Comments

1
oh dear god they can't change it from made in oregon its been that way forever!!1!!
2
Oregon, Oregon?
3
Yeah I'm really not sure why it has to be changed now that the University has backed off.
4
"City of Oregon"?
5
Okay, don't worry about what it says. Really. This thing has advertised White Satin Sugar, White Stag Sportswear, and Made in Oregon. Each time it's changed people have freaked out and whined and worried about it. This is just another change, like the others.

What's important is that they finally get the damn thing to light up. I've been missing that bit of neon.
6
Steve R., guess you weren't around 20 years ago when it said "White Stag"? I always assumed it was changed because of a sponsorship from the touristy mall store chain, Made in Oregon. Be glad they're changing it.
7
What's with the god damn rose? Didnt Leonard already get his god damn giant neon rose on the historic waterfront bldg.? Why put another rose on the design? CLUTTER!
And aren't we now
the "city that works" anyway? Ripping off chicago's slogan?

We haven't been the "city of roses" for awhile. Please tell me there's not going to be a god damn rose on the sign.
8
@funknut - That's a common refrain here on Blogtown; Steve R was being sarcastic. You can tell by the all-lower-case and by the 1s as exclamation points, as if he was just SO emotional that he lost control of his hands. :)

Advantage: Steve R.
9
portland must be preserved exactly as it was when i moved here from ohio five yeras ago!!1!!
10
Vanessa - the sign will not have a neon rose on it, or say City of Roses at the bottom. When Denis and I connect, I can provide him with the accurate depiction that's been approved by the City's Historic Landmarks Commission.
11
So, will the everything-Sam-does-is-evil crowd:

A) Admit that this is a great solution to the issue, and that the council seem to have got it spot on for a change and deserve credit; or

B) Make up some crap about it being a waste of city money (even though the deal is paying for itself).

I'm guessing at B.
12
I'm fine with the outcome, but don't pretend it didn't cost anything - how much is the city spending on the parking lot upgrade to induce this "donation?"
13
Commenty Colin: Denis has an error - we are not converting a rooftop to a parking lot. The parking lot already exists, underneath the Burnside Bridge (sandwiched between the MAX stop and Naito Pkwy--it's where the Saturday Market used to happen, before they moved into the covered structure in Waterfront Park). Until now, the City has not captured any revenue from that lot. Now, through a lease agreement, we are.

The City did stripe the lot, but per the lease agreement, maintenance (cleaning, utilities, security, etc) is the tenant's responsibility.

There is also a currently-vacant retail space under the Burnside Bridge (on the other side of the MAX station). PDC built this as part of many neighborhood improvements, with the intent of enlivening the area around the MAX stop. PDC is giving this space to the City, who will in turn lease the space to the White Stag Block (who will in turn finally activate the space). This is another space that has not, until now, captured revenue for the City.
14
Cut and paste the link below to see the image of the sign with the copy changed to "Portland, Oregon."

http://commissionerleonard.typepad.com/com…
15
advantage: Oregon City.
16
@Stu: is Adams going to take credit for this? I thought it was Randy's deal.

@Amy: "PDC is giving this space to the City...." I know PDC likes to act like a private real estate business, but last I checked they were still part of the COP, nominally accountable to elected government, and primarily funded by TIF (property taxes diverted from the COP, county and school district revenue streams) and the COP general fund. What's the history of this parcel they're "giving" to the city? How did PDC acquire it? (I wouldn't be surprised if, in typical fashion, they paid one of their real estate cronies above market value for it, failed to find a sucker willing to invest in developing it, spent tax money developing it themselves and now just want to dump it back on the "City" since they can't make anything off it.)
17
Can we now have a moment of silence for the old Waddles sign?
18
Steve R seems to know a lot about city planning. He must have a journalism degree!
19
Steve: The history of the parcel under the bridge is that it's City Right of Way (like the parking lot). Per an objective of the Ankeny / Burnside Development Framework (and with input from that Framework's advisory committee)--to develop the area beneath the Burnside Bridge into an active use, to increase passive surveillance in a historically high crime area--PDC invested TIF dollars.

PDC invested not only into the retail space, but into the revitalization of the western MAX platform, including lighting and improvements to increase visibility around the stairs leading up to the Burnside Bridge. Total project cost (retail space, platform and stair improvements) were about $900K. Here's a link to the Ankeny/Burnside plan (PDF): http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cf…

PDC can't hold onto property long term, so is returning this to the City for leasing out.
20
Thanks, Amy. I'm actually glad to have my darkest suspicions of PDC dispelled (on this deal, at least).

But still, PDC isn't "giving this space to the City" as you originally asserted. It's been city property all along, and it was improved with city TIF money under PDC, then returned to (non-PDC) city control when the (nominally city-controlled) PDC couldn't find a suitable sucker to sell it to. This series of transactions is not a net gain for the city of Portland's overall balance sheet unless and until the space is actually leased and rent collected surpasses the TIF investments and ongoing upkeep costs. I hope that works out.

(It was, of course, an immediate net positive on the balance sheet of the PDC-crony contractors who took home $900K to develop the site risk-free.)

@Joaquin Phoenix, er, "The Darkness," I'm not a journalist, but I've been known to play one online. I wouldn't take a job with the city even if they'd have me. Since I'm *not* a journalist, I couldn't afford the pay cut. :)
22
personally, i'd rather it said portland, oregon.

i mean - who can Really confirm the birthing location of that deer anyway? 'made in oregon'?


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.