« Examining Coliseum & Rose Quarter proposals (part 1): Trail Blazers imagine Jumptown | Main | A preservationist perspective on Memorial Coliseum plans [updated] »


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

Bill Erickson

Whatever plan the city approves, a roller coaster fits with any of them. See dynamic 3D renderings and videos of how such a plan could work, then consider the millions of dollars that could be generated for the city. Visit www.pdxcoaster.com and sign the petition showing your support.

Steve L.

This would be a very well equipped community center, is there a need for such a vast center?

It appears the “haircut” completely removes the saddle shaped top of the seating bowl and I don’t think that would be considered “preserving” the bowl.

To preserve the bowl's iconic shape and the dramatic interior space of the current arena, could the ball courts on the new level 3 fit below the current arena floor instead? In addition, could the elevated fitness rooms and the jogging track from level 3 and 4 go above the roof in the penthouse instead of below the ceiling? I assume this proposal would also eliminate the large underutilized curtain.

There is a very helpful section view on the proposals web site (link above) under the Design tab, click on the section view thumbnail.

I like this proposal a lot more than Jumptown, there is a lot to like. The public vote would be a refreshingly direct approach to funding.


Is the bowl actually "protected" by its listing on the national register. Is there some statued or rule that says character defining features must be preserved? I am asking sincerely. Id id not think that there was.


This is a much better scheme - simpler with more integrity. All the fluffed up marketing gimmickry of the other scheme makes me feel a little ill.


Funny thing is I think both of these proposals could be selected at the same time. This one seems to just address the MC directly, while the Jumptown plan seems to address the area around it more, especially along Broadway.

Though one would think that any removal of the bowl would defeat the purpose of trying to preserve the structure. Personally I dont care either way, but it just seems wrong if the bowl in the glass box was such an important visual representation to begin with.

Steve L.

I would prefer to have a larger but still low add-on structure shifted to the southeast face of the coliseum that could hold the ball courts and the pools if that would preserve the bowl.

Tom McLaughlin

The Portland swimming community loves this proposal


I think I mostly agree with Dennis's post. Jumptown does not look to be very specific (to my eye anyway) as to what is supposed to happen to the MC. I think that this MARC proposal could work within jumptown or on its own.

For what it worth, I'd love to see the MARC tagged as "The MAC (or redundant MAC Club) for the rest of us." (And if I were king I'd love to see some tennis courts in their too).

Also, I think Cordish is getting a bad rap. So much over their work has been more populist than many in Portland might like, but I'd bet they would be more interested in making their development successful rather than pushing their aesthetic.

so bored

Looks to me like another self-indulgent paean to TVA Modernism from Bob Thompson. Would have been nice to see him step outside his comfort zone on this one and make it something far more respectful to the existing aesthetic rather than his architectural language that imbues the Nike Campus and most other TVA projects. And I always enjoy illustrations showing people strolling around indoor swimming pools; they have no resemblance to reality.


We really appreciate Brian's detailed review and all of the comments here. We are hoping that the MARC gets enough traction that a full scale community planning process can be implemented to get broad public input on the concept presented. In the meantime, there are additional conversations underway at http://www.marcpdx.org and on Facebook at http://bit.ly/8DmV22 (MARC - PDX). Please continue to weigh in on the idea.


"Looks to me like another self-indulgent paean to TVA Modernism from Bob Thompson."

If I am not mistaken, it is a modernism approach to a modernism building...it would look campy if he were to go against the modernism language of the building too much.


Hey TVA , your scale figures are really distracting , looks like a Zombie Invasion , OR did you mean the project would be inhabited by Zombie - like humans...

Marc Hull

Let me make sure I understand. Is Obletz suggesting that 25% of the cost of this project would come from urban renewal money and 75% would come from the voting public? I personally cannot imagine a scenario where citizens of Portland/Multnomah Couty/State of Oregon would ever agree to that. This area has a long storied tradition of nixing almost anything with a price tag associated with it. Moreover, it's fine to say no profit should come from the use of public assets, but at least enough money should be generated to keep the facility operating and maintained. What's the Obletz plan for that? Like it or not, the Blazers are the only ones who bring money to the table with respect to the Rose Quarter. A public subsidy of the sort Obletz is hoping for is a pipe dream.

Steve L.

Hasn’t the Portland area recently passed measures with additional taxes to support parks, schools and the zoo? Maybe you are thinking of state-wide referenda.

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