« Baseball stadium back to Lents? Saltzman as Coliseum savior? | Main | Habitat for Humanity takes the LEED with young designers' help »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ron

Normally I enjoy your posts and you are a terrific writer but can we refrain from the "why do you hate the troops/veterans" refrain that many of us have been pounded with for the last 6 years? Speaking as a veteran that you have persuaded as to the relative merits of saving Memorial Coliseum, I support Leonard's right to say what he pleases with regard to the aesthetics of the building. He might not appreciate the architectural significance of the building, but that doesn't mean he hates veterans. You sound a little silly and hyperbolic frankly.

Brian Libby

Point taken, Ron. I was thinking of all the veterans I saw at the Open House who wanted to save the Coliseum. But I'm not going to argue with you on this.

eric cantona

100% in agreement with you on this, Brian.

Commissioner Leonard: please self-edit. it is one thing to not appreciate another's art. nothing in the aesthetic realm is going to please everyone, after all. but to make declarative statements about something you have no direct knowledge or training in is foolhardy. while it may endear you to those who agree with such statements, it will not help bring consensus to this issue. nor will it win you a great deal of votes in the future...

hillary

"after all. but to make declarative statements about something you have no direct knowledge or training in is foolhardy"

So we have to have formal training in order to have an opinion?

eric cantona

anyone can have an opinion. a DECLARATIVE STATEMENT like: "The dirty little secret is that it's ugly" is not framed as an opinion. nor should something of that nature be said by someone supposedly representing all of us, in my opinion.

let me put it another way: i have no experience or training in the area of abstract expressionistic art. if you were to put two pieces in front of me i would be hard pressed to tell if one was more important than the other. someone with expertise in that are could possibly inform me that the painting on the left is actually worthless while the one on the right is revered by those who know, and should be preserved. and i'm okay with that.

architects and architectural preservationists are telling us that the MC is worth saving, because they have the training and background to make that call. Commissioner Leonard does not to the best of my knowledge.

ws

Leonard's a good, hard working city council guy, but he also can be a wild hair. If he wants to go call this or that building 'ugly', he's welcome to do that, as long as he keeps aware of the distinction between him saying that as private citizen and him saying it as a commissioner and a major political force in the city, regulating the form of his comments accordingly.

I didn't read the original Oregonian story, so it's not clear to me from reading the excerpt above, from what position he was terming the MC ugly.

Really, Randy could have saved his breath as far as calling the building 'ugly', because lots of people have been doing that before his utterance today(It's no secret either, though on the part of some people, the fact of saying it may have some dirty undertones.). So what? Whether he thinks so or not, it's a great design and a well functioning building that under-performs, primarily out of neglect and cannibalism of its bookings by the nearby Rose Garden arena.

Any casually issued comments I might make don't have the weight that those of a city commissioner might have, but as it happens, I think the relatively newer Rose Garden arena is 'ugly'. Again, 'so what?'. Especially, assigned to these particular buildings, that descriptive term is highly subjective and isn't critical to the function of either. Neither building would likely be commonly regarded as 'ugly'. Each design probably has its admirers.

Do admirers of the RG arena's design think of it as an 'architectural gem'? Since that arena isn't in danger of being ripped down, its admirers haven't been compelled to describe it as such. If I were to live so long, it would be interesting to hear if anything that might in future threaten the RG arena would make them feel moved to do that.

It seems to me that a city commissioner should also be able respect that admirers of a building exemplifying an important architectural style would make an effort to educate and inform members of the public that aren't aware of its significance. I suppose he does respect them. Finding himself amazed that they would speak so resolutely in defense of the MC's design may just have caught him a bit off guard.

Randy Leonard

Thank you for the invitation and for the kind acknowledgements of my work to preserve the historic John Yeon building you sent to me in an email this morning.

However after reading both this post and your personal email to me, I must say that your characterization of me as “whip-smart” and “a tremendous friend and ally to the architecture, green buildings, and arts communities” in your email and then as the embodiment of “Arrogant Ignorance” in your post has my head spinning.

Calling me ignorant and posting a picture of “Ernest” on your site (although you appear to have reconsidered the picture and have now taken it down) hardly inspires me to engage in a thoughtful discussion with you, Brian. And it certainly doesn't inspire me to take you up on your email offer to educate me with a tour. Asking me to go on a tour of the Coliseum because you are convinced that the benefit of your artistic insight will cause me to change my mind about its aesthetic value is akin to trying to explain a joke so that the listener finally believes it’s funny. I appreciate straight talk and candid communication, but I don’t tend to respond well to pretentious elitism. You might keep that in mind for future correspondence.

I do believe the Memorial Coliseum to be ugly. That’s my opinion along with many, many others who have told me so. And while I appreciate the knowledge and passion architects and designers bring to discussions of the city’s planning goals, I also believe that you, as a small but vocal group, are failing to see the bottom line here: The building that you believe to be an architectural gem and that I find displeasing simply isn’t functional. It takes up a huge space in an area that needs to be able to accommodate diverse needs. After years of discussions, no one has been able to come up with a viable use for the building. You called it a sleeping giant. Unfortunately, I think of it as the fat white elephant sitting in the middle of my living room where (“Blue-collar Everyman” that I am), I’d like to put my recliner, my television, my stereo (blaring Bruce Springsteen) and maybe even a TV tray or two (for my "Hungryman" frozen dinner).

As far as the Coliseum being a memorial to veterans, I can only tell you that I believe it to be more of an insult than a tribute to those who gave their all to defend our country. Ask Portlanders on the street to name the city’s memorials to veterans and I doubt that one out of one hundred would mention the Coliseum. Veterans’ groups deserve a true memorial park that raises awareness and speaks for itself. If it has to be explained, much as your invitation for a tour suggests, than something isn’t working.

Perhaps there are other options here that we have not yet entertained, including the possibility of moving some or all of the Coliseum’s shell to another location. I’d be happy to talk with you about an idea I have had to save the Coliseum: You take it down and you can have it.

Randy Higgins

Randy Leonard - glad you're reading this blog. We get your dislike for the Coliseum. Could you help us with questions about a stadium on the Rose Quarter site.

1. How will a stadium with less than half the seating capacity of PGE park for a team with audiences that average less than 2,000 per game and only plays 90 home games per year going to economically stimulate the Rose Garden?

2. How will a roofless stadium ensure that none of those 90 home games will not be rain outs and the economically stimulating stadium audience attends up as planned?

3. How will the stadium contribute to the economy during the 275 days baseball home games aren't scheduled?

3. How will a roofless stadium contribute to the economy during the usually rainy autumn and winter off seasons?

4. We know the city thinks saving a parking garage is economically more important than saving the coliseum but do you think that's true for Portland's sustainability loving citizens?

5. How many jobs, not seasonal, part-time minimum wage jobs, but real jobs, they kind that sustain families, will this stadium create?

6. We now you don't like the Coliseum but do you love the Rose Garden? If you do, you're one of lucky few because the the same architects are on deck to design the stadium.

7. This is off topic but have to ask. Is that rose sign really the best thing you could come up with?

ernest

So because the general Portland population does not know some, most, or all of the veterans memorials warrants it being an insult and torn down?

"I appreciate straight talk and candid communication" hows this for candid? go fuck yourself you judgmental arrogant prick. guess you are one that sits up high and lets things go to your head. I guess in your eyes we need a giant statue of a soldier holding a gun wearing a uniform so it spells it out and the public can be like "oh, oh, ok. so thats the veterans memorial" Veterans deserve a lasting landmark. One that was dedicated long ago, one that veterans groups had a say in, and helped fund and construct. Tearing it down because you think its a poor memorial and think you know what people think about it is stupid and ignorant.

So, YOU take your "pretentious elitism" and shove it up your ass. The building needs to stay. for many more reasons than it being an architectural gem. guess we need to get back into this argument again. guess we need to have another open house, and guess I need to have a microphone in my face saying my opinion again. that open house was a crock. a show. its sad pathetic and was done just to say you guys did it. how many people there voiced there concern to destruct the coliseum? one. I have to say, you have one hell of an agenda. you just want that atta boy and a pat on the back from good ol paulson.

This city already holds the hands of its citizens in more ways than I care to label here and this is just one more way.

this is how I view you and how I think you view the people of this city.
Randy: "see everybody, this is what an ugly building is. now this next to it is an amazing parking garage and arena, what the city strives to be and push in policy and in important development decisions. Come everyone, please stay together now lets cross the street together! hold hands! I need to show you where the new Live! entertainment area will be, a very nice flashy mini las vegas brand exhibition that will make us all happy. And where we can drop an out of a catalog new memorial that is somehow more meaningful or important, or more a symbol than an ugly old building. we'll just tuck it off to the side here, and do some nice sod around it. isnt that so much better? just remember folks, I see the bottom line always, and I see whats best for the city!"

Randys own words this time: "If it has to be explained... than something isn’t working."

yeah, what isn't working is YOU. Trying to make an informed decision about a civic landmarks destruction without understanding it is... wait, what did you call it "Arrogant Ignorance". I think that informed decisions are important. but I guess you don't strive to explore, inform yourself, and dare I say it, learn a little?

You're a city councilman. Act like it. Step up and do your job, because you aren't just speaking for yourself. You want to make a decision about something that you don't know anything about. This really makes me wonder.

J

Down with Leonard!

s

Here here, Ernest! (from a non-architect/designer - just like Randy Leonard! Wow, we have so much alike!)

ben

Randy, i get it, and you're right - the MC site is the easiest path to a problem council perceives to be bigger than architecture and veteran memorials. it's about ensuring MLS and kick-starting the rose quarter renewal. i'm not emotional about the building, even though i think it is cool and could shine if given the chance. what i want to convey to you is that a AAA stadium at that location will KILL any chance the rose garden has of succeeding.

i repeat - a AAA stadium at that location will KILL any chance the rose garden has of succeeding.

any of the ideas put forth for the MC will be more catalytic than an AAA stadium. symphony concert hall. velodrome. home depot. east side community center. open market. museum. etc. ANY of these will be more well used and bring more people into the district than AAA baseball.

think about it: the reason the district blows right now is because it has two big stadiums in it that hardly get used. so you want to recreate that condition with AAA and some window dressing of LIVE! bullsh*t around it, when actually re-purposing one of those stadiums into something that can be used every day is what really needs to happen.

i know you think you have the big picture in mind. i know you think you have Portland's best interests in mind. but please stop and listen to the planners. listen to the people that don't have vested interests in short term monetary gains. i know it's hard because of who holds the purse strings, but you hold the power. this is a pivotal point in the district's history. don't fall on the side of expediency for expediency's sake - i beg you. do the right thing. it's the harder thing, but it's the right thing.

this isn't about architecture or history, this is about common sense - something i used to think both you and Portland were known for.

matthew

i've been wanting to say what randy said for some time now. except, now that he said, i'm not sure I agree. for one, the photos recently posted have been quite fetching. but then it hit me - it's not the coliseum that's ugly, it's the area.
and then something else occurred to me: the coliseum is really the main remnant from this area's 'improvement' - the smashing of the Albina neighborhood so many years ago. this building isn't just a tribute to the veterans, but serves as a reminder of weird decisions made in the middle of the last century, like Lincoln Center in New York (and have you seen what they've done with that!?). sometimes the best way to honor misguided decisions of days gone by is to make sure the evidence doesn't get erased.
save memorial coliseum, for all it memorializes.

Douglas K.

I don't think insulting or confronting Randy is going to win him over.

That said, his subjective opinion of the building's architectural merit is irrelevant to this decision. The central issue is the use of the space. As Brian pointed out, the problem here isn't the building, it's the management agreement that is driving it into the ground. This is an issue that needs wider exposure, and everyone who wants to save the Coliseum needs to keep hammering on it in every available forum until the Mercury, the Willamette Week, the Trib and (gods forbid) even the Oregonian start paying attention.

Because of the management agreement, there's an easy response to a statement like:

After years of discussions, no one has been able to come up with a viable use for the building.

The viable use for the building is a multi-use venue for sports, concerts, rallies, lectures, dog shows, circuses, graduations ... rather like it is now. There is no reason why the building can't be filled two hundred and forty nights a year IF there's the right management. Break the management agreement, put MERC in charge, and watch the Coliseum come back to life.

James M Harrison

While I respect Brian and this blog, and the general support of the architecture community for the M.C., I'd like to add to the opinion of the dissenters.

I agree that the MC site proper is the not the best place for a baseball stadium. So my critique has nothing to do with the politics of the heat of the moment.

But, the praise for the greatness of Memorial Coliseum is starting to become hyperbolic.

Where did the design come from? There are innumerable curtain wall systems that predate this building that isolate and place the viewer in a panopticon position. Perhaps the National Museum in Berlin by Mies is the finest example, perhaps it's the Bauhaus, the Crystal Palace, the Hallidie Building, but however you do the ranking this building is hundreds down the list. It's imitating greatness, which is no crime, but to pretend this building in some way broke ground simply isn't true.

You can argue the MC is "the finest of it's style" that we have here in our town, but that is a weak way to curate any collection. SOM descended from the mountaintop of Mies, not the other way around. We have had plenty of other, weirder, more locally Portland things torn down over the years, from Henry Weinhard's to the Hollywood WaMu.

Aside from the efficacies of modern code on the MC, which others have pointed out, the one entrance, the sub-standard veterans memorial, and the fact that the glulam system is a strange political marriage of Pacific NW meets International Style, I see little to hold on to(!)

Would the architecture community be opposed to adaptive reuse? Doug Obletz's plan is commendable, but given the true need for large covered space where you can park parade floats, host a prom, and slop some hogs, could we at least reconfigure the building to make it work again?

I can't believe that the architecture community would advocate pickling the building in ether for all time. You *might* be able to save it by making it truly permeable in all directions. So what's the next step? I think there are plenty of great artists who could open it up in a useful way, tying it back into our city. Right now that whole district is unmoored, and if we don't push for something better, an out of town firm is going to stick a big neon guitar in the space and call it good.

The MC is not a great building, and preserving it as is will not rejuvenate the district.
Thank you.

Ron

Ernest: I realize you're ernest and all, but calm down dude.

Brian: Thanks for the update. One of the reasons I appreciate your blog is that while I'm not an architect, you make it accessible. That is your strength. Randy is a good leader for the city and it is up to you and others to convince him that the MC is worth saving, if indeed it truly is. Keep up the good work.

Ron

One more thing... someone mentioned that MC isn't necessarially ugly, the area is. I completely concur with this observation. Big Box retailers bug me because of the gigantic parking lots that surround them and everything I look at the MC, is see a giant parking lot out front. That lot should be developed or made into a park or something. The surrounding lots make the building look isolated and forlourn.

david

While i appreciate Brian's reflection and decision to take the high road with regard to Lenoard, I far more appreciate his initial response. While it may not be as measured as his afterthought, it was authentic and rings true. Leonard -- nor any other commissioner -- should be the arbiter of aesthetics in Portland. This is not why they are in office -- and frankly, it is an inappropriate statement as a public official.

He is not the reigning monarch. He is using his uniformed aesthetic critique as part of his rationale to tear down this historic edifice. He's chosen to represent Portland, and the overwhelming opinion of people whose entire livelihoods are based in design and aesthetic disagree with him. Why won't he at least recognize this?

Therein lies the arrogance. The man does not listen. He picks a side, and bulldozes through everybody and everything that is in his way. If anybody wants to witness this, just go to a public hearing. I've never seen anything like it. He bullies the other commissioners that don't side with him. He pounces on Satlzman like he's his next meal. It's out of control.

Leonard aside, the Coliseum should stay. To replace it with a AAA ballpark reaches a levels of absurdity, that leaves most rational people speechless. I'm thankful however, that this is focusing so many people in the public process.

In the end, I hope the truth prevails.

Lizzy Caston

I find Leonard to be out of bounds, and yes, ignorant on this matter. Not ignorant because of his aesthetic, but ignorant on how a Council person should prioritize their time and the lack of appropriateness for the ways he is approaching this issue. It's simply an indicator of much larger problems with his term.

I find it absolutely immoral that in a City with an 8.8 million dollar budget shortfall that Leonard is spending so much energy and time on things like "neon roses" and signs he doesn't like (rather than the policy behind them) and that he has taken it upon himself to dictate what is and is not "ugly." That's why we have the Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission and Design Commission in place. Let them do what they have been hired to do which is use their professional expertise and rationally assess and weigh the costs and benefits and then make recommendations to Council who can then, in a thoughtful, equitable and rational manner vote on these issues.

Leonard, and Adams for that matter, are setting a very bad and dangerous precedent of regressionist "machine politics" type government in Portland. Leonard is charged with running specific bureaus and weighing in on Council decisions as a whole as they come before Council. Leonard and Adams are playing a very bad game of getting too close to development deals and turning those deals into pet projects; dining with people like Paulson in NYC, etc. This is why an agency like PDC was set up in the first place. To keep Council one step removed from the political influence, and risks of real estate deals. History is fraught with case studies of problems when Councils start making hands on policy decisions outside of set city processes. Let's not let Portland become another one of those cities.

I also find the actions of Leonard and Adams to be immoral and immature. By spending so much hands on time and City Council resources on singular development deals and proposals it is taking away from much needed, and much more critical day-to-day work within the City. This includes immediately addressing our City's $8.8 million budget shortfall, running day-to-day bureaus, addressing critical gaps in policy in a rational manner (such as our city's ongoing signage issue), working with the County on things like the crumbling County Courthouse and Sellwood Bridge, addressing defaulting city loans (such as the Nines Hotel) not to mention the need to focus on retaining and recruiting living wage paying employers in the City.

Finally, The Central City plan is now 7 years behind schedule. This is critical because this plan looks at areas such as the Rose Quarter (including the Coliseum), PGE Park including land use, historic preservation, re-use and economic planning. Why is this plan so far behind schedule and why aren't Leonard and Adams working to get it moving?

In a City internationally known for our thoughtful and successful planning efforts, implementation and "working" Council, our Council needs to get back to it. Leonard needs to playing developer, stop playing single person design commission, stop dictating his aesthetics on the rest of the city, and needs to start doing what he was voted in to do - listen to his constituents, run his bureaus, allow City bureaus to do their jobs, and let rationality and temperance on issues that come before Council.


Lizzy Caston

That should have read, "Leonard needs to stop playing developer."

I'm all WORKED UP. Typos ensue.

Thanks.

Matt J

Having been at the city council discussion on whether the Allegro project could use the transfer of FAR rights from one block within the city to another, I do not find Randy Leonard’s comments with regards to MC surprising in the least. After a lengthy explanation of FAR (full 45 minute back and forth discussion), it was clear that he was still not in full comprehension of what was being talked about after the rest of the city council had moved on to other topics. That Leonard feels a need to voice the supposed pervasive opinion of his constituents in such a fashion is par for the course as far as I am concerned. There are a myriad of issues at hand here and to suggest that “people don’t like the look of it” to be part of the reasoning behind its demolition somewhat frightening, sad and unfortunate.
A couple quick questions:
We have been and continue to be one of the leaders of our nation’s recent embracing (though, we have been on this path for years) of the sustainability movement. In what way does the tearing down of this building give us credence on this front?
How are the destruction of this building and the creation of a minor league ball park in some way going to create a better social, cultural, pedestrian oriented, urban environment for the Rose Quarter District as a whole?
Where is the forward thinking of Portland’s City that used to occupy those offices in year’s past? Where is that leadership that helped to create the city we know today? Where has that insight and visioning gone that years ahead of its time thought of light rail, streetcar, the urban growth boundary, … These are things that we all take for granted today, but back then these were revolutionary ideas that now cities across the nation (and world) come to see and talk about. What happened to our city’s visioning? Who are the great city thinkers of our day? Where are those ingenious ideas and forward thinking ideals that have made Portland great?
I charge you, Randy Leonard, to be one of those people: to see beyond the immediate; to prove me wrong; to once again take up the charge of representing this great city’s ideals; to fight for the future and the past, what we have been, and what we can be; and not fall prey to the ease of the wrecking ball because of an opinion of aesthetics.
Without our history, who are we?

Peter Stubbs

It's amazing to me that some people have persuaded others that the new Stadium plan is some kind of an economic gem when it's in reality a child only a mother could love. The dirty little secret is that it's an ugly deal. Somebody needed to say that.


More seriously, though, the bigger worry is the ham-handedness of the process. Should the MC be preserved? Should it be razed? Leonard et. al. started from a default position, and one which seems to have been based largely on data that is at best two-dimensional and at worst faulty. The accelerated process that followed assumed either complete agreement with their position or the unimportance of any dissenting voices.

As for his assertion that "Asking me to go on a tour of the Coliseum because you are convinced that the benefit of your artistic insight will cause me to change my mind about its aesthetic value is akin to trying to explain a joke so that the listener finally believes it’s funny," no, it's asking him to take a moment and see what someone else sees in the building. Given his behavior to this point I can't say I'm surprised by his response to the offer.

He then says "The building that you believe to be an architectural gem and that I find displeasing simply isn’t functional. It takes up a huge space in an area that needs to be able to accommodate diverse needs." It's been better covered above, but a baseball stadium further specializes the site, so he's clearly being either disingenuous or dense. He can tell us which himself. As to the function, Macht's report says it all.

Saying the building doesn't function and ought to be razed in the absence of data other than "it's ugly" is akin to finding an underweight dog with poor muscle tone and immediately taking it to the vet to be euthanized. Doing so knowing Macht's work is knowing the dog was kept on a starvation diet and, rather than buying a can of Alpo, putting the dog down.

If Commissioner Leonard is going to be so dismissive of the facts, the public and the process he really ought not be surprised when reactions are less than generous. Frankly, the tack he's taken here is so opposed to that he took regarding the "preservation" of the White Stag sign's corporate branding as to paint him as a bit of a bully, wielding public power and public money in an awfully capricious manner.


An aside: Putting a neon rose atop John Yeon's Portland Visitor's Information Center is akin to taking a 1910 Rolls Royce and painting hot rod flames on the side. On the other hand, it would be sustainable, as we could power the sign by harnessing Yeon's whirling in his grave.

dennis

Actually it really makes no sense that the city council, or should I say Adams and Leonard are so much for putting a AAA ballpark where the MC is.

First, we are talking about a location that cannot be expanded.

Second, we are talking about replacing a multi functional building with a single functional ballpark.

Third, we are talking about reinvesting in the Rose Quarter so that it isnt so much of an island...replacing a large structure with a large, yet less functional structure is not going to solve anything....I am pretty sure any idiot could figure that out....not that I am calling anyone an idiot, just saying this isnt about saving an "architectural gem" because I personally dont care about saving a large truss building, it is about doing something that is right for Portland.

Which if Adams and Leonard feel that bringing MLS to Portland is a good thing and need to happen, which I agree, we should do what we can to make it happen. Personally I want to see the new ballpark stay close to downtown, but if you were to ask me where the is the best place to put a AAA ballpark with the least resistance, I would say the Delta Park area would be the best location...it would leave the Beavers in an area that could attract more people from the Washington side, it is still a short train ride from downtown, it still has good access to the east side of town as well as the west side, plus there is a better chance to take care of the parking issue, something I think the Beavers suffer from in their current location.

But if I am going to say something on a personal level, it would be Leonard should pull his head out of his ass and listen to what the city is saying...in the end, it is us who decides if he stays in office come next election....sometimes I think he forgets that.

jkh

If we're going to tear down buildings based on their looks, then the Rose Garden should be the first to go! Then we could tear down the 1000 Broadway building and replace it with a multi-million dollar miniature golf course.

Commissioner Leonard, I think that the MC is a rare example of good architecture in Portland. That's my opinion along with many, many others who have told me so. Your comments are ignorant. I am glad that the Yeon visitors center will be saved, but the giant, tacky, neon rose you are planning to put on the roof will be a slap in the face to one of Portland's most beloved architects.

Badly done commissioner, badly done.

chris

Randy Leonard knows all about urban blight. Ask him about David Douglas. Maybe he'll fight to make the Coliseum part of the river district?

chris

typepad filtered out my sarcasm tags in the above comment!

thomas

In truth, Leonard needs to contemplate that losing his office over this is not the worst that can happen here. In fact, it doesn't even matter.
The worst that can happen is that a series of absolutely horrible public decisions is capped with another irreversible horrible decision with proportional consequences for those who don't deserve it, namely all Portlanders not named Adams, Leonard or Paulson.

How and when Leonard and Adams lose their positions is frankly immaterial to the scope of their current opportunities for vandalism. To see in this, Obama's America, such disdain for populism! Adams' "I don't care what you think of me I'm entitled …" and Leonard's "That's my opinion," could not be more explicit rejections of any but the most belligerently arbitrary measures of civic behavior. Their decisions thus far are so beyond the pale of representational government that differentiating between sucking face with a teenager in the mens' room and detonating a coliseum appear to them both as irresistibly tempting growth opportunities.
If Leonard wants to tie himself to Adams' sinking rock that is his choice. I don't care to make those calculations about his career for him. What he is not authorized to do, however, is to chase away any person or group, however humble, whose care and concern for the soul of the city exceeds his own on the claim that they have offended his already fully debased sense of propriety.

thomas

really, it was that bad?

Vern

Hey Randy,
Some would say Lents is ugly, should we bulldoze that too?
Somebody needed to say it.

Jon

I've lost a lot of respect for Leonard. I used to think he was just doing what he thought was best for the city. Now I think he's a thoughtless bully. Isn't Adams better though? It seems like he's listening, since council is now looking at Lent's.

Earl

I think they are looking at Lents again so they can say they have looked at other options and then they will go ahead with their RC plans.

I think they both Sam and Randy are arrogant and apparently ignorant in some ways, though they are trying to become expert at avoiding public review processes.

I would like to recall both Sam and Randy.

What happens if Sam is indicted soon? Kroger has been pretty quiet.

Matt J

All these sites have been thorougly looked at one time or another. Here is a study dated 2006.
http://www.portlandbaseballgroup.org/ballpark_03.cfm?fid=PGE

Earl

That site is blocked to my company for "security reasons."

Wasn't that study for a major league park with very different requirements?

Douglas K.

I get a malware warning when I try to visit the portlandbaseballgroup.org site. However, Earl is right; Portland Baseball Group was looking at a site for a Major League Stadium. A nine acre site that needs to move 40,000 people in and out every game has much more rigorous requirements than a four acre site that needs to move 9,000 people (and more often than not, only 2,000 or so.) There are only three or four sites that could support a major league stadium. There probably are two dozen that could work for the Beavers.

clonigro

We need to remember that this city council is also in process of taking over or re-structuring DESIGN REVIEW. Get ready!

Maybe Brian should offer that tour to the other commissioners. Self-education is important to some.

Speaking of...I would like someone to explain to me why the Portland Beavers need a $58,000,000 stadium for the 2,000-3,000 people that attend the games (4,000 if they are giving beer away). That is around $20,000 per loyal Beaver fan.


dennis

I think the point being using the current plan for a pro team when looking for the new Beavers home, is looking for a location that can be expanded if we ever get a pro team, rather than throwing away money on a new minor league ballpark that will be nothing more than a minor league ballpark.

Which for those who cant see the report, it suggests the PPS building for the best location in the Rose Quarter, as well as the Post Office building in the Pearl District at the end of the North Park Blocks.

I think it would be a waste of money not to listen to a report we already spent money on.

Matt J

another website to check out with studies done by HOK on possible baseball park locations.
http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/submission.html

clonigro

Maybe we should put a neon rose on top of MC.

BTW, a comment by Randy on BlueOregon in 2004 addressing sites for MLB. http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/08/major_league_ba.html

"…The stadium built downtown or at the Rose Quarter would do little, in my opinion, to improve on an already booming area."


mob89

Can we put a neon basketball on top and call it good?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors




Sponsors














Portland Architecture on Facebook

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors