Save Memorial Coliseum Rally Tomorrow Night!

Comments

1
They want to preserve a building that will cost tens of millions to renovate a building that the city loses half a million on and is long past its usefulness.

This save the coliseum group is a bunch of real idiots.
2
dirty old building. Where was this noise when it was quietly rotting, and who is proposing to gift the millions of dollars in mere upkeep that will be needed to keep it standing?
3
You two last commenters are either nuts or just plain ignorant.

Blacked out, the Coliseum management deal has been structured all along for it to die a slow death. It's structured so Oregon Arena Corporation has incentive to make it break even, but actually a dis-incentive to making it profitable. Read the research by William Macht, associate director of Portland State University's Center for Real Estate. The OAC also has a dis-incentive in the deal toward making repairs.

If the city had invested in the Coliseum properly and structured a detail that gave it a chance to thrive, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Ninj, calling the Coliseum a "dirty old building" has nothing to do with its architectural significance. By your rationale, we should tear down the Taj Mahal and Westminster Abbey and the Empire State Building because they're dirty and old too.

The "tens of millions" you speak of for upkeep would also be a drop in the bucket compared to what the city is planning on spending to demolish the building and build something new.

This discussion shouldn't be like just some AM radio station where you can just pipe up with comments from your over-stuffed easy chair without doing the work and looking at the numbers and history.

If people can come up with a valid argument against saving the Coliseum and its rich architectural/social history, that's one thing. But there is not one molecule of substantive argument to what Ninj and BlackedOut are saying.

BlackedOut indeed.

Save Memorial Coliseum!
4
Brian,

Actually judging by similar stadiums in different markets it will cost the city somewhere around $30 million to upgrade the stadium. If they want to gut the inside and make it a community center or aquatic center like they did back in 2001 the estimate in 2001 was $50 million.

So you're cool with spending between $30-$60 million on the MC because you think its a pretty building?

A new stadium that will have a use will cost about the same as doing the work the MC needs. I would hardly call that a drop in the bucket Brian.
I
The MC has outlived its usefulness. It's a fracking stadium. They're built to host events and make money. It doesn't host significant events and its a money pit. Tear that building down.

5
Memorial coliseum is an ugly monstrosity like most architecture of the modernist period, a failed era of anti-human boxes. Like Pruitt-Igoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe), it should be torn down.
6
Boy, BlackedOut, I'm glad you don't live in a city with a lot more historic architecture. Imagine if the Romans had listened to you about the Coliseum!

Calling historic first-rate architecture "pretty" is a slap in the face to all the artists and architets in the world. I suppose you think the Mona Lisa is an OK painting by some old guy? Maybe we should give the canvas to a kid to fingerpaint on.

When you say the MC "doesn't host significant events and its [sic] a money pit," you may be missing the important point I just made in the last comment: the MC deal is structured for it to fail. Saying it's a money pit is totally, unequivocally untrue. Or if it's true, the MC is a money pit solely so its demolition could be justified.

Just how much is Mr. Paulson paying you?
7
Green Peas, by your rationale, we'd tear down most of the buildings in this city and every other major metropolis.

If you don't like Modernism, even the kind that has won universal acclaim and awards, that's fine.

But this isn't about your tastes--or mine. Look at the organizations lining up behind the Coliseum preservation effort: the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the US Green Building Council, the American Institute of Architects.

If everyone was as dismissive as you about whole eras of art and architecture, we'd be living in the flipping Dark Ages.
8
It's inhuman and unnaproachable as a building. Brutalism in a box. I have reason to be in there several times a year and I never leave feeling anything other than in need of a shower.
9
Been in there once and came away with the feeling that the building is ghetto and needs to be improved.
10
Ninj, is it the panoramic view of the entire downtown skyline through a wall of glass that makes you feel you need a shower?

Memorial Coliseum is all about transparency. If you feel trapped in there, maybe it's your own skin.

To the other commenter, verbosely titled "3.SrIZgXIn-94wlXob+TM*mLQxOXv^53.CJPq8&n&9T....", the building feels "ghetto", in your delicate words, because it's in disrepair. That disrepair comes from a faulty management deal between the city of Portland and Oregon Arena Corporation that encourages OAC to let the building fall into disrepair. Disrepair is a totally fixable problem.

You guys are arguing that a diamond is turning into cubic zirconium because it's a little tarnished. All we need is a little Tarn-X and some TLC, and for the Coliseum to have a fair chance - one it hasn't been given since the Rose Garden was built.

Any more slow-pitch softballs you want knocked over the fence?
11
> Taj Mahal and Westminster Abbey and the Empire State Building

You cannot SERIOUSLY be comparing the Coliseum to those structures. Thank you for destroying whatever credibility you ever had as an architect. Or architectural critic.

Besides, we haven't heard from the most important person in all this. WHAT DOES THOMAS LAUDERDALE THINK??!?

And, of course, what an excellent scheduling job you've done with this "rally". Right when the Blazers are playing again. You're sure to get a representative crowd of future users of the Rose Quarter. Wait, could it be that you did that on purpose? DIABOLICAL.
12
Garrett, what are your thoughts on the front pager in the Oregonian today?
13
Brian -

If it's saved, who's going to pay for the needed repairs and renovations? Is there a private partner to invest some of their own money so this is not all on the taxpayers?

Most of the existing uses of the coliseum are duplicated by other buildings within the city, most within walking distance of the MC. Beyond the architecture, which is a matter of taste, why is this building worthwhile for the city to invest in?
14
Mr. Voluptuous, the Blazer game is at 7 and our rally for the Coliseum is at 6. I will NOT be missing this game, nor will the others that come. We also plan to have a TV at the rally tuned to the pregame show.
15
Blabby my old friend! How the hell are you chap?

Who will pay for PGE Park if nobody is there to rent it? Answer that question and then I'll answer yours.

Brian- So you're still saying its worth $30-$60 million to fix up the MC rather than tearing it down? It's a building nobody uses...especially not the Portland architecture community.

I know what good architecture is and I don't give a rats ass if you think the MC is pretty. It's not. Its a rotting piece of crap that has outlived its usefulness.
16
Obi, if the Coliseum is saved, we'll need a new management deal that gives the operator an actual financial incentive for it to be successful. The Davis Cup tennis people who staged the event in this supposed full-of-squalor dump spoke very highly of the Coliseum. Imagine how popular it could be if the arena was actually allowed to be given upkeep?

Mr. Voluptous, much as you may have nice curves (or so your name indicates - who are you really?), please note that I was not saying Memorial Coliseum is equal architecturally to the masterpieces I cited. Instead, I was taking your flawed logic to its ultimate conclusion to show why it's faulty.

The point isn't that Memorial Coliseum is one of the world's great masterpieces of architecture. It's that there is a wide spectrum of people who believe that is one of the great architectural landmarks of Portland. My exaggeration was meant to prove that point, but the logic is still the same.

OK, Memorial Coliseum is not one of the world's greatest landmarks. But it doesn't have to be held to that standard to be preserved. IT IS a landmark of Portland, and a wonderful example of midcentury modern architecture. And vastly better architecturally than the Rose Garden.

When you figure in the Coliseum's faulty management deal with incentives for failure and disrepair, and you figure how it's attached to a plan to build a minor league baseball stadium that can't be expanded to major league (not enough space there), and when you look at how the city could build that baseball stadium on the site of the Rose Quarter parking garage instead of the Coliseum (with underground parking), there's just no room to argue against the building's preservation. But feel free to continue the futile attempts. :)
17
So Brian how often do you go to hawks games?
If we keep the Coliseum can we bring in the cat fanciers association?!
18
Brian,

Again I ask, how are repairs and renovations paid for?
19
Mr. Libby, you seem well versed in this topic, and I commend your efforts to save a building that I feel has been long ignored in the scheme of things.

However, unless there is a specific guarantee that you could remove the MC from the grip of Vulcan/RG control so that you could affectively market it, I fear that your idea will fade into oblivion. As long as they have control of the MC and they get 100 percent of revenues for things booked there, there's little incentive to book the MC unless there is a conflict.

I'd love to see the building get revitalized and returned for a former glory, but at least numbers wise, it seems that the cost of fixing it up or raising it and putting a ball park there are similar, and if control of the events means that booking there will be hit and miss, I'd rather see the MC go and get a venue in there that not only helps the Beavers in the long term, but gives the veterans a memorial that truly honors all of them and their service.
20
Brian,

An expandable MLB stadium is not required. First there isn't an owner. There also isn't a stadium. To acquire both there would need to be an owner with between $500 million and $1 billion to blow on a MLB team. That's financial reality. Your argument that the future ballpark at the Rose Quarter can't be expanded is stupid. MLB IS NOT happening here. Do you really think there would be an owner insane enough to try and negotiate a $500 million dollar publically funded stadium after seeing what's happening for $85 million on 2 stadiums?

Your argument as insane as the idea an owner moving a MLB team to Portland.
21
Hatzman,

I confess: I don't go to Winter Hawks games and have hardly ever been to the Coliseum in recent years.

But that's not a suitable argument on your part. Am I prevented from commenting on the architecture of jails unless I'm an inmate? Prevented from discussing the preservation of a church unless I worship there? I'm a lifelong Oregonian who grew up with the Coliseum and have attended scores of events there over the years, but even that isn't necessary for giving one the right to speak about this.

Obi,

If the Coliseum management deal could be restructured so that there is no longer dis-incentive towards holding lots of events there and making a profit, the repairs could be paid for in future revenues. Also, if there is supposed to be public investment on the minor league park that would replace the stadium, the funds could instead go to the Coliseum.

Finding profitability for the Coliseum is doable. Taking our efforts back after we destroy a landmark is not.
22
BlackedOut, most Portlanders I talk to believe that our city is ultimately a major league town.

It's true that we have an owner and funding in place for the Portland Beavers minor league team right now and not for major league. However, since most Portlanders want a major league team in the long run, I say it's silly to build an expensive minor-league park on such prime central city land.
23
A FUCKING QUATIC CENTER!
24
But, Mr. Libby, I think the point that most of us are making is that a lot of us attend events at the MC, and see the state it is in right now, and while it's lovely from the outside, it's a craphole inside. And it needs some attention in order to bring it to its former glory.

But since the cost of bringing it to that is similar to actually building a baseball park there, and it fits the footprint and also takes care of other needs, why not replace it and truly revitalize an area that really needs it
25
Brian,

Are you kidding? I realize lots of people want a MLB team. I do too and spent a lot of efforts trying to bring one here. It's sad to me it's not going to happen but that's the reality.

Team cost: $300-500 million (depending on the team)

Stadium cost: $400-$1 billion (depending on how bare bones the stadium will be or not. Costs are always going up so the ceiling could be more)

The stadium will be completely funded by the public. All costs will have to be assumed by the city. No owner would move here for less when there are plenty of other cities that would do that in a heartbeat.

There are not enough large corporations in Portland to afford a MLB team. Someone has to buy the luxury boxes and expensive seats around the field for the team to work financially.

On top of that we'd be a small market team and perennial losing team. Boy that'd be fun to go to right? We'd need to get used to records like 63-99, 70-93. Fun huh?

You may *talk* to people that think we are ultimately a major league town. They're as delusional on that as you if you ignore reality.
26
Brian,

So what you are saying is that we should make the arena profitable by restructuring the incentives to make money but not do anything else to that building?

Are you aware that right now that building costs PDX taxpayers $500,000 a year just to operate and keep it's aging systems somewhat working?

Any serious discussion about the MC must include tens of millions of dollars to upgrade it so it becomes a usable facility.

Where is your private partner willing to make that investment?

Or do you want the taxpayers to pay for it's improvements?

Also - if you list it on the Historic Registry doesn't that prevent any upgrades on the building thus purposefully allowing it to fall into further disrepair.

Sports stadiums are not the same as historic buildings. If you are half the architect you profess yourself to be you would know that. Stadiums have shelf lives and undergo significant wear and tear due to high usage. If they can tear down Yankee Fracking Stadium they can deconstruct the MC.

And where have all these architects been for the past 20 years as the MC has fallen into disrepair? You haven't held a single conference there. You don't go to games. You haven't supported it at all. You have admired it from your Pearl Condos.
27
Garrett, why were you Blacked Out? Did you get uncivil?

How will we pay for the last PGE park improvements if Paulson gets all huffy and leaves? That's a good question. We'll just have to eat the costs.

Now, please answer this question: with Paulson only covering 1/6 of the intial cost (Oregonian), how will we pay for the other 5/6 which amounts to more than we owe on the last PGE improvements?

Remember, even with the teams staying, he's covering only 1/6 of the cost. That's the initial cost, not counting the interest that will greatly multiply the eventual costs.

So if you're concerned with how to pay off the current debt on PGE, why aren't you concerned about how to pay off the much larger debt which will result from the stadiums project?
28
Brian, keep up the good fight. The negative commenters are all Timbers Army members, and are essentially tools for Merritt Paulson. Probably not paid, mind you. But tools nonetheless. They will spin any argument to fit their selfish needs, and if that doesn't work they will bully you like the soccer hooligans that they are. They are the last people I'd want representing Portland in any capacity. They are willing to demolish a Portland landmark just to have their little toy. They could easily ask their patron Paulson to try something different, but they don't. Are they even thinking about the greater good of the city? They don't care about Portland at all. Bad people. I used to like the Timbers, but now I hope they fail. There is always the Pilots.
29
Why don't we transform MC into the open-air live music venue the Blazers want? I'm not saying MC can't be altered - just not demolished. Watch for a press conference at city hall today at 4PM for possibly more on this.
30
the Timbers Army yahoos are OK, just mostly drunk and missing far too many brain cells.

like them i want MLS here in a bad way, but i'm not going to sell my, or my cities, soul for that to happen. they are sounding more and more like single-issue republicans. it's like you could agree with them on everything else, but if you're pro-choice then you're evil. and damned.

any AAA stadium built that cant be upgraded to MLB standards is foolish and shortsighted. how the fuck can anyone say it's impossible to consider a team relocating here? where was Merritt ten years ago? you cannot say that there wont be some PDX sugar daddy moving here, or even created here. maybe uncle Phil retires and needs a hobby. point is, not planning for the possibility now would absolutely kill any chance in the future.
31
> The negative commenters are all Timbers Army members, and are essentially tools for Merritt Paulson.

Uh, not true. I could give a rat's ass about the Timbers or Merritt Paulson or the MLS. I just like the idea of a new minor league stadium to bring some excitement and energy to a neighborhood that I live in and that could use it.

But hey, thanks for questioning our motives. Nothing like an ad hominem attack when you don't have an argument!
32
@eric cantona

Considering the way Merritt Paulson has been treated by some people in the city and the process he's gone through for $85 million and 2 stadiums that's what's killed the chances of MLB. Also in a post above I wrote about the myriad of reasons why MLB isn't coming here. So no...it's not shortsighted to just want to build a AAA park.

10 Years ago the city of Portland was used as a bargaining chip for MLB to get a better deal on a stadium in Washington which resulted in National Stadium that cost over $600 million in public funds.

Most involved in that bid have come out and said in hindsight they were used by Bud Selig simply because they were the only other city really vying for that team. MLB never had any intentions to move the Nationals here.
33
@ blackedout

sofuckingwhat. do you have a magic ball that you look into to predict the future? PDX is changing, and fast. i think there's no reason why a project of that size and scope could be tenable in the next decade.

we're supposed to be this green mecca, and i applaud that notion. tearing down one facility to build another is antithema to that ideal. building anything that could be obsolete in the foreseeable future is too.
34
Garrett, you've been claiming for weeks that Paulson has "guaranteed the bonds."

The Oregonian reports in detail this morning why that isn't true.

Would you please have the integrity to acknowledge that you've been wrong this whole time?
35
> tearing down one facility to build another is antithema to that ideal. building anything that could be obsolete in the foreseeable future is too.

Progress does not have to be anathema (or antithema, whatever) to green sensibilities. What you are saying is that we should never improve. Should we not tear down old, inefficient buildings to save energy? Should we just build somewhere else and contribute to sprawl? Are we stuck with the current set of buildings we have, forever?
36
@Blabby

That article does nothing to change my statement. For example the "numerous math errors" they claim are, On page 28, the projected attendance adds up to 210,000. On page 29, the projected attendance is listed as 210,900. On page 31, the projected attendance is listed as 210,800. Big frackin deal? Hardly. The article certainly had an agenda. We'll see how it pans out.

@eric cantona

I'm aware that things change. I don't have a magic 8 ball...I'm just going on history here. Portland isn't going to magically produce a bunch of large corporations required to have a MLB team. The city is not going to give an owner $400-$1 billion to build a MLB baseball stadium.

So I'd rather just put in a financially viable AAA stadium in now so the AAA team we have leaves just like the former AAA team did before in 1993 when SLC built them a suitable stadium and the previous AAA baseball Beavers did in 1974 when they couldn't make things work in Multnomah Stadium (PGE Park).

Not acting because a MLB owner *may* happen in the future is ridiculous. Its like this. I *may* win the lottery in the same sense that Portland *may* get a MLB owner to move a team here. Why would I invest in a sensible house now and enjoy it or wait until I win the lottery so I can buy a mansion.
37
>Should we not tear down old, inefficient buildings to save energy?

no, we should reuse/repurpose as much as is reasonable.

> Should we not tear down old, inefficient buildings to save energy?

there are certainly cases where that would be sensible, but you can also improve an inefficient building's performance using far fewer resources and energy than building new, in most cases.

> Should we just build somewhere else and contribute to sprawl?

seriously? did you get that from anything i said?

> Are we stuck with the current set of buildings we have, forever?

only the ones you don't approve of.

> What you are saying is that we should never improve.

nice. your mind reading abilities are stellar. what i AM saying is that we should improve what we have before we go using more resources to destroy and rebuild. that's one major piece of sustainable thinking.
38
oh, and please cram your pompous dictionary up your ass, sir.
39
@ blackedout

i was in no way proposing "not acting". just not at the expense of the MC.

would you argue that if this stadium goes forward at another location with the acreage for an MLB upgrade that we should not develop it for that eventuality?
40
The baseball stadium should be put where it fits well, with transit, etc. Upgrade to MLB should be WAY secondary to that and a host of other concerns.

In the 20+ year history that cities have been building MLB upgrades into design elements of minor league ballparks, not a single minor league stadium has ever fulfilled it's destiny of being upgraded for MLB.

Zero.

The evidence is that it's not worth that investment.
41
Disclaimer - I am:

A Timbers Season ticket holder
Excited about MLS - no way the Timbers survive without it

That said, the rush to tear down the MC is insane. MLS can be accommodated at PGE Park. So can AAA Baseball. At the same time. There is adequate room at the left field/center left field walls for collapsible bleachers. Don't think that's possible? Go sit behind the basket at a Blazers game and look carefully at what you are sitting on. If they can do that for 50 home games per year, I assume the Timbers could swing that for 20 home dates.

The City's attorney has stated that there is no legal requirement by MLS for a soccer-only venue. That is a negotiating stance by Paulson of what he wants out of the deal. If I'm Paulson, why the hell would I put my personal guarantee on the line for the current proposal (unless I have outs...)? Why not go the more conservative route in a venue that works today and could be even better with MLS?

Don't get me wrong. I love what Paulson has done with the Timbers and Beavers, and am glad he wants to improve the product on the field, but... MC/Blazers/Cordish needs to be separated from MLS/Paulson/Beavers. If MC is going to be torn down, there better damn well be a plan for that area that is better than a disney-fied collection of entertainment venues for the douchebag set. Has anyone seen that plan yet? Meaning, other than the 5 minute sketch overlays that the City slapped up on the wall?

What's the rush? Why can't we see what we're getting in return for the MC before the decision is made to tear it down?
42
BlackedOut--if you can't even admit that the news coverage about this raises legitimate questions, you are clearly on the payroll. If so, maybe you have answers for all the apparent holes in the plan. We'd all be interested to hear.
43
@eric cantona

If they had a suitable site where they could build a stadium with a major league footprint then yes. The problem is the only viable one is the Blanchard site, to make that happen they'd have to relocate the Portland Public Schools building. Time wise that doesn't work.

They aren't moving fast on this project. For 15 years they have done numerous studies commissioned by the city on what to do with the MC. This is the first time in 15 years there has been a private investor willing to put any money at all into the Rose Quarter.

The MC certainly was a loud arena back in the day and I realize the memories many people have of that building. Lots of folks had the same memories of Yankee Stadium. It's an arena folks. Once they outlive their usefulness they're supposed to be taken down and replaced by something else.
44
@BO:

Not arguing with your last paragraph (yet). Question is, before they tear it down, aren't you at least interested in what exactly they'll be putting back in its place, and what the public tab for that might be? So far, that is not at all clear.
45
@ Blackedout

lents. the omsi site. one of several community college campuses. someone elsewhere recently mentioned south waterfront.

@ Obi

i'm aware of that fact. i'm guessing there have not been a lot of them developed in this manner. and more importantly, just because it hasn't worked for others is no reason to dismiss it as an unreasonable option.

46
pdxMB -

I'd argue that the effort and promise to relocate the Beavers from PGE Park was necessary to secure the MLS expansion award. MLS passed on Portland in 2007 because of the stadium situation, among other factors.

While there may not be a document detailing it (which was the actiual question posed by Nick Fish - about a document, not a general policy), it is something that MLS wants and it is something that many think makes better sense for both of the teams and the city in the long run.

47
i agree w/ Obi on this point: MLS and AAA should not coexist in civic stadium. i would, however, think they could coexist for the first two season so a more reasonable and sustainable option can be found for the beavers. let's slow down the process and get it right.

the stadium as a soccer facility will be second to none in terms of character, urbanity, and most of all, noise. it will attract great teams from europe and south america for pre-season friendlies. it will be a huge source of civic pride in ways AAA will never be able to replicate.

if MLS takes a walk because of this issue i will be pissed. i'm not going to vent my anger at the preservationists and architects that the children on soccercityusa have taken to task. i will direct my rage right at Sam Adams for being an arrogant shit and completely misjudging his constituency. and being an asshole. that too.
48
Seems like people are arguing about irrelevancies here. The MLS coming to Portland is NOT dependent on pulling down the Memorial Colliseum. They can quite happily convert PGE Park to a four-sided stadium (for both soccer and American football), and just let the Beavers die (or more likely, take a couple of years off until a new stadium is built elsewhere). The city doesn't want that to happen, nor do most other people, but it could; and given the economics, the MLS Timbers will quite rightly get priority over the Beavers.

So whether you like soccer or not doesn't even come into the equation.

Now, the matter at hand: the city wants to build a new AAA baseball stadium, to keep the Beavers in town. Personally I don't agree with that, but that's the reality so we have to deal with it. They have around 30 million to do it, if they build it in the Rose Quarter (significantly less than that if it's not built in an urban renewal area, which the Rose Quarter already is). To do it in that area of town, they have a straight choice between knocking down a parking garage, or the cheaper option of knocking down the Memorial Colliseum. So what it comes down to is this: do you love the MC enough to swallow tens of millions of dollars more tax-payers money being spent saving it?


PS BTW - ignoring the views of one special interest group, the Timbers fans, and then paying attention to the views of a much smaller special interest group, mid-century architecture fans, is pure hypocrisy and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
49
To all of you complaining that Brian doesn't have a plan to pay for renovations of the Coliseum, the MLS plan doesn't have a financial plan that really pays for that project either.

Read the analysis from the Oregonian. The City is still exposed to great risk when it comes to the ballparks because Paulson's proposal doesn't cover the existing debt on PGE, and Paulson's forecasts of financials for the team remind me of a DotCom business plan - all smoke and mirrors and made up numbers. Its very likely that not enough revenue will be generated to pay all the debt. That means the money to pay off the debt must come from the City's general fund.

Before ANY proposal is approved we need a much more thorough analysis of the costs and financing. The MLS proposal is a backroom deal on the fast track, and that means taxpayers lose.
50
@ Stu: "ignoring the views of one special interest group, the Timbers fans, and then paying attention to the views of a much smaller special interest group, mid-century architecture fans, is pure hypocrisy and will be treated with the contempt it deserves."

i'd argue that you're missing a very big point here. personally, i have no great love for the MC as a piece of architecture. i do understand it's significance as a piece of architectural history. but, more importantly, it is a facility that could be used for a great number of things. the Blazers could put their idiotic "B&T LIVE!!!" district in it. then we could all continue to not go there.

that'd be my special interest group.
51
@eric cantona

OMSI site is coincidentally owned by by OMSI and would add a ton of money to this project in a time when they're looking to cut money from the project. You also have big transportation problems. Lents would work for a AAA park but it won't work for an MLB park. No way they tear down a community college site for a baseball stadium. South Waterfront is a good idea if it's city owned land. They'll probably have to work on the transportation too and I'm not sure if they have the ability for another URD down there. The bonding capacity may be capped.

I still think MC is coming down one way or another. New stadium or not the Allen group wants it to go away and have mentioned on several occasions during this process.
52
Obi - i understand very well that there are difficulties at any site chosen, MC/RQ included. sustainability and preservation are not always going to save money. at least not in the short-term. add to that other issues that don't have monetary value (aesthetics, history, etc.), and there is significant public benefit. cheap and easy is not always the right direction to head, and can sometimes make you itchy downstairs.

i had not heard that Lents was unable to accommodate MLB. can you tell us why?

finally, FUCK Paul Allen and the group he rode in on.
53
EC - if there was a proposal on the table to reuse the Coliseum, and bring in enough money to make up the difference between demolishing it and demolishing the parking garage, then I'd be all for it. I suspect the council would be as well. I think the waterpark would be a great use for the ugly building. But there isn't a viable proposal on the table. And there hasn't been for years. At some point you have to stop saying "I'm waiting for a better alternative" and admit that there isn't one on the horizon.

(does anyone else besides me laugh every time they hear something fifty years old being described as "historic"???)
54
Stu, you're not alone, but you're definitely a bit dim. Sol Guggenheim Museum, Epcot Center, Geisel Library, Sagrada Familia; the list goes on.
55
@eric cantona

Lents is a residential neighborhood. In order to make that site work for a major league stadium they would have to purchase about another city block of houses to add enough additional parking for MLB games. Then they'd have to deal with all the folks who refused to leave their houses. Look how much parking the Rose Quarter uses for 20,000 fans during a Blazer game and the public transportation is available is about as good as it gets.

The 4 or 5 parking garages are full, all the side streets are full, the parking lots at various businesses around the Rose Quarter are all full at $15 a pop. The Lents site just isn't a viable place to have 40,000 MLB fans descend on the stadium for 81 games a year.

Additionally they want to recycle as much of the MC as possible for the new stadium.

Yes fuck Paul Allen. I despise his business policies but its the simple fact he has the money to do what he wants. He wants the MC gone and I can't say I blame him. It's an eyesore. Seriously though...quit with the history argument. They literally just tore down the house that Ruth built. If they can tear down Yankee stadium because it outlived its usefulness. There is absolutely zero reason to preserve the MC for historical reasons.

56
Hey!
Why not bring it up to code to become a homeless shelter and social service center?
It's right on the transit line and close enough to Max and downtown to make it efficient without affecting traffic as another sports venue would. I can't imagine what traffic would be like around that area if it too had events like the Rose Quarter would.
Besides, couldn't folks wanting to go watch a sporting event be willing to just hop in the Escalade and drive somewhere else? Why not relieve some of that potential traffic congestion and enhance Portland's livability in more realistic way than a handout to the sports/events industry?