the mall and Pioneer Courthouse Square, but is the stop at 1st really needed? The stop at where Peterson's is at, that one makes sense because of the amount of traffic and the streetcar stops.

I would rather see the city spend money on a subway tunnel than tear down the bridge and I-5 and bury that....seems like a waste of money on cars when it would be better spent adding more alternatives.

pdxf · #**2158** Posted **Feb 7, 2009, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would rather see the city spend money on a subway tunnel than tear down the bridge and I-5 and bury that....seems like a waste of money on cars when it would be better spent adding more alternatives.

Tearing down the bridge and removing I-5 (or tunneling) isn't spending money on cars, it's spending money on creating a vibrant community on the east side of the willamette (I guess you can look at it a spending moeny on removing cars), as well as creating a stronger tie between SOWA and downtown.

zilfondel · #**2159** Posted **Feb 7, 2009, 11:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would rather see the city spend money on a subway tunnel than tear down the bridge and I-5 and bury that....seems like a waste of money on cars when it would be better spent adding more alternatives.

While there are a lot of projects that need to come first - such as streetcars on the east side (esp Hawthorne and maybe NE), the removal of the eastbank freeway would be akin to what was done with Harbor Drive in the 1970s - opening up vast amounts of land that could be redeveloped.

Both the freeway and the railway lines are a major barrier to redeveloping the eastside, particularly in making them attractive and safe for people and families. You don't want little kids getting hit by freight trains, nor do you want all the buildings to be hermetically sealed due to the freeway noise and air pollution.

The eastside is going to be the next Pearl District, mark my words. It's too valuable and well-connected to not redevelop - being located between all the eastside neighborhoods (with over 300,000 residents) and downtown within walking distance. Not to mention all the buses that allow easy connections...

The city likely knows this, but wants to redevelop the other districts first - finish the Pearl, SoWa, get more downtown redevelopment while the Urban Renewal funds are still available. I doubt they could add any new urban renewal areas due to political resistance.

The city's just going to wait for redevelopment pressure to build up in the future.

The big ticket items to redeveloping the CEID is going to be burying the highway, tunneling I-5 under the river, and burying the railroad. Oh, and environmental remediation for all the polluted sites. Then you've got the Morrison Bridge viaduct that will likely be altered, plus parks and stuff. Getting rid of the railroad would allow a nice new pedestrian parkway ala the Boston Greenway or the Park Blocks.

Okstate · #**2160** Posted **Feb 8, 2009, 2:20 AM**

zilfondel-
"While there are a lot of projects that need to come first - such as streetcars on the east side (esp Hawthorne and maybe NE)"

Unless you know something I don't (which is much more likely than not) I would think Hawthorne would be one of the last to get streetcars. Isn't the whole idea to SPUR development while adding connectivity. Of course adding any new line helps connectivity but does Hawthorne really need a boost as much as other areas? (i.e. Sandy)

"The eastside is going to be the next Pearl District, mark my words."

Dead on there.