Mayor Sam Adams and Commissioner Randy Leonard may think tearing down Portland’s 49-year-old Memorial Coliseum to make room for a new minor-league baseball stadium is a done deal. But a serious opposition has begun to coalesce.
Writer Brian Libby has penned a sports-centric protest on his blog, Portland Architecture. Today the American Intsitute of Architects sent City Council a letter condemning the proposed demolition, signed by 20 Portland architects. Another architect, Rick Potestio, addressed the inevitable environmental damage of destroying the Coliseum. A blog dedicated to saving the Coliseum, titled, appropriately Save the Portland Memorial Coliseum, has already sprung up. And developer Douglas Obletz has created a website for his editorial in the March 22 Oregonian, along with a Flickr set highlighting the building’s historical importance.
Even if you, like most people I know, don’t care for the building’s groundbreaking design (a friend of mine recently described it, accurately, as “a glass and concrete box”), there’s one obvious and unavoidable problem with destroying it: if the goal of bringing MLS soccer to Portland is, as Adams has said, is to help make Portland “the most sustainable city in the world,” how can we justify tearing down an existing structure? How will removing a perfectly good building, which will release CO2 into the atmosphere and require an enormous landfill to hold the rubble, make us more sustainable?
- From The Archives: Memorial Coliseum Isn’t Always Moribund Interested
- Former Governor Protests Destruction of Memorial Coliseum Former Go
- Save The Coliseum Rally … And Free Beer Upset that
- Adams Announces Proposed Locations for Baseball: Bye-Bye Memorial Coliseum About 30
- Here’s a Crazy Idea for Memorial Coliseum A reader
Tags: Major League Soccer, memorial coliseum, portland beavers, portland timbers, Randy Leonard, Sam Adams
It won’t make us more sustainable. The architecture is fine. Simple. Minimal. Plain, not showy. It wasn’t designed to look like something fitting into a Disney Theme Park. Besides, with Lenny and Sam being all Euro-centric these days, they might keep in mind that Europe doesn’t go tearing things down every time a developer gets a feather up his….
No Mr. Voluptuous…I’d rather get stuck with several hyper enthusiastic 1/2 finished construction projects, left standing with attractive wire “temp” fences, surrounding abandoned ‘dead zones’, because it wasn’t thought out beyond how it might benefit a few. Just Rip it all down according to whatever condo/buildo craze happens to infiltrate and have the current sitting politician’s greedy little ears, and construct massive poorly designed replacement projects, instead. Don’t we all love a Wasteland? Forget sustainability. Let’s focus on trendy and unsustainable.
For Christ’s sake, who cares if it makes us more sustainable? Does that mean we are stuck for all time with the structures that now exist? Should we tell the construction industry that they might as well quit now, because we are a “sustainable” city and don’t build or demolish anything? I cannot WAIT for the day when “sustainability” sounds as stupid to all of us as “global cooling” does now.
No, it means we renovate what we’ve got, which takes almost as many man hours as starting from scratch but uses less energy and materials. This isn’t some kind of earthy-crunchy argument. It just doesn’t make any sense, economically, socially or environmentally, to rebuild our entire infrastructure every 50 years, especially when the reason for doing so has as risky a future as MLS. The Coliseum, if properly maintained, could last another 50-100 years. Does anyone really believe MLS will do the same?
50-100 years? Are you insane? Would you ever attend an event in a stadium built in 1909? It would be a deathtrap. There is no way the Coliseum is going to last that long, nor should it. It had its useful life.
Face it, people, sometimes we need to tear things down and build new ones. We’ve been doing it since the beginning of civilization. If “sustainability” really means standing in place while progress passes us by, then I want no part of it.
A stadium built in 1909? How about one built in 1912 (Fenway Park) or 1914 (Wrigley Field)?
“For Christ’s sake, who cares if it makes us more sustainable?”
your children will, man. I promise you.
No, they won’t. They’ll wonder why we left them such degraded infrastructure and outdated, inferior buildings out of a misguided, cultish, anti-human belief that all human activity is bad.
So we don’t let them degrade. Our infrastructure is in as lousy shape as it is because we didn’t build it well enough the first time and didn’t maintain it well enough. People still attend mass in Notre Dam, and it’s pushing 700 years. Why should a monument of modern engineering not last as long as a building crafted using medieval technology?
degraded infrastructure? You mean like our cracking/failing roads, bridges, water/sewer pipes, and our dilapidated schools and parks?
Question: How is spending hundreds of millions on a new Paulson Boondoggle going to help these infrastructure problems?
Answer: it won’t, it will just make them worse, as the future operating costs of new city owned stadiums will rob city time/resources that could have been spent elsewhere.
The irony of this discussion is that the “sustainability” meme is being pushed hardest by the project supporters.
This whole soccer thing was not thought out at all. And it will fail.
The only opportunity for public testimony before the entire City Council on the stadium deal (which includes demolition of Memorial Coliseum) will be this Wednesday, when the first reading of the ordinance will occur.
The hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall and it is item #427 on the agenda:
“427 Authorize Sole Source Acquisition and Predevelopment Agreement and authorize Sole Source Acquisition of an Operating Agreement, both with Peregrine Sports, LLC for Major League Soccer and Triple-A Baseball stadiums, pursuant to ORS 279b.075 and City Code Title 5, Section 5.33.120 (Ordinance)”
Obviously, things are moving very quickly and it will be difficult to coalesce a large public response in such a short time. Nonetheless, please spread the word.
Thanks for writing about this!
Since this article was posted, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has also called on Mayor Adams and the City Council to preserve Memorial Coliseum. Here’s part of the letter:
Dear Mayor Adams:
On behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, we are writing to express our support for the preservation of Portland’s Memorial Coliseum. We were alarmed to learn of your proposal to demolish this architecturally-significant modernist building and brazen pledge to seek City Council approval for demolition within a month. As detailed below, the unique qualities of this structure and its importance to the community require a careful evaluation of alternatives before demolition is considered. We are also highly skeptical of claims that the demolition of this Portland landmark is a “sustainable” solution. In fact, demolition followed by new construction would be a dramatic step backward in Portland’s goal of becoming the world’s most sustainable city.
The Memorial Coliseum is an historic building that contributes significantly to the community of Portland and the State of Oregon. Designed 1958-1960 by the firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (established in 1936 in Chicago), the Coliseum is architecturally notable for its cantilevered steel-truss roof floating over a free-standing concrete arena bowl, the whole enclosed by a glass curtain wall. An all-glass exterior façade is an uncommon treatment for arenas of this era. The rarity of this style contributes to structure’s historic significance.
In 1961, the building won an Honor Award from the Oregon chapter of the American Institute of Architects and is currently listed on the City of Portland’s Historic Resource Inventory as a “Rank 1” structure. A Rank 1 rating distinguishes Memorial Coliseum as one of the most important historic properties in the City, distinguished by outstanding qualities of architecture, historical values, and integrity. Buildings with this ranking are the highest priority for landmark designation and eligible for National Register status.
The City of Portland has long been a patron of modern works and maintains an important collection of period resources, including Pietro Belluschi’s 1944-48 Equitable Building and 1951 Central Lutheran Church, as well as the 1966 Lovejoy Fountain Plaza by famed landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. Memorial Coliseum is the result of both community effort–voters approved an $8 million bond in 1954 to finance the building–and the work of local building professionals, including the Portland-based Hoffmann Construction, a well-known company that has contributed substantially to the built environment in the northwest and is the recipient of more than a dozen architectural awards and commendations for its work in the City.
Preservation of Memorial Coliseum has received strong community support from a number of organizations, including Bosco-Milligan Foundation, AIA – Oregon/Portland Chapter, Recent Past Preservation Network, Docomomo WEWA, local Veterans groups,and a host of well-respected architects and designers. Brian Libby, a nationally published writer living in Portland, expressed “shock, sadness and anger” when he learned of the plan to “demolish one of the greatest works of architecture, and one of the most historic sites, in the entire City.” This action, he asserts, “sends the worst kind of message about how the City respects its history and sustainability.”
With the successful reuse of this building, Portland can demonstrate its leadership in the preservation of historic architecture and work cooperatively towards developing a practical model for communities that are debating new uses for their aging arenas. In 2002, William P. Macht, an adjunct professor of urban planning and development in the College of Urban & Public Affairs at Portland State University, put forward four alternative plans for the preserved coliseum, created as part of a three-month development planning workshop. These particular options — a headquarters hotel, an arts complex, a sustainable technology center and an urban home center –prove that alternatives do exist and should be more fully explored by the City before any further decisions are made.
Finally, we are concerned that the Mayor has supported demolition of the Coliseum under the mantra of “sustainability.” We question the accuracy of this assumption. Choosing new construction over reuse is rarely the most sustainable choice. New construction requires a massive expenditure of energy to manufacture or extract building materials, transport them to the construction site, and assemble them into a new building. A substantial amount of energy is already embodied in the Coliseum’s sizable steel and glass frames. The replacement of existing structural components with newly manufactured and newly extracted materials must be factored into the environmental cost if the City is to tout sustainability as an objective of this plan.
In light of community support and significant historic evidence, the National Trust asks that the reuse and renovation of Memorial Coliseum be the City’s first priority regarding the future of Rose Quarter area. The Trust also asks that the City consider the historic importance of the building relative to the rapidly diminishing number of significant modern works of architecture in the State and nationwide.
In light of community support and significant historic evidence, the National Trust asks that the reuse and renovation of Memorial Coliseum be the City’s first priority regarding the future of Rose Quarter area. The Trust also asks that the City consider the historic importance of the building relative to the rapidly diminishing number of significant modern works of architecture in the State and nationwide.
Sincerely,
Anthea M. Hartig, PhD.
Director, Western Region
I think you would also have to consider the alternatives and see if they are better or worse. Assuming MLS does come to Portland, where else would it go, or where else would the Beavers go? If they are forced to go somewhere far from the center of Portland, transportation to events for the next 50+ years would be very un-sustainable.
Also, what is the current usage of the coliseum? There are events there I am sure, but it would seem that this is an underutilized space at the core of the city.
Annie, you made the first comment that “Europe” does not go tearing things down as readily as we do. That’s very general, but I also think it is possible that many European cities do as much demo work as we do, but they have a much denser existing fabric, so it might be less noticeable.
Because sustainability is so important, why not consider proceeding with the project, but with certain restrictions/stipulations. There might be some innovative ideas, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that all of the debris will be trucked to a landfill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_recycling
“friend”, I’m willing to accept that my comment about Europe not being so much behind tearing down their old stuff can be considered general, if you can site some specific European examples of “sound/intact architecturally significant buildings” having been destroyed to make way for something brand new.
What do you expect when you hire a small time “reporter” from the Portland Mercury (shotgun style because she has dirt on you) to be one of your Sustainability Advisors?
Hiring non-professionals with absolutely NO sustainable insight is really stupid. Even if her job is only to spread Sam’s sustainable gospel, the term “Advisor” is tucked in there. She (they) should know better. Expect to see many more missteps by this crew.
The Eliot Neighborhood Association just voted to oppose the current plans for a baseball stadium at the Rose Quarter. For those of you unfamiliar with neighborhood boundaries, we border the Rose Quarter and we “host” all the people too cheap to pay for parking or unwilling to take MAX to the games. As a neighborhood we have received almost no benefit from being adjacent to the Rose Quarter (other than trash) and if we are going to spend millions of dollars let’s at least develop a destination – minor league baseball – is this for real?
As mentioned above, the sustainable solution is to reuse the Coliseum, honor the history of the area (there used to be a vital neighborhood where the Rose Quarter is now) and use our tax dollars in an equitable manner. That is the definition of sustainability.
Why has the city rushed through this, what happened to at least pretending to care what people think? Sam and Randy should pay for this wild goose chase with their jobs!
I did not agree with MLS or whatever is it called. It is crap that city hall wants to mess with the neighborhood. Let them mess with their neighborhood. We have 12% unemployment and city hall wants or is going to spend money who will be afford to go see this, when I was working I couldn’t afford blazer tickets. How about fixing our roads, like the ones where the builders do not fix the street where they just built homes-or that are empty . . . Sam and Randy grow up.
Kim, Kim, Kim, don’t you understand? It’s so much more pleasurable being wined and dined and given promises of revenue, courted in the countless delightful ways customary with these kinds of development project courting fests….not to mention whatever smiles the sport owners and their cronies are able to turn on with their seductive wiles.
And you have the nerve to talk….boring potholes? Please not at the cost of a neon rose…
Basically, the Mayor is proposing demolishing a public building and handing over the land to be controlled by out-of-state corporate cronies. The proposed operator of the “entertainment district”, Cordish Companies, has a track record that isn’t stellar. Here’s how they run their “entertainment districts”:
Kansas City Tribune, 3/27/2009
http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18732
How can Mayor SAM and the rest of the gang promote Portland as the
center of global sustainability, when their first idea is to tear down a
world class building and stuff a baseball field into it’s carcass. With
examples all around the globe of intelligent and thoughtful reuse, such as the Tate Modern in the UK, Portlands own Brad Cloepfils update on the Museum Art and Design on Columbus Circle in NYC, it’s obvious their thinking has nothing to do with sustainability.
It has to do with being bullied by outsiders into ideas that are not
sustainable or even pro portland. Our mayor and commissioners are on a very dangerous path with the MLS.
[...] folks are using the coliseum’s architectural history as a worthy reason to save it. And certainly the building also has plenty of sports history to draw [...]
[...] The “open house” at the leftbank project about the city’s proposal to revamp the Rose Quarter for a new Triple-A baseball stadium, an entertainment district, a Nike museum and a small theater, brought out dozens of Portlanders last night to vent their anger about the destruction of Memorial Coliseum. [...]
[...] reprieve for the coliseum, announced last week by Portland Mayor Sam Adams, is a testament to the members of our boisterous creative class, neighborhood leaders and citizens of Portland who have been [...]
[...] and city Commissioner Randy Leonard were busy too. They stayed busy e-mailing each other over the Coliseum and copying the rest of us conflict-loving reporters. Here’s their entertaining [...]