Will the Glass Palace survive its saviors? City Council to issue Memorial Coliseum RFP Wednesday

Photo by Brian Libby  

After more than a year of wrangling about the future of Memorial Coliseum, first under the threat of demolition for a minor league baseball stadium, and then with a mayor-appointed committee considering re-use proposals, City Council is set to take up the fate of the building this Wednesday.

Earlier this year, three finalists were selected for the redevelopment: The Memorial Athletic and Recreation Center (MARC) from developer Douglas Obletz, the Veterans' Memorial Arts and Athletic Center (VMAAC) from a consortium of veterans and other stakeholders, and the Trail Blazers' Jumptown proposal.

At issue now is the Request For Proposals being issued by the city. One of the finalists' backers, Obletz, lobbied City Council to renegotiate the agreement before offering development rights it may not have to others. In his letter to Council, Obletz expressed concern that a component of his proposal, a 6,500-seat arena, would not be allowed under the operating agreement because the city's operating agreement with Portland Arena Management allows the city to operate the Coliseum only as a non-spectator facility.

"The Blazers have been very forthcoming with our team and have repeatedly indicated that there are no circumstances under which they would be willing to relinquish their operating rights to the Coliseum," Obletz said in the letter. "Given the Operating Agreement language, and the Blazer's stated position on these rights, we must question the legal ability of the city to offer the use of the Coliseum for our proposal."

Obletz requested that city council delay proceeding with the RFP process until the operating agreement can be re-negotiated between the city and PAM. But Mayor Sam Adams announced on March 22 that such a renegotiation wouldn't happen because it’s not necessary because all finalists, even the Trail Blazers, would need to renegotiate the operating agreement for whatever use they have planned. The Blazers currently hold operating options on the facility until 2023. 

“The best time to renegotiate the details of the Operating Agreement is once we choose a proposal for the Memorial Coliseum and embark on negotiating a redevelopment agreement,” he said in the letter. 

Are you confused yet? Even after following this for more than a year, I am. But it seems to me that the RFP issue Obletz speaks about is fairly moot if the agreement is rewritten down the road.

Meanwhile, I wanted to address a very discouraging effort by an otherwise laudably progressive organization, Onward Oregon, which describes itself as "part of growing grassroots movement to restore civic power to the people of Oregon and their communities. We envision a state where all of us can enjoy comfort and prosperity, equal opportunity and a beautiful and healthy environment."

Recently Onward Oregon began asking its members to lobby City Council for a selection of either the MARC or VMAAC proposals - in other words, specifically to vote against the Trail Blazers' Jumptown proposal.

"As you may know," its website says, "the leading contender is the Trail Blazers’ plan to create an entertainment district called Jumptown. Many feel that such a district, including their proposal for the Memorial Coliseum, would serve a narrow demographic and will privatize a space that was once shared and owned in common. We are concerned that Jumptown & the Trail Blazers’ plan for the Memorial Coliseum will make Memorial Coliseum a commercial and community deadzone."

No doubt there are reasons to be critical of the entertainment zone the Blazers have proposed, as well as the out-of-town developer they've chosen to work with, Cordish, which seems to favor chain stores and a generally antiseptic, suburban milieu.

BUT - and this is the crucial thing - the Jumptown proposal is the only one that would save Memorial Coliseum.

Both the MARC and the VMAAC would only leave the Coliseum exterior, and would otherwise completely gut the building's interior. Is that moving us "Onward" to blow up history and architectural mastery?

If you gut the interior of Memorial Coliseum, you might as well tear the whole building down. The entire reason this building is an architectural landmark of international renown, and unique in the world for large-scale arenas, is because of the relationship between the arena seating bowl and the surrounding glass perimeter: the bowl in the box. The curving organic form of the concrete seating bowl, free of any columns other other impediments, sitting inside the rigid linear geometry of the glass box.

I'm not saying Jumptown is perfect by any means. In fact, it's very much imperfect. But the entertainment-zone plans, the potentially crass neo-historic architecture Cordish favors: all of those can still be changed for the better. The Blazers are open to countless other ideas: housing, community facilities - many of the very things the MARC and VMAAC propose. Yet if either of the other two finalists is chosen, Memorial Coliseum will be ruined.

Onward Oregon ought to know better. They've been on the correct side of many past political debates. But this time the group has come down on the side of local proposers at the expense of Portland's history and one of its irreplaceable landmarks. I'm sure these are good people at Onward Oregon, trying to do the right thing. But shame on them and their potentially catastrophic ignorance.

Look, I don't mean to sound like an angry know-it-all lecturing people about architecture and Memorial Coliseum. And I certainly don't feel comfortable siding with a corporate developer over local interests. But the truth is that MARC and the VMAAC pose a much greater danger for Portland than Cordish does. And anyone who has been inside that building with the curtain open, looking out at a panoramic view of downtown Portland through the glass, will likely feel the same way. This is an absolute treasure, and if Jumptown isn't selected as the future of the Rose Quarter, the masterpiece known as Memorial Coliseum will be destroyed.

Oh, and as it happens, MARC and VMAAC would be much more expensive than keeping the building as an arena. Does Portland really want to take money from funding schools or affordable housing, for example, to dump scores or hundreds of millions into gutting the Coliseum? Why spend so much on something frivolous and destroy history in the process?

Instead of building the MARC or VMAAC inside the Coliseum and ruining the building in the process, I think we're missing the obvious.

A few days ago I went to Memorial Coliseum to photograph the building from a western vantage point, trying to get a shot of the building before all the deciduous trees in front of the building begin to sprout foliage, thus blocking off the Glass Palace from proper view. Standing along Interstate Avenue, across from the Coliseum, I happened to look at the riverfront property beside the Broadway Bridge. You know what's there? A big freaking parking lot. It's where Rose Quarter employees keep their cars.

Photo by Brian Libby 

This waterfront space is some of the most potentially valuable real estate in the city, and it's currently a riverside parking lot. Isn't THIS where we should be adding functions like an athletic center or arts facilities? Why not use the empty space you have, especially if it's prime riverfront space, before destroying architectural landmarks?

Photo by Brian Libby 

Obviously the city process thus far has been focused on proposals for Memorial Coliseum. But if the whole process were handled a bit differently, we might be able to look at the development in a more holistic manner - one that could be beneficial for everyone without cutting off Portland's nose to spite its face.

Look at the Rose Quarter riverfront parking lot shown above and picture a smaller glass palace, a foothill to the Coliseum's mountain, where people are exercising and/or making art with a view of the Willamette. Wouldn't it be great?

Comments

[matthew]

You'd better add a few market rate condos to your proposal if you want it to gain any traction. I mean we're talking prime riverfront real estate here. Someone in control surely looks at that and sees dollar signs. Actually, adding housing to the mix (even market rate) couldn't be a bad thing. What that district needs more than anything is increased diversity and density.

Seriously, the area is teaming with parking lots (and a few buildings that wouldn't be missed). The potential for development is huge, without so much as touching the Coliseum. Why its design is threatened is beyond me.

[Mickey]

How many millions of fee dollars does Obletz and company receive in their redevelopment of the memorial coliseum with city and bond funds, without putting up a single dollar of personal funds? At least the blazers use their own money.

Also, it appears that the blazer proposal is the only plan that saves the bowl.

[paul]

I don't mean to sound like an angry know-it-all, but to say that a concept like Jumptown, which does nothing to address any of the larger Rose Quarter issues and completely sacrifices the area in order to save one, single building, no matter how well designed that building is/was, poses a much bigger danger for Portland than even the shortest-sighted of preservationists. Hyperbole much?

We get it. You want the Coliseum saved at any and all costs, all others be damned. Just because other's don't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean that they "Don't Know Better"; it means that they think the bigger picture is different than how you view it. To you, the big picture is Saving the Building to Save Portland. For others, the big picture is Revitalizing the Area in the Best Way to Save Portland. If that vision includes saving the Coliseum, than that is great.

But for you, and others, to say that you are willing to throw away the entire area for the sake of one building is borderline disgusting. It's the same argument that you used for pushing the Lents Park location for a new AAA Stadium. You knew it was a bad idea, goes against everything this city stands for in regards to planning and livability, and yet you glassed over those little issues and promoted the site as the best thing for Portland simply because it saved what you felt was more important than any person or neighborhood or landuse plan, the Coliseum. And that type of narrow-minded, me-me-me type thinking is what I find dangerous.

[Brian Libby]

Paul,

Thanks for your comments.

Although we may disagree, I think you make a fair point about my caring more about the fate of the Coliseum than certain other worthy concerns.

However, I would argue back that caring about the fate of the architecture of Memorial Coliseum isn't mutually exclusive from the needs of the other organizations and people involved.

In the case of Lents, I wasn't backing a stadium there in spite of concerns about the affect of it. Quite the contrary: I thought it would be a good economic investment in a long moribound neighborhood. After all, towns like Beaverton and Clackamas had many actively trying to bring the stadium there. It's not a lepper colony we're talking about. So, in other words, I disagree in particular with your saying to me, "You knew it was a bad idea." Neither you nor I can say whether the effect of a stadium in Lents would have been good, bad or both. Probably both.

Also, an important part of my overall point is that the MARC and VMAAC programs could still be built elsewhere than the Coliseum - even elsewhere in the Rose Quarter development. There is a LOT of available land there.

While the other Coliseum proposals could happen elsewhere, this contrasts with the fact that once you tear apart the inside of the Coliseum for those other programs, the historic nature of the building - the part the National Trust deemed important - would be destroyed.

As a result, I dispute your argument that I'm only looking out for the building. I see many options for those other programs. And I'm all for them getting built elsewhere! Let's build a MARC on the Riverfront, or a arts and athletic center (the VMAAC) there, or one of them on top of the Rose Quarter parking garages.

There is a chance for everyone to get what they want here. But only saving the interior of the Coliseum and building these other candidates' facilities elsewhere will do that.

I'm not looking for the other finalists to be prevented from getting the spaces they want. Just don't destroy a landmark along the way!

[paul]

Brian,
Thank you for your well thought out response. I think that we agree on many things, including the need for change in the Rose Quarter, but we obviously disagree with what we feel is the most important aspect of that change. I am willing to admit that I do not care about the Coliseum like you do; obviously. However, I am not one who wants to tear it down for the sake of tearing it down. I believe that it can be/ should be used in whatever the best use of the area turns out to be, but I don't believe the Jumptown proposal is anything near the answer, and disagree with touting it as the best solution because it's the lesser of the evils. In fact, I feel that using the Coliseum in a poor way as part of a flawed proposal will do nothing to showcase the Coliseum, will end up being a tremendous waste of money and resources, and will eventually lead us back to this discussion a few years from now when we're still trying to figure out how to revitalize the Rose Quarter. I also think that would be unfortunate for the Coliseum, because if this proposal fails, the next one will surely pitch the idea of complete destruction for the Coliseum. I also feel that keeping the shell and repurposing the interior is an acceptable compromise, IF what is to be placed inside is worth that investment and compromise. I believe the inside could be renovated and made to reflect modern day Portland, with both it's uses and chosen materials, while the outside reflects the modern era of when the Coliseum was designed and built. I'm imagining a beautiful, modern interior with a beautiful mid-century exterior. It reflects the reuse ethos of our city, keeps the vision of the buildings structure intact, and ties it all together for use today. I know you don't agree, and that's ok, but I feel that a respectful, and elegant compromise of the Coliseum is worth having a stronger overall Rose Quarter.

[Scott]

A smaller glass palace in front...wouldn't that also be considered "faux-historic"?

[matthew]

I'll weigh in with Paul on this one (his last post anyway). If there's a way to preserve the Coliseum in its entirety that really works for us now, fantastic; if, however, complete preservation only contributes to its continued obsolescence, and the continued obsolescence of the area, maybe it's unwise to hope for it's maintained absolute purity of original design. Because I certainly agree that allowing Jumptown to be built would be a far worse crime than modifying the Coliseum.

Nevertheless, this isn't zero sum, and I'm sure there's a way out of this that preserves the Coliseum in toto without creating a Jumptown. Again, there's no lack of space with which to get creative over there. And surely someone can use a spare stadium.

[Chris]

I still shake my head every time I think about the agreement between the PAM and the city.

The parking lot (1225 N Thunderbird Way ) is owned by Aegean (ie. Paul Allen) and the Coliseum is owned by City of Portland. Pauls development schemes rarely line up with the City so I wouldn't expect much there.

[Linder]

It seems like the Blazer’s proposal would be a lot more palatable if the proposal included returning the Coliseum to be “shared and owned in common” as Onward Oregon and others desire, and if the Blazers committed to using an appropriate developer.

Seems like the Obletz proposal would be a lot more palatable if the proposal had a location for the ball courts, fitness rooms and the jogging track, that didn’t require the bowl’s “haircut.” Perhaps along the waterfront in a public park space.

Can’t either compromise their vision?

[billb]

Good post B , I must support you here , this is an stunning piece of Portland Architecture. There is all sorts of land in the proximity if one wants to build those other proposals.
Stop and think what Demolition costs! Do we really want to jamb a square peg in a round hole , and pay thru the nose to get an empty glass shell.
In 50 years we want them to look back and see that we saved a fine work of Architecture , and if the only solution that does that is Jumptown , then lets do it.
[unless you want to go back to my Peace Garden Hotel {-; ]

[Ray Whitford]

I'm hopeful that Jumptown is selected for two reasons: less cost to the public and creating an entertainment zone North of the main MC entrance. This would support a future jewel to the North of Broadway (at the Blanchard Site) called Memorial Stadium (AAA Baseball ready ballpark ready for MLB expansion) ten to twenty years from now. We can have housing towers in specific locations instead of thinking of the whole area North of Broadway as housing exclusively. Condo Towers in the Rose Quarter would support the "North Gateway" concept for travelers coming in from the North.

Plan all of the Rose Quarter improvements to include a below grade "Memorial Station" High Speed Rail component to the East of the Rose Garden in 30 years. This means in 30 years we would see I-5 goes under the Lloyd District to line up with the 8th/9th alignment of I-5 in the CEID.

10 years: Jumptown is built out.
20 years: We have a AAA Baseball Stadium ready for MLB.
30 years: We have true High Speed Rail through Portland and our Union Station on the West Side turns into more condos or something else.

Just saying.