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)

pdxf Apr 16, 2009 9:38 PM

Brian Libby at PortlandArchitecture.com has written an article on the OMSI site. Looks like it may be catching on!

urbanlife Apr 17, 2009 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4199600)
Brian Libby at PortlandArchitecture.com has written an article on the OMSI site. Looks like it may be catching on!

seriously I would laugh if the city council actually changed their minds and worked with OMSI to put this next to them because of this site...I would dare say that would give this site something to brag about if that were to happen.

pdxf Apr 17, 2009 2:34 AM

I would probably laugh as well, and the odds a pretty long, but you never know!

pylon Apr 17, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4200138)
I would probably laugh as well, and the odds a pretty long, but you never know!

pdxf-
although, with only the information I currently have, I think the ballpark might best work in the Lloyd lot, I've got to say to that it's awesome to see you and this forum having an impact. Right on, PDX.

Delaney Apr 17, 2009 5:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon (Post 4200270)
pdxf-
although, with only the information I currently have, I think the ballpark might best work in the Lloyd lot, I've got to say to that it's awesome to see you and this forum having an impact. Right on, PDX.

I would agree with you if the LLoyd lot was big enough for major league expansion, but it isn't.

philopdx Apr 17, 2009 8:06 AM

I have to say, after finding out that there will never be an option to expand the ball park into an MLB-level facility, I've turned against the project. What's the point of all this fuss if we are cutting off the most likely avenue for adding another pro team?

Also, I read an article in the Portland Mercury concerning the plan, and the reputation of Cordish in particular. I had no idea they enforce strict dress codes in their developments, tend to push their own franchise restaurants, and actually successfully opposed light rail in downtown Kansas City.

In a letter to the mayor of Kansas City the president of the company said that light rail would have "disastrous implications and would be terrible public policy."

Sorry, but we don't need "drill baby drill" clowns like this within 500 miles of Portland. Are they going to insert themselves into OUR city's transit discussion? Because they "... have concerns about how it would impact pedestrian flow and access" to their development? Frankly, knowing this about them now leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Here are the links:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portl...nt?oid=1315006

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18732

http://thebridge.typepad.com/thebrid...-by-drted.html

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/1943


Happy Reading... :hell:

Okstate Apr 17, 2009 4:18 PM

From reading about the company it appears they aren't against light rail but rather are trying to keep the affluent in their development while discouraging the "less fortunate" associated with riding mass transit. I don't think they'll worry one bit about Portland b/c we've got people from all spectrums on our mass transit. What a silly, stupid company. I still am not against a "goofy" rose quarter redevelopment, I just wish it were a more reputable company. Then again, I suppose you can't have both.

zilfondel Apr 17, 2009 9:28 PM

For reference, here is KCgridlock's Kansas City Power & Light District photo thread. Since Cordish built that development and has been saying thats what they want to build here, I think it could help give us some idea of what they're trying to do.

http://www.kcphotos.com/gallery/albu.../kcmo_0484.jpg

One thing is for sure - their stadiums are much nicer than ours. The round one reminds me of the MC, but oval instead of square.

IMO, it doesn't seem inherently bad or anything, but definitely not organic. Kind of reminds me of those big malls they build in Hong Kong and Japan that anchor huge new developments. However, their district appears to be right in downtown, not in a secluded separate area like the Rose Quarter, and they were even able to renovate an old historic theater and reuse it. RQ would have to rely on really good architecture and mix of restaurants and such to bring people in... I wonder about how this would impact downtown Portland. It seems like many suburbanites do currently visit downtown; would downtown dry up as people visit the RQ "Power and Light District" instead?

pdxf Apr 18, 2009 12:43 AM

OMSI site discussed on the Portland Mercury Blog (affectionately titled 'Fantasy Baseball Stadiums', which I don't necessarily disagree with):

http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogt...eball-stadiums

WonderlandPark Apr 18, 2009 1:53 AM

I have seen and walked through the Power & Light district last fall. It is just a mess of chain stores & restaurants, "charmed" up with some McHistoric "industrial" details, tied to a sports arena. Portland doesn't need or want this sort of thing. During the day the district sits empty except for some office crowd people. Its charmless & contrived. Portland has so much else going for it. Why on earth did someone thing the copying the Power & Light district is a good idea?

RED_PDXer Apr 19, 2009 8:55 AM

The problem with the Rose Quarter is that there are too many mega-sites there. The Rose Garden is huge and impassible, the MC is also big and impenetrable, I-5 blocks access from one direction, and the convention center also occupies a huge chunk of land. Putting in another big box style development only creates more of the same. PGE park was nice because it's compact and sits at the edge of downtown against the hillside. Rose Quarter could be improved by creating new access points to the waterfront and greater connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods - not by building another big box development mimicking the MC.. I'm increasingly disturbed by Cordish and his company's history.. This just seems contrary to Portland..

As for the OMSI site, It seems much more appropriate than the MC site, but OMSI owns about 14 acres of land suitable for redevelopment and has a master plan for a million square feet of new development there, including research and office spaces in high rises, museum expansion, and even a little bit of retail. Their proposal includes towers where the sketches show the baseball stadium would go. I'm not sure this plan jives with their agency mission.. They are a non-profit, but not a public agency. Can eminent domain be used for a minor league baseball stadium? http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...r_big_exp.html

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 4:28 AM

I performed a more accurate site study for my proposed OMSI site yesterday, and while the AAA baseball stadium works well, the steps that would need to be taken to upgrade the site to MLB standards in the future would probably be unfeasible (footprint of the stadium would most likely require the removal of the Opera building, changes to the alignment of the Max Line, and potentially some slight modifications to a rail alignment). Of course these could probably be overcome, but they definitely add a higher degree of complication.

This has been an interesting process, and the idea went further than I thought it would. In addition to Brian Libby picking up the idea, I was contacted by the Burnside Blog, and was emailed by KOIN who wanted to do a story on it (I think the site would require additional study before I would feel comfortable presenting the idea, especially with my more accurate site plan). I'm a little disappointed that I didn't do a more accurate study earlier, but I'm happy that the idea, which still could potentially work, is being discussed as an option. I found it incredibly interesting how a simple idea posted on a message board could get people thinking, and perhaps there is more power to this message board than originally thought--which could prove useful in the future!

NewUrbanist Apr 20, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4205001)
I performed a more accurate site study for my proposed OMSI site yesterday, and while the AAA baseball stadium works well, the steps that would need to be taken to upgrade the site to MLB standards in the future would probably be unfeasible (footprint of the stadium would most likely require the removal of the Opera building, changes to the alignment of the Max Line, and potentially some slight modifications to a rail alignment). Of course these could probably be overcome, but they definitely add a higher degree of complication.

Pdxf -

I wonder if your stadium could work on these blocks in the Central Eastside?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+wat...h&z=16&iwloc=A

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+water+and+se+salmon+portland+oregon&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;split=0&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=mqnsSdOPDJPksgOw65ThAQ&amp;ll=45.522886,-122.661667&amp;spn=0.011172,0.019226&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=A&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=se+water+and+se+salmon+portland+oregon&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;split=0&amp;gl=us&amp;ei=mqnsSdOPDJPksgOw65ThAQ&amp;ll=45.522886,-122.661667&amp;spn=0.011172,0.019226&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=A&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

It is still close to the new MAX alignment, on empty blocks. The only issue is ODOT purchased the property when an expansion of I5 was considered to be necessary, so taking the property from a state agency will be problematic.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewUrbanist (Post 4205555)
Pdxf -

I wonder if your stadium could work on these blocks in the Central Eastside?

I'll have to take a look and see. My initial look is that they are probably too small, unless we take out I-5, which I definitely wouldn't mind seeing.

If anyone is interested, I also posted a more accurate site plan for the OMSI site (http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballatomsi/) which illustrates the issues with the MLB portion. Again, the site would work for AAA, but to me, the best option for a site is one that could be expanded in the future, and the MLB expansion may be an issue for the OMSI site.

urbanlife Apr 20, 2009 7:52 PM

looking at your new image, I dont see OMSI wanting to give up that much of their land...I am thinking this would be a hard sell.

And the site in the central eastside is definitely too small...great location though...hell, why not down in the south waterfront, the condo market is a bust right now...

Oh, and the city council will be making a decision this wednesday....so we will probably know more then...unless their decision is to take longer making a decision, which is a likely thing to happen.

MightyAlweg Apr 20, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxf (Post 4205625)
If anyone is interested, I also posted a more accurate site plan for the OMSI site (http://www.liquidosity.com/baseballatomsi/) which illustrates the issues with the MLB portion. Again, the site would work for AAA, but to me, the best option for a site is one that could be expanded in the future.

I love the idea of a MLB stadium near downtown Portland, and your OMSI plan is fun to look at. Very well done! (I wish Mayor Adams wasn't so quick to throw the Beavers a bone with a hastily built AAA stadium that can't be expanded and dooms Portland to another 30 years of no additional major league sports. But that's another topic.)

That said, where is all the parking for an OMSI or Eastside plan? A MLB Stadium with dozens of home games per year is going to need parking spaces for 20,000+ cars within walking distance. I don't see inclusion of parking in any of the Eastside stadium plans thus far.

Using San Diego's Petco Park as an example, as it is similar to Portland's plans sitting on the perimeter of the downtown core and directly adjacent to a major light rail station, there was still a need for Petco Park to develop 11,000 new parking spaces close to the field, in addition to the 15,000+ other spaces gobbled up on game days in nearby downtown garages.

Since Petco Park opened in '04, the percentage of fans using light rail to get to the stadium has grown to 12% of fans. The majority of those are using Park & Ride stations in Mission Valley or the South Bay to take one of the light rail lines serving Petco Park. But that still requires tens of thousands of parking spaces to be used by fans arriving directly at Petco Park via car.

Safeco Field in Seattle has about 8,000 spaces dedicated to the ballfield, with additional surface lots and garages in south downtown soaking up the 15,000+ additonal spaces needed. I imagine they'll get some folks arriving via light rail when Link opens later this year.

Angel Stadium in Anaheim has 15,000+ parking spaces in surface lots around the field, plus 5,000+ more in offsite lots within walking distance. There is also the Anaheim Depot train station directly adjacent to the stadium, and many fans arrive via Amtrak Surfliner or Metrolink commuter trains on game days. That station is slated to be transformed into the massive ARTIC complex as the southern terminus of the California High Speed Rail system, although Surfliner and Metrolink trains will still serve the station on separate platforms.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx Scroll down to Anaheim ARTIC Station video to see a quick flyover of ARTIC and how it relates to the adjacent Angel Stadium

My long-winded point...:rolleyes: Even with rail transit serving stadiums directly, you still need to accomodate at least 10,000 cars in lots directly adjacent to the facility. You can accomodate thousands more cars further out for a lower price, and you can encourage rail travel with adjacent and efficient stations, but you can't have a MLB stadium without a lot of parking.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 8:16 PM

Parking is an issue that I think could be solved in the event that Portland lands MLB team, there is certainly land on the eastside where parking facilities could be added (of course parking for AAA stadium would need to be figured out). Something in SOWA could be interesting and have tremendous views if we want to designate the land for that purpose.

pdxf Apr 20, 2009 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4205895)
looking at your new image, I dont see OMSI wanting to give up that much of their land...I am thinking this would be a hard sell.

Depending on what OMSI wants to pursue, I wonder if the city could offer them the Memorial Coliseum as part of their expansion plans. I know it would have the disadvantage of being separated from their existing campus, but if they were of different enough purposes, they could in some ways act as different museums. This of course, could also save the MC.

zilfondel Apr 20, 2009 9:57 PM

Even if the OMSI or Lloyd cinema sites aren't upgradeable to MLB stadiums, they would save the Memorial Coliseum. Parking for 9,000 fans wouldn't be much of an issue, particularly if a deal could be struck at Lloyd Center with their large parking garage.

MLB won't happen for a few years, giving us some breathing room to find a proper location for a stadium in the future.

pdxhome Apr 20, 2009 11:11 PM

I have a question, and I do not intend to sound careless about the potential razing of the MC.

Much of the architectual argument in preserving the MC has been focused around uniqueness of the design (bowl inside of a glass box). If the MC were saved, and re-used (athletic center, commercial development, OMSI annex, etc.), then don't all those ideas potentially alter the facade or interior, thereby removing the very architectural components that make the building special?

I remember seeing rendering a long time ago for the MARC where the entire building was stripped and reclad...


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:50 AM.

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