SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Downtown & City of Portland (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=192)
-   -   Rose Quarter Redevelopment (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=152548)

bvpcvm Mar 5, 2009 4:17 AM

so are they *new* owners or is the same owners who have been there forever?

JordanL Mar 5, 2009 6:02 AM

As a Libertarian, I certainly don't support the idea, but what are the chances the city finds a location closer to the Columbia, then uses Eminent Domain to force them there?

PacificNW Mar 5, 2009 6:05 AM

I think they still own the silo's. They sold the KOIN tower properties.

zilfondel Mar 5, 2009 8:05 AM

I said before that Cordish would be a good developer (judging from their track record and their proposal for the Centennial Mills) for an entertainment complex here. Glad that it may happen!

We actually do need more developers in town with deep pockets. That means that they're investing in us.

As for MC, I really hope it doesn't come down. Its a Vietnam War Veterans Memorial! And an excellent example of 1960s Modernism, designed by SOM. Its probably the best of the buildings they've designed in Portland, too. It would be a perfect building to be adaptively reused and - judging by the companies' desire to embrace sustainability, you could logically assume thats what they may do.

If it were a tower by them, you guys would be clamoring to preserve it.

scottyboi Mar 5, 2009 3:41 PM

I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

Delaney Mar 5, 2009 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

No, sorry but the Rose Garden is ugly. Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I may sound like a snob, but you're wrong about MC. Memorial Coliseum is one of our most well designed local buildings. Yes it is tarnished, but if polished it could be the gem the area is lacking. Talk about landmark - It has a 50 foot tall wood supported glass curtainwall around the whole thing, for goddsakes. Teacup in a glass box dammit! Save it!

Plus the Beatles and Obama played there, not to mention the last time the Blazers won it all.

scottyboi Mar 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Yikes...am I wrong...or do you disagree with me...

pdxtraveler Mar 5, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
I'd really hope Portland isn't as susceptible to the name-dropping of most cities, but sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. Why should it matter who designed a building...it should be judged on it's own merits, not some misplaced admiration based purely on who designed/built it. The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

I have to totally disagree. We all have are opinions which I totally respect your right to yours! But, I really do like Memorial Coliseum.

JordanL Mar 5, 2009 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delaney (Post 4124274)
No, sorry but the Rose Garden is ugly. Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I may sound like a snob, but you're wrong about MC. Memorial Coliseum is one of our most well designed local buildings. Yes it is tarnished, but if polished it could be the gem the area is lacking. Talk about landmark - It has a 50 foot tall wood supported glass curtainwall around the whole thing, for goddsakes. Teacup in a glass box dammit! Save it!

Plus the Beatles and Obama played there, not to mention the last time the Blazers won it all.

What?

MC is a well designed building and the Rose Garden is ugly?! WTF?!

ethirtysex Mar 5, 2009 11:17 PM

It would be a bummer to see the MC come down. It's a part of Portland history and still has its practical uses. But if the Blazers management can do so many good things with the team recently, I expect they'll apply the same brilliance to the redevelopment of the Rose Quarter.

PacificNW Mar 5, 2009 11:38 PM

↑ That can be debated. Have you seen the EMP in Seattle? Ugh.. It would be great if the MC could be incorporated into the plans. I have stated, many times on this forum, that the MC is a great example of a particular style of architecture. I feel it would be a huge loss if it was demolished.

pdxf Mar 6, 2009 4:03 AM

The Rose Garden, to me at least, is a terrible building, odd random elements protruding from a confused mix of exterior materials and elements. For those of us that appreciate a cleaner, more refined and perhaps more meaningful architecture, the MC is a much nicer design, but of course all of this depends on what you're looking for in a building.

Regardless of whether the MC is a beautiful design in someone's eyes, it is undeniably an important building in Portland's architectural and general history and that is a valid reason to preserve it.

I am actually on the fence about it's demolition. While I would hate to see it go, it currently doesn't have a very dignified existence, and may actually be keeping the surrounding area from being developed. I would love for a proposal that would preserve it, but if I see a good redvelopment proposal for the area that doesn't include it, I may be prepared to make the sacrifice.

rsbear Mar 6, 2009 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboi (Post 4124201)
The MC is a hulking monstrosity that is dated and, I'm sorry, just plain ugly.

Wrong.

MarkDaMan Mar 6, 2009 5:24 AM

off topic rant

zilfondel Mar 6, 2009 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4124643)
What?

MC is a well designed building and the Rose Garden is ugly?! WTF?!

From the outside, the Rose Garden is hideous. Interesting article by Portland Spaces regarding the historic value of MC.

Quote:

On the upside, the building itself is one of the finest examples of minimalist modern architecture in the city. Designed by the same firm (That’d be Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) responsible for the Sears Tower, Burj Dubai, and New York’s Freedom Tower, the Memorial Coliseum is worth saving.
From a sustainability standpoint, it is bad to tear down a functional structure. Particularly one that doesn't have major issues in regards to cost of maintenance and spatial requirements.

MC seems to function well

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/...d46a95.jpg?v=0
Jill Greenseth on flickr

Sweet night shots:

1960s
http://www.gdwriter.com/graphics/portland_coliseum.jpg
unknown photographer; photo found here

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_SGwyrxSp2Y8/R-...0/IMG_1270.JPG
Jacklyn on Picassa

JordanL Mar 7, 2009 12:59 AM

Quote:

From the outside, the Rose Garden is hideous.
Disagree.

From the outside, the MC is hideous. It's a goddamn box, and the front of it is... dated at best. I had to walk by it every day for work for almost two years.

PacificNW Mar 7, 2009 2:11 AM

↑....and this makes you an expert? There are probably people, within/and out of the architectural community, who will agree with your personal opinion as well as those who disagree. But the history/style of MC should not be easily dismissed and disgarded, imo.

JordanL Mar 7, 2009 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificNW (Post 4127305)
↑....and this makes you an expert? There are probably people, within/and out of the architectural community, who will agree with your personal opinion as well as those who disagree. But the history/style of MC should not be easily dismissed and disgarded, imo.

No, I was simply explaining the basis of my opinion. But it's just an opinion.

I completely agree with the history, but I'm still in favor of redeveloping. The MC has utility how many hours per year?

It could be replaced with MANY things that would have MUCH more utility.

2oh1 Mar 7, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4127461)
It could be replaced with MANY things that would have MUCH more utility.

...and those things couldn't be built on any of the empty land over there because...?

I'm torn in regard to the MC, but I can't help seeing missed opportunities everywhere I look in the Rose Quarter. I remember going to Cuccina Cuccina (sp?) years ago, and I couldn't figure out why it was even there. I'd love to see the Rose Quarter turned into an entertainment district, even if it were touristy enough that I wouldn't want to go there. I think it would be good for the city.

RoseCtyRoks Mar 9, 2009 6:31 AM

Big plans for the Rosequarter, including possible demolishing of the MC, and building the baseball stadium. You'll want to see the renderings:

http://www.portlandspaces.net/blog/t...-is-good-taste


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.