Comments

1
Gotta agree with Libby, here. Any proposal that guts/changes the Memorial Coliseum should be right-out.
2
And I agree with Jackattak.
3
Not a fan of the "jumptown" concept, but I must ask: The space "was once shared" by who? The place is completely desolate except for the 45 minutes before or after a game.

Agree we should preserve the MC.
4
Jumptown is a terrible name.

It sounds like a location from Hammerman.
5
Thank you Jackattak, Reymont and Blabby!

Alexjon, the Jumptown name is intended to be an homage to the district's past jazz clubs, and is taken from the title of a book called Jumptown, about the early 20th century jazz scene here.

Let me also make clear that I normally would never argue with Onward Oregon. I'm a progressive politically-speaking, and so I dislike the way the organization has characterized this as "Progressives vs. Brian Libby" on Twitter. But it's really simple: We all would like to see community-oriented stuff in the Rose Quarter, but either that community stuff guts the Coliseum to do so or it is built elsewhere - like the ample riverfront property that is part of the Rose Quarter and is currently being used as a parking lot.

So in effect, Onward Oregon is saying they favor preserving parking lots over favoring historic mid-20th century modern architecture.
6
Hey Brian Libby,

Ever been to one of these Cordish cookie-cutter developments? Austin? Hampton Roads? Louisville?

I have, and they're terrible. They are about as far from what I value about Portland as you can get. Cheap, glitzy and low on substance, they foster the sort of Bridgeport Village/Tanasbourne mega-chain homage that we should be moving away from in our local economy.

Twisting OO's stance into your complete bullshit does no one any good, especially the city of Portland. Hard to understand an architect taking such a strong stance in favor of such a blight.
7
And on one more note, I recently found out that restaurant that was literally 30 feet from the entrance to the Rose Garden closed down. Does that not forebode that Jumptown is going to be a massive failure?
8
@Branch O'Humphrey - I get that you don't like that stuff, but the reason mega chains are so successful is because most people do. That's the only way to become a mega chain! It seems like you're missing that point. You're pushing for a vision that most people wouldn't like. It's okay to think it's better, somehow, because of your 'values,' whatever they are, but most people wouldn't agree with you, so...
9
Reymont: you can say exactly those same words about Libby's insistence on keeping the bowl. There has been no sign of the public caring whether the bowl inside is kept or not (just that some people like the building itself). So for Libby to base his entire thinking on that one aspect, purely on the basis that it matters to him and a very select few others, is ridiculous.

I remain far from convinced about MARC etc, without some serious numbers showing public desire; but the same goes for Jumptown. Where is the market research comparing the proposals? Let's not build another white elephant like the current Rose Quarter environs have become. And let's not build something that's going to just move shoppers / whoever over from downtown, let's have something that will add to what's available downtown.
10
"The leading contender is the Trail Blazers’ plan to create an entertainment district called “Jumptown.” Many feel that such a district, including their proposal for the Memorial Coliseum, would serve a narrow demographic and will privatize a space that was once shared and owned in common."

To clarify, the City is not currently considering any plans for the Rose Quarter district--i.e., Jumptown. There are several contenders to redevelop the Memorial Coliseum--narrowed down from 96 ideas submitted by the public--but the focus is on that building, not the district.

The Blazers have submitted a concept for the Coliseum (officially called the "Trail Blazers and Winterhawks Concept"), and the council will be deciding on Wednesday whether or not that plan and two others move to the full proposal phase. Their Coliseum concept is separate from any district plans, which we haven't begun to discuss yet.

It's an unorthodox process, but in response to community outcry on the Coliseum, we're dealing with the MC first and determining its future use. Then we'll turn to the district, and build off of prior planning work that calls for a mixed-use neighborhood. Finally, once those district plans are fully vetted by the public and the City, we'll be sure that the chosen MC use and the district plans mesh well together. Like Brian, I also normally would never argue with Onward Oregon, but in this case it seems they conflated the two parts of this process.

Would the Blazers like to be chosen to develop the Coliseum in this phase of the project, and then integrate it into the Jumptown idea? Sure. That's probably why they've released early concepts of Jumptown, to give an idea of context for their MC idea. But the process to dig into that concept, refine it, and make sure it's right for Portland hasn't even begun. I hope you all stay engaged once we begin that phase, later this summer and into fall.
11
Rey, if you read what I wrote, you will (hopefully) understand I wasn't advocating for anything. I simply know, from firsthand experience, that these Cordish developments are horrible blights on downtowns promising revitalization while only bringing a handful of people.

And if it doesn't work in Hampton Roads, VA, how do you expect it to compete with the myriad local-owned, quality places downtown and in the inner eastside?
12
Also, Rey, do you know something I don't about why that Rose Garden restaurant closed down? I can't imagine it was the HIT team...
13
Gosh, great comments - and this article is about to drop off the bottom of the blog, too.

@Stu - well written! I've talked to some of the Portland veterans groups, and they DO care about the bowl. But that's only a small percentage of the overall population of course - and I can't speak for what anyone else wants.

@Branch - Sorry, I don't know what restaurant it was. I know they are delicate businesses, though - two of the Hooters in town failed, and those places were standing-room only a lot of the time.

I haven't been to all of the cities you mentioned, but Seattle and Phoenix stadiums probably qualify for the type of soulless retail areas you're talking about - and they both seemed really popular and vibrant, even though it was with the baseball-cap and Bud Light crowd. Even in Portland, a lot of people drive F150s, you know? ;)

And sorry - I did think you were advocating something. Must have misread you.

I think Amy had a good point, that they aren't talking about anything outside the MC building itself, yet.

14
@Rey: This discussion has gotten good!

Anyway, my beef with the proposal comes not from objection to an "entertainment district" or any such proposal. I think, carefully crafted, that could be a beneficial and sustainable business district.

However, the Cordish proposal behind Jumptown is a specific type of entertainment district that is hemorrhaging money in Louisville, and I don't think doing much better in Austin and Hampton Roads. I know there's a local PR firm that initially worked for Cordish and brought the Blazers and Nike on-board to push the idea.

Based on the realities of these "______ Live!" districts (Hampton Roads Live!, Austin Live!, and Fourth Street Live!), I think we need to see a comprehensive economic analysis of those areas and some significant modeling of how that would translate to the Rose Quarter before I can, in good conscience, support this.

I just want us to be prudent with a very valuable central location.
15
@Branch and @Amy -

The proposal videos and presentations that I've seen all pitch their own vision, but I don't remember many ROI calculations. Has the kind of business analysis that Branch is asking for been done yet? Is that part of the "full proposal phase," that all three ideas are being considered for?
16
Reymont - the current "concept" stage is just that - thumbnail sketches of what they'd like to do with the building. Full financial details will come in the proposal stage, with those proposals due at the end of May. Financial viability has been named a key make-or-break criterion for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to use when evaluating the full proposals.
17
I really think people need to focus on how ALL of these proposals will stir up job creation. As a local Oregon contractor, I must say that my industry has been hit the hardest by this economy. During the Great Depression, the president of the United States helped to fund the construction of the Bonneville Dam. That helped to create the cheapest electrical services in the nation that fueled the largest shipbuilders to relocate to Portland. This created tens of thousands of jobs in Portland. Several people from the south moved to Oregon, including a large number of African Americans. The district where the Memorial Coliseum now stands was once a thriving African American community that worked in the shipyards. They lived and worked in the district which was nicknamed “Jumptown”. We have an opportunity to create the desperately needed jobs like we did during the Great Depression.

Fast forward to 2010…Portland has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation. There is an opportunity to create thousands of jobs. So far I’ve seen two of the three proposers pick non local General Contractors, and that is the one thing that absolutely no one is focusing on. “MARC” has teamed with Howard S. Wright, a Washington based General, and “VMAC” has teamed with Kiewit Corporation, an Omaha, Nebraska based contractor. The Blazers have not yet announced who they plan to use, but I’m counting on them to be responsible and choose a company that is truly owned and operated in Oregon. Given the track record of the Rose Garden, Turner (German Owned) / JE Dunn (Kansas City), they might go down the same path as the rest of the teams.

The Blazers are teaming with developer Cordish who on their last project, “Kansas City Lights”, located in Kansas City, had a lot of problems from the minority community, but at least they hired local Kansas based contractor, JE Dunn, to do the work. Most Oregonians don’t realize that while a lot of the General contractors such as Turner (German Owned), Skanska (Swiss Owned), JE Dunn (Kansas City), Howards S. Wright (Seattle Washington), Kiewit Corporation (Omaha Nebraska) have offices in Oregon but are not Oregon based.

This means that the profits the companies make, do not recirculate in the Oregon economy. When you’re talking about millions of tax dollars going to these projects, it is irresponsible to hire non-local contractors and negligent when you’re talking about non-American owned companies such as Turner and Skanska. We have a host of locally owned General Contractors with great track records including: Hoffman, Anderson, Walsh, Emerick, R&H to name a few. While my firm is too small to go after such a large project, I’d rather see local contractors when it comes to publicly funded projects, because the money stays in our economy. Let’s hope the Blazers don’t go down the same road they did when they built the Rose Garden hiring Turner/JE Dunn to be their contractor (keep our dollars in our COMMUNITY!!!). I love reading the Mercury, and I hope it will write an article about how many jobs are being taken from the qualified local General Contractors.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.