« Oregonian editorial gets it wrong (again) | Main | Shame on Commissioner Randy Leonard (updated) »


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


I hate to see the area lose open space, once it is gone it would be difficult to reconstitute.

Why are they not considering private land?

I think there is an unstated prerequisite that this stadium be built on public land as a further public subsidy.


How can you justify replacing a park in a residential neighborhood with a 9000 seat baseball stadium. Have you even been out to Lents Park? People live all around the park. I assume you wouldn't advocate for placing a shopping center in the park, then why would you support a ballpark with more traffic in this location?

I support keeping the Coliseum but this is not the appropriate fall back location. Just a couple blocks away on 82nd are tons of under utilized strip malls that would make for a better redevelopment opportunity. Or better yet, how about a few blocks away in the so-called Lents town center area.

Seems like instead of dumping this park on a particular area of town, the city should take the time to compile a list of locations citywide. The whole thing has been handled very poorly and we keep jumping from location to location rather than looking at it holistically. In a lot of areas, this would be a perfect fit. But replacing the MC and Lents park are not it.

Douglas K.

I wouldn't worry about losing open space, as long as the city retains title to the land underneath. If the Beavers eventually leave, the stadium can be "right-sized" for a municipal park, or even removed. (And nobody's talking about "replacing" the park ... the stadium would take up maybe one-eighth of it.)

Parking shouldn't be a huge problem. There's lots of room to build a really big park & ride lot on the shoulder of I-5 from Powell to Holgate. As Brian said, there are plenty of opportunities to sell parking nearby. Eastport Plaza is just a few blocks away; an easy walk to Lents Park. I can easily see a parking shuttle making a loop from Holgate to 92nd to Powell to 82nd to Holgate, taking advantage of parking throughout the area.

I don't consider Lents Park to be an optimum site for a ballpark, and I agree with dave that we should have a public process that considers a long list of locations through the area. (For one, wonder what it would cost to buy out the bowling alley at 92nd and Powell). But I think Lents Park could work.

Sean Casey

Dave, I agree with you fully.

The modus seems to be to dump the stadium in neighborhoods where the residents have little say or clout to fight otherwise.
I suspect somewhere in NE would be the first choice, if it wasn't already so gentrified.

NIMBY's to the core.

In these times of debt and deficits, somehow we have money (and subsidies) for the foam finger crowd. It is arrogance on a grand scale.

I hope people in the entire Outer SE takes note of this, even if you're not a Lents resident, because these commuters will be driving through your neighborhoods to get to the game.

Several weeks ago I was at Lents park, and happened to strike up a conversation with a mid-level city parks worker. They rolled their eyes at the prospect of such a stadium, for many of the reasons Dave listed. (Actually, this parks employee thought Westmoreland Park would be better. It's already geared for baseball, right on 99, etc...)

This talk of sports stadiums in these times is just plain insanity. Plain and simple. They're a waste, on so many levels.

Brian, when the coliseum was being debated you took a stroll through the area, and took some nice photos. It helped illustrate what was being discussed. Well, I encourage you to stroll through Lents Park sometime and imagine what it would do to the neighborhood. It may not change minds, but at least we can all know what is really at stake.

Thank you for allowing me to comment.

jim s.

The biggest difference between the MC site and Lents park is even on a bad, cloudy day, Lents Park still looks nice.


Lents Park is Not a good location for a minor league ballpark, and I don't care how much of the koolaid you are drinking. I'm sorry to disagree with you, Brian, but it's just a horrible idea. Its hypocritical at best to believe that MC is worth saving as an architectural gem, and that demolishing it and putting something else in its place is unsustainable, yet building a ballpark outside the density of the city core in a residential neighborhood that lacks any other type of amenities is somehow sustainable. It is not. At least in the Rose Garden area there are other amenities that people can enjoy before and after the game. At Lents, you're encouraging people to load into their cars, come to the game, then climb into their cars again to go home right after the game. There is no reason to build out there, and I'm quite sad and disappointed that you'd encourage this, simply because it's not the MC site.


Two words, Wrigley Field. Neighborhood ballpark.

Laurence Qamar

Another agreement with Dave. City needs a thorough and open process thinking at a regional scale to deliberate the location of a major civic icon such as a stadium. Lents should not necessarily rise to the top merely because it has light rail and highway access, although those are important considerations. Perhaps look first at the metro Regional Centers before the Town Centers if there is any consideration of looking outside the Portland core.

And I also really like Dave's idea of redeveloping a failing shopping center or mall somewhere, opposed to Lents park. Not to long from now we may be seeing the failing of quite a few suburban retail anchors that along with their fields of parking might open up allot of real estate.


Wrigley Field is often the exception to the rules and even that has issues. It is known that the Cubs had to fight to get evening games due to the lights in the neighborhood. The location of Lents is even more so single family homes which will be flooded with light in evening games, not to mention the the number of cars that the neighborhood streets would be expected to take on each game.

Plus another disadvantage to comparing Lents to Wrigleyville is the lack of amenities. Eastport Plaza probably wont cut it. If one is to compare a ballpark to Wrigley, it would be the current PGE Park, which is integrated into an urban neighborhood...the current issue with PGE Park and why it gets a low attendance (besides being an abnormally large ballpark for AAA, is the adjacent lack of parking, but even that isnt much of an argument in a well connected downtown.

I still think, if we are going to invest money into a AAA ballpark, we should do so in a manor that can be expanded, so that it isnt a waste of money in the long run. It would be very short sighted as well as less sustainable for the city to not thing of the long term. I think it is great the city is getting a MLS team, but I think it is equally important to plan for a MLB team if Portland ever has the chance to get one.

Again, which is also why I felt the MC was the wrong location and the PPS location or even the Post Office building would be better options because we spent alot of money on a report that said those were our best options...it would seem like a waste of money for the city to throw away actually analysis on what the city should do for its future.


In which Paulson vacation house will the Oregonian's Mark Larabee be staying in the next week? Probably the one George Bush won't be using. I'm getting the impression from reading his articles that if the City and Paulsons tear down Memorial Coliseum, we will have nirvana, jobs and a strong economy. If we keep Memorial Coliseum, the taxpayers will be on the hook for uncontrolled cost overruns in the 10's of millions. GIVE ME A BREAK - How stupid do you think we are Merritt?
And, it's just a bunch of architects who oppose the baseball stadium in place of MC? Wrong again Mark Larabee. No mention of the community, responsible taxpayers, the City's most respected planners and many of its citizens, Winter Hawks fans, Veterans, and many many more groups and individuals.

btw. Randy Leonard said yesterday that MC was ugly! Now that's FUNNY!


Brian - Keeping MC from being destroyed is not even close to the same thing as 'saving' it. Without a restructuring of the management of the building it will continue to be under-utilized, under-funded, and maintained at the bare minimum of expense. MC needs a new lease on life not just a stay of execution.
I don't know the answer but instead of premature celebration we should be rallying to find ways to give the building a new future.


I agree with you that it is quite funny how Leonard calls the MC ugly and turns around and suggest a neon rose sit atop McCall’s, but I'm struggling to find the beauty in the MC. Of course, I'm being told that it is an iconic modern structure, was ahead of its time in structurally and ranks within the top 100 of SOM's built work. But when I drive by the MC most of the year almost on a daily basis, I don't see those picture perfect photos that Brian has here, but a dull, big black box. Ok, maybe I should have taken that Architectural Appreciation class in school instead of Life Drawing, but I can't muscle up the energy to say "it has to be saved." Perhaps if there was a good plan (I hate the word repurpose - who thought of that?)to do something with the MC, it would be more tangible to many people who are on the fence. Personally I like the idea of the Home Depot many years ago (call me white trash), but I hate driving out to the boondocks to get a hammer and some nails. My fear is that this crusade of saving the MC will result in a knee-jerk reaction to put it in an equally bad place - and the result? Ten years from now we are going to be talking about what to do with the MC.


Little. See my piece in tomorrow's Sunday Oregonian.

Brian Libby


You can't evaluate Memorial Coliseum by driving by. Go inside and see how the "black" box becomes invisible and you see the whole city through a giant glass wall that makes an IMAX movie look like an i-Pod screen.


The MC is a classic handsome and refined work of Modern Portland Architecture. I tire of all the uneducated geniuses spouting off
about it's unattractiveness. That means you too Randy. We don't need your opinion about Picasso or Wharhol either. We can't turn the MC into a lil craftsman for your simple tastes. Go to the Library and read about Architecture.


I'm your biggest fan so I'll wait for the article.

ps billb - you misspelled Warhol - dmb.a. -

Douglas K.

Somewhere along the way, I remember hearing that Delta Park was taken off the table for ... well, I'm not sure why, exactly. But if Lents Park is now a leading candidate, Delta Park needs another look.

There is a site right next to the Delta Park MAX station, between Portland International Raceway and the Port of Portland wetlands parcel. It's more than large enough to hold a stadium, except that Broadacre Road runs right through the middle. Not a problem; move Broadacre Road a couple of hundred feet to the north.

The park and ride lot can be expanded, and there will be plenty of overflow parking at the huge parking lots at Portland International Raceway (about a minute away by parking shuttle) and Expo Center (one stop on the MAX -- Tri-Met could provide free MAX service between Delta Park and Expo Center on game night).

There's excellent service by freeway and public transit, and the roads in the area are already designed to handle occasional large-capacity events at PIR. Plus, there are no neighbors around to annoy.

By simply adding a couple of extra tracks at Expo Center to stack up trains, Tri-Met could run MAX on three minute headways to downtown, alternating with Blue Line Special trains to Gresham and to Hillsboro. There's also a transit plaza next to the MAX station (currently served by Bus #6) that could provide easy shuttle bus service, including express buses to Vancouver and various west side locations.

In terms of a "central" location, Delta Park is about four miles closer (by freeway) to downtown than Lents Park. That makes it four miles closer to the west side.

If Lents Park works, Delta Park works better. It's only half as far from the core, more "central" to both the east and west side, the land is available, there are no neighbors to annoy, there's the potential for far better transit service and lots of parking right there.


there is absolutely no comparison between Wrigley Field in CHICAGO, a ballpark for one of the oldest and most popular major league teams, to a AAA ballpark in Portland. Even the very thought of a comparison speaks of absolute ignorance on the subject. wow.


again, why wouldn't the baseball stadium work in Delta Park?


Buld the park at OMSI. there is room to expand if needed and transportation is good


How practical is it going to be to build a 9,000-seat baseball stadium in a park that has all of 260 parking spaces? That works out to one parking spot per every 35 seats (in the unlikely event the Beavers were to sell a game out there). Are people in the Lents neighborhood that willing to give up parking in front of their homes? Is MAX going to be able to handle all the people forced to abandon their cars to use mass transit, presuming that many people would actually make that sacrifice to watch minor league baseball?

Portland has already spent $38 million taxpayer dollars to renovate PGE Park primarily as a baseball facility. Why is nobody floating the idea of creating a playing venue for the MLS team, since soccer requires a lot less space to play than baseball and Portland has a number of pre-existing football facilities that could be expanded?

This is a foolish idea, which when it come to Portland means it's likely what's going to happen, logic be damned.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook

More writing from Brian Libby


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors