May I suggest the following two links from the Portland Architecture blog?

The Transparent Building Memorial Coliseum deal was structured for the arena to fail

There are a number of other excellent posts over there, including an interview with one of the original architects.

While I agree there is no sound argument for preserving the MC the ideas being proposed for replacing it are all non-starters. We already have a minor league baseball stadium and the idea of a state funded hotel was such a bad idea that even Tom Potter was against it.

The only good use for the site is the one proposed by Guv K, a state owned casino/resort that would pull in gaming revenue and allow for an income tax reduction to Oregonians.

With the clock ticking on Mayor Adam’s tenure in office any proposal from him should be shelved till after the recall.

Carla, I can give you some reasons for the "ardor" you question. "To me it's a big, ugly glass box. And as I understand it, it's going to be incredibly expensive to maintain it and/or turn it into something genuinely usable."

Ten years from now, will Oregonians be saying that about this proposal if the proponents got their way without anyone asking questions? Why should we take this proposal on faith? Is MLS Soccer really that profitable other places where they came in and demanded their own stadium be built with public money?

Here are a number of reasons why people are asking tough questions:

1) Memorial Coliseum was called that for a reason--it was sold at the time it was built (some very interesting coverage of all this on OregonLive.com) as being a war memorial, and I understand there are memorial plaques there. Some people still remember when it was built and don't like hearing that because there is this grand plan worked out by Paulson, Adams, Leonard, they should forget all that.

2) MC is a Skidmore, Owings and Merrill building. So is the Labor and Industries Bldg. on the capitol mall. Believe it or not, their buildings do have a fan club of sorts--people who like that architecture. Owings was a land use pioneer. Read more about Owings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_A._Owings

3) How many promises made when the Memorial Coliseum was built have been kept? If Merritt, Sam and Randy get their every wish on this project, should we expect a larger amount of the promises made about all this in 2009 to be kept than the promises made when MC was built? Why?

4) Why is this a good investment for the city and surrounding area? Will it work out better than PGE Park and Rose Quarter combined? And do you mean to tell me the Paulson family doesn't have enough money to provide a soccer stadium without public money?

5) Distrust in general of "just act, don't ask for facts or logistics". This plan could blow up financially in so many ways. Would Paulson stick around to pick up the pieces or would Sam and Randy say it wasn't their fault?

There are people who wouldn't recall Sam for his personal life but think Sam and Randy are being conned or worse and would consider recall for this mess.

If the proponents can make the case this is all in the best interest of Oregonians and not just a guy with money who has declared soccer should cause all this disruption in Portland, they could then "make the sale". But in a state which prides itself on public process, no one should be shocked at the push back of "we must do this immediately, no questions asked!".

How many Blue Oregonians appreciated that attitude on the Iraq War, Patriot Act, TARP bailout, etc?

It's an important example of Modernist architecture in Portland. It's unique among indoor arenas in that natural light is allowed to shine in on all sides. It's the site where the Portland Trail Blazers won their only NBA championship. It's a memorial to veterans. It's more environmentally friendly to keep buildings we have, rather than tear them down.

"We have one for Vietnam and Korea that are in the parks."

I know where the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is. In what park is there a Korean Veterans Memorial?

Korean War Veterans Assoc. list three. One at Williamette National Cemetary, one in Salem and one in Wilsonville.

My Veterans For Peace chapter has held our Memorial Day commemoration at the "forgotten walls" at the coliseum for the past four years. Its away from all the militarism that surrounds the official ceremonies.

"The one thing I never want to see again is a military parade." Ulysses S. Grant

Of all the angles to be explored on BO it's a concern that it's going to be incredibly expensive to keep the MC? It's going to be far more expensive to embark on yet another boondoggle scheme perpetrated with whoppers. If you worried about maintaining or adapting the MC why aren't you worried about the cost of the schemes to build a new stadium and convention center hotel?

Obviously you weren't a Buckaroos fan!!

I've got to think a big part of this plan is to fend off a recall effort against Adams. You look at the type of people who are most likely to favor a recall of Adams and you cool them off with a baseball stadium, a major league soccer team and perhaps even a new and improved World War II memorial. It's genius. I do find the idea of turning the Rose Quarter into a year-round nightlife destination a joke. The Blazers filled up those buildings with restaurants and etc. and they're now pretty much vacant. Forty more dates for baseball in the summer aren't going to make a difference. Most clubs will want to keep dollars inside a stadium, not encourage people to spend them outside of a stadium.

Lonnie Madigan and Rick Foley Buckaroos?

It's been a long time those names may be only close.

Carla,

That's a fair question you have raised and I don't see anybody refuting that the status quo with the Coliseum is going to cost us tens of millions over the next decade.

Are we really ready to pony that money up just to keep what we've got? It's not doing it's job for Portland or the Veterans, because the latter group's actual memorial doubles ad the facility's smoking section.

I appreciate that you have separated the MC problem from the Paulson plan. That has its own problems and that plan can successfully be refuted on its own, but some arguing against MLS are co-opting what would otherwise be limited oppositon to replacing the coliseum due to its aesthetic qualities in order to push our agenda.

Some people who don't want MLS are pretending the Coliseum is beautiful.

My fear is that if these pro-MC folk are successful in convincing the city to keep it, we're going to be stuck with this expensive beast for decades to come. Let's say the $500k/yr is accurate and that it is true that the facility will need that $20-$30million safety retrofit within the coming decade. That means we are at $50m over the next 20 years without interest for the money loser what we've got today OR we pay $40m for a baseball stadium that would at least be cheaper to run and could pay back a large chunk of the initial cost.

I respect that people don't want the MLS plan, but setting up a situation where we pass on MLS and get stuck with the costs of Memorial Coliseum for the long term will not be good for Portland.

Let MLS fail on its own - but don't force us to live with the Memorial Coliseum longer than we have to!

"Some people who don't want MLS are pretending the Coliseum is beautiful."

And some people resent being cast as an MLS opponent (I'm neutral but cautious) just because we think the Coluseum can be a valuable asset to the city, with the right plan, the right management, and some much-needed TLC.

Bob R.

That's a fair comment, but you have to feel that your authentic point of view is being co-opted by some people people who have other motivations.

-Gail

First of all, the construction of the Memorial Coliseum was approved by the voters of Portland as a tribute that honors fallen veterans. Every time this venue is used for an event, it honors not only those fallen veterans, but all veterans of all wars who served to protect the freedoms this country was founded upon.

Second, many architects agree the greenest buildings that exist today are the ones that are already built. The mid-century architecture of a stadium in a free standing glass box was one of the first to be built that way making the Memorial Coliseum an architecturally significant and distinctive structure in its own right.

Third, the Memorial Coliseum is a very multi-functional venue. In addition to being a sports arena, it has hosted numerous famous people, concerts, trade shows, new car shows, graduations, Easter services, a collectors market, circuses, and even political gatherings. Everybody who grew up in Portland or has lived her for any length of time can relate and has memories associated with the Memorial Coliseum

Finally, to say the Memorial Coliseum is ugly is a matter of opinion. It surely can’t be any uglier than all that taxpayer funded plop art that litters Portland city streets and has no purpose. For the record, I am not talking about the recognizable statues of people or animals, but the all abstract junk that resembles or looks like a pendulum balanced on the base of a mobile crane, some multi-colored paint splashed pallets affixed to rusty steel discs, fountains that look like the reuse of some old fire nozzles mounted on a silver pipe pissing into a pool, and the big stone object that looks like a mechanical elbow to mention just some of the debris. But unlike the junk art, the Memorial Coliseum actually has a function.

Like it or not, the Memorial Coliseum is an architectural gem. It has become a diamond it the ruff, in part due to mismanagement with some of that mismanagement coming from the Portland Building which is a structure that many people call a truly ugly. Inside this multi-colored Michael Graves temple like structure, the people who work there complain it does not have enough windows to let natural light. The atmosphere is that of both functional and dysfunctional as government so often is. If somebody wants to use a wrecking ball to demolish a building, the Portland Building and not the Memorial Coliseum would be the perfect candidate.

The bottom line is that taking down the Memorial Coliseum would be both an architectural travesty that destroys a historical landmark, and a dishonor to the veterans for which it was built to honor.

Anon @ 3:51 wrote:"It's more environmentally friendly to keep buildings we have, rather than tear them down."

How can you claim that it is more environmentally friendly to run a large temperature controlled facility all year long for decades than to have an outdoor facility whose footprint primarily consists of natural grass, probably consumes very little energy and would not even require very lighting for most of its events.

I don't think you will convince many people that a heated/air conditioned concrete building is more environmentally friendly than a grass field.

Again, I'm not pro-Baseball park but every argument that I have seen to keep the Coliseum falls apart upon further scrutiny.

Gail -

Perhaps that is the case in other forums. I've been monitoring this primarily over on Portland Architecture, and that's not the motivation I'm seeing.

"To me it's a big, ugly glass box." carla axtman

You say you'd really like to understand the reasons some people are willing to go to bat so hard to keep Memorial Coliseum, but it sounds like you're really more interested in your own perception that the MC is a big, ugly glass box. You could spend some time and read comments on the threads Bob R provided links for in the second comment, that might help you understand if you really are interested.

The impression I get is that the people with power and money that want to do this deal with soccer, AAA baseball, the convention hotel and whatever else, don't really know what they want to do. So, they reach for the easiest thing, which they seem to think is to tear down the in need of repair coliseum. Everything eventually looks bad if it isn't properly cared for.

They don't have a really good idea what to do, but they want to tear something down in the mean time as an excuse that the weathered structure is the barrier to their 'great idea'.

Hey, how about ceasing maintenance on the RG arena for about 20-30 years to find out whether it can avoid being 'ugly' exposed to that kind of treatment?

Terry,

I'm sorry but I know veterans who do not share your views on the coliseum.

You say every event there is an honor to veterans. Is every drag on a cigarette and every crushed butt that occurrs at the smoking section which doubles as the actual memorial also an honor to veterans' service?

The veterans I know (some very well include my husband and two sons) find the delapidated state of the actual memorial to be an insult to the friends that they have lost in serving their country. You, my boys and their fellow service men and women all deserve so much more.

So move the "smoking section" and spruce up the memorial. Why must the solution be "tear it down"? If we are so incapable of managing real but approachable problems, how can we expect a replacement project to provide superior results, especially decades down the road?

Gail, it is true that not all veterans share the same views, and I am sure Sam found some of them to consult with. However many of them are behind the movement to save the Memorial Coliseum. At the public hearing before the Portland City Council last Wednesday, former Governor Vic Atiyeh was the first to testify. He noted the Memorial Coliseum honors many of Veterans who were his friends that were also fallen casualties of war. It takes an important issue to bring out a former Governor to a public hearing. He had everybody’s attention with his extremely moving comments.

As for your comments about the smoking section, drags on cigarettes and crushed butts: it is obvious you have no respect for the people and previous generations that have fought in many a conflict to protect the freedoms America offers, including your right to speak out condemning them. That is what is wrong with the younger generations of today. They expect the government to subsidize their lifestyles while denouncing what others do, including those people who are actually paying for those subsidies.

I have no interest in whether or not Memorial Coliseum remains. What I do have an interest in is why its destruction was considered -- for a corporate sports welfare for millionaires deal given to us by progressive hero, Sam Adams. And the Blues did nothing. It's more important having "the first openly gay mayor of a major city", no policy questions asked.

Yeah, that was mature voting in action. Sure.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I am in full agreement with Terry Parker and Bob Tiernan. I was a Skidmore, Owings and Merrill fan before we moved to Oregon (which was 40 years ago), sorry if that bothers you, Carla.

In a free country we don't have to agree with anyone else's taste in art, architecture, music, or anything else. Before all this came up, the last thing I ever expected was having to defend being a Skidmore, Owings and Merrill fan. I'm pleasantly surprised there are so many like minded fans in the area. Yes, I know that not everyone likes every famous building.

But what really bothers me about all this is summed up in a few lines in tonight's KATU story online.

"Adams is asking the City Council to delay any motions for another week so city leaders can figure out the most profitable way to have both the coliseum and the baseball park.

“The next nine days we will all be doing due diligence to see if we can make this vision a reality,” Adams said."

Sam, if you and the rest of the crew had done the due dilligence first instead of "the details are not worked out yet, but we will have Major League Soccer in this town and if it means tearing down Memorial Coliseum and distrupting that whole area, so be it", you wouldn't have gotten so much flak and pushback!

We may agree or disagree on art, architecture, music, or many other items of taste.

But I surely hope that people who call themselves progressives believe elected officials should do the due diligence FIRST, not try to foist an idea on people before all the details are worked out.

This is a general frustration of mine. I talked with the office of a Republican legislator who apparently had a different idea (might have made sense) than the bill actually passed today on the floor. But why wasn't there more publicity on that idea--a guest opinion here or OregonLive.com, a newsletter on the topic, the caucus spotlighting the idea as a better way to do something, etc?

"We sent the press release out 30 seconds after the vote", the staffer said.

Except the member's website had no press releases for over 15 days, and the recent newsletter is almost as old. Neither is about the topic voted on today. So whose fault is that? Wouldn't making information public do more good than just generalized complaints?

That's a concern I have, no matter who the politician or what the issue.

No one will ever win my support with sarcastic remarks like "Some people who don't want MLS are pretending the Coliseum is beautiful. "

It has been decades since I attended a live sports event--not my taste in entertainment. I still think of an old friend who disliked the design of the fountain in the capitol mall (too modernistic) and made sarcastic remarks about it.

I apologize to no one for my admiration of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill buildings. If someone wants MC torn down, they should join that fight and try to get themselves on an oversight board to make sure mistakes are minimized.

Last word is a quote from Terry Parker. "At the public hearing before the Portland City Council last Wednesday, former Governor Vic Atiyeh was the first to testify. He noted the Memorial Coliseum honors many of Veterans who were his friends that were also fallen casualties of war"

Uh, so we won't throw $265M (65m to rebuiold PGE Park/AAA stadium and 200M for an entertainment venu) while we have a hard time funding schools and keeping bridges from falling down.

Besides, Adams is using this as a red herring to avoid being recalled, otherwise, why the rush?

Y'know look at the Musee d'Orsay adn Centre Pompidou in Paris, we could be doing something a lot more creative than a ball park.

I want to remind people that there have been plans to raze the coliseum for about 10 years now. People are ignoring that and I still don't get the sense that people understand there are two independent questions here:

1) Should we continue to pay to maintain Memorial Coliseum at all, or just raze it and find a more respectful site for the actual veteran's memorial?

2) Should we support bonds for stadium upgrades for MLS soccer.

Even though I offer an emphatic "no" on #2, that question is totally irrelevant to this conversation so forget about Paulson, MLS and all of that.

Try to focus on Carla's original question - no matter what else happens, does it really make sense to keep Memorial Coliseum as is?

(Keep in mind we're not even talking about the types of upgrades Kari Chisolm suggested above because that would just be someone elses taxpayer funded pet stadium plan in difficult economic times - we are talking Memorial Coliseum as is, status quo)

Another reason to separate Baseball stadium question from the decision to raze the Coliseum is that if we decide to pass on the soccer/baseball thing (fingers crossed), the Blazers will still want to demolish the coliseum to insert their entertainment district.

Does your answer change depending on whether it is soccer/baseball or basketball (Paul Allen OR Merritt Paulson)?

A stadium serves two purposes. To host events and make money. I guess it can hold events but it also needs between $10-$50 million dollars in renovations. Speak to a Winterhawk's employee that spent a lot of time in the places that the public doesn't get to see.

Despite the fact that the Blazers won a championship there it is not an iconic building. If they can tear down the house that Ruth built in New York they can certainly tear down the MC with something relavent that people will go to. The MC is not Yankee stadium and if that style of achitecture was so important and awesome how come nobody uses it anymore?

Garrett:

How many people can afford to attend events at the new Yankee Stadium?

Did the organizers do the due dilligence on all the details needed to make the process successful before or after they sprung the idea on the public? How much public money went into the new Yankee stadium?

"the Blazers will still want to demolish the coliseum to insert their entertainment district. "

If the Blazers have the funds to do that without public funding, and the Memorial Coliseum is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the time they get around to arranging the details, that would be another story.

Jamais Vu | Apr 20, 2009 8:55:55 PM and Kari right below that comment have more common sense than most of what I have read on this subject here or elsewhere. Their ideas are more creative than "tear down MC, don't question a deal involving a Paulson, and don't do the due dilligence until Sam Adams gets so blown away by the pushback that he calls for a time out to do the due diligence".

Here's an easy way to deal with the Coliseum question.

For the past 14 years, the place has been run into the ground by the Oregon Arena Corporation, which has been operating it at break-even levels and making no money available for significant maintenance. (If you don't know what I'm talking about here, see for details on the lousy deal the City of Portland made with OAC.)

So the City should do whatever is needed to cancel the operating agreement with OAC and put Coliseum operations back into the hands of MERC.

Then let MERC run the Coliseum for five years. See if a competent manager with the right incentives can turn a profit. Any profits that come out of the building can be put into maintenance.

After five years, if the Coliseum keeps up a positive revenue stream and proves itself to be self-supporting, float a bond measure to renovate it. If not, we can discuss removing it.

LT,

See I could try to argue with you but you've already said you don't attend live sporting events etc... I doubt you would see the intangible value things like sports teams and stadiums can bring to the community. Some things you can't put a price on.

Anyway to worthlessly answer you only for you to go "pooh the people of NY are stupid" here goes. The city and taxpayers would drop somewhere around $550 million for that stadium. The rest is sort of loosely split up and is complicated. I could explain MLB's revenue sharing but essentially the rest of the league is paying for the Yankee's share. The city of NY also dropped about $430 million on a replacement for Shea Stadium for the Mets.

See how it worked was Mike Bloomberg went in there and said he wasn't going to let the taxpayers pay for this. Then NJ told the Yankees they'd build them whatever they wanted across the river. Then Bloomberg knew he'd be out of office faster than a speeding bullet for forcing the Yankees out of NY.

The Blazers are going to use the stadium fund for the live district as well as URD funds when they take down the Coliseum. They're going to use public money and a little private money like Paulson is going to do.

Anyway, I'll let you go back to your world where you think everyone should only care about potholes and children and everyone is out to rob everyone else. I'm going to continue living in the real world where we recognize good deals when they slap us in the face and realize that a cruddy run down stadium isn't a shining jewell that should be protected.

LT,

See I could try to argue with you but you've already said you don't attend live sporting events etc... I doubt you would see the intangible value things like sports teams and stadiums can bring to the community. Some things you can't put a price on.

Anyway to worthlessly answer you only for you to go "pooh the people of NY are stupid" here goes. The city and taxpayers would drop somewhere around $550 million for that stadium. The rest is sort of loosely split up and is complicated. I could explain MLB's revenue sharing but essentially the rest of the league is paying for the Yankee's share. The city of NY also dropped about $430 million on a replacement for Shea Stadium for the Mets.

See how it worked was Mike Bloomberg went in there and said he wasn't going to let the taxpayers pay for this. Then NJ told the Yankees they'd build them whatever they wanted across the river. Then Bloomberg knew he'd be out of office faster than a speeding bullet for forcing the Yankees out of NY.

The Blazers are going to use the stadium fund for the live district as well as URD funds when they take down the Coliseum. They're going to use public money and a little private money like Paulson is going to do.

Anyway, I'll let you go back to your world where you think everyone should only care about potholes and children and everyone is out to rob everyone else. I'm going to continue living in the real world where we recognize good deals when they slap us in the face and realize that a cruddy run down stadium isn't a shining jewell that should be protected.

@Douglas K

You've just painted the exact scenario where Paul Allen does everything in his power to move the Blazers to Seattle because the RG isn't making enough money. I imagine screwing with Allen's revenue streams isn't the smartest move politically especially with the lovefest this city has with the Blazers.

To answer another ludicrous question by LT. You asked how many people in NY can afford Yankee tickets. Really you're asking that? They're sold out for this year and there is a waiting list for season tickets that runs several years deep from what I understand. So yes Virginia...they can afford Yankee tickets in NY.

I figure there's a good chance Paul Allen wants to take the Blazers to Seattle anyway. With the Sonics gone, he'd probably be happy to bring his team home if Seattle will build him a shiny new arena for them to play in. And Seattle has shown they're quite willing to do that (see: SafeCo Field and Quest Field).

But leaving because the Rose Garden isn't making enough money? The Coliseum isn't making money for them. That's the point: they're operating it at a break-even point. The Rose Garden is turning a profit, and will continue to do so no matter who operates the Coliseum.

Whatever is keeping the Blazers here will keep them here even if the Coliseum is under better management. They're not going to bolt because they lose out on a deal that's not generating any revenue for them anyway, nor are they they likely to leave over losing development rights to four blocks in the Rose Quarter if the Coliseum is preserved.

Even though I think it's worth keeping on, I don't really think of the MC as an 'iconic building' as Garrett dismisses it for not being so. I'm not sure the building has to be iconic in order for it to be sufficiently worthy to keep it on, but some people seem to think it's iconic anyway. They think of it as the 'Glass Palace'. 'Glass Jewell' seems more apt.

The MC is good, simple, clean design. The glass disappears where you can look through it to the landscape beyond. Glass just needs Windex. What's the RG arena's exterior going to need in coming years? Lots of paint? Hopefully its exterior is terracotta or some such thing that doesn't need it. If you'll read some of the threads over at Portland Architecture, you might run across the comment explaining that the white band at the top of the MC's exterior wall is the result of a the architectural design firms co-operation with Oregon Forest Products producers to incorporate timber glue-lam beams into the design. The glass curtain wall hangs from them, as I understand it.

Architectural design in building construction goes in trends just like other things do, for example, fashion in apparel design. Just because architects haven't stayed with the design style of the MC in all construction since the period that building was constructed doesn't mean modern style isn't remembered or still being used today.

The dependency that modern sports arenas seem to have on big business really spoils much that can be positive about building them. All this energy that has to be spent on tearing down and building back up, for something that has no way of being successful unless many thousands of people can make it regularly make it to the arenas regularly. For the Rose Garden area, it seems like a long shot at best.

People want to keep the Coliseum because they are bored with thier lives and have nothing better to do than to bitch about something just to hear themselves squawk and keep themself relevant and happy. These people tend to get really depressed when they have nothing to bitch about. I guess you need something to do when you have lots of time on your hands.

jamais vu:

It's HENRY F***ING PAULSON PEOPLE! Run away! Run away!!!

Bob T:

Again, Paulson can't get a dime from taxpayers unless the politicians do it for him. It's Sam Adams and Randy Leonard (in particular) who need to be squished for this. But you don't to think in those terms because you prefer to blame "corporations" rather than government power to pick winners and losers (and anti-free market power).

So go ahead, re-elect Sam Adams so you can wear that "Gay Mayor, Black President" T-Shirt now on sale and pretend that Adams had nothing to do with it. Symbolism over content -- more progressive shallowness.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Steve:

Besides, Adams is using this as a red herring to avoid being recalled

Bob T:

No -- he was pushing this long before any thought of a recall existed. In fact, this scam should be a reason for the number of signatures on a recall effort to be even larger than if just relying on the boy toy thing.

Bob Tiernan Portland

This is all sound and fury signifying nothing. Sam Adams is pushing this to keep the chattering class (us posting and reading) occupied with something other than him. All the while he gets the room, issues, and capital projects to save his own ass from recall.

Gail:

Should we continue to pay to maintain Memorial Coliseum at all, or just raze it...?

Bob T:

Why should it cost money? Heck, the Sam Adams-Randy Leonard view is that any stadium or arena will trigger all kinds of economic activity around and bring in money for pothole filling, and fire stations, and more tax money with which the maintenance of the building can be paid for. Or is this an example of why we should look beyond the Adams-Leonard flim-flam talk and look at basic economic facts? Few people do that because they don't understand basic economics, and scam artists like Adams and Leonard count on that deficiency (amd they don't know anything about basic economics, either).

Bob Tiernan Portland

"This is all sound and fury signifying nothing. Sam Adams is pushing this to keep the chattering class (us posting and reading) occupied with something other than him."

It's his culture. He Can't help it.

Carla,

Ugly glass box? I'm completely confident you are an intelligent writer and blogger. But I'm not sure this represents an informed opinion or any kind of insight.

But I really appreciate all those who have tried to make the case.

If, in 1909, we had tried only to preserve landmark buildings from the early 1800s or before, but not ones from 1860, we'd have been doing our following generations a horrible disservice.

Many ordinary people who aren't architecture enthusiasts have questioned the value of mid-20th century architecture because they don't appreciate the more unadorned, minimal look that architecture took in the modern era. But there is not one single molecule of doubt that Memorial Coliseum represents the pinnacle of mid-20th century large scale public architecture.

Now, the Rose Garden? That's another story. In another generation, that building -- seemingly designed on the outside by Fred Flintstone -- needs to go.

I guess no one remembers the Delta Dome. We were so persnikity and short sighted about building it that we scrapped it and lost a chance to get Pro Football before Seattle did.

Like those who are stuffing Chavez Street down our throats, they are saying the same thing - something needs to be done - Now. I say do it anyway and let the chips fall where they may. If anyone has a problem with it, and feel you have been greatly harmed by constructing it, get a lawyer.

To look at it another way...You shove Chavez Street down our throats, we'll shove the new baseball stadium down your's. I think its a fair trade.

For more background on preservation and sustainability visit National Trust's new sustainability site:

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/

Richard Moe, National Trust President, also spoke to this issue in Portland last year -the transcript can be found here.

http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/press-room/speeches/sustainable-stewardship-portland.html

Not all buildings can and should be saved, but there are a lot of hidden costs (monetary and ecological) that need to be understood before you consider deconstruction or demolition.

Like Carla, I see an ugly glass box. I am certain that the professional architects who say this is a classic example of modernist architecture are correct. Which prompts the question: Should we preserve and elevate all forms of architecture regardless of whether they are good or bad (good and bad being, of course, subjective)? Keeping in mind that "preserving" here means not just a picture in a museum ("see this classic example of modernist architecture in Portland, OR") but forcing us to look at it every day.

Personally, I hate disco. So do most people, which is why you rarely hear it on the radio. I understand it has some cultural significance, and of course there are some good classics that came out of that genre, and I can even stomach the yearly "disco night" on American Idol. But I don't want to listen to it on the radio and neither does most of America. "Preserving" the art form means there are some disco songs in the Rock Hall of Fame and music theorists write articles about it. That's it. I'd like to see the same thing happen with modernist architecture.

As to the other arguments, the only one that withstands much scrutiny is the "green" rationale. We should do a full environmental impact analysis of razing the MC versus rehabbing it.

As to the "memorial" rationale, I can think of nothing more absurd than the argument that because it was designated a memorial, it can never, ever be torn down. That only applies to non-working memorials (think: Lincoln, Washington). Working buildings will eventually be torn down, whether it's now or 100 years from now. Are the veterans really arguing that MC should never, ever be torn down because it's "disrespectful"? What matters is how the "memorial" is treated, meaning that an equal or better memorial must be put into place.

Maybe, Carla, these people are afraid that the MC, if torn down, will suffer the same historical fate as Vaughn Street Park did when they had to tear that structure down as the Beavers moved to Multnomah Stadium. All that remains is a tacky plaque telling all who walk past there that there was a baseball stadium there at one time. If you don't slow down while you are walking, you may miss it.

Yes, MC has a lot of history and is named for the Korean War. However, you can keep the plaza of rememberace there at the site as the walls come tumbling down. There is nothing stopping anyone from naming the baseball stadium Memorial Coliseum in place of the arena (of even Memorial Park for that matter).

It could be also the fact of the way the MC was built. The bowl of seats was built first and the glass covering was built around the seating bowl. Ingenious for it's time i have to admit.

But that does not entitle anyone to defend it uneccesarily. The way it was built makes it easy to tear down...maybe.

Whatever it takes to derail the insane deal that Sam Adams and Randy Leonard engineered....

Eric Parker:

All that remains [of Vaugh Street Park] is a tacky plaque telling all who walk past there that there was a baseball stadium there at one time.

Bob T:

And where Joe DiMaggio smacked a few of his hits during his 60-game hitting streak before he went to the Yankees.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Like it or not, the decision in March did not make this a done deal. The Council's acceptance of the Major League Soccer/Triple-A Baseball Task Force Report in March included a variety of caveats that remain unanswered and the Task Force Report itself outlined a number of conditional commitments; some of which related directly to the disposition of Memorial Coliseum.

The Task Force Report made it clear that if renovation or demolition of Memorial Coliseum was envisioned that the City must effectively memorialize its war fallen in another noteworthy manner.

At this point, although the potential demolition or repurposing of the only significant memorial to our fallen has been articulated many times, no concrete plan for a "replacement" memorial to our veterans has been voiced – nor has any clear path for community input on this question but presented.

Additionally, one of the Task Force's conditional commitments was that there be neighborhood involvement in any affected urban renewal area to ensure that other neighborhood priorities and programs are not ignored.

However, the level of outreach and discussion with neighborhoods affected by decisions in the Convention Center area has been grossly inadequate to date. Last night's courtesy call about expansion of the Interstate URA to pay for the "entertainment district" is only the most recent example.

Of course, the concerns with Memorial Coliseum are only one of the myriad of challenges with this plan.

I have to say that what I find striking is the "project creep" - one dual purpose stadium, becomes two, and then there is an entertainment district, and then renewal funds for North Portland are being tapped and then...?

I imagine this plan will either a) collapse under its growing weight by pissing enough people off, b) scale back to a single renovated PGE Park, or c) somehow the Mayor will finally find a group of constituents who can be left holding the bag.

Tony, I suspect you are right.

"... imagine this plan will either a) collapse under its growing weight by pissing enough people off, b) scale back to a single renovated PGE Park, or c) somehow the Mayor will finally find a group of constituents who can be left holding the bag."

Even the MLS and the soccer fanatics have admitted that this is a lie:

"b) new MLS franchises must play in soccer-specific stadia,"

The "must" in that sentence makes it a lie.

The only way to save Memorial Colisium is to re-name it "Cesar Chevez Center"

Sad.

Paul, tangential point, but in terms of needing a domed stadium for baseball here that's never really been true. Portland gets far less rain during baseball season than places like NY, Boston, Chicago -- real baseball towns where no one has ever argued they need domed stadiums. Those places all get routine thunder showers that often cancel or delay games throughout the summer. During July, August, and September, we get less rain than almost every other place in the country that isn't a desert. The bulk of our rain comes from November through March, with decreasing amounts in April, May, and June.

Lets do like the Chavez Street proponents and the Made In Oregon Sign are doing to us - Shove the idea down everyone's throat and ignore the opponents and backlash becuase , being that it's a 'good idea', it's going to be done anyway.

Take what's given to you, shut up and like it. It's the new way of doing things in Portland.

"in terms of needing a domed stadium for baseball here that's never really been true. Portland gets far less rain during baseball season than places like NY, Boston, Chicago"

<h2>In fact, in the early days of the Pacific Coast League, the season started in mid-March and concluded in mid-November with all 8 teams playing up to or well over 200 games.</h2>