Portland Diamond Project (MLB) | Proposed

[Okstate]

^ I would consider 6 blocks away to have Max access at Union Station.

[eric cantona]

the post office land is way, way too valuable to the City to be putting a ballpark there. that will suck too much of the tax base away. i simply cannot see the zoning happening there that would allow for a stadium. once it's freed up it will be marketed as a premier spot for a corporate campus, with a whole lot of mixed-use pieces.

while i have advocated for the PIR site, i still believe that the Blanchard site would provide the most advantageous spot based on existing infrastructure (parking, max, future streetcar, freeway, and proximity to downtown). all that needs is some political will and massive dollars. should be easy, right?

[Okstate]

The PO site should be our version of Salt Lake's new City Creek Development! I'm being told in the SLC city compilation thread that their development is worlds ahead of anything in Portland.

[2oh1]

From the Trib:

Could MLB team hop to new home in Hillsboro?

Lynn Lashbrook took his pursuit of major league baseball in Portland to another level on Monday.

Lashbrook, president of Sports Management Worldwide, visited Hillsboro Ballpark and met with the architects who drew up plans for the Class A Hops' 4,500-seat stadium, which made its debut last June.

The mission was to determine if enough temporary seating could be added to increase the capacity so the stadium could serve as an interim facility for the Oakland A's, if they would choose to move, while a permanent stadium in Portland is built.

Here's a link for the rest of the story.

[Eugenepdx]

As much as i would love to see MLB in Portland, i know for sure that it wont happen because of one thing... Memorial Coliseum! People have already gone over this before, that even though the building is old and has cracks and needs extensive renovation, its not going to get bulldozed or razed or whatever, anytime soon. People love the glass features and whatever else about it and dont actually see that the building is an eyesore that needs to get torn down.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Eugenepdx

As much as i would love to see MLB in Portland, i know for sure that it wont happen because of one thing... Memorial Coliseum! People have already gone over this before, that even though the building is old and has cracks and needs extensive renovation, its not going to get bulldozed or razed or whatever, anytime soon. People love the glass features and whatever else about it and dont actually see that the building is an eyesore that needs to get torn down.

The Memorial Coliseum site isn't enough space for a MLB stadium, the PPS site is a much better location. Though an MLB team will never happen in Portland because it doesn't have a big enough market, currently the Marlins rely on Portland to beef their numbers to justify being in Seattle.

Personally I would like to see a NHL team in Portland to go with the Blazers and Timbers.

[2oh1]

Exactly. The Post Office site in the Pearl would be perfect for MLB, and the opportunity to get a team would probably speed up the process greatly. Meanwhile, Memorial Coliseum will sit mostly vacant until an earthquake eventually levels it. Then, finally, the debate about what to do with it will be over.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Exactly. The Post Office site in the Pearl would be perfect for MLB, and the opportunity to get a team would probably speed up the process greatly. Meanwhile, Memorial Coliseum will sit mostly vacant until an earthquake eventually levels it. Then, finally, the debate about what to do with it will be over.

No, not the Pearl. The PPS building is the Portland Public Schools Blanchard Building. North of the Memorial Coliseum.

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The Memorial Coliseum site isn't enough space for a MLB stadium, the PPS site is a much better location. Though an MLB team will never happen in Portland because it doesn't have a big enough market, currently the Marlins rely on Portland to beef their numbers to justify being in Seattle.

Personally I would like to see a NHL team in Portland to go with the Blazers and Timbers.

The Marlins are a Florida team.... The Mariners are the Seattle (Pacific NW) team. I, too, would rather have the NHL in Portland...

[cab]

MLB is a dead sport. Its a time bomb. Its being propped up by old rich men's nostalgia. TV contracts are the only thing keeping the sport alive, but these contractors are built on nothing but a false perception built around that old money. Attendance is in decline year over year. Once these old dudes start dying out, the money will stop flowing. It would be a huge error to spend a Billion dollars on a stadium that will be useless within 10 years. Also PDX is not a market that embraces the franchise mentality. MLB is like the Olive Garden. Sure small towns and the burbs would be overjoyed if an olive garden moved in, PDX would laugh. I bet the city would find a cycle track far more enticing than a has-been east coast sport. Learn from the Timbers.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by cab

MLB is a dead sport. Its a time bomb. Its being propped up by old rich men's nostalgia. TV contracts are the only thing keeping the sport alive, but these contractors are built on nothing but a false perception built around that old money. Attendance is in decline year over year. Once these old dudes start dying out, the money will stop flowing. It would be a huge error to spend a Billion dollars on a stadium that will be useless within 10 years. Also PDX is not a market that embraces the franchise mentality. MLB is like the Olive Garden. Sure small towns and the burbs would be overjoyed if an olive garden moved in, PDX would laugh. I bet the city would find a cycle track far more enticing than a has-been east coast sport. Learn from the Timbers.

This is actually false, MLB attendance has been stagnant since 2009 and will probably continue not to change much.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...ends-1950-2013

[cab]

Actually look at that chart closer. "false" is going overboard. Its not drastic because of 1 year uptick, but the downward trend continued. Plus the east coast subsidizes the numbers. This is a east coast regional sport. Nothing in this article disproves the idea that Baseball is in decline. If anything its agreeing.

"Ideas come and go in baseball. Segregation, public financing of stadiums (thanks Miami!) and the designated runner all came and went, and the near future will show whether strategies like lucrative local broadcast deals, corporate stadium naming rights and stratospheric ticket prices can be maintained--the MBA in me says no to each (and to public financing of stadiums, which I find equal parts egregious and disingenuous). All sports benefited greatly from the confluence of Baby Boom aging and economic expansion. What will be the future when neither of these factors is a given?"

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by cab

Actually look at that chart closer. "false" is going overboard. Its not drastic because of 1 year uptick, but the downward trend continued. Plus the east coast subsidizes the numbers. This is a east coast regional sport. Nothing in this article disproves the idea that Baseball is in decline. If anything its agreeing.

"Ideas come and go in baseball. Segregation, public financing of stadiums (thanks Miami!) and the designated runner all came and went, and the near future will show whether strategies like lucrative local broadcast deals, corporate stadium naming rights and stratospheric ticket prices can be maintained--the MBA in me says no to each (and to public financing of stadiums, which I find equal parts egregious and disingenuous). All sports benefited greatly from the confluence of Baby Boom aging and economic expansion. What will be the future when neither of these factors is a given?"

I don't think MLB is going away any time soon, I just don't think it is growing any more and probably has a number of teams it could cut due to their low attendance records.

[Derek]

There is no "East Coast regional sport" as you like to call it. Sure, ESPN covers East Coast teams a little bit more, but the majority of the country resides on the East Coast. What can you do? In terms of actual attendance numbers....

MLB actually had a great year for attendance in 2013. Ironically, two East Coast teams ranked near the bottom for attendance. Even more ironic is that both teams made the playoffs (Cleveland and Tampa). The Mets were ranked 21st in the league. The Marlins didn't sell out a single game. The Phillies saw a 16% attendance drop from 2012. Pittsburgh had their first winning season since 1992 and made the playoffs and still ranked just ahead of the Padres for attendance (#20, which is still respectable).

The Giants and Dodgers are perfect examples of teams on the West Coast with strong attendance numbers. The Dodgers actually led the league in attendance last year. The Padres are middle of the pack (#21) but they're terrible. They still sell out on most weekends though. Seattle is near the bottom (#26), but they still posted higher attendance records than 2012.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...013-misc.shtml

If you sort by attendance, the first 5 teams are:
1. Los Angeles Dodgers
2. St. Louis Cardinals
3. San Francisco Giants
4. New York Yankees
5. Texas Rangers

Notice how only one of these teams is an East Coast team.

The bottom 5:
26. Kansas City Royals
27. Houston Astros
28. Miami Marlins
29. Cleveland Indians
30. Tampa Bay Rays

Notice how (the bottom) three teams are East Coast teams. Tampa made it to the freaking AL Divisional Series for crying out loud.

There is no "East Coast regional sport" aspect at play here. As a whole, MLB posted their 6th highest attendance numbers of all time, and as you can see, East Coast teams, Midwest teams and West Coast teams are scattered all over the place for attendance numbers.

While not entirely at the bottom, Oakland comes in at #23 in attendance and that kind of surprises me. Oakland is just a terrible market. My dad and I went to an A's-Indians game last season in Oakland. Both of these teams were teams destined for the playoffs. The A's finished first in their division last year. We went on a Friday night. There was only about 10,000 people in attendance. It was terrible. The stadium is falling apart, it's surrounded by barbed wire fences and scrapyards, literally the entire upper deck is covered in tarp to help avoid Raiders blackouts, and they sure as hell aren't seating anybody up there for a baseball game.




I'd love to see baseball in Portland.....but I'd like the NHL more. Portland loves their sports teams, and I'm sure either one (or both) would do well.

[65MAX]

Well, since Portland is a top-20 market, several of those MLB teams would be better off here than in their current locations. Same goes for the NHL. Both leagues would be welcome additions to our market and I think would do very well. I personally am not a fan of either baseball or hockey, but I know MANY people here who are.

[robocop]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Well, since Portland is a top-20 market, several of those MLB teams would be better off here than in their current locations. Same goes for the NHL. Both leagues would be welcome additions to our market and I think would do very well. I personally am not a fan of either baseball or hockey, but I know MANY people here who are.

Exactly. It appears that most people who don't follow sports -- at least occasionally -- automatically assume that Portland is too small to support any more major league sports. Yet there are at least 10 smaller markets nationwide that support two or more "Big 3" teams (NFL, NBA, MLB). St. Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee are just some of those that support at least two. Please also consider that many of these cities (STL<--->KC, Baltimore--->DC, Pittsburgh--->Philly) are in the same states/metros as other cities with several teams -- cities with similar/closer proximity than the distance between Portland and Seattle. Once detractors are shown population statistics, the next argument becomes, "Portland isn't interested in sports. There is too much to do outdoors -- people would rather be hiking Forest Park or biking the Esplanade." Sure, Portland has plenty of outdoor amenities and attractions that make our city great, but that doesn't negate the fact that many many people in this metro are avid sports fans who would most certainly and enthusiastically support a new franchise. Bottom line: Portland has the population and the interest to support any major league expansion/move that came our way. As for funding? Well, that's another story.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by robocop

Once detractors are shown population statistics, the next argument becomes, "Portland isn't interested in sports. There is too much to do outdoors -- people would rather be hiking Forest Park or biking the Esplanade." Sure, Portland has plenty of outdoor amenities and attractions that make our city great, but that doesn't negate the fact that many many people in this metro are avid sports fans who would most certainly and enthusiastically support a new franchise.

Yes, as if other major cities don't have multiple amenities and attractions as well. I think a lot of people here think we're all too cool to watch major league sports. Well, even hipsters and cyclists like baseball.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by robocop

Exactly. It appears that most people who don't follow sports -- at least occasionally -- automatically assume that Portland is too small to support any more major league sports. Yet there are at least 10 smaller markets nationwide that support two or more "Big 3" teams (NFL, NBA, MLB). St. Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee are just some of those that support at least two. Please also consider that many of these cities (STL<--->KC, Baltimore--->DC, Pittsburgh--->Philly) are in the same states/metros as other cities with several teams -- cities with similar/closer proximity than the distance between Portland and Seattle. Once detractors are shown population statistics, the next argument becomes, "Portland isn't interested in sports. There is too much to do outdoors -- people would rather be hiking Forest Park or biking the Esplanade." Sure, Portland has plenty of outdoor amenities and attractions that make our city great, but that doesn't negate the fact that many many people in this metro are avid sports fans who would most certainly and enthusiastically support a new franchise. Bottom line: Portland has the population and the interest to support any major league expansion/move that came our way. As for funding? Well, that's another story.

Most of this has to do with the history of sports and being in smaller markets when the dynamics of sports were much different than today. Many of those smaller market cities today can barely handle these teams. A number of small market baseball teams probably shouldn't have teams anymore.

[robocop]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Most of this has to do with the history of sports and being in smaller markets when the dynamics of sports were much different than today. Many of those smaller market cities today can barely handle these teams. A number of small market baseball teams probably shouldn't have teams anymore.

Agreed, and that is a great point. Many of the teams in those cities have been around for decades upon decades -- the St. Louis Cardinals having been around since the year 1900, for example. While I do believe that there is a more visible and tenured sports-based culture on the east coast and midwest/south, I still wouldn't say that makes Portland any less capable of bringing on another franchise. Portland, and Oregon as a whole, really, are known for being extremely passionate about sports. The Blazers, Timbers, and Ducks athletics (football in particular) all garner cult-like followings/fan bases that are spoken of highly by national media outlets.

That said, I think Portland would do better with an NFL team as its next potential major league franchise. This state/city is packed with football fans, and I think bringing in 60,000-70,000 people 8 times an NFL season is more probable than packing a baseball stadium with 20,000-40,000 people 81 times an MLB season.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by robocop

Exactly. It appears that most people who don't follow sports -- at least occasionally -- automatically assume that Portland is too small to support any more major league sports. Yet there are at least 10 smaller markets nationwide that support two or more "Big 3" teams (NFL, NBA, MLB). St. Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee are just some of those that support at least two. Please also consider that many of these cities (STL<--->KC, Baltimore--->DC, Pittsburgh--->Philly) are in the same states/metros as other cities with several teams -- cities with similar/closer proximity than the distance between Portland and Seattle. Once detractors are shown population statistics, the next argument becomes, "Portland isn't interested in sports. There is too much to do outdoors -- people would rather be hiking Forest Park or biking the Esplanade." Sure, Portland has plenty of outdoor amenities and attractions that make our city great, but that doesn't negate the fact that many many people in this metro are avid sports fans who would most certainly and enthusiastically support a new franchise. Bottom line: Portland has the population and the interest to support any major league expansion/move that came our way. As for funding? Well, that's another story.

Ummm, what kind of market size are you using? The Pittsburgh Metro Area is larger (2.6 million vs 2.3 million) than Portland. St Louis Metro is about 2.9 million. Baltimore's metro area is 2.7 million, and it's a day trip from Washington DC's metro area (5.8 million more.)

The Tampa Bay metro area is over 4 million. That and all of those areas have larger secondary markets than Portland, which would be basically the state of Oregon minus people who are already fans of another team.

We also don't have major sponsors here. Major employers in the area are mostly regional companies that don't need the national advertising, make niche products, or in the cases of Nike and Adidas wouldn't want to risk aligning with a single team at the expense of other markets.

I'm not sure a team would succeed or fail here, but there are reasons that we don't have an NFL or MLB team. Obviously people show up for the Timbers, Blazers, Ducks and Beavers, but I'm not sure there's the regional population needed to support a team.

Even the Buffalo Bills and Sabres are considered to have tiny markets have about 2.5 million people within a two hour drive of their stadium just on the US side of the border with about 7.5 million more if you count Canadians within about two hours of the stadium. 10 million people within about two hours and it's a seen as a small market.

Oregon/SW Washington just don't have that kind of density.

NHL would make a lot more sense, since the Winterhawks do well for a junior hockey team and there's already an arena they could use. Plus they wouldn't be competing for fans with a Seattle team. MLB or NFL would require a new stadium, and that just seems like a big hurdle to get over for a city like Portland.