Major League Baseball in Portland
Randy Leonard
If a gun was held to my head and I was given 10 seconds to name 5 Major League Baseball teams, I would ask that the trigger be pulled. Just get it over with, quick.
I do not watch baseball on TV (sometimes I will watch a World Series game IF it is interesting…meaning game 4 or higher and it is a tied series), at PGE park or anywhere else in Portland.
I consider myself to be a fairly typical Portlander in that regard.
I have, however, when in other major US cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati and Boston, gone to MLB games. I found myself getting caught up in the excitement that a MLB game brought to every day folks in those cities. I could not tell you who the players were and I did not have a favorite team. I do remember it was fun.
I will admit to becoming a willing participant in the mass ambiance of excitement for that evening’s game. There was something about the civic event that was an evening baseball game in those cities that was infectious. I would, based on those experiences, go to MLB games if we had a team in Portland.
I consider myself to be a fairly typical Portlander in that regard as well.
I have read with annoyed interest the opposition of some to building a MLB stadium in Portland. They cite the high cost and other more pressing needs our city has than building a MLB stadium in Portland.
Thank God none of these people were around to advise President Franklin Roosevelt how he might get this country out of the Great Depression in 1932.
FDR understood that to get the economy going again, the US had to create jobs. As a result, he created the largest public works projects in the history of the US. That effort resulted in mass public construction projects that we benefit from to this day including structures such as Timberline Lodge. FDR knew that putting people to work who were otherwise unemployed created wealth for the entire community that those workers were employed in.
If I remember my PSU economics class accurately, when a dollar is spent it has a multiplier effect of 3. In other words, for every dollar that is spent the effect on the economy is three dollars of economic activity that would otherwise have not occurred.
A person with a job will buy a house, car, groceries, clothes and the other necessities of life. All of those businesses that sell those goods and services benefit by that person having a job by a factor of $3 to every $1 spent. That person also pays taxes on the income he or she makes on that job. Those taxes help fund our vital public services including our schools.
Having said that, the plan to build a MLB stadium uses no funds -except about $10 million in urban renewal district funds- of the $350 million cost to build the stadium that would otherwise go to funding local services or schools. The vast majority of the financing is from dollars that do not compete with any services provided by the state, county, schools or City of Portland. These are dollars that would otherwise not be generated except for the construction of the stadium, such as a ticket surcharge to go to a baseball game or income tax revenue derived from the MLB baseball player’s salary.
The $350 million spent to build the stadium will create jobs that will benefit our entire economy more than $350 expenditure to build the stadium. The construction workers will purchase goods and services in our community that otherwise would not have been purchased. Those businesses that enjoy those sales will employ people and buy goods and services that otherwise would not have occurred.
In my opinion, this part of the MLB stadium debate is resolved in favor of it’s construction because it relies on the basic economic theory employed by FDR to bring the United States out of the depression in the 1930’s. I believe, therefore, that the financing and construction of the stadium could make economic sense.
However, it is after the decision to construct a stadium to bring MLB to Portland that I feel a slight chill tingling down my spine.
I have made it clear –repeatedly- to those working on the MLB stadium plan that my support is “site specific”. As people in downtown Portland often do, they nod and smile but suffer from hearing loss.
I believe that the narrow issue of just building a stadium pencils out IF it is sited in a location that makes it as easy as possible for fans to get to and from the stadium. In my opinion, the stadium should be built in an area of the city that allows for light rail service, enough potential construction capacity to build adequate ingress and egress to and from a properly sized parking lot and off ramps and on ramps from a freeway dedicated to the stadium. In general the site should allow for the infrastructure to be designed to fit a stadium that would allow for up to 50,000 people to get in and out of the stadium in the most painless manner possible. That is not feasible at a site, such as the main Post Office location downtown, whose infrastructure could never be constructed to allow for anything close to being adequate to move the numbers of people who would potentially go to a MLB game in Portland.
I have recommended that two specific sites on the east side be analyzed for a possible stadium location because each have more than enough room for a stadium and sufficient parking. Additionally, each of the sites could accommodate light rail and adequate roads to provide for the efficient movement of cars in and out of each of the two sites.
I cannot support a MLB stadium plan that does not provide the most efficient means possible to move fans in and out of a MLB stadium. In my opinion, that will be the key to the success or failure of Major League Baseball in Portland.
It is unfortunate that the legitimate benefits of bringing a Major League Baseball team to Portland are being mischaracterized by some for political reasons. The benefits of creating the jobs by constructing the stadium are likewise being ignored while the funding of the stadium construction is being misrepresented by some in our community who know better.
It is time for the Mayor to open up this discussion to include not just the public but also her fellow members of the council so that these issues can be flushed out in the open.
If the supporters of MLB are counting on my support, they must address the concerns I have raised here to get it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:30 p.m.
Aug 27, '04
I remember one of the possible sites you've mentioned in the past being fairly farther out from the Central City than the others most downtowners focused on. What was the other site?
10:34 p.m.
Aug 27, '04
It's funny that you contextualize some of the issues in the way you do at the start. Of all sports, I adore baseball and the experience of it. I can't stand nearly every other professional sport. My own skepticism about baseball in Portland has been less about the cost than about the question of whether or not Portland could support an MLB team. I say "funny" because I also, if we had a team, would likely end up going to games whenever I could afford to do so.
One other point about those to whom the line "the funding of the stadium construction is being misrepresented by some in our community who know better" could be construed to refer, and in this case I'll name the one name I'm thinking of. In his criticisms of the Mayor's funding plan, Commissioner Francesconi among various things is pitching this line about how he simply could never support such a thing until and unless there was an owner in the mix.
Problem for him is, that's exactly what the Mayor's plan itself says, as far as I know. So rhetorically: What's his beef with the proposal, then?
Aug 27, '04
B!X- The first site you alluded to is known as the "Freeway Lands" site. It is a 110 acre parcel at the base of Mt. Scott.
The second site is currently Colwood Golf course on approx NE 71st and Columbia Blvd. It has recently gone into the hands of some trustees who would like to develop it into something else...a baseball stadium maybe?
These are just two examples. I am convinced that there are other potential sites as well that would allow for good ingress and egress.
11:13 p.m.
Aug 27, '04
Interesting. THis may be a pointless question, since I'm not sure either one of us knows enough to come up with an answer, but what's the status of other MLB ballparks in terms of distance from their respective downtown cores? Not knowing what the sightlines and views are like at either of the above options, is there a common tendency for ballparks to have some sort of skyline view of their home cities?
Aug 27, '04
Those that argue for a downtown site argue that a downtown view and the nightlife it will create is critical for MLB's success. When I ask those folks how that explains the success of Seattle's SAFECO field I usually get a blank stare followed with "well, that is close to downtown Seattle".
I don't know if you have seen SAFECO field but it is in an industrial area that you could not walk to downtown from even if you could. I was told that last season it had the best attendance of any MLB team.
I think a big reason for SAFECO fields success is that it is easy to get into and out of. Again, my only concern as to a site is that it be easily accessible. The freeway lands site, for an example, adjoins I-205. A series of off and on ramps could be built directly to the stadium site from the freeway.
Light rail is not far north at Gateway. It could easily be extended down 205 to the stadium site.
Those who wanted to go to dinner before the game, could do so and jump on MAX and head to the game. If the stadium were built in that area, it would cause an economic boon for outer SE that would create improvements no other plan has envisioned.
The stadium built downtown or at the Rose Quarter would do little, in my opinion, to improve on an already booming area.
Aug 28, '04
Well, I have walked from Safeco Field to downtown Seattle, and back, and I'm not athletic or even in shape for a moderate hike -- it's less than a mile and a half from the stadium to Pike Street Market. And it's even closer to the restaurant-intensive International District.
But although I suggest you not use Seattle as supporting evidence, I suspect your point is valid -- especially with a light-rail stop that's as easy to use as, for instance, the one at the airport, revelers would spread the party to the next several stops in each direction along the line.
Another model to consider is PGE Park, which has been pretty successful despite having essentially 0 parking spaces. San Francisco really did some impressive coordination on the public transit -- by road, rail or water.
And another site, which came up pretty often a couple of years ago (I never understood why it was dropped) is Portland Meadows, just blocks from the northern terminus of Interstate MAX. Of course, an MLB stadium there would pretty much make it impossible to put off the light-rail link to Vancouver any longer -- not that that consideration inclines me to favor the idea, or anything...
1:40 a.m.
Aug 28, '04
Too bad about Colwood. Sounds like a nice, green, middle-class recreation facility is about to be wrecked.
You can bet the megalomaniacs at PDX are in a major state of, ahem, arousal over that land. So it's going to become a very expensive, very unnecessary, very ugly, very NOISY jet runway if somebody doesn't figure out something more benign to do with it, and quick.
Aug 28, '04
i suspect that the trend to re-integrating newer ballparks began with the stadium they built in baltimore in the early '90s. in that case, if i recall correctly, it was part and parcel of a major urban renewal push for that area.
given that mayor katz is kinda high on the whole east-side waterfront redevelopment concept, i suspect that some folks see it as a way to essentially jump start that process -- build the stadium and hope it begins the trend of people thinking it's ok to live and do commerce in the shadow of a bunch of freeway tressles. personally, as much as i'd b excited by having a stadium out here in the central east side of portland, there is such a thing as scenery to consider. to be honest, the skyline out here just isn't as interesting. whereas down by the eastside waterfront, there are some really nice views of portland to be had -- something that a lot of my (out of state) friends commented on when we went to the champ car race at PIR, f.e.
that said, i'm still at a bit of a loss to understand why building it on the site of the MC will solve anything. that area is a pain in the ass to get to when the blazers are playing and baseball crowds could concivably double the attendance of a blazer game. and lets not forget: the NBA and MLB seasons overlap. god help us if both teams were to play at home at the same day. the traffic would be gruesome.
Aug 28, '04
And what is the city to do when after a few years the team decides it needs to expand the sky boxes, or it will move? Who pays then? If the issue is about jobs then why not work on expanding the education opportunities in Portland. MIT has been responsible for much of the growth in and around Boston for a number of decades. Boston also has some 60, or more private universities and colleges. Northeastern Univ. is well known for its work/study program and the F.W. Olin Institute which is in its first few years is a tuition free, private school sharing some class with Babson College and offering what may be the most innovative engineering program in the U.S. How about raising private money to build some excellent educational facilities for the future? Michael Wilson
9:42 a.m.
Aug 28, '04
I think there are a number of reasons to support a MLB team and a number to reject it--and you often hear crosstalk between the two. The question of economic benefit and cost is far different from emotional benefit and pride. No one would argue that the Blazers, as a franchise, is a malign force on the city (though certainly current teams may have been). We love the Blazers like we love the Rose Test Gardens.
Some towns don't support their teams, and this has a more profound effect in terms of the city's emotions than its pocketbook. Do Portlanders really want an MLB team? Would they support it--particularly in those bad years, which every team inevitably suffer? Would Portlanders use the team like Chicagoans use the Cubs--as a great opportunity to enjoy the sun and a beer? Or would we have to watch Expo-like attendence as a backdrop each night as Ed Whelan reported on another loss?
Another policy issue no one mentions, but which is most important to me is this: should Portland join a league as screwed up as MLB? To host a team is to endorse MLB, which lately has been plagued by drug scandal, labor disputes, monopoly issues and more. MLB, as an organization, seems to be in the business of exploiting host cities for the benefit of rich owners. Are those the values Portland wishes to support? Until MLB cleans up its act, I personally don't want anything to do with it.
Aug 28, '04
I will admit to becoming a willing participant in the mass ambiance of excitement for that evening’s game. There was something about the civic event that was an evening baseball game in those cities that was infectious.
As does NFL, NHL, NBA, English Premiership.... You need to parse you data sample. This 'ambiance' excudes from any mass event especially sport. It was probably the ambiance of excitement for a professional sports team that you are referring to, not to that particular baseball team.
Aug 28, '04
I don't know if you have seen SAFECO field but it is in an industrial area that you could not walk to downtown from even if you could.
This statement is completely and unalterably NOT TRUE. I worked in the heart of downtown, Pioneer Square, and I could walk to both SAFECO Field and the Kingdome (now Qwest Field) in 4 1/2 minutes.
When I ask those folks how that explains the success of Seattle's SAFECO field I usually get a blank stare followed with "well, that is close to downtown Seattle".
This is absolutely TRUE. Professional sports bring that 'ambiance of excitement' to revitalize city centers. This is a no-brainer.
The location of a stadium (for MLB or NHL or ?, it really doesn't matter- the Seahawks and the Mariners shared a stadium for years), is Absolutely Imperative . If it is not located in a central area, it will draw energy out, not consolidate it in. PLEASE contact your PSU Urban Planners- I know and love some City of Portland urban planners, but it must be said that PSU is a braintrust that should be tapped and integrated for this one issue.
That being said, I have an idea for a location: Kinda central, it would be like SBC Park (and home runs that could splash into McCovey Cove)- the South Willamette River Waterfront District. http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/images/ballpark/394x80_pacbell.jpg
And, hey and if that stupid tram thing ever happens (if your gonna invent that, why not just focus on inventing nanotechnology to do it for you? Or the miriad other inventions that could help the human endeavor a bit more. I want my hovercar g-ddammit! ), they will all be happy little neighbors.
Aug 28, '04
Your probably right about the proximity of SAFECO field to downtown Seattle. It has been a while since I have been there.
However, it is in an area that allows for unobstructed access and egress. That is my larger point. The site at the foot of the Broadway bridge is a favorite of the MLB organizers working with Mayor Katz. I do not see how you move 50,000 people per game in and out of that site and keep people coming to the games.
Aug 28, '04
What about that piece of land on SE Belmont & 10th?, 11th?, something like that, where that big building burned down? The building said "Casino" on it, I think. Sorry for being so vague, but my memory is failing me. Is that site big enough for a MLB stadium (if you can even figure out where I'm talking about)?
Aug 28, '04
Take a look at milwaukie. They built a new stadium in the outer area of the city, similar to outer SE PDX. From what I've read, its seen as a huge mistake. Dropping the stadium down in the outer SE area fails to take into account the entire RICH westside suburbs. Its just too far to drive/train and has NO pedestrian/Hotel/Food infrastructure.
The city of Portland & PSU offers a transportation and planning class free for neighborhood activists. Since the City Council will be the ones ultimatly responsible for stadium site placement. Maybe some on the council could attend and beef up on basic planning principles.
Aug 28, '04
That site makes more sense than the old main Post Office site downtown.
Aug 28, '04
I'm glad to see an elected official not only support MLB in Portland, but see through the idiotic "Bring Major League Education to Portland" bumper sticker argument. As he points out, MLB wouldn't take away a dime from education.
As for location, it seems logical that the closer to downtown, the better, doesn't it? Light rail goes within blocks of the Post Office site (not a possibility without a change of heart by the Post Office, I know), and goes right through the Coliseum or PPS building sites. Colwood just seems far away. But obviously the site would change once a stadium went in; the Safeco neighborhood sure did. It would take a lot of money, though, to improve Columbia Blvd and all the railroad crossings up there. The railroad is a pretty significant impediment to north-south travel in that area, and more crossings would probably have to be built.
I think it's inevitable that we'll get baseball sometime in the next 10 years; the sooner, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Jeff, very few baseball franchises make money for their owners. The ones that do generally lose a lot of games, because they won't shell out for decent players. The franchises also support thousands of people who work in related industries, restaurants/bars near the stadiums, etc. And those people aren't rich.
Aug 28, '04
ps The Majestics? really?
Aug 29, '04
Your probably right about the proximity of SAFECO field to downtown Seattle. It has been a while since I have been there.
However, it is in an area that allows for unobstructed access and egress. That is my larger point. The site at the foot of the Broadway bridge is a favorite of the MLB organizers working with Mayor Katz. I do not see how you move 50,000 people per game in and out of that site and keep people coming to the games.
OK. Good point. So what I am looking for is something with ALL these aspects optimally:
I still like where Cirque Soleil's tents were.
On the waterfront between Old Spaghetti Factory and that new hotel/office block
Aug 29, '04
Raging Red: I know the space you are talking about. I used to go to Rimsky's for dessert and then go over to that dive bar around the corner on that block. Then one sunny day I was driving along S.E Sandy, and I saw a ton a$$ of smoke billowing to my right. I drove up and pulled over; crowds were gathering because it was such a huge furnace of a fire. We couldn't even get close, we had to stay a block away- it was that hot.
Sadly, I don't think that small block is enough space for a full stadium. And of course, the parking lot which would have to be included in the space allocation.
Aug 29, '04
Which is the same reason the main post office building block would never work- it's just too small. The Pearlies need to stop whispering in City ears and wasting our time,'cause it's just not gonna happen. It's too dang small and we should realize that now, not later.
Aug 29, '04
Correction - the building at 10th & Belmont said "Monte Carlo" not "Casino." Oops. (I don't know where I came up with that one.) I guess it's not big enough for a ballpark, but I think it would be a great location. I like the idea of it being closer in.
Aug 29, '04
Just a side note: Any stadium location on the southern end of Portland -- Milwaulkie, the Cirque du Soleil tent site, etc -- will need an additional consideration due to increased traffic: A long-term solution for the Sellwood Bridge. If a stadium goes up and the bridge remains unrepaired and at its current weight limits, they'll be a huge limitation on the new routes Tri-met can create to accomodate staduim traffic.
Aug 29, '04
Pdxkona- I like your criteria. In fact, it is far superior than any coming out of the work group in the Mayor's office.
They could count on my support if they included your criteria as part of the funding package.
I hope you stay in touch as this issue moves forward.
Aug 29, '04
First, I am NOT against a baseball stadium. That argument is like saying if you don't want to go to Iraq, you are not a patriot, so it is misleading. I am against the city being the shepherd on this. Why not let the Tribes build a casino and a baseball stdium for free like they offered Teddy? You create all of the wonderful jobs (construction for a couple of years and then the hotdog, parking and ticket vendors which will really boost the economy) and government has no risk.
Just based on PGE Park when Vera snaked the rest of the commissioners so she could give her friends (Glickman Jr and the ex-City finance guy) a "special" deal. This was going to throw off more money than we would know what to do with. Now David Kahn (with an office in City Hall) is whispering the same things in Vera's ear.
In summary, government workers really have no idea of how to run something like this and evn a simpleton like Selig and MLB will probably take them to the cleaners. It then puts the taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls. So, let the Tribes build it and reap even more tax dollars and benefits with a lot less risk.
BTW, the two largest tourist attractions in the state are Chinook Winds and Spirit Mountain, so I do think they know what they are doing.
Aug 29, '04
Brett- The Majestics has a superior air associated with it. As opposed to some of the lame "lumber jack" names of years past (The Timbers) or worn out weather related monikers (The Storm).
If not "The Majestics", what then?
Aug 29, '04
Both Mayor Katz and I supported the Tribes proposal. Unfortunately, the Governor gave a tenative no (not an absolute no). He hinted that under the right conditions he may approve such a proposal.
Having said that, I do not buy your argument that the city could not put together and/or run such a deal.
11:12 a.m.
Aug 29, '04
I've always liked "The Portland Chinook". OK, maybe a bit cheesy, but local color...
Aug 29, '04
Not Bad, Kari, not bad. The Chinook is also the name of the tribe that Lewis and Clark encountered upon reaching our area. Very intriguing.
3:50 p.m.
Aug 29, '04
I, too, think pdxdona nailed the criteria.
There are two basics there, accessibility and, for lack of a better word, "romance."
Romance: Near the river, great views, lots of nearby places to hang out for further fun, near the heart of the city.
Accessibility: Close to the freewy, MAX, downtown.
There are many reasons why a lot of relatively new stadiums have been replaced around the country in the last 15 years or so. In my opinion, undervaluing the romance factor in location and/or design was a major factor in most of them.
Aug 29, '04
Hi Guys:
I'm a former Portlander and Reed grad who reads this site to stay in touch with the area. My wife and I area planning to move back when she finishes her residency.
First, I've been following the Expo's saga pretty closely and it doesn't seem like there's much chance that Portland would ever land the the team in the first place. I'm willing to bet it will go to Washington DC or the Northern Virgina Suburbs around DC. That area just has far more money, population, and political power than Portland.
Second, as a baseball fan and frequent business traveler I have visited at least 20 MLB stadiums around the country. I can't agree more with those who advocate inner city stadiums with nearby shops and restaurants and mass transit. Camden Yards in Baltimore is one of my favorite for that reason. It's a short walk to the inner harbor which is the equivalent of Portland's Waterfront Park. The worst stadiums are the suburban ones surrounded by a sea of parking. Anaheim is like that.
Third, a stadium doesn't need to be downtown, only in an interesting neighborhood. Neither Wrigley Field in Chicago nor Fenway Park in Boston are in downtown neighborhoods. But they are in inner city neighborhoods with lots to do before and after the game. That is the key. I think perhaps it is better to site a stadium in an urban are that is not downtown so that the stadium can be the focus of its own neighborhood. You can only do this with baseball because they have so many games. Football stadiums get used way too infrequently to make a neighborhood destination. Seattle in its usual bonehead way put the football stadium closest to Pioneer Square and put the Baseball stadium farther away. The locations should have been swapped.
As for Portland, I think any inner east side location along the river would be good if it was part of a redevelopment project that brought retail and housing as well. The problem with the inner east side right now is that there isn't enough stuff to walk to from a stadium site as the more interesting neighborhoods like Hawthorne are farther from the river. But a properly designed baseball stadium could change that if the city wanted. Perhaps some of the vacant or underused land near Union Station would work. That would be my first choice for a Portland area stadium. It would need to be on a light rail line for sure. What you want is to have at least 50-100 restaurants within walking distance so that after the game you can linger and not stew in traffic.
Aug 29, '04
Another thing to consider is that a LARGE portion of your fan base will be from outside Portland and will likely be driving up I-5 from Salem and Eugene and surrounding Willamette Valley cities. So any Portland stadium will need to be fairly accessible to I-5. That would argue against a stadium close to the Pearl unless you want thousands of out-of-town drivers cruising those streets for parking every game. I expect a number of fans will be coming down from Vancouver and southern Washington as well but screw them as they won't be paying for it anyway.
Both of Seattle's pro stadiums are located at the junction of I-5 and I-90 so they are almost ideally located in terms of auto transportation. Husky Stadium, on the other hand, is a nightmare.
11:47 p.m.
Aug 29, '04
I 405 runs along the Pearl. Seems like something could be done there comparatively easily.
You can prevent the cruising the streets looking for parking by giving parking permits to residents and making the time limits such that parking on the street for an event will cost you a huge fine. Sufficient on-site parking combined with cheap off-site parking near adequate public transportation also has to be a part of the equation of course. The better the latter, the less you need of the former.
I've been up to Seattle for both Mariners and Seahawks games. By far my favorite way to do that is to take Amtrak up. Makes a great 3-day weekend. Stay in a hotel downtown, go to the Market or Seattle Center, ride the ferries, take in a football game or a couple of baseball games. No hassling with a car, parking, etc.
I'm not promoting the PO site because I don't know enough about the details, but there is more space there than people realize and I like that it is near Union Station. The trains going by outside are part of the romance of Safeco too.
Aug 30, '04
I am a little suprised that Randy Leonard wants a suburban ballpark. The most successful ballparks of the last 15 years have been built in downtown, innercity environments. To me, this smacks of Leonard's SouthEast elitism, and makes me think he hasn't researched this issue that much.
The best argument for not building a stadium, is the corruption that plagues MLB. This organization has a monopoly and is using that power to take advantage of small market cities. The MLB is a pretty sketchy organization.
Aug 30, '04
Having said that, I do not buy your argument that the city could not put together and/or run such a deal.
<hr/>These aren't very comforting words that Portland can do it based on someone's say-so.
Besides Justin's comments on MLB exploiting places like Portland, the whole playgrounds for millionaire ballplayers thing makes me nervous.
Metro tried to make a bunch of money off the Oregon Convention Center and that is bleeding red ink. Of course, they did try to fix it losing money by making it bigger which made a lot of sense.
Even Paul Allen who can afford to hire someone who knows what they are doing has to declare bankruptcy on the Rose Garden and it has a monoply on pro sports here in town. At least, he owns it and the taxpayers aren't stuck with this money sink.
Aug 30, '04
"Southeast Elitism"?.
I thought that was an oxymoron.
Aug 30, '04
"Southeast Elitism"?.
I thought that was an oxymoron.
Aug 30, '04
Justin:
While I agree with you completely I would only make the point that inner city and downtown are not synonymous. All the best stadiums in the US are definitely inner-city stadiums, but not all are downtown stadiums. Portland needs an inner-city stadium not a downtown stadium. I would consider all the sites mentioned so far to be inner-city locations. Suburban locations would be places like Gresham or Tigard. In the 1960s and 70s pretty much all the new stadiums were dumped onto empty land next to freeway interchanges in the middle of suburban nowhere.
The key is to integrate a baseball stadium into a pedestrian-level neighborhood with shops and restaurants and housing nearby. That almost certainly requires an urban location but not necessarily a downtown location. Portland is blessed with plenty of urban locations that would probably work well for a stadium but probably no good downtown locations except perhaps the civic stadium location. But it makes more sense to build a new stadium rather than exanding civic stadium because Portland is big enough to support two large outdoor stadiums.
As for whether or not baseball is too corrupt. Although I'm a fan, I suspect that the sport is too corrupt to deal with. In fact, one of the main reasons I think baseball will pick the DC area over Portland is so that they can suck up to Congress and forstall any efforts to strip the sport of its anti-trust exemption. But that's an entirely different question from whether Portland is too incompetent to put together a stadium project. In addition to living in Portland, I've lived in Seattle, DC, Chicago, Texas, and Alaska and I truly think Portland is the most competently-run city I have seen in the US. Spend some time in Houston if you want to see the dark side.
If I was the god of baseball, the first thing I would do is get rid of the anti-trust exemption and minor league farm system and then move to fluid league system like European soccer where teams have to EARN the right to stay in the premier divisions. Let teams move up and down in the division classifications based on performance. Make the triple-A teams into truly independent pro teams and give them a chance to move up to the majors and penalize the horrid major leage teams by dropping them down to triple-A. That way Portland could earn its way into the majors by turning the Beavers into the top triple-A team in the country. And the Brewers could be demoted to triple-A if they suck for too long. That's how European soccer works. None of this pathetic begging and wooing of the Gods of baseball to get a team in your city. You take the team you already have and turn it into a champion and move up on merit.
Aug 30, '04
Randy said: Pdxkona- I like your criteria. In fact, it is far superior than any coming out of the work group in the Mayor's office.
They could count on my support if they included your criteria as part of the funding package.
I hope you stay in touch as this issue moves forward.
Gee, thanks Randy. Hmm. So this is why I've been unemployed for over a year; apparently no critical thinking positions available at City Hall. G-d help us.
Kent said: While I agree with you completely I would only make the point that inner city and downtown are not synonymous.
Great point Kent. As, I would add, that 'stadium' does not necessarily have to equal 'baseball'. I think like an engineer: keeping open to the ideas of MLS/NFL/WUSA(I have hope of restart)/MLB keep more options open. No need to define things so tightly just yet.
And you know this has gotten me thinking. In some ways I think we have put the proverbial cart before the horse.
There are so many more questions to ask ourselves first:
"Gee, major sports team might revitalize a bit of our town. Just what do we want out of this? What are we expecting/looking for? Which sport fits that value? What would it bring exactly? Why multiple teams bring? Is this fiscally reasonable?
Etc."
I mean it's all fun and creative to jump into naming the team and figuring out the stadium location, but we cannot forget to set the structure first.
Any MBA would tell you that, hell any relationship counselor would tell you the same thing; "Jesse, that's great that you like the way Pamela's hot pink skirt covers her a$$, but what do you like about her, herself?"
Can't skip building the foundation, people.
Whether a stadium would work or not for this city, we gotta ask the right questions of ourselves now. I don't want to find out later that the 300 billion dollar Micronesian Dance Hall that we built because it 'sounded neat' just isn't fiscally working. Then, and if and only after we have decided another sports team requiring a stadium is right for Portland, we can add the the meat to the bones, and name and hire the mascot/find a place for the stadium.
Cheers, -me
Aug 30, '04
"Southeast elitism - I thought that was an oxymoron."
Randy, I'm just messing with you. I'm glad that you are a constant reminder to the City Council that there is an East side to their city. And I really think putting the ballpark out in Lents is a bad idea.
However, having grown up in North Portland two blocks from the Columbia Villa. I will say that there is an element of elitism among those on the Eastside - A kind of Blue Coller, counter-culture arrogance.
Aug 30, '04
Had to respond to the " lame "lumber jack" names of years past" comment.
Actually the Timbers are not a name from years past (although sometimes you wouldn't know it from the lack of media coverage). The Portland Timbers soccer team are here now and have just won the 2004 A-League regular season and are moving on to the playoffs starting this Wednesday at PGE Park.
When the team returned to the City in 2001 the owners purposely chose a name that would link to the past and the fans of the team are justly proud of the name, the team and the fact that our mascot (although referring to him as just that doesn't do him justice) Timber Jim is yet another "lame" link to the past.
11:54 a.m.
Aug 30, '04
As far as remembering your economics class accurately, the multiplier effect varies tremendously depending on the business. And some economists think the whole concept is shaky.
But if you accept the concept, dollars spent at locally-owned book and music stores create more than three times the local economic activity as dollars spent at a typical chain stores (e.g. Borders). See liveablecity.org. And, every dollar spent with a locally-owned business is spent an estimated 2.3 more times than when spent at Wal-Mart which takes its profits out of town.
If you're attracted to the team and stadium based on multiplier effects, you should compare the projected effects with other possible uses of the public and private money. My guess is investing in manufacturing plants, locally-owned small businesses, etc. will get you more jobs and economic bang for your buck.
Aug 30, '04
Evan
Does that mean that every dollar we pay in taxes and do not spend at WalMart takes $2.30 out of the economy also?
I agree on looking at this on a ROI basis. If we spent $350M and build Intel a factory, it would not be as fun, but 5000 jobs (I know it is a guess) at $60K (this is safe and I know it is more that a hotdog vendor makes in 81 games/year) means $300M payroll at 9% and then those people buy 5000 houses to generate more property tax. So, I think talking about a baseball stadium as a taxing fiction is weak.
This is why, if we can manage risk by having a private entity on the hook we are so much better off.
BTW, instead of SE elitism, maybe SE parochialism is better.
12:38 p.m.
Aug 30, '04
Yes, please, don't just throw away the Timbers as some team with a lame name that doesn't matter, Commissioner Leonard. On a per-game basis, we tend to outdraw our co-tenants at PGE, the Beavers, and our attendance is growing. We're a dedicated lot, and the small businesses around W 18th/20th love us.
All other things being equal, however, I'd still love to see MLB come to town. I'm a meat-eating, hard-working Democrat who's more comfortable at Thirsty Thursday than he is at First Thursday, and from that perspective, I don't automatically hate and suspect professional athletes. Portland deserves more choices in sport, and it would help to break the entertainment stranglehold that Paul Allen and the Blazers have over this city.
That said, however, what I think would work best for Portland is a city ownership situation, which removes the threat of the team leaving town, like the Green Bay Packers have with the NFL. Too much risk of failure otherwise, and building a stadium with public funds only heightens it. Tampa-St. Petersburg's a good example of you building it and they won't come.
Unfortunately, city ownership will never happen in this day and age, especially with the group that currently runs MLB. Add to that that we're already on the blacklist with several prominent athletic leagues (the NFL and NCAA) because our state government runs a sports book, and we're left with... Phil Knight, or someone like him.
Have we got that person? Cause if we do, maybe I could bother him for a moment of his time to discuss another professional franchise in Portland with a lame name and a champion's mettle.
Aug 30, '04
Dude. You guys...woah smokey. I went to the game yesterday. I love the Timbers as much as the next person- OK, so I cry at the sight of Clive's jersey- my point is...I didn't take his comment to mean that the Timbers were old and washed out which is what y'all are defending. Just that they started in the 70's (which they did. NAS League I think). And so did their name (which it did. 1975) And he thought the name is 'lame'. (opinion). Nothing 'bout the kind of play or team that they are....
Good to know the Army's out to defend our precious crew, but I don't think in this instance it's necessary. ;)
Aug 30, '04
our state government runs a sports book Oh but John D, a question for you- what's a sportsbook at why do some of the leagues dislike it?
And while I agree in a perfect world a city ownership situation would be optimal, what makes you think that a city that can't even buy its own electric company when it's desperately for sale, can buy a professional league sports team?
5:27 p.m.
Aug 30, '04
PDXkona:
This being OT to baseball, I'm sorry if I give too much info.
Sports book is a term for what somebody is offering when they take bets on athletic contests. Like if you go to Vegas, walk into Harrah's, and put down $10 for the Lions to cover a 3-point spread against the Cardinals, you do so at the desk labeled, "Sports Book." Thus bookie, 'making book', etc.
The Oregon Lottery Commission runs a book called Sports Action Lottery. In it, one bets the line on NFL games. And while it has made a couple of million for mainly U of O, OSU and PSU athletic departments, it just about insures that Portland, or any other city in Oregon, will be denied either of the following, at least as long as that game exists:
NFL - through Sports Action, we bet NFL Football. Same reason there will never be an NFL team in Las Vegas, but our situation's different: in Nevada, the state doesn't own the sports book. Vancouver USA would get the NFL before we do.
NCAA Men's Basketball Tournaments (the Final Four) - when the Lottery Commission first started Sports Action pursuant to some snippet of OR Revised Statutes, it got greedy and offered NBA games to bet on during the NFL offseason.
The NCAA, who had just held a Regional Tournament at Gill Coliseum the year before, pulled Corvallis out of the loop in protest, proclaiming that 'for any sport offered by Sports Action, an NCAA championship will never be held in Oregon.' That included men's hoop, and football (in the event they actually have a playoff for the championship, this means U of O or OSU would not be allowed to host).
When the basketball ticket happened, David Stern (NBA Commish) threatened to remove the Blazers from Portland - the Lottery Commission had to back down, and that's why you don't see basketball today.
5:35 p.m.
Aug 30, '04
As for your other question, it's probably moot, since the cabal of MLB ownership would never let it happen.
But the City, if it were allowed to do so, could make a win-win situation out of team ownership in MLB. Baseball entertainment's a choice, unlike electricity or water. If you make it attractive enough for people of average means to be entertained, it can be profitable. And as long as the City allowed competent baseball people to run the show, and didn't meddle, the fortunes of the Portland Majestics should not impact any of the Commission's political prospects among reasonable people.
Aug 30, '04
48 comments on baseball.. (49 now) cool.
Aug 30, '04
PDXKONA wrote:
Great point Kent. As, I would add, that 'stadium' does not necessarily have to equal 'baseball'. I think like an engineer: keeping open to the ideas of MLS/NFL/WUSA(I have hope of restart)/MLB keep more options open. No need to define things so tightly just yet.
OK, I'm a lonely PDX exile currently living in Waco TX. I frequently drive past the Rangers stadium in Arlington and the Cowboys stadium in Irving and frankly I can't think of an uglier sight from the outide than the Cowboy's stadium. MLB and the NFL are two completely different animals and regardless of which sport you like better, baseball makes a FAR better investment in terms of urban development. The problem with the NFL is that they play a 16 game season so you're looking at 8 home games/year total. And half of those will be rainy Sunday afternoons in October and November when people will only want to scoot in and out. On the other hand, baseball plays 162 games/year so you have 81 home games that span from April-September. That means a baseball stadium is going to have orders of magnitude more life than a football stadium and it will be happening during the best months to be out and about in the evenings before and after the games. So if you're going to pick a stadium to anchor an urban redevelopment you want to pick baseball every time.
As for soccer. The design parameters for soccer stadiums are completely different than baseball. The two best soccer stadiums in the US are the stadiums in Columbus Ohio and Los Angeles, which are both dedicated soccer stadiums with limited capacity and seating designed for soccer. the MLS and especially the WUSA will be lost in giant MLB or the even more giant NFL stadiums. If Portland wants to build a new soccer stadium to replace civic stadium then fine, but don't confuse that with a baseball stadium. And don't make the mistake of trying to build a multi-purpose stadium. The cities that built those in the 60s and 70s are ripping them down now and replacing them with single sport stadiums.
6:52 p.m.
Aug 30, '04
Ok, now that my friend Kona has pitched a good set of criteria, how do we foist it upon the Mayor, et al?
The closeness to the river is a pretty key one to me, as I think about it (putting on the "I like baseball" side of my Hat of Agnosticism when it comes to MLB here in Portland). Tying a stadium into the alleged "river rennaissance" we're supposed to be having would be a very smart idea.
Aug 30, '04
Kent. I really like you post. Your point about NFL and its season's compatibility with Oregon weather is a very very good one. Also the shorter game season leaves, for a new entity, a very hard upward climb to fiscal sustainability. Great reason to go for MLB. I just don't think what you did in two paragraphs was done in City Hall, and if it was, it certainly was not communicated to the public. All I heard was suddenly 'Bring MLB to Portland.' None of that middle reasoning ground which I feel is so important to go over. So thanks for an evaluation analysis of the choices.
And, I admit, I wasn't as aware with the difference in MLB stadiums comparitively with other league structures. So, also, thanks for that.
Aug 30, '04
Wow, a shout out to John Dunagan for such a thorough explaination of a 'sportsbook'! Thanks- that is an absolutely important informational angle that needs to be considered as a factor in this whole idea.
If the conditions set by MLB were to drop baseball from Sports Action Lottery are we willing to do so, and lose that profit? Hmmm....
Aug 31, '04
pdxkona:
I've watched a LOT of baseball and football and the design parameters for baseball and football stadiums are completely different. Baseball fields are basically square (diamond) and you want to put the majority of fans along two adjacent sides of the square for best viewing. Civic stadium is designed this way. Certainly most baseball stadiums have bleacher seats in the outfield on the other two sides of the square but these are not the best seats for viewing and bleacher seats are only good if they are up close like at Wrigley Field in Chicago. In other words, you don't want 2nd or 3rd tier balcony seats in the outfield of a baseball stadium.
Football fields are rectangular and the best seats are on opposite sides along the field of play and as close to the action as possible. End zone seats are OK if you are close but it is harder to follow the action from the end zone. One of the best football stadiums I've ever been to is Autzen Stadium in Eugene where the seats are right on top of the action. But it is a dedicated football stadium and they could never fit a baseball field inside because the sidelines are too close.
In the 60s a lot of cities built multipurpose stadiums, many of them domed stadiums, that were designed to convert between football and baseball. Unfortunately they ended up not doing either very well. Some horrid examples were Veterans stadium in Philly, Riverfront Stadium in Pittsburg, the old stadium in Baltimore, Riverfront Stadium in Cincinati, and so on. When these stadiums were in baseball configuration they usually had poorly designed outfields with a lot of seats that were way too high and way too far away for good viewing. When these stadiums were in football configuration they would end up with a lot of seats that were partially view obstructed or useless in the end zones. To convert from baseball to football they would basically move big bleachers closer to one of the sidelines.
These days no one advocates building a multipurpose stadium for pro sports. You end up with a stadium that just doesn't work that well for either sport. All the new pro stadiums are dedicated baseball or football stadiums. I think the last multipurpose stadium built in the US was Pro Player stadium built in 1986 in Miami for the Dolphins and Marlins. You can see in this photo that they only use half the stadium for baseball:
http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/fla/ballpark/fla_ballpark_history.jsp
And they are already wanting to replace it for baseball because the Marlins say they need a new stadium to earn more revenues:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/legislature/sfl-marlinsstadium,0,5587201.storygallery?coll=sfla-news-legislature http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/MiamiBallpark.htm
Portland should learn from Miami's experience and the rest of the US and not try to build an old-style multi-purpose stadium. As for MLS and soccer. Unfortunately the MLS does not have the fan base of baseball or football so it is questionable to what extent an MLS team in Portland would have any beneficial economic impact. The league is struggling compared to MLB and the NFL. On the other hand, a world-class soccer stadium could be built for a fraction of the cost of a baseball or football stadium because you don't need nearly so many seats and MLS is not all about expensive skyboxes and that sort of thing. From my point of view, civic stadium might be a perfectly good soccer stadium if they put in grass (I assume it's still turf right? At least it was when I played HS football there in the state playoffs back in the early 80s). But if you wanted to build a MLS stadium the model to follow would be the new stadium in LA:
http://la.galaxy.mlsnet.com/MLS/lag/stadium/
Or the slightly smaller Columbus Crew stadium:
http://www.crewstadium.com/
Both of these stadiums are about 1/2 the size of a MLB stadium and about 1/3 the size of an NFL stadium. Much better to watch soccer in a smaller stadium that is full than in a giant cavernous empty stadium. Here in Texas the Dallas Burn MLS team plays in the Cotton Bowl which is a giant 70-year old decaying football stadium in the Dallas Fairgrounds that seats about 70,000. That just doesn't work well when the stadium is only 1/10th full for a soccer game.
Portland has shown itself to be a 1st class soccer venue and I think the city would find that MLS is a better option than MLB. MLB is run by vampires who will suck the money out of the city then cut and run when they get a better offer elsewhere.
Aug 31, '04
One last comment on Portland then I'll go. From my observation, Portland seems to be the ONLY large city in the US without a major outdoor sports venue. It is obviously one of the larger cities in the country that doesn't have either an NFL or MLB team, but it also doesn't even have a Division I university. All of the similarly situated cities I can think of that don't have pro teams at least have major universities.
Austin TX, which is perhaps the most similar city to Portland that I can think of in terms of size and general temperment is the home of the Univ. of Texas, the largest university in the US and has a giant football stadium on campus next to downtown.
Columbus Ohio has Ohio State Univ.
Madison Wisconsin has the Univ. of Wisconsin
Salt Lake City has both the Univ of Utah and Brigham Young Univ. nearby.
In fact, the only other large city in the US that I can think of that lacks both pro and major college outdoor sports is Sacramento.
9:50 a.m.
Aug 31, '04
If the conditions set by MLB were to drop baseball from Sports Action Lottery are we willing to do so, and lose that profit? Hmmm....
The Lottery Commission has never made MLB part of the Sports Action ticket. I'm sure they also know that adding baseball to the list of Sports Action options would send MLB out of state faster than if people shot at Bud Selig at the airport. It'd likely be just the excuse MLB needed to deny Portland a franchise in perpetuity just like the NFL, no matter how much preparation had gone into siting a team on this end.
It's not so much that the Lottery aspect of it is an important informational angle, but it is one of the many "loose ends" that need to be tied up before we go after an MLB franchise in earnest; i.e., it would probably take another Oregon Revised Statute (possibly tacked on to the one that establishes Sports Action in the first place) that would specifically prevent Lottery from betting baseball, to satisfy MLB. Better still would be to strike the Sports Action statute from ORS entirely, but then you'd get problems from the major college football and basketball programs.
Aug 31, '04
I don't think we need a new soccer stadium - Timbers games are great at PGE. Now if we could only get more beer servers.
I have an idea for the name - we could build an east-facing stadium that frames Mt. Hood and call them the Hoods. Who could possibly object?
Aug 31, '04
if we're gonna do the whole 'what should we name a portland baseball team' thing, might i suggest something simple, classic and relevant -- the portland pioneers.
it goes well with the heritage/tradition aspect of both the area and the sport of baseball. and it should make for nice uniforms.
that said, if i recall right that was going to be the name of the trailblazers before lewis & clark college (my alma mater - they are the pioneers also) pitched a fit. i suspect nowadays their compliance would likely require a little exchange of funds (besides, heritage and tradition went out the window when they changed the school colors from orange and black to silver and blue -- happened my senior year.)
Aug 31, '04
One thing's for certain, your baseball team needs to be the "Portland ..something" not the "Oregon..something"
Nothing sets my teeth on edge than teams that are named for the state rather than city in some pathetic attempt to make it more of a regional team. Hence the Miami Marlins became the Florida Marlins and the Denver Rockies became the Colorado Rockies.
Doesn't Miami Marlins sound so much better? And who's kidding who. The good teams have regional followings no matter what their name. The Boston Red Sox own all of New England as a fan base regardless of their name. Changing it to the New England Red Sox would just be silly. Anaheim finally did the right thing and changed their name back from California Angels to Anaheim Angels.
As for names? I like Portland Pioneers. But if you want to attract a younger fan base you'll have to come up with something a bit more hip than that.
Aug 31, '04
The string of thoughtful and informed comments here on the subject of MLB blows me away. I am convinced -more than ever- that the passion exists in our city to support MLB.
I have also refined my concerns based on the comments here. I have learned more about the nuances of placing a stadium in this discussion than in any other I have had on this subject dating back to when I was a proponent of bringing MLB to Portland while serving in the legislature.
One apology. I certainly meant no offense to the Timbers Soccer team in saying not so kind things about the name "Timbers". PDXKona interpreted my comment right on (why haven't we hired her anyway???).
Lastly, notwithstanding my suggestion of "The Portland Majestics", I do have to vote for "The Portland Pioneers". Great name with important historical roots without conjuring up an image of a bunch of Timberjacks (sorry in advance to the pro Timberjack readers).
This has been one of the best discussions I have observed/participated in on the web since I have begun interactive blogging.
Sep 1, '04
Randy,
you wrote:
FDR knew that putting people to work who were otherwise unemployed created wealth for the entire community that those workers were employed in.
That's nonsense. The workers had the money before it was taken from them. That money would have been spent, on going concerns, in restaurants, bars, automobile shops, etc.
Public funding of major league stadiums is a scam. The public officials who support taking money from the rest of us to give to plutocrats, like baseball owners, are thieving...you sound like you don't even know when you're being used.
Urban planners ponder such imponderables as "getting in and out", "traffic", etc. Honest businesspeople wonder how to get good use out of their properties. Baseball moguls hire public officials (it's called "rentacitizen")to obscure the fact that they want to control a property for which they have not paid and for which they have no responsibility.
Let the debate in Portland run its' course. Soon we'll here that it's a "can't lose" proposition.
If it was such a good deal, why wouldn't the potential owners be able to find financing from the usual, legitimate sources? Why won't a bank fund the deal?
It's always hilarious to hear about "job creation" from those who never created one...FDR never created or funded a job, 'cepting maybe some maids he hired with the inheritance.
Sep 1, '04
If anyone is till reading this thread, WW picked The City as the rouge of the week for a baseball stadium plan to tear down four year old, $35 million dollar tax payer owned and renovated stadium to make room for a major league.
Rouge of the week
A quote: Never mind that wrecking the former Civic Stadium would amount to yet another public sacrifice in a trawl for a big-league team, which looks more and more like the grand opening of a publicly funded candy store.
Not sure where this idea is coming from. I had never head of it before.
Sep 1, '04
Randy,
I am a lifelong baseball fan. I grew up in Chicago and spent the last 10 years in a minor league town that draws 10,000 people to its AAA stadium on a regular basis.
So I've returned to Portland where I lived as a high schooler, and I am deeply skeptical about major league baseball.
The primary reason has little to do with baseball. I have little faith in major proposals coming out of City Hall. I see Portland city government as caught in a time warp, assuming the go-go 90s are still around, with little adjustment to new economic realities of 2000 and beyond.
These are what I see as the issues that matter to me, and sadly, are virtually unaddressed in this year's uninspiring mayoral race. Baseball? I'm worried about my kids leaving school a month early. Baseball is way, way down on my agenda.
And besides all that, convince me that Portland, which has been unable to support a AAA team that is leading its division, can support a team. You make that 350million sound appealing, but all the analyses I've seen (Roger Noll's work mainly) say that ballparks are losing propositions.
Randy, I like what you've been saying as a council member, but you are just one voice. Before we embark on another major public works project, I think you have to regain the trust of the public.
Sep 2, '04
Hello out there in Portland! I had just begun scanning the MLB standings, pouring over stats and injuries to update an assessment my team's chances in the playoffs. Alas, I got lost in a parallel universe and somehow popped back in my own at this site.
As I read Mr. Leonard's story something else smacked as baseball nostalgia for me. It came while scanning all of your comments about bringing MLB to Portland.
Now, I have been a Minnesota Twins fan since they came to the Twin Cities as the former Washington Senators, "first in commerce, first in defense and last in the American League." It was great fun reading your opinions, yet some of you are gnashing over the issues with eyes wide open, in order not to be hoodwinked. Here, here!
At the great personal risk of doing what a guy should never do, which is to offer advice before being asked for it, please allow me to write from a point of privilege on this.
Know now, and forever hold your killer's instinct at bay, that Bud Seilig is not only a horse's ass, but a kiss-ass to boot. How do I know this? That cretin tried to pull a quickie with his partner in lunacy, the owner of our club, to disolve the team; not move it but evaporate it, claiming our lack of support. Bear in mind this team, between 1987 and 2002 had OUTDRAWN the hated N.Y Yankees, as well as his own rotten team, the Brewers, and picking up two World Series titles along the way. So here we had two pigs in a poke, Seilig and Pohland, trying to secretly eliminate a franchise. Yup, a franchise steeped in baseball lore before either of these boobies were even hatched with players like Walter Johnson, Rod Carew and Harmon Killebrew, (the Bashful Basher from Power Alley). That's "Fair-shake Bud."
I am impressed with your strong stand on stadium placement. As a fan who must travel to downtown Minneapolis to see the Twins, Vikings and Timberwolves, then "slide" all over downtown St. Paul during the winter to watch the Wild, I offer this: never, repeat, never give in to downtown green. Let the broken down eastern cities do that. There must be no real creativity downtown, or they wouldn't give their parks dumb names like "Oriole Park at Camden Yards" which, by the way, ranks right up there with "Question Mark and the Mysterians." Downtown parks do little for the community other. What will you get out of bigwigs being able to pull in Conventions the park's making millionaires out of a dozen eatery and pub owners, who then pay employees minimum wage anyway.
If you want to be considered big-time to the rest of the nation, you need a baseball team. The Vikes are dearly loved here too, but the Twins play 160+ games. For your city's day in, day out exposure to the rest of the country, you can't beat MLB.
And, Good Luck!
Sep 2, '04
Geez, talk about insane. I just read the WW article about ripping down PGE park. Anyone know where to find an online version of the city plan that WW referenced?
Personally I can't think of a more insane idea than ripping down PGE park to build a new MLB stadium. The WW article hits most of the main points. The only bigger bonehead move I can think of was Seattle's decision to rip down the KingDome right after spending $51 million to rebuild the roof. But of course Seattle always has to be more stupid than Portland. Doesn't mean Portland has to follow their lead.
Of course the Prof raises what is perhaps a bigger concern:
And besides all that, convince me that Portland, which has been unable to support a AAA team that is leading its division, can support a team. You make that 350million sound appealing, but all the analyses I've seen (Roger Noll's work mainly) say that ballparks are losing propositions.
I worked near Denver one summer in 1982 and remember the support that Denver showed for it's AAA team the Denver Bears. As I remember, the Denver Bears were playing to sold-out crowds at Mile High stadium that summer. We're talking 65,000 fans for a minor league baseball game. That's more fans than have ever attended any type of sporting event ever in the history of the State of Oregon. As I recall, the AAA teams in places like Alburquerque were also drawing big crowds. If Portlanders can't get interested in watching the Beavers in what is one of the prettiest and nicest minor league venues in the country, I have to wonder what kind of baseball fans they really are.
Sep 2, '04
I think the PGE site has some serious possibilities. The renovations that were done when Civic Stadium became PGE Park were of the lipstick-on-a-pig variety. It's still essentially a concrete '70s monstrosity with a prettified exterior. A new park on the site would encompass both the current footprint and the block to the west across 19th (or whatever that street is) that now has the US Bank and parking lot. Plenty of room, good access to transit, close to downtown and to NW. And think of the views that could be possible if we knock out the heinous Oregonian building. It's something to consider at least. Maybe it would speed up the conversion of Burnside to one-way. I still like the post office site better, or one closer to the water.
Sep 2, '04
So Brett:
If you rip down PGE park for a baseball stadium, where do you put the other current tenants, the Timbers, PSU football, and high school football? A new baseball stadium will almost certainly be natural grass and in Oregon's climate, it won't take the weekly pounding that football games will put on it.
You'll have to build another metro-area stadium to house those events. That makes no sense to me.
Sep 2, '04
You're right. That's why the other sites make more sense. As someone pointed out above, no one builds multi-use stadiums any more because it degrades the baseball experience too much. A big drawback to that site, but at this stage in the plans, it makes sense to keep them all on the table.