Hyatt at the Oregon Convention Center | 180'-6" | 14 floors | Complete
 

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psznriuakr.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdosuhkcn.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psauuodtg2.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psxbpwg6eg.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psugghtumy.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psgpuo9dah.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pswmhijw6d.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psvqrvfbru.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdfn5zxaz.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pshknvlfgi.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pswprwrjg2.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psjiapdeqq.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pskxy3j7ch.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps4jwpjjxh.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psbskjrnru.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps8jhdzkyh.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psnxaqmp19.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psqif6lzos.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pswcpxgjk9.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pszzczu8w5.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psurziym1d.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pso5msfhwe.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps5choiirn.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psalprokzs.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psg7wwm7xh.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pstnezji8x.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pszmqktgk2.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps1hoyonnf.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps7ssgy3st.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ps4jndsq72.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psonkmcnkn.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...pspt0jyfvz.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psjsjg38p9.jpg

-------------------------

Original Post:


Metro plans vote on headquarters hotel
By Jim Redden

The Metro Council will consider early next month whether to take over management of the proposed headquarters hotel across the street from the Oregon Convention Center.

The most recent studies suggest that if the project is going to proceed, it would have to be owned and operated by Metro, and could cost $150 million or more.

The council received a staff briefing on the project Tuesday. At the end of the briefing, Metro staff was directed to prepare a series of recommendations that would authorize the council to take over the project from the Portland Development Commission, which decided it did not have enough money to finance it last year.

“No one on the council has said they either support or oppose the project,” said Ken Ray, Metro’s senior public affairs coordinator. “If the council votes to take over the project, we’ll need to conduct more studies before we can decide how to proceed.”

Before it abandoned the project, the PDC had selected a development team to build a 600-room hotel on two city-owned blocks across from the center, which is at 777 N.E. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

They had proposed building a 23-story Westin hotel on the blocks bordered by Northeast Holladay and Oregon streets and Grand Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

Publicly owned hotels have been built near other convention centers in Austin, Texas; Denver; and St. Louis.

A headquarters hotel long has been considered necessary to spur private investments in the convention center urban renewal area. Plans already are under way to build a new Portland Streetcar line through it.

Some downtown hotel owners have opposed the project because they fear it would take business away from them. They have argued that if a hotel is built, it should be smaller and privately owned.

jimredden@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...15514825223300

Sad we have another project lost due to politics. We really needed this. A waste of $100 million on the convention center unless Metro steps up.

I have faith that one will be built eventually. Perhaps the best use of that money would be to plan and begin to implement infrastructure improvements in the Lloyd District to attract and create fertile ground for development there and possibly with it a hotel.

In the case of the Convention Center, a hotel WOULD be an infrastructure improvement. It would complement the new streetcar line and spur further development of the surrounding (depressing) area.

I'm thinking more like traffic calming streetscape improvements and maybe add a few small parks/squares particularly in the area a few blocks NW of the Lloyd Center.

Uh-oh. Bad fire-station-move memories are returning. It will be even more "too expensive" if they keep studying the idea forever.

Maybe they will review ...
 

... the prior RFProposals from the other interested parties. I was so angry when the Starwood proposal for the block North of OCC was pushed aside in favor of the local Ashford proposal.

Maybe Metro will open the bidding again.

Having the Convention Center HQ Hotel closer to the Rose Quarter makes better sense and the PDC/City owned lots could be sold/leased for other uses.

EP

When I drive through that area (yes, drive, as it is indeed terrible for pedestrians) I am amazed at how poorly executed it is. I think that pdxstreetcar has a solid idea in spending the money to improve the area in general to attract private investors, but 65max has an excellent point in saying that this hotel would add a lot to the area.

I find it remarkable that no private investor has the vision (and daring) to build a signature hotel in this area. Perhaps infrastructure improvements along with some kind of zoning incentives would help?

Private investors don't do it because the demand isn't there except during big national conventions. You can't have 100% occupancy 1/5 of the time and 40% occupancy the rest. I don't know what the projected numbers are but you get the point.

besides, isn't the hotel vacancy rate still fairly low? it was a few years ago when they were really talking about this...

I think it should have been apart of the convention center expansion and completed at the same time.....although the Doubletree people implied they would expand only when the convention center did and, guess what? no expansion of the hotel.

Don't be sad. Local governments should not be in the hotel business. Government should provide planning laws, infrastructure, education, health care, and other basic services. They should offer tax advantages to private companies who build things like hotels--but they should not be developing them.

I agree with you PDX City-State, the Govt. should not be in the hotel business. The convention center was a mistake and continuing to follow it with more bad investments is silly. Also, how is it fair to other privately owned hotels that would have to compete with a huge hotel that has no bottom line accountability?

However, on health care, education, and other basic services we probably differ. Government should only provide those services that cannot be provided adequately by the private sector, and which are necessary for the public interest. Government should not provide any services that can be provided adequately by the private sector.

Government monopolies in education, housing and health care can and do result in decreased service and quality. The best quality at the best price is obtained with the most competition. If we decide we need to help out a portion of society with the cost of some things vouchers are better than providing the services. ie. providing food stamps is better than a government operated grocery store. In cases of essential services, such as infrastructure or assistance for the needy, the government should step in if adequate services can't be provided in the private sector. Recipients of government assistance also have a responsibility to help themselves if they are able. Government assistance should aim to get people to the point where they can take care of themselves, if at all possible.

This is probably not worth debating here though.

You're absolutely correct.

I hate to say it, but I actually kind of agree about the hotel, though. I think the convention center is totally justifiable, the hotel has some justification, but not enough to convince me that it should be a government project. Better to spend that money on light rail or something.

I don't debate libertarians anyways--it's like debating with evangelical Christians or token liberals. At the point where ideology becomes the basis of every decision because a person has adopted a basic philosophy that becomes a lens through which they see the entire world--there's no point in discussing anything. It's like talking about science with Pat Robertson or business with Erik Sten. Having said that, welcome back to the forum. I missed your antagonism.

Yeah, welcome back. It's been too boring the last week or so.

Ultimately, I agree that this should not be an entirely "public" project, for all the obvious reasons. On the other hand, the government (at all levels) is at least partially responsible for the dead zone that the district is today.

While we're on the subject, let's change the name to something other than "Lloyd", which brings to my mind the image of a sunburned alcoholic riding around in a golf cart.

now that is funny

Stupid for the government to be in the hotel business, tax breaks or other incentives to get it done, sure, but financing and building the thing, no way. Gotta go with the "dark side" on this one. :P

Personally I think the city should have built the Convention Center downtown. Then there would have been more incentive for a developer to build something big. The Lloyd District is hardly prime real estate. (Though I wouldn't mind owning a piece of it.)