Strict Standards: mktime(): You should be using the time() function instead in /home3/jla/public_html/ on line 95
Rose Quarter Development Project - News

Fact Sheet

Winter/Spring 2012 (pdf, 344kb)


Mailing list

Subscribe to the RSS feed The RSS feed can automatically notify you when something new is posted to this website. You will need a program like Google Reader to use RSS feeds.

Related Projects

The Rose Quarter Development Project will help inform the N/NE Quadrant Study, a collaborative effort by the City of Portland and ODOT to integrate land use and urban design planning with freeway planning and concept-level engineering in the N/NE portion of the central city, including the Rose Quarter. Visit their website for more information.


Portland Development Commission


City of Portland


« Five Coliseum Concept… | Home | SAC #9 Meeting Video »

SAC Concept RFP Short-list

Posted February 26, 2010

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee decided at the Feb. 23 meeting to recommend to the City Council that the following three concept teams complete full RFP's: 

SAC Recommended Concepts:

Veterans Memorial Arts and Athletic Center (VMAAC)

Memorial Athletic Recreation Center (MARC)

Trail Blazers and Winterhawks Concept

City Council Decision

The Portland City Council will deliberate on the SAC recommendation on March 11th at 2pm (time certain). The City Council may accept in whole or in part any of the SAC recommendation items.

SAC Recommended Alternates:

Rose Quarter Community Crossroads

(first position)

Portland Action Sports Complex

(second position)

An alternate will only be eligible to respond to the RFP if one of the three selected concept proposers elects not to continue with the process by March 19th.
thirteen comments
Neil Mages said on 3/9/2010

I vote for VMAAC. It is the most reasonable. The MARC would be too much of an investment and infrastructure overhaul.

Thank You!

Per Fagereng said on 3/10/2010

I like the Community Crossroads proposal. Hoping it makes of the glass building.

Eli Spevak said on 3/10/2010

Please don’t use money from ICURAC (or a geographically expanded version thereof) to help finance Rose Quarter redevelopment. There are plenty of higher priority uses for TIF funds within the existing ICURAC boundaries.

James Kinniburgh said on 3/10/2010

I would go with the VMAAC proposal. I feel it would have the least impact to the exsisting structure while affording the City a continued venue for cultural, music and athletic events/activities. MY biggest fear however is that we the property owning and tax paying citizenry will finance re-development that we will not be able to enjoy in the future because of “high ticket prices” I have further concerns with the present management model and would not like to see the current system continued along with any re-development. I mean really, how much affordable access will be planned into this effort?

k. lakin said on 3/10/2010

This building is not financially sustainable. All of these plans are “pie in the sky”. It should be demolished and returned to its former self as a neighborhood with high density housing. This would encourage new activity in a blighted area. Then hire an artist to design for a memorial/scultpture to the veterans to be installed in a nice new small park/open space. Though it may be a unique architectural design, it is simply to big and costly to maintain. The Rose Garden should never have been built. Then this building would not be obsolete.

Jon Hagen said on 3/10/2010

I’m with Per. The glass building is unique and friendly. We need what the Community Crossroads proposal represents. We do not need glitz and more commercialization in this area of our city.

T W Grandey said on 3/10/2010

I’m also with Per. I like the idea of affordable housing, especially. Partner with Habitat for Humanity and other ngos for the best planning possible.

Tim Royal said on 3/11/2010

We do not need further development of this area. The coliseum is a beautiful piece of architecture the way it is, classic. We have the new, less than ten years old blazer building. If you have too much money, spend it on homeless housing and shelters for families without places to sleep at night. To much emphasis on sports. Why build a center that few people can afford to go to. Think outside the box.

Tim Royal said on 3/11/2010

Good, low cost housing for low income families is what is needed in this City. We don’t need cultural centers when citizens are sleeping in the streets and going hungry.

Mary Ann Aschenbrenner said on 3/12/2010

Athletic and aquatic facilities would serve the greatest number of Portlanders. I like the VMAAC because it also includes a jazz club. We need an Olympic-sized pool open to the public in this City. Currently, Portland swimmers must travel to Gresham to practice and compete in an Olympic-sized pool. The City of Portland’s annual summer swim meet is actually held in Gresham because that is the closest facility big enough to accommodate the participants and the audience. The MARC would also serve Portland as an athletic facility, but the pool planned is only 50 meters. What is so wonderful about the Memorial Coliseum location is the easy access to transit and light rail. Portlanders from every part of our City could get here for events or just to work out!

Louisa McCleary said on 3/13/2010

The VMAAC proposal has the capacity to serve the widest variety of user groups, by far. There will be much livelier ongoing use if many different groups have a reason to go there all through the day and evening. I love including the arts, and the jazz club sounds great. The larger pool is also important.
Having a great, thriving real neighborhood there instead of the building I think would be the best possible outcome, but if we are stuck with the building, let’s have it be an exciting fun place to come for several types of activities.

Wells said on 3/22/2010

I’ll support the Trailblazer’s rebuild of MemCol to maintain historic uses including Rose Fest Parade. Olympic size pools and more general athletic facilities would be great, but historic uses should take precident to preserve “Memorial” memories. The widened entry corridors into the arena are attractive and a subtle improvement. More various uses inside MemCol will be high maintenance, problematic. The simple rebuild is most affordable.

MARC location for the Memorial Tableaus is not good. A quiet location is indubitably preferred over a busy entryway. Overlooking the Willamette on the west side or improve the existing lower level sites to be less ‘boxed-in’ and the two plazas connected with an open air walkway. The adjacent underground meeting rooms are unattractive. Bringing in light with new entry/entries will improve and increase their use.

Eventually relocating the grain elevator must be included in plans. Significant efficiencies of relocation benefit rail, barge, trans-oceanic shipping and elevator operations. The splendid view of downtown created is invaluable. New buildings should not totally block that view of downtown.

Some people support a high-speed rail station underground beneath old Red Lion hotel block. I support relocating the two main rail lines (plus perhaps a 3rd line) in a short straight tunnel. Straightens sharp rail curve. Opens up waterfront. Consider a high-speed station in Albina or near OMSI (Brookland Yards Museum?) Union Station fine for now.

The dead ends between the parking garages should be converted to a thru-way. The Cucina-Cucina building (sloping) roof line is out of character and no loss. Build taller but not too wide. Was the automated parking garage proposal a joke? :^D

Stuart said on 4/15/2010

The least damaging, least expensive, most worthy option is the Winterhawks/ Trailblazers option. MARC is estimated and this is an estimate of some $300 MILLION and that is using City Finances. Do they or the City have that $?

Arts Center? Not realistic. Arts already comprisese alot of Portland Real Estate Downtown and all are feeling the financial pinch.

Be sound with your judgement RQDP and let’s stop the talk like the Interstate Bridge which has taken a life of its own forever and get it done already!


In order to prevent automated comment-spam, please answer the following question:

For more information... , Portland Development Commission 503.823.3347
This website adheres to the privacy policy and Code of Conduct rules. Please familiarize yourself with this policy before posting any comments to this site.