tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post3639552543369397272..comments2024-02-20T02:13:45.982-08:00Comments on arts dispatch: Dear Oregonian, The Rose Quarter is not 'jinxed'Barry Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16025142209441081323noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post-81663536845576899352010-12-07T13:46:55.204-08:002010-12-07T13:46:55.204-08:00I know everyone has good intentions, but I don'...I know everyone has good intentions, but I don't see a Cordish-style development working out at the Rose Quarter. <br /><br />I've been to KC's Light & Power District which is a Cordish project and it works very well... Across the street from the Arena - smack in the middle of a business district, theatres and theaters, near the arts district, the College Basketball Hall of Fame (or whatever).<br /><br />It just works because of all the synergy.. and if you don't like what's happening, just walk across the street or down the block. Kind of like Old Town-Downtown Portland.<br /><br />The problem with the Rose Quarter is that it'll always be "over there" on the other side of the river. It would take some pretty hot attractions and a lot more MAX/shuttle service to make it work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post-44896277585366578392010-11-27T11:46:24.312-08:002010-11-27T11:46:24.312-08:00Maybe in Seattle a better example would be Key Are...Maybe in Seattle a better example would be Key Arena, where the Sonics used to play until their game of chicken with the city, and on the edge of the major attractor that is Seattle Center. Not a perfect comparison because the surrounding Queen Anne area is a long-established neighborhood, not one that would have to be constructed. But it's about as close to downtown Seattle as the Rose Quarter is to downtown Portland, and it's definitely a thriving neighborhood. (When I was younger it was also cheap, but that's another story.) No slam dunk here -- ha ha -- but it seems to me that the geography of the Rose Quarter might override its big-box tenants to make it a viable and eventually highly desirable residential/mixed use neighborhood. And maybe waiting for that to evolve naturally as the economy and population pressures create a demand for it might be better than trying to force an artificial use on it now, when there's no real public pressure (as opposed to billionaire private money aided by let's-do-something public money) for anything to be done there at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13765688465211717384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post-125884678515913692010-11-26T22:06:10.108-08:002010-11-26T22:06:10.108-08:00Bob and MTC, thanks for joining in. Bob, I think y...Bob and MTC, thanks for joining in. Bob, I think you're right -- by letting the area around the RQ evolve, the role of Memorial Coliseum evolve, the needs of the city evolve, a clearer role for the RQ may emerge. I disagree that the Seattle stadium district has attracted much development, not even in nearby Pioneer Square, which (like our Old Town) has been difficult to figure out. I think the jury is still out on SF's baseball development, and in any case, it's isolated from the rest of the city in ways the RQ isn't.<br /><br />MTC, histrionic is exactly the right word. Do or die? Moment of truth? These are most often cliches that mask the need for more thinking and/or investigation. Histrionic is another word for bad theater, and it makes for bad "analysis," too. Thanks!Barry Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025142209441081323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post-3104687586428359262010-11-26T13:09:57.035-08:002010-11-26T13:09:57.035-08:00The O's argument that something needs to be de...The O's argument that something needs to be decided in the next six months or else nothing will be done for another 17 years struck me as histrionic. Really? It's now or never? I suppose that analysis is tied to expiration of the convention center urban renewal district in 2013. Mostly I suspect they are trying to set this issue up in a way that makes it easy to slam Sam Adams if nothing happens.MightyToyCannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14523823158706838012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7051425824673898715.post-3421059275993074292010-11-26T13:09:52.721-08:002010-11-26T13:09:52.721-08:00Since I moved to Portland, in 1974, I've lived...Since I moved to Portland, in 1974, I've lived mostly in close-in NE PDX and have spent a lot of time traveling through the Rose Quarter area. From the beginning it struck me as a great area for what it had, in fact, been before Memorial Coliseum was built: a residential neighborhood. Close to the city center, near the river, by the bridges -- not an area for single-family homes, probably, but ideal for condos, apartments, lofts, mixed-use: in other words, what in fact occurred in the Pearl District. Could a more east side, jeans-and-sweatshirt version of such a thing work there? It would certainly be an urban as opposed to a suburban or leafy-district style neighborhood. People who chose to live there would be embracing the busy-ness of the place -- the games, the conventions, the freeway, the bridges, the river. But that sort of neighborhood, done right, can be mighty attractive. It might also encourage the sort of small-scale, locally owned businesses that so help give Portland its character: no need for Cucina! Cucina!, thank you very much, Mr. Allen.<br /><br />If such a thing were indeed the goal, maybe the best thing to do would be to simply let the area lie fallow until the market is ready for that sort of transformation (as it proved NOT to be in the South Waterfront, which might have followed too closely on the heels of the Pearl). An aim like this would also make a decision on what to do with Memorial Coliseum less important (although not UNimportant), because MC wouldn't be the lynchpin of the area, it'd be just one piece. It might also suggest, though, that the idea of an MC as a recreational center would get a step up, because it would have a ready-made neighborhood to provide a base of users for what would also be a regional facility.<br /><br />Barry, your point is well-taken: can a stadium area also be a neighborhood area? To a certain extent Seattle's two-stadium district is, and it even has a train depot to add a third behemoth. But it's spread out: You don't really have much right across the street from the stadiums (which are larger than MC/Rose Garden combined). The area around San Francisco's baseball park seems to thrive. What about Wrigley Field in Chicago? It seems to have a neighborhood around it. I know the situation's different in the Bronx where Yankee Stadium is: pretty much a dead zone, as I understand it, although I've never been there.<br /><br />At any rate: should the conversation shift from "development" (which seems to mean attractor businesses to bring in more visitors) to "neighborhood," which means a place where people live and amenities naturally follow? Might that help move the Rose Quarter off of its eternal Square One?<br /><br />One thing left out of this scenario, of course, is money. And as we all know, money usually wins.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13765688465211717384noreply@blogger.com