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)

MightyAlweg May 9, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 4239280)
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.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Portland Live!" project, and that allegedly would not serve the citizens of Portland very well. ;)

RoseCtyRoks May 9, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4240048)
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.

I see you're STILL at it!! It's a little ironic, coming from someone who begins a sentence with a conjunction, and 'never' needs to be preceeded by a noun, in that sentence. Are you REALLY done with the grammar police? Most of us hope so, because we're not here for a 3rd grade lesson. We're here for buildings.

pdxskyline May 10, 2009 6:34 AM

Well, I remember many an event at the MC/"Glass Palace" in my childhood. It has kinda outlived its usefulness since they built the Rose Garden, but there are still some ways to keep it going. Lots of positive things can be gained by retaining it, but there are NIMBYs that do not like the idea of "double headers", or seeing the property just sitting there either.

The proposals over the years to re-use the area have been totally lackluster, except the idea of a community recreational facility. "Big Box" retailers? No thanks! Demolition, not desirable. The whole site, while being very transit-friendly, is a complete mess on event nights (for both transit and non-transit users). It is a ghost town when events are not taking place.

The mess with this site began when they decided to build the original MemCol complex. While the present complex isn't a great thing, I remember when I was a kid how the whole MemCol complex was surrounded by nothing but parking lots. It was extremely ugly and awful. A vibrant neighborhood and jazz scene was destroyed for this project, in the name of what they (now comically) called "urban renewal".

I do have to give them something when they built the Rose Quarter. They landscaped the grounds, built restaurants, and made some effort to make it something that brought people in when events were not happening. But it still did not reintegrate the site with the rest of the city, nor was it a destination unless you were going to an event or transferring between MAX or bus lines. The north end is a barren wasteland of parking garages devoid of ground-level retail, like anyone would go to stores in those-they're too far from the streets.

The big problem with what everyone would like the Rose Quarter to be is that it entails the removal of I-5 in that area. If they ever get around to burying I-5 on the eastbank, it should include a plan to resurface the freeway north of the Broadway/Weidler couplet. I-5 on its raised, filled "wall" creates a huge barrier on that side of the river between the Lloyd District and the Rose Quarter. It certainly is not pedestrian or car-friendly. The freeway forces all traffic to access either area through just a few points (Broadway/Weidler, Holladay St., etc...) Burying the freeway would lessen congestion especially on event nights and provide new land for development that would tie the entire area together.

I find it absurd that any plan to redevelop the Rose Quarter is ignorant of the I-5 barrier. Until the above-ground freeway is gone, or development is planned around the eventuality that I-5 is buried/removed, whatever money they spend on Rose Quarter planning might as well be flushed down the toilet.

Remember that building the Rose Quarter in its present incarnation was thought to be a win-win idea; Paul Allen got what he wanted and the city thought this would spark new development. If we are looking at new solutions again now, we must have done something wrong and missed something. What we missed: I-5!

JordanL May 10, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxskyline (Post 4241709)
Well, I remember many an event at the MC/"Glass Palace" in my childhood. It has kinda outlived its usefulness since they built the Rose Garden, but there are still some ways to keep it going. Lots of positive things can be gained by retaining it, but there are NIMBYs that do not like the idea of "double headers", or seeing the property just sitting there either.

The proposals over the years to re-use the area have been totally lackluster, except the idea of a community recreational facility. "Big Box" retailers? No thanks! Demolition, not desirable. The whole site, while being very transit-friendly, is a complete mess on event nights (for both transit and non-transit users). It is a ghost town when events are not taking place.

The mess with this site began when they decided to build the original MemCol complex. While the present complex isn't a great thing, I remember when I was a kid how the whole MemCol complex was surrounded by nothing but parking lots. It was extremely ugly and awful. A vibrant neighborhood and jazz scene was destroyed for this project, in the name of what they (now comically) called "urban renewal".

I do have to give them something when they built the Rose Quarter. They landscaped the grounds, built restaurants, and made some effort to make it something that brought people in when events were not happening. But it still did not reintegrate the site with the rest of the city, nor was it a destination unless you were going to an event or transferring between MAX or bus lines. The north end is a barren wasteland of parking garages devoid of ground-level retail, like anyone would go to stores in those-they're too far from the streets.

The big problem with what everyone would like the Rose Quarter to be is that it entails the removal of I-5 in that area. If they ever get around to burying I-5 on the eastbank, it should include a plan to resurface the freeway north of the Broadway/Weidler couplet. I-5 on its raised, filled "wall" creates a huge barrier on that side of the river between the Lloyd District and the Rose Quarter. It certainly is not pedestrian or car-friendly. The freeway forces all traffic to access either area through just a few points (Broadway/Weidler, Holladay St., etc...) Burying the freeway would lessen congestion especially on event nights and provide new land for development that would tie the entire area together.

I find it absurd that any plan to redevelop the Rose Quarter is ignorant of the I-5 barrier. Until the above-ground freeway is gone, or development is planned around the eventuality that I-5 is buried/removed, whatever money they spend on Rose Quarter planning might as well be flushed down the toilet.

Remember that building the Rose Quarter in its present incarnation was thought to be a win-win idea; Paul Allen got what he wanted and the city thought this would spark new development. If we are looking at new solutions again now, we must have done something wrong and missed something. What we missed: I-5!

While I am whole heartedly for burying I-5, you're talking about the difference between granting a construction permit to Mr. Allen, and spending $4.5 billion on a transportation project that completely redevelops a surface that is not in disrepair (despite it being incredibly intrusive and poorly designed).

65MAX May 10, 2009 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoseCtyRoks (Post 4240806)
I see you're STILL at it!! It's a little ironic, coming from someone who begins a sentence with a conjunction, and 'never' needs to be preceeded by a noun, in that sentence. Are you REALLY done with the grammar police? Most of us hope so, because we're not here for a 3rd grade lesson. We're here for buildings.

There's a big difference between conversational English (which we use on forums like this) and writing a doctoral thesis. Like I said, people get extremely pissy when you correct their grammar. I was simply agreeing with bvpcvm this time. Also, you don't need to speak for "most of us", RCR. Most of us are capable of speaking for ourselves.

Now, regarding RQ.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't I-5 below grade once it crosses over Multnomah northbound? Reconnecting the RQ area to the Lloyd District would just mean capping over I-5 for several blocks north and south of Broadway/Weidler.

philopdx May 10, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4242253)
There's a big difference between conversational English (which we use on forums like this) and writing a doctoral thesis. Like I said, people get extremely pissy when you correct their grammar. I was simply agreeing with bvpcvm this time. Also, you don't need to speak for "most of us", RCR. Most of us are capable of speaking for ourselves.

... hoeled on now speakin a' gettin a littel pissy

You dun tryed to play the grmmer game and got col' busted. Shoot far, I'mma laughin purdy lowd rat now.

Ain't no one hear me tho, since I reckon' sound waves don' travel thru dese her internet tubes.

:drunk:

65MAX May 10, 2009 8:34 PM

^^^^:no:
Sound waves, no, but ignorance comes through loud and clear. How, exactly, am I 'busted'?

bvpcvm May 11, 2009 3:22 AM

Actually, neither of us particularly criticized grammar errors; we both just pointed out words being used incorrectly or being misspelled. There-their-they're / Stagnate-stagnant / dominate-dominant / *would of (wrong) - would have (correct) - are cases where the writer is misinterpreting what he's heard (or mis-heard) in conversational English. I suppose you could argue that abuse of apostrophes is a grammar issue, but you could probably argue that it's a spelling issue as well. In any case, when I see poor spelling or bad grammar (something beyond typos - and mistakes made by non-native speakers don't count at all) I tend to wonder what other things the writer hasn't paid attention to.

JordanL May 11, 2009 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4242253)
Now, regarding RQ.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't I-5 below grade once it crosses over Multnomah northbound? Reconnecting the RQ area to the Lloyd District would just mean capping over I-5 for several blocks north and south of Broadway/Weidler.

It is below grade until just south of Broadway. Well, except for the Freemont bridge interchange.

360Rich May 11, 2009 10:23 PM

Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?
by Helen Jung, The Oregonian
Sunday May 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

Architects who love Memorial Coliseum would show you the massive glass walls that allow natural light to stream into the seating bowl. They would show you the clever engineering of the roof -- the size of four city blocks -- resting on just four concrete pillars.

But it's a little bit harder for them to show the outlines of a good business when looking at the 49-year-old coliseum's financial bones.

Memorial Coliseum has won a new lease on life after city leaders last week abandoned plans to demolish the arena. Instead of building a ballpark at the site for the Portland Beavers baseball team, the city plans to negotiate a redevelopment deal with the Portland Trail Blazers. The Save Memorial Coliseum campaign, spearheaded by a few architects passionate about the arena, worked.

Article continued http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...al_colise.html

All pics: Thomas Boyd/The Oregonian

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum1.JPG

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum2.JPG

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_.../coliseum3.JPG

pdxhome May 11, 2009 11:19 PM

"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

JordanL May 12, 2009 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4244297)
"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

Not only that... it STILL isn't up to earthquake codes.

bvpcvm May 12, 2009 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxhome (Post 4244297)
"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"

This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!

I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!

You're right, let's just get rid of everything that's old and no longer contemporary.

Look, this isn't the prettiest building, but it is architecturally significant, even if you think it's ugly. It's part of our history; it plays a part in telling a story about who we were when the thing was built. We all gnashed our teeth when the Rosefriend came down, because it was one of a diminishing number of old apartment buildings in downtown. Well, there are even fewer of these international style buildings in town. It's a different style, but one that is even more endangered than the style the Rosefriend represented.

Most of us on this forum claim to support a dense, urban environment - one that is in stark contrast to the suburban sprawl which makes up 98% of the built environment in America. We crave this type of environment partly because it's different, unique, hard to find. But our enthusiasm for this diversity doesn't extend, apparently, to a diversity of architectural styles. We either want Thom Mayne or we want the Flatiron building. Anything from the middle of the century need not apply. That's hypocritical, in my view. Things will change. What we build now says something about who we are. We should be able to point out buildings to our children and say "that's what they were building back 19xx, and the idea behind it was Y and the context was Z". Once they're gone, that's much harder to do.

This building might, indeed, cost a fortune to re-purpose. Passing on some sort of heritage, no matter how nebulous that sounds, is priceless.

pdxhome May 12, 2009 3:01 AM

If the MC were an old apartment building, or an old office building or an old warehouse, I would feel more optimistic about re-purposing it. The fact is, it was designed to be a sports/events arena, and it is much more difficult to find a different practical use.

Additionally, the people who have been originally fighting to preserve it, will likely continue to fight whatever design comes out of the Blazers plans. This is because whatever new purpose it serves will either remove the bowl on the inside or change the facade, which are the exact features that make it "unique".

We had an opportunity to redevelop the Rose Quarter (RQ) with a venue that would bring at least 72 more events to the district. Now we are likely headed for a long drawn out battle between the Blazers and some architects.

Likely outcomes:
Architects Win = re-purposed MC building that is still minimally used and very expensive.
Blazers Win = bulldoze or completely change the MC and build "Portland Live"

In either case the taxpayers get a bigger bill than with the baseball park proposal.

JordanL May 12, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4244499)
You're right, let's just get rid of everything that's old and no longer contemporary.

Look, this isn't the prettiest building, but it is architecturally significant, even if you think it's ugly. It's part of our history; it plays a part in telling a story about who we were when the thing was built. We all gnashed our teeth when the Rosefriend came down, because it was one of a diminishing number of old apartment buildings in downtown. Well, there are even fewer of these international style buildings in town. It's a different style, but one that is even more endangered than the style the Rosefriend represented.

Most of us on this forum claim to support a dense, urban environment - one that is in stark contrast to the suburban sprawl which makes up 98% of the built environment in America. We crave this type of environment partly because it's different, unique, hard to find. But our enthusiasm for this diversity doesn't extend, apparently, to a diversity of architectural styles. We either want Thom Mayne or we want the Flatiron building. Anything from the middle of the century need not apply. That's hypocritical, in my view. Things will change. What we build now says something about who we are. We should be able to point out buildings to our children and say "that's what they were building back 19xx, and the idea behind it was Y and the context was Z". Once they're gone, that's much harder to do.

This building might, indeed, cost a fortune to re-purpose. Passing on some sort of heritage, no matter how nebulous that sounds, is priceless.

So your position is basically "it has historical signifigance that we'll somehow forget if it is replaced with something useful, cheaper and easier to maintain that meets current building codes".

And as a follow up "we should repurpose lots of taxpayer money that could be performing work and instead dedicate it to maintaining a building that can't maintain itself".

Brilliant. Where could we possibly go wrong with that.

bvpcvm May 12, 2009 4:51 AM

You know, maybe you're right. In fact, let's get rid of everything that costs money to maintain but doesn't give society a benefit that can easily be calculated. Let's sell off Forest Park and let people build mcmansions up there, entice Cascade General back by letting them build drydocks on Sauvie Island - jobs, after all - build parking garages along Waterfront park, you see where I'm going with this. Civilization costs money.

urbanlife May 12, 2009 8:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm (Post 4244919)
You know, maybe you're right. In fact, let's get rid of everything that costs money to maintain but doesn't give society a benefit that can easily be calculated. Let's sell off Forest Park and let people build mcmansions up there, entice Cascade General back by letting them build drydocks on Sauvie Island - jobs, after all - build parking garages along Waterfront park, you see where I'm going with this. Civilization costs money.

Well that is just an over reaction comment.


The point with this has nothing to do with the type of architecture it is, it has more to do with how it can be used.

We all know that Allen wants events at the Rose Garden because that means more of a profit for him. Reuse of the building will require renovating the building as is and do little to change its function. (I am a strong believer that if the bowl is removed, you might as well tear down the building.)

Of course everything cost money, that is why we have taxes, but the key is to keep moving forward for the city. Most cities tear down their old arenas when the new ones are constructed...while I dont fully know the history on why it was left standing, I feel that the city must of created a deal that was flawed and now we are in a state of limbo on what to do with a giant building.

Again, I have yet to see plans for that area with or without the MC, so saving the MC or tearing it down shouldnt be the issue right now. How we should redevelop the RQ to fix the mistakes that has been made there should be the focus, then let the fate of the MC rest on that.

65MAX May 12, 2009 9:35 AM

Wow... for a bunch of development and design officianados, I'm surprised that nobody can think of ways to re-purpose MC. There are already so many ideas out there, like a transportation hub/ high speed rail station/ year-round farmers market/ museums/ sustainability center/ aquarium/ HQ hotel/ theaters/ a four-sided arcade surrounded by mixed uses/ an indoor Live! *shudder* entertainment district/ flex offices/ sporting center/ corporate HQ/ or any combination of 2, 3, 4 or all of the above.

I would think that creative people would see this as an ideal opportunity to think outside (or in this case, inside) the box.

Of course it'll cost money to upgrade the structure. It also costs money to demolish the building. Anything you do costs money. What's your point?

urbanlife May 12, 2009 9:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX (Post 4245116)
Wow... for a bunch of development and design officianados, I'm surprised that nobody can think of ways to re-purpose MC. There are already so many ideas out there, like a transportation hub/ high speed rail station/ year-round farmers market/ museums/ sustainability center/ aquarium/ HQ hotel/ theaters/ a four-sided arcade surrounded by mixed uses/ an indoor Live! *shudder* entertainment district/ flex offices/ sporting center/ corporate HQ/ or any combination of 2, 3, 4 or all of the above.

I would think that creative people would see this as an ideal opportunity to think outside (or in this case, inside) the box.

Of course it'll cost money to upgrade the structure. It also costs money to demolish the building. Anything you do costs money. What's your point?

Which of those ideas require removing of the bowl? That is the issue, it is a bowl inside a box...if you remove the bowl, it is just a box...then what would be the point of that. The point is, it is hard to reuse old arena structures, other than using them as arenas...in this case, the design is all about the bowl in a box.

What I am pointing out is that there needs to be plans to show the possibilities of the district if the MC is preserved as is and ones that show the possibility of the area without it, then pick a course of action that works best for the city in the long run.

360Rich May 12, 2009 3:49 PM

KC Power and Light District by Cordish
 
Portland gets some Rose Quarter revitalization ideas, as well as some caveats
by Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
Monday May 11, 2009, 9:59 PM

KANSAS CITY Mo. -- Snatches of music from 10 bars reverberate through the courtyard, competing with the DJ spinning beats on the main stage.

Flat-panel televisions and video screens pulse insistently as small groups of partiers wander between nightspots or kick back by the fire pit to watch the Royals game on the JumboTron.

Continued http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._kansas_c.html

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_....31kansa12.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:32 PM.

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