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)

JordanL Mar 9, 2009 6:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4130370)
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

Those are renderings of Philladelphia...

RoseCtyRoks Mar 9, 2009 7:16 AM

^^Ah......Thanks, I thought it was too soon to have an entire concept complete with renderings of this. Glad you pointed that out! :D

bvpcvm Mar 9, 2009 1:50 PM

lots of parking lots

designpdx Mar 9, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4130552)
lots of parking lots

That was my first thought as well

pylon Mar 9, 2009 8:52 PM

Creating an Entertainment District - maybe good
Using Cordish to implement it - maybe not so good

The Rose Garden and convention center could provide customers for the district, and an analysis of what sports fans (and their families) and conventioneers want in their entertainment would be appropriate before making major decisions for the project. Intuition tells me that these demographics won't mind the more commercial/corporate/chain/mainstream types of entertainment, and we shouldn't ignore or criticize that. This seems like the kind of target market that the Cordish approach might lend itself to.

But these aren't the types of entertainment that we readers of design and urban planning information on these websites here in Portland, as well as other locals in general, are typically fond of. We like our beer, coffee, and entertainment locally crafted, served with character and imagination, and commuted to without cars. For the 24-7 entertainment district to succeed it will have to take this more provincial (in a good way) perspective into account as well because games and conventions will only provide part of the district's customer base.

It would seem that we have enough local talent (architecture and construction) and resources (urban planning) to design, manage, and integrate this project into the larger metro picture, instead of letting Cordish be the lead. At the least, like the sustainability center project, we should open this up to competition with other firms, partnerships, and philosophies. Cordish already has the Centennial Mills proposal to implement. We might be putting too many eggs in the Cordish basket by giving them the entertainment district too.

And finally, beginning this project may be locally stimulative and be ready when the economy turns around.

tworivers Mar 10, 2009 12:09 AM

If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!

RED_PDXer Mar 10, 2009 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4130370)
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

Can't say I'm excited about corporate America in my playground.. However, it would sure make downtown Portland seem great in comparison!

pdxtraveler Mar 10, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4131584)
If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!

Actually I think a development like they proposed for Centennial Mills would be more fitting for the Rose Quarter. I didn't like it for the Centennial Mills area, but it is different at the Rose Quarter. We are attracting Gresham, Hillsboro, Vancouver, Salem, and convention dollars into that area, not necessarily our own.

tworivers Mar 10, 2009 7:06 PM

Saw this on the Tribune website:

Quote:

The deal calls for the city and Paulson to spend just under $129 million to remodel PGE Park for an MLS team and build a 9,000-seat AAA baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter on the site of Memorial Coliseum for the Beavers, the team also owned by Paulson.
I am completely opposed to tearing down Memorial Coliseum. Hasn't Portland learned its lesson when it comes to demolition of "obsolete" structures? I wonder if this will be fought over, and if there might be any legal remedies.

twofiftyfive Mar 10, 2009 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4132765)
Saw this on the Tribune website:



I am completely opposed to tearing down Memorial Coliseum. Hasn't Portland learned its lesson when it comes to demolition of "obsolete" structures? I wonder if this will be fought over, and if there might be any legal remedies.

Considering that there is another multi-use arena right next door, I think you can remove the scare quotes.

tworivers Mar 11, 2009 2:04 AM

Quote:

I think you can remove the scare quotes.
No thanks. I was intentionally referencing the mentality that resulted in so much of the classical revival architecture of the early 20th century getting demolished. It seemed like the expedient choice at the time -- later, we realized that we actually had something cool that we destroyed forever. I respect the differing viewpoints on the Coliseum while coming down squarely (no pun intended) on the side of those who prefer it over the Rose Garden, which, as much as I love seeing the Blazers play inside of it, looks like the 1980s in the worst way to me. I think that given the cavalier attitude Portland has manifested over the years towards so many of its buildings, we should slow down and think before we demolish a landmark structure like this. Particularly with our prevailing environmental ethic, I would like to see every redevelopment opportunity (even those that radically reconfigure the architecture of the building, particularly if the detachment from its surroundings can be fixed) exhausted before it is done away with.

rsbear Mar 11, 2009 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4133428)
I think that given the cavalier attitude Portland has manifested over the years towards so many of its buildings, we should slow down and think before we demolish a landmark structure like this.

I so agree with you on the MC but I think your statement above is over the top. Yes, Portland lost a number of good/great buildings in the 50's/60's/70's, but since then it has also done better at preservation than most other cities in the U.S.

urbanlife Mar 11, 2009 4:08 AM

Well it looks like we will find out the fate of the MC tomorrow.

Okstate Mar 11, 2009 4:43 AM

I hope this ball park gets designed so that it could easily flip to MLB status someday in the future. Maybe the Beavers could be moved somewhere else in the metro...like Lents! I'm not trying to be nasty to the Beavs, I just want MLB more.

rsbear Mar 11, 2009 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okstate (Post 4133712)
I hope this ball park gets designed so that it could easily flip to MLB status someday in the future. Maybe the Beavers could be moved somewhere else in the metro...like Lents! I'm not trying to be nasty to the Beavs, I just want MLB more.

The story in the Oregonian said it seats 9,000 so expansion ability to 40,000 (or more) for MLB sounds pretty unlikely.

zilfondel Mar 11, 2009 8:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon (Post 4131236)
Cordish already has the Centennial Mills proposal to implement. We might be putting too many eggs in the Cordish basket by giving them the entertainment district too.

And finally, beginning this project may be locally stimulative and be ready when the economy turns around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers (Post 4131584)
If anyone remembers the Cordish proposal for Centennial Mills... be afraid!


Err, what. LAB won, remember?

At least Cordish's proposal, however, was heavily built out with pretty good mixed-use utilization of the site. I forget who their architect was, tho. Oh wait, they chose GBD and Design Collective, Inc.

zilfondel Mar 11, 2009 8:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4133640)
Well it looks like we will find out the fate of the MC tomorrow.


City of Portland actually owns MC. So... I doubt its going to be torn down. I don't think our current City Council would let them, considering the hard bargaining they are doing to Paulson on the MLS deal.

JordanL Mar 11, 2009 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4133901)
City of Portland actually owns MC. So... I doubt its going to be torn down. I don't think our current City Council would let them, considering the hard bargaining they are doing to Paulson on the MLS deal.

You'd be surprised what a City does when faced with a massive budget shortfall, the chance at massive private investment, and an able buyer on one of their most expensive and under-utilized (per square foot) buildings...

JordanL Mar 11, 2009 11:47 AM

Out of curiosity, what exactly do those who propose keeping the MC say we should do to create a 24/7 entertainment district?

What would you put there?

I assume it wouldn't be a Hard Rock Cafe... what would it be? I've read through this thread and all I see is a lot of bitching with no constructive ideas.

NJD Mar 11, 2009 2:46 PM

^
Quote:

create a 24/7 entertainment district?
Don't.

We already have several funky, Portland style entertainment districts including Old Town. Making one out of thin air will age horribly, be 'anywhere-USA', and will not build on an existing environment. Nothing much has happened to the Rose Quarter since we razed the historic neighborhood there. Any mass 'entertainment district' will just be a focus on suburban/ tourist economies anyway further removing local money from local businesses.

What should we do to the Rose Quarter? Perhaps reintroduce the old or new street grid, try to cap I-5, build a ballpark at the PPS site, leave MC alone for future reuse, and/or publicly build a new HSR station. All I know is Vulcan does not have the same Portland sensibilities as Hoyt Street, Williams & Dame, Gerdling Edlin, Beam, Randy Rapaport, etc...


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:29 AM.

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