If you ask some Lents residents, they’ll tell you that it’s a done deal- the Beavers are coming and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Some say they’ll move if it happens. In one amusing case a resident, Randall Devine is quoted in the Tribune stating that if the Beavers come he might move, while his wife asks (perhaps optimistically) “Would they give neighbors free season tickets?” If you ask some, the prospect of this initiative is coming to represent Lents’ greatest hope, if you ask others- perhaps those who remember the neighborhood being throttled by another large project, I-205- such a project would be just another nail in the coffin.
A potential project of this scale, in what has been a largely residential neighborhood up to now, is bound to stir up passion on both sides of the issue. You can bet on one thing though- unlike I-205 which you could say happened to the neighborhoods who were least organized to fight it- if the Beavers come to Lents it will be the result of a well organized neighborhood coming to a consensus that it is in their best interest.
At this stage in the conversation, it is important to remember several things. AAA Baseball in Lents is by no means a “done deal”. The first thing that has to happen is that Portland has to be selected as one of 2 cities for the expansion of Major League Soccer. There are 7 cities vying for MLS teams meaning mathematically at least, there is about a 30% chance that Portland will be selected. While Portland would be undoubtedly a better selection than most cities, if we aren’t chosen, the Beavers will remain at PGE Park. End of story.
Another factor to consider is that while Lents stands out as the preferred location, there are other areas the Beavers could potentially move to. While these locations have their own problems, if Lents residents reject this proposal- there are other places for them to go. In that case, we would avoid some parking and traffic issues one one hand, but on the other we would give up a huge economic opportunity.
The most passionate issue for those surrounding Lents Park is parking. While I live far enough from the park that I wouldn’t be effected directly by those parking for a game, as a resident of the town center, parking is an issue that *will* effect me as the town center develops. I have room for one vehicle, mine, to park off-street. If redevelopment succeeds in making the Town Center a vibrant, successful district my visitors might end up not being able to park right in front of my house when they come to see me. Would I hope, then, that storefronts in the Lents Town Center remain unfilled, and that no new businesses take hold in the surrounding area, and that renewal fails to bring vibrancy to the area? Of course not.
I moved into a Lents that was already designated an “Urban Renewal Area” and when I bought my house I understood that the closer you live to the advantages of a vital and exciting town center, the more problems you’re likely to have with parking. I’ll take the parking problems- just give me a coffee shop to walk to, a video store, a cooperative grocery store, a place to buy a good sandwich or a slice of pizza. I’ll take the vitality over the easy parking.
When it comes to parking issues around the park, I suggest that residents assess the issue carefully. If we do end up with a AAA ballpark in Lents Park, parking will be a lot worse, but for only a few hours a night, for 62 home games each year plus some other events which hopefully will be of interest to residents. The ballpark would also create a need for many new businesses that, while they might be geared towards baseball fans, will require a large local clientele to be successful. We will have more restaurants, cafes and bars! Maybe more.
Vitality or easy parking?
No matter what side of the debate you find yourself on, remember- this is by no means a done deal. What makes the most sense, I think, at this stage is to be optimistic. We should talk about the parking, the lights, the noise, the traffic, and see what we can do to work out the potential problems, but we should also remember that until the end of the year- we won’t even know if Major League Soccer is coming to Portland. I hope it does- and we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves if we want the Beavers here. If it doesn’t- the choice isn’t ours to make.
Jeff
A little correction: The number of cities vying for MLS teams is 9, not 7. That means our chances are a little less likely of seeing the Beavo’s coming out here.
There are really only four cities that have publicly committed to getting an MLS team in 2011: Vancouver, Montreal, St. Louis and Portland. St. Louis appears to be almost a lock for one of the two slots. That leaves one slot for three cities.
New York, Atlanta, Miami, and Las Vegas are also mentioned but as of yet none have had an ownership group step forward. The deadline for submitting a bid is Oct. 15. We’ll know for sure how many teams are in the running then.
Tom,
Is Ottawa also being considered? I would be interested in hearing more from you! Could you give us a run down on what you know about the other cities that are vying for a team? I understand that having a stadium in place is a requirement- Vancouver, I think, was almost ruled out because of that but apparently they are making some progress towards getting one in place. Ottawa, from what I read, doesn’t seem too serious. The others?
Jeffrey – Ottawa is not a serious contender at this point. Their name has been mentioned because Toronto has done so well in attendance in MLS. They don’t have a stadium or an ownership group at this point. That leaves them well behind Montreal and Vancouver.
Montreal has a current USL team (same league as the Timbers). Their owner has deep pockets. They just opened a stadium this season. It would need to be expanded by about 5,000 seats to be viable for MLS. They have excellent fan support. They are a real possibility.
Vancouver also plays in the Timbers league. They have a billionaire owner. Their only problem is the stadium situation. Their owner has a piece of land in downtown Vancouver that he wants to develop into a stadium. The port commission (or whatever the Canadian equiviliant is) doesn’t want a stadium in that location. In the meantime the Vancouver team is moving into BC Stadium, which is a big domed stadium big enough for MLS but not ideal. Once Vancouver gets their stadium deal sorted out they also will be a major contender.
St. Louis has a stadium plan that has been approved by the state government. They have an ownership group with deep pockets. MLS wants a team in the midwest. They are almost a certainty.
The other cities – Atlana, NY, Las Vegas, Miami, Ottawa – all have been mentioned but are not serious at this point.
The thing about MLS is that you never know how it will turn out. They have a hard time turning down money. With a $40 million expansion fee it could be the case that they award two cities a team for 2011 and then two more for 2013 or something like that. If Paulson gets things done locally, my guess is that he’ll end up with an MLS franchise one way or the other.
Tom,
Thats’ good information- having a stadium in place downtown is going to give us a real boost then! It’s good to know that our odds are a little better than the simple math would indicate. Jeff
re: Vitality or easy parking?
i thought the parking issue was being taking care of by bulldozing the mature trees and paving over a significant amount of the greenspace in the middle of the park
to me the real issue focuses on replacing usable greenspace to build private business space. with density housing being the name of the game for development in our neighborhood the need for exercise, relaxation, and a place to ‘play’ ball with your kids grows. this proposed ballpark would slash the usable space of lents park by a signicant amount.
isn’t there a meeting tonight regarding this. where and when?
[...] Here’s a decently penned piece by a Lents resident regarding the Beavers stadium. The stadium, parking and other fun stuff will [...]
Tonight is the Neighborhood Association meeting at the Lents Seventh Day Adventist Church at 8835 SE Woodstock. The meeting is at 7PM; the ballpark is one of the agenda items and will have about 20 minutes dedicated to it. Another way of getting in on the discussion is by posting on the ilovelents yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ilovelents/
Open space is one of the issues that I’m concerned about as well. In fact, I’m looking into some ways that we could potentially have our cake and eat it too! Get on the yahoo group and lets hammer it out!!
Jeff
Jack,
The next meeting is September 4th at 6pm at the Boys and Girls club.
Outlining a footprint for something does not necessarily indicate that the trees that fall within that footprint will be removed. It’s more likely that some will be preserved and some will be removed. I doubt that they’ll just wholesale raze the area. The mature tree canopy is a valuable asset for a parking area, and there are ways to treat the hardscaping that could make it useful for both parking and open space.
Secondly, the bulk of the stadium footprint is replacing the current stadium. While the Beavers will have a long term lease for game nights and office space etc., the actual stadium will still be public property and open to a number of different uses. I really don’t see much shift from the current limitations on park use, since general public use of Walker Stadium is actually pretty infrequent and limited currently.
Where you see a slashing of greenspace…I see reshuffling and potential improvement of use. If we’re going to accommodate more people in the neighborhood, we need to be sure that every public space is used to its full potential. If the stadium design and siting is treated correctly, it could improve the potential uses in the park.
re: ‘The mature tree canopy is a valuable asset for a parking area’
it’s even better to have a picnic under, but sitting on oily concrete ruins the effect
re: ‘replacing usable greenspace to build private business space’
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, Jack. Private business space? Slashing the usable space? Speaking for myself, and I think I can probably speak for Cora too on this one- we are both adamantly against slashing the park up with tons of parking spaces. The ballpark itself would only be marginally larger in terms of its footprint than the one that is there now- so this “footprint” isn’t really much of an issue. The parking? The parking is a real issue, but what we are suggesting is that they don’t build a parking lot at all- but a well thought out public plaza that could actually diversify park uses- that is create more and different uses for the park which would actually make an already great park even BETTER!!! And when there is a ballgame, usually in the evening when most park users are through with the park and have gone home, for three hours they open up the plaza(s) and a bunch of cars park on it. After the game, the cars leave, they close and lock the gate, and the next day when the park users return- they have their plaza back! The plaza could contain a water feature that kids could play in during the summer months, the Farmer’s market could use it during the day- maybe eventually there could be a daily farmer’s market there! The Gazebo could be oriented towards a section of it, it could incorporate trees, planter boxes… It really could be a beautiful place. So, what are you really for? I assume that you’re against the Beavers playing here. If the Beavers were coming here and we didn’t have a choice in the matter, how would you deal with it? What kind of solutions would you come up with for parking? The possible noise issues, traffic etc? Do you see a plus side at all?
I guess, I just said basically what Cora said in her last post! I’m working on an interesting design for a plaza that could be used for parking when needed- anyone interested in a charrette?
The private business space was a reference to granting a private business owner park space (what is the lease cost versus a comparable private property lease amount?) to run his business where the lionshare of the generated income would benefit the owner/investors, not the public and not lents.
Multiple parking lots and buildings to house offices is a poor use of greenspace (why do these offices need to be on park land when there is a lot of office space that needs filling in walkable distance) no matter how you shuffle it. With population density increasing (last I heard the ball fields for the boys and girls are going bye bye with a probable density housing aspect to the new construction) open space is at a premium. I don’t really have a problem with the stadium, my issue is pavement and building replacing football fields, running tracks, mature trees, which results in the displacement of these activies which will effectively crowd the other activies of the park or remove it altogether from our neighborhood. This occuring at a time where the neighborhoods immediate vicinity population will probably be going through a spiek. It doesn’t register on the positive side of gain v. loss for the surrounding homeowners and users of the park.
Stepping back from a lents centric position to a portland centric position I also think that this investment money could be better spent to revitalize land in portland that is not currently used by the public. Maybe even rehab one of the enviromentally nasty spots we have about.
To answer some specifics:
‘So, what are you really for?’
I’m for lents, I’m for the park. I reject the notion that buildings and parking lots are a good use of greenspace. Fountains, space for a farmers market, and a recreation plaza could be worked into the existing park space much more effectively without parking lots and without the buildings if that is what the community decides it wants in the park.
‘If the Beavers were coming here and we didn’t have a choice in the matter, how would you deal with it?’
I’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. I’m not frothing at the mouth about the issue, I’m just standing up and saying ‘boo, bad idea’. If this comes to pass and I feel inspired to go all activist I’m well trained in grassroots efforts and will work the system for a compromise that is agreeable to all parties. Parking, noise, traffic will just be motivaters to supporters if these efforts are warrented by any accepted buidling proposals.
‘Do you see a plus side at all?’
Sure it is just overshadowed by the downside.
Are you people crazy!?!?! This is what we have been waiting for, a huge economic boost that could pull Lents out of the slump it is currently in.
Sure we are slowly improving, but with the economic situation we could easily take a huge step back if many of the new businesses can’t survive.
We can deal with traffic, we can deal with noise, but we CANNOT deal with Lents slipping back into the drug and crime infested gutter of Portland. We once were the “bad†part of Portland and unfortunately most of the city still sees us as “that bad area†even though we have made leaps forward.
The point is we need something big and soon to put this neighborhood on the map in order to save it. I don’t think the PDC can offer this to us, at least not in the way this stadium would. I would much rather be known as “that cool neighborhood with the stadium,†than “that bad neighborhood.â€
Support the Beavers move!
In terms of the public part of the investment in the ballpark- I don’t think that this is any thing unusual, but I don’t know too much about these things to be quite honest. Are sports facilities like this *ever* privately owned?
You bring up a good point about the offices. Locating them nearby probably isn’t possible- when the little league has a game- do we want them having to have to carry all their equipment from the other side of Holgate or 92nd? BUT- I think that the offices *COULD* probably fit a little tighter into the footprint of the stadium itself. We are all in agreement too about the need to minimize surface area that is committed to parking as a sole- or even primary- use.
So you like the idea of a multi-use plaza?!! The notion of it make *me* giddy! One thing I was going to do yesterday, but didn’t was to photograph around where Saturday Market is- Anyway, we could have a great location for the farmer’s market- which *could* become a daily market at some point…
Just a reminder, board elections take place at the next neighborhood association meeting in September. You’re seem like a passionate person- even if I don’t see completely eye to eye with you on this one, I can tell you care a lot about what happens to the neighborhood. Why don’t you run?!!
Jeff
You too, Chris!!
Parking vs. Hardscape
If you really think about it, isn’t a parking lot just a form of hardscape? There’s no law that says parking is synonymous with asphalt and thermal plastic.
Maybe it’s because I go by the art museum sculpture courtyard frequently. I see how that courtyard is blocked by bollards that are removed when vehicle access is required. There’s parking in there, the use of it is just limited.
And the whole area is really a courtyard.
I honestly think it’s a great compromise, that pretty much eliminates the need to completely convert open space to parking. Instead, it will just be temporary conversions that only occur when the stadium is being used for PCL games.
Yesterday, I drew up a concept of what a plaza could look like and how it could be used for parking.
It was actually a collection of lots of plazas that were connected to increase the number of parking spaces for different events going on in the park.
In a nutshell, there was one permanent parking area that would replace the current one along 92nd Ave. There would be another area of similar size that would be separated from the permanent parking by a area with a water feature and benches. At the end of the plaza would sit the Gazebo about 20-30 yards out into the grass. So Along that line you have about 100 permanent parkings spaces, the water feature, a plaza of similar size as the permanent parking lot that could be used for an additional 100 parking spaces when a game is on, then the Gazebo. Flanking this line, on either side are 2 or 3 smaller plazas that could also be used for parking, and along the very outside of the area on either side is a larger plaza that is covered that would bring the amount of parking for a game up to about 500 spaces, perhaps and when there isn’t a game going on could be used for a daily farmer’s Market and other events.
I was trying to brainstorm other ways that this space could be used when it isn’t needed for a ballgame- how many events could be going on simultaneously! You could have a farmer’s Market in one of the big, covered plazas, music going on in the Gazebo, a food court in the plaza between the two events, kids playing in the fountain, maybe a couple of the smaller plazas opened up for some extra parking (’cause there’s lots goin on!), and still have 3 small plazas open for just hangin’ out in!! Maybe there’s a beer garden in one! Maybe once a year there is a Founder’s Day exhibit in one of them!
When I think about how I went from being concerned about there being too much parking- to actually being excited about the potential to really make the Park even MORE usable by adding this space, it makes me almost want to cry!!!
I think we are on our way to solving one of the stickiest problems with the ballpark idea. I think a design charette IS in order.
Jeff