RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED IN PORTLAND ARCHITECTURE BLOG ON 1/19/10
marcpdx.org has taken a careful look at the blog post entitled “A Preservationist Perspective on Memorial Coliseum Plans” posted on the Portland Architecture blog (http://bit.ly/5m2cfG) on 1/19/10. Here is a response to some of the issues raised in the post:
1. Coliseum Seating
THE BLOG STATES: “Likely only the seats themselves would be switched out, allowing not only more leg room for attendees but also for the team to create the approximately 7,000-seat arena they seek without any structural change to the bowl.”
RESPONSE: It would seem that replacing the seats might present the opportunity for seats of greater width (to accommodate “today’s” fans). However, it seems doubtful that replacing the seats could result in more legroom without a change in the risers of the bowl, which would be an extremely expensive proposition.
2. Athletic Facilities in the Blazers’ Plan
THE BLOG STATES: “The Blazers too are offering a bevy of athletic facilities available to the community.”
RESPONSE: The Blazers plan actually would provide quite modest public recreation facilities. Included are a small pool and a gym (that would be used as a Blazer training facility), with the latter open to the community only at certain times, e.g., when not in use by the Blazers or visiting teams. A pool and a gym separated by the arena bowl may be difficult to call a “center” and would seem to lack the critical mass of facilities necessary to be economically viable. Moreover, these facilities would duplicate facilities at Matt Dishman Community Center and the planned SE community Center at Washington High School without doing a lot to truly expand public recreation in the same manner proposed in the MARC plan. The MARC plan, on the other hand, has critical mass of facilities and would complement existing and planned community centers by including facilities not included in the latter, e.g., ice rink, indoor soccer, 50M competition pool, diving facility. In total, the MARC includes over 6 city blocks (240,000 SF) of public recreation. While the Blazers plans are not very detailed, it appears that they include perhaps 20% of the square footage of recreation facilities compared to that proposed in the MARC.
On 1/20/10, Portland Architecture corrected the record with the following post in the “comments” section of the blog:
“Steve, I was writing about the athletic facilities in the Jumptown proposal based on a document the team gave me outlining their plans, which were as follows. The text of it referred to a “a community athletic center that will also serve as an additional practice facility for the Trail Blazers, Winterhawks and visiting teams.”
To be fair, it definitely seems like the Jumptown athletic facilities would be a lot smaller than the MARC’s.” (emphasis added).
3. Square Footage Increase
THE BLOG STATES: “The Obletz scheme is more ambitious in its provision of athletic facilities; there are more swimming pools and basketball courts. Yet it completely sacrifices the interior of the building to produce what seems to be only an extra 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of additional athletic space.”
RESPONSE: The existing Coliseum, including the Exhibition Hall, consists of approximately 285,600 gross SF. The MARC plan in total consists of approximately 416,400 gross square feet, an increase of over 130,800 gross square feet. This is considerably more than the amount referenced in the blog. Again, the MARC includes over 6 city block of public recreation space– in addition to the new small arena. A lot of unused space in the Coliseum, both horizontally and vertically is captured in the MARC plan.
4. Removal of the Seating Bowl vis a vis “Preservation”
THE BLOG STATES: The blog’s central thesis is that removal of the seating bowl is at variance with “preservation” of the Coliseum. Specifically, the blog states: “The Trail Blazers appear to have the plan that is vastly more preserving of the original bowl-in-the-glass-box design that makes Memorial Coliseum special and great.”
RESPONSE: We are very clear that removal of the seating bowl is advantageous and creates public benefits by allowing the use of the coliseum to be significantly intensified. This intensification of use would draw more people into the Rose Quarter for a combination of day-to-day public recreation and arena events built around community activities. Our plan responds to the current design with an equally modernist solution to the original design—while assuring that the Memorial Coliseum will be highly functional for the next 50 years or more.
As the blog points out, “appears” is the key word to analyzing the proposed plans for Memorial Coliseum. One must keep to the forefront of the discussion all the past circumstances that led to the current condition of the MC and the resulting call for viable re-use options. A “no change” approach may ‘preserve’ the bowl by virtue of no action, but benign neglect of a National Register historic property will have significant detrimental future impacts.
Unless a historic structure is destined to become a museum of its own history (Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water) it must adapt to ever changing socio-economic influences (Eero Saarinen’s Dulles Airport). And those historic structures that adopted a ‘do nothing’ response to economic influences suffered greatly from well meaning neglect (Miami Marine Stadium and SS United States)
The MARC plan may not preserve the bowl precisely in place, but the spirit of the Coliseum remains and much more is possible in refinement of the idea than not doing anything at all.