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)

jaxg8r1 Apr 24, 2009 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4214333)
I met Will Macht briefly at the public Coliseum presentation.

Hopefully with all of these ideas being tossed around, maybe we can end up with a new baseball stadium, a renovated PGE Park and a renovated Coliseum.

RED_PDXer Apr 25, 2009 1:30 PM

I took a couple real estate development courses with Macht. Very creative guy and knows how to turn a profit while advancing the public interest. I was sold on adaptive reuse of the coliseum after the first time I saw the proposals his earlier class studied.

360Rich May 7, 2009 4:11 AM

Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

The city and the Portland Trail Blazers are negotiating an agreement for redeveloping the area that would take advantage of the coliseum building, perhaps updating or redesigning it, Adams said.

"Our goal is to keep it, at least the skin," Adams said.

continued http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aves_port.html

MightyAlweg May 7, 2009 7:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 360Rich (Post 4236410)
Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

That is very good news.

I have a feeling the Lents location for a minor league ballpark will end badly if it is shoehorned into that unfortunate location, but at least there is good news for the MC.

JordanL May 7, 2009 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 360Rich (Post 4236410)
Rose Quarter vision saves Portland's Memorial Coliseum
by Mark Larabee

Memorial Coliseum is spared.

The Rose Quarter is officially off the table as a possible site for a new Triple A baseball stadium, Mayor Sam Adams said Wednesday.

The city and the Portland Trail Blazers are negotiating an agreement for redeveloping the area that would take advantage of the coliseum building, perhaps updating or redesigning it, Adams said.

"Our goal is to keep it, at least the skin," Adams said.

continued http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aves_port.html

As long as that horrifyingly ugly building is changed and utilized somehow...

pdxhome May 7, 2009 3:18 PM

With this, our City has made the RQ "untouchable".

Whatever new proposal's come through to re-use the MC are going to be:

1. A long time off.
2. Will change the building too much, thereby stirring the architectual community again.
3. Incredibly expensive that people in the City will not pay for them.
4. A cheesy "live" district that is forced down this City's throat, and therfore no one will attend.

Let's face it, if the MC is placed on a historic registry, then the Rose Quarter is doomed to be a stagnate district for a long, long time.

65MAX May 7, 2009 3:50 PM

Stagnant, not stagnate. Stagnate is a verb, not an adjective. And there's no shortage of ideas for MC.

Plus, I still don't understand why some of you here have such a visceral reaction to a Live! going in here. What's wrong with a "cheesy" entertainment district for convention goers and sports fans? It's the ideal location for one (RQ) and it serves a market that isn't being adequately served right now. AND.... if you really hate the MC so much, wouldn't you WANT something to completely engulf it and hide it from your line of sight? Like a district filled with entertanment venues?

pdxhome May 7, 2009 6:32 PM

Thanks for correcting my grammer "me fail english, that's unpossible"

You're right, there is no shortage of ideas for the MC and RQ, and ultimately the people of Portland will decide what they will, or will not support at the RQ(live district, athletic center, parks/museums, etc.)

At this point there are no other proposals for the area. Today's Oregonian article indicated that the Blazer's "live" idea could cost around $100M and they would likely seek some public financing.

I don't understand why the people of Portland would not support a proposal to benefit the City's oldest sports franchise, but would potentially support a more expensive proposal that creates a "cheesy" entertainment venue for convention attendees. We don't even have a hotel large enough to house a enough convention goers to justify publically finacing an entertainment district. The Rose Quarter is too valuable an area to give away to tourists it should be enjoyed by the citizens of Portland.

So now, the City will plan and study the Rose Quarter to determine exactly what will be placed there, all while the MC continues to structurally deteriorate, and stagnate.

Did I use the verb correctly?

urbanlife May 7, 2009 9:53 PM

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!

it looks like the OMSI site is becoming quite popular with the people that post on the Oregonian's site as well.

MC saved, posters like the OMSI idea

Okstate May 8, 2009 1:59 AM

I think the OMSI site would be great. Our rough borders "downtown" would be IMO: OMSI/Baseball - Rose Quarter - Northwest - SoWa. Not a bad foundation/incubator for downtown to be within.

MarkDaMan May 8, 2009 2:13 AM

The Portland Storage on the river is on hold, how much land can be assembled there. Would be cool to have a riverfront stadium!

JordanL May 8, 2009 8:56 AM

If the MC is placed on the historical registry it's basically condemning 30 acres of innercity land to forever be lifeless and useless...

I would be pissed if a few elitist archetectual wonks cost the people who live here the ability to make that area useful.

urbanlife May 8, 2009 9:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4238677)
If the MC is placed on the historical registry it's basically condemning 30 acres of innercity land to forever be lifeless and useless...

I would be pissed if a few elitist archetectual wonks cost the people who live here the ability to make that area useful.

When you look at that area in Google Maps, it really isnt that big of a deal area...so it is an island, but it is a very small island. I would rather see a reinvestment happen in the Lloyd District area and leave this area as an "in and out" entertainment venue area. Because the reality of it, is there is very little that can be done to change the Rose Quarter area, especially when you consider the biggest challenges are the two arenas, the amount of tracks that are needs for light rail through that area, then the topography...seriously, the only major change that could happen there is the redevelopment of the PPS site, which will probably happen eventually.

Besides, who would want to live near the Rose Quarter, nothing like dealing with a swarm of people at every event.

The only good an entertainment area would do for this area is allow people to hang around the arena more before and after the games and concerts...which would need to be places that could handle that kind of flux of people.

In comparison, I would be more concerned with the Burnside Bridgehead because that area could have more of an effect with the city.

JordanL May 8, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 4238691)
When you look at that area in Google Maps, it really isnt that big of a deal area...so it is an island, but it is a very small island. I would rather see a reinvestment happen in the Lloyd District area and leave this area as an "in and out" entertainment venue area. Because the reality of it, is there is very little that can be done to change the Rose Quarter area, especially when you consider the biggest challenges are the two arenas, the amount of tracks that are needs for light rail through that area, then the topography...seriously, the only major change that could happen there is the redevelopment of the PPS site, which will probably happen eventually.

Besides, who would want to live near the Rose Quarter, nothing like dealing with a swarm of people at every event.

The only good an entertainment area would do for this area is allow people to hang around the arena more before and after the games and concerts...which would need to be places that could handle that kind of flux of people.

In comparison, I would be more concerned with the Burnside Bridgehead because that area could have more of an effect with the city.

Paul Allen financed most of the construction of the Rose Quarter, and the only real requirement was that TriMet basically had to run everything through there.

The RQ stop is probably the most connected spot in the city and there's NOTHING there. It's like a dessert island. I can get to the RQ insanely easy from almost any spot in the city, and I have NO reason to go there.

That's what this is about. The underutilization of that space goes beyond just how much space there is.

zilfondel May 8, 2009 6:25 PM

There is plenty of land that can be repurposed and programmed in the RQ besides the Rose Garden and MC. Noone has been very thoughtful or creative in how to tie the district into the rest of the area. Isolation is probably the #1 problem with the site.

Any major changes to the RQ should open up the site more to the surrounding streets so that any development inside the RQ is more accessible to the public, particularly when there are no games, and to allow surrounding development to help build a critical mass of activity and stuff to do in the area.

And yes, the Memorial Coliseum needs to be renovated. It would be cool if the main floor could open up to the plaza and be lined with retail or restaurants or something.

urbanlife May 8, 2009 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4239280)
There is plenty of land that can be repurposed and programmed in the RQ besides the Rose Garden and MC. Noone has been very thoughtful or creative in how to tie the district into the rest of the area. Isolation is probably the #1 problem with the site.

Any major changes to the RQ should open up the site more to the surrounding streets so that any development inside the RQ is more accessible to the public, particularly when there are no games, and to allow surrounding development to help build a critical mass of activity and stuff to do in the area.

And yes, the Memorial Coliseum needs to be renovated. It would be cool if the main floor could open up to the plaza and be lined with retail or restaurants or something.


well when was the last time you saw images from a masterplan for the Rose Quarter?

bvpcvm May 9, 2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL (Post 4239091)
Paul Allen financed most of the construction of the Rose Quarter, and the only real requirement was that TriMet basically had to run everything through there.

What? Where did you pull that "fact" from?

MAX opened there in 1986; planning for the Banfield line began back in 1983. The Rose Garden didn't break ground until 1993. The fact that all subsequent MAX lines pass the Rose Quarter is merely due to the fact that they all use the ONLY bridge in the system, which happens to be right there. Furthermore, what billionaire would make such a demand back in the 90's??

Speaking of MAX, I saw one of the new trains up close last night on Morrison: WOW. Slick.

65MAX May 9, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4237323)
So now, the City will plan and study the Rose Quarter to determine exactly what will be placed there, all while the MC continues to structurally deteriorate, and stagnate.

Did I use the verb correctly?

Yes. My pet peave is people who use 'dominate' and 'dominant' interchangeably (they're not). Or they're, their and there. Or it's and its. Never seen it done with 'stagnate' and 'stagnant' though.

OK, sorry, enough with the grammar police.

bvpcvm May 9, 2009 2:45 AM

^ "Could of" and "would of". Oh, how I groan when I see those two.

65MAX May 9, 2009 8:19 AM

^^^^
LOL, yes!! Thank you, bvpcvm :cheers:

For those who don't know.... it's "would have" or "could have", but you can contract them into "would've" or "could've".

I'd consider opening a Grammar 101 thread, but people tend to get pissed off when you correct their grammar.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:14 PM.

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