Is there going to be a lottery to see who gets to burn it down?

I used to sometimes play pinball in there, and watch people do karaoke.

I say: preserve it! Who's with me?!

Quick...someone put it on the National Historic Registry.

"We need a new face, a new face will draw more people in," he says.

This is what so many businesses think, and they couldn't be more wrong.

1) The doug fir, across the street, managed to revamp its entire kitchy modernist motel look into one of the city's most acclaimed bars. Does this place really need a new face?

2) The point about density is a big one, to me. This building is pretty closely located to numerous transportation projects (both present and future) and is in the heart of what all of the Portland planners are hoping will be the next significant area for development. I know this is only but one tiny parcel, but this is exactly the sort of place where incentives need to exist to encourage denser development as the older stock is demolished and newer buildings are constructed; Where's those PDC Burnside Bridgehead Urban Renewal bureaucrats when you need 'em? Tearing this down to replace it with a building of the exact same utility is a wasted opportunity, and it also makes Brian Libby and other preservationists throw a hissy fit about the loss of historic architecture (rightly so). Obviously, the owner owns the lot, and gets to do whatever he wants with it, and whatever he can afford with it, but while acknowledging that I don't understand the particulars of this case I feel that it expresses that something isn't working with the way the CoP/PDC/others are encouraging the sustainable, dense Portland I keep hearing about.

Also, it's worth the twenty blocks; if you want karaoke, just walk up to Chopsticks II on 27th and Burnside.

That place isn't a Denny's anymore?

Can nothing be torn down in Portland?

Memorial Coliseum? No.
Interstate and/or Sellwood bridge? No.
Portland Storage sign? No. http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
Old Denny's? No.

Old≠historic

"We need a new face, a new face will draw more people in"

Worked for me and my new Kenny Rogers-style facelift!

OK, Chùñdy, it's not Independence Hall. But it's an interesting old building, and tearing it down is a bonehead move. Should the owner be forced to preserve it? That's a tough one. If he wants to build something "Ultra Modern" that'll be pulled down in 2057 (if not sooner), maybe he should be allowed to. But I'll happily admit that he's stupid to do so.

That building's only two years older than I am, so calling it old isn't entirely painless for me, BTW.

Have drinks and occasionally eat there. While dingy and the food leaves something to be desired in terms of interest (so so burgers and greasy Chinese fare), it's a stopgap when the Doug Fir is crowded and when their already abysmal service becomes non-existent. It's what I call a refugee bar. People who are crowded out of more popular or trendy locales flock to it. Now where am I gonna go?

That proposed building is so bland. If the owners spent just 2/3rds of their demolition/construction budget on giving the existing building a down-to-the-bones remodel with well-designed retro-modernist furnishings (and kept the structure of the sign!), it'd get a lot of attention. The new building would barely be a blip on the radar.

Though right now I do love that the sign just says "and."

Oh lord.

Not to impugn the building owner's business sense, but if you think a mere facelift and three foods on a plate (ooooh!) will make that joint successful in a town with pre-existing, popular karaoke joints, tons of good restaurants, Doug Fir across the street then you are destined to fail.

Bringing back a Denny's would probably be a safer idea.

I remember Galaxy for having the most expensive shwill beer I’d ever seen. Someone accidentally knocked over a small pitcher of Bud & I remember someone else shouting “No!!! That crap was $11!”

What the fuck is going on in that neighborhood that they're not going to try to put apartments on a second story or something? Is it really economical to bother tearing down the existing building to replace it with slightly more floor area and more expensive shit?

Especially since we just spent a ton of money making Burnside/Couch a couplet. I thought the point was making the area more friendly to people (as opposed to automobiles). We really can't do any better than a single restaurant? Who is the developer on this?

I completely agree with Edie Bex. The building should be remodeled, NOT demolished. A "new face" would be achieved by bringing it back to its former mid-century glory. An interior remodel, a fresh coat of paint, and some re-designed landscaping would be a much more welcomed "new face" than an all-too-common-nowadays brick building that resembles a Romano's or Claim Jumper you'd see near a mega-mall. Please take a hint from Doug Fir/Jupiter and RESTORE this historical piece of roadside America, Mr. Foong.

Somebody has some deep pockets and no business sense. Just doing a good cleaning would help. An interior remodel would be required at the most. At least they did not tear it down to put pod space for imaginary food carts like SE30th and Hawthorne.