« A preservationist perspective on Memorial Coliseum plans [updated] | Main | Examining Coliseum & Rose Quarter proposals (part 4): an "Action Sports" complex and resort »

Comments

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

Double J

James is essentially asking to make it a Portland style development rather than some cookie cutter solution. I don't blame the Blazers for using a turn key solution like Cornish but it probably wont work... they need to reintegrate the giant concrete desert back into Portland and this is a city of shopkeepers... and acknowledging the river is a great idea.

Jeff Belluschi

I like it a lot-best proposal to date.

Douglas K.

This design caught my eye when I was going through the submissions. I really like the space with both Rose Garden and MC opening onto the same large plaza.

I wonder about the new entry canopy. Does the old entry canopy need to stay exactly where it is? Would it disturb the design of the Coliseum to move the historic entry canopy around the corner, and give the MC a new set of front doors facing the plaza?

Jason King

It's definitely compelling - actually the idea of that interstitial space as a home for the Public Market is the best idea yet (better than stuffing it under the Morrison Bridge) and activating the space through many vendors makes a lot of sense (probably the only way to get some actual life down there). The transit connectivity and central access fit well into goals for many of these spaces.

I'm curious about the space will feel like when no one is occupying in with these other uses (i.e. it's got that barren feel to it of oh so many architectural public spaces much like the current space does)... Not that we need to pack it full of vegetation in the pastoral mode, or overprogram it in the PPS mode, but what that 'fine-grain' consists of is just as important as the larger-scale vision. It looks like objects on a blank plane as currently arranged, which is great for flexible and adaptible use, but also needs really great spatial arrangement to pull off (for some great examples check out recent works by West 8 et.al. where they have eschewed the parklike - but have made some amazing urban space)

It is feeling bare and bland at a pedestrian scale, especially when moving towards the river (where the bugs and bunnies folks will demand vegetation. I admit it's probably the limitation of Sketchup more than anything - which often comes off feeling lifeless and artificial, no matter how many orange-shirted folks we populate it with.

It's disappointing that again the big money ideas are the only ones folks are talking about seriously - seems to limit the possibilities of the process (in at least infusing a bigger idea with some better details, or at least giving it a 'Keep Portland Weird' vibe.

It feels like the path the current proposal processes will take something similar to the Burnside Bridgehead process, which engaged, and ultimately disappointed pretty much everyone.

Steve L.

I like to concept of an improved public plaza, particularly connected to the river.

Why does he want to destroy the current canopy to create a new entry? What is he proposing in the area of the current canopy?

The forms in the plaza are disjointed.

Seems like an odd location for a farmers market or food carts with so few people living or working in the area on a daily basis.

One Center Court may be ugly, but it is not very green demolishing the building just because the current exterior is ugly.

Steve L.

On closer look, it appears as though the original entry canopy and surrounding plaza would remain pretty much unchanged. Is that true, or is the elevated white space there something different?

Larry

As you stated, the bridge of Interstate toward the River is essential to any plans for the district. The plaza oriented to the city views is compelling. I also note the four new blocks he indicates north of the Colosseum, which he left blank. FIll those with mixed use residential, and you'll begin to make this more of an active neighborhood rather than a events center that goes to sleep after the event is over. I would suggest integrating more housing into any scheme for this district.

Alan H-Mca

The KEY to revitalizing the Rose Quarter as a district is increasing the number of feet on the ground, 18/7/365. At this point, the MARC proposal probably expands general use of the facilities to a level where the food cart concept might be a viable addition to any of the concepts. The Blazer's Jumptown arcade wont attract daily use sufficient for economic viability. But I also heartily endorse the synergy of Harrison's shared entrance plaza.

billb

All I see is another big empty rain-swept lifeless bunch of pavement. A bridge to the river is largely meaningless if there is nothing there. I am not crossing town to eat at a food cart. one center court may not spin your wheels , but tearing it down is silly. Why re-purpose the MC , and tear this down. This looks like planning done from 5000 feet away. Pretty and Empty.

matthew

the only proposal thus far that i have seen that actually addresses extant problems and does so without creating more problems. the cornish-related proposal would be another urban problem within ten or twenty years of its development (if not immediately). one of the genius things about this plan is that it is comprehensive without being absolute (like the cornish proposal). the dead zone in the rose quarter right now is too big to take a piecemeal approach, which would lead to many missed opportunities, but also too big to be developed all at once by one developer. that's fine for a theme park, but a theme park is not fine in this context.

by focusing on some major problems - the need for cohesion in the spaces surrounding the stadiums, the lack of connectivity from this space to the river, one seriously depressing and unnecessary building - while leaving other parts of the district included in the plan but not actually planned, harrison has viably suggested a space that could actually evolve into a part of portland that mattered. let's hope he can secure himself a place at the table when decisions are finally made.

Architectural Columns

It feels like the path the current proposal processes will take something similar to the Burnside Bridgehead process..

Walter

The aesthetic that Harrison brings is compelling, and his vision reminds me alot of the great public spaces of Barcelona-- even if we should be a little careful using those spaces as a model since this area does not have Barcelona's density or weather. (By the way, I checked out his website and really enjoyed his work-- thanks for linking to it). While the spaces look exciting, I am worried that his vision does not contain enough program (or people to the site). The point towers might do it, but I am not convinced by them just yet. With the right additions and adjustments, the spirt of this could work really well.

Scott

So, the MC must remain as-is, because those who think it's ugly (or at best, bland) are unsophisticated, unsustainable and short-sighted…yet, you think it's fine to tear down another, newer, building in the same area…simply because you don't care for it's aesthetic…ummmm, ok.

Brian Libby

Scott, that's not what I or anyone is saying.

It's not just me or a small group of Portlanders who feel this way. Organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Institute of Architects and the US Green Building Council all called for the building to be preserved because of its historic and architectural merits.

It seems like you are trying to say that the aesthetic makeup of buildings doesn't matter, but that flies in the face of thousands of years of civilization. Throughout history, societies have worked to preserve buildings that represent the best in architectural and societal achievement. That's what is happening with Memorial Coliseum.

This isn't some tiny group of elitist eggheads trying to save the building, as I'm reading from your comment. It's a broad-based community and societal consensus.

Maybe I'm wrong about tearing down One Center Court. You are right that ugliness alone isn't enough to merit a solid structure that serves a purpose being torn down. But connecting that suggestion to the desire to save the Coliseum just doesn't hold water. The Coliseum preservation effort is broad-based and sound.

marc

I like the idea of connecting to the Rose Quarter to the river. Beyond that idea, I think this proposal is, well, ugly. Lots of empty space with some odd modern art sculptures. Look, all the design experts might absolutely love this concept from a design perspective. However, it really doesn't resolve the issue of how to make the Rose Quarter viable. There is nothing in this proposal that is sufficiently compelling to attract folks other than games at the Rose Garden. Isn't that part of what we're trying to address here?

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